1 Authority Meeting #10/10 Chair: Gerri Lynn O'Connor Vice Chair: Maria Augimeri Members: January 7, 2011 9:30 A.M. WESTON ROOM B, BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE AGENDA AUTH1. MINUTES OF MEETING #9/10, HELD ON NOVEMBER 26, 2010 (Minutes Enclosed Herewith on WHITE) AUTH2. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES AUTH3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF AUTH4. DELEGATIONS AUTH5. PRESENTATIONS AUTH6. CORRESPONDENCE AUTH7. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION AUTH7.1 PLANNING AND PERMIT ADMINISTRATION FEE SCHEDULE 2011 12 AUTH7.2 MARIE CURTIS PARK REVITALIZATION CONCEPT PLAN (December 2010) 26 AUTH7.3 ROUGE RIVER FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN 33 AUTH7.4 YORK-PEEL-DURHAM-TORONTO GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY 39
Transcript
1
Authority Meeting #10/10
Chair: Gerri Lynn O'ConnorVice Chair: Maria AugimeriMembers:
January 7, 2011
9:30 A.M.WESTON ROOM B, BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE
AGENDA
AUTH1. MINUTES OF MEETING #9/10, HELD ON NOVEMBER 26, 2010(Minutes Enclosed Herewith on WHITE)
AUTH2. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
AUTH3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
AUTH4. DELEGATIONS
AUTH5. PRESENTATIONS
AUTH6. CORRESPONDENCE
AUTH7. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
AUTH7.1 PLANNING AND PERMIT ADMINISTRATION FEE SCHEDULE 201112
AUTH7.2 MARIE CURTIS PARK REVITALIZATION CONCEPT PLAN (December 2010) 26
AUTH7.3 ROUGE RIVER FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN 33
AUTH7.4 YORK-PEEL-DURHAM-TORONTO GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY 39
2
AUTH7.5 CANADIAN CERTIFIED INSPECTOR OF SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PROGRAMMemorandum of Understanding 42
AUTH8. SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
AUTH8.1 FUEL/OIL SPILLStandard Auto Wreckers Fuel/Oil SpillTributary of the Little Rouge River 45
AUTH8.2 WATERSHED COMMITTEE MINUTES
AUTH8.2.1 DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCILMinutes of Meeting #8/10, held on November 10, 2010
EX. MATERIAL FROM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING #10/10 HELD ON DECEMBER 3, 2010
(Refer to agenda pages printed on PINK)
BAAB. MATERIAL FROM BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD
(No meeting held this month)
NEW BUSINESS
NEXT MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #1/11, TO BE HELD ON JANUARY 28, 2011, AT 9:30 A.M. IN WESTON ROOM B, BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE
Brian DenneyChief Administrative Officer
/jr
3
EX. MATERIAL FROM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING #10/10, HELD ON DECEMBER 3, 2010
(Refer to agenda pages printed on PINK)
EX7. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
EX7.1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006-2010Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River WatershedBlock 11 Properties Inc.CFN 44864 558
EX7.2 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006-2010Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River WatershedFernbrook Homes (McNair Creek) LimitedCFN 44885 561
EX7.3 TOWN OF AJAXRequest for a Permanent Easement for a Storm Sewer Outlet and Plunge Pool Duffins Creek Watershed, Town of AjaxCFN 44850 564
EX7.4 CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES PLAN REVIEW AND PERMITTING ACTIVITIESTown of Whitchurch-Stouffville Comments 567
EX8. SECTION II - ITEMS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION
EX9. SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
EX9.1 LOWEST BID NOT ACCEPTED 569
EX10. ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06
CITY OF PICKERING
EX10.1 CLBG HOLDINGS INC.To site grade and temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere on Part Lot 19, Concession 9 Lot 4 - 9, Plan 40M-2257, (Tom Thompson Court), in the City of Pickering, Duffins Creek Watershed as located on the property owned by CLBG Holdings Inc.. The purpose is to undertake silt removal and restoration plantings within the valleylands of the Mitchell Creek. 576
4
CITY OF TORONTO [ETOBICOKE YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL AREA]
EX10.2 433 THE KINGSWAYTo construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure, change a building or structure so that it alters its use or potential use, increases its size or increases the number of dwelling units and temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere on Part Block "A", Plan 2581, Part Block "A", Plan 2615, (433 The Kingsway), in the City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), Humber River Watershed. The purpose is to enclose the existing covered pool area located at the side/rear (north/east) of the existing single family detached dwelling at 433 The Kingsway in the City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area). 576
EX10.3 25 DACRE CRESCENTTo change a building or structure so that it alters its use or potential use, increases its size or increases the number of dwelling units on Lot 6, Plan M-611, (25 Dacre Crescent), in the City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), Humber River Watershed. The purpose is to construct a second storey addition and partial third storey addition to the existing single family detached dwelling at 25 Dacre Crescent in the City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area). 576
CITY OF TORONTO [TORONTO AND EAST YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL AREA]
EX10.4 86 FOUR OAKS GATETo construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure and change a building or structure so that it alters its use or potential use, increases its size or increases the number of dwelling units on Lot 8, Plan 3028, (86 Four Oaks Gate), in the City of Toronto (Toronto and East York Community Council Area), Don River Watershed. The purpose is to construct a one-storey rear addition, a small one-storey front addition, and rear wood deck to the existing single family detached dwelling at 86 Four Oaks Gate in the City of Toronto (Toronto and East York Community Council Area). 577
EX10.5 CITY OF TORONTOTo construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure and site grade on (Net Drive near Lakeshore Boulevard West), in the City of Toronto (Toronto and East York Community Council Area), Waterfront Watershed as located on the property owned by City of Toronto. The purpose is to resurface the existing parking lot along the south side of Marilyn Bell Park. To address and mitigate storm water run off, the City is proposing to construct a new planted bioswale feature and a through outfall to be located along the southern edge of the parking lot north of Lake Ontario. Due to the proximity of the proposed works in relation to Lake Ontario, a Letter of Advice on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is not required for this project. 577
5
CITY OF VAUGHAN
EX10.6 SOLARIS HOLDINGS INC.To construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure, site grade and temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere on Lot 17, Concession 3, 9500 Dufferin Street, in the City of Vaughan, Don River Watershed as located on the property owned by Solaris Holdings Inc. The purpose is to conduct site grading, in order to allow the development and construction of a one-storey and two-storey additions to the existing school building, located at 9500 Dufferin Street, in the City of Vaughan. 578
TOWN OF AJAX
EX10.7 REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM - DURHAM REGION TRANSITTo site grade, temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere and interfere with a wetland on Lot 13, Concession 1 Block M, Plan M-25, (110 Westney Road South), in the Town of Ajax, Duffins Creek Watershed as located on the property owned by Regional Municipality of Durham - Durham Region Transit. The purpose is to undertake grading, the construction of a on of a transit facility. 578
TOWN OF CALEDON
EX10.8 16226 AIRPORT ROADTo construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure on Part E Lot 5, Concession 6 EHS, (16226 Airport Road), in the Town of Caledon, Humber River Watershed. The purpose is to demolish the existing house to facilitate the construction of a new 2-storey residential dwelling and ancillary structure, connect the house to municipal services, and decommission the existing septic bed. 578
EX10.9 REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEELTo construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure, site grade and temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere between 370 and 390 Healey Road near Coleraine Drive in the Town of Caledon, Humber River Watershed as located on the property owned by Regional Municipality of Peel. The purpose is to construct two watercourse crossings along the Region of Peel easement is within the Bolton industrial area. The watercourse crossings will allow Region of Peel maintenance crews to access all sanitary sewer manholes along the Region of Peel easement. The warmwater fisheries timing window will apply to the works and a Letter of Advice will be written on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 579
6
TOWN OF MARKHAM
EX10.10 14 STATION LANETo construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure and site grade on Lot H, Plan 335, (14 Station Lane), in the Town of Markham, Rouge River Watershed. The purpose is to undertake works within a TRCA Regulated Area of the Rouge River Watershed in order to facilitate the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of a new residential dwelling at 14 Station Lane in Markham associated with a municipal site plan application. 579
TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL
EX10.11 43 BROOKSHILL CRESCENTTo construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure and site grade on Lot 11, Plan 65M-2692, (43 Brookshill Crescent), in the Town of Richmond Hill, Rouge River Watershed. The purpose is to resolve an outstanding TRCA violation in order to restore a slope at the rear of an existing residential dwelling as well as to recognize the construction of an ancillary patio structure at 43 Brookshill Crescent, in the Town of Richmond Hill. 579
PERMIT APPLICATIONS EX10.12 - EX10.20 WERE ERRATA ITEMS:
CITY OF BRAMPTON
EX10.12 HYDRO ONE BRAMPTONTo site grade and temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere on Cottrelle Boulevard east of Thorndale Drive and west of Via Romano Way in the City of Brampton, Humber River Watershed as located on the property owned by the NHBD of Castlemore Crossing Landowners Group. The purpose is to construct 6 x 100 mm ducts to provide additional power to the rapidly expanding subdivisions in the east end of Brampton. The critical grid is bounded by Highway 50, Castlemore Road, The Gore Road and Ebenezer Road. The warmwater fisheries timing window will apply and a Letter of Advice will be written by TRCA staff on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 580
7
CITY OF TORONTO [SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY COUNCIL AREA]
EX10.13 SCARBORO GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUBTo construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure, site grade and temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere on Part Lot 15, Concession D, (321 Scarborough Golf Club Road), in the City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area), Highland Creek Watershed as located on the property owned by Scarboro Golf and Country Club. The purpose is to construct a new irrigation reservoir adjacent to the west tributary of the Highland Creek. 581
CITY OF TORONTO [TORONTO AND EAST YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL AREA]
EX10.14 CITY OF TORONTOTo construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure, site grade and temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere on , (Eastern Avenue from Bayview Avenue to Sunlight Park Road near Broadview Avenue), in the City of Toronto (Toronto and East York Community Council Area), Don River Watershed as located on the property owned by City of Toronto. The purpose is to replace the existing 300mm diameter watermain that crosses over the Don River and under the DVP from Eastern Avenue from Bayview Avenue to Sunlight Park Road. Sections of the watermain will be suspended from the south side of the Eastern Avenue Bridge, north of the existing utility bridge. A Letter of Advice will be prepared by TRCA staff on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 581
CITY OF VAUGHAN
EX10.15 301 MILLWOOD PARKWAYTo construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure, site grade and temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere on Part Lot 2, Plan 65M-2868, (301 Millwood Parkway), in the City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed. The purpose is to construct a new single detached dwelling, new septic system, new inground swimming pool and conduct grading works within a Regulated Area of the Humber River watershed at 301 Millwood Parkway in the City of Vaughan. 582
EX10.16 THORNHILL RAVINES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONTo site grade and temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere on Lot 19, Concession 2, Block 11 - Thomas Cook Avenue and Moraine Hill Drive, in the City of Vaughan, Don River Watershed as located on the property owned by Thornhill Ravines Development Corporation. The purpose is to conduct site grading, in order to facilitate the development of a residential subdivision, in Planning Block 11, in the City of Vaughan. 582
8
TOWN OF CALEDON
EX10.17 7104 KING STREETTo construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure on Lot 10, 11, Concession 3, (7104 King Street), in the Town of Caledon, Humber River Watershed. The purpose is to undertake works within a TRCA Regulated Area of the Humber River Watershed in order to facilitate the construction of a second storey on an existing bungalow associated with a municipal building permit. 582
TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL
EX10.18 MATCORP DEVELOPMENTS INC.To construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure on Lot 66, Concession 1 Part Lot 23, 24, Plan 169, (13025 Yonge Street), in the Town of Richmond Hill, Humber River Watershed as located on the property owned by Matcorp Developments Inc.. The purpose is to undertake works within a TRCA Regulated Area of the Humber River Watershed in order to facilitate the construction of a telecommunication tower within an existing development. 583
TOWNSHIP OF KING
EX10.19 KING DUFFERIN DEVELOPMENTS CR INC.To construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure, site grade, temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere and alter a watercourse on Lot 4, 5, Concession 3, south side of King Road, west of Dufferin Street, in the Township of King, Humber River Watershed as located on the property owned by King Dufferin Developments CR Inc. The purpose is to conduct site grading and alter a watercourse, in order to construct a stormwater management facility and an associated outfall which will service the development of a residential subdivision for King Dufferin Developments, in King City East, in the Township of King. 583
EX10.20 KING DUFFERIN DEVELOPMENTS CR INC.To construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure, site grade, temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere and alter a watercourse on Lot 4, 5, Concession 3, south side of King Road, west of Dufferin Street, in the Township of King, Humber River Watershed as located on the property owned by King Dufferin Developments CR Inc. The purpose is to conduct site grading and alter a watercourse, in order to construct a stormwater management facility and an associated outfall which will service the development of a residential subdivision for King Dufferin Developments, in King City East, in the Township of King. 583
9
PERMIT APPLICATIONS EX10.21 - EX10.22 ARE PERMISSION FOR ROUTINE INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS:
TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL
EX10.21 BELL CANADATo undertake sewer, watermain or utility installation or maintenance within an existing roadway, sewer and watermain or utility watercourse by trenchless technology on Yorkland Street near Loyal Blue Crescent, in the Town of Richmond Hill, Rouge River Watershed as located on the property owned by Bell Canada. The purpose is to construct 3 new ducts for telecommunications cable under an existing box culvert by directional drill. The Fisheries and Oceans Canada Operational Statement for High-Pressure Directional Drilling will apply. No timing window will be applied to this project. 584
EX10.22 REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORKTo undertake sewer and watermain or utility installation or maintenance within an existing roadway on Lot 60, Concession 1, Yonge Street to 520m west towards Silver Maple Road, in the Town of Richmond Hill, Rouge River Watershed as located on the property owned by Town of Richmond Hill. The purpose is to replace an existing, failed watermain below the south side of the Jefferson Side Road right-of-way. No fisheries timing window applies to the proposed works. 584
PERMIT APPLICATIONS EX10.23 - EX10.35 ARE MINOR WORKS LETTER OF APPROVAL:
CITY OF BRAMPTON
EX10.23 57 BELLEVILLE DRIVETo construct a non-habitable accessory structure up to 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) on Lot 124, Plan 43M-1630, (57 Belleville Drive), in the City of Brampton, Humber River Watershed. 585
CITY OF PICKERING
EX10.24 1214 ABBEY ROADTo install a swimming pool on Lot 31, Plan 40M1257, (1214 Abbey Road), in the City of Pickering, Duffins Creek Watershed. 585
CITY OF TORONTO [NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL AREA]
EX10.25 META CENTRETo construct a ground floor addition or structure greater than 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) but less than 150 sq. m (1614 sq. ft) on Lot 42, Plan 4731, (6 Applebtree Court), in the City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area), Humber River Watershed as located on the property owned by Meta Centre. 586
10
EX10.26 ROANNE HOLDINGS LIMITEDTo change the use, size, or number of dwelling units of a structure, or undertake work that does not change the footprint of the existing structure on Lot 1 & PART OF 2, Plan 7236, (1 Valleybrook Drive), in the City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area), Don River Watershed as located on the property owned by Roanne Holdings Limited. 586
EX10.27 38 HI MOUNT DRIVETo undertake minor landscaping involving the placement, removal or regrading of material of less than 30 cubic metres (equivalent to 3 truckloads) and construct a non-habitable accessory structure up to 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) on Lot 239, Plan M-754, (38 Hi Mount Drive), in the City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area), Don River Watershed.
586
CITY OF TORONTO [SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY COUNCIL AREA]
EX10.28 66 FISHLEIGH DRIVETo construct a non-habitable accessory structure up to 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) on Lot 124, Plan 4035, (66 Fishleigh Drive), in the City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area), Waterfront Watershed. 586
CITY OF VAUGHAN
EX10.29 38 VALLEYVIEW COURTTo construct a ground floor addition up to 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) on Lot 3, Plan M-1581, (38 Valleyview Court), in the City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed. 587
EX10.30 121 RAINBOWS ENDTo install a swimming pool and undertake minor landscaping involving the placement, removal or regrading of material of less than 30 cubic metres (equivalent to 3 truckloads) on Lot 109, Plan 110, 65M-3466, (121 Rainbows End), in the City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed. 587
EX10.31 32 CHAYA SARA GARDENSTo undertake minor landscaping involving the placement, removal or regrading of material of less than 30 cubic metres (equivalent to 3 truckloads) and construct a non-habitable accessory structure up to 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) on Lot 62, Plan, (32 Chaya Sara Gardens), in the City of Vaughan, Don River Watershed. 587
11
TOWN OF CALEDON
EX10.32 20 BATEMAN LANETo install a swimming pool and construct a non-habitable accessory structure up to 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) on Lot 13, Plan 43M-1766, (20 Bateman Lane), in the Town of Caledon, Humber River Watershed. 588
EX10.33 16864 MOUNT PLEASANT ROADTo undertake minor landscaping involving the placement, removal or regrading of material of less than 30 cubic metres (equivalent to 3 truckloads) on Lot 20, Concession 8, (16864 Mount Pleasant Road), in the Town of Caledon, Humber River Watershed. 588
EX10.34 12 VALLEYGREEN CRESCENTTo construct a non-habitable accessory structure up to 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) on Lot 35, Plan M569, (12 Valleygreen Crescent), in the Town of Caledon, Humber River Watershed. 588
EX10.35 17265 MOUNTAINVIEW ROADTo construct a ground floor addition or structure greater than 50 sq. m (538 sq. ft) but less than 150 sq. m (1614 sq. ft) on Part Lot 10, Concession 6 EHS, (17265 Mountainview Road), in the Town of Caledon, Humber River Watershed. 588
TOWN OF CALEDON
EX10.36 TOWN OF CALEDONTo site grade at the Palgrave Rotary Clubs lands, in the Town of Caledon, Humber River Watershed as located on the property owned by Town of Caledon. The purpose is to undertake works within a TRCA Regulated Area of the Humber River Watershed in order to facilitate the expansion and re-asphalt of a parking lot to the north of the Palgrave Pond. 589
TOWN OF MARKHAM
EX10.37 8 CUMBERLAND COURTTo construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure and site grade on , (8 Cumberland Court), in the Town of Markham, Rouge River Watershed. The purpose is to undertake works within a TRCA Regulated Area of the Rouge River Watershed in order to facilitate the construction of an addition to a dwelling, swimming pool and associated works for a wetland. 589
EX10.38 8 CUMBERLAND COURTTo site grade on Lot 4, Plan 65M 2141, (8 Cumberland Court), in the Town of Markham, Rouge River Watershed. The purpose is to undertake works within a TRCA Regulated Area of the Rouge River Watershed in order to facilitate the construction of an addition to a dwelling, swimming pool and associated works for a wetland. 589
12
Item AUTH7.1TO: Chair and Members of the Authority
Meeting #10/10, January 7, 2011
FROM: Carolyn Woodland, Director, Planning and Development
RE: PLANNING AND PERMIT ADMINISTRATION FEE SCHEDULE 2011______________________________________________________________________________KEY ISSUEPlanning, permitting and environmental assessment fee schedule adjustments for 2011.
RECOMMENDATION
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff has established administration fees to provide service delivery for municipalities and the development industry for the review of a wide range of applications requiring environmental planning and technical expertise;
WHEREAS TRCA has established revenue targets for the 2011 Planning and Development plan review function of TRCA as part of the annual operating/capital budgeting exercise;
WHEREAS staff monitor the level of service demands for planning, ecology, engineering, hydrogeology and enforcement reviews and report on an annual basis on the implications of cost recovery;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Fee Schedule for Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Review services dated January 7, 2011 be reconfirmed as effective immediately incorporating a 2% inflationary cost increase for 2011 as per Authority approvals in January 2010;
THAT staff inform all municipalities within TRCA’s jurisdiction and the development industry of the updates to the TRCA fee schedule;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority as to the progress of the provincial Conservation Authorities Liaison Committee committee (CALC) assessment on planning/permitting fee review, and on TRCA’s internal review of 100% cost recovery for fees.
13
BACKGROUNDOver the past 8 years TRCA staff has been reviewing and monitoring the level of service for plan and permitting review, and has been adjusting the fee schedule to reflect changes in the volume, scale and complexity of project submissions. Streamlining the plan review process and refining fee charges commensurate with the specific assignment has been part of all negotiations and schedule refinements over the last few years. In addition, TRCA has conducted comparable analysis of development review with neighbouring conservation authorities (CAs) and member municipal partners. After a lengthy period of consultation with BILD over the 2008 Fee Schedule, staff brought forward a modest change to fees on January 8, 2010 including a 2% increase in all fees for 2010 and 2011, respectively. With a cost recovery ratio of 55-60% of the total budget costs, the Authority modified staff’s recommendation and instructed staff to re-assess the Fee Schedule for 100% cost recovery and bring back a proposal for full cost recovery by 2012. The resulting Resolution #A 231/09 was approved, in part, as follows:
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the 2010-2011 Fee Schedule for Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Review Services dated December 18, 2009 and incorporating a 2% cost of living increase for each of 2010 and 2011, be approved, to be effective January 8, 2010; ........
AND FURTHER THAT in future amendments to the Fee Schedule for Planning, Permitting and Environmental Review Services, TRCA move towards full cost recovery as soon as possible, and no later than January 1, 2012.
Since last year staff has been assessing the cost recovery calculations and have studied the cost implications of a comprehensive cost recovery approach to charging fees for plan review. The required alterations needed to recover 100% from the fee charges would be significant (in the order of magnitude of doubling current fees in some cases). At the same time this year, the Province of Ontario established the Conservation Authority Liaison Committee to address issues related to planning and permitting mandate and process, and fee cost across the CAs in the Province. CALC includes representatives from the ministries of Natural Resources, Municipal Affairs and Housing, and Energy and Infrastructure, Conservation Ontario, select CAs, development industry, NGOs and municipal sectors. CALC produced a policies and procedures document to assist CAs, municipalities and the development community to understand the roles and responsibilities of CAs in the planning and permitting process. CALC is also completing its review of the fee schedule standards across all CAs in Ontario. In light of this provincial initiative, TRCA staff believes that we should postpone such discussions on appropriate cost recovery until the level of service principles and associated costs are addressed with the provincial committee representatives.
In the meantime, however, TRCA must move forward in terms of fee coverage for the anticipated workload in 2011 and pressures on current operating budgets.
ProposalThe proposal for this Fee Schedule rests with maintaining our original proposal of a 2% increase to all fees in 2011, as addressed in the staff report to the Authority on January 8, 2010, and the Authority's approval of the proposal effective January 8, 2010. This 2% is an inflationary adjustment and would assist TRCA in achieving a 55% to 60% cost recovery target for 2011.
14
BILD (Building Industry and Land Development Association) has been consulted on the proposal for 2011, and this issue was extensively discussed prior to the last Fee Schedule refinement last January. TRCA staff has made a commitment to hold discussions on the 100% cost recovery summaries in the spring. Several streamlining proposals are also being put forward for the fee schedule to assist in expediting reviews. These recommendations will be brought forward to the BILD working committee discussions in the early 2011, and are not subject for approval until after consultation has been completed as per TRCA's new Fees Policy/Guideline 2009.
Trends in Workload and Service Delivery DemandThe volume of planning and permitting applications has remained steady from 2009 to 2010 at TRCA. With the municipal election, the first three quarters of the year were exceptionally busy with development planning applications and associated permitting.
Trends in the Environmental Assessment (EA) workload has also remained high for 2009/2010 particularly with the impact of the new infrastructure Stimulus Funding. Emergency Works for infrastructure repairs has also increased for the EA review team.
TRCA Planning and Development has had a record year in terms of permits approved for construction with well over 1,000 permits issued in 2010 - the highest volume yet for TRCA. TRCA met our revenue target for 2009 and anticipate meeting that target of $3,100,000 for 2010.
Special Planning/Development Review Committees 25Official Plan exercises 6
15
Participation in Secondary/Block Plans processes and the technical review of associated MESPs (Master Environmental Servicing Plan) has formed an increasing sector of our workload this year and this trend will increase as we move forward into 2011 and 2012. One of our goals on fee cost recovery for 2010 was aimed at completing a range of negotiations with proponents on outstanding MESP review requirements (some new and others part of files in transition). TRCA was successful in negotiating a total of approximately $330,000 for MESP reviews in the spring of 2010 for study review already in process. In addition, TRCA staff has just negotiated approximately $400,000 for new MESP work that will carry into 2011. These funds which were established to support MESP review service delivery, assist Planning and Development meet a higher cost recovery level than in the past, as well as, provide staffing capacity and level of service needed for these large, complex studies. The MESP funds need to be managed carefully to ensure that the required levels of service with TRCA's municipal partners and landowner groups are sustained over a typical 2 -3 year period of study.
Although the number of OMB (Ontario Municipal Board) hearings have been quite heavy for TRCA staff this year, we have successfully managed to settle the majority of site planning issues through negotiated settlements. TRCA's legal costs have therefore been kept well within our legal consulting budget allocation.
Planning and Development will be relying heavily on our comprehensive fee schedule for funding of the general staff complement, as well as, MESP fee negotiations for 2011. The Environmental Assessment team, also relies on specialized service agreements to fund review efforts for major infrastructure projects such as TTC (subway/transit systems), Coxwell Emergency Works Project and key regional infrastructure assignments.
Preliminary Fee Adjustments for StreamliningThe following streamlining changes to the fee schedule are recommended for discussion with BILD through our working group consultation in 2011. Many of the following fee adjustments have come from discussions with staff and BILD working committee members as options to cost recover where efforts warrant. These changes generally assist the applicant to gain a faster, more efficient approval. TRCA staff believe that these fee and category changes will assist in expediting certain approvals for applicants and landowners, and will allocate the appropriate fee to more time consuming efforts particularly complex permits, grading submissions and phased approvals. These recommended fees are not put forward for Authority approval at this time, and will need more analysis by TRCA staff for cost recovery, and further dialogue with BILD representatives, before coming back to the Authority.
Phased ApprovalsFrequently, applicants require a series of phased development approvals to proceed through the draft plan stages of subdivision approval. The frequency of this request and level of effort for this workload has increased. TRCA recommends that a new fee be established to cover increased efforts involved in this expedited task.
Expedited Comments and Clearance for RegistrationThis optional fee includes efforts as a special circumstance to provide clearance comments within five working days of the request. Since these efforts often throw other projects out of order of priority, it is recommended that a expedited fee should apply. Expedited services are only provided as workload allows and upon the approval of the Director, Planning and Development.
16
Red Line RevisionsTRCA has traditionally not used red lined drawings for expediting approvals and when used the issues and drawing changes are usually very minor in nature; TRCA's current fee is $500. Staff sees the need for a major red line revision category that covers urgent approvals, and more complex design solutions. TRCA recommends a major red line revision fee category to be used in critical approvals, not as a main stream approval technique.
Repeat SubmissionsTRCA has experienced over the years increasingly the nuisance of incomplete submissions and repeat submissions that do not address the issues covered in our commenting letters. In order that TRCA staff can avoid “mini submissions” and dragged out multiple submissions that do not always deal with TRCA's issues comprehensively, staff recommend a repeat submissions fee for those projects that exceed the preferred two submission approach. It is recommended that a re-submission fee be applied to every submission beyond a reasonable two submissions. The principle of this type of fee has generally been supported in previous discussions with BILD.
Broaden Permit Categories to reflect ComplexityThe current fee schedule does not cover the workload inherent in the broad spectrum of permit types that are reviewed by TRCA staff. Staff recommends restructuring categories including adjustments to major filling/grading and in stream works, adding a new permit category for major channel modifications/major stream restoration assignments and road crossings, and adding a fee for topsoil stripping review, etc. These fees need to move closer to full cost recovery.
Special Policy Area (SPA) ApplicationsApplications are becoming increasing time consuming when gaining approvals within the Special Policy Area (SPA) designations and require more rigorous studies to address SPA flood related/design issues. Involvement with the Province will be required in many cases where special land use approvals are necessary. All applications located in the SPA or Flood Vulnerable Area will be charged a new premium on the application.
Minor WorksIn addition, the Ministry of Natural Resources is currently in the process of proposing amendments to the regulatory legislation that would facilitate the Executive Committee to delegate positive permit decisions to conservation authority staff. The amendments are intended to simplify and streamline the permitting process. At this time, the amendments are anticipated to be in place by mid-2011. TRCA staff is planning to re-evaluate the categories for minor works approvals as an expedited review delegated to staff.
Additional changes to the fee schedule will be formulated as part of the ongoing monitoring and streamlining of the fee schedule, demands of the workload and the 100% cost recovery evaluations.
17
TrainingTRCA has agreed to provide training to the BILD membership on issues of complete submission, avoiding approval pit-falls and technical specialty workshops, e.g. the new Erosion and Sediment Erosion control guidelines. Topics for continuing learning educational sessions will be formulated as part of our BILD working group sessions.
CONCLUSIONTRCA will be relying heavily on the modest increase for inflation of 2% on this fee schedule to assist in meeting our cost recovery target of 55-60%. TRCA has a projected revenue target for 2011 of $3,444,000 to raise from fee coverage. TRCA will also rely on fee requests for MESP studies and specialized requests for large scale infrastructure projects to cover the workload demands and build staffing capacity.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONETRCA staff will continue to represent our Authority on the CALC committee on issues of conservation authority mandate, planning procedures, fee schedule implementation and service delivery.
TRCA staff will bring forward in early 2011 the work that has been conducted to date on the 100% cost recovery scenario for Authority discussion, and discussions with the Province.
In addition, TRCA staff will continue to meet with our area BILD working group on matters of fee adjustment and streamlining in 2011, and will have a working group discussion on the required 100% recovery fee option as directed by the Authority in 2010. The implications of the fee changes will be discussed in more detail.
Staff will inform TRCA’s municipal partners of the revised fee schedule for 2011. TRCA staff continues to work with municipal staff to negotiate planning processes for MESP’s for new growth areas, and to negotiate fee structures that cover technical review and negotiations for the Secondary Plans, Block Plans and supporting MESPs.
APPLICATION TYPE APPLICATION FEE CLEARANCE FEEScreening letter (Refer to Note #9)
$80 N/A
Concept Development/ Property Enquiry(Refer to Note #10)
*minor $250*major $5,200with one site visit $360
N/AN/AN/A
Variances $360 Refer to Note #5 Consent/Severance/Land Division (Refer to Note #3)
*minor $720*major $1,725
N/A$755
Single Residential Site Plan(Refer to Note #3)
*minor $500*major $2,915
N/A$630
Site Plan(Refer to Note #3)
*minor $1,090*intermediate $4,160*major- 25ha or less $9,950- greater than 25ha $14,350
N/A
$1,040
$2,190 $2,190
Official Plan Amendment (OPA)(Refer to Note #3)
*minor $1,090*major $4,320
N/A $1,875
Zoning By-law Amendment/Rezoning (ZBA/RZ)(Refer to Note #3)
*minor $1,090*major $4,320
N/A $2,190
Multi-Unit Building Application (Rental, Condominium, mixed use)
*minor - 5ha or less $10,825*major - 25ha or less $21,540 - greater than 25ha $28,715
$3,590 $7,905 $7,905
Draft Plan of Subdivision(Refer to Note #3)
*minor- 5ha or less $10,825(base fee)*major - 25ha or less $21,540(base fee) - greater than 25ha $28,715(base fee)
Subdivisions without prior comprehensive MESP review will be charged an additional $100 per lot
$3,590
$7,905 $7,905
Golf courses or Aggregate pits
- 25ha or less $7,285- greater than 25ha $14,565
N/AN/A
Block and Tertiary Plans and Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP)(Refer to MESP Fee Guidelines for implementation)
- 25ha or less $7,140 (base fee)
- greater than 25ha $14,280(base fee)
Additional charge of $450 per hectare for comprehensive MESP
N/AN/A
19
OTHER APPLICABLE FEES
Description Fee
Pre-consultation meeting No charge
Pre-consultation technical team site visit (Refer to Note #10) $2,600
Additional Site Visit Charges
(First site review is allowed as part of processing. Multiple field assessments, stakings and negotiations are charged separately.) (Refer to Note #10)
up to ½ day $630up to 1 day $1,250including travel time
Additional Clearance fee for Subdivision Phases $1,560
*Applicant Driven Formal Modification $1,040
Re-submission due to *incomplete submissions $3,125
All applications located in Special Policy Area (SPA) or Flood Vulnerable Area will be charged a 25% premium on the applicable fee
*See Definitions
Notes1. The application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the municipality. The final clearance fee will
be billed directly by the TRCA and paid prior to final clearance of an application. All payments must be made within 30 days of TRCA notification in writing. Interest will be charged and accumulated beyond 30 days.
2. Re-submission fees will be billed directly by the TRCA and must be paid prior to final clearance of an application.
3. Only one set of fees apply when processing and reviewing a combined application (e.g. a subdivision/OPA/ZBA). The highest rate of fees applies if review at the same time.
4. The TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees or adjust fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort or development application scenarios not captured in the schedule. Custom fees will be negotiated for fast-tracked or unique circumstances for large scale/complex review efforts. Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical and specialized modelling and may be charged to the applicant. TRCA reserves the right to assess fee requirements after one year of processing planning applications. Additional fees can be charged post one year and unreasonable delays.
5. Where a site visit and/or extended review is required for a Variance application, a clearance fee of $100 is applicable.
6. Subdivisions that have several phases, will be charged a separate clearance fee of $1,560 at the time of clearing each phase.
7. All application fees (except Concept Development) include one initial site visit. 8. TRCA reserves the right to adjust fees to reflect requirements under Bill 51 for either planning or regulatory
legislation.9. Generally, this fee does not apply to major developments.10. This is not a mandatory fee. This is a guidance tool at the request of the applicant.
20
MESP Fee Guidelines for Implementation
The Fee Schedule sets a generic cost across the jurisdiction as follows:
Proposals 25ha or less $ 7,140 Base FeeProposals greater than 25ha $14,280 Base FeeAn additional charge of $450 per hectare (gross) is applied to each application inclusive of natural systems.
The TRCA fee assumes an average 2 year timeframe for MESP completion. TRCA reserves the right to re-evaluate the MESP fee status after a two year process.
A Terms of Reference for the MESP work tasks must be prepared and agreed to by all parties – the municipality, TRCA and the proponent.. TRCA's 2010 fee schedule includes the following MESP milestone payment structure:
MESP PHASE OF WORK PAYABLE
1. Preliminary Initiation (at Project start-up) Base Fee applies (Scoping of MESP/Terms of Reference Initiation)
2. Terms of Reference completion/MESP Initiation 50% payable(Includes existing conditions report/field work First MESP Submission/Review)
3. Prior to First Submission Comments 20% payable4. Prior to issuance of final MESP approval by TRCA 30% payable
(Maximum 3 review submissions)
All official plan amendment, zoning and draft plans of subdivision fee requirements that evolve out of the Secondary/Block planning and MESP process apply separately as per TRCA's approved fee schedule at the time of submission. No additional per lot charges will apply on draft plans if a MESP is completed, approved and paid for.
Plans of subdivision that have not been studied under the MESP process, will be charged an additional fee of $100 per lot, over and above the subdivision base and clearance fees (see schedule).
On occasion, MESP fee requirements may be scoped to the type of municipal process and scheduling parameters (e.g. fast-tracked, updates and transitional files, reduced scope of work).
Construction permits for works under TRCA's provincial regulation are charged separately at the time of detailed design and construction of draft plan components (such as stormwater management facilities, road/bridge crossings, pipe boring and drilling works, stream channel works, etc).
21
Definitions
Minor - An application is determined to be “minor” where no technical studies are required, or only a scoped Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required.
Minor Subdivision - A subdivision application is determined to be “minor” where no technical studies, or only a scoped Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required and where the site is 5ha or less.
Intermediate - Non-residential site plans of a mid-scale requiring technical studies for estate residential and commercial/industrial site plans.
Major - An application is determined to be “major” where technical studies beyond a scoped Environmental Impact Statement (such as Stormwater Management or Geotechnical) are required.
Incomplete Submissions - A submission for review is deemed to be “incomplete” where TRCA has provided a checklist of requirements, and the application has not met all requirements.
Applicant Driven Formal Modification - A fee for an “applicant driven formal modification” will be charged where plans are submitted for review after the application has received draft plan approval from the municipality.
22
Attachment 2TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For
Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations toShorelines and Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06)
Effective January 7, 2011ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06
PERMIT APPLICATIONFEE
Works on Personal Residential Property *minor $360*major $730
Municipal Projects:Regional/Local; NO EA requiredEmergency Works
$1,082$3,540
UtilitiesSingle residentialDevelopment project based
$1,040$2,860
Projects on Subdivision Lands, Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Properties, Resource-based Recreation and Other Projects
Standard Projects Include:SWM ponds and associated outfallsOther outfallsRoad CrossingsGradingIn-stream Works
Major Projects:New Road CrossingsNatural Channel Modifications
Minor Improvements
Red Line Revisions by TRCA
$4,020 per project
$6,035 per project
$2,155 per project
$510All applications located in a SPA (Special Policy Area) or Flood Vulnerable Area will require an additional 25% on standard feePermission for Minor Works - Letter of Approval(see qualification criteria, as approved June 9, 2006)
$80; $360 with site visitMunicipal: $2,155
Permit Revisions Residential minor/major: 25% of current fee
Others: 50% of current fee Permit Re-Issuance for Ontario Regulation 158 (1 time only)Permit Re-Issuance for Ontario Regulation 166/06 (1 time only)
50% of current fee50% of current fee
No permit required/regulatory and fisheries review & advice only $630
ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06PROPERTY INFORMATION
FEE
Solicitor/Realtor/Property Inquiry $250
*See Definitions
23
Notes
1. The permit fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the TRCA. In the event that the permit fee is not paid at the time of filing an application, fees must be paid prior to issuing a permit.
2. The TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort. Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical, and specialized modelling and may be charged to the applicant.
3. All permits are issued for two years.
4. Ontario Regulation 158 was revoked with the approval of Ontario Regulation 166/06. Any request for an extension for a permit under Ontario Regulation 158 not granted before May 8, 2006, will be considered under Ontario Regulation 166/06. One permit re-issuance extending the permit approval for a period of two years will be granted before the works are considered new works. Such requests will be assessed in accordance with any new updated technical hazard information. Extensions will not be required for those works not located within an area regulated under the new regulation.
5. There are no extensions for permits issued under Ontario Regulation 166/06. On a one-time basis, and upon notification 60 days prior to the expiration of an Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit, applicants may apply for re-issuance of a new permit for the original approved works, before the works are considered new. Such requests will be assessed in accordance with any new updated technical hazard information and the current policies in place. There is no guarantee of an automatic approval.
6. TRCA reserves the right to adjust fees related to regulatory legislation changes or updates.
Definitions
Personal Residential Property
Minor - Applications on a personal residential property determined to be “minor” include ancillary structures such as decks, sheds, garages and pools; minor additions (less than 50% of the original ground floor area); and the placement of less than 30 cubic metres of fill.
Major - Applications on a personal residential property determined to be “major” include major additions (greater than 50% of the original ground floor area), new structures or buildings; all works in the floodplain; and the placement of 30 cubic metres or more of fill.
24
Attachment 3TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for
Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Review ServicesEffective January 7, 2011
APPLICATION TYPE APPLICATION FEEONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT APPLICATIONS OR APPLICATIONS MADE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH UTILITY BOARD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTSEnvironmental Assessment ReviewMaster Plan $10,400 minor
$26,000 major (subject to negotiation)
Individual EA $26,000 (subject to negotiation)
Class EA - Schedule/Category A - EA pre-approved - Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit may be required
n/a* see below
Class EA - Schedule/Category B $5,200Class EA - Schedule/Category C $10,405EA Addendum Reports $1,875EA Property Screening or Inquiry $250Detailed Design ReviewDetailed Design $1,875Environmental Management Plan $1,875*Regulatory ReviewOnt. Reg. 166/06 Permit Application- Class EA - Schedule/Category A (or equivalent)
$1,080
Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit Application - Individual or Class EA - Schedule/Category B & C
$2,500
Revision to Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit 25% of current fee - minor change50% of current fee - major change
Review of works for application of Section 35 of the Fisheries Act (when no permit required)
$630
Fish Timing Window Extension $5,200Routine Infrastructure Works - Letter of Approval $310
plans only$630
technical reports or site visitEmergency Works $3,540OtherAdditional Site Visit Charges(First site review is allowed as part of processing)
up to ½ day $630up to 1 day $1,250
Red Line Revisions by TRCA $510
25
NOTESThe application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the TRCA. Applications will not 1.be processed until fees are received.Only one set of fees apply when processing and reviewing a combined application (e.g. an EA 2.Property Screening or Inquiry or an Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit Application). The highest rate of fees applies.TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees should the review require a substantially greater 3.level of effort (e.g., Environmental Management Plan Review). Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical and specialized modelling and may be charged to the applicant.All application fees (except EA Property Screening or Inquiry) include one initial site visit.4.Specific Municipal Service Delivery Agreements take precedent over the fee schedule.5.For the Class Environmental Assessment Act Applications, the schedules or categories specific to the 6.respective class EA document or environmental assessment review procedures of utility boards or commissions, including Enbridge, Consumers Gas or Bell Canada, will be applied.Infrastructure Maintenance Minor Works Application review is subject to the respective TRCA 7.procedure.Emergency Works Application review is subject to the respective TRCA procedure.8.In accordance with the Crown Agency Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 48, s.1, and the Conservation Authorities 9.Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 27 the following Crown corporations or agencies are exempt from the Conservation Authorities Act:
Go TransitHydro OneMinistry of TransportationOntario Realty CorporationMinistry of Natural ResourcesGreater Toronto Airports Authority, andDownsview Park
As such, these proponents are exempt from review fees and exempt from the TRCA regulatory approval process (i.e., permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 are not required). However, in circumstances where the review is considered major, TRCA can negotiate funding to compensate for its review time. These proponents may not be exempt from approvals under the Fisheries Act or the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and are responsible for obtaining the appropriate approvals independent of TRCA. In accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. E.18, s.4 these proponents are required to consult with TRCA throughout the EA process.
10. The following corporations are not exempt from the Conservation Authorities Act:Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC)CN Rail, andCP Rail
As such, these proponents are not exempt from review fees or the TRCA regulatory approval process (i.e., permits in accordance with Ont. Reg. 166/06 are required). In accordance with agreements between TRCA and Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Ministry of Natural Resources, TRCA will also conduct reviews under the Fisheries Act or the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. In accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. E.18, s.4 these proponents are required to consult with TRCA throughout the EA process.
11. TRCA has extensive environmental and cultural data that is available for use by the proponent, subject to the waiver of a legal disclaimer and the provision of user fees. Where there are data sharing agreements in place, municipalities, agencies and Crown corporations or agencies are exempt from these fees and the data will be provided free of charge. For all others, an application form for the purchase of such data will be forwarded to the proponent for use at their discretion.
26
Item AUTH7.2TO: Chair and Members of the Authority
RE: MARIE CURTIS PARK REVITALIZATION CONCEPT PLAN (December 2010)______________________________________________________________________________KEY ISSUETo obtain Authority endorsement of the Marie Curtis Park Revitalization Concept Plan and to authorize advancement of the detailed design and implementation of Phase One work.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Marie Curtis Park Revitalization Master Plan (December 2010) be approved in principle;
THAT staff be directed to implement the detail design and implementation of all Phase One elements of the Revitalization Master Plan;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the resolution of Marie Curtis Park (East and West) Phase Two parking issues and the Arsenal Lands Master Plan when completed.
BACKGROUNDIn October 1992, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) purchased the Arsenal Lands property with the intent of expanding Marie Curtis Park West to form a 41 hectare waterfront park. The land purchase was made possible through a joint collaboration involving the City of Toronto, Regional Municipality of Peel, City of Mississauga, Province of Ontario and TRCA. TRCA also owns Marie Curtis Park East and West in the City of Toronto currently under management agreement with the City of Toronto to operate and maintain the parks. In 1998, The Arsenal Lands Park and Site Remediation Master Plan was prepared and approved by the Authority. In 2007, The Arsenal Lands/Marie Curtis Park West Master Plan Addendum was prepared to update the 1998 Master Plan. The Master Plan Addendum is consistent with the goals and objectives of the original master plan. The addendum reinforces the original intent of the partners to form a regional waterfront park. This is accomplished by integrating the Arsenal Lands with the west side of Marie Curtis Park and through an enhancement of the proposed park amenities to suit the park’s regional scale. Given the park’s proximity to the border of the cities of Mississauga and Toronto, the park will function as a 'Gateway Park' that will service residents from both municipalities. Marie Curtis Park East will continue to serve the public as a local park.
27
Since completion of the Addendum in 2007, there have been ongoing discussions between the cities of Mississauga and Toronto and TRCA, on how to implement the Arsenal Lands/Marie Curtis Park given existing budget constraints. The original budget outlined in 2005 for the Arsenal Lands Master Plan at the City of Mississauga and the City of Toronto will not realize the Plan. Considerable cost increases have resulted in a substantial shortfall for detailed design and master plan implementation. To provide park implementation despite the funding shortfall, a new approach to implementation and management was developed which is a coordinated but separate implementation process. TRCA and the City of Toronto have undertaken a revitalization of Marie Curtis Park (West and East) with the City of Mississauga and TRCA focusing on the Arsenal Lands.
At Authority Meeting #3/10, held on April 30, 2010, Resolution #A55/10 was approved as follows:
THAT the Authority approve the modified approach to implement the Arsenal Lands/Marie Curtis Park West Master Plan Addendum by adding Marie Curtis Park East to the Master Plan Addendum and undertaking the implementation as two separate but integrated plans in collaboration with the cities of Mississauga and Toronto, as described in the status report dated April 30, 2010;
THAT staff report to the Authority when the revised concept design for the Arsenal Lands Master Plan and Marie Curtis Park (East and West) Master Plan are completed;
AND FURTHER THAT the cities of Mississauga and Toronto be so advised.
TRCA and the City of Toronto have initiated a design process for Marie Curtis Park (East and West). A Revitalization Master Plan has been developed through public and agency consultation. Funds have been secured to implement priority elements of the Master Plan (Phase One) in 2011. Detailed design can begin early in 2011 with construction starting in April. Discussion of Phase Two Master Plan components will continue in 2011, with implementation anticipated for 2012, pending budget approval. The recommended Revitalization Master Plan and the work to be undertaken in each Phase of the Plan are attached. The City of Mississauga and TRCA are partnering to undertake a review and re-evaluation of the current Arsenal Lands Master Plan. The City of Mississauga will provide project management for the concept review and implementation of the Arsenal Lands plan. It is anticipated that a preliminary concept will go to the public in the new year. Once the Arsenals Lands Master Plan has been completed it will come to the Authority for consideration.
Staff of Mississauga, Toronto and TRCA are participating on the Steering Committee for both design processes to ensure coordination and consistency, with opportunities for public and stakeholder consultation coordinated wherever possible to represent the integrated approach to implementation of the Master Plan. The overall layout of Marie Curtis Park and the Arsenal Lands will be approached as a design exercise to bring together a variety of park features into a unified whole; blending the three parks.
28
RATIONALEMarie Curtis Park Revitalization Master PlanA community engagement process was initiated for Marie Curtis Park by the City of Toronto (Parks, Forestry and Recreation) and TRCA staff. Two public meetings were held. The first meeting took place on June 29, 2010 and a subsequent meeting was held on November 9, 2010. This consultation process generated significant interest. Approximately 150 people attended the two public open house meetings and more than 80 written submissions were received.
Following the June meeting, the comments submitted by residents were compiled and reviewed. The community identified a number of priorities:
retain the "natural gentle feeling" of Marie Curtis Park; keep the creek natural; move the existing parking lot at Marie Curtis East back from the creek; protect and enhance wildlife habitat; focus on preserving existing vegetation and trees;develop strategies to deal with geese; improve the beach quality; support for the provision of a boardwalk/pathway along the lake;provide improved access for fishing;revitalize the play area; provide more seating areas; provide off-leash dog area; separate walking/bicycle pathways;recognition of the historic cannon (used in the War of 1812);provision of bike parking; andre-open existing concession stand.
Primary concerns expressed by the public included:the addition of a parking lot near the lake at Marie Curtis Park East; proposal to re-locate the existing Marie Curtis Park East parking lot nearer to the street edge (concern that it will impact views and create disruption and noise for homeowners across the street); andloss of naturalized areas in Marie Curtis Park West currently utilized by deer.
Note: The proposal to re-locate the existing parking in Marie Curtis Park East was based on the need to address environmental impacts and to provide urgently needed repairs to the lot. The lot is scheduled for a state of good repair replacement in 2012.
Following the June 29th
meeting, a number of features on the preliminary Revitalization Master Plan were confirmed, refined or changed. These include:
establishment of new goose management strategy and deterrent features; proposed parking adjacent to the beach was removed; proposal to move the current parking lot at Marie Curtis Park East was refined. Based on comments from residents at the June, 2010 meeting, the proposed parking lot along the street edge was reconfigured to reduce the size of the footprint along the street edge. A new parking lot at the north end of Marie Curtis Park East was recommended;inclusion of a dog off-leash area;
29
inclusion of a new children's water play and family area; inclusion of new boardwalk and seating areas; inclusion of new fishing areas; and removal of Marie Curtis Park West parking lot.
There is strong support for the revitalization improvements presented at the November 9th
public meeting. The priority elements to be completed as part of Phase One (2011) include a new children's play area; goose management strategies; a boardwalk with seating; installation of dogs-off leash area; removal of the parking lot at Marie Curtis West; installation of stone overlooks for fishing/creek restoration; and a forest trail restoration plan for the woodlot. There however, remains concern about relocation of the existing parking lot at Marie Curtis East. Concerns have been raised that the relocation of the existing parking lot will increase traffic, air pollution, and noise in the late hours, will devalue homes, and will make it more accessible for illicit activity. Residents were also concerned that the new parking lot proposed at the north end of Marie Curtis Park East will attract overflow from the GO commuters.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEMBTW Group will begin the design development phase in January 2011 for the elements of Phase One of the Revitalization Master Plan as listed above. Contract documents will be prepared and released into the market place to enable construction to begin as quickly as possible in the spring of 2011.
The City of Toronto and TRCA will be investigating further the site conditions at Marie Curtis Park East. Early in 2011 a strategy to address the environmental impacts and neighbourhood concerns with respect to the parking issues that have been identified will be circulated to the public. There are no plans to alter the existing parking configuration at Marie Curtis Park East until 2012 at the earliest. TRCA and City of Toronto will work with Councillor Mark Grimes to ensure there is support for Phase Two improvements prior to detailed design and subsequent implementation.
TRCA staff will report back to the Authority once resolution of outstanding issues relating to Phase Two of the Revitalization Master Plan has been achieved.
The Arsenal Lands Concept Plan will be submitted for Authority consideration upon completion.
FINANCIAL DETAILSFunding for Phase One of the Marie Curtis Park Revitalization Concept Plan is within the City of Toronto capital budgets.
Item AUTH7.3TO: Chair and Members of the Authority
Meeting #10/10, January 7, 2011
FROM: Deborah Martin-Downs, Director, Ecology
RE: ROUGE RIVER FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN______________________________________________________________________________KEY ISSUEReceipt of the final draft Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan (2010).
RECOMMENDATION
WHEREAS fisheries management plans (FMP) are important supporting documents for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) watershed plans, restoration plans and stewardship programs;
AND WHEREAS the development of the final draft Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan (2010) has been led by TRCA in partnership with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) Aurora District and Lake Ontario Assessment Unit, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and Rouge Park;
AND WHEREAS substantial input from stakeholders and the general public has been sought;
AND WHEREAS the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010) provides guidance to achieve multiple and shared aquatic ecosystem goals set by TRCA, the Province of Ontario and the federal government by identifying the significant ecological links between river ecosystems and Lake Ontario;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the final draft Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan, dated December 2010, be received and OMNR Central Region be requested to post for 30 days on the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights and comments be received and incorporated, as appropriate, in the final plan and brought back to the Authority for endorsement;
THAT staff be directed to continue to update relevant fisheries and fish habitat data by undertaking field investigations to close data gaps identified in the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010) and to use this information to enhance the interpretation and management direction provided in the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010);
THAT staff be directed to use the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010) as a resource document for review of planning and permit applications as well as TRCA restoration and stewardship projects;
34
THAT staff be part of an advisory group with agency partners such as OMNR, Rouge Park and DFO in order to more effectively coordinate the implementation of recommendations in the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010) with municipalities and stakeholders in the watershed;
THAT staff be directed to take the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010) to the Rouge Alliance for information;
AND FURTHER THAT municipalities and stakeholders who have been involved in the development of the draft Rouge River FMP (2010) be so advised.
BACKGROUND A fisheries management plan provides background information on the state of the aquatic ecosystem as well as management objectives and strategies for protection and enhancement. It establishes priorities for specific activities that can inform ecosystem and land use planning, as well as stewardship, restoration and research efforts. TRCA has prepared the updated Rouge River FMP following the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources' guideline for Watershed-based Fisheries Management Plans (OMNR, 2005). Technical guidance for the updated Rouge River FMP was provided by OMNR (Aurora District and Lake Ontario Management Unit), DFO, Rouge Park and TRCA with additional input from key stakeholders (Building Industry and Land Development Association and Metro East Anglers Group) and the general public. The original Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan was written in 1992. This new FMP provides important updates on watershed conditions, new legislation, watershed management approaches, and the assessment of fish communities and habitat. Also of primary importance in the new FMP is the identification and description of the linkages between land use changes and the water resources system that, in turn, impact the form and function of streams. Accordingly, this updated Rouge River FMP is inextricably linked to the Rouge River Watershed Plan: Towards a Healthy and Sustainable Future (TRCA 2007), and other initiatives related to The Living City objectives for Healthy Rivers and Shorelines, and Regional Biodiversity.
Beginning in 2005, TRCA, in partnership with OMNR, began data collection as the first step in support of the updated FMP. This Rouge River FMP (2010) has subsequently been developed with leading edge technical understanding of the watershed and its response to urbanization. The unique character and variable conditions of the watershed have been captured within 10 geographically distinct fisheries management zones that effectively represent large subcatchment areas.
RATIONALEThe primary objective of the 2010 update to the Rouge River FMP is the management for native aquatic biodiversity that supports the conservation of genetic, species, and aquatic ecosystem diversity across the entire watershed. The FMP also recognizes the need to protect endangered species and other sensitive fish species within the Rouge River. Other aquatic management priorities include maintaining or restoring natural hydrology, addressing cumulative effects, preventing new introductions and further spread of aquatic invasive species, continuing to assess the natural recruitment of lake-based salmonids and climate change.
35
Characterization of the RougePortions of the Rouge River watershed continue to be urbanized. However, in comparison to most of the other watersheds in the Greater Toronto Area, the Rouge has experienced less development pressure to date. The northern portion of the watershed is primarily a rural landscape with some large natural areas and numerous stream corridors. It is within these relatively natural areas of the upper watershed that healthy and diverse aquatic ecosystems are found, including those that support redside dace populations, a provincially endangered species. Therefore, the northern portions of the Rouge watershed represent substantial and important opportunities to maintain healthy aquatic conditions that support native fish communities.
On the east side of the watershed is Rouge Park. It encompasses a large section of the Little Rouge River subwatershed and the lower main Rouge River within the City of Toronto and Town of Markham. Within the Rouge Park boundaries, additional management direction has been identified, by the Park, which is geared toward the protection of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
The middle and southern sections of the Rouge River watershed have been developed with a mix of existing older and new residential and commercial developments. As a result, the aquatic system is exhibiting impacts in the form of habitat degradation and declines in sensitive species abundance. Here, there needs to be greater emphasis on connectivity to upstream reaches and continued enhancement, improvement or retrofit of stormwater management controls at the landscape and lot level.
The Rouge River currently has populations of many sensitive species that have almost disappeared from highly urban watersheds, such as the Don and Highland rivers. Some of these species have been selected as target species for the Rouge, including; brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), redside dace (Clinostomus elongatus) and rainbow darter (Etheostoma caeruleum). The effective protection of these species means that the rest of the associated fish communities are expected to persist and hopefully thrive as well.
RecommendationsThe main recommendations of the Rouge River FMP are summarized below:
1. Integrate water management with aquatic ecosystem health at early stages of the land use planning process.
This is one of the fundamental lessons learned from past efforts to protect aquatic resources and fisheries. This Rouge River FMP (2010) recommends that all land use planning frameworks, including: watershed plans, subwatershed plans, secondary plans, and master environmental servicing plans be informed by appropriately detailed watershed and subwatershed characterization that encompass an understanding of many physical and ecological watershed components, including: groundwater and surface water regimes, in-stream habitat conditions (e.g. water quality, temperature and morphology) and aquatic community assemblages. This characterization provides an overview of the cumulative effects which can strongly influence aquatic ecosystem health.
36
2. Maintain the flow regime of streams pre- to post-development. Maintaining a flow regime that supports stream form and function as appropriate for target species (and associated fish communities) is required to achieve many of the priority objectives laid out in this Rouge River FMP. With that, there are a number of specifics pertaining to the direct and cumulative effects of stormwater management and water taking, including:
That early in the land use planning process, investigations or assessments of the natural hydrology (e.g. water balance) should be undertaken at the subwatershed or catchment scale.That the most effective designs for new stormwater management ponds and other Low Impact Development measures (e.g. cooling and infiltration trenches, evapotranspiration through vegetated swales, rain harvesting) that respect the natural hydrology are implemented. Retrofit opportunities need equal consideration where appropriate.That the discharge from stormwater management ponds be recognized as having the potential to cause adverse or damaging impacts on target fish species and habitat; and that technical and design options focus on the achievement of effluents that are protective of target fish species and habitat. That water takings (including in sensitive aquatic habitat areas; e.g. headwaters, redside dace reaches) continue to be screened by review agencies for site specific and cumulative effects on the aquatic system.
3. Protect Redside Dace and its habitat.The Rouge River watershed currently provides a habitat stronghold for the endangered redside dace. The FMP identifies subcatchment areas where redside dace occur. It provides recommendations and direction on construction timing as well as restoration, rehabilitation and stewardship opportunities in support of recovery planning for redside dace.
4. Increase the connectivity within the watershed to support native biodiversity and healthy fish communities.
In-stream barriers (e.g. online ponds, perched culverts, dams/weirs, etc.) are one of the main issues in the Rouge River from several perspectives: fragmentation of habitat in smaller tributaries, impacts to water quality and temperature, and barriers to fishes migrating up from Lake Ontario to the headwaters. There are also strategic barriers that should be maintained to partition species to support native biodiversity. There are approximately 253 in-stream barriers that prevent or limit fish from moving through the watershed of which 33 are prioritized for management in this Rouge River FMP.
5. Prevent the further establishment and expansion of aquatic invasive species in the Rouge watershed and undertake to reverse the abundance of established invasives.
Recent fish collection records indicate three aquatic invasive species are present in the lower reaches of the Main and Little Rouge: sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) and common carp (Cyprinus carpio). The main issues are evidence of expanding distributions and no management partition within the Little Rouge or lower main Rouge to protect the upper watershed. Strategies to address these issues are:
targeted monitoring;development of a response strategy for each fish management zone; increased stewardship/education; and maintenance of strategic barriers with the intent of preventing the potential further upstream movement of round goby.
37
The Sea Lamprey Control Centre of Fisheries and Oceans Canada is considering the installation and operation of a seasonal/removable barrier in the lower reaches of the Rouge River to control sea lamprey as a potential alternative to the present use of chemicals (i.e. lampricide).
6. Identify opportunities and undertake priority riparian planting to address and improve aquatic habitat.
The Rouge River FMP provides recommendations on priority areas for the enhancement of riparian zones. Certain types of riparian vegetation communities are recommended for planting, depending on location in the watershed and target species requirements. These recommendations are consistent with the watershed objectives for the terrestrial system.
7. Support ongoing assessment of rainbow trout stocking and potential naturalization.Traditional support and recommendations focused on enhancing angling opportunities have been preserved in the Plan. The stocking of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in support of Lake Ontario fisheries objectives is also supported. However, in recognition of potential competitive and/or predatory effects of juvenile trout on native fish species, it is recommended that the stocking of rainbow trout (and all other salmonids) be discontinued within Rouge watershed streams that support redside dace. Streams occupied by native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) should also be partitioned from stocked salmonids. It is also recommended that assessments be continued to determine if rainbow trout are establishing a naturally self-sustaining population within the main Rouge, an objective of the original 1992 FMP. Brown trout (Salmo trutta) stocking is recommended to continue only in the lower reaches close to Lake Ontario.
8. Provide examples of implementation projects that could address the priority recommendations within this Rouge River FMP and provide a means to measure the Plan’s success.
Each Fish Management Zone has a series of recommendations and restoration project ideas referred to as Implementation Project Opportunities. These projects have been developed to provide a readily available list of opportunities for agencies and/or stakeholders to help preserve and ultimately enhance the aquatic ecosystem. Project themes include:
Sensitive Streams: characterization, monitoring, mapping;Monitoring and Assessment: effectiveness of mitigation techniques and restoration projects;Priority Barrier Management: mitigation, removal or maintenance;Aquatic Invasive Species: prevention of further spread; Species at Risk Management: redside dace protection and recovery; andStewardship Opportunities: in-stream rehabilitation projects and outreach programs.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Once the Authority has received the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010), staff will undertake the following actions:
TRCA website access to the draft Rouge River FMP (2010) in middle of February, 2011 to coincide with release of the redside dace specific habitat regulation under the Endangered Species Act, and provincial draft urban development guidelines for redside dace. Posting of this final draft Rouge River FMP (2010) to the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights as part of the OMNR approvals process will occur at the discretion and timing of the OMNR; in the interim, the final draft Rouge River FMP can be used by TRCA, OMNR, other agencies and stakeholders.
38
Staff will seek funding and partnerships to implement projects that help achieve the objectives identified in this final draft Rouge River FMP. Staff will seek funding and partnerships to undertake applied research and assessments aimed at filling data gaps identified in the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010). That municipalities and stakeholders who have been involved be advised that the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010) has been received by the Authority and has been submitted to the OMNR for posting on the EBR.
Hard copies of the final draft Rouge River FMP (2010) are available upon request.
Report prepared by: Christine Tu, extension 5707Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Christine Tu, extension 5707Emails: [email protected]: December 20, 2010
39
Item AUTH7.4TO: Chair and Members of the Authority
Meeting #10/10, January 7, 2011
FROM: Deborah Martin-Downs, Director, Ecology
RE: YORK-PEEL-DURHAM-TORONTO GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY______________________________________________________________________________KEY ISSUEMemorandum of Understanding for sharing groundwater data.
RECOMMENDATION
WHEREAS the Executive Steering Committee for York-Peel-Durham-Toronto (YPDT) groundwater study has directed the YPDT Technical Steering Committee to make the hydrogeologic data from the project available to the public;
AND WHEREAS the YPDT Technical Steering Committee has developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Collection, Maintenance, and Distribution of Groundwater Data and Information;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Memorandum of Understanding for the Collection, Maintenance, and Distribution of Groundwater Data and Information be approved;
THAT the term of the MOU be for the period January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2020;
THAT the MOU be on terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA staff and solicitors, if necessary;
AND FURTHER THAT the authorized officials be directed to take the necessary actions to implement the agreement including obtaining approvals and signing and execution of documents.
BACKGROUNDSince its inception in 2001, the YPDT groundwater study has provided significant data and modelling outputs to Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) as well as the other conservation authority and municipal partners. The project is directed by an Executive Steering Committee consisting of senior staff representatives of the various funding partners, the Regions of Peel, York and Durham, the City of Toronto, and the conservation authorities.
The YPDT groundwater initiative continues to contribute insightful, practical deliverables to the partner agencies. The key focus areas of the groundwater program continue to be data management, geological understanding, numerical groundwater modelling and policy development. A large part of the success of the initiative has been the delivery of data and tools at a practical level to partner agency staff and their consultants who are charged with understanding the groundwater system for a variety of day-to-day issues, including water supply impact assessments and wellhead protection area delineation.
40
Projects undertaken by the YPDT-CAMC (Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition) staff and consultants to date include verification of water well locations, drilling of strategic boreholes, geophysics (seismic and downhole), data model construction and geologic and groundwater flow modelling. This work has been paid for by annual contributions by the municipal partners, supplemented by provincial funding (Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM), Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)).
The previous data sharing MOU for the YPDT project was approved in 2008, and contained the following key elements:1) description of the overall project and its objectives;2) roles and responsibilities for collection, deposition and maintenance of data for the project;3) roles, responsibilities for interpretation of the geologic data;4) roles and responsibilities for the distribution of both data (e.g., water levels in wells) and
interpreted products (e.g., groundwater flow maps);5) contractual details (i.e., liability, insurance, terms and conditions, etc.);6) accessibility of data and information and the protection of confidential information;7) key contact names at each agency responsible for release of data and interpreted products;8) standard data sharing agreement to be signed by any party wanting access to the data and
interpreted products.
RATIONALEThere has been significant interest from the consulting community for access to the YPDT data and interpreted products, but the existing data sharing agreement for this project required case-by-case data requests and releases by the key agency contacts listed in Schedule 2 of the existing MOU. Therefore, this existing data sharing model has not been a cost-effective use of YPDT or agency staff resources.
In 2010, an alternate, web-based, data sharing process was developed in partnership with First Base Solutions. This is the same service provider that developed the TRCA on-line flood plain mapping tool. First Base Solutions Inc. has agreed to host the information and arrange the distribution of the data in accordance with the principles in the existing MOU. In return, First Base Solutions will receive a portion of the proceeds from the individual data requests. However, the change in distribution mechanism requires that Section 9 of the MOU be amended to specify that First Base Solutions be responsible for release of data and derived products on a pilot project basis. These changes have been discussed amongst the YPDT Technical Steering Committee members, who have unanimously agreed to the proposed approach.
The revised MOU will facilitate the release of the YPDT data through the website until December 31, 2020.
41
FINANCIAL DETAILSThere are no costs associated with the execution of this agreement, but it is expected that some revenue will be generated to account #104-90 from the pilot arrangement with First Base Solutions Inc.
Report prepared by: Don Ford, extension 5369 Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Don Ford, extension 5369 Emails: [email protected]: October 27, 2009
42
Item AUTH7.5TO: Chair and Members of the Authority
RE: CANADIAN CERTIFIED INSPECTOR OF SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PROGRAMMemorandum of Understanding
______________________________________________________________________________KEY ISSUERequest for authorization to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with CISEC Inc. to develop the program.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CISEC Inc. to facilitate the development of a Canadian Certified Inspector of Sediment and Erosion Control (CISEC-Canada) Program;
THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the MOU including the signing and execution of documents;
THAT TRCA work with Conservation Ontario to promote this program across Ontario;
THAT TRCA pursue partner opportunities with the Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC) and other national organizations to promote this program across Canada;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report to the Authority on the progress of the program.
BACKGROUNDWithin Ontario there is a need for targeted training aimed at construction and development industry professionals who inspect and maintain erosion and sediment (ESC) measures. Feedback obtained through recent ESC training events hosted by TRCA indicated that industry professionals believe the lack of clarity and inconsistency in ESC site inspections should be remedied through the development of a certification program for inspectors.
The U.S. based CISEC program, introduced in 2005 and administered by the nonprofit organization CISEC, Inc., has successfully certified ESC inspectors across the U.S. and continues to expand its membership on a monthly basis. The program is comprised of a series of training modules followed by a nation-wide, certification exam. Successful candidates of the certification program are further required to complete 12 hours of professional development training, each year, to be eligible for certification renewal. This continuing education requirement ensures that certified inspectors will continuously update their knowledge and expertise in the field and also serves to elevate the integrity of the program and its members.
43
The purpose of the MOU agreement is to formalize the relationship between TRCA and CISEC Inc. In addition, the MOU serves to identify key roles and responsibilities, ensuring that the interests and goals of both parties are acknowledged and advanced.
The key roles and responsibilities of each party include:CISEC Inc. shall:
provide access to U.S. CISEC program documentation including training modules, exam and PowerPoint presentations for adaptation by TRCA;provide editing and reviewing services for revisions made by TRCA;retain copyright of the final CISEC-Canada training modules and presentation material;coordinate administration of CISEC-Canada program and registry.
TRCA shall:review and revise U.S. CISEC program documentation including training modules, exam and PowerPoint presentations as required to ensure consistency with provincial and federal legislative requirements and local guideline documents;coordinate and gain approval from CISEC Inc. for all revisions.
CISEC Inc. and TRCA shall:coordinate activities to update the U.S. CISEC certification exam to reflect CISEC-Canada content.
A preliminary work plan has been developed and will be implemented upon signing of the MOU. The project will be initiated with a thorough review of the existing CISEC manual, training program, presentation materials and the certification exam. All components will be revised to reflect local policies and federal legislative requirements and to ensure consistency with the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction. Upon completion of the initial revisions, all materials will be circulated for peer review by a technical committee, including representatives from Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of the Environment, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, local and regional municipalities, Ontario Municipal Engineers Association, conservation authorities, and construction and development industry contacts. The peer review committee will serve as a venue for securing appropriate support to facilitate roll out throughout the Province of Ontario.
The first training program and exam will be offered in April 2011, and will be delivered by a U.S. CISEC trainer. A second offering will be scheduled in the fall of 2011 based on industry demand. Development of capacity for training instructors will be a top priority. Several TRCA staff have indicated their interest in becoming instructors for this program and are currently working toward completion of their certification requirements under the U.S. program. Recruitment of additional training candidates will begin after the first round of certifications is awarded here in Ontario. TRCA will work with Conservation Ontario and other conservation authorities to identify appropriate staff, or other contacts, that could become certified and trained as instructors, who would then facilitate training workshops in other areas of the Province. Frequency and location of course offerings beyond year one will be dependent on the number of certified instructors. It is intended that the focus for the first two to three years will be directed at rolling out the program throughout the Province. Further expansion across the country will be based on the success of the program within Ontario and on availability of funding. Promotion of the program at the national level will be pursued by TRCA through its existing partnership with the Canada Green Building Council or with another national organization such as the Canadian Standards Association.
44
RATIONALEPartnership with CISEC Inc. presents an excellent opportunity for TRCA to adapt a proven, well respected program into a curriculum that is consistent with needs of the ESC industry in Ontario. Over the past several years, TRCA has hosted a number of ESC workshops. These workshops have been well received and have provided TRCA with an opportunity to receive feedback on the training needs of the industry. Through the MOU agreement with CISEC Inc., TRCA will be provided support with the adaptation and roll-out of the CISEC-Canada program. The MOU provides for revenue sharing opportunities which would otherwise be unavailable to TRCA. It is intended that revenue generated through registration fees for both the training course and exam will be sufficient to cover future staff costs to administer the CISEC-Canada program. The CISEC program is well aligned with other TRCA initiatives and will serve to further the TRCA’s vision for The Living City.
FINANCIAL DETAILSFunds are available in account 120-42 to cover staff resources for editing program materials, to facilitate peer review and for organization of the program launch. Additional funds have been requested from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment ($10,000) and from Fisheries and Oceans Canada ($5,000). Combined, these funds will be sufficient to initiate the program in 2011. It is intended that the program will be self-funding in the future, in that any costs to expand the program throughout the Province, will be generated through course and exam fees.
Report prepared by: Patricia Lewis, extension 5218Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Glenn MacMillan, extension 5212Emails: [email protected]: December 09, 2010
45
Item AUTH8.1TO: Chair and Members of the Authority
Meeting #10/10, January 7, 2011
FROM: Carolyn Woodland, Director, Planning and Development
RE: FUEL/OIL SPILLStandard Auto Wreckers Fuel/Oil SpillTributary of the Little Rouge River
______________________________________________________________________________KEY ISSUEReceipt of staff report on the fuel/oil spill to a tributary of the Little Rouge River on November 19, 2010.
RECOMMENDATION
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on the fuel/oil spill to a tributary of the Little Rouge River from the Standard Auto Wreckers property at 1216 Sewells Road be received;
AND FURTHER THAT the Rouge Park Alliance be so advised by the CAO's Office.
BACKGROUNDAt Authority Meeting #9/10, held on November 26, 2010, staff was requested to prepare a report on the fuel/oil spill by Standard Auto Wreckers at 1216 Sewells Road, to a tributary of the Little Rouge River, in the City of Toronto.
On November 19, 2010, a report was made to the Ministry of Environment (MOE) Spills Action Centre regarding a fuel/oil spill in a tributary of the Little Rouge River adjacent to the Standard Auto Wreckers property. MOE, City of Toronto (Toronto Water) and TRCA staff immediately attended the site. Upon MOE arrival at the site, the City of Toronto staff had installed booms, pads and pillows in an attempt to contain and absorb the fuel/oil. City of Toronto staff had also determined that fuel/oil had leaked from a shipping container/sea can building on the Standard Auto Wreckers property, impacting the river. The shipping container/sea can building was determined to have been used for pulling and storing engines. The building is located on the edge of the property, directly adjacent to the creek. The creek and adjoining property are owned by Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC), a provincial agency.
MOE is the lead agency, responsible for ensuring that the persons responsible for the spill/discharge, take all actions necessary to cease the discharge, undertake appropriate remedial actions and to restore the natural environment. MOE has required Standard Auto Wreckers, by way of a Provincial Officers Order, to undertake all measures necessary to cease the off-site migration of contaminants. Standard Auto Wreckers, in consultation with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and its retained clean up contractors and consultant, determined that in order to stop the discharge and remediate the site, approximately 200 metres of a tributary of the Little Rouge River would need to be diverted.
46
MOE has also provided information to several media outlets at the onset of the spill, regarding the Ministry's response to it. There have been no further media requests for information, since that time. TRCA directed all media requests to MOE for response.
Through TRCA, Standard Auto Wreckers with assistance from its retained consultant, consulted with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) regarding the approvals necessary to relocate the creek. As detailed below, TRCA confirmed that provincial and federal approvals were required for the temporary channel diversion, the permanent channel relocation, as well as for future site clean-up and remediation . On behalf of MOE, TRCA was instrumental in facilitating the approvals for the temporary diversion, and is committed to working with MOE to ensure that the required approvals for any future works are given in a timely and coordinated manner. Approval Requirements for the Temporary Channel Diversion:
TRCA - Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit: Because the temporary creek diversion is located on provincial land, no permit is required from TRCA. TRCA - Remedial Action Plan (RAP): As partners with Environment Canada and MOE, TRCA technical staff provided comment regarding the ecological and water management issues associated with the temporary channel diversion to MOE and ORC for their consideration in approving the channel realignment works. Both agencies were appreciative of TRCA's expertise and assistance.TRCA - Permission to Enter: TRCA property in Rouge Park is located immediately to the south of the creek relocation site. In consultation with Rouge Park staff, TRCA issued a permission to enter for construction vehicles only through its property through a farm field. The tenant farmer was appropriately notified. MNR - Fish Collection Permit: A fish collection permit was issued to Standard Auto Wreckers as part of this project.MNR - Species at Risk: MNR has confirmed that the subject watercourse does not support redside dace and is not deemed to be habitat for this species. MNR does not have any records indicating the presence of any other species at risk at the location of the subject propertyDFO - Fisheries Act Authorization: Through its Level 3 Agreement under the Fisheries Act, TRCA staff reviewed the creek diversion details and provided comments on behalf of DFO. Once TRCA concerns were satisfied, DFO issued an emergency Fisheries Act Authorization for the temporary creek diversion.
Approval Requirements for the Permanent Diversion:Technical studies and detailed design drawings will be required for the permanent channel to ensure that environmental issues related to flooding, erosion, and terrestrial and aquatic habitat, are adequately addressed. These studies will be conducted in the immediate future by consultants for Standard Auto Wreckers to determine appropriate design details. TRCA will continue to act in its capacity as a RAP partner and watershed manager, and review the details on behalf of MOE and ORC, as well as within our Level 3 Agreement under the Fisheries Act with DFO, as required.Specific permit requirements will be determined once the detailed design is finalized.
47
Clean-up and RemediationAt this time, the exact impact of the spill has not been determined. MOE has required that Standard Auto Wreckers delineate the extent of the spill, and undertake appropriate remediation and restoration.To determine impacts in the ground, qualified contractors hired by Standard Auto Wreckers will trench within the flood plain of both their own property and that of ORC. They will work outwards, and systematically delineate the area of soil contamination. Contaminated soils will be removed and the area will be filled with clean soil that meet standards set by MOE. Contaminated soils will be immediately removed and safely stored through/on Standard Auto Wreckers' property as per MOE requirements. Contaminated soils will not be moved through TRCA property, nor will they be stored in the flood plain. Trenching, grading and restoration on Standard Auto Wreckers' property will require Ontario Regulation 166/06 permits from TRCA. Specific permit requirements will be determined once the site grading details are finalized. Trenching, grading and restoration on ORC property, because it is provincial land, will not require TRCA permits. TRCA is committed to working with MOE and ORC to ensure the flood plain is restored with appropriate grading and plantings.The building that was constructed out of the shipping containers/sea cans has not been removed at this time as it was determined that the building is of benefit by sheltering the impacted area from storm effects such as rainfall. The owner has indicated that at the most it would take a week to dismantle the building. During the December 2010 MOE site visit, it was observed that a large number of vehicles have been removed from the areas needed for access during the delineation and remediation activities. MOE is requiring Standard Auto Wreckers conduct a visual assessment of any downstream impacts in order to delineate areas impacted by the spill. As much of this property is owned by TRCA in Rouge Park, a separate permission to enter from TRCA is required. It is expected that off-site impacts could extend as much as two kilometres downstream. Because of storm events this fall, there could also be impacts on the flood plain.The consultants for Standard Auto Wreckers will use the information collected in their delineation study to prepare an impact assessment and remediation plan to the satisfaction of MOE. TRCA staff will work with MOE, ORC and Rouge Park staff to review this report in order to ensure that impacted lands in both Rouge Park, as well as on lands owned by ORC, are appropriately remediated and restored.
NEXT STEPSTRCA will continue to work with MOE, ORC, DFO, MNR, Rouge Park and Standard Auto Wreckers to provide technical advice and facilitate approvals in order to protect and restore habitat in the tributary of the Little Rouge River. Permits from TRCA will be required for works on the private property owned by Standard Auto Wreckers. Staff will use the permit approval approach to provide the Authority with details of the final restoration plans for this area. TRCA will encourage ORC to address the encroachments by Standard Auto Wreckers and to complete the transfer of the lands into TRCA ownership in accordance with the 2004 land transfer agreement between TRCA and the Province of Ontario.
48
TRCA continue discussions with Standard Auto Wreckers regarding potential acquisition of the property and/or relocation of the business.
