Meeting - Authoritytrca.on.ca/dotAsset/40259.pdf · Iorfido-Sdao, Marisa , Supervisor, Diversity...

INDEX TO

AUTHORITY MEETING #4/09

Friday, May 22, 2009

MINUTESMinutes of Meeting #3/09, held on April 24, 2009 135

PRESENTATIONSIorfido-Sdao, Marisa , Supervisor, Diversity and Environmental Volunteer Network, TRCA

re: Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program for EngineeringCertification 135

Nelson, Laurie, Senior Manager, Development, Planning and Policy, TRCAre: Permit Compliance - Ontario Regulation 166/06 - "Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation." 135

PROFESSIONAL ACCESS AND INTEGRATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FORENGINEERING CERTIFICATION

Bridging Program 135

PERMIT COMPLIANCEOntario Regulation 166/06 - "Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation" 137, 177

HEADWATER DRAINAGE FEATURES 151

TORONTO URBAN FARM AT BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE 154

TORONTO BEACHES PLANCity of Toronto 158

PETTICOAT CREEK CONSERVATION AREAMaster Plan Initiation 161

GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006-2010Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek Watershed

City of Toronto (Brock North and South), CFN 24260 165Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed

1668135 Ontario Inc., CFN 42301 174

OFFICE ACCOMMODATIONRenew Lease of Office Space from Parc Downsview Park Inc. 174

HEALTHY GREAT LAKES, STRONG ONTARIO DISCUSSION PAPER 175

PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN ECO-EFFICIENCY PROGRAMAward of Contract to Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement

176CITY OF BRAMPTON

Request for Land Conveyance for road-widening of McVean Drive, Humber River Watershed, City of Brampton, CFN 28086 176

PORT UNION WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT UPDATE 178

AUGUST 19, 2005 STORM DAMAGE PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT 182

BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGEBlack Creek Historic Brewery 185

SEATON TRAIL AGREEMENTOntario Realty Corporation, Province of Ontario, CFN 42363 186

WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES 187

ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 187

134

MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #4/09May 22, 2009

The Authority Meeting #4/09, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, May 22, 2009. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 9:44 a.m..

PRESENTEve Adams MemberPaul Ainslie MemberMaria Augimeri Vice ChairBryan Bertie MemberLaurie Bruce MemberGay Cowbourne MemberGlenn De Baeremaeker MemberMike Del Grande MemberBill Fisch MemberLois Griffin MemberSuzan Hall MemberJack Heath MemberColleen Jordan MemberBonnie Littley MemberPeter Milczyn MemberRon Moeser MemberGerri Lynn O'Connor ChairLinda Pabst MemberJohn Parker MemberAnthony Perruzza MemberMaja Prentice MemberGino Rosati MemberJohn Sprovieri MemberRichard Whitehead Member

ABSENTDavid Barrow MemberGrant Gibson MemberGlenn Mason MemberReenga Mathivanan Member

135

RES.#A62/09 - MINUTES

Moved by: Seconded by:

THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/09, held on April 24, 2009, be approved. CARRIED

_________________________________________

PRESENTATIONS

(a) A presentation by Marisa Iorfido-Sdao, Supervisor, Diversity and Environmental Volunteer Network, TRCA, Saifur Rahman, Junior Engineer and Russell Thomas, Project Manager, Aquatech Dewatering Company, in regard to item 7.1 - Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program for Engineering Certification.

(b) A presentation by Laurie Nelson, Senior Manager, Development, Planning and Policy, TRCA, in regard to item 7.2 - Permit Compliance - Ontario Regulation 166/06 - "Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation.".

RES.#A63/09 - PRESENTATIONS

Moved by: Anthony PerruzzaSeconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker

THAT above-noted presentation (a) be heard and received.CARRIED

RES.#A64/09 - PRESENTATIONS

Moved by: Glenn De BaeremaekerSeconded by: Jack Heath

THAT above-noted presentation (b) be heard and received.CARRIED

_________________________________________

SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION

RES.#A65/09 - PROFESSIONAL ACCESS AND INTEGRATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FOR ENGINEERING CERTIFICATIONBridging Program. Support for work placement of participants of the Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program for internationally trained environmental engineers.

Moved by: Anthony PerruzzaSeconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker

136

THAT the municipalities in Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) jurisdiction be encouraged to hire internationally trained environmental engineers participating in the Professional Access and Integration Enhancement (PAIE) Program;

THAT the municipal clerks be so advised;

AND FURTHER THAT all host organizations participating in the PAIE Program be thanked for their participation and support.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDThe PAIE Program is a continued effort and initiative of the TRCA's Environmental Volunteer Network (EVN) to improve access to professional environmental work for new Canadians. As part of TRCA's social and corporate responsibility, the PAIE Program for Geoscientists and Planners was established in 2006 with the aim of addressing the barriers faced by new Canadians who are trying to gain local experience, employment and professional registration in their field of work.

Finding employment is one of the most significant challenges facing new immigrants to Canada. The PAIE Program facilitates the integration on internationally trained newcomers by providing them with opportunities to improve their language proficiency and access to networks that will increase their chances of employment within their field.

By 2011, immigration is expected to account for all net labour force growth. To ensure continued economic growth and success and to address significant changes in demographic trends, it is necessary to fully engage all members of the workforce. The PAIE Program helps to fill current and future gaps by addressing barriers to professional employment and licensure for the internationally trained. The successful integration of these professionals is good for the community and for Canada.

As quoted by Minister Michael Chan, Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, "Newcomers have the global education, skills and experience Ontario needs to build a strong workforce. The investment in the PAIE Program helps internationally trained environmental engineers get work in their field sooner."

TRCA's current PAIE participants have completed 150 hours of English language training and have received one-on-one soft-skills coaching and training in resume, interview and job search techniques. By completion of the PAIE Program, participants will have completed 24 technical workshops and will have attended three field trips and a work term. Through the work term, participants will gain the necessary experience required for licensure through Professional Engineers Ontario.

To date 23 of the 45 participants are in work placements or fully employed. TRCA is committed to securing 12-month work placements for the remaining participants. As such, TRCA's municipal partners are requested to commit to hire a participant(s) to meet their current recruitment needs. Authority members are requested to encourage this with their municipalities.

137

Host organizations are expected to do the following:provide a 12-month work placement under the supervision of a professional engineer (35 or 40 hours per week);provide the participant with a minimum honorarium of $2,000 gross per month for the duration of the work placement;sign an agreement outlining the responsibilities and expectations of the program; forward PAIE Program staff an outline of what you are looking for in a participant to assist in screening applicants;interview the PAIE Program participants who you feel are best-suited to your organization and following the interviews, forward program staff a list of your top candidates in order of preference;participate in evaluations throughout the work placement to ensure that the program continues to meet the needs of all relevant parties;attend a diversity training session prior to or during the work placement;join TRCA at PAIE Program events and be recognized for your support as we celebrate the achievements of our participants.

FINANCIAL DETAILSSince the first PAIE Program in 2006, TRCA has received over $775,000 in funding from the provincial and federal government for the PAIE Program to implement the program.

Host organizations provide the participant with a minimum honourarium of $2,000 gross per month for the duration of the work placement.

Report prepared by: Marisa Iorfida-Sdao, extension 5582 Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Catherine MacEwen, extension 5219Emails: [email protected]: May 07, 2009

_________________________________________

RES.#A66/09 - PERMIT COMPLIANCEOntario Regulation 166/06 - "Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation". Interim procedures and strategic approaches to address non-compliance issues related to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s regulatory responsibilities under Section 28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act and implementation of Ontario Regulation 166/06.

Moved by: Glenn De BaeremaekerSeconded by: Jack Heath

WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) administers Ontario Regulation 166/06, “Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation” under Section 28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act;

138

AND WHEREAS TRCA staff is committed to working cooperatively with all of TRCA’s municipal partners, landowners and stakeholders regarding all aspects of the implementation of Ontario Regulation 166/06, including permit compliance;

AND WHEREAS TRCA, through its Business Excellence objective, is committed to improve and streamline the administration of regulation compliance;

AND WHEREAS TRCA has experienced an increase in non-compliance issues resulting in increased pressures on staff resources, additional costs to TRCA and significant environmental impacts within the watersheds of TRCA;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the “Interim Procedures” for dealing with non-compliance matters under Ontario Regulation 166/06 as outlined in the staff report be approved and implemented;

THAT staff be directed to pursue the additional “Future Considerations and Procedures” as outlined in this report, including any required consultation with provincial, municipal or Building, Industry and Land Development (BILD) officials, and TRCA legal counsel, and report back to the Executive Committee in early 2010;

AND FURTHER THAT municipalities in TRCA's jurisdiction, Conservation Ontario and the Ministry of Natural Resources be so advised.

AMENDMENT #1

Moved by: Gay CowbourneSeconded by: Mike Del Grande

THAT the fifth paragraph of the main motion be amended to read as follows:

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the “Interim Procedures” for dealing with non-compliance matters under Ontario Regulation 166/06 as outlined in the staff report be approved and implemented with the exception that the seventh bullet point of "Interim Procedures" be amended to read:

Letter of Credit - TRCA will develop and implement a letter of credit as a condition of permit approval, as a security to ensure permit compliance. TRCA staff will notify the proponent of the Letter of Credit condition when the application is made. Payment is to be received in full before the application will be considered by the Executive Committee.

THAT such procedure be drafted and brought to the Authority for consideration as soon as possible;

RES.#A67/09

Moved by: Bill FischSeconded by: De Baeremaeker

139

THAT Amendment #1 be referred to staff for consideration and a report back to the Authority.

AMENDMENT #2RES.#A68/09

Moved by: Glenn De BaeremaekerSeconded by: Suzan Hall

THAT the following be inserted before the last paragraph of the main motion:

THAT staff report on mechanisms whereby municipal governments can assist TRCA with enforcing permit compliance, ensuring best practices and recovering full costs for violations of TRCA applications;


Moved by: Glenn De BaeremaekerSeconded by: Mike Del Grande

THAT the following be inserted after Amendment #2:

THAT staff report on the feasibility of creation of a “violations list” of contractors and construction engineers to be shared with contractors, land owners and TRCA municipalities;


Moved by: Mike Del GrandeSeconded by: Ron Moeser

THAT the following be inserted after Amendment #3:

THAT staff be directed to develop a letter to the Premier signed by the Chair outlining the gaps in the Conservation Authorities Act and the need to amend the Act;

THAT Conservation Ontario be requested to endorse the letter;

AMENDMENT #1 WAS REFERRED TO STAFF

AMENDMENT #2 WAS CARRIED



140

THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) administers Ontario Regulation 166/06, “Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation” under Section 28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act;

AND WHEREAS TRCA staff is committed to working cooperatively with all of TRCA’s municipal partners, landowners and stakeholders regarding all aspects of the implementation of Ontario Regulation 166/06, including permit compliance;

AND WHEREAS TRCA, through its Business Excellence objective, is committed to improve and streamline the administration of regulation compliance;

AND WHEREAS TRCA has experienced an increase in non-compliance issues resulting in increased pressures on staff resources, additional costs to TRCA and significant environmental impacts within the watersheds of TRCA;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the “Interim Procedures” for dealing with non-compliance matters under Ontario Regulation 166/06 as outlined in the staff report be approved and implemented;

THAT staff be directed to pursue the additional “Future Considerations and Procedures” as outlined in this report, including any required consultation with provincial, municipal or Building, Industry and Land Development (BILD) officials, and TRCA legal counsel, and report back to the Executive Committee in early 2010;

THAT staff report on mechanisms whereby municipal governments can assist TRCA with enforcing permit compliance, ensuring best practices and recovering full costs for violations of TRCA applications;

THAT staff report on the feasibility of creation of a “violations list” of contractors and construction engineers to be shared with contractors, land owners and TRCA municipalities;

THAT staff be directed to develop a letter to the Premier signed by the Chair outlining the gaps in the Conservation Authorities Act and the need to amend the Act;

THAT Conservation Ontario be requested to endorse the letter;

AND FURTHER THAT municipalities in TRCA's jurisdiction, Conservation Ontario and the Ministry of Natural Resources be so advised.

BACKGROUNDIn the fall of 2008, the Executive Committee requested that staff report back on several compliance issues related to permits issued under Ontario Regulation 166/06, TRCA’s "Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation". In particular, staff was directed to investigate the adequacy of the current fees/penalties for:

141

a) works commenced prior to the issuance of a TRCA permit, (i.e. ‘after the fact permits’); b) TRCA's ability to issue a ticket/stop work order for these offences; c) whether conservation authorities can obtain legislation similar to that available to

municipalities that allows them to remove the work/offence, restore the site and recover this cost through a charge on the tax bill or a lien on the property; and

d) the status of any proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) related to the implementation of our regulatory responsibilities.

Legislative FrameworkIt is through Section 28(1) of the CA Act that conservation authorities (CAs), subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources, are given the authority to implement a regulation within the area under their jurisdiction to:

prohibit, regulate or require permission of the authority for straightening, changing, diverting or interfering in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse, or for the changing or interfering in any way with a wetland (Section 28(1)(b));prohibit, regulate or require permission of the authority for development if, in the opinion of the authority, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by the development (Section 28 (1)(c));

Section 28 (1) also enables the appointment of officers, or persons to act as officers, to enforce the regulation. The following summarizes Sections 28 (16) to 28 (24) of the CA Act which relate to regulation enforcement and offences:

every person who contravenes a regulation made under Section 28(1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000, or to a term of imprisonment of not more than three months;in addition, the court, upon making a conviction may order the removal, at the person’s expense, of any development within a time ordered by the court; and order the rehabilitation of a watercourse or wetland;if a person does not comply with a court order, the CA may carry out the works of the court order; the person convicted is liable for costs of this work which is recoverable by the CA by action though the court, (i.e. CA must sue parties involved to recover costs);an enforcement officer may enter a property without a warrant if the entry is for the purpose of considering an application for a permit or for the purpose of enforcing the permission that was granted under the regulation; andin absence of a permit application or a permit, an enforcement officer must give the property owner reasonable notice to enter; if there are reasonable grounds to believe ‘significant environmental damage’ is likely to be caused, an officer may enter without notice.

Further to the above, it should be noted that the judicial process for charges laid under a CA’s regulation is through the Ontario Provincial Court system and procedurally governed by the provisions of Provincial Offences Act (POA). Convictions, fines and requests for removal of development or rehabilitation of a watercourse or wetland are at the discretion of the court.

142

Fines are paid to the court and not to the CA. Non-compliance with a court order requires further court proceedings to be pursued by the CA. There is a six month statute of limitation associated with non-compliance matters, as per the POA (i.e. it is not in the CA Act). In order to pursue an offence under the regulation, an enforcement officer must be able to demonstrate through evidence that the offence was committed or alleged to have been committed within six months from the last day of the work related to the activity (i.e. construction, filling, alteration). Current TRCA TrendsViolations within TRCA's jurisdiction range in scale and scope from minor infractions to major site alterations resulting in significant environmental impacts. In some situations, particularly with the minor infractions, private residential landowners make an honest mistake about their site alteration activities and in not obtaining the appropriate TRCA approval. In other cases, activities are blatantly disrespectful of TRCA's regulation requirements and permitting approvals process. TRCA staff has identified an increase in the number of violations resulting from winter construction and financial pressures to complete projects. These occurrences are primarily associated with major developments such as subdivision sites and infrastructure projects. Historically, construction has been limited to three seasons. However with mild winter temperatures in recent years and a booming housing market, construction has continued throughout the winter months. Extreme weather scenarios during the winter months, such as a sudden thaw or an intense rain event, have created site conditions that can not be addressed through standard construction practices, such as those associated with sediment and erosion control measures. The lack of urgent response to implement emergency environmental protection measures during these events result in major on-site impacts, as well as adjacent and downstream impacts. In some circumstances, problems with public and site safety have been experienced.

In addition to our regulatory responsibilities under the CA Act, TRCA has a Level III Agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to review projects under Section 35(1) of the Federal Fisheries Act, which states that “no person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat” (HADD). Where applicable, TRCA permits are also reviewed under the purview of this agreement and coordinated accordingly. DFO is responsible for enforcing the Federal Fisheries Act, however in light of our partnership review agreement, there are established protocols and procedures for TRCA Enforcement staff to notify and coordinate with DFO when there may be violation of their legislation. Recognizing the need to update erosion and sediment control practices and provide construction, site monitoring and maintenance guidance, the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities developed the "Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction" in December 2006. The standards of this document are applied to TRCA permits. TRCA staff has also held training sessions on this document for our municipal partners and the construction industry. However, there is still a need for the construction industry to become more experienced in identifying and implementing erosion and sediment control measures appropriate for site conditions, monitoring and maintaining these measures and responding in an urgent and appropriate manner in emergency situations.

Violation Categories and ProceduresThe nature and scope of offences under the regulation experienced at TRCA are described in the following three categories:

143

(i) Minor InfractionsThis category includes minor works and activities that were started or recently completed within a regulated area without the approval of TRCA. Some examples include decks, pools, low retaining walls, patios and extensions of backyards through filling/landscaping. These projects generally comply or can be modified to comply with TRCA policies through landowner cooperation and a permit is issued. These infractions are referred to as ‘after the fact’ permits. An additional administrative fee is applied to these permits, in accordance with Resolution #B37/04 approved at Executive Committee meeting #2/04, held on March 5, 2004. This administrative fee is an additional 50% of the base permit fee for minor/residential properties and 100% of the base permit fee for larger scale projects (e.g. stormwater management pond for a subdivision). Since 2004, TRCA has issued 32 'after the fact' permits.

(ii) Violations on Issued PermitsIn this category, through the normal course of procedures of inspecting issued permits for compliance, TRCA Enforcement Officers will discover on site works that deviate, sometimes significantly, from the approved plans. In these situations, the Enforcement Officer enters into the negotiation process with the landowner in order to get an urgent response and resolve impacts quickly. These negotiations, particularly for significant offences, often involve other TRCA staff, (planning, ecology, engineering, etc) and municipal staff and require on-site meetings. Negotiations in this category result in an acceptable resolution, either through removal or restoration, and compliance with the regulation. This is a less costly solution than the judicial process for the current volume of violations, assuming that the violation is solvable by acceptable site adjustments. In the past five years, 42 violations have been issued in this category.

(iii) Judicial ProcessIn circumstances where there are substantial issues and the offence can not be successfully resolved through the negotiation process with the landowner, the violation process evolves into a judicial process. As previously noted, charges are laid before the court. TRCA retains legal counsel to prosecute significant cases and assist the investigating case Enforcement Officer. TRCA planning and technical staff are often called upon for their expertise and testimony in these proceedings, in addition to Enforcement staff. During the period of 2004 to 2008, Enforcement staff laid 51 charges under the CA Act and made 94 appearances before the court.

144

Permit and Enforcement StatisticsStatistics on permit and violation activities for the past five years are summarized in Attachment 1. In 2008, 923 permits were issued by TRCA. To manage workload volume and priorities, Enforcement staff inspect only the regular permits and permissions for routine infrastructure works and not the minor permits (248 in 2008). Site inspections and compliance monitoring are also prioritized based on the complexity of applications, level of site development constraints and associated risks and/or developments that were subject to significant negotiations during the application process. There were a total of 67 violation notices issued in 2008 (for TRCA permitted and non-TRCA permitted activities); of those 23 were to private landowners, 23 to corporate entities, 10 to construction companies, 6 to agents and 5 to other entities. A single violation site may result in the issuance of more than one violation notice, depending on the number of individuals involved in the offence. The violation notice procedures generated 10 ‘after the fact’ permits and 9 violations were issued on active permit sites. Enforcement staff resolved 13 violations through negotiations for removal and/or restoration. A total of 9 charges were laid through the judicial process and there were 8 court appearances for all Section 28 active prosecution matters, current and outstanding for 2008. As noted previously, the trend in violations has been in the large scale developments and infrastructure projects, both private and public. While the number of violation sites is relatively low, (43 in 2008), in comparison to the volume of permits processed, the staff resources required to negotiate and resolve violations is very time consuming and costly.

Opportunities and ConstraintsSection 8 of the Building Code Act requires compliance with all applicable laws prior to the issuance of a building or demolition permit. The Ontario Building Code defines regulations made by a conservation authority under the CA Act as applicable law. Prior to the issuance of a building or demolition permit within an area regulated by TRCA, municipal building officials must receive a copy of the TRCA permit.

TRCA Enforcement staff can issue violation notices when there is an offence under the regulation. However, unlike municipal building officials, they do not have the ability to issue a stop work order. The ability to stop work and correct site alterations is particularly important in sites that pose a public health and safety risk, both on site or where downstream impacts are significant. Under the provisions of Ontario Regulation 166/06, TRCA’s Regulation that came into effect in May 2006, TRCA now has the ability to cancel a permit subject to holding a hearing with the applicant. While in some circumstances this might be an appropriate course of action, particularly in the case of a construction permit associated with municipal building permit, in others it may not. Revoking a permit does not necessarily facilitate negotiations or achieve removal or restoration of an offence. In many cases additional harm to the environment will be realized if the proponent is prevented from undertaking identified works and associated stabilization.

145

Through Ontario Regulation 166/06, TRCA now clearly has the opportunity to impose conditions on permits. To date, through the processing of permit applications, TRCA staff ensure that all drawings approved with permits include detailed notes about site development requirements, such as construction timing and methodologies, and sediment and erosion control measures, in accordance with TRCA requirements (i.e. what may be considered as ‘conditions’). Imposing conditions to address the potential for non-compliance matters could be considered. For example, for permits involving site grading, a condition could be imposed to require the applicant to submit certification of final grading by a professional engineer to ensure the works have been done in accordance with the permission. A standard set of conditions could be developed, with additional conditions as required.

Municipal ComparisonThe Executive Committee requested staff to investigate the legislative tools available to municipalities in dealing with potential violations of municipal approvals. Under the Planning Act process, municipalities can hold letters of credit/securities through agreement with the landowners for compliance with approved grading plans, landscaping plans, etc., for applications such as subdivisions and site plans. Through this mechanism, if there is a non-compliance issue, these securities would be used to rectify the situation.

Most municipalities within TRCA’s jurisdiction implement a Fill By-law under the provisions of the Municipal Act for those lands within the municipality that fall outside areas regulated by a conservation authority under Section 28 of the CA Act. As per Section 142(8) of the Municipal Act, a municipal fill by-law cannot overlap with an area regulated by a conservation authority. A municipality can appoint an employee, officer or agent of the municipality to undertake compliance inspections for permits issued under their fill by-law. Municipalities often retain certain securities through the issuance of a permit under their fill by-law. Through the provisions of the Municipal Act, a municipality also has the ability to recover fines for offences or removal/restoration of sites under their fill by-law through taxation or liens on the affected property.

As previously noted, a municipality has the ability to issue a stop work order under the Building Code Act for matters on non-compliance.

TRCA Enforcement staff make every attempt to solicit support and assistance from TRCA's municipal partners to coordinate efforts when dealing with non-compliance matters and strategically use all available legislative tools to resolve these matters. This is not a formalized process but is done on an individual case basis. The CA Act currently does not contain any provisions related to taking securities in association with permits. Consideration could be given to including this as part of the standard conditions. TRCA staff would recommend further legal assistance is required if consideration of this mechanism, or any other legislative tools similar to the provisions in the Municipal Act are to be explored to deal with non-compliance matters.

146

Conservation Authorities Act AmendmentsSection 28 of the CA Act was last updated in 1998 as part of the Red Tape Reduction Act (Bill 25) to ensure that Regulations under the Act were consistent across the province and complementary to provincial policies. In May 2004, the regulation to implement the 1998 changes to the CA Act, Ontario Regulation 97/04 “Content of Conservation Authority Regulations under Subsection 28 (1) of the Act: Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses” (i.e. Generic Regulation) was approved. This Regulation established the content requirements to be met in a Regulation made by a CA. In May 2006, the Minister of Natural Resources approved individual Development, Interference and Alteration Regulations for all CAs in the province, consistent with Ontario Regulation 97/04, including TRCA’s Ontario Regulation 166/06.

Prior to 1998, an offence under Section 28(1) of the CA Act was subject to a fine, upon conviction of not more than $1,000 or to a term of imprisonment of not more than three months. In 1998, the fine was increased to $10,000.

Through Conservation Ontario (CO) Council, there have been several requests made to the Minister of Natural Resources to amend specific provisions of Section 28 of the CA Act. Some of the requested changes would be considered ‘housekeeping’ amendments, while others relate more to program implementation. In 2001, CO Council requested an amendment to allow CAs to prosecute violations for up to 2 years from the date of the violation, thereby ensuring consistency with the provisions of the Public Lands Act and other environmental legislation.

TRCA has previously raised concerns similar to those expressed by the current Executive Committee to the Minister of Natural Resources and Conservation Ontario. In a report to the Business Excellence Advisory Board at Meeting #4/05, held on September 23, 2005, TRCA staff, in consultation with TRCA’s solicitor, provided comments on a list of proposed amendment to various sections of the CA Act, including Section 28. In that report, TRCA also noted opportunities for future amendments that would assist in the prosecution of violations and ensure site rehabilitation including:

increase the time frame for prosecutions from 6 month to 2 years;significantly increase the fines to reflect monetary penalties in line with other compatible environmental legislation, (for example, offences under the Environmental Protection Act can carry penalties of $5,000 per day and more);that in addition to any fine imposed by the court, neutralize any monetary benefit from the commission of the offence;imposing such other penalties and sanctions that may result, in part, with the redirection of monies to CAs as compensation to remedy, avoid or remediate damages done, or to advocate or implement proper environmental management practice in line with CA policies and objectives;require restoration and rehabilitation of land once the development has been removed (currently the section speaks of rehabilitation of wetlands but no other lands);a method of cost recovery similar to other legislation (Ontario Water Resources Act, Municipal Act, Environmental Protection Act) such as through the offender’s tax bill.

147

In 2007, CO sent another report consolidating all previously recommended amendments to the CA Act, including those related to Section 28, to the Minister of Natural Resources. To date, the requested amendments have not been made by MNR. However, CO staff continues to take every opportunity through various initiatives to recommend to MNR amendments to Section 28 of the CA Act, including those that have arisen in the past few years through the implementation of the new Regulations, that would result in improved program efficiencies and delivery.

Recommended ApproachIn light of the above discussion, including works initiated without TRCA approval, lack of urgent response to implement emergency protection measures and to recover staff resources for negotiation and resolution of violations, TRCA staff recommends to the Executive Committee that the procedures for dealing with non-compliance issues related to the implementation or TRCA’s Regulation be addressed as follows:

Interim ProceduresCurrent enforcement procedures for dealing with non-compliance matters under Ontario Regulation 166/06 be updated, effective immediately, to include the following:

‘After the Fact’ Permit Fee - increase the current administrative fee from 50% of the base permit fee for minor/residential properties and 100% of the base permit fee for larger scale projects to 100% of the base permit fee for all permit categories. For example, a minor residential ‘after the fact’ permit would be $690 ($345 base fee) and a stormwater management pond ‘after the fact’ would be $7,730 ($3,865 base fee).‘After the Fact’ Permit Approval Period - Permits issued under Ontario Regulation 166/06 are valid for a maximum period of 24 months. In instances where works have already been completed without a TRCA permit, the approval period to the TRCA permit shall be reduced to a time frame deemed appropriate by the Director, Planning and Development, based upon coordination with municipal requirements and TRCA enforcement requirements.Additional Fees for Site Meetings, Technical Team Meetings - the current TRCA fee schedule includes a fee structure for additional site visits ($600 for up to half a day; $1,200 for up to a day including travel time) and for pre-consultation technical team site visits ($2,500). This fee structure shall be applied and charged to applicants that enter into negotiations with TRCA in order to recover the level of staff service, including multiple meetings and site visits required to resolve non-compliance issues. TRCA staff will work with our solicitor for the appropriate leverage to collect these fees.On-Site Non-Compliance Reports - Enforcement staff currently issue violation notices to applicants upon securing all required information to initiate non-compliance matters under the CA Act. In addition to this normal procedure, primarily for the larger project sites, enforcement staff shall issue on-site, non-compliance reports at the time of site investigation. This will serve not only as an initial notice to the owner/agent/construction company, etc. that there is an offence occurrence under the Regulation, but also document and record on-going offences and associated meetings.Post Violation Correction and Restoration - As part of the compliance process for those violations that do not go through the judicial process, remediation and restoration of the site and/or monetary compensation for damages will be negotiated between the owner and TRCA.

148

Training and Monitoring - TRCA staff will continue to work with our municipal partners and the construction industry to provide training and guidance on erosion and sediment control practices, site monitoring and maintenance. In addition, TRCA will begin to track and monitor the performance of these activities and share this information with our municipal partners and the development industry.Letter of Credit - In special circumstances, TRCA will implement a Letter of Credit as a condition of permit approval, as a security to ensure permit compliance. In these situations, TRCA staff will notify the proponent of the intention to impose a Letter of Credit condition in advance of the permit being considered by the Executive Committee, in order for the proponent to confirm acceptance of the condition or afford the proponent the opportunity to object to the condition at a Hearing.

Future Considerations and ProceduresStaff recommends that the following additional actions, which may require further provincial, municipal or TRCA legal consultation, be pursued in an effort to address the issues associated with regulatory non-compliance:

Municipal Consultation and Partnership - Municipalities rely on TRCA’s technical 1.experience when dealing with natural hazards and environmentally sensitive sites. Staff will continue to dialogue with TRCA's municipal partners and seek opportunities to coordinate better environmental compliance through all available tools. This may include increasing letters of credit and securities through municipal tools, such as site plan agreements, to ensure appropriate level of site remediation and restoration is available for emergency and non-responsive situations. Changes to construction practices, site management and adaptive environmental monitoring should also be explored through this process. It is recommended that opportunities to implement third party environmental monitoring of construction sites, (i.e. professionals that do not report to owner/applicant/contractor), through municipal legislative tools and TRCA permitting conditions, be explored as a means of ensuring compliance with complex development applications, particularly in sensitive areas.

Consultation with BILD (Building Industry and Land Development Group) - TRCA 2.staff has already started discussions with BILD about the quality of construction compliance and the need to recover additional TRCA staff costs resulting from negotiations to resolve offences of TRCA's permit approvals. The next scheduled update for TRCA fees is 2010. As part of that update, staff intend to consider fees designed to recover non-compliance matters, which might include inspection fees for major development permits, fees for additional site visits and technical staff time for negotiations, adding a premium for emergency works, a ‘violation consultancy service fee’ to resolve municipal/public violations, etc..

Legislation - TRCA will continue to work with Conservation Ontario and the Ministry of 3.Natural Resources to advocate for legislative amendments to the CA Act or the ability for CAs to use other existing legislative tools that would promote regulatory compliance and cost recovery to the CA. In particular, the additional CA Act amendments recommended by TRCA to CO and MNR in 2005, as outlined in this report, will be promoted.

149

Permit Conditions - TRCA staff will develop a standard set of conditions that address 4.both permit compliance (e.g. certification of final grading, floodproofing measures, etc.) and the potential for non-compliance issues (e.g. certification of on-site erosion and sediment control measures).

Report prepared by: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281;

Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]: May 14, 2009Attachments: 1

150

Attachment 1TRCA Permit and Enforcement

Statistics 2004 to 2008

The following is a summary of activities under Section 28 of the CA Act from 2004 to 2008. Please note that Ontario Regulation 158 was in effect in 2004/05 and replaced by Ontario Regulation 166/06 in May 2006.

PERMITS ISSUED:2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Standard/Regular Permits: 405 465 515 550 639

*Permission for Minor Works: 165* 260* 248*

**Permission for Routine Infrastructure: 36**

Total: 405 465 680 810 923

* Permission for Minor Works Implemented in 2006; No inspection by Enforcement staff for compliance.

** Permission for Routine Infrastructure Implemented in 2008

VIOLATIONS:2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Total number of Violation Notices Issued:(Includes TRCA permitted and Non-TRCA permitted activities)

80 109 55 125 67

To private landowners 40 44 27 63 23To corporate entities 19 17 13 30 23To construction companies 7 24 8 18 10To agents 12 20 5 8 6Number of other entities(e.g. consultants, engineers, etc.)

2 4 2 6 5

Total number of violation sites: 46 58 37 86 43

Total number of permits generated from Violation Notice procedure:

5 8 3 6 10

Total number of Violations issued on Active Permits sites:

7 15 3 8 9

Total number of violation sites resolved through negotiations for removal and /or restorationby Enforcement staff

20 8 21 16 13

Total number of charges laid by Enforcement 11 5 7 19 9

Total number of court appearances for all Section 28 active prosecution matters, current and outstanding

30 22 18 16 8

151

RES.#A71/09 - HEADWATER DRAINAGE FEATURESApproval of the update to the Evaluation, Classification and Management of Headwater Drainage Features: Interim Guideline (March, 2009) prepared for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) and other conservation authorities, and an update on the research study and preliminary findings.

Moved by: Paul AinslieSeconded by: Gay Cowbourne

THAT the update to the Evaluation, Classification and Management of Headwater Drainage Features: Interim Guideline (March, 2009) be approved;

THAT staff report back to the Authority for approval of the final guideline based on the results of the ongoing research;

AND FURTHER THAT the municipal clerks in TRCA's jurisdiction and the Greater Golden Horseshoe conservation authorities be so advised.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDHeadwater drainage features (HDF) can be small, ill-defined features that do not necessarily flow year round, however their number and spatial extent could have substantial implications on the aquatic integrity of watersheds. These features can account for 70-80% of the total catchment area within a watershed, and 90% of a river’s flow may be derived from catchment headwaters. However, due to their small size and because their functions are poorly understood, headwater drainage features can be vulnerable to impacts resulting from agricultural and urban land uses, including ditching, burying and diverting, tile drains and infilling. This makes evaluation of impacts very difficult when alteration is contemplated through the development process. The lack of understanding can potentially lead to mismanagement of these features and loss of function in the face of new urban development.

Previously, staff has completed a literature review and interim guideline to provide support and direction for headwater management, which were reported to the board in September 2007. At Authority Meeting #7/07, held on September 28, 2007, Resolution #A210/07 was approved as follows:

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff commence implementation of the Evaluation, Classification and Management of Headwater Drainage Features: Interim Guideline (March 2007);

THAT staff continue to collaborate with project partners in conducting primary research examining the natural functions of small drainage features in order to facilitate refinements to the guideline;

THAT direction be given to staff to engage municipalities and the development industry in policy development and research initiatives;

152

AND FURTHER THAT the interim guideline be updated/revised, as necessary, based on the results of the research, and that these results be reported back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board.

Since the last report to the board, staff has undertaken primary research to assess the biological and hydrological functions of these streams and have some preliminary results to share. As a result of the research findings and consultation with agencies and consultants using the Interim Headwater Guideline, an update to the document was completed to improve its clarity and user-friendliness.

RATIONALEThe guideline provides conservation authority (CA) staff and development consultants with direction on how to evaluate, classify and manage HDFs in the landscape through the development process in order to ensure critical functions are not lost. The guideline provides direction on the field data required to evaluate HDFs, including information about flow, fish habitat, vegetation, channel form and linkages. These field data is then used to classify the stream into one of five habitat categories for the stream reach. Management recommendations are then applied to the stream reach based on the assigned classification through the development process (i.e. plan review), such as maintaining an open drainage feature, maintaining external flow and/or whether the feature’s functions can be replicated through Low Impact Development measures. A few copies of the guideline will be made available at the Authority meeting and additional copies will be made available upon request. The updated version of the guideline will also be made available on the TRCA website.

All neighbouring CAs (including Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Credit Valley Conservation and Conservation Halton) have been engaged in the identification of research priorities, study design development and study implementation. TRCA's study will provide consistency amongst CAs in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), and it recognizes that there remain outstanding gaps in the understanding of these systems in southern Ontario.

In 2007-2008, in collaboration with the universities of Waterloo and Toronto, TRCA undertook research to examine the hydrological and biological functions of headwater streams. Some of the key findings thus far are:

While there are existing policies and legislation to protect the natural functions of headwater streams (Federal Fisheries Act, Conservation Authorities Act, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Greenbelt Plan, etc.), there is little direction provided to resource managers on how to specifically recognize and protect these features and their functions. There are also outstanding threats to these features despite the available tools. It is anticipated that this study will provide a vehicle for transfer of science and best management practices through the identification of outstanding gaps in research and policy.The natural variability associated with these systems means that planning decisions must rely on high quality and extensive field monitoring, which are currently not, to our knowledge, being conducted in a standardized way by any agencies within south-central Ontario.

153

Biological systems are more greatly influenced by variability than their average condition. As resource managers, we need to move away from mitigating to maintain the average conditions. Instead, we need to begin monitoring headwater systems to understand the variability of natural flow regimes so that mitigation can be directed to replicate this natural variability in flows and functions. This is in contrast to the current practice which is designed to minimize variability (i.e. stormwater management ponds). This provides further support for the requirement of at-source controls for stormwater management and Low Impact Development mitigation measures, which are already being promoted by TRCA and CVC. On fine-textured soils, these features can contribute substantially to surface flows and food sources for downstream aquatic systems.The main function associated with headwater drainage features on forested sandy or gravelly soils on the Oak Ridges Moraine is groundwater recharge as opposed to surface flow conveyance, or organic drift (insects and leaf litter) or sediment transport.It is very difficult to predict permanence of flow. The classification of HDFs used to influence management decisions should recognize that these systems are dynamic. Point in time measurements do not lend themselves to predicting where the thresholds are in terms of flow permanence. We need to err on the side of caution with regard to management decisions because of the temporal (climatic) variability and differences in landscape condition (land use, soils, catchment size, catchment slope) associated with these systems.

This study has improved CAs scientific understanding of headwater drainage features and addressed some of the outstanding gaps in knowledge. However, in order to continue to improve the science for the guideline, staff is undertaking additional research in coming years to address additional outstanding gaps. Once the research and analysis are completed, the findings will be used to make further refinements to the guideline document, as necessary.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEA workshop is planned for May 20, 2009 to disseminate the findings of this, and other research currently being conducted on HDFs. This will be an agency-focused workshop, and all of the conservation authorities within the Greater Golden Horseshoe have been invited to attend. Current approaches in monitoring, existing policy and assessment tools will be discussed, with the intent of identifying remaining gaps in these areas, and strategies for addressing these gaps.

In 2009, fieldwork will be conducted on a variety of headwater drainage features throughout the GTA in order to assess the distribution and extent of seasonal fish habitat. The 2009 research program will build and expand on the 2007-2008 research. A subset of sites examined through the 2008 work will be studied again this year. These streams were selected based on hydrologic data collected in 2008 indicating sustained flow within the streams until at least the end of May. Given that this is an emerging science, there are many outstanding research questions on this topic. This work was given in-kind support by University of Toronto and University of Waterloo, who will be pursuing publication of the research findings. Additional research for future years (2010-2011) is currently being planned, and continued partnerships with academic institutions are being fostered. All of the results of the research will provide scientific support for further refinements to the headwater guideline, which will eventually be finalized.

154

FINANCIAL DETAILSFinancial support for the 2007-2008 research was provided by the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, the Regional Municipality of Peel, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Conservation Halton, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan, which totaled over $260,000. There were also many other partners that provided in-kind support. This year’s work is being supported by Peel Region Climate Change, York Region, Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, Lake Simcoe Region CA, and Credit Valley Conservation, which totals $95,000. Additional sources of funds continue to be sought.

Report prepared by: Laura Del Giudice, extension 5334Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Laura Del Giudice, extension 5334Emails: [email protected]: May 5, 2009

_________________________________________

RES.#A72/09 - TORONTO URBAN FARM AT BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGEParticipation in a food festival and seeking funding for the Toronto Urban Farm.


THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department host an end-of-the season food festival to promote the accomplishments of the Toronto Urban Farm;

AND FURTHER THAT TRCA assist with acquiring funding from external sources to support the Toronto Urban Farm.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDAt Authority Meeting #1/03, held on February 21, 2003, Resolution #A18/03 was approved, in part, as follows:

THAT the concept of developing an Urban Agriculture Project at Black Creek Pioneer Village be endorsed;...

The concept of an urban farm was developed in 2002. Shortly thereafter, TRCA requested support from the City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department to realize the concept. In 2003, an advisory committee was established to support project implementation. In 2004, TRCA and the City of Toronto formed a memorandum of management for eight acres of land located at the southeast corner of Jane Street and Steeles Avenue, in the City of Toronto. The City was given management over this parcel of TRCA-owned land for the establishment of an organic urban farm. Prior to this, the City demonstrated its expertise in managing a successful Community Gardens Program (CGP).

155

The Toronto Urban Farm at Black Creek Pioneer Village will play a key role in revitalizing the local food system in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Growing local food is necessary to help reduce the GTA's ecological footprint. Local food can reduce ecological footprints by reducing greenhouse gas emissions related to food transportation, which in turn helps to reduce the impacts of climate change. The Toronto Urban Farm will also promote greater social equity and food security in one of Toronto's most vulnerable communities by:

engaging youth and the community in urban organic farming;providing skills and leadership development opportunities; fostering greater interaction among community members;providing jobs and meaningful work for the local community;providing increased opportunities for access to fresh and healthy foods.

The project will also involve social entrepreneurship through the production of heirloom and ethnocultural vegetables for niche markets such as specialized caterers, restaurants and ethnocultural communities. Revenue generated through food sales and other activities will be re-invested in the project to enhance long term sustainability. In the longer term, some produce may be donated to food relief programs.

The Toronto Urban Farm project is complementary to TRCA's Sustainable Communities objective of The Living City vision. As growing local food has a connection with conservation, this project provides TRCA with the opportunity to become an integral partner in the community by offering land and in-kind services. The Toronto Urban Farm project also fulfills Toronto City Council's mandate to promote green economic development through local food production pilot projects.

Farming practices at the Toronto Urban Farm favour organic methodologies which often take longer to reach a state of full production. There is no use of pesticides or fertilizers and a limited amount of machinery has been employed. As a result, it will take longer to bring the farm into full organic production. When considering these timelines, it is important to recognize that the project is about community enhancement as much as it is about local food production.

Project Goals and ObjectivesTo create meaningful employment opportunities for local youth.To increase youth leadership and entrepreneurial skills.To increase participants' knowledge and skills in organic farming, environmental stewardship and local food systems.To build community capacity to address local food security and environmental issues.To promote healthy nutrition and active lifestyles.To increase the availability of rare and nearly extinct vegetable and other plant species.To generate and disseminate knowledge in sustainable agriculture and community development.To promote community engagement.

Partner Roles and ResponsibilitiesThe role of the advisory committee is to guide management decisions of the farm and support project implementation. The committee is comprised of representatives from:

TRCA;City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation;

156

African Food Basket;Seeds of Diversity Canada;Umoja Learning Centre;Jane Finch Community Citizens Council;Lawrence Heights Community Centre;University of Guelph;York University;FarmStart.

The following is a description of some of the prominent partner roles and responsibilities:City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation

farm management;staff support;funding proposals;community mobilization;strategic planning;infrastructure: financing, installation and vegetation management.

TRCAaccess to land;staff support;training workshops;administrative and technical expertise;meeting space;management of advisory committee.

Current Project Accomplishments (2008)Hired 15 youth (including 14 returning employees from previous years), all visible minorities.Conducted leadership and employability skills training on various topics.Conducted on-the-job gardening skills training and in-class training.Initiated trial production of various heirloom crops on four 100ft. x 100ft. plots. Crops included heirloom varieties of eggplants, tomatoes, beans, squash, pumpkin, carrots, beats, okra, peppers, parsley, basil, onion, sage and leeks.Held a design charette in January 2008 with architecture and engineering students from Ryerson University. Student teams developed design plans for the conversion of Braeburn House and the surrounding production area to a sustainable training facility.Hosted an end-of-season celebration which was organized by youth participants in August 2008.Engaged staff and volunteers from various community agencies in harvesting crops for food security programs. Agencies included: Green Gardeners Group, Seeds of Diversity, Mustard Seed, The Stop Community Food Centre and a seniors’ group.Organized four tours and two children’s work camps during the 2008 season.

Site Work Done to Datevegetation removal;tilling;soil amendment;fence installation;

157

water line installation from Jane Street;installation of storage facilities;construction of access gates via Jane Street;initiation of renovations at Braeburn House, a former TRCA rental property, into a training facility, washrooms and offices for the site.

FINANCIAL DETAILSIn 2003, the Community Gardens Program (CGP) applied for funding from the Ontario Works Incentive Fund and received $178,000 to establish the farm over a two-year pilot period. Although the grant was less than half of the amount requested, it enabled the CGP to initiate farm installation and provide youth with employment and training in urban agriculture and life skills.In 2007, the CGP secured $184,000 from the City of Toronto base operating budget for youth employment and training in urban agriculture and life skills.In 2008 and 2009, the CGP secured $250,000 from the City of Toronto base operating budget for youth employment and training in urban agriculture and life skills, as well as materials and supplies.In 2009, the City of Toronto Environment Office, through their Live Green Program allocated $50,000 for septic system upgrades at the Toronto Urban Farm. This is not enough funding to connect the farm to the municipal sewer system which is estimated to cost over $100,000.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEContinue youth employment and training.Provide community and children’s programming.Continue site preparation and crop production.Build an energy efficient greenhouse that will ensure year-round food production.Continue to renovate Braeburn House to create facilities for food processing and storage.TRCA and the City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department to investigate an end-of-the season food festival in 2009.TRCA and the City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department to develop a website and marketing material for urban agriculture, including the Toronto Urban Farm.TRCA to help seek funding from external sources to support the Toronto Urban Farm.TRCA to convene the Toronto Urban Farm Advisory Committee and recruit new members to take on an active role to implement priority components.TRCA and the City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department to investigate opportunities for internal skills development training that can be offered to seasonal employees of the Toronto Urban Farm.TRCA's stewardship staff to be consulted about developing on-site educational opportunities at the Toronto Urban Farm.Seek funds to connect the farm to the municipal system in the future. In the meantime Toronto staff will investigate suitable options for enlarging the existing private septic system with the funding they expect from the Toronto Environment Office.

Report prepared by: Sonia Dhir, extension 5291Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211Emails: [email protected]: May 5, 2009

158

RES.#A73/09 - TORONTO BEACHES PLANCity of Toronto. To provide an update on the recently approved City of Toronto "Toronto Beaches Plan" and obtain direction to assist the City in the investigation of new City beach locations.


THAT staff be directed to work with the City of Toronto to investigate the opportunities to include swimming beaches in the development of the Arsenal Lands/Marie Curtis Park West, Colonel Samuel Smith Park and Port Union Waterfront Park Phase 2 in consultation with the adjacent communities;

AND FURTHER THAT staff assist the City of Toronto in looking at opportunities to improve the littoral zone, including the lake bottom within 20 meters of the shore from, algae blooms and lakefill debris that undermines the swimming experience at Cherry Beach.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDOn February 23, 24 and 25, 2009, the City of Toronto Council endorsed the report entitled "Great City, Great Beaches: Toronto Beaches Plan" (January 2009). The Toronto Beaches Plan identifies actions to further enhance beach water quality, maintenance and operations, facilities and amenities, programming, and education and communications. The plan is driven by a vision of getting all Toronto swimming beaches to and beyond the Blue Flag standard – the international eco-label for quality beaches. Coupled with existing operations and other planned continuous service improvements, the actions proposed in the plan will maintain the Blue Flag status of six City of Toronto beaches, bring five other beaches up to the Blue Flag standard and potentially create a new swimming beach. If the proposed actions are implemented, all or most Toronto beaches could satisfy the award criteria of the Blue Flag program as early as 2010. The report is available on the follow website http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-18573.pdf.

Toronto's lakeside beaches will be safer, cleaner, more usable, more accessible and greener than they are today. Opportunities to swim and wade at supervised beaches will continue to be distributed equitably across the waterfront. All swimming beaches will fly the Blue Flag, hosting a range of recreational uses with the necessary supporting amenities, while ensuring that the natural environment is protected, enhanced or restored.

In Toronto, a great swimming beach will have:Beach water quality that allows swimming and wading to take place every day during the beach season, is communicated to users in a more timely manner, is more rigorously monitored for sources of pollution, and is supported by safer and more comfortable lake bottom conditions. Maintenance and operations that offer extended beach lifeguard protection during hot weather, provide cleaner washrooms and change rooms, reduce fouling by birds, animals, nuisance algae and floating debris, and respond better to storm debris and higher levels of use attributed to climate change.

159

Facilities and amenities that are in a good state of repair, attractive, environmentally sustainable, accessible to people with disabilities, more easily reached by transit, foot and bicycle, offer more and better shade opportunities, and generally support a highly satisfying beach experience. Programming that better manages potential conflicts between different waterfront user groups, enables visitors to learn about beach ecosystems and issues, encourages community stewardship to restore nature, and brings more children from non-waterfront neighbourhoods to the beach.Education and communications that makes beach conditions and regulations more understandable to users, increases local awareness of the Blue Flag program and beach improvement initiatives, and attracts tourists to Toronto’s beaches.

To achieve this vision, the Toronto Beaches Plan proposes a five-point improvement strategy:1. Commit to bringing all of Toronto’s swimming beaches to the Blue Flag standard as quickly

as possible. 2. As short-term priorities, take steps to improve beach water quality at Sunnyside, Marie

Curtis and Rouge beaches to meet the Blue Flag standard.3. Undertake other improvements relating to beach water quality, maintenance and

operations, facilities and amenities, programming, and education and communications. Target actions at specific beaches based on need or opportunity.

4. Request the provincial and federal governments to support local efforts to improve beach conditions in Toronto and across the Great Lakes.

5. Over the longer term, make additional improvements to achieve zero beach postings and thus exceed the Blue Flag standard for beach water quality, relying primarily on continued implementation of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan.

The Toronto Beaches Plan proposes 27 actions to implement this strategy, organized around the themes of beach water quality, maintenance and operations, facilities and amenities, programming, and education and communications.

Beach water quality: create an enclosed swimming area at Sunnyside Beach; relocate or undertake remedial works at Marie Curtis Beach East and Rouge Beach, and consider providing a swimming beach at Col. Samuel Smith Park; use additional stormwater controls to control waterfront park and beach parking lot runoff; reduce animal-related E.coli loadings through various measures; review erosion and lake bottom conditions and undertake remedial works; conduct annual beach pollution surveys; review ways that beach water samples can be assessed for E.coli more quickly; continue to undertake microbial source tracking studies and monitoring beach sand science to improve management techniques; examine possible methods of controlling zebra and quagga mussels to reduce beach fouling by nuisance algae.

Maintenance and operations: extend lifeguard hours during Heat Alerts and Extreme Heat Alerts at selected Blue Flag beaches on the mainland and at Toronto Island if these sites are not posted against swimming; develop a new operating arrangement to better manage floating debris and lakeweed; address beach maintenance pressures arising from climate change.

160

Facilities and amenities: design, build, install and test a new beach lifeguard stand prototype; develop strategies to retrofit or rebuild beach facilities to meet the Toronto Green Development Strategy and upgrade amenities not captured by capital state of good repair audits; provide effective shade measures; assess food concession operations and future needs; provide additional cycling facilities and trail opportunities; improve access for beach users with disabilities; incorporate natural heritage objectives into beach improvements.

Programming: develop new environmental education programs; work with communities to restore and maintain beach ecosystems; bring children from non-waterfront neighbourhoods to beaches; resolve weekend access issues at Bluffer’s Park Beach; better manage user conflicts at beaches.

Education and communications: upgrade, consolidate and simplify beach signage; increase local awareness of the Blue Flag program and other beach-related City objectives and initiatives; promote Toronto’s beaches as a tourism destination.

Swimmable beaches are often used as an indicator of Toronto's environmental performance and quality of life. The Toronto Beaches Plan is driven by a vision of getting all Toronto swimming beaches to and beyond the Blue Flag standard - the international eco-label for quality beaches. Coupled with existing operations and other planned continuous improvements, the actions outlined in the plan will maintain the Blue Flag status of six City beaches, bring five others up to the Blue Flag standard and potentially create a new swimming beach at Colonel Samuel Smith Park.

RATIONALEStaff has participated in the development of the Toronto Beaches Plan since April 2007. A number of actions proposed in the Toronto Beaches Plan relate directly to TRCA and its mandate on the waterfront.

Beach Water QualityTRCA has provided input and recommendations into the development of a pilot project at Sunnyside Beach to enclose a portion of the swimming area to make it more swimmable ad provide water that meets Ontario's recreational water quality standard. TRCA approved a permit for this project on April 24, 2009.

The City will initiate a public planning process, involving consultation with the local community to achieve better water quality at Marie Curtis East Beach, Rouge Beach and Colonel Samuel Smith Park. At Marie Curtis Park East Beach the site is impacted by pollution from Etobicoke Creek. The feasibility of deflecting the creek's discharge away from the beach, relocating the beach to the west side of the creek, or relocating the beach to Col. Samuel Smith Park will be investigated. At the Rouge Beach the sire is impacted by pollution from the Rouge River and the lake bottom tails off quickly into deep water. The feasibility of relocating the beach as part of the development of Port Union Waterfront Park Phase 2 will be investigated.

Facilities and Amenities The City will investigate erosion and lake bottom conditions at selected beaches and implement remedial measures (ie. sand nourishment, substrate sorting and cobble/rubble removal) to improve swimming and wading.

161

Improving the quality of Toronto’s beaches is a widely shared responsibility requiring action by many City divisions, agencies and partners. At the local level, the key public agencies are Parks, Forestry and Recreation, Toronto Water, Toronto Public Health, Toronto Police Service Marine Unit and TRCA. The directions in the Toronto Beaches Plan need to be incorporated into the waterfront park plans and projects of the City of Toronto, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and TRCA. Integration with the Western Waterfront Master Plan, which affects Sunnyside Beach, is especially important. At Environment Canada, continued support from the Canadian Wildlife Service and the National Water Research Institute will be essential to Toronto’s success. Individual citizens and community organizations – such as Environmental Defence, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and Citizens Concerned About the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, plus numerous watershed groups – also have important advocacy and stewardship roles to play.

Action beyond the City of Toronto’s boundaries will also affect the condition of our beaches. Existing forums, such as the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, will be used to advocate for basin-wide improvements in water quality and a healthy Lake Ontario. Continued implementation of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan means pushing for watershed strategies and actions to address beach pollution, including stormwater management, spills management, and urban and rural best management practices. Cooperation from “upstream” municipalities in the Toronto region will be needed to meet the targets required by the Remedial Action Plan to delist the Toronto region as a Great Lakes Area of Concern. In turn, delisting will mean that we have made great strides toward making great beaches for a great city.

Report prepared by: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313Emails: [email protected]: April 15, 2009

_________________________________________

RES.#A74/09 - PETTICOAT CREEK CONSERVATION AREAMaster Plan Initiation. Authorization for staff to address the state of disrepair of the pool and develop a master plan for Petticoat Creek Conservation Area.

Moved by: Jack HeathSeconded by: Bonnie Littley

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) develop a master plan for the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area (PCCA);

THAT TRCA undertake redevelopment of the Petticoat Creek pool, prior to completion of the master plan for the PCCA, subject to availability of funding;

162

THAT staff be directed to establish an advisory committee, which would include TRCA staff, interested community groups, business representatives, community residents, agency staff, municipal staff and area councillors to assist with the development of the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Master Plan and to facilitate the opportunity for public input;

AND FURTHER THAT the final Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Master Plan be brought to the Authority for approval.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDPetticoat Creek Conservation Area is approximately 70 hectares of land located at the mouth of Petticoat Creek on the north shore of Lake Ontario. It is located in the City of Pickering, in the Regional Municipality of Durham, at the south end of Whites Road.

The northern portion of PCCA is traversed by Petticoat Creek and is densely forested. There are additional forested areas along the western edges, and more sparse forests in the central areas near the waterfront. The remainder of the site is made up of open meadows and fields. The site provides important habitat for migratory birds and is a key natural corridor for the Petticoat Creek watershed.

PCCA is an active conservation park that provides a variety of recreational opportunities to local and regional residents and tourists. The primary feature of the park is a 0.6 hectare dish-shaped swimming pool, the largest outdoor swimming pool of its kind in Ontario. There are also picnic areas, numerous trails and public washrooms. The Waterfront Trail runs along the shoreline of the area, and provides extraordinary views of the bluffs and Lake Ontario.

The major challenge facing the management of the conservation area is the condition of the pool. Constructed in 1974, as a component of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s Waterfront Plan, Petticoat Creek Conservation Area pool is a 0.6 ha Class B Modified dish-shaped swimming pool with a 60mm ReTex vinyl liner covering two layers of asphaltic concrete over a compacted granular base. The mechanical infrastructure of the facility is based around a 5,000 gallon tank fitted with a Leitch vacuum Diatomaceous Earth filter system with a surface area of 1050 sq. ft. The tank is gravity fed with a skimmer pump for surface draw. Dual Armstrong vertical in-line centrifugal double suction pumps re-circulate filtered water to 66 returns on the pool surface (originally 80 returns, were built). Two MA300 stabilized tablet chlorinators provide disinfections to the 1,000,000 gallons of water.

Since its opening in 1975, Petticoat Creek Conservation Area pool has experienced numerous problems related to compaction, density and porosity qualities resulting in air voids in the asphaltic surface that creates a high permeability factor. This permeability has resulted in saturation of the substrate, which has caused significant heaving and breaking of return pipes due to frost damage. Though some deficiencies have been remedied through the installation of the Retex Liner, persistent problems remain with heaving and cracking of the asphalt apron/deck around the perimeter of the pool. Damage has also been encountered in localized areas around the water return jets, which has contributed to breaks of water return lines. As a remedy, the broken return lines were simply capped, reducing the number of jets from the original 80 to the current configuration of 66. The result of this maintenance work has reduced the rate of water flow and turnover times in the process.

163

The mechanical infrastructure of the pool systems has continued to function effectively throughout the duration of the operating period, though signs of age and wear have become evident on the filter tank. There is localized rusting and cracking of the filter elements and in 2003, the filter bags were replaced, which improved the filter capacity of the system by eliminating voids large enough to undermine the filtration integrity. Another major issue that needs to be addressed is the condition of the pool liner. The 60mm ReTex vinyl liner that was installed in 1994 has exceeded its 10 year life expectancy and the subsequent deterioration of the liner has increased over the last number of years. It is anticipated that the liner will begin to fail over the short term, which would result in closure of the facility for an extended period of time, until funds can be secured for redevelopment of the pool.

Currently, PCCA pool requires significant annual capital investment to achieve minimum operating standards. Staff continues to monitor considerable deterioration of vital pool components including, asphalt apron/deck around the perimeter of the pool and in localized areas around the water return jets, 60mm ReTex vinyl liner, filter tank, flow rates and dual Armstrong 40 hp pumps.

The challenge in carrying out a significant improvement project related to the pool is the lack of financial resources and a guiding document for Petticoat Creek Conservation Area. A master plan is needed to guide current and future operation and management of PCCA.

To develop the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Master Plan, staff will use the TRCA model process that has been successfully used at other TRCA properties. The three phases of work will include:

Phase 1, (estimated completion February 2010)develop project terms of reference;natural and cultural heritage inventories of the property;establishment of an advisory committeedevelop plan vision, goals and objectives;complete management plan background report for the property;public consultation.

Phase 2, (estimated completion December 2010)develop draft for:

management zones;management recommendations;trail plan; public use and recreation plan.

stakeholder consultation;public consultation.

Phase 3, (estimated completion December 2011)finalize:

management zones;management recommendations;trail plan;public use and recreation plan.

write final draft master plan;

164

consultation and comment period, including public information session;production of final master plan.

Staff recommends the establishment of an advisory committee to provide an integrated approach to the development of the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Master Plan. The advisory committee will assist with determining management zones and management recommendations, and provide direction and comment on the public use and recreation plan, including a trail plan.

TRCA will select and invite agency and community representatives to act as members of the advisory committee for the duration of the project. Suggested advisory committee representatives are members of:

TRCA – board member and staff;City of Pickering – Councillor and staff;Durham Region – Councillor and staff;Ministry of Natural Resources;Pickering Field Naturalists;local community groups;user groups;local ratepayers groups;representatives from local schools and school boards;major area landowners;Waterfront Regeneration Trust;community residents; andlocal business representatives.

RATIONALEWith projected population growth in the City of Pickering and the Regional Municipality of Durham, PCCA will become an even more popular environmental and outdoor recreation area, requiring a plan that can address future public use demands while ensuring environmental protection. The Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Master Plan will move TRCA towards its vision for The Living City - a new community where human settlement can flourish as part of nature's beauty and diversity.

A master plan is also vital in order for PCCA to address urgent issues with regard to pool infrastructure and public use. Given the urgency of the pool repairs, it may be necessary to undertake works in advance of completion of the master plan for Petticoat Creek Conservation Area. Initiating the master plan process as soon as possible will create a forum for reviewing potential improvements and plans for the pool and other recreational pursuits at PCCA, should such action need to take place.

The Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Master Plan will complement a number of TRCA initiatives, including:

The Living City vision;Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy; andPetticoat Creek watershed strategy that is currently being developed.

165

The goal of the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area Master Plan process is to protect, conserve and manage the property within an ecosystem framework, and in consultation with the community ensure watershed health, public enjoyment and environmental sustainability.

FINANCIAL DETAILSProvision for the development of a Master Plan for the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area is available in TRCA's 2009 Public Use Capital Infrastructure Budget under account number 408-45.

Currently funds are not available for redevelopment of the pool. TRCA is seeking funds through federal and provincial programs. The works will not be commenced until funds have been secured.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEPhase 1 (2009)

Develop a project terms of reference, which will include the scope of work and projected timelines.Initiation of background report, including natural and cultural heritage inventories and data collection.Establishment of an advisory committee.Development of draft plan vision, goals and objectives.Initial public information session.Seek funding for the redevelopment of the PCCA pool.

It is anticipated that the Master Plan will be completed by December 2011.

Report prepared by: David Boccia , 416-791-0322; April Weppler, extension 5320Emails: [email protected]; [email protected] Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672Emails: [email protected]: May 22, 2009

_________________________________________

RES.#A75/09 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006-2010Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek WatershedCity of Toronto (Brock North and South), CFN 24260. Request to the City of Toronto to convey to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority the Brock North and South Landfill Site located on the north and south sides of 5th Concession Road, east of Brock Road, in the City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham.

Moved by: Glenn De BaeremaekerSeconded by: Colleen Jordan

166

WHEREAS the City of Toronto properties (approximately 969 acres / 362 hectares) 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, known as the Brock North and Brock South Landfill Sites, have been declared surplus to the City of Toronto's Solid Waste Management Division operational requirements;

AND WHEREAS the City of Pickering owns a property (approximately 8 acres / 3 hectares) located on the south side of Highway #7, east of Brock Road, in the City of Pickering (Pickering property), Regional Municipality of Durham;

AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) had identified the Brock North, Brock South and Pickering property as part of TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage Target System;

AND WHEREAS if these properties are renaturalized and managed in conjunction with the adjacent Greenwood Conservation Area, this complex has the potential to become one of the most significant natural heritage parcels south of the Oak Ridges Moraine in TRCA's jurisdiction;

AND WHEREAS the City of Pickering has expressed an interest in using a portion of the Brock North site for future expansion of the Pickering Museum and a district park facility;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA respectfully request that the City of Toronto convey the Brock North and the Brock South landfill sites containing 969 acres, more or less, and being Part of Lots 12 to 16 inclusive and Part of Road allowance between Lots 12 & 13 and between Lots 14 & 15, Concession 5, City of Pickering and Part of Lots 15 & 16, Concession 4, Town of Ajax to TRCA for nominal consideration of $2.00;

THAT TRCA staff work with representatives of the Cities of Toronto and Pickering to determine what portion of the sites can be made available to the City of Pickering for use as future expansion of the Pickering Museum and a district park facility in accordance with the following conditions:

(a) payment by the City of Pickering of the appropriate compensation to the City of Toronto, for lands to be used by the City of Pickering;

(b) City of Pickering convey the Pickering property to TRCA for nominal consideration of $2.00;

(c) the portion of the Brock North site used for future expansion of the Pickering Museum and a district park facility would be under a management agreement between the City of Pickering and TRCA;

(d) also included in the management agreement would be the remainder of Brock North, the Pickering property and the portion of Greenwood Conservation Area in Pickering.

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;

167

THAT the Town of Ajax be requested to include Brock South in the existing management agreement for the portion of Greenwood Conservation Area in Ajax;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect to the foregoing, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDIn the late 1960's the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (now the City of Toronto) identified the need for three landfill sites in the Region of Durham. In 1969, TRCA granted approval to the City of Toronto for the temporary use of those lands owned by TRCA falling within the designated Brock Landfill Sites. In exchange the City of Toronto agreed that on completion of the landfill sites, the areas would be turned over to TRCA for recreational purposes. In the 1970's, the City of Toronto acquired the three sites. These sites are identifies as Brock West, Brock North and Brock South.

Brock West is located west of Brock Road, north of the 3rd Concession Road in the City of Pickering. This site was used as a landfill site until it closed in the 1990's. The site is presently leased to Eastern Power. Brock North is located between the 5th Concession Road and Highway #7, east of Brock Road in the City of Pickering. Brock North was temporarily used as landfill site in the late 1970’s. All the waste was excavated from Brock North in 1997 and was deposited in Brock West. Brock South is located south of the 5th Concession Road, east of Brock Road, Town of Ajax and was never used for waste disposal.

In 2008, the City of Toronto's Solid Waste Management Division declared Brock North and Brock South sites surplus to its operational requirements. In May of 2008 the sites were introduced into the city's disposal process. TRCA staff identified to City of Toronto staff, TRCA's interest in the two sites related to the original agreement between the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and TRCA and the important environmental features of the properties.

The City of Pickering has also expressed an interest in approximately 170 acres of the site for the future expansion of the Pickering Museum and a district park facility. Pickering currently has a deficit of outdoor active recreation areas and playing fields and there is a scarcity of land in southern Pickering and Seaton to accommodate a large scale facility. The Brock North site is in a good location and appears to be of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use. The district park facility will also act as a buffer to future development to the west. Pickering also owns a parcel of land located on the south side of Highway #7, east of Brock Road and containing approximately 8 acres (3 hectares). Pickering staff has indicated a willingness to add this property to the complex.

The Town of Ajax supports retaining the sites for natural heritage purposes.

168

Brock North is approximately 732 acres (296 hectares) in size and Brock South is approximately 237 acres (96 hectares) in size for a total of 969 acres (392 hectares) and are located adjacent to TRCA's 735 acre (297 hectares) Greenwood Conservation Area (CA). Brougham Creek which is a significant cold water tributary crossed Brock North before it joins with the East Branch of Duffins Creek in the Greenwood CA. There are also a number of other smaller tributaries that cross the properties. The sites are located on the former Lake Iroquois Shoreline which is a complex feature comprising sand, gravel, boulders and other old beach deposits which are critical terrestrial habitat features. These particular sites have a complex groundwater flow system, operating as both a recharge and discharge area.

Zoning and Official PlanBoth sites are designated as Major Open Space Area in the Regional Municipality of Durham's Official Plan. Brock North is designated as Open Space System - Natural Areas in the City of Pickering Official Plan and is zoned Rural Agricultural Zone A. Brock South is designated as Rural Areas in the Town of Ajax Official Plan and is zoned Permanent Country.

Greenbelt PlanThe two sites are designated as Protected Countryside - natural heritage system.

Ontario Regulation 166/06Approximately one quarter of the two sites are regulated by TRCA under Ontario Regulation 166/06. This mainly relates to Brougham Creek and its tributaries.

Terrestrial Natural Heritage System StrategyThe terrestrial ecological value of the Brock sites is partly dependent on its relationship to the rest of the natural system in the region. The sites are located at the hub of two large natural corridors, that provide breeding source areas for species and a backbone for their movement within the Duffins watershed. The Brock sites play their part within the corridors that run north-south along the East Duffins Creek and east-west along the old Iroquois Shoreline. The sites are knitted ecologically to the natural system of the Seaton Natural Heritage System to the west and the Greenwood Conservation Area to the east. South of Taunton Road are the forests, wetlands and creeks associated with the Duffins Heights planning area. These lands contain large blocks of contiguous habitat within Urfe and Ganatsekiagon creeks. To the north are found the forests at the confluence of Spring and Brougham creeks at the Cherry Downs Golf Course and further north is the Glen Major Tract complex on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

169

Ecological FunctionLandscape analysis is the study of ecosystems using remote-sensing, in this case looking at habitat patch character, size, shape and matrix influence (surrounding land uses) – and at how that character determines ecological function. The larger and rounder a patch is, and the more natural its surrounding, the better it can support species communities. TRCA’s landscape analysis model categorizes habitat patches into a range of L-ranks (local ranks) from L1 to L5 where L5 is very poor and L1 is excellent in terms of size, shape and matrix influence. The bulk of natural areas in urban lands are L4 patches (poor), but an increase from L4 to L3 is very significant for biodiversity. The general character of most patches in the existing natural system throughout the TRCA watersheds is L3. The TRCA Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy aims to improve this to L2 as the overall character of the target system which is above the threshold for losses in biodiversity. Improvements in patch ranks will only be achieved by increasing the size, and improving the shape and matrix of existing patches. The target system is therefore a combination of “existing natural cover” and “potential natural cover”, the latter being where ecosystem restoration will be undertaken.

Target System Site Scale RefinementThe target system was designed at the regional scale, that is, without the benefit of site level knowledge that would guide refinements for local scale decision-making. When the entire concession block is modeled as a contiguous habitat patch it improves the shape to be more square and regularly-edged and therefore more resilient to edge effect (sun, wind, human disturbance, etc.). The outcome of this landscape analysis ranks the patches of the site as L1. L1 patch character indicates “excellent” habitat considering all lands are restored.

There is currently only one area in the TRCA watersheds with existing L1 patches – the Glen Major complex. The implementation of the target system would produce more L1 patches, approximately a dozen in the Humber watershed's headwaters on the Oak Ridges Moraine and one in the Rouge Park. The Brock/Greenwood complex would become one of only two L1 patches south of the Oak Ridges Moraine with both being located on the Iroquois Shoreline.

Ground level inventories of the subject site have uncovered a variety of wetland types including thicket swamp, cattail marsh and meadow marsh that provide habitat for species of concern including Virginia rail, swamp sparrow, wood frog and spring peeper. The scattered treed communities support magnolia warbler, mourning warbler and ruffed grouse. Wood frog and spring peeper that breed on the subject site in the spring likely spend their summer and winter under forest cover on adjacent TRCA lands.

Water Quality and Quantity SignificanceThese lands afford unique opportunities from a research and monitoring perspective to understand surface and groundwater linkages in the Duffins Creek watershed, and changes over time in the quality of groundwater and surface waters. The geology of the site is complex, as it acts as both a recharge and discharge area at the same time, and has flora and fauna communities that are adapted to these varying flow regimes. Continued monitoring of stream flow/water balance at this site will help with the calibration and validation of predictive groundwater models and may afford opportunities to investigate restoration practices which help maintain water balance.

170

Aquatic SignificanceFrom an aquatic perspective, the Brock North site is ideally situated to protect and enhance the aquatic integrity of sensitive habitats within the Duffins watershed. These lands contain the confluence of two sensitive watercourses, including Brougham Creek, a true cold-water stream, and Spring Creek, more reflective of a cool water aquatic ecosystem. Brougham Creek, contains sensitive salmonid species such as Brook Trout, which requires cold, clean water, and the species often spawns directly over locations of groundwater discharge (upwellings). Brougham has historically supported redside dace a provincially endangered and nationally threatened fish species. The habitat potential for this species in this system is likely very high. The Duffins Fish Management Plan (FMP) identifies high discharge occurring in Brougham Creek through the subject lands, an important ecological function for both brook trout and redside dace habitat.

Redside dace has been observed in Spring Creek. This species likely benefits from the cool water habitat present in the watercourse in association with high water clarity, which enables the species to capture insect prey above the water column.

The FMP targets both the sections of Brougham and Spring creeks through the subject lands for redside dace. The Brock North site is also situated along the Iroquois Shoreline, which is the ancient beach shoreline of Lake Ontario. The sands and gravels of the Iroquois Shoreline are a recharge/discharge zone, and provide groundwater discharge opportunities for aquatic species such as brook trout and redside dace.

Since 2006, TRCA and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) have been stocking Atlantic Salmon at Greenwood Conservation Area, which is immediately to the east of these lands. Agencies have been involved in reintroduction efforts through stocking of juvenile salmon. It is expected that, if the project is successful, once adults return to spawn (starting as early as this fall) that they will utilize Brougham and Spring creeks.

Restoration of the Brock North lands will mean improved habitat for these sensitive species. Further, these lands could potentially be critical to the survival of redside dace within the Duffins Creek given the planned future development within the watershed. The fate of redside dace in Ganatsekiagon Creek is uncertain because of potential impacts associated with the development of the Seaton Lands. Redside dace are currently known to occur on the Brock North lands, along most of the Spring Creek subwatershed and along parts of the Brougham Creek subwatershed which are in the Greenbelt planning area. Brock North may become a critical land holding for the long term protection of the species in the watershed depending on what unfolds in the coming years. The property would become one of only a handful of TRCA properties where we could work to protect the species for long term survival.

RATIONALEThe subject property falls within TRCA's approved master plan for acquisition for the Duffins Creek watershed as outlined in the approved Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006-2010.

171

The site currently contributes significantly to achieving Duffins Watershed Plan objectives and with the implementation of the target system and careful management and restoration of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, will increase the ecological function of these lands exponentially. Acquisition of these lands will also facilitate the monitoring of water quality and quantity to better assist in the development of water balance models and in restoration planning. These lands offer an opportunity to protect and restore the populations of sensitive species, including aquatic species at risk. Benefits to north-south-east-west ecological connectivity and to ecosystem services in the southern portion of the watershed are unusual in metropolitan regions where urban ecosystems are impacted and not easily comparable to the healthier headwater areas.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEStaff will enter into discussions with the cities of Toronto and Pickering to determine what portion of the sites can be made available to the City of Pickering for use as future expansion of the Pickering Museum and a district park facility.

Staff will develop a renaturalization and management plan for the complex that includes Brock North, Brock South, Pickering property and Greenwood CA with the assistance of the City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax. The terms of reference and the final management plan will be brought forward to the Authority at a future date for approval.

The City of Pickering will be requested to manage the entire Brock North property including that portion of Greenwood CA located in Pickering and the Pickering property. The Town of Ajax is currently managing that portion of Greenwood CA located in Ajax and has expressed an interest in managing Brock South. Details of the management of the properties will be determined through the management planning process.

FINANCIAL DETAILSFunds for the costs related to this acquisition are available in the TRCA land acquisition capital account.

Report prepared by: Mike Fenning, extension 5223Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Mike Fenning, extension 5223 or Ron Dewell, extension 5245Emails: [email protected] or [email protected]: May 15, 2009Attachments: 1

172

Attachment 1

_________________________________________

173

RES.#A76/09 - REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAMRequest for Land Conveyance for Road WideningDuffins Creek Watershed, City of Pickering, CFN 42282. Conveyance of land to The Regional Municipality of Durham for the road widening of Brock Road, City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, Duffins Creek watershed.(Executive Res.#B41/09)

Moved by: Maja PrenticeSeconded by: Suzan Hall

WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from The Regional Municipality of Durham to convey certain lands for the widening of Brock Road, from Dellbrook Avenue to 3rd Concession Avenue on the west side;

AND WHEREAS it is in the opinion of the TRCA that it is in the best interest of the Authority in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with The Regional Municipality of Durham;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT one parcel of TRCA land containing 0.19 hectares (0.46 acres), more or less, be conveyed to The Regional Municipality of Durham for the widening of Brock Road in the City of Pickering, designated as Part 1 on Plan 40R-25587;

THAT consideration is to be the nominal sum of $2.00, plus all legal, survey and other costs;

THAT archaeological investigation is to be conducted before any site disturbance with any mitigative measures required being carried out, all at the expense of The Regional Municipality of Durham;

THAT all permits pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06 be obtained by The Regional Municipality of Durham prior to the commencement of construction;

THAT The Regional Municipality of Durham is to fully indemnify and save harmless TRCA from any and all claims for injuries, damages or loss of any nature resulting in any way either directly or indirectly from this sale or the carrying out of construction;

THAT said conveyance is subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27 as amended;

AND FURTHER THAT the 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 _________________________________________

174

RES.#A77/09 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006-2010Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed1668135 Ontario Inc., CFN 42301. Acquisition of a property located east of Highway 27 and north of Langstaff Road, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006-2010", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed.(Executive Res.#B42/09)


THAT 0.59 hectares (1.45 acres), more or less, of vacant land, being Lot 11, Concession 8 and designated as Block 46 and 47 on Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Humphries Planning Group Inc. under their file no.06123 and dated revised on March 18, 2008, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, located east of Highway 27 and north of Langstaff Road, be purchased from 1668135 Ontario 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 complete the purchase including signing and execution of all necessary documentation.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A78/09 - OFFICE ACCOMMODATIONRenew Lease of Office Space from Parc Downsview Park Inc.. Approval to enter into a lease for an additional five-year term with Parc Downsview Park Inc. for office space located at 70 Canuck Avenue, City of Toronto.(Executive Res.#B43/09)


THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a lease with Parc Downsview Park Inc. (PDP) for office space located at 70 Canuck Avenue, City of Toronto;

THAT the term of the lease be for 60 months and 20 days (Five Years and Twenty Days), commencing July 12, 2009;

THAT the payment be as follows:

175

(i) $13.00 per useable square foot for base rent for the first year of the term (July 12, 2009 to July 31, 2010);

(ii) $14.00 per useable square foot for base rent for the second year of the term (August 1, 2010 to July 31, 2011);

(iii) $15.00 per useable square foot for base rent for the remaining 3 years of the term (August 1, 2011 to July 31, 2014);

(iv) an additional $3.88 per useable square foot for operating costs and $1.00 per useable square foot for realty taxes (2008 estimates) be paid on a monthly basis exclusive of electricity;

(v) $8.00 per useable square foot (annual gross rent over the term of the lease) for storage space located in the basement of the building;

THAT the terms and conditions of the lease be satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitor;

AND FURTHER THAT the authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the lease agreement including obtaining all necessary approvals and the signing and execution of all necessary documents.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A79/09 - HEALTHY GREAT LAKES, STRONG ONTARIO DISCUSSION PAPERProvincial discussion with Ontarians about protecting, restoring, using and enjoying the Great Lakes.(Executive Res.#B44/09)


THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff work with Conservation Ontario to finalize a response to the Healthy Great Lakes, Strong Ontario Discussion Paper;

THAT TRCA express its support for the message from the Ministers of Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for the adoption of a vision of sustainability for the Great Lakes;

THAT the Province of Ontario be advised that additional resources will be required in order for conservation authorities to help the Province achieve their stated Vision, Goals and Strategies for the Great Lakes;

THAT the efforts of TRCA through its watershed councils, education and stewardship programs be recognized as an effective means of building local non-governmental organization (NGO) support and partnerships with watershed municipalities for the benefit of Lake Ontario;

THAT the contributions that conservation authorities already make toward achieving a healthy Great Lakes be recognized in the forthcoming renewal of the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes;

176

AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be sent to the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBR), the ministries of Natural Resources, Environment, Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Municipal Affairs and Housing, and Energy and Infrastructure, Environment Canada, Conservation Ontario, Credit Valley-Toronto and Region-Central Lake Ontario (CTC) Source Protection Committee, and municipalities that border Lake Ontario.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A80/09 - PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN ECO-EFFICIENCY PROGRAMAward of contract to Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement for the delivery of the Partners in Project Green Eco-Efficiency Program.(Executive Res.#B45/09)


THAT the contract for delivery of the Partners in Project Green Eco-Efficiency Program through to March 31st, 2010 be awarded to Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement (OCETA) at a cost not to exceed $312,600 plus applicable taxes as per agreements with external funding partners;

AND FURTHER THAT appropriate Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials be authorized to execute agreements with OCETA to deliver the Partners in Project Green Eco-Efficiency Program for up to 60 businesses in the Pearson Eco-Business Zone.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A81/09 - CITY OF BRAMPTONRequest for a Land Conveyance for road-widening of McVean DriveHumber River Watershed, City of Brampton, CFN 28086. Receipt of a request from the City of Brampton for a conveyance of lands for the road-widening of McVean Drive.(Executive Res.#B46/09)


THAT WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the City of Brampton to convey certain lands for the widening of McVean Drive, on the west side of McVean Drive from Castlemore Road to Queen Street;

AND WHEREAS it is the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering it's objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with the City of Brampton in this instance;

177

THEREFORE THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT TRCA-owned lands containing 0.35 hectares (0.86 acres), more or less, be conveyed to the City of Brampton for the widening of McVean Drive in the City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, designated as Part of 7, Concession 8, Northern Division;

THAT the City of Brampton be required to provide a new access into Claireville Conservation Area acceptable to TRCA staff connecting to the original laneway;

THAT consideration is to be the nominal sum of $2.00, plus all legal, survey and other costs;

THAT archaeological investigation is to be conducted before any site disturbance with any mitigative measures required being carried out, all at the expense of the City of Brampton;

THAT the City of Brampton be responsible for all legal, survey and other costs related to the land conveyance;

THAT all permits pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06 be obtained by the City of Brampton prior to the commencement of construction;

THAT the City of Brampton is to fully indemnify and save harmless TRCA from any and all claims for injuries, damages or loss of any nature resulting in any way either directly or indirectly from this sale or the carrying out of construction;

THAT said conveyance is subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27 as amended;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to implement the conveyance agreement, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents.

CARRIED _________________________________________

SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION

RES.#A82/09 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION

Moved by: Colleen JordanSeconded by: Maja Prentice

THAT Section II items 9.1 - 9.5, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #3/09, held on May 8, 2009, be received.

CARRIEDSection II Items 9.1 - 9.5, InclusivePERMIT COMPLIANCE(Executive Res.#B47/09)

178

ONTARIO REGULATION 166/09(Executive Res.#B48/09)GREATER TORONTO AREA AGRICULTURAL ACTION COMMITTEE(Executive Res.#B49/09)CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR RETROFIT OF STORMWATER OUTFALL #13 CATCHMENT AREA (ETOBICOKE CREEK)(Executive Res.#B50/09)URBAN FOREST STUDIES(Executive Res.#B51/09)

_________________________________________

SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD

RES.#A83/09 - PORT UNION WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT UPDATEProgress update for Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project - Phase 2.

Moved by: Linda PabstSeconded by: Ron Moeser

THAT the project update for the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project, including the "Western Gateway" component, be received.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDThe Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project was approved in 2002 by the Minister of the Environment and the City of Toronto. Phase 1 of the park opened to the public in September, 2006. Phase 2 of the project was initiated in March 2008 and stretches from Chesterton Shores eastward to the mouth of the Rouge River. Project components include the construction of six cobble beaches and headlands, approximately 2 km of new waterfront trail, a coastal marsh at the mouth of Adams Creek and terrestrial and aquatic habitat improvements.

Construction started in March 2008. A progress drawing of work completed to the end of April is outlined in Attachment 1. As of April 2009, three of the six headlands have been completed. Rubble material continues to be received on-site in order to build the remaining beaches and headlands. Once the landbase is completed, park development activities including landscaping and trail construction will be undertaken. Phase 2 is expected to be complete and open to the public by the fall of 2011.

The Design Concept for the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project - Phase 2 provided for a connection and trail improvements on the east side of the Rouge River to the City of Pickering’s waterfront trail system. At Authority Meeting #11/07, held on January 25, 2007, staff was asked to report back on the status of this component of the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project, called the "Western Gateway", located at the mouth of the Rouge River in the City of Pickering.

179

The Western Gateway plan provides for ramps and steps to the local neighbourhood via Dyson Road, a main waterfront trail/path alignment under the CN Rail, a key elevated pedestrian walkway/viewing platform feature and trail connection to Bella Vista to the east. Attachment 2 provides artist renderings of the elevated boardwalk as a key feature on the east side of the Rouge River, south of the CN rail.

The Western Gateway component of the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project is a critical component of the 720km Lake Ontario waterfront trail that extends from Niagara-on-the-Lake to the Quebec border on the St. Lawrence River. The "Western Gateway" will maintain the momentum of waterfront revitalization, and supports the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) objective of accessible and dynamic public spaces.

DETAILS WORK TO BE DONEThe Western Gateway project will be led by the City of Pickering, with TRCA staff participating in project management. The City has tendered the project with award by City of Pickering Council scheduled for May 19, 2009. In addition, the City of Pickering has approved granting a release in favour of the City of Toronto from a 1972 agreement between the City of Pickering and City of Toronto on maintaining access trails on the east side of the Rouge River.

Construction of the Western Gateway is scheduled to commence in early June of this year. TWRC, as the funding agency for the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project, is in the process of organizing a "project construction launch" with the political partners, tentatively scheduled for the third week of June. Members of the Authority will be advised and receive an invitation to the event once the date and itinerary are confirmed.

FINANCIAL DETAILSThe estimated cost for the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project is $13.7 million for Phase 2. The Western Gateway component of the park development plan is estimated to be $1 million. An agreement has been reached between the City of Pickering, City of Toronto, TWRC and TRCA to fund 50% of the project costs up to a maximum of $500,000 will covered under the approved Port Union Waterfront Park Improvement Project budget. The remaining 50% of the project costs will be provided by the City of Pickering.

Report prepared by: Connie Pinto, extension 5387Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Connie Pinto, extension 5387Emails: [email protected]: May 12, 2009Attachments: 2

180

Attachment 1

181

Attachment 2CITY OF PICKERINGWESTERN GATEWAY

_________________________________________

182

RES.#A84/09 - AUGUST 19, 2005 STORM DAMAGE PROJECT PROGRESS REPORTo provide an update on the status of restoration works completed under the umbrella of the City of Toronto - Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Storm Damage Project.


THAT the progress report in regard to the August 19, 2005 Storm Damage Project be received.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDWatercourses and adjacent park areas within the City of Toronto sustained a significant amount of damage as the result of the August 19, 2005 storm event. In response to the damage caused, the City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department (PF&R) entered into an agreement with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in February of 2007 to complete the repairs required to return the damaged areas to a state of good repair in order to ensure protection of life and property within the City of Toronto parks systems. The sites requiring repair work were identified specifically in reports from Engineering Management Systems Inc. (EMS) and Chisholm Fleming and Associates Ltd (CFA); engineering firms retained by the PF&R to conduct damage inventories for all of the parks networks.

The findings of the report from EMS identified 102 bridges, and 160 damaged trails, pathways and embankments that sustained varying degrees of damage as the result of the storm event. Additionally, a separate study was conducted by CFA focused specifically on the assessment of the damage incurred at Edwards Gardens. This information was used in the development of the budget proposal package prepared by PF&R, for submission to City Council for approval.

The original cost estimates provided within the report for each of the recommended repairs identified was based on rough calculations of the quantity of materials required to repair the damaged sites, without consideration for design, planning and approvals, labour costs and annual price inflations associated with the actual implementation of the works over several years.

TRCA staff organized the development of a project management team consisting of representatives of the TRCA Restoration Services Division, City of Toronto, Parks, Forestry and Recreation Capital Projects, and Parks Maintenance Groups, and Toronto Water in order to ensure that repairs were carried out based on the priority of each site and within the approved budget allocation identified to return each of the sites to a state of good repair. The project management team worked in cooperation to develop a short-list of priority repairs to be completed as part of the City of Toronto Storm Damage Repair Project.

Edwards GardensFollowing the August 19

th

2005 storm event the City of Toronto retained the services of CFA to assess and report on the damages to Edwards Gardens that occurred as a result. The overall study conducted by CFA was for feasibility of rehabilitation and replacement of pedestrian bridges and related channel works. As part of the study, specialized consultants were retained by CFA to complete studies in fluvial geomorphology and aquatic habitat. Sexton McKay was also retained to conduct a detailed topographic survey of the area.

183

The results of these studies identified that the size and alignment of the Lawrence Avenue box culvert, the channel cross-section, the existing grade control structures, the uncontrolled water discharge and overall functionality of the watercourse through the formal park area, were key factors in the magnitude of the damage sustained to Edwards Gardens during the August 19, 2005 storm event.

Fourteen (14) key problem areas were identified in the CFA report including:Lawrence Avenue culvert;pedestrian bridges 1 – 6;west bank and pathway south of Lawrence Ave. culvert;concrete weir;online pond;large concrete weir (gated dam structure);armoured channel;tributary culvert;tributary channel;failed gabion baskets on west bank.

These items were addressed by TRCA staff, through major channel restoration and bridge replacement works that commenced in June 2007 and took approximately one year to compete. The works carried out included the reconstruction of 200 metres of embankment and associated trail along the west bank of the watercourse at the north end of the park, improvements to the channel configuration and the removal of a weir, and notching of a large dam to improve flow. Banks were sculpted and reinforced to improve the connection between the channel and the floodplain while adding a riparian buffer where possible to reduce flow velocity during storm events.

City-wide Bridges and TrailsFurther to this, the 102 bridges and 160 damaged trails, pathways and embankments that sustained varying degrees of damage as the result of the storm event as identified in the EMS report, were prioritized by the Storm Damage Project Management Team with the following projects ranking the highest level of priority to be addressed.

184

The project short-list by status is included here:

Storm Damage Project Short-list: StatusWilket Creek Site 1: BN52LD407-074 – Wilket Creek Park Bridge 7 CompletedWilket Creek Site 2: T & P - Pathway erosion CompletedWilket Creek Site 3: BN52LD406-073 – Wilket Creek Park Bridge 6 CompletedWilket Creek Site 4: BN52LD405-072 – Wilket Creek Park Bridge 5 & Drainage Culvert CompletedWilket Creek Site 5: T &P - Pathway & Embankment Repairs CompletedWilket Creek Site 6: BN52LD404-071 – Wilket Creek Park Bridge 4 CompletedWilket Creek Site 7: BN52LD403-070 – Wilket Creek Park Bridge 3 CompletedWilket Creek Site 8: BN52LD402-069 – Wilket Creek Park Bridge 2 CompletedWilket Creek Site 9: T & P - Debris Jam 1 CompletedWilket Creek Site 10: T & P - Debris Jam 2 CompletedRowntree Mills Park Bridge (BW44QC301-300) RestorationDerrydowns Parkland South Pedestrian Bridge #3 (BN47PC203-253) RestorationDerrydowns Park Pathway Repair and Debris Jam Removal (T & P 180) CompletedNorthwood Parkland Pedestrian Bridge #2 (BN47PD302-295) CompletedEast Don Parklands South Bridge #4 (BN52PB303-98 - #207 Burbank Drive) CompletedEast Don Parklands North Vehicle Bridge (BN52PB305 - Cummer Ave. Bridge) PlanningEast Don Parklands (German Mills Creek at Leslie St. & Alamosa Drive Sites) RestorationBirkdale Ravine Park Pedestrian Bridge 2 (BE56MB402-106) HOLDBrimley Woods Park (T&P 411) CompletedColonel Danforth Park Trail Realignment HOLDLower Don Bike Trail Realignment (P1176-TP) RestorationHague Park Pedestrian Bridge #2 (BE57LB302-135) CompletedCedarbrook Park Pedestrian Bridge #3 (BE57LB303-123) – Possible inclusion HOLDMorningside Park Vehicle Bridge (BE59MC103-338) – Possible inclusion HOLDGlen Rouge Park Bridge (BE60NB401-110) – Possible inclusion HOLD

The table illustrates 20 active projects by status of completion. The stages of the existing projects include:

Planning - design and approval phases of the project are underway;Restoration - construction is completed, but final site restoration is pending; Completed - all planning, construction and restoration are completed; and Hold - a site is on-hold pending availability of funding, permits and approvals, or direction from PF&R.

CONCLUSIONSThe partnership between TRCA and PF&R developed for the purpose of the Storm Damage Project has proven to be a successful collaboration, allowing a significant number of repairs to be completed in parkland areas within a relatively short timeframe. The cooperation of the project management team in the identification of works required to return at risk areas to a state of good repair, the prioritization of sites based on community and departmental needs; and in the implementation of works is a leading factor in the continued success of the project.

Upon completion of the remainder of the short-list projects identified under the Storm Damage Project, it is anticipated that the partnership and project management team will continue to work together in cooperation to identify and address future projects and initiatives that can be jointly managed by TRCA and the City of Toronto.

185

FINANCIAL DETAILSPF&R petitioned City Council to enter into a partnership agreement worth $5,000,000 with the TRCA to manage the prioritization, design, approvals and construction of restoration works recommended in the EMS and CFA reports. This petition was approved by the City of Toronto Budget Committee in the February 23, 2007 Decision Document.

$2,855,000 of that funding was allocated to the Storm Damage Project, with the understanding that all funding would be applied to the projects identified by the project management team. TRCA contributed in-kind resources for the management and implementation of works.

The remaining funds allocated to the Storm Damage Project under account 185-01 are allocated to storm damage related projects that are to be completed in 2009.

Report prepared by: Patricia Newland, 416-392-9690Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Patricia Newland, 416-392-9690Emails: [email protected]: May 03, 2009

_________________________________________

RES.#A85/09 - BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGEBlack Creek Historic Brewery. Follow up with boards of education regarding establishment of a brewery on site.

Moved by: Jack HeathSeconded by: Linda Pabst

THAT the staff report in regard to follow up with the boards of education about the addition of a brewery to Black Creek Pioneer Village be received.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDAt Executive Committee Meeting #10/08, held on December 12, 2008, Resolution #B167/08 was approved, authorizing the establishment and operation of a historic brewery and beer museum at Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV). During discussion regarding details of the brewery, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff was directed to contact the boards of education with schools participating in education programs at BCPV to see if they would have any issues or concerns about their school population visiting a site with an operating brewery.

Letters were sent in April 2009 to senior level contacts at the boards of education for Toronto, York, Peel and Durham, introducing the program and requesting feedback regarding any concerns educators may have with their students visiting the site. They were advised that guided school groups will not participate in any brewery tours or brewing demonstrations, however the topic of brewing is linked to aspects of social history and the history of trades depicted at the site.

186

No negative response has been received in the past six weeks, giving staff confidence that the program does not pose any issue to boards of education and the school group visitors they represent.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEAn opening ceremony for the historic brewery will be held in June, to which Authority members will be invited. After one year of operation, staff will report back to the Authority on the operation, as resolved at the December 12, 2008 Executive Committee meeting.

Report prepared by: Marty Brent, extension 5403Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Marty Brent, extension 5403Emails: [email protected]: May 13, 2009

_________________________________________

RES.#A86/09 - SEATON TRAIL AGREEMENTOntario Realty Corporation, Province of Ontario, CFN 42363. Receipt of recommendation approving Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to enter into an agreement with Ontario Realty Corporation for funding and construction of a portion of the Seaton Trail.


THAT the following Resolution #A35/09 approved at Authority Meeting #2/09, held on March 27, 2009, be received and become part of the public record:

THAT an Agreement with Ontario Realty Corporation, Province of Ontario, for construction of a portion of the Seaton Trail in the Regional Municipality of Durham, be approved;

THAT the Agreement be subject to terms and conditions satisfactory to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff and solicitor;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary actions to implement the Agreement including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDAt Authority Meeting #2/09, held on March 27, 2009, Resolution #A35/09 was approved in camera. Private minutes were retained as a record of this item at the meeting. For transparency, TRCA reports back on in camera items when they can become public so a record of the resolution appears in public minutes.

187

RATIONALEOntario Realty Corporation requested that this matter be kept confidential until such time as the necessary documentation had been finalized and signed. The Agreement is in its final form and is being executed, therefore this information can be released.

Report prepared by: Ron Dewell, extension 5245Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Ron Dewell, extension 5245Emails: [email protected]: March 30, 2009

_________________________________________

RES.#A87/09 - WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES


THAT Section IV items 7.12.1 - 7.12.3, inclusive, in regard to watershed committee minutes, be received.

CARRIEDSection IV Items 7.12.1 - 7.12.3, InclusiveHUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE

Minutes of Meeting #4/08, held on October 21, 2008Minutes of Meeting #1/09, held on January 20, 2009Minutes of Meeting #2/09, held on April 21, 2009

PARTNERS IN PROJECT GREEN STEERING COMMITTEEMinutes of Meeting #1/09, held on January 15, 2009

ROUGE PARK ALLIANCEMinutes of Meeting #2/09, held on April 3, 2009.

_________________________________________

ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06

RES.#A88/09 - APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS PURSUANT TO ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06

Moved by: Laurie BruceSeconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker

THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items 10.1 - 10.59, with the exception of 10.13 and 10.56, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #3/09, held on May 8, 2009, be received.

CARRIED _________________________________________

188

RES.#A89/09 - APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS PURSUANT TO ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06

Moved by: Mike Del GrandeSeconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker

THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items 10.13 and 10.56, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #3/09, held on May 8, 2009, be received.

CARRIED _________________________________________

TERMINATION

ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 1:05 a.m., on Friday, May 22, 2009.

Gerri Lynn O'ConnorChair

/ks

Brian DenneySecretary-Treasurer

Meeting - Authoritytrca.on.ca/dotAsset/40259.pdf · Iorfido-Sdao, Marisa , Supervisor, Diversity...

Documents

Transcript of Meeting - Authoritytrca.on.ca/dotAsset/40259.pdf · Iorfido-Sdao, Marisa , Supervisor, Diversity...