DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Keating Channel Environmental Ministry of the Environment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Exhibit B- 1 Keating Channel Environmental Assessment - Notice of . Acceptance of the Environmental Assessment (Section 9) Ministry of the Environment t 1 Ontario Office of the Ministry 135 St. Clair Avenue We. Minister Toronto, Ontario of the RECEIVED M4V 1 PS Environment 416/ 965- 1611 AUG 1' l 1: 706 M. T. R. C. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SECTION 9) RE: Keating Channel Environmental Assessment Proponent: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority EA File No. 1 - bU- UU15- 0UU TAKE Notice that I have accepted the above- noted Environmental Assessment. The date for receipt by me of submissions or requirements for a hearing on the Environmental Assessment and/ or its Review expired on November 5, 1985. I received five submissions and no requirements for a hearing by that date. I do not consider it advisable to hold a hearing at this time. Accordingly, I have accepted the Environmental Assessment. In making this decision, I have considered the purpose of the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Assessment as amended by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority submission dated September, 1984, the Review, and the submissions received and I am of the opinion that the Environmental Assessment is satisfactory to enable a decision to be made as to whether approval to proceed with the undertaking should be given. Under section 13 of the Act, before approval to proceed with the -undertaking can be given, the proponent or anyone having previously made a submission under subsection 7 ( 2 ) of the Act on the Notice -of- Completion of Environmental Assessment- Review for this undertaking , may by notice require a hearing by the Environmental Assessment board. If I receive such a notice, I will require such a hearing unless in my absolute discretion, pursuant to Clause 12( 2) ( b) of the Act, I consider that the requirement is frivolous or vexatious or that a hearing is unnecessary or may cause undue delay. I 2 - A requirement for a hearing should be sent or delivered to me at- the address listed below and MUST BE KECEIVEU UN UR BEFORE Sept. 3, 1986 . If no submissions are received by me or no request for a hearing is made, before the above date, I propose, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, to give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to the conditions that are attached to this Notice as Schedule 1 . Dated the 5th day of August 19db at Toronto JVw. Mini er\ of 'the Enviro ent 15th F1aBr 135 5t. Clair Avenue West Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5 I I SCHEDULE 1 PROPOSED- CONDITIONS 1 . Except as provided by the subsequent conditions, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRC: A) shall carry out the undertaking in accordance with the aescription set out in Section 2, pages i - iii and Section 7. 2 of the Keating Channel Environmental Assessment, Main Report, March, 1983. 2. The undertaking is to be carried out in accordance with the work set out in clauses ( a) to ( e) and as illustrated on Exhibit " B" , " Cut through Headland Road, Option I" , Addendum to the Keating Channel Environmental Assessment, September, 1984 and in accordance with the Director' s approval referred to in condition 3 : a) Close permanently the existing lake entrance to Cell No. 3 by completion of the closure arms with trucked fill; b) Excavate a channel approximately 40 metres wide through the existing Headland Road and Embayment C; c) Install a moveable floating pedestrian bridge and silt curtain across the new channel; d) Construct a new access road along the endike- ment and across the closure arms of Cell No. 3; e) All tugs and scows shall enter the disposal facility through the new channel and deposit material from Keating Channel into Cells 1 , 2 and 3 as each Cell is filled. I 2 - 3. MTRCA shall submit for approval a report, outlining the detailed design, construction plans and scheduling , and ongoing operational procedures to carry out the work outlined in Condition 2, to the Director of the Central Region, Ministry of the Environment within tour months of this approval being issued. Copies of the report referred to in this condition are to be sent to the Medical Officer of Health and the Planning Commissioner of the City of Toronto so that they may suomit comments to the Director of the Central Region, Ministry of the Environment, within two months of submission of the report. 4. Dredging of Keating Channel pursuant to this approval is not permitted until the work outlined in clauses a) to ( d) of Condition 2 is completed. 5. Cell 1 shall be topped off and capped no later than December 31 , 1992 in a manner which restricts biological uptake and mobility of contaminants. 6. MTRCA is to develop terms of reference; in consult- ation with the Medical Officer of Health, the Planning Commissioner of the City of Toronto and the Director of the Central Region, Ministry of the Environment, for a monitoring program to include the following: a) the sediment conditions in Embayment C and Cell 3 prior to implementation; b) the quantity and quality of material dredged from Keating Channel; 3 - c) the quantity and quality of material lost through water transport from Cells 1 , 2, 3 within the Tommy Thompson Park; d) the implications of any results of studies undertaken by other agencies on environmental impacts of disposal operations witnin Tommy Thompson Park; e) an annual monitoring report setting out the results of the monitoring program and the implications to future dredged material disposal operations; and, f) other matters required by the Director of Central Region. 7 . The terms of reference referred to in Condition 6 are to be submitted for approval to the Director of the Central Region, Ministry of the Environment, no later than four months after this approval nas been issued. The Director of the Central Region will consult with the Medical Ufficer of Health and the Planning Commissioner of the City of Toronto prior to approving the terms of reference. 8. By October 1st of each year commencing in 1987 MTRCA is to submit to the Director of the Central Region, Ministry of the Environment, the monitoring report required by Condition 6 , for the time period specified in the Director' s approval under Condition 7. 9. By October 1st of each year commencing in 1987 MTRCA is to submit for approval to the Director of the Central Region, Ministry of the Environment, a report which documents the results of operations IL I 4 - to one month prior to the submission of the report from the earlier of the end of the period covered by the previous report under this condition and September 1 ) of the previous year and which sets out the operations proposed for the forthcoming year. The operations report is to include: a) the location and quantity of material dredged from Keating Channel; b) placement and handling of dredged material at the cells, including scheduling and rehandling; c) compaction of the dredged material; I d) de- watering of the dredged material; and capping procedures including scheduling where appropriate; e) the operatio n of the silt cont rol curtain; f) annual maintenance for endikement stability around the disposal cells to prevent the .loss of dredged material; and g) other matters as required by the Director of Central Region. 10. Copies of the reports referred to in Conditions 8 and 9 are_ also to be sent to the City of Toronto, Environment Canada and the Ministry of Natural Resources, so that they may submit comments to the Director of Central Region. 11 . MTRCA is to advise the Director of the Environmental Assessment Branch in writing when the reports required by conditions 3, 7 , 8 and 9 inclusive have been submitted. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE ROUTE FOR AND BOTTOM DumpGSCOW Peninsula a H- P 3 f Peninsula 9 %\; Emboymnnt D Emboymnnt C Peninsula P G CELL Not ` v pt \ a, z 2, j M p o tJ 11- 114. CELL No Y OUtI CELL No 3 NpRB J Emboymnnt B A OUT EA P TO BELEXCAVAtED r L POSSIBLE FLOATING PEDESTRIAN BRtPG Ir LA ME' ON rA R/ O It P SILT CONTROL C R t toga iS." POSSIBLE RY CLOSURE C Ar } r i---• 1966 -. _ 1 ALTERNATIVE ENTRANCE CHANNEL ALIGNMENT TO DISPOSAL FACILITY. G K REFERENCES: COMMISSIONER$ TECHNICAL 1I1iI,Lv b NOj. 4 Ne, A, CHANNEL ENVIQONMENTAL ASSE83MINT Y F ! IfEQF' TINA C the metropolitan toronto and region conseivation authority o zoo 400 I METRES PROJECT FOR THE DREDGING OF THE KEATING CHANNEL - DON RIVER FIGURE 3. 1986 - 1989 PaoREPOORiO0811IR 7 N S pA1N° PROPOSED DIKING LOWER DON RIVER Go / LESLIE STREET SPIT KEATING J'\ C I iANNE L PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA F TORONTO TORON TO INNER OUTER Z HARBOUR y4 HARBOUR CELL No. I PROPOSED ,, % ALTERNATIVE CELL No 2 BUDIKRMNt APRA ROUTS CELL No.3 o Soo mm r rcio[s+ AQ0ATIC O PARK k,7Ilse melropoUlan taonb end region consemlion sulhmily PROJECT FOR THE DREDGING OF THE KEATING CHANNEL -- DON RIVER FIGURE I. 1987 - 1990 r!/. 4r;':. trNo'• Co Ste' R• T I O M i 106 AY e w,.. 1+°tip_ StiC s r et ON ItE s DocK C. At T 10 4 s c alS5S5, 004 Eft 292 o, r» °'•~ OSAetlaW •• N' 1 r Ott, IB ow LH' • 1a' 9 TH•° l O Q 7• fix• jg8 t N., " Woo_ o SSS 5; 3y 4F y • S 6 6- tt 2 t! 55R 192 c p • bs j6• v N tit's a tt•° $ y t ett R«.
Recommended publications
  • 3131 Lower Don River West Lower Don River West 4.0 DESCRIPTION

    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.
  • AECOM Report 1.Dot

    AECOM Report 1.Dot

    Environmental Assessment chapter 3. description of the potentially affected environment 3. Description of the Potentially Affected Environment This chapter is divided into four different sections which describe different components of the baseline or existing environmental conditions. The first section describes the river characteristics which will influence the development of alternatives. This information has been separated from the remaining description of the natural environment such that some emphasis can be given to those aspects of the existing environment that are driving the development of alternatives for the DMNP. The second section describes the remaining components of the natural environment: fish and fish habitat, terrestrial vegetation, and wildlife. The third section addresses components related to soils and groundwater contamination. The final section describes socio-economic components: land use, air quality and noise, archaeology, aboriginal interests, and built heritage. 3.1 River Characteristics in the Project and Impact Assessment Study Areas The Don Watershed possesses a dendretic drainage pattern that flows southward for 38 kilometres (as the crow flies) from the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) to the Inner Harbour of Toronto. The Don possesses two major branches (the East and West Don), each consisting of many smaller sub-watershed systems, such as but not limited to Taylor Massey Creek, Wilket Creek, Patterson Creek and Pomona Creek. The confluence of the East and West Branches occurs approximately 6 kilometres upstream of the Impact Assessment Study Area. Downstream from the confluence, the sub-watershed is known as the Lower Don and includes all of the Don Narrows until reaching the Keating Channel. The entire watershed area or drainage basin of the Don River is approximately 360 square kilometres (Figure 3−1).
  • The Fish Communities of the Toronto Waterfront: Summary and Assessment 1989 - 2005

    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.
  • Sec 2-Core Circle

    Sec 2-Core Circle

    TRANSFORMATIVE IDEA 1. THE CORE CIRCLE Re-imagine the valleys, bluffs and islands encircling the Downtown as a fully interconnected 900-hectare immersive landscape system THE CORE CIRLE 30 THE CORE CIRLE PUBLIC WORK 31 TRANSFORMATIVE IDEA 1. THE CORE CIRCLE N The Core Circle re-imagines the valleys, bluffs and islands E encircling the Downtown as a fully connected 900-hectare immersive landscape system W S The Core Circle seeks to improve and offer opportunities to reconnect the urban fabric of the Downtown to its surrounding natural features using the streets, parks and open spaces found around the natural setting of Downtown Toronto including the Don River Valley and ravines, Lake Ontario, the Toronto Islands, Garrison Creek and the Lake Iroquois shoreline. Connecting these large landscape features North: Davenport Road Bluff, Toronto, Canada will create a continuous circular network of open spaces surrounding the Downtown, accessible from both the core and the broader city. The Core Circle re- imagines the Downtown’s framework of valleys, bluffs and islands as a connected 900-hectare landscape system and immersive experience, building on Toronto’s strong identity as a ‘city within a park’ and providing opportunities to acknowledge our natural setting and connect to the history of our natural landscapes. East: Don River Valley Ravine and Rosedale Valley Ravine, Toronto, Canada Historically, the natural landscape features that form the Core Circle were used by Indigenous peoples as village sites, travelling routes and hunting and gathering lands. They are regarded as sacred landscapes and places for spiritual renewal. The Core Circle seeks to re-establish our connection to these landscapes.
  • Lower Don River West Lower Don River West BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Lower Don River West Lower Don River West BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Lower Don River West Environmental Study Report Remedial Flood Protection Project BIBLIOGRAPHY Acres & Associated-July 1996, Scoping and Sensitivity Analysis on Flood Protection Options for West Don Lands Site, prepared for ORC. Acres Consulting Services Limited, March 1983, Keating Channel Environmental Assessment, Main Report. Acres Consulting, March 1983, Keating Channel Environmental Assessment Appendix F – Economic Studies. Acres International, March 2004, LDRW Remedial Flood Protection Works Geoenvironmental Information Gap Analysis West Bank – Draft. Agra Earth & Environmental, June 10, 1996, Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Restoration of the East Bank of the Don River between Lakeshore Boulevard and the CNR Bridge. Angus Environmental Ltd., March 1995, 1995 Assessment of the Environmental Data for the Ataratiri Lands prepared for: Waterfront Regeneration Trust. Archaeological Resource Management Unit, TRCA, January 2004, Draft Cultural Heritage Study for the Environmental Assessment for the Naturalization & Flood Protection for the Lower Don River. Archaeological Services Inc., April 2004, Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of the East Bayfront, West Donlands and Portlands Areas, City of Toronto. Barrett, Suzanne, James Flagal, Beth Jefferson, Karlk Konze and Ed Mickiewicz, March 1990, Environmental Audit of the Port Industrial Lands and East Bayfront, Natural Heritage, Second Draft. Beak Consultants Ltd and Raven Beck Environmental Ltd., April 1994, Lower Don Lands Site Characterization and Remedial Options Study. C.K. Hurst, April 1978, Dredging and Disposal of Dredged Material from the Keating Channel, Toronto. CH2M Hill, MacViro, July 2003, City of Toronto, Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan, Combine System Sewershed Final Report. City of Toronto, Bring Back the Don, www.toronto.ca/don. City of Toronto, Obtained 10/16/03, Sustainability and Council’s Strategic Plan, from: www.city.toronto.on.ca/sustainability/strategic_plan.htm.
  • Corporate Presentation Guidelines

    Corporate Presentation Guidelines

    February 11, 2020 Port Lands Flood Protection Project Background for the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) Waterfront Toronto All text information and images are confidential and cannot be shared. 1 Existing TNPI Pipeline Locations TNPI Abandonment and Removal Applications TNPI has submitted applications to CER for the removal of one deactivated pipeline (Phase 1) and for the abandonment and removal of another deactivated pipeline (Phase 2). History and Context Insert map from The Port Lands Flood Port Lands 101 Protection Project (PLFP) occupies a 290 acre context board footprint in downtown Toronto and involves the creation of a new mouth of the Don River to alleviate flooding, raising of grades, rebuilding of roads with upgraded utilities to support the redevelopment of this former industrial Brownfield. 5 Infilling of the Don River marshlands to create the Keating Channel 6 The goal was to establish an industrial port in Toronto to support economic development 7 Over time the primary industrial activities in the Port Lands transitioned from coal storage and distribution and foundries to light manufacturing and petroleum hydrocarbon refining, storage and distribution. Currently it is comprised largely of sparsely used, derelict Brownfield land. 8 The area outlined in blue represents the flooding that is modeled to occur during a “regulatory flood event”. The PLFP project eliminates this flooding, protecting existing homes and businesses and unlocking the remaining underutilized lands for development as new mixed use residential communities. The area west of the Don River was removed from the West Don Lands Flood Protection Landform floodplain by the construction of the West Don Lands Flood Protection Landform in 2010-2013.
  • Eglinton LRT Project: Estimated Costs and Impacts of Addressing Excess Construction Soils

    Eglinton LRT Project: Estimated Costs and Impacts of Addressing Excess Construction Soils

    An Independent Study Commissioned by Eglinton LRT Project: Estimated Costs and Impacts of Addressing Excess Construction Soils Eglinton LRT Project: Estimated Costs and Impacts of Addressing Excess Construction Soils An Independent Study Commissioned by the RESIDENTIAL AND CIVIL CONSTRUCTION ALLIANCE OF ONTARIO By Frank J. E. Zechner, B.A.Sc., LL.B., P.Eng. Principal Frank J. E. Zechner Professional Corporation July 2012 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary 5 2.0 Introduction 6 3.0 Eglinton Crosstown LRT Project Description 7 4.0 Soil and Fill Placement/Disposal Options 8 5.0 Estimated Impacts of the Need to Export Excess Soils from the Eglinton Crosstown LRT Project 9 6.0 Conclusions 11 Appendix A: ReNew Canada Ads 12 Endnotes 14 4 rccao.com 1.0 Executive Summary xpanding vital infrastructure to meet the needs of a growing economy and population, as well as the need to replace aging infrastructure components, indicates that the quantity E of excess construction soil is likely to increase greatly in coming years.* The Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario (RCCAO) is concerned about the growing costs, liabilities, and administrative burdens associated with managing excess construction soils from Ontario construction sites. As municipalities increase restrictions or introduce bans on the importation of fill and soil from outside of their jurisdictions, higher transport costs and increased greenhouse gas emissions will be experienced as a result of longer distances to transport excess construction soils. Costs will further increase as the number of locations that accept these soils declines. Thus analysis focuses on a major construction project to demonstrate the potential impacts on the management of excess construction soils.
  • Restrictions on Dredging Activities

    Restrictions on Dredging Activities

    Toronto & Region Remedial Action Plan BUI Status Re-designation Document: Restrictions on Dredging Activities January 30, 2014 Draft For additional copies of this report please contact: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Toronto, ON M3N 1S4 www.trca.on.ca phone: (416) 661-6600 ext. 5576 fax: (416) 661-6898 The Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan is managed by representatives from Environment Canada (EC), Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Introduction In 1985, based on recommendations from U.S. and Canadian federal governments, the Great Lakes states and the Province of Ontario, the International Joint Commission (IJC) identified 42 (later 43) areas in the Great Lakes where contaminant concerns existed. These "Areas of Concern" (AOCs) formed the priority sites for environmental actions. The original listing of AOCs was based on a list of 14 designated beneficial use impairments (BUIs). The BUIs noted the major environmental impairments in each of the AOCs, and identified the issues that would need to be addressed for the area to be delisted as an AOC. In many of these areas, contaminated sediments were identified as one of the causes of the use impairments and a number of the BUIs related directly to contaminated sediment issues: Degradation of benthos; Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption; Fish tumours or other deformities; Bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems; and Restrictions on dredging activities. This report summarizes the rationale for re-designating the “restrictions on dredging” beneficial use within the Toronto and Region Area of Concern from impaired to not impaired.
  • Huron County Extreme Lake Levels Integrated Assessment Phase I Report – May 3, 2016

    Huron County Extreme Lake Levels Integrated Assessment Phase I Report – May 3, 2016

    Huron County Extreme Lake Levels Integrated Assessment Phase I Report – May 3, 2016 1 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 4 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 7 Next Steps: .................................................................................................................................. 8 STATUS AND TRENDS ............................................................................................................... 9 Huron County: where farm meets lake ....................................................................................... 9 Changing lake levels: uncertain science ................................................................................... 10 Low water levels status and trends ........................................................................................... 13 Great Lakes Shipping............................................................................................................ 13 High water levels status and trends........................................................................................... 14 Ontario’s regulatory environment for shoreline development .................................................. 15 Conservation Authorities’ role ............................................................................................. 16 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................................
  • Leslie Street Spit/Tommy Thompson Park

    Leslie Street Spit/Tommy Thompson Park

    Leslie Street Spit Tommy Thompson Park Important Bird Area Conservation Plan Written for the Leslie Street Spit IBA Stakeholders by William G. Wilson, Edward D. Cheskey, and the IBA Steering Committee July 2001 Table of Contents Acknowledgments .........................................................................................................................................................3 Citation..........................................................................................................................................................................3 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................4 2.0 The Important Bird Area Program...........................................................................................................................5 3.0 IBA Site Information...............................................................................................................................................6 3.1 Location and Description....................................................................................................................................6 4.0 IBA Species Information.......................................................................................................................................10 4.1 Why Leslie Street Spit Is an Important Bird Area ............................................................................................10
  • Escribe Agenda Package

    Escribe Agenda Package

    Board of Directors Meeting Agenda #4/20 May 22, 2020 9:30 A.M. The meeting will be conducted via a video conference Members of the public may view the livestream at the following link: https://video.isilive.ca/trca/live.html Pages 1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INDIGENOUS TERRITORY 2. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING, HELD ON APRIL 24, 2020 Meeting Minutes 3. MINUTES OF MEETING #3/20, HELD ON APRIL 24, 2020 Meeting Minutes 4. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF 5. DELEGATIONS 6. PRESENTATIONS 7. CORRESPONDENCE 8. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACTION 8.1 TOMMY THOMPSON PARK 4 Aquatic Park Sailing Club – License Agreement Renewal City of Toronto (CFN 24403). 8.2 TOMMY THOMPSON PARK CORMORANT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 10 Biennial Update 8.3 SCARBOROUGH WATERFRONT PROJECT AND SCARBOROUGH BLUFFS 18 WEST 2020 UPDATE 8.4 BROCK SOUTH FILL PLACEMENT 24 Request for Proposal #10033336 8.5 VENDOR OF RECORD ARRANGEMENT FOR SUPPLY OF VARIOUS PLANT 29 MATERIALS RFP No. 10022885 9. SECTION III - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD 9.1 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE 32 OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT COVID-19 Update 9.2 TRCA ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE DURING COVID-19 35 9.3 REGIONAL WATERSHED ALLIANCE MINUTES Meeting #1/20, held on March 4, 2020 - Meeting Minutes Link 9.4 OUTDOOR EDUCATION TASK FORCE MINUTES Meeting #1/20, held on January 20, 2020 - Meeting Minutes Link 10. MATERIAL FROM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING #3/20, HELD ON MAY 1, 2020 Meeting Minutes 10.1 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD 10.1.1 Q1 2020 MEDIA SUMMARY Information report regarding Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) corporate media communication activities during the first quarter of 2020 (January – March).
  • CEMENTING OUR FUTURE Ensuring Industry and Jobs Have a Home on Toronto's Waterfront

    CEMENTING OUR FUTURE Ensuring Industry and Jobs Have a Home on Toronto's Waterfront

    Urban Planning CEMENTING OUR FUTURE Ensuring industry and jobs have a home on Toronto's waterfront. By Michøel Krøljevic a I anv Tolontonians are often Pinewood Toronto Studios, and Essroc Street and Unwin Avenue that would permit l\ /¡ surorised to learn that the Cernent Corp, Located minutes from the concrete companies like Essroc, Lafar$e, consolidate their IYI Toront-o Port Lands remaln a downtown core and nearby transit and Metrix, and St. Mary's to longer- functioning potl atea and will continüe to highway access, the Port Lands make for' operations. This strateSy enables house industrial tenants. Situated on the an ideal location for industrial, commercial, term leases to be established with all similar northwest shore of Lake Ontario, the Port and residential mixed-use development cement users in one clearly defined area. prime Lands are an extensive industrial area of opportunities. Relocating heavy industry opens up allowing 988 acres (400 hectares) of reclaimed land The majorìty ofPort Lands are considered property of contaminated sites, located south of Lake Shore Boulevard blownfielcls, which TPLC leco$nizes as a TPLC to clean up and develoP these and the Keating Channel/Don River. Its parcel of underutilized land that is, or could lands. These projects help to stimulate largest landowner is the Toronto Port be, contaminated by industrial activities. economic development opportunities and Lands Lands Company (TPLC), Toronto's urban TPLC has partnered with the Ministry of increased employment in the Port in turn development corporation. Environment (MOE) and the City of Toronto for the construction industry, which This area-ridn in development to address the contaminated propelties and provides economic benefits to the City of opportunity-is bounded by the Tolonto make them safe for future use.