Authority Minutes of Meeting #8/15 September 25, 2015

Authority Meeting #8/15 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, September 25, 2015. The Chair , called the meeting to order at 9:43 a.m.

PRESENT Member Maria Augimeri Chair Member Member Jennifer Drake Member Rob Ford Member Jack Heath Member Jennifer Innis Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Member Linda Pabst Member Member John Sprovieri Member

ABSENT Jack Ballinger Member David Barrow Member Michael Di Biase Vice Chair Member Chris Fonseca Member Rodney Hoinkes Member Colleen Jordan Member Jennifer O’Connell Member Gino Rosati Member Jim Tovey Member

RES.#A152/15 - MINUTES

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Maria Kelleher

THAT the Minutes of Meeting #7/15, held on July 24, 2015, be approved. CARRIED ______

357 DELEGATIONS

(a) A delegation by Sandra Smithson, daughter of resident of 197 Greyabbey Trail, in regard to 8.2 - 220 Greyabbey Trail.

RES.#A153/15 - DELEGATIONS

Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jack Heath

THAT above-noted delegation (a) be received. CARRIED ______

PRESENTATIONS

(a) A presentation by Chris Bagley, General Manager, Black Creek Pioneer Village, TRCA, in regard to item 7.1 - Black Creek Pioneer Village.

(b) A presentation by Brian Denney, CEO, TRCA, in regard to item 7.11 - Review of the Conservation Authorities Act.

(c) A video presentation of the Girls Can Too Program at Bolton Camp. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/life-video/video-girls-can-too- construction/article26126709/#video0id26126709

RES.#A154/15 - PRESENTATIONS

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker

THAT above-noted presentation (a) be deferred to Authority Meeting #9/15, scheduled to be held on October 30, 2015. CARRIED RES.#A155/15 - PRESENTATIONS

Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Ron Moeser

THAT above-noted presentation (b) be received. CARRIED RES.#A156/15 - PRESENTATIONS

Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Linda Pabst

THAT above-noted presentation (c) be received. CARRIED ______

358 CORRESPONDENCE

(a) An email dated September 12, 2015 Dana and Jiri Kopka, 201 Greyabbey Raod, at in regard to item 8.2 - 220 Greyabbey Trail.

(b) A letter dated September 20, 2015 from Roy Wright, resident, 471 Guildwood Parkway, Scarborough, in regard to item 8.2 - 220 Greyabbey Trail.

(c) An email dated September 20, 2015 from Christine Vachon & Elizabeth Byrnes, residents, 203 Greyabbey Trail, Scarborough in regard to item 8.2 - 220 Greyabbey Trail.

RES.#A157/15 - CORRESPONDENCE

Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jack Heath

THAT above-noted correspondence (a) – (c) be received. CARRIED ______

359 "Dana Kopka" To , > cc 09/12/2015 04:04 PM bcc Subject Notice of Violation #V 2814

Dear Mr. Ainsley and TRCA staff,

We would like to acknowledge that we have received your invitation to the upcoming TRCA meeting th regarding Notice of Violation # V 2814 of 220 Greyabbey Trail on September 25 . Regrettably, we are not able to attend the meeting at the scheduled time to once again voice our concerns, but felt it prudent to at least re‐express our immense concern in a letter to you, in hope that you will present it on our behalf during the meeting.

Although we are pleased that you have taken interest in the issue, and continue to investigate potential resolutions, we feel that the amount of time that has already lapsed since the mountain of dirt was carved out of the Scarborough bluffs and deposited directly in front of our house, is beyond unacceptable. The respective agencies involved in approving this project have thoroughly failed in actually exploring and understanding the project’s impact and magnitude prior to approving it. The individuals that should have been overseeing this project failed to do so, as the project was allowed to continue until irreparable damage has been caused. As a result, environmental harm has been caused, important habitats destroyed, community appeal has been damaged, our property values have been decreased, our sanctity has been violated and our peace has been disturbed. All this has been going on for two years with empty promises of a soon‐to‐come resolution that never appears to make it out of the committee’s meeting room.

We are frustrated that this project was allowed to happen, we are furious that (to our knowledge) there have been no consequences for the parties involved in this epic failure, and that no reprieve or answers have been provided to the residents of our community in two years. At this point, given that the damage has already been done, we only have the following request: Remove the pile of dirt, restore the value of our properties and return peace to our community.

Sincerely,

Dana & Jiri Kopka 201 Greyabbey Trail Scarborough

See below one of our previous emails:

From: Dana Kopka Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:17 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Destruction of the Scarborough Bluffs

360 Importance: High

Dear Sir/Madam,

We are writing to you to request an explanation regarding a construction at 220 Greyabbey Trail in Scarborough. We have raised our concerns with our local MP, Mr. Paul Ainslie and we were advised that you are responsible for permitting the construction and later stopping the project due to owner’s “non- adherence to your guidelines”. Because of that the whole neighborhood has been affected by this unsightly construction site for over a year. There sits an approximately 10 m high pile of dirt directly across the street from some houses which markedly decreases the value of our properties by thousands of dollars, not to mention the ugly obstructed view and ever-present dust. How does this agree with your policy :“our goal is to support a greener, cleaner, healthier place to live?”

Please explain, how is it even possible, that you gave the permission for the destruction of a sizable part of the Scarborough Bluffs which are considered an ecological treasure. Did you really think that the Bluff can be remodelled to its original shape after agreeing to a construction road to be built from its top ? FYI this has caused several months of very busy heavy machinery traffic on a street which had “No entrance to trucks” sign due to weight limits. It is especially difficult to understand because there was already an access road built through the Guildwood Park to enable the Bluff reinforcement along the shore. It is even more confusing now in the light of the proposal of developing a “Waterfront Park along the Bluffs” in the very same area. Obviously your assessment and permit seem very short sighted. We understand that you have stopped the work due to “a violation of the strict guidelines for the environmentally sensitive area” following Ms. Connie Pinto’s inspection, however we believe that much greater violation was done by issuing the permit.

We are asking that you at least move quickly on the matter of finishing this shameful project as soon as possible in keeping with your vision “ for a new kind of community, The Living City, where human settlement can flourish forever as part of nature's beauty and diversity.” Please update us on the progress, time-line and final plans for this construction. Thank you.

Dana and Jiri Kopka 201 Greyabbey Trail Scarborough

"*PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING, STORING OR FORWARDING THIS MESSAGE*

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this communication including any attachments may be confidential, is intended only for use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,disclosure or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please resend this communication to the sender and delete it permanently from your computer system. Thank you."

361 TRCA Board Members: September 20, 2015 Re: Violation #V2814 – 220 Greyabbey Trail, Scarborough

My name is Roy Wright, I live at 471 Guildwood Parkway located six houses west of 220 Greyabbey Trail. I am writing this deputation on behalf of myself and 12 other Greyabbey neighbours (names and addresses available upon request).

The Greyabbey community at large all agree that the 220 Greyabbey home situated on a large lakefront property has been a proud and positive asset to the whole neighbourhood. For the past dozen years, the grounds have been professionally landscaped with a full time gardener and other employees.

During the Christmas season, this property has become somewhat of a celebrity and a tourist attraction. The spectacular Christmas light show draws admirers both locally and visitors from out of town.

We are urging TRCA to help the Greyabbey property owner (Ms. Greening) to both save her substantial home from the erosion problem and to bring her unique lakeview property back to its former glory as soon as possible.

I fully understand Ms. Greening’s worrisome erosion urgency and her self help effort to save the eroding tableland as others have successfully been allowed to do. The City of Toronto, The Toronto Hunt (golf course) and myself procured TRCA permits to construct the previously accepted Geotech approved method of top filling that Ms. Greening was seeking (and was denied thus creating this violation problem). Note 1. The 100% successful result of capping the cliff face with solid rubble fill has enabled TRCA approval for a new 2015 building permit for a 4,300 square foot house to be built 60 feet from the edge of the cliff at 473 Guildwood Parkway. 2. I observed a trespassing violation by TRCA’s employees in August 2015 marking survey numbers on the private property at 220 Greyabbey’s beachfront. 3. TRCA’s coastline development plans at this location may be considered to be in violation of the original “conservation” mandate. Lake filling required to build a coastline roadway changes the ecology and will forever eliminate the remaining 2 kilometers of the natural sandy beachfront trail.

Hopefully our comments will be considered when judging violation #V2814. Roy Wright Resident neighbour

362 363 Section I – Items for Authority Action

RES.#A158/15 - BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE North Lands Master Plan and the Vision. Board endorsement of the Black Creek Pioneer Village Vision and the North Lands Master Plan.

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker

THAT item 7.1 – Black Creek Pioneer Village be deferred to Authority Meeting #9/15, scheduled to be held on October 30, 2015. CARRIED ______

RES.#A159/15 - GREENWOOD CONSERVATION LANDS Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan and Brock North inland filling. Final approval of the Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan; the strategic placement and grade of clean surplus fill within an abandoned aggregate extraction area within the Greenwood Conservation Lands at the Brock North tract; the transfer of provincially-owned Highway 407 ETR East Extension Lands and the strategic acquisition of lands to facilitate inland filling for ecological restoration and financial sustainability.

Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Linda Pabst

THAT item 7.2 – Greenwood Conservation Lands be deferred to Authority Meeting #9/15, scheduled to be held on October 30, 2015. CARRIED ______

RES.#A160/15 - TRCA CROSSING GUIDELINE FOR VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDORS Board endorsement of TRCA’s Crossings Guideline for Valley and Stream Corridors, a technical guideline developed to support The Living City Policies (2014). The Guideline was circulated for comments and is now finalized for staff use in the review of crossing applications under planning, environmental assessment and TRCA permit processes.

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Mike Mattos

WHEREAS in 2014 and 2015, based on up-to-date knowledge from science and practice, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff developed the draft TRCA Crossings Guideline for Valley and Stream Corridors to articulate TRCA objectives and study requirements for the planning and design of corridor crossings;

364 AND WHEREAS in 2015, TRCA staff sought input on the draft Guideline from provincial agencies, partner municipalities, the Building and Land Development Industry (BILD), and neighbouring conservation authorities, and have now finalized the Guideline;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Authority endorse the TRCA Crossings Guideline for Valley and Stream Corridors for use by public and private proponents of crossings and TRCA staff in the planning and development submission, review and approval processes;

THAT staff continue to monitor and study the long-term effectiveness of crossings constructed in TRCA watersheds to better understand their cumulative impact on watershed health and to identify the best approaches for crossing design;

AND FURTHER THAT the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Transportation, regional and local municipalities in TRCA’s jurisdiction, Conservation Ontario, and neighbouring conservation authorities be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #6/13, held on July 26, 2013, Resolution #A118/13 was approved to proceed with the development of updated TRCA guidelines for road-watercourse crossings. The updated guidelines would incorporate the latest science to balance ecological benefits with economic costs, while fulfilling mandated responsibilities for the management of flooding and erosion hazards. Since that time, TRCA staff from the Watershed Strategies, Planning, Greenspace and Communications, and Restoration and Infrastructure divisions have worked to develop the Crossings Guideline for Valley and Stream Corridors (hereafter referred to as “the Guideline”).

The draft Guideline was thoroughly vetted through senior technical and planning staff and directors, in addition to undergoing a comprehensive external consultation process. TRCA’s partner municipalities, provincial agencies and neighbouring conservation authorities were all circulated the draft Guideline. Staff also conducted a webinar for these public agencies in which participants were oriented to the structure and content of the Guideline and offered a forum to discuss their initial reactions before the formal circulation and request for their written comments. Subsequent to this, the Guideline was made available to private sector developers and consultants through the BILD policy and government relations representative, after staff conducted a separate webinar for BILD on the Guideline to solicit their comments.

Based on the feedback received through the external consultation process, TRCA staff have now revised and finalized the Guideline for use by public and private proponents of crossings and TRCA staff in the planning and development submission, review and approval process.

365 RATIONALE TRCA and other conservation authorities become involved in the design and construction of road crossings over valley and stream corridors because of the potential impacts of these works on natural hazards and natural heritage. TRCA reviews crossings in a number of capacities: as a public commenting body and service provider to approval authorities under the Planning Act and the environmental assessment process, and as a regulator issuing permits under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. Under the Planning Act, TRCA also represents the provincial interest in natural hazards as delegated by the Province of Ontario to all conservation authorities. There are currently over 3,500 bridges and culvert crossings within TRCA watersheds. In coming years, many crossings will be added, upgraded or reconstructed to accommodate population growth and associated transportation network needs, in addition to those that will be replaced or repaired through routine maintenance. Evidence from the TRCA jurisdiction and elsewhere indicates that crossings of this number and density can have substantial impacts on both natural hazards and natural heritage at the watershed scale.

From a natural hazard perspective, improperly designed crossing structures can:  Impede the flow of floodwaters, creating increases in flooding upstream of crossings or creating conditions in which roadways are flooded.  Come into contact with river and stream channels as they migrate across the floodplain over time, causing damage or failure of the crossing infrastructure (e.g., to footings, abutments, piers).  Be damaged by valley slope failure if constructed in inappropriate locations or with inadequate countermeasures.  Destabilize slopes during construction resulting in risks to adjacent land uses.

Natural hazard issues related to crossings are of increasing concern, as impacts are exacerbated by the changing climate, including an increased frequency of flood events and conditions that create the potential for slope instability and erosion. Risks to public safety and to road infrastructure can be prevented through carefully sited, sufficiently sized and appropriately designed crossings.

From a natural heritage perspective, improperly designed crossing structures can:  Impede the movement of fish species upstream and downstream, particularly during migration or other critical life stages.  Prevent the movement of terrestrial animals up and down valley corridors, fragmenting populations and often forcing animals onto roadways where they are killed by cars and create a public safety hazard.  Fragment high quality aquatic and terrestrial habitat, decreasing its quality and ability to support healthy populations of native and sensitive species.

The protection of these natural heritage functions has become increasingly important in recent years as the value of protecting and restoring natural heritage functions in urban and near-urban landscapes is now widely recognized and enshrined in provincial policy as well as municipal official plans and sustainability strategies. Most municipalities in the TRCA jurisdiction have invested in defining, protecting and restoring natural heritage functions through establishment of natural heritage systems; the bulk of these systems is comprised of valley and stream corridors. The impacts that road and rail crossings can have on the natural heritage functions of valley and stream corridors can threaten to undermine these investments. Sufficiently sized and appropriately sited and designed crossings can mitigate many of the impacts on the natural function of corridors and on the broader natural heritage system.

366 TRCA staff’s understanding of the impacts and management of road crossings of valley and stream corridors has changed and increased significantly over the past decade, as a result of both observations of conditions in TRCA watersheds as well as significant new scientific developments in the field. Given the risks of not adequately addressing the natural hazard and natural heritage impacts described above, the Guideline was developed to support TRCA staff, TRCA partner municipalities, other approval authorities, and proponents with this latest understanding of how these impacts can be managed and mitigated. As well, the Guideline is intended to increase the understanding of public and private proponents preparing submissions in support of crossing projects guiding them to a comprehensive approach to study and analysis.

The Guideline is consistent with the broad objectives for natural hazards and natural heritage management outlined in The Living City Policies (LCP), and is aligned with provincial and municipal partner objectives. Further, in recognition of the fiscal and logistical challenges of TRCA partner municipalities in constructing and maintaining the bridges and culverts that cross valley and stream corridors, the Guideline outlines a balanced approach to achieving these objectives, which directs effort and expenditure to the mitigation of impacts to where it is most needed with more flexible requirements in less critical locations.

Content of the Guideline The Guideline articulates TRCA study requirements for the review of proposed new crossings and upgrades to existing crossing upgrades (extension, repairs, replacements) from preliminary concepts and alignments, to intermediate planning stages, through to detailed design. The submission criteria for studies outlined in the Guideline reflect much of what crossing proponents are already providing in submissions to TRCA, but these criteria are now organized in a helpful manner that will better facilitate and streamline the review and approval process. The Guideline itself is organized as follows:  Introduction: Provides an overview of the context, rationale and role of TRCA in crossing planning and design.

 TRCA objectives for crossings: Objectives against which TRCA staff test applications for proposed new crossings or alterations to existing crossings.

 TRCA study requirements: Requirements for submissions in support of crossings for TRCA staff to assess whether a crossing will meet the objectives. These requirements are organized by project type (new crossing or existing) and by stage of the planning or environmental assessment process (early, intermediate and late) and vary accordingly in scope and detail.

 Technical Appendices: Specific technical details and procedures to guide consultants in preparation of the required studies for natural hazard and natural heritage assessments, including a high level mapping tool. The mapping tool was developed by TRCA staff using desktop analysis of existing data to highlight valley and stream corridors that are predicted to be of high ecological concern for crossings within TRCA’s jurisdiction. Given major new developments in the science of habitat connectivity and function, TRCA staff incorporated this new information into state-of-the-art analyses that were undertaken to understand the most important locations in TRCA watersheds for the management of these impacts and accordingly, in the specification of guidance for crossing location, sizing and design. Notably, the tool is prefaced with the caution that natural heritage priorities must be considered in the context of all of the constraints affecting a crossing project (e.g., natural hazards), such that the greater of these constraints will ultimately drive crossing siting and design.

367

Throughout the Guideline, labeled diagrams and tables illustrate, synthesize and organize study requirements for greater reference.

Comments Received on the Draft Guideline During the consultation period for the LCP, many municipalities and consultants remarked that they were anticipating the crossings Guideline to be helpful in supporting the infrastructure policies. Accordingly, feedback on the draft Guideline through verbal comments in the webinars and through written comments was largely positive. A detailed listing of written comments received with TRCA responses can be found in Attachment 1. However, a summary of these comments is below.

Province The only provincial ministry to comment, the Ministry of Transportation (MTO), stated that although they are exempt from TRCA’s permit process, they may still voluntarily undergo TRCA review on specific circumstances. They went on to state that the information in the Guideline is of assistance as MTO continues to proactively collaborate with TRCA on various issues and initiatives to ensure alignment of provincial and TRCA policies. The comments also stated that MTO appreciates TRCA referring to MTO guidelines and standards and TRCA’s efforts in ensuring the alignment of TRCA Guidelines with provincial policy.

Municipalities Many municipalities commented that they have no concern with the Guideline and/or no comments for the revision of the Guideline. Some comments recognized that the Guideline identifies the best approaches to corridor crossings in accordance with legislation and policy, accepted science, and current best practice, and is therefore useful to a very wide audience. It was recommended that the Guideline should highlight this point more strongly. Of the municipalities that made comments, many highlighted the issue of costs associated with retrofitting existing crossings. For example:

 The document is very useful in outlining the information that TRCA requires to review road and rail crossing structures and proposed modifications to existing structures and should be of assistance in the management of natural hazards and natural heritage issues associated with crossings.  We appreciate the effort that has gone into preparing the document and believe they will be very helpful to use going forward. We support their use on guiding our projects, provided there continues to be support from TRCA on the consideration of all factors (including cost) in the decision making.  This document is generally identifying a ‘best practices’ approach to valley / watercourse corridor crossings, and is therefore applicable and potentially adoptable by a very wide audience, ranging from other conservation authorities, to regional/area municipalities, and other agency and private proponents.  While it is important to include material in this document that expresses how these guidelines build upon / support TRCA’s planning and regulatory responsibilities, you may wish to express / emphasize that these guidelines will help all responsible levels of government / agency/ proponents to fulfill their mandates / policies / standards to address these critical issues.  The document repeatedly notes that TRCA may recommend replacement vs. extension. How does this relate to TRCA’s approval of a project if a proponent disagrees based on issues of cost, timing, etc.?

368  Criteria/requirements for rehabilitation or modifications to an existing bridge should be much less stringent compared to a new bridge.

In response, staff made revisions to further emphasize the Guideline’s alignment with provincial and municipal objectives. Staff also acknowledged the challenges and limitations associated with upgrading an existing crossing and pointed to the associated flexibility already in the Guideline for existing crossing study requirements relative to new crossing projects.

Other Conservation Authorities Comments from TRCA’s neighbouring conservation authorities were supportive of TRCA’s efforts to develop a holistic approach to the planning and design of crossings to address natural hazard and natural heritage issues, and indicated that the Guideline would be useful to them in their own work. Credit Valley Conservation in particular submitted a number of written comments which TRCA staff addressed through minor revisions to the Guideline and by highlighting existing sections of the Guideline that spoke to their comments.

Building and Land Development Industry (BILD) BILD members submitted no formal written comments on the Guideline, but informal feedback from BILD’s policy and government relations representative suggested the response by their membership was generally positive. Feedback from the attendees of the webinar was also largely positive, with acknowledgement of the clarity that the Guideline provides regarding TRCA’s approach to crossings. Some of the webinar attendees provided constructive suggestions regarding the need for additional clarity on some points, which have been accommodated through minor revisions to the text.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Guideline will be implemented through the Planning, Greenspace and Communications division in review processes for Planning Act applications, environmental assessment and master planning, and through TRCA’s own permitting process. As in current practice, TRCA planners, engineers and ecologists reviewing applications will work with crossing proponents and approval authorities to streamline the review process while striving for the best possible outcome for environmental and growth planning objectives. Similar to other TRCA technical guidelines supporting The Living City Policies, the Guideline will be updated to reflect any legislative changes or technical / scientific updates related to current practices as they arise.

In addition, TRCA staff will monitor the impacts of crossings in TRCA watersheds and evaluate the performance of crossings located and designed in accordance with the Guideline. This work is intended to validate the guidance in the Guideline, particularly with respect to natural heritage management and to refine it over time with the on-the-ground understanding of what is happening in TRCA watersheds and what approaches to mitigating crossing impacts are most effective in our local context. This will ensure that the Guideline is providing value to TRCA partner municipalities and communities by directing impact mitigation efforts and resources so that they protect valued elements of watershed health. To this end, TRCA staff have already established a long term study design and a working group for Road-Valley Crossings Research comprised of members from various levels of government, neighbouring conservation authorities, academic institutions and wildlife conservation organizations.

369 FINANCIAL DETAILS The development of the crossings guideline was supported through capital funding from the regional municipalities of Peel and York. Staff secured additional funding through research- granting organizations to undertake the research and advanced technical analysis that supported the development of the Guideline. In future years, Peel and York regions’ capital funding will also support the ongoing research and monitoring on the outcomes of crossings and incorporation of the results through revisions to the Guideline.

Report prepared by: Ryan Ness, Namrata Shrestha and Mary-Ann Burns Emails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] For Information contact: Ryan Ness, extension 5702 or Mary-Ann Burns, extension 5763 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] Date: September 9, 2015 Attachments: 1

370 Attachment 1

TRCA Responses to Comments on the draft Crossings Guideline for Valley and Stream Corridors, April 2015 version September 2015

Revisions to Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response Guideline? City of Brampton General This document is generally identifying a ‘best practices’ approach to valley / watercourse Text has been added in Section 1.1 - Paragraph 4 to emphasize the Y corridor crossings, and is therefore applicable and potentially adoptable by a very wide supporting role of the guideline. Text added: "The guideline also supports audience, ranging from other Conservation Authorities, to regional/area municipalities, and the goals of other agencies in protecting the natural heritage system and other agency and private proponents. Today, all levels of government have generally protecting people and property from harm and risk due to natural hazards. expressed the same goals and objectives as TRCA has through strategic and planning The directions provided in the guideline are consistent with the guidance documents, i.e. the need to protect / conserve the natural heritage system and protect provided in various provincial and other agency documents (listed in people from the harm and risk of environmental hazards. As well, many of these other Reference section) and will be updated as needed." levels of government and even agency / private interests have the added concern of liability. Therefore, while it is important to include material in this document that expresses how these guidelines build upon / support TRCA’s planning and regulatory responsibilities,you may wish to express / emphasize that these guidelines will help all responsible levels of government / agency/ propoenents to fulfill their mandates / policies / standards to address these critical issues. As such, this document should also recognize PPS 2014, MNRF’s Natural Hazards Guide, Natural Heritage Reference Manual, etc. as appropriate. 371

City of Brampton General Recommend that when the document speaks to natural heritage, use the term "natural Comments noted and appreciated; N heritage system" because in addition to protecting for a natural feature/area (e.g. specific - The use of natural heritage function (instead of NH system) was intended valley/watercourse reach), we also need to be cognizant of the system connectivity and the to reflect the broader concept of ecological functions rather than the movement of wildlife on regional landscape basis. For example, in Introduction, paragraph 2 specific "system" line that has already been defined by individual sentence 1 indicates “CAs use their expertise in natural hazard management and natural jurisdictions. heritage protection and restoration to comment to other approval authorities .” -Though most NH systems have successfully integrated broader ecological concepts, some are still targeted towards terrestrial habitat and connections. The guideline includes both terrestrial and aquatic NH functions to inform crossings decision making. - In addition, the NH functions in the guideline are intended to incorporate the priorities set by the pre-defined NH systems, however also adds additional means to identify a gradient of priorities for crossing structures per se so that appropriate effort can be directed to locations where the crossings can benefit habitat quality and wildlife connections more.

Page 1 of 14 Revisions to Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response Guideline? City of Brampton General This document is addressing road and rail crossings; however, is there a need for these Although the guideline focuses on valley and stream corridors, the N guidelines to include: approach used in connectivity assessments and providing a. Road eco-passages for wildlife. Certainly this is an issue for valley and watercourse recommendations recognizes the need for broader landscape connectivity crossings, but also connections between and/or to other terrestrial habitats beyond these beyond the valley and stream corridors as stated in the second last corridors? sentence of Section 1.1. - Paragraph 2. Thus, all of the priorities that are defined by the tools within the valley and stream corridors are in relation to its relative contribution to the broader landscape connections as described in detail in Appendix 1D, 2B and 2C.

City of Brampton General This document is addressing road and rail crossings; however, is there a need for these Recommendations will be made to the TRCA Trails Strategy (under N guidelines to include: development) to incorporate additional details regarding this issue. b. Pedestrian (trail) crossings as well, since these structures are becoming more significant in size and cost (and do provide not only people access but equipment access in corridors)? You may consider integrating the trails information in Sec. 3.3 as well as the future Trails Strategy that is under development.

City of Brampton General Municipalities don’t generally express the stages of planning as early, intermediate and late, Comments noted and appreciated; Y and therefore trying to define TRCA’s requirements for crossings in this manner seems very - TRCA has multiple municipalities within its jurisdiction who use varied confusing. You may wish to consider identifying requirements related to infrastructure terminologies to express the planning stages. Thus, the terms early, 372 planning, infrastructure design and infrastructure approvals. intermediate, and late were used in the guideline as a way to generalize As well, please note that when the City of Brampton identifies roads through the land use them. planning process we reference this as “integrated planning” and essentially follow the EA - Revised text has been added to Section 1.3 - Paragraph 5 to clarify this process in the following manner: point. Text added "The terminology used to describe the planning stages a. Infrastructure Planning - undertake Secondary Plan / Block Plan Transportation varies from municipality to municipality and between Planning Act and Study that fulfills EA Phase 1 & 2 (road network needs & justification). The general Environmental Assessment processes. TRCA has selected the terms location of the road network is established including new roads and upgrades to early, intermediate and late stages to broadly generalize them, and existing roads. NHS planning is completed at this stage including the protection, accommodate all of these processes (Figure 6)." conservation and compensation for natural features to be retained and/or lost to facilitate development and servicing. b. Infrastructure Design - through Draft Plan of Subdivision require supporting technical reports that would address servicing that would fulfill EA Phase 3 & 4 (road location relative to NHS and 30% road design), as well as establish limits of development, natural feature protection/creation, stormwater management, etc. (e.g. geotechnical, fluvial geomorphology, EIS, FSR, etc.) c. Infrastructure Approval – through Site Plan or Subdivision – we will finalize detailed crossing design including site remediation, restoration and enhancement. Applicable permits will be sought including CA, MNRF, etc.

City of Brampton General Further to Comment 5, discussing requirements related to planning, design and approval Section 3.1 describes this in detail. N may simplify the issue when describing requirements for existing vs new infrastructure.

Page 2 of 14 Revisions to Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response Guideline? City of Brampton General The study should identify the information that TRCA has available that can inform The details of all information including various relevant sources are N infrastructure planning, i.e. fisheries management plans, THNS, etc. outlined in Appendix 1 A through 1 D. Additional technical information and tools are then provided in Appendix 2A through 2C.

City of Brampton General Section 3.0 describes TRCA’s study requirements for crossings; however, there is little Text has been added to Section 3 - Paragraph 2 in this regard. Text Y recognition that many of these requirements may already be addressed through the typical added: "It should be noted that many of these requirements may also be study requirements for planning applications and/or the EA process. This is particularly prepared in support of municipal planning applications or the noteworthy when considering integrated road planning through the Secondary Plan and / or Environmental Assessment Act process." Block Plan process that requires preparation of a Master Environmental Servicing Plan or Environmental Implementation Report, respectively.

City of Brampton General Please include the guidelines and sizing/design requirements for pedestrian crossings. Recommendation will be made to the TRCA Trails Strategy (under N development) to include the suggested details on pedestrian crossings as stated in Section 3.3.2.1.

City of Brampton General Please include TRCA’s floodplain mapping guideline as one of the appendices. The TRCA Floodplain Management Guideline (under development) that N outlines how proponents conduct mapping will be provided in the upcoming update to the TRCA Procedural Manual. However, in the interim, the current practice is that proponents complete the mapping in consultation with TRCA.

373 City of Brampton General Typically, TRCA would not permit the use of upstream storage (behind the crossing The issue of reflecting storage upstream of crossings to delineate N structures) to delineate floodplains. However, in the past, TRCA accepted the hydraulic floodplains is an issue that pertains to the development of hydrological analysis of a crossing structure that took into account the upstream storage. Please clarify models for the delineation and regulation of floodplans and flood hazard that under what circumstances/conditions TRCA would accept this approach. zones by TRCA, and does not pertain to the hydraulic analysis of crossing structures as described in the Guideline. The forthcoming TRCA Floodplain Management Guideline will speak in detail to the circumstances under which storage upstream of crossings can be considered in hydrologic modelling and analysis.

City of Markham General In general, the guideline provides a lot of details regarding TRCA’s requirements for Comments noted and appreciated. N (Engineering construction of new bridges and rehabilitation (e.g. widen) and/or repair of existing ones. At Department) the end, these structures (new and/or existing) are to meet existing guidelines (flood, erosion, aquatic, etc.).

City of Markham General The report is missing section 2.1.4 & 2.1.5 and there are various errors in the report. Please Revisions have been made to correct these typos, which were meant to Y (Engineering provide these section for our review since it has been reference few times in the guideline. refer to Sections 2.1 and 2.2 respectively. Department)

City of Markham General We will be providing further comments at a later date and when a revised version of the We have addressed the comments received to date and intend on N (Engineering guideline is provided. finalizing the guideline at the end of September. Department)

Page 3 of 14 Revisions to Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response Guideline? City of General Thank you for providing the draft document for review. The document is very useful in Comments noted and appreciated. N Mississauga outlining the information that TRCA requires to review road and rail crossing structures and proposed modifications to existing structures and should be of assistance in the management of natural hazards and natural heritage issues associated with crossings. From a policy planning perspective we have no concerns .

Ministry of General The Crossing Guidelines for Valley and Stream Corridors is intended to describe TRCA Comments noted and appreciated. N Transportation proponents the information that TRCA requires in order to review crossing structures and proposed modifications to existing structures. As stated in Section 1.3, certain proponents including MTO are exempt from TRCA’s permit process but may still voluntarily undergo TRCA review on specific circumstances. The information is of assistance as MTO continues to proactively collaborate with TRCA on various issues and initiatives to ensure alignment of provincial and TRCA policies.

Ministry of General MTO also appreciates TRCA referring to Ministry of Transportation Guidelines considering Comments noted and appreciated. N Transportation implications of future land use on flooding as well as MTO’s Drainage Management Manual and MTO Highway Drainage Design Standards. TRCA’s efforts in ensuring the alignment of TRCA Guidelines with the Provincial Policies are appreciated.

Ministry of General MTO would like to be informed when the final Draft is issued. Also, would TRCA be willing Yes. TRCA will be sharing the final draft of the guideline (Fall 2015) as well N Transportation to share any stakeholder comments with the Ministry that may relate to MTO’s policies or as stakeholder comments with all stakeholders involved in the 374 activities? consultation process, including MTO.

Page 4 of 14 Revisions to Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response Guideline? Town of General A suggested table of contents is as follows: - The guideline's existing amount of information reflects the varying levels Y Richmond Hill of familiarity with TRCA requirements and crossing issues by proponents. TRCA may develop a checklist for quick reference that will summarize the guideline in a way similar to what you have outlined in the proposed "Executive Summary". - Figure 15 has been revised to show more reference points for easier navigation 375

Town of General Does the TRCA have a strategy to continue to advocate for policy updates which include The Living City Policies (2014) provides the framework for implementation N Richmond Hill requirements to address the natural heritage system in crossing design? of the guideline as highlighted in Section 1.3. Policy updates are outside the scope of the guideline given that it is a technical support tool to policies, but as science advances for crossings it will inform future updates to the guideline. Further, we use The Living City Policies to inform our commenting role under the planning and EA processes.

Town of General Will TRCA produce a general summary that Municipal/Regional staff could take to A general summary of the guideline will be included in the Authority Board N Richmond Hill Council, which garners support for implementing the principles of the Crossing Guidelines report when it is finalized. through the tender/study/construction process?

Town of General Is TRCA able to provide pre-consultation with applicants? Yes, pre-consultation is encouraged prior to submission as standard N Richmond Hill practice in the land use and EA planning processes. In addition TRCA staff will be available to facilitate further meaningful discussions at various stages of planning as stated in Section 1.3.

Page 5 of 14 Revisions to Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response Guideline? Credit Valley General CVC appreciates the efforts of TRCA planning and ecology staff to develop this Comments noted and appreciated N Conservation comprehensive guideline. A holistic approach to planning valley and stream crossings that incorporates hazard and natural heritage functions is much needed, and will be a useful tool to incorporate into the transportation planning process.

Credit Valley General An indirect effect of crossings may be increased angling activity, due to the creation of Comments noted and appreciated. N Conservation access points. In addition crossings may create conditions that concentrate fish, either as partial or behavioral barriers, or by attracting fish to scour or impoundment pools associated with the crossing. Credit Valley General Recommend acknowledging that an important function of design is that it can help address This is stated in the introductory section and in Box 1 of the Guideline. N Conservation safety concerns, such as deer crossing. Credit Valley General Cumulative effects could be elaborated upon, perhaps when discussing the context of Further discussion on science is provided in technical document, Natural N Conservation upstream and downstream impacts. Note there is some literature on the cumulative effects Heritage Function Technical Summary, which will be found on the TRCA of crossings on wetlands, as well as cumulative impacts to multiple barriers within stream website as a background document to the guideline. systems for fish. Credit Valley General Consider including a checklist of mitigation options/techniques to consider at design stage Currently outside the scope of the guideline, however TRCA may consider N Conservation (e.g. signs, fencing, speed limit, avoiding rip rap that deer avoid due to footing issues, producing a handbook of effective crossing design at a later point to substrate, paving options that may attract/deter species, preferred planting arrangements). facilitate implementation of the guideline, if needed. 376 Credit Valley General No mention of Significant Wildlife Habitat in the document. Recommend maintaining and SWH has been added into point 1b. in Appendix 1D. Y Conservation enhancing connectivity in areas that contain SWH.

Durham General We appreciate the effort that has gone into preparing the document and believe they will be Once the document is finalized and in use it will improve the current N very helpful to use going forward. We support their use on guiding our projects, provided practice of considering all of the factors affecting a project (including cost) there continues to be support from TRCA on the consideration of all factors (including cost) for the best possible outcome. in the decision making.

Page 6 of 14 Revisions to Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response Guideline? City of Brampton Section 1 Recommend that the document take a more proactive stance in describing natural Text in Box 1 of the Guideline has been revised to reflect some of this Y functions and processes, and then in subsequent paragraphs explain how this translates wording. into ‘natural hazards and risks’ to infrastructure / investment as a result of human decisions rather than the laws of nature. For example, Text Box 1 could be revised in the following manner: 377

Page 7 of 14 Revisions to Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response Guideline? City of Brampton Section 1 Comments noted and appreciated; Y Text revised in Box 1 to reflect some of this wording. 378

Town of Section 1 The overall purpose of the document is not instantly evident and in the current form the - Given the wide variety of targeted audiences the guideline intentionally N Richmond Hill document is lengthy, repetitive and difficult to navigate. Recommendation: Target the provides detailed context in the introductory sections of the document. document to the intended client – the applicant who needs a clear process outlined in an - The repetition between sections is also intentional to allow each section efficient manner . to be a stand-alone section. This allows for different audience to delve into the most relevant sections (as described in the How to Read the Document). - Also, the separation of the planning stages for crossings into early, intermediate, and late stages facilitates a clear process for the ntended client in an efficient manner. - The "How to Read this Document" section on Page ii clearly outlines the relevant sections for the intended clients. For example, a consultant preparing a submission for a structure at the draft plan stage would refer to Section 3.2.2 (Study Requirements for Intermediate Planning Stages).

Page 8 of 14 Revisions to Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response Guideline? City of Markham Section The guideline ignores municipal, Region’s, etc requirements by indicating that the guideline Revised text in Section 1.1. - Paragraph 3 to clarify that TRCA's guideline Y (Engineering 1.1. is to meet TRCA objectives (1st paragraph, page 3), is intended to achieve TRCA's objectives, many of which are aligned with Department) the objectives of partner municipalities. Revised text: "The guideline outlines a balanced approach to planning and design of valley and stream corridor crossings as a means of achieving TRCA’s natural hazard and natural heritage objectives described in Section 2 many of which are aligned with the objectives of partner municipalities."

City of Brampton Section 1.3 Sec. 1.3 – page 5 – paragraph 1 – further to Comment 1, this document often evokes an The last sentence in Section 1.3 - Paragraph 3, "TRCA is not obliged…" Y egocentric point of view. For example, sentence 2 indicates that “TRCA is not obliged to has been removed from the guideline. The previous two sentences in this issue a permit to these proponents”. A more accurate sentence might note that as these paragraph explain the voluntary review process without being egocentric. proponents are ‘exempt’ from TRCA’s processes, they are not required / obliged to seek a permit from TRCA. This type of issue highlights the opportunity TRCA has in writing / advocating these guidelines from the perspective of industry / agency best practices to gain wider audience acceptance and potentially adoption.

City of Markham Section Criteria/requirements for rehabilitation or modifications to an existing bridge should be much - The guideline recognizes the distinction between new and existing N (Engineering 2.1. less stringent compared to a new bridge. The 2 should not have the same criteria. The crossings and have incorporated and emphasized flexibility throughout the Department) guideline listed many requirements for rehabilitation/modification of existing bridges which if document as follows. 379 they are not met the bridge must be replace. This is difficult, costly and not practical. When - It is clarified upfront in Section 2-Paragraph 5 leading to Section 2.1. TRCA made their presentation to the city a month ago (the guideline was not out yet at that Existing text:"For upgrades or replacement of existing crossing structures, time), they indicated that as long as the changes/ modifications to an existing bridge does TRCA recognizes that both the location of the crossing and the vertical not increase flood risks, there will be no need for replacement of the structure. This is not profile of the road and or railway are already established and often cannot the case in the guideline (Section 2.1, page 9). This should be changed and made more be modified to any significant degree. In these instances, it may be flexible and less stringent when there are no impacts of flooding due to bridge repair and difficult to achieve all natural hazard and natural heritage objectives and rehabilitation (let’s not treat existing bridges like new ones, it makes implementing the TRCA will work with proponents to achieve the best practical outcome." guideline difficult), - It is also stated in Section 2.1 - Paragraph 1 that there is flexibility for existing crossings for geomorphic risks. - Further, Section 3.1 - Paragraph 3 states that "If the extension of an existing crossing structure results in negative natural hazard or natural heritage outcomes, TRCA recommends that the structure be replaced instead of extended. At a minimum, there should be no increase in flood risk as a result of the proposed extension and existing erosion should not be exacerbated. If this cannot be achieved, the structure must be replaced with one that can safely convey flood flows without increases in flood risk." - It is also highlighted in Table 2, which states when studies are not required for existing crossings if minor changes are proposed.

Page 9 of 14 Revisions to Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response Guideline? City of Markham Section The guideline should be more flexible regarding rehabilitation/modification to existing The Guideline acknowledges flexibility is needed for work to existing N (Engineering 2.1. and bridges to allow for mitigation/compensation measures if the rehabilitation/modification will crossings up front in Section 2-Paragraph 5 leading to Section 2.1. In Department) 2.2. cause impacts (Pages 9 & 10) addition, compensation is specifically mentioned in Section 3.2.1 - point 8, and Section 3.2.3 - point 2.

Credit Valley Section 3 Why specifically was 120m chosen for the distance for forests/wetlands to the crossing to The distance of 120 m was chosen to avoid the direct footprint impact on N Conservation and complete a detailed assessment? This distance is typically for assessing adjacent lands, the habitat patch as described in Appendix 1.D - Paragraph 3, and Appendix and does not directly relate to dispersal distances or goals for maintaining connectivity. therefore would be consistent with "the adjacent lands" approach of the 2.C. (Table PPS. Connectivity is covered through the requirement of assessing priority 2 and 7) for connectivity as per the natural heritage tools presented herein.

Credit Valley Section The terrestrial assessment seeks ‘no proposed impacts on forests, wetlands, and aquatic - The connectivity approach used in the guideline considers broader Y Conservation 3.1. habitat or connectivity’ (p19). Recommend considering the approach of maintaining north- landscape connectivity across all directions at the regional level south and east-west connectivity through the Natural Heritage System, rather than (incorporating the principles of natural heritage systems, which includes individual sections of the valleyland. The valleylands are the major corridors of the natural existing and potential natural cover areas) as well as local connections heritage system; meadows and other habitat within these systems would also provide within specific valley segments. connectivity functions. - Revised text added in Section 3.1.2 - Paragraph 3 to clarify that the connectivity that is being referred to is specifically referring to the details presented in the guideline (Appendix 1D, 2C and 2D). Text added "no proposed impacts on forests, wetlands, and aquatic habitat, or priority 380 areas for habitat and wildlife connectivity as identified through early planning stages in consultation with TRCA".

City of Brampton Section Extensions vs Replacements The "impact assessment" requirements for existing crossings are the N 3.1.1. a. Paragraph 2 – please qualify what is meant by ‘impact assessment’ relative to the same as for new crossings (Section 3.2) unless the proposed changes are report requirements outlined in Table 2. minor. Further details on these requirements are outlined in Appendix 1.D. - Study Components for Intermediate Stages.

City of Brampton Section Extensions vs Replacements The guideline is intended to facilitate a meaningful discussion regarding N 3.1.1. b. Throughout this section, the document repeatedly notes that ‘TRCA may (strongly) crossings as early in the planning process as possible. The approval will recommend replacement vs extensions’. How does this relate to TRCA’s approval be based on negotiations through this process. of a project if a proponent disagrees based on issues of cost, timing, etc.?

City of Brampton Section Paragraph 1 – what are Environmental Study Reports? This term has not Environmental Study Reports refer to documents required under the Y 3.1.2. been used before. Possibly this should read ‘environmental study reports, e.g. EIS, FSR, Environmental Assessment Act . Clarification text has been added in etc. Section 3.1.2 - Paragraph 1. Text added: "(as per the Environmental Assessment Act)". City of Brampton Section Point 2 – what are your expectations for a proponent to ‘confirm’ that the Revised text added in Appendix 1D - Study Components for late Planning Y 3.1.3. proposed footprint has been minimized? As provided, this is very ambiguous. Stages. Text added: "Examples to minimize crossing footprint impacts include (but are not limited to) road embankment grade modifications, and co-locating proposed infrastructure and access roads."

Page 10 of 14 Revisions to Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response Guideline? City of Brampton Section Sentence 2 indicates that “Proponents should meet with TRCA staff at key milestones (e.g. Revised text in Section 3.2.1 - Paragraph 1. Revised text: "Proponents Y 3.2.1. Secondary Plan commencement, terms of reference development, etc.) well in advance of should meet with TRCA staff at key milestones through the existing any submission in order to identify pertinent issues and study requirements related to environmental assessment and/or land use planning consultation crossings”. It may be more appropriate that TRCA recognize that an EA and/or integrated processes (e.g. Secondary Plan commencement, terms of reference planning process for roads have a defined process that will include stakeholder development, etc.) well in advance of any submission in order to identify engagement and consultation, particularly regulatory stakeholders such as TRCA. pertinent issues and study requirements related to crossings."

City of Brampton Section As well, further to Point 8 there is a need to recognize that secondary or block planning TRCA has multiple municipalities within its jurisdiction who use varied Y 3.2.1. (that includes planning the road network) will be based on technical studies, e.g MESP terminologies and differing levels of consultation through EA and planning and/or Environmental Implementation Report.that are primarily geared to identifying stages. Thus, the terms early, intermediate, and late were used in the /addressing the protection of the natural heritage system. Requirements for additional guideline as a way to generalize them; Revised text in Section 3.2.1 - technical work / analysis should be built into the terms of reference for these documents Paragraph 1 to recognize the existing planning process has been added. and/or recognize that work undertaken for the MESP / EIR may suffice at this point in Revised text: "Proponents should meet with TRCA staff at key milestones infrastructure planning. Therefore, this section could be revised to better indicate: through the existing environmental assessment and/or land use planning consultation processes (e.g. Secondary Plan commencement, terms of reference development, etc.) well in advance of any submission in order to identify pertinent issues and study requirements related to crossings." 381

City of Brampton Section Pages 20 and 21 - please change the order of activities as following: The order of activities is meant to be sequential and the bullets have been Y 3.2.1. • Change #6 to #1 reordered to reflect this in Section 3.2.1. • Change #7 to #4 • Change #8 to #2 • Change #9 to #3 • Maintain the order for the rest of activities

City of Brampton Section Would recommend breaking out Legislation from Other Considerations – Changes made to Section 3.3. to separate the Legislation from Other Y 3.3. regulatory requirements certainly supercede recreational trail planning / guidelines. Considerations.

Page 11 of 14 Revisions to Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response Guideline? City of Markham Section The guideline recommends providing 2 separate passages in some cases (one for human - The intent of Section 3.3.2 - point 3 is to present a general consideration N (Engineering 3.3.1. (now [trails/pathways] and the 2nd for wildlife. This is not practical and costly to implement and based on strong scientific evidence (Taylor and Knight 2003, Brown et al. Department) 3.3.2) will significantly increase the size of the crossing (page 25, bullet 3). We think one passage 2012, Hansen et al. in press, Barrueto et al. 2014) that in some cases it is sufficient and could be shared by both. may be critical to consider some form of functional separation between humans and wildlife to achieve habitat connectivity and wildlife passage. - This may or may not need a separate crossing structure but rather an appropriate design to separate the human disturbance and wildlife. This is especially true if there is a presence of high human use and / or very sensitive wildlife. - Recommendations will be made to the TRCA Trail Strategy (under development) to provide further details on the specifics of the trail design for habitat and wildlife connectivity.

Credit Valley Section Navigation Protection Act – Not sure if the federal act applies to most of the watershed any Comments noted and appreciated. N Conservation 3.3.2. longer, but there are some provincial requirements. Nevertheless, we should respect the canoeing/kayaking needs and hazards of our stakeholders, as well as existing plans to promote such activities (e.g. Mississauga’s Credit River Parks Strategy). 382 Credit Valley Why was the valley height of >4.5m chosen? CVC uses 3 or 3.5m. A valley height of >4.5 m was used to incorporate 3m for large mammal Y Conservation crossings plus 1.5 m of deck height while designing large spanning structures, so that target wildlife can move under the structure. Text added in Appendix 2.C - Paragraph 9 ">4.5 meters that includes 3 metres + 1.5 metre deck height required for bridges".

Credit Valley Appendix Figure 16 – Have concern with the preliminary assessment of natural heritage function. - The Preliminary Assessment output (Figure 15) is based on desktop level N Conservation 2.B. High priority areas are interrupted by medium and low priority areas throughout the system. analysis of existing data on habitat, connectivity models, and valley depth Would you not want to maintain a contiguous valley system in certain key north-south information. As such, the high priority locations mostly indicate DEEP corridors to the extent possible? In addition, most of the extreme headwaters are medium, (>=4.5m) and important habitat and connectivity locations within the valley. indicating a need to maintain connectivity in a shallow valley. Would these not be the most These locations are likely feasible for large spanning structures. The likely locations for culverts? medium priority is where there is still important habitat and connectivity locations, however is NOT DEEP enough (<4.5m). Thus, the maintenance of habitat and connectivity function has to be achieved via alternate options such as appropriately designed smaller crossing structures. This way the connectivity will be maintained across the landscape in both high and medium priority locations but via different crossing design options. - Appendix 1.D. - Pararaph 4 and 5 as well as Appendix 2.B. - Paragraph 5 explains this in more detail.

Town of Appendix Will Figure 15 be ‘live’ and updated on the TRCA website? Yes; Based on most-up-to-date data and information, Figure 15 will be N Richmond Hill 2.C. updated and will be available on the website as needed.

Page 12 of 14 Revisions to Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response Guideline? Credit Valley Appendix Recommend reconsidering the assumptions regarding urbanization that have been - Appendix 2.C. - Paragraph 9 -Option A - bullet 3 refers to the detailed N Conservation 2.C. incorporated into the modelling and guidance (e.g. p 51, Option A bullet 3 and p52, Option assessment guiding the site level decisions. B, bullet 3). In general the valleylands connect the remaining high quality habitat in our - The assumption made herevregarding urbanization is related to the urban areas, and also provide a corridor between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges evidence that in a habitat patch within close proximity of highly urbanized Moraine/Greenbelt. Connectivity becomes increasingly important in highly urbanized areas, areas, speciesthat can persist over the long term are resilient generalists as the valleylands provide some of the last remaining connections across the landscape. with good turnover rates. These are well adapted to urban landscapes (e.g. raccoons) and are capable of surviving and moving in such habitat regardless of the crossing design. - However, given that the ultimate objective for crossings is to achieve connectivity for all wildlife, the guideline highlights alternate ways (Option A verses B) to achieve this through crossings where connectivity is deemed important. For example, Option B, which includes smaller crossings with adequate dry passage along the watercourse or additional openings (Appendix 2.C. - Paragraph 12) may be equally viable crossing structures to provide connectivity for urban adapted species (compared to Option A) . -The guideline highlights these strategic considerations based on evidence to redirect the appropriate level of effort in terms of crossing design to where they can contribute most effectively and efficiently to achieve connectivity function. If science changes these assumptions, they will be revisited and updated in the guideline. - In the case of large urban valleys, natural hazards will often drive Option 383 A type structures, which will help accomodate connectivity functions.

Credit Valley Appendix Recommend increasing the ability to incorporate site level information into the ultimate Yes; Appendix 2.C on detailed assessment includes the ability to N Conservation 2.C. design of the crossing. For example, field studies may indicate rich/diverse wildlife locally, incorporate finer level field data (as listed in Table 6 and 7) into the even if the area was not necessarily mapped as high quality habitat, or an area of high decision making. Also, the ultimate choice of crossings will have to connectivity. In these cases, is it possible to alter the choice of the crossing (e.g. Flowchart comprehensively incorporate natural hazards and other considerations as 1 – Option A, B or C)? discussed in earlier in the guideline.

Credit Valley Appendix Need to incorporate literature and references that support the recommendations in the References have been added. Y Conservation 2.C. document (e.g. Table 5 p52, Table 8 p58). Credit Valley Appendix Pleased to see traffic count data incorporated into the decision tree. This is supported by Comments noted and appreciated. N Conservation 2.C. science and will be beneficial to the analysis.

Page 13 of 14 Revisions to Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response Guideline? Credit Valley Appendix Appendix 2C indicates that this stage should identify the appropriate type, size and spacing - Appendix 2.C. - Paragraph 10 discusses "measures that determine the N Conservation 2.C. of openings along with additional design considerations. Recommend additional design willingness of the wildlife to pass through the structure" , which includes guidance is needed here, specifically: but is not limited to openess ratio. Recent advances in road ecology o Incorporate openness ratio – a common standard discussed in road ecology literature and literature have indicated that focusing only on one index such as the in southern Ontario. openness ratio is not recommended, rather a suite of measures should be o Incorporate more discussion regarding ecological value of open-bottom culverts, including considered for effective usage of crossings by wildlife (Kintch and Cramer that open bottom culverts are preferred in order to ensure fish passage. 2011). o Incorporate more specific guidance on substrate - what treatments should be used as - Also, Appendix 2.C. - second last paragraph and Table 8 present substrate for the crossing/species. additional design factors such as minimum size, type of substrate, lighting o Other mitigation measures (directional fencing, steeper side slopes and other concepts to and moisture conditions etc. that may be critical for crossing usage by mitigate impacts). wildlife. More details on these and other design parameters are outside the o Specify minimum width (i.e. bankfull) to ensure that there will be no increase in velocities scope of this guideline. Readers are directed to a comprehensive review of when exiting the culvert. this information in a report by Kintch and Cramer (2011). o Clarify under what conditions terrestrial passage is required. Should there be dry passage - For aquatic passage, accomodation of hydrological flow with open bottom during a storm event? 2 year flow suggested as the storm event flow. culverts should accomodate fish passage. - TRCA will make any necessary updates to the guideline to reflect any procedural issues related to legislative change or technical / scientific updates related to current practices. - Also, TRCA will consider producing a handbook or a checklist on effective crossing design at a later point, to augment the implementation of the guideline, if needed. 384

Credit Valley Appendix Table 8 - The species selected do not appear to be common species or species that CAs - The intention of providing the species list in Table 8 is to illustrate the N Conservation 2.C. typically survey for. maintenance of broader habitat functions. - Given that habitat is used as a surrogate it is assumed that if certain habitat is present the listed wildlife are using them and would require connectivity measures. - This does not mean additional survey requirements. As outlined in Appendix 2.C, the survey requirements for the assessments do not include any species beyond which CAs already survey.

Page 14 of 14 RES.#A161/15 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Approval of the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020.

Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Mike Mattos

THAT the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 be approved;

THAT the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry be requested to approve the project pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act;

THAT the project be circulated to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) participating municipalities as the basis for funding and land securement opportunities;

THAT the project be circulated to the Credit Valley, Central Lake Ontario and Lake Simcoe Region conservation authorities, Nature Conservancy of Canada and Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust and other relevant organizations for their information and as the basis for any joint land securement opportunities which may arise;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any necessary action to implement the Greenlands Acquisition Project 2016 -2020. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015 expires at the end of 2015. The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020, (document available upon request), is the latest in a long series of multi-year land acquisition and securement projects approved by TRCA.

The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020, when approved by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry under Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, will be the legal mechanism used by TRCA to secure greenspace lands for their protection in perpetuity.

The project will be circulated to TRCA's participating municipalities and form the basis for securement of lands in partnership with the City of Toronto and the regional municipalities of Durham, Peel and York using reserve funds established for securement of greenspace.

The project will also serve as a vehicle to secure funding from other partners including the federal government, Province of Ontario, local municipalities, foundations and private donors.

RATIONALE The purpose of the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 is to formalize and confirm the legal framework and implementation tools required for the acquisition of greenlands by TRCA. The direction for greenlands securement provided in the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 does not vary in any significance from the direction provided in the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015.

TRCA secured 802 hectares between 2011 and 2014, and is likely to meet the target of 1,000 hectares established in the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015. The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 builds on the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015 and previous TRCA land acquisition projects. It continues on the course of those projects with new knowledge and refined direction provided by TRCA’s integrated watershed plans and provincial plans for source water protection, greenbelt and land use.

385

Securements made under the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 are based primarily on identifying and assessing land opportunities which may arise in the real estate market. Therefore, the project is limited by the unpredictable and changing nature of this market. The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 identifies funding partners and estimated financial contributions over its five year duration. Based on recent rate projections, it is estimated that 1,000 hectares (2,500 acres) could be secured during the period of this acquisition project, at a projected purchase expense of $35 million.

The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 explains why TRCA acquires greenlands, including TRCA’s legislated mandate and the benefits of public greenlands in Sections 1- 4. The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 also discusses the need for securing greenlands and the role of acquisition in relation to other forms of securement. It relates the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 to the broader context of TRCA’s vision for The Living City and to the United Nations’ Earth Charter.

Support for greenlands securement is provided by recent plans, policies and strategies. These include but are not limited to Building The Living City (TRCA’s 10 year Strategic Plan for 2013-2022), The Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, TRCA’s integrated watershed and waterfront plans that combine the latest science including the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy, TRCA’s integrated restoration prioritization framework, the approved assessment report: Toronto and Region Source Protection Area and provincial land use plans.

The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 reviews the types of ownership and the tools used by TRCA to secure greenlands. The project sets out the criteria for determining if a property meets the threshold for securement. Finally, the project details the financial strategy including identified and potential funding partners.

FINANCIAL DETAILS The project includes annual expenditure estimates of $6.4 million in 2016, growing to $7.75 million in 2020, for a project total of $35 million. All expenditures are subject to availability of funding from participating regional municipalities, local municipalities, land sale proceeds, federal and provincial governments, non-government organizations, and donations.

Also included in the project is recognition of the need for annual conservation land care funding based on the established formula of $309 per hectare for lands not otherwise managed by agreement with municipalities or other organizations.

Report prepared by: Deanna Cheriton, extension 5204 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Deanna Cheriton, extension 5204, Jae R. Truesdell, extension 5247 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] Date: September 14, 2015

______

386 RES.#A162/15 - HEART LAKE CONSERVATION AREA WORKSHOP Feed-in-Tariff (FIT 3.0) Project. Request for approval for design and build of a turnkey photovoltaic (PV) system at Heart Lake Conservation Area Workshop.

Moved by: Glenn Mason Seconded by: Jack Heath

THAT Contract #10000397 for the design/build of a turnkey photovoltaic (PV) system at Heart Lake Conservation Area Workshop be awarded to Power Vector at a total cost not to exceed $129,405.57, plus HST, it being the highest ranked bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications;

THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 15% of the total cost of the contract as a contingency allowance, if deemed necessary;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized staff be directed to take the action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining any approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 2014 TRCA acquired a 20-year fixed price Feed-in-Tariff (FIT 3.0) contract from the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) as established under the Green Energy and Green Economy Act 2009. TRCA staff is seeking approval to select a qualified proponent to design, supply, install, test and commission a fully operational grid connected 50kW AC rated solar PV system to be installed on the roof of the Heart Lake Conservation Area Workshop that was constructed in 2014.

Under the terms of the FIT contract, TRCA must deliver the PV system not later than the OPA’s “Milestone Operational Date” of August 27, 2016 or the contract becomes void. In exchange, the OPA will pay TRCA at the rate of $0.343/kWh for the power delivered to the grid.

This project initiative aligns with TRCA’s objective of Business Excellence and strategic priority of Green the Toronto Region's Economy.

RATIONALE Request for Pre-Qualification (RFPQ) for Tender #10000397 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http://www.biddingo.com) on March 30, 2015 and closed on April 15, 2015. The work includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the provision of engineering design services and the supply of labour, material, supervision and equipment required to complete the scope of work for the project.

The successful proponent will prepare the design and coordinate permitting, approvals and construction activities which comprise a fully functional and compliant rooftop solar PV system.

A total of 20 companies downloaded the pre-qualification documents and three companies submitted completed packages in accordance with the requirements of the pre-qualification process. Proponents interested in pre-qualifying were advised that the criteria for evaluation would include the following:  CCDC 11 (Canadian Construction Documents Committee) requirements and completion;  completeness of submission;  relevant project experience - type and budget;

387  financial references and bonding ability;  ability to meet project milestones/timing;  ability to coordinate work by others;  experience dealing with projects with construction budgets of $150,000.00 to $250,000.00;  personal resumes for key project staff;  project references - client and/or consultant.

A total of three companies were pre-qualified to submit tender bid prices. Tender bid documents were distributed to the following pre-qualified companies with a closing date of June 24, 2015:  Deltro Electric Ltd.;  Power Vector;  RESCo Energy Inc.

A mandatory pre-bid site meeting was held on May 21, 2015 to review the project scope and site conditions with prospective bidders. All of the prequalified bidders attended the mandatory site meeting. Three completed tender bids were received.

The Selection Committee of TRCA staff (Dave Rogalsky, Svend de Bruyn and Kate Pankov) reviewed the proposals. The criteria used to evaluate and select the recommended consultant included the following:

Criteria Description Points Total Qualifications Company history and experience 5 20 and Experience FIT program experience 5 Implemented projects (of similar size and scope) 5 Experience and qualifications of key individuals 5 Quality of the Understanding of the RFP and approach to RFP objectives 5 20 Proposal Technical approach and flexibility to conditions 5 Performance monitoring and reporting 5 Implementation schedule reasonable 5 Photovoltaic Proposed photovoltaic system technologies 10 25 System & Other equipment items – metering/monitoring, display 5 Equipment Warranty 5 Projected Technical Performance 5 Financial Lump-sum cost 20 35 Cost per kW installed 15 Total 100

A summary of the received fee proposals is as follows:

Contract #10000397 – Heart Lake Conservation Area Workshop – Photovoltaic System Design/Build

Fees BIDDERS (Including Permitted Expenses, Plus HST) Deltro Electric Ltd. 202,000.00 Power Vector 129,405.57 RESCo Energy Inc. 225,600.00

388 The scoring was completed by each member of the evaluation committee, and averaged to produce total scores as follows:

Company Proposal Score (/100) Deltro Electric Ltd. 45.42 Power Vector 87.33 RESCo Energy 82.46

Based on the Selection Committee’s review of the proposals, Power Vector was evaluated the highest by the Committee. Therefore, staff is recommending that the contract be awarded to Power Vector at a total upset cost not to exceed $129,405.57, plus HST, plus a contingency allowance of 15% as deemed necessary by TRCA staff.

FINANCIAL DETAILS All expenditures that pertain to this contract will be assigned to the Heart Lake PV System project budget account 424-05. Funding is available from TRCA reserves.

Revenues are anticipated in the order of $20,000 per year based on the projected kWh’s generated during the FIT contract 20 year period (2016-2035). Revenues are expected to provide a return that will pay back the capital investment within 6-7 years. Beyond the pay-back period, revenues will then offset a portion of the annual operating cost of Heart Lake Conservation Area.

Report prepared by: Kate Pankov extension 6418 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Kate Pankov extension 6418 Emails: [email protected] Date: August 20, 2015

______

389 RES.#A163/15 - SCARBOROUGH WATERFRONT PROJECT Third Party Facilitator Services. Authorization to proceed with amendments to the Third Party Facilitator Contract with Dillon Consulting Ltd., for the Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment.

Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Ron Moeser

WHEREAS on August 29, 2014, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) was authorized to enter into an agreement for Third Party Facilitator Services with Dillon Consulting Ltd. to complete the Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment, to an upset limit of $80,915.00, plus HST, plus, additional expenditures to a maximum of 20% of the contract cost ($16,183.00) as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary, was also approved, for a total budget of $97,098.00 plus HST;

WHEREAS the size of the study area and significance of the natural features of the bluffs required a more robust public and agency consultation plan than originally planned for;

WHEREAS Dillon Consulting Ltd. was asked to provide a revised scope of work resulting in an increase of fee to the amount of $37,465.00, plus HST;

THERFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the contract for Third Party Facilitator Services to complete the Scarborough Waterfront Project, be increased by $21,282.00 to an upset limit of $118,380.00, plus HST;

THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the total revised contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND on December 16, 2013 adopted, in part, the following resolution:

City Council amend the Toronto Water budget by including $1.5 million for Environmental Assessment work on the Scarborough Waterfront Erosion Control and Access Plan with funding coming from the Toronto Water Capital Reserve (Ex.36.17).

At Authority Meeting #3/14, held on April 25, 2014, Resolution #A36/14 was approved, in part, as follows:

…THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff be directed to work with the City of Toronto to initiate the Scarborough Waterfront Access Plan Individual Environmental Assessment.

Based on this direction, TRCA initiated a study under the Environmental Assessment Act to create a system of greenspace along the Lake Ontario shoreline which respects and protects the significant natural and cultural features of the Bluffs, enhance the terrestrial and aquatic habitat, and provide a safe and enjoyable waterfront experience. To provide support to TRCA staff with the public consultation and outreach required for the Environmental Assessment (EA), TRCA released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Third Party Facilitator Services.

390

On August 29, 2014, Award of Contract RFP#10000061 for Third Party Facilitator Services for the Scarborough Waterfront Project EA received TRCA Chief Executive Officer approval as follows:

THAT Contract RFP#10000061 for Third Party Facilitator Services for the Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment be awarded to Dillon Consulting Limited at a total cost not to exceed $80,915.00, plus HST, it being the highest ranked proposal meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications set out in the Request for Proposal; and

THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 20% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary.

The original consultation program as outlined in RFP #10000061 was a basic public consultation plan that included:  two Public Information Centres (PICs) as part of the Terms of Reference (ToR) phase, and two PICs as part of the EA phase; and  two Stakeholder Committee (SC) meetings as part of the ToR phase, and two SC meetings as part of the EA phase.

As a result of public and agency feedback received during the development of the Terms of Reference, additional consultation meetings and outreach activities have been planned to provide an extensive consultation process more reflective of the size of the study area and significance of the natural features of the bluffs. Consultation will include:  four PICs as part of the EA phase;  three SC meetings as part of the ToR phase, and five SC meetings as part of the EA phase;  social media outreach; and  park user surveys, online user surveys and electronic newsletters.

RATIONALE TRCA required the services of a third party facilitator to assist the project team in completing the Environmental Assessment. The third party facilitator services are required for communications, issues management, public consultation and stakeholder engagement. The third party facilitator is also responsible for the public consultation summary of the Terms of Reference and Environmental Assessment document. During the public and agency consultation for the Terms of Reference, it became clear that a more robust program was needed to engage the public, agencies and other interested parties in order to move the Environmental Assessment to a positive outcome. As a result of this, the Scope of Work for Dillon Consulting Ltd. was increased to reflect their preparation and participation in two additional PICs, three additional SC meetings, several Project Team meetings and an increase in one year to the contract. Dillon provided a revised Scope of Work and cost estimate that resulted in an increase of $37,465. This cost estimate exceeds the approved 20% contingency by $21,282. The revised upset limit for the Third Party Facilitator Services contract is $118,380 plus HST.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Public and agency consultation for the Environmental Assessment will resume in the fall once a decision on the Draft Terms of Reference has been made by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

391

FINANCIAL DETAILS Third Party Facilitator Services will be funded by Scarborough Waterfront Project EA in the Toronto capital budget, account 204-03.

Report prepared by: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: [email protected] Date: September 9, 2015

______

392

RES.#A164/15 - TOWN OF AJAX STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND CLEAN-OUT PARTNERSHIP Commence stormwater management pond clean-out in partnership with the Town of Ajax.

Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Giorgio Mammoliti

THAT approval be granted to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to enter into a partnership with the Town of Ajax for the Annie Crescent Stormwater Management Pond Clean-out and Retrofit Project;

THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the partnership including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND The creation of stormwater management facilities (SWMF) proliferated in the 1990s, and since, there has been significant research and improvements made to their design and function. However, the management and maintenance of SWMFs has become a growing concern for many municipalities as the cost and technical feasibility of maintaining them is highly variable. Many SWMFs are never maintained or dredged, and many are nearing or have reached their maximum sediment capacity. Improper maintenance reduces a SWMFs capability to hold and treat stormwater, thereby no longer protecting the surrounding areas from localized flooding and improving downstream water quality. SWMFs require regular maintenance and sediment removal in order to operate effectively.

The Annie Crescent stormwater management facility was constructed in 1994 to provide water quality and erosion control for the 42.19 ha residential site in the East Duffins Creek watershed. It was designed to provide control from a two hour duration 25mm rainfall design storm.

In 2012, flooding issues at the outlet, complaints of unpleasant odours and damage to the submerged outlet structure prompted the Town of Ajax to retain professional engineering services to perform assessments relating to the operating and maintenance of the Annie Crescent SWMF. The review revealed that elevated permanent pool water level (blocked/damaged outlet structure) and overgrown vegetation interfered with the proper operation of the pond. Further, bathymetric and topographic surveys showed that the active storage volume had decreased by over 35% of the original design volume.

In early 2015, the Town of Ajax approached TRCA's Restoration Projects section within the Restoration and Infrastructure division seeking assistance with the clean out and retrofits of the Annie Crescent SWMF. TRCA has had a long history in SWMF planning, approval, construction, retrofit, monitoring, and it currently manages a geo‐spatial database with almost 1,000 SWMF records across TRCA’s jurisdiction. More recently, TRCA has been working with its member municipalities to develop cleanout and maintenance programs to showcase the feasibility and benefits of routine pond maintenance, and highlight practical, cost effective strategies to facility maintenance. Since 2013, TRCA has been working with the City of Toronto on a Stormwater Management Pond Clean-Out Partnership. The Restoration Projects section as well as Engineering Services and the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) have gained valuable experience in all aspects relating to the cleaning-out, retrofit, maintenance and management of SWMF’s . To date, five facilities have been cleaned and retrofitted to restore

393

and improve function, thereby protecting the surrounding area from localized flooding and erosion, as well as improving downstream water quality.

A Stormwater Pond Maintenance and Clean-out Plan includes the following:  assessment of background information and current site conditions;  detailed survey and sediment investigation;  clean-out options and retrofit assessment; and  detailed costing and implementation phasing.

Through additional discussions and investigation with Ajax, it has been determined that there is opportunity to begin to develop a longer term SWMF management and retrofit program. Annie Crescent Pond will be the first to be cleaned; however, Ajax is also interested in partnering on the retrofit of other ponds. TRCA has $40,000 to contribute to retrofit high priority SWMFs in Ajax. This retrofit would ideally be conducted in coordination with a pond cleanout and will be the basis for prioritization of the next partner project.

RATIONALE TRCA has identified SWMFs as an integral component of water resources management within the TRCA jurisdiction. SWMFs improve water quality and provide flood and erosion control, and must be maintained, and often retrofit to achieve TRCA's watershed targets.

The Town of Ajax currently manages 55 SWMF’s, and many of these are now reaching their design capacities and are in need of maintenance. In partnership with Ajax, TRCA has agreed that there is an immediate need to showcase the feasibility and benefits of routine pond maintenance, as well as functional improvements that can be made from retrofitting existing ponds. To date, there are few excellent examples of pond maintenance in TRCA’s jurisdiction.

Dredging and retrofitting the Annie Crescent SWMF will ensure that it continues to provide the surrounding area with effective flood control and water quality management. Annie Crescent SWMF is situated on TRCA property in a sensitive valley corridor which has now developed into a rich wetland flora and fauna community. The site is known to support significant reptile, amphibian and fish communities. As a result, fish and wildlife rescue will be an important consideration to complete this project.

The Restoration Projects Division, in undertaking this endeavor, will work with TRCA’s stormwater management team within Engineering Services, as well as the STEP program. The STEP program is a multi-agency initiative, and it is currently updating the SWMF Maintenance Guide which will be finalized in the fall of 2015. Through these additional relationships, TRCA brings greater value to the partnership with Ajax, and the project will be profiled to improve knowledge and the science of SWMF maintenance.

The management of SWMFs is consistent with the TRCA’s Strategic Plan, specifically: priority strategy #2 Manage Our Regional Water Resources for Current and Future Generations, and strategy #7 Build Partnerships and New Business Models.

TRCA has gained valuable experience in SWMF maintenance in recent years. In its current partnership with the City of Toronto, TRCA has cost effectively cleaned five SWMF’s in sensitive public areas. The opportunity to work with the Town of Ajax allows us to further promote TRCA's current pond management techniques, and is an excellent opportunity to showcase pond maintenance in Ajax and Durham Region in significant valley corridors owned by TRCA.

394

FINANCIAL DETAILS The maintenance and clean-out plans are being completed by TRCA staff. The cost to clean Annie Pond may vary greatly, because disposal costs depend heavily on the levels of contamination found within each pond. The funding for the pond clean-out and maintenance will be 100% recoverable from the Town of Ajax within account 109-40, and is estimated to cost $312,655.84 (plus HST).

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Annie SWMF will be dredged mechanically and the site will be restored upon completion. Dredging is tentatively scheduled to commence in September 2015 contingent on approval of the staff recommendation in a subsequent report on this September Authority agenda on the award of contract for the disposal of stockpiled sediment dredgeate. The pond will be de-watered during the dredging, and will be managed to ensure the pond is providing stormwater management function during this time period.

The method of sediment disposal depends on the contamination levels of the sediment. It is expected that the sediment will be dried on-site and then disposed of off-site. A Request for Quotation will determine which contractor(s) is/are chosen for sediment disposal. Only contractors operating under a Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Certificate of Approval are eligible to undertake the disposal of the sediment.

Ajax and TRCA staff will establish a working group to manage this project and prioritize additional projects for both retrofit and maintenance needs. TRCA will also be providing $40,000 of funding to address additional retrofit opportunities for ponds in Ajax in 2016.

Report prepared by: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366 Emails: [email protected] Date: September 14, 2015

______

395 RES.#A165/15 - ANNIE CRESCENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND (SWMP) CLEAN OUT AND RETROFIT PROJECT Contract #10000904 - Disposal of Stockpiled Sediment Dredgeate. Award of Contract #10000904 for the disposal of stormwater management pond Dredgeate at Annie Crescent SWMP, Town of Ajax.

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Linda Pabst

THAT Contract #10000904 for the disposal of stormwater management pond (SWMP) dredgeate for Annie Crescent site, in the Town of Ajax be awarded to TBG Landscape Inc. for a total cost not to exceed $176,063.18, plus 25% contingency, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting TRCA cost estimates and specifications;

THAT should TRCA staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the agreement including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Town of Ajax currently manages 55 SWMP’s. Many of these are now reaching their design capacities and are in need of maintenance. In partnership with Ajax, TRCA has agreed that there is an immediate need to showcase the feasibility and benefits of routine pond maintenance, as well as functional improvements that can be made from retrofitting existing ponds. To date, there are few excellent examples of pond maintenance in TRCA’s jurisdiction. The Annie Crescent stormwater management pond (SWMP), located near Annie Crescent and Elizabeth Street in the Town of Ajax, was constructed in 1994 to provide water quality and erosion control for the 42.19 ha residential site in the East Duffins Creek watershed.

In early 2015, the Town of Ajax approached TRCA's Restoration Projects section, seeking assistance with the clean out and retrofit of the Annie Crescent SWMP. Approval of this partnership is a previous agenda item on this September 25th Authority agenda, therefore award of contract #10000904 for the disposal of stockpiled sediment is contingent upon the approval of that earlier item.

Sediment sampling indicated that the dredgeate marginally exceed the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) 2011 guidelines for Residential/Parkland/Institutional Property; however the dredgeate did meet Commercial/Industrial/Community Property guidelines. Therefore, the material will need to be hauled away by a licensed contractor and disposed of at an industrial/commercial disposal facility that is operating under an MOE Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA). Approximately 4,186 tonnes of sediment will need to be dredged from the site.

RATIONALE The Request for Quotation (RFQ) #10000904 was publically advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo.com on September 2, 2015 for the haulage and disposal of sediment material from the Annie Crescent SWMP. The document was downloaded for review by 22 vendors.

As a condition of the RFQ, only bidders that operate under an MOE Environmental Compliance Approval were considered to undertake the disposal of the sediment.

396

The Quotations were received on September 16, 2015 and formally opened by TRCA staff (Lori Colussi, Judith Reda and Natalie Racette) on the same day with the following results:

Contract #10009904 Annie Crescent SWMP Disposal of Stockpiled Sediment Dredgeate (approximately 4,186 tonnes)

BIDDER General Contract Disposal TOTAL (Plus HST) Requirements (cost per tonne) (Lump Sum) TBG Landscape Inc. $1,800.00 $41.63 $176,063.18 Ground Force $6,844.80 $46.80 $202,749.60 Environmental Inc. Ambler & Co. Inc. $10,875.37 $46.17 204,142.99

TRCA reviewed the bids received against its own cost estimate and has determined that the lowest bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements and deliverables as outlined on the contract documents. TBG Landscape Inc. is capable of undertaking the scope of work. Based on the bids received, staff recommend that TBG Landscape Inc. be awarded Contract #10000904 for the disposal of SWMP dredgeate at the Annie Crescent SWMP for a total cost no to exceed $176,063.18, plus $44,015.80 contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST.

FINANCIAL DETAILS The cost of this contract is 100% recoverable from the Town of Ajax, within account 109-40.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Annie Crescent SWMP will be dredged mechanically and the site will be restored upon completion. Only contractors operating under a Ministry of the Environment Certificate of Approval are eligible to undertake the disposal of the sediment.

TRCA will execute the contract, including: management of the awarded disposal contractor on site, certification of each load leaving the site, issuance of bills of lading to each truck, verification of the dumping site’s MOE ECA, and random checks to follow trucks from dredging site to disposal site. These activities ensure the chain of custody of the dredged sediment from the SWMP to the licensed dump site operating under an MOE ECA.

Dredging is tentatively scheduled to commence in late September 2015 upon receipt of all approvals and the availability of resources. The pond will be de-watered during the dredging, and will be managed to ensure the pond is providing stormwater management function during this time period.

Ajax and TRCA staff will establish a working group to manage this project and prioritize additional projects for both retrofit and maintenance need. TRCA will also be providing $40,000 of funding to address additional retrofit opportunities for ponds in Ajax in 2016.

Report prepared by: Natalie Racette, extension 5603 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: John DiRocco, extension 5231 Emails: [email protected] Date: September 17, 2015

______

397 RES.#A166/15 - AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program. The PAIE audited financial statement for the period April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015 is presented for Authority approval.

Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Linda Pabst

THAT the Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program (PAIE) audited financial statement as presented, be approved and signed by the Chair in accordance with the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade’s Audit and Accountability Guidelines for 2014-2015 Ontario Bridge Training Projects. CARRIED BACKGROUND Funded by the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade (MCIIT), TRCA has been delivering the PAIE Ontario bridge training program since 2006 to assist internationally trained professionals to access training, licensing and employment opportunities in their field within the environmental sector. As part of its project audit guidelines, MCIIT requires Authority approval of PAIE financial statement, as attached, as verification that the financial information in the audit report is complete and accurate.

RATIONALE Under funding from MCIIT, the Authority is responsible for financial reporting and is ultimately responsible for reviewing and approving the financial statements, including verification that: • project funding has been solely applied to costs directly related to the Project; • funding and/or expenditures from other sources, not directed related to this project, have not been included in the Report; • the Ministry expects that tuition/program fees will be used to off-set program costs related to the delivery of the bridge training project. • reported expenditure is net of HST rebates; • shared costs have been properly apportioned to the Project; • the Project bears full responsibility for absorbing any project deficits; • Project funds that were provided to the Project prior to their immediate need were maintained in an interest-bearing account; and • interest earned on Project funding has been credited to the Project.

The accounting firm of Grant Thornton LLP has completed the audit. The audited financial statement is presented for approval as Attachment 1.

Report prepared by: Dash Paja, Leigha Abergel, extension 5593, 5574 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] For Information contact: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 Emails: [email protected] Date: Date created: September 1st, 2015 Attachments: 2

398

Statement of Revenue and Expenditures

Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program (A Program of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority)

Year ended March 31, 2015

399

Contents

Page

Independent Auditor’s Report 1 - 2

Statement of Revenue and Expenditures 3

Notes to the Statement of Revenue and Expenditures 4 - 5

400

Independent Auditor’s Report

Grant Thornton LLP Suite 200 15 Allstate Parkway Markham, ON L3R 5B4

T (416) 366-0100 F (905) 475-8906 www.GrantThornton.ca

To the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade

We have audited the statement of revenue and expenditures (“the Statement”) for the Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) for the year ended March 31, 2015. The statement has been prepared by management in accordance with the Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects from the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade.

Management's Responsibility for the Statement

Management is responsible for the preparation of the Statement in accordance with the Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects from the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of the Statement that is free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Auditor's Responsibility

Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Statement based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the Statement is free from material misstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the Statement. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the Statement, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation of the Statement in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the Statement.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd 401

Opinion

In our opinion, the statement of revenue and expenditures for the Professional Access and Integration Program of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the year ended March 31, 2015 is prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects from the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade.

Basis of Accounting and Restriction on Distribution and Use

Without modifying our opinion, we draw attention to Note 2 to the Statement which describes the basis of accounting. The Statement is prepared to assist Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to meet the financial reporting requirements of the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. As a result, the Statement may not be suitable for another purpose. Our report is intended solely for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade and should not be distributed to or used by parties other than Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade.

Markham, Ontario Chartered Accountants June 30, 2015 Licensed Public Accountants

2

402

Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program (A Project of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority) Statement of Revenue and Expenditures Year ended March 31 2015

Revenue Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade grant $ 570,170 Interest 1,530 Program and application fees 25,910 597,610

Program costs Salaries and benefits 540,847 Website development and online learning tools 2,052 Network events / meetings 568 Third-Party Evaluation 1,521 Technical training and supplementary workshops 3,821 Speaking with Clarity 2,477 551,286 Administrative costs TRCA administrative recovery (Note 3) 28,458 Computer equipment 3,112 Communications 4,078 Travel, meetings and consultations 2,543 Facility rentals 2,681 Marketing 1,815 Audit 2,564 Other general administrative costs 1,073 46,324

Total expenditures 597,610

Excess of revenue over expenditures $ -

3 See accompanying notes to the statement of revenue and expenditures. 403

Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program (A Project of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority) Notes to the Statement of Revenue and Expenditures Year ended March 31

1. Nature of operations

This Statement of Revenue and Expenditures (“the Statement”) pertains to the Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program (“PAIE” or “the Program”) administered under the Funding Agreement issued by the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade, and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”). Accordingly this statement does not include all the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of TRCA.

The TRCA is administering the Program on behalf of the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade.

2. Significant accounting policies and basis of presentation

This financial information has been issued under the name of TRCA.

The Statement reflects the operations of the PAIE, a project of TRCA, and has been prepared by management based on the Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects from the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. Costs eligible for reimbursement by the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade under the Funding Agreement effective April 1, 2014 are eligible costs that are incurred after April 1, 2014 and before March 31, 2015.

The more significant accounting policies with respect to the Statement are as follows:

Accrual accounting

Items recognized in the Statement are accounted for in accordance with the accrual basis of accounting. The accrual basis of accounting recognizes the effect of transactions and events in the period in which the transactions and events occur, regardless of whether there has been a receipt or payment of cash or its equivalent. Accrual accounting recognizes a liability until the obligation or condition(s) underlying the liability is partly or wholly satisfied. Accrual accounting recognizes an asset until the future economic benefit underlying the asset is partly or wholly used or lost. Additionally, items of a capital nature have been reflected as expenditures and not through amortization of property, plant and equipment.

Revenue recognition

Government transfers received are recognized in the Statement as revenue when the transfers are authorized and all eligibility criteria have been met except when there is a stipulation that gives rise to an obligation that meets the definition of a liability. In that case, the transfer is recorded as deferred revenue and recognized as revenue as the stipulations are met.

User charges, including revenue from the program and application fees are recognized as revenue in the period in which the related services are performed. Amounts collected for which the related services have not been performed are recognized as deferred revenue and recognized as revenue when the related services are performed.

4

404

Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program (A Project of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority) Notes to the Statement of Revenue and Expenditures Year ended March 31

2. Significant accounting policies and basis of presentation (continued)

In-kind contributions

In accordance with the agreement for the funding with respect to this Program, no in-kind contributions have been included in this schedule.

3. Related party transactions

Under the terms of the Funding Agreement, TRCA charged $28,458 during the year ending March 31, 2015 for project overhead and administration costs with respect to the administration of the Program.

5

405 Appendix IV: Labour Market Integration Unit Statement of Revenue and Expenditure Template FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD FROM 2014/04/01 TO 2015/03/31 (Please refer to your Schedule B for the Reporting Period) Organization Name: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Project Case Number: 2013-08-1-15258274 Organizational contact Name: Leigha Abergel, Project Manager Telephone #: (416) 661-6600 ext. 5343

PROJECT REVENUE Approved Carryover Funding from Previous Reporting Period(s) Ministry Funding for audit period as per Schedule B (2014/2015) $ 650,000 Tuition/Program Fees $ 25,910 Total $ 675,910

PROJECT EXPENDITURE

Total Expenditure $ 597,610

DEFERRED REVENUE

Deferred Revenue for audit period as per Schedule B (2014/2015) $ 78,300

UNALLOCATED

Unspent funding

INTEREST EARNED

Interest Earned for audit period 2014/2015 $ 1,530 I verify that the above financial information is correct and that: • Project funding has been solely applied to costs directly related to the Project; • Funding and/or expenditures from other sources, not directed related to this project, have not been included in the Report; • The Ministry expects that tuition/program fees will be used to off-set program costs related to the delivery of the bridge training project. • Reported expenditure is net of HST rebates; • Shared costs have been properly apportioned to the Project; • The Project bears full responsibility for absorbing any project deficits; • Project funds that were provided to the Project prior to their immediate need were maintained in an interest-bearing account; and • Interest earned on Project funding has been credited to the Project. I certify that the information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and claimed in accordance to the Bridge Training Agreement. ______Signature of Agency Signing Authority Date ______Name: Maria Augimeri Title: Chair I have authority to bind the Recipient.

Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects 2014-2015 406 14 RES.#A167/15 - SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF CLOTHING 2015-2017 Award of Contract #10000813. Award of Contract #10000813 for the supply and delivery of clothing for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff.

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker

THAT Contract #10000813 for Supply and Delivery of Clothing 2015-2017 for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be awarded to Dufferin Apparel at an estimated cost of $148,000.00, plus HST per year for a two year term at a total estimated contract price of $296,000.00, plus 10% contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, it being the lowest bid meeting TRCA specifications;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized staff be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA'S Uniform and Costume Policy was adopted at Executive Committee Meeting #4/99, held on April 30, 1999 by Resolution #B84/99. The policy states that:

“In recognition of the public service nature of the work of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), and in order that TRCA staff is easily identifiable by the public, TRCA uniforms or special costumes must be worn by designated staff while carrying out their normal work duties.”

As part of the TRCA Clothing Guidelines and Allocations, approximately 800 employee uniform orders are placed throughout the year.

At Authority Meeting # 10/14, held on December 12, 2014, Contract #10000128 for the Supply and Delivery of Clothing 2015-2017 was approved and awarded to Needham Promotions Inc. at a total cost of $135,000 per year plus 10% Contingency, plus HST. The contract included a 90 day notice cancellation clause, allowing either party to terminate the contract without penalties.

On July 14th, 2015, Needham Promotions advised TRCA staff that they could not adhere to the contract pricing due to the diminishing value of the Canadian dollar, and therefore, provided TRCA with 90 days written notice of contract termination.

As Needham Promotions did not violate its previous contract terms with TRCA, it was allowed to re-bid on Contract #10000128. Furthermore, the opportunity was posted publically on Biddingo.com as Section 14 of TRCA's Purchasing Policy dictates that “purchases of goods and services that exceed $100,000, standard advertising media (e.g. web-based procurement services, trade magazines, etc.) is to be used to advertise the opportunity. In order to prevent such contract terminations without penalty in the future, TRCA will be revising Contract #10000813 in accordance with advice from its legal counsel.

407 RATIONALE Request for Quotation (RFQ) documentation was issued by TRCA and publically advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http://www.biddingo.com) on August 7th, 2015. TRCA identified product numbers of items currently purchased in order to ensure that like quality items were priced. Where exact product numbers were not available, material and quality specifications were provided. Bidders were requested to quote on these exact products when possible, or a substitute close in quality and specifications. In addition, the RFQ indicated a requirement to provide a secure on-line TRCA catalogue of available items for ease and consistency in purchasing.

Quotations were opened by a Procurement Opening Committee comprising of TRCA staff (Lesley Adams, Kate Pankov, Kathy Stranks and Jenifer Moravek) on August 21, 2015 with the following results:

BIDDER ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST * (Plus HST) Dufferin Apparel $148,391.15 G & L Promotions $163,147.00 Needham Promotions $170,166.79 Cotton Candy $207,298.01

* Estimated costs above are based on average cost per item and on average annual quantities required of each item.

The products quoted by Dufferin Apparel meet TRCA’s uniform needs and adhere to the product specifications requested. Dufferin Apparel has served as TRCA's clothing supplier in previous years and has proven to be a reliable and professional company. Therefore, based on the bids received, staff recommends that the contract for Supply and Delivery of Clothing 2015-2017 for TRCA staff be awarded to Dufferin Apparel at an estimated cost of $148,000.00 per year for a two year term, plus 10% contingency, it being the lowest bid meeting TRCA specifications.

FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds for clothing will be identified within the various annual divisional operating and capital budgets.

Report prepared by: Lesley Adams, extension 5668 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Lesley Adams, extension 5668 Emails: [email protected] Date: September 2, 2015

______

408 RES.#A168/15 - 2015 PROVINCIAL REVIEW OF THE CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT Endorsement of draft Toronto and Region Conservation Authority comments related to the 2015 Review of the Conservation Authorities Act due for submission to the Province of Ontario by October 19, 2015.

Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Ron Moeser

WHEREAS the Province of Ontario is undertaking a review of the Conservation Authorities Act through a posting by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) on the Environmental Registry (EBR# 012-4509);

AND WHEREAS the Province has released a Discussion Paper with a series of questions to focus stakeholder feedback on the governance, funding mechanisms, and the roles and responsibilities of conservation authorities, as a first step in the review process;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) response to the Province as outlined in the following report and in Attachment 1 be endorsed;

AND FURTHER THAT these comments be submitted to the Province and circulated to TRCA’s municipal partners, neighbouring conservation authorities and Conservation Ontario. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has initiated a review of the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) to ensure that the Act is meeting the needs of Ontarians in a modern context. The objective of this review is to identify opportunities to improve the legislative, regulatory and policy framework that currently governs the creation, operation and activities of conservation authorities that may be required in the face of a constantly changing environment.

As a first step in the Ministry’s review process, a discussion paper has been posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBR), which can be found at the following link: http://apps.mnr.gov.on.ca/public/files/er/Discussion_Paper_2015.pdf. The purpose of the discussion paper is to focus stakeholder feedback on the governance, funding mechanisms and the roles and responsibilities of conservation authorities (CAs) and includes a series of questions to solicit comments on each of the three theme areas. Comments on the discussion paper are due October 19, 2015.

TRCA has participated on a Conservation Ontario CA Act Review Working Group to prepare a collective response to the Discussion Paper on behalf of all 36 CAs. The response, based on the CAs’ input, will be considered by Conservation Ontario Council at its September 28, 2015 meeting. Conservation Ontario and members of the Working Group also had the opportunity to participate in a facilitated dialogue session with MNRF on August 25, 2015, as part of the Province’s stakeholder engagement process. TRCA supports the collective positioning that Conservation Ontario has developed in response to the CA Act review and this report serves to complement those key messages within the context of TRCA’s experience and perspective. Responses to the specific EBR questions are provided in Attachment 1 to this report.

409 Overview When contemplating the roles, responsibilities, funding and governance of CAs in Ontario, it should be remembered why the CA Act was originally created and amended – namely, to address the Province’s largest natural resource management challenges of the first half of the twentieth century such as deforestation, erosion and the control of flooding. The degradation of the landscape resulting from these impacts is reminiscent of the predicted conditions for the current crisis of climate change: flooding, erosion, drought, poor air and water quality, and natural heritage losses. TRCA’s Rouge and Humber watershed plans revealed that climate change in our developed watersheds is likely to have a negative impact on water resources and ecosystems at least as severe as those that have been caused by human activity alone. And so, in the decades since their inception, CAs have been working with a range of watershed stakeholders to address issues tantamount to the severity of climate change. Not replicated to the same extent in other jurisdictions, CAs have a unique history of partnering in conservation and sustainable development. The mandate and efficacy of CAs are revered by many academic and government agencies around the world. In TRCA’s case, no other city-region has close to 70 years of expertise and management experience in dealing with these issues in such an inter-disciplinary and collaborative context. The success of Ontario’s CA programs needs to be strongly recognized in the CA Act, supported by a bolstered funding formula, and a multi-agency liaison body to leverage the good work of CAs and their partners.

Affirming the Value of CAs in Building Sustainable Communities Roles and Responsibilities The creators of the CA Act had a broad vision of the issues of their time. Today, this perspective is still integral to TRCA’s work, led and supported by our municipal partners and carried out through a unique collaborative approach engaging diverse stakeholders. Together, we endeavour to combat the potential impacts of climate change through the promotion of an ecological design approach to development and servicing that uses green infrastructure, green buildings, near-urban agriculture, energy and sustainable transportation to plan and build sustainable communities. These are further enhanced and supported by celebrating cultural heritage and fostering environmental education and stewardship. As a resource management agency, TRCA works in all of these areas in partnership with business, citizens and all levels of government in science, research, education, public health and community outreach. Through this work, TRCA helps to identify issues, synergies and solutions among watershed stakeholders for building sustainable communities. TRCA then advocates for the knowledge and understanding acquired through this work to be incorporated into TRCA’s and our partners’ policies and projects. Building upon the foundation of TRCA’s mandated responsibilities of natural heritage and natural hazard management, this broad but integrated approach to watershed management meets provincial policy interests, while contributing to high quality urban design in municipal growth planning and advancing the green economy.

410 Given that it is not bound by the Planning Act, the CA Act serves to define CAs as watershed planning bodies that are separate from the land use planning process, yet grants them the ability to administer a regulation that affects planning matters (including infrastructure and servicing). CAs as public commenting bodies under the planning and environmental assessment processes, although not decision-makers, play a significant role in managing the natural resources of watersheds for the municipalities that fall within them. In particular, TRCA has forged many successful working relationships with its participating municipalities, which appreciate TRCA’s specialized expertise that they may not possess in-house for meeting provincial and municipal objectives in building healthy, resilient communities, e.g., floodplain management, stormwater management, geotechnical engineering, hydrogeology, fluvial geomorphology, ecology, and the integration of flood remediation and ecological protection and restoration with urban growth and design. CA input is science and watershed-based advice that helps municipalities to implement the hazard, heritage and water management directions found in the Provincial Policy Statement, the four provincial plans, and supporting provincial guidance documents.

Currently, CA services in land use and infrastructure planning and design are delivered as outlined in CA-municipal memorandums of understanding (MOU) and other agreements, as well as the Conservation Ontario-Ministry of Natural Resources-Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing MOU for natural hazards. These services are carried out as part of CA planning and technical staff’s day-to-day work under the planning and environmental assessment processes, and ultimately in these projects’ detailed design stage where they may require a CA permit. Accordingly, CAs typically see the full range of work involved in city building where it affects regulated areas – from the scale of master plans, official plans and secondary plans, to master environmental servicing plans, draft plans, down to site planning, building permits, erosion and sediment control, restoration and monitoring. As a result, CAs are progressive and critical agencies with both a “big-picture” view that contributes to all levels of sustainability planning yet with knowledge of the “on-the-ground” environment.

CAs’ watershed-based work also serves to mitigate for the impacts of urbanization and climate change on the Great Lakes. In the Province’s Great Lakes Strategy and the draft Great Lakes Protection Act, CAs are named as essential partners in the implementation of programs and project initiatives to protect and improve the health of the Great Lakes. With CAs as partners, the Province has initiated outreach and guidance on integrated stormwater practices, environmental farm plans, habitat restoration and environmental monitoring. TRCA works in concert with federal, provincial and municipal governments on aquatic and terrestrial shoreline restoration projects, as do many of the CAs on the Great Lakes. On a collective basis, CAs and their partners’ environmental protection and management of the Greater Golden Horseshoe’s rivers, wetlands and headwaters provide downstream benefits to the Great Lakes, including those for water quality, habitat and recreation.

The issues that CAs raise, collaborate on, and problem-solve in the development and infrastructure policy formulation, and development review processes, are integral to sustainable development. In turn, sustainability is vital to economic prosperity, human health, safety and well-being. Accordingly, CA input should not be seen as an “aside”, as duplication or as causing unnecessary delay, but as a requirement for “good planning” that serves the public interest as well as any other routine prerequisite for development and infrastructure planning and design.

411 Governance The Province, through the CA Act, defines the objects to be pursued by the authority (Section 20) and the powers granted to the authority to achieve these objects (Section 21). In the past, the Province played a more direct role in overseeing CAs. Today, while oversight of CAs is still shared between the Province and municipalities, changes to the CA Act, policy and general practice over time have resulted in less direct provincial oversight.

The CA Act provides for the number of representatives that can be appointed to the board by each municipality. This works well as it provides the municipality the flexibility to appoint who they deem appropriate to represent them, whether elected or a citizen, and because municipalities are the primary funders of CAs. As well, having municipal representatives as the members on a watershed board provides an effective mechanism for municipalities to have a greater say in defining issues and their solutions that lie outside their municipal administrative boundary. The watershed-based governance model enables innovation to develop practical solutions to current and emerging issues (e.g. flood management, drinking water and Great Lakes water quality, climate change, rapid urbanization/growth). Effective programs focused on watershed health have been initiated and implemented due to the flexibility in the CA Act. The broad oversight by the Province allows for the development of programs and services that are adaptable to fit local circumstances. It also facilitates the ability of CAs to establish partnerships at various levels of government and most importantly with local watershed stakeholders.

The governance model based on watershed jurisdiction facilitates localized expertise and allows for local decision-making. The leadership of our municipal partners has enabled TRCA’s innovation in climate change research and strategies, urban forest strategies, low impact development and the promotion of ecological design and green infrastructure into community planning design. The governance model provides for efficient use of local, on-the-ground service delivery for environmental and resource management, enables CAs to engage stakeholders, and to develop processes, procedures and policies that respond to their local watershed.

Oversight on permit decisions by the CA board under section 28 regulations are appropriately adjudicated (on appeal) by the Mining and Lands Commissioner (MLC) as delegated by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). This must remain a provincial responsibility, separate from the Ontario Municipal Board, to ensure the integrity of the natural hazards management program and the conservation of land in Ontario. This is given that the dismissal or granting of appeals is predicated on the MLC’s interpretation of the five tests of the section 28 regulations. The five tests are not based in planning law, but rather in science, and are often discussed in a cross-municipal boundary, watershed context that is ideal for assessing cumulative impacts, risk and liability. Therefore, hearings on appeal for section 28 permits most appropriately rest with the MNRF.

412 However, legislative amendments to enable compliance mechanisms in Section 28 of the CA Act are needed in order to effectively and efficiently uphold our regulatory responsibilities and to support the provincial interest in natural hazard management. The limitation of the current legislation is a serious concern to the member municipalities of the most highly urbanized CA. Amendments are needed to support compliance efforts, assist in the prosecution of violations in the Ontario Provincial Court, and facilitate site rehabilitation. These changes should include the ability to issue stop work orders and orders to comply, enable enforcement officers to enter a property for purposes of investigation, significantly increase fines to reflect monetary penalties in line with other compatible environmental legislation (e.g., Environmental Protection Act), require restoration and rehabilitation, a method of cost recovery similar to other legislation (e.g., Municipal Act), as well as opportunities for greater coordination with municipal site alteration/fill by-laws to address issues related to large scale fill operations.

An enhanced CA-provincial ministry relationship is needed. CAs undertake work that supports and benefits multiple provincial priorities. It is suggested that a provincial directive, policy or memorandum of understanding is necessary, and that it would mandate coordinated, multi-ministry engagement with CAs towards an integrated watershed management approach to environmental and resource management that delivers local program needs while meeting cross-ministry science, policy and legislative objectives. This coordination would be premised on a return to a more equitable cost sharing partnership between the Province and municipalities. This provincial directive could be given effect at the provincial level through some type of provincial watershed liaison body (e.g. one ministry, or a lead agency, or a multi-ministry secretariat or steering committee or even a standing agenda item for existing multi-ministry initiatives such as Ontario’s Great Lakes Strategy, and Climate Change Strategies). The formalized relationship should result in a more efficient and effective approach to environmental and resource management in Ontario that would clarify responsibilities and recognize the contributions CA programs make to achieving multiple provincial priorities and fund them accordingly.

Funding

The CA Act establishes a number of mechanisms that CAs can use to fund programs. The Act allows MNRF to provide CAs with funding to support Ministry approved programs. A CA may also apply for funding from the Province to deliver programs on its behalf. Local resource management programs and services are funded through municipal levies. CAs can generate funding through service, user and admission fees, resource development fees, and fundraising and grant programs. The attached chart below summarizes TRCA revenue sources since the early 1990s and will be referenced in the discussion that follows.

413 TRCA Funding Sources 1992 - 2014

120,000

100,000

80,000 Self Generated

Municipal

60,000 Provincial - Other WECI Program Thousands Source Water Protection 40,000 MNR Operations & Capital

20,000

- 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

The funding partnership between the Province and municipalities has undergone many changes over time. Today, the scope of work deemed eligible for provincial support is very narrow, as illustrated by the TRCA chart on funding sources. TRCA as well as most other CAs currently derive a significant portion of their budgets from local municipalities through the levy process defined in Ontario Regulation 670/00 and enabled through Section 27(16). Over the last 5 years, approximately 46% of TRCA budget has been financed from municipal levies and grants. The reduction in provincial funding has been absorbed by an increase in municipal funding. The reduction in provincial contributions has resulted in municipal criticisms of provincial downloading, which would diminish if the Province returned to the traditional 50:50 cost-sharing ratio and list of eligible expenditures, and considered inflation in the annual allocations.

The “delegated” programs and other partnership agreements with the Province generally provide more services than recognized and financially supported by the Province. Funding for ongoing operation of programs has diminished significantly and also does not adequately reflect the diversity, complexity and range in CA capacity. The Province is encouraged to review basic operational activities/programs of CAs that support multiple provincial priorities and provide a broader public benefit with a view to providing long term funding to CAs and increasing the efficiency of environmental and resource management in Ontario.

414 Since the mid-1990s, MNRF has only approved provincial funding for the water-related natural hazard prevention and management role of CAs, which includes flood and erosion control. Funding for this program area has been cut since the mid-1990s with no inflationary increases let alone increases to address the increasing demands in managing the current and future impacts of more frequent flood events. Currently there is a significant shortfall in provincial transfer payments for the following: - the operation of the flood management program including flood emergency management and mapping - strategic asset management planning - land securement - Support for implementation of source water protection plans - water and erosion control Infrastructure - land use planning policies to prevent development in hazard lands - flood remediation for comprehensive redevelopment - natural heritage systems planning to mitigate for flooding and erosion - CA infrastructure and environmental assessment planning - green infrastructure/LID approaches to storm water management (all of which directly or indirectly mitigate and adapt for the potential impacts of climate change and contribute to Great Lakes water quality)

Also of benefit would be provincial recognition of the role that TRCA plays in areas of outdoor education, recreation and quality of life that contribute significantly to the health and well-being of our residents and visitors, thereby reducing provincial health care costs. TRCA provides extensive facilities and land base for recreational trails tied to existing communities and new growth areas. Similar discussions should involve MTCS for greenspace and recreational trail planning, and MMAH, MTCS, and MAA for aboriginal engagement with respect to conservation land management.

As well, CAs provide a tremendous amount of work and value for the Province which remains unfunded. A thorough review of provincial responsibilities versus funding should be initiated. To achieve the greatest environmental and economic benefit for the residents of Ontario, the Province should develop a sustainable multi-ministry (e.g. MNRF, MOECC, MMAH, MEDEI, OMAFRA, MTCS) funding formula for basic operational activities of CAs that support multiple provincial priorities. Without this investment, there will continue to be varying capacity to deliver on existing and any additional provincial priorities. This is one of the most critical changes necessary to level the playing field and enable an equitable and effective program. This should be the immediate priority of the Province (see more details in answer to 2a Provincial Funding Support).

On average, 47% of the TRCA’s budget is financed from self-generated revenues. The ability to charge fees, to enter into partnerships and to fundraise has made the difference in the ability of TRCA to operate effectively and to introduce and expand program offerings. It should be noted, however, that revenue generated by user fees and admissions does not completely cover the cost of program delivery or corporate overhead. Service contracts generate revenues mostly from regional and local municipalities within TRCA’s jurisdiction, for which a small contribution is provided for corporate overhead. Finally, revenue generated through grants (including federal grants), contributions and donations are restricted in use. Although self-generated revenues are a significant component of TRCA’s budget they are not available to support activities beyond those that generate them.

415 Finally, it would be beneficial to CAs and municipalities to have the Province provide specific language to clarify variances in interpretations between the Act (Section 27(16)) and the Levy Regulation (Ontario Regulation 670/00). Additionally, Section 1 of the Act should be updated to define the types of costs (e.g. administration, maintenance, operating and projects) that could be included in municipal levies and then, the Act or Regulations should direct how the levies are to be apportioned. Apportionment would occur through either a watershed levy where the entire watershed benefits from the project or program and allocation is based on modified current value assessment; or through a special benefitting levy where allocation of costs is based on project or program benefits to individual municipalities.

There must be continued municipal and provincial funding support for the basic operating capacity of CAs to meet today’s environmental challenges. The cost-sharing formula should include at least 50% provincial funding for eligible expenditures and must take into account inflation.

CONCLUSION The CA approach, based on inter-municipal cooperation and the management of new environmental challenges at the regional, watershed scale has been extremely effective. While landscape and flood management remain important, Ontario’s challenges are made much more complex by trends that could not have been foreseen in the 1940s, including the cumulative impact of the burning of fossil fuels, a dramatic rate of population growth and urbanization and issues of food security. These issues are experienced and expressed in the jurisdictions of all CAs, notwithstanding a broad diversity of landscapes, land use profiles, political climates and a range of complexity in urban and rural issues. For the most part, the CA Act as it exists today provides the appropriate framework for consistency among CAs to each execute a program of natural resource management that meets the needs of their jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the significant role of CAs in addressing the impacts of urbanization, and the compounding effects of climate change, which supports provincial interests and municipal mandates, needs to be recognized and supported.

The importance of a governance structure that facilitates an integrated approach in dealing with climate change is emphasized in the International Panel on Climate Change’s most recent assessment report:

Climate change is a threat to sustainable development. Nonetheless, there are many opportunities to link mitigation, adaptation and the pursuit of other societal objectives through integrated responses. Successful implementation relies on relevant tools, suitable governance structures and enhanced capacity to respond.

Therefore in their review, TRCA urges the Province to consider CAs as key players in the response to Ontario’s most important current environmental issues. Updates to the CA Act should result in optimizing the use of CAs’ capacity to transcend political boundaries and to bring municipalities and other stakeholders together to respond to ongoing and new environmental challenges.

It is thereby recommended that the Province consider the following:

416  A provincial directive, policy or memorandum of understanding (MOU) developed among the Province, municipalities and Conservation Ontario for CA input to the planning and environmental assessment processes. This MOU would affirm CAs’ valuable role in managing natural hazards, natural heritage and other sustainability measures necessary to combat the potential effects of climate change and to continue to grow healthy, resilient urban and rural communities.

 A new multi-agency liaison body among the Province, municipalities and Conservation Ontario that facilitates working partnerships among public and private watershed stakeholders, which encourages collaboration and innovation in building sustainable communities resilient to the effects of urbanization and climate change.

 Maintain MNRF’s oversight of appealed permit decisions under the CA Act section 28 regulations through the Mining and Lands Commission and separate from the Ontario Municipal Board.

 Amend section 28 of the CA Act to enable compliance mechanisms in order to effectively and efficiently uphold CA regulatory responsibilities and to support the provincial interest in natural hazard management.

 Review the current list of eligible expenditures recognizing those activities across multiple ministries which contribute to provincial objectives.

 Provide specific language to clarify (and modernize) the levy provisions within the Act.

NEXT STEPS The release of the Discussion Paper represents the first step in the MNRF’s review of the Conservation Authorities Act. The feedback received in response to the EBR posting will help the Ministry identify priority areas for review. If specific changes to the existing legislative, regulatory or policy framework are considered in the future, further public consultation will occur as appropriate, for example through subsequent EBR postings. Through TRCA’s website and reporting back to the Authority, TRCA will keep members and watershed stakeholders informed on the status and process of this initiative. Additionally, TRCA will continue to participate on the Conservation Ontario CA Act Review Working Group.

Report prepared by: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281, Mary-Ann Burns, extension 5763 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] For Information contact: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281, Mary-Ann Burns, extension 5763 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] Date: September 23, 2015 Attachments: 1

417

Attachment 1 TRCA’s Comments on the Discussion Paper for the Provincial Review of the Conservation Authorities Act September 25, 2015

6.1 Governance

General Comments The Province, through the Conservation Authorities Act, defines the objects to be pursued by conservation authorities (Section 20) and the powers granted to authorities to achieve these objects (Section 21). In the past, the Province played a more direct role in overseeing conservation authorities (CAs). Today, while the Province and municipalities still share oversight of CAs, changes to the Act, policy and general practice over time have resulted in less direct provincial oversight.

Question #1: In your view, how well is the current governance model as provided in the Conservation Authorities Act working?

a) What aspects of the current governance model are working well?

Governance is the dual process of decision-making and holding those that make decisions to account. The CA governance model is guided by the fundamental principles of local decision- making, cost sharing, and watershed jurisdictions. It is these principles that provide the foundation for CAs to be innovative, solution driven, efficient, transparent and accessible at the grass roots in relation to decision-making, which in turn, enables our governance to “work well”.

The watershed-based governance model enables innovation to develop practical solutions to current and emerging issues (e.g. flood management, drinking water and Great Lakes water quality, climate change, rapid urbanization/growth). Effective programs focused on watershed health have been initiated and implemented due to the flexibility in the Conservation Authorities Act.

The current governance model works well for TRCA because of the flexibility inherent in the broad range of objects and powers it assigns to CAs. The Act’s premise that CA jurisdictions are watershed-based and not based on municipal boundaries is ideal for environmental management. For example, the section 20 powers of a CA “to study and investigate the watershed” and “to cause research to be done” are reflective of CAs’ work as resource management agencies. CAs are able to address the issues of the day by conducting research on their own, or in partnership with other watershed stakeholders such as municipalities, academics and NGOs. The products of this research can be data sets, studies, reports, demonstration programs, or presentations, which can immediately be shared and used to inform watershed plans and strategies, advocacy for integrated watershed management in the land

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 1

418

use planning process, policy and guideline development, regulation, and best management practices for the day-to-day work of both TRCA staff and other watershed stakeholders. The powers to “acquire” and “use” lands and to “collaborate and enter into agreements” with other governments and organizations, facilitates these roles and are reflective of CA roles of service provider, public commenting body with delegated provincial interest for natural hazards, regulator, and landowner.

The CA Act provides for the number of representatives that can be appointed to the board by each municipality. This works well as it provides the municipality the flexibility to appoint who they deem appropriate to represent them whether elected or a citizen and because municipalities are the primary funders of CAs. As well, having municipal representatives as the members on a watershed board provides an effective mechanism for municipalities to have a greater say in defining issues, and their solutions, that lie outside their municipal administrative boundary.

Finally, the collective decision to create an Association of CAs of Ontario (i.e. Conservation Ontario) has enabled a single collective voice that represents the majority of CA opinions on a given issue. In terms of program design and development, having Conservation Ontario as the liaison (i.e. single voice) with the Province on the development of the source water protection program and its implementation, has benefited both CAs and the Province, and more importantly, the environment and well-being of Ontarians.

b) What aspects of the current governance model are in need of improvement?

An enhanced CA and provincial ministry relationship is needed. CAs undertake work that supports and benefits multiple provincial objectives. Closer collaboration would be jointly beneficial.

To achieve this enhanced relationship, it is suggested that a Provincial Directive/Policy or a new memorandum of understanding is necessary, which would mandate coordinated, multi-ministry engagement with CAs. This initiative would be premised on an integrated watershed management approach to environmental and resource management that delivers local program needs while meeting cross-ministry science, policy, and legislative objectives. It would also be premised on a return to a more equitable cost- sharing partnership between the Province and municipalities. Through some type of provincial watershed liaison body (e.g. one ministry, or a lead agency, or a multi-ministry Secretariat or Steering Committee or even a standing agenda item for existing multi-ministry initiatives such as Ontario’s Great Lakes Strategy, and Climate Change Strategies), this provincial directive could be given effect at the provincial level

Such a formalized relationship would result in a more efficient and effective approach to environmental and resource management in Ontario that clarifies responsibilities and recognizes the contributions CA programs make to achieving multiple provincial and municipal priorities and funds them accordingly. In addition, the establishment of some type of Watershed Liaison Body could provide centralized legal support for enforcement of section 28 regulations.

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 2

419

With regard to provincial oversight for the water-related natural hazard (e.g. flood, regional control, wetlands) prevention and management programs, there are legislative, policy and technical guidelines and support tools that require updates and amendments from MNRF necessary for consistency and modernization. The need for these improvements has been identified by Conservation Ontario over the past several years and it is our belief that implementation would lead to more efficiencies and effectiveness in delivery. It is noted that this requires a renewed commitment within the MNRF to provide this policy and guideline support (leveraging CA expertise) to the modernized delivery of this program.

Other provincial partners are also key, such as MEDEI for infrastructure management, MMAH for land use planning policies, EMO/MCSCS for flood emergency management, and MOECC for infrastructure and environmental assessment planning, and green infrastructure/Low Impact Development (LID) approaches to stormwater management. In addition, many CAs own and manage an extensive land base for trails and other recreational facilities benefitting existing, growing and new communities. Therefore, similar discussions for updates should involve the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) for greenspace and recreational trail planning, and MMAH, MOECC, MNRF, MTCS, and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (MAA) for aboriginal engagement with respect to land management.

Finally, there are a few legislative amendments related to governance that have been endorsed by Conservation Ontario over the past several years. Conservation Ontario endorsed in 2006 an amendment to Section 14 (4) of the CA Act to adjust members’ appointments from “no more than 3 years” to reflect municipal councilors’ terms of 4 years. As well, in 2001, Conservation Ontario endorsed that Section 37 be amended to remove the requirement for OMB approval for board members’ salaries, expenses and allowances since little to no provincial money is used to compensate CA board members’ expenses. As well, it is noted that there is a need to clarify the inconsistencies that exist between the CA Act and the proposed Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (ONCA).

c) In terms of governance, what should be expected of:

i. The board and its members? o Meet current best practices of and requirements for any not-for-profit corporation board (e.g. Governance policy handbook including roles of Members and Staff, Codes of conduct) o Voting should be done in accordance with the best interest of the watershed which may not always be the same as the individual municipal interest o Regular report backs to the Council of the municipality they represent on important watershed issues and initiatives o Adhere to Municipal Conflict of Interest legislation, Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, policies, and protocols o Direct and undertake performance review of the General Manager or Chief Administrative Officer; recruit, hire, dismiss same o Set strategic direction and operational policies

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 3

420

o Ensure fiscal stability and approval of budgets and auditor’s statements o Uphold CA regulatory responsibilities and serve as a Hearings Board for Section 28 regulations o Make decisions that are consistent with the mandate to further the conservation, development and management of natural resources

ii. The general manager or chief administrative officer? o Oversight of day to day operational needs in accordance with approved policies and applicable legislation and contractual commitments o Manages staff and programs o Engages municipalities in the CA budget development and approval process; o Implements board resolutions o Acts as spokesperson for the Authority in the absence of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Authority o Makes regular reports/updates to and liaison with all municipalities in the watershed

iii. Municipalities? o Appoint members o Engage CAs in the municipal budget development and approval process o Identify environment and natural resource issues that require the CA’s attention o Engage and collaborate with CAs in the development and implementation of strategic initiatives (e.g., Municipal Climate Adaptation strategies, water/watershed management strategies) that support environmental sustainability o Partner in projects with common goals and objectives

iv. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry? o Lead the modernization/update of the provincial policy, science and standards that guide the natural hazards program (including wetlands) in Ontario to address current environmental issues o Provide consistent technical and financial support to CAs to implement and defend delegated Natural Hazard responsibilities o Advocate for the appropriate support for CAs through the budget process to ensure that they can deliver on this delegated program responsibility o Participate on a provincial watershed liaison body (see response to 6.1b for examples) to ensure coordination of delivery of cross-ministry science, policy, and legislative objectives o Further to the previous bullet, proactively fund programs supporting provincial environmental sustainability o Partner in projects with common goals and objectives

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 4

421

v. Other provincial ministries? o Participate on a provincial-municipal-CA watershed liaison body to ensure coordination of delivery of cross-ministry science, policy, and legislative objectives o Further to the first bullet, proactively fund programs supporting provincial environmental sustainability o Partner in projects with common goals and objectives o MOECC to advocate for the appropriate support for CAs through the budget process to ensure that they can deliver on this delegated program responsibility i.e. source water protection under the Clean Water Act

vi. Others? o Various watershed stakeholders, (e.g. non-government organizations) to provide input to CA boards and participate in development and implementation of local projects (e.g., watershed plans, wetland restoration projects, rural clean water programs)

d) How should the responsibility for oversight of conservation authorities be shared between the province and municipalities?

Oversight of CAs is generally defined in the Conservation Authorities Act and appropriately provides for oversight by both the Province and municipalities. The Province should establish a provincial watershed liaison body (see response to 6.1b for examples). Such a body would ensure coordination of delivery of cross-ministry science, policy, and legislative objectives and a return to a more equitable cost-sharing partnership between the Province and municipalities. It would create better efficiencies between programs and avoid duplication of efforts in on-the- ground delivery with complementary environmental benefits.

Oversight on permit decisions by the CA board under Section 28 regulations are appropriately adjudicated (on appeal) by the Mining and Lands Commissioner (MLC) as delegated by MNRF. This must remain a provincial responsibility, separate from the Ontario Municipal Board, to ensure the integrity of the natural hazards management program and the conservation of land in Ontario. This is given that the dismissal or granting of appeals is predicated on the MLC’s interpretation of the five tests of the section 28 regulations. The five tests are not based in planning law, but rather in science, and are often discussed in a cross-municipal boundary, watershed context that is ideal for assessing cumulative impacts, risk and liability. Therefore, hearings on appeal for section 28 permits most appropriately rest with the MNRF.

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 5

422

Municipalities provide oversight through the appointment of municipal representative(s) to the board with each member having a vote. The board is responsible to carry Directors’ and Officers’ Liability Insurance for their decisions around the programs delivered (including permits) and the budget. Finally, it is noted that CAs are accountable to municipalities in their request for levy through the annual CA and municipal budget processes and through the Section 25(2) ability for municipal councils to make an appeal. It is these processes that, in part, prevent duplication between CA and municipal services as well as up to date MOUs that outline the municipal/CA technical service agreements in support of municipal decision-making under the Planning Act and the environmental assessment process.

e) Are there other governance practices or tools that could be used to enhance the existing governance model?

Improvements from the proposed Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (ONCA) and other legislation that institute best practices (e.g. Municipal Conflict of Interest Act) should be integrated into the Conservation Authorities Act and the language used should be modernized (e.g. Directors instead of Members on the board). Further, the section 30 Administrative regulations should be amended accordingly. Overall, greater consistency in policies, procedures and practices across the CAs would be beneficial.

A Provincial Directive and enhanced provincial policy supporting integrated watershed management with the establishment of some type of provincial watershed liaison body would strengthen the ability to provide local environmental and natural resource management programs for greater public benefit.

6.2 Funding Mechanisms

General Comments The Conservation Authorities Act establishes a number of mechanisms which CAs can use to fund programs. The Act allows the MNRF to provide CAs with funding to support Ministry approved programs. A CA may also apply for funding from the Province to deliver programs on its behalf. Local resource management programs and services are funded through municipal levies. CAs can generate revenue through service, user and admission fees; resource development fees; fundraising and grant programs. The attached chart below summarizes TRCA revenue sources since the early 1990s and will be referenced in the discussion which follows.

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 6

423

120,000

100,000

80,000 Self Generated

Municipal

60,000 Provincial - Other WECI Program Thousands Source Water Protection 40,000 MNR Operations & Capital

20,000

- 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Question #2: In your view, how are the programs and services delivered by conservation authorities best financed?

a. How well are the existing funding mechanisms outlined within the Act working?

Municipal Funding The funding partnership between the Province and municipalities has undergone many changes over time. Today, the scope of work deemed eligible for provincial support is very narrow, as illustrated by the TRCA chart on funding sources. Today, TRCA as well as most other CAs derive a significant portion of their budgets from local municipalities through the levy process defined in Ontario Regulation 670/00 and enabled through Section 27(16). Over the last 5 years, approximately 46% of TRCA budget has been financed from municipal levies and grants. The reduction in provincial funding has been absorbed by an increase in municipal funding. The reduction in provincial contributions has resulted in municipal criticisms of provincial downloading, which would diminish if the Province returned to the traditional 50:50 cost-sharing ratio and list of eligible expenditures, and considered inflation in the annual allocations.

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 7

424

Enabling CAs, through legislation, to levy municipalities within the watershed is consistent with the recognition that management of natural resources is most effectively done on a watershed basis. There are accountabilities in the municipal budget process that are respected and make this arrangement work through municipal appointees to a CA board. Detailed budget submissions outlining CA work completed in the previous year as well as work to be completed (including a detailed breakdown of all revenue sources and expenditures) are part of this process at TRCA. Municipalities are provided with notification of their projected levy amounts for their use in development of the municipal budget, and, TRCA presents and defends its budget at municipal committee and Council as requested. As well, there is a 30-day appeal after the CA’s budget vote [see details Conservation Authorities Act, S.25(2)] if the municipal council is dissatisfied.

Provincial Funding Support

Since the mid-1990s, MNRF has only approved provincial funding for the water-related natural hazard prevention and management role of CAs, which includes flood and erosion control. Funding for this program area has been cut since the mid-1990s with no inflationary increases let alone increases to address the increasing demands in managing the current and future impacts of more frequent flood events. Currently there is a significant shortfall in provincial transfer payments for: - the operation of the flood management program including flood emergency management and mapping - strategic asset management planning - land securement - support for the implementation of source protection plans - water and erosion control Infrastructure - land use planning policies to prevent development in hazard lands - flood remediation for comprehensive redevelopment - natural heritage systems planning to mitigate for flooding and erosion - CA infrastructure and environmental assessment planning - green infrastructure/LID approaches to storm water management (all of which directly or indirectly mitigate and adapt for the potential impacts of climate change and contribute to Great Lakes water quality)

Also of benefit would be provincial recognition of the role that TRCA plays in areas of outdoor education, recreation and quality of life that contribute significantly to the health and well-being of our residents and visitors, thereby reducing provincial health care costs. Many CAs provide extensive facilities and land base for recreational trails tied to existing communities and new growth areas. Similar discussions should involve MTCS for greenspace and recreational trail planning, and MMAH, MTCS, and MAA for aboriginal engagement with respect to conservation land management.

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 8

425

With regard to MOECC Clean Water Act funding, the Discussion Paper indicates that “Future levels of funding are expected to move to a steady state once current source protection plans are approved” (p.16 Discussion Paper). The Province is encouraged to ensure a minimum level of capacity at the CA level to support implementation by municipalities and various organizations and agencies and the success of the program. With a $220 million provincial investment it is imperative to keep the knowledge up-to-date and the expertise maintained. The ongoing CA local policy interpretation, technical, communications, and administrative support function for implementation of this program is critical. The science and policies under this program also inform and integrate easily with other provincial mandates including climate change studies and protection of the Great Lakes. This further underscores the co-benefits of an integrated watershed management approach with provincial mandate.

The ‘delegated’ programs and other partnership agreements with the Province generally provide more services than recognized and financially supported by the Province. Funding for ongoing operation of programs has diminished significantly and also does not adequately reflect the diversity, complexity and range in CA capacity. The Province is encouraged to review basic operational activities/programs of CAs that support multiple provincial priorities and provide a broader public benefit with a view to providing long term funding to CAs and increasing the efficiency of environmental and resource management in Ontario.

Self-generated revenue On average, 47% of the TRCA’s budget is financed from self-generated revenues. The ability to charge fees, to enter into partnerships and to fundraise has made the difference in the ability of TRCA to operate effectively and to introduce and expand program offerings. It should be noted, however, that revenue generated by user fees and admissions does not completely cover the cost of program delivery or corporate overhead. Service contracts generate revenues mostly from regional and local municipalities within TRCA’s jurisdiction, for which a small contribution is provided for corporate overhead. Finally, revenue generated thought grants (including federal grants), contributions and donations are restricted in use. Although self-generated revenues are a significant component of TRCA’s budget they are not available to support activities beyond those that generate them.

b. What changes to existing funding mechanisms would you like to see if any?

CAs provide a tremendous amount of work and value for the province which remains unfunded. A thorough review of provincial responsibilities versus funding should be initiated. To achieve the greatest environmental and economic benefit for the residents of Ontario, the Province should develop a sustainable multi-ministry (e.g. MNRF, MOECC, MMAH, MEDEI, OMAFRA, MTCS) funding formula for basic operational activities of Conservation Authorities that support multiple provincial priorities. Without this investment, there will continue to be varying capacity to deliver on existing and any additional Provincial priorities. This is one of the most critical changes necessary to level the playing field and enable an equitable and effective program.

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 9

426

This should be the immediate priority of the Province (see more details in answer to 2a Provincial Funding Support).

Finally, it would be beneficial to CAs and municipalities to have the Province provide specific language to clarify variances in interpretations between the Act (Section 27(16)) and the Levy Regulation (Ontario Regulation 670/00). Additionally, Section 1 of the Act should be updated to define the types of costs (e.g. administration, maintenance, operating and projects) that could be included in levies and then, the Act or Regulations should direct how the levies are to be apportioned. Apportionment would occur through either a watershed levy where the entire watershed benefits from the project or program and allocation is based on modified current value assessment; or through a special benefitting levy where allocation of costs is based on project or program benefits to individual municipalities.

c. Which funding mechanisms, or combination of funding mechanisms, are best able to support the long term sustainability of conservation authorities?

There must be continued municipal and provincial funding support for the basic operating capacity of CAs to meet today’s environmental challenges. The cost-sharing formula should include at least 50% provincial funding for eligible expenditures and must take into account inflation.

d. Are there other revenue generation tools that should be considered?

Recognizing the provincial deficit and the likely need for a new source of provincial revenue, consideration should be given to use of carbon pricing revenues to support growth planning and climate change mitigation and adaptation activities of CAs.

There also needs to be recognition of the financial value of the ecological services that CAs provide. These ecological services help support clean air, water, and mitigate infrastructure costs. Accordingly, other sources of revenue that could be facilitated through legislative amendment or policy for CA eligibility (through their municipal partners) include: Development Charges Act, the Planning Act (where it applies to development charges), enactment of the Sustainable Water and Sewage System Act (i.e. recoverable cost from water rates), stormwater fees/rates (e.g. City of Mississauga in 2016; Kitchener), Trillium Foundation, Infrastructure funding for recreational / outdoor education facilities, etc.

6.3 Roles and Responsibilities

General Comments The Conservation Authorities Act enables CAs to undertake a wide range of activities on behalf of provincial, municipal and other interests. CAs are the only resource management agencies in Ontario that are organized on a watershed basis. The Act provides CAs with the power to develop their own programs and services tailored to the local needs and interests they serve.

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 10

427

This flexibility allows CAs, and the municipalities that fund them, to focus their resources on areas of greatest need to the local population. It also results in variability in the scale and range of programs and services delivered by any individual CA. Recent years have seen an increased interest in reviewing CA roles in resource management in Ontario. The Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Service in particular called on the Province to undertake a review of the programs and services delivered by both the MNRF and CAs to clarify responsibilities and eliminate any duplication. In 2007, the provincial government created a Conservation Authorities Liaison Committee (CALC) with representatives from the building industry, the Province, municipalities, CAs, Conservation Ontario and environmental organizations. MNRF approved the 2010 ”Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting Activities” developed by the committee that describes the roles of CAs in the areas of municipal planning, plan review, CA Act s. 28 permitting related to development activity and natural hazard prevention and management and protection of environmental interests.

Question #3: In your view, what should be the role of conservation authorities in Ontario?

a. What resource management programs and activities may be best delivered at the watershed scale?

Under the Conservation Authorities Act, the watershed boundary was chosen for CA jurisdictions as an important ecosystem boundary to manage natural resources and particularly, water. It should remain the boundary for program delivery.

From a science perspective the watershed unit is the appropriate scale for the management of water for all uses and inputs to the Great Lakes and for modeling watershed responses to various land use and climate change scenarios. It is also a meaningful context to assess cumulative impacts, not just for the water resource system but also for the natural heritage system. Ontarians are most interested in the quality and quantity of water and natural areas in their watersheds where they live, locate their businesses and enjoy recreation. CAs use this frame of reference to engage their local watershed residents in support for watershed management. They provide science-based advice and deliver services within their watersheds including: watershed/sub-watershed planning, water quality/quantity modeling, natural hazards management and regulation, natural heritage systems, forestry, source protection, environmental monitoring and reporting, watershed stewardship and restoration, technical input and review for municipal land use planning and development, as well as, outdoor education and recreation. This consultative and science-based approach is called integrated watershed management.

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 11

428

The CA Act serves to define CAs as watershed management bodies that are separate from the land use planning process, yet grants them the ability to administer a regulation which affects planning matters (including infrastructure and servicing). This is consistent with other environment and natural resource management legislation that issues permits. CAs as public commenting bodies under the planning and environmental assessment processes, play a significant role in managing the local natural resources of watersheds for the benefit of the municipalities that fall within them and for broader public benefit. The issues that CAs raise in the development review process are integral to environmental sustainability. Additionally, accountabilities are in place as per the 2010 ”Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting Activities”, which indicate the provincial expectation that, “CAs should give public notice and undertake public and stakeholder consultation prior to submission for CA board approval of all proposed policies, watershed and subwatershed plans, guidelines or strategies that are intended to be used by the CA to comment on future land use and land use planning and inform CA review of applications made pursuant to the Planning Act.” CAs have forged many successful working relationships with their participating municipalities, which appreciate the efficiency of utilizing watershed-based specialized science and technical expertise that many individual municipalities do not possess in-house, e.g., floodplain management, stormwater management, hydrogeology, fluvial geomorphology, ecology, and natural heritage systems planning. These services are delivered as outlined in MOUs with municipalities as part of planning and technical staff’s day-to-day work under the planning and environmental assessment processes, and ultimately in these projects’ detailed design stage where they may require a section 28 permit. CAs pride themselves in ensuring coordination of applications under the Planning Act, the environmental assessment process, and the CA Act to eliminate unnecessary delay or duplication in the process. Access to these differing review- processes, and assessing all of these applications in a watershed context, is ideal for considering cumulative impacts. In addition, it facilitates a strategic approach to considering opportunities for remediation of natural hazards, restoration of natural heritage, and enhancement of the inter-regional trails and open space system. CAs’ watershed context make them examples of, and advocates for, comprehensive land use planning and design on the part of approval authorities, development and infrastructure proponents and other watershed stakeholders.

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 12

429

Individually, CAs generally operate at a tertiary watershed scale, but collectively, 36 CAs operate on a Great Lakes basin/watershed scale. Environment and natural resource management program efficiencies can be gained by examining opportunities to look at programs across individual watersheds. To date, the provincial modernization and transformation of provincial environment and natural resource management programs have focused on increasing efficiencies for an individual agency’s processes through computerization and proponent self-assessment. The ultimate effectiveness of these processes is undetermined in meeting provincial environment and natural resource mandates including the minimization of the cumulative impacts. CAs observe that overall these individual processes are less efficient in that applicants are having to wade through multiple processes and to make decisions for which they may have limited or no qualification to assess. Partnering with the CAs on environment and natural resource management programs best delivered on a watershed basis, could serve as the basis for more clarity and a ”one window”’ service delivery model.

There is no agency responsible for coordinating and implementing the myriad of resource management programs by the provincial ministries and CAs. A provincial watershed liaison body could address the coordination gap. In terms of implementation, CAs are well structured to serve as the primary agency to assist municipalities with implementing environment and natural resources management programs of provincial agencies and ministries. Addressing the gap will streamline and optimize effectiveness of review and approval processes.

b. Are current roles and responsibilities authorized by the Conservation Authorities Act appropriate? Why or why not? What changes, if any, would you like to see?

The legislation provides a broad mandate and suite of responsibilities which empower CAs to set local programs and priorities in collaboration with member municipalities, government ministries and partners. The current CA mandate, as broadly outlined in sections 20 (objects) and 21 (powers) of the Act, remains as relevant today as when it was envisioned in 1946 because these sections have enabled integrated watershed management (see response to 1a for more details). That being said, the Act could be clearer about reflecting current roles and responsibilities best undertaken at a watershed scale (see response to 6.3a). For example, the roles stated in the 2010 “Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting Activities” that CAs may undertake could be embedded in the Act. This would eliminate confusion surrounding CAs’ mandate. The provincially recognized roles in plan review and permitting include: regulatory authorities (s.28) and delegated provincial interest in plan review for natural hazards management, resource management agency (with clear emphasis on watershed-based), public commenting bodies, service providers, and, landowners. Overall, the challenge in the drafting of these clauses will be to ensure that they clarify the CA mandate without having the unintended consequence of being limiting for effective and innovative local environmental and resource management on a watershed basis. It is proposed that to achieve this ideal definition and better CA/provincial/municipal coordination of implementation, a Provincial Directive/Policy/MOU should mandate coordinated, multi-ministry engagement with CAs towards an integrated watershed management approach to environmental and resource

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 13

430

management that delivers local program needs while meeting cross-ministry science, policy, and legislative objectives.

There needs to be some effort put towards harmonizing the CA Act with other legislation such as the Planning Act, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, the Places to Grow Act, the Niagara Escarpment Protection Act, the Development Charges Act and the Provincial Offences Act. Harmonization includes ensuring that CAs are recognized and legally defined consistently and their roles and responsibilities are recognized. Such harmonization would be timely given the Provincial Plan review, and the reviews of the Development Charges Act and the Planning Act, that are currently taking place.

c. How may the impacts of climate change affect the programs and activities delivered by conservation authorities? Are conservation authorities equipped to deal with these effects?

Impacts of climate change including rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns in Ontario have already increased the intensity of local flood events, reduced river flows, warmed surface waters and impacted wetlands. These impacts will likely continue and other threats to environmental, public health and our economy are expected to materialize including reduced quantity and quality of drinking water and disruption to businesses and costly damage to infrastructure. Like their municipal and private sector counterparts, CAs anticipate having to spend more of their budgets on mitigation activities to address liability (e.g. damaged trees from ice storms along trails in Conservation Areas) and protection of environmental integrity and biodiversity.

As leaders in natural resource protection in Ontario, CAs are uniquely positioned to support measures to conserve, preserve, restore, mitigate and adapt to climate change but CAs cannot deal with these effects alone. They need the Province to take a leadership role in developing and providing policies/technical guidelines and the best available science (including monitoring data and research) to facilitate mitigation and adaptation. These initiatives should be pursued together and be supported by provincial funding.

This issue of Climate Change is bigger than any one CA and we believe that the federal government, the Province, municipalities and CAs must work together to deal with the effects of climate change. Watershed specific work is underway but federal and provincial leadership and funding is required.

CAs believe that mitigation and adaptation are critical, complementary initiatives which should be pursued together in order to work towards implementing a greener, low-carbon economy supported by sustainable natural resources. The following illustrates some current CA Climate mitigation and adaptation initiatives and activities that should be supported; improving delivery of these programs will be key for the future.

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 14

431

Mitigation Adaptation

Flood Management Programs Ecosystem Enhancements

Sustainable Transportation Climate Change Water Quality and Quantity (e.g. Fleet) Strategies Municipal Plan Input and Green Building Technologies Land Use Review & Retrofits (e.g. LEED) Planning &

Regulations Local Climate Change Energy Conservation monitoring & modelling Watershed Plans Renewable Energy Information Management Education & Tree Planting/Carbon Outreach Green Infrastructure / low Sequestration (e.g. wetlands) impact development stormwater management

Low Water Response

Carbon & Water Trading Offsets d. Is the variability in conservation authorities’ capacity and resourcing to offer a range of programs and services a concern? Should there be a standard program for all authorities to deliver? Why or why not?

Variability in resources is a concern if local needs are not being met. As larger, better funded CAs take on additional programs there is increased expectations that the smaller CAs can and will also take them on. There are also stakeholder expectations that all CAs have the same data and capacity to assist them.

The funding inequity for CA programs accounts for the financial variability in Conservation Authority capacity to deliver on existing and any additional Provincial priorities unless they are funded

Better funded and more consistent CA watershed management programs around both water and land resources ensures clean and sustainable water and land resources needed for our daily lives and our economy.

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 15

432

Provincial priorities (e.g. climate change, Great Lakes protection, source water protection, natural hazards management, growth, economy) that are best delivered at the watershed scale should be funded as such with a “standard framework” for integrated watershed management for all CAs to deliver.

The concept of a restrictive ‘standard program’ for all CAs to follow would adversely affect the ability of a CA to develop unique programs required for their specific watershed. Beyond the standard requirements for provincially delegated programs referenced above, the intent or origins of the conservation authority movement is to allow for local watershed issues and concerns to be addressed. This should not change. The existing flexibility should be retained for CA board approved programs that support local watershed needs.

e. What are some of the challenges facing conservation authorities in balancing their various roles and responsibilities? Are there tools or other changes that would help with this?

The provincial funding shortfall for the natural hazards management program is considered to be a major challenge in delivery of that role and responsibility; as well as, the need for the MNRF to undertake legislative (Section 28) amendments for consistency/efficiency (some outlined in more detail at the end of this section), and MNRF and partner ministries to provide leadership and support in modernizing the provincial technical guidelines to address growth, intensification and redevelopment/revitalization.

Lack of a sustainable funding formula that recognizes the multi-ministry benefits of the CA watershed management program in general is another major challenge especially given the MNRF’s limited budget in comparison to other provincial ministries.

As previously referenced, there are a myriad of government bodies that have objectives towards protecting and managing natural resources; this is a major challenge. In terms of tools or other changes that would be helpful in addressing this challenge, as described in more detail above, what’s needed is funding and a provincial directive for coordinated multi-ministry engagement with CAs towards an integrated watershed management approach to environmental and resource management that delivers local program needs while meeting cross-ministry science, policy, and legislative objectives.

Many of the lands identified for redevelopment and intensification in TRCA’s watersheds are located in Flood Vulnerable Areas (FVAs). There are a considerable number of people living within FVAs in TRCA’s jurisdiction (over 35,000). TRCA’s watershed-based research and science has demonstrated that the cumulative impact of growth and intensification in our jurisdiction is causing profound changes to our watershed hydrology resulting in increased flood and erosion risk in downstream areas. In addition, climate change is likely to have an increasingly negative impact on water resources, public infrastructure and private property; this in part, due to extreme weather events such as the July 2013 Toronto flood (reported as Ontario’s most expensive natural disaster resulting in $850 million in damage to public and

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 16

433

private assets). The combined impacts of urbanization and climate change mean that we are now reaching a threshold capacity in TRCA watersheds where communities will increasingly be put at risk unless there is a new paradigm in how we manage stormwater and invest in infrastructure to reduce the risk of flooding where it currently occurs.

Continual incremental loss of natural features and fragmentation of valley and stream corridors occurring through infrastructure and development negotiations, has led to cumulative impacts and the deterioration of natural heritage systems in urban areas where these systems are most needed. There is insufficient support for the protection of provincial and local natural features through the development process despite collaborative processes with municipalities and landowners.

The Province needs to lead negotiations on new funding priorities/tools for CAs efforts with AMO and municipalities, e.g., infrastructure renewal/new initiatives, flood remediation and river restoration, regional open space and parks infrastructure renewal and management/maintenance, eco-tourism; strategic and legislative recognition of the role of conservation lands and natural systems for the functional health and servicing of new communities/sustainability over time.

Municipalities have a suite of tools to address non-compliance and cost recovery that CAs do not have for the implementation of their Section 28 permitting responsibilities. These are enabled by other legislation, eg. Municipal Act – offender’s tax bill, Ontario Building Code Act – stop work orders, etc.

Sections 28 (16, 17, 20, 24) & 29 of the Conservation Authorities Act should be amended to support Conservation Authority enforcement efforts to more effectively prevent violations, assist in the prosecution of violations and facilitate site rehabilitation. These changes should include at a minimum:  Addition of the ability to issue stop work orders and orders to comply  An increase in fines to reflect penalties comparable to other environmental legislation (i.e. Environmental Protection Act violations)  Add in ability to neutralize any monetary benefit from the commission of the offense  Addition of methods of cost recovery similar to other legislation (e.g. proceeds from fines should be payable to the CA to assist with recuperating costs, a mechanism such as in the Municipal Act – offender’s tax bill)  Broaden rehabilitation section of the Act to allow courts to order rehabilitation of any type of land (currently it is limited to wetlands and watercourses)  Facilitate collection of costs for CAs to do the rehabilitation if necessary  Facilitate enforcement officer entry on property for the purpose of investigations  Consideration of opportunities for greater coordination with municipal site alteration/fill- by laws

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 17

434

There are terms used throughout Section 28 that could be defined through a Section 40 Regulation. TRCA acknowledges the value of defining terms to facilitate consistency in program delivery. TRCA has successfully defended the application of the ‘conservation of land’ test before he Mining and Lands Commissioner and the courts, which have accepted a broad interpretation of the meaning of conservation of land to include “all aspects of the physical environment, be it terrestrial, aquatic, biological, botanic or air and the relationship between them” (611428 Ontario Limited vs. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, CA 007-92, February 11, 1994 p. 38). TRCA requests consistency with this decision should the Province proceed to define ‘conservation of land’.

f. Are there opportunities to improve consistency in service standards, timelines and fee structures? What are the means by which consistency can be improved? What are some of the challenges in achieving greater consistency in these areas?

In May 2010, MNR and MMAH finalized and approved the draft document produced by the Conservation Authorities Liaison Committee, entitled “Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting”, to form part of MNRF’s ‘Conservation Authority Policies and Procedures Manual’. Among other items, the document addresses standards, timelines and fees.

A Provincial review through the CA Liaison Committee was undertaken with regard to service standards, timelines and fees. It was demonstrated that overall Conservation Authorities have met the standards established in MNR Policies and Procedures with regard to timelines and fees. The 2012 report “Review of Conservation Authority Fees”, according to a provincial summary, “provided a basis for improved understanding and discussion of fees among members [of the Committee] and for identifying potential areas of improvement”. To date, the Committee has not been reconvened on this topic, and, generally, it may be appropriate to reconvene this committee on at least an annual basis to discuss and resolve issues.

With regard to fees, challenges in achieving greater consistency are related to: differences in CA board direction with regard to an expectation of 100% cost recovery through fees versus an expectation that the services be delivered through the municipal levy and provincial transfer payment; the amount and complexity of development applications within a watershed; regional differences in costs (e.g. wages, consultants); and, the amount and severity of natural hazards existing within a CA’s jurisdiction thus contributing to complexity of review.

CA capacity and ability to improve service standards, timelines and fee structures is a critical point of discussion. The Drinking Source Water Protection Model was used to successfully address some of these issues by providing a provincial directive for watershed partnerships, leadership and capacity building. Key to this success was provincial investment.

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 18

435

6.4 Other Areas of Interest

Question #4: Are there any other areas, questions or concerns regarding the Conservation Authorities Act or conservation authorities in general that you feel should be considered as part of the review?

The Province is currently undertaking a review of several pieces of provincial legislation. There is an opportunity to harmonize the CA Act with other legislation such as the Planning Act, ORM Act, etc. to ensure that CAs are legally defined consistently and that their roles and responsibilities are recognized.

In addition, the Province, municipalities and CAs should develop a coordinated communication plan to inform the public and stakeholders about the role of CAs in Ontario.

______

TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 19

436

RES.#A169/15 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Ontario, CFN 52819. Acquisition of a lease agreement for a 10 year term for the purpose of trail head parking and to sublease the existing building to Chabad Lubavich on a property located at 12611 Yonge Street, in the Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015”, Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B92/15)

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a lease agreement with Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Ontario As Represented By The Minister Of Economic Development, Employment And Infrastructure (MEDEI) to operate and manage the property owned by MEDEI located at 12611 Yonge Street, said land being Part 5 on Reference Plan 64R-4458, improved with a two storey building and gravel parking lot, containing approximately 0.489 hectares (1.210 acres), in the Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York;

THAT the term the lease agreement be for 10 years;

THAT the consideration be a nominal sum of $12.00 per annum;

THAT the final terms and conditions of the agreement be satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitors;

THAT the property with the exception of a portion of the parking lot be sub-leased to Chabad Lubavich under the same terms and conditions;

AND FURTHER THAT the authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever actions may be required to give effect thereto including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______

RES.#A170/15 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015 Flood Plain Conservation Component Humber River Watershed Regional Municipality of Peel, CFN 53756. Acquisition of land located at 19282 Mountainview Road, to the west side of Mountainview Road, south of Beech Grove Sideroad, in the Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B93/15)

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

437 THAT 0.040 hectares (0.099 acres), more or less, of land, located west of Mountainview Road and south of Beech Grove Sideroad, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, said land being Part of Lot 20, Concession 5 East of Hurontario Street, be purchased from the Regional Municipality of Peel;

THAT the purchase price be $2.00;

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;

THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______

RES.#A171/15 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed Ford Valley Properties Inc., CFN 53883. Acquisition of property located south of Rutherford Road and east of Pine Valley Drive, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B94/15)

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

THAT 0.74 hectares (1.82 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located south of Rutherford Road and east of Pine Valley Drive in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, said land being Part of Block 31 on Plan 65M-3410 and designated as Part 1 on a Draft Reference Plan prepared by Ivan B. Wallace, Ontario Land Surveyor Ltd., drawing 5-10676-RP2, dated July 3, 2015, be purchased from Ford Valley Properties Inc.;

THAT the purchase price be $2.00;

THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______

438 RES.#A172/15 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015 Flood Plain Conservation Component, Rouge River Watershed Raija Leena Varjo, CFN 53007. Acquisition of land located north of Stouffville Road and east of Bayview Avenue, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River watershed. (Executive Res.#B95/15)

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

THAT 0.8325 hectares (2.0571 acres), more or less, of vacant land located north of Stouffville Road and east of Bayview Avenue, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, said land being Part of Lot 2, Concession 2, be purchased from Raija Leena Varjo;

THAT the purchase price be $30,000.00, inclusive of HST;

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;

THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______

RES.#A173/15 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015 Flood Plain Conservation Component Rouge River Watershed Fairgate (Ninth Line) Inc. CFN 54356. Acquisition of property located east of Ninth Line and south of Bethesda Sideroad in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Rouge River watershed. (Executive Res.#B96/15)

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

THAT 3.67 hectares (9.07 acres), more or less, of vacant land located east of Ninth Line and south of Bethesda Sideroad in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, Regional Municipality of York, said land being Part of Lot 3, Concession 8 and designated Blocks 88 and 89 on the draft plan of subdivision prepared by Donald E. Roberts Ltd. OLS, ref no. 12-7790, be purchased from Fairgate (Ninth Line) Inc.;

439 THAT the purchase price be $2.00;

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;

THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______

RES.#A174/15 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015 Flood Plain Conservation Component, Highland Creek Watershed Newfin Land Development Company Limited, CFN 54104. Acquisition of land located north of Clemes Drive and west of Centennial Road, in the City of Toronto, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Highland Creek watershed. (Executive Res.#B97/15)

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

THAT 0.223 hectares (0.552 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located north of Clemes Drive and west of Centennial Road, in the City of Toronto, said land being Part of Lot 3, Concession 1 and designated as Parts 3, 4 and 5 Plan 66R-28008, be purchased from Newfin Land Development Company Limited;

THAT the purchase price be $2.00;

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the lands free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;

THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______

440 RES.#A175/15 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015 Flood Plain Conservation Component, Petticoat Creek Watershed E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc., CFN 54363. Acquisition of property located south of Finch Avenue and east of Altona Road in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Petticoat Creek watershed. (Executive Res.#B98/15)

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

THAT 0.051 hectares (0.125 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located south of Finch Avenue and east of Altona Road in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, said land being Part of Lots 5 and 6, Registered Plan 566, designated as Part 5 and Part 6 on a Draft Plan of survey prepared by J. B. Fleguel Surveyors, Project # 4783_D_RP, be purchased from E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc.;

THAT the purchase price be $2.00;

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;

THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______

RES.#A176/15 - E. OVIDE HOLDINGS (ALTONA) INC. AND THE CITY OF PICKERING Request for Permanent Easements for Stormwater Retention Swales, City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, Petticoat Creek Watershed, CFN 54048. Receipt of a request from E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. and the City of Pickering to provide two permanent easements for stormwater retention swales, located south of Finch Avenue, east and west of Altona Road, in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, Petticoat Creek watershed. (Executive Res.#B99/15)

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

441 WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. (Ovide Holdings) and the City of Pickering to provide two permanent easements for stormwater retention swales, located south of Finch Avenue, east and west of Altona Road in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham;

AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with Ovide Holdings and the City of Pickering in this instance;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT permanent easements containing a total of 0.077 hectares (0.191 acres), more or less, be granted in favour of the City of Pickering and Ovide Holdings for stormwater retention swales, said lands being Part of Lot 32, Concession 1 and designated as Part 1 on a Draft Plan of Survey prepared by J.B. Fleguel Surveyors, under their project #4783_RP; and Part of Lot 2, Registered Plan 388 and designated as Part 1 of Draft Plan of Survey prepared by J.B. Fleguel Surveyors, under their project #4783_B_EXT_RP, subject to the following terms and conditions: i) that the easement price be $10,000.00 to be paid by Ovide Holdings to TRCA, and in addition Ovide Holdings shall reimburse any legal, survey and other costs incurred by TRCA to complete this transaction; ii) that an archeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, all at the sole expense of Ovide Holdings; iii) that a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, be obtained by Ovide Holdings prior to commencement of construction; iv) TRCA lands distributed by the proposed works be revegetated or stabilized following construction and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA or City of Pickering staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA and City of Pickering landscaping guidelines; v) Ovide Holdings and the City of Pickering shall fully indemnify and save harmless TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or loss of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of these easements or the carrying out of construction; and vi) any additional considerations as deemed appropriate by TRCA staff or its solicitor;

THAT said easements be subject to the approval of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______

442 RES.#A177/15 - TRANSCANADA PIPELINES LTD. Request for a Permanent Easement for a New Nominal Pipe Size (NPS) 36 Inch Diameter Natural Gas Pipeline. City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel and City of Toronto, Humber River Watershed, CFN 53376. Receipt of a request from TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. to provide a permanent easement for a new NPS 36 inch diameter natural gas pipeline, south of Steeles Avenue, west of Highway 427, within Claireville Conservation Area, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel and City of Toronto, Humber River watershed. (Executive Res.#B100/15)

Moved by: Mike Mattos Seconded by: Ron Moeser

WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. (TCPL) to provide a permanent easement for a new Nominal Pipe Size (NPS) 36 inch diameter natural gas pipeline, south of Steeles Avenue, west of Highway 427, within Claireville Conservation Area, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel and City of Toronto, Humber River watershed;

AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with TCPL in this instance;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing a total of 1.10 hectares (2.72 acres), more or less, be granted to TCPL for a new NPS 36 inch diameter natural gas pipeline, said land being Part of Lot 15, Concession 9 SD, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, designated as Part 29 on a draft Plan of Survey prepared by J. D. Barnes Limited, under their Reference No. 13-23-195-02, dated March 9, 2015 and Part of Lots 36, 37, 38 39 and 40 FTH, City of Toronto, designated as Parts 28, 28b, 29a and 31 on a draft Plan of Survey prepared by J. D. Barnes Limited, under their Reference No. 13-23-195-02, dated March 9, 2015, subject to the following terms and conditions:

(a) the permanent easement price is $1,833,300 and the price for temporary working easements is $1,621,650, of which a portion will be contributed toward the Claireville Land Management Implementation Plan, for a total of $3,454,650, in addition to all legal, appraisal, survey and other costs incurred necessary to complete the transaction;

(b) TCPL is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims arising from injury, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of any construction;

(c) an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the sole expense of TCPL;

(d) all TRCA lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated/stabilized following construction and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines;

443

(e) a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, be obtained by TCPL from TRCA prior to commencement of construction; and

(f) any additional terms or conditions deemed appropriate by TRCA staff or solicitor;

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

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining of any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents.

AMENDMENT RES.#A178/15

Moved by: Mike Mattos Seconded by: Ron Moeser

THAT the following be inserted after the main motion:

AND FURTHER THAT the management plan for Claireville Conservation Area be reviewed to reflect changes to status of several parcels.

RECORDED VOTE Paul Ainslie Yea Maria Augimeri Yea Vincent Crisanti Yea Glenn De Baeremaeker Yea Jennifer Drake Yea Rob Ford Nay Jack Heath Yea Jennifer Innis Yea Maria Kelleher Yea Matt Mahoney Yea Glenn Mason Yea Mike Mattos Yea Jennifer McKelvie Yea Ron Moeser Yea Linda Pabst Yea

THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED

THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED

444 THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. (TCPL) to provide a permanent easement for a new Nominal Pipe Size (NPS) 36 inch diameter natural gas pipeline, south of Steeles Avenue, west of Highway 427, within Claireville Conservation Area, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel and City of Toronto, Humber River watershed;

AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with TCPL in this instance;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing a total of 1.10 hectares (2.72 acres), more or less, be granted to TCPL for a new NPS 36 inch diameter natural gas pipeline, said land being Part of Lot 15, Concession 9 SD, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, designated as Part 29 on a draft Plan of Survey prepared by J. D. Barnes Limited, under their Reference No. 13-23-195-02, dated March 9, 2015 and Part of Lots 36, 37, 38 39 and 40 FTH, City of Toronto, designated as Parts 28, 28b, 29a and 31 on a draft Plan of Survey prepared by J. D. Barnes Limited, under their Reference No. 13-23-195-02, dated March 9, 2015, subject to the following terms and conditions:

(g) the permanent easement price is $1,833,300 and the price for temporary working easements is $1,621,650, of which a portion will be contributed toward the Claireville Land Management Implementation Plan, for a total of $3,454,650, in addition to all legal, appraisal, survey and other costs incurred necessary to complete the transaction;

(h) TCPL is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims arising from injury, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of any construction;

(i) an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the sole expense of TCPL;

(j) all TRCA lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated/stabilized following construction and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines;

(k) a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, be obtained by TCPL from TRCA prior to commencement of construction; and

(l) any additional terms or conditions deemed appropriate by TRCA staff or solicitor;

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

THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining of any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents;

445 AND FURTHER THAT the management plan for Claireville Conservation Area be reviewed to reflect changes to status of several parcels.

______

RES.#A179/15 - CITY OF TORONTO Request for a Permanent Easement Humber River Watershed, CFN 49327. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to provide a permanent easement for the replacement of a storm sewer, located south of Dundas Street West. and west of 4070 Old Dundas Street, City of Toronto. (Executive Res.#B101/15)

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to provide a permanent easement located west of 4070 Old Dundas Street and south of Dundas Street West, in the City of Toronto;

AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with the City of Toronto in this instance;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing a total of 0.054 hectares (0.134 acres), more or less, be granted to the City of Toronto for the replacement of a storm sewer designated as Part 2, on Sketch No. PS-2015-084, dated July 10, 2015, prepared by the City of Toronto Engineering and Construction Services Department;

THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00, in addition all legal, survey and other costs be paid by the City of Toronto;

THAT the City of Toronto is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of construction;

THAT an archeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of the City of Toronto;

THAT all TRCA lands disturbed by the proposed works be revegetated/stabilized following construction and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines;

THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, be obtained by the City of Toronto prior to commencement of construction;

446 THAT said easement be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED ______

RES.#A180/15 - REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY-OWNED LAND Behind 58 Park Drive, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River Watershed, CFN 48048. Recommendation that the subject Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned property, located to the rear of 58 Park Drive, City of Vaughan, Humber River watershed, be retained in TRCA ownership for conservation purposes. (Executive Res.#B102/15 & Res.#B103/15)

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)-owned property located at the rear of 58 Park Drive, in the City of Vaughan, be retained in TRCA ownership for conservation purposes;

AND FURTHER THAT staff be authorized to negotiate and finalize a lease with terms and conditions satisfactory to staff with Dr. Izzat for the subject property. CARRIED ______

RES.#A181/15 - REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY-OWNED LAND Rear of 134 Ravendale Court , City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River Watershed, CFN 44843. Recommendation that the subject Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned property, located south of Stegman’s Mill Road and east of Islington Avenue (rear of 134 Ravendale Court - Kleinburg), City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed, be retained in TRCA ownership for conservation purposes. (Executive Res.#B104/15)

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)-owned property located at the rear of 134 Ravendale Court - Kleinburg, in the City of Vaughan, be retained in TRCA ownership for conservation purposes. CARRIED ______

447 RES.#A182/15 - REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY-OWNED LAND 17 Mill Street, City of Markham, Regional Municipality of York, Rouge River Watershed, CFN 26351. Recommendation that the subject Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned property located at 17 Mill Street, in the City of Markham, Regional Municipality of York, Rouge River watershed, be retained in TRCA ownership for conservation purposes. (Executive Res.#B105/15)

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)-owned property located at 17 Mill Street, City of Markham, Rouge River watershed, be retained for conservation purposes;

AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to investigate the potential of a long term lease for the restoration and preservation of the heritage building located at 17 Mill Street, in consultation with the City of Markham. CARRIED ______

RES.#A183/15 - TOWN OF WHITCHURCH STOUFFVILLE Land Management Agreement, CFN 24344. Entering into a consolidated land management agreement with the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville for park and recreational uses of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned lands located within the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, Regional Municipality of York. (Executive Res.#B106/15)

Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

WHEREAS the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville manages a number of parcels of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)-owned lands for park and recreation purposes under the terms of a number of existing agreements;

AND WHEREAS TRCA and the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville are desirous of consolidating these agreements into one land management agreement and to add TRCA lands to this agreement;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the existing management agreements with the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville be consolidated into one agreement with ‘TRCA Lands’ on Schedule “A” (attached) being added to the agreement;

THAT from time to time by mutual agreement, additional TRCA lands may be added to the agreement;

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

RES.#A184/15 - VOLUNTEER POLICY Approval of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s updated Volunteer Policy. (Executive Res.#B107/15 & Res.#B108/15)

Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Glenn Mason

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) Volunteer Policy, updated September 2015, outlined in Attachment 1 be approved;

AND FURTHER THAT the Volunteer Management Procedures, as amended with respect to dismissal, outlined in Attachment 2, be received. CARRIED ______

Section II – Items for Authority Information

RES.#A185/15 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION

Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Ron Moeser

THAT Section II items 10.1.1 – 10.1.4, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #8/15, held on August 7, 2015, be received.

Section II Items 10.1.1 – 10.1.4 ELGIN MILLS GREENWAY REHABILITATION PROJECT (Executive Res.#B82/15) RFP #10000648 – TREE SEEDLING COLD STORAGE HOLDING FACILITY – DESIGN/BUILD (Executive Res.#B83/15) DON VALLEY GOLF COURSE EROSION CONTROL PROJECT (Executive Res.#B84/15) APPOINTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND DESIGNATION AS PROVINCIAL OFFENCES OFFICER (Executive Res.#B85/15)

______

449 RES.#A186/15 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION

Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Paul Ainslie

THAT Section II item 10.1.5 – National Floodnet Research Network, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #8/15, held on August 7, 2015, be received.

______

RES.#A187/15 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION

Moved by: Glenn Mason Seconded by: Linda Pabst

THAT Section II items 11.1.1 and 11.1.2, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #9/15, held on September 11, 2015, be received.

Section II Items 11.1.1 & 11.1.2 APPOINTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (Executive Res.#B109/15) OMB APPEAL BY GILLIAN EVANS/DAVID TOYNE (Executive Res.#B110/15)

______

RES.#A188/15 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION

Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Matt Mahone

THAT Section II item 11.5 – Cost Centre Accounting, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #9/15, held on September 11, 2015, be received.

______

Section III - Items for the Information of the Board

RES.#A189/15 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed. Katherine Jane Dalton and Christine Styles Dalton, Estate Trustee for the Estate of Ian Robert Dalton, CFN 22588. Status of requests for funding for purchase of a property municipally known as 12800 11th Concession Road, located to the west side of the 11th Concession Road, and south of King Road, Township of King, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed.

450 Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Ron Moeser

THAT the staff report dated September 11, 2015, regarding the status of requests for funding for purchase of a property municipally known as 12800 11th Concession Road, located to the west side of the 11th Concession Road, and south of King Road, Township of King, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed, be received.

AMENDMENT RES.#A190/15

Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Ron Moeser

THAT the following be inserted after the main motion:

AND FURTHER THAT the Chair of TRCA be requested to meet with the Chair of Toronto Public Works and Infrastructure Committee in regards to the financial support for the source water protection land acquisition program.

THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED

THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED

THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS:

THAT the staff report dated September 11, 2015, regarding the status of requests for funding for purchase of a property municipally known as 12800 11th Concession Road, located to the west side of the 11th Concession Road, and south of King Road, Township of King, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed, be received;

AND FURTHER THAT the Chair of TRCA be requested to meet with the Chair of Toronto Public Works and Infrastructure Committee in regards to the financial support for the source water protection land acquisition program.

BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #6/15, held on June 26, 2015, Resolution #A115/15 was approved as follows:

THAT 44.20 hectares (109.22 acres), more or less, of an irregular shaped parcel of land, improved with a log cabin and a detached, two bay garage, being Part of Lots 3 and 4, Concession 11, Township of King, Regional Municipality of York, located to the west side of 11th Concession Road and south of King Road, municipally known as 12800 11th Concession Road, be purchased from Katherine Jane Dalton and Christine Styles Dalton, Estate Trustee for the Estate of Ian Robert Dalton;

THAT the purchase price be $2,760,000.00;

THAT acquisition by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) be conditioned upon all necessary funding being available;

451 THAT TRCA receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;

THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid;

THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents;

THAT TRCA’s request to the City of Toronto for funding from the Land Acquisition for Source Water Protection Reserve also include a request on behalf of the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust (ORMLT) for financial support in the amount of $1,200,000 for the ORMLT’s 2015/2016 Land Securement Program;

AND FURTHER THAT staff report back in September.

Attached is a sketch showing the location of the subject lands.

Status of Requests for Funding The Regional Municipality of York has been requested to fund 50% of the total cost of the acquisition of the Dalton property. York Region staff is supportive of the request for 50% funding and has scheduled a report for consideration by the Committee of the Whole on October 8, 2015; subsequently, Regional Council will consider the request at its meeting scheduled for October 15, 2015.

The City of Toronto has been requested to fund 33% of the total cost for the acquisition of the Dalton property as well as financial support in the amount of $1,200,000 for the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust’s 2015/2016 Land Securement Program. City of Toronto staff has indicated that Toronto Water’s approved 2015-2024 Capital Plan does not include funding for land acquisition for source water protection; and have indicated that these requests could be considered as part of 2016-2025 budget submission process as new funding requests.

Therefore, the remaining 50% for acquisition of the Dalton property to be provided by TRCA will be achieved through funds contained in the land acquisition capital account. The funding in this account is from land sales, easement revenue and a bequest.

Presently, there are no other sources of funding available in order to meet the financial requirements to complete the transaction. Furthermore, the owners are not receptive to extend the purchase into 2016.

Report prepared by: George Leja, extension 5342 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: George Leja, extension 5342, Jae R. Truesdell, extension 5247 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] Date: September 11, 2015 Attachments: 1

452 OAD GR KIN

R E B M SUBJECT U H IN PROPERTY A C M O

N

C

E

S

S A I L O B N I O R N O V A A D U

G 1

1 H A

N

R

D

M AIN HUMBER

Legend

DURHAM Su bject PropertySubject YORK !!!!!! Floodline ^SITE Watercourses PEEL C rest of SlopeCrest of RegulationLimit F TORONTO TRCAProperty 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Lake Ontario Parcel AssessmentParcel Kilometers KeyMap ©Queen’s Reproducedlicensors.Maybe[2005] OnNot Printerandfor its tario Permission.NOTwithout THIS IS PLANA OFSURVEY. 453

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RES.#A191/15

Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jack Heath

THAT the Committee move into closed session to discuss item 8.2 – 22 Greyabbey Trail, as it pertains to legal matters in which Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is involved. CARRIED RISE AND REPORT RES.#A192/15

Moved by: Jennifer Innis Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

THAT the Committee rise and report from closed session. CARRIED

RES.#A193/15 - 220 GREYABBEY TRAIL Notice of Violation # V 2814. Report back on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and City of Toronto efforts to resolve an outstanding permit violation.

Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Jack Heath

THAT the report on 220 Greyabbey Trail be received.

AMENDMENT RES.#A194/15

Moved by: Paul Ainslie Seconded by: Jack Heath

THAT the main motion be amended to read as follows:

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to facilitate immediate removal of the pile of dirt on the front of 220 Greyabbey Trail;

THAT staff report back as soon as possible on plans to rectify the matter;

AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to report back on policies and procedures used to supervise construction done under the Conservation Authorities Act.

THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED

THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED

454

THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS:

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to facilitate immediate removal of the pile of dirt on the front of 220 Greyabbey Trail;

THAT staff report back as soon as possible on plans to rectify the matter;

AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to report back on policies and procedures used to supervise construction done under the Conservation Authorities Act.

______

RES.#A195/15 - SECTION III – ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD

Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

THAT Section III item 11.3.1 – Absenteeism and Turnover, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #9/15, held on September 11, 2015, be received.

______

Section IV – Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended

RES.#A196/15 - SECTION IV – ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED

Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Paul Ainslie

THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, item 10.2, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #8/15, held on August 7, 2015, be received. CARRIED ______

RES.#A197/15 - SECTION IV – ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED

Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, item 11.4, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #9/15, held on September 11, 2015, be received. CARRIED ______

455

TERMINATION

ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:53 a.m., on Friday, September 25, 2015.

Maria Augimeri Brian Denney Vice Chair Secretary-Treasurer

/ks

456