DOCSLIB.ORG

Presentation Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Presentation Overview Lakeview Waterfront Connection EA Public Information Centre #3 November 20, 2013 Presentation Overview • Summary of Previous EA Consultation (Winter 2012/2013 to May 2013) • LWC Project Alternatives and Draft Evaluation of Alternatives (January 2013) • Evaluation and Selection of the Preferred Alternative (April 2013) • Recent LWC EA Process (May 2013 – Onwards): • Comments on Preferred Alternative • Refinements to Preferred Alternative • Approach to Characterizing Preferred Alternative in EA • Detailed Effects Assessment • Sensitivity Test with Smaller Fill Volumes • Draft EA Submission & Other Next Steps LWC EA Project Goal and Objectives GOAL To create a new natural park that will establish ecological and public linkages on the eastern Mississauga waterfront OBJECTIVES Naturalization – Establish a diverse range of native terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem habitats and ecological linkages in a degraded area of the eastern Mississauga waterfront Access – Create safe and accessible public linkages for access to and along the waterfront while allowing for compatible recreational, educational and cultural heritage opportunities Compatibility – Ensure that the LWC is compatible with existing infrastructure Coordination – Coordinate with and inform other local planning and development efforts Fiscal Viability – Use an innovative funding approach that seeks to maximize public benefit and value by reusing locally generated fill from Regional and City capital works projects to create this new natural park LWC EA ToR Defined Regional Study Area LWC EA ToR Defined Project Study Area LWC Environmental Assessment (EA) (2013 - Ongoing) • EA Notice of Commencement – January 2nd 2013 • Open Houses: • Public Information Centre #1 (January 22nd) - Alternative Designs and Evaluation Criteria (completed) • Public Information Centre #2 (April 3rd) – Preferred Alternative (completed) • Public Information Centre #3 (November 20th) – Present results of Draft EA before submission to MOE • Target date for submission of Draft EA – Late 2013 Preferred Alternative as Presented at the April PIC LWC EA (Since PIC #2) Comments Received Regarding Preferred Alternative • Overwhelmingly positive comments received on selection of Preferred Alternative • Some concerns raised about effects on Marie Curtis Park West: • Impacts on sand beach • Impacts on wind surfers and kite boarders • Possible impacts on water quality • Some concerns raised that residents of the City of Toronto were not adequately consulted to date • In response to comments raised • Team worked to refine the Preferred Alternative to minimize the loss of sand beach • Expanded community consultation efforts LWC EA (Since PIC #2) Expanded Community Consultation • LWC team participated at a number of Community hosted events: • Mississauga Water Festival in Port Credit – June 14 and 15 • Lakeview Ratepayer’s Community Association Meeting – September 14 • Open Doors Mississauga at Small Arms Building – September 28 • LWC team held 7 informal community outreach events in Marie Curtis Park and Lakefront Promenade Park in July and August: 4 events in Marie Curtis Park and 3 in Lakefront Promenade Park • At the invitation of Councillor Grimes (City of Toronto), LWC team participated in August 21 meeting with approximately 10 concerned residents to discuss and seek resolution of outstanding issues • LWC team participated in Open House in City of Toronto, hosted by Councillors Tovey (City of Mississauga) and Grimes on September 17, to seek additional input on refinements to Preferred Alternative WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY Sand / Gravel Beach LWC EA (July 2013) Refined Preferred Alternative (~2M cubic metres) LWC EA: Looking East LWC EA: Looking Down Serson Creek LWC EA: Island Beach Views LWC EA: Looking West From MCPW LWC EA: Looking West From Mouth of Etobicoke Creek Sense of Scale to Other Waterfront Parks LWC EA Input Received During Expanded Consultation • Overwhelmingly strong support for the Refined Preferred Alternative • A few continued requests to minimize, to the extent possible, encroachment of LWC on Marie Curtis Park west beach due to: • Intrinsic value of the beach • Issues of beach walkability • Kiteboarders and windsurfers • Concerns about water quality • A few concerns about traffic, noise and dust during construction • A few concerns about future parking • Some concerns raised about cost LWC EA Final Refinements to the Preferred Alternative • Over the summer, Region of Peel revised their fill projection estimates to a number closer to 1.5 million cubic metres • Based on revised fill projection estimates and the continuing concerns about encroachment onto the beach of Marie Curtis Park west, there was a desire to create flexibility such that the attributes of the Preferred Alternative could be provided with a lower fill volume and a smaller footprint • Therefore, a “lower fill volume condition” of 1.5M cubic metres was developed to establish a lower end range of fill volumes along with the previously identified “upper fill volume condition” of 2.0M cubic metres for the Preferred Alternative SAND / GRAVEL BEACH WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY LWC EA (September 2013) Lower Limit of Preferred Alternative (~1.5M m3) LWC Construction Access Routes • Five alternative access routes through the Arsenal lands were assessed • All potential routes had effects but the best option (Route 2) was selected • Due to the tunnel shaft for Hanlan Feeder Main Project, an alternate entrance to the east will be used for the first year of construction LWC Trail Closure Mitigation • Realign trail along south side of Lakeshore Road to entrance of Marie Curtis Park west - • When possible, open existing Waterfront Trail section during evenings and weekends (when construction closed) - • Temporary pedestrian construction viewing access path will be considered along south side of GE Booth WWTF. This would be an informal trail the width of a mower or narrower, non-connecting path - LWC Construction Phasing • Construction to be phased over 7-10 years dependent on fill availability and funding • Between 4 and 6 construction cells are anticipated: first cell constructed at north end working south • Outer berm (tied to shoreline) established for each cell for truck access and to confine fill operations • Fish capture and relocation will be implemented prior to any filling activity • Clean fill will arrive along the access road and be placed within the containment cell • Depending on the fill schedule, filling and grading activity in one cell could be concurrent with berm construction for the next cell LWC Generalized Construction Phasing • Upon completion of final cell, grading for creek and wetland features and park will commence • Park creation will include seeding and planting of natural features, construction of Waterfront Trail and secondary trails, signage, etc. LWC Detail Assessment of Preferred Alternative • EA provides a description of the Preferred Alternative and how it will be constructed • Same shoreline design, and habitat targets, functions and assumptions for fill volumes between 1.5 million and 2.0 million m3 of fill • Footprint on and off shore varies with amount of fill used • Ultimate volume of fill used and footprint will be no greater than the 2.0 million cubic metre footprint • Effects assessment done for largest footprint and sensitivity tested using smallest footprint • Effects assessment looks at the construction and establishment/post- establishment phases separately LWC Naturalization Effects • Summary for Naturalization • Negative effects; loss and disruption of existing low quality habitat, are primarily confined to construction phase. • Positive effects relating to the creation of new aquatic, terrestrial and wetland habitat and a more diverse shoreline occur during establishment phase • Overall, the Preferred Alternative results in net gains in aquatic, terrestrial and wetland habitat quality and diversity created. • The Preferred alternative meets the Naturalization objective LWC Naturalization Effects • Loss or alteration of 39 ha of open coast aquatic habitat is offset by: • Creation of 33 ha of terrestrial habitat including meadow, beach, forest, wetland, treed swamp and rocky island and approximately 6 ha of altered open coast aquatic habitat • Increase in the irregularity and diversity of shoreline types • Increase in aquatic habitat in both Serson and Applewood Creeks including better connections with Lake Ontario and incorporation of habitat features • Allowing fish migration into Serson Creek from Lake Ontario for first time in decades LWC Access Effects • Summary for Access • Negative effects are related to temporary relocation of Waterfront trail and nuisance effects during construction. • The Preferred Alternative creates public linkages that will reconnect the Waterfront Trail to the water’s edge and facilitate compatible passive recreational use of the new park. • The Preferred Alternative meets the Access objective for the LWC Project Access Effects • During construction, 770 m of the Waterfront Trail will be closed and re- routed along Lakeshore Road. May be opened to public during evenings and weekends. • Informal temporary trail will be established along the existing shoreline to permit limited viewing of the construction site. • New Waterfront Trail along the water’s edge will provide enhanced views and waterfront access • New cobble beaches and wetland areas greatly increases public access to the water’s edge. • Some nuisance effects may be experienced by Marie
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Toronto Birds 5 (2) February 2011 26 TORONTO BIRDS – the Journal of Record of the Birds of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)
    TTOORROONNTTOO BBIIRRDDSS Volume 5 Number 2 February 2011 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Toronto Birds 5 (2) February 2011 26 TORONTO BIRDS – The journal of record of the birds of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) TABLE OF CONTENTS _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 26 – 27 COVER PHOTO: Red-shouldered Hawk Page 28 – 36 GREATER TORONTO AREA BIRD REPORT: January 2011 Page 37 – 52 GREATER TORONTO AREA RAPTOR WATCH 2010 SUMMARY Page 53 MESSAGE FROM THE EDITORS COVER PHOTO _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) Photo © Ann Brokelman This photo was taken at Rosetta McClain Gardens, Scarborough, Toronto , 11 November 2010. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Produced by the Records Committee Toronto Birds publishes monthly bird records from the Greater Toronto Toronto Ornithological Club Area, Ontario. It may also include articles and notes about birds, bird records, counts, surveys and birding in general, with the emphasis on the Editors: Greater Toronto Area and Ontario birds. Toronto Birds is distributed Glenn Coady [email protected] monthly to the active members of the Toronto Ornithological Club. Roy Smith [email protected] We welcome submissions
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Parks & Trails Map 2001
    STEELES AAVEVE E STEELES AAVEVE W STEELES AAVEVE E THACKERATHACKERAYY PPARKARK STEELES AAVEVE W STEELES AAVEVE W STEELES AAVEVE E MILLIKEN PPARKARK - CEDARBRAE DDu CONCESSION u GOLF & COUNTRCOUNTRYY nccan a CLUB BLACK CREEK n G. ROSS LORD PPARKARK C AUDRELANE PPARKARK r PIONEER e e SANWOOD k VILLAGE VE VE G. ROSS LORD PPARKARK EAST DON PPARKLANDARKLAND VE PPARKARK D D E BESTVIEW PPARKARK BATHURSTBATHURST LAWNLAWN ek A a reee s RD RD C R OWN LINE LINE OWN OWN LINE LINE OWN llss t iill VE VE YORK VE ROWNTREE MILLS PPARKARK MEMORIAL PPARKARK M n TERRTERRYY T BLACK CREEK Do r a A nnR Ge m NT RD NT F NT VE VE VE E UNIVERSITY VE ARK ARK ST VE ARK VE VE R VE FOX RD ALBION RD PPARKLANDARKLAND i U HIGHLAND U A VE VE VE VE vve VEV T A A A AVE e P RD RD RD GLENDALE AN RD BROOKSIDE A PPARKARK A O r O AV MEMORMEMORYY W GOLF MEMORIAL B T M M N ND GARDENS ND l L'AMOREAUX ON RD HARRHARRYETTAYETTA a TIN GROVE RD RD RD GROVE GROVE TIN TIN H DUNCAN CREEK PPARKARK H COURSE OON c ORIA ORIA PPARKARK TTO kkC GARDENS E S C THURSTHURST YVIEYVIEW G r IDLA NNE S IDLA ARDEN ARDEN e ARDEN FUNDY BABAYY PICKERING TOWN LINE LINE TOWN PICKERING PICKERING EDGELEY PPARKARK e PICKERING MCCOWMCCOWAN RD MARTIN GROVE RD RD GROVE MAR MARTIN MAR EAST KENNEDY RD BIRC BIRCHMOUNT BIRC MIDLAND MIDLAND M PHARMACY M PHARMACY AVE AVE PHARMACY PHARMACY MIDDLEFIELD RD RD RD RD MIDDLEFIELD MIDDLEFIELD MIDDLEFIELD BRIMLEY RD RD BRIMLEY BRIMLEY k BRIMLEY MARKHAM RD RD RD MARKHAM MARKHAM BABATHURST ST RD MARKHAM KIPLING AVE AVE KIPLING KIPLING KIPLING WARDEN AVE AVE WARDEN WESTWESTON RD BABAYVIE W DUFFERIN ST YONGE ST VICTORIA PARK AVE AVE PARK VICT VICTORIA JAJANE ST KEELE ST LESLIE ST VICT PPARKARK G.
    [Show full text]
  • In Etobicoke Creek
    CreekTime The newsletter of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds Spring 2005 ISSN #1492-675X Volume 7, Number 1 50 Years Later… Hurricane Hazel’s Legacy at the mouth of Etobicoke Creek by Katrina Guy October 2004 marked the 50th Anniversary of Hurricane Hazel, a devastating tropical storm Lakeshore Blvd that hit the Toronto area on October 15, 1954. Lakeshore Blvd In Etobicoke, at the present-day site of Marie Creek Curtis Park, it changed the very landscape when floodwaters came crashing through a housing Etobicoke Creek development located at the mouth of Etobicoke Creek. Over 56 cottages and houses were destroyed, 365 people left homeless and seven people died. The first permanent residents on the sand bars, or Etobicoke Flats, were Captain Oates and his wife, who built a cottage in 1921. By the late 1940s, at least 277 families were living in Marie Curtis Park, and the mouth of Etobicoke Creek at the Lake Ontario waterfront today (left) and in 1946 after a spring flood (above). this part of Long Branch. The Etobicoke River Note the houses and the extent of flooding within present-day Marie Conservation Authority offered to purchase Curtis Park, in the 1946 photo on the eastern banks of the Etobicoke houses after the 1948 flood with the idea of Creek. (1999 air photo: Toronto and Region Conservation; 1946 air photo courtesy of City of Toronto Archives: ‘Etobicoke Flats, Long Branch, 1946. developing a park together with flood controls Looking North towards No.2 highway’ {series 497, Item 885097, from but owners refused to sell.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy
    Evaluating the effectiveness of aquatic habitat restoration implemented using the Toronto Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy Kaylin Barnes1, Lyndsay Cartwright1, Rick Portiss1, Jon Midwood2, Christine Boston2, Monica Granados3, Thomas Sciscione1, Colleen Gibson1, Olusola Obembe1 1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 2 Fisheries and Oceans Canada 3 PREreview.org November 2020 Evaluating the Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fish populations of the Laurentian Great Lakes are impacted by a variety of stressors. Commercial and recreational fishing directly affect the fishery through harvest while other stressors, such as land use changes and degraded water quality, indirectly affect survival and reproduction through a loss or degradation of habitat. Great Lakes fisheries are also affected by competition and predation by invasive species along with changes in climate such as increasing lake temperatures. An estimated 80% of the approximately 200 fish species found in the Great Lakes use the nearshore areas for some portion of their life and as such, coastal development pressures such as shoreline modifications and watershed urbanization continue to impact the fishery. The Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy (TWAHRS) was developed by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority with guidance from a committee of subject matter experts to provide practical information for decision-makers, designers and regulatory agencies to ensure that implementation of all waterfront projects incorporate opportunities to improve aquatic habitat. The TWAHRS includes an illustrated compendium of habitat restoration techniques intended to improve waterfront aquatic habitats for a diversity of species - fish, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, molluscs, invertebrates and plants; however, it focuses on fish because they are excellent indicators of the overall health of the ecosystem.
    [Show full text]
  • REVISED Aug 20 Planning Equitable Public Parks for Mental
    'Public' Mediations in Public Parks: Equity, Planning and the Regulation of Behaviours by Zoi de la Peña supervised by Jennifer Foster and Liette Gilbert A Major Paper submitted to the Faculty of Environmental Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto Ontario, Canada. August 20, 2018 Abstract This Major Research Paper examines how ideologies of nature are manipulated by local civic actors to regulate people’s behaviour in public parks and thereby plan specific demographics of people out of these spaces. Focusing on behaviours of cruising and loitering, I explore how legal, design, and urban planning tools are leveraged to control and criminalize these behaviours in two GTHA public parks: Marie Curtis Park in Toronto, and Gore Park in Hamilton. Methods of research include multiple site visits to each park, interviews with local stakeholders, as well as urban planning and mental health professionals, and a literature review. In researching the above, I address questions on how the identity of “public” is defined and constructed in public parks and argue that the current regulation of cruising and loitering in the above cases serve to constitute homophobic and classist notions of “the public”. This is a particularly pressing issue for urban planners as an increasing number of ailments within cities are linked to rising temperatures, poor air quality and psychological distress. Scholarly work has demonstrated a positive correlation between exposure to nature and the alleviation of the above conditions. As parks are a primary source of nature in urban areas, addressing how the regulation of behaviour in public parks can limit the access of certain demographics of people - particularly those that are already socially marginalized - to the health benefits provided by exposure to nature is an urgent social equity issue in today’s urban environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Beaches Plan Plan Decemberjanuary 2009 2008 Marie Curtis Park  Message from the Mayor
    ROUGE · BLUFFER’S PARK · BALMY – KEW · WOODBINE · greatbeaches... great city, CHERRY · WARD’S ISLAND · TORONTO BEACHES PLAN TORONTO BEACHES PLAN CENTRE ISLAND · GIBRALTAR POINT · HANLAN’S POINT December January · SUNNYSIDE · 2009 EAST 2008 MARIE CURTIS PARK MESSAGE FROM THE MAYOR Revitalizing Toronto’s waterfront is a priority for all Torontonians. Ensuring that our beaches are clean and accessible is essential to making that revitalization happen. As places to play and enjoy nature, they contribute to and enhance the quality of life in Toronto. Because of the tremendous importance of beaches, it’s not surprising that Toronto is so focused on creating great public spaces along the waterfront and making our beaches more swimmable. As Founding Chair of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, I know that communities within this region are taking steps to improve their beaches. As Canada’s biggest city, we must lead by example. I’m proud that Toronto was the first community in Canada to certify its swimming beaches under the international Blue Flag program. The Blue Flag has now been raised at six of our beaches. This is a great start, but we shouldn’t be satisfied until all of our beaches are certified – and until every beach is open for swimming every day during the summer. We’ve made great progress over the past five years in improving Toronto’s beaches. The Toronto Beaches Plan lays out the actions needed to make our beaches cleaner, safer, more usable, more accessible and greener. It’s a broad agenda, ranging from water quality to amenities to programming.
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Parks & Trails
    WALKING AND HIKING…. 4 ACTIVITIES OF A LIFETIME 1 West Humber 3 Black Creek West Don River 5 East Don River 6 North Scarborough Walking: STEELES AAVEVE W STEELES AAVEVE EE THACKERATHACKERAYY PPARKARK STEELES AAVEVE WW STEELES AAVEVE E CC MILLIKEN FESTIVAL DR STEELES AAVEVE W MILLIKEN PPARKARK - D COMMUNITY • Refreshes the mind and increases energy uun CONCESSION nccan CENTRE BLACK CREEK FISHERVILLE RD a PORT ROYAL TRL • Is a natural movement and is virtually injury-free HIDDEN TRL n BESTVIEW DR C ASPENWOOD PIONEER G. ROSS LORD PARKPARK rre e AUDRELANE PPARKARK e • Is a terrific stress and tension reliever VILLAGE k SANWOOD GOLDHAWKGOLDHAWK RIVERSIDE DR HIDDEN TRL G. ROSS LORD PARKPARK EAST DON PARKLANDPARKLAND PARKPARK E PARKPARK • Provides an enjoyable time for sharing and socializing BESTVIEW PARKPARK k FRANCINE DR BATHURSTBATHURST LAWNLAWN a ee COMMUNITY YORK s Cr HIGHLAND t t ills RD RD MEMORIAL PARKPARK M RD CENTRE BLACK CREEK an CLIFFWOOD RD • Lowers blood fats, blood pressure and improves digestion ROWNTREE MILLS PPARKARK UNIVERSITY Don Ger m MEMORYMEMORY TERRYTERRY PARKLANDPARKLAND VE R CC ST F VE VE SHOREHAM DR i GARDENS VE • Strengthens bones, helping to prevent or control VE VE ALBION RD v VE RD VE VE VE A e FOX L'AMOREAUX A GLENDALE A A A r RD RD RD PARKPARK AN RD B CUMMER M PPARKARK osteoporosis MEMORIAL l C RAIL CN a L'AMOREAUX COMMUNITY N HARRYETTAHARRYETTA IC DUNCAN CREEK PARKPARK TIN GROVE RD GROVE TIN TIN GROVE RD GROVE TIN c ON H COMMUNITY ROWNTREE MILL RD kkC CENTRE O • Burns calories and helps you maintain a healthy
    [Show full text]
  • Erosion Risk Management Program
    Item 8.6 Section III – Items for the Information of the Board TO: Chair and Members of the Board of Directors Meeting #3/20, Friday, April 24, 2020 FROM: Moranne McDonnell, Director, Restoration and Infrastructure RE: 2020 EROSION RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE ____________________________________________________________________________ KEY ISSUE An information report regarding the Erosion Risk Management Program and related services and strategic updates from the Engineering Projects business unit of Restoration & Infrastructure. RECOMMENDATION WHEREAS TRCA staff were requested by the Executive Committee at meeting #3/19 to provide more information regarding the positive impact that the Federal Disaster Mitigation & Adaptation Fund will have on TRCA’s plans for erosion mitigation work; IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT this staff report on TRCA’s Erosion Risk Management Program and the positive impacts of Federal Disaster Mitigation & Adaptation Fund and partner contributions be received; AND FURTHER THAT this report be circulated to TRCA’s municipal partners. BACKGROUND Managing the risk associated with the natural hazards of flooding and erosion is one of the primary roles of conservation authorities under the Conservation Authorities Act. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) fulfills this role through the delivery of multiple natural resource management programs and services, including the Erosion Risk Management Program (ERMP). The ERMP focuses on the identification and remediation of shoreline and valley land erosion hazards throughout TRCA’s jurisdiction and encourages proactive prevention, protection, and management of erosion issues on private and public property. While many business units in TRCA work to prevent and address erosion impacts, the main business unit that manages erosion hazards is Engineering Projects (EP) which is organized under the Restoration and Infrastructure Division (R&I).
    [Show full text]
  • City of Toronto, Parks and Recreation Division
    CITY OF TORONTO, PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION – OPERATING STANDARDS GENERAL MAINTENANCE TYPE OF INDICATOR TO DETERMINE PROPOSED LEVEL/FREQUENCY EXAMPLES OF AREA IMPACT AREA TYPE OF AREA OF MAINTENANCE SERVICE FINANCIAL (FROM 2000) Highly Maintained These areas require a high Paper picking – daily S - Village of Yorkville NO IMPACT NO IMPACT Areas frequency of maintenance due Garbage can emptying – daily Music Gardens to high level of use (e.g. Washroom cleaning – daily (2 times per day) N – Bayview Village regional parks, subway lands, Playground maintenance E – McLellan Park Toronto Island), the visibility of Wading pool/splash pad maintenance – daily W – Eglinton Flats the area (civic centres) or inspection Etiene Brule Park partner expectations (e.g. Park patrol –daily duty (2 x per day) business improvement areas). Winter maintenance Areas within a park could be Waterfront maintenance (beach grooming) 1 x W– Marie Curtis NO IMPACT NO IMPACT designated, not necessarily the per week May through September. S – Western Beaches entire park. Cherry Beach Toronto Islands Eastern Beaches Ashbridges Bay Dedicated staff at some locations S – High Park NO IMPACT NO IMPACT The main categories of highly Allen Gardens maintained areas are: N – Sunnybrook Park - Feature Parks Edwards Gardens - Civic Centres Hendon Park - Subway lands E - Miliken Park - B.I.A. W – Centenial Park - Waterfront and Island James Gardens Parks *Most South District Parks - Spray pads/Splash pads are in this category due to intensity of use. Revised Jan 14, 02 Parks – Background (9.2) Page 1 of 11 TYPE OF INDICATOR TO DETERMINE PROPOSED LEVEL/FREQUENCY EXAMPLES OF AREA IMPACT AREA TYPE OF AREA OF MAINTENANCE SERVICE FINANCIAL (FROM 2000) Generally These areas require a lower Paper picking N – Brookbanks NO IMPACT NO IMPACT Maintained frequency of maintenance than – once every 7-10 working days, with S – Chorley Park Areas highly maintained areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy
    Evaluating the effectiveness of aquatic habitat restoration implemented using the Toronto Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy Kaylin Barnes1, Lyndsay Cartwright1, Rick Portiss1, Jon Midwood2, Christine Boston2, Monica Granados3, Thomas Sciscione1, Colleen Gibson1, Olusola Obembe1 1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 2 Fisheries and Oceans Canada 3 PREreview.org November 2020 Evaluating the Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fish populations of the Laurentian Great Lakes are impacted by a variety of stressors. Commercial and recreational fishing directly affect the fishery through harvest while other stressors, such as land use changes and degraded water quality, indirectly affect survival and reproduction through a loss or degradation of habitat. Great Lakes fisheries are also affected by competition and predation by invasive species along with changes in climate such as increasing lake temperatures. An estimated 80% of the approximately 200 fish species found in the Great Lakes use the nearshore areas for some portion of their life and as such, coastal development pressures such as shoreline modifications and watershed urbanization continue to impact the fishery. The Toronto Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration Strategy (TWAHRS) was developed by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority with guidance from a committee of subject matter experts to provide practical information for decision-makers, designers and regulatory agencies to ensure that implementation of all waterfront projects incorporate opportunities to improve aquatic habitat. The TWAHRS includes an illustrated compendium of habitat restoration techniques intended to improve waterfront aquatic habitats for a diversity of species - fish, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, molluscs, invertebrates and plants; however, it focuses on fish because they are excellent indicators of the overall health of the ecosystem.
    [Show full text]
  • The Central Waterfront in a City-Wide Context
    TWO MAP ONE – INITIATIVES IN TORONTO’S WESTERN AND EASTERN WATERFRONT (OPPOSITE PAGE): (A) COLONEL SAMUEL SMITH PARK IMPROVEMENT • naturalization and care of significant landscape features 25 at the former Lake Shore Psychiatric Hospital as well as renovation of the Assembly Hall for public activities 24 (B) MIMICO WATERFRONT LINEAR PARK EXTENSION 23 • extension of waterfront trail west from Humber Bay Shores, 22 including the possibility of day-use docking facilities 21 (C) MIMICO CREEK AND ETOBICOKE CREEK RESTORATION • regeneration of both creeks, including wetland protection, 20 natural habitat linkages and improved public access 19 (D) HUMBER BAY SHORES 18 • completion of major waterfront park system, including 17 property acquisition and park and trail construction A RICH HERITAGE 16 (E) MEADOWCLIFFE SHORELINE LINKAGE • completion of key linkage between Gates Gully TORONTO’S WATERFRONT EXTENDS 46 KILOMETRES FROM MARIE CURTIS PARK 15 (Bellamy Ravine) and Bluffer’s Park 14 AT THE ETOBICOKE CREEK TO ROUGE BEACH PARK AT THE ROUGE RIVER (F) GUILD INN REVITALIZATION 13 • revitalization of Guild Inn and shoreline enhancements, including the possibility of a day mooring facility 12 Rich in natural and cultural heritage, the waterfront contains a number of thriving In the Eastern Waterfront, the emphasis is on linkages between existing waterfront 11 (G) EAST POINT PARK • possibility of a major boat launching facility neighbourhoods, a diverse park system, the Scarborough Bluffs and many notable facilities, the city and additional access points to the lake. Various projects are 10 (H) PORT UNION WATERFRONT cultural institutions and sport attractions. Toronto’s waterfront is part of the watershed under way at Port Union Village and at Gates Gully (Bellamy Ravine) to improve 09 • major improvements from Highland Creek to the of six major rivers and a city-wide park system.
    [Show full text]
  • Wayne C. Reeves* Major Report No. 28
    VISIONS FOR THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO WATERFRONT, II: FORGING A REGIONAL IDENTITY, 1913-68 Wayne C. Reeves* Major Report No. 28 Originally prepared as part of a heritage report for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department *Department of Geography University of Toronto Centre for Urban and Community Studies University of Toronto April 1993 ISSN: 0316-0068 ISBN: 0-7727-1365-0 $10.00 ABSTRACT This paper provides a general overview of waterfront-centred or -related planning in the Toronto area during the period 1913-68. In 1912, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners brought forward the first comprehensive plan for the Toronto waterfront. The second such plan - radically different in scale and character was unveiled in 1967 by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. In the intervening years, efforts to forge a regional identity had taken place on several fronts. The topics discussed include the advocacy of a metropolitan political unit before World War II; the City of Toronto's master plan of 1943; the creation of inter-municipal planning boards and other regional authorities prior to 1953, and the preparation of physical plans by these organizations. Their proposals thoroughly conditioned the work of Metropolitan Toronto after its formation in 1953. For Metro, the waterfront provided the crucial setting for a vastly expanded regional infrastructure, including sewerage and water supply facilities, expressways, and regional parks. Attempts to develop a conservation strategy for the lakeshore were also made, propelled in part by the lobbying of community groups. The regional waterfront's importance was underscored when Metro initiated a comprehensive planning process in the early 1960s. The content of and responses to Metro's 1967 plan, and Metro's involvement with other waterfront ventures through 1968 (when Council adopted the plan), are also examined here.
    [Show full text]