Authority Meeting Revised Agenda
#7/17 September 22, 2017 9:30 A.M. HEAD OFFICE, 101 EXCHANGE AVENUE, VAUGHAN Pages
1. MINUTES OF MEETING #6/17, HELD ON JULY 28, 2017 Link to Minutes
2. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
4. DELEGATIONS
5. PRESENTATIONS Added Item
5.1 A presentation by Megan Price, Policy and Project Advisor, Parks, Recreation 5 & Forestry, City of Toronto, in regard to the Toronto Ravine Strategy, as outlined in the City of Toronto staff report dated September 12, 2017, as available below. http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2017.EX27.8
6. CORRESPONDENCE
7. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
7.1 PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 20 BUILDING FOR TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
7.2 BRAMPTON RIVERWALK FLOOD PROTECTION ENVIRONMENTAL 27 ASSESSMENT 7.3 EASTERN AND BROADVIEW FLOOD PROTECTION DUE DILIGENCE AND 32 MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Award of Contract #10005518
7.4 BLACK CREEK DAM DREDGING PROJECT 35 Award of Contract #10005816 for Hauling and Disposal of Sediment
7.5 REFORESTATION SEEDLING PROCUREMENT, 2017-2021 39
7.6 OPEN INFORMATION AND DATA POLICY 42 Approval of Policy for Public Sharing
7.7 GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE NATURAL HERITAGE AND 47 AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS Responses to EBR Postings: 013-1014 and 013-0968 Listed as Report to Follow
8. SECTION III - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
8.1 HUMBER ARBORETUM AND CENTRE FOR URBAN ECOLOGY 62 2016/2017 Annual Report and 2017/2018 Business Plan
8.2 PUBLIC RECORD 63 Premier Parks, LLC, Authority Resolution #A74/16
9. MATERIAL FROM BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
10. MATERIAL FROM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING #6/17, HELD ON AUGUST 11, 2017 Link to August Executive Committee Minutes
10.1 SECTION II - ITEMS FOR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTION
10.1.1 REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY-OWNED LAND 14 Pickering/Scarborough Townline – City of Toronto, Rouge River Watershed CFN 33517 Page 340
10.1.2 EASTERN AND BROADVIEW FLOOD PROTECTION DUE DILIGENCE AND MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Award of Contract RFP#10001976 Page 346
10.1.3 STEP SMART ENERGY NETWORK CONSULTING Award of Contract Page 349
10.1.4 ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REFORM (BILL 139) Draft Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Comments Page 351
2 10.2 SECTION IV - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Receipt of Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, applications 10.1 - 10.8, which were approved at Executive Committee Meeting #6/17, held on August 11, 2017 Page 362
11. MATERIAL FROM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING #7/17 HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2017 Link to September Executive Committee Minutes
11.1 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
11.1.1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Highland Creek watershed Middlepark Estates Inc. CFN 55755 Page 395
11.1.2 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River watershed Futama Investment Corporation CFN 58394 Page 398
11.1.3 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Acquisition for the Riverhead Drive Erosion Control Project, Humber River Watershed 47, 49, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67 and 69 Riverhead Drive and 1 Katrine Road, City of Toronto CFN 51072 Page 401
11.1.4 NAMING OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ASSET Page 406
11.1.5 TORONTO WILDLIFE CENTRE Fundraising, Governance and Ownership Page 409
11.2 SECTION II - ITEMS FOR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTION
11.2.1 DON VALLEY DRIVE AND HILLSIDE DRIVE SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS AND EROSION RISK ASSESSMENT, CITY OF TORONTO Page 412
11.3 SECTION IV - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Receipt of Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, applications 10.1 - 10.6, which were approved at Executive Committee Meeting #7/17, held on September 8, 2017 Page 417
3 12. NEW BUSINESS
NEXT MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #8/17, TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 27 AT 9:30 A.M. AT HEAD OFFICE, 101 EXCHANGE AVENUE, VAUGHAN
Brian Denney, Chief Executive Officer
/jr
4
REPORT FOR ACTION
Toronto Ravine Strategy
Date: September 12, 2017 To: Executive Committee From: General Manager, Parks Forestry & Recreation; Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division; General Manager, Toronto Water Wards: All
SUMMARY
Toronto's ravine system is the city's greatest green asset. The scale and scope of this urban green space system – over 300 km and 11,000 hectares – makes Toronto the envy of large municipalities across the world. The Toronto Ravine Strategy is a new and inter-divisional framework for managing this amazing asset as a natural, connected sanctuary essential for the health and well-being of the City. This strategy provides, for the first time, an intentional and coordinated framework, vision and approach to management of this natural resource. The Toronto Ravine Strategy aims to ensure the protection of these irreplaceable lands is balanced with their use and enjoyment such that they continue to function and flourish for the next 100 years and beyond.
The Ravine Strategy sets a series of actions under five guiding principles: Protect, Invest, Connect, Partner and Celebrate. The 20 actions that support these principles will guide the management of the ravines over the coming years, helping to ensure they will continue to function and flourish for generations to come.
In a growing city, an increasing number of people rely on the ravines as their "backyards". There are also billions of dollars' worth of infrastructure – from roads to pipelines – in the ravines. The anticipated impacts of climate change, such as large scale storms, flooding and erosion will also put stress on the system. Increasing the resiliency of the ravines will, in turn, increase the resiliency of the City to face the challenges of the 21st century.
Through the application of the Ravine Strategy Prioritization Framework, the City will be able to prioritize areas where protecting ecosystems, controlling erosion, managing recreational use, improving access, and meeting and maintaining accessibility standards is needed. The framework will also start to identify opportunities for collaboration with internal and external partners and will identify projects to be considered in the development of the coordinated implementation and capital plan.
The Ravine Strategy will also create a philanthropic leaders table on ravines. The members of this table, the "Ravine Leaders" will develop a vision and framework to
Toronto Ravine Strategy Page 1 of 15 5 catalyze third party investments in the system's hubs, gateways and portals, as well as support actions to celebrate this unique asset.
We heard from thousands of residents, stakeholders and interest groups. The interest that the development of this strategy generated underscores how important and timely the Toronto Ravine Strategy is. Through the implementation of the actions in this strategy, the ravines will continue to support the high quality of life that the City has to offer to residents, visitors and businesses.
The next step will be to develop a comprehensive implementation framework to be presented for council approval in 2018. This plan will include work plans, timelines and deliverables for all 20 actions outlined in the strategy as well as associated costs to fully implement the strategy.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The General Manager, Parks, Forestry & Recreation, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, and the General Manager, Toronto Water recommend that:
1. City Council adopt the Draft Toronto Ravine Strategy as presented in Appendix A of this report;
2. City Council endorse the Ravine Strategy Prioritization Framework as presented in Appendix B of the report, and direct the General Manager, Parks, Forestry & Recreation, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the General Manager, Toronto Water, in consultation with General Manager, Transportation Services and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to apply the Prioritization Framework in developing future capital plans for ravine based projects, beginning with the 2019-2029 capital budget;
3. City Council direct the General Manager, Parks, Forestry & Recreation, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the General Manager, Toronto Water, in consultation with General Manager, Transportation Services and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to coordinate their respective capital plans to establish an interdivisional 10-year implementation strategy and capital plan for the Ravine Strategy and report back to Executive Committee in 2018;
4. City Council direct the Director of Toronto Office of Partnerships, General Manager, Parks, Forestry & Recreation, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the General Manager, Toronto Water, in consultation with the General Manager, Transportation Services and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to convene a table of "Ravine Leaders" to develop a vision for philanthropic and public engagement and a framework to raise third- party investment for capital improvements within the Toronto ravine system; and
5. City Council direct the Toronto Office of Partnerships to identify an appropriate Toronto-based charitable organization to provide administrative and fundraising Toronto Ravine Strategy Page 2 of 15 6
support to the Ravine Leaders, and authorize the Toronto Office of Partnerships to enter into an agreement with the identified organization on terms and conditions acceptable to the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, the General Manager, Toronto Water and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendations in this report can be adopted and implemented within current base Operating Budget resources and the projects included in the 2017 Capital Budget and 2018-2026 Capital Plan of the involved programs.
One permanent position in the Parks service of Parks, Forestry & Recreation will be assigned to support the ravine strategy to deliver the implementation plan and manage the working groups. Through realigning workload, ravine work will be streamlined under this position, rather than distributed among a number of staff members creating efficiencies to accommodate this effort. Thus, a more efficient assignment of work for ravine support can be achieved with no change in overall staff complement.
Future capital and operating funding, arising from additional implementation plans to be developed will be presented in a future report to Council. Capital work is actively being undertaken in the ravine system and is done within approved capital budgets of multiple city programs. However, since the capital budgets of the programs do not differentiate between the portion of a capital project that may be undertaken within the ravine system, and budget from the same project that is being undertaken outside of the ravine system, a comprehensive inventory of capital costs of projects undertaken in ravines is not possible at this time. The coordination of work and planning mandated through implementation of this ravine strategy will clarify resources currently dedicated to ravine work and will inform any requests for additional future funding.
The Deputy City Manager & Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report and agrees with the financial impact information
DECISION HISTORY
At its meeting June 16, 2016, the Parks and Environment Committee, in response to a presentation on the draft Ravine Strategy, requested that the General Manager, Parks, Forestry & Recreation include the following in the final report of Toronto's Ravine Strategy: a) plan for establishing and monitoring ecosystem health indicators; b) discussion of public school education opportunities; and c) a full description of the existing capital backlog. http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.PE12.1
COMMENTS
Toronto Ravine Strategy Page 3 of 15 7
Toronto's astounding network of ravines is among the largest in the world. The system is over 300km long, and covers 17% of Toronto's land area. Yet, Toronto's Ravines are at a crossroads. They are important natural spaces to preserve and protect as the city continues to grow. Historically used as conduits for infrastructure and storm water, they are some of the last natural refuges in the City. The pressures on the system are enormous and investment in managing use has not kept pace with growth. Although many City divisions have roles and responsibilities within the system, and there is considerable investment planned, this strategy is the first comprehensive, city-wide vision for Toronto's ravines that will guide how investment and work can be better coordinated.
This strategy aims to ensure that the ecological health of the ravines is fully protected while realizing the potential of the ravines. Toronto's ravines are more susceptible than ever to adverse impacts from overuse, invasive species, encroachment and climate change-related storms. Through this strategy's implementation, multiple City Divisions and stakeholders will coordinate to protect, manage and celebrate these 300kms.
Toronto’s ravine system includes six main watersheds — Etobicoke Creek, Mimico Creek, Humber River, Don River, Highland Creek and Rouge River. Four of these rivers have their headwaters in the Oak Ridges Moraine, connecting the city to the larger bioregional system. The ravines make up 17% of the city's land area and contain most of Toronto’s remaining natural areas and environmentally significant areas, including remnants of the native landscape, such as forests, meadows, wetlands and floodplains and many varieties of plants and animals including significant species. The ravines are protected through the Official Plan policies and Provincial regulations which prohibit development as well as the Ravine and Natural Feature Protection Bylaw which prohibits the injury or destruction of trees and filling, grading or dumping without a permit. Although they may appear to be natural spaces, many are highly disturbed areas which house highways, railways and hydro above ground as well as oil/gas pipelines, sewer lines and telecommunication wires underground. They are legislatively complex and there are many challenges to working successfully with all the partners and agencies involved.
Challenges Toronto is growing, with the downtown population expected to double over the next 25 years and an anticipated overall population of 3.4 million by 2041. Some of this intensification will be in proximity to the ravine system, such as the new mixed-use development proposed at Don Mills and Eglinton and Yonge and Eglinton which together will add close to 9,000 residential units. Many of these new residents will rely on the city's greenspaces for access to nature and outdoor recreation.
The ability of the ravines to convey storm and sewer water has been relied on for much of our city's history. However, with the large-scale storms that are anticipated as a result of climate change the impacts of these storms will be greater than before, putting the ravines at risk of flooding and erosion. As we have seen with the flooding that impacted the waterfront in the spring of 2017, protecting the billions of dollars' worth of infrastructure that is housed in the ravines is the most cost-effective way of ensuring the system stays resilient and robust and meets the needs of a growing and densifying city.
Toronto Ravine Strategy Page 4 of 15 8
Through consultation, residents also raised concerns regarding the difficulty of access, lack of awareness and sometimes fear of the ravines, concern for ecosystem health, impacts from over-use, poor condition of trails, and the lack of a bold vision for the ravines. Vision, Principles and Actions The vision of this strategy is to ensure a ravine system that is a "natural, connected sanctuary essential for the health and well-being of the City, where use and enjoyment support protection, education and stewardship".
This vision is supported by five principles to guide decision making in the ravines - Protect, Invest, Connect, Partner, and Celebrate. There are 20 actions that support these principles. These actions represent short, medium and long term goals and achievements and speak to both city-wide and local initiatives. The enumerated list of actions can be found in the executive summary of the strategy in Attachment 1.
Protect Every stakeholder group consulted in the development of this strategy emphasized that the protection of the system should be our number one priority. Actions outlined in the strategy to protect the system include: management plans for Environmentally Significant Areas, development and implementation of best practices, expansion of partnerships, and monitoring and reporting on ecological health.
At its June 16, 2016 meeting, Parks and Environment Committee requested that the Ravine Strategy include a 'plan for establishing and monitoring ecosystem health indicators'. Monitoring ecological health involves collecting data on physical, chemical, and biological variables over time to provide information on ecosystem change. The TRCA collects data throughout its valley lands, including the ravines in Toronto, based on accepted scientific protocols and best practices. Since 2008, the TRCA has monitored and periodically reported on a system of permanent plots to track ecological trends in ravines through the Terrestrial Long-Term Monitoring Program.
Through implementation of Action 5 of the Ravine Strategy, the City will continue to work with TRCA to monitor ecosystem health. A working group on Ecological Services will be established to refine ecosystem health indicators and it will include representation from the monitoring partners.
Invest Investment is key to ensuring that the ravines are safe, accessible and welcoming for residents and visitors to enjoy. Actions outlined in the strategy that support this principle include leveraging planned investment in infrastructure, developing a strategy to acquire key parcels for connections and/or buffers, and identifying important opportunities for hubs (areas for community engagement), gateways (entrances), and portals (views).
Toronto Ravine Strategy Page 5 of 15 9
The Capital and Planning Coordination Working Group, formed to support implementation of this strategy, will work to manage and coordinate investment and timing of capital projects (such as erosion, sewer and trail works) which are delivered by several City divisions and the TRCA. This will optimize resource efficiencies as well as environmental protection and remediation.
Connect Connecting people into the ravines must be done in a thoughtful and intentional way. If residents and visitors are not given proper access points and means to find their way around the system, further degradation of the ecology of the system will occur as people will continue to create unsanctioned trails and accesses, worsening erosion and damaging sensitive natural areas.
Actions under the principle 'Connect' include the Parks and Trails Wayfinding pilot in the Lower Don Valley, developing an implementation plan to address gaps and new connections, and, in collaboration with Indigenous communities and others, creating opportunities to honour and share stories of special and historic spaces and ways of relating to the natural environment.
Partner Land in the ravines is a patchwork of residential, commercial, institutional and industrial, owned by a number of different people, public and private entities. Partnership is crucial if this strategy is to be successful. Actions under the principle 'Partner' include: building opportunities and capacity to expand the Community Stewardship program, establishing a framework to further engage volunteer groups (such as 'Friends of' groups), and working with GTA municipalities and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to ensure best practices for portions of the watersheds that are beyond Toronto's boundaries.
Additionally, this report recommends the formation of a table of Ravine Leaders who will work to provide insight and advice on partnerships and public engagement as well as work to better leverage philanthropic giving with planned capital investments in the ravine system.
Celebrate No other city has a ravine system like Toronto. Expansion of stewardship and celebration activities already occurring in the system is essential if we are to foster respect and understanding of this astonishing asset.
At its meeting June 16, 2016 Parks and Environment Committee requested that the Ravine Strategy include a discussion on public school education opportunities. Currently, approximately 30,000 students use the ravines each year through formal and informal programs. Formal programs are where the City, in partnership with the TRCA and /or educational non-profit organizations, deliver educational programs to public school students. Examples include Forest Valley and Hillside Outdoor Education
Toronto Ravine Strategy Page 6 of 15 10
Centres, and Toronto Urban Studies Centre in Taylor Massey Creek. Informal programs are operated by schools or non-profits and operate outside of formal partnership agreements with the City or TRCA. While these are difficult to quantify, it is often the schools, camps and daycares close to ravines that use them informally as outdoor learning spaces.
Action 19 proposes the development of outreach plans that identify best practices and principles (such as 'Leave No Trace') for the public schools and others. Through the implementation of this strategy, a Partnerships, Outreach and Education working group will provide opportunities for community and educational groups to work together. Consultations The Toronto Ravine Strategy was developed through a public participation process including an on-line survey, a workshop, an open house and ten pop-up sessions throughout the city. It drew an unprecedented amount of interest, demonstrating the importance of the Ravines to many different people and groups. The consultation also included meetings with newcomer, disability, aboriginal and Métis communities, the Toronto Youth cabinet, and the Planning Review Panel. Staff also formed a Ravine Strategy Advisory Group to solicit advice and feedback from subject matter experts across many different fields and professions. The Ravine Strategy Advisory Group provided input and review of draft principles and actions over the course of 4 meetings.
The consultation identified the need to build connections between residents and ravines, to protect and enhance its natural features and functions, and to celebrate and invest in the ravine system. More information on the consultation phase of the Ravine Strategy development is available at www.toronto.ca/ravinestrategy. Current Approach & Capital Backlog At its meeting June 16, 2016 Parks and Environment Committee requested that the Ravine Strategy include a "full description of the existing capital backlog". The Capital Working Group has begun this analysis, however it is difficult to precisely determine interdivisional capital spending specific to ravines. Toronto Water, Parks Forestry & Recreation, Transportation Services, City Planning and the Toronto and Regions Conservation Authority (TRCA) all invest in the ravine system in major ways through both capital and operating budgets. Often, work that happens in ravines is part of larger plans and projects such as Toronto Water's Wet Weather Flow Master Plan, or Transportation Service's Trails Strategy, or Parks, Forestry & Recreation's state of good repair work, capital, or natural environment work. It is difficult to isolate the level of investment within these projects that is directed specifically to the Ravine system.
Toronto Water has, and continues to make significant investments to its infrastructure in the ravine system. Projects that Toronto Water undertakes in the ravines include combined sewer overflow control works, stormwater management, stream restoration and erosion control, and rehabilitation of aging infrastructure. Toronto Water has allocated close to one billion dollars in the approved 2017-2026 ten year capital plan on works which impact ravines and improve water quality in the City.
PF&R's Parks Branch, Urban Forestry Branch and Project Development & Capital Projects Branch all work in the Ravines. In Urban Forestry, this work includes trail plans
Toronto Ravine Strategy Page 7 of 15 11 and improvements, management plans, lookouts and wayfinding as small scale green infrastructure renewal projects such as bird blinds, interpretive signage or meadow restoration. This kind of work is funded through the capital budget at approximately $1M a year. Urban Forestry also runs community engagement programs which in 2006 engaged over 5,200 volunteers who do invasive species management, attend planting events and improve the long-term sustainability of naturalized areas.
Through funding provided by both PF&R and Toronto Water, Parks Branch undertakes ravine and watercourse management work at approximately $0.95M annually. This work clears Toronto Water outfalls in ravines of debris, removes encampments and cleans illegal dumping. It also clears debris in the city's watercourses that can accumulate along bridge abutments and potentially pose a flood risk.
In addition to work through Parks and Urban Forestry, PF&R has allocated $86M to projects in parks adjacent, or in ravines in the approved 2017-2026 10 year capital plan. This includes upgrades to buildings, bridges, pathways or other amenities which draw people from the street into the system and align to the strategy's actions to create hubs, portals and gateways.
Transportation Services Division builds multiuse trails through the city, including in the ravines. In 2012, the Transportation Services Trails plan was approved, which will improve connectivity into, and through the ravine system.
City Planning has also invested considerable resources over the past ten years to identify and designate Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) and assist with developing management priorities for ESAs.
TRCA owns much of the land in the ravines and plays an important role in management and engagement in the system. They are a critical partner whose watershed-focussed activities tie the ravines and rivers of Toronto to their headwaters north of the City. Toronto is downstream from an area undergoing unprecedented growth and change. TRCA is an invaluable link across the whole of these watersheds. They undertake work in ravines on erosion control, stream remediation and other restoration activities for both Toronto Water and Parks, Forestry & Recreation. Funding for this work is typically included within the capital budgets of PF&R, Transportation Services and Toronto Water, as reported above.
Through the implementation of this strategy, ongoing work, both capital and operating will be better aligned and leveraged to make the sum greater than the parts. Although every attempt will be made to streamline the capital process, and prioritize projects identified through the Prioritization Framework, division-specific priorities will also need to be accommodated, such as state-of-good repair projects to protect and extend the life of key infrastructure elements (such as sewer lining or bridges) or control stream erosion, and service improvement projects such as new trails, basement flooding protection projects, and receiving water quality improvement projects (such as Toronto Water's Don River and Central Waterfront project). It is anticipated that the timing and location of several of these projects will not necessarily correspond to the timing and location of priority ravine projects developed from the Prioritization Framework. For such projects, coordination of interdivisional capital projects will focus on defining integrated
Toronto Ravine Strategy Page 8 of 15 12 ravine projects, which, through the coordinated involvement of multiple divisions would deliver ravine benefits which are greater than the sum of the parts. Ravine Strategy Prioritization Framework Despite the investments that have been made and are planned, a higher level of investment and coordination is required if we are to preserve and protect these spaces and the infrastructure within them. Recognizing that work cannot be undertaken everywhere at once, the first step is to develop a framework to prioritize areas for investment. The Ravine Strategy Prioritization Framework will identify priority areas to guide future planning exercises aimed at ensuring the protection of these natural spaces, while offering safe and sustainable opportunities for people to connect with, contribute to, and celebrate the ravines. Recognizing areas of demand and vulnerabilities in our ravine system can help direct management efforts. Attachment 2 outlines the methodology and criteria proposed for this analysis.
Success Story: Mud Creek The City's Mud Creek Geomorphic Systems work demonstrates the successes that can be accomplished on a wide scale with the application of the Ravine Strategy principles. There has been a tremendous amount of intra- and inter- divisional background work and capital coordination which has fed into this project. Although the full project will take 15 years to complete, the Mud Creek project provides an example of what can be accomplished if more projects are approached in this holistic fashion, following the principles of the Ravine Strategy.
This project firstly involved rehabilitation of the Creek bed and banks which mitigate creek erosion, selective replacement of aging and even hazardous trees, some of which are invasive, with more appropriate riparian and native shrubs and trees, on a reach by reach basis and steep slope protection, using a phased approach. Elements of this ravine project have involved Parks, Forestry & Recreation, TRCA, Toronto Water and Transportation Services. This is the kind of foundational ecological and infrastructure work (represented by the strategy's principles of Protect and Invest) that must be undertaken before work to enhance experience and interface can proceed. At Mud Creek, this work will consist of enhancements of trails, and their connectivity within and into the system, improving access, wayfinding and integration into the city for this segment of the system. These improvements are represented by the principles of Connect and Celebrate in the Ravine Strategy.
A Vision for Public Engagement in the Ravines This report recommends that staff convene a table of Ravine Leaders to develop a vision and framework for philanthropy and public engagement in the system. These leaders will provide external insight on how the City can better engage those with an interest in the ravine system. This vision and framework will support public engagement in, and celebration of the system. These leaders will help to leverage philanthropic investment in the system, particularly in the identified hubs, gateways and portals that are so critical to people's first impression of the ravines. These investments may include capital campaigns, ravine day celebrations and educational and research opportunities.
Toronto Ravine Strategy Page 9 of 15 13
Building on the good engagement work that staff from the City and Conservation Authority already do, the Ravine Leaders will inspire people to become champions of their ravines. This work will leverage projects with philanthropic donations, as well as guidance for local stakeholders, schools and friends of parks groups to celebrate the ravines through community events, and local engagement. Through the development of an engagement framework, these ravine leaders will facilitate opportunities for stakeholders to connect with the system, to animate the spaces to take ownership of, and to be engaged, connected participants in the ravine system.
Ravine Strategy Implementation Plan and Interim "quick wins" With approval of this strategy, planning for full implementation can begin almost immediately. Through the realignment of existing resources, staff capacity will be dedicated to developing the Ravine Strategy Implementation Plan, which is anticipated to come forward to council in 2018 for approval. The Implementation Plan will include the results of the Prioritization Framework, with some identified projects, as well as a plan to improve capital coordination of existing projects. It will also include work plans, timelines and deliverables for all 20 actions outlined in the strategy as well as associated costs to fully implement the strategy.
In the interim, with approval of this strategy, work will commence on implementing some of the "quick wins" outlined in the report including:
Strengthening the coordination between multiple city divisions and external stakeholders through the formation of three working groups (actions 2, 5, 6): The capital working group The ecosystem services working group The celebration and partnership working group Applying the Prioritization Framework and identifying priority investment areas used in developing future capital plans for ravine based projects (action 8) Developing, with the Ravine Leaders, a framework and vision to leverage philanthropic support in specific ravine enhancement projects (action 17) Begin coordinating capital plans of impacted divisions to leverage planned investments (action 6) Piloting the Toronto Parks & Trails wayfinding strategy in the Lower Don parklands (action 11) Preliminary ecosystem services analysis to begin to determine the market and non- market value of the naturalized parkland in the city (action 7) Indigenous placemaking framework to honour and share stories of cultural and historical significance (action 13) Management planning for ESAs (action 1) Developing benchmarks and goals to define success throughout implementation
While these "quick wins" represent some short term opportunities for improvement, most of the actions outlined in the strategy will require long term planning and ongoing effort. Timelines and work associated with these actions will be outlined in the
Toronto Ravine Strategy Page 10 of 15 14
Implementation Plan. This work will likely require additional resources, and the report will identify those needs which will be considered in the 2019 budget process.
Conclusion Toronto's astounding network of ravines is among the largest in the world. The system is over 300km long, and covers 17% of Toronto's land area - 1.3 times the area of Manhattan. It is the heart and soul of a remarkable natural environment system that originates north of the city and spills out of the river valleys into the city's parks, neighbourhoods and urban landscape, eventually emptying into Lake Ontario.
With population growth, new development and climate change putting increased pressure on ravines, this strategy to guide their future protection, management, use, and enhancement is critical. This strategy will mark the first comprehensive, multi- divisional, inter-agency document that will guide where, what, and who should be involved in natural space and asset management in Toronto's Ravines.
In the short term, staff will be realigned to achieve some "quick wins", prioritize new areas for investment, convene and support a table of Ravine Leaders, as well as develop a robust, long-term implementation plan and associated costs.
In the long term, implementation of this strategy will result in better coordinated investments in the system, new and innovative opportunities for partnership, celebration and education, creating better connections the natural environment for all residents and visitors.
At its essence, implementation of this Ravine Strategy will help navigate the fine line between protection and use, and identify and prioritize the actions and investments needed. It will help connect residents and visitor into the system, streamline capital coordination between divisions, allow the city to leverage planned investments, celebrate what we have, and, most importantly ensure that everyone can enjoy these extraordinary places for decades to come.
CONTACT
Richard Ubbens, Director, Parks, Parks, Forestry & Recreation [email protected], 416 392-7911
Jane Welsh, Project Manager, Strategic Initiatives, Policy & Analysis, City Planning, [email protected], 416 392-9709
Bill Snodgrass, Senior Engineer, Toronto Water, [email protected], 416- 392-9746
Brian Denney, CEO, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, [email protected] 416-661-6600
SIGNATURE
Toronto Ravine Strategy Page 11 of 15 15
Janie Romoff Jennifer Keesmaat Lou Di Gironimo, General Manager MES, MCIP, RPP, General Manager Parks Forestry & Chief Planner and Toronto Water Recreation Executive Director City Planning Division
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Draft Toronto Ravine Strategy Attachment 2: Prioritization Framework As part of the Toronto Ravine Strategy, the City has developed a methodology to identify priority areas to guide future planning exercises aimed at ensuring the protection of these natural spaces, while offering safe and sustainable opportunities for people to connect with, contribute to, and celebrate the ravines. Recognizing areas of demand and vulnerabilities in our ravine system can help direct management efforts.
Actions 8 & 9 of the Ravine Strategy direct staff undertake studies and develop plans, as needed, to implement improvements in these areas, including the development of ‘hubs’ within or ‘gateways’ or ‘portals’ into our ravine system based on planned investments and the Priority Investments Areas Study.
The Ravine and Natural Feature Protection Bylaw boundary was used to delineate the City’s ravine system. This includes creeks, valley slopes to top of valley slope and contributing natural heritage features. The ravine system was then subdivided into individual parcels utilizing the TRCA’s valley segment classification system which: a) partitions the watercourses into valley segments, and b) classifies the segments into distinct morphological units. The delineation of the valley segments was achieved by dividing the valley system by distinct physical elements including hydrography (catchment size), stream slope and surficial geology. Distinct geological units, stream order and major confluences further refine the partitioning. Catchment size, slope and soil structure were then used to characterize each segment. This segmental breakdown of the ravine system, was then overlaid with Provincially Significant Wetlands, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest and Environmentally Significant Areas to ensure that these protected areas are wholly within any given parcel. Small sections of ravines fragmented from the main contiguous system were grouped into the nearest associated unit being considered and evaluated as part of that parcel.
This methodological framework will identify priority areas based on the Ravine Strategy's vision and principles. This tool will allow staff to prioritize segments for investment both now, and into the future. The matrix that has been developed for this analysis weighs criteria in the following categories:
Toronto Ravine Strategy Page 12 of 15 16
Ecology & Landform criteria are the foundation of the analysis, and will identify areas requiring a higher level of protection and management to protect and enhance their environmentally significant qualities, including: areas of high ecological significance designated in Toronto’s Official Plan or by the province, including Environmentally Significant Areas, Provincially Significant Wetlands, and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest known locations of sensitive species with ecologically-appropriate buffers areas where restoration has recently taken place or has been identified for future work canopy cover presence of interior forest habitat
Infrastructure, such as trunk sewer lines, erosion control structures and multi-use trails located in the ravines need to be maintained. Criteria for this category in the framework included: the presence of this infrastructure planned maintenance and capital works areas where there are existing high maintenance needs
Intensification & Growth criteria include proximity to expected growth areas undergoing major planning studies as well as approved developments near ravines where additional density can be anticipated. These criteria inform where we can expect to see additional people using the ravines and additional pressures in near future.
Parks & Green Space criteria help to identify areas where there is currently a lot of human activity that may need investment to improve safety and sustainability of the use, including: existing recreational facilities and parking lots intensity of existing use of ‘ad hoc’ trails from crowd-sourced data
Experience and Quality criteria look at the quality of the experience for park users, opportunities to animate these spaces, and importance of these spaces to the surrounding neighbourhood. Data to be considered include: lack of culture and recreation facilities nearby social equity, such as adjacency to low income neighbourhoods heat vulnerability of adjacent neighbourhoods where ravines can serve as cooler, shaded areas for recreation and commuting
Interface criteria look at how the ravines connect to the city, including the number of access points and how people can get into them.
Each category of criteria within the matrix is weighted to reflect their importance in the framework and our ravine system, with ecology most important therefore the highest weighted, with interface least critical to the function of the ravines, therefore weighted the lowest. Figure 1 shows the matrix and criteria.
Toronto Ravine Strategy Page 13 of 15 17
Figure 1 - Prioritization Framework criteria Scores are assigned to each parcel by GIS analysis of the data based on high/medium/low or yes/no ranking representing the criteria in the framework. A long list
Toronto Ravine Strategy Page 14 of 15 18 of sites will be identified and will then be run through a secondary criteria matrix that still follows a weighted framework with ecology as the most important category. Criteria on habitat quality, potential for flood impacts, upcoming capital work on infrastructure, ownership, level of nearby expected intensification, social equity and opportunities to improve access allow a finer scale analysis to identify the final list of Priority Investment Areas.
Priority Investment Areas will be selected based on this framework and criteria matrices. These sites comprise the priorities for new implementation projects of the five principles set out in the Ravine Strategy – Protect, Invest, Connect, Partner and Celebrate. The Priority Investment Areas will: prioritize additional studies and data collection to ensure any actions proposed work to first and foremost protect and/or enhance the ecology of these sites focus coordination of capital work between City divisions and external partners, such as the TRCA identify opportunities to improve facilities within parks and access points into the ravines in a manner that limits impacts to the natural environment allow the City and ravine leaders to work together on opportunities to celebrate and animate our ravines in a manner that respects the ecological integrity of these spaces
These Priority Investment Areas will not all be homogenous. Different drivers will emerge as to why an area is a priority and, as such, management efforts will not be identical for each area. Actions in some areas may focus more on protection while other areas may present greater opportunities to animate and celebrate the ravines while diverting human impacts away from more sensitive natural areas. The process for identifying Ravine Priority Investment Areas is not a static one. Just as ravines are dynamic systems, so must be our focus and efforts to protect and improve these spaces. Not only will new priorities need to be identified once current improvements to an area are complete, but also unpredictable storm events, infestations of invasive species and other significant events may require a shift in priorities. The framework will allow for this, but can also be updated as new data becomes available, such as findings from climate change assessments.
The application of the Ravine Strategy Prioritization Framework across the system will define opportunities to establish holistic improvements in specific ravine segments which address priorities created around the five principles to guide decision making in the ravines - Protect, Invest, Connect, Partner, and Celebrate. Projects identified in the Priority Investment Areas will catalyze public engagement new investments in the ravine system.
Toronto Ravine Strategy Page 15 of 15 19 Item 7.1
Section I – Items for Authority Action
TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #07/17, Friday, September 22, 2017
FROM: Mike Fenning, Associate Director, Property and Risk Management
RE: PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING FOR TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Request for Proposal #10004424 ______KEY ISSUE Award of contract for Architectural, Landscape Architecture and Professional Engineering Services to provide final design and support through the site plan, tendering and construction of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s new administrative office building located at 5 Shoreham Drive, Toronto.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Contract #10004424 for Architectural, Landscape Architecture and Professional Engineering Services in support of the construction of an Administrative Office Building for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) be awarded to ZAS Architects Inc. and Bucholz McEvoy Architects Ltd. in joint venture for a total cost not to exceed $3,533,860 plus HST, as they are the highest ranked proponent resulting from evaluation criteria set out in the Request for Proposal (RFP);
THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary;
THAT should staff be unable to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement with the above-mentioned proponent, staff be authorized to enter into contract negotiations with the next highest ranked proponent;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents.
BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/16, held on June 24, 2016, Resolution #A85/16 approved the construction of an administrative office building at 5 Shoreham Drive in Toronto and directed staff to take the necessary action to complete the Project, including the submission of formal requests for approval to the participating municipalities and the Province of Ontario. On February 24, 2017, staff reported at Authority Meeting #1/17 that all six of TRCA’s participating municipalities, by way of their respective Councils, had approved the Project and the allocation of $60,000,000 in new and existing capital funding toward the Project.
On March 27, 2017 staff submitted a formal request to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to seek Minister’s approval of the rate of interest, pursuant to the requirements of Section 3(5) of the Conservation Authorities Act and to satisfy the lending conditions of a financial institution for funds to be borrowed for the Project. An interest rate not to exceed 3.75% on the funds to be borrowed to finance the construction of the building was approved by the Chief Administrative Officer of MNRF on August 14, 2017.
20 Item 7.1
In March 2017, TRCA also sought approval from the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry to allocate approximately $10 million to the Project from existing and future land sale disposition proceeds, inclusive of the provincial and TRCA share of the revenue. TRCA received a response to this request on August 28, 2017 advising that it was the Minister's decision to not grant an exemption to the Ministry's Generated Revenue Policy to enable the use of funds from land dispositions in support of TRCA’s Project.
The explanation provided is that the Generated Revenue Policy reflects and supports the understanding between the province, municipalities and conservation authorities (CAs) around provincially eligible and provincially and municipally cost shared projects for CAs. The capital projects identified for capital reserve fund use reflect the shared provincial/municipal CA mandate (natural hazard management) including major maintenance of flood control structures and flood and erosion capital projects and related studies.
The explanation also indicated the Minister's decision reconfirms and reinforces the understanding of what are the eligible provincial/municipal cost shared activities for CAs and ensures the provincial investment left with TRCA and generated revenue will be available to be applied to the capital projects identified for reserve funding.
MNRF staff did however encourage TRCA to explore funding opportunities available from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s Green Investment Fund as well as potential future funding from MNRF's Innovation Market Development Section, Forest Industry, that could support the Project’s proposed use of engineered lumber sourced in Ontario. Staff will continue to investigate other funding opportunities for the Project including the ones provided by MNRF staff as well as opportunities to reduce the overall cost of the Project through the final design process.
RATIONALE A Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSQ) for Architectural, Landscape Architecture and Professional Engineering Services was issued via Biddingo on May 11, 2017 to invite firms to pre-qualify to provide final design and support through the site plan, tendering and construction of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s new administrative office building.
On June 9, 2017, TRCA received submissions by service area as follows:
Architectural Design 1. AECOM Canada Architects Ltd. 2. B+H Architects 3. Diamond Schmitt Architects 4. DTAH Architects Ltd. & Adamson Associates Architects 5. HOK Architects Corporation 6. Kearns Mancini Architects Inc. 7. Montgomery Sisam Architects Inc. & Michael Green Architecture 8. Moriyama & Teshima Architects 9. Quadrangle 10. Stantec Consulting Ltd. 11. Sweeny & Co Architects 12. ZAS Architects & Bucholz McEvoy Architects in joint venture
Landscape Design 1. AECOM Canada Ltd. 2. B+H Architects
21 Item 7.1
3. DTAH 4. NAK Design Strategies 5. PLANT Architect Inc. 6. PMA Landscape Architects 7. Schollen & Company Inc. 8. Stantec Consulting Ltd. 9. WSP Canada Group Ltd.
Civil Engineering 1. AECOM Canada Ltd. 2. LEA Consulting Ltd. 3. Mooney Metaxas Engineering Inc. 4. SCS Consulting Group 5. Stantec Consulting Ltd. 6. The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. (TMIG) 7. WSP Canada Group Ltd.
Electrical Engineering 1. AECOM Canada Ltd. 2. Integral Group 3. Mulvey & Banani International Inc. 4. Smith and Andersen Consulting Engineering 5. Stantec Consulting Ltd. 6. WSP Canada Group Ltd.
Mechanical Engineering 1. AECOM Canada Ltd. 2. Integral Group 3. Smith and Andersen Consulting Engineering 4. Stantec Consulting Ltd. 5. TMP Consulting Engineers 6. WSP Canada Group Ltd.
Structural Engineering 1. AECOM Canada Ltd. 2. Blackwell Structural Engineers 3. Entuitive and Moses Structural Engineers 4. Fast + Epp and LEA Consulting 5. IRC Building Sciences Group 6. Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. (rjc Engineers) 7. SBM 8. Stantec Consulting Ltd. 9. WSP Canada Group Ltd.
22 Item 7.1
An RFSQ Evaluation Kick-off Meeting was held on July 5, 2017 to explain the process to the evaluators. Following receipt of the submissions, TRCA staff undertook a compliance review to ensure conformance with the mandatory requirements as outlined in the RFSQ and evaluated the overall quality of the proposals. As result of this process NAK Design Strategies’ submission was disqualified for failure to provide a complete and executed copy of Table 1 that acknowledges receipt of the addenda and the acceptance of the terms and conditions of the RFSQ. All firms were subsequently notified of the results of the compliance review and the next steps and timeline associated with the evaluation process. A technical evaluation was then carried out by the evaluation teams comprised of the following TRCA staff:
Engineering Firms Evaluation Team (Civil, Electrical, Mechanical, Structural) Albert Thomas, Construction Project Manager Aaron D’Souza, Senior Manager, Major Contracts Mike Fenning, Associate Director, Property and Risk Management
Architecture and Landscape Firms Evaluation Team (Architect and Landscape) Carolyn Woodland Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications Michael Tolensky, Deputy Chief Financial Officer Steven Heuchert, Associate Director, Planning and Development
Evaluation scoring sheets were completed by each individual evaluator and signed and submitted on July 11, 2017 to TRCA’s project manager, Jones Lang LaSalle Real Estate Services Inc. (JLL). Evaluation scores were compiled by JLL, and weighted scoring results were provided to TRCA. On July 12, 2017, JLL facilitated a consensus meeting with the entire evaluation and Project Management team to achieve a consensus scoring that was agreed upon by all evaluators.
The following are the pre-qualified firms that were identified as a result of this process as the top five proponents by service area responding to RFSQ# 10004424 (listed in alphabetical order):
Architectural Design DTAH Architects Ltd. & Adamson Associates Architects Montgomery Sisam Architects Inc. & Michael Green Architecture Moriyama & Teshima Architects Quadrangle ZAS Architects & Bucholz McEvoy Architects in joint venture
Landscape Design AECOM Canada Ltd. DTAH PLANT Architect Inc. PMA Landscape Architects Schollen & Company Inc.
Civil Engineering AECOM Canada Ltd. SCS Consulting Group Stantec Consulting Ltd. The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. (TMIG) WSP Canada Group Ltd.
23 Item 7.1
Electrical Engineering Integral Group Mulvey & Banani International Inc. Smith and Andersen Consulting Engineering Stantec Consulting Ltd. WSP Canada Group Ltd.
Mechanical Engineering AECOM Canada Ltd. Integral Group Smith and Andersen Consulting Engineering Stantec Consulting Ltd. WSP Canada Group Ltd.
Structural Engineering Blackwell Structural Engineers Fast + Epp and LEA Consulting Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. SBM WSP Canada Group Ltd.
On July 14, 2017, TRCA released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to invite the pre-qualified consultants to prepare and submit a separate technical and fee proposal. Proposals were received by TRCA on August 15, 2017 from the following teams in alphabetical order:
DTAH Architects Ltd. and Adamson Associates Architects, with DTAH providing landscape design services, WSP providing civil engineering, Integral Group providing mechanical and electrical engineering, and Blackwell providing structural engineering support. Montgomery Sisam Architects Inc. and Michael Green Architecture, with PLANT Architect Inc. providing landscape design services, WSP providing civil engineering, Smith and Andersen providing mechanical and electrical engineering, and Blackwell providing structural engineering support. Moriyama & Teshima Architects, with PLANT providing landscape design services, SCS Consulting providing civil engineering, Integral Group providing mechanical and electrical engineering and Fast + Epp and LEA providing structural engineering support. Quadrangle Ltd., with PLANT providing landscape design services, WSP providing civil engineering, Smith and Andersen providing mechanical and electrical engineering and Read Jones Christoffersen providing structural engineering support. ZAS Architects Inc. and Bucholz McEvoy Architects Ltd., with Schollen & Company providing landscape design services, TMIG providing civil engineering, Integral providing mechanical engineering, Mulvey & Banani International Inc. providing electrical engineering and Read Jones Christoffersen providing structural engineering support.
A compliance review of the submitted proposals was completed to ensure conformance with the mandatory requirements as outlined in the RFP. All submissions were confirmed to be in conformance and the potential proponents were notified on August 15, 2017 of the results of the compliance review and the next steps in the process, including the details of the potential interview process.
24 Item 7.1
The Selection Committee consisted of TRCA staff including Mike Fenning, Steven Heuchert, Laura Stephenson, Michael Tolensky and Carolyn Woodland. An Evaluation Kick-off Meeting on August 16, 2017 was facilitated by JLL to explain the evaluation process. The Committee then reviewed and evaluated the proposals based on the following technical criteria: Proponent’s Understanding, and Proposed Approach and Methodology for the Services; Proponent’s Team, Organization, Roles and Responsibilities; Unique Challenges and Opportunities Represented by the Site and the Schematic Design; Lessons Learned from Similar Projects; Schedule for Delivery of Services.
Evaluation scoring sheets were completed by each individual evaluator and signed and submitted on August 22, 2017 to JLL to be compiled. The results were then prepared by JLL using a weighted scoring system consisting of 80% based on the technical review of the proposal, including 15% of the value of the points the Architectural Prime Proponent team earned during the Request for Statement Qualifications phase, and the remaining 20% based on the fee proposal calculated by JLL using the following formula: Number of Points = Lowest Fee / Proponent Fee x 20 points.
On August 23, 2017, JLL facilitated a consensus meeting with the Selection Committee to achieve a consensus scoring on the submitted technical evaluation results compiled by JLL. Following completion of this process JLL provided the weighted scoring results for discussion and finalization by the Selection Committee and sought feedback on any outstanding questions or clarifications that may be outstanding.
On August 24, 2017, ZAS Architects Inc. and Bucholz McEvoy Architects Ltd. were requested to provide a short presentation to provide an overview of their proposal and to clarify key questions by the Selection Committee that arose during the evaluation consensus meeting.
The final results of the evaluation of received proposals are as follows: Proponent Fixed Fee Rank ZAS Architects Inc. and Bucholz McEvoy Architects Ltd. $3,533,860 1 Montgomery Sisam Architects Inc. and Michael Green Architecture $3,750,885 2 Moriyama & Teshima Architects $4,070,000 3 DTAH Architects Ltd. and Adamson Associates Architects $2,948,700 4 Quadrangle Ltd. $2,810,765 5
Based on the evaluation process it was determined that the technical proposal and fee proposal submitted by ZAS Architects Inc. and Bucholz McEvoy Architects Ltd. was the highest rank proposal meeting the needs of TRCA’s Project and offering the best value for services.
FINANCIAL DETAILS The final design and site plan approval process will be undertaken between October 2017 and into early 2019, followed by construction and commissioning phases that will conclude in 2021. The cost of the contract is $3,533,860, plus 10% contingency, plus HST. Funds are available in the Capital Budget for the contract period of 2017 – 2021, in account 006-50.
25 Item 7.1
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA will be delivering this project by utilizing an integrated design process, involving the expertise of a comprehensive design team, including key TRCA staff, the design team and other specialists to realize a highly efficient, cost effective building, and reduced long-term operating and maintenance costs. TRCA will also engage the expertise of a construction manager and material suppliers during the design process to ensure that construction of the building is delivered without any unnecessary delays. The key phases of the project milestones are as follows:
Milestone Date / Duration Architectural Design Phase Oct 2, 2017 – July 16, 2018 Site Plan Approval Apr 2, 2018 – Feb 4, 2019 Tender Contract Documents July 30, 2018 – Feb 1, 2019 Award Construction Contract Mar 4, 2019 – May 24, 2019 Construction June 17, 2019 – Mar 1, 2021 Occupancy Mar 1 – 2021 – June 1, 2021
Report prepared by: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Mike Fenning, extension 5223 Emails: [email protected] Date: August 30, 2017
26 Item 7.2
Section I – Items for Authority Action
TO: Chair and Members of the Executive Committee Meeting #7/17, Friday, September 22, 2017
FROM: Nick Saccone, Senior Director, Restoration and Infrastructure
RE: BRAMPTON RIVERWALK FLOOD PROTECTION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ______KEY ISSUE Direction to proceed with the Brampton Riverwalk Flood Protection Environmental Assessment as co-proponents with the City of Brampton.
RECOMMENDATION
WHEREAS Recommendation #18 in “Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks (2002)”, states, in part, “That the [Etobicoke Creek] river be diverted at Brampton…” in order to address flooding, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and integrate trails through the area;
AND WHEREAS staff from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), with the support of the City of Brampton, have completed the following: a Flood Protection and Remedial Capital Works Strategy (May 2013) which highlighted Special Policy Area (SPA) #3 as the 4th most significant flood vulnerable area in TRCA’s jurisdiction; a Comprehensive Flood Risk and Management Analysis for SPA #3 (2014); and the Downtown Brampton Flood Protection Feasibility Study (July 2016) which identified potential options for addressing the flood risk in SPA #3;
AND WHEREAS the City of Brampton, with the support of TRCA, is currently undertaking a Flood Remediation Feasibility Study that will identify existing urban drainage infrastructure deficiencies, assess the urban drainage system performance with the short listed flood protection solutions identified in the 2016 Flood Protection Feasibility Study, and will provide the City and TRCA with a list of recommendations to address urban drainage deficiencies and provide further refinements to the short listed flood protection solutions;
AND WHEREAS the City of Brampton is advancing plans to revitalize the Downtown Brampton area through an initiative called Brampton Riverwalk;
AND WHEREAS the Brampton Riverwalk revitalization is dependent on the implementation of a flood protection solution for the Downtown Brampton SPA #3;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff, in collaboration with the City of Brampton, be directed to undertake an Environmental Assessment (EA) in order to confirm a preferred alternative that will eliminate the risk due to flooding from Etobicoke Creek, to the Downtown Brampton SPA #3, the EA referenced herein as the Brampton Riverwalk Flood Protection EA (or BRFP EA);
27 Item 7.2
THAT the BRFP EA be used to further explore, in part: enhancements to aquatic and terrestrial habitats associated with Etobicoke Creek in the Downtown Brampton area; integrate with municipal servicing and transit; provide opportunities to enhance the Downtown Brampton public realm; and to allow the broader revitalization activities called Brampton Riverwalk to flourish;
THAT TRCA staff be directed to seek $1.5 million in funding from the federal National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) for the BRFP EA, contingent on matching funds being provided from TRCA (provided by the Region of Peel’s Climate Budget (2018 and 2019) for flood remedial studies) and the City of Brampton (seek $1,000,000 of funding from the City of Brampton 2018-2020 capital budgets);
THAT, upon authorization of funding, staff be directed to retain consultants deemed necessary to undertake the BRFP EA, in accordance with TRCA’s Purchasing Policy;
THAT staff establish, as appropriate, Technical Advisory and Community Liaison Committees to support the BRFP EA process;
THAT staff be directed to collaborate with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA) throughout the BRFP EA process to streamline issues resolution and approvals;
THAT staff be directed to explore mechanisms, such as a Memorandum of Understanding with City of Brampton, outlining the respective roles and responsibilities for each agency throughout the BRFP EA;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to implement contracts, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents.
BACKGROUND Between 1854 and 1952, the historic downtown Brampton was subject to nearly annual occurrences of flooding. In 1952, the Etobicoke-Mimico Creek Conservation Authority constructed a trapezoidal concrete-lined bypass channel, which was designed to convey up to the 100 year return period storm event. This channel has been very effective in eliminating the occurrence of flooding to the downtown area since that time, including the remnants of Hurricane Hazel in 1954.
Despite the concrete bypass channel’s success in effectively eliminating the occurrence of low to moderate magnitude flooding from Etobicoke Creek to the downtown core of Brampton, Brampton does remain vulnerable to flooding during flood events above the 350 year storm. Over the decades, Brampton’s downtown core has developed to now provide major institutional, residential, commercial, cultural and recreational land uses, all of which remain vulnerable to flooding under these extreme events.
28 Item 7.2
To allow for the continued viability of the downtown core and to address the significant social and economic hardships that would result from strict adherence to provincial one zone flood plain management policies, the Province of Ontario approved SPA #3 in 1986 for Downtown Brampton in conjunction with the Brampton Secondary Plan (OP84-058). Provincial one zone flood plain policies are the most restrictive policies as it relates to land use within a floodplain. The SPA was developed in recognition that areas with current and historical land uses within the floodplain would result in significant economic hardship if a strict one zone policy designation was applied in those areas. As such the SPA is used to restrict new intensified land uses from occurring in those areas, but still allows for existing or similar uses to occur. TRCA supported the SPA designation and produced a boundary that was reflective of the limit of the floodplain as it was known at that time. Since then, the City has experienced significant growth and development pressures within the SPA.
In 2011, the City of Brampton, in collaboration with TRCA, submitted a package to the Province to amend the policies and boundaries of the SPA #3. Between 2011 and 2013, TRCA provided a number of technical updates to support the City’s SPA submission to the Province including:
a Flood Protection and Remedial Capital Works Strategy (presented in Resolution #A88/13 at Authority Meeting #3/13, held on May 24, 2013) that identified the Downtown Brampton SPA #3 as being TRCA’s #4 priority flood vulnerable area in the TRCA jurisdiction; and a Comprehensive Flood Risk and Management Analysis of the Downtown Brampton Special Policy Area based upon the 2012 Etobicoke Creek hydrology update as summarized in Resolution #A233/13 at Authority Meeting #11/13, held on January 13, 2014.
In 2013, TRCA, with the support of the City of Brampton, initiated the Downtown Brampton Flood Protection Feasibility Study. This study was completed in July 2016, and suggested a short-list of alternatives that could be used to address the risk of flooding from Etobicoke Creek to the Downtown Brampton SPA. The Feasibility Study concluded that the majority of stand-alone works would not entirely permanently eliminate the risk due to flooding from Etobicoke Creek to the Downtown Brampton SPA, and as such, some combination of the following individual works would likely be required: flood protection landforms upstream and potentially downstream of the concrete channel; lowering the concrete channel; improving the channel form conditions at the downstream end of the concrete channel; improving bridge crossings over the river.
Greenfield stormwater management and individual flood proofing were also suggested in the Feasibility Study but it was recognized that neither would contribute to the permanent removal of flood risk to the Downtown Brampton SPA.
TRCA and the City of Brampton will work with the Province to explore the use of these flood protection measures in developing a permanent flood protection solution for the Downtown Brampton SPA. The preferred combination will have to conform to MNRF guidelines and policies, and the TRCA and City of Brampton will work closely with the MNRF throughout the EA process in order to ensure that it does.
A second feasibility study under the direction of the City (with TRCA support) is currently underway to explore how to manage the impacts of the short-list of flood protection alternatives on urban run-off in the SPA. The results of this study are anticipated near the end of 2017.
29 Item 7.2
The City of Brampton has developed a Riverwalk vision for the downtown core, the goals of which are to create new vibrant public spaces and amenities, release new energy and growth through community revitalization, and enhance the attraction, character and identity for the community. In order to undertake this ambitious project, the implementation of a permanent solution for addressing flood risk to the Downtown Brampton SPA is required.
Building upon the last four years of extensive technical and policy related studies for flood management, which included defining the dynamics of flooding within the downtown core and identifying potential solutions to flood risk, the City of Brampton has requested TRCA join them as co-proponents on an EA to determine a preferred flood protection solution that will enable the realization of Brampton’s Riverwalk dream. At the same time, the identification of a permanent flood protection solution will enable TRCA to advance towards an Etobicoke Creek where “…people to live in harmony with the environment, where the water is clean, where green open spaces are vital and connected, and where fish and wildlife thrive”, (Vision for “Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks”, 2002).
RATIONALE TRCA, as owners of the concrete trapezoidal channel, have long been aware of the initial and residual flood risks associated with the Downtown Brampton SPA. TRCA has also been long aware of the environmental impacts that the concrete channel has imposed on the quality of fish and wildlife habitat and the lack of public access to the Etobicoke Creek in this area, as was identified in Greening Our Watersheds, and more recently in the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watersheds: Technical Update Report (2010).
TRCA supports the City of Brampton’s desire to revitalize their historic downtown area through the implementation of their bold steps for the Brampton Riverwalk. The implementation of the City’s revitalization efforts remains contingent on determining a permanent solution for flood protection, which also takes into consideration the potential impacts of climate induced changes in stream flow, extreme weather and associated flood risk in the area.
FINANCIAL DETAILS Proposed budget is as follows:
Funding Source Proposed Amount TRCA (Region of Peel Climate Budget) $200,000.00 (2018 budget) $300,000.00 (2019 budget) City of Brampton $1,000,000.00 Federal Government (NDMP) $1,500,000.00 Total $3,000,000.00
Project costs will be tracked through the 193 series of accounts to be established for this Project.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The works to be undertaken include:
Remainder of 2017 until March 2018 Establish a Memorandum of Understanding and Project Charter between TRCA and the City of Brampton; Obtain funding for the EA process;
30 Item 7.2
Collaborate with City and TRCA staff involved with the second feasibility study; and Retain consultants for the EA.
April 2018 until March 2019 Undertake the Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference (EA ToR) process to determine the scope for the EA process, including the requisite Indigenous, public, stakeholder and agency engagement; Undertake any necessary Existing Conditions studies required for the EA process (archaeology, planning, traffic and socioeconomic studies, ecological studies, servicing, etc.); Submit a draft and final EA ToR for public review; Address issues raised through the EA ToR process.
April 2019 until April 2020 Undertake the EA as per the conditions of the approved EA ToR, including the requisite engagement program and incorporation of landscape design into the preferred solution to address public realm and sustainability considerations; Complete all technical studies in support of the EA; Submit a draft EA for public and agency review and comment;
May 2020 until March 2021 Submit the final EA for public and agency review and comment.
Report prepared by: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: [email protected] Date: August 31, 2017
31 Item 7.3
Section I – Items for Authority Action
TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #7/17, Friday, September 22, 2017
FROM: Nick Saccone, Senior Director, Restoration and Infrastructure
RE: EASTERN AND BROADVIEW FLOOD PROTECTION DUE DILIGENCE AND MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Award of Contract #10005518 ______KEY ISSUE Award of Contract #10005518 for professional consulting services related to the planning and management of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, as part of the Eastern and Broadview Flood Protection Due Diligence and Municipal Class EA.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Contract #10005518 for professional consulting services related to the planning and management of a municipal class environmental assessment (EA) as part of the Eastern and Broadview Flood Protection Due Diligence and Municipal Class EA, be awarded to Dillon Consulting Limited at a total cost not to exceed $290,002.00, plus HST, it being the highest ranked proposal for value meeting TRCA’s specifications;
THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 30% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be authorized and directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing of documents.
BACKGROUND At Toronto City Council Meeting #27, held on March 28, 2017, the Planning and Growth Management Committee Report PG18.6 was adopted, within which the Deputy City Manager, Cluster B, was directed to commence, together with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC), the Eastern and Broadview Flood Protection Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Recommendation 4).
At Authority Meeting #5/17, held on June 23, 2017, Resolution #A104/17 was approved, in part, as follows:
…WHEREAS the City of Toronto and TWRC have requested that TRCA lead a Due Diligence and Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study, which will be undertaken to identify a flood protection solution to remove the remaining flood risk to these 8 ha of urban land north of the elevated Metrolinx railway embankment;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA enter into a Delivery Agreement with TWRC to undertake the Due Diligence and Class EA studies;…
32 Item 7.3
A Delivery Agreement between TRCA and TWRC is currently under review between the two co-proponents, with an approved overall budget of $1.8 million. This includes Class EA planning, management, and engineering consulting services in support of identifying a potential flood protection solution for the Eastern and Broadview Class EA.
In support of the Class EA, TRCA requires qualified project management and technical support in the development of a Municipal Class EA, which, in coordination with the project management and other consultant teams, will involve informing the design, evaluation and integration of potential flood protection solutions, cost estimation services, planning support, and public and stakeholder engagement services, among other deliverables. The review and synthesis of various technical reports in support of the EA process, and leading the write-up and production of a Due Diligence Report or, if applicable, a Municipal Class EA document, will be a major responsibility of the consultant. The scope of this work will include an initial due diligence phase (Stage 1) which may lead to an expedited Class EA process (Stage 2) if the Port Lands Executive Steering Committee (a committee of senior staff from the City of Toronto, TWRC and TRCA that meets on a monthly basis to provide executive level decisions on issues related to Port Lands development) deems that viable solutions, from an impact and cost perspective, are identified during Stage 1.
TRCA will lead a project management team consisting of staff from TRCA, the City and TWRC to ensure that the studies are coordinated with the large number of initiatives that are currently underway in the project area. These include, but are not limited to, the Gardiner EA, Port Lands and South of Eastern Class EA, Metrolinx Transit Project Assessment Process, Toronto Transit Commission Subway Relief Line planning, the detailed design of the Don River and Central Waterfront Project, and TRCA’s Don River Watershed Hydrological Modeling review.
RATIONALE Request for Proposal (RFP) #10005518 was released via Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) to all potential bidders on July 13, 2017, with a total of three firms submitting proposals in advance of the 10:00 a.m. submission deadline on August 2, 2017 (Table 1).
Table 1. List of consultants who submitted proposals and associated fees Firms Fee Proposal (Plus HST) Dillon $290,002.00 Amec Foster Wheeler $298,430.00 AECOM $385,441.00
All four members on the evaluation committee, consisting of staff from TRCA and TWRC, received copies of the submitted proposals on August 2, 2017. At the proposal evaluation meeting held on August 22, 2017, consensus was reached between all members of the committee that the proposal submitted by Dillon Consulting Limited offered the best service for the best value.
The criteria used to evaluate the submissions and to select the successful consultant included the following: Overall conformance of proposal submission package with the terms of the RFP; Understanding of project scope of work; Experience of firm working on projects of similar scope and budget; Expertise of staff and appropriate allocation of resources;
33 Item 7.3
Approach and methodology of work plan, including innovative ideas, identification of project limitations, and proposed solutions; Clear and well thought out schedule and timelines to achieve project objectives; and Detailed cost breakdown, including an itemized cost of additional works anticipated beyond the approved budget.
FINANCIAL DETAILS The creation of a sub-project within the City of Toronto’s Waterfront Revitalization Initiatives 2017-2026 Capital Budget and Plan has been recommended in order to cover the full cost of the Eastern and Broadview Flood Protection Municipal Class EA. Funding will be tracked through a series of 191-70 accounts.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA, TWRC and the City of Toronto will work as co-proponents to identify a viable flood protection solution for the area north of the railway embankment. The project will consist of a two stage process:
a) Stage 1: Due Diligence stage that will follow Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process, minus the public engagement elements of the study to confirm that a viable alternative can be established; and b) Stage 2: Undertaking the formal Municipal Class EA process if directed to proceed by the Executive Steering Committee – it will be reconfirmed whether a Schedule B or C Class EA is required at this time.
For the above-mentioned works, TRCA requires the support of several consultant teams in order to fulfill the requirements of the EA planning and design process. Three consultant teams will lead the implementation and management of the required services and will coordinate with each other in order to 1) characterize the environmental, geotechnical and hydrogeological subsurface conditions of the project area; 2) carry-out hydraulic modeling and design services of the various flood protection solutions under consideration; and 3) provide planning and engineering support in the development of the due diligence and Class EA documents. RFPs have been released and firms selected and approved to lead Tasks 1 and 2. Dillon Consulting Limited is recommended as the consultant to lead the Task 3 services outlined in RFP#10005518.
Report prepared by: Corey Wells, extension 5233 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: [email protected] Date: July 27, 2017
34 Item 7.4
Section I – Items for Authority Action
TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #07/17, Friday, September 22, 2017
FROM: Nick Saccone, Senior Director, Restoration and Infrastructure
RE: BLACK CREEK DAM DREDGING PROJECT Award of Contract #10005816 for Hauling and Disposal of Sediment ______KEY ISSUE Award of Contract #10005816 for the hauling and disposal of approximately 7,600 tonnes of sediment to be removed as part of the dredging works upstream of the Black Creek Dam located at the western extent of Downsview Dells Park in the City of Toronto.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Contract #10005816 for the hauling and disposal of approximately 7,600 tonnes of sediment as part of the dredging works for the Black Creek Dam Dredging Project, in the City of Toronto be awarded to Loc Pave Construction at a total cost of $332,500.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications;
THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance, if deemed necessary;
THAT should staff be unable to achieve an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted quotations, beginning with the next lowest bidder that meets TRCA specifications;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such actions as are necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents.
BACKGROUND In 1959, TRCA constructed the Black Creek Dam to control Black Creek in the flood prone area of Jane Street and Sheppard Avenue West following the drafting of the Plan for Flood Control and Water Conservation and Hurricane Hazel in 1954. The dam attenuates high flows prior to reaching the Oakdale Golf & Country Club located west of Jane Street. Large stones make up the bulkhead, weir crest, stilling basin and spillway of the dam structure. Downstream of the stilling basin, the watercourse flows through a linear rip-rap lined channel for approximately 120 metres before meeting up with the natural channel.
Over time, sediment accumulated and vegetation grew in the area upstream of the dam’s inlet. A significant amount of this sediment was deposited at the project site following severe weather events in 2005 and 2013 after heavy rains resulted in major wash-outs and valley slope erosion upstream.
35 Item 7.4
In 2017, TRCA will be restoring the water holding capacity of the dam and cleaning out the culvert inlet by removing deposited sediment, clearing vegetation, and removing woody debris and garbage that has accumulated at the dam. Once the dredging and maintenance works are complete, the channel from the inlet to approximately 70 metres upstream will be reshaped and stabilized through installation of vegetated rock buttresses, armourstone weirs and channel bed protection measures that are appropriate for the local flow regime. Furthermore, the floodplain and portions of the staging area will be re-naturalized with a comprehensive restoration plan that features over 1,000 native tree and shrub plantings. Finally, a permanent access ramp will be formalized over the dam to facilitate regular minor maintenance of the dam’s culvert structure.
RATIONALE Upon comparison of the existing conditions topographic survey with the original design drawing, it was estimated that approximately 7,600 tonnes of sediment has accumulated on-site since the dam was constructed. This material will be removed from the area upstream of the dam as part of the proposed dredging and channel works.
Soil chemical testing determined that the soil to be removed off-site is classified as non-hazardous, however it is considered to be contaminated, exceeding Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Residential/Parkland/Institutional as well as Industrial/Commercial parameters for Benzo (a), Pyrene and Benzo (b) fluoranthene. As such, before the award of the contract and to ensure that the contaminated sediment will be disposed of in accordance with MOECC requirements, all forms associated with Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS) 180 will be submitted to TRCA to verify that the disposal facility is licensed to accept this material. Prior to transporting the sediment, a Certificate of Approval for a waste management system from the hauler and a Certificate of Approval for a waste disposal site from the disposal facility are required to be provided to TRCA’s contract administrator. During the works, the contractor will provide a bill of lading ticket for each load from the approved disposal facility. TRCA will also obtain all insurance documentation as requested in the Request for Tender (RFT) including current pollution liability insurance in the amount of two million dollars from the contractor.
The RFT for Contract #10005816 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on August 14, 2017 with 18 contractors being registered as full document takers. A mandatory site visit was held on August 22, 2017 to which the following seven companies attended: Di-Corp; Glenn Windrem Trucking; Loc Pave; Superior Disposal; Terranova; TMI; United Rentals.
The RFT closed on August 31, 2017 and the Procurement Opening Committee opened the Tenders same day with the following results:
36 Item 7.4
CONTRACT #10005816 TENDER RESULTS BIDDERS TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT (Plus HST) Loc Pave Construction $332,500.00 Superior Disposal $349,600.00 Glenn Windrem Trucking $387,500.00
TRCA staff reviewed the bids against its own cost estimate and determined that Loc Pave Construction‘s bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements and deliverables as outlined in the contract documents. As such, TRCA staff recommend that Loc Pave Construction be awarded Contract #10005816 for the hauling and disposal of approximately 7,600 tonnes of sediment from the Black Creek Dam Dredging Project for a total cost not to exceed $332,500.00, plus a 10% contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting TRCA’s specifications.
Under TRCA’s 10 Year Strategic Plan (2013-2022), this project is aligned with Leadership Strategy #2: Manage our Regional Water Resources for Current and Future Generations, as the proposed works will contribute to the resiliency of our water systems by removing a significant amount of contaminated soils and woody debris that has accumulated at the dam, and restoring the flood plain with native, riparian vegetation. The removal of sediment will also restore the original function of the dam thereby mitigating flood risks within the area. The proposed vegetated rock buttresses and channel bed stabilization measures along the inlet channel will reduce erosion along its length, reducing sediment release and encouraging improved aquatic health.
FINANCIAL DETAILS All funding for this project is provided by the City of Toronto through the capital Flood Control Maintenance project within account 107-26.
Report prepared by: Sarah Gates, 647-539-5132 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Ashour Rehana, 647-808-6542 Emails: [email protected] Date: September 1, 2017 Attachments: 1
37 Attachment 1
SHEPPARD AVE W
JANE ST
^#
Bla ck Creek Project Location
Legend
DURHAM ^ ProjectLocation Watercourses YORK PEEL Floodline RegulationLimit SITE F ^TORONTO TRCAProperty Lake Ontario 0 150 300 Parcel AssessmentParcel Meters 38 KeyMap © Queen’s Printer for Ontario and its licensors. [2017] May Not[2017] ©Queen’sbe Reproduced licensors. PrinterOntario forits andNOTwithout THIS ISPLANA Permission. OF SURVEY. Item 7.5
Section I – Items for Authority Action
TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #7/17, Friday, September 22, 2017
FROM: Nick Saccone, Senior Director, Restoration and Infrastructure
RE: REFORESTATION SEEDLING PROCUREMENT, 2017-2021 ______KEY ISSUE Approval of a preferred source contract with Somerville Nurseries Inc., to supply seedlings for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's planting program.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the contract for the supply of reforestation seedlings for the 2017 – 2021 program years be awarded to Somerville Nurseries Inc. on a preferred source basis, at a total cost not to exceed $150,000 plus applicable taxes, per program year, it being the supplier that can provide the product which best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications at an acceptable price;
THAT the contract be on terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and, as necessary, solicitor;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to take the action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents.
BACKGROUND TRCA has a long history of tree planting and reforestation programs, and on average, since 2001, plants 33 hectares of land per year. To accomplish this, TRCA utilizes a variety of plant material, including bare root whip stock, potted container stock, as well as reforestation seedlings. This plant material comes from both the TRCA’s Native Plant Nursery and the open market. The majority of this material is made up of reforestation seedlings and on average totals about 50,000 seedlings a year.
Somerville Nurseries has been the largest and most reliable supplier of seedling stock in southern Ontario. For more than 10 years it has been TRCA's primary supplier of seedling stock, with some additional seedlings being procured from other smaller growers throughout the Province of Ontario. Somerville Nurseries is also the main supplier of seedling to TRCA’s major project partners including Trees Ontario and adjacent conservation authorities.
TRCA, in partnership with other Greater Toronto Area conservation authorities (Credit Valley, Nottawasaga Valley, Lake Simcoe Region and Halton Region) has been coordinating the purchase of reforestation seedlings as a means of supplying their individual program requirements. While each conservation authority forecasts its own requirements independently, orders are coordinated to ensure that Somerville Nurseries offers equivalent unit pricing (below market list) to the conservation authorities, providing each the benefit of combined purchase pricing.
39 Item 7.5
At Executive Committee Meeting #7/08, held on September 5, 2008, Resolution #B101/08 was approved, in part, as follows:
…THAT staff be authorized to negotiate terms satisfactory to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff with Somerville Nurseries Inc. to ensure an uninterrupted supply of reforestation seedlings based on TRCA seedling demand forecasts to provide for program and project needs to December 31, 2009;...
At this meeting, approval was granted for the purchase of seedlings for 2009 planting projects, and for staff to negotiate with Somerville Nurseries Inc., for the growing of material for 2010 and 2011. Approval was also granted to extend the seedling demand forecast to include the projected requirements for an additional five year period (2012-2016), along with the approval to purchase these seedlings provided pricing remains favourable, and funding is available.
RATIONALE Somerville Nurseries Inc. has a long history of supplying conservation authorities’ requirements for consistent quality reforestation stock in the south and central Ontario regions. For more than 10 years it has been TRCA's primary supplier for seedling stock, with some additional seedlings being procured from other smaller growers further afield, when necessary. The only other potential supplier of these seedlings identified by staff is located in Kemptville Ontario, over four hours away. During planting season, seedlings are often picked up twice daily making this other supplier much less feasible, especially considering the higher pricing. Somerville is conveniently located less than 60 minutes away from the TRCA’s nursery office.
Tree seedling production usually requires a four year commitment from both the supplier and buyers, due to the time required to collect and sow seed and grow the seedlings to the required sizes. TRCA would like to reaffirm its commitment with Somerville Nurseries through 2017 – 2021 to ensure an uninterrupted supply of tree seedlings to meet TRCA's projected demands for programs and projects.
Tree seedling purchases from Somerville Nurseries for program years 2015 and 2016 averaged $93,000, annually, before taxes. Indications are that the demand in 2017 and 2018 will exceed that average.
Somerville Nurseries Inc. continues to offer TRCA the best combination of: consistent seedling quality; seed zone and genetic source control; locally collected native seed, locally grown seedlings; excellent unit pricing; ability to provide for identified stock - species, size, type, age-class; flexibility to meet last minute demand for additional stock; convenience as the most local supplier; and willingness to work with conservation authorities to achieve seedling target demand.
Staff is recommending awarding the seedling supply agreement for a further five years to ensure that there is not a shortfall in seedling inventories which would negatively affect TRCA’s future reforestation planting commitments. Failure to take such action may result in scheduling delays and/or cancellation of orders for reforestation stock. The net result could mean a reduction in planting effort.
40 Item 7.5
FINANCIAL DETAILS All costs associated with the procurement of reforestation stock are recovered from the end user program or project, in the year in which the seedlings are purchased and delivered. Funds have been allocated in individual project/program budgets.
Somerville Nurseries Inc. requires a 25% deposit (standard terms) to confirm the spring seedling order by December 31st of the previous year.
Report prepared by: Mary Jane Moroz, extension 5649, Ralph Toninger, extension 5366 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] For Information contact: Mary Jane Moroz, extension 5649 Ralph Toninger, extension 5366 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] Date: August 25, 2017
41 Item 7.6
Section I – Items for Authority Action
TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #7/17, Friday, September 22, 2017
FROM: Kathy Stranks, Senior Manager, Corporate Secretariat
RE: OPEN INFORMATION AND DATA POLICY Approval of Policy for Public Sharing ______KEY ISSUE Approval of the Open Information and Data Policy which is intended to provide guidance and direction on the creation of an open information and data system for TRCA as a whole.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Open Information and Data Policy, as outlined in Attachment 1, be approved.
RATIONALE The Open Information and Data Policy outlines the principles, roles and responsibilities related to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA’s) efforts to make information, documents and data, routinely available in machine readable format for any public use. The Policy supports TRCA’s Strategic Plan through the creation of opportunities to openly share data and knowledge for public use, and is consistent with the “open government” approach being taken by many federal and provincial agencies, regional municipalities and some conservation authorities.
The purpose of the Policy is to provide guidance and direction to TRCA staff on the creation of an open information and data system for TRCA as a whole. The Policy is to remove barriers and set the rules by which TRCA information and data are made available to the public as valuable, machine readable datasets.
Many of TRCA’s information assets are currently publically available on the TRCA website www.trca.ca, however many datasets collected and maintained by TRCA are only available by request. The intent is to make more (select) datasets readily available to the public for increased transparency and to increase efficiency by making regularly requested data available online for immediate access and use.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Open Data and Information Team will work with staff and TRCA’s Data and Digital Technology Committee to develop procedures relating to the implementation of the Policy, and will be responsible for the review and screening of information and data to be made available through this system.
Currently a page on the corporate website has been created to consolidate information that is presently available (eg. Authority minutes) along with additional TRCA information and policies that may be of interest to the public. Additional corporate information and datasets will be reviewed and added to the website, if appropriate, along with a corporate open data license that has been developed and reviewed by TRCA’s solicitors. This policy will also be added to this developing webpage.
42 Item 7.6
A longer term objective is to implement a more robust online portal for sharing data and information more broadly. This will be developed in consultation with TRCA’s municipal partners and stakeholders to integrate with other systems as appropriate. Staff is currently liaising with the City of Toronto, York Region and Conservation Ontario regarding the development of a corporate open data/information process and have been contributing metadata (information about TRCA’s datasets) to facilitate awareness and sharing of information among these agencies. Similar work and discussions will be undertaken with other partners and stakeholders as TRCA’s system evolves.
Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264, Scott Jarvie, 289-268-3941 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264, Scott Jarvie, 289-268-3941 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] Date: August 29, 2017 Attachments: 1
43 OPEN INFORMATION AND DATA POLICY
Category Application to the General Public or Have Significant Implications Approved by Authority Approval date (last amendment) September 22 2017 Approval resolution (if applicable) Eg. A5/16 Responsible Business Unit Corporate Secretariat (Who Authored) Responsible program manager Kathy Stranks/Jason Ramharry (For Implementation) 416-661-6600 ext. 5264 and 5216 [email protected] and [email protected] Review Cycle 2 Years Date Required by: 22/09/2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ...... 2
1. PURPOSE ...... 2
2. AUTHORITY ...... 2
3. SCOPE ...... 2
4. POLICY STATEMENTS / ACTION ITEMS ...... 2
4.1. Guiding Principles ...... 2
5. AUDIT COMPLIANCE ...... 3
6. DEFINITIONS ...... 3
44 PREFACE
The Open Information and Data Policy outlines the principles, roles and responsibilities related to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA’s) efforts to make information, and data readily available in machine readable format for any use. The Open Information and Data Policy supports Strategy 8 of TRCA’s Strategic Plan – Gather and share the best urban sustainability knowledge, through the creation of opportunities to openly share data and knowledge for public use.
TRCA routinely gathers information in the research it has done; this gathering is funded publically so TRCA feels an obligation to make it publically available. TRCA wants to expedite and facilitate making this collected information readily accessible so that it may be put to use.
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to provide –guidance and direction to staff on making information available using an open information and data system for TRCA as a whole. The Open Information and Data Policy is to set the protocols by which TRCA information and data are made available to the public.
TRCA may publish information and data online to improve transparency and public participation, enhance access to TRCA services, and ultimately strengthen transparency and contribute to a healthier and more sustainable region
2. AUTHORITY
This policy may be updated, revised or rescinded by the Authority.
3. SCOPE
This policy applies to all data and information aspects of TRCA’s business.
4. POLICY STATEMENTS / ACTION ITEMS
4.1. Guiding Principles
4.1.1. TRCA will share information and data while adhering to rights of privacy, security and confidentiality and TRCA’s commercial interest, as identified in the Conservation Authorities Act, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and other legislation, as applicable.
4.1.3. TRCA will identify existing and potential information and data for release as part of the policy which includes new and existing datasets, publication of information and data, and maintain legacy data and information as per TRCA’s Records Management Policy;
4.1.4. TRCA will endeavour to make information and data available in a timely manner.
Open Information and Data Page 2 45 4.1.5. Use of data by external parties is subject to the conditions of use outlined in a Data Sharing Agreement. The Information and Privacy Officer, designated by the Chair of the Authority as the corporate lead for management of records, or their delegate is responsible for open information and data release, awareness, training and issue resolution, and for maintaining the Open Data Licence.
5. AUDIT COMPLIANCE
Procedures and guidelines pursuant to the Open Information and Data Policy shall be developed to ensure audit implementation compliance. Supervisors are accountable for ensuring compliance with this policy.
Where Executives determine they cannot comply with their roles and responsibilities outlined in the Open Information and Data Policy they shall bring their non-compliance issues to the Data and Digital Technology Committee for review. The Chair of the Committee will recommend to the Information and Privacy Officer an agreed upon course of action.
6. DEFINITIONS
Data - facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.
Dataset - a collection of raw, non-manipulated data usually presented in tabular form with associated metadata, and which is machine readable.
Data Sharing Agreement – a document that identifies the terms and conditions upon which TRCA data may be used and distributed – including an appropriate disclaimer and requirement for acknowledgement of the source of the shared data.
Information - Information is data that has been converted into a meaningful and useful context, usually in the form of a document, web application, video or some other media file.
Open Data - data that can be freely used, reused and redistributed by anyone - subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and share alike.
Open Information – documents and other information not considered data that can be freely used, reused and redistributed by anyone - subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and share alike.
Open Information and Data Page 3 46 Item Clerk to insert #
Section I – Items for Authority Action
TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #7/17, Friday, September 22, 2017
FROM: Carolyn Woodland, Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications
RE: GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE NATURAL HERITAGE AND AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS Responses to EBR Postings: 013-1014 and 013-0968 ______KEY ISSUE Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s draft response to the Province of Ontario as it relates to the proposed criteria, methods and mapping for a Regional Natural Heritage System and the draft Agricultural System mapping and implementation procedures.
RECOMMENDATION
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff has reviewed the Province of Ontario’s proposed criteria, methods and mapping for the regional Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and draft mapping of and implementation procedures for the Agricultural System for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and Greenbelt Plan areas;
AND WHEREAS TRCA staff has drafted two letters detailing TRCA’s comments on the two proposed systems, to be finalized and submitted by the Environmental Bill of Rights of Ontario (EBR) deadline of October 4, 2017 (Attachments 1 and 2);
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the staff report on TRCA’s draft comments to the Province for a Regional Natural Heritage System (EBR # 013-1014) by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and on the draft Agricultural System mapping and implementation procedures (EBR # 013-0968) by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs be endorsed;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA’s municipal partners, Conservation Ontario and neighbouring conservation authorities be so advised.
BACKGROUND The Province recently completed the coordinated review of the four provincial land use plans for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) and, in doing so, released revised versions of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan), Greenbelt Plan, Niagara Escarpment Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, which are in effect as of July 1, 2017. TRCA staff provided a summary and initial staff observations of the four updated provincial plans released by the Province on May 18, 2017, as approved by Resolution #A124/17 at Authority Meeting #5/17 held on June 23, 2017.
47 Item Clerk to insert #
Building upon recommendations put forward by an advisory panel for the coordinated review led by David Crombie, the Province proclaimed, through the release of the amended plans, that they would lead the development and mapping of both an Agricultural System and a Natural Heritage System (NHS) across the GGH by the summer of 2017. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) was identified as the lead to draft criteria and methods and develop mapping for the NHS for the GGH beyond the Greenbelt Area. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) was tasked with working with municipalities and stakeholders to develop and map an Agricultural System to protect Ontario’s supply of farmland and support its agri-food sector.
On July 6, 2017, OMAFRA and MNRF simultaneously posted the proposed Agricultural System (EBR# 013-0968) and the proposed criteria, methods and mapping for the NHS (EBR# 013-1014) for public comment on the Environmental Registry. In addition to the Province’s request for comments, Conservation Ontario (CO) has requested TRCA’s comments (September 15, 2017) in advance of the Province’s comment submission deadline of October 4, 2017. As many of the objectives of the Agricultural and Natural Heritage Systems are co-dependent, this staff report will summarize and provide key recommendations on both EBR postings concurrently.
Natural Heritage System NHSs are described as being made up of natural heritage features and areas (core areas) linked by natural corridors (linkages) to maintain biological and geological diversity, natural functions, and viable populations of indigenous species and ecosystems. Mapping the environmental landscapes that make up the NHS is of particular importance for areas of the GGH such as TRCA’s jurisdiction that have high fragmentation and habitat loss.
Through the EBR posting, the MNRF released and requested public consultation on a Summary of Criteria and Methods and proposed map (Fig. 3 of the Summary Report), as well as an online map viewer, of the proposed NHS for the Growth Plan for the GGH. As indicated in the Summary Report, a more comprehensive “Technical Report” with a detailed description of methods and data sources is available on request from MNRF. TRCA staff contacted MNRF and received this document on July 12, 2017 and immediately circulated it for review and comment.
The proposed NHS was developed based on guiding principles and criteria regarding the composition and size of core areas and linkages. The total area of the proposed NHS is approximately 1.18 million ha, or 45% of the Growth Plan area (excluding settlement areas). It does not extend into settlement areas or the Greenbelt, which make up a significant portion of TRCA’s jurisdiction. Within TRCA’s jurisdiction, the Growth Plan NHS has been proposed in a number of small areas between the Greenbelt and the urban (settlement) area. The majority of these areas abut the existing Greenbelt NHS, while some adjoin official plan settlement designations. Most of these additions appear to have been included as part of the final review and refinement process after core areas and linkages had been identified.
Agricultural System The provincial land use plans define the Agricultural System as a group of inter-connected elements that collectively create a viable, thriving agricultural sector. It has two components:
1. An agricultural land base comprised of prime agricultural areas, including specialty crop areas, and rural lands that together create a continuous productive land base for agriculture; and
48 Item Clerk to insert #
2. An agri-food network which includes infrastructure, services and assets important to the viability of the agri-food sector.
Through the EBR posting, OMAFRA released the following three products that support the implementation of the Agricultural System policies in the updated provincial plans:
1. Draft Implementation Procedures for the Agricultural System that will guide municipalities and others on how to implement Agricultural System policies in their communities; 2. A web-based Draft Agricultural System Portal containing extensive mapping of the agricultural land base and agri-food network components, which can be used to identify existing agri-food assets and clusters for economic development purposes. The maps will also inform Agricultural Impact Assessments (i.e. assessment of potential adverse impacts from non-agricultural uses to the Agricultural System and how impacts can be avoided); and 3. Draft Agricultural Land Base Map, which includes the Greenbelt Plan’s two specialty crop areas, existing municipally designated prime agricultural areas, additional prime agricultural areas identified using the Land Evaluation and Area Review, and “candidate areas” that municipalities have the flexibility of designating as primary agricultural areas or rural lands. The agricultural land base mapping may be refined by municipalities in accordance with the Agricultural System Implementation Procedures.
Draft TRCA Comments and Key Recommendations
Natural Heritage System Below is a summary listing from Attachment 1 of TRCA’s recommendations for MNRF’s consideration on the proposed regional NHS.
TRCA recommends that: The regional NHS for the GGH integrate municipal and conservation authority NHS data to avoid the perception of the regional NHS as a higher “tier”, provincial-level NHS, undermining the value of existing local NHSs; Additional context be added to the introductory sections of the technical report and summary document, including the goals and objectives of the NHS; recognition of the role of local NHSs given their importance for highly urbanized jurisdictions like TRCA; clarification on how the proposed NHS relates to other provincial NHS development initiatives; recognition of the importance of ecosystem restoration and green infrastructure in achieving the objectives of the NHS; and recognition of the impacts of climate change and their relation to the NHS; The development of the NHS be informed by a set of ecological guiding principles alongside the proposed process-based principles; Three of the proposed guiding principles be edited to better acknowledge local NHS mapping and variations in landscape context across the region; MNRF re-evaluate the size criteria for core areas and linkages so that they are more appropriate to the species, scale and landscape context of each area to which they are applied; All valley and stream corridors (not just “major” ones) be included in the NHS; MNRF provide clear guidance for municipal refinement of the NHS; NHS and agricultural land base mapping be published together on the same viewer;
49 Item Clerk to insert #
The Province develop, in consultation with municipalities and conservation authorities, a restoration and enhancement strategy to help achieve the objectives of the NHS.
Agricultural System Below is a summary listing from Attachment 2 of TRCA’s recommendations for OMAFRA’s consideration on the draft Agricultural System.
TRCA recommends that: The Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve not be included in the Prime Agricultural Area; Urban agriculture components be included in the agri-food network and added to Agricultural System portal; OMAFRA ensure that Agricultural System portal contains updated and practical information for a broad range of users, including urban agriculture; The regional Natural Heritage System for the GGH be included in the Agricultural System portal.
FINANCIAL DETAILS TRCA staff is reviewing the proposed mapping as part of existing budgets. No additional funding is required for this review.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Incorporate feedback from the Authority meeting on September 22, 2017 into the submission to the EBR by the deadline of October 4, 2017; Continue to attend provincial training sessions on the proposed mapping and associated technical reports and guidance materials; Continue to work with TRCA’s municipal partners, Conservation Ontario and the Province in understanding the implications of the proposed mapping, associated policies as they pertain to the operation of TRCA programs and delivery of services; Coordinate internal consultations with senior management, planning and technical staff to assess the implications of the proposed mapping and associated policies (ongoing).
Report prepared by: Frances Woo, extension 5364 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361 Emails: [email protected] Date: September 22, 2017 Attachments: 2
50 Attachment 1
October 4, 2017
By email
Ala Boyd Manager – Natural Heritage Section Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Policy Division Natural Resources Conservation Policy Branch 300 Water Street Peterborough, Ontario K9J 8M5
Re: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority comments in response to the criteria, methods, and mapping of the proposed regional Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (EBR # 013-1014).
Dear Ms. Boyd:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the criteria, methods, and mapping of the proposed regional Natural Heritage System (NHS) for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH).
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is a local watershed management agency with a variety of responsibilities related to natural heritage protection, management and restoration. TRCA protects and manages approximately 18,000 hectares of conservation land and assists its 18 member municipalities in fulfilling their responsibilities associated with natural heritage, water resources and natural hazard management under the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act processes. TRCA has an interest in the development of the regional NHS primarily given our roles as a service provider to municipalities supporting their implementation of provincial policy, as a resource management agency and regulator in accordance with the Conservation Authorities Act, and as a major landowner in the Greater Toronto Area.
In 2015 and 2016, TRCA provided comments and recommendations to the Province as part of the Coordinated Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan), Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, and Niagara Escarpment Plan. We are pleased that many of our comments are reflected in the updated plans and recognize the importance of establishing the regional NHS in a timely manner to facilitate the implementation of the new Growth Plan policies.
TRCA has reviewed both the summary document and technical report and refer to both in the comments below. The document being referred to in each instance will be specified. Note that these comments should be read in conjunction with TRCA’s comments on the draft Agricultural System (EBR # 013-0968).
General Comments
Overall, TRCA supports the intent of identifying a regional NHS and appreciates that MNRF has clearly outlined the principles, criteria, and methods used to develop the proposed regional NHS for the GGH. The decision to use a transparent, repeatable methodology to identify and create core areas and linkages and to fill in gaps and holes is important. We also appreciate the
51
decision to accept NHS information from municipalities and conservation authorities (CAs) as part of this consultation and anticipate that the Province will use it to refine the proposed NHS.
It is helpful to be able to concurrently review and comment on the draft Natural Heritage System and Agricultural System in recognition of the overlap between the two systems. It appears that MNRF and OMAFRA have taken different approaches, with the former relying predominantly on provincial data and allowing for municipal refinements only for precision, and the latter drawing from existing OP mapping and providing greater flexibility for municipalities to refine the draft agricultural land base. TRCA would like to see the NHS approach more closely resemble the Agricultural System approach in its use of local official plan (OP) mapping and engagement with municipalities and CAs in the determination of the final NHS.
Policy 4.2.1 in the Growth Plan states that, “Municipalities, partnering with conservation authorities as appropriate, will ensure that watershed planning is undertaken to support a comprehensive, integrated, and long-term approach to the protection, enhancement, or restoration of the quality and quantity of water within a watershed.” In large part, water quality and quantity and overall watershed health depend on a protected, robust NHS. A healthy NHS can filter stormwater and slow flood waters, curb erosion and absorb carbon, as well as provide buffered and connected habitats. The impacts of growth, intensification and the compounding effects of climate change are in many ways more acutely experienced in downstream settlement areas, making a protected NHS even more critical.
TRCA is concerned about the implications of a regional-scale NHS, subject to Growth Plan policies, that excludes areas that are currently part of local NHSs. This is of particular concern given that, according to the revised Growth Plan, existing NHSs identified in OPs will no longer be protected in accordance with the relevant OP once the regional NHS has been issued (4.2.2.4), even though a municipality “may continue to protect any other natural heritage system or identify new systems in a manner that is consistent with the PPS” (4.2.2.6b). This appears to create two “tiers” of NHSs, in which parts of the local NHS (where the regional NHS does not overlap) risk being devalued in municipal development decisions or at the Ontario Municipal Board. Even if municipalities have the opportunity, as per Growth Plan policy 4.2.2.5, to “refine provincial mapping with greater precision” through a municipal comprehensive review, this two- tier system will exist until municipalities’ OPs are updated and approved (2022 or even beyond).
Furthermore, without provincial guidelines on the types and extent of “refinements” that municipalities will be able to make, it is unclear whether the municipal refinement process will be sufficient to resolve these disparities. While we appreciate that the proposed NHS is intended to operate at the regional scale, the implications of inclusion versus exclusion are substantial and can create challenges for planning authorities and supporting agencies like CAs going forward. This has significant ecological implications considering that the success of the regional-scale NHS is contingent on local-scale municipal NHSs.
Using the recently published digital NHS map, TRCA has been able to identify the areas within our jurisdiction that have been proposed for inclusion in the GGH NHS. Many of these appear to be refinements to the Greenbelt NHS within the whitebelt. Within this area, the proposed additions exclude parts of the NHS identified through TRCA’s Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy, which many of our partner municipalities use to delineate and periodically refine the NHS in their OPs. CAs and municipalities should be consulted on these site-specific areas in order to more accurately capture and map the natural features present. For example, the portion of the proposed regional NHS located southwest of Elgin Mills Road and the 9th line in Markham does not extend to cover the wetland to the north.
2
52
Responses to Consultation Questions
1. Generally, do you agree with the principles? Are there other key principles?
The principles are helpful in guiding the technical process for developing the NHS. However, they lack the direction required to ensure the development of the NHS is based on sound ecological principles. The document and process would benefit from having a set of ecological guiding principles in addition to the more process-based ones so that they are embedded in the mapping process and can facilitate the evaluation of NHS outcomes in the future. If ecological principles are established, the NHS development methodology should be reviewed and/or revised to ensure it conforms with these principles. Please see for reference the attached Principles for Terrestrial Natural Heritage Conservation and Restoration developed by the South- Central Ontario Conservation Authorities Natural Heritage Discussion Group in 2002, which relate to scale, amount and distribution of cover, size, shape, matrix, connectivity, and diversity/quality. For example, if distribution is a key principle, core areas smaller than 100ha would be needed in order to capture more areas with high fragmentation and low cover in the NHS so that services are more equitably distributed across the region.
Edits are proposed to the following guiding principles on p. 4 of the summary document in order to better account for existing local NHS mapping and regional variations in landscape context: Scale of the regional system is to focus on identifying larger core areas and broader linkages within a regional landscape context: Consider rewording to “Larger core areas and broader linkages are preferred in a regional natural heritage system, but the scale and context of the landscape is to be considered when identifying core area and linkage size criteria.” While large habitat patches are generally better for biodiversity conservation, the appropriate minimum size varies depending on the landscape context, NHS objectives, and even species requirements. By keeping this guiding principle broad it allows the NHS development process to identify appropriate size – for example, 500ha or 100ha or finer, if needed. Connection of the NHS mapping to existing regional mapping in adjacent areas is to be made as much as reasonably possible (i.e., connect to other natural heritage systems in adjacent planning areas): Consider rewording to “Connection of the NHS mapping to existing regional and local jurisdictions’ NHS mapping in adjacent areas is to be made as much as reasonably possible (i.e., connect to other natural heritage systems in adjacent planning areas)”. Having regard for and linking the proposed NHS maps to the existing NHS from other jurisdictions (municipal and CAs included) is important for all of the NHS to be functional across the broader landscape. The criteria and methods are to have potential for application in another similar geography (i.e., could potentially be applied to other areas of southern Ontario): Consider rewording to “The framework, criteria, and methods are to have potential for application in another similar geographical scale and context as well as allow for adaptation if in a different geographical scale and context”. This will allow for the areas where the criteria thresholds are not acceptable to use what is most appropriate in their context without weakening the objectives and outcomes of the NHS.
2. Do you agree with the criteria for the composition and size of core areas and linkages?
TRCA supports the application of smaller minimum core area sizes to reflect different fragmentation and natural cover conditions in different parts of the GGH. It is important to apply finer thresholds for areas with low natural cover, as smaller natural features would otherwise be
3
53
excluded from the NHS. TRCA, which works within a highly urbanized area, is acutely aware of the need to account for regional variability in NHS planning and to recognize the importance of such systems in more developed contexts.
We are concerned that the alternative 100ha minimum may not be sufficient to address the already low levels of natural cover within certain areas in the GGH outside of settlement areas and the Greenbelt (e.g. in the whitebelt). While it is a good start, this threshold does a disservice to watersheds dominated by still smaller – but important – existing natural areas by excluding them from provincial-level protections. For example, a recent University of Waterloo study1 highlighted the disproportionately large role that smaller wetlands play in landscape nutrient processing and the need to value and protect these smaller features. In addition, there are biodiversity groups that benefit from smaller habitat areas, as illustrated on pages 9 and 14 of the technical report, that have been excluded through application of the proposed criteria. While the technical report states that “The objectives of the regional Natural Heritage System are not tailored to a particular species or species group, but are intended more generally to maintain and restore biodiversity and ecological functions over the long term”, by aiming only for larger areas the needs of biodiversity groups with smaller patch areas – often local species in and around settlement areas that are of local conservation concern – could be undermined, especially in areas where they may be the dominant groups. As with core area size, linkage sizes also need to vary depending on the species, scale and context of the study area.
TRCA recommends that the Province re-evaluate size criteria for core areas and linkages, based on a finer analysis of the region and data provided by CAs and municipalities, which more fully reflect the context of the area to which the criteria are applied. Core area and linkage thresholds should be determined according to the needs of the majority of species, scale, and landscape context of the targeted region at a finer scale.
With regard to the composition of core areas and linkages, while valleylands of major stream systems were included in the proposed NHS, TRCA would like to see all valley and stream corridors included in the NHS. Valley and stream corridors, which support the interactions between terrestrial and aquatic systems, form the “backbone” of the NHS of a watershed, and within TRCA’s jurisdiction are considered both core areas and linkages. Local NHSs are critical to the health of watersheds, which in turn is key to the health of the regional NHS.
3. Do you agree that there should be consideration of smaller core areas to acknowledge highly fragmented areas with limited natural cover?
Yes – see response to Question 2.
4. Do you agree with the automated approach to consistently apply the criteria across the landscape?
We understand the approach described in the technical report to be a consistent, repeatable approach but not necessarily an automated one, as it employs a number of manual steps and expert judgment. We think this is appropriate. The consistent application of criteria is supported, as long as the criteria are context- and scale-specific given the wide variability in the amount and distribution of natural cover across the GGH as well as the needs of the inhabiting species.
1 Cheng, F. Y., and N. B. Basu (2017), Biogeochemical hotspots: Role of small water bodies in landscape nutrient processing, Water Resour. Res., 53, 5038–5056, doi:10.1002/2016WR020102.
4
54
5. Do you have other suggestions for the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to consider?
Provide Additional Context Both the technical report and summary document would benefit from additional context and content for the development of the regional NHS and its associated policies as it relates to local NHSs. To this end, the Introduction, Purpose or Scope section(s) of the documents could include: A clearly stated goal and objectives for the regional NHS, including what it contains and how it is designed. This could be drawn from the definition of NHS in the Growth Plan. Objectives could include, but are not limited to, the enhancement of ecosystem services, biodiversity protection and recovery, and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Recognition of the local NHS identification and protection that municipalities and CAs have been undertaking since the early 2000s and continue to do. The regional NHS may not identify all natural features or potential restoration areas important at the local scale, but the overall long term functionality of the regional NHS and equitable distribution of ecosystem functions and services are dependent on the identification and protection of local NHSs. The impacts of urbanization and the compounding effects of climate change are in many ways more acutely experienced in urban settlement areas, making a protected NHS that much more important in these areas. Recognition that, although the GGH NHS does not extend into settlement areas, the identification and protection of natural features in settlement areas is still important. Clarification on how the proposed NHS relates to other provincial NHS development initiatives such as Marxan, which was developed over a number of years and has been used (and funded) by a number of municipalities within the GGH. Recognition that ecosystem restoration, and identification of areas for restoration, is an important part of the regional NHS and that municipalities and CAs are to identify restoration opportunities. Recognition of green infrastructure’s concurrent role in achieving some of the same objectives as the regional NHS, including supporting ecosystem functions. This would complement the references to green infrastructure in the updated Growth Plan. Recognition of current and future impacts of climate change and the relationship between the NHS, ecosystem services, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and community resilience needs. Key ecological guiding principles for the development of the NHS (see response to Question 1 above).
Account for local NHSs As stated above, TRCA would like to see local (municipal and CA) NHSs be better acknowledged in the development of the GGH NHS. Substantial public resources have been expended to develop and defend these local NHSs. TRCA has learned that the Province is accepting mapping data for consideration for inclusion in the regional NHS, and is pleased to include our GIS data with this submission for your consideration. Incorporating municipal and watershed NHSs would mitigate the “two-tier” problem mentioned earlier and be more consistent with the process OMAFRA has used to map the agricultural land base of the GGH Agricultural System, which relied heavily on existing designations in approved OPs. We would encourage the Province to consider the information and data provided by all CAs.
Provide guidance for municipal refinement and implementation Provincial guidance and oversight are needed for municipal refinement and consistent
5
55
incorporation of the regional NHS into OPs. This would address Recommendation 43 in the Advisory Panel Report for the Coordinated Review, which calls for the provision of guidelines on mapping NHSs and connections between regional- and local-scale systems. Any criteria for municipal refinement should be made publicly available. MNRF may wish to consider establishing a process for municipal conformity/refinement for the NHS similar to that of OMAFRA’s for the Agricultural System.
Publish NHS and agricultural land base mapping together Table 8 in the technical report states that 28% of prime agricultural areas in the GGH have been captured within the proposed NHS. This suggests significant potential for competing uses but also for determining areas for restoration. However, as the mapping for these two systems has been provided on different map viewers, it is currently impossible to systematically identify the areas of overlap and plan for agricultural and ecological functions in these areas. Once the maps for the NHS and agricultural land base are established following this consultation, the Province should not only provide public access to associated GIS data, but make these mapping layers available to view on the same online portal so that municipalities, planning authorities, and landowners are better able to plan within these areas.
Develop a restoration and enhancement strategy The establishment of the regional NHS requires an accompanying enhancement strategy to both restore NHS areas to natural cover and expand the overall size of the NHS in the long term. In the technical report, public lands and linkages are identified as areas for restoration, but a more comprehensive strategy is needed that includes the opportunity to identify both areas for restoration and the local jurisdictions that should focus on restoration. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual could be updated to better reflect these needs and provide guidance on how NHSs should be developed to account for restoration. An NHS enhancement strategy would help achieve Recommendation 44 in the Advisory Panel Report for the Coordinated Review.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide comments on this important initiative. Should you have any questions, require clarification, or would like to meet to discuss any of the comments, please contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Woodland, OALA, FCSLA, MCIP, RPP Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Enclosure
6
56 BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION
SOUTH-CENTRAL ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES NATURAL HERITAGE DISCUSSION GROUP November 2002
With so many organizations and governments of all levels defining and evaluating natural heritage systems using a diversity of approaches there is a real need to identify basic principles related to conservation biology and landscape ecology that are common to all programs to act as a basis for comparison and to demonstrate compatibility. The following is an attempt to describe these principles under basic issue-related categories. The first two are strategic considerations, while the others are more specific to system design and habitat patch qualities. These are not necessarily presented in order of importance, rather it should be recognized that there is some overlap between principles, and the interrelation between them is important . Following each principle is an explanation of why it is relevant.
1. Approach
A comprehensive approach to natural heritage addresses ecosystem form and function based on a landscape perspective. There is a difference between maintaining the health of a defined terrestrial natural heritage system occupying a portion of the landscape, and maintaining the health of the landscape itself. If terrestrial natural heritage conservation is to be integrated with aquatic ecosystems and geophysical elements such as hydrology and soils, then the condition of the entire landscape, including human land use, must be considered. Land-water interactions are especially important in the protection of headwaters.
Ecological and evolutionary processes function at a landscape scale and therefore must be addressed within a landscape context. Ecosystems are not limited by the boundaries of individual habitat patches; they interact with each other and the surrounding landscape. The movements of wildlife such as migratory birds elevate this function to a global scale. There is a danger in assessing patches only at the site scale, which can lead to cumulative loss. A systems approach must be used in determining their relative importance within a landscape and the interrelationship of all the principles in this document need to be considered . Furthermore, natural disturbance patterns such as erosion or fire are necessary for the continuance of some ecosystem types.
Because ecological systems and processes are so complex and damage cannot always be repaired, the Precautionary Principle should apply when defining, managing, and defending the natural heritage system. Demographic trends and their potential impacts should be considered in the design of the system, and adaptive management should be applied to ensure long-term ecological health. Actions that have the potential to negatively impact the natural heritage system should be avoided unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there will be no serious ecological harm. Protection of existing features and expansion of the natural heritage system are generally better than mitigative action.
57
2. Scale
A natural heritage system that is defined and evaluated at a small local scale should be compatible with a system defined at the larger regional or provincial scale. To the greatest degree possible it should also be compatible with neighbouring natural heritage systems across local jurisdictional borders. Consideration of temporal scale is also important. For example, although some decisions may be made based on short-term targets, these may be increments towards a larger vision that can only be fulfilled over the longer term. We should also recognize the evolving nature of ecosystems, and make provision for the continuation of successional processes.
3. Cover/Distribution
More natural cover is better. The more natural cover on the landscape, the greater the ecological health. Natural cover improves soils, retains and filters water, improves air quality and regulates climate. It also promotes biodiversity by allowing for greater representation of genes, community types and species, as well as natural disturbance cycles. Even distribution of this natural cover ensures that these functions occur across the landscape.
4. Size
In general, large habitat patches are better for biodiversity conservation. This is because they provide more resources to support more species and more individuals of those species, promoting population viability and internalizing connectivity and the values which corridors are designed to provide. They also support more vegetation community types and more age classes of vegetation. They provide a better buffer against negative external impacts, and greater opportunities for natural disturbance cycles to occur. In short, size is perhaps the most important patch measure and overriding principle because the larger the size, the less important the other landscape issues become (i.e. a single patch covering the entire landscape would make consideration of distribution, shape, connectivity, and surrounding land use irrelevant).
Another issue is minimum size of a patch to be considered for evaluation, for part of a defined natural heritage system, or to be considered functionally significant. Decisions about minimum size are often based on the habitat type in question, and the total cover and distribution of natural habitat within the study area.
5. Shape
For forest habitat in a fragmented landscape compact patch shapes are generally better than convoluted shapes. This is particularly the case in uplands as opposed to riparian habitats that may naturally be thin and convoluted. Many forest species of concern - in particular birds - are known as ”forest interior“ species because they require the dark, cool habitat that can only be found in deep forest. Forest interior is also considered to be that area of the patch that is beyond most negative edge effects, that is from negative external influences. According to literature, these edge effects penetrate at least 100 metres into a forest, and up to over 400 metres. Typically, forest interior is mapped as the area that is more than 100 metres from the edge. Interior is a function of both size and shape of the patch. The shape with the least
58 amount of edge is a perfect circle. Long, slender, convoluted or perforated patches have the highest amount of edge. Shape of patches may become less important with increasing size.
There may be value in defining interior, or ”core“ area for non-forest habitats, or combinations of habitats, although the literature to support this seems to be limited, with the exception of defining core areas in large reserves that are off limits to human use.
6. Matrix
Size and shape many determine the degree to which a patch is exposed to negative external influences, but what ultimately affects the quality of the habitat is the specific types of influences resulting from the character of the surrounding landscape, known as the matrix. Human land uses such as agriculture and urbanization have different degrees of impact, while other nearby habitat patches may have a positive effect by providing additional resources for species that can move between the patches and by providing support services such as pollination.
7. Connectivity
Landscape connectivity refers to the functional relationship among habitat patches based on their spatial proximity and the movement responses of organisms. Plants need adjacent habitats to support pollination and seed dispersal. Animals must move or disperse to find suitable resources and to mate. Small populations that have become isolated in a fragmented landscape are at risk of extinction due to resource depletion or inbreeding and the associated loss of genetic vigour. Two main types of connectivity have been defined: structural connectivity refers to the physical adjacency of habitat patches, and functional connectivity refers to the ability of species to traverse the landscape between the patches. Theoretically functional connectivity must be defined differently for each species because each has a different movement capacity. However, structural connectivity, whatever its form, will not meet the needs of all species. Provision of wildlife corridors, although popular, is only one way in which connectivity can be provided. These issues illustrate the difficulty in finding one measure that suits all circumstances. Based on potential positive or negative impacts of linkages, to connect or not to connect is an important consideration.
9. Diversity/Quality
Native species and vegetation communities should be a focus of conservation and restoration efforts. Species evolve together over time to create ecosystems. Non-native, or exotic species are those that have been introduced deliberately or accidentally from distant areas. Although the impacts of some species may be relatively benign, those that become invasive can have catastrophic impacts. It is therefore appropriate to focus conservation on native species and ecosystems, and this may in fact involve the control of exotic species or to maintain the conditions that favour native species.
The quality or condition of natural areas is also important. For example, areas that are close to pristine are likely to be more valuable than areas that are heavily degraded. Special features such as excellent representation of biodiversity, rare species or community types, old growth, etc. are also important considerations.
59 Attachment 2
October 4, 2017
By email
Helma Gerts Policy Advisor Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Policy Division Food Safety and Environmental Policy Branch 1 Stone Road West, Floor 2 Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Y2
Re: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority comments in response to the Release of draft Agricultural System mapping and Implementation Procedures (EBR # 013-0968).
Dear Ms. Gerts:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Agricultural System mapping and implementation procedures for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH).
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) protects and manages approximately 18,000 hectares of conservation land and assists its 18 member municipalities in fulfilling their responsibilities associated with natural heritage, water resources and natural hazard management under the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act processes. TRCA has an interest in the development of the GGH Agricultural System primarily given its roles as a service provider to municipalities supporting their implementation of provincial policy, as a resource management agency and regulator in accordance with the Conservation Authorities Act, and as a major landowner in the Greater Toronto Area. TRCA leases some of its land to farmers and manages approximately 400 hectares in its agricultural land inventory. TRCA’s Sustainable Near-Urban Agriculture Policy (2008) permits and encourages agricultural uses on TRCA owned and managed lands, where appropriate, as a component of sustainable communities. The Policy recognizes that agricultural land is a vital resource that must be conserved and that progressive environmental stewardship in the agricultural sector and the production of local food for the Toronto region are requirements for TRCA and its partners to collectively realize The Living City vision.
In 2015 and 2016, TRCA provided comments and recommendations to the Province as part of the Coordinated Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, and Niagara Escarpment Plan. We are pleased that many of our comments are reflected in the updated plans and recognize the importance of establishing the GGH Agricultural System in a timely manner to facilitate the implementation of the new policies.
Based on our review of the draft Implementation Procedures, Agricultural Land Base map, and Agricultural System portal released for consultation, TRCA would like to provide the following comments. Note that these comments should be read in conjunction with TRCA’s comments on the proposed regional Natural Heritage System (EBR # 013-1014).
Remove the Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve from Prime Agricultural Area The Oak Ridges Corridor Conservation Reserve in Richmond Hill has been included as a prime agricultural area in the draft agricultural land base. Restoration has been completed for a number of years now on the former agricultural lands owned by the Province and the majority of this area is no longer suited for agriculture. This restoration, including tree and shrub planting as well as wetland creation, has been successful due to the quality of the soils. The opportunity for agriculture now exists
60
only on a small portion of the lands. The remainder of the lands has significant natural and cultural heritage value and provides nature-based recreation and outdoor education opportunities. Furthermore, they are part of the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Natural Core and Linkage areas, and are not designated as agriculture in either the Richmond Hill or York Region official plan. TRCA supports York Region’s recommendation that this area should not be included in the prime agricultural area in the agricultural land base.
Integrate urban agriculture components into the agri-food network It is important for the Agricultural System to recognize the role of urban agriculture in helping achieve many economic, social, and environmental objectives. Even though the agricultural land base does not extend into urban areas, urban agriculture features are an important part of, and should be included in, the agri-food network. Specifically, urban lands where agricultural activity is occurring (e.g. open space and parks used for community gardens) or that have been made available for agriculture to occur should be mapped in the Agricultural System portal and recognized in the Implementation Procedures. Mapping these urban agricultural opportunities would facilitate planning for urban agricultural activities and demonstrate their functional and economic connections with the broader regional Agricultural System. It could also help broaden the uses of the portal, for example to provide opportunities for potential new farmers without rural connections or farming backgrounds to engage in farming within or near cities.
Ensure information on the Agricultural System portal is updated and practical The Agricultural System portal is a useful tool for informing agricultural impact assessments and economic development and land use planning. It can also enhance agricultural viability by providing pertinent information for farmers. To that end, OMAFRA could consider including additional information on some agri-food network components that would be helpful to potential users. For example, information regarding the size of processing facilities would enable smaller-scale farmers to easily identify facilities they can use. In addition, clarification on how and when updates to the mapping layers in the portal will be made – for example, to reflect crop layers that may change yearly – would be helpful.
Include the regional Natural Heritage System in the Agricultural System portal The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s technical report for the development of the regional Natural Heritage System (NHS) for the GGH indicates that the proposed NHS falls on 28% of the region’s prime agricultural areas. However, as the mapping for these two systems has been provided on different map viewers, it is currently impossible to systematically identify these areas and plan for agricultural and ecological functions in these areas. Once the maps for the NHS and agricultural land base are established following this consultation, the Province should not only provide public access to associated GIS data, but make these mapping layers available to view on the same online portal so that municipalities, planning authorities, and landowners are better able to plan within these areas.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide comments on this important initiative. Should you have any questions, require clarification, or would like to meet to discuss any of the comments, please contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Woodland, OALA, FCSLA, MCIP, RPP Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
61 Item 8.1
Section III – Items for the Information of the Board
TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #7/17, Friday, September 22, 2017
FROM: Darryl Gray, Director, Education, Training and Outreach
RE: HUMBER ARBORETUM AND CENTRE FOR URBAN ECOLOGY 2016/2017 Annual Report and 2017/2018 Business Plan ______KEY ISSUE Receipt of Humber Arboretum and Centre for Urban Ecology 2016/2017 Annual Report and 2017/2018 Business Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), along with the City of Toronto and Humber College, is a founding partner of the Humber Arboretum and Centre for Urban Ecology;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the staff report on Humber Arboretum and Centre for Urban Ecology be received.
BACKGROUND Established in 1977 through a partnership between Humber College, the City of Toronto and TRCA, the Humber Arboretum comprises 105 hectares of botanical gardens, natural heritage areas and learning spaces. The Humber Arboretum’s mission is to establish and maintain living plant collections, demonstrate correct horticultural and arboricultural techniques, conserve and restore natural areas and wildlife, facilitate research and education, and provide a welcoming space for people to gather.
Opened in 2007 and built to replace the previous Nature Centre, the Centre for Urban Ecology at Humber Arboretum is a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Gold Certified learning and community engagement hub that complements the botanical and ecological features of the site. With an annual attendance of over 12,000 visitors, both the Centre for Urban Ecology and Humber Arboretum provide an important educational resource for Humber College students and faculty, along with school groups from local school boards. Additionally, the Centre for Urban Ecology provides a venue for special events, summer camps, meetings and other functions that support the ongoing operations of the Arboretum.
RATIONALE 2017 marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of Humber College, along with the 40th anniversary of the development of Humber Arboretum. Through a unique tripartite partnership, Humber College, City of Toronto and TRCA provide operational support and leadership to ensure that the Arboretum and Centre for Urban Ecology achieve the shared strategic objectives of the partner organizations. To recognize these auspicious anniversaries, the unique partnership governing the Arboretum, and the special role that the Arboretum plays in both the Humber College community and the broader Toronto region, enclosed are the 2016/2017 Humber Arboretum Annual Report and the 2017/2018 Humber Arboretum Business Plan which lays out the interconnected priorities of the partner organizations.
For Information contact: Darryl Gray, extension 416-791-0327 Emails: [email protected] Date: August 11, 2017 62
Item 8.2
Section III – Items for the Information of the Board
TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #7/17, Friday, September 22, 2017
FROM: Mike Fenning, Associate Director, Property and Risk Management
RE: PUBLIC RECORD Premier Parks, LLC, Authority Resolution #A74/16 ______KEY ISSUE Resolution recommending the update on lease negotiations with Premier Parks, LLC regarding upgrades and revitalization of the water park at Claireville Conservation Area, become a public record.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the following Resolution #A74/16 approved at Authority Meeting #4/16, held on May 27, 2016, be received and become part of the public record:
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) entered into a consolidated lease dated May 1, 2011 with WWK Recreation Inc. (WWK) for the operation of a water park at the Claireville Conservation Area;
AND WHEREAS WWK has advised that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Premier Parks, LLC (Premier) regarding the purchase of its assets and the operation of the water park;
AND WHEREAS it is in the best interests of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to terminate the existing lease for the water park at Claireville Conservation Area and to enter into a new lease with Premier or its nominee in this instance;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT approval be granted to terminate the existing lease and to enter into a new lease with Premier or its nominee subject to the following terms:
(a) that the term of new lease be 40 years with the option to extend the lease should TRCA decide to continue a water park operation at the end of the 40 years;
(b) that the rent be 6% of gross revenues with a minimum guaranteed rent payable in 2017 of $375,000;
(c) that the water park be allowed to close for the 2016 season and to reopen in 2017;
(d) that TRCA waive the 2015 and 2016 basic and percentage rent under the existing lease on the guarantee from Premier or its nominee that this amount will be recovered by TRCA in the first six years of operation;
63 Item 8.2
(e) that terms, conditions and rent of the new lease and termination of the existing lease be satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitor;
(f) that the lease be subject to any necessary Planning Act approvals;
THAT the lease be subject to approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act;
THAT authorized TRCA signing officers be directed to seek the necessary approvals, sign and execute the new lease, any agreements or any other documents and to take any action needed to implement and manage the lease agreement and terminate the existing lease;
AND FURTHER THAT Resolution #47/15 approved in camera at Authority meeting #3/15 held on March 27, 2015 be rescinded.
BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #3/15, held on March 27, 2015, Resolution #A47/15 was approved in camera as it pertains to on-going property negotiations. Subsequently this resolution was superseded by Resolution #A74/16 at Authority Meeting #4/16, held on May 27, 2016, as noted above. Confidential minutes were retained as a record of this item at the meeting. As a matter of policy, TRCA staff reports back on in camera items when they can become public so a record of the resolution appears in public minutes.
In 2016 staff negotiated a new lease with Premier Parks for the Claireville water park which came into effect July 19, 2016. Premier Parks set an aggressive timetable to refurbish the water park and open for the 2017 season. Over $28 million was invested in major renovations to the water park including the construction of five new water rides, the refurbishment of nine existing rides, the refurbishment of all the buildings on site and landscape improvements.
It was challenging obtaining all the necessary permits and approvals in a timely fashion, undertaking the construction during the winter months and a wet spring, and still be open for the 2017 season. The water park officially opened its doors July 1, 2017 under the name Wet’n’Wild Toronto.
The later start to the season and the cool and wet summer appears to have been factors in less than projected attendance for the Park. On a positive note, the lower than expected attendance has allowed the Park to review its operation, to determine where it needs to improve in its services and amenities to provide a better experience to its patrons in the future.
Staff has had a good working relationship with Premier Parks to date and rent payments are being made as per the requirements of the lease, with no delays.
Report prepared by: Lori Colussi, extension 5303 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Mike Fenning, extension 5223 Emails: [email protected] Date: September 5, 2017
64