Lakeview Waterfront Connection EA Public Information Centre - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Lakeview Waterfront Connection EA

Public Information Centre Development and Evaluation of Alternatives January 22, 2013

Meeting Agenda

1. Welcome 2. Meeting Purpose 3. EA Status 4. Developing Alternative Project Configurations 5. Project Alternatives 6. Evaluating Alternative Project Configurations 7. Wrap up

Meeting Purpose

• To provide status update on EA and outline Next Steps
• To seek your thoughts and comments on:
• LWC Alternative Project Configurations
• How Alternatives were developed
• Approach to comparative evaluation
• Comparative evaluation criteria

EA Status and Schedule

• EA ToR received approval December 5 2012
• No conditions of approval
• EA Notice of Commencement published January 2 and

3rd, 2013

• Public Information Centres
• January 22nd - Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria
• Early April – Preferred Alternative and Effects Assessment
• Early June – Draft Final EA prior to submission to MOE
• Target date for submission of Draft EA – June 28 2013

LWC Goal and Objectives

Goal: to create a new natural park that will establish ecological habitat and public linkages on the eastern Mississauga waterfront. Objectives:

• Naturalization
• Access
• Fiscal Viability
• Compatibility
• Coordination

Revised Project Study Area

Expanded to connect to eastern pier

LWC Framework to Identify and Evaluate Alternative Project Configurations

• Step 1 – Determine Alternative Footprints
• Step 2 – Identify Desired Design Elements
• Step 3 – Compare and Evaluate Short List
• f Alternatives
• Step 4 – Confirm, Refine and Undertake

Detailed Assessment of Preferred Alternative

Developing the Alternatives Selecting Preferred Alternative Detailing Preferred Alternative

Step 1 - Determine Footprints

Alternative footprints were created using the following Coastal Engineering assumptions:

• Different shoreline types produce different footprint

sizes and shapes, and opportunities

• Aligned perpendicular to wave energy (from the east)
• Proposed beaches consist of 8” diameter cobbles
• Use up to ~ 2.0 million cubic metres of fill
• Include sub-options to extend to OPG’s eastern pier
• Do not impair regional water quality

Shoreline Type Reference Images

• Revetment
• Embayment

Shoreline Type Reference Images

• Cobble Beach

with Headlands

• Beach transitioning

from sand to cobble

Step 2 – Identify Desired Design Elements

What elements were considered for each “footprint”?

• Multi–use trails to and along the waterfront
• Improved access to the water
• Create naturalized habitat: streams, wetlands, forests,

meadows, shorelines

• Improved aesthetics with respect to providing vistas and

buffering the view to the WWTF

• Improved passive recreation opportunities

Ecological Building Blocks

How did we decide what types of habitat should be included?

• Explored opportunities to daylight and connect Serson Creek
• Similar reference sites on Lake Ontario and historic conditions
• Compensation for aquatic habitat lost from land creation and

consideration of nearshore habitat objectives

• Terrestrial habitat large enough and appropriately aligned to

provide wildlife refuge and migratory stop-over functions

• Diversity of habitat types and connections to other habitats
• Need for varied topography
• Creating visual barrier to the WWTF
• Providing views to and from site

Building Blocks - Serson Creek

• Options
• Leave “as is” - any potential

change would be part of Inspiration Lakeview

• Connect baseflows to storm

channel to create immediate fish access from Lake to upstream

• This is a potential sub-option

for all alternatives

Target Wetland Habitats for LWC EA

Wetland Type Characteristics Examples

River Levee and Lagoon System

• Water levels and fluvial processes

controlled by coastal processes due to backwatering

• Creek mouth directly connected to lake -

levees line channel such that during high flow water would overtop levees and flood wetlands Barrier Beach Coastal Wetland

• Wetlands form behind sand barrier
• Water levels influenced by discharge from

upland area and lake levels

• Reduced mixing with lake water and limited

influence of coastal processes

• Sand barrier can be removed through high

flows and reformed during flow conditions by wave action in the lake NOTE: These wetland types are not necessarily mutually exclusive

Design Parameters for Wetland Habitats

• Optimal total wetland area ~ 7 ha (reference wetlands

ranged in size from 3 ha to 10 ha)

• Wetlands connected to: Applewood Creek, and Serson

Creek (both outlets)

• Wetlands able to accommodate possible realignment of

Serson Creek suggested in vision from Inspiration Lakeview

• Diverting Applewood Creek westward ensures river inputs to

proposed wetland east of G.E Booth.

• Wetland connections to Lake Ontario are aligned with

sheltered shoreline areas (not through the headlands).

Wetland Habitat Reference Images

• Meadow Marsh

(wet meadows)

• Coastal Marsh

Target Terrestrial Habitat for LWC EA

Habitat Type Characteristics Potential Locations

Meadow

• found naturally along shorelines due to

disturbances and harsh lake exposures

• important bird habitat for breeding, resting and

launch

• directly along shoreline
• adjacent to existing berm on

WWTF site

• next to trails and vista points

Forest

• rest and launch spot for birds
• vegetation similar to what is usually found along

similar shorelines: cottonwood, willows, and poplars

• mix of tree and shrub heights
• variety of plants tolerant to exposed coastal

conditions and attractive to birds and wildlife

• set back from shore behind

meadow blocks

• create connections to existing

treed area at Serson and Applewood

Design Parameters for Terrestrial Habitat

• Meadow
• Recommended minimum size 10 ha to provide desired ecological

functions

• Native species
• Multi-use trail will be sited through meadow
• Located between forest and water’s edge
• Forest
• Recommended minimum size 4 ha to provide wildlife refuge functions
• Native species i.e. cottonwood
• Located between treed swamp and meadow but should not block views

from former OPG site to lake

• Treed Swamp
• Located along fence line of WWTF to provide physical and visual barrier

between LWC and WWTF

Terrestrial Habitat Reference Images

• Forest
• Upland

Meadow

Terrestrial Habitat Reference Images

• Treed Swamp

Building Blocks - Recreation

• Tiered trail system
• Multi-use trail reconnects waterfront trail to the water and provide

potential connections between waterfront parks in the east and west

• Secondary trails (may be seasonal) may permit viewing of

natural areas

• Ensure human access doesn’t negatively affect natural areas
• Lookouts from LWC back to City
• Provide access to the water’s edge
• Passive recreation: birding, fishing, picnicking, etc.
• Public safety: shoreline, isolated features, etc.

Revetment

Headland Beach

Island Beach A

Island Beach B

Island Beach C

• Alternative extends

across beach at Marie Curtis Park to Etobicoke Creek

LWC Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives

• Alternatives compared using evaluation criteria and

indicators to determine greatest potential to meet the LWC Project Goal and Objectives (Step 3)

• Assumptions made with respect to how project will be

constructed to facilitate evaluation – no difference between alternatives

• Evaluation will identify preferred alternative to be

developed in more detail

LWC Comparative Evaluation

• Analysis by indicator presented in an evaluation matrix
• For each indicator, alternatives will receive qualitative scores
• f ‘least preferred’, ‘moderately preferred,’ or ‘most preferred’
• Objectives, criteria and indicators considered to be equally

important – no weighting

• All criteria and indicators focused on measuring the

differences between alternatives

• Criteria and indicators reflect information presented for the

alternatives.

• Public and agency input sought on comparative evaluation

Objectiv e Criteria Indicator(s) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4W Alternative 4S Alternative 4WS

1. Natur alizat ion Total naturalized area 35.5 ha 38.6 ha 40.3 ha 45.8 ha 47.8 ha Least preferred Moderately preferred Moderately preferred Most preferred Most preferred Area of wetland habitat types created (designed to respond to ecosystem constraints) Total area of wetland within the Alternative 8.1 ha 11.5 ha 20.5 ha 20.0 ha 19.1 ha Least preferred Moderately preferred Most preferred Most preferred Most preferred Largest single patch size of wetland. 4.3 ha 9.0 ha 4.8 ha 7.0 ha 4.7 ha Least preferred Most preferred Least preferred Moderately preferred Least preferred Area of open space /terrestrial habitat Total area of potential open space/terrestrial within the Alternative (measured as total of non- manicured upland, and parkland) 15.3 17.0 ha 14.0 ha 18.8 ha 18.3 ha Least preferred Moderately preferred Least preferred Most preferred Most preferred Potential for negative and/or beneficial effect

• n wildlife

species or communities (i.e. minimizing disturbance and connecting habitat) Ratio of perimeter to area of the largest contiguous wetland habitat patch (measure

• f largest circle

within patch) 1.3 ha 2.7 ha 3.1 ha 2.5 ha 2.7 ha Least preferred Most preferred Most preferred Most preferred Most preferred Ratio of perimeter to area of the largest contiguous open space/ terrestrial patch (measure

• f largest circle

within patch) 3.2 ha 3.8 ha 4.1 ha 3.5 ha 3.4 ha Same Same Same Same Same Potential for negative and/or beneficial effects

• n native fish

habitat or aquatic communities Total area of aquatic habitat 12.1 ha 10.1 ha 5.8 ha 7.0 ha

• Keating

channel 4.1 ha

• Main channel

6.3 ha

• Total = 10.4 ha

Most preferred Moderately preferred Least preferred Least preferred Moderately preferred Length of channel 1,300 m 1,140 m 1,310 m 1,165 m

• Keating

channel 740 m

• Main channel

2,000 m

• Total = 2,740

m Least preferred Least preferred Least preferred Least preferred Most preferred Potential for hydraulics and Flexibility in design to allow

• Single corridor

conveys flood

• Single corridor

conveys flood

• Two corridors
• Spillway
• Two corridors
• Spillway
• Three

corridors

Sample Evaluation Table

Objective Criteria Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Naturalization Total naturalized area Least preferred Moderately preferred Most preferred Most preferred Most preferred Area of wetland habitat types created Least preferred Moderately preferred Moderately preferred Most preferred Moderately preferred Area of open space/terrestrial habitat Least preferred Moderately preferred Least preferred Most preferred Most preferred Potential for negative and/or beneficial effect on wildlife species

• r communities

Least preferred Most preferred Most preferred Most preferred Most preferred Potential for negative and/or beneficial effects on native fish habitat or aquatic communities Moderately preferred Moderately preferred Least preferred Least preferred Most preferred Potential for hydraulics and hydrology to affect sustainability of vegetation communities and associated fauna. Least preferred Least preferred Moderately preferred Moderately preferred Most preferred Potential to maintain and improve connection for aquatic species Most preferred Least preferred Most preferred Least preferred Most preferred Quality of habitat types created Least preferred Moderately preferred Moderately preferred Moderately preferred Most preferred Potential for negative and/or beneficial effect on wildlife species

• r communities (i.e., minimizing

disturbance and connecting habitat) Least preferred Moderately preferred Least preferred Moderately preferred Most preferred Objective Summary Least preferred Least preferred Moderately preferred Moderately preferred Most preferred

Sample Summary Table

Comparative Evaluation Assumptions

• Same construction plan for all alternatives and the use of

standard construction mitigative measures

• Outer berm of purchased material to be built first
• Placement of fill between berm and existing shore
• Grading or land creation area to establish stream connections
• Planting
• Provision of trails and other recreation attributes
• Alternatives represent ultimate build out condition as

such the connection to the OPG eastern pier may be staged

Input to Comparative Evaluation

• Review and comment on final alternatives
• Do the alternatives seem reasonable?
• Review and comment on comparative evaluation criteria
• Does the approach to the evaluation seem reasonable?
• Do the criteria and indicators seem reasonable?