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


Alternative 1:

Do nothing



• No interruption of golf course use due to

construction activities


• 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


Alternative 1:

Do nothing



• No interruption of recreational trail use due to





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 site disturbance

• Minor disruptions to trail and parking lot usage

• Requires some vegetation removal and

replanting (bank treatments)

MC-6 – Recommended Solutions

17

18


Alternative 1:

Do nothing





• Continued bank erosion and bed incision

• Valley wall contact/slope stability issues remain


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




• Minor disruptions to recreational trail usage



• 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


• 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

21


Alternative 1:

Do nothing





• Continued bank erosion leading to failure of

bank protection (gabions)


• 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


• Remove risk of flow obstruction by failed

gabions



• Disruptions to trail usage during construction



24


Alternative 1:

Do nothing



• No interruption of cemetery operations

• Continued bank erosion and bed incision

• Valley wall contact/slope stability issues remain


damage

• Failed bank protection remains in channel as

obstructions to flow


Alternative 2:

Local

Improvements

• Addresses existing risk to sewer infrastructure

• Reduces slope instability and bank erosion

• Some improvement to geomorphic

form/function


• Removal of channel debris removes flow

obstruction risk



• Disruptions to cemetery operation



• 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


• 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


Alternative 1:

Do nothing





• Continued bank erosion leading to failure of

bank protection (gabions) and mature tree loss


• 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


• Stabilize existing bank protection structures and

replace failed structures with naturalized

treatments

• Reduce debris in channel by stabilizing banks






• Disruptions to private property owners during

construction

Farlinger Ravine (MC-11 DS) – Recommended Solutions

MC-11 US – Recommended Solutions

30


Alternative 1:

Do nothing






• Continued bank erosion at select location

• Recreational trail remains at risk due to slope

stability issue


Alternative 2:

Local

Improvements

• Addresses risk to recreational trail and stabilizes

valley slope


• Stabilize eroded bank and replace failed outfall






32


Alternative 1:

Do nothing



• 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

pic 2 display boards

Government & Nonprofit

future erosion impacts

future channel restoration

stream channel

future risk

creek system

natural channel function

sections oftaylormassey

alternative address