DOCSLIB.ORG

Ashbridges Bay Erosion and Sediment Control Project Conservation Ontario Class Environmental Assessment Environmental Study Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ashbridges Bay Erosion and Sediment Control Project Conservation Ontario Class Environmental Assessment Environmental Study Report Ashbridges Bay Erosion and Sediment Control Project Conservation Ontario Class Environmental Assessment Environmental Study Report Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Toronto December 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and City of Toronto gratefully acknowledge the efforts and contributions of the following people participating in the planning and design phases of the Ashbridges Bay Erosion and Sediment Control Class Environmental Assessment: Alberta D’Souza, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Angus Armstrong, Toronto Port Authority Beverly Edwards, Toronto Ornithological Club Bill Snodgrass, City of Toronto Bob Kortright, Toronto Field Naturalists Cathy Eden, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Chris Dunn, City of Toronto Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon, City of Toronto Councillor Paula Fletcher, City of Toronto David Hatton, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Erica Dewell, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Frank Quarisa, City of Toronto Gord MacPherson, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority James Roche, Waterfront Toronto James Yacoumidis, City of Toronto Joe Delle Fave, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority John Edwards, Toronto Hydroplane & Sailing Club Karen McDonald, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Ken Dion, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Laura Stephenson, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Lisa Turnbull, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Maria Zintchenko, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Mark Preston, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Milo Sturm, Shoreplan Engineering Nancy Gaffney, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Nick Saccone, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Nolly Haverhoek, Toronto Beaches Lions Club Philip Cheung, City of Toronto Rachel Lewis, Navy League of Canada Ralph Toninger, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Rick Portiss, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Rob Grech, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Robert Hedley, Ashbridges Bay Yacht Club Ron Anderson, Navy League of Canada Sarah Box, Friends of the Spit Sean Harvey, City of Toronto Susan Stuart, Balmy Beach Canoe Club Ted Bowering, City of Toronto Thomas Sciscione, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ashbridges Bay is a vibrant community with a host of land and water based recreational opportunities for residents and visitors - all nestled beside the City of Toronto’s largest wastewater treatment plant. Following construction of Ashbridge’s Bay Park in the mid-1970s, sediment eroding from the Scarborough Bluffs that was transported westward began to be deposited in the eastern embayment of the Park, creating a large beach (Woodbine Beach). As the embayment filled in, a sandbar began to form offshore, causing the sediment moving within the water system to then bypass the park. A large portion of the sediment bypassing Ashbridges Bay Park is now being deposited at the mouth of Ashbridges Bay in the Coatsworth Cut navigation channel. Coatsworth Cut is located at the western boundary of Ashbridge’s Bay Park. The Bay and Cut have serviced several boating clubs since the 1930s and the general public via three public boat launches since 1977. Currently there are several hundred vessels seasonally moored in the area at local yacht and sailing clubs. Various non-motorized vessels (canoes, kayaks and paddleboards) also use the area for recreation and competitive training. In 1983, Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) began dredging operations at the Coatsworth Cut navigation channel to maintain safe boat passage. Maintenance dredging has been conducted 20 times in the past 30 years and is currently required on an annual basis. TRCA has been interested in undertaking remedial works at Ashbridges Bay to find a long term solution for the erosion and sedimentation issues. TRCA began the first Conservation Ontario Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study to address this issue in 2002. At the same time, a number of other planning studies were underway in the area. TRCA suspended their study while the City of Toronto completed and received approval for two EAs which will change the local shoreline to allow for enhanced stormwater and wastewater treatment for the City’s growing population. In 2009 TRCA partnered with Waterfront Toronto to re- examine the remedial solutions for the erosion and sediment issues in the area with an expanded project scope that proposed the relocation of existing boat clubs in Ashbridges Bay to a newly created land base on Ashbridges Bay Park. The study was suspended when projected costs exceeded the available budget. With a refined scope in 2013, the TRCA partnered with the City of Toronto to resume the EA study once again. The Ashbridges Bay Erosion and Sediment Control Conservation Ontario Class EA is Step 1 of the Ashbridges Bay Landform Project. This EA study seeks an erosion and sediment control solution that can be integrated into the City of Toronto’s approved facilities which lie within the waterlot south of the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant. In Step 2 of this project a detailed design exercise, with input from stakeholders and the general public, will be undertaken for the landform. Although this EA has considered and ensured that the remedial solutions do not preclude opportunities for things such as public access, trail connections and enhancing coastal and terrestrial habitat, these will be explored in depth for the landform as a whole in Step 2. The objective of the Ashbridges Bay Erosion and Sediment Control Class EA is to identify a preferred solution that will mitigate erosion and sediment deposition at the harbour entrance of Coatsworth Cut in order to ensure safe navigation - while considering the various approved facilities, planning initiatives and current uses in the study area. Extensive work was undertaken in previous initiations of the erosion and sediment control studies in the area which identified a number of remedial alternatives. These alternatives were revisited with the re-initiation of this study, and, through a screening process, those that met the project scope were carried forward and subsequently refined to consider and integrate into the City of Toronto’s approved facilities (high rate treatment facility and treatment wetland). The alternatives refinement resulted in three remedial alternatives in addition to the ‘Do Nothing” Alternative being carried forward for evaluation as part of this EA study. The ‘Do Nothing’ alternative was considered to be status quo – i.e., maintaining on-going dredging as it is currently required to keep the navigation channel open. All three remedial alternatives consist of shore connected breakwaters which are designed to keep sediment from entering the Coatsworth Cut channel. The difference between these alternatives is the positioning of the main breakwater in proximity to the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant's seawall gates. During heavy rainfall or snowmelt, large amounts of stormwater combine with sanitary sewage in older areas of Toronto that are serviced by combined sewers. During high flow conditions, a portion of the effluent treated at the wastewater treatment plant is discharged through the seawall gates. The remedial alternatives needed to be designed to allow for the on-going use of the seawall gates. The distinguishing features (main breakwater position) of the alternatives are as follows: Alternative 1: The main breakwater is positioned on the western side of the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant’s seawall gates. Alternative 2: The main breakwater is positioned on the western side of the Ashbridges Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant’s seawall gates and a smaller breakwater is positioned on the east side of the seawall gates to act as a defector. Alternative 3: The main breakwater is positioned on the eastern side of the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plants’ seawall gates and a secondary breakwater is positioned on the west side to form a channel for seawall gate discharge. All three of the remedial alternatives feature a smaller breakwater that is shore connected to the headland at Ashbridges Bay Park. In combination with the primary breakwaters for each alternative this breakwater defines the entrance of the new navigation channel. All of the three Alternatives also feature a cobble beach that integrates the breakwaters with the other approved City of Toronto facilities. The three remedial alternatives, along with the “Do Nothing” were evaluated against each other based on the following: Physical Environment; Natural and Biological Environment; Socio-economic Environment; Cultural Environment; Feasibility and Cost; and Technical Considerations Alternative 3 was selected as the preferred alternative as a result of the evaluation and subsequent support from stakeholders and the public. The defining factor in the evaluation was Alternative 3’s ability to have a potential positive impact on water quality in the recreational boating areas whereas Alternatives 1 and 2 could potentially have negative impacts on Phosphorus and E. coli levels. This potential positive impact with Alternative 3 is achieved by the separation of the seawall gate discharge from the recreational boating areas. Alternative 3 also offers the best integration of existing and planned City of Toronto infrastructure and will provide decades of safe navigation in Coatsworth Cut without dredging. Ashbridges Bay Erosion and Sediment Control Class EA Preferred
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 3. Description of the Potentially Affected Environment
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3. Description of the Potentially Affected Environment The purpose of Chapter 3 is to present an overview of the environment potentially affected by the SWP to create familiarity with issues to be addressed and the complexity of the environment likely to be affected by the Project. All aspects of the environment within the Project Study Area (see Figure 2- 1 in Chapter 2) relevant to the Project and its potential effects have been described in this chapter. The chapter is divided into three sections which capture different components of the environment: 1. Physical environment: describes the coastal and geotechnical processes acting on the Project Study Area; 2. Natural environment: describes terrestrial and aquatic habitat and species; and, 3. Socio-economic environment: describes existing and planned land use, land ownership, recreation, archaeology, cultural heritage, and Aboriginal interests. The description of the existing environment is based on the information from a number of studies, which have been referenced in the relevant sections. Additional field surveys were undertaken where appropriate. Where applicable, future environmental conditions are also discussed. For most components of the environment, existing conditions within the Project Area or Project Study Area are described. Where appropriate, conditions within the broader Regional Study Area are also described. 3.1 Physical Environment Structures and property within slopes, valleys and shorelines may be susceptible to damage from natural processes such as erosion, slope failures and dynamic beaches. These processes become natural hazards when people and property locate in areas where they normally occur (MNR, 2001). Therefore, understanding physical natural processes is vital to developing locally-appropriate Alternatives in order to meet Project Objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • What Spot Off the Beaten Path Would You Show a Tourist? Recommendations from @Metromorning Followers on Twitter
    Toronto What spot off the beaten path would you show a tourist? Recommendations from @metromorning followers on Twitter. Feb 2017 9 Metro Morning 10 jauntful.com/metromorning 2 1 3 6 4 8 7 ©OpenStreetMap contributors, ©Mapbox, ©Foursquare Étienne Brulé Park 1 Toronto Hunt Club 2 Kensington Market 3 Grenadier Pond 4 Park Golf Course Neighborhood Lake Depends on the season! Fall: Etienne The Toronto Hunt Club and its view of Off-the-beaten-path #toronto: You just don't expect to see that kind of Brûlé Park (colour, salmon jumping). the lake at sunset when there is a sailing Kensington Market, Sunnybrook beauty off a major street in T.O. @tvgurl @KinderFynes regatta going on! @Think_teach Park/Don River bike trail, Ashbridges Bay/Beaches. @MartiniBlake 13 Crosby Ave, Toronto 1355 Kingston Rd., Toronto Note Against the Grain Urban Tavern... 6 Cherry Beach 7 Ward's Island 8 Bar Beach Neighborhood One of the best kept secrets in the City Sugar Beach! Against the Grain for lunch Cherry beach, Leslie street spit! The islands are a popular recreational are the parks, vistas and views all along on patio, stroll along lake, relax on @jengonzales8 destination, and are home to a small the Scarborough Bluffs, top and bottom. "beach", share Redpath history. residential community and to the Billy @CllrCrawford @jsquaredink Bishop Toronto City Airport. @nogahK 25 Dockside Dr, Toronto (647) 344-1562 corusquay.atgurbantavern.ca Cherry Beach, Toronto Brickworks Park 9 Humber Arboretum 10 Other Garden A community environmental centre that Located behind Humber College's North inspires and equips visitors to live, work campus, the Humber Arboretum consists and play more sustainably.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Toronto — Detached Homes Average Price by Percentage Increase: January to June 2016
    City of Toronto — Detached Homes Average price by percentage increase: January to June 2016 C06 – $1,282,135 C14 – $2,018,060 1,624,017 C15 698,807 $1,649,510 972,204 869,656 754,043 630,542 672,659 1,968,769 1,821,777 781,811 816,344 3,412,579 763,874 $691,205 668,229 1,758,205 $1,698,897 812,608 *C02 $2,122,558 1,229,047 $890,879 1,149,451 1,408,198 *C01 1,085,243 1,262,133 1,116,339 $1,423,843 E06 788,941 803,251 Less than 10% 10% - 19.9% 20% & Above * 1,716,792 * 2,869,584 * 1,775,091 *W01 13.0% *C01 17.9% E01 12.9% W02 13.1% *C02 15.2% E02 20.0% W03 18.7% C03 13.6% E03 15.2% W04 19.9% C04 13.8% E04 13.5% W05 18.3% C06 26.9% E05 18.7% W06 11.1% C07 29.2% E06 8.9% W07 18.0% *C08 29.2% E07 10.4% W08 10.9% *C09 11.4% E08 7.7% W09 6.1% *C10 25.9% E09 16.2% W10 18.2% *C11 7.9% E10 20.1% C12 18.2% E11 12.4% C13 36.4% C14 26.4% C15 31.8% Compared to January to June 2015 Source: RE/MAX Hallmark, Toronto Real Estate Board Market Watch *Districts that recorded less than 100 sales were discounted to prevent the reporting of statistical anomalies R City of Toronto — Neighbourhoods by TREB District WEST W01 High Park, South Parkdale, Swansea, Roncesvalles Village W02 Bloor West Village, Baby Point, The Junction, High Park North W05 W03 Keelesdale, Eglinton West, Rockcliffe-Smythe, Weston-Pellam Park, Corso Italia W10 W04 York, Glen Park, Amesbury (Brookhaven), Pelmo Park – Humberlea, Weston, Fairbank (Briar Hill-Belgravia), Maple Leaf, Mount Dennis W05 Downsview, Humber Summit, Humbermede (Emery), Jane and Finch W09 W04 (Black Creek/Glenfield-Jane
    [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]
  • Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project
    Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Environmental Study Report March 1, 2010 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority gratefully acknowledges the efforts and contributions of the following people participating in the planning and design phases of the Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project: Al Sinclair Meadowcliffe Drive Resident Barbara Heidenreich Ontario Heritage Trust Beth McEwen City of Toronto Bruce Pinchin Shoreplan Engineering Limited Councilor Brian Ashton City of Toronto Councillor Paul Ainslie City of Toronto Daphne Webster Meadowcliffe Drive Resident David Argue iTransConsulting Limited Don Snider Meadowcliffe Drive resident Janet Sinclair Meadowcliffe Drive Resident Jason Crowder Terraprobe Limited Jim Berry Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Joe Delle Fave Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Joseph Palmissano iTransConsulting Limited Larry Field Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Laura Stephenson Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Lindsay Prihoda Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Lori Metcalfe Guildwood Village Community Association Mark Preston Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Mike Tanos Terraprobe Limited Moranne McDonnell Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Nancy Lowes City of Toronto Nick Saccone Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Patricia Newland Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Paul Albanese City of Toronto Peter Xiarchos M.P.P Lorenzo Berardinetti’s Office Susan Scinocca Meadowcliffe Drive Resident Sushaliya Ragunathan M.P.P Lorenzo Berardinetti’s Office Timo Puhakka Guildwood Village Community Association Trevor Harris Meadowcliffe Drive Resident Tudor Botzan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) continues to work towards ensuring healthy rivers and shorelines, greenspace and biodiversity, and sustainable communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Islands Flood Characterization and Risk Assessment Project Flood Risk Assessment Report
    Toronto Islands Flood Characterization and Risk Assessment Project Flood Risk Assessment Report 30 April 2019 | 13017.101.R2.Rev0_FloodRisk Toronto Islands Flood Characterization and Risk Assessment Project Flood Risk Assessment Report Prepared for: Prepared by: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority W.F. Baird & Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd. 101 Exchange Avenue Vaughan, Ontario For further information, please contact L4K 5R6 Josh Wiebe at +1 905 845 5385 [email protected] www.baird.com 13017.101.R2.Rev0_FloodRisk Z:\Shared With Me\QMS\2019\Reports_2019\13017.101.R2.Rev0_FloodRisk.docx Revision Date Status Comments Prepared Reviewed Approved A 2018/02/12 Draft Client Review DJE JDW RBN 0 2018/04/30 Final Final Report JDW RBN RBN © 2019 W.F. Baird & Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd. (Baird) All Rights Reserved. Copyright in the whole and every part of this document, including any data sets or outputs that accompany this report, belongs to Baird and may not be used, sold, transferred, copied or reproduced in whole or in part in any manner or form or in or on any media to any person without the prior written consent of Baird. This document was prepared by W.F. Baird & Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd. for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The outputs from this document are designated only for application to the intended purpose, as specified in the document, and should not be used for any other site or project. The material in it reflects the judgment of Baird in light of the information available to them at the time of preparation. Any use that a Third Party makes of this document, or any reliance on decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such Third Parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Toronto Fiscally Healthy? a Check-Up on the City’S Finances
    IMFG No. 7 / 2014 perspectives The Pre-Election Series Is Toronto Fiscally Healthy? A Check-up on the City’s Finances Enid Slack and André Côté About IMFG The Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance (IMFG) is an academic research hub and non-partisan think tank based in the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. IMFG focuses on the fiscal health and governance challenges facing large cities and city-regions. Its objective is to spark and inform public debate, and to engage the academic and policy communities around important issues of municipal finance and governance. The Institute conducts original research on issues facing cities in Canada and around the world; promotes high-level discussion among Canada’s government, academic, corporate and community leaders through conferences and roundtables; and supports graduate and post-graduate students to build Canada’s cadre of municipal finance and governance experts. It is the only institute in Canada that focuses solely on municipal finance issues in large cities and city-regions. IMFG is funded by the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, Avana Capital Corporation, and TD Bank Group. Authors Enid Slack is the Director of the IMFG. André Côté is the Manager of Programs and Research. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Paul Bedford, Richard Bird, Kyle Hanniman, Zac Spicer, and Zack Taylor for their thoughtful comments on the draft paper, and staff at the City of Toronto and Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for their assistance with data collection. The authors alone are responsible for the contents of the paper and the opinions expressed, which are not attributable to the IMFG or its funders.
    [Show full text]
  • Trailside Esterbrooke Kingslake Harringay
    MILLIKEN COMMUNITY TRAIL CONTINUES TRAIL CONTINUES CENTRE INTO VAUGHAN INTO MARKHAM Roxanne Enchanted Hills Codlin Anthia Scoville P Codlin Minglehaze THACKERAY PARK Cabana English Song Meadoway Glencoyne Frank Rivers Captains Way Goldhawk Wilderness MILLIKEN PARK - CEDARBRAE Murray Ross Festival Tanjoe Ashcott Cascaden Cathy Jean Flax Gardenway Gossamer Grove Kelvin Covewood Flatwoods Holmbush Redlea Duxbury Nipigon Holmbush Provence Nipigon Forest New GOLF & COUNTRY Anthia Huntsmill New Forest Shockley Carnival Greenwin Village Ivyway Inniscross Raynes Enchanted Hills CONCESSION Goodmark Alabast Beulah Alness Inniscross Hullmar Townsend Goldenwood Saddletree Franca Rockland Janus Hollyberry Manilow Port Royal Green Bush Aspenwood Chapel Park Founders Magnetic Sandyhook Irondale Klondike Roxanne Harrington Edgar Woods Fisherville Abitibi Goldwood Mintwood Hollyberry Canongate CLUB Cabernet Turbine 400 Crispin MILLIKENMILLIKEN Breanna Eagleview Pennmarric BLACK CREEK Carpenter Grove River BLACK CREEK West North Albany Tarbert Select Lillian Signal Hill Hill Signal Highbridge Arran Markbrook Barmac Wheelwright Cherrystone Birchway Yellow Strawberry Hills Strawberry Select Steinway Rossdean Bestview Freshmeadow Belinda Eagledance BordeauxBrunello Primula Garyray G. ROSS Fontainbleau Cherrystone Ockwell Manor Chianti Cabernet Laureleaf Shenstone Torresdale Athabaska Limestone Regis Robinter Lambeth Wintermute WOODLANDS PIONEER Russfax Creekside Michigan . Husband EAST Reesor Plowshare Ian MacDonald Nevada Grenbeck ROWNTREE MILLS PARK Blacksmith
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Has No History!’
    ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ INDIGENEITY, SETTLER COLONIALISM AND HISTORICAL MEMORY IN CANADA’S LARGEST CITY By Victoria Jane Freeman A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History University of Toronto ©Copyright by Victoria Jane Freeman 2010 ABSTRACT ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ ABSTRACT ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ INDIGENEITY, SETTLER COLONIALISM AND HISTORICAL MEMORY IN CANADA’S LARGEST CITY Doctor of Philosophy 2010 Victoria Jane Freeman Graduate Department of History University of Toronto The Indigenous past is largely absent from settler representations of the history of the city of Toronto, Canada. Nineteenth and twentieth century historical chroniclers often downplayed the historic presence of the Mississaugas and their Indigenous predecessors by drawing on doctrines of terra nullius , ignoring the significance of the Toronto Purchase, and changing the city’s foundational story from the establishment of York in 1793 to the incorporation of the City of Toronto in 1834. These chroniclers usually assumed that “real Indians” and urban life were inimical. Often their representations implied that local Indigenous peoples had no significant history and thus the region had little or no history before the arrival of Europeans. Alternatively, narratives of ethical settler indigenization positioned the Indigenous past as the uncivilized starting point in a monological European theory of historical development. i i iii In many civic discourses, the city stood in for the nation as a symbol of its future, and national history stood in for the region’s local history. The national replaced ‘the Indigenous’ in an ideological process that peaked between the 1880s and the 1930s.
    [Show full text]
  • Tommy Thompson Park Update
    Attachment 3: City of Toronto Report for Action REPORT FOR ACTION Tommy Thompson Park Update Date: May 10, 2021 To: Infrastructure and Environment Committee From: Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation Wards: Ward 14 - Toronto-Danforth SUMMARY Tommy Thompson Park (the Park) is the largest component of the broader Leslie Street Spit (the Spit), located at the base of Leslie Street where it meets the shore of Lake Ontario; all components of the Spit will ultimately be consolidated as Tommy Thompson Park (see Attachment 1). The Park is designated in the Official Plan as an Environmentally Significant Area and is recognized internationally as a Canadian Important Bird Area for supporting the conservation of birds and their habitat. The Park is owned by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and managed in partnership between TRCA and the City of Toronto. The Park demonstrates that nature can flourish in cities and contribute to the well-being of city residents; only minutes from downtown, the Park is an escape from the city, and a place to marvel at the force of nature. It is a pet-free urban wilderness that exists as the result of decades of careful management and stewardship of natural succession and habitat restoration processes by TRCA with the support of the City, community groups, and other partners. Its significant and diverse aquatic and terrestrial environments provide habitat for at-risk species who are otherwise challenged by the interrelated impacts of habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, urbanization and climate change. The Park's evolution into an urban wilderness can also be attributed to the work of advocacy groups like the Friends of the Spit, founded in 1977 by naturalists advocating for the Spit to grow naturally, without development and the privatization of uses.
    [Show full text]
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibition Place Master Plan – Phase 1 Proposals Report
    Acknowledgments The site of Exhibition Place has had a long tradition as a gathering place. Given its location on the water, these lands would have attracted Indigenous populations before recorded history. We acknowledge that the land occupied by Exhibition Place is the traditional territory of many nations including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishnabeg, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples and is now home to many diverse First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples. We also acknowledge that Toronto is covered by Treaty 13 with the Mississaugas of the Credit, and the Williams Treaties signed with multiple Mississaugas and Chippewa bands. Figure 1. Moccasin Identifier engraving at Toronto Trillium Park The study team would like to thank City Planning Division Study Team Exhibition Place Lynda Macdonald, Director Don Boyle, Chief Executive Officer Nasim Adab Gilles Bouchard Tamara Anson-Cartwright Catherine de Nobriga Juliana Azem Ribeiro de Almeida Mark Goss Bryan Bowen Hardat Persaud David Brutto Tony Porter Brent Fairbairn Laura Purdy Christian Giles Debbie Sanderson Kevin Lee Kelvin Seow Liz McFarland Svetlana Lavrentieva Board of Governors Melanie Melnyk Tenants, Clients and Operators Dan Nicholson James Parakh David Stonehouse Brad Sunderland Nigel Tahair Alison Torrie-Lapaire 4 - PHASE 1 PROPOSALS REPORT FOR EXHIBITION PLACE Local Advisory Committee Technical Advisory Committee Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association Michelle Berquist - Transportation Planning The Bentway Swinzle Chauhan – Transportation Services
    [Show full text]