Working Session #3 Alternatives September 7, 2005 Website: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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 process To provide an overview of why and how evaluation methods are used in an EA To present how the evaluations are proposed to be conducted as part of this EA To 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 it Doing it What will be done What will be done and how and 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.

Objectives

• Naturalize 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
• pportunities
• 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 written Additional detail on definitions of “form, features, and functions” would be helpful Integrate concept of “sustainable” “Urban” environment vs “City” environment

10

Objectives

Highlights of public feedback: Integrate “diversity” of species Recognize 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

• pportunities to expand existing recreational facilities

See this project influence other projects in an ecologically responsible way – and consider including this as an Objective Integrate 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 area Alternative to – alternative ways of carrying out the project – in our case each way is defined by an alternate discharge point for the river Alternative 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 attributes Trade 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 alternatives Develop evaluation criteria and indicators based on the project goal and objectives Requires trade offs by keeping more desirable attributes over those less desirable Incorporate public values through weighting and trade offs Decisions should be traceable, replicable and understandable

16

Alternatives Level of Detail

With each evaluation step the level of detail With each evaluation step the level of detail in data collection, in data collection, the design of alternatives, the design of alternatives, and analysis increases and analysis increases With each evaluation With each evaluation step the number step the number

• f alternatives
• f alternatives

decreases decreases

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 combination Objectives 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 data Data 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 methodology Provide comment on objectives, criteria and indicators Provide 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 Port Lands

• 1. Do Nothing
• 2. River with

discharge to the inner harbour

• 4. Combination of

Discharge 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 control
• 3. manage the operation of the river
• 4. integrate with existing infrastructure
• 5. support compatible recreational, cultural, and

heritage opportunities

• 6. coordinate with other planning efforts
• Only those “alternatives to” that meet all
• f 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

• f

Alt.Methods

Short List Preferred Alternative

Step 3: Step 3:

Initial Comparison

Step2: Step2:

Screen/ Refine

Step1: Step1:

Combine Functions

Step 4: Step 4:

Detailed Comparison

Reduced Short 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

• f

Alt Methods

24

Step 1 – Develop Long List

Step 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”

Alternative To’s from ToR

Long List

• f

Alt Methods

25

Step 2 Long List to Short List Step 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 listed Criteria used in the assessment will only consider the naturalization and flood protection objectives

Long List

• f

Alt Methods

Short List

26

Step 2ATechnical Feasibility Assessment Examples 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

• f 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 habitat 1.1 Creation of functional habitat

• 1. Naturalization

1.1.2 Area of terrestrial habitat

Indicators Wt Wt Wt Criteria Objective

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

• f

Alt Methods

Short List

28

Step 3 – Reduce Short List (if necessary) Step applied only if there are more than 10 “alternative methods” on the short list Using 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

Reduced Short 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 list All project objectives will be addressed for this evaluation All environmental technical disciplines will be addressed

Short List Preferred Alternative

30

Step 4 - Short List to Preferred Alternative Examples of Criteria

N1.2.1 N1.2 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

Indicators

N1.1Potential for loss and/or improvement to aquatic habitat function, linkages and populations (including diversity and productivity)

Criteria Component

Naturalization

Objective Wt Wt Wt Wt

31

Consultation Plan for the EA Proposed Consultation APPROACH has the following components: Guiding Principles Objectives Mechanisms Stakeholders Focus

32

Consultation Plan GUIDING PRINCIPLES Accountability Flexibility Clarity Coordination Timeliness Evaluation Openness and Inclusivity Commitment

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

33

Consultation MECHANISMS

Public Open Houses and workshops Site walk(s) Community Liaison Committee (CLC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Specialist Design Workshop Ongoing… Project newsletters, flyers, website updates Newspaper ads and articles Secure on-line document repository Individual meetings, as required

34

KEY STAKEHOLDERS Local and surrounding communities TWRC 3 levels of government Property owners and leasees within and adjacent to the project study areas Public transit operators Railway operators Utility companies

35

Decision Points

Kick-off

Long List

• f

Alt 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