Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:43 a.m. PRESENT Paul Ainslie Member Maria Augimeri Chair Vincent Crisanti Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Jennifer Drake Member Rob Ford Member Jack Heath Member Jennifer Innis Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Ron Moeser Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member John Sprovieri Member ABSENT Jack Ballinger Member David Barrow Member Michael Di Biase Vice Chair Justin Di Ciano 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,
Toronto 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" >
09/12/2015 04:04 PM
To <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
cc
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
regarding Notice of Violation # V 2814 of 220 Greyabbey Trail on September 25th
.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 Kopka201 Greyabbey TrailScarborough See below one of our previous emails:
From: Dana Kopka Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:17 PMTo: [email protected]; planning&[email protected]: 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
Att
ach
me
nt
1
TR
CA
Re
sp
on
se
s t
o C
om
me
nts
on
th
e d
raft
Cro
ssin
gs
Gu
ide
lin
e f
or
Va
lle
y a
nd
Str
eam
Co
rrid
ors
, A
pri
l 2
01
5 v
ers
ion
Se
pte
mb
er
201
5
Co
mm
en
ter
Se
cti
on
Co
mm
en
tT
RC
A R
esp
on
se
Re
vis
ion
s t
o
Gu
ide
lin
e?
City o
f B
ram
pto
nG
ene
ral
Th
is d
ocu
me
nt
is g
ene
rally
id
en
tify
ing
a ‘be
st
pra
ctice
s’ a
pp
roa
ch
to
va
lley /
wa
terc
ours
e
co
rrid
or
cro
ssin
gs,
and
is t
here
fore
app
lica
ble
an
d p
ote
ntia
lly a
do
pta
ble
by a
ve
ry w
ide
aud
ience
, ra
ng
ing
fro
m o
the
r C
onse
rva
tion
Au
tho
rities,
to r
eg
iona
l/a
rea
mu
nic
ipalit
ies,
and
oth
er
ag
ency a
nd
priva
te p
rop
one
nts
. T
oda
y,
all
leve
ls o
f g
ove
rnm
ent
have
ge
ne
rally
exp
resse
d t
he s
am
e g
oals
and
ob
jective
s a
s T
RC
A h
as t
hro
ug
h s
tra
teg
ic a
nd
pla
nn
ing
docu
me
nts
, i.e
. th
e n
ee
d t
o p
rote
ct
/ co
nse
rve
th
e n
atu
ral h
erita
ge
syste
m a
nd
pro
tect
peo
ple
fro
m t
he h
arm
and
ris
k o
f e
nviro
nm
enta
l h
aza
rds.
As w
ell,
ma
ny o
f th
ese
oth
er
leve
ls o
f g
ove
rnm
ent
and
eve
n a
ge
ncy /
priva
te in
tere
sts
have
th
e a
dd
ed
co
nce
rn o
f
liabili
ty.
Th
ere
fore
, w
hile
it
is im
port
ant
to inclu
de
ma
teria
l in
th
is d
ocu
me
nt
that
exp
resse
s h
ow
these
gu
idelin
es b
uild
up
on /
su
pp
ort
TR
CA
’s p
lann
ing
and
re
gu
lato
ry r
espo
nsib
ilitie
s,y
ou
ma
y w
ish
to
exp
ress /
em
ph
asiz
e t
hat
these
gu
idelin
es w
ill h
elp
all
respo
nsib
le leve
ls o
f
go
ve
rnm
ent
/ a
ge
ncy/
pro
poe
ne
nts
to
fu
lfill
th
eir m
and
ate
s /
polic
ies /
sta
nd
ard
s t
o a
dd
ress
these
cri
tica
l is
su
es.
As s
uch,
this
docu
me
nt
sh
ou
ld a
lso
re
cog
niz
e P
PS
201
4,
MN
RF
’s
Na
tura
l H
aza
rds G
uid
e,
Na
tura
l H
erita
ge
Refe
ren
ce
Ma
nu
al, e
tc.
as a
pp
rop
riate
.
Te
xt
has b
ee
n a
dd
ed
in S
ection
1.1
-
Pa
rag
raph
4 t
o e
mp
ha
siz
e t
he
su
pp
ort
ing
ro
le o
f th
e g
uid
elin
e.
Te
xt
add
ed
: "
The
gu
idelin
e a
lso
su
pp
ort
s
the g
oa
ls o
f o
the
r a
ge
ncie
s in p
rote
cting
th
e n
atu
ral h
erita
ge
syste
m a
nd
pro
tecting
pe
ople
an
d p
rope
rty f
rom
harm
and
ris
k d
ue
to
na
tura
l h
aza
rds.
The
dire
ction
s p
rovid
ed
in t
he g
uid
elin
e a
re c
onsis
tent
with
th
e g
uid
an
ce
pro
vid
ed
in v
ariou
s p
rovin
cia
l a
nd
oth
er
age
ncy d
ocu
me
nts
(lis
ted in
Re
fere
nce
se
ctio
n)
and
will
be u
pd
ate
d a
s n
ee
de
d."
Y
City o
f B
ram
pto
nG
ene
ral
Re
com
me
nd
th
at
wh
en
th
e d
ocu
me
nt
sp
ea
ks t
o n
atu
ral h
erita
ge
, u
se t
he t
erm
"n
atu
ral
herita
ge
syste
m"
beca
use
in a
dd
itio
n t
o p
rote
ctin
g f
or
a n
atu
ral fe
atu
re/a
rea
(e
.g.
sp
ecific
va
lley/w
ate
rco
urs
e r
each
), w
e a
lso
ne
ed t
o b
e c
og
niz
ant
of
the s
yste
m c
onn
ectivity a
nd
th
e
mo
ve
me
nt
of
wild
life
on
re
gio
na
l la
nd
scap
e b
asis
. F
or
exa
mp
le,
in I
ntr
odu
ction
, p
ara
gra
ph
2
se
nte
nce
1 in
dic
ate
s “
CA
s u
se t
heir e
xp
ert
ise
in n
atu
ral h
aza
rd m
ana
ge
me
nt
and
na
tura
l
herita
ge
pro
tectio
n a
nd
re
sto
ration
to
co
mm
ent
to o
ther
app
rova
l a
uth
oritie
s .
”
Co
mm
ents
note
d a
nd
ap
pre
cia
ted
;
- T
he u
se o
f n
atu
ral h
erita
ge
fu
nctio
n (
inste
ad
of
NH
syste
m)
wa
s inte
nd
ed
to r
efle
ct
the b
roa
der
co
nce
pt
of
ecolo
gic
al fu
nctio
ns r
ath
er
than
th
e
sp
ecific
"syste
m"
line t
hat
has a
lre
ad
y b
ee
n d
efin
ed
by in
div
idua
l
jurisdic
tio
ns.
-Th
ou
gh
mo
st
NH
syste
ms h
ave
su
cce
ssfu
lly in
teg
rate
d b
roa
der
ecolo
gic
al
co
nce
pts
, so
me
are
still
targ
ete
d t
ow
ard
s t
err
estr
ial h
ab
ita
t a
nd
co
nn
ectio
ns.
Th
e g
uid
elin
e in
clu
de
s b
oth
te
rre
str
ial a
nd
aq
uatic N
H
functio
ns t
o info
rm c
rossin
gs d
ecis
ion m
akin
g.
- In
ad
ditio
n,
the N
H f
unctio
ns in
th
e g
uid
elin
e a
re in
ten
ded
to
inco
rpo
rate
the p
rioritie
s s
et
by t
he p
re-d
efin
ed
NH
syste
ms,
how
eve
r a
lso
ad
ds
add
itio
na
l m
ean
s t
o ide
ntify
a g
radie
nt
of
prioritie
s f
or
cro
ssin
g s
tru
ctu
res
per
se
so
th
at
app
rop
riate
eff
ort
ca
n b
e d
ire
cte
d t
o loca
tion
s w
here
th
e
cro
ssin
gs c
an b
en
efit
hab
ita
t q
ualit
y a
nd
wild
life
co
nn
ectio
ns m
ore
.
N
Pag
e 1
of
14
371
Co
mm
en
ter
Se
cti
on
Co
mm
en
tT
RC
A R
esp
on
se
Re
vis
ion
s t
o
Gu
ide
lin
e?
City o
f B
ram
pto
nG
ene
ral
Th
is d
ocu
me
nt
is a
dd
ressin
g r
oad
an
d r
ail
cro
ssin
gs;
how
eve
r, is t
here
a n
ee
d f
or
these
gu
idelin
es t
o inclu
de
:
a
. R
oad
eco
-passa
ge
s f
or
wild
life
. C
ert
ain
ly t
his
is a
n issu
e f
or
va
lley a
nd
wa
terc
ours
e
cro
ssin
gs,
but
als
o c
on
nectio
ns b
etw
een
an
d/o
r to
oth
er
terr
estr
ial h
ab
ita
ts b
eyo
nd
th
ese
co
rrid
ors
?
Alth
ou
gh
th
e g
uid
elin
e f
ocuse
s o
n v
alle
y a
nd
str
eam
co
rrid
ors
, th
e
app
roa
ch
use
d in c
onn
ectivity a
ssessm
ents
and
pro
vid
ing
recom
me
nd
atio
ns r
ecog
niz
es t
he n
ee
d f
or
bro
ad
er
land
scap
e c
onn
ectivity
beyo
nd
th
e v
alle
y a
nd
str
eam
co
rrid
ors
as s
tate
d in
th
e s
econ
d la
st
se
nte
nce
of
Se
ction
1.1
. -
Pa
rag
raph
2.
Th
us,
all
of
the p
rioritie
s t
hat
are
defin
ed
by t
he t
ools
with
in t
he v
alle
y a
nd
str
eam
co
rrid
ors
are
in
re
lation
to
its r
ela
tive
co
ntr
ibutio
n t
o t
he b
roa
der
land
scap
e c
onn
ectio
ns a
s d
escrib
ed
in d
eta
il in
Ap
pe
nd
ix 1
D,
2B
and
2C
.
N
City o
f B
ram
pto
nG
ene
ral
Th
is d
ocu
me
nt
is a
dd
ressin
g r
oad
an
d r
ail
cro
ssin
gs;
how
eve
r, is t
here
a n
ee
d f
or
these
gu
idelin
es t
o inclu
de
:
b
. P
ede
str
ian (
tra
il) c
rossin
gs a
s w
ell,
sin
ce t
hese
str
uctu
res a
re b
eco
min
g m
ore
sig
nific
ant
in s
ize
an
d c
ost
(and
do
pro
vid
e n
ot
only
peo
ple
acce
ss b
ut
eq
uip
me
nt
access in
co
rrid
ors
)? Y
ou m
ay c
onsid
er
inte
gra
ting
th
e t
rails
in
form
ation
in S
ec.
3.3
as w
ell
as t
he f
utu
re T
rails
Str
ate
gy t
hat
is u
nd
er
deve
lopm
ent.
Re
com
me
nd
atio
ns w
ill b
e m
ade
to
th
e T
RC
A T
rails
Str
ate
gy (
und
er
deve
lopm
ent)
to
inco
rpo
rate
ad
ditio
na
l d
eta
ils r
eg
ard
ing
th
is issu
e.
N
City o
f B
ram
pto
nG
ene
ral
Mu
nic
ipalit
ies d
on
’t g
ene
rally
exp
ress t
he s
tag
es o
f p
lann
ing
as e
arly,
inte
rme
dia
te a
nd
late
,
and
th
ere
fore
try
ing
to
de
fin
e T
RC
A’s
re
qu
ire
me
nts
fo
r cro
ssin
gs in
th
is m
ann
er
se
em
s v
ery
co
nfu
sin
g.
Yo
u m
ay w
ish
to
co
nsid
er
iden
tify
ing
re
qu
ire
me
nts
re
late
d t
o infr
astr
uctu
re
pla
nn
ing
, in
fra
str
uctu
re d
esig
n a
nd
infr
astr
uctu
re a
pp
rova
ls.
As w
ell,
ple
ase
no
te t
hat
wh
en
th
e C
ity o
f B
ram
pto
n id
en
tifie
s r
oad
s t
hro
ug
h t
he la
nd
use
pla
nn
ing
pro
ce
ss w
e r
efe
ren
ce
th
is a
s “
inte
gra
ted
pla
nn
ing
” a
nd
esse
ntially
fo
llow
th
e E
A
pro
ce
ss in
th
e f
ollo
win
g m
ann
er:
a
. In
fra
str
uctu
re P
lann
ing
- u
nd
ert
ake
Se
con
da
ry P
lan /
Blo
ck P
lan T
ransp
ort
ation
Stu
dy t
hat
fulfill
s E
A P
hase
1 &
2 (
road
ne
two
rk n
ee
ds &
ju
stifica
tion
). T
he g
ene
ral
locatio
n o
f th
e r
oad
ne
two
rk is e
sta
blis
hed
inclu
din
g n
ew
ro
ad
s a
nd
up
gra
de
s t
o
exis
tin
g r
oad
s.
NH
S p
lann
ing
is c
om
ple
ted
at
this
sta
ge
inclu
din
g t
he p
rote
ction
,
co
nse
rva
tion
an
d c
om
pen
satio
n f
or
natu
ral fe
atu
res t
o b
e r
eta
ined
an
d/o
r lo
st
to
facili
tate
deve
lopm
ent
and
se
rvic
ing
.
b
. In
fra
str
uctu
re D
esig
n -
th
rou
gh
Dra
ft P
lan o
f S
ubd
ivis
ion r
eq
uire
su
pp
ort
ing
te
chn
ica
l
repo
rts t
hat
wo
uld
ad
dre
ss s
erv
icin
g t
hat
wo
uld
fu
lfill
EA
Ph
ase
3 &
4 (
road
loca
tion
re
lative
to N
HS
and
30
% r
oad
de
sig
n),
as w
ell
as e
sta
blis
h lim
its o
f d
eve
lopm
ent,
natu
ral fe
atu
re
pro
tection
/cre
atio
n,
sto
rmw
ate
r m
ana
ge
me
nt,
etc
. (e
.g.
ge
ote
chn
ica
l, f
luvia
l
ge
om
orp
ho
log
y,
EIS
, F
SR
, e
tc.)
c.
Infr
astr
uctu
re A
ppro
va
l –
th
rou
gh
Site
Pla
n o
r S
ubd
ivis
ion –
we
will
fin
aliz
e d
eta
iled
cro
ssin
g d
esig
n inclu
din
g s
ite
re
me
dia
tion
, re
sto
ration
an
d e
nh
an
cem
ent.
Ap
plic
able
perm
its w
ill b
e s
oug
ht
inclu
din
g C
A,
MN
RF
, e
tc.
Co
mm
ents
note
d a
nd
ap
pre
cia
ted
;
- T
RC
A h
as m
ultip
le m
unic
ipalit
ies w
ith
in its
ju
risdic
tio
n w
ho u
se v
aried
term
inolo
gie
s t
o e
xp
ress t
he p
lann
ing
sta
ge
s.
Th
us,
the t
erm
s e
arly,
inte
rme
dia
te,
and
late
we
re u
sed
in t
he g
uid
elin
e a
s a
wa
y t
o g
ene
raliz
e
them
.
- R
evis
ed t
ext
has b
ee
n a
dd
ed
to
Se
ction
1.3
- P
ara
gra
ph
5
to c
larify
th
is
poin
t. T
ext
add
ed
"T
he
te
rmin
olo
gy u
sed
to
de
scrib
e t
he p
lann
ing s
tage
s
va
ries f
rom
mu
nic
ipalit
y t
o m
unic
ipalit
y a
nd
be
twe
en
Pla
nn
ing A
ct
and
En
viro
nm
enta
l A
sse
ssm
en
t p
roce
sse
s.
TR
CA
has s
ele
cte
d t
he t
erm
s
early,
inte
rme
dia
te a
nd
late
sta
ge
s t
o b
road
ly g
en
era
lize
th
em
, a
nd
accom
mo
da
te a
ll o
f th
ese
pro
cesse
s (
Fig
ure
6).
"
Y
City o
f B
ram
pto
nG
ene
ral
Furt
her
to C
om
me
nt
5,
dis
cu
ssin
g r
eq
uire
me
nts
re
late
d t
o p
lann
ing
, d
esig
n a
nd
ap
pro
va
l
ma
y s
imp
lify t
he issu
e w
hen
de
scrib
ing
re
qu
ire
me
nts
fo
r e
xis
tin
g v
s n
ew
in
fra
str
uctu
re.
Se
ction
3.1
de
scrib
es t
his
in
de
tail.
N
Pag
e 2
of
14
372
Co
mm
en
ter
Se
cti
on
Co
mm
en
tT
RC
A R
esp
on
se
Re
vis
ion
s t
o
Gu
ide
lin
e?
City o
f B
ram
pto
nG
ene
ral
Th
e s
tudy s
hou
ld ide
ntify
th
e in
form
ation
th
at
TR
CA
has a
va
ilable
th
at
ca
n in
form
infr
astr
uctu
re p
lann
ing
, i.e
. fish
erie
s m
ana
ge
me
nt
pla
ns,
TH
NS
, e
tc.
Th
e d
eta
ils o
f a
ll in
form
ation
inclu
din
g v
ariou
s r
ele
va
nt
so
urc
es a
re
outlin
ed
in A
ppe
nd
ix 1
A t
hro
ug
h 1
D.
Ad
ditio
na
l te
chn
ica
l in
form
ation
an
d
tools
are
th
en
pro
vid
ed
in A
ppe
nd
ix 2
A t
hro
ug
h 2
C.
N
City o
f B
ram
pto
nG
ene
ral
Se
ction
3.0
de
scrib
es T
RC
A’s
stu
dy r
eq
uire
me
nts
fo
r cro
ssin
gs;
how
eve
r, t
here
is little
recog
nitio
n t
hat
ma
ny o
f th
ese
re
qu
ire
me
nts
ma
y a
lre
ad
y b
e a
dd
resse
d t
hro
ug
h t
he t
yp
ica
l
stu
dy r
eq
uire
me
nts
fo
r p
lann
ing
app
lica
tion
s a
nd
/or
the E
A p
roce
ss.
Th
is is p
art
icu
larly
note
wo
rth
y w
hen
co
nsid
erin
g in
teg
rate
d r
oad
pla
nn
ing
th
rou
gh
th
e S
econ
da
ry P
lan a
nd
/ o
r
Blo
ck P
lan p
roce
ss t
hat
req
uire
s p
repa
ratio
n o
f a
Ma
ste
r E
nviro
nm
enta
l S
erv
icin
g P
lan o
r
En
viro
nm
enta
l Im
ple
me
nta
tion
Rep
ort
, re
spe
ctive
ly.
Te
xt
has b
ee
n a
dd
ed
to
Se
ction
3 -
Pa
rag
raph
2 in
th
is r
eg
ard
. T
ext
added:
"It
sh
ou
ld b
e n
ote
d t
hat
ma
ny o
f th
ese
re
qu
ire
me
nts
ma
y a
lso
be
pre
pa
red
in s
upp
ort
of
mu
nic
ipal p
lann
ing a
pp
lica
tion
s o
r th
e
En
viro
nm
enta
l A
sse
ssm
en
t A
ct
pro
ce
ss."
Y
City o
f B
ram
pto
nG
ene
ral
Ple
ase
inclu
de
th
e g
uid
elin
es a
nd
siz
ing
/desig
n r
eq
uire
me
nts
fo
r p
ed
estr
ian c
rossin
gs.
Re
com
me
nd
atio
n w
ill b
e m
ade
to
th
e T
RC
A T
rails
Str
ate
gy (
und
er
deve
lopm
ent)
to
inclu
de
th
e s
ug
ge
ste
d d
eta
ils o
n p
ed
estr
ian c
rossin
gs a
s
sta
ted
in
Se
ction
3.3
.2.1
.
N
City o
f B
ram
pto
nG
ene
ral
Ple
ase
inclu
de
TR
CA
’s f
lood
pla
in m
app
ing
gu
idelin
e a
s o
ne
of
the a
pp
en
dic
es.
Th
e T
RC
A F
lood
pla
in M
ana
ge
me
nt
Gu
idelin
e (
und
er
deve
lopm
ent)
th
at
outlin
es h
ow
pro
po
ne
nts
co
nd
uct
ma
pp
ing
will
be p
rovid
ed
in t
he
upco
min
g u
pd
ate
to
th
e T
RC
A P
roced
ura
l M
anu
al. H
ow
eve
r, in
th
e
inte
rim
, th
e c
urr
ent
pra
ctice
is t
hat
pro
po
ne
nts
co
mp
lete
th
e m
app
ing
in
co
nsu
lta
tion
with
TR
CA
.
N
City o
f B
ram
pto
nG
ene
ral
Typ
ica
lly,
TR
CA
wo
uld
no
t p
erm
it t
he u
se o
f u
pstr
eam
sto
rag
e (
beh
ind t
he c
rossin
g
str
uctu
res)
to d
elin
ea
te f
lood
pla
ins.
Ho
we
ve
r, in
th
e p
ast,
TR
CA
accep
ted
th
e h
yd
rau
lic
ana
lysis
of
a c
rossin
g s
tru
ctu
re t
hat
took in
to a
ccou
nt
the u
pstr
eam
sto
rag
e.
Ple
ase
cla
rify
that
und
er
wh
at
circu
msta
nce
s/c
on
ditio
ns T
RC
A w
ould
acce
pt
this
app
roa
ch
.
Th
e issu
e o
f re
fle
cting
sto
rag
e u
pstr
eam
of
cro
ssin
gs t
o d
elin
ea
te
flo
od
pla
ins is a
n issu
e t
hat
pert
ain
s t
o t
he d
eve
lopm
ent
of
hyd
rolo
gic
al
mo
de
ls f
or
the d
elin
ea
tion
an
d r
eg
ula
tion
of
flo
od
pla
ns a
nd
flo
od
ha
za
rd
zo
ne
s b
y T
RC
A,
and
do
es n
ot
pert
ain
to
th
e h
yd
rau
lic a
na
lysis
of
cro
ssin
g
str
uctu
res a
s d
escrib
ed
in t
he G
uid
elin
e.
T
he f
ort
hcom
ing
TR
CA
Flo
od
pla
in M
ana
ge
me
nt
Gu
idelin
e w
ill s
pea
k in
de
tail
to t
he c
ircu
msta
nce
s
und
er
wh
ich
sto
rag
e u
pstr
eam
of
cro
ssin
gs c
an b
e c
onsid
ere
d in
hyd
rolo
gic
mo
de
llin
g a
nd
an
aly
sis
.
N
City o
f M
ark
ham
(En
gin
ee
ring
De
pa
rtm
ent)
Ge
ne
ral
In g
ene
ral, t
he g
uid
elin
e p
rovid
es a
lot
of
deta
ils r
eg
ard
ing
TR
CA
’s r
eq
uire
me
nts
fo
r
co
nstr
uction
of
new
bridg
es a
nd
re
ha
bili
tation
(e
.g.
wid
en
) a
nd
/or
repa
ir o
f e
xis
tin
g o
ne
s.
At
the e
nd
, th
ese
str
uctu
res (
new
and
/or
exis
tin
g)
are
to
me
et
exis
tin
g g
uid
elin
es (
flo
od
,
ero
sio
n,
aq
uatic,
etc
.).
Co
mm
ents
note
d a
nd
ap
pre
cia
ted
.N
City o
f M
ark
ham
(En
gin
ee
ring
De
pa
rtm
ent)
Ge
ne
ral
Th
e r
epo
rt is m
issin
g s
ection
2.1
.4 &
2.1
.5 a
nd
th
ere
are
va
riou
s e
rro
rs in
th
e r
epo
rt.
Ple
ase
pro
vid
e t
hese
se
ctio
n f
or
our
revie
w s
ince it
has b
ee
n r
efe
ren
ce
fe
w t
ime
s in t
he g
uid
elin
e.
Re
vis
ions h
ave
be
en m
ade
to
co
rre
ct
these
typ
os,
wh
ich
we
re m
ean
t to
refe
r to
Se
ction
s 2
.1 a
nd
2.2
re
spe
ctive
ly.
Y
City o
f M
ark
ham
(En
gin
ee
ring
De
pa
rtm
ent)
Ge
ne
ral
We
will
be p
rovid
ing
fu
rth
er
co
mm
ents
at
a late
r d
ate
an
d w
hen
a r
evis
ed v
ers
ion
of
the
gu
idelin
e is p
rovid
ed
.
We
ha
ve
ad
dre
sse
d t
he c
om
me
nts
re
ceiv
ed t
o d
ate
an
d inte
nd
on
fin
aliz
ing
th
e g
uid
elin
e a
t th
e e
nd
of
Se
pte
mb
er.
N
Pag
e 3
of
14
373
Co
mm
en
ter
Se
cti
on
Co
mm
en
tT
RC
A R
esp
on
se
Re
vis
ion
s t
o
Gu
ide
lin
e?
City o
f
Mis
sis
sa
ug
a
Ge
ne
ral
Th
an
k y
ou f
or
pro
vid
ing
th
e d
raft
docu
me
nt
for
revie
w.
Th
e d
ocu
me
nt
is v
ery
usefu
l in
outlin
ing
th
e in
form
ation
th
at
TR
CA
re
qu
ire
s t
o r
evie
w r
oad
an
d r
ail
cro
ssin
g s
tru
ctu
res a
nd
pro
po
sed
mo
dific
ation
s t
o e
xis
tin
g s
tru
ctu
res a
nd
sh
ou
ld b
e o
f a
ssis
tance
in t
he
ma
na
ge
me
nt
of
natu
ral h
aza
rds a
nd
na
tura
l h
erita
ge
issue
s a
sso
cia
ted
with
cro
ssin
gs.
Fro
m a
po
licy p
lann
ing
pers
pective
we
ha
ve
no
co
nce
rns .
Co
mm
ents
note
d a
nd
ap
pre
cia
ted
.N
Min
istr
y o
f
Tra
nsp
ort
ation
Ge
ne
ral
Th
e C
rossin
g G
uid
elin
es f
or
Va
lley a
nd
Str
eam
Co
rrid
ors
is in
ten
ded
to
de
scrib
e T
RC
A
pro
po
ne
nts
th
e in
form
ation
th
at
TR
CA
re
qu
ire
s in o
rde
r to
re
vie
w c
rossin
g s
tru
ctu
res a
nd
pro
po
sed
mo
dific
ation
s t
o e
xis
tin
g s
tru
ctu
res.
As s
tate
d in
Se
ction
1.3
, ce
rta
in p
ropo
ne
nts
inclu
din
g M
TO
are
exe
mp
t fr
om
TR
CA
’s p
erm
it p
roce
ss b
ut
ma
y s
till
vo
lunta
rily
und
erg
o
TR
CA
re
vie
w o
n s
pecific
circu
msta
nce
s.
Th
e in
form
ation
is o
f a
ssis
tance
as M
TO
co
ntin
ue
s
to p
roactive
ly c
olla
bo
rate
with
TR
CA
on v
ariou
s issue
s a
nd
initia
tive
s t
o e
nsu
re a
lign
me
nt
of
pro
vin
cia
l a
nd
TR
CA
polic
ies.
Co
mm
ents
note
d a
nd
ap
pre
cia
ted
.N
Min
istr
y o
f
Tra
nsp
ort
ation
Ge
ne
ral
MT
O a
lso
ap
pre
cia
tes T
RC
A r
efe
rrin
g t
o M
inis
try o
f T
ransp
ort
ation
Gu
idelin
es c
onsid
erin
g
imp
lica
tion
s o
f fu
ture
lan
d u
se o
n f
lood
ing
as w
ell
as M
TO
’s D
rain
ag
e M
ana
ge
me
nt
Ma
nu
al
and
MT
O H
igh
wa
y D
rain
ag
e D
esig
n S
tand
ard
s.
TR
CA
’s e
ffo
rts in
en
su
ring
th
e a
lign
me
nt
of
TR
CA
Gu
idelin
es w
ith
th
e P
rovin
cia
l P
olic
ies a
re a
pp
recia
ted
.
Co
mm
ents
note
d a
nd
ap
pre
cia
ted
.N
Min
istr
y o
f
Tra
nsp
ort
ation
Ge
ne
ral
MT
O w
ould
lik
e t
o b
e in
form
ed w
hen
th
e f
inal D
raft
is issu
ed
. A
lso
, w
ould
TR
CA
be w
illin
g
to s
ha
re a
ny s
take
ho
lder
co
mm
ents
with
th
e M
inis
try t
hat
ma
y r
ela
te t
o M
TO
’s p
olic
ies o
r
activitie
s?
Ye
s.
TR
CA
will
be s
harin
g t
he f
inal d
raft
of
the g
uid
elin
e (
Fall
201
5)
as w
ell
as s
take
ho
lder
co
mm
ents
with
a
ll sta
ke
ho
lders
in
vo
lve
d in
th
e
co
nsu
lta
tion
pro
cess,
inclu
din
g M
TO
.
N
Pag
e 4
of
14
374
Co
mm
en
ter
Se
cti
on
Co
mm
en
tT
RC
A R
esp
on
se
Re
vis
ion
s t
o
Gu
ide
lin
e?
To
wn
of
Ric
hm
on
d H
ill
Ge
ne
ral
A s
ug
ge
ste
d t
able
of
co
nte
nts
is a
s f
ollo
ws:
-
Th
e g
uid
elin
e's
exis
tin
g a
mo
un
t o
f in
form
ation
re
fle
cts
th
e v
ary
ing
le
ve
ls
of
fam
ilia
rity
with
TR
CA
re
qu
ire
me
nts
and
cro
ssin
g issu
es b
y p
rop
one
nts
.
TR
CA
ma
y d
eve
lop a
ch
ecklis
t fo
r q
uic
k r
efe
ren
ce
th
at
will
su
mm
arize
th
e
gu
idelin
e in
a w
ay s
imila
r to
wh
at
yo
u h
ave
ou
tlin
ed
in t
he p
rop
osed
"Exe
cutive
Su
mm
ary
".
-
Fig
ure
15 h
as b
ee
n r
evis
ed t
o s
ho
w
mo
re r
efe
ren
ce
po
ints
fo
r e
asie
r
navig
ation
Y
To
wn
of
Ric
hm
on
d H
ill
Ge
ne
ral
Do
es t
he T
RC
A h
ave
a s
tra
teg
y t
o c
on
tin
ue
to
ad
vo
cate
fo
r p
olic
y u
pd
ate
s w
hic
h inclu
de
req
uire
me
nts
to
ad
dre
ss t
he n
atu
ral h
erita
ge
syste
m in
cro
ssin
g d
esig
n?
Th
e L
ivin
g C
ity P
olic
ies (
201
4)
pro
vid
es t
he f
ram
ew
ork
fo
r im
ple
me
nta
tion
of
the g
uid
elin
e a
s h
igh
ligh
ted
in
Se
ction
1.3
. P
olic
y u
pd
ate
s a
re o
uts
ide
the s
co
pe
of
the g
uid
elin
e g
ive
n t
hat
it is a
te
chn
ica
l su
pp
ort
to
ol to
polic
ies,
but
as s
cie
nce a
dva
nce
s f
or
cro
ssin
gs it
will
in
form
fu
ture
up
date
s
to t
he g
uid
elin
e.
Furt
her,
we
use
Th
e L
ivin
g C
ity P
olic
ies t
o info
rm o
ur
co
mm
entin
g r
ole
un
der
the p
lann
ing
and
EA
pro
ce
sse
s.
N
To
wn
of
Ric
hm
on
d H
ill
Ge
ne
ral
Will
TR
CA
pro
du
ce a
ge
ne
ral su
mm
ary
th
at
Mu
nic
ipal/R
eg
iona
l sta
ff c
ould
ta
ke
to
Co
un
cil,
wh
ich
ga
rne
rs s
upp
ort
fo
r im
ple
me
ntin
g t
he p
rincip
les o
f th
e C
rossin
g G
uid
elin
es
thro
ug
h t
he t
end
er/
stu
dy/c
onstr
uction
pro
cess?
A g
ene
ral su
mm
ary
of
the g
uid
elin
e w
ill b
e in
clu
de
d in
th
e A
uth
ority
Bo
ard
repo
rt w
hen
it
is f
inaliz
ed.
N
To
wn
of
Ric
hm
on
d H
ill
Ge
ne
ral
Is T
RC
A a
ble
to
pro
vid
e p
re-c
onsu
lta
tion
with
ap
plic
ants
?Y
es,
pre
-co
nsu
lta
tion
is e
nco
ura
ge
d p
rior
to s
ub
mis
sio
n a
s s
tand
ard
pra
ctice
in t
he la
nd
use
and
EA
pla
nn
ing
pro
ce
sse
s.
In a
dd
itio
n T
RC
A s
taff
will
be a
va
ilable
to
fa
cili
tate
fu
rth
er
me
an
ing
ful d
iscu
ssio
ns a
t va
riou
s
sta
ge
s o
f p
lann
ing
as s
tate
d in
Se
ction
1.3
.
N
Pag
e 5
of
14
375
Co
mm
en
ter
Se
cti
on
Co
mm
en
tT
RC
A R
esp
on
se
Re
vis
ion
s t
o
Gu
ide
lin
e?
Cre
dit V
alle
y
Co
nse
rva
tion
Ge
ne
ral
CV
C a
pp
recia
tes t
he e
ffo
rts o
f T
RC
A p
lann
ing
and
eco
log
y s
taff
to
de
ve
lop t
his
co
mp
rehe
nsiv
e g
uid
elin
e.
A h
olis
tic a
pp
roa
ch
to
pla
nn
ing
va
lley a
nd
str
eam
cro
ssin
gs t
hat
incorp
ora
tes h
aza
rd a
nd
na
tura
l h
erita
ge
fu
nctio
ns is m
uch n
ee
de
d,
and
will
be a
use
ful to
ol
to inco
rpo
rate
into
th
e t
ransp
ort
ation
pla
nn
ing
pro
ce
ss.
Co
mm
ents
note
d a
nd
ap
pre
cia
ted
N
Cre
dit V
alle
y
Co
nse
rva
tion
Ge
ne
ral
An
ind
ire
ct
eff
ect
of
cro
ssin
gs m
ay b
e in
cre
ase
d a
ng
ling
activity,
due
to
th
e c
reatio
n o
f
access p
oin
ts.
In a
dd
itio
n c
rossin
gs m
ay c
reate
co
nd
itio
ns t
hat
co
nce
ntr
ate
fis
h,
eith
er
as
part
ial o
r b
eh
avio
ral b
arr
iers
, o
r b
y a
ttra
cting
fis
h t
o s
co
ur
or
imp
ou
nd
me
nt
poo
ls a
ssocia
ted
with
th
e c
rossin
g.
Co
mm
ents
note
d a
nd
ap
pre
cia
ted
.N
Cre
dit V
alle
y
Co
nse
rva
tion
Ge
ne
ral
Re
com
me
nd
ackn
ow
ledg
ing
th
at
an im
port
ant
functio
n o
f d
esig
n is t
hat
it c
an h
elp
ad
dre
ss
sa
fety
co
nce
rns,
su
ch a
s d
ee
r cro
ssin
g.
Th
is is s
tate
d in
th
e in
tro
du
cto
ry s
ection
an
d in B
ox 1
of
the G
uid
elin
e.
N
Cre
dit V
alle
y
Co
nse
rva
tion
Ge
ne
ral
Cu
mu
lative
eff
ects
co
uld
be
ela
bo
rate
d u
po
n,
perh
ap
s w
hen
dis
cu
ssin
g t
he c
onte
xt
of
upstr
eam
and
do
wn
str
eam
im
pacts
. N
ote
th
ere
is s
om
e lite
ratu
re o
n t
he c
um
ula
tive
eff
ects
of
cro
ssin
gs o
n w
etlan
ds,
as w
ell
as c
um
ula
tive
im
pa
cts
to
mu
ltip
le b
arr
iers
with
in s
tre
am
syste
ms f
or
fish
.
Furt
her
dis
cu
ssio
n o
n s
cie
nce
is p
rovid
ed
in t
echn
ica
l d
ocu
me
nt,
Na
tura
l
He
rita
ge
Fu
nction
Te
chn
ica
l S
um
ma
ry,
wh
ich
will
be f
oun
d o
n t
he T
RC
A
we
bsite
as a
ba
ckg
roun
d d
ocu
me
nt
to t
he g
uid
elin
e.
N
Cre
dit V
alle
y
Co
nse
rva
tion
Ge
ne
ral
Co
nsid
er
inclu
din
g a
ch
ecklis
t o
f m
itig
ation
op
tio
ns/t
echn
iqu
es t
o c
on
sid
er
at
desig
n s
tag
e
(e.g
. sig
ns,
fencin
g,
sp
ee
d lim
it,
avo
idin
g r
ip r
ap t
hat
dee
r a
vo
id d
ue
to
fo
otin
g issu
es,
su
bstr
ate
, p
avin
g o
ptio
ns t
hat
ma
y a
ttra
ct/
dete
r sp
ecie
s,
pre
ferr
ed p
lantin
g a
rra
ng
em
en
ts).
Cu
rre
ntly o
uts
ide t
he s
co
pe
of
the g
uid
elin
e,
how
eve
r T
RC
A m
ay c
onsid
er
pro
du
cin
g a
ha
ndb
oo
k o
f e
ffe
ctive
cro
ssin
g d
esig
n a
t a
late
r p
oin
t to
facili
tate
im
ple
me
nta
tion
of
the g
uid
elin
e,
if n
ee
de
d.
N
Cre
dit V
alle
y
Co
nse
rva
tion
Ge
ne
ral
No
me
ntio
n o
f S
ign
ific
ant
Wild
life
Hab
ita
t in
th
e d
ocu
me
nt.
Re
com
me
nd
ma
inta
inin
g a
nd
enh
an
cin
g c
onn
ectivity in
are
as t
hat
co
nta
in S
WH
.
SW
H h
as b
ee
n a
dd
ed
into
po
int
1b.
in A
ppe
nd
ix 1
D.
Y
Du
rha
m
Ge
ne
ral
We
ap
pre
cia
te t
he e
ffo
rt t
hat
has g
one
into
pre
pa
ring
th
e d
ocu
me
nt
and
be
lieve
th
ey w
ill b
e
ve
ry h
elp
ful to
use
go
ing
fo
rwa
rd.
We
su
pp
ort
th
eir u
se o
n g
uid
ing
our
pro
jects
, p
rovid
ed
there
co
ntin
ue
s t
o b
e s
upp
ort
fro
m T
RC
A o
n t
he c
onsid
era
tion
of
all
facto
rs (
inclu
din
g c
ost)
in t
he d
ecis
ion m
akin
g.
On
ce t
he d
ocu
me
nt
is f
inaliz
ed a
nd
in u
se it
will
im
pro
ve
th
e c
urr
ent
pra
ctice
of
co
nsid
erin
g a
ll o
f th
e f
acto
rs a
ffe
cting
a p
roje
ct
(in
clu
din
g c
ost)
for
the b
est
possib
le o
utc
om
e.
N
Pag
e 6
of
14
376
Co
mm
en
ter
Se
cti
on
Co
mm
en
tT
RC
A R
esp
on
se
Re
vis
ion
s t
o
Gu
ide
lin
e?
City o
f B
ram
pto
nS
ection
1R
ecom
me
nd
th
at
the d
ocu
me
nt
take
a m
ore
pro
active
sta
nce
in d
escrib
ing
natu
ral
functio
ns a
nd
pro
cesse
s,
and
th
en
in s
ubse
qu
en
t p
ara
gra
ph
s e
xp
lain
ho
w t
his
tra
nsla
tes
into
‘n
atu
ral h
aza
rds a
nd
ris
ks’ to
infr
astr
uctu
re /
in
ve
stm
ent
as a
re
sult o
f h
um
an d
ecis
ions
rath
er
than
th
e la
ws o
f n
atu
re.
For
exa
mp
le,
Te
xt
Bo
x 1
co
uld
be
re
vis
ed in
th
e f
ollo
win
g
ma
nn
er:
Te
xt
in B
ox 1
of
the G
uid
elin
e h
as b
ee
n r
evis
ed t
o r
efle
ct
so
me
of
this
wo
rdin
g.
Y
Pag
e 7
of
14
377
Co
mm
en
ter
Se
cti
on
Co
mm
en
tT
RC
A R
esp
on
se
Re
vis
ion
s t
o
Gu
ide
lin
e?
City o
f B
ram
pto
nS
ection
1C
om
me
nts
note
d a
nd
ap
pre
cia
ted
;
Te
xt
revis
ed in
Bo
x 1
to
re
fle
ct
so
me
of
this
wo
rdin
g.
Y
To
wn
of
Ric
hm
on
d H
ill
Se
ction
1T
he o
ve
rall
purp
ose
of
the d
ocu
me
nt
is n
ot
insta
ntly e
vid
en
t a
nd
in t
he c
urr
ent
form
th
e
docu
me
nt
is le
ng
thy,
repe
titive
an
d d
ifficu
lt t
o n
avig
ate
. R
ecom
me
nd
atio
n:
Ta
rge
t th
e
docu
me
nt
to t
he in
ten
ded
clie
nt
– t
he a
pp
lica
nt
wh
o n
ee
ds a
cle
ar
pro
ce
ss o
utlin
ed
in a
n
eff
icie
nt
ma
nn
er
.
- G
ive
n t
he w
ide v
ariety
of
targ
ete
d a
ud
ience
s t
he g
uid
elin
e in
ten
tio
na
lly
pro
vid
es d
eta
iled c
onte
xt
in t
he in
tro
du
cto
ry s
ection
s o
f th
e d
ocu
me
nt.
- T
he r
epe
tition
be
twe
en
se
ctio
ns is a
lso
inte
ntio
na
l to
allo
w e
ach
se
ctio
n
to b
e a
sta
nd
-alo
ne
se
ctio
n.
Th
is a
llow
s f
or
diffe
ren
t a
ud
ience
to
de
lve
into
the m
ost
rele
va
nt
se
ction
s (
as d
escrib
ed
in t
he H
ow
to
Rea
d t
he
Do
cum
ent)
.
- A
lso
, th
e s
epa
ratio
n o
f th
e p
lann
ing
sta
ge
s f
or
cro
ssin
gs in
to e
arly,
inte
rme
dia
te,
and
late
sta
ge
s f
acili
tate
s a
cle
ar
pro
ce
ss f
or
the n
ten
ded
clie
nt
in a
n e
ffic
ient
ma
nn
er.
- T
he "
Ho
w t
o R
ea
d t
his
Do
cum
ent"
se
ction
on
Pa
ge
ii cle
arly o
utlin
es t
he
rele
va
nt
se
ction
s f
or
the in
ten
ded
clie
nts
. F
or
exa
mp
le,
a c
on
su
lta
nt
pre
pa
rin
g a
su
bm
issio
n f
or
a s
tru
ctu
re a
t th
e d
raft
pla
n s
tag
e w
ould
re
fer
to S
ection
3.2
.2 (
Stu
dy R
eq
uire
me
nts
fo
r In
term
edia
te P
lann
ing
Sta
ge
s).
N
Pag
e 8
of
14
378
Co
mm
en
ter
Se
cti
on
Co
mm
en
tT
RC
A R
esp
on
se
Re
vis
ion
s t
o
Gu
ide
lin
e?
City o
f M
ark
ham
(En
gin
ee
ring
De
pa
rtm
ent)
Se
ction
1.1
.
Th
e g
uid
elin
e ig
nore
s m
unic
ipal, R
eg
ion’s
, e
tc r
eq
uire
me
nts
by in
dic
ating
th
at
the g
uid
elin
e
is t
o m
eet
TR
CA
obje
ctive
s (
1st
para
gra
ph
, p
ag
e 3
),
Re
vis
ed t
ext
in S
ection
1.1
. -
Pa
rag
raph
3 t
o c
larify
th
at
TR
CA
's g
uid
elin
e
is in
ten
ded
to
ach
ieve
TR
CA
's o
bje
ctive
s,
ma
ny o
f w
hic
h a
re a
lign
ed
with
the o
bje
ctive
s o
f p
art
ner
mu
nic
ipalit
ies.
Re
vis
ed t
ext:
"T
he
gu
idelin
e
outlin
es a
ba
lance
d a
pp
roa
ch
to
pla
nn
ing a
nd
de
sig
n o
f va
lley a
nd
str
eam
co
rrid
or
cro
ssin
gs a
s a
me
an
s o
f a
chie
vin
g T
RC
A’s
natu
ral h
aza
rd a
nd
natu
ral h
erita
ge
ob
jectives d
escrib
ed
in S
ection
2 m
any o
f w
hic
h a
re
alig
ne
d w
ith
th
e o
bje
ctives o
f p
art
ner
mu
nic
ipalit
ies."
Y
City o
f B
ram
pto
nS
ection
1.3
S
ec.
1.3
– p
ag
e 5
– p
ara
gra
ph
1 –
fu
rth
er
to C
om
me
nt
1,
this
docu
me
nt
oft
en e
vo
ke
s a
n
eg
ocen
tric
poin
t o
f vie
w.
For
exa
mp
le,
se
nte
nce
2 in
dic
ate
s t
hat
“TR
CA
is n
ot
oblig
ed t
o
issu
e a
pe
rmit t
o t
hese
pro
po
ne
nts
”. A
mo
re a
ccura
te s
ente
nce
mig
ht
note
th
at
as t
hese
pro
po
ne
nts
are
‘e
xe
mp
t’ f
rom
TR
CA
’s p
roce
sse
s,
they a
re n
ot
req
uire
d /
oblig
ed t
o s
ee
k a
perm
it f
rom
TR
CA
. T
his
typ
e o
f is
su
e h
igh
ligh
ts t
he o
pp
ort
unity T
RC
A h
as in
writin
g /
advo
catin
g t
hese
gu
idelin
es f
rom
th
e p
ers
pective
of
indu
str
y /
ag
ency b
est
pra
ctice
s t
o g
ain
wid
er
aud
ience
acce
pta
nce
an
d p
ote
ntia
lly a
do
ptio
n.
Th
e la
st
se
nte
nce
in S
ection
1.3
- P
ara
gra
ph
3,
"TR
CA
is n
ot
oblig
ed…
"
has b
ee
n r
em
ove
d f
rom
th
e g
uid
elin
e.
Th
e p
revio
us t
wo
se
nte
nce
s in t
his
para
gra
ph
exp
lain
th
e v
olu
nta
ry r
evie
w p
roce
ss w
ith
ou
t b
ein
g e
go
cen
tric
.
Y
City o
f M
ark
ham
(En
gin
ee
ring
De
pa
rtm
ent)
Se
ction
2.1
.
Crite
ria/r
eq
uire
me
nts
fo
r re
ha
bili
tation
or
mo
dific
ation
s t
o a
n e
xis
tin
g b
ridg
e s
ho
uld
be
mu
ch
less s
trin
ge
nt
co
mp
are
d t
o a
new
bridg
e.
Th
e 2
sh
ou
ld n
ot
have
th
e s
am
e c
rite
ria.
Th
e
gu
idelin
e lis
ted m
any r
eq
uire
me
nts
fo
r re
ha
bili
tation
/mo
dific
ation
of
exis
tin
g b
ridg
es w
hic
h if
they a
re n
ot
me
t th
e b
ridg
e m
ust
be r
epla
ce.
Th
is is d
ifficu
lt,
co
stly a
nd
no
t p
ractica
l. W
hen
TR
CA
ma
de
th
eir p
rese
nta
tio
n t
o t
he c
ity a
mo
nth
ag
o (
the g
uid
elin
e w
as n
ot
out
ye
t a
t th
at
tim
e),
th
ey in
dic
ate
d t
hat
as lon
g a
s t
he c
han
ge
s/
mo
dific
ation
s t
o a
n e
xis
tin
g b
ridg
e d
oe
s
not
incre
ase
flo
od
ris
ks,
there
will
be n
o n
ee
d f
or
repla
cem
ent
of
the s
tru
ctu
re.
Th
is is n
ot
the c
ase in
th
e g
uid
elin
e (
Se
ction
2.1
, p
ag
e 9
). T
his
sh
ou
ld b
e c
han
ge
d a
nd
ma
de
mo
re
fle
xib
le a
nd
less s
trin
ge
nt
wh
en
th
ere
are
no
im
pacts
of
flo
od
ing
due
to
brid
ge
re
pa
ir a
nd
reha
bili
tation
(le
t’s n
ot
tre
at
exis
tin
g b
ridg
es lik
e n
ew
one
s,
it m
ake
s im
ple
me
ntin
g t
he
gu
idelin
e d
ifficu
lt),
- T
he g
uid
elin
e r
ecog
niz
es t
he d
istin
ction
be
twe
en
ne
w a
nd
e
xis
tin
g
cro
ssin
gs a
nd
ha
ve
inco
rpo
rate
d a
nd
em
pha
siz
ed f
lexib
ility
th
rou
gh
ou
t th
e
docu
me
nt
as f
ollo
ws.
- It
is c
larifie
d u
pfr
ont
in S
ection
2-P
ara
gra
ph
5 le
ad
ing
to
Se
ction
2.1
.
Exis
tin
g t
ext:
"For
upg
rad
es o
r re
pla
cem
ent
of
exis
tin
g c
rossin
g s
tru
ctu
res,
TR
CA
re
cog
niz
es t
hat
both
th
e lo
catio
n o
f th
e c
rossin
g a
nd
th
e v
ert
ica
l
pro
file
of
the r
oad
an
d o
r ra
ilwa
y a
re a
lre
ad
y e
sta
blis
hed
an
d o
fte
n c
ann
ot
be m
odifie
d t
o a
ny s
ignific
ant
deg
ree
. I
n t
hese
insta
nce
s,
it m
ay b
e
difficu
lt t
o a
ch
ieve a
ll n
atu
ral h
aza
rd a
nd
na
tura
l h
erita
ge
ob
jectives a
nd
TR
CA
will
wo
rk w
ith
pro
po
ne
nts
to
ach
ieve t
he b
est
pra
ctica
l o
utc
om
e."
- It
is a
lso
sta
ted
in
Se
ction
2.1
- P
ara
gra
ph
1 t
hat
there
is f
lexib
ility
fo
r
exis
tin
g c
rossin
gs f
or
ge
om
orp
hic
ris
ks.
- F
urt
her,
Se
ction
3.1
- P
ara
gra
ph
3 s
tate
s t
hat
"If
the e
xte
nsio
n o
f a
n
exis
tin
g c
rossin
g s
tru
ctu
re r
esults in
ne
gative
na
tura
l h
aza
rd o
r n
atu
ral
herita
ge
ou
tco
me
s,
TR
CA
re
com
me
nd
s t
hat
the s
tru
ctu
re b
e r
epla
ced
inste
ad
of
exte
nd
ed
. A
t a
min
imu
m,
there
sh
ou
ld b
e n
o in
cre
ase
in f
lood
risk a
s a
re
sult o
f th
e p
rop
osed
exte
nsio
n a
nd
exis
tin
g e
rosio
n s
hou
ld n
ot
be e
xace
rba
ted.
If t
his
ca
nn
ot
be a
chie
ved
, th
e s
tru
ctu
re m
ust
be r
epla
ced
with
on
e t
hat
ca
n s
afe
ly c
onve
y f
lood
flo
ws w
ith
ou
t in
cre
ase
s in f
lood
ris
k."
- It
is a
lso
hig
hlig
hte
d in
Ta
ble
2,
wh
ich
sta
tes w
hen
stu
die
s a
re n
ot
req
uire
d f
or
exis
tin
g c
rossin
gs if
min
or
ch
an
ge
s a
re p
ropo
sed
.
N
Pag
e 9
of
14
379
Co
mm
en
ter
Se
cti
on
Co
mm
en
tT
RC
A R
esp
on
se
Re
vis
ion
s t
o
Gu
ide
lin
e?
City o
f M
ark
ham
(En
gin
ee
ring
De
pa
rtm
ent)
Se
ction
2.1
. a
nd
2.2
.
Th
e g
uid
elin
e s
hou
ld b
e m
ore
fle
xib
le r
eg
ard
ing
re
ha
bili
tation
/mo
dific
ation
to
exis
tin
g
bridg
es t
o a
llow
fo
r m
itig
ation
/co
mp
en
satio
n m
easu
res if
the r
eha
bili
tation
/mo
dific
ation
will
ca
use
im
pa
cts
(P
ag
es 9
& 1
0)
Th
e G
uid
elin
e a
ckn
ow
ledg
es f
lexib
ility
is n
ee
de
d f
or
wo
rk t
o e
xis
tin
g
cro
ssin
gs u
p f
ront
in S
ection
2-P
ara
gra
ph
5 le
ad
ing
to
Se
ction
2.1
. In
add
itio
n,
co
mp
en
satio
n is s
pecific
ally
me
ntio
ne
d in
Se
ction
3.2
.1 -
poin
t 8
,
and
Se
ction
3.2
.3 -
poin
t 2
.
N
Cre
dit V
alle
y
Co
nse
rva
tion
Se
ction
3
and
Ap
pe
nd
ix
2.C
. (T
able
2 a
nd
7)
Wh
y s
pecific
ally
wa
s 1
20
m c
hose
n f
or
the d
ista
nce
fo
r fo
rests
/we
tlan
ds t
o t
he c
rossin
g t
o
co
mp
lete
a d
eta
iled a
ssessm
ent?
Th
is d
ista
nce
is t
yp
ica
lly f
or
assessin
g a
dja
cen
t la
nd
s,
and
do
es n
ot
dire
ctly r
ela
te t
o d
isp
ers
al d
ista
nce
s o
r g
oals
fo
r m
ain
tain
ing
co
nn
ectivity.
Th
e d
ista
nce
of
120
m w
as c
ho
se
n t
o a
vo
id t
he d
ire
ct
footp
rint
imp
act
on
the h
ab
ita
t p
atc
h a
s d
escrib
ed
in A
ppe
nd
ix 1
.D -
Pa
rag
raph
3,
and
there
fore
wo
uld
be
co
nsis
tent
with
"th
e a
dja
cen
t la
nd
s"
app
roa
ch
of
the
PP
S.
Co
nn
ectivity is c
ove
red
th
rou
gh
th
e r
eq
uire
me
nt
of
assessin
g p
riority
for
co
nn
ectivity a
s p
er
the n
atu
ral h
erita
ge
to
ols
pre
se
nte
d h
ere
in.
N
Cre
dit V
alle
y
Co
nse
rva
tion
Se
ction
3.1
.
Th
e t
err
estr
ial a
ssessm
ent
se
eks ‘n
o p
rop
osed
im
pa
cts
on f
ore
sts
, w
etlan
ds,
and
aq
uatic
hab
ita
t o
r co
nn
ectivity’ (p
19
). R
ecom
me
nd
co
nsid
erin
g t
he a
pp
roa
ch
of
ma
inta
inin
g n
ort
h-
so
uth
an
d e
ast-
we
st
co
nn
ectivity t
hro
ug
h t
he N
atu
ral H
erita
ge
Syste
m,
rath
er
than
indiv
idua
l se
ction
s o
f th
e v
alle
yla
nd
. T
he v
alle
yla
nd
s a
re t
he m
ajo
r co
rrid
ors
of
the n
atu
ral
herita
ge
syste
m;
me
ad
ow
s a
nd
oth
er
hab
ita
t w
ith
in t
hese
syste
ms w
ould
als
o p
rovid
e
co
nn
ectivity f
unctio
ns.
- T
he c
onn
ectivity a
pp
roa
ch
use
d in t
he g
uid
elin
e c
onsid
ers
bro
ad
er
land
scap
e c
onn
ectivity a
cro
ss a
ll d
ire
ction
s a
t th
e r
eg
iona
l le
ve
l
(in
corp
ora
ting
th
e p
rincip
les o
f n
atu
ral h
erita
ge
syste
ms,
wh
ich
inclu
de
s
exis
tin
g a
nd
po
tentia
l n
atu
ral co
ve
r a
rea
s)
as w
ell
as loca
l co
nn
ectio
ns
with
in s
pe
cific
va
lley s
eg
me
nts
.
- R
evis
ed t
ext
add
ed
in S
ection
3.1
.2 -
Pa
rag
raph
3 t
o c
larify
th
at
the
co
nn
ectivity t
hat
is b
ein
g r
efe
rre
d t
o is s
pe
cific
ally
re
ferr
ing
to
th
e d
eta
ils
pre
se
nte
d in
th
e g
uid
elin
e (
Ap
pe
nd
ix 1
D,
2C
and
2D
). T
ext
add
ed
"n
o
pro
po
sed
im
pa
cts
on f
ore
sts
, w
etlan
ds,
and
aq
uatic h
ab
ita
t, o
r p
riority
are
as f
or
hab
ita
t a
nd
wild
life
co
nn
ectivity a
s ide
ntifie
d t
hro
ug
h e
arly
pla
nn
ing s
tage
s in c
onsu
lta
tion
with
TR
CA
".
Y
City o
f B
ram
pto
nS
ection
3.1
.1.
Exte
nsio
ns v
s R
epla
cem
ents
a.
Pa
rag
raph
2 –
ple
ase
qu
alif
y w
hat
is m
ean
t b
y ‘im
pact
assessm
ent’ r
ela
tive
to
th
e
repo
rt r
eq
uire
me
nts
outlin
ed
in T
able
2.
Th
e "
imp
act
assessm
ent"
re
qu
ire
me
nts
fo
r e
xis
tin
g c
rossin
gs a
re t
he
sa
me
as f
or
new
cro
ssin
gs (
Se
ction
3.2
) u
nle
ss t
he p
rop
osed
ch
an
ge
s a
re
min
or.
Furt
her
deta
ils o
n t
hese
re
qu
ire
me
nts
are
outlin
ed
in A
ppe
nd
ix 1
.D.
-
Stu
dy C
om
po
nen
ts f
or
Inte
rme
dia
te S
tag
es.
N
City o
f B
ram
pto
nS
ection
3.1
.1.
Exte
nsio
ns v
s R
epla
cem
ents
b.
Th
rou
gh
ou
t th
is s
ection
, th
e d
ocu
me
nt
repe
ate
dly
note
s t
hat
‘TR
CA
ma
y (
str
ong
ly)
recom
me
nd
re
pla
cem
ent
vs e
xte
nsio
ns’. H
ow
doe
s t
his
re
late
to
TR
CA
’s a
pp
rova
l
of
a p
roje
ct
if a
pro
po
ne
nt
dis
ag
rees b
ase
d o
n issu
es o
f co
st,
tim
ing
, e
tc.?
Th
e g
uid
elin
e is in
ten
ded
to
fa
cili
tate
a m
ean
ing
ful d
iscu
ssio
n r
eg
ard
ing
cro
ssin
gs a
s e
arly in
th
e p
lann
ing
pro
ce
ss a
s p
ossib
le.
Th
e a
pp
rova
l w
ill
be b
ase
d o
n n
eg
otiatio
ns t
hro
ug
h t
his
pro
ce
ss.
N
City o
f B
ram
pto
nS
ection
3.1
.2.
Pa
rag
raph
1 –
wh
at
are
En
viro
nm
enta
l S
tudy R
epo
rts?
Th
is t
erm
has n
ot
bee
n u
sed
be
fore
. P
ossib
ly t
his
sh
ou
ld r
ead
‘en
viro
nm
enta
l stu
dy r
epo
rts,
e.g
. E
IS,
FS
R,
etc
.
En
viro
nm
enta
l S
tudy R
epo
rts r
efe
r to
do
cu
me
nts
re
qu
ire
d u
nd
er
the
En
viro
nm
enta
l A
sse
ssm
en
t A
ct.
Cla
rifica
tion
te
xt
has b
ee
n a
dd
ed
in
Se
ction
3.1
.2 -
Pa
rag
raph
1.
Te
xt
add
ed
: "(
as p
er
the E
nviro
nm
enta
l
Asse
ssm
en
t A
ct)
".
Y
City o
f B
ram
pto
nS
ection
3.1
.3.
Po
int
2 –
wh
at
are
yo
ur
exp
ecta
tion
s f
or
a p
ropo
ne
nt
to ‘con
firm
’ th
at
the
pro
po
sed
fo
otp
rint
has b
ee
n m
inim
ize
d?
As p
rovid
ed
, th
is is v
ery
am
big
uou
s.
Re
vis
ed t
ext
add
ed
in A
ppe
nd
ix 1
D -
Stu
dy C
om
po
nen
ts f
or
late
Pla
nn
ing
Sta
ge
s.
Te
xt
add
ed
: "
Exa
mp
les t
o m
inim
ize
cro
ssin
g f
ootp
rint
imp
acts
inclu
de
(b
ut
are
not
limite
d t
o)
road
em
ban
km
en
t g
rad
e m
odific
ation
s,
and
co
-loca
ting
pro
po
sed
infr
astr
uctu
re a
nd
acce
ss r
oad
s."
Y
Pag
e 1
0 o
f 1
4
380
Co
mm
en
ter
Se
cti
on
Co
mm
en
tT
RC
A R
esp
on
se
Re
vis
ion
s t
o
Gu
ide
lin
e?
City o
f B
ram
pto
nS
ection
3.2
.1.
Se
nte
nce
2 in
dic
ate
s t
hat
“Pro
po
ne
nts
sh
ou
ld m
eet
with
TR
CA
sta
ff a
t ke
y m
ilesto
ne
s (
e.g
.
Se
con
da
ry P
lan c
om
me
nce
me
nt,
te
rms o
f re
fere
nce
de
ve
lopm
ent,
etc
.) w
ell
in a
dva
nce
of
any s
ubm
issio
n in
ord
er
to ide
ntify
pert
inen
t is
su
es a
nd
stu
dy r
eq
uire
me
nts
re
late
d t
o
cro
ssin
gs”.
It
ma
y b
e m
ore
app
rop
riate
th
at
TR
CA
re
cog
niz
e t
hat
an E
A a
nd
/or
inte
gra
ted
pla
nn
ing
pro
ce
ss f
or
road
s h
ave
a d
efin
ed
pro
cess t
hat
will
in
clu
de
sta
ke
ho
lder
eng
ag
em
en
t a
nd
co
nsu
lta
tion
, p
art
icu
larly r
eg
ula
tory
sta
ke
ho
lders
su
ch a
s T
RC
A.
Re
vis
ed t
ext
in S
ection
3.2
.1 -
Pa
rag
raph
1.
Re
vis
ed t
ext:
"P
ropo
ne
nts
sh
ou
ld m
eet
with
TR
CA
sta
ff a
t ke
y m
ilesto
ne
s t
hro
ug
h t
he e
xis
tin
g
enviro
nm
enta
l a
ssessm
ent
and
/or
land
use
pla
nn
ing c
onsu
lta
tion
pro
ce
sse
s
(e.g
. S
econ
da
ry P
lan c
om
me
nce
me
nt,
te
rms o
f re
fere
nce
deve
lopm
ent,
etc
.) w
ell
in a
dva
nce
of
any s
ubm
issio
n in
ord
er
to ide
ntify
pert
inen
t is
su
es a
nd
stu
dy r
equ
ire
me
nts
re
late
d t
o c
rossin
gs."
Y
City o
f B
ram
pto
nS
ection
3.2
.1.
As w
ell,
fu
rth
er
to P
oin
t 8
th
ere
is a
nee
d t
o r
ecog
niz
e t
hat
se
con
da
ry o
r b
lock p
lann
ing
(th
at
inclu
de
s p
lann
ing
th
e r
oad
ne
two
rk)
will
be b
ase
d o
n t
echn
ica
l stu
die
s,
e.g
ME
SP
and
/or
En
viro
nm
enta
l Im
ple
me
nta
tion
Rep
ort
.th
at
are
prim
arily
ge
are
d t
o ide
ntify
ing
/add
ressin
g t
he p
rote
ction
of
the n
atu
ral h
erita
ge
syste
m.
Re
qu
ire
me
nts
fo
r a
dd
itio
na
l
techn
ica
l w
ork
/ a
na
lysis
sh
ou
ld b
e b
uilt
in
to t
he t
erm
s o
f re
fere
nce
fo
r th
ese
do
cu
me
nts
and
/or
recog
niz
e t
hat
wo
rk u
nd
ert
ake
n f
or
the M
ES
P /
EIR
ma
y s
uff
ice
at
this
poin
t in
infr
astr
uctu
re p
lann
ing
. T
here
fore
, th
is s
ection
co
uld
be
re
vis
ed t
o b
ett
er
indic
ate
:
TR
CA
has m
ultip
le m
unic
ipalit
ies w
ith
in its
ju
risdic
tio
n w
ho u
se v
aried
term
inolo
gie
s a
nd
diffe
ring
le
ve
ls o
f co
nsu
lta
tion
th
rou
gh
EA
and
pla
nn
ing
sta
ge
s.
Th
us,
the t
erm
s e
arly,
inte
rme
dia
te,
and
late
we
re u
sed
in t
he
gu
idelin
e a
s a
wa
y t
o g
ene
raliz
e t
hem
; R
evis
ed t
ext
in S
ection
3.2
.1 -
Pa
rag
raph
1 t
o r
ecog
niz
e t
he e
xis
tin
g p
lann
ing
pro
ce
ss h
as b
ee
n a
dd
ed
.
Re
vis
ed t
ext:
"P
ropo
ne
nts
sh
ou
ld m
eet
with
TR
CA
sta
ff a
t ke
y m
ilesto
ne
s
thro
ug
h t
he e
xis
tin
g e
nviro
nm
enta
l a
ssessm
ent
and
/or
land
use
pla
nn
ing
co
nsu
lta
tion
pro
cesse
s (
e.g
. S
econ
da
ry P
lan c
om
me
nce
me
nt,
te
rms o
f
refe
rence
de
ve
lopm
ent,
etc
.) w
ell
in a
dva
nce
of
any s
ubm
issio
n in
ord
er
to
iden
tify
pert
inen
t is
su
es a
nd
stu
dy r
equ
ire
me
nts
re
late
d t
o c
rossin
gs."
Y
City o
f B
ram
pto
nS
ection
3.2
.1.
Pa
ge
s 2
0 a
nd
21
- p
lease
ch
an
ge
th
e o
rde
r o
f a
ctivitie
s a
s f
ollo
win
g:
• C
ha
ng
e #
6 t
o #
1
• C
ha
ng
e #
7 t
o #
4
• C
ha
ng
e #
8 t
o #
2
• C
ha
ng
e #
9 t
o #
3
• M
ain
tain
th
e o
rde
r fo
r th
e r
est
of
activitie
s
Th
e o
rde
r o
f a
ctivitie
s is m
ean
t to
be
se
qu
en
tial a
nd
th
e b
ulle
ts h
ave
be
en
reord
ere
d t
o r
efle
ct
this
in
Se
ction
3.2
.1.
Y
City o
f B
ram
pto
nS
ection
3.3
.
Wo
uld
re
com
me
nd
bre
akin
g o
ut
Leg
isla
tion
fro
m O
ther
Co
nsid
era
tion
s –
reg
ula
tory
re
qu
ire
me
nts
ce
rta
inly
su
pe
rce
de
re
cre
atio
na
l tr
ail
pla
nn
ing
/ g
uid
elin
es.
Ch
an
ge
s m
ade
to
Se
ction
3.3
. to
se
pa
rate
th
e L
eg
isla
tion
fro
m O
ther
Co
nsid
era
tion
s.
Y
Pag
e 1
1 o
f 1
4
381
Co
mm
en
ter
Se
cti
on
Co
mm
en
tT
RC
A R
esp
on
se
Re
vis
ion
s t
o
Gu
ide
lin
e?
City o
f M
ark
ham
(En
gin
ee
ring
De
pa
rtm
ent)
Se
ction
3.3
.1.
(now
3.3
.2)
Th
e g
uid
elin
e r
ecom
me
nd
s p
rovid
ing
2 s
ep
ara
te p
assa
ge
s in s
om
e c
ases (
one
fo
r h
um
an
[tra
ils/p
ath
wa
ys]
and
th
e 2
nd
fo
r w
ildlif
e.
Th
is is n
ot
pra
ctica
l a
nd
co
stly t
o im
ple
me
nt
and
will
sig
nific
antly in
cre
ase
th
e s
ize
of
the c
rossin
g (
pag
e 2
5,
bulle
t 3
). W
e t
hin
k o
ne
pa
ssa
ge
is s
uff
icie
nt
and
co
uld
be
sh
are
d b
y b
oth
.
- T
he in
ten
t o
f S
ection
3.3
.2 -
poin
t 3
is t
o p
resen
t a
ge
ne
ral co
nsid
era
tion
base
d o
n s
tro
ng
scie
ntific e
vid
en
ce (
Ta
ylo
r a
nd
Kn
igh
t 2
00
3,
Bro
wn
et
al.
201
2,
Ha
nse
n e
t a
l. in
pre
ss,
Ba
rru
eto
et
al. 2
01
4)
that
in s
om
e c
ase
s it
ma
y b
e c
ritica
l to
co
nsid
er
so
me
fo
rm o
f fu
nctio
na
l se
pa
ratio
n b
etw
een
hum
ans a
nd
wild
life
to
ach
ieve
ha
bita
t co
nn
ectivity a
nd
wild
life
pa
ssa
ge
.
- T
his
ma
y o
r m
ay n
ot
nee
d a
se
pa
rate
cro
ssin
g s
tru
ctu
re b
ut
rath
er
an
app
rop
riate
de
sig
n t
o s
ep
ara
te t
he h
um
an d
istu
rba
nce a
nd
wild
life
. T
his
is
espe
cia
lly t
rue if
there
is a
pre
se
nce o
f h
igh
hu
ma
n u
se a
nd
/ o
r ve
ry
se
nsitiv
e w
ildlif
e.
- R
ecom
me
nd
atio
ns w
ill b
e m
ade
to
th
e T
RC
A T
rail
Str
ate
gy (
und
er
deve
lopm
ent)
to
pro
vid
e f
urt
her
deta
ils o
n t
he s
pecific
s o
f th
e t
rail
desig
n
for
hab
ita
t a
nd
wild
life
co
nn
ectivity.
N
Cre
dit V
alle
y
Co
nse
rva
tion
Se
ction
3.3
.2.
Na
vig
ation
Pro
tection
Act
– N
ot
su
re if
the f
ede
ral a
ct
app
lies t
o m
ost
of
the w
ate
rsh
ed
an
y
long
er,
but
there
are
so
me
pro
vin
cia
l re
qu
ire
me
nts
. N
eve
rth
ele
ss,
we
sh
ou
ld r
espe
ct
the
ca
no
ein
g/k
aya
kin
g n
ee
ds a
nd
ha
za
rds o
f o
ur
sta
ke
ho
lders
, a
s w
ell
as e
xis
tin
g p
lans t
o
pro
mo
te s
uch a
ctivitie
s (
e.g
. M
issis
sa
ug
a’s
Cre
dit R
ive
r P
ark
s S
tra
teg
y).
Co
mm
ents
note
d a
nd
ap
pre
cia
ted
.N
Cre
dit V
alle
y
Co
nse
rva
tion
Wh
y w
as t
he v
alle
y h
eig
ht
of
>4
.5m
ch
ose
n?
CV
C u
ses 3
or
3.5
m.
A v
alle
y h
eig
ht
of
>4
.5 m
wa
s u
se
d t
o inco
rpo
rate
3
m f
or
larg
e m
am
ma
l
cro
ssin
gs p
lus 1
.5 m
of
deck h
eig
ht
wh
ile d
esig
nin
g la
rge
sp
an
nin
g
str
uctu
res,
so
th
at
targ
et
wild
life
ca
n m
ove
un
der
the s
tru
ctu
re.
Te
xt
add
ed
in A
ppe
nd
ix 2
.C -
Pa
rag
raph
9 "
>4
.5 m
ete
rs t
hat
inclu
de
s 3
me
tre
s +
1.5
me
tre
de
ck h
eig
ht
requ
ire
d f
or
bridg
es".
Y
Cre
dit V
alle
y
Co
nse
rva
tion
Ap
pe
nd
ix
2.B
.
Fig
ure
16 –
Have
co
nce
rn w
ith
th
e p
relim
inary
assessm
ent
of
natu
ral h
erita
ge
fu
nctio
n.
Hig
h p
rio
rity
are
as a
re in
terr
upte
d b
y m
ediu
m a
nd
low
priority
are
as t
hro
ug
hou
t th
e s
yste
m.
Wo
uld
yo
u n
ot
wa
nt
to m
ain
tain
a c
ontig
uou
s v
alle
y s
yste
m in
ce
rta
in k
ey n
ort
h-s
ou
th
co
rrid
ors
to
th
e e
xte
nt
possib
le? I
n a
dd
itio
n,
mo
st
of
the e
xtr
em
e h
ea
dw
ate
rs a
re m
ediu
m,
indic
ating
a n
ee
d t
o m
ain
tain
co
nn
ectivity in
a s
hallo
w v
alle
y.
Wo
uld
th
ese
no
t b
e t
he m
ost
like
ly lo
catio
ns f
or
cu
lve
rts?
- T
he P
relim
inary
Asse
ssm
en
t o
utp
ut
(Fig
ure
15)
is b
ase
d o
n d
eskto
p le
ve
l
ana
lysis
of
exis
tin
g d
ata
on
hab
ita
t, c
onn
ectivity m
ode
ls,
and
va
lley d
ep
th
info
rma
tion
. A
s s
uch,
the h
igh
prio
rity
lo
catio
ns m
ostly in
dic
ate
DE
EP
(>=
4.5
m)
and
im
po
rta
nt
hab
ita
t a
nd
co
nn
ectivity lo
catio
ns w
ith
in t
he v
alle
y.
Th
ese
loca
tion
s a
re lik
ely
fe
asib
le f
or
larg
e s
pa
nnin
g s
tru
ctu
res.
Th
e
me
diu
m p
riority
is w
here
th
ere
is s
till
imp
ort
ant
hab
ita
t a
nd
co
nn
ectivity
locatio
ns,
how
eve
r is
NO
T D
EE
P e
no
ug
h (
<4
.5m
). T
hus,
the m
ain
ten
ance
of
hab
ita
t a
nd
co
nn
ectivity f
unctio
n h
as t
o b
e a
chie
ve
d v
ia a
lte
rna
te
optio
ns s
uch a
s a
pp
rop
riate
ly d
esig
ned
sm
alle
r cro
ssin
g s
tru
ctu
res.
Th
is
wa
y t
he c
onn
ectivity w
ill b
e m
ain
tain
ed
acro
ss t
he la
nd
scap
e in
bo
th h
igh
and
me
diu
m p
riority
lo
catio
ns b
ut
via
diffe
ren
t cro
ssin
g d
esig
n o
ptio
ns.
- A
ppe
nd
ix 1
.D.
- P
ara
raph
4 a
nd
5 a
s w
ell
as A
ppe
nd
ix 2
.B.
- P
ara
gra
ph
5
exp
lain
s t
his
in
mo
re d
eta
il.
N
To
wn
of
Ric
hm
on
d H
ill
Ap
pe
nd
ix
2.C
.
Will
Fig
ure
15 b
e ‘liv
e’ a
nd
up
date
d o
n t
he T
RC
A w
ebsite
?Y
es;
Ba
sed
on
mo
st-
up-t
o-d
ate
da
ta a
nd
info
rma
tion
, F
igu
re 1
5 w
ill b
e
upd
ate
d a
nd
will
be a
va
ilable
on
th
e w
ebsite
as n
ee
de
d.
N
Pag
e 1
2 o
f 1
4
382
Co
mm
en
ter
Se
cti
on
Co
mm
en
tT
RC
A R
esp
on
se
Re
vis
ion
s t
o
Gu
ide
lin
e?
Cre
dit V
alle
y
Co
nse
rva
tion
Ap
pe
nd
ix
2.C
.
Re
com
me
nd
re
con
sid
erin
g t
he a
ssum
ption
s r
eg
ard
ing
urb
an
iza
tion
th
at
have
be
en
incorp
ora
ted
in
to t
he m
ode
llin
g a
nd
gu
idan
ce (
e.g
. p
51
, O
ption
A b
ulle
t 3
an
d p
52
, O
ption
B,
bulle
t 3
). I
n g
ene
ral th
e v
alle
yla
nd
s c
on
nect
the r
em
ain
ing
hig
h q
ualit
y h
ab
ita
t in
ou
r
urb
an
are
as,
and
als
o p
rovid
e a
co
rrid
or
betw
een
La
ke
On
tario
an
d t
he O
ak R
idg
es
Mo
rain
e/G
reen
be
lt.
Co
nn
ectivity b
eco
me
s in
cre
asin
gly
im
port
ant
in h
igh
ly u
rba
niz
ed a
rea
s,
as t
he v
alle
yla
nd
s p
rovid
e s
om
e o
f th
e la
st
rem
ain
ing
co
nn
ectio
ns a
cro
ss t
he la
nd
scap
e.
- A
ppe
nd
ix 2
.C.
- P
ara
gra
ph
9 -
Op
tion
A -
bulle
t 3
re
fers
to
th
e d
eta
iled
assessm
ent
gu
idin
g t
he s
ite
leve
l d
ecis
ions.
- T
he a
ssum
ption
ma
de
he
revre
ga
rdin
g u
rba
niz
ation
is r
ela
ted
to
th
e
evid
en
ce t
hat
in a
hab
ita
t p
atc
h w
ith
in c
lose
pro
xim
ity o
f h
igh
ly u
rba
niz
ed
are
as,
sp
ecie
sth
at
ca
n p
ers
ist
ove
r th
e lo
ng
te
rm a
re r
esili
ent
ge
ne
ralis
ts
with
go
od
tu
rno
ve
r ra
tes.
Th
ese
are
we
ll a
da
pte
d t
o u
rban
lan
dsca
pe
s
(e.g
. ra
ccoo
ns)
and
are
ca
pa
ble
of
su
rviv
ing
and
mo
vin
g in
su
ch
hab
ita
t
reg
ard
less o
f th
e c
rossin
g d
esig
n.
- H
ow
eve
r, g
ive
n t
hat
the u
ltim
ate
obje
ctive
fo
r cro
ssin
gs is t
o a
ch
ieve
co
nn
ectivity f
or
all
wild
life
, th
e g
uid
elin
e h
igh
ligh
ts a
lte
rna
te w
ays (
Op
tion
A
ve
rse
s B
) to
ach
ieve
th
is t
hro
ug
h c
rossin
gs w
here
co
nn
ectivity is d
ee
me
d
imp
ort
ant.
For
exa
mp
le,
Op
tion
B,
wh
ich
inclu
de
s s
ma
ller
cro
ssin
gs w
ith
ade
qu
ate
dry
passa
ge
alo
ng
th
e w
ate
rco
urs
e o
r a
dd
itio
na
l o
pe
nin
gs
(Ap
pe
nd
ix 2
.C.
- P
ara
gra
ph
12
) m
ay b
e e
qu
ally
via
ble
cro
ssin
g s
tru
ctu
res
to p
rovid
e c
onn
ectivity f
or
urb
an
ad
ap
ted
sp
ecie
s (
co
mp
are
d t
o O
ption
A)
.
-Th
e g
uid
elin
e h
igh
ligh
ts t
hese
str
ate
gic
co
nsid
era
tion
s b
ase
d o
n e
vid
en
ce
to r
edire
ct
the a
pp
rop
riate
leve
l o
f e
ffo
rt in
te
rms o
f cro
ssin
g d
esig
n t
o
wh
ere
th
ey c
an c
ontr
ibute
mo
st
eff
ective
ly a
nd
eff
icie
ntly t
o a
ch
ieve
co
nn
ectivity f
unctio
n.
If s
cie
nce
ch
an
ge
s t
hese
assu
mp
tion
s,
they w
ill b
e
revis
ite
d a
nd
up
date
d in
th
e g
uid
elin
e.
- In
th
e c
ase o
f la
rge
urb
an
va
lleys,
natu
ral h
aza
rds w
ill o
fte
n d
rive
Op
tion
A t
yp
e s
tru
ctu
res,
wh
ich
will
help
acco
mo
da
te c
onn
ectivity f
unctio
ns.
N
Cre
dit V
alle
y
Co
nse
rva
tion
Ap
pe
nd
ix
2.C
.
Re
com
me
nd
incre
asin
g t
he a
bili
ty t
o inco
rpo
rate
site
le
ve
l in
form
ation
into
th
e u
ltim
ate
desig
n o
f th
e c
rossin
g.
For
exa
mp
le,
fie
ld s
tudie
s m
ay in
dic
ate
ric
h/d
ive
rse
wild
life
loca
lly,
eve
n if
the a
rea
wa
s n
ot
nece
ssarily
ma
pp
ed
as h
igh
qu
alit
y h
ab
ita
t, o
r a
n a
rea
of
hig
h
co
nn
ectivity.
In t
hese
ca
se
s,
is it
possib
le t
o a
lte
r th
e c
hoic
e o
f th
e c
rossin
g (
e.g
. F
low
ch
art
1 –
Op
tion
A,
B o
r C
)?
Ye
s;
Ap
pe
nd
ix 2
.C o
n d
eta
iled a
ssessm
ent
inclu
de
s t
he a
bili
ty t
o
incorp
ora
te f
iner
leve
l fie
ld d
ata
(a
s lis
ted in
Ta
ble
6 a
nd
7)
into
th
e
decis
ion m
akin
g.
Als
o,
the u
ltim
ate
ch
oic
e o
f cro
ssin
gs w
ill h
ave
to
co
mp
rehe
nsiv
ely
in
corp
ora
te n
atu
ral h
aza
rds a
nd
oth
er
co
nsid
era
tion
s a
s
dis
cu
ssed
in e
arlie
r in
th
e g
uid
elin
e.
N
Cre
dit V
alle
y
Co
nse
rva
tion
Ap
pe
nd
ix
2.C
.
Ne
ed
to
inco
rpo
rate
lite
ratu
re a
nd
re
fere
nce
s t
hat
su
pp
ort
th
e r
ecom
me
nd
atio
ns in
th
e
docu
me
nt
(e.g
. T
able
5 p
52
, T
able
8 p
58
).
Re
fere
nce
s h
ave
be
en a
dd
ed
.Y
Cre
dit V
alle
y
Co
nse
rva
tion
Ap
pe
nd
ix
2.C
.
Ple
ase
d t
o s
ee
tra
ffic
co
un
t d
ata
inco
rpo
rate
d in
to t
he d
ecis
ion t
ree.
Th
is is s
upp
ort
ed b
y
scie
nce
an
d w
ill b
e b
en
eficia
l to
th
e a
na
lysis
.
Co
mm
ents
note
d a
nd
ap
pre
cia
ted
.N
Pag
e 1
3 o
f 1
4
383
Co
mm
en
ter
Se
cti
on
Co
mm
en
tT
RC
A R
esp
on
se
Re
vis
ion
s t
o
Gu
ide
lin
e?
Cre
dit V
alle
y
Co
nse
rva
tion
Ap
pe
nd
ix
2.C
.
Ap
pe
nd
ix 2
C in
dic
ate
s t
hat
this
sta
ge
sh
ou
ld ide
ntify
th
e a
pp
rop
riate
typ
e,
siz
e a
nd
sp
acin
g
of
ope
nin
gs a
long
with
ad
ditio
na
l d
esig
n c
on
sid
era
tion
s.
Re
com
me
nd
ad
ditio
na
l d
esig
n
gu
idan
ce is n
ee
de
d h
ere
, sp
ecific
ally
:
o I
ncorp
ora
te o
pe
nn
ess r
atio –
a c
om
mo
n s
tand
ard
dis
cu
ssed
in r
oad
eco
log
y lite
ratu
re a
nd
in s
ou
thern
On
tario
.
o I
ncorp
ora
te m
ore
dis
cu
ssio
n r
eg
ard
ing
ecolo
gic
al va
lue o
f o
pe
n-b
ott
om
cu
lve
rts,
inclu
din
g
that
ope
n b
ott
om
cu
lve
rts a
re p
refe
rre
d in
ord
er
to e
nsu
re f
ish
pa
ssa
ge
.
o I
ncorp
ora
te m
ore
sp
ecific
gu
idan
ce o
n s
ubstr
ate
- w
hat
tre
atm
ents
sh
ou
ld b
e u
sed
as
su
bstr
ate
fo
r th
e c
rossin
g/s
pecie
s.
o O
ther
mitig
ation
me
asu
res (
dire
ction
al fe
ncin
g,
ste
ep
er
sid
e s
lope
s a
nd
oth
er
co
nce
pts
to
mitig
ate
im
pacts
).
o S
pecify m
inim
um
wid
th (
i.e
. b
an
kfu
ll) t
o e
nsu
re t
hat
there
will
be n
o in
cre
ase
in v
elo
citie
s
wh
en
exitin
g t
he c
ulv
ert
.
o C
larify
und
er
wh
at
co
nd
itio
ns t
err
estr
ial p
assa
ge
is r
eq
uire
d.
Sh
ou
ld t
here
be
dry
passa
ge
durin
g a
sto
rm e
ve
nt?
2 y
ear
flo
w s
ug
ge
ste
d a
s t
he s
torm
eve
nt
flo
w.
- A
ppe
nd
ix 2
.C.
- P
ara
gra
ph
10
dis
cu
sses "
me
asu
res t
hat
dete
rmin
e t
he
will
ingn
ess o
f th
e w
ildlif
e t
o p
ass t
hro
ug
h t
he s
tru
ctu
re",
wh
ich
inclu
de
s
but
is n
ot
limite
d t
o o
pe
ne
ss r
atio.
Re
cen
t a
dva
nce
s in r
oad
eco
log
y
lite
ratu
re h
ave
ind
ica
ted
th
at
focusin
g o
nly
on o
ne
ind
ex s
uch a
s t
he
ope
nn
ess r
atio is n
ot
recom
me
nd
ed
, ra
the
r a
su
ite
of
me
asu
res s
hou
ld b
e
co
nsid
ere
d f
or
eff
ective
usa
ge
of
cro
ssin
gs b
y w
ildlif
e (
Kin
tch
and
Cra
me
r
201
1).
- A
lso
, A
ppe
nd
ix 2
.C.
- se
con
d la
st
para
gra
ph
an
d T
able
8 p
rese
nt
add
itio
na
l d
esig
n f
acto
rs s
uch a
s m
inim
um
siz
e,
typ
e o
f su
bstr
ate
, lig
hting
and
mo
istu
re c
ond
itio
ns e
tc.
that
ma
y b
e c
ritica
l fo
r cro
ssin
g u
sag
e b
y
wild
life
. M
ore
deta
ils o
n t
hese
an
d o
ther
desig
n p
ara
me
ters
are
outs
ide t
he
sco
pe
of
this
gu
idelin
e.
Re
ad
ers
are
dire
cte
d t
o a
co
mp
rehe
nsiv
e r
evie
w o
f
this
in
form
ation
in a
re
po
rt b
y K
intc
h a
nd
Cra
me
r (2
01
1).
- F
or
aq
uatic p
assa
ge
, a
ccom
oda
tion
of
hyd
rolo
gic
al flo
w w
ith
op
en b
ott
om
cu
lve
rts s
hou
ld a
cco
mo
da
te f
ish
pa
ssa
ge
.
- T
RC
A w
ill m
ake
an
y n
ece
ssary
upd
ate
s t
o t
he g
uid
elin
e t
o r
efle
ct
any
pro
ce
dura
l is
su
es r
ela
ted
to
leg
isla
tive
ch
an
ge
or
techn
ica
l /
scie
ntific
upd
ate
s r
ela
ted
to
cu
rre
nt
pra
ctice
s.
- A
lso
, T
RC
A w
ill c
onsid
er
pro
du
cin
g a
ha
ndb
oo
k o
r a
ch
ecklis
t o
n
eff
ective
cro
ssin
g d
esig
n a
t a
late
r p
oin
t, t
o a
ug
me
nt
the im
ple
me
nta
tion
of
the g
uid
elin
e,
if n
ee
de
d.
N
Cre
dit V
alle
y
Co
nse
rva
tion
Ap
pe
nd
ix
2.C
.
Ta
ble
8 -
Th
e s
pecie
s s
ele
cte
d d
o n
ot
app
ea
r to
be
co
mm
on s
pecie
s o
r sp
ecie
s t
hat
CA
s
typ
ica
lly s
urv
ey f
or.
- T
he in
ten
tio
n o
f p
rovid
ing
th
e s
pecie
s lis
t in
Ta
ble
8 is t
o illu
str
ate
th
e
ma
inte
na
nce
of
bro
ad
er
hab
ita
t fu
nctio
ns.
- G
ive
n t
hat
hab
ita
t is
used
as a
su
rro
ga
te it
is a
ssum
ed t
hat
if c
ert
ain
hab
ita
t is
pre
se
nt
the lis
ted w
ildlif
e a
re u
sin
g t
hem
and
wo
uld
re
qu
ire
co
nn
ectivity m
easu
res.
- T
his
doe
s n
ot
me
an
ad
ditio
na
l su
rve
y r
eq
uire
me
nts
. A
s o
utlin
ed
in
Ap
pe
nd
ix 2
.C,
the s
urv
ey r
eq
uire
me
nts
fo
r th
e a
ssessm
ents
do n
ot
inclu
de
any s
pecie
s b
eyo
nd
wh
ich
CA
s a
lre
ad
y s
urv
ey.
N
Pag
e 1
4 o
f 1
4
384
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 and Experience
Company history and experience FIT program experience Implemented projects (of similar size and scope) Experience and qualifications of key individuals
5 5 5 5
20
Quality of the Proposal
Understanding of the RFP and approach to RFP objectives Technical approach and flexibility to conditions Performance monitoring and reporting Implementation schedule reasonable
5 5 5 5
20
Photovoltaic System & Equipment
Proposed photovoltaic system technologies Other equipment items – metering/monitoring, display Warranty Projected Technical Performance
10 5 5 5
25
Financial Lump-sum cost Cost per kW installed
20 15
35
Total 100
A summary of the received fee proposals is as follows:
Contract #10000397 – Heart Lake Conservation Area Workshop – Photovoltaic System
Design/Build
BIDDERS Fees
(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
Toronto City Council 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 Requirements (Lump Sum)
Disposal (cost per tonne)
TOTAL (Plus HST)
TBG Landscape Inc. $1,800.00 $41.63 $176,063.18
Ground Force Environmental Inc.
$6,844.80 $46.80 $202,749.60
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
Grant Thornton LLP Suite 200 15 Allstate Parkway Markham, ON L3R 5B4
T (416) 366-0100 F (905) 475-8906 www.GrantThornton.ca
Audit • Tax • Advisory
Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd
Independent Auditor’s Report
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.
401
2
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
402
3
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 $ -
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
4
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.
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
5
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.
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
14 406
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
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.
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Tho
usa
nd
s
Self Generated
Municipal
Provincial - Other
WECI Program
Source Water Protection
MNR Operations & Capital
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
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 1
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
418
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 2
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.
419
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 3
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
420
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 4
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
421
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 5
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.
422
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 6
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.
423
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 7
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.
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Tho
usa
nd
s
Self Generated
Municipal
Provincial - Other
WECI Program
Source Water Protection
MNR Operations & Capital
424
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 8
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.
425
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 9
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.
426
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 10
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.
427
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 11
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.
428
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 12
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.
429
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 13
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
430
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 14
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.
431
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 15
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.
Mitigation Adaptation
Sustainable Transportation
(e.g. Fleet)
Green Building Technologies
& Retrofits (e.g. LEED)
Energy Conservation
Renewable Energy
Tree Planting/Carbon
Sequestration (e.g. wetlands)
Flood Management Programs
Ecosystem Enhancements
Water Quality and Quantity
Municipal Plan Input and
Review
Local Climate Change
monitoring & modelling
Information Management
Green Infrastructure / low
impact development
stormwater management
Low Water Response
Carbon & Water Trading
Offsets
Climate Change
Strategies
Land Use
Planning &
Regulations
Watershed Plans
Education &
Outreach
432
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 16
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
433
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 17
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
434
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 18
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.
435
TRCA comments – Conservation Authorities Act Review and Discussion Paper Page 19
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.
______________________________
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
0 0.2 0.40.1Kilometers
F© Queen ’s Prin ter for On tario an d its licen sors. [2005] May Not be Reproduced without Permission . THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.
PEEL
YORK DURHAM
TORONTO
Lake Ontario
Key Map
^SITE
LegendSubject Property
! ! ! ! ! ! Floodlin eWatercoursesCrest of SlopeRegulation LimitTRCA PropertyParcel Assessmen t
MAINHUMB
ER
KINGROAD
CONCESSIONROAD
11
ALBIONVAUGHANRD
MAINHUMBER
SUBJECTPROPERTY
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 Vice Chair /ks
Brian Denney Secretary-Treasurer
456
