TORONTO SHORELINES
Advocating for the preservation of Toronto's longest natural shoreline
Guildwood, Grey Abbey & East Point represent 3 km of continuous sand beach
Taking a Closer Look
PDF LINK: Taking a Closer Look: Scarborough Waterfront Project Supporting Documents
Prepared by Jen Falvy, Friends of the Bluffs February 24, 2017
“Some of us go to the shore to find tranquility alongside the water - water clean enough that our children can swim or fish safely. Or we might go to catch sight of the abundant wildlife in the protected natural areas and regenerated forests and wetlands that dot the shore in blocks large and small. We might stroll along the beaches and bluffs, watching the waves that continually shape the shoreline.” Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy, Toronto 1995 (p. 6)
Introduction
The Scarborough Waterfront Project is a $60 million project being proposed by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority which involves changes to 11 km of shoreline along the Scarborough Bluffs between Bluffer’s Beach and East Point Park. The area has been separated into 3 segments and each one has a number of alternatives that have been presented to the public for consideration.
East Segment
The segment we are concerned with is the 3 km sand shore of the East Segment. The area is considered a Heritage Shoreline due to the geological features of the bluffs and an Environmentally Significant Area because of the high degree of biodiversity and native plants. The public parks in this segment are Grey Abbey Park and East Point Park. The area has a diverse habitat of shoreline, bluffs, wetland and meadow.
Concern
The reason for our concern is because of the dramatic changes being proposed to this natural landscape, changes that will virtually destroy the unique features of the area and remove 1.7 km of sand beach.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is to take a closer look at the documents behind the Scarborough Waterfront Project. All of the documents have been carefully reviewed and this report summarizes key points of concern, with supporting quotes, and concludes with our recommendations.
Scarborough Waterfront Project - Supporting Documents
In the Executive Summary of the Environmental Assessment, the TRCA refers to a number of City of Toronto and Toronto Regional Conservation Authority planning documents from 1967 to 1996 as the key documents shaping the ideas behind the SWP:
• The Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area, 1967
• Watershed Plan, 1980
• The Waterfront Trail: First Steps from Concept to Reality, 1991
• Regeneration. Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City: Final Report, 1992
• Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy, 1995
• Integrated Shoreline Management Strategy (ISMP), 1996
Key Issues
Location of Trail
Waterfront Trail Design
Waterfront Trail Experience
Shoreline Protection
Environmental Concerns of Lakefilling
Public Consultation
Location of Trail
The documents support and recommend the trail remaining at the top of the bluffs to protect this environmentally significant area, and to preserve the natural sand beach.
“Segment 7 represents the longest unprotected shoreline along the Scarborough Bluffs. No structural works are proposed for this segment for regeneration purposes (i.e., the shoreline should remain in a natural state).
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Integrated Shoreline Management Strategy (ISMP), Toronto 1996 (p. 11)
“Trail construction and use must protect sensitive ecosystems and minimize negative effects on the environment. Sensitive ecosystems are normally avoided entirely by looping the trail around these areas.”
Reid, R., Woodbum, B., Lockhart,, R., Peterson, B., The Waterfront Trail: First Steps from Concept to Reality. Toronto 1991 (p. 48)
“As elsewhere along the Waterfront Trail, the location of the trail varies. It is at the water’s edge as much as possible, but often it is located further inland to include cultural heritage sites, to avoid sensitive natural areas, and to respect private uses of the shoreline.”
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Integrated Shoreline Management Strategy (ISMP), Toronto 1996 (p. 38)
“A trail is usually - but not always - part of a greenway. In areas of ecological sensitivity, or on private lands with a greenway, a continuous trail may not be possible.”
Royal Commission of the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. Regeneration, Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City: Final Report, Toronto 1992 (p. 179)
“Protection and enhancement of natural features that increase the diversity of experiences for trail uses, and that are integral to the health and stability of ecosystems”
Reid, R., Woodbum, B., Lockhart,, R., Peterson, B., The Waterfront Trail: First Steps from Concept to Reality. Toronto 1991 (p. 7)
Waterfront Trail Design
The documents recognize that the shoreline has a range of access points to the water with a wide matrix of needs to be considered when planning the trail. It is stated that the design should not be limited to a single-style trail and the access points should reflect the diversity of the landscape, and the communities it traverses through. Some access points are provincially significant, some are regional, and some may be for local or community access only. Unlimited access is not always be possible, and it is indicated that in some locations, the trail is to remain on the roadway to wind its way through communities
“The trail should reveal the diversity of the waterfront by passing through a variety of environments such as protected ravines, wind-swept shores, scenic bluffs, quiet streets and busy commercial centres.”
Reid, R., Woodbum, B., Lockhart,, R., Peterson, B., The Waterfront Trail: First Steps from Concept to Reality. Toronto 1991 (p. 46)
“In densely developed commercial or industrial areas, the Trail may have to be squeezed into a corridor as narrow as 5 metres, in many cases with cycling routed along an adjacent road. Within these narrow corridors, the degree of sire preparation (boardwalks, landscaping etc) required will be greater.”
Reid, R., Woodbum, B., Lockhart,, R., Peterson, B., The Waterfront Trail: First Steps from Concept to Reality. Toronto 1991 (p. 8)
“A short trail link between the on-road trail at Greyabbey to Copperfield Road is proposed along the southern boundary of the rail right-of-way. A perpetual public use easement is required at this location to provide pedestrian access near the lake shore. This should be discussed with CN Rail.”
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Integrated Shoreline Management Strategy (ISMP), Toronto 1996 (p. 13)
Waterfront Trail Experience
The documents emphasize in order to meet the objectives of creating a diverse waterfront experience with a range of trail types that allow a variety of vistas and vantage points, the importance of diversity and creativity is to implementing when designing the trail system. This objective is more affectively realized when the trail is along the water’s edge in some segments and along the table of the bluffs in others, as recommended. The experience in the east segment, will be a highlight of the trail allowing the public to enjoy a view as far as the eye can see, that includes this beautiful, natural, and unaltered heritage shoreline.
“…emphasis has been placed on the creation of viewing points where the combination of foreground and the distant view is most favourable. It must be remembered however, that the waterfront should offer more than a series of static pictorial views. The scenic drive, the walkways and the waterways will be kinetic links, and the design should induce moments of surprise and excitement, tranquility and solitude. It should arouse contrasting feelings of enclosure and openness, repose and activity. The visitor traversing the grounds will thus be rewarded by a continuous visual experience which is always varied and ever engaging.”
Waterfront Technical Committee. The Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area, Toronto 1967 (p. 22)
“The experience of trail users will be enhanced by consideration of scenic interest, spatial quality, and other aspects of trail designs. A variety of viewing positions should allow views upward, downward, and across, and both to and from prominent landmarks. Panoramic views, confined vistas, and sightlines all contribute to the variety of experiences along the trail.”
Reid, R., Woodbum, B., Lockhart,, R., Peterson, B., The Waterfront Trail: First Steps from Concept to Reality. Toronto 1991 (p. 46)
Shoreline Protection
The majority of the shoreline in the east segment is adjacent to public land so there is no imminent call for property protection. It is also the lowest segment of the bluffs and in some areas less than 50 ft in height. The upper layers of the bluffs in this segment and the natural process of erosion supports the hundreds of Bank Swallows that are nesting. The Bank Swallow is a species at risk, that has declined by 90% in the past few decades due to habitat loss. They are an aerial insectivore that rely on the open, natural beach for the abundance of food.
This east segment of the shore has a couple of residences and companies with riparian rights. The property owners have taken the necessary measures to ensure their property is safe for informal use by the public and they have actually gone to great lengths and cost to enhance the natural habitat at the water’s edge. The sand beach bays in this area are now a key attraction for shore birds and they are often seen feeding along the beach. The entire natural shoreline of this area is important because of the designated Bird Sanctuary and recognized Flyway for migrating birds at East Point.
As the documents discuss details of shoreline work, they bring forward some noteworthy points and even the earliest document from 1967 recognized that the best shoreline protection is actually maintained by nature itself in the form of beaches. When shoreline work is done on the waterfront, the documents refer to their mandate of an ecosystem approach and the shortfall of a long straight revetment wall not meeting the objective of regeneration.
When referring to riparian rights, property acquisitions are looked upon as a last resort and only if necessary for habitat protection and for ensuring the land returns to its natural state for a more prosperous greenway. These early documents discuss this in length and its worth noting that the tone is one of collaboration and in the spirit of working with private land-owners, when possible. The primary objective is motivated by a desire for creating and maintaining important corridors of greenway throughout the region. A key aspect to this is linking important areas such as designated Environmentally Significant Areas. They are considered core areas for habitat along the shore that are needing protection in oder to maintain a healthy ecosystem. The linkages between one core area to another is also critical for this.
“Beaches will be by far the most widely used form of shore protection along the waterfront, Not only are they the most economical, they are the most aesthetic, and have a recreational function as well, Experiences has shown that stable beaches can be created and maintained by simulating nature’s method of beach building. The shoreline will erode until a beach slope consistent with the grain sands and gravels will be stable at steeper slopes than the finer sands. Studies have shown that sand particles making up the beach material will remain in the shallow water and on the beach if the grain size is coarser that 100 mesh, while finer sands, silts and clays will move to deeper water.
Waterfront Technical Committee. The Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area, Toronto 1967 (p. 26)
“Although standard techniques of shoreline protection are well documented, standard techniques such as basic revetments and seawall fall short of the objective of the Shoreline Regeneration and Public Safety Strategy due to their single purpose approach to achieving stabilization over the design life of the structure at the least possible cost. They do not address any of the nine principles of Regeneration.”
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Integrated Shoreline Management Strategy (ISMP), Toronto 1996 (p. 3)
“…consideration must be given to the reduction of the slope of the revetment, which allows for the use of smaller materials, or the use of stepped structures, which may provide better access to the waterline. Habitat enhancement features should be incorporated into these structures, such as cobble and boulder berms at the toe or reef structures. Where these structures must be utilized, consideration must be given to opportunities to provide diversity by introducing other protection measures, such as small embayments or low-crested structures allowing overtopping. The spacial location of the structure should also be carefully assessed, retaining as much of an existing beach as possible.”
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Integrated Shoreline Management Strategy (ISMP), Toronto 1996 (p. 3)
"...in order to protect it against unwise land use which would affect the ability of the land to perform its natural functions, and to conserve significant and sensitive land for the benefit of the people of the region”
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Watershed Plan, Toronto 1980 (section 5.6.1, p. 46)
“The essence of greenways is connections - not simply connecting recreational areas through trails. but connecting wildlife habitats to each other, human communities to other human communities, city to country, people to nature.” Royal Commission of the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. Regeneration, Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City: Final Report, Toronto 1992 (p. 179)
Environmental Concerns of Lakefilling
An important environmental concern along the shore is the use of lake-filling with contaminated debris. Toronto is recognized within the Great Lakes region as being a ‘hot spot’ for soil and water contamination and the Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) addressed this in their reports. In 1995 The Royal Commission recommended that policies should be reviewed to address the growing concern of degradation to our local environment and drinking water. It’s unfortunate for these recommendations may be dismissed and the eastern segment of the waterfront may become an expanded make-work project that will be nothing more than a resting place for an endless supply of lake-filled demolition debris.
“In this century, significant lakefilling has been carried out to create land for industry, transportation corridors, ports, and parks . Until very recently, and particularly along the central Toronto waterfront, this lakefilling included contaminated materials from construction sites, sewage sludge, incinerator refuse, and municipal garbage.”
Royal Commission of the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. Regeneration, Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City: Final Report, Toronto 1992 (p. 25)
“…bottom sediments are contaminated, organisms living in them show bio-accumulation of toxic substances, fish of some species have such high levels of contaminants they cannot be safely eaten by humans, aquatic life is stressed from pollution, and swimming beaches are frequently closed during the summer.”
Royal Commission of the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. Regeneration, Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City: Final Report, Toronto 1992 (p. 25)
“In some parts of the bioregion, soils are contaminated with heavy metals and organic chemicals, often the legacy of industrial activities, lakefilling, transportation or waste dumping . Although the extent of soil contamination from industrial activities throughout the region is not known, there is reason to believe that many former and existing industrial and refinery sites are contaminated as the result of poor handling of hazardous materials in the past.”
Royal Commission of the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. Regeneration, Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City: Final Report, Toronto 1992 (p. 25)
The Province should bring forward comprehensive lakefill policies for public review as soon as possible . The policies should require thorough environmental appraisal of all individual lakefill projects, and of their cumulative effects, across the Greater Toronto Waterfront. Until such policies are in place, there should be a moratorium on new lakefilling”
Royal Commission of the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. Regeneration, Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City: Final Report, Toronto 1992 (p. 13)
Public Consultation
When the TRCA presented their ‘preferred alternative’ to the public for the East Segment, and the public questioned the impact to the natural shoreline, they used the argument that ‘there are always trade-offs in projects like this’ and when referring to the trail, they stated that in order to gain something, we have to lose something.
Fortunately this is not necessarily true and if the TRCA followed the strategies outlined in the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan, they would see that the method for applying the ecosystem approach when managing the waterfront has already been worked out. The recommendation in all the documents support the idea of human needs working in balance with nature. There is no mention of a ‘trade-off’. There is no mention of compromise. As well, it would be pertinent to point out that the TRCA is a public agency that is to be acting on behalf of the public and for the greater good of the community.
“The ecosystem approach integrates all aspects of the environment (natural, physical, social, cultural, and economic) in a manner that ensures decisions made in one area will not negatively affect other areas.”
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Integrated Shoreline Management Strategy (ISMP), Toronto 1996 (p. 4)
“Greenways do not pit humankind against nature; rather they serve the needs of both, protecting the quality of the natural environment while providing recreation and quiet places close to home.”
Royal Commission of the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. Regeneration, Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City: Final Report, Toronto 1992 (p. 177)
“All of the efforts of the Authority in its conservation programs are dependent upon community understanding and acceptance.”
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Watershed Plan, Toronto 1980 (p. 65)
Summary
The obliteration of a natural sand shore and the imposition of a raised, concrete roadway is antithetical to the spirit and intent of each and every one of the documents reviewed in this report. The documents emphasize conservation, protecting wildlife and habitat, and a visionary, generational approach to planning. They introduce the concept of an ecosystem approach to management, recognizing the role of the community, maintaining access to the water and respecting the natural features of a landscape. Not one document suggests placing the trail on the water’s edge of Grey Abbey Beach. Not one policy recommends destroying this natural shoreline.
As Friends of the Bluffs, we take pride in being actively involved in the local community of the east segment of the Scarborough Bluffs and we would like our recommendations for this segment to be followed. We would like the heritage shoreline of Grey Abbey and East Point Park recognized by the TRCA, and respected leaders of the City of Toronto, as a shoreline worth preserving. Let this be our legacy for future generations!
Our Recommendations for the East Segment of the Shoreline
1. It is recommended that the trail remain on the table of the bluffs in the East Segment in order to preserve the natural features of this Heritage Shoreline and Environmentally Significant Area.
2. It is recommended that educational and stewardship practices be implemented at East Point Park to ensure the area remains as a place for migratory and nesting birds, especially the bank swallow.
3. It is recommended that the practice of lake-filling be stopped on the shores of this natural sand beach.
4. It is recommended that the TRCA listen to public consultation and the concerns of the local community when reviewing alternatives for this shoreline.
“The Greater Toronto waterfront is a special place that draws people, fascinates them, satisfies their deep human need for contact with water and wildlife, and provides a constantly changing panorama of views, weather, and moods.”
Royal Commission of the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. Regeneration, Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City: Final Report Toronto 1992 (p. 20)
Scarborough Waterfront Project - Supporting Documents
Waterfront Technical Committee. The Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area. 1967. http://trca.on.ca/trca-user-uploads/TheWaterfrontPlanfortheMetropolitanTorontoPlanningArea-Dec1967.pdf
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The Watershed Plan. 1980.
http://trca.on.ca/trca-user-uploads/WatershedPlan.pdf
Lockhart, R., Peterson, B., Reid, R., and Woodburn, B.. The Waterfront Trail: First Steps from Concept to Reality. Toronto: 1991. http://virtualreferencelibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDM552772&R=552772
Royal Commission of the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. Regeneration, Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City: Final Report. Toronto: 1992. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/bcp-pco/Z1-1988-1-1992-1-eng.pdf
Waterfront Regeneration Trust. Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy. Toronto: 1995.
http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDM670781&R=670781
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Integrated Shoreline Management Plan (ISMP). 1996.
http://trca.on.ca/trca-user-uploads/IntegratedShorelineManagementPlan.pdf