Don River and Central Waterfront Project:

Revitalizing Torontos Waterways

Introduction:
Don River has been Torontos main source of livelihood, bringing more
settlers around it. However, it has become increasingly susceptible to
pollution and flooding. Pollution impacted the river in two ways. Rainstorms
dragged pollutants into the river. Progressing into the 19th century, Don River
became an industrial sewer to the emerging industries (Bonnell 2014). Later,
the city of Toronto gained awareness of the planning issue and initiated a
redevelopment project called Don River and Central
Waterfront Project (Desfor and Laidley 2011). In my
paper, Ill address the nature of the planning issues
and the strategies taken to solve the issues
(solutions), and the benefits of the project. To study
the strengths and weaknesses of the project, I
introduced a similar case study called the Buffalo
Bayou Promenade to use as a comparison.

Background:
Don River, located in Toronto (figure 1), is a 38 km
watercourse that played a major role in the citys
earliest development and growth. It served as a source of
water, power, livelihood, and transportation. Throughout the
years, it gained many attraction and attention in which the Lower Don River
became one of the most heavily populated areas in Toronto (Bonnell 2014).
However, the Don River got gradually polluted. Increased rainfalls and
snowmelts carry pollutants as they run through the different surfaces such as

parking lots and streets. Such pollutants

include pesticides, dirt, bacteria, heavy
metals, and litter. Because the inner harbor
exchanges water with Lake Ontario, the
overflows of stormwater and sewage also
impacts Torontos central waterfront
because the Don River pours right into it
(figure 2). Decomposing materials are often
spotted in the river, such as bubbling
methane pop right on the surface of the river.

Figure 1: Don RIver

Map (MMM Group
2012)
Figure 2: Map shows the mouth of the Don
River in the Inner Harbor (Martin 2014).

The Don River is becoming a receptacle of pollution and flooding (Desfor and
Laidley 2011).

Planning Issues:
The water quality has been degrading due to these runoffs of
stormwater and sewage. As a result, Torontos waterfront was declared as
one of the 43 polluted Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin. There have
been many incidents, 42 incidents documented, where sewer systems were
overwhelmed by the overflow of stormwater which resulted in releasing
these overflows into Torontos waterways (Clearing Up Our Waterways n. d.)
(MMM Group 2012). In 2001, Don River was one of the 4 major priorities to
the Toronto Water Revitalization Corporation. The water quality at Torontos
inner harbor was considered one of the most degraded areas because of
sewer overflows and sewer discharges of stormwater (TRCA, n. d.).
Serving 50% of Torontos population, the Waterfront sanitary trunk
sewer systems carry sewage from 270 km2 to the Ashbridges Bay Treatment
Plan. Part of the sewage system includes the combined sewers where
sanitary sewage is carried during dry seasons and stormwater runoffs and
sewage in the wet weather seasons. Excess overflows are carried through

diversion structures that end up pouring into the Inner Harbor and the Don
River. Within Toronto, about 100 overflow locations and discharge points are
solely for stormwater. Other than carrying pollutants, the Don River is still at
risk of flooding. As a result, the Don River and Central waterfront Project
aims to address:
1) wet weather flows:
- During heavy rainfalls and snowmelt, around 100 sewer outfalls are
directed towards the Don River which eventually leads to the Inner
Harbor. Combined sewage overflows come from almost 50 of these
sewer outfalls.
2) dry weather flows:
- Toronto needs to assess the problems of dry weather flow and take
advantage of the opportunities it provides. In order to sustain future
growth, the dry weather flow collection system needs to have
sufficient capacity. Moreover, sufficient redundancy will enable
Coxwell Sanitary Trunk System to strengthen its security and
maintenance.
3) additional concerns:
- There are disadvantages that come along with transferring sludges
from and to different sewer force mains. Torontos infrastructure
needs to incorporate a sustainable strategy and routing options for
transferring sludges from the Humber Treatment Plant to the
-

Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant and other plants; and

Chemicals such as ammonia and phosphorus spill into the Don

River, which need to be reduced.

4) solutions that integrate with wet and dry weathers:
- dual infrastructure for both wet and dry weather can be
implemented to not only store and treat wet weather flows, but also
add security in dry weather flows.
(MMM Group 2012)

Solutions:

The Don River and

Central Waterfront Project
include Lower West Don,
Lower East Don, Lower Don
River, Massey Creek, and
downtown cores Waterfront
Interceptor system. In total,
the project covers 267 sq. km

Figure 3: location of the Don River and Central Waterfront Project

(Martin 2014)

(figure 3). Since the existing infrastructure cant withstand the overflows and
lack adequate flood protection, flooding has been a major issue for the city of
Toronto. An interest in flood protection has further grown with the future
projections of increased rainfall in Toronto because of climate change. As a
result, the city council authorized the Don River and Central Waterfront
Project, done by a Class Environmental Assessment study, to provide a
solution to help prevent flooding and improve the water quality. The Class EA
goes through a planning process which ensures a projects effectiveness
before its implementation. This has led to the solution of establishing
underground infrastructure and treatment facilities that would treat the
stormwater runoffs before theyre merged with the waterways (Martin 2014).
Moreover, actions are taken to improve the Don Sanitary Trunk Sewer system
to ensure proper and safe operation. The project also included underground
tunnels, storage shafts and tanks, and a pumping station to help with the
issue of stormwater and sewage overflows. Underground storage shafts and
tunnels stretched along the Keating Railyard, Little Norway Park, Queens
Quay, and the Inner Harbor. The project will not only improve the water
quality of waterways, but also lessen the risk of eutrophication along the
waterfront and nourish the aquatic wildlife and habitat (MMM Group 2012).
The Class EA designed a robust and complete system to solve the
planning issues addressed above, including weather flow controls and
sanitation. The system comprises of several systems (figure 4):

1) Wet Weather Flow Collection and Storage System:

- Three major tunnels connect to 15 underground storage shafts,
diameter of 30m, to collect and store overflows of combined sewer,
-

which flow to a treatment facility;

Integrate three tunnels which are the Lower Don Tunnel/Coxwell
Bypass, the Taylor Massey Creek Tunnel, and the Inner Harbor

Tunnel; and
Incorporate in four remote outfall location three underground
storage tanks as an offline storage unit for overflows of combined

sewer.
2) Dry Weather Flow: Sanitary Trunk Sewer System:
- The use of Lower Don Bypass tunnel as a bypass for periodic
-

maintenance and repairs to the Coxwell Sanitary Trunk Sewer;

Where there is a need for additional capacity, four underground

tanks will be available to store peak sanitary flows; and

- Upgrade to North Toronto Treatment Plant.
3) Wet Weather Flow Collection and Treatment:
- For higher-quality treatment of wet weather flows, a new wet
weather treatment facility is introduced which will be located on a
-

lakefill, south of Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant;

Connected to the treatment facility will be a new pumping station

with force mains in Ashbridges Grove Park; and

Upgrade to North Toronto Treatment Plants existing combined
sewer overflows (MMM Group 2012).

Figure 4: Map represents the proposed solutions (MMM Group 2012).

Benefits of the Solutions Introduced by the Class EA:

This project will benefit Toronto by improving the sanitary sewer systems
and the environment as a whole. Upgrading sanitary sewer systems will
ensure the availability of capacity that will protect future growth in
population. Furthermore, Don River, Massey Creek, and the Central
Waterfront will be purified from untreated sewage and protected from future
untreated sewage (Martin 2014). Pollutants will be eliminated; consequently,
the water quality will improve, attracting new recreational opportunities and

revitalizing the aquatic wildlife and habitat. With the drop of bacterial
contamination by 80%, future projections show that the swimming standards
of the Blue Flag will be satisfied (figure 5). Since stream erosion and
flooding is caused by combined sewer overflows, the project will also tackle
this challenge. Torontos waterfront will undergo revitalization. In addition to
finding practical solutions to the planning issues, the project will extend to
facilitate new urban landscapes for leisure and recreational activities. This
plan will surround the waterways and provide mixed-use services for the

Figure 5: Two graphs provide a comparison of the ability to swim in the Inner Harbor before and
after the project (MMM Group 2012)

neighborhoods of 12,500 residential units and 275,000 m2 of retail and

commercial areas. All these efforts to improve Torontos waterways will

eventually delist Toronto from the Area of Concern in the Great Lakes list
(MMM Group 2012).

Case Study for Comparison:

For my comparison, I chose Buffalo Bayou Promenade as my case study.
Similar to the Don River, Buffalo Bayou boosted Houstons rich history by
being its source of livelihood. Native Texans, foreign businessmen, soldiers,
and seafarers were all benefitting from the bayou. Buffalo Bayou became
excessively used for industrialization and urbanization, which eventually
brought about pollution and intensified flood events. Ever since, Houston has
been going through major flooding (Per 2012).
In 1983, an official Buffalo Bayou plan was initiated to implement flood
control strategies. Buffalo Bayou Promenade, the recent segment of the

Buffalo Bayou plan, was designed by landscape architecture firm SWA Group.
The promenade, located in Houstons downtown core, is a 23-acre
recreational area. It redeveloped what used to be a neglected, trash-soaked
wasteland into a civic and mixed-use area with imbedded flood control
systems (Per 2012). Unlike Don River and Central Waterfront Project which
used heavy infrastructure strategies to control flood events, the Buffalo
Bayou Promenade used stone-filled gabions along the edges of the waterway.
These gabion sacks are made of 14,000 tons of recycled crushed concrete
which makes it ecologically and environmentally friendly. They allowed water
to egress by mimicking the natural conditions of a channel. Moreover, gabion
sacks remove many old rubbles within the bayou to reduce pollution. The
project placed wide ranges of landscape plantings all around the bayou to
sustain flood events. 337,411 gallons of stormwater is intercepted by these
plantings. The capacity of flood storage increased by 18.65 acre-feet through
excavating 23,013 m3 of soil. Before the project, the existing channel could
only withstand 2 lb/ft2 of stress; however, the project quadrupled its capacity
to 8 lb/ft2 of stress (Hung and Waldhein 2013). The following table draws a
comparison between the Don River and Central Waterfront Project and the
Buffalo Bayou Promenade.

Project

Don River and Central

Buffalo Bayou

Waterfront Project
Scale of Project
Planning issue

Large-scale
Stormwater

overflow
Pollution of Great

Lakes
wet weather

Promenade
Small-scale
- Stormwater
-

overflow
Contamination of
Buffalo Bayou

control and
stormwater
discharges from
the combined
-

sewers
upgrade the

sacks and cages

as filtration and

infrastructure of
Solution

flood control

Sanitary Trunk
-

Systems
upgrade the

introducing gabion

systems
large spaces of
plantation to

services of the

reduce flooding

Don Trunk and

Waterfront
Interceptor
Sanitary Sewer
System
Aimed to be achieved in
Timeframe 5 phases (figure 6), itll
/Completion Date take approximately 25
years to finish.
Costs
$1.463 billion
- addressed both
issues of Don
Strengths

River: pollution
-

Completed in 2006

$15 million
-

simple,
environmentally

friendly solution
and flooding
providing recreational and mixed-use spaces

addressed the
issue of flooding;

Weaknesses

yet, weak efforts

to treat the bayou
from
contamination

(Hung and Waldheim 2013) (MMM Group 2012) (Martin 2014)

Figure 6: conceptual phasing plan (Martin 2014)

Conclusion:
Toronto was facing a major issue with its waterways. The Don River was
subjected to flooding and pollution which created a ripple effect, impacting
other waterways that it poured into. Not only was the citys infrastructure
impacted by flooding, but also the aquatic wildlife and habitat were impacted
by pollution. The Don River and Central Waterfront Project is helping to
mitigate future events and revitalizing both the city and the environment.
The project is divided into 5 phases which the completion date of each phase
ranges from 1 to 25 years. In total the complete project is estimated to finish

within the next 25 years. Torontos waterways will gradually rejuvenate,

hopefully removing itself from the Area of Concern in the Great Lakes list
(Martin 2014).

Word count: 2092

Bibliography:
Bonnell, Jennifer. Reclaiming the Don: An Environmental History of Toronto's Don River Valley.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014.
Desfor, Gene, and Jenneffer Laidley. Reshaping Toronto's Waterfront. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 2011.
"Don River and Central Waterfront Project." Clearing Up Our Waterways: 5-31.
"Don Watershed Projects and Plans." Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA). Accessed
December 1, 2015. http://www.trca.on.ca/the-living-city/watersheds/don-river/projects-plans.dot.
Hung, Ying, and Charles Waldheim. Landscape Infrastructure: Case Studies by SWA. 2nd, Rev.
ed. Basel: Birkhauser, 2013.
Martin, Jeffrey. "The Transformation of Torontos Post-Industrial Waterfront into a Memory
Landscape." A Journey through the Memoirs of a City, 2014, 14-27.
MMM Group. "Municipal Class EA Environmental Study Report." Don River and Central
Waterfront Project, 2012, 2-18.
Per, Aurora. "SWA Groups: Buffalo Bayou Promenade." In Strategy Public: Landscape,
Urbanism, Strategies, 114-121. Vitoria-Gastiez; 2012.