PIC 2 Display Boards
-
Upload
toronto-public-consultation-unit -
Category
Government & Nonprofit
-
view
765 -
download
0
description
Transcript of PIC 2 Display Boards
WELCOME to Public Information Centre #2 – June 19th 2014
PLEASE REMEMBER TO FILL OUT YOUR COMMENT SHEET – THANK YOU!
Purpose:
◦ Develop a Master Plan that both identifies immediate restoration needs and establishes a
prioritized action plan for future channel restoration based on existing degree of stability
and health and potential for future risk posed by erosive storm events.
Objectives:
◦ Reduce and control future erosion in Taylor-Massey Creek.
◦ Restore and rehabilitate reaches of Taylor-Massey Creek damaged by past storms,
improving aquatic habitat.
◦ Protect City sewer infrastructure near or within Taylor-Massey Creek exposed due to
erosion and/or is at high risk of failure.
1
Why are we developing a Master Plan for Taylor-Massey Creek?
◦ In 2003, Taylor-Massey Creek was identified in the City’s Wet Weather Flow Master Plan as a
priority site in need of repair.
◦ On August 19, 2005, an extreme storm event resulted in the exposure and damage of sewer
infrastructure including stormwater outfalls, sanitary sewers, and sanitary sewer manholes.
The storm also damaged portions of the stream channel.
◦ Emergency Works have already been carried out in Warden Woods Park in response to
exposure of high-risk City infrastructure
◦ Ongoing erosion impacts and infrastructure damage confirms the need for the development of
a longer term management plan that takes into account natural channel processes
What will be the Master Plan provide?
◦ Recommendations of projects to stabilize sections of Taylor-Massey Creek and protect
infrastructure from future erosion impacts
◦ Incorporate habitat considerations to improve riparian and wildlife habitat within the channel
◦ Prioritize projects (e.g. short-term, medium term, long-term)
◦ Identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts of recommended projects to the greatest
extent possible
2
The Taylor-Massey Creek study area includes the entire length of the creek system beginning at its upstream limit in the vicinity of Highway 401 and Victoria Park Avenue, to its confluence with the Don River west of the Don Valley Parkway in Coxwell Ravine Park. The study area includes the creek, its banks, and its associated valley lands.
3
This study is following the Master Planning provisions of the Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment
4
PIC #1 Nov 2013
The Adaptive Management of Stream Corridors in Ontario manual (2001) has provided a Four Phase process to undertake studies of this nature
This process is founded in the principles of Adaptive Environmental Management
Making the choice of what to do:1. Do Nothing – monitor the situation
2. Land-use Planning – land-use designations and zoning, protection of feature
3. Design – detailed analysis for planning and design
4. Management – best management practices, habitat restoration
5
Assess
Identify the Problem
Explore
Explore the Problem
Confirm
Alternatives and Implications
Choose
Making the Choice
1. Do Nothing
No human intervention
Creek conditions monitored and allowed to function in current erosive stat
2. Local Improvements
Infrastructure repairs
Stream bank and slope stabilization
Stream bed stabilization and grade control
Minor planform adjustments/realignments
6
Bank Stabilization OptionsBioengineering Methods
Engineered MethodsBed Stabilization Options
3. Section Restoration
Planform alterations paired with the addition of
pools and riffles.
Remove structures (e.g. gabion baskets) and
reestablish banks for long-term stability.
Restore erosion and grade controls and natural
vegetation within the corridor.
7
Before Realignment
After Realignment
1. Natural environment
a) Channel Form and Function – will this alternative provide erosion protection while allowing natural
channel function?
b) Slope Stability – does this alternative address current and potential future valley slope stability issues?
c) Natural Environment – what will be the impacts on aquatic and terrestrial habitats?
2. Social and cultural environments
a) Private property – how will this alternative impact lands under private ownership?
b) Public Perception – will this alternative have perceived impacts on public interests (e.g. safety,
recreation, privacy)?
c) Cultural Heritage – will this alternative have impacts on known or unknown cultural resources?
3. Technical/Economic factors
a) Constructability/Access – are there limits or constraints to construction of this alternative (e.g. slopes,
property ownership, significant environmental features)? Is the site accessible for the required
construction machinery / techniques to build the alternative and maintain it in the future?
b) Risk Assessment – what is the degree of risk that failure/damage will occur, and when could it be
anticipated?
c) Immediate (Capital) Costs – what will be the capital costs to carry out this alternative?
d) Long-term Maintenance – how long will the alternative last? Will additional work need to be
completed again, and when? How much will it cost?
8
9
Reach Scale
Habitat/Organism Scale
Stream analyses must consider the reach scale (large) to the habitat/aquatic organism scale (fine)
11
Advantages Disadvantages
Alternative 1:
Do nothing
• No immediate cost impacts
• No site disturbance
• No interruption of park use due to construction
activities
• Continued bank erosion
• On-going failure of bank protection structures
(gabions)
• Recreational trail and pedestrian bridges at high
risk for damage and closure
• Sewer infrastructure remains at high risk for
damage
• High long-term maintenance cost;
Alternative 2:
Local
Improvements
• Addresses immediate risks to sewer
infrastructure
• Some improvement to geomorphic form
• Increased bank stability, reducing erosion
• Lower long-term maintenance costs
• Reduces risk to sewer infrastructure,
recreational trails, and pedestrian bridges
• Improvements to channel cross-section
• Large immediate cost impact
• Large site disturbance
• Disruption to park use (trail closures) during
construction
Taylor Creek Park (MC-1 and MC-2) – Recommended
Solutions
12
��������������� ��������������������
Taylor Creek Park (MC-3 and MC-4) – Recommended
Solutions
13
14
Advantages Disadvantages
Alternative 1:
Do nothing
• No immediate cost impacts
• No site disturbance
• No interruption of golf course use due to
construction activities
• Continued bank erosion
• Ongoing loss of property through bank slumping
• Long-term maintenance cost
Alternative 2:
Local
Improvements
• Addresses localized bank erosion and slumping
issues
• Some improvement to aquatic and terrestrial
habitat through addition of riparian vegetation
• Lower long-term maintenance costs
• Long-term reduction in loss of property
• Moderate immediate costs
• Low site disturbance
• Minor disruptions to golf course use during
construction
15
Dentonia Park Golf Course (MC-5) – Recommended
Solutions
16
Advantages Disadvantages
Alternative 1:
Do nothing
• No immediate cost impacts
• No site disturbance
• No interruption of recreational trail use due to
construction activities
• Continued bank erosion
• Long-term maintenance cost
• Sewer infrastructure remains at high risk for
damage
• Parking lot at risk for damage
Alternative 2:
Local
Improvements
• Increased bank stability and aesthetic
improvement by removing concrete debris
• Removes risk to sewer infrastructure
• Reduces risk to parking lot
• Improvement of geomorphic function and
aquatic/terrestrial habitat
• Reduced long-term maintenance cost
• Moderate immediate costs
• Moderate site disturbance
• Minor disruptions to trail and parking lot usage
• Requires some vegetation removal and
replanting (bank treatments)
MC-6 – Recommended Solutions
17
18
Advantages Disadvantages
Alternative 1:
Do nothing
• No immediate cost impacts
• No site disturbance
• No interruption of recreational trail use due to
construction activities
• Continued bank erosion and bed incision
• Valley wall contact/slope stability issues remain
• Sewer infrastructure remains at high risk for
damage
• Ongoing failure of bank protection structures
(gabions, rip-rap) leading to obstructions
• High long-term maintenance costs
Alternative 2:
Local
Improvements
• Addresses existing risk to sewer infrastructure
• Reduces slope instability and bank erosion
• Some improvement to geomorphic
form/function
• Reduced long-term maintenance cost
• Moderate immediate costs
• Moderate site disturbance
• Minor disruptions to recreational trail usage
• Requires some vegetation removal and
replanting (bank treatments)
• Segmented system due to several treatments
over a short distance
Alternative 3:
Section
Restoration
• Establish stable planform, profile, and cross
section
• Establish system connectivity through a
substantial length of the reach
• Improve aquatic habitat
• Remove risk to sewer infrastructure
• Lowest long-term maintenance costs
• Improves sediment transport
• High immediate cost impact
• Large site disturbance
• Requires substantial vegetation removal and
replanting (widen channel, planform
adjustments)
• Disturbance to park activities during
construction
Wa
rde
n W
oo
ds
(MC
-7)
–R
eco
mm
en
de
d
So
luti
on
s
Wa
rde
n W
oo
ds
(MC
-7)
–R
eco
mm
en
de
d
So
luti
on
s
21
Advantages Disadvantages
Alternative 1:
Do nothing
• No immediate cost impacts
• No site disturbance
• No interruption of recreational trail use due to
construction activities
• Continued bank erosion leading to failure of
bank protection (gabions)
• Long-term maintenance cost
• Sewer infrastructure remains at risk for damage
• Recreational trail and pedestrian bridge remain
at risk
• Slope stability issue remains
• Failed gabions remain as potential obstructions
Alternative 2:
Local
Improvements
• Addresses risk to sewer infrastructure
• Addresses risk to recreational trail and
pedestrian bridge
• Improvement of geomorphic function and
aquatic/terrestrial habitat
• Reduced long-term maintenance cost
• Remove risk of flow obstruction by failed
gabions
• Moderate immediate costs
• Moderate site disturbance
• Disruptions to trail usage during construction
• Requires some vegetation removal and
replanting (bank treatments)
MC-8 – Recommended Solutions
MC-9 – Recommended Solutions
24
Advantages Disadvantages
Alternative 1:
Do nothing
• No immediate cost impacts
• No site disturbance
• No interruption of cemetery operations
• Continued bank erosion and bed incision
• Valley wall contact/slope stability issues remain
• Sewer infrastructure remains at high risk for
damage
• Failed bank protection remains in channel as
obstructions to flow
• High long-term maintenance costs
Alternative 2:
Local
Improvements
• Addresses existing risk to sewer infrastructure
• Reduces slope instability and bank erosion
• Some improvement to geomorphic
form/function
• Reduced long-term maintenance cost
• Removal of channel debris removes flow
obstruction risk
• Moderate immediate costs
• Moderate site disturbance
• Disruptions to cemetery operation
• Requires some vegetation removal and
replanting (bank treatments)
• Segmented system due to several treatments
over a short distance
Alternative 3:
Section
Restoration
• Establish stable planform, profile, and cross
section
• Establish system connectivity through a
substantial length of the reach
• Improve aquatic habitat
• Remove risk to sewer infrastructure
• Lowest long-term maintenance costs
• Improves sediment transport
• Flow obstruction risk removed
• High immediate cost impact
• Large site disturbance
• Requires substantial vegetation removal and
replanting (widen channel, planform
adjustments)
• Substantial disruptions to cemetery operation
Pine Hills Cemetery (MC-10) – Recommended Solutions
Pin
e H
ills
Ce
me
tery
(M
C-1
0)
–
Re
com
me
nd
ed
So
luti
on
s
27
Advantages Disadvantages
Alternative 1:
Do nothing
• No immediate cost impacts
• No site disturbance
• No interruption of recreational trail use due to
construction activities
• Continued bank erosion leading to failure of
bank protection (gabions) and mature tree loss
• Long-term maintenance cost
• Sewer infrastructure remains at risk for damage
• Recreational trail and pedestrian bridges remain
at risk
Alternative 2:
Local
Improvements
• Addresses risk to sewer infrastructure
• Addresses risk to recreational trail and
pedestrian bridge
• Reduced long-term maintenance cost
• Stabilize existing bank protection structures and
replace failed structures with naturalized
treatments
• Reduce debris in channel by stabilizing banks
• Moderate immediate costs
• Moderate site disturbance
• Disruptions to trail usage during construction
• Requires some vegetation removal and
replanting (bank treatments)
• Disruptions to private property owners during
construction
Farlinger Ravine (MC-11 DS) – Recommended Solutions
MC-11 US – Recommended Solutions
30
Advantages Disadvantages
Alternative 1:
Do nothing
• No immediate cost impacts
• No site disturbance
• No interruption of recreational trail use due to
construction activities
• Long-term maintenance cost
• Continued bank erosion at select location
• Recreational trail remains at risk due to slope
stability issue
• High long-term maintenance costs
Alternative 2:
Local
Improvements
• Addresses risk to recreational trail and stabilizes
valley slope
• Reduced long-term maintenance cost
• Stabilize eroded bank and replace failed outfall
• Moderate immediate costs
• Moderate site disturbance
• Disruptions to trail usage during construction
• Requires some vegetation removal and
replanting (bank treatments)
MC-12 – Recommended Solutions
32
Advantages Disadvantages
Alternative 1:
Do nothing
• No immediate cost impacts
• No site disturbance
• Poor aesthetics and public perception (concrete-
lined channel)
• On-going maintenance costs
• No geomorphic form or function
• Poor aquatic and terrestrial habitat
Alternative 2:
Local
Improvements
• Some improvement to geomorphic form and
function
• Some improvement to habitat
• Some aesthetic improvement
• High immediate costs
• Disturbance to private property and disruption
to owners
• Increased risk to sewer infrastructure
• On-going maintenance costs
33
Taylor Creek Park
(MC-1 to MC-4)
Local Improvements
• Replace bridges with appropriate sizing and widen channel where possible to reduce constriction,
incision, and erosive power
• Remove failed(ing) bank protection (gabions/rip-rap) and reestablish banks using naturalized
restoration treatments to provide long-term stability.
• Widen channel and reestablish floodplain connections where possible
• Placement of riffle features where applicable to reduce incision and improve geomorphic function to
protect existing sanitary sewer crossings
Dentonia Park
Golf Course
(MC-5)
Local Improvements
• No existing high-risk locations localized rehabilitation and improvements as required- Establish riparian vegetation along banks to eliminate slumping of manicured lawn
- Remove old, undermined bank protection structures, replace with naturalized treatments
MC-6 Local Improvements
• Minor planform adjustments/realignments to promote creek migration in the ‘safest’ direction to
reduce erosion along parking lot and protect sewer infrastructure
• Install treatment to protect manhole
• Remove debris
• Utilize restorative plantings and bank treatments to reestablish sections along south bank
• In-channel design work where necessary to reduce scour
34
Warden Woods
(MC-7)
Section Restoration
• Minor planform adjustments/realignments to promote creek migration in the ‘safest’ direction
minimizing valley wall erosion and subsequent disturbance to the surrounding forest
• Alterations to the channel bed to establish continuous pool-riffle sequences to reduce scour, promote
geomorphic function, and reconnect perched tributaries
• Remove debris from failed bank treatments and reestablish natural banks through grading and
plantings
• Widen channel where necessary to reduce erosive power and incision
MC-8 and MC-9 Local Improvements
• Appropriately sized bridge replacement
• Reduce valley wall erosion by regrading and using restorative plantings
• Remove failed(ing) bank protection (gabions/rip-rap) and reestablish banks using naturalized
restoration treatments to provide long-term stability to protect recreational trail system
• Placement of riffle features to reduce scour, protect sanitary sewer crossings, and improve geomorphic
function
Pine Hills
Cemetery
(MC-10)
Section Restoration
• Minor planform adjustments/realignments to promote creek migration in the ‘safest’ direction
minimizing valley wall erosion to protect sanitary sewer infrastructure and private property
• Alterations to the channel bed to establish continuous pool-riffle sequences to reduce scour, promote
geomorphic function and protect existing sanitary sewer crossings
• Remove failed(ing) bank protection and reestablish banks using naturalized restoration treatments to
provide long-term stability
• Improve system connectivity
35
MC-11
(Farlinger
Ravine)
Local Improvements
• Widen channel where possible to reduce erosive power and incision
• Stabilize existing bank treatments with toe protection
• Install additional treatments to stabilize vulnerable banks and protect existing trail
• Replace undersized bridge (long-term); protect in place with fill and stone (short-term)
• Placement of riffle features to protect existing sanitary sewer crossings
MC-12 Local Improvements
• Regrade failed bank to facilitate replacement of failed outfall structure, in-channel work to tie-in the
new structure
• Stabilize eroding valley wall to protect existing recreational trail
MC-14 Do Nothing
• Reach is stable in current state, restoration would be too costly based on constraints and confinement
by surrounding private property
Compile and review input received from
public consultation into the study report
Establish a risk-based implementation plan
◦ identify when alternatives should be implemented,
e.g. immediately, 0-5 years, 5-10 years…
Issue Notice of Completion for the Master Plan; 30-day
public and agency comment period
Upon Completion of Environmental Assessment Process
(pending regulatory and budgetary approvals)
Implementation / Construction of preferred alternatives
Monitor resulting conditions – successes, failures,
adaptation
36
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
Thank you for participating in this study.
Please submit your completed Comment Sheet to City staff or send in your comments using one of the following options:
Postal: Josie Franch Phone: 416-338-2859
Sr. Public Consultation Co-ordinator E-mail: [email protected]
City of Toronto
Metro Hall, 55 John Street, 19th Floor
Toronto, ON M5V 3C6
For more information about this project and to access the meeting materials, please visit the study website at http://www.toronto.ca/masseycreek
37