1

Working Session #3

Alternatives

September 7, 2005

Website: http://www.trca.on.ca/water_protection/don_mouth/default.asp?load=whats_new

Phone: 416-661-6600

2

Meeting Purpose

To review the EA processTo provide an overview of why and how evaluation methods are used in an EATo present how the evaluations are proposed to be conducted as part of this EATo present a preliminary discussion on evaluation criteria To learn from the public what additional information should be considered

3

Existing and Planned Revitalization Initiatives and Infrastructure

East Bayfront

Lake Ontario Park

Port Lands

Gardiner Lakeshore/Rail

Commissioners Park

Don Greenway

Potential Queens Quay Re-alignment

Cherry St. Bridge Modification

West Don Lands

Don River Park

Flood Protection Landform

Rail Bridge Extension

4

Project Schedule

9-18 Months

1 – 5 Years

5

• Study Objectives• Study Areas• Alternatives Framework• Consultation

• Proposed Undertaking• Scope of Studies• Description of Environment• Evaluation Criteria• Alternatives To and Alternative Methods

• Consultation Plan

• Draft Terms of Reference

Stage 1 – Consultation Framework

6

EA Process – Two Steps

The key difference between a ToR and carrying out the EA is:

The ToR outlines what will be done and how it will be done

During the EA, the process described in the ToR will be carried out.

Doing itDoing itWhat will be done What will be done

and howand how

7

Project Purpose - Goal and Objectives(public comments not yet added)

Goal To establish and sustain the form, features, and function of a natural river mouth within the context of an urban environment.

ObjectivesNaturalize the Mouth of the Don River Mouth Provide Flood Protection Manage operation of the river (sediment, debris and ice management)Integrate existing infrastructure functions that could not be reasonably moved. (including road, rails, utilities, trails, and power)Support additional compatible recreational, cultural, and heritage opportunities Coordinate with other planning efforts for the revitalization of the waterfront and associated certain and reasonably foreseeable infrastructure

8

9

Goals

Highlights of public feedback:

People generally satisfied with the goal as writtenAdditional detail on definitions of “form, features, and functions” would be helpfulIntegrate concept of “sustainable”“Urban” environment vs “City” environment

10

ObjectivesHighlights of public feedback:

Integrate “diversity” of speciesRecognize need for balance between “human fix” and “leave it to nature”Include the opportunity for infrastructure to be removed (in addition to “reasonably moved”)Not negatively impact existing recreational facilities, and look at opportunities to expand existing recreational facilitiesSee this project influence other projects in an ecologically responsible way – and consider including this as an ObjectiveIntegrate the concepts of accessibility, sustainability, creative remediation, and adaptive management should be considered for integration into the Objectives Work with private landowners – as an Objective

11

Naturalization

Study Area

12

Flood

Protection

Study Area

13

Key Definitions

Naturalization - permitting natural, sustainable ecosystem functions to control a natural areaAlternative to – alternative ways of carrying out the project – in our case each way is defined by an alternate discharge point for the riverAlternative method – the development of each “alternative to” through the combination of forms and features to create natural river mouth functions.Evaluation method – a formal procedure for establishing an order of preference among alternatives

14

Key Definitions ……continued

Weighting – importance assigned to an attribute relative to other attributesTrade offs – attributes that are kept over others that are viewed as less important Criteria/criterion – explicit considerations on which a comparison is based Indicators – ways that each criterion is measured

15

What is an Evaluation Methodology in an EA?

Formal procedures to establish an order of preference between alternativesDevelop evaluation criteria and indicators based on the project goal and objectivesRequires trade offs by keeping more desirable attributes over those less desirableIncorporate public values through weighting and trade offsDecisions should be traceable, replicable and understandable

16

Alternatives Level of Detail

With each evaluation step the level of detailWith each evaluation step the level of detail

in data collection,in data collection,

the design of alternatives,the design of alternatives,

and analysis increasesand analysis increases

With each evaluation With each evaluation

step the numberstep the number

of alternatives of alternatives

decreasesdecreases

17

Types of Evaluation Methods

Different evaluation methods may be used Methods can be qualitative (e.g. trade offs), quantitative (e.g.mathematical) or a combinationObjectives are defined by criteria (sometimes grouped by technical discipline), criteria are measured by indicators Weights are used to identify differences in importance when comparing objectives, criteria, and indicators Measurement of indicators requires dataData can be quantitative (e.g. # of hectares of wetland created), qualitative (e.g. views created) or a combination

18

Roles of the Public in Evaluations During the EA

Provide comment on evaluation methodologyProvide comment on objectives, criteria and indicatorsProvide input to the weighting and trade offs

19

List of “Alternatives to”

1. Start with list of “alternatives to” from initial presentation

2. Give consideration to other “alternatives to” from the public– Extend alternative #3 through the Ship Channel, and out to

the Outer Harbour– Consider a discharge point to Ashbridges Bay to the east– Split flow in three directions by adding a third discharge

point emptying into the lake creating a natural delta

20

Alternatives To

3. River with discharge through the PortLands

1. Do Nothing2. River with discharge to the inner harbour

4. Combination ofDischarge Point(Primary and Regional flood Overflow)

Alternatives To

6. Eastern discharge point

5. Third discharge into lake creating delta

21

Determination of “Alternatives To’s”from the ToR

All “alternatives to” will be evaluated to determine whether they meet each of the project objectives:

1. naturalization 2. flood control3. manage the operation of the river4. integrate with existing infrastructure5. support compatible recreational, cultural, and

heritage opportunities6. coordinate with other planning efforts

Only those “alternatives to” that meet all of the project objectives will be carried forward

“Alt To’s” from ToR

22

Stepwise Process to Identify “Alternative Methods”

Alternative To’s

from ToR

Long List of

Alt.MethodsShort List Preferred

Alternative

Step 3:Step 3:Initial

Comparison

Step2:Step2:Screen/Refine

Step1:Step1:CombineFunctions

Step 4:Step 4:Detailed

Comparison

ReducedShort List(if necessary)

Only required if Short List

greater than 10

23

Step 1 – Develop Long List Step 1A – Develop Functions

Identify forms and features which combine to deliver positive individual functions that meet the Naturalization and Flood Protection Objectives for the project

Alternative To’s from

ToR

Long List of

Alt Methods

24

Step 1 – Develop Long ListStep 1B- Combine Functions to Identify “Alternative Methods”

Identify different combinations of positive functions that will meet the Naturalization and Flood Protection Objectives resulting in the long list of “alternative methods”

AlternativeTo’s from

ToR

Long List of

Alt Methods

25

Step 2 Long List to Short ListStep 2A Technical Feasibility Assessment

Assess the Long List of “Alternative Methods” to determine which are technically feasible“Alternative methods” not technically feasible will be eliminated - those remaining will be short listedCriteria used in the assessment will only consider the naturalization and flood protection objectives

Long List of

Alt MethodsShort List

26

Step 2ATechnical Feasibility AssessmentExamples of Criteria and Indicators

1.1.4 Use of habitat for migratory species; for foraging for post-dispersal species.

1.1.3 Increase in biodiversity of native birds/amphibians

1.2.1 Percent cover of native vegetation.Increase in biodiversity of native plant species.

1.2 Creation of self-sustaining native plant communities

1.2.2 Percent of non-native invasive species present

1.1.1 Area of aquatic habitat1.1 Creation of functional habitat

1. Naturalization

1.1.2 Area of terrestrial habitat

IndicatorsWtWt WtCriteriaObjective

27

Step 2 Long List to Short List Step 2B Refinement of Short List

Refine list by identifying opportunities to meet other Project Objectives (e.g. recreation, infrastructure, culture and heritage, etc.)Each of the short listed alternative methods will be defined in greater detail by:

– Adding recreational features such as trails, navigational features, etc.– Designing the river mouth forms and features to integrate with

infrastructure– Identifying opportunities for cultural and heritage appreciation

Long List of

Alt MethodsShort List

28

Step 3 – Reduce Short List (if necessary)

Step applied only if there are more than 10 “alternative methods” on the short listUsing a set of criteria similar to that used in the next step (Step 4) but at a lesser level of detail the “alternative methods” will be compared The number of “alternative methods” remaining should be in the 5-10 range

Short List ReducedShort List

If necessary

29

Step 4 - Short List to Preferred Alternative

Use comparative criteria to select preferred alternative (alternative to and alternative method) from short listAll project objectives will be addressed for this evaluationAll environmental technical disciplines will be addressed

Short List PreferredAlternative

30

Step 4 - Short List to Preferred Alternative Examples of Criteria

N1.2.1N1.2 Potential for effects/improvements to fish habitat, passage and fish populations

N1. Aquatic habitat

N.1.1.2

N.1.2.2

N1.1.1

IndicatorsN1.1Potential for loss and/or improvement to aquatic habitat function, linkages and populations (including diversity and productivity)

CriteriaComponentNaturalization

Objective WtWtWtWt

31

Consultation Plan for the EA

Proposed Consultation APPROACH has the following components:

Guiding PrinciplesObjectives

MechanismsStakeholders

Focus

32

Consultation Plan GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Accountability FlexibilityClarity CoordinationTimeliness EvaluationOpenness and Inclusivity Commitment

As identified in the TWRC Public Consultation Strategy, and required by Eligible Recipients, including TRCA

33

Consultation MECHANISMSPublic Open Houses and workshopsSite walk(s)Community Liaison Committee (CLC)Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Specialist Design Workshop

Ongoing…Project newsletters, flyers, website updatesNewspaper ads and articlesSecure on-line document repositoryIndividual meetings, as required

34

KEY STAKEHOLDERS

Local and surrounding communitiesTWRC3 levels of governmentProperty owners and leasees within and adjacent to the project study areasPublic transit operatorsRailway operatorsUtility companies

35

Decision Points

Kick-off Long List ofAlt Methods

Short List

Design and

Wrap-up

Preferred Alternative

Ongoing activities – project newsletters, flyers, web updates, newspaper ads, secure online document repository, individual meetings as required

Public Workshop 1 PW 2 PW 3 PW 4 PW 5

CLC 1 CLC 2 CLC 3 CLC 4 CLC 5

Site Visit Site Visit (Optional)

36

Next Steps

Develop the Terms of Reference

Public Forum #2 October 25, 2005

Anticipate submission of Terms of Reference to MOE for review late December 2005