DOCSLIB.ORG

Acoustic Telemetry in Toronto Harbour: Assessing Residency, Habitat Selection, and Within-Harbour Movements of Fishes Over a Five-Year Period

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Acoustic Telemetry in Toronto Harbour: Assessing Residency, Habitat Selection, and Within-Harbour Movements of Fishes Over a Five-Year Period Acoustic telemetry in Toronto Harbour: assessing residency, habitat selection, and within-harbour movements of fishes over a five-year period Jonathan D. Midwood1, Andrew M. Rous2, Susan E. Doka1, and Steven J. Cooke2 1Central and Arctic Region Fisheries and Oceans Canada 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, ON L7S 1A1 2Carleton University Department of Biology 1125 Colonel By Dr. Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6 2019 Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 3331 1 Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Technical reports contain scientific and technical information that contributes to existing knowledge but which is not normally appropriate for primary literature. Technical reports are directed primarily toward a worldwide audience and have an international distribution. No restriction is placed on subject matter and the series reflects the broad interests and policies of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, namely, fisheries and aquatic sciences. Technical reports may be cited as full publications. The correct citation appears above the abstract of each report. Each report is abstracted in the data base Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts. Technical reports are produced regionally but are numbered nationally. Requests for individual reports will be filled by the issuing establishment listed on the front cover and title page. Numbers 1-456 in this series were issued as Technical Reports of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Numbers 457-714 were issued as Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Research and Development Directorate Technical Reports. Numbers 715-924 were issued as Department of Fisheries and Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service Technical Reports. The current series name was changed with report number 925. Rapport technique canadien des sciences halieutiques et aquatiques Les rapports techniques contiennent des renseignements scientifiques et techniques qui constituent une contribution aux connaissances actuelles, mais qui ne sont pas normalement appropriés pour la publication dans un journal scientifique. Les rapports techniques sont destinés essentiellement à un public international et ils sont distribués à cet échelon. II n'y a aucune restriction quant au sujet; de fait, la série reflète la vaste gamme des intérêts et des politiques de Pêches et Océans Canada, c'est-à-dire les sciences halieutiques et aquatiques. Les rapports techniques peuvent être cités comme des publications à part entière. Le titre exact figure au-dessus du résumé de chaque rapport. Les rapports techniques sont résumés dans la base de données Résumés des sciences aquatiques et halieutiques. Les rapports techniques sont produits à l'échelon régional, mais numérotés à l'échelon national. Les demandes de rapports seront satisfaites par l'établissement auteur dont le nom figure sur la couverture et la page du titre. Les numéros 1 à 456 de cette série ont été publiés à titre de Rapports techniques de l'Office des recherches sur les pêcheries du Canada. Les numéros 457 à 714 sont parus à titre de Rapports techniques de la Direction générale de la recherche et du développe- ment, Service des pêches et de la mer, ministère de l'Environnement. Les numéros 715 à 924 ont été publiés à titre de Rapports techniques du Service des pêches et de la mer, ministère des Pêches et de l'Environnement. Le nom actuel de la série a été établi lors de la parution du numéro 925. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 3331 2019 ACOUSTIC TELEMETRY IN TORONTO HARBOUR: ASSESSING RESIDENCY, HABITAT SELECTION, AND WITHIN-HARBOUR MOVEMENTS OF FISHES OVER A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD by Jonathan D. Midwood1, Andrew M. Rous2, Susan E. Doka1, and Steven J. Cooke2 1Fisheries and Oceans Canada Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 867 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, ON L7S 1A1 2Carleton University Department of Biology 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 i © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2019. Cat. No. Fs97-6/3331E-PDF ISBN 978-0-660-32222-3 ISSN 1488-5379 Correct citation for this publication: Midwood, J.D., Rous, A.M., Doka, S.E., and Cooke, S.J. 2019. Acoustic telemetry in Toronto Harbour: assessing residency, habitat selection, and within-harbour movements of fishes over a five-year period. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 3331: xx + 174 p. ii Table of Contents List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. v List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... xiii Abstract.................................................................................................................................... xix Résumé .................................................................................................................................... xx 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Methods ............................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Acoustic Telemetry Array .................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Habitat conditions ............................................................................................................. 2 2.3 Target species and tagging history ................................................................................... 2 2.4 Data collection and processing ......................................................................................... 3 3.0 Results ................................................................................................................................. 3 3.1 Habitat .............................................................................................................................. 3 3.2 Species-specific results .................................................................................................... 4 3.2.1 Northern Pike ............................................................................................................. 4 3.2.2 Largemouth Bass ....................................................................................................... 5 3.2.3 Common Carp ............................................................................................................ 5 3.2.4 Walleye ...................................................................................................................... 6 3.2.5 White Sucker .............................................................................................................. 6 3.2.6 Brown Bullhead .......................................................................................................... 6 3.2.7 Yellow Perch .............................................................................................................. 7 4.0 Discussion............................................................................................................................ 7 4.1 Seasonal Residency and Habitat ...................................................................................... 7 4.2 Fish Movements ..............................................................................................................10 4.3 Caveats ...........................................................................................................................13 4.4 Future Work .....................................................................................................................15 5.0 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................16 6.0 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................16 7.0 References..........................................................................................................................17 Appendix A: Northern Pike ........................................................................................................36 Appendix B: Largemouth Bass ..................................................................................................76 Appendix C: Common Carp .................................................................................................... 115 Appendix D: Walleye ............................................................................................................... 132 iii Appendix E: White Sucker ...................................................................................................... 148 Appendix F: Brown Bullhead ................................................................................................... 157 Appendix G: Yellow Perch ...................................................................................................... 167 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Deployment history of receiver groups in the Toronto and Region AOC acoustic telemetry array. See Table 2 for the position and coordinates of each receiver group. Shaded areas denote time periods when a receiver was “closed for restoration” (light gray), “not deployed” (dark grey), and “removed” or “lost” (black). ..............................................................20 Table 2. Location, size, and the typical number of receivers used to comprise each receiver
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 3131 Lower Don River West Lower Don River West 4.0 DESCRIPTION
    Lower Don River West Environmental Study Report Remedial Flood Protection Project 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF LOWER DON 4.1 The Don River Watershed The Don River is one of more than sixty rivers and streams flowing south from the Oak Ridges Moraine. The River is approximately 38 km long and outlets into the Keating Channel, which then conveys the flows into Toronto Harbour and Lake Historic Watershed Ontario. The entire drainage basin of the Don urbanization of the river's headwaters in York River is 360 km2. Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2, on the Region began in the early 1980s and continues following pages, describe the existing and future today. land use conditions within the Don River Watershed. Hydrologic changes in the watershed began when settlers converted the forests to agricultural fields; For 200 years, the Don Watershed has been many streams were denuded even of bank side subject to intense pressures from human vegetation. Urban development then intensified settlement. These have fragmented the river the problems of warmer water temperatures, valley's natural branching pattern; degraded and erosion, and water pollution. Over the years often destroyed its once rich aquatic and during the three waves of urban expansion, the terrestrial wildlife habitat; and polluted its waters Don River mouth, originally an extensive delta with raw sewage, industrial/agricultural marsh, was filled in and the lower portion of the chemicals, metals and other assorted river was straightened. contaminants. Small Don River tributaries were piped and Land clearing, settlement, and urbanization have buried, wetlands were "reclaimed," and springs proceeded in three waves in the Don River were lost.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail Operations
    Phase 1 Interim Report Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail Operations City of Toronto Prepared for the City of Toronto by IBI Group and Stantec August 30, 2017 IBI GROUP PHASE 1 INTERIM REPORT LAND USE STUDY: DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO RAIL OPERATIONS Prepared for City of Toronto Document Control Page CLIENT: City of Toronto City-Wide Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail PROJECT NAME: Operations Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail Operations REPORT TITLE: Phase 1 Interim Report - DRAFT IBI REFERENCE: 105734 VERSION: V2 - Issued August 30, 2017 J:\105734_RailProximit\10.0 Reports\Phase 1 - Data DIGITAL MASTER: Collection\Task 3 - Interim Report for Phase 1\TTR_CityWideLandUse_Phase1InterimReport_2017-08-30.docx ORIGINATOR: Patrick Garel REVIEWER: Margaret Parkhill, Steve Donald AUTHORIZATION: Lee Sims CIRCULATION LIST: HISTORY: Accessibility This document, as of the date of issuance, is provided in a format compatible with the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), 2005. August 30, 2017 IBI GROUP PHASE 1 INTERIM REPORT LAND USE STUDY: DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO RAIL OPERATIONS Prepared for City of Toronto Table of Contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Background .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Peer Review EA Study Design Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport BBTCA
    Imagine the result Peer Review – EA Study Design Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (BBTCA) Runway Expansion and Introduction of Jet Aircraft Final Report August 2015 BBTCA Peer Review of EA Study Design Report ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Background 1-1 1.2 Current Assignment 1-3 2.0 PEER REVIEW APPROACH 2-1 2.1 Methodology 2-1 3.0 FINDINGS OF PEER REVIEW OF AECOM’S DRAFT STUDY DESIGN REPORT 3-1 3.1 EA Process and Legislation 3-1 3.2 Public Consultation & Stakeholder Engagement 3-1 3.3 Air Quality 3-2 3.4 Public Health 3-5 3.5 Noise 3-6 3.6 Natural Environment 3-10 3.7 Socio-Economic Conditions 3-11 3.8 Land Use & Built Form 3-14 3.9 Marine Physical Conditions and Water Quality 3-15 3.10 Transportation 3-15 3.11 Archaeology & Cultural Heritage 3-18 4.0 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS 4-1 APPENDIX A Presentation Given to the Working Group (22 June 2015) B Presentation of Draft Phase I Peer Review Report Results (13 July 2015) i BBTCA Peer Review of EA Study Design Report ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AERMOD Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System ARCADIS ARCADIS Canada Inc. BBTCA Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport CALPUFF Meteorological and Air Quality Monitoring System CCG Canadian Coast Guard CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CO Carbon Monoxide COPA Canadian Owners and Pilots Association dBA Decibel Values of Sounds EA Environmental Assessment EC Environment Canada GBE Government Business Enterprise GWC Greater Waterfront Coalition HEAT Habitat and Environmental Assessment Tool INM Integrated Noise Model Ldn Day-Night
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Transit in Toronto Levyrapidtransit.Ca TABLE of CONTENTS
    The Neptis Foundation has collaborated with Edward J. Levy to publish this history of rapid transit proposals for the City of Toronto. Given Neptis’s focus on regional issues, we have supported Levy’s work because it demon- strates clearly that regional rapid transit cannot function eff ectively without a well-designed network at the core of the region. Toronto does not yet have such a network, as you will discover through the maps and historical photographs in this interactive web-book. We hope the material will contribute to ongoing debates on the need to create such a network. This web-book would not been produced without the vital eff orts of Philippa Campsie and Brent Gilliard, who have worked with Mr. Levy over two years to organize, edit, and present the volumes of text and illustrations. 1 Rapid Transit in Toronto levyrapidtransit.ca TABLE OF CONTENTS 6 INTRODUCTION 7 About this Book 9 Edward J. Levy 11 A Note from the Neptis Foundation 13 Author’s Note 16 Author’s Guiding Principle: The Need for a Network 18 Executive Summary 24 PART ONE: EARLY PLANNING FOR RAPID TRANSIT 1909 – 1945 CHAPTER 1: THE BEGINNING OF RAPID TRANSIT PLANNING IN TORONTO 25 1.0 Summary 26 1.1 The Story Begins 29 1.2 The First Subway Proposal 32 1.3 The Jacobs & Davies Report: Prescient but Premature 34 1.4 Putting the Proposal in Context CHAPTER 2: “The Rapid Transit System of the Future” and a Look Ahead, 1911 – 1913 36 2.0 Summary 37 2.1 The Evolving Vision, 1911 40 2.2 The Arnold Report: The Subway Alternative, 1912 44 2.3 Crossing the Valley CHAPTER 3: R.C.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Toronto from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia the History of Toronto, Ontario, Canada Begins Several Millennia Ago
    History of Toronto From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The history of Toronto, Ontario, Canada begins several millennia ago. Archaeological finds in the area have found artifacts of First Nations settlements dating back several thousand years. The Wyandot people were likely the first group to live in the area, followed by the Iroquois. When Europeans first came to Toronto, they found a small village known as Teiaiagon on the banks of the Humber River. Between visits by European explorers, the village was abandoned by the Iroquois, who moved south of Lake Ontario and the Mississaugas, a branch of the Ojibwa settled along the north shore of the lake. The French first set up trading posts in the area, including Fort Rouillé in 1750, which they abandoned as the British conquered French North America. In 1788, the British negotiated the first treaty to take possession of the Toronto area from the Mississaugas. After the United States War of Independence, the area north of Lake Ontario was held by the British who set up the province of Upper Canada in 1791. See also: Name of Toronto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DavenportBathurstSoutheast.jpg Davenport Road, as shown here in 1914, does not follow Toronto's standard street grid pattern, as it originated as a First Nations travel route between the Humber River and the Don Valley named Gete-Onigaming, Ojibwe for "at the old portage."[1] Toronto is located on the northern shore of Lake Ontario, and was originally a term of indeterminate geographical location, designating the approximate area of the future city of Toronto on maps dating to the late 17th and early 18th century.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fish Communities of the Toronto Waterfront: Summary and Assessment 1989 - 2005
    THE FISH COMMUNITIES OF THE TORONTO WATERFRONT: SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT 1989 - 2005 SEPTEMBER 2008 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the many technical staff, past and present, of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources who diligently collected electrofishing data for the past 16 years. The completion of this report was aided by the Canada Ontario Agreement (COA). 1 Jason P. Dietrich, 1 Allison M. Hennyey, 1 Rick Portiss, 1 Gord MacPherson, 1 Kelly Montgomery and 2 Bruce J. Morrison 1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON, M3N 1S4, Canada 2 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Lake Ontario Fisheries Management Unit, Glenora Fisheries Station, Picton, ON, K0K 2T0, Canada © Toronto and Region Conservation 2008 ABSTRACT Fish community metrics collected for 16 years (1989 — 2005), using standardized electrofishing methods, throughout the greater Toronto region waterfront, were analyzed to ascertain the current state of the fish community with respect to past conditions. Results that continue to indicate a degraded or further degrading environment include an overall reduction in fish abundance, a high composition of benthivores, an increase in invasive species, an increase in generalist species biomass, yet a decrease in specialist species biomass, and a decrease in cool water Electrofishing in the Toronto Harbour thermal guild species biomass in embayments. Results that may indicate a change in a positive community health direction include no significant changes to species richness, a marked increase in diversity in embayments, a decline in non-native species in embayments and open coasts (despite the invasion of round goby), a recent increase in native species biomass, fluctuating native piscivore dynamics, increased walleye abundance, and a reduction in the proportion of degradation tolerant species.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Annual Report
    Annual Report 2017 Investing Today for Tomorrow AVAILABLE IN THESE FORMATS PRINT WEBSITE MOBILE © Toronto Port Authority 2018. All rights reserved. To obtain additional copies of this report please contact: 60 Harbour Street, Toronto, ON M5J 1B7 Canada PortsToronto The Toronto Port Authority, doing business as Communications and Public Affairs Department PortsToronto since January 2015, is a government 60 Harbour Street business enterprise operating pursuant to the Toronto, Ontario, M5J 1B7 Canada Marine Act and Letters Patent issued by Canada the federal Minister of Transport. The Toronto Port Phone: 416 863 2075 Authority is hereafter referred to as PortsToronto. E-mail: [email protected] 2 PortsToronto | Annual Report 2017 Table of Contents About PortsToronto 4 Mission and Vision 5 Message from the Chair 6 Message from the Chief Executive Officer 8 Corporate Governance 12 Business Overview Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport 14 Port of Toronto 18 Outer Harbour Marina 22 Real Estate and Property Holdings 24 Four Pillars 26 City Building 27 Community Engagement 30 Environmental Stewardship 40 Financial Sustainability 44 Statement of Revenue and Expenses 45 Celebrating 225 years of port activity 46 About PortsToronto The Toronto Port Authority, doing business as and hereinafter referred to as PortsToronto, is a federal government business enterprise that owns and operates Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, Marine Terminal 52 within the Port of Toronto, the Outer Harbour Marina and various properties along Toronto’s waterfront. Responsible for the safety and efficiency of marine navigation in the Toronto Harbour, PortsToronto also exercises regulatory control and public works services for the area, works with partner organizations to keep the Toronto Harbour clean, issues permits to recreational boaters and co-manages the Leslie Street Spit site with partner agency the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on behalf of the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)
    APPENDIX M Heritage Impact Assessment – Union Station Trainshed Heritage impact assessment Union Station Trainshed GO Rail Network Electrification Project Environmental Assessment Project # 14-087-18 Prepared by GS/JN PREPARED FOR: Rodney Yee, Project Coordinator Environmental Programs & Assessment Metrolinx 20 Bay Street Toronto, ON M5J 2W3 416-202-4516 [email protected] PREPARED BY: ERA Architects Inc. 10 St. Mary Street, Suite 801 Toronto, ON M4Y 1P9 416-963-4497 Issued: 2017-01-16 Reissued: 2017-09-18 Cover Image: Union Station Trainshed, 1930. Source: Toronto Archives CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Scope of the Report 1.2 Property Description 1.3 Site History 2 Methodology 11 2.1 Summary of Related Policy/Legislation/Guidelines 2.2 Material Reviewed 2.3 Date of Site Visit 3 Discussion of Cultural Heritage Value and Status 14 3.1 Discussion of Cultural Heritage Value 3.2 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value 3.3 Heritage Recognition 4 Site conditions 20 4.1 Current Conditions 5 Discussion of the Proposed Intervention 25 5.1 Description of Proposed Interventions 5.2 Impact Assessment 5.3 Mitigation Strategies 6 Conclusion 34 6.1 General 6.2 Revitalization Context 7 Sources 35 8 Appendix 36 Appendix 1 - Union Station Designation By-law (City of Toronto By-law 948-2005) Appendix 2 - Heritage Easement Agreement between The Toronto Terminals Railway Company Limited and the City of Toronto dated June 30, 2000 Appendix 3 - Heritage Character Statement, 1989 Appendix 4 - Commemorative Integrity Statement, 2000 Reissued: 18 September 2017 i ExEcutivE Summary This Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) revises the HIA dated January 16, 2017 in order to evaluate the impact of proposed work on existing resources at the subject site, based on an established understanding of their heritage value and attributes derived from the Heritage Statement Report - Union Station Complex, completed by Taylor Hazell Architects in June 2016 and the Union Station Trainshed Heritage Impact Assessment by Taylor Hazell Architects from July 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Island Heritage Study
    ) / () A ()I Toronto Island Heritage Study Date: August 17, 2006 Prepared by: f. ll . J\. Architects Inc. I 0 St. Mary Street, Ste. 80 I Toronto, Ontario M4Y lP9 ( ' I 0 St. Ma,·y St., Suite 80 I Toronto, Canada, M4Y I P9 r •J !\ 416 963.4497 T !~J ~-~ ~ 416963.8761 F Architects Inc. August 17, 2006 City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services 100 Queen Street West, 2nd Floor Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2 Dear Brian Gallaugher: This study was undertaken for the Toronto Island Community Association with funding assistance provided by the City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division. It builds on the ideas and policy initiatives of the Island Principles drafted in 2002 by a group of the Toronto Island residents and City staff. The tangible and intangible attributes of Toronto Island constitute a significant landscape of historical and cultural value. This study recommends that a framework of a cultural heritage landscape be established as the most appropriate method for recognizing and maintaining this cultural resource for the City of Toronto. Under the Planning Act, the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement defines a cultural landscape as: a defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. It involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts .. Currently, the only mechanism the City of Toronto has For the protection of this type of resource is through the application of a Heritage Conservation District under the Ontario Heritage Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Hope for All Who Toil 2 Delegates
    Welcoming Committee 2012 Grand Lodge Convention Toronto, Ontario Canada WELCOME DELEGATES! Hope for All who Toil 2 Delegates, It is with great pride that I, as the General Vice President for the Canadian Territory, welcome you to my city, Toronto Ontario Canada for our 38th Grand Lodge Convention. I am sure you will find that Toronto has much to offer. This is a vibrant and diverse city that brings together many cultural sights, flavours, sounds and events that I am certain you will find entertaining, educational and just plain fun. We are in fact situated in the heart of the city surrounded by professional sporting events encompassing Major League Baseball, Basketball, Soccer and Hockey. Top level theatre productions just blocks away. There are parks and recreation including Toronto Island and many tourist attractions such as our infamous China Town, Little Italy and much, more. For those of you so inclined, we are also renowned for a vibrant evening entertainment industry ready and able for those of you who are more inclined to dance the night away. Our streets are safe and our citizens are friendly. Please have a look through the Welcoming committee’s booklet to familiarize yourself with all services and events available and please feel free to contact any members of our Host and/or Welcoming committee for any needs not already identified. Welcome again and enjoy all that Toronto has to offer! Fraternally, Dave Ritchie 3 Emergency Procedures EMERGENCYEmergency PROCEDURESProcedures NORTH AND SOUTH BUILDING EMERGENCY NUMBER IS 585-8160 OR NORTH AND SOUTH BUILDING 8160 FROM CLOSEST HOUSE PHONE EMERGENCY NUMBER IS 585-8160 OR 8160 FROM CLOSEST HOUSE PHONE FIRE EMERGENCY IF FIREYOU SEE EMERGENCY FIRE OR SMOKE .
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and Their Outer Harbour Project, 1912-68 Roy Merrens
    Document generated on 09/28/2021 1:46 p.m. Urban History Review Revue d'histoire urbaine Port Authorities as Urban Land Developers The Case of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and Their Outer Harbour Project, 1912-68 Roy Merrens Volume 17, Number 2, October 1988 Article abstract Port authorities have been important presences in Canada's port cities, playing URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1017654ar major roles in determining the physical form and land-use functions of urban DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1017654ar waterfront lands. Their formative roles warrant attention from scholars concerned with the city-building process in Canada. This study focuses upon See table of contents one such body, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners, and how and why it has functioned as a land development agency. An analysis of the commissions Outer Harbour project between 1912 and 1968 shows the commissions central Publisher(s) concern with land development: ostensibly presented as a harbour facility, the project was actually intended to be a key component in the commissions Urban History Review / Revue d'histoire urbaine proposed redevelopment of Toronto's central waterfront for profitable commercial and residential use. The project also reveals the significance of ISSN landfilling in the commissions urban development role, and, incidentally, explains the existence of the three-mile artificial headland projecting out into 0703-0428 (print) Lake Ontario from Toronto's waterfront. The role of the commission as a 1918-5138 (digital) development agency is explained in terms of its original 1911 mandate, which in turn reflects the intentions of the Toronto Board of Trade, the body that had Explore this journal led the drive to create the commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto's Dockwalls
    Dockwalls What the Toronto Port Authority is doing Toronto’s The Toronto Port Authority (TPA) owns less than As a steward of Toronto's waterfront, the Toronto Port Authority (TPA) is committed 20 per cent of the dockwalls in the Toronto Harbour. to working in partnership with other shoreline stakeholders to maintain dockwalls and develop solutions for the enjoyment of Torontonians and visitors who spend Dockwalls We routinely maintain all the dockwalls we own. time on our waterfront. Here are some of the things we have done: Several different parties including federal, provincial and municipal authorities have ownership of the • We worked with the City so Waterfront Toronto could build HTO Park at the foot remaining dockwalls. of Maple Leaf Quay (Rees Street) • We maintain and repairs dockwalls that fall within our purview, working Dockwall ownership and maintenance is complex. collaboratively with our partners to keep dockwalls safe and in good repair For example, while a dockwall owner may own the • We saved the City of Toronto $1.5 million in maintenance expenses by picking land on which the dockwall sits, another stakeholder up the cost to own and repair the City-owned dockwall at the base of Eireann may be responsible for maintenance of the dockwall Quay (foot of Bathurst Street) and the promenade on the dockwall. Toronto Administration Port Portuaire Authority de Toronto 60 Harbour Street, Toronto, Ontario M5J 1B7 Tel: (416) 863-2000 Fax: (416) 863-4830 LEGEND Toronto Port Authority City of Toronto TPLC Waterfront Toronto Provincial Private LANDMARKS Rogers Centre Harbourfront Centre Redpath Sugar Disclaimer The Information provided herein is for informational purposes.
    [Show full text]