4: SHORELINE

In the past decade, there has been impact of lakefilling on 's~ increased concern about the nature and waterfront. extent of lakefilling, measuresused to con- While understanding that lakefilling trol shoreline erosion, and other shoreline and other forms of shoreline modification modifications in the Greater Toronto biore- can have beneficial effects, the Commission gion. Reports prepared for the Ministry of reiterated its concern about these practices the Environment (MaE) during the 1980s in Watershed,its 1990 interim report. In that revealed the existence of extensive heavy document, the Commissionconfirmed that metal and organic contamination in some it believed the situation was serious enough soils used for lakefill. The RoyalCommis- to require a moratorium on new lakefill sion's first interim report (1989) described projects, pending further study. The other concerns aswell: Commissionrecommended that the Province The [Ministry of the Environ- bring forward comprehensive lakefill ment] analysesclearly revealed that, policies for public reviewas soon as possible. while lakefilling operations have had The provincial responsewas prompt: little or no short-term impact on surface- as a first step, in December 1990 the Minis- water quality, they do contribute to ter of the Environment told the Legislature general sediment contamination, with that she had asked the Royal Commission to potentially damaging effects on the address". ..policies, practices,technology, biological food chain. and methods available to regenerate the ...extensive modifications of the shoreline areas". Lake shoreline have altered The minister's choice of the phrase natural coastalprocesses, causing conta- "regenerate the shoreline" was regarded as minants to accumulate in sediments; in significant. Clearly, she wanted something the past, such pollutants would have much broader than a study of lakefill: the been transported offshore. word "regeneration" suggesteda desire There has been no comprehen- to establisha shoreline that was healthier sive assessmentof the cumulative and more beneficial to the surrounding

149 HAPTER community. Lakefill would be a significant streams;this gritty material tumbled in consideration in the study, but would be the shallownearshore waters and eroded placed in the context of the broader issues the lake bottom and shore. of a sustainableenvironment, economy, and While sediment was the grindstone, society. ice propelled by waveswas the battering The Commission created the ram: ice and wave-bornesediment attacked Shoreline Regeneration WorkGroup, the shoresand peninsulas, which retreated nine people with diverse backgrounds and gradually. In sheltered areas,as waves and expertise, who were asked to investigate currents lost their ability to carry sediment, issuesand options. The Work Group first they deposited sand, which created and met in February 1991,and its report, nourished beaches,bars, peninsulas, and ShorelineRegeneration for the GreaterToronto islands. Erosion from what we now know Bioregion,was released the following as the ScarboroughBluffs, augmented by September.The report, combined with discharge from the ,created a submissionsat earlier public hearings peninsula and, later, the . and with other presentations,gave the Littoral sedimentsconstantly replen- Commission broad information about ished the bars that proVided the essential the problems and opportunities posed by barrier for many river and stream mouth shoreline regeneration. marshes;these protected the marshesfrom invasion by icy water from 's HISTORY OF SHORELINE depths. The warm waters of the marshes MODI FICA TION proVided a rich nursery for all kinds of It is important to recognize that the aquatic plants, fish, birds, and animals. shoreline of Lake Ontario has evolved since Eighteenth-<:enturyEuropeanexplorers the retreat of the glaciers about 15,000years and traders found native inhabitants, and a ago. We can neither return the lakeshore to lush and Vibrant natural community around "the way it used to be" nor hold it in its cur- the mouth of each river and stream. Pro- rent state:forces beyond human control tected by spitSor gravel bars, a wide variety ensure that it constantly changes. of fish fed and multiplied. Large quantities Until the 18th century and the arrival of wildfowl inhabited the marshesfound at of European settlers, human inhabitants of the mouths of tributaries, like Bronte and areasaround Lake Ontario adapted them- Sixteen Mile creeks,and rivers such as the selvesrather than attempt to change the Credit, Humber, and Don. waterfront. The forces of wind, water, frost, The beaches,woods, marshes,and and ice sculpted the shore: frost shifted the islands proVided rich and varied habitat for ground, cracked the rocks, and hastened deer, lynx, beaver,black bear, and many erosion of river, stream, and lake banks. other speciesof flora and fauna. More Wind gave the wavesenergy. The waves than 50 speciesof fish, 270 types of birds, pounded relentlessly againstthe shores,dis- and countlessanimals inhabited the region. lodging rocks and soil. Sand eroded from Abundant shelter and food proVided attrac- , the shore wasaugmented by sediment tive incentives for European settlement. discharged from the mouths of rivers and Then, as now, humans attempted to change

ISO Thestone hookers' last standat PortCredit the shore, and to bend it to their needs. the lake bottom and shore and, once they The first modifications, primitive piers, were removed, erosion of the lakeshore were constructed to allow deep draft sailing banks accelerated.Farmers, alarmed by vesselsto load and discharge directly on the loss of their shorefront property and the shore. pasture, successfullyurged the Legislature Sailing ships required ballast, and to passthe so-<:alledThree-Rod Law, in buildings needed stone for foundations and 1857.The law,which prohibited stone walls. Loose rock from beachesand shallow hookers from operating within three rods waterswas easilygathered and delivered to (15 metres) of the shore, came too late, shipping and construction companies; soon after much of the damage had been done. a thriving fleet of "stone hookers" was at Fish habitat wasdestroyed, shoreline facili- work along the shore, their crews using ties and farming land were damaged or lost. deviceslike pitch forks with the tines bent at It wasa pattern often repeated to right angles.These tools were employed to the present day: those involved in a worthy loosen andlift stone from the bottom. In enterprise (such as gathering stone, an the 1830s,the stone hookers removed as essentialfoundation for development) failed much as 43,000 tonnes (47,000 tons) of to consider the consequencesfor the natu- stone annually. ral environment. Nor did they fully con- Unfortunately, the full value of these sider the damage to the shoreline economy nearshore stonesto the lake wasunrecog- (farming and fishing). The activity was nized at the time: they served as armour for unregulated at first; only when the damage

151 headlands configured to protect boat clubs and marinas. Since the 1950s,676 hectares (1,668 acres) of land have been created through lakefill, and plans exist for many more. In Pathwaysand in ShorelineRegenera- (hectares) (acres) tion, Royal Commissionpublications 11 10 24 J.C.Saddingtan Park (Barrett and Kidd 1991) and 13, lakefill LakefrontPromenade Park 30 74 ColonelSamuel Smith projects and the associateddecline in water WaterfrontArea 28.5 70 quality are described in more detail. HumberBay Park-East and West 40 99 Many projects and modifications have OntarioPlace 38 94 taken place on the shore of the Greater (landand water) 470 Toronto bioregion, and the nature of Ashbridge'sBay 17 42 change varies. ShorelineRegeneration include~ Bluffer'sPark 42 104 the following description of the Greater Toronto bioregion waterfront. Source:Reid, R., R. Lockhort,ond B. Woodburn.1990. A green strotegy for the GreaterToronto waterfront. Publicotionno. B. Toronto: RoyalCommission on the Future of the TorontoWoterfront. A BIRD'S-EYE VIEW OF THE SHORE TODAY became seriouswere limits set, a reaction Flying over the western shoreline of that effectively "closed the door after the Lake Ontario, one is struck by the intensity horse had escaped". of development: from the sand beach of the In the next 130 years,shoreline Burlington Bar to Oakville,much of the shore- modifications of increasing magnitude dra- line is protected with hard coverings (revet- matically changed the shape of the Greater ments) of concrete, rubble, and large quar- Toronto bioregion's shore. The largest of ried stone (armourstone),as well aswith short these initiatives, filling the Ashbridge's Bay groynesjutting into the lake. Occasional Marsh to create 428 hectar'es(1,057 acres) narrow cobblestoneor gravelbeaches remain, of land for industrial and recreational but the evidence of change is everywhere. use, emerged from the 1912 Waterfront At the harbour entrance to Oakville Plan of the Board of Toronto Harbour Creek, the lack of beach at either side of the Commissioners (THC). Most of the fill groynes suggeststhat littoral transport is not material was sediment dredged from the great. To the east,the St. Lawrence Cement Inner Harbour, but included construction Co. and Gulf Oil Co. concrete piers stretch debris, excavatedsoil, sewagesludge, incin- offshore to navigablewater. Residential erator refuse, and municipal garbage. development surrounds one of the few More recently, the 1967Waterfront remaining wetlands,the Rattray Marsh, Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning which is protected from the lake by the Area proposed massivelakefilling, chains barrier formed by its tree-coveredbar. Even of artificial islands, public open space, further east,as the shale subsidesbelow lake and marinas with a combined capacity of level, a different shore forms -one that is 5,000 boats (Metropolitan Toronto). The low and sandy;created from fine glacial 1967plan inspired a series of artificial material near Lome Park, westof Port Credit.

152 1,161 At Port Credit, commercial and indus- to the lakefill structure that supports trial development mixes with public open Ontario Place. spacebuilt on reclaimed land behind steep The westshore of the Toronto Islands stone revetments.A major lakefill structure offers one of the longest sand beaches east of the Credit River provides marina remaining on the waterfront. The south facilities next to the heavilyarmoured shore- shore has been fortified with a rubble line of the Lakeview Generating Station and mound breakwater,groynes, and a concrete LakeviewSewage Treatment Plant. seawall.Cut off from its sand supply by the The dominant features on the Metro Leslie Street Spit, the shore is being eroded are lakefill structures: more quickly. The Ward's Island beach, the Colonel Samuel Smith project at Kipling anchored by the new Eastern Gap entrance Avenue projects 700 metres (770 yards) structure, has reoriented itself to face from a low-densityresidential area. Four kilo- southwest.Nearly all the Inner Harbour metres (2.6 miles) to the eastare two adja- shore is vertical concrete and steel; the cent lakefill headlands at the mouth of Outer Harbour has been created by the Creek tharprovide shelter for Leslie Street Spit, a lakefill structure boatsas well as parkland. A breakwall, con- extending five kilometres (three miles) structed as part of the 1912Toronto Harbour into 16 metres (52 feet) of water, protected Commissioners' plan, protects low parkland by a veneer of eroding concrete, brick, and that stretches eastfrom the Humber River asphaltrubble.

IS3 Mouthof the RougeRiver

Immediately next to the spit is spaceand scattered industrial use. Much of the Ashbridge's Bay lakefill, where the the shoreline is in a natural state, although east-facingembayment has filled with littoral occasionalstorm-sewer outfalls intrude. sand.Beyond the groynesand breakwalls Further east,Frenchman's Bay is sepa- along the Eastern Beachesrise the rated from Lake Ontario by a natural sand Scarborough Bluffs, where the Metropolitan bar broken by an entrance structure that Toronto and Region Conservation Authority permits navigation. Part of the Pickering (MTRCA) is installing shore protection Generating Station is built on reclaimed structures offill and rubble. The sharp' land with heavyarmourstone revetments incline of the bluffs is causedby erosion, and cooling water intake groynes. the result of wave action on their underwater From Pickering to Whitby the shore- base.Unprotected, they retreat at a rate line is characterized by low bluffs two to averaginga third of a metre (one foot) per sevenmetres (14 to 23 feet) high, with low- year. Bluffer's Park lakefill at the foot of density residential or agricultural usespre- Brimley Road occupies nearly two kilome- dominating. Various creeks have small estu- tres (1.2 miles) of shoreline and extends arine wetlands behind gravellybeaches and 600 metres (660 yards) offshore, intercept- bars; the estuary at Whitby has long been a ing all littoral drift from the east. commercial harbour with entrance groynes Residential development at the top of interrupting the sand and gravel bar. From the bluffs near East Point givesway to open Whitby to Oshawa,the shoreline varies from

154 seven-metre (23-foot) bluffs descendingto substantial benefits to the region: Ontario streamestuaries, each fronted by a small Place,Harbourfront, and Bluffers Marina, beach. Much of the land is low-density for example, were constructed on lakefill residential or cottage-lined beaches. and have improved the social, cultural, and On the eastside of the Oshawa economic life of the community. These Harbour entrance groynes,reclaimed and other projects have expanded the land land has been created by construction of base;improved public accessand amenities a confined dredge spoil disposal facility. suchas parks, beaches,and boat-mooring The OshawaSecond Marsh is a large capacity; and/or increasedfish and wildlife estuarine wetland next to the more habitat exposed McLaughlin Bay. From Darlington Tommy Thompson Park, located on Provincial Park, the shoreline rises to bluffs the five-kilometre (three-mile) spit at the 12 metres (40 feet) high, which occasionally foot of Leslie Street, demonstratessome of "slump" toward the lake. Darlington Gener- the benefits of lakefill, both planned and ating Station, built partly on reclaimed land, accidental. Planned benefits include exten- employs massivearmourstone revetments sive boat mooring capacity,and facilities acrossits extensiveshoreline. for sailboards, dinghy sailing, rowing, and At RabyHead, the bluffs are some canoeing in the sheltered waters of the 12 metres (40 feet) high, descendingto a Outer Harbour, in the lee of the spit The small coastalwetland just west of a large spontaneousemergence of grasses,herbs, cement company dock, where a 32-hectare shrubs, and trees provides exceptional habi- (79-acre)lakefill structure projects675 metres tat for a variety of birds and animals, an (738 yards) into the lake. urban wilderness of amazingvariety. The Continuing east,the shoreline is a shallow,sheltered c~lls within the park pro- series of 10-metre (33-foot) bluffs, cut by vide fish with refuge from the periodic cold- creeks with small estuarine marshesbehind water upwellings that occur, with deadly sand and gravel baymouth bars.The estuaries consequences,along much of the Lake at Port Darlington and Bond Head have Ontario shore. As a result, populations been partially dredged for marinas and the of perch, pumpkinseed, and pike have baymouth bars are cut by entrance groynes. expanded rapidly. Still farther east,the pattern is repeated, Public accessto the shoreline has been with somebluffs reaching ashigh as 20 metres enhanced by the artificial headlands at (66 feet); vegetation there suggestsa lower Humber Bay Eastand Bluffer's Park, and rate of erosion. The area behind the bluffs elsewherethousands enjoy picnicking, is almost entirely agricultural. walking, and other types of recreation. Groynesand other forms of shoreline ero- SIGNIFICANCE sion control have created new beachesnear OF SHORELINE Oakville and various other placeswhere MODI FICA TION people can view the lake and enjoy the heat The Commission's interim reports of the summer sun. Homes and properties acknowledge that lakefilling and human along the ScarboroughBluffs, among other alterations of the shore have provided areas,were savedby measuresto halt or

155 delay erosion. As well, commerce has bene- environmental price was higher than fited from lakefilling: thousands of new boat necessary,and sometimesoutweighed berths have supported the boat building apparent benefits. In this respect, the Work and service industry. Sport fishing, mainly Group agreed with the position taken by salmon charters and private boats from facil- many critics of lakefill who made submis- ities at Port Credit, Bluffers, and other new sions to the Royal Commission during marinas,brings millions of dollars in revenue public hearings. to the region. Extensive condominium, tourism, and commercial facilities stand SHORELINE on land created bylakefilling. REGENERATION IsSUES There has been another benefit, Concerns about the negative effects of particularly to the downtown waterfront shoreline modification give rise to several area of Metro Toronto: the lake has been issues,including: a convenient, inexpensive repository for large volumes of material excavatedfrom .the environmental effects of lakefill downtown construction sites. structures and erosion control These benefits extract a price, however, measures,including cumulative effects as described in ShorelineRegeneration: c of many activities,loss or damage to c Much of the exca- (~;I'f'c, both aquatic and vated material used C\Jt:{,,; , ~, terrestrial habitat, for lakefill wascon- The lake has beena convenient, obstruction of sand taminated with inexpensive repository for large volumes movement, elimina- lead, other heavy of material excavatedfrom downtown tion of traditional metals, and organic construction sites. sourcesof sediment materials that through shoreline found their way armouring, and accel- into the lake sedimentsand the food erated erosion in other places; chain. This [fill] material, combined .the degree to which current guidelines with the much larger sourcesof pollu- and control procedures for materials tion, the sewagetreatment plants, for lakefilling ensure safety; storm sewers,and urban rivers, has .lack of standards for lakefilling degraded the water quality of the methods and structural designs; shore. The combined impact.of urban .disposal of the wastematerials from development -filling wetlands and construction and excavation, including river estuaries,and armouring for that judged not suitablefor lakefill; erosion control, in addition to vast .changes in economic opportunities, quantities of silt released from lakefill and the wisdom of spending public sites-has damaged much of the money to protect private and public natural habitat both above and below land through armouring -as the water line. opposed to acquiring -hazard lands; The Commission's Shoreline .similarly, constructing artificial head- Regeneration Work.Group found that the lands for private boat clubs; and

156

~".'J" .the impact of shoreline modification considerable time to correct. Lakefilling, on aesthetics,access, vistas, and however,is a discretionary activity and recreation. can be stopped asa pollution source tomor- row -if we choose to do so. There are These concerns should be considered choices of methods and materials, as well in the context of general apprehension as of locations at which lakefilling would about the safetyof Lake Ontario as a be allowed. source of drinking and bathing water. The preceding chapter of this report IMPACT OF LAKEFILL describesLake Ontario's condition and STRUCTURES AND EROSION the impact of pollution, even from sources CONTROL MEASURES far from the Greater Toronto bioregion's Artificial headlands-peninsulas cre- shoreline; it also examines efforts by the ated by lakefilling to shelter boat basins - Internationaljoint Commission, the Metro have become common on the shore of the Toronto RAP,and other groups to address Greater Toronto bioregion. They have cre~ these problems. ated negative impact on the environment The contaminated sediments,over- in four ways: loaded sewageplant, or toxic pollutants from the Niagara River and elsewherewill take .materials used for fill have contributed to contamination and turbidity of the Major WaterfrontConcern water; .structures have blocked the lake's ability to rinse its shoreline;

Unusablebeaches .8% We are a species that, through its

Undrinkablewater 15% intelligence, has exceeded its biological constraints but in the process lost Transit/ac,ess 14% its sense of place in the biosphere. Overcrowding 13% Convinced of our knowledge and Industrialwaste 12% ability to control nature, we exploit the very life-support systems of the Lackaf greenspa'" 12% planet in the name of short-tenn com- General 1 2% mismanagement fort and economic profit. Wilderness Naapinian .8% is disappearing throughout the world so quickly that each remaining untouched area becomes that much more rare and precious. Pollutionis consideredthe waterfront'smajor issue by the Suzuki, D, 1989, Carmanah:Artistic Visionsof an anden.t rain- respondents. forest.Vancouver: Western Canada Wilderness Committee. Source:Environics Poll. 1991.

1S7 .transport of sand along the waterfront measuresat the foot of the Scarborough has been limited; and Bluffs and erosion control efforts by individ- .aquatic habitat has been destroyed. uals and agenciesare estimated to cover as much as 70 per cent of the shore from Lossof shallowlake bottom for breeding Burlington to Scarborough. and feeding at the site reduces habitat, In addition to habitat loss, erosion while large amounts of sediment -material control impounds the sediment that would that blocks the light and blankets the lake normally drift along the shore, renewbeaches, bed -is lost during construction, thus and repair storm damage done to sand and imposing further, indirect harm. In a deep, gravel bars that are essentialto protecting dark, silt

158 Houseatop eroded Scarborough Bluffs shore have starved any beachesor elimi- the number of types of fish, which are an nated a significant amount of shallow-water indicator of the health of aquatic ecosys- aquatic habitat. However, 50,000metres tems, has alreadydecreased from 50 to (31 miles) of armoured shore is another approximately 25 and, in some areas,is as matter. It is estimated that 90 per cent of low as 11. aquatic life depends on the shallow near- Cumulative effects-the combination shore zone that is destroyed by many forms of various stressesover time -is a difficult of erosion control. Losing such large areas but important issue in evaluating the pres- leads to reduced food supply and spawning ent and future health of the region's aquatic capacity.As discussedpreviously, shoreline ecosystem. modification damageshabitat, but that is partially offset by some benefits. Clearly, SAFETY OF CURRENT the important issueis how to alter practices GUIDELINES AND CONTROL and technology so that they have a positive Materials for open water disposal- overall effect on habitat. lakefilling -are controlled according Loss of habitat, combined with other to a systemdefined by the Ministry'ofthe stressessuch as contaminants and the Environment, using maximum levelsof con- presence of exotic specieslike the lamprey taminants set out as "Sediment Guidelines". eel, has placed great stresson aquatic life In the Metro area, the control systemis forms. Along the Greater Toronto shore, operated for MaE by the Metropolitan

159 Toronto and Region ConservationAuthority. range of toxic contaminants to establish MTRCA samplessoil in large construction nominally safe levels in materials for open sites,and acceptsor rejects fill from them, water disposal.Many toxic substancesare based on the results of its tests of contents. omitted. Recent work on contaminants In the past, trucks were sampled when they in the 1976 list has shown that some are arrived at the lakefill site, but resultswere higher than the "no-effect level", that is, not available until days after the sampling. the greatestconcentration that showed no MTRCA records show that some material measurable effects when tested on indicator used in lakefill (25 per cent in 1989, 15 per species.Considering this new information, cent in 1990) was contaminated beyond the 1976 guidelines can no longer be the levels suggestedby the existing MOE relied on to define concentrations that sediment guidelines. are not harmful. The Royal Commissionwas given per- suasiveevidence, based on MOE research, STANDARDS FOR MARINE showingthat toxic materialsmoved from con- CONSTRUCTION taminated sedimentsto nearbyplants and fish. There are no standards or codes to Aquatic life accumulatessome of the contami- define what level of storms artificial head- nantsand introduces them, in concentrated lands must be able to withstand, what water form, to the food chain. This pattern has levels they must attain or even how fill must raisedpublic and regulatoryconcern. be controlled to avoid pollution and turbid- Established in 1976, current MOE ity. Without such minimum standards, it is sediment guidelines consider a very limited not surprising that minimum initial cost can

Figure4.1 Numberof fish speciesfound -T oronlo walerfronl fish collections,1989

40 No. ofSpecies .31 31 31 28

25 24 30 23 24 24 23

20 16

10

0 MCP (55 HBW HBE HR Tol TTP AB SBP HC RR SampleLocations

Notes: MCP: MorieCur1is Pork HBE: HumberBay East fiP: TommyThompson Pork HC: HighlandCreek CSS: ColonelSomuel Smith HR: HumberRiver AB: Ashbridge'sBoy RR: RougeRiver HBW: HumberBoy West Tal: TarantaIslands SBP: ScorboroughBluffer's Pork

Source:Buchonon, I.D. 1991. Presentationfor the Royal Commissionan the Future of the TorontoWaterfront. Maple: Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources.

160

MARCH OF THE MOTORIZED MASTODONS

Each morning, an elephantine processionemerges from the depths of downtown construction sites:a herd of dusty dump trucks struggles to the street level, then lumbers through the canyons between office towers toward the lakeshore. Brakes squealing, engines snorting, the vehicles rumble through intersections, harassedby taxis, cycle couriers, and pedestrians preoccupied with the day's work ahead. The trucks bear a massiveburden of rubble and soil extracted from the foundations of large buildings, to make way for parking, passageways,and the subterranean shops of . Their destination is the dusty peninsula near the mouth of the Don River.

South of the flaking concrete pillars that support the aging expressway,the loaded trucks gain speed and momentum, surging toward the open spit. There, freed of traffic, stoplights, and human obstacles,they stampede the length of the peninsula, a swirl of dust and gulls rising in the eddies behind their bulky frames. At the water's edge, they grind to a stop, turn, and await a turn to dump their burden of rock and soil. One by one, each struggles to the bank, arches its back, and relieves itself at the water's edge. Most of the material hangs on the banks or slides below the surface,while some dancesaway, suspended in the wavy turbulence, to be deposited far along the shore. This pattern will be repeated more than a thousand times a week -nearly sixty thousand times a year. The land area expands and the water surface contracts in a ritual that has continued and accelerated for the last century.

sources,including tributaries and sewage allows some material exceeding guidelines treatment plants (STPs). to be deposited, and lack of codes permits Not only is lakefilling a very significant construction methods which result in contributor to suspendedsolids and water large amounts of fill mixing freely with turbidity in the region, those effects are water along the shore. increased dramatically when construction Furthermore, lakefill projects contri- practices allow a greater proportion of fill bute indirectly to shore contamination. to escape. As a result of wave action, sedimentsand Given that some lakefill is contami- nearshorewaters naturally progress along nated and that some of it escapes,fill an exposed shore; unobstructed they contributes copper and lead contami- dispersewidely, taking with them any attached nation to water in the region. However, contaminants from partially treated sew- even at the highest percentage loss, age, storm water or other sources.At an lakefill ranks well behind other sources artificial barrier like that at Humber Bay (seeFigure 4.2). East (lakefill), sediment is trapped and To summarize, in light of new infor- deposited; the result is a contaminant sink, mation, current guidelines for fill sedi- often accompanied by foul odours and float- ments are inadequate: the control system ing debris..

162 DISPOSAL OF WASTE out with public funds, personal benefits at MATERIALS FROM public expense can become an issue. CONSTRUCTION Constructing artificial headlands that Earlier it was mentioned that lakefill protect and house private boat clubs is a wasconsidered an inexpensive and conve- case in point: the appropriateness of using nient waste disposalarrangement. The public funds to build sheltered harbours practice has been a particularly prevalent for private clubs surrounded by chain link on the Metropolitan Toronto's downtown fences that deny public accessis question- waterfront, where land valuesare extremely able. Although everyone may enter the high. These high valuespreclude disposal public park, only a select group may enter on-site, and the need for large underground the grounds of a private club. parking facilities dictates that a great deal of Another issuearises from publicly material must be excavatedat each location. funded erosion control measuresunder- While the averageannual amount of taken to protect private property. Those. fill is immense, it varies from year to year, who benefit from erosion control are easily depending on the amount of construction identified, but the consequencesof such activity. Estimates of volume from 1984to activity are hard to predict: whose property the year 2000 were prepared by Environ- mental Applications Limited for the Ministry of the Environment; they projected average annual volume of 1,050 tonnes (1,155 tons) -the contents of roughly 60,000 dump trucks per year. But how will Toronto dispose of up to 60,000 dump-truck loads of waste iflakefill is banned, or restricted by tighter standards? While relatively low levels of contaminants in this material mean that it should not be mixed with water or otherwise introduced to the food chain, most of the fill does not require the control provided in sanitary landfill. The most critical issuesfor MOE and the construction industry are how to classify,and where to deposit, material unsuitable for lakefill.

ECONOMIC ISSUES Everyone receivessome form of personal benefit from the expenditure of public funds: motorists drive on public high- ways;pedestrians stroll in public parks. How-

ever,when shorelinemodifications are carried A downtown Torontoconstruction site

163 The Great Outdoors is still great. Real estateand housing on a cleaner, greener But we found that we are facing a waterfront could meet shelterneeds while, at deterioration of the natural resource the sametime, providing amenities that bring base, and of the recreation infrastruc- a higher return. Cleanerwater, restored fish ture. Accelerating development of habitat, and boat-launching facilities built our remaining open spaces, wetlands, on lakefill may increaseboat-<:hartering and shorelines, historic sites, and country- related serviceindustries. The point is that sides, and deferred maintenance and all these economic opportunities depend care of our existing resources, are on the basic resource -healthy water and robbing future generations of the her- waterfront ecosystems.The question is how itage which is their birthright. We are to expand and enhance these opportunities. selling the backyard to buy groceries. .. Report of the President's Commission AESTHETICS, ACCESS, AND on Americans Outdoors. RECREA TION Howe, L. 1987. Keepingour gardenstate green: a wcal grroern- Someshoreline issues are difficult to mentguide for greenwayand openspace planning. NewJersey: New Jersey Department of Environmentll Protection. expressin economicterms; they are gener- allythose that fall in the broadcategories: aestheticaspects, access, and recreation. will suffer from accelerated erosion as a consequence of the initial measures?Whose AESTHETICS beach will no longer receive the sand that Aestheticconsiderations include: is the owner's riparian right? Having used public money to protect one property, how .variety in landscaping techniques for does the government refuse to safeguard parks and public open space; another one, nearby, particularly if there is a .protection of 'open-water views; link betweenone government erosion con- .incompatible development on or next trol structure and the subsequentcomplaint? to fill; Alternatives to shoreline armouring .odour and appearanceproblems arising include purchasing hazard lands, a strategy from debris trapped in embayments; that may prove less costly and improve pub- .protection of natural shoreline fea- lic access.In addition, expanded public tures such as beachesand bluffs; and ownership'of nearshore hazard lands can .protection of built heritage and increase opportunities for natural links connections with the past. between stream valleys. There are many waysin which shore- Traditional managementand land- line regeneration can contribute to the eco- scapingof public lands limit habitats. Variety nomic vigour of the waterfront: a waterfront in landscaping, that is, providing areaswith free of debris and sewageis a more attractive native wild grasses,flowering plants, shrubs, place for tourism, conventions, and recre- and trees, as well as formal park settings, will ation. The more attractive the setting, the increase diversity of habitat and species. more tourist dollars available and the more Unobstructed open-watervistas are salesof nearby commercial establishments. among the most valued amenities on the

164 waterfront. Proposalsfor lakefilling that comprehend that this fort wasonce central would block those views,or that would to the defense of Upper Canada.Achieving support towering waterfront developments, progress without compromising our connec- represent a threat to those valuesand a tion to the past is another challenge for challenge to planning waterfront areas.. shoreline regeneration. Protecting shoreline viewsinvolves paying attention to the height and location of AcCESS buildings, and the design of programs for Accessibilityis an important factor in tree-planting on public land. enhancing the public value of the waterfront Incompatible developments-parking but must be achieved in a way that is fair to lots or busy marinas next to quiet residential landowners and showsdue consideration areas,structures that trap debris or contami- for the many other demands on the public nated water -can degrade the value of purse. Some public utilities need special both public and private waterfront land. securityand some other land should be set Planning must consider adjacent land uses. asid~ for use as sanctuaryand natural areaS. The variety of the bioregion' s shoreline Transportation corridors parallel to the is one of its important assets.Bluffs, such as shore, such as the railwaysand expressways, those in Scarborough, depend on erosion provide barriers to recreational access.A of the base to maintain their steepface; lakeshore that is hidden behind a wall of therefore, erosion control at the base,and industrial, public or private fences provides normal wearing awayof the cap, will eventu- few public benefits. The issueis how to pro- ally eliminate the sharp slope that gives vide for a continuous at or the area its character.As mentioned earlier, near the shore, and accessto the water at armourstone at the water's edge impounds reasonableintervals, while achieving the sediment that would normally move downshore to renew the natural beaches DesiredWaterfront Development that the public values highly. We cannot stop erosion and retain its benefits, any more Objectives than we can "eat our cake and have it too". Naturalarea Certain shoreline modification activi- 60% ties may conflict with the public need to Recreatianalarea 20% retain connections with the built heritage and the past. For example, lakefill has Residentialarea 6% reduced the Harbour Commissioners' building from being what it Ol)cewas in Developedarea Toronto -a striking waterfront welcome to the City -to just another inland office. Combination Fort York, which once commanded the har- 10% bour, lies hidden behind approximately 800 metres (0.5 mile) offill and structures, Nearlytwo-thirds of the respondentswould like to havemore its role, purpose, and location equally naturalareas on thewaterfront. obscured; the visitor may find it difficult to Source:Environics Poll. 1991.

165 fairness to existing landowners, and costs Regeneratingthe shoreline with lake- that are affordable. fill can increase the types of recreational opportunities available, by creating new RECREATION land at a cost of construction that is one- Many forms of recreation, both active fIfth to one-tenth that of acquisition. The and passive,can and should be enjoyed environmental costsvary with the lakefill along the shore: active pursuits include site and construction methods but must be cycling, running, fishing, power-boating, added for fair comparison with acquisition sailing, swimming, and rowing. Lessvigor- of existing land. An ecosystemapproach ous activities include picnicking, walking, to land-use planning must balance and allo- birdwatching, sunbathing, photographing, cate the benefits, while minimizing the and simply observing the passingscene. conflicts -a process that includes many While these pastimesare among the issuesthat must be considered. most valuable to the community, they can create conflicts, both among activities and How HAS SHORELINE with other values on the shore. For example, MODIFICATION CAUSED some residents of the shore object to the PROBLEMS? traffic and noise created in their neighbour- The Royal Commission heard consid- hoods by visitors to aquatic parks like erable testimony that shoreline modifications Bluffer's; birdwatchers object to motorized are part of the problem of shoreline degra- invasion of natural areas. dation. There has been significant evidence

Lakefrant PromenadeMarina, Mississauga

166 Map4.1: lake Ontarionorthern shoreline

Hamilton Harbour

that they can also be part of the solution serious problem is the lack of broad respon- but, before that can happen, the root causes sibility, the Shoreline Regeneration Work of past difficulties must be identified. Group attempted to establishwho was in Collectively,we are fouling our own charge, and found that: nestand acting againstour own bestinterests. ...the Lake Ontario shoreline in To the best of our knowledge, no person or the GTB comes under the jurisdiction group setsout to destroy natural habitat, of 11 local municipalities, five conser- drive awayspecies, or close the beachesof vation authorities, four regional govern- the Greater Toronto bioregion. These con- ments, at least six federal and provincial sequencesare the result of accident or ministries, severalCrown corporations, neglect, the unplanned consequenceof mil- and two harbour commissions. lions of independent actions, all focused on As a result of the profusion of another goal- whether that goal is to pro- responsible agencies,governments, tect property from erosion or to construct and boards, some projects -such as boat berths and parks for public use. the construction of a dock projecting Damage occurs becauseof the way into the lake -receive detailed scrutiny projects, including shoreline modification, from all three levels of government. are evaluated:each is considered individually Obviouslythe multijurisdictional by persons or agencieslooking at one aspect, approach results in a patchwork quilt of whether that is road connections or hazard regulations rather than a comprehen- land protection. They are sometimescon- sive approach to setting and achieving sidered solely on the basis of economic goals for developing and protecting feasibility, and from a narrow local view- the shore. point, without much regard for other devel- With so many levels,departmenTS, opments elsewhere.Given that the most ministries, and specialpurpose bodies,

167 it is difficult to find one that is clearly Harbour. Between East Point and Whitby, in charge. very little material is produced, and direc- It is not surprising that, with no tion of movement varies. Sediment move- c()-{)rdination, there is no ecosystem ment is generally eastwardfrom Whitby to approach to the evaluation of various pro- Prince Edward County. jects, or the whole shoreline of the Greater Coastalprocesses cannot be consid- Toronto bioregion. Nor is it possibleto evalu- ered properly when evaluated by a munici- ate cumulative or incremental effects of a pality or conservation authority whose view project or series of projects, becausethere is is limited to a segment of a littoral cell. For no estimate of the carrying capacityof the example, an artificial headland created in shore. While there are plans for segmentsof Mississaugacan affect the Halton shore by the shore, there is little blocking the move- progresstoward com- -() .,": ment of littoral sand prehensive ecosystem ~" ,. Coastal processescannot be to the west.The rehabilitation, and so . consIderedproperly when evaluated by sameheadland can the lossesare legion a municiPality or conservation authority impair the quality and the gains are few. who.~e~~'~"'~'"view is limited to a segment of water drawn into Failure to consi- of, a littoral cell. Mississaugabecause ~1,\ der coastal processes, ". , ,:: ,;: '" " of obstruction of con- that is, erosion and CP, C "'c" Cc ccc ,c -(; ""ri,i' .. tammants moVIng deposition of sediment as a result of the eastfrom the rivers and sewagetreatment action of wind and waves,is another plants of Metropolitan Toronto. concern in lakeshore planning. The littoral Planning a shoreline embracing one cell, a section of shore where barriers or more complete littoral cells is consistent restrict the longshore movement of sedi- with an ecosystemapproach, and is not a ment so that very little is gained or lost, pro- newidea. Recognizingthe problems inherent vides a minimum physical unit. The barriers in a piecemeal approach, the three conserva- which limit movement may be natural, like tion authorities with responsibility for the the Toronto Islands, or artificial, like the littoral cell in the easternpart of the Greater Leslie Street Spit. Since a littoral cell con- Toronto bioregion conducted a combined tains the physical movement of sand, it can study. In 1990, Sandwell SwanWooster Inc., provide a basisfor planning boundaries, consulting engineers, submitted a report although the exact cell boundary is some- titled LakeOntario ShorelineManagement Plan times difficult to determine, and subject to to the Central Lake Ontario, Ganaraska change due to new structures and physical Region,and Lower Trent Region conservation changes on the shore. authorities. This plan had a logical planning A shoreline where the general envelope,and a consistentapproach to hazard movement of sediment is in one direction land managementand protection of environ- may consist of a chain of sub-cells.Within mentally sensitiveareas. Many issuesof con- the Greater Toronto bioregion, longshore cern in the Greater Toronto bioregion were movement is westbound from East Point in raised, suchas policies for shoreline erosion Scarborough to the mouth of Hamilton control and fill and construction guidelines.

168 In summary, the damage to the shore- will collapse.This, given existing and persis- line environment is not deliberate, but tent environmental degradation, suggests happens as the unplanned consequenceof that positive measuresmust be taken soon pursuing other goals. The provincial minis- to preserve the benefits we enjoy today. tries of the Environment and Natural Resourcesand the federal Department of WHAT IS THE Fisheries and Oceanshave an interest in PROBLEM? protecting the shore: they are trying to min- While there is a great deal of planning imize the damage, but there is a lack of co- along the waterfront of the Greater Toronto ordination, no overall plan, and no one bioregion, there has been little progress agencyor body with a mandate to improve toward effective shoreline regeneration. the shoreline. No one has estimated the car- One problem is the general lack of a rying capacityso that cumulative effects can co-ordinated, ecosystemapproach to plan- be controlled or been given a mandate to ning. Municipal waterfront plans are usually establishor enforce codes or standards for based on boundaries without an ecosystem marine construction. It is not surprising, rationale, leaving each municipality vul- therefore, that most incremental changes nerable to the actions of its neighbours. A have degraded the natural environment and related problem is the inability to consider reduced its potential benefits for the cumulative environmental effects, because residentsand economy of the region. planning is done for a portion ora natural system. WHY SHOULD WE BE Resolvingintra-municipal planning CONCERNED? issuesis a responsibility of the provincial A healthy shoreline is a priceless asset government. In some cases,federal agencies for the Greater Toronto bioregion: it offers are involved aswell. Many of these agencies drinkable water, recreation, rest, and solace have specialized interests such as "protect at the doorstep of millions, and is an excit- the environment", "expand the housing ing stimulant for commerce, tourism, and supply",and "enhance transportation" with- the economy. It is worth defending, and it out much incentive to work together. Given is not yet too late to do so. the specializedviewpoints, complicated Much of the shoreline east of planning issues,and lack of agreed goals, Scarborough remains in a relatively healthy objectives,and timetables, endlessreview state, and adequately maintaining it will and delay is the common result. The water- require wisdom and fortitude, but little front is plagued by jurisdictional gridlock. money. The most significant parts of the remaining shoreline west of Scarborough WHAT CAN BE DONE? can be protected or restored. Effective co-ordination is the missing The Greater Toronto bioregion is element. A mechanism is needed to integrate expecting a large increase in population special interests, establish goals and time- and density; people, industry, and other tables, strike balanced decisions, negotiate activity will substantially increase strains on compromises, and thereby break the the waterfront and its natural systems. Some gridlock. Based on a review of experience in

169 other jurisdictions, and the situation within the CoastalZone Management Act (CZMA), the Greater Toronto bioregion, the Com- has applied constraints and incentives to mission has concluded that a co-ordinated create partnerships to protect the Great shoreline regeneration plan would provide Lakes. the required mechanism. In Canada,the Fraser River Estuary If it is to bring about shoreline Management Plan (FREMP) involves regeneration, this plan must contain approximately 60 agencies,including three elements: six Native bands, two harbour commissions, the federal and provincial governments, .a co-ordinating agencywith the and all area municipalities. In each case,a mandate, will, and skill to involve all co-ordinating agencywas created to bring responsible parties in planning and them all together to protect and develop the acting on shoreline regeneration; waterfront resource. .positive goals and objectives for The Greater Toronto bioregion's need protecting and regenerating the shore, for such a co-ordinating agencywas recog- as well as co-ordinated action to achieve nized by the Shoreline Regeneration Work those goals and objectives;and Group which, in its report to the Royal .constraints on certain development Commission, said that the Waterfront activities in order to ensure a healthy, Regeneration Trust recommended in resilient, productive shoreline with Watershedcould be: increased aesthetic,social, and ...a valuablevehicle for shoreline regen- economic value to the community. eration; it should pursue only those shoreline modifications that meet A co-ordinating agencywith the man- ecologicalcriteria and ensure that newly date, will, and skills needed to improve the createdlands remain in public ownership situation will be able to bring the interested for the benefit of future generations. municipalities and agenciestogether, and to facilitate agreement on goals, principles, DESIRABLE and timetables for the plan area. In order to CHARACTERISTICS encourage integration of the various inter- OF A SHORELINE ests,the co-ordinating agency will need a REGENERATION PLAN mandate to act as the primary negotiator for Protecting and restoring the shoreline the province in arbitrating disagreements. in keeping with the nine regeneration princi- The Greater Toronto bioregion has ples described in Chapter 1 will require unique advantages,but is not alone in facing some limitations on how and where develop- a maze of waterfront jurisdictions: in the ment may proceed. Such constraints could United States,for example, the San be established using a readily understood Francisco Bay Conservation and Develop- control pattern -such as maps with "red" ment Commission has 13 counties and zonesfor the mostrestrictive natural or histor- cities working co-operativelyto protect ical areas;"orange" zones for areas in which common resource. On a broader scale,the moderate constraintsare necessary;and government of the United States,through "green" zones to identify the most flexible

170 areas. Certain areas, in the "red" zones, .powers adequate for protecting natu- will be too important to the goals of public ral areas and enforcing any restrictions access, habitat protection or enhancement required by the plan. to allow construction, erosion control or lakefilling. Defining the boundaries for the plan The plan should emphasize such is important. An ecosystem approach suggestS opportunities as initiatives that increase that the planning envelope should have a access, tourism, boating, walking, swimming, natural system rationale. On land, water- wildlife, fishing, trail hiking, and greenways. sheds normally provide the logical dimen- Increasing these opportunities can be an sions. In the case of the waterfront, a large important tool in reducing conflicts between iittoral cell or a combination of cells would uses, as well as stresses on existing facilities. provide a reasonable unit. There is some The plan should not attempt toestab- uncertainty as 10 the precise limits of these lish all social, commercial, transportation, cells along the Greater Toronto waterfront and other goals and objectives for the and cell definition should be an early prior- shoreline: other plans and mechanisms, ity for planning. Population density and such as those being undertaken by regional development pressure provides another basis and area municipalities, address such for giving priority to certain areas. A plan needs. However, the Shoreline Regeneration for the shore between Burlington Bay and Plan will provide enhanced opportunities the Trent River would capture a substantial for social and commercial development, combination of littoral cells embracing the and should be integrated with those whole Greater Toronto bioregion, as well as other plans. an area under significant pressure for change. There are other characteristics that would contribute substantially to a success- IMPLEMENTING ful plan; they include: THE PLAN The following recommendations .an overall "red" designation for the are designed to implement a Shoreline shoreline, until the plan identifies discrete areas,as an incentive for stakeholdersto participate in, Whether they begin with the policies negotiate, and complete the plan; and programs of the state, in the head .a clearly defined, efficient approval offices of large corporations, in the and control process (one-wicket workplace, or at someone's kitchen application) ; table, the end result of sustainable .a consultative approach to developing development must be the creation and administering the plan, including of sustainable communities. provision for regular public input and review; Wismer, S. \990,:8 "AssessingA sustainable development in an ur bancontext. ".Q'I Eht Ira" ldzmenslonso]"' .r' SU$taz.n abled eve.",.. .adequate resources for agencies opmentand urbanization: seminarpapers, Winnipeg: Institute , responsible for developing and of Urban Studies.. implementing the plan; and

171 Regeneration Plan and to deal with existing For example, proposals that conform to or future problems that could affect the the plan could receive "credits" toward efficiency and effectivenessof that plan. completion of any environmental assess- In order to implement the Shoreline ment required. Regeneration Plan, co-operation is needed Further, there must be rewards and from all levels of government. Such a part- incentives to negotiate the shoreline plan, nership approach, which recognizescon- and to support its implementation. The straints and provides incentives but does not most important incentive for municipalities remove authority and responsibility, is the and conservation agencieswould be break- most effective approach to planning on ing the jurisdictional "logjam", and predict- the waterfront. able, steadyprogress of plans and projects Successwill depend on the incentives through provincial agencies,once those provided by a process that both safeguards plans comply with the agreed plan. environmental and public values,and streamlines the approvals required. The RECOMMENDATION framework for ecosystem-basedplanning described in Chapter 2 should be examined 25. The Royal Commissionrecommends as a possible model. Having satisfied them- that the Province of Ontario ensure selveswith the rigour of the ecosystem preparation of a Shoreline Regenera- planning process,the federal and Ontario tion Plan to protect and regenerate agenciesresponsible for approvals should the shoreline of the Greater Toronto be prepared to co-operate with timetables. bioregion, employing an ecosystem

Fishingin the fog,Darlington

171) approach. This plan should be devel- It is important to prevent construction oped with the full participation of of major new projects without the benefit of relevant departments of the govern- the shoreline plan, becausethese may create ments of Canadaand Ontario, aswell. unnecessaryharm and foreclose options as those of affected regions, area for future benefits. municipalities, conservationauthorities, the private sector, non-governmental RECOMMENDATION groups, and the public. It should emphasize: 27. The RoyalCommission recommends that the Provinceplace a moratorium .protection of remaining natural on approvalof all major newlakefill areas; and shorelineerosion control projects, .rehabilitation of degraded areas; pendingapproval of a Shoreline .a mechanism for considering RegenerationPlan. cumulative environmental effects; and Notwithstanding the need for a mora- .improvement of accessand torium, some small projects might have no recreational opportunities. material influence on the plan, or there might be demonstration projects that could Any shoreline plan should have the provide valuable insights and other benefits benefit of expertise in the affected com- without compromising the integrity of the munity; therefore, before a plan proceeds, plan. The criteria for "small" and "demon- interested groups and individuals should stration" should be determined very early, have the opportunity to comment on to avoid uncertainty. and improve the ideas advanced by the Royal Commission and its work groups. RECOMMENDATION Such input would allow the shoreline plan- ning processto proceed with the support of 28. The Royal Commission recommends improved community confidence and focus. that criteria, performance standards, and procedures be established for RECOMMENDATION small or demonstration projects that

26. The Royal Commission recommends that as early as possible in the process, The old way of doing things has proven the Provinceensure public consultation, hollow and sometimes quite destructive, including public hearings, to permit though we have not yet learned the interested parties and the public to rules for the new ways of doing things, respond to recommendationson shore- so we are in the age of in-between. line regeneration, made in the Morris, D. 1990. "The ecoloo-icalO' cifu~ase1f.reliant 'I citv."'J Commission's Watershedand Shoreline In Green cities: ecolouicallO' y-sound aMWQtldI!i;irt'; tii urban Space. REgenerationdocuments, as well as in Montreal: Black RoseBooks. this final report.

173 The social, economic and ecological RECOMMENDATION forces that shape the city are completely interlocked in the world that we experi- 29. The Royal Commissionrecommends ence. Neither our institutions nor the that the Province adopt new sediment structure of our systems of governance guidelines for open-waterdisposal; reflect this reality, nor do they respect these should reflect the latest scientific the logic of the interdependent systems studies,and should establishcontami- that they represent. nant limits at levels that will protect jacobs,P.1991. Sustainableurban devel~t. Montreal: aquatic ecosystems. Third Summitof the World'sCities. Appropriate sediment standardsare one step in protecting the quality of water could be undertakenwithout compro- on the shore; applying such standardseffec- misingthe integrityof the Shoreline tively, using a quality assurancesystem, is the RegenerationPlan. important second step. This is essential,par- ticularly in view of the Commission's infor- BEFORE THE SHORELINE mation that, in the past, 15 to 25 per cent of REGENERATION PLAN material deposited at lakefill did not meet IS COMPLETE existing sediment standards. An effective shoreline plan, efficiently administered, is essentialto the long-term RECOMMENDATION health of the waterfront. While develop- ment and agreement on the plan may take 30. The Royal Commissionrecommends severalyears, some matters merit immediate that the provincial Ministry of the action. It is proposed that the Ministry of Environment and the Metropolitan the Environment prepare up-to-date sedi- Toronto and Region Conservation ment standards for open-waterdisposal and Authority reviewthe quality assurance construction standards for lakefilling, to be systemused to monitor and control the applied to completing current work as well quality of materials accepted for lake- as any small or demonstration projects. In fill and that all necessaryimprovements addition, conside:rationcan proceed on be made to improve its effectiveness. finding alternative means of dealing with materials produced by construction, as well There are severalcodes and standards as creation of greenwaysand the Waterfront governing house construction, but none for Trail. massivelakefill structures that may contain Lakefilling is discretionary activity. large quantities of contaminated sediments. Given the link establishedbetween sediment Considering that some of Ontario's engineers contaminants and uptake by plants and fish and engineering firms are known and in the aquatic food chain, it seemsreason- respectedworldwide, it is clear that we have able to avoid knowingly and voluntarily the expertise needed to setappropriate stan- damaging aquatic ecosystemsand the dards and practicesthat will ensure the safety quality of our drinking and bathing water. of the public and the natural environment.

174 RECOMMENDATION unsuitable for open water disposal, but does not require the degree of control 31. The Royal Commission recommends imposed for sanitary landfill. More- that the federal and provincial govern- over, the MOE should actively assistin ments consult with marine construc- identifying and licensing suitable sites. tion engineers, academics,and experts with relevant information, regarding The classic"3 Rs" approach to any practical codes and standardsapplica- waste problem -reduce, reuse, recycle - ble to lakefill and erosion control can be applied to construction excavation structures. Possibletopics include stan- wastes. dards related to the range of water Reducing the amount of excavatepro- levels, intensity of storms, allowable duced by deep excavationsfor parking lots fill loss, turbidity, and any other issues Canbe achieved by building above-ground connected to public safety,public parking garages,reducing the number of property, and aquatic habitat. parking spacesrequired below buildings, and increasing public transit capacity.This As soon as new and tighter MOE draft excavateis the material that is most often sediment guidelines are applied, a great used in lakefill. deal of slightly contaminated material would Other considerations such as aesthet- be rejected as lakefill. The precise volume is ics, safety,security, and the very high value unknown, but is estimated to be at leasthalf of downtown land will dominate decisions of all material currently being accepted. about parking. But, becauseexcavation is This means that, once construction activity typically less than five per cent of a build- recovers from the recession,as many as ing's cost, and the cost of new transit 1,000 truckloads per week would require would dwarf even the recently inflated new disposalsites. In the past, this material price of landfill disposal,the requirement was accepted at the Leslie Street Spit for less for underground parking is unlikely to than $100 per load. Even at current rates change quickly. (more than $1,000 per load), this material Recyclingis a practical approach for would not be welcome at sanitary landfill some bricks and broken concrete, but these sites,because capacity is limited. Further- materials represent a small proportion of more, the degree of contamination on most overall construction waste. loads is low enough that disposal in licensed Reuseoffers some very interesting sanitary fill sitesis not necessary.Obviously, options. If the material is regarded as a a practical alternative is needed. resource, rather than a problem, there are possiblysome positive waysof employing it. RECOMMENDATION For example, small amounts could be utilized to landscape nearby grounds, in 32. The Royal Commissionrecommends order to provide contour and texture. that the Ministry of the Environment Further away,they could be used in noise create a new "restricted fill" waste berms and toboggan or ski hills. On a still classification for excavatedsoil that is larger scale,millions of cubic metres could

175 raise the elevation of industrial lands cur- concept can help create the natural network rently under redevelopment in downtown that will encourage more speciesat the Toronto, such as the RailwayLands, Port waterfront. Greenwaysand shoreline regen- Industrial Area, Garrison Common, and eration initiatives are highly complemen- Ataratiri. tary. (See next chapter for an extensive The Commission has been advised examination of the greenwayconcept.) that, assumingthat contaminated soils below can be sealedproperly, large amounts RECOMMENDATION of material could be utilized in theseways. Benefits would include raising some lands 34. The Royal Commissionrecommends above the floodplain of the Don River, that the Waterfront Greenwayand achieving pleasing slopesand contours, Trail be integrated into the proposed "hiding" expresswaysand rail corridors in Shoreline RegenerationPlan for the newly created ravines, and improving sound Greater Toronto bioregion, and that buffers and general drainage. It has been work should proceed while the plan is estimated that, in downtown Toronto, as being prepared, providing that it does much as 12 ~illion cubic metres (15 cubic not compromise the plan's integrity. million yards) could be diverted from waste disposal sites -an amount that would exceed the projected production of excavatedsoils over the next decade.

RECOMMENDATION

33. The Royal Commission recommends that the possibility of using excavated material be evaluatedin the preparation of plans and proposalsfor redeveloping downtown Toronto sites, such as Garrison Common, the RailwayLands, the Port Industrial Area, and Ataratiri.

WATERFRONT GREENWAY AND TRAIL Although a Waterfront Greenway and Trail should be part of the Shoreline Regeneration Plan, there is no need to wait for the plan before encouraging initiatives that will help regenerate the terrestrial edge of the shore and make it more accessible. Parts of the Waterfront Trail exist, and further development is under way. The greenway

176