Lakeview Waterfront Connection: Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre #2 May 1, 2012
• Study Areas • The consultation plan for the EA • To seek comments and suggestions on the draft ToR content • To identify issues to be resolved as the ToR moves forward • To discuss next steps and review of the ToR in June and July • The ToR is a “roadmap” which describes how the EA (including consultation) will be carried out • The ToR will describe: • Project Goal and Objectives • To review draft content for the EA Terms of Reference (ToR) • Project Timelines • Problem/Opportunity Assessment • Overview of Existing Environment (Natural and Human) • Evaluation of “Alternatives To” • Framework for Identifjcation and Evaluation of “Alternative Methods” • Preliminary comparative evaluation criteria Objectives of PIC Development Of The Terms Of Refence (ToR)
“To create a new natural park that will establish ecological and public linkages on the eastern Mississauga waterfront” • Naturalization – Establish a diverse range of native terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem habitats and ecological linkages in a degraded area of the eastern Mississauga waterfront • Access – Create safe and accessible public linkages for access to and along the waterfront while allowing for compatible recreational, educational and cultural heritage opportunities • Resource Optimization – Use an innovative funding approach that seeks to maximize public benefjt and value by reusing locally generated fjll from Regional and City capital works projects to create this new natural park • Compatibility – Ensure that the LWC is compatible with existing infrastructure • Coordination – Coordinate with and inform other local planning and development efforts Project Goal Project Objectives
Project Study Area
Regional Study Area
• Detailed design, permit approvals, land acquisition, and construction/implementation – 4-5 years (target start date end of 2013) • Establishment – defjned as the timeframe for monitoring and adaptive management (approximately fjrst 15 years after construction) • Post-Establishment Monitoring – monitoring to identify if further intervention necessary if naturalized system is not self-maintaining (onwards from establishment) NOTE: monitoring does not include day-to-day park operations and maintenance Project Timelines
public linkages within the Project Study Area. Two “Alternatives To” are proposed: therefore no opportunities to create public linkages on existing land base • The WWTP is critical public infrastructure; public access across the property is restricted, and terrestrial habitat available on existing land base • WWTP activities extend to water’s edge; as such, no opportunities to create new aquatic AND project objectives for the following reasons. Evaluation of “alternatives to” concludes that creating linkages without lakefjlling won’t meet 2. Create linkages with lakefjlling 1. Create linkages without lakefjlling (“Do Nothing”) linkages. Within the Project Study Area there is a well-documented lack of: “Alternatives To”: Refers to different ways to meet the Project Goal to create ecological and public • Marie Curtis Park/Arsenal Lands Master Plans • City of Mississauga Waterfront Parks Strategy • Future Directions • Inspiration Lakeview • Public Linkages • LOISS (CVC) • Binational Biodiversity Strategy for Lake Ontario • Ecological Linkages Evaluation of “Alternatives To” Recommendation: the EA will consider viable alternatives using lakefjll to create ecological and
• Creating ecological and public linkages with lakefjlling is the preferred “Alternative To” and will be carried forward to the development of “Alternative Methods”. • Evaluation of “Alternatives To” uses a high-level assessment of the potential for each alternative to achieve project objectives. The summary below synthesizes the results of the more detailed analysis. Evaluation of “Alternatives To” - Summary Project Objectives Project Objectives Linkages w/o Lake filling Linkages w/o Lake filling Linkages with Lake filling Linkages with Lake filling Naturalization Naturalization Low Rank Low Rank High Rank High Rank Access Access Low Rank Low Rank High Rank High Rank Resource Optimization Resource Optimization Low Rank Low Rank High Rank High Rank Coordination Coordination Low Rank Low Rank High Rank High Rank Compatibility Compatibility High Rank High Rank High Rank High Rank Summary Summary Low Rank Low Rank High Rank High Rank
• Alternative methods are different confjgurations of lakefjll to achieve project objectives • Alternative methods will be assessed as to their ability to achieve project objectives • Anticipated that 2-3 broad alternatives will be developed with sub-options related to the potential realignment of Serson Creek and habitat optimization options • Alternatives will be conceptual and at a coarse level of detail that will allow for the approval of those elements that are diffjcult to change Framework For Developing And Evaluating “Alternative Methods” The LWC EA “house” Process analogy Determination of Developing the Footprint for foundation Step 1 Alternatives Step 2 Identifying walls Identification of Desired and roof lines Design Elements Step 3 Evaluating the Comparative Evaluation options of Alternatives Step 4 Determining the Confirm, Refine and details Undertake Detailed Assessment of Preferred Alternative
• To provide a footprint for the development of habitat and recreation opportunities, we need to establish the maximum and minimum extent of fjll • The shape and location of the footprint will be infmuenced by coastal processes, economics and physical constraints • Once the gross dimensions of footprint are determined, regional water quality model will be used to determine if footprint is likely to affect water quality • If there are effects to water quality, footprint will be modifjed or reduced to minimize effects Framework For Developing And Evaluating “Alternative Methods” Determination of Footprint for Alternatives Step 1: Developing the foundation
• Using the footprint, alternatives will be developed to include different: • Balance of habitat types • Shoreline types • Recreational attributes • Trail linkages and accessibility • Alternatives will be defjned to a coarse level of detail suffjcient to choose between the alternatives for EA purposes Framework For Developing And Evaluating “Alternative Methods” Identification of Desired Design Elements Step 2: Identifying walls and roof line
• Alternatives will be assessed based on evaluation criteria and indicators to measure achievement of each project objective • Mitigative measures will also be identifjed • Reasoned trade-off method will be used to select the preferred alternative; each alternative will be qualitatively scored as least, moderate or highly preferred Framework For Developing And Evaluating “Alternative Methods” Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Step 3: Evaluating the options
• The preferred alternative will be developed in greater detail as necessary to determine the phasing plan for establishment, construction techniques and mitigative measures • The preferred alternative will be assessed based on criteria and indicators to measure the achievement of objectives • This will result in a summary of environmental effects and mitigative measures and an assessment of project advantages and disadvantages Framework For Developing And Evaluating “Alternative Methods” Confirm, Refine and Undertake Detailed Assessment of Preferred Alternative Step 4: Determining the details
• Need to make language of goals and objectives simpler • Agreement with objectives, particularly naturalization and access • Community Liaison Committee (CLC) – meets at least 3 times during EA • Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) – meets at least 3 times during EA • Project Advisory Committee (EA Project Team, OPG & MNR) • Project Newsletters, Flyers and Website Updates maintaining view of water • Other: timing concerns, quality of fjll and where it comes from, effects from traffjc, • Agreement approach for meeting Project Goal – i.e., lakefjll alternative • First Nations and Métis Consultation • Goals and Objectives spot • One of the PICs could be a design charette for development of alternatives • Desire for recreation such as bird watching, swimming, community gathering waterfront trail to the water’s edge • Great desire for more accessibility to the waterfront and the relocation of the • Accessibility, Recreation and Naturalization • Public is very committed to Inspiration Lakeview • Overall positive support for the Project • General support for LWC Project: • Landowner and Local Business Notifjcations • Newspaper Advertisements and Articles • Public Information Centres (PICs) – 3 during EA Results Of Consultation Activities To Date • First meetings held with Technical Advisory Committee, Community Liaison Committee and the public Summary Of EA Consultation Plan • Consultation opportunities for the project will be provided through the following venues:
Recommend
More recommend
