Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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