INDEX TO

AUTHORITY MEETING #2/13

Friday, March 22, 2013

MINUTES Minutes of Meeting #1/13, held on February 22, 2013 21

DELEGATIONSHall, Ken, Mr. Senior Advisor, Public Affairs, Enbridge Pipelines Inc.,

re: Enbridge Pipelines Inc., Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project. 21

Scott, Adam, Mr., Climate and Energy Program Manager, Environmental Defence, re: Enbridge Pipelines Inc., Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity

Expansion Project. 21Dunn, Gerry, Mr., resident, Toronto,

re: Enbridge Pipelines Inc., Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project. 21

Flook, Taylor, Ms., Rising Tide Toronto and designatere: Enbridge Pipelines Inc., Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity

Expansion Project. 21

PRESENTATIONSAn Introduction of Scott Fortnum, new Executive Director of The Living City Foundation. 22Years of Service Awards to Staff 22

ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC., LINE 9B REVERSAL AND LINE 9B CAPACITY EXPANSION PROJECT 22

FOREST HEALTH AND EMERALD ASH BORERAnnual Update 46

WEST NILE VIRUS UPDATE 51

LYME DISEASE PREVENTION UPDATE 55

CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE 60

EAST DUFFINS HEADWATERS MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE 65

ENERLIFE CONSULTING INC. AGREEMENT 73

MEADOWCLIFFE DRIVE SLOPE STABILIZATION PROJECTContract RSD13-017 75

FRENCHMAN'S BAY WATERFRONT MASTER PLANCity of Pickering 77

FRENCHMAN’S BAY HARBOUR ENTRANCE PROJECT, TENDER RSD13-021 81

APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO WATERSHED COMMITTEES, 2013-2015Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Humber Watershed Alliance and Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition 82

GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Etobicoke Creek WatershedDeepbrook Developments Inc. 91

GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT 2011-2015Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Carruthers Creek WatershedJohn Boddy Development Ltd. 91

REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY-OWNED LAND

Adjacent to 163 Thistledown Boulevard, City of Toronto - Etobicoke York Community Council Area 92

TOWN OF RICHMOND HILLConveyance of Land for the Reconstruction and partial Closure of Olde Bayview Avenue, South of North Lake Road, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York 92

SUPPLY OF OPERATED HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND DUMP TRUCKS Tender RSD13-01 93

SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING Award of Contract for Professional Services for the CTC Source Protection Region 94

MUD CREEK REACH 5 RESTORATION PROJECT - CULVERT EXTENSION Contract RSD12-159 94

FRENCHMAN’S BAY HARBOUR ENTRANCE PROJECT EAST BREAKWATER CONSTRUCTION Contracts RSD13-005 and RSD13-008 94

FRENCHMAN'S BAY HARBOUR ENTRANCE PROJECTFunding Arrangement 95

FREEDOM OF INFORMATIONSummary of 2012 Requests 104

LOWEST BID NOT ACCEPTED 105

ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 105

20

MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #2/13March 22, 2013

The Authority Meeting #2/13, was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, March 22, 2013. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 9:51 a.m.

PRESENTDavid Barrow MemberBen Cachola MemberRaymond Cho MemberRonald Chopowick MemberVincent Crisanti MemberGlenn De Baeremaeker MemberMichael Di Biase MemberChris Fonseca MemberJack Heath MemberColleen Jordan MemberMujeeb Khan MemberGloria Lindsay Luby MemberMike Mattos MemberPeter Milczyn MemberGerri Lynn O'Connor ChairJohn Parker MemberAnthony Perruzza MemberDave Ryan MemberDeb Schulte MemberJohn Sprovieri MemberJim Tovey Member

ABSENTPaul Ainslie MemberMaria Augimeri Vice ChairBob Callahan MemberGlenn Mason MemberLinda Pabst MemberCynthia Thorburn MemberRichard Whitehead Member

21

RES.#A24/13 - MINUTES

Moved by: Gloria Lindsay LubySeconded by: Chris Fonseca

THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/13, held on February 22, 2013, be approved. CARRIED

_________________________________________

DELEGATIONS

(a) A 10 minute delegation by Mr. Ken Hall, Senior Advisor, Public Affairs, Enbridge Pipelines Inc., speaking in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Enbridge Pipelines Inc., Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project.

(b) A delegation by Mr. Adam Scott, Climate and Energy Program Manager, Environmental Defence, speaking in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Enbridge Pipelines Inc., Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project.

(c) A delegation by Mr. Gerry Dunn, resident, Toronto, speaking in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Enbridge Pipelines Inc., Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project.

(d) A delegation by Ms. Taylor Flook, Rising Tide Toronto, and designate, speaking in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Enbridge Pipelines Inc., Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project.

RES.#A25/13 - DELEGATIONS

Moved by: John ParkerSeconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby

THAT Ken Hall be granted an extension to the time allocation for his above-noted delegation (a).

CARRIEDRES.#A26/13 - DELEGATIONS

Moved by: Glenn De BaeremaekerSeconded by: Colleen Jordan

THAT above-noted delegations (a) - (d) be received.CARRIED

_________________________________________

22

PRESENTATIONS

(b) Years of Service Awards to were presented to TRCA staff.

(b) Scott Fortnum, new Executive Director of The Living City Foundation was introduced.

_________________________________________

SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION

RES.#A27/13 - ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC., LINE 9B REVERSAL AND LINE 9B CAPACITY EXPANSION PROJECTReport on Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project and general areas of concern for crude oil and its potential effect on the environment and drinking water from spills.

Moved by: Glenn De BaeremaekerSeconded by: Colleen Jordan

WHEREAS concerns of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) related to the Enbridge Pipelines Incorporated (Enbridge) Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project (Project)are focused on its role as watershed managers, landowners and through its obligations under Ontario Regulation 166/06;

AND WHEREAS TRCA has submitted a letter to the National Energy Board (NEB) commenting on the List of Issues that will be addressed by the board;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff continue to consult with affected municipalities and agencies on common issues and concerns;

THAT staff initiate a dialogue with Enbridge to review issues of concern to TRCA and determine if an agreement can be reached with Enbridge to address TRCA interests in the Project;

THAT staff file an application to participate in the NEB Hearing on or before the April 11, 2013 deadline to participate as an Intervenor, thus ensuring that if an agreement with Enbridge cannot be reached, TRCA can advance its interests through the NEB;

THAT TRCA staff be directed to concurrently negotiate with Enbridge and participate in the NEB hearing;

THAT if TRCA’s interests are addressed by written agreement with Enbridge by June 30, 2013, that TRCA’s application to participate in the NEB hearing be withdrawn;

AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to work with Enbridge in the implementation of its Integrity Dig Program to ensure TRCA regulatory requirements are met.

23

RES.#A28/13

Moved by: Dave RyanSeconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby

THAT the proposed amendments below be considered and voted on individually.CARRIED

AMENDMENT #1RES.#A29/13

Moved by: Glenn De BaeremaekerSeconded by: Colleen Jordan

THAT the second last paragraph of the main motion be amended to read:

THAT if TRCA’s interests are addressed by written agreement with Enbridge, that TRCA staff report back to the Authority;

RECORDED VOTEDavid Barrow YeaBen Cachola YeaRonald Chopowick YeaGlenn De Baeremaeker YeaMichael Di Biase YeaChris Fonseca YeaJack Heath YeaColleen Jordan YeaMujeeb Khan YeaGloria Lindsay Luby YeaMike Mattos YeaPeter Milczyn YeaGerri Lynn O'Connor YeaJohn Parker NayDave Ryan YeaDeb Schulte YeaJohn Sprovieri YeaJim Tovey Yea

AMENDMENT #2RES.#A30/13

Moved by: Glenn De BaeremaekerSeconded by: Colleen Jordan

THAT the following be added after the main motion:

THAT TRCA request that Enbridge release publicly the most up-to-date data on the integrity of Line 9 Pipeline prior to June 1, 2013

24

RECORDED VOTEDavid Barrow YeaBen Cachola YeaRonald Chopowick NayGlenn De Baeremaeker YeaMichael Di Biase YeaChris Fonseca YeaJack Heath YeaColleen Jordan YeaMujeeb Khan YeaGloria Lindsay Luby NayMike Mattos YeaPeter Milczyn NayGerri Lynn O'Connor NayJohn Parker NayDave Ryan NayDeb Schulte YeaJohn Sprovieri NayJim Tovey Yea

AMENDMENT #3

Moved by: Glenn De BaeremaekerSeconded by: Colleen Jordan

THAT the following be added after the main motion:

THAT TRCA requests that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment order a strategic environmental assessment of the project to ensure adequate public participation in decision making, more detailed assessment of ecological risks to TRCA watersheds, review of emergency monitoring and response procedures, and a full understanding of the additional risks; including risks resulting from shipping diluted bitumen at potentially higher temperatures, pressures and volumes

RECORDED VOTEDavid Barrow NayBen Cachola YeaRonald Chopowick NayGlenn De Baeremaeker YeaMichael Di Biase NayChris Fonseca NayJack Heath NayColleen Jordan YeaMujeeb Khan NayGloria Lindsay Luby NayMike Mattos NayPeter Milczyn NayGerri Lynn O'Connor Nay

25

RECORDED VOTE Cont'dJohn Parker NayDave Ryan NayDeb Schulte YeaJohn Sprovieri NayJim Tovey Yea

AMENDMENT #1 WAS CARRIED

AMENDMENT #2 WAS CARRIED

AMENDMENT #3 WAS NOT CARRIED

THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED

THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS concerns of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) related to the Enbridge Pipelines Incorporated (Enbridge) Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project (Project)are focused on its role as watershed managers, landowners and through its obligations under Ontario Regulation 166/06;

AND WHEREAS TRCA has submitted a letter to the National Energy Board (NEB) commenting on the List of Issues that will be addressed by the board;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff continue to consult with affected municipalities and agencies on common issues and concerns;

THAT staff initiate a dialogue with Enbridge to review issues of concern to TRCA and determine if an agreement can be reached with Enbridge to address TRCA interests in the Project;

THAT staff file an application to participate in the NEB Hearing on or before the April 11, 2013 deadline to participate as an Intervenor, thus ensuring that if an agreement with Enbridge cannot be reached, TRCA can advance its interests through the NEB;

THAT TRCA staff be directed to concurrently negotiate with Enbridge and participate in the NEB hearing;

THAT if TRCA’s interests are addressed by written agreement with Enbridge, that TRCA staff report back to the Authority;

THAT staff continue to work with Enbridge in the implementation of its Integrity Dig Program to ensure TRCA regulatory requirements are met;

AND FURTHER THAT TRCA request that Enbridge release publicly the most up-to-date data on the integrity of Line 9 Pipeline prior to June 1, 2013.

26

BACKGROUNDAt Authority Meeting #9/12, held on November 30, 2012, Resolution #A229/12 regarding Potential Hazards from Crude Oil Spill was approved.

THAT the staff report on the potential hazards from petroleum pipeline spills on GTA water supplies be received.

Subsequent to this meeting, at Executive Committee Meeting #10/12, held on December 7, 2012, Resolution #B185/12 was approved as follows:

THAT staff provide a supplementary report to Authority item AUTH8.1 - Potential Hazards from Crude Oil Spill from Authority Meeting #9/12, held on November 30, 2012 on the specific items outlined in the email dated December 7, 2012 and the motion passed by Toronto Council at its meeting on November 28, 2012;

THAT TRCA request party status to the proceedings at the National Energy Board prior to the next meeting if timelines require;

AND FURTHER THAT TRCA work with City of Toronto and City of Hamilton.

At Authority Meeting #11/12 held on January 25, 2013, Resolution #A260/12 was approved as follows:

THAT if timelines do not permit a staff report to the Authority, the TRCA Chair and Chief Executive Officer be authorized to provide staff with direction, based on legal advice, as to how to proceed with respect to participation in the NEB Hearing on Enbridge Pipelines Inc., Line 9B Reversal and Capacity Expansion Project;

AND FURTHER THAT the remainder of the staff report and recommendations be deferred to Authority Meeting #2/13, scheduled to be held on March 22, 2013.

As referenced in TRCA Resolution #B185/12, the City of Toronto adopted Resolution MM28.22 on November 27, 28 and 29 as follows:

1. City Council request the City Solicitor to report directly to City Council on the following in connection with the Enbridge Pipelines Inc. submission of pre-application materials to the National Energy Board for the reversal of the direction of flow of its pipeline, Line 9B, between Westover (near Hamilton) and Montreal, and to increase the capacity of Line 9:a) The process at the National Energy Board and options for City of Toronto

participation;b) Available details respecting the integrity of the pipeline, the safe handling of

diluted bitumen, ("dilbit") and spill contingency measures; andc) The need for and cost of expert witness or council to represent the City of

Toronto’s interests.

27

2. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to advise the National Energy Board of the City of Toronto’s intent to preserve all options to participate in the proceedings once an application has been filed by Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (and subject to the direction of City Council regarding that participation).

3. City Council request the City Manager to liaise with staff of the City of Hamilton, or other organizations, with a view to potential cooperation.

(source: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2012.MM28.22)

On February 20 and 21, 2013, the City of Toronto adopted the following:

1. City Council direct City staff to continue to review the Enbridge application and any further supporting materials and attempt to resolve any concerns by requesting additional information from Enbridge.

2. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to apply to the National Energy Board (NEB) to allow the City of Toronto to participate in the proceedings either through a written submission or as an intervenor in relation to any unresolved concerns.

3. City Council direct that the funds as outlined in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (February 11, 2013) from the City Solicitor be available to obtain such assistance as necessary in the opinion of the City Solicitor to represent the City's interest at the NEB.

4. City Council direct that the City continue to liaise with other municipalities, and Conservation Authorities to discuss cooperation in the presentation of issues before the NEB.

5. If the City becomes an intervenor, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to withdraw the City intervention if issues of concern have been resolved to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor in consultation with the Environment and Energy Office.

Following the Toronto Council Resolution MM28.22 of November 27-29, the City Solicitor reported back to Council at their February 20-21, 2013 meeting, noting that the primary areas of interest are the integrity of the pipeline, the safe handling of dilbit and contingency measures for any spills. Further to this meeting. City staff has reviewed the List of Issues provided by the NEB that will be considered at the hearing, and will be providing a response to the NEB.

Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project

Line 9 is an existing 762 mm (30-inch) diameter pipeline operated by Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge). It has a capacity of approximately 240,000 barrels per day (bpd) and extends from Montreal, Quebec to Sarnia, Ontario. Currently, the pipeline transports light crude oil westward from areas such as the North Sea, West Africa and the Middle East, as shown on Attachment 1.

28

On November 29, 2012, Enbridge filed an application (# A49446) under section 58 and under Part IV of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act). The NEB is an independent federal regulator established in 1959 to promote safety and security, environmental protection and economic efficiency in the Canadian public interest within the mandate set by Parliament for the regulation of pipelines, energy development and trade. The Board reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources. The NEB is established under the National Energy Board Act, which sets out the mandate for the NEB. The Act establishes the NEB's authority in energy projects as well as determining the regulatory boundaries for making decisions. The application Enbridge filed with the NEB for the Project asked the Board to approve the Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project, in 2012, including:

The reversal of the 639 km-long segment of Line 9 between North Westover, Ontario

(near Hamilton) and the Montreal Terminal in Quebec (Line 9B);An increase in the annual capacity of the entire Line 9 from Sarnia, Ontario to Montreal

to approximately 47,696 m3

/day (300,000 bpd); andA revision to the Line 9 Rules and Regulations Tariff to allow transportation of heavy

crude through Line 9 (although Enbridge expects that light crude oil will continue to be the major product shipped).

The purpose of the Project is to respond to requests from eastern Canadian refineries to have access to the growing and less expensive supplies of light and heavy crude oil production from western Canada and the U.S. Bakken region. The increased capacity will be achieved through the addition of equipment to inject a drag reducing agent into the crude oil, which reduces the friction in the pipeline and enables additional volume without increasing the maximum operating pressure, as well as through the addition of new pumps, high flow impellers (inside existing pumps), and replacement of station piping and valves, all within existing pump stations or terminals.

All Project activities will take place within existing Enbridge facilities and right-of-way, with the exception of some temporary workspace required for a new densitometer facility along the right-of-way near North Westover Station. Letters advising of the project were sent to stakeholders, including municipalities and conservation authorities, in May and September 2012. Enbridge received approval from the NEB for reversal of the line from Sarnia to North Westover (near Hamilton) in 2012.

Subject to receipt of regulatory approvals, in its application to the NEB, Enbridge advised that the project is scheduled to start in late 2013 and is expected to be completed by mid-2014. Prior to the start of construction, municipal permits will be obtained for the project, as well as permits from local conservation authorities where works are located within regulated areas (none within the TRCA jurisdiction). Detailed information on the application and the process is available on the NEB’s website at www.neb-one.gc.ca.

In reviewing the application, the NEB has advised that it will be conducting a public hearing for the Project. The NEB has advised that its assessment process for the application will include the following steps:

1. Hearing Order Issued by the NEB, including a List of Issues and Deadlines.2. Public Comments on the List of Issues.3. Amendments to List of Issues, if any.

29

4. Applications to Participate either by letter of comment or as an Intervenor.5. List of Participants released by NEB.6. Additional Written Evidence submitted by Enbridge.7. Two rounds of Information Requests to Enbridge from the Intervenors, Second

round used to clarify responses from first round if necessary.8. Intervenor Written Evidence.9. Letters of Comment by those participants that requested this form of participation.10. Information Request from Enbridge or other Intervenors to Intervenors.11. Enbridge’s Reply Evidence submitted.12. Written or Oral Final Argument.13. Receive NEB Decision (80% of Reasons for Decision are completed by the Board

within 12 weeks following the public hearing).

To date, specific details related to items 1, 2 and 4 have been provided, namely:

Item 1. Hearing Order was issued by the NEB on February 19, 2013. Details of hearing process are more completely defined in Hearing Order OH-002-2013 and legal counsel’s memorandum.

Item 2. As part of the Hearing Order, the NEB identified the List of Issues that will be considered by the NEB, including:

The need for the proposed Project.1.The potential commercial impacts of the proposed project.2.The appropriateness of the tolling methodology.3.The potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the proposed 4.Project, including the potential effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur, and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the proposed Project.The engineering design and integrity of the proposed Project.5.The safety, security and contingency planning associated with the 6.constriction and operation of the proposed Project, including emergency response planning and third-party damage prevention.Consultation with Aboriginal groups and the potential impacts of the 7.proposed project in Aboriginal interests.Consultation with affected landowners and potential impacts of the proposed 8.Project on affected landowners and land uses.The terms and conditions, related to the above issues, to be included in any 9.approval the Board may issue for the proposed Project.

Public comments on the List of Issues were due March 21, 2013. TRCA staff prepared a response to the NEB in consultation with its legal counsel, as well as counsel for the City of Toronto. TRCA's response was based on its interests in the Project related to its role as watershed managers, land owners and regulators, including watershed and environmental matters, as well its interests as a major watershed-wide landowner in the vicinity of, and immediately downstream of, the Project.

30

Item 4. Applications to Participate in either of two ways:

a) Write a letter of comment: This method is chosen by interested parties who want to share their views on a project but not formally participate in a hearing. Letters of comment will be taken into consideration during the hearing process. They will not be considered sworn evidence and are not subject to questioning. As a result, letters of comment may not be given the same weight as sworn evidence in a hearing, although the weight of the letters depends on a number of factors, including the content.

b) Become an intervenor: An intervenor is a person or group that has an interest in a proposed project and would like to formally participate in the hearing, including landowners, area residents, government agencies, Aboriginal groups, companies, or any other individual or group. Being an intervenor has financial implications including evidence preparation, legal fees, travel and accommodations, and hiring of expert witnesses to testify, if necessary. Intervenors may present evidence, question other witnesses and give final arguments during the written and oral portions of the hearing. Intervenors can also be questioned on any evidence they present.

TRCA has a strong working relationship with Enbridge and acknowledges that its concerns could be addressed through an agreement with Enbridge. Such an agreement would need to include a commitment from Enbridge to provide for proactive mitigation and monitoring activities and reports for the lifespan of the pipe itself, as well address issues related to liability in the event of a spill.

In order to negotiate such an agreement, legal counsel has advised TRCA to file an application to participate as an Intervenor. In this way, if a negotiated agreement cannot be reached between TRCA and Enbridge, then TRCA will have the full opportunity to participate in the hearing, including providing written evidence, asking questions of Enbridge and other intervenors, and providing final arguments to the board. If a negotiated agreement can be reached, then TRCA would be able to withdraw its application and advise the NEB that its issues have been addressed.

The Application to Participate must be submitted to the NEB by April 11, 2013. The application must detail which method of participation is being sought, either writing a letter of comment or becoming an Intervenor, as well as key issues of concern for TRCA that are based on the NEB list of issues (or list of issues as amended pending the consultation), together with supporting information.

Additional deadlines for items 6 through 13 have been provided by the NEB in the Hearing Order and are discussed in more detail in the Details of Work to Be Done section, below. The information given at the hearing will be used to inform the board's decision by allowing both the company proposing the project and any other interested people or groups a chance to provide information on the Project and to provide input in support of or against a Project. The decision on whether or not to approve a project on the basis of public interest is the discretion of the NEB. The NEB has advised that the decision for this project will be made no later than March 19, 2014.

31

The NEB has advised that while it will be making Participant Funding available for this proceeding, as a governmental organization, TRCA is not eligible.

RATIONALEFurther to the issues identified in resolution TRCA Executive B185/12, and issues raised by City Council, TRCA board member Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker identified additional areas of concern that TRCA staff was asked to address, with the acknowledgement that TRCA would have to rely on other experts and published information to answer the questions. These questions, together with their answers, are presented below.

1) Provide an examination of the specific risks of a spill of diluted bitumen.As shown in Table 1 below, crude oils contain four general types of hydrocarbons: saturates, aromatics, resins and asphaltics. Light crude oils from conventional sources contain mostly saturates (e.g., butane, pentane) with some aromatics, while heavy crude contains all four components in about equal proportions. Line 9B currently carries light crude oil but the Enbridge proposal, if approved, would allow the shipment of heavy crude oil through the pipeline. All of the products to be carried in this pipeline are lighter than water. Concern has been expressed by the public about the potential of the pipeline to carry diluted bitumen or dilbit - a product of the oil sands. Because dilbit is considered a type of heavy crude oil by the petroleum industry, it could be legally carried through Line 9B. However, Enbridge has confirmed that the primary product transported will be light crude oil.

From an environmental perspective, the implications of a spill based on the type of crude oil carried in the pipe are relatively the same . The chart shows that different types of crude oil contain similar types of hydrocarbons, but in different proportions. If released to the environment through a spill, heavy crude oil (including diluted bitumen), will have similar environmental reactions and clean-up mechanisms as a light crude oil spill. The Line 9B pipe currently transports light crude oil.

Table 1. Comparison of Crude Oil and Dilbit Chemistry and Characteristics

Hydrocarbon TypeMolecular

Weight Toxicity

Heavy Crude Oil

(Diluted Bitumen)

Composition

Light Crude Oil Composition

Environmental Reaction(typical)

Saturates (e.g., butane, octane) Light Moderate 15 - 25% 70 - 90% vapourize, float

Aromatics (e.g., benzene, toluene) High 15 - 35% 10 - 25% vapourize, float

Resins (e.g., cyclohexane) Moderate 20 - 45% 3 - 5% float, suspend

Asphaltics Heavy Low 10 - 20% 0 - 5% float, suspend

Source: Chandra Mohan Sinnathambi and Norhusna Mohamad Nor, 2012. Relationship Between SARA Fractions and Crude Oil Fouling. Journal of Applied Sciences, 12: 2479-2483.Hinkle, A; Shin, E.J.; Liberatore, M, Herring, A.M., and Batzle, M., 2008. Correlating the Chemical and Physical Properties of a Set of Heavy Oils from around the World. Published by the Colorado School of Mines. Available from: http://crusher.mines.edu/UserFiles/File/CRA/2008/FuelHinkle2007_R_Final%208Mar08.pdf

32

When spilled into turbulent water, heavy crude oil, though lighter than water, can mix with the sediments and settle in depositional areas in the watercourse. As with all hydrocarbon mixtures, most of the spilled product will float on the surface of the water, and move quickly downstream. The lighter components (i.e. saturates and lighter aromatics such as benzene) will also evaporate, and end up in the air. Light crude oil will behave in a similar manner. Clean-up under these circumstances is both expensive and lengthy. Booms and skimmers are used to collect the floating product.

At the Kalamazoo spill described below, much of the submerged oil was recovered through agitation via high pressure air or water, and collection at the surface with absorbent materials. Dredging was conducted, but only at large depositional areas. Vacuum methods can also be effective in cleaning the sediments. Given normal water level fluctuations, submergent, emergent and terrestrial vegetation are usually impacted by oil floating on the surface of the water, along with any animals that come into contact with the floating product. Ecosystem effects are usually due to direct hydrocarbon exposure, such as oiling of waterfowl. Human health effects are usually the result of inhalation of hydrocarbon vapours, which can lead to headaches and nausea.

2) Is there evidence that pipelines shipping dilbit could be more likely to spill?There is no evidence that pipelines used to transport dilbit are more likely to spill. Alberta Innovates – Technology Futures, completed a project for Alberta Innovates – Energy and Environment Solutions reviewing the current status on the corrosivity of dilbit in pipelines as compared to conventional or ‘non-oil sands derived’ crude oil. This review indicates that the characteristics of dilbit are not unique and are comparable to conventional crude oils. Based on a staff review of pipeline engineering reports, pipeline corrosion begins from the outside, and progresses inwards, since corrosion requires oxygen from the air or groundwater outside the pipeline. The petroleum products actually inhibit oxidation and corrosion of the inside of the pipeline.

3) Please include a detailed breakdown of the major chemicals contained in diluted bitumen, (i.e., Benzene, Toluene, n-hexane, etc.) with information on the human and environmental effects of these chemicals. Also provide an evaluation of reports on human health impacts from the spill and acute and chronic exposure to benzene.

Table 1 above provides a summary of dilbit components. Attachment 2 is a table produced by the United States Centre for Disease Control that provides more detail on some of the major chemicals in crude oil along with a summary of the potential human health effects. With specific reference to the Kalamazoo spill, the Michigan Department of Community Health conducted a follow-up study and issued its results in a November 2010 report titled Acute Effects of the Enbridge Oil Spill. The study was based on four community surveys along the affected waterways, 147 health care provider reports on 145 patients and 41 calls placed to the poison centre. The study identified 320 people and an additional 11 worksite employees who reported experiencing adverse health effects. Headache, nausea and respiratory effects were the most common symptoms reported by exposed individuals. The report concluded that these symptoms were consistent with the published literature regarding potential health effects associated with crude oil exposure, which include irritation to the eyes, nose and throat, as well as dizziness and drowsiness. Contact with the skin and eyes may also cause irritation or burns. More information on environmental effects are provided with the answer to Question 1 above, and documented with respect to the Kalamazoo spill, described with respect to the answer to Question 4 below.

33

4) Please provide more detail on the impacts of the Kalamazoo spill, including a description of the nature of environmental degradation and an estimate of how long the spill is expected to negatively impact the ecosystem.

On July 25, 2010, a heavy crude oil spill occurred in Marshall, Michigan (near Kalamazoo). In this instance, a segment of a 30-inch-diameter pipeline (Line 6B), owned and operated by Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership, ruptured beneath a wetland. The rupture occurred during the last stages of a planned shutdown and was not discovered or addressed for over 17 hours. The total release was estimated to be 843,444 US gallons of crude oil. The oil saturated the surrounding wetlands and flowed into the Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River. Local residents self-evacuated from their houses, and the environment was negatively affected. About 320 people reported symptoms consistent with crude oil exposure including headache, nausea and respiratory effects. No fatalities were reported.

As mentioned in the November, 2012 TRCA staff report, the Kalamazoo spill had a significant effect on the local ecosystem. Over 35 km of watercourse and a wetland were impacted, and over 4,000 animals required treatment for oil contamination, although none were treated from exposure to submerged oil. The mixing of some of the hydrocarbons with the sediments in the riverbed remains an on-going issue. Over two years after the accident, crews are still removing submerged oil and contaminated soils miles downstream of the release site. However, most of the Kalamazoo River has been reopened to the public. Only a portion of the Morrow Lake Delta remains closed as a result of the release.

5) Provide a breakdown of the financial costs of cleanup with description of who was liable for these expenses.

The total estimated costs for emergency response equipment, resources, personnel, and professional and regulatory support in connection with the cleanup of oil discharged from Line 6B in Kalamazoo, were about $767 million as of October 31, 2011. Enbridge was liable for all of these costs, which include an estimated $42 million cost for the Federal government’s role in the cleanup. Costs continue to be incurred for monitoring and on-going sediment remediation. These costs will also be the responsibility of Enbridge.

6) Provide an assessment of Enbridge's performance with respect to emergency response and cleanup, drawing from the findings of the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) study into the incident.

The Kalamazoo spill was not identified immediately because of two factors. First, the spill occurred in a remote wetland area and it took time for the spill to be observed by local residents. Second, the spill occurred during maintenance of the pipeline and the reduced flow readings in the leak detection sensors were assumed to be related to an air gap (also known as a “column separation”) in the line from the shutdown. Therefore, Enbridge pumped additional oil into Line 6B during two separate attempts to refill the pipeline. The additional oil put into the pipeline during these restarts represented over 80 percent of the total release.

34

Enbridge’s first responders arrived on the scene just as oil was reaching the Kalamazoo River and they were unaware of the scale of the oil release. Much of the initial remedial efforts involved the placement of oil containment booms downriver of the floating product. These booms were used to trap the floating and suspended hydrocarbons, but were located several miles from the release site. These measures would have been more effective if they had been placed closer to the spill site. The large volume of oil that escaped the spill site contributed greatly to the environmental effects as well as the complexity and cost of the cleanup for this accident.

In response to the Kalamazoo spill, corporately Enbridge has made numerous changes in how they assess, monitor, control and respond to leaks and spills across their operations (source, Enbridge website: www.enbridgeus.com/main.aspx?id=15753), as summarized below:

Pipeline and Facility Integrity Re-organized the functional areas that are responsible for pipeline and facility integrity.

Substantially increased pipeline integrity testing and management spending of $150

million per year, to over $450 million in each of 2011 and 2012.Since 2011, performed more than 175 in-line inspections and nearly 3,000 pipeline

excavations and undertook hundreds of internal inspections and thousands of investigative digs.

Leak Detection Established the Pipeline Control Systems and Leak Detection department, doubling the

number of employees and contractors dedicated to leak detection and pipeline control. Enhanced procedures for leak detection analysis.

Implemented a Leak Detection Instrumentation Improvement Program to add and

upgrade instrumentation across the system.

Pipeline Control and Control Center Operations Developed a Control Room Management plan based on the U.S. Code of Federal

Regulations and implemented a number of the sections in October 1, 2011; remaining sections were implemented by August 1, 2012. Revised and enhanced all procedures pertaining to decision making, handling pipeline

startups and shutdowns, leak detection system alarms, communication protocols and suspected column separations. Enhanced the organizational structures to better support operators and to manage span

of control and workloads. Augmented CCO (Control Centre Operations) staff, adding training, technical support,

engineering and operator positions. Prior to the accident, Enbridge had started design and construction of a new control

centre in Edmonton, Alberta. The new centre was opened in December 2011 and allows greater interaction and support for 7 x 24 hour operations.

Emergency ResponseEnbridge has committed an additional $50 million to be spent between 2012 and 2013

to improve equipment, training and overall response capabilities. Develop better tools and techniques for worst case waterborne spills.

35

In 2011, a cross-business unit response team was created for large-scale events

requiring more resources that a single region could provide. In 2011, a dedicated Emergency Response group was created in Operation Services for

increased regional support. Conducting an Emergency Response preparedness assessment to enhance abilities to

more rapidly respond and contain a significant release.

7) Please provide more detail regarding the spill risks for TRCA. In the valley and stream corridors of watersheds in TRCA's jurisdiction, there are hundreds of underground pipe crossings, including oil and gas pipelines, utilities (such as Bell and hydro), watermains and sewer pipes. Although leaks from corrosion do occur in these pipes, the primary risk of spills from underground infrastructure in the TRCA jurisdiction is related to erosion of the soil covering the infrastructure, and its resultant structural failure. Whether a spill is of heavy or light crude oil, the environmental effects will be significant and long lasting, particularly since pipeline spills, though infrequent, tend to be larger in magnitude than the typical fuel releases from trucks or other accidental discharges.

TRCA concerns with pipe infrastructure on or near valley lands includes:The in-stream vertical depth of the pipe from the bottom of the watercourse to the top of

the pipe - when downcutting of the watercourse occurs, there must be sufficient natural cover to ensure the integrity of the pipe is protectedThe horizontal distance of the pipe from the edge of the watercourse to the side of the

pipe - when streambank erosion occurs, there must be sufficient natural cover to ensure the integrity of the pipe is protectedThe horizontal distance of the pipe from the edge of the valley wall to the side of the

pipe - when valley wall erosion occurs, there must be sufficient natural cover to ensure the integrity of the pipe is protected

If the pipe infrastructure cannot be sufficiently located below the streambed, or away from the stream bank or valley wall, then there must be appropriate in-stream, streambank or valley wall erosion protection measures so as to ensure the integrity of the pipe is protected.

If there are construction requirements to fix the pipelines, the proponent may need to access the pipeline from the surface, known as an "integrity dig". When access to the pipe is required from the surface and located in a regulated area, then an Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit will be required from TRCA. Technical concerns that will need to be addressed relate to flooding, erosion and conservation of land. In order to satisfy permitting requirements, staff will review any or all of the following, depending on site characteristics:

staging;

storage and access plans;

tree protection and tree removal plans;

cut and balance fill requirements; and

site restoration plans.

36

Enbridge is currently completing a comprehensive Integrity Dig Program of their existing Line 9 pipeline to proactively determine any locations at risk of failure, and repair the sections before a spill occurs. As required, permits through the TRCA jurisdiction have been issued when the work is located within a regulated area, or if maintenance works are required on sections of the pipe that are located within a regulated area. To date, Ontario Regulation 166/06 permits have been issued by TRCA in relation to this pipeline, including both emergency works and long term stabilization permits for locations where the pipe was found to be in an unstable location near Don River wetlands or across the Rouge River. TRCA continues to review and approve Enbridge's Integrity Dig projects when they are located within the regulated area. Enbridge has been responsive in these site specific cases in addressing TRCA's regulatory issues.

TRCA does not have a direct role in responding to spills, rather TRCA plays a support role when there is a spill. By Order in Council under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, the Ontario Minister of the Environment has responsibility for spill and drinking water emergencies. To this end, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has developed an Emergency Management Program that includes an Emergency Response Plan, a Continuity of Operations Plan and an Emergency Operations Centre that provides timely services for receiving, assessing and coordinating responses to spills. The MOE’s first level of field response is provided by environmental officers working out of the MOE’s district or area offices. These service commitments are facilitated by the Spills Action Centre (SAC), whose role is to receive reports of spills and other environmental matters and initiate or coordinate a response as required, as well as a province-wide MOE field response capacity in the Operations Division. Further support is provided by a network of additional resources available from other parts of the MOE.

MOE’s regulatory mandate for spills arises largely out of Part X of the Environmental Protection Act, which requires spills to be reported forthwith. Enbridge is a federally regulated pipeline and therefore would follow the NEB Remediation Process Guide in the event of a release. Enbridge would work with all parties, including the MOE, through the NEB umbrella.

Part X also requires the owner of the spilled material, and the person who had control of a material when it was spilled to promptly clean up and restore the environment. MOE ensures that the cleanup and disposal of spilled materials is done in an environmentally acceptable manner. When those under statutory duties cannot or will not respond adequately, the Minister has the authority under the Environmental Protection Act to order those responsible for the spill to clean up the site. Should they fail to comply with such orders the MOE can undertake the cleanup and recover costs. Municipalities often provide containment and cleanup measures for spills to their roadways and drainage systems. Municipalities will also often assist in clean-up of spills outside of their infrastructure where their capabilities allow or where a responsible party fails to act. There are cost recovery provisions under the Environmental Protection Act that allows a municipality to recover the costs resulting from their clean-up efforts from the responsible party. For a pipeline spill, both the NEB, and the Transportation Safety Board, the primary federal regulators, will also investigate the cause of the spill, emergency response actions, and document any suggested improvements for the future.

37

The primary responsibility for public health and safety in an emergency resulting from a spill or a fire rests with the municipality. In the TRCA jurisdiction, the municipalities (Peel, York, Durham and Toronto) have primary response duties when there is a spill in the rivers, and deals directly with MOE. From time to time, TRCA will receive notification of a spill and provides the caller with Spills Hotline Contact information, or will contact the Hotline directly. TRCA will attend the site if there are issues related to TRCA's regulation or property, or if MOE or the municipality requests technical assistance of TRCA staff in the provision or collection of data related to technical study requirements.

Over the past decade or more, there have been no spills recorded in the TRCA jurisdiction related to a oil or gas pipeline rupture. The majority of spills in the TRCA jurisdiction are related to spills from transportation incidents, dumping or illegal releases to the streams or storm sewer system, or breaks in municipal sewer infrastructure that is located in or near valley and stream corridors.

8) Can you assess the ability of the pipeline company to detect small leaks in the pipeline (i.e., 5% of pipeline volume or less)?

As part of their comprehensive Integrity Management Plan, Enbridge indicates that high resolution in-line inspection tools are utilized on a regular basis to examine for features in advance of a failure and to detect the presence of small pin-hole leaks. In addition, pipeline operator monitoring systems are in place, including a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system used for pipeline control, and a Computational Pipeline Monitoring (CPM) system used for real-time monitoring of ruptures and smaller leaks. For leaks beyond the capability of those systems, other methods are used to detect leaks, including visual/aerial surveillance, third party reporting, scheduled line balance calculations and sensor based detection methods. These approaches are used together to examine for all possible leak conditions, and provide comprehensive and overlapping leak detection capabilities.

9) Does the recent downsizing of Environment Canada's emergency response unit, shifting coordination to Montreal increase risks in the Toronto region?

This is beyond the scope of TRCA staff to address, but no increased risk from this action is expected, since Enbridge is responsible for any and all spill response associated with its pipelines. Depending on the location and extent of a spill event, it is expected that both federal and provincial regulatory agencies would have a role in ensuring that any required remedial actions are completed.

10) Is the integrity of this 37 year old pipeline up to the task of increased pressure; 20% higher volumes than its original design?

As with all petroleum pipelines, Line 9B is subject to regular inspections and maintenance. The maximum operating pressure is approved by the National Energy Board. The maximum licensed point operating pressure on Line 9B is 876 psi (6040 kPa). Although the pipeline capacity will increase, this will be accomplished by adding a friction reducing agent and additional pumps, not increasing the pressure in the pipeline. There is a slightly elevated risk of a spill based on the volumetric change, but this is anticipated to be negligible (Source: Line 9b Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project Pipeline Integrity Engineering Assessment prepared by: Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Pipeline Integrity Department). As noted earlier, Enbridge is undertaking an Integrity Dig Program through the TRCA area to investigate and carry-out pipe maintenance requirements in advance of this project proceeding.

38

11) What new information would be required to fully evaluate the impact of a diluted bitumen spill on GTA drinking water intakes?

The response to this question was explored more fully in the TRCA report dated November 30, 2012 and has been repeated here for efficiency. A number of spill scenarios were modelled as part of the Lake Ontario Collaborative (LOC) project to determine if certain land-based activities could pose a potential drinking water threat to Lake Ontario drinking water supplies. A summary of this work can be found in the November staff report to Toronto City Council: City Source Water Protection Plan for City of Toronto Water Treatment Plants (www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-51737.pdf). The modelling was funded by the MOE as part of the Drinking Water Source Protection program. Any scenario that identified conditions under which a contaminant could exceed a threshold in the raw water was identified as a significant drinking water threat. One set of scenarios was based on potential spills of petroleum products from pipelines crossing tributaries within the TRCA jurisdiction and at other locations along the north shore of Lake Ontario. The predicted impact was a worst case scenario as the LOC modelling did not consider how any emergency response or mitigation actions would reduce the impacts.

The LOC spill scenario was based on a spill of gasoline containing 1% benzene and was selected by the technical working group to represent the greatest risk to drinking water quality. Crude oil and gasoline have different characteristics and the concentration of benzene dissolved into solution would differ between crude and gasoline releases. Therefore, the results of the LOC study cannot be directly transferred from a gasoline release to a crude oil release. With a crude oil spill, more of the hydrocarbons will remain on the water surface or will be deposited on the streambed and isolated from the source of drinking water supplies as compared to gasoline. The model results, which would represent a worst-case scenario, predicted that benzene levels at the intake could be well above the Ontario Drinking Water Standard from a large scale gasoline spill (2700 cubic metres). Since the water treatment system is not designed to remove benzene this was deemed by the Source Protection Committee to be a significant threat to Lake Ontario drinking water supplies. Details regarding the spill scenario are provided in the Assessment Report prepared under the Clean Water Act, 2006 for TRCA's watersheds. The section of the Assessment Report that documents threats to Lake Ontario drinking water supplies be found at: www.ctcswp.ca/files/TRSPA_Chapter5_Jan2012.pdflink.

The Source Protection Committee has developed proposed policies to reduce the significant drinking water threats from potential petroleum product pipelines. These policies focus on reviewing and improving where necessary spill prevention and emergency response plans. The proposed policies have been submitted to the Minister of the Environment for a decision on approval and subsequent implementation. The Proposed Source Protection Plan can be viewed or downloaded at: www.ctcswp.ca/files/CTCProposedSourceProtectionPlan_LowRezFINAL.pdf. Policy LO-PIPE-1 requests that the MOE review and recommend necessary improvements to existing spill prevention, spill management, risk reduction and contingency plans.

This policy also includes a provision for the MOE, in collaboration with Environment Canada to:Use the existing 3-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Circulation Model and Water Quality

Simulation Model to run proactive simulations of potential spills to predict the extent and duration of contamination and to help determine the parties to be notified in the event of a spill.

39

Install permanent instrumentation for real-time monitoring of water currents and

chemistry in the nearshore of Lake Ontario for input into the models in (i).Ensure that the data are available to the municipalities and conservation authorities.

Undertake Lake Ontario nearshore monitoring annually and make the data are available

to the municipalities and conservation authorities.

12) What is the statistical likelihood of a pipeline failure given current industry averages for pipelines of this type and age?

In November, 2012, Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Pipeline Integrity Department submitted an engineering report: Line 9b Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project Pipeline Integrity Engineering Assessment. Section 3.4.2 of this report, entitled “In-Service Leaks and Ruptures”, states: “The mainline segment of Line 9 from ML [Montreal] to NW [North Westover] has experienced a total of 12 mainline leaks and one mainline rupture since initial construction. These occurred between 1978 and 2005, and were mostly related to dents and mechanical damage, including the mainline rupture event. One leak was caused by pipeline corrosion, and another was caused by a crack. All have been permanently repaired. However, using historical data to predict future leaks or failures does not account for the technical advancements with in-line inspections (ILI), corrosion protection or line maintenance or other factors that have increased the safety of the pipeline, and there is no industry-standard statistical method to predict pipeline failures. Also, most of the failures were related to external events, such as third party mechanical damage, which are not possible to predict.

Recognizing these limitations, between 2002 and 2009, the average annual volume spilled from liquid hydrocarbon pipelines in Canada was about two litres per million litres transported. This equals an expected failure rate of 0.0002%. Another statistical measure of spill risk is the number of spills per km of pipeline. Based on the Transportation Safety Board data, the average number of pipeline spills in Canada between 2006 and 2010 was about one event per 2,000 km of pipeline.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEWhile TRCA concerns with the Project could be addressed through an agreement with Enbridge, in order to negotiate such an agreement, legal counsel has advised TRCA to:

1. File an application to participate in the hearing as an Intervenor with the NEB on or before the April 11, 2013 deadline.

2. Concurrently negotiate with Enbridge and participate in the NEB hearing.3. While negotiating with Enbridge, staff and its legal counsel will also:

a) review Enbridge’s NEB application and evidence by April 30, 2013; b) prepare and submit information requests to Enbridge by May 14, 2103; c) review responses received from Enbridge and submit follow-up information

requests to Enbridge by June 11, 2103; and,d) receive responses from Enbridge by June 25, 2013.

4. If TRCA interests are addressed by written agreement with Enbridge by June 30, 2013 then TRCA’s application to participate in the NEB hearing will be withdrawn.

5. If TRCA interests are not addressed by written agreement with Enbridge by June 30, 2013, TRCA will:

a) submit Intervenor evidence; by July 9, 2013;

40

b) respond to information requests from Enbridge and other Intervenors by July 30, 2013;

c) prepare final arguments in writing to the NEB by August 20, 2013 or orally at the NEB hearing on August 26 to 30, 2013. Staff will determine the best method for proceeding in the hearing (written or oral) as its involvement in the hearing progresses.

In addition to the above, TRCA staff will:Continue to liaise with municipal and agency staff with common issues and areas of 1.concern.Continue to work with Enbridge in the implementation of Enbridge’s Integrity Dig 2.Program, including the issuance of permits for investigative, maintenance, and repair works within TRCA's regulated area and on TRCA-owned lands.Report back to the Authority regarding the outcome of a negotiated settlement, or 3.following its participation in the hearing process.

FINANCIAL DETAILSPermitting fees as per the TRCA fee schedule are charged for Ontario Regulation 166/06 1.applications related to the Integrity Dig Program, or other such agreement to ensure comprehensive reviews are undertaken in a timely manner.Research, writing and meetings related to three board reports, November 2012, and 2.January and March 2013 - approximately $8,000 in staff time has been supported through the Planning and Development operating budget. Estimated Legal Fees for to support TRCA involvement in the Project are estimated as 3.between $60,000 and $100,000:

Item Details Estimated Legal Fees

TRCA Board Report

Review TRCA’s draft Board Report Enbridge Pipelines Inc., Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project $2,000

TRCA Participation at NEB

Determine the process for participation at the NEB hearing; prepare summary of requirements for appearing at the NEB hearing; review and comment on TRCA’s draft application for NEB participant status; prepare for and attend at NEB hearing as Intervenor for those portions of the hearing that are directly relevant to TRCA

$40,000 to $60,000

Negotiations with Enbridge

Review federal statutory authority for the Enbridge pipeline including the pollution liability cap and prepare summary memorandum; prepare and negotiate agreement between TRCA and Enbridge

$15,000 to $35,000

OtherCommunications with TRCA staff; engagement with TRCA Board; communications with the NEB and other participants; other tasks as instructed by TRCA,

To be billed at legal counsel's usual hourly rates

41

4. Staff time associated with the development of materials and appearance at the hearing, as related to the above five phases - $20,000 to $75,000. Additional costs for travel, accommodation and expert witnesses as required are estimated to cost between $10,000 to $50,000.

The total cost of participating in the hearing could cost between $100,000 to $175,000. The TRCA corporate budget for 2013 annual legal fees is $125,000 for Development Planning applications, including Ontario Municipal Board and Mining and Lands Commission hearings and $50,000 for Property issues. While staff costs will be assumed through the repositioning of current workloads, the 2013 TRCA Budget has no funding provisions for the costs for legal fees, expert witnesses, or travel and accommodation associated with the NEB hearing on the Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project.

Report prepared by: Don Ford, extension 5369 and Beth Williston, extension 5217Emails: dford@trca.on.ca or bwilliston@trca.on.caFor Information contact: Don Ford, extension 5369 and Beth Williston, extension 5217Emails: dford@trca.on.ca or bwilliston@trca.on.caDate: March 12, 2013Attachments: 2

42

Attachment 1

43

Attachment 2

44

45

_________________________________________

46

RES.#A31/13 - FOREST HEALTH AND EMERALD ASH BORERAnnual Update. An update on the status of significant or new forest health pests for 2012 within the TRCA jurisdiction, and an update on the management to address the threat posed by the emerald ash borer to ash trees within the TRCA jurisdiction.

Moved by: Vincent CrisantiSeconded by: Colleen Jordan

WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owns and manages numerous forests and conservation areas and is engaged in several forest management initiatives on both private lands and TRCA-owned lands;

AND WHEREAS emerald ash borer is an invasive insect species that poses a serious threat to all ash trees within the TRCA jurisdiction, affecting forest biodiversity, public safety and TRCA operations;

AND WHEREAS TRCA has the ability and responsibility to lessen the impact from forest pests and invasive species including emerald ash borer by developing effective management approaches;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff continue to work with all levels of government to monitor trends and conditions of current forest insect and invasive plant populations and to formulate appropriate strategies to manage or eliminate those threats;

THAT staff act to integrate an appropriate emerald ash borer management approach into all relevant TRCA actions and initiatives;

THAT staff continue to engage with TRCA's partners in the coordinated and effective management of emerald ash borer, including providing expertise and advice to TRCA's municipal partners as they develop and implement their own emerald ash borer management plans;

AND FURTHER THAT the forest health working group continue to report back annually to the Authority regarding issues and threats, including emerald ash borer, their implications and recommended responses.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDAt Authority Meeting #4/11, held on April 29, 2011, Resolution #A70/11 was approved as follows:

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff continue to work with all levels of government to monitor trends and conditions of current forest insect and invasive plant populations and to formulate appropriate strategies to manage or eliminate those threats;

AND FURTHER THAT the forest health working group continue to report back annually to the Authority regarding issues and threats, their implications and recommended responses.

47

The TRCA Forest Health Working Group was established in January 2010 to coordinate and monitor forest health issues and to facilitate coordination and improve efficiencies between internal departments and programs. The Forest Health Working Group provides this report to address two main issues. The first is to provide a summary of the 2012 Silvicultural Forest Health Report outlining the status of significant or new forest health pests for 2012. The second is to provide a status report on TRCA emerald ash borer (EAB) management to date and to report on the implications, both financial and environmental. This report fulfills the request made to staff from the Authority to report on emerald ash borer management and potential ongoing management implications.

2012 Silvicultural Forest Health Report

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) with the assistance of the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) and local agencies, monitors potentially harmful forest pest populations and forest damage caused by pest outbreaks and abiotic causes across Ontario. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) works to prevent the initial introduction and spread of non-native forest pests and diseases such as EAB and Asian long-horned beetle (ALHB). The report below is intended to update the Authority regarding some of the primary and new pest and disease concerns and not as a comprehensive summary of these concerns.

In 2012, non-native invasive pest species and specifically emerald ash borer continue to present the greatest concern related to the health of southern Ontario’s forests. Drought also impacted TRCA's and other jurisdictions this past summer. Immediate impacts from our dry summer were noted in some of TRCA's current tree planting projects, however drought stress on established trees tends to have long-term effects that results in higher susceptibility to and increased mortality from other insects and diseases. 2012 was a relatively quiet year in relation to many of Ontario’s cyclical forest pests including forest tent caterpillar and gypsy moth. A localized infestation of gypsy moth was recorded in the City of Mississauga. Municipal staff is monitoring this infestation closely and will continue to update TRCA and partners on management actions taken. A slight increase of gypsy moth activity was recorded in TRCA’s Terrestrial Fixed Plot Monitoring Program.

As part of the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program, TRCA’s Terrestrial Fixed Plot Monitoring is one of the tools used to monitor forest health. It was initiated in 2008 to detect spatial and temporal trends in the vegetation, breeding bird, amphibian and Plethodontid salamander communities in select areas within the TRCA jurisdiction. In 2012, a summary report was produced representing the baseline conditions of the various monitoring indicators including forest health. This annual monitoring will provide for an ongoing role in monitoring the overall health of forests in the region.

48

Asian Long-horned Beetle (ALHB)

Monitoring and sampling efforts within the ALHB regulated area in Toronto and Vaughan did not detect any infested trees in 2012. No new finds have occurred since December 2007 and if ongoing monitoring of the area does not detect any more beetles the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA ) will be able to declare ALHB as eradicated from the regulated zone later this year. The CFIA has released the following; "The ALHB survey is ongoing and the Regulated Area remains in place until eradication is announced. The CFIA is hopeful that the negative findings during the survey for ALHB will continue and that eradication will be determined in the near future". However, as reported last year, a large and diffuse outbreak of this beetle in Massachusetts means that this insects continues to represent a future threat to our forests. The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario highlighted this concern in his January 2012 special report on Biodiversity. Thousand Canker Disease of Walnut

Thousand Canker Disease of walnut was first highlighted by TRCA staff in last year’s health update. It has not been detected in Ontario, however, this is a disease of concern due to detections over the past couple of years in the eastern United States. In 2012 a trapping program was initiated to determine whether the insect involved in this disease is present in Ontario. As of October 2012, inspection of traps from the summer’s trapping program had not resulted in any positive finds.

Hemlock Woolly Adelgid

Hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA) is a non-native insect that has been present in North America for quite some time. In the eastern United States this insect was first reported in 1951 and causes significant mortality in eastern hemlock. This summer HWA was detected for the first time in Ontario and within TRCA’s jurisdiction. Four young hemlock trees on a residential property in Etobicoke were found to be infested with HWA. The trees were removed and surveys by the CFIA in the surrounding area did not find any additional infestations. The CFIA tracked these four infested trees to the Ontario nursery from which they were purchased and their suspect origin to a nursery in Pennsylvania. No additional infested trees have been detected in Ontario.

Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Management Update

EAB, which was first detected in the Windsor\Detroit area in 2002, is now present in 18 U.S. states and two Canadian provinces – Ontario and Quebec. Some reports now place the number of trees killed at over 100 million with up to 10 billion trees at risk. Several insecticides are registered in Canada for individual tree injections but the larger scale and long term prospect of controlling this insect in North America depends either on finding an effective biological control agent or on a natural ecosystem response.

49

EAB was first detected in the TRCA’s jurisdiction in Toronto in 2007. EAB has now been detected in most TRCA municipalities; however its presence is still sporadic in many areas especially rural regions of the TRCA jurisdiction. Areas in Toronto and Vaughan are seeing significant ash mortality and this is expected throughout the TRCA jurisdiction over the next 10 to 15 years. Outside of the City of Toronto, EAB infestations have not been confirmed to date on any TRCA properties. TRCA staff expect to observe EAB activity on some TRCA properties in 2013 and also an ongoing significant growth of this outbreak and tree mortality in the region.

In TRCA’s Recommended Approach for the Management of Emerald Ash Borer report, immediate management actions for 2012 were identified in eight key areas. Attachment 1 summarizes TRCA EAB Management accomplishments for 2012 and work to be completed in 2013.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONETRCA has taken significant steps toward an effective plan for the management of EAB. In order to ensure effective implementation, management plans will be finalized that help to relate and incorporate the identified management approach into existing forest health initiatives undertaken by TRCA. This will include communicating with each TRCA section and working with them to devise an approach for implementation. Additional budget allocations to address EAB have been approved in both Peel and York regions for 2013. Funding is required in Durham for targetted EAB action.

Report prepared by: Tom Hildebrand extension 5379,Meaghan Eastwood extension 5734

Emails: thildebrand@trca.on.ca, meastwood@trca.on.caFor Information contact: Tom Hildebrand, extension 5379Emails: thildebrand@trca.on.caDate: January 30, 2012Attachments: 1

50

Attachment 1

TRCA Management Activities 2012

Action Identified in Recommended

Management Approach

StatusTRCA 2012 Management Activities

Additional TRCA 2013 Management

Activities1. Characterize the extent of

ash trees within the jurisdiction.

Complete – on the ground inventory of individual potentially hazardous ash trees along property edges, trails, and adjacent to infrastructure.Approximately 25,000 ash trees inventoried in total.

2. Identify priority areas for potential hazard tree removal.

Complete - (as above) Continue Sampling of ash trees to determine extent of infestation.Establish priority areas for Ash tree removals once infestation is confirmed.

3. Determine the location of high value ash trees for treatment.

Complete – individual trees identified for 2012, 2013 and ongoing treatment

4. Determine location of high conservation value ash communities for targeted management.

In progress In progress

5. Develop implementation plans for TRCA properties.

Ongoing – initial mapping inventory lists produced for all TRCA managed lands excluding Rouge Park

Complete ash tree inventory and mapping for Rouge Park Lands.

6. Finalize the EAB Management Approach

Complete – July 2012

7. Initiate a tree protection program (TreeAzin injections).

170 trees treated at 6 TRCA locations(To be repeated every 2 years until infestation abates)

Treatment of an additional 315 high value ash trees in Peel, York and Durham

8. Initiate communications strategy.

Initiated – TRCA webpage completed

_________________________________________

51

RES.#A32/13 - WEST NILE VIRUS UPDATESummary of the 2012 West Nile Virus Monitoring and Surveillance program and receipt of the annual report - West Nile Virus Vector Mosquito Larval Monitoring and Surveillance - 2012.

Moved by: Mike MattosSeconded by: Deb Schulte

THAT the annual report "West Nile Virus Vector Mosquito Larval Monitoring and Surveillance - 2012" be received;

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to circulate the annual report to the public health units of the regional municipalities of Peel, Durham, York and the City of Toronto;

THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue to participate in the Regional West Nile Virus Advisory Committees for Peel, Durham, York and the City of Toronto;

AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue West Nile virus larval mosquito monitoring in wetlands and stormwater management ponds on TRCA-owned land during the 2013 summer season.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDWest Nile virus (WNV) is a seasonal disease known in Canada since 2001. Two key mosquito species, Culex pipiens and Culex restuans, are the primary species responsible for spreading the disease to humans in Ontario. The level of WNV activity and risk of exposure depends on the number of infected bird hosts and the number of adult mosquitos carrying the virus in a given year. It is difficult to predict the numbers of the species of mosquitos that most frequently transmit the virus since their populations change from year to year, vary across jurisdictions and depend on a number of environmental factors. WNV management is focused on prevention and control and is collectively undertaken by the provincial, regional and municipal health agencies in Ontario.

As a major owner of natural lands, including substantial wetland areas, TRCA has had an interest in the WNV issue. As a measure of due diligence and at the request of regional health units, TRCA has been routinely monitoring larval mosquito populations in TRCA's natural wetlands and selected stormwater management ponds (SWMPs) since 2003. The objective of the monitoring has been to identify preferred breeding sites of the two key mosquito species, assess the level of risk, and reduce human exposure to WNV by taking appropriate measures like housekeeping activities (grading small depressions, garbage removal) and larviciding, if necessary. TRCA's WNV program activities include public education and outreach activities, collaborating with the regional health units and conducting mosquito larval surveillance on TRCA-owned lands. The data collected over the years has been beneficial in guiding management decisions related to wetland protection and creation, land management planning and has assisted the public health agencies with their public education and outreach campaigns.

52

At Authority Meeting #2/12, held on March 30, 2012, Resolution #A28/12 was approved, in part, as follows:

...AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue West Nile virus larval mosquito monitoring in wetlands and stormwater management ponds on TRCA-owned land during the 2012 summer season.

As per the Authority Resolution, the WNV surveillance and monitoring activities were again implemented in 2012. The following summarizes these activities and results:

Summary of WNV Program Activities in 2012TRCA's WNV program continued to implement its three-pronged approach including public education and outreach, collaboration with public health units, and larval monitoring and surveillance on TRCA properties.

Public education and outreach activities in 2012 focused on updating and distribution of WNV related information and addressing public and staff inquires on WNV and standing water complaints. TRCA received a total of three standing water complaints associated with TRCA properties in 2012. The three complaint sites were: 1) Kortright Archetype Sustainable House pond, 2) Boyd Centre lower parking lot, and 3) residential area near Altona Forest.

After investigation, the Archetype Sustainable House pond was identified as a WNV vector mosquito hotspot. The pond was later drained and stocked with fish (koi); the control method (fish stocking) was effective, no mosquito larvae were found during the three follow-up visits. The Boyd Centre lower parking lot was also identified as a hotspot. The problematic area was a small depression at the bottom of the hills. Restoration Services filled and graded the area later in the season. This site will be re-visited regularly during the 2013 field season to ensure the problem has been resolved. The Altona Forest site was dry when the monitoring program started and it remained dry throughout the summer, thus no actions were taken.

Collaborations with regional health units required TRCA staff to attend regional health WNV committee meetings, share collected WNV data and notify the regions of any potential WNV vector hotspots.

TRCA received an Order on April 2, 2012 from the Medical Officer of Peel Regional Health under the Health Protection and Promotion Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.7 to assist with the implementation of control measures to reduce the number of mosquito larvae in the Heart Lake Wetland Complex in Brampton. The Heart Lake Wetland Complex continued to be an area of concern for WNV; a ditch located near the wetland was treated with larvicide by Peel Region in 2012. It is anticipated that TRCA will receive another Order from the Peel Regional Medical Officer in 2013.

WNV larval surveillance and monitoring was undertaken in 38 wetlands and six SWMPs across the TRCA jurisdiction from May 14th to August 24th, 2012 to identify larval mosquito species distribution, abundance and community composition. Each site was sampled four times during the field season, and the sites with high mosquito numbers during the 4th sampling event were followed up by an additional visit. For each site, an assessment of the densities of each mosquito species was conducted.

53

Summary of Results Obtained in 2012The sampling season in 2012 yielded a total of 6,358 mosquito larvae from wetlands and 1,317 mosquito larvae from SWMPs. As in previous years, the wetland habitats sampled supported a greater diversity of mosquitos with 10 different species being found in wetlands while only six species were found in SWMPs.

Among the wetland sites, 44% of the larvae collected were non-vector species (i.e. the species generally not responsible for spreading WNV), while the remaining 56% were vectors (i.e. species most commonly found to spread WNV). The predominant non-vector species was Culex territans (44%), and the predominant vector species was Culex pipiens (39%). The number of Culex pipiens collected from the wetlands was the highest ever since the monitoring began in 2003. This increase was influenced by the following factors:

An exceptionally high number of Culex pipiens were collected at Grenadier Pond in 1.High Park. In total, 1,207 Culex pipiens were collected at this one site. This represents more than half (53%) of all Culex pipiens found in all wetlands combined. Due to the dry and hot summer conditions, many small wetland habitats turned into 2.shallow, warm and organic-rich pools of water that are favourable breeding sites for this species.

WNV risk assessment resulted in only three sites being identified as areas of concern for WNV vector larvae among the wetland sites. Larvicide treatments were applied to all of these sites including Grenadier Pond in High Park, Topham Pond and Albion Hills Pond 2. Grenadier Pond and Topham Pond were treated by the City of Toronto and Albion Hills Pond 2 was treated by Peel Region Public Health.

Among the SWMP sites, vector species comprised 94% of the mosquito population. Culex pipiens which represented 90% of the mosquito larvae collected was the predominant species found in SWMPs and is the key mosquito species associated with the spread of WNV in Ontario. Culex territans, the only non-vector species found in the SWMPs, comprised 6% of the mosquito community. WNV risk assessment resulted in one SWMP (L’Amoreaux Park North Pond) being identified as an area of concern for WNV vector larvae and it was treated by the Public Health Department of the City of Toronto.

Overall, the results from 2012 monitoring and surveillance have indicated that although rare, localized WNV hotspots continue to occur on TRCA properties. It should be noted that the WNV itself is not found in the wetlands or SWMPs identified, and that the designation of "hotspot" only implies that the larval mosquitos found are of the variety that have been known to transmit the virus to humans once they have emerged from the water as adults and have first bitten an infected bird. The proactive nature of this monitoring program and the subsequent action is designed to control and reduce the number of the adult mosquitos available to transmit the virus, thus reducing the potential exposure to humans.

54

From 2003 to 2010, the numbers of human WNV cases have declined in Ontario. However, in 2011 and 2012, the number of human WNV cases in Ontario increased to 64 and 259, respectively. Within the TRCA jurisdiction, there were 134 reported human WNV cases in 2012: 91 cases in the City of Toronto, 20 cases in Peel Region, 16 cases in York Region, and seven cases in Durham Region. These reported numbers of human cases in 2012 were the second highest since the discovery of the virus in 2002. TRCA’s monitoring data has shown that the numbers of human WNV cases in Ontario is positively correlated with number of Culex pipiens larvae collected in a given year. Therefore, having a larval monitoring program in place is crucial for identifying potential risk on TRCA properties. Risk prevention relies on identifying the areas of concern for WNV and following up with proper intervention measures.

A copy of the Annual Report: "West Nile Virus Vector Mosquito Larval Monitoring and Surveillance - 2012" is available on the corporate website for reference (www.trca.on.ca; key word: West Nile Virus). Copies will be provided to members upon request.

RATIONALEThe overarching rationale for undertaking WNV larval monitoring is that a variety of wetland habitats on TRCA properties such as marshes, woodland pools and ponds have the potential to provide breeding habitats for mosquitoes because of the permanent availability of water. As a large landowner in the Toronto region, TRCA has used the WNV monitoring and surveillance activities as a means of ensuring “due diligence” and to proactively manage the WNV issue on our properties. The approach taken – to identify the presence of WNV associated mosquito species has ensured that larvicide has only been applied to sites with potential risk. Based on the number of sites assessed by TRCA on an annual basis, this approach has been found to be a cost effective alternative to wider scale preventative larvicide application.

Staff anticipate continued requests from the public for actions to be taken to address perceived mosquito breeding in standing water on TRCA-owned lands that are close to their properties, and from the regional health departments to help determine the sensitivity of natural areas for the purpose of larviciding. TRCA’s WNV program also helps to identify vector numbers and high density sites. The identification of isolated sites with high density of mosquitoes associated with WNV in wetlands and stormwater ponds warrants the ongoing annual monitoring and surveillance program.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEStaff will continue surveillance activities at approximately 45 sites on TRCA-owned lands and will continue to liaise with regional health units and participate in WNV advisory committees throughout the 2013 field season. Staff will continue to respond to public inquiries on WNV and reports of standing water on TRCA property, in addition to providing general information for both the public and staff on WNV. Standing water complaints will be reviewed and addressed following the TRCA's Standing Water Complaint Procedure. Staff will continue to identify sites of concern for WNV on TRCA property through larval monitoring and advise other TRCA sections on maintenance or management duties required to reduce the number of potential breeding sites for mosquitoes.

55

FINANCIAL DETAILSFunding for the 2013 WNV surveillance and monitoring activities is available under the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program with capital funding support from the regions of York, Peel and Durham and the City of Toronto. A small amount of revenue is generated (approximately $1,000) by the program on an annual basis through the provision of mosquito larvae identification training for regional health staff.

Overall this funding will be sufficient to support the 2013 surveillance field work and staff support to liaise with the regional health units and to respond to complaints. The funding is not however expected to cover any costs associated with control measures if deemed necessary. If larviciding or site remediation is required as a control measure, the associated costs will be covered through TRCA Land Management funding. However, there have been opportunities identified in the past two years to partner with the various regional health departments in order to have sites treated with larvicide in a timely manner and at no cost to TRCA.

Report prepared by: Jessica Fang, extension 5665Emails: jfang@trca.on.caFor Information contact: Jessica Fang, extension 5665Emails: jfang@trca.on.caDate: March 22, 2013

_________________________________________

RES.#A33/13 - LYME DISEASE PREVENTION UPDATESummary of the 2012 Lyme disease prevention activities carried out by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and regional public health partners.

Moved by: Vincent CrisantiSeconded by: Colleen Jordan

THAT the summary report "Tick Surveillance and Lyme Disease Prevention 2012" be received;

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff continue to incorporate updated information on Lyme disease and blacklegged ticks (Ixodes scapularis) into the TRCA Employee Health and Safety training and visitor information systems in order to increase awareness;

AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to liaise with the regional public health units in the regions of Peel, Durham and York, and the City of Toronto.

CARRIED

56

BACKGROUNDRecently there has been increased awareness and concern raised over the issue of Lyme disease and the ticks that are known to carry and transmit the disease to humans. This has been the result of media coverage of several local high profile cases of the disease in the last few years. In 2012, TRCA acknowledged the seriousness of the increase in the incidence of Lyme disease, and the potential implications to the organization:

TRCA is one of the largest landowners in the Toronto region, and its properties include

large areas of natural lands;many TRCA staff work in the field, therefore these staff might have increased exposure

to ticks, and ultimately Lyme disease;many visitors use and enjoy TRCA facilities such as conservation areas, field centres

and resource tracts, thus their potential exposure to ticks increases;partnership with the vector-borne disease divisions of regional public health units had

been established through TRCA’s West Nile virus monitoring and surveillance program and these staff are now incorporating Lyme disease into their various communication approaches.

Based on the above, it is clear that this issue should be part of TRCA’s due diligence, and the first line of defense in this regard should be to increase public awareness and to incorporate the information on Lyme disease into the organizations Employee Health and Safety training and visitor information systems.

At Authority Meeting #5/12, held on June 22, 2012, Resolution #A102/12 was approved:

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to regularly incorporate updated information on Lyme disease and blacklegged ticks (Ixodes scapularis) into the TRCA Employee Health and Safety training and Visitor information systems;

THAT staff be directed to make information on Lyme disease and blacklegged ticks available at all field centres, conservation areas and other TRCA facilities in order to increase the awareness of visitors;

THAT staff continue to liaise with the regional public health units in the regions of Peel, Durham and York, and the City of Toronto to receive up-to-date information on this issue and share surveillance data regarding Lyme disease and blacklegged ticks;

AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to explore the possibility and feasibility of identifying ticks found on TRCA properties, and to submit any blacklegged ticks found to the Zoonotic Diseases and Special Pathogens National Microbiology Laboratory.

In this regard, a summary report has been prepared that outlines the activities carried out by TRCA related to the approved recommendations in 2012. The report can be used as a Health and Safety reference, since it brings together the current status of Lyme disease in TRCA's jurisdiction and information on the programs and activities conducted by TRCA staff and our regional public health partners.

57

What is Lyme disease?Lyme disease is one of the most common vector-borne diseases of humans in the world. The disease is named after the Town of Lyme (Connecticut, USA), where a number of cases were identified in 1975. Lyme disease is caused by a bacterium, Borrelia burgdorferi, which is typically transmitted by certain ticks to a wide range of birds, reptiles and mammals including dogs and humans. The primary transmitter of Lyme disease in Ontario is blacklegged tick, Ixodes scapularis. Blacklegged ticks live in wooded, brushy areas that provide the humidity ticks need to survive. Exposure to ticks may be greatest in the woods (especially along trails) and the fringe area between the woods and the edge of the forest. Blacklegged ticks search for a host from the tips of low-lying vegetation and shrubs, not from trees. Blacklegged ticks do not jump or fly; they grab onto their animal hosts that brush against vegetation, and then they crawl around to find a place to bite.

In about 80% of cases, early Lyme disease is characterized by a skin lesion, which expands to a diameter of more than 5 cm from the site of the tick bite. The signs and symptoms of early Lyme disease also include fever, headache, muscle/joint pain and fatigue. If left untreated, the disease can progress to swelling of the joints from arthritis in one or more joints, problems with the nervous system, and persistent weakness and fatigue. Though rare, Lyme disease can be fatal. Recent studies suggest that the incidence of Lyme disease in Canada is increasing. As Dr. Nicholas Ogden from the Public Health Agency of Canada wrote in his report “projected increases in temperature with climate change are expected to permit and accelerate the expansion of Ixodes scapularis into Canada."

The prevalence of human Lyme disease in Ontario and CanadaIn 2009, Lyme disease became a nationally reportable disease in Canada. This means that all health care professionals should report cases of Lyme disease to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). The Agency also surveys the provinces and territories to assess the number of cases and distribution of Lyme disease in Canada.

The risk for exposure to the disease is highest in regions where the ticks that transmit Lyme disease are known to be established. In Ontario, these regions include southern and eastern Ontario. Established populations of blacklegged ticks have been found at Point Pelee National Park, Rondeau Provincial Park, Long Point Provincial Park, Turkey Point Provincial Park, Turkey Point lowlands, Wainfleet Bog Conservation Area, Presqu’ile Provincial Park, Prince Edward Point National Area, St. Lawrence Islands National Park and Charleston Lake Provincial Park.

Across Canada, these ticks can be found in southern and southeastern Quebec, southeastern Manitoba, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as well as much of southern British Columbia. Surveillance data indicates a small number of blacklegged ticks are introduced into widely separated areas of Canada by migratory birds, posing some risk that individuals in other areas may also be exposed to infected ticks.

What are the Public Health Agencies doing to address Lyme disease?Public Health Agency of Canada scientists continue to collaborate in studying the occurrence of tick populations in Canada. These studies show there is low risk of encountering ticks infected with the Lyme disease agent in most of Canada although the number of risk areas is increasing in eastern Canada. Many of these findings have been published and reported at scientific meetings to help increase awareness of the potential for Lyme disease to occur in Canada.

58

In addition, scientists from Public Health Agency of Canada and York University are currently researching the potential impacts of climate change on the distribution of the ticks that carry Lyme disease. This research will contribute to our understanding of the occurrence of the ticks and the disease-causing agents they transmit.

To address Lyme disease, the regional public health units focus on educating the public about Lyme disease and carry out various forms of surveillance. Educational material provided includes information on the identification of ticks, signs and symptoms of the disease, personal preventative measures for reducing exposure to ticks and advice on how to safely remove and report an attached tick. The various forms of surveillance include the following:

“Human cases surveillance” which involves investigating every report of Lyme disease

received. The standard investigation includes confirming the diagnosis, collecting demographic data, determining location of exposure and investigating possible links among cases. This has been accomplished by completing the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Lyme Disease Human Case Investigation Report."Passive surveillance" which involves assessing ticks submitted by the public for the

presence of the disease in Ontario."Active surveillance" which involves monitoring for tick populations in selected locations

within their region.

The following is a summary of the various tick surveillance activities and results in 2012 by regional health units.

York RegionTwo confirmed positive Lyme disease human cases were reported in York Region, however these were travel-related cases. Through the passive tick surveillance, 16 ticks were submitted and three specimens were identified as blacklegged ticks. No blacklegged ticks collected through passive surveillance tested positive for the Borrelia burgdorferi. Active tick surveillance was conducted by York Region in summer and fall of 2012 in 12 locations. No ticks were found.

Peel RegionEight human cases of Lyme disease were reported. Two of these cases were acquired locally. This was the first year that Lyme disease was locally acquired in Peel Region. In 2012, Peel Public Health received 20 ticks from the public. Five blacklegged ticks were identified and one was found locally. Peel Region has received two lab reports from PHAC indicating that two ticks were positive for Borrelia burgdorferi, the other three ticks were negative. The ticks that tested positive were from New York state and Prince Edward County in eastern Ontario. Peel Public Health conducted active tick surveillance in two areas where there was suspected tick exposure. These surveillance activities did not identify any additional ticks.

Durham RegionTwo confirmed positive Lyme disease human cases were reported and one more case is under investigation. Durham Region Health Department received 23 ticks from the public, eight of which were identified as blacklegged ticks. None of these specimens tested positive for Borrelia burgdorferi. Durham Region Public Health conducted active tick surveillance in June, along the Whitby Lakeshore and in a ravine area in Whitby. No ticks have been found as a result of active surveillance in Durham Region.

59

City of TorontoToronto Public Health investigated 22 confirmed and probable Lyme disease cases in 2012. All of these cases reported travelling to Lyme disease endemic areas within or outside of Ontario. Five blacklegged ticks were submitted for testing in 2012, and only one tested positive for Borrelia burgdorferi. The City of Toronto did not conduct any active tick surveillance in 2012.

Activities undertaken by TRCA in 2012Further to the approved recommendations, TRCA staff completed the following actions:

TRCA incorporated Lyme disease related information in our Health and Safety training and

information;educational posters on Lyme disease were obtained from regional health units and

displayed in field centres, conservation areas and TRCA offices in order to increase the awareness of TRCA staff and visitors;staff participated in all of the active tick surveillance surveys conducted by York Region on

TRCA properties including Kortright Centre, and Boyd and Bruce's Mill conservation areas; andstaff prepared a summary report "Tick Surveillance and Lyme Disease Prevention - 2012".

The report is available on TRCA's corporate website.

What can staff and the public do to prevent Lyme disease?The precautions recommended by the public health agencies to reduce the risk of Lyme disease include to:

wear long sleeved shirts, long pants and closed shoes;

apply insect repellents containing DEET;

perform a careful self-inspection for attached ticks after being in wooded areas. A daily

total-body inspection and prompt removal of attached ticks (within 24 hours) can reduce the transmission of the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi from infected ticks. Blacklegged ticks are very small, particularly during the nymph stage, so careful examination is necessary. Children and pets should be checked as well;carefully remove attached ticks using tweezers. Grasp the tick's head and mouth parts

as close to the skin as possible and pull slowly until the tick is removed. Do not twist or rotate the tick and try not to squash or crush the tick during removal;contact a health professional immediately if you develop symptoms of Lyme disease,

especially when you have been in an area where blacklegged ticks are found.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEStaff has added the issue of ticks and Lyme disease to TRCA's health and safety training to raise awareness of all employees, and in particular those that will be working in the field. Additional information that has been developed by the regional health units will be used, and this includes suggested preventative measures, information on tick identification and removal, and what to do if bitten by a tick at work. The same information will be used to inform visitors to TRCA facilities to ensure a consistent approach and up-to-date information and advice. Clearly TRCA is not the experts on the disease or the insects that carry/transmit it, and as such it is expected that TRCA should use the most up-to-date information that is available from the agencies that are on the front line of existing and emerging health issues in the province.

60

Staff in the Ecology Division has the capacity to identify ticks to species (using the staff and resources TRCA currently applies to the West Nile Virus Surveillance and Monitoring Program) and will identify any tick(s) submitted by staff from TRCA properties. If blacklegged ticks are found, the specimens will be forwarded to the Zoonotic Diseases and Special Pathogens National Microbiology Laboratory for further testing. Ticks submitted by the general public will not be accepted, the inquiries will be re-directed to the appropriate public health unit.

Staff has reviewed the feasibility of monitoring, following the "active surveillance" approach. Staff is recommending that TRCA plays a “supporting” role in active surveillance conducted by regional public health units.

Staff will also explore the need for and feasibility to adapt signage on TRCA properties to incorporate information on the potential presence of ticks and the Lyme disease issue where appropriate.

Lastly, staff will continue to respond to public inquiries regarding blacklegged ticks and Lyme disease and staff that is presently involved with TRCA's West Nile virus monitoring and surveillance program will use the various regional health department committees as sources of information on the Lyme disease issue, and will communicate important updates to other staff.

FINANCIAL DETAILSMost of the awareness activities can be undertaken within the scope of TRCA's existing Health and Safety and facility management approaches. Additional costs associated with monitoring, property management, tick control activities or updates to signage used at TRCA properties or facilities will need to evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

Report prepared by: Jessica Fang, extension 5665Emails: jfang@trca.on.caFor Information contact: Jessica Fang, extension 5665Emails: jfang@trca.on.caDate: March 6, 2013

_________________________________________

RES.#A34/13 - CANADA GOOSE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATEImplementation of Draft Canada Goose Management Strategy for the City of Toronto

Moved by: Vincent CrisantiSeconded by: Colleen Jordan

THAT the Draft Canada Goose Management Strategy for the City of Toronto be circulated to agencies and City of Toronto staff for review and comment;

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) work with City of Toronto, Canadian Wildlife Service and stakeholders to implement the strategy for 2013;

61

THAT the Draft Canada Goose Management Strategy for the City of Toronto be used as the foundation for a TRCA-wide Canada Goose Management Strategy;

TRCA continue to implement TRCA's Canada Goose Management Program on Lake Ontario waterfront sites and several inland lakes and parks throughout the TRCA jurisdiction;

THAT TRCA staff be directed to establish a jurisdiction wide Canada Goose Management Committee composed of partnering municipalities, agency stakeholders, and interest groups.

CARRIED

BACKGROUNDBy the end of the 19th century, Canada Goose populations were near extinction due to excessive hunting and capture for market. From 1900 to 1975 many efforts were undertaken to re-establish and support Canada Goose population across southern Ontario. These included protection strategies, captive breeding programs, re-introductions, and restrictions on hunting seasons for geese.

After 1975, goose populations in southern Ontario showed a rapid increase. The recovery of the Canada Goose population is viewed as one of the most successful wildlife re-establishment programs to date. Subsequently, all levels of government switched from programs targeting protection, to initiatives that targeted population management and that minimized property damage.

These population increases were most significant in urban and suburban environments throughout North America. The urban populations of the Canada Goose continue to grow in the GTA, and landowners and municipalities struggle with many conflict issues including aesthetics, excessive droppings, vegetation damage, beach fowling, public safety concerns and possible water quality concerns.

TRCA, in partnership with its member municipalities, have been involved in many Canada Goose focused initiatives since 1993. These include:

waterfront waterfowl counts;

strategic landscape planning to deter geese;

nesting Canada Goose banding program;

resident population control programs (egg oiling);

goose relocation programs;

goose management committees and working groups.

An ad hoc multi-agency goose management committee was established for the GTA in 1993 to review issues and develop strategies for reducing conflict situations between the hyper abundant goose population and residents of the GTA. In 1995, TRCA in partnership with the City of Toronto began a comprehensive approach to address goose populations within the City. Since then the City of Pickering, Town of Ajax, City of Brampton, Region of York and Region of Peel have also been incorporated into the Canada Goose Management Program. To date the program has focused on three main initiatives:

1. Habitat Modification to prevent Canada Goose conflict;

62

2. Canada Goose Egg Oiling Program;3. Canada Goose Relocation Program.

Through the Canada Goose Management Program, TRCA has also participated in many other initiatives and is seen as a leader in addressing Canada Goose management and conflict resolution. Since 2002, TRCA has summarized the Canada Goose Management Program in an annual report as per the following resolutions: Resolution #A16/03:

THAT the 2002 Goose Management Program Report be endorsed;

THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue to pursue the program with area municipalities; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA send a letter to local waterfront businesses in the area affected by significant goose populations advising them of the goose oiling program and requesting their financial assistance with the program.

Resolution #A13/08:

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to continue pursuance of the Canada Goose egg oiling and bird relocation programs with partnering municipalities and agencies;

AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue participating in the Transport Canada Greater Toronto Area Canada Goose Steering Committee.

Most recently, at Authority Meeting #11/12, held on January 25, 2013, Resolution #A272/12 was approved as follows:

THAT staff report back on TRCA’s Canada Geese program, including impacts of Canada Geese on water quality in the TRCA jurisdiction, at Authority Meeting #2/12, scheduled to be held on March 22, 2013.

2012 TRCA's Canada Goose Management Program HighlightsThe 2012 Canada Goose Management Program was implemented across the TRCA jurisdiction. The annual report summarizes the success of this program and is available upon request. Highlights of the program include:

Canada Goose nests were found at 26 of the 29 sites visited. Field staff visited sites

during spring migration, nesting, summer moult and fall migration to understand the seasonal movements and behavioural patterns of geese. On average goose numbers and conflict issues are decreasing at sites within the

management program. Problem sites are identified and management activities are coordinated with municipal staff, which contributes to effective management.On average fewer nests are found per site, which indicates that management

techniques are effective in reducing production. If left unchecked, the population is expected to dramatically increase.

63

Egg oiling was found to be effective in preventing eggs from hatching. A total of 210

nests containing 955 eggs were treated as part of local population management.From 2007 to 2012, 9,797 Canada Geese have been relocated from Toronto.

Monitoring activities indicate that a significant number of geese migrate to Toronto during their moulting period. Relocation removes problematic birds from the safe-haven of Toronto during peak public use periods at waterfront parks. The number of geese requiring relocation is decreasing.

TRCA is working with research agencies, wildlife experts and member municipalities to understand the implications of water quality and Canada Geese. Information to date suggests that Canada Geese are not related to high e-coli levels; however, continued management to reduce the goose population will address local water quality issues, if they exist.

The Canada Goose Management Program has seen achievements in traditional areas of high goose populations, including the Toronto Islands, Eastern Beaches, Marie Curtis Park, Humber Bay, Western Beaches, Ontario Place, Ashbridge’s Bay, Bluffer’s Park, the Ajax waterfront and sites along the Humber River, which have seen significant improvement in recent years. In general, fewer Canada Geese are nesting and loafing in these goose conflict areas; however, an emerging area of concern is the utilization of stormwater management facilities by nesting geese. This is most prevalent in surrounding municipalities, which are now experiencing an increase in Canada Goose conflicts.

Based on the success of the Canada Goose Management Program, the City of Toronto provided special funding to develop and deliver a Canada Goose Management Strategy for the City of Toronto. In 2010 and 2011 the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) partnered with TRCA and provided funding to assist in the development of a Canada Goose Management Strategy for the City of Toronto. The goal of the strategy is to develop a comprehensive and coordinated approach to holistically address goose conflict issues across the entire City of Toronto. To complete the strategy, TRCA established a Canada Goose Management Steering Committee composed of TRCA Restoration Services staff and City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation staff. The Committee hosted a GTA wide Canada Goose Management workshop for all member municipalities, stakeholders, and interest groups to assist in the development of the Toronto based strategy.

The draft Canada Goose Management Strategy for the City of Toronto is available on request and makes the following key recommendations:

continue with existing TRCA Canada Goose Management Program;

complete priority area management plans;

improve public and municipal staff awareness and education;

improve land uses management, and greenspace design;

continue with habitat modifications to deter geese and reduce conflict;

improve bylaw enforcement around feeding waterfowl;

improve monitoring and understanding of local populations;

implement priority area management plans;

establish a jurisdiction wide Canada Goose Management Committee to facilitate the

development of a TRCA wide Canada Goose Management Strategy.

64

RATIONALEIn general, Canada Goose numbers are still increasing within GTA parklands. North America’s current Canada Goose population is estimated at over 4.3 million and continues to increase.

Conflict, or perceived conflict, remains high among the public. The proliferation of stormwater management facilities across the region creates potential nesting sites that can increase the population. While society has made great improvements in landscape design considerations, the landscape is still dominated by highly desirable goose feeding sites, and the potential for goose conflict situations are still increasing. Goose conflict issues are arising in other GTA municipalities and management is not consistent between municipalities. The need for a comprehensive and coordinated approach is essential to address goose conflict across the TRCA jurisdiction. Geese are highly mobile and management in one area may cause conflict in another.

The existing TRCA Canada Goose Management Program has been successful within the City of Toronto; in general fewer Canada Geese are nesting and loafing in traditional goose conflict areas within the city. However, key problem areas still remain, and numbers would quickly increase if management ceased.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEThe existing TRCA Canada Goose Management Program has been successful, however a city-wide strategy will coordinate management approaches and facilitate appropriate communication that would aid in the understanding of goose populations within the city, achieve better management and reduce human-goose conflicts.

1. Continue with existing TRCA Canada Goose Management Program: Activities of the existing TRCA Canada Goose Management Program are focused on Lake Ontario waterfront sites and several inland lakes and parks throughout the jurisdiction. It consists of egg oiling for population control and the removal and relocation of geese during the moulting season to areas outside of Toronto.

2. Implement the Canada Goose Management Strategy for the City of Toronto: A coordinated and comprehensive approach to management that includes the following recommendations:

Complete Priority Area Management Plans - Site specific management plans are

required to ensure that the site level issues are addressed. Each priority area will have specific objectives regarding Canada Geese, and techniques will be focused to achieve the objectives.Improve public and municipal staff awareness and education - Public awareness

and education is a core recommendation of the Canada Goose Management Strategy to address issues that contribute to Canada Goose conflict. TRCA staff will inform and educate the public, municipal park managers, park staff and park planners about Canada Goose issues Improve by law enforcement - TRCA will work with the City to improve enforcement

of waterfowl feeding bylaws, and will contribute to public education and awareness to deter people from feeding geese.

65

Improve monitoring and understanding of local populations - The Canada Goose

Management Strategy recommends that the monitoring program be expanded by adding more stations during key periods to understand the movements and behaviours of local populations. Implement Priority Area Management Plans - Implementation of the Priority Area

Management Plans will directly manage Canada Geese within the Priority Areas.

3. Establish a jurisdiction-wide Canada Goose Management Committee which will ensure that a well-rounded, coordinated approach to management is undertaken. The committee will be comprised of representatives from the public, municipal stakeholders, agency experts and interest groups and will meet annually to review management activities and collaborate on adaptive management scenarios.

FINANCIAL DETAILSSpecial project funding was provided from the City of Toronto and the Canadian Wildlife Service for the development and delivery of a Canada Goose Management Strategy for the City of Toronto. Capital funding from the City of Toronto, Region of Peel, Region of York, City of Pickering and Town of Ajax is identified to continue with the Canada Goose Management Program. Funds are identified in the Goose Management Program Budget 114-32.

Report prepared by: Ralph Toninger extension 5366, Karen McDonald extension 5248 and Danny Moro extension 5372 Emails: rtoninger@trca.on.ca, kmcdonald@trca.on.ca, dmoro@trca.on.caFor Information contact: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366Emails: rtoninger@trca.on.caDate: March 11, 2013

_________________________________________

RES.#A35/13 - EAST DUFFINS HEADWATERS MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATEApproval in principle of the East Duffins Headwaters Management Plan Update.

Moved by: Glenn De BaeremaekerSeconded by: Colleen Jordan

THAT the draft East Duffins Headwaters Management Plan Update, dated March 2013 be approved in principle;

THAT the draft Plan be circulated to the Township of Uxbridge, the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham requesting endorsement of the Plan;

THAT following circulation, staff report back to the Authority to confirm endorsement of the final Plan;

66

AND FURTHER THAT staff proceed to implement the Management Plan Update priority projects in partnership with project stakeholders.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDThe East Duffins Headwaters (EDH) is a group of conservation lands totaling over 1,400 ha in the Region of Durham. These lands sit between Brock Road and Lakeridge Road along the Uxbridge-Pickering Townline. Over 1,100 ha of the study area is made up of largely intact forest and as a whole, the properties represent some of the most unspoiled lands in the Greater Toronto Area. All the properties in the EDH are located within the Oak Ridges Moraine and make up valuable parts of the headwaters of not only the Duffins Creek watershed but also the Lynde Creek, Pefferlaw River and Lake Scugog watersheds. Further underscoring the environmental significance of the property, the EDH intersects with major sections of both the Uxbridge Kames Environmentally Sensitive Area and the provincially designated Uxbridge Glen Major Forest Area of Natural and Scientific Interest. The area is home to several regional species of concern and Ontario Species at Risk.

The Duffins Creek Headwaters Management Plan for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) properties, which included the EDH study area was completed in 2003. In that plan it was recommended that a review and update of the management plan occur every five to seven years. Since that time, many changes have occurred on the properties that led to the need for this update: three major parcels of land and several smaller parcels of land have increased the holdings in the area by 34%; visitation and public use on the EDH properties has substantially increased; and several major restoration efforts have been completed on the properties.

At Authority Meeting #8/08, held on October 24, 2008, Resolution #A237/08 directed TRCA staff to establish a project steering committee and a public advisory committee to assist with the completion of the East Duffins Headwaters Management Plan Update. A copy of the draft Management Plan Update is available for review online on the following website www.trca.on.ca/enjoy/locations/east-duffins-headwaters.dot

Printed copies of the draft Management Plan Update will be available at the Authority meeting.

Management Plan Update and ConsultationThe planning process was undertaken in three phases with input and guidance from two separate committees, a staff steering committee and a public advisory committee. The staff steering committee consisted of TRCA staff from a range of different internal divisions. The public advisory committee was made up of representatives from the local municipalities, community groups, agencies, local stakeholders, as well as local area residents and landowners. The pubic advisory committee was provided a terms of reference document that was used to guide their contributions throughout the development of the master plan. All management plan components were either reviewed or contributed to by both the staff steering committee and the public advisory committee.

Phase one of the plan update included the development of the advisory committees, preparation of a property background report, a site securement and protection report. Phase two included the establishment of the management zones, the management recommendations, trail plan and site securement plan. Phase three consisted of the trail plan, site securement and general management plan finalization.

67

Phase One

update property inventories including natural heritage data, geo-reference trail locations,

cultural heritage data, forest management data, restoration opportunities information and site securement data;establish staff steering groups and a management plan advisory committee and host

meetings;update plan vision, goals and objectives;

establish and circulate a study newsletter;

Phase Tworeview and update management zones;

integrate updated watershed management recommendations;

develop a site securement and protection plan including public use and hazard

management;review and update an overall trail plan for the properties including plans for emergency

response;host staff steering and advisory committee meetings;

circulate a study newsletter update;

host one public meeting to review draft material.

Phase Threereview and update management recommendations;

finalize draft management plan document;

finalize site securement and protection plan;

finalize trail plans;

host staff steering and advisory committee meetings;

host public meeting to present final draft plan;

obtain partners and TRCA board endorsement and / or approval of the plan;

circulate a study update newsletter.

Vision, Goals and ObjectivesDuring the Management Plan Update process for the EDH, a vision, a goal and a series of objectives were developed to guide the management of the properties. These statements will provide not only immediate direction on how the lands will be managed but will also provide a filter for future decision making on the properties.

Vision As part of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s vision for The Living City, the East Duffins Headwaters properties will be a model for achieving biodiversity protection, enhancement and management on a provincially significant landform while providing for sustainable, healthy and enjoyable public experiences.

GoalTo protect, enhance and steward the EDH properties to achieve watershed integrity and biodiversity in an engaged community, ensuring overall sustainability and public enjoyment.

68

ObjectivesIn addition to the larger Vision and Goals established for the properties, six additional objectives in the following themes were developed to help further guide management decisions on the ground:

Natural HeritageTo protect existing key natural heritage features and restore the natural ecosystem by ensuring the integrity and diversity of native species, habitats, landscapes, hydrological integrity and ecological processes. Ensure the connection of natural heritage features to one another and to adjacent areas;

Cultural HeritageTo identify and, where appropriate, protect the cultural heritage features for their inherent value and depiction of the long-term human use and occupancy of the area;

Land Use To ensure protection of the ecological integrity and cultural values of the land through innovative planning, increase in protected lands, management and appropriate conservation, recreation and other land uses;

Education To encourage knowledge and understanding of the natural and cultural values of the land and water, their protection and management requirements, as well as their significance, sensitivities and interrelationships;

Stewardship To encourage and facilitate the ongoing public involvement towards a partnership that will foster sustainable living, and will accomplish watershed management objectives, as well as implement Management Plan recommendations;

Public Use To provide opportunities for appropriate and accessible public uses, which are consistent with all other objectives.

Management RecommendationsManagement recommendations provide actions to achieve the vision and goal set forth for the property. Key management recommendations include:

Natural Heritage Protection Monitor flora and fauna in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

Ensure continuance of monitoring initiatives already in place, and expansion of these efforts

where gaps existEnsure all management work occurs during appropriate times to minimize impacts on the

vegetation, breeding birds, and dispersing or migrating amphibians.

Terrestrial Invasive SpeciesWork with the forthcoming TRCA invasive species management strategy to develop a

property specific invasive control plan. Implement best management practices in the management of invasive species on the site.

69

Species of ConcernObtain all necessary regulatory permits and approvals required under governing Acts and

Regulation prior to commencing any implementation activities, including restoration work and trail development.

RestorationUndertake restoration projects that will positively impact all other terrestrial natural heritage

indicator categories (e.g. patch size and shape, connectivity, and matrix influence).Restoration activities should be site appropriate, based on hydrology, soil conditions,

topography, historical cover, and how they contribute to the natural system of the area with the aim at improving species diversity, and the natural function of the site.

Cultural HeritageIdentify, Protect and conserve all archeological sites within the EDH Lands.

Engage Aboriginal communities with regards to any significant Aboriginal archaeological

findings on site.

TrailsAllow for low impact trail uses such as hiking, cycling, horseback riding, snowshoeing,

cross-country skiing, wildlife viewing, and on-leash dog walking within permitted trail corridors only.Continue to allow and improve connections between the EDH and adjacent or near

adjacent public lands.Support and manage the Oak Ridges Trail and the Trans Canada Trail on EDH properties.

Work with local and regional emergency service providers to address any safety concerns

and address issues limiting their response time within the trail system

SocialContinue to work with the Glen Major and Walker Woods Stewardship Committee whose

main function is to oversee, comment on and assist in the implementation of the management plan recommendationsEngage local residents and community groups in stewardship programs that will improve

the EDH and foster community stewardship.

EconomicExplore opportunities to partner on project implementation with the Township of Uxbridge,

the City of Pickering, the Regional Municipality of Durham, local community groups and other interested stakeholders.

Trail PlanThe trail plan for the EDH will focus on providing a safe, enjoyable and educational full season trail system for a balanced mix of permitted trail uses. The trail plan will be managed with an environment first approach. Permitted uses will include low impact trail uses that are consistent with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

70

Some of the features included in the trail plan are approximately 100km of mixed use trails that will feature eight parking areas and primary trail heads to allow public access to the property. Emergency routes will be established in partnership with local emergency services providers and approximately 100 post markers will provide visitors to the properties with clear legible way finding through the properties. An updated trail guide and map will be developed to reflect the changes in the trail system on the ground.

The trail plan within the EDH will also continue to provide linkages to both regional and local trails offsite via the Oak Ridges Trail and the Trans Canada Trail. The connections and trail improvements recommended in the trail plan will continue to highlight the EDH properties as a key component in the Township of Uxbridge’s designation as the trails capital of Canada.

RATIONALEThe EDH Management Plan Update was developed in consultation with the Township of Uxbridge, the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham. All municipal members on the advisory committees had the opportunity to review and comment on all the plan components and recommendations. Additionally, public interest groups and stakeholders were involved throughout the planning process and they have expressed their support for the plan.

The EDH Management Plan Update is consistent with TRCA strategic plans and documents, as well as Ontario policy and provincial plans, municipal Official Plans and Secondary Plans.

The Update addresses the increased responsibilities necessary to ensure that the property remains a model for conservation management in the Greater Toronto Area. The EDH Management Plan Update will move TRCA towards its vision for The Living City, ultimately helping to provide for sustainable communities based on a healthy ecosystem.

The EDH Management Plan addresses property management and public safety issues, site securement, vegetation management, cultural heritage and stewardship objectives, as well as responds to future demands for nature based recreation opportunities in the region.

The plan establishes a framework for appropriate environmental protection and restoration techniques, facilitates public input regarding appropriate use and future management of the EDH properties. The update is also consistent with the recommendations outlined in:

A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek (2003)

the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2003)

the Ontario Greenbelt Plan (2005); and

the Ontario’s Places to Grow (2006) program.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEThe successful implementation of the EDH Management Plan Update will require the efforts of TRCA and its partners.

TRCA will take the following actions:Circulate the draft plan that has been approved in principle by the Authority to the municipal

Councils of the Township of Uxbridge, the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham for endorsement.

71

Request that the Township of Uxbridge, the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham

include the Management Plan Update in their respective jurisdiction’s planning and land use policies and practices for the area.Publish and distribute the East Duffins Headwaters Management Plan Update to relevant

stakeholders and seek necessary consultation. Continue to work with the Glen Major and Walker Woods Stewardship Committee and trail

captains program to assist with the implementation of the master plan.Plan to implement the Management Plan Update recommendations with the project

partners and stewardship committee.

FINANCIAL DETAILSThe total cost to implement the Management Plan Update is estimated at $2,375,000 over 15 years. A summarized implementation budget for the management plan is shown on Attachment 1. These are preliminary estimates and timelines are subject to discussion with the potential funding partners for refinement of project requirements.

Staff has projected that 84% of the total project costs ($2,375,000) can be directed towards the following TRCA accounts: 109-06, 005-10 and 408-45. Funding for restoration will be secured prior to commencing restoration works. Staff will be approaching the Township of Uxbridge, the City of Pickering, local community groups and other interested stakeholders to share in the cost of plan implementation and restoration over the next fifteen years. Staff estimate that the project timeline would need to be extended by an additional 4-5 years if additional funds cannot be secured.

Report prepared by: Adam Szaflarski, extension 5596Email: aszaflarski@trca.on.caFor Information contact: Adam Szaflarski extension 5596, Mike Bender, extension 5287Email: aszaflarski@trca.on.ca, mbender@trca.on.caDate: March 22, 2013Attachments: 1

72

Attachment 1

Management Plan Update Implementation Budget SummaryItem Deliverables Anticipated

Cost ($)Phase 1, Years 1-5 (2013-2017)

Operations Property Maintenance, Hazard Tree Removal and Trail Maintenance, Community Outreach

$512,000

Site Securement and Protection Plan

Building assessment and securement, boundary fencing, high priority encroachments $88,000

Trail Plan Trail closures , Parking Lot Installation and expansion, Updated Signage and Trail Guide,

$158,000

Natural and Cultural Heritage

Develop Property Specific Invasive Management Plan and Begin Implementation

$15,000

Restoration* North Walker Woods Aggregate Site,Townline Culvert Repair, Forestry

To be determined*

Total Phase 1 $773,000Phase 2, Years 6-10 (2018 - 2022)

Operations Property Maintenance, Hazard Tree Removal and Trail Maintenance, Community Outreach

$540,000

Site Securement and Protection Plan

Boundary Audit, Fencing Repairs, Boundary Signage $77,000

Trail Plan North Walker Woods Parking Lot, Anticipated Trail Improvements, Trail Guide Update and Printing, Interpretive Trail

$200,000

Restoration* Additional Uxbridge North Lands Implementation (if needed) , Other Restoration Opportunities as they Arise, Forestry

To be determined*

Total Phase 2 $817,000Phase 3, Years 11-15 (2023-2027)

Operations Property Maintenance, Hazard Tree Removal and Trail Maintenance, Community Outreach

$593,000

Site Securement and Protection Plan

Boundary Audit, Fencing Repairs, Boundary Signage, Building Removal

$82,000

Trail Plan Pleasure Valley Parking Lot, Anticipated Trail Improvements (Pleasure Valley Accessible Trail)

$110,000

Restoration* Forestry work and additional restoration opportunities as they are identified or as they arise

To be determined*

Total Phase 3 $785,000Total Project Cost (Phases 1-3) $2,375,000*Costs for restoration projects will be estimated upon completion of detailed site restoration plans

_________________________________________

73

RES.#A36/13 - ENERLIFE CONSULTING INC. AGREEMENTAnnual renewal of agreement.

Moved by: Vincent CrisantiSeconded by: Colleen Jordan

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to renew the agreement for the development and delivery of sector based energy management programs with Enerlife Consulting Inc. for the period, April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014, at an approximate cost of $254,000.00, and the same terms and conditions as the existing agreement;

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

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDAt Authority Meeting #5/07, held on June 22, 2007, Resolution #A145/07 was approved as follows:

THAT approval be granted for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Enerlife Consulting Inc. for the development and delivery of key programs for The Living City, including Mayors’ Megawatt Challenge, Greening Health Care, Sustainable Schools, Home Energy Clinic and the Community Scorecard;

THAT appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto including the signing of documents;

AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back to the Authority on an annual basis, with an update on the status of the business relationship.

TRCA began working with Enerlife Consulting Inc. in 2002 when they were contracted to assist in the development of programs for The Living City Centre. In 2007, TRCA entered into a formal business relationship with Enerlife Consulting to develop and deliver sector based energy programs. Five programs were identified in the original agreement and include: Mayors' Megawatt Challenge; Greening Health Care; Sustainable Schools; Home Energy Clinic and Community Scorecard.

74

The working relationship with Enerlife Inc. has been quite successful. Although some of the programs are no longer active, the approach to building performance management developed through this relationship has influenced the development of other significant initiatives. These initiatives include the Canada Green Building Councils GREENUP program, the Real Property Association of Canada's "20 by 15" national energy consumption target for office buildings, as well as the Greening Greater Toronto "Race to Reduce" for building landlords and tenants. In addition, the Greening Health Care program has continued to expand to more than 35 hospitals participating in Ontario, 12 from Alberta and another nine in New Brunswick. The Mayors' Megawatt Challenge also remains active with six municipalities participating including, Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Richmond Hill, Caledon, Barrie and Oshawa. In addition, in 2013 the Mayors' Megawatt Challenge launched the Town Hall Challenge 20 by 15. This is a challenge to municipalities across Canada to reduce the energy use in the city and town halls to 20 equivalent kilowatt hours of energy use per square foot by the end of 2015.

The agreement with Enerlife is reviewed on an annual basis following the evaluation of the success of the programs, to ensure the agreement is still appropriate for the current circumstances. Feedback from the program steering committee members has indicated that the programs provide significant value and that more should be done to foster collaboration and increase membership. In addition, in discussion with Enerlife Consulting it was agreed that the programs were continuing to transform approaches to energy efficiency in the target sectors. For example, based on the conservation potential for the hospitals in the Greening Health Care program, it is estimated that there is a potential for more than $100 million in annual energy cost savings in the Ontario hospital sector. In addition, the Town Hall Challenge pilot was able to engage 60 municipalities across Canada and has been used to redesign the Mayors' Megawatt Challenge for a Canada-wide launch in 2013.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEThe agreement is due to expire on March 31, 2013. With Authority direction, staff will renew the agreement for an additional year. In 2012 an addendum was made to the Agreement to include Sustainable Schools in Schedule A. The revised Schedule will be included in the 2013 - 2014 contract.

FINANCIAL DETAILSRevenues for the program are derived from membership fees charged to municipalities and hospitals participating in the programs as well as utility companies that pay to sponsor the programs. TRCA manages the program while Enerlife provides the technical content and support. TRCA collects all revenues generated and pays Enerlife monthly for their portion of the work. The budget for payment to Enerlife for 2013 under the agreement is estimated to be $254,000 if program membership and sponsorship projections are met. Under the agreement, Enerlife billing cannot exceed the available revenue. Thus, if revenue projections are not met, Enerlife billing would be reduced accordingly. TRCA keeps a portion of the revenue to cover program management expenses.

Report prepared by: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326Emails: bmcintyre@trca.on.caFor Information contact: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326Emails: bmcintyre@trca.on.caDate: February 27, 2013 _________________________________________

75

RES.#A37/13 - MEADOWCLIFFE DRIVE SLOPE STABILIZATION PROJECTContract RSD13-017. Award of Contract RSD13-017 for the supply and delivery of approximately 4,000 tonnes of 75mm-200mm beach cobble stone.

Moved by: Vincent CrisantiSeconded by: Colleen Jordan

THAT Contract RSD13-017 for the supply and delivery of approximately 4,000 tonnes of 75mm-200mm beach cobble stone to the Meadowcliffe Drive Slope Stabilization Project, in the City of Toronto, be awarded to Nelson Aggregate Co. for a total unit price of $25.90 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $103,600.00, plus a 10% contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications;

THAT should staff be unable to achieve an acceptable contract with the awarded supplier, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other suppliers that submitted quotations, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority specifications;

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.

CARRIEDBACKGROUND The Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project is located along a portion of the Lake Ontario shoreline at the base of the Scarborough Bluffs west of Bellamy Ravine, in the City of Toronto. The purpose of the project is to provide long-term shoreline protection to reduce the impacts of wave energy, stabilize slopes, enhance natural processes and protect the residential properties on the top of the slope. As a result, risk to public safety and infrastructure will be reduced, passive recreational opportunities will be increased, and aquatic and terrestrial habitat conditions will be improved.

The preferred option determined through the Class Environmental Assessment process is a shoreline treatment consisting of a cobble stone beach retained by four headlands, and an earth berm at the east end of the shoreline to provide enhanced erosion protection for the eastern most properties.

The beach cobble stone material will be used for the construction of Beach Cell One.

RATIONALETender RSD13-017 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http://www.biddingo.com/) on Monday, February 11, 2013, and Request for Quotation packages were sent to 27 suppliers as follows:

76

Brent Quarries ;

B-Town Group;

CDR Young’s Aggregate Inc.;

Dufferin Aggregates;

Brock Aggregates;

Fowler Construction;

Glenn Windrem trucking;

J.C. Rock Limited;

James Dick Construction;

Lafarge Aggregates;

Miller Group;

Nelson Aggregate Co.;

R.W. Tomlinson Ltd.;

Strada Aggregates;

A & R Geosynthetics;

Anthony’s Excavating Central Inc.;

Dale Ottewell Construction & Logging Ltd.;

Elirpa Construction & Materials Ltd.;

Green’s Haulage;

Latitude 67 Limited;

Titanium Contracting Inc.;

Canada Building Materials Company;

Bot Construction;

Greenwood Construction;

All Stone Quarry;

TBG landscape Inc.;

Rock Valley Natural Stone Inc.

The Tender Opening Committee opened tenders on Friday, February 22nd, 2013 with the following results:

Contract RSD13-017- Supply and Delivery of Approximately 4,000 tonnes of 75mm-200mm Beach Cobble stone.

BIDDERSTOTAL UNIT PRICE

PER TONNE(Plus HST)

TOTAL VALUE OF CONTRACT (Plus HST)

Nelson Aggregates Co. $25.90 $103,600.00Dufferin Aggregates $28.39 $113,560.00Cambridge Aggregate Services Inc. $30.50 $122,000.00Fowler Construction Company Ltd. $32.24 $128,960.00Glenn Windrem Trucking $34.95 $139,800.00Dale Ottewell Construction & Logging Ltd. $35.00 $140,000.00TBG Landscape Inc. $35.00 $140,000.00James Dick Construction $40.55 $162,200.00Brock Aggregates Inc. $42.69 $170,760.00Rock Valley Natural Stone Inc. $43.88 $175,520.00

Based on the bids received, staff recommends that Nelson Aggregate Co. be awarded Contract RSD13-017 for the supply and delivery of approximately 4,000 tonnes of 75mm-200mm beach cobble stone for the unit cost of $25.90 per tonne and a total amount not to exceed $103,600.00, plus HST, it being the lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications. The contract is subject to a 10% contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff.

77

FINANCIAL DETAILSFunds are available within account #145-01 from the Toronto Erosion Capital Budget.

Report prepared by: Jordan Budway, 416-392-9721Emails: jbudway@trca.on.caFor Information contact: James Dickie, 416-392-9702 Emails: jdickie@trca.on.caDate: February 25, 2013

_________________________________________

RES.#A38/13 - FRENCHMAN'S BAY WATERFRONT MASTER PLANCity of Pickering. The recent update and revision to the Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan was accepted by the City of Pickering on November 12, 2012 and requires Authority approval.

Moved by: Vincent CrisantiSeconded by: Colleen Jordan

THAT the Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan be approved;

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to work with the City of Pickering to look for external project partners and funding sources to assist with the implementation of the Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan;

THAT staff work with the City of Pickering and park stakeholders to prepare detailed designs in preparation for construction;

AND FURTHER THAT the City of Pickering be so advised .CARRIED

BACKGROUND Frenchman’s Bay is one of the largest embayment coastal wetlands on the north shore of Lake Ontario and is ecologically significant both locally and regionally. Frenchman's Bay West is one of many TRCA properties within Frenchman’s Bay and represents a unique and significant combination of forests, beaches and wetland habitats. In 2002 TRCA, City of Pickering and the local community developed a master plan for the Frenchman's Bay West property that focused on habitat restoration, recreation and defining and delineating park infrastructure. In 2012, the City and TRCA revised the plan to include the Frenchman’s Bay waterfront including a number of initiatives like the new harbour entrance project, additional available parkland at the tip of the western spit, and the park opportunities on the east spit of Frenchman's Bay. In addition, the dogs off leash area proposed in the 2002 plan was removed to reflect the needs and concerns of the local community. Since 2002, a number of park projects have been implemented including the decommissioning and reforestation of Buenavista Drive, dune restoration and waterfront trail construction.

78

Master Plan ComponentsThe Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan focuses on the following components:

Meadow Coastal Wetland and Dune Enhancements

The cottonwood marram grass ecological land classification unit found along the Frenchman’s Bay waterfront is one of the most significant shoreline ecosystems within the TRCA jurisdiction. Best management efforts have been identified to expand the extent of this habitat and improve the integrity of existing communities.

Fish Habitat Improvements

Extensive fish habitat components have been identified as part of this master plan update. A major focus is on the recreation of historical wetland features along the north side of the west spit. In addition shoreline shoals, structural fish habitat, logs, rootwads and other aquatic habitats have been designed as shoreline attributes throughout the area. Fish habitat components are targeted at improving the fish community within the bay and nearshore lake Ontario shoreline.

Vehicle Access Termination and Parking

A great deal of effort has been directed at balancing the projected use of the park area and the layout and extent of parking within the park. The Beachfront Promenade Road will be improved to accommodate a lay by parking facility. Lay by parking is designed to accommodate projected parking requirements while still providing functional vehicle circulation and access within the park. The lay by parking is also a terminus of formal vehicle access, after which a single park road extends from the lay by parking to the boat launch canoe club area. Public vehicular access will terminate at a small parking area at the boat launch area; this parking area is intended for short term parking, barrier free parking and drop off. The existing road east of the boat launch area will be decommissioned and turned into a vehicle free area and pedestrian boardwalk.

Boat Launch

The existing boat launch area will be formalized and will have a single launch ramp and dock facility, which is intended to provide small boat (less than 20 ft), canoes and kayak launching. This boat launch area is designed to facilitate appropriate access and control and limit the type and size of watercraft that access the bay.

Docking Facilities

The Master Plan update includes a docking area that could accommodate a small scale boat to ferry pedestrians and cyclists from the two sides of the bay during the summer months.

Public Washrooms and Pickering Rouge Canoe Club Storage Facility

Public washrooms and change facilities are proposed as part of a storage facility for the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club. The Storage facility will be located at the boat launching area and will provide a centralized area of boating activities and public facilities. The existing canoe club facility will be decommissioned and re-naturalized as a beach dune.

79

Public Consultation

The original 2002 Master Plan was developed with support and input from the local community. As part of the Master Plan Update public meetings were held on March 3, 2012 and May 19, 2012, respectfully, a total of 125 people and 80 attended the two meetings. A number of revisions were made to the plan in response to this public consultation. The Master Plan was also presented for approval to Pickering Council on November 12, 2012, and a number of delegates from the community spoke to the project.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEImplementation of the Frenchman Bay Waterfront Plan is scheduled to proceed once the harbour entrance project is completed. Construction can start as early as 2014 and will be implemented as a three phased approach.

Phase One activities include: Upgrades to Beachfront Promenade including lay by parking,

paving and lighting; construction of a pedestrian trail; main entrance signage; trail head to Waterfront Trail; and access gate.

Phase Two activities include: Boardwalk to harbour entrance; small craft boat launch;

decking at boat launch; wetland shoreline and dune restoration; and site works associated with the public washrooms/change rooms.

Phase Three activities include: Trail construction; park furniture; interpretive area; and site

restoration.

FINANCIAL DETAILSThe implementation of the Frenchman’s Bay Waterfront Master Plan has been included in the City of Pickering’s 5 Year Capital Budget. A total of $3.3 million has been allocated to a three year phased budget in order to manage and facilitate construction. Phase one works total $900,000, phase two works total $1,900,000 and phase three works total $500,000.

Report prepared by: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246 Emails: gmacpherson@trca.on.caFor Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246 Emails: gmacpherson@trca.on.caDate: March 11, 2013Attachments: 1

80

Attachment 1

_________________________________________

81

RES.#A39/13 - FRENCHMAN’S BAY HARBOUR ENTRANCE PROJECT, TENDER RSD13-021Award of Contract RSD13-021 for dredging works of the Frenchman’s Bay Harbour Entrance Channel, City of Pickering, Region of Durham.

Moved by: Ronald ChopowickSeconded by: Dave Ryan

THAT Contract RSD13-021 for dredging works of the Frenchman’s Bay Harbour Entrance Channel be awarded to Galcon Marine Ltd. for the total cost not to exceed $152,860.00, plus HST, as they are the bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications;

THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 25% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary;

AND FURTHER THAT staff be authorized and directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing of documents.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDIn 2008, the City of Pickering working in partnership with TRCA, initiated the Frenchman’s Bay Harbour Entrance Class Environmental Assessment (EA). The purpose of this project is to create a safe harbour entrance that supports the marine function of the Bay, while preserving or enhancing the ecological conditions. Through the EA process, the preferred design was developed that consisted of two breakwater structures running perpendicular from the east and west spits of the harbour entrance, thus improving navigability.

Ongoing sediment deposition within the harbour entrance channel poses navigation problems for boats and the channel currently does not meet the minimum standard requirements to allow for safe navigation between Lake Ontario and Frenchman’s Bay. Therefore immediate dredging works is required to improve navigability and create a safe harbour entrance channel.

RATIONALETender RSD13-021 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http://www.biddingo.com/) on Friday, February 15, 2013 with a mandatory site information meeting held on Thursday, February 21, 2013. Tender packages were sent to 12 contractors as follows:

Catalina Excavating Inc.;

Dean Construction Company Ltd;

Elirpa Construction;

Galcon Marine Ltd;

Geo-Dredging;

Mcpherson Andrews;

Metric Contracting Services Company;

Newalta;

Ontario Construction;

Richardson Workboats;

Somerville Construction; and

Titanium Contracting Inc.

82

The Tender Opening Committee opened the tenders on Friday, March 1, 2013 with the following results:

Contract RSD13-021– Frenchman’s Bay Harbour Entrance Channel Dredging

BIDDERS TOTAL TENDER AMOUNT(Plus HST)

Galcon Marine $152,860.00Ontario Construction Company Ltd. $180,925.00Catalina Excavating Inc. $188,850.00Dean Construction Company Ltd. $303,300.00Metric Contracting Services Company $329,000.00Newalta $334,480.00

Restoration Services staff reviewed the bid received from Galcon Marine Ltd. against its own cost estimate and have determined that the bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements and deliverables as outlined in the contract documents. Further assessment by TRCA staff of Galcon Marine Ltd.'s experience and ability to undertake similar projects was conducted through reference checks which resulted in positive feedback that Galcon Marine Ltd. is capable of undertaking the scope of work.

Based on the bids received, staff recommend that Galcon Marine Ltd. be awarded Contract RSD13-021 for the supply of all labour, materials and equipment necessary for dredging works for the Frenchman's Bay Harbour Entrance for a total amount not to exceed $152,860.00, plus a 25% contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bid that meets TRCA specifications.

FINANCIAL DETAILSFunds to undertake the Frenchman’s Bay Harbour Entrance Project are 100% recoverable from the City of Pickering, further to the Memorandum of Understanding.

Report prepared by: James Dickie, 416-393-9702 Emails: jdickie@trca.on.caFor Information contact: James Dickie, 416-393-9702 Emails: jdickie@trca.on.caDate: March 04, 2013

_________________________________________

RES.#A40/13 - APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO WATERSHED COMMITTEES, 2013-2015Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Humber Watershed Alliance and Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition. The formal appointment of watershed residents and representatives from municipal and public agencies, community groups, businesses and academic institutions.

83

Moved by: Deb SchulteSeconded by: Mujeeb Khan

THAT the appointment of members to the Don Regeneration Council, as set out in Attachment 1, be approved;

THAT the appointment of members to the Humber Watershed Alliance, as set out in Attachment 2, be approved;

AND FURTHER THAT the appointment of members to the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition, as set out in Attachment 3, be approved.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDAt Authority meeting #9/12, held on November 30, 2012, Resolution #A223/12 was approved, in part, as follows:

...AND FURTHER THAT a report be submitted to the Authority identifying the proposed membership for each of the watershed subcommittees for approval.

The Terms of Reference for the Don Regeneration Council, the Humber Watershed Alliance and the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition dated November, 2012 were approved at Authority Meeting #9/12, held on November 30, 2012. Section 5 of the Terms of Reference states that:

"Members will be appointed for a two-year term with a possible extension for one more year. The membership will be reviewed on an annual basis. Members, excluding ex-officio members, unable to fulfill their commitments will be replaced after missing three consecutive meetings (without notice) by the Authority based on the nominees recommended by TRCA staff.

Notice of resignations and recommendations for new members will be presented to the Authority on an "as required" basis for approval."

The opportunity for membership on the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, the Humber Watershed Alliance and the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition was widely advertised in newspapers and posted on various websites, volunteer networks and through press releases. As well, letters were sent to regional and local municipalities, public agencies and community groups, businesses and academic institutions requesting that they appoint a delegate to each of the watershed groups. TRCA hosted a very successful webinar on the evening of January 30, 2013 at which 87 people participated. TRCA staff as well as past and current members of all three watershed subcommittees were present to answer the questions that arose and to speak to their experience on the watershed subcommittees.

The Terms of Reference make provision to have 15 watershed residents on the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, 20 residents on the Humber Watershed Alliance and 15 residents on the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition.

84

The Selection Committee, consisting of each of the watershed specialists, the Director, Watershed Management and former members of each of the watershed groups, held interviews in late February to consider possible candidates. To date, the individuals listed in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 are recommended for appointment to the Don Regeneration Council, Humber Watershed Alliance and Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition for the 2013-2015 term. Some municipalities, agencies and community groups were unable to make appointments in time for preparation of the staff report. As a result, additional appointments will be brought to the attention of the Authority for approval once they are confirmed by their respective councils, agencies or groups.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEConfirm the remaining members of the Don Regeneration Council, the Humber Watershed

Alliance and the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition;Schedule and host the inaugural meetings of the Don Regeneration Council, the Humber

Watershed Alliance and the Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition in April, 2013.

Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292 Emails: llappano@trca.on.caFor Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Emails: afreeman@trca.on.caDate: January 23, 2013Attachments: 3

85

Attachment 1

Don Watershed Regeneration Council 2013-2015 Membership

TRCA REPRESENTATIVEAuthority Member John Parker

REGIONAL AND LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES AND COMMUNITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES

MUNICIPALITY NAMETown of Markham Valerie BurkeTown of Richmond Hill Brenda HoggCity of Toronto – East York Community Council Janet DavisCity of Toronto – North York Community Council John ParkerCity of Toronto – Scarborough Community Council Paul AinslieCity of Vaughan Sandra RaccoRegional Municipality of York Brenda Hogg

PUBLIC AGENCY REPRESENTATIVESORGANIZATION NAME Environment Canada, Restoration Programs Laud MatosMinistry of the Environment To be determinedMinistry of Natural Resources To be determined

COMMUNITY GROUP/NGO REPRESENTATIVESGROUP NAMEDon Mills Residents Inc., Terry WestEvergreen Melissa YuFriends of the Don East John RouthPomona Mills Park Conservationists Naadia AhsanRichmond Hill Naturalists Lloyd HelfertyRoyal Ontario Museum David IrelandToronto Field Naturalists Gerald SigalToronto Green Community Lacey Williams York Region Environmental Alliance Susan Sigrist

BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVESBUSINESS NAMEFundraising Stephanie ThorsonProfessional Engineering Consultant Antony NiroSustainable Agriculture Antonio Gomes

86

ACADEMIC INSTITUTION REPRESENTATIVESSCHOOL NAMEUniversity of Toronto Heather WrayYork University Heather Wright

WATERSHED RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVESREPRESENTING MUNICIPALITY NAMETown of Richmond Hill Shishir HandaCity of Toronto Margaret BreamCity of Toronto Margaret BuchingerCity of Toronto Margaret CaseyCity of Toronto Nicole CzornyCity of Toronto Katheryne DaradalCity of Toronto John HoughCity of Toronto Celeste LonghurstCity of Toronto Clare MitchellCity of Toronto Jake SchabasCity of Toronto Sabrina TernierCity of Toronto Iris TufaCity of Toronto Andy WickensCity of Vaughan Tim HaywardCity of Vaughan Michelle Louli

87

Attachment 2

Humber Watershed Alliance 2013-2015 Membership

TRCA REPRESENTATIVEAuthority Member Richard Whitehead

REGIONAL AND LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES AND COMMUNITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES

MUNICIPALITY NAMETownship of Adjala-Tosorontio Sam KeenanCity of Brampton Michael HoyTown of Caledon Nick deBoerTownship of King Debbie SchaeferCity of Mississauga Dianne DouglasTown of Mono Bob MitchellRegional Municipality of Peel Patti FoleyTown of Richmond Hill Greg BerosCity of Toronto - North York Community Council Maria AugimeriCity of Toronto - Toronto-East York Community Council Gord PerksCity of Toronto - Etobicoke-York Community Council Sarah DoucetteCity of Vaughan Marilyn IafrateRegional Municipality of York Deborah Schulte

PUBLIC AGENCY REPRESENTATIVESORGANIZATION NAME Environment Canada Mark ChambersMinistry of Environment To be determinedMinistry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Bert DuclosMinistry of Natural Resources To be determinedMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs To be determined

88

COMMUNITY GROUP/NGO REPRESENTATIVESGROUP NAMEAlbion Hills Community Farm Barb ImrieArchitectural Conservancy of Ontario Bob HulleyBlack Creek Conservation Project To be determinedBolton Community Action Site Jerry GormanHumber Arboretum & Centre for Urban Ecology Lynn ShortHumber Heritage Committee Lisette MalletHumber Valley Heritage Trail Association To be determinedKleinburg Area Ratepayers Association Sid PreeceLa Societe d’histoire de Toronto Rolande SmithMount Dennis Community Association Mike MattosToronto Off Road Bicycle Association Chris SvirklysYork Region Environmental Alliance Sharon Bradley

ACADEMIC INSTITUTION REPRESENTATIVESSCHOOL NAMESeneca College To be determined

WATERSHED RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVESREPRESENTING MUNICIPALITY NAMECity of Brampton Marisa JokelainenTown of Caledon Heather BroadbentTown of Caledon Petra van Limburg-MeijerTownship of King Ron HingstonTown of Richmond Hill Jim BradleyCity of Toronto Yuestas DavidCity of Toronto David HutcheonCity of Toronto Annette MaherCity of Toronto Volker MasemannCity of Toronto Madeleine McDowellCity of Toronto Roy MurrayCity of Toronto Emily PenningtonCity of Toronto Matthew SmithCity of Toronto Katie StammlerCity of Toronto Dawit WorkuCity of Vaughan Iain CraigCity of Vaughan Matthew VolpintestaCity of Vaughan Barry Westhead

89

Attachment 3

Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition 2013-2015 Membership

TRCA REPRESENTATIVETRCA Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor

REGIONAL AND LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES AND COMMUNITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES

MUNICIPALITY NAMECity of Brampton Susan JorgensonTown of Caledon Gord McClureCity of Mississauga Michael GuscheRegional Municipality of Peel Allan ThompsonCity of Toronto – Etobicoke York Community Council Peter Milczyn

PUBLIC AGENCY REPRESENTATIVESORGANIZATION NAME Environment Canada Jon GeeMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs To be determinedMinistry of Environment To be determinedMinistry of Natural Resources To be determined

COMMUNITY GROUP/NGO REPRESENTATIVESGROUP NAME1st Etobicoke Central Scouting Groups Ted RouseCredit Hills Scouts Daniel MillardCitizens Concerned About the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront

Brian Bailey

Friends of Heart Lake Leo O'BrienHumber Bay Shores Angela BrooksToronto Food Policy Council Peter MitchellSierra Club – Peel Region Rosemary KeenanRockwood Homeowners Association Joe SilvaWest Humber Naturalists Bob Noble

BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVESBUSINESS NAMEGreater Toronto Airports Authority Derek GraySHARP Canada Eddie Colacchio

90

ACADEMIC INSTITUTION REPRESENTATIVESSCHOOL NAMEPost Grad Student Brittanie SemperPost Grad Student Kaitlin KennedyYork University – Undergraduate Student Adam De Souza

WATERSHED RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVESREPRESENTING MUNICIPALITY NAMECity of Brampton Jim LairdCity of Brampton Ron FayCity of Brampton Chris McGlynnCity of Brampton David LaingCity of Brampton David ThomasCity of Toronto Suzanne BarrettCity of Toronto Debora BieleckiCity of Toronto Dennis BradleyCity of Toronto Marilyn CampbellCity of Toronto Marilyn HagermanCity of Toronto Al FarrugiaCity of Toronto Doug McRonneyCity of Toronto Natalie Salkauskis

_________________________________________

91

RES.#A41/13 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Etobicoke Creek WatershedDeepbrook Developments Inc., CFN 48809. Purchase of property located south of Mayfield Road, east of Colonel Bertram Road - Snelgrove, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Etobicoke Creek watershed.(Executive Res.#B2/13)

Moved by: Michael Di BiaseSeconded by: Mike Mattos

THAT 0.06 hectares (0.16 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 17, Concession 1 EHS and designated as Blocks 25 and 26 on a Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Holdings Jones Vanderveen Inc., Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No. 11-2134-MPLAN1, dated December 4, 2012, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, located south of Mayfield Road, east of Colonel Bertram Road - Snelgrove, be purchased from Deepbrook Developments Inc.;

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 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 needed approvals and signing and execution of documents.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A42/13 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT 2011-2015Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Carruthers Creek WatershedJohn Boddy Development Ltd., CFN 48849. Acquisition of property located west of Audley Road and south of Bayly Street in the Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham, under the 'Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015', Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Carruthers Creek watershed.(Executive Res.#B3/13)

Moved by: Michael Di BiaseSeconded by: Mike Mattos

92

THAT 1.86 hectares (4.60 acres), more or less, of vacant land, being Part of Lot 13, Range 3 Broken Front Concession and designated as Block 180 on draft M-Plan prepared by J.D. Barnes Limited, Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham, be purchased from John Boddy Development Ltd.;

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 all necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A43/13 - REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY-OWNED LANDAdjacent to 163 Thistledown Boulevard, City of Toronto - Etobicoke York Community Council Area, CFN 48216. Recommends that the TRCA-owned property located adjacent to 163 Thistledown Boulevard, City of Toronto - Etobicoke York Community Council Area, Humber River watershed, be retained for conservation purposes.(Executive Res.#B4/13)

Moved by: Michael Di BiaseSeconded by: Mike Mattos

THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)-owned property located adjacent to 163 Thistledown Boulevard, City of Toronto - Etobicoke York Community Council Area, be retained for conservation purposes.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A44/13 - TOWN OF RICHMOND HILLConveyance of Land for the Reconstruction and partial Closure of Olde Bayview Avenue, South of North Lake Road, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, CFN 44967. Receipt of a request from the Town of Richmond Hill for conveyance of land for the reconstruction and partial closure of Olde Bayview Avenue, south of North Lake Road, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed.(Executive Res.#B5/13)

93

Moved by: Michael Di BiaseSeconded by: Mike Mattos

WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the Town of Richmond Hill for conveyance of land for the reconstruction and partial closure of Olde Bayview Avenue, south of North Lake Road, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York;

AND WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with the Town of Richmond Hill in this instance;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a parcel of TRCA-owned land containing 0.0005 hectares (0.001 acres), more or less, required for the reconstruction and partial closure of Olde Bayview Avenue, said land being Part of Lot 6, Concession 2 EYS and designated as Part 2 on Plan 65R-33975, Town of Richmond Hill, Regional Municipality of York, be conveyed to the Town of Richmond Hill;

THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00, plus all legal, survey and other costs to be paid by the Town of Richmond Hill;

THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of the Town of Richmond Hill;

THAT the conveyance of land be subject to a landscaping plan, subject to the approval of TRCA staff;

THAT the Town of Richmond Hill is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from this sale;

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

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

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A45/13 - SUPPLY OF OPERATED HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND DUMP TRUCKS Tender RSD13-01. Award of Contract RSD13-01 for the supply of operated heavy construction equipment and dump trucks.(Executive Res.#B6/13)

94

Moved by: Michael Di BiaseSeconded by: Mike Mattos

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be authorized to have two vendors of record for the supply of operated heavy construction equipment and dump trucks for the period April 1, 2013 to April 1, 2014;

THAT TBG Landscape Inc. be recognized as the primary supplier of operated heavy equipment and dump trucks during the contract period, it being the proposal that best meets the general requirements of TRCA at a competitive cost;

THAT Sartor & Susin Ltd. be recognized as the supplier of operated heavy equipment and dump trucks on shoreline armouring, lakefilling and natural channel projects during the contract period, it being the proposal that best meets TRCA's requirements for this specialized work at a competitive cost;

THAT Sartor & Susin Ltd. be permitted to continue to supply operated heavy equipment and dump trucks to projects already in progress until completion;

THAT where the vendors of record are not available for a particular project, staff be authorized to use the next lowest bidder;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents.

CARRIED _________________________________________

SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION

RES.#A46/13 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION

Moved by: Dave RyanSeconded by: Colleen Jordan

THAT Section II items EX8.1 - EX8.3, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #1/13, held on March 1, 2013, be received.

CARRIEDSection II Items EX8.1 - EX8.3, InclusiveSOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING (Executive Res.#B7/13)MUD CREEK REACH 5 RESTORATION PROJECT - CULVERT EXTENSION (Executive Res.#B8/13)FRENCHMAN’S BAY HARBOUR ENTRANCE PROJECT EAST BREAKWATER CONSTRUCTION (Executive Res.#B9/13 & Res.#B10/13)

_________________________________________

95

SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD

RES.#A47/13 - FRENCHMAN'S BAY HARBOUR ENTRANCE PROJECTFunding Arrangement. A description of the funding arrangement for Frenchman's Bay Harbour Entrance Project.

Moved by: Deb SchulteSeconded by: Mujeeb Khan

THAT the staff report describing the funding arrangement for the Frenchman's Bay Harbour Entrance Project be received.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDAt Executive Committee Meeting #1/13, held on March 1, 2013, Resolution #B10/13 approved the following amendment to the recommendation on Frenchman's Bay Harbour Entrance Reconstruction Project:

...AND FURTHER THAT staff provide additional information on the funding arrangement at Authority Meeting #2/13, scheduled to be held on March 22, 2013.

At Authority Meeting #8/12, held on October 26, 2012, Resolution #A187/12 directed staff to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Pickering to undertake the Frenchman's Bay Harbour Entrance Project. The City of Pickering had approved $3 million in its 2012 Park Capital Budget for the Project and the federal and provincial governments had committed $6 million toward the Project.

FINANCIAL DETAILSOn July 1, 2012, the provincial and federal governments announced that they would each contribute $3 million towards the Project. The City of Pickering share would be funded with $1.5 million from the Region of York as part of their Southeast Collector Enhancement package and $1.5 million through an internal loan.

On November 5, 2012, City of Pickering Council Resolution #134/12 was approved, in part, as follows (Attachment 1):

4. That Council authorize the (Acting) Division Head, Finance & Treasurer to finance Phase 1 (west breakwater) and Phase 2 (east breakwater) of the project as provided for in the 2012 Parks Capital Budget as follows:

a) a contribution from the Region of York, South East Collector Enhancement funds in the amount of $1,500,000;

b) the City of Pickering' s share be changed from an external debt to an internal loan in the amount of $1,500,000 for a term not to exceed 10 years; and at a rate to be determined;

96

c) a Provincial Grant through Building Together, the Government of Ontario's long-term infrastructure plan, in the amount of $3,000,000;

And Resolution #135/12 as follows:

That, upon having notification from the Government of Canada that it has approvedits funding contribution, the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute anamendment to the Infrastructure Funding Contribution Agreement to reflect theFederal funding contribution of $3 million and proceed with phase 3.

TRCA and City of Pickering executed the Memorandum of Understanding on February 4, 2013 to undertake construction of the Project, based on the budget of $9 million.

Report prepared by: Connie Pinto, extension 5387 Emails: cpinto@trca.on.caFor Information contact: Connie Pinto, extension 5387Emails: cpinto@trca.on.caDate: March 04, 2013Attachments: 1

97

Attachment 1

98

99

100

101

102

103

_________________________________________

104

RES.#A48/13 - FREEDOM OF INFORMATIONSummary of 2012 Requests. Provides a summary of requests under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Moved by: Deb SchulteSeconded by: Mujeeb Khan

THAT the report dated February 26, 2013, on summary of 2012 freedom of information requests, be received.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDToronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. TRCA is also subject to the provisions of the federal Personal information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

Requests under the Act are dealt with by the Manager, Corporate Secretariat, who is designated as TRCA's Information and Privacy Officer. Staff reports to the Information and Privacy Commission annually on the number and type of applications received each year. The activity in 2012 is summarized below.

RATIONALEIn 2012, TRCA received 61 requests for information under the Act. This continues the pattern of an increasing number of requests over the past 10 years. In the period 2001 to 2006, TRCA received fewer than five requests each year. From 2007 to 2011, the average was 23 annually. In 2012 we saw an increase of 13 requests over 2011, from 48 to 61.

All of the requests related to "general records" as opposed to "personal information". The latter relates to requests by individuals about information that TRCA has concerning the applicant personally. Of the 61 requests for general information, 22 requests were from individuals and 39 from businesses.

Of the 61 requests received in 2012, 92% were responded to within the 30 day limit required under the Act. Five requests took between 31 and 60 days. Extensions were needed cases because of the volume of records to be searched and prepared.

Of the 61 requests, all information was disclosed in five situations; partial information was disclosed in response to 24 requests; in 24 situations, no records existed so there was no disclosure; and in eight situations, the request was withdrawn or abandoned. In 22 situations where general information was disclosed, personal information was removed for privacy purposes. Examples of the personal privacy exemption being applied include copies of cheques which may be on file and personal telephone numbers.

In many cases, no records existed and the applicants were so advised. Also, TRCA receives many requests about permit and planning applications which, once approved by the Executive Committee, are a matter of public record.

105

The Act requires that a $5 fee be included with each application. Also, the Act allows TRCA to charge for photocopies (20 cents/page) and search and preparation time ($30/hour). In 2012, TRCA collected fees of $3,773.70.

Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264Emails: kstranks@trca.on.caFor Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264Emails: kstranks@trca.on.caDate: February 26, 2013

_________________________________________

RES.#A49/13 - SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD

Moved by: David BarrowSeconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby

THAT Section IV item EX9.1 - Lowest Bid Not Accepted, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #1/13, held on March 1, 2013, be received.

CARRIED _________________________________________

ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06

RES.#A50/13 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06

Moved by: Glenn De BaeremaekerSeconded by: Ben Cachola

THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items (EX10.1 - EX10.45), inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #1/13, held on March 1, 2013.

CARRIED _________________________________________

TERMINATION

ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 1:06 p.m., on Friday, March 22, 2013.

Gerri Lynn O'ConnorChair

/ks

Brian DenneySecretary-Treasurer