Don Mouth Naturalization & Flood Protection Project

Terms of Reference Stakeholder Consultation Report

Appendix I Project Newsletters

Full size colour copies of the Project Newsletters can be found on our web site at: http://www.trca.on.ca/water_protection/don_mouth/default.asp?load=whats_new

April 2006

Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Stakeholder Consultation Report: Terms of Reference, April 2006

297

Volume #1 June 2005

Background ACHIEVING A DREAM

The Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) TWRC Mission was established by the three levels of government to jumpstart • Transform the entire Toronto waterfront for all Canadians, to foster growth and to significantly enhance how the City is perceived. the transformation of Toronto's unattractive and • Naturalization and flood protection along the lower is one underdeveloped central waterfront into a vibrant residential, of four priority projects. economic and recreational centre. This vision for a revitalized City of Toronto waterfront consists of prominent cultural institutions, attractive • A dream of transforming and re-energizing its waterfront into one of parks and open spaces, and diverse and dynamic commercial the great waterfronts of the world. A dream of building a spectacular gateway to this city, this province and this country. and residential communities. Task Force to Bring Back the Don • An urban wilderness… shared by nature’s creatures, alongside One of the central components for this transformation of offices and homes. Toronto’s waterfront involves the naturalization of the mouth of • A destination…people go to work or to have fun, and city meets the Don River and provision of flood protection to 230 nature. • A gateway...for fish and wildlife, and people to travel. hectares of land. The flood susceptible lands are situated • A large place...with space for solitude. immediately to the south and east of the lower Don River. Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) was identified by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • An opportunity to correct the most significant flood risk hazard in the TWRC as the proponent to undertake an environmental their jurisdiction an to achieve a high level of naturalization along the assessment (EA) to determine the best option to realize the Don River mouth...an opportunity to have a dream realized. goal of re-naturalizing the mouth of the Don.

TRCA has initiated a coordinated EA process for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project (DMNP Project), to address both provincial and federal regulations. A consultant team led by Gartner Lee Ltd. and SENES was retained by TRCA to obtain the required EA approvals.

Figure 1: Existing conditions of the and Don River mouth.

299

DMNP PROJECT

Volume #1 June 2005

Why Naturalize the Don River ? The goal of the DMNP Project is “To establish the form, features and function of a natural river mouth within the context of an urban environment”.

Before European colonization, a 520 hectare marsh, later known as Ashbridges Bay Marsh, was located at the mouth of the Don River (Figure 2). At the end of the 19th century, modifications to the lower Don River, and in-filling of the Marsh was initiated to alleviate public health concerns related to insect and waterborne diseases resulting from the dumping of raw sewage into Ashbridges Bay Marsh, and to establish a land base for infrastructure to support an industrialized port lands. These alterations Figure 2: The Don River and Ashbridges Bay Marsh 1794-95. have left us with the Don River as we know it today (see Figures 1).

In its current state, the Don River mouth suffers from: • Poor water quality and high rates of sediment deposition; • Regular disturbances in the Keating Channel resulting from dredging activities undertaken to alleviate flood risk; • Impaired fish and wildlife habitat; • Lower diversity and abundance of fish and wildlife populations and with a large proportion of non- native species; • Limited submergent or emergent vegetation Figure 3: Don River mouth– area susceptible to flooding. communities; • Contaminated soils and groundwater adjacent to the Keating Channel; • River banks are vertical and hard (concrete and/or sheet pile) offering poor habitat ; • Multiple crossings of the river with roads, rail and other Infrastructure; • Limited recreational opportunities; and • Poor aesthetics.

Naturalizing the mouth of the Don will strive to provide some of the following benefits: • Reclaim lost coastal wetland habitat; • Enhance nesting and stop-over opportunities for

Figure300 4: Naturalization Implementation Area.

DMNP PROJECT

Volume #1 June 2005

waterfowl; south and east of the Don River; • Improve the abundance and diversity of amphibians, • Opportunities for continued operational reptiles, mammals, and fish communities; management of the river (e.g. issues relating to • Increase the diversity and abundance of terrestrial and sediment deposition, woody debris, and ice jams); aquatic plants, and improve the plant community • Accommodation of existing infrastructure functions structure; that could not be reasonably moved; • Provide a critical migratory link between Lake • Compatibility with other planning efforts for the and the Don watershed; revitalization of the waterfront and associated • Enhance recreational opportunities. (e.g. walking and infrastructure; and hiking, canoeing, fishing); • Consideration of recreational and cultural • Provide flood protection to 230 hectares of land opportunities. currently at risk of flooding.

What is Planned? Preliminary Concepts for the Don Mouth This Project is subject to the requirements of the Ontario General concepts for the Don Mouth to be considered for Environmental Assessment Act as an Individual discussion are pictured below. They include: Environmental Assessment (EA). The first step in preparing

an Individual EA is to develop a Terms of Reference Concept 1: Do Nothing (as required in all Environmental document that will guide how the EA decision-making and Assessments); consultation is conducted. TRCA and the consulting team Concept 2: Directs all flows of the Don River into the To- are at the initial stage of developing the EA Terms of ronto Inner Harbour; Reference. This project is also subject to the requirements of Concept 3: Directs all flows of the Don River through the the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Port Lands to the Ship Channel or Outer Harbour; and

Concept 4: Directs most of the Don River’s flow into the The final outcome of the work to be undertaken at the mouth Inner Harbour, with some of the flow directed through the of the Don River will provide : Port Lands into the Ship Channel, which acts as a spillway • A naturalized mouth of the Don River; or relief valve during very large flood events. • The removal of the risk of flooding to 230 hectares

Preliminary Concepts for the Don Mouth include:

Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4

301 Volume #1 June 2005 identifying additional issues and studies that should be taken Opportunities for Public Input into consideration through the EA process. The second Development of the EA Terms of Reference (ToR) provides Session will focus on developing a range of alternatives to be opportunities for the public to advise TRCA and the consulting considered by the EA. The third Session will focus on team of how the EA should be developed and conducted. identifying specific evaluation criteria, and provide discussion Public Forums and Working Sessions will be held throughout on the public consultation process for the EA the EA ToR process.

Also, site walks will be conducted, giving the public an Public Forums (PF) typically consist of an open house format intimate view of the challenges and opportunities involved at the beginning followed by formal presentations, and round with this Project. Walks will be scheduled the weekend table discussions. The public forums provide you with the immediately following the first Public Forum (June 25) and first Working Session (July 30). Submission of the EA Terms of Reference to the Ministry of the Environment is planned for the end of 2005.

opportunity to learn about and comment on the DMNP Project.

Working Sessions (WS) will be held throughout the summer and consist of roundtable style meetings focusing on specific issues relating to the how the EA will be developed and conducted. The first Working Session will focus on

For more information regarding the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project visit: http://www.trca.on.ca/water_protection/don_mouth/default.asp? load=flood_protection Or contact: Kenneth Dion Project Manager Phone: 416-661-6600 x5238 E-mail: [email protected]

302

Volume #2, February 2006 Volume #2, February 2006

Development of “Alternative Methods” Project Background Left: Don River Mouth/Keating Channel, “Alternative methods” are different ways of designing the The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Environmental 2005 river mouth and providing flood protection. Using river Assessment (EA) for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Below: mouth environments within the southern Great Lakes Basin as Lands Flood Protection Project (DMNP) is nearly complete! Site Walk around the Mouth of the Don examples, a long-list of “alternative methods” will be developed This Project will seek to transform the existing mouth of the Don River; July 26, 2005 for each of the “alternatives to”. The identification of “alternative River into a sustainable and functional naturalized river mouth, methods” gives prime consideration to the characteristics of the while removing the risk of flooding to 230 hectares of land east river and the ability to fulfill the naturalization and flood and south of the River. The final ToR will be submitted to the protection objectives in the context of the river conditions. Ministry of the Environment in early spring 2006 for approval. This long list of “alternative methods” will undergo a technical feasibility assessment to identify those alternatives that have “Reference Sites” for river mouth and near-shore river environments Revised Project Goals and Objectives the greatest ability to meet the naturalization and flood in the Great Lakes Basin below the Canadian Shield will provide inspiration for naturalizing the Don River mouth. Each of these protection objectives. reference sites contain numerous forms and features which will provide Goal examples for naturalization at the Don River mouth. The remaining short list of “alternative methods” will be refined “To establish and sustain the form, features, and or developed in more detail by addressing the other project functions of a natural river mouth within the context objectives related to operational management, integration with Next Steps Following Public Forum #2 of a revitalized City environment while providing What is an EA Terms of Reference (ToR) infrastructure, and recreation and cultural opportunities. flood protection up to the Regulatory Flood”. • February 22, 2006 and Why is it Required? From this short-list, a preferred alternative will be selected and The draft Terms of Reference will be made available on the A ToR is the first stage of a two stage Environmental a conceptual design will be produced. TRCA web site (see below for address) for stakeholder Objectives Assessment Act (EAA) approval process in the Province of Specific methodology will be developed in consultation with comment. Ontario. 1. Naturalize and rehabilitate the mouth of the Don stakeholders for each step of the evaluation process. The • March 8, 2006 River utilizing an ecosystem based approach. The ToR sets out the proponent’s work plan for addressing the methodology used will incorporate the views of interested Stakeholder comments due to TRCA following a 2 week second stage of the EAA approvals process - the preparation parties and will explicitly recognize and document trade-offs. comment period. 2. Provide flood protection for Spill Zones 1 and 2. and review of the EA. The ToR outlines how the EA will be undertaken and what will be included. It allows interested Consultation Framework • Mid March, 2006 3. Maintain the provision for navigation and parties to become involved in the process and ultimately Final Terms of Reference will be prepared based on existing flood protection through sediment, provides the framework that the Ministry of Environment will comments received. debris and ice management. use for the evaluation of the EA. • End of March/Early April, 2006 4. Integrate existing infrastructure functions that The Federal CEAA Process Final Terms of Reference will be submitted to the Ministry could not be reasonably moved or removed Since project implementation will be partially funded by the of the Environment (MoE). (including road, rails, utilities, trails, and power). Federal government (in addition to the Province and City), the • Summer 2006 5. Encourage additional compatible recreation, requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Begin Stage 2 after MoE approval. cultural heritage opportunities and public/ (CEAA) must also be met through the submission and approval handicap accessibility. of an Environmental Screening Report. For more information, please visit our Web site at: http://www.trca.on.ca/water_protection/don_mouth/ 6. Contribute to the revitalization and sustainability of the waterfront and coordinate with and inform default.asp?load=flood_protection other planning and development efforts and

Ongoing Public Consultation associated certain and foreseeable Or contact: Michelle Vanderwel infrastructure. As illustrated in the figure above, at each of the key decision Don Technical Clerk points of the EA, stakeholders will have the opportunity to Phone: 416-661-6600 x.5280 7. Design and implement this project in a manner consistent with TWRC’s Sustainability provide their feedback and advice through a number of Fax: 416-667-6278 Framework. consultation mechanisms similar to those used during the ToR E-mail: [email protected] stage. Coordinated EA Process

303

DMNP NEWS DMNP NEWS

Volume #2, February 2006 Volume #2, February 2006

What Has Been Done So Far? Determining “Alternatives To” Evaluation of “Alternatives To” Key Messages Heard From the Public During the development of the EA ToR, TRCA hosted two During the Development of the ToR For the DMNP project an “alternative to” is based on the As part of the ToR, the list of eight “alternatives to” were Public Fora, three Working Sessions and a Site Walk of the river’s potential discharge point to the lake. assessed using criteria based on the project objectives to current mouth of the Don River. determine which “alternatives to” had the highest potential to 1. People are eager to see the Don Mouth An initial list of four “alternatives to” was prepared and Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection meet the project goal and objectives and therefore would be The purpose of the first Public Forum, held on June 23, 2005 presented by the project team (#1-4). Four additional Project (Don Mouth Project) move forward. carried forward for further evaluation in the EA. was to introduce the project team and proposed work plan to “alternatives to” (#5-8) were added for consideration following the public and seek feedback on key elements of the proposed 2. Consultation participants are generally consultation with the public. The following evaluation criteria was used: total amount of area supportive of the information to be included in approach. The three Working Sessions held on July 25, August available for naturalization; ability to remove spill zones 1&2 the ToR and with the general approach going The initial list of “alternatives to” considered are as follows and 23 and September 7, 2005 provided an interactive forum to from the Regulatory Flood plain; ability to provide for the forward. The “alternatives to” are viewed as are illustrated in the figure below: discuss specific components of the ToR and to elicit public reasonable, although there were some management of debris and sediment; ability to improve, commentary on how to proceed with the EA. The Site Walk, participants who were looking for more rigor in 1. Do Nothing (required by the EAA). maintain or degrade water quality at discharge location relative held on July 26, 2005 provided the public with the opportunity the process of assessing “alternatives to” to 2. Discharge to the Inner Harbour. to existing water quality; ability to integrate with existing and to get a sense of the magnitude and complexity of this project include in the ToR. proposed infrastructure that cannot be moved to facilitate 3. Discharge through the Port Lands to the Ship Channel. by exposing them directly to the obstacles and opportunities. 3. The Don Mouth Project should have a mix of DMNP; ability to facilitate continued Port activities/commercial At Public Forum #2, held on January 10, 2006, the public were approaches to naturalization and flood 4. Two discharge points (primary and regional flood overflow) shipping; potential to remove or restrict existing recreation presented with how their perspectives were being considered protection that both “leave it to nature” and to the Inner Harbour and through the Port Lands to the Ship opportunities already operating in the Port Lands; consistency and incorporated into the key elements of the draft ToR. involve a “human fix”. Channel. with the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan; ability to maintain 4. Naturalization opportunities should be designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs); area of The “Key Messages” found in the green box to the right 5. Alternative #4 with a third discharge point into the lake maximized, with mixed views on the relative developable land which will no longer be developable as summarize the public feedback heard during consultation on creating a wide delta. importance of flood protection. defined through the Secondary Plan; quantity of contaminated the development of the ToR. Detailed public feedback on the 6. Discharge through the Port Lands and the Ship Channel to 5. It is critical that the needs of this Project be material to be managed; and severity of contamination. draft Project Goal, Objectives, and “alternatives to” has been the Outer Harbour. conveyed to and inform other projects in the reflected in the updated Goal, Objectives, and the evaluation of Evaluating the “alternatives to” during the ToR provides for the area. 7. Discharge through the Port Lands to the eastern end of the the “alternatives to” included in the ToR. most efficient use of resources available to the project, creates Outer Harbour . 6. This Project should not negatively impact use of the best potential for identifying a preferred undertaking that the bike trails, , the sailing clubs, 8. Eastern Port Lands discharge point (Ashbridges Bay area). achieves the project objectives and moves the project forward and existing areas of environmental value. in a timely fashion. Summary notes from the two Public 7. The Don Mouth Project should create improvements (for example, to the trail system, Fora, three Working Sessions and Site Walk accessibility, the quality of water as it enters the are available on the TRCA Web site at: lake, the public’s relationship to the river, human health, employment, aesthetics and cultural and http://www.trca.on.ca/water_protection/don_mouth/ heritage features). default.asp?load=whats_new 8. The Project needs to developed in the context of the entire Don River watershed and be adaptable over time. The Lower Don River Exists Within a 9. Broadly speaking, many people are generally Complex City Environment comfortable with the evaluation approach; however some find it difficult to understand. Alternative Discharge Points Considered Many years of planning and public consultation has taken place “Alternatives To” Evaluation 10. Public involvement in the process is critical. in support of the revitalization of the Toronto waterfront. The “Alternatives To” Carried Forward and Their Footprint DMNP, a grassroots initiative, is one project of many which are moving forward within the Port Lands and surrounding areas. This figure partially illustrates the land The following three “alternatives to” along with the “do nothing” option have been carried forward for evaluation in the EA stage. The on-going and historic planning has sought to recognize the use designations for Should other “alternatives to” be identified during the EA, they will be considered by TRCA if they are reasonable and if they have needs of multiple stakeholders including: businesses, the Central good potential to meet the project goal and objectives. residential communities, recreational users (land and water), Waterfront Secondary Plan. environmental interest groups, Port Authority, TEDCO, and The DMNP will be private land owners. Balancing the needs of all these groups is developed within this challenging within the limited Port Lands area. The Central land use framework. Waterfront Secondary Plan was developed and was adopted by Please note that Regeneration Areas in 2003 and supported by the TRCA (See relate to ‘urban figure, right). The DMNP must coordinate with this and other regeneration’. planning and development efforts for the revitalization and sustainability of the waterfront and associated foreseeable infrastructure (including roads, railroads, utilities and trails).

304

DMNP NEWS DMNP NEWS

Volume #2, February 2006 Volume #2, February 2006

What Has Been Done So Far? Determining “Alternatives To” Evaluation of “Alternatives To” Key Messages Heard From the Public During the development of the EA ToR, TRCA hosted two During the Development of the ToR For the DMNP project an “alternative to” is based on the As part of the ToR, the list of eight “alternatives to” were Public Fora, three Working Sessions and a Site Walk of the river’s potential discharge point to the lake. assessed using criteria based on the project objectives to current mouth of the Don River. determine which “alternatives to” had the highest potential to 1. People are eager to see the Don Mouth An initial list of four “alternatives to” was prepared and Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection meet the project goal and objectives and therefore would be The purpose of the first Public Forum, held on June 23, 2005 presented by the project team (#1-4). Four additional Project (Don Mouth Project) move forward. carried forward for further evaluation in the EA. was to introduce the project team and proposed work plan to “alternatives to” (#5-8) were added for consideration following the public and seek feedback on key elements of the proposed 2. Consultation participants are generally consultation with the public. The following evaluation criteria was used: total amount of area supportive of the information to be included in approach. The three Working Sessions held on July 25, August available for naturalization; ability to remove spill zones 1&2 the ToR and with the general approach going The initial list of “alternatives to” considered are as follows and 23 and September 7, 2005 provided an interactive forum to from the Regulatory Flood plain; ability to provide for the forward. The “alternatives to” are viewed as are illustrated in the figure below: discuss specific components of the ToR and to elicit public reasonable, although there were some management of debris and sediment; ability to improve, commentary on how to proceed with the EA. The Site Walk, participants who were looking for more rigor in 1. Do Nothing (required by the EAA). maintain or degrade water quality at discharge location relative held on July 26, 2005 provided the public with the opportunity the process of assessing “alternatives to” to 2. Discharge to the Inner Harbour. to existing water quality; ability to integrate with existing and to get a sense of the magnitude and complexity of this project include in the ToR. proposed infrastructure that cannot be moved to facilitate 3. Discharge through the Port Lands to the Ship Channel. by exposing them directly to the obstacles and opportunities. 3. The Don Mouth Project should have a mix of DMNP; ability to facilitate continued Port activities/commercial At Public Forum #2, held on January 10, 2006, the public were approaches to naturalization and flood 4. Two discharge points (primary and regional flood overflow) shipping; potential to remove or restrict existing recreation presented with how their perspectives were being considered protection that both “leave it to nature” and to the Inner Harbour and through the Port Lands to the Ship opportunities already operating in the Port Lands; consistency and incorporated into the key elements of the draft ToR. involve a “human fix”. Channel. with the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan; ability to maintain 4. Naturalization opportunities should be designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs); area of The “Key Messages” found in the green box to the right 5. Alternative #4 with a third discharge point into the lake maximized, with mixed views on the relative developable land which will no longer be developable as summarize the public feedback heard during consultation on creating a wide delta. importance of flood protection. defined through the Secondary Plan; quantity of contaminated the development of the ToR. Detailed public feedback on the 6. Discharge through the Port Lands and the Ship Channel to 5. It is critical that the needs of this Project be material to be managed; and severity of contamination. draft Project Goal, Objectives, and “alternatives to” has been the Outer Harbour. conveyed to and inform other projects in the reflected in the updated Goal, Objectives, and the evaluation of Evaluating the “alternatives to” during the ToR provides for the area. 7. Discharge through the Port Lands to the eastern end of the the “alternatives to” included in the ToR. most efficient use of resources available to the project, creates Outer Harbour . 6. This Project should not negatively impact use of the best potential for identifying a preferred undertaking that the bike trails, Cherry Beach, the sailing clubs, 8. Eastern Port Lands discharge point (Ashbridges Bay area). achieves the project objectives and moves the project forward and existing areas of environmental value. in a timely fashion. Summary notes from the two Public 7. The Don Mouth Project should create improvements (for example, to the trail system, Fora, three Working Sessions and Site Walk accessibility, the quality of water as it enters the are available on the TRCA Web site at: lake, the public’s relationship to the river, human health, employment, aesthetics and cultural and http://www.trca.on.ca/water_protection/don_mouth/ heritage features). default.asp?load=whats_new 8. The Project needs to developed in the context of the entire Don River watershed and be adaptable over time. The Lower Don River Exists Within a 9. Broadly speaking, many people are generally Complex City Environment comfortable with the evaluation approach; however some find it difficult to understand. Alternative Discharge Points Considered Many years of planning and public consultation has taken place “Alternatives To” Evaluation 10. Public involvement in the process is critical. in support of the revitalization of the Toronto waterfront. The “Alternatives To” Carried Forward and Their Footprint DMNP, a grassroots initiative, is one project of many which are moving forward within the Port Lands and surrounding areas. This figure partially illustrates the land The following three “alternatives to” along with the “do nothing” option have been carried forward for evaluation in the EA stage. The on-going and historic planning has sought to recognize the use designations for Should other “alternatives to” be identified during the EA, they will be considered by TRCA if they are reasonable and if they have needs of multiple stakeholders including: businesses, the Central good potential to meet the project goal and objectives. residential communities, recreational users (land and water), Waterfront Secondary Plan. environmental interest groups, Port Authority, TEDCO, and The DMNP will be private land owners. Balancing the needs of all these groups is developed within this challenging within the limited Port Lands area. The Central land use framework. Waterfront Secondary Plan was developed and was adopted by Please note that Regeneration Areas Toronto City Council in 2003 and supported by the TRCA (See relate to ‘urban figure, right). The DMNP must coordinate with this and other regeneration’. planning and development efforts for the revitalization and sustainability of the waterfront and associated foreseeable infrastructure (including roads, railroads, utilities and trails).

305

Volume #2, February 2006 Volume #2, February 2006

Development of “Alternative Methods” Project Background Left: Don River Mouth/Keating Channel, “Alternative methods” are different ways of designing the The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Environmental 2005 river mouth and providing flood protection. Using river Assessment (EA) for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Below: mouth environments within the southern Great Lakes Basin as Lands Flood Protection Project (DMNP) is nearly complete! Site Walk around the Mouth of the Don examples, a long-list of “alternative methods” will be developed This Project will seek to transform the existing mouth of the Don River; July 26, 2005 for each of the “alternatives to”. The identification of “alternative River into a sustainable and functional naturalized river mouth, methods” gives prime consideration to the characteristics of the while removing the risk of flooding to 230 hectares of land east river and the ability to fulfill the naturalization and flood and south of the River. The final ToR will be submitted to the protection objectives in the context of the river conditions. Ministry of the Environment in early spring 2006 for approval. This long list of “alternative methods” will undergo a technical feasibility assessment to identify those alternatives that have “Reference Sites” for river mouth and near-shore river environments Revised Project Goals and Objectives the greatest ability to meet the naturalization and flood in the Great Lakes Basin below the Canadian Shield will provide inspiration for naturalizing the Don River mouth. Each of these protection objectives. reference sites contain numerous forms and features which will provide Goal examples for naturalization at the Don River mouth. The remaining short list of “alternative methods” will be refined “To establish and sustain the form, features, and or developed in more detail by addressing the other project functions of a natural river mouth within the context objectives related to operational management, integration with Next Steps Following Public Forum #2 of a revitalized City environment while providing What is an EA Terms of Reference (ToR) infrastructure, and recreation and cultural opportunities. flood protection up to the Regulatory Flood”. • February 22, 2006 and Why is it Required? From this short-list, a preferred alternative will be selected and The draft Terms of Reference will be made available on the A ToR is the first stage of a two stage Environmental a conceptual design will be produced. TRCA web site (see below for address) for stakeholder Objectives Assessment Act (EAA) approval process in the Province of Specific methodology will be developed in consultation with comment. Ontario. 1. Naturalize and rehabilitate the mouth of the Don stakeholders for each step of the evaluation process. The • March 8, 2006 River utilizing an ecosystem based approach. The ToR sets out the proponent’s work plan for addressing the methodology used will incorporate the views of interested Stakeholder comments due to TRCA following a 2 week second stage of the EAA approvals process - the preparation parties and will explicitly recognize and document trade-offs. comment period. 2. Provide flood protection for Spill Zones 1 and 2. and review of the EA. The ToR outlines how the EA will be undertaken and what will be included. It allows interested Consultation Framework • Mid March, 2006 3. Maintain the provision for navigation and parties to become involved in the process and ultimately Final Terms of Reference will be prepared based on existing flood protection through sediment, provides the framework that the Ministry of Environment will comments received. debris and ice management. use for the evaluation of the EA. • End of March/Early April, 2006 4. Integrate existing infrastructure functions that The Federal CEAA Process Final Terms of Reference will be submitted to the Ministry could not be reasonably moved or removed Since project implementation will be partially funded by the of the Environment (MoE). (including road, rails, utilities, trails, and power). Federal government (in addition to the Province and City), the • Summer 2006 5. Encourage additional compatible recreation, requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Begin Stage 2 after MoE approval. cultural heritage opportunities and public/ (CEAA) must also be met through the submission and approval handicap accessibility. of an Environmental Screening Report. For more information, please visit our Web site at: http://www.trca.on.ca/water_protection/don_mouth/ 6. Contribute to the revitalization and sustainability of the waterfront and coordinate with and inform default.asp?load=flood_protection other planning and development efforts and

Ongoing Public Consultation associated certain and foreseeable Or contact: Michelle Vanderwel infrastructure. As illustrated in the figure above, at each of the key decision Don Technical Clerk points of the EA, stakeholders will have the opportunity to Phone: 416-661-6600 x.5280 7. Design and implement this project in a manner consistent with TWRC’s Sustainability provide their feedback and advice through a number of Fax: 416-667-6278 Framework. consultation mechanisms similar to those used during the ToR E-mail: [email protected] stage. Coordinated EA Process

306