News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

Well. Ports Toronto disagrees that they own the pier that goes north from Ward's Island into the harbour BUT state:

"The pier in question was built in the 1890s by Public Works (federal government) but ownership of the pier has never been transferred to PortsToronto. There is historical record that indicates that transfer of the pier was attempted in the 1960s, but the transfer was not completed leaving the ownership in question and the pier to fall into disrepair. Further, while the water lot in which the pier sits is indeed owned by Ports Toronto, there is no reference in PortsToronto’s Letters Patent – a document issued by the federal government which includes a listing of all PortsToronto’s property holdings – to the East Gap pier.

The apparent approach taken by the City of Toronto uses ownership of the water lot as its guide, and incorrectly equates ownership of the water lot with ownership of the pier asset located within the water lot. The pier is a separate and distinct construct, and is not part of PortsToronto’s holdings or responsibilities.

However, regardless of which organization owns the pier, PortsToronto agrees that the concrete remains of the pier need to be removed from the harbour. Earlier this year PortsToronto began discussions with the City of Toronto regarding how best to address the pier. In the short term, and as part of its role to ensure safe navigation within the harbour, PortsToronto has scheduled the removal of the pier and associated rubble, with the work commencing in the coming weeks."

See: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/pe/comm/communicationfile-79423.pdf
 
Nicholas, I would like to draw your attention to the date of that article.
 
Was on Wards island last month and was looking at some of the sand bagging and building up they’ve done to protect the residents. But I’ve been reading about the warnings and seeing the lake levels rise along harbourfront. Just wondering where there might be more real time updates on island flooding.
 
On-going flood prevention works:


That being said, I wonder if there's a long-term strategy for the Islands? As far as I know, the construction of the Leslie Street Spit has blocked off the Islands from lake currents carrying sediment from the Scarborough Bluffs- and without natural replenishment, the islands will continue to require long-term artificial support.

Should this be accepted as-is? Or is there a more natural alternative?
 
jje1000 said:
On-going flood prevention works:


That being said, I wonder if there's a long-term strategy for the Islands? As far as I know, the construction of the Leslie Street Spit has blocked off the Islands from lake currents carrying sediment from the Scarborough Bluffs- and without natural replenishment, the islands will continue to require long-term artificial support.

Should this be accepted as-is? Or is there a more natural alternative?
Click to expand...

Your answer is here, in the 2008 EA


Concept 6 was chosen as the preferred concept. Discussion starts on page 66

From the above:

4.2.7 Concept 6 – Sand Management Plan Concept 6 is sand management plan where sand is introduced into the nearshore so the existing sediment transport capacity can be realized without causing the shoreline or the nearshore bottom to erode. Based on the sediment transport and sediment budget analyses it was estimated that the erosion associated with alongshore sediment transport gradients could be significantly lessened by introducing approximately 20,000 m3 per year to the nearshore area east of Gibraltar Point. At the concept level a specific source of sand was not confirmed but a likely borrow area is the depositional area offshore of Hanlan’s Point Beach, towards the Western Gap. Sand that is deposited in the Western Gap, Eastern Channel, and Ashbridge’s Bay, which must be removed for navigational reasons have also been tentatively identified as possible sources.
 
I'm glad there's a plan to deal with flooding on the Island, but I'm concerned Hanlan's seems to be left out. Anyone know if they city has plans to deal with the erosion on that beach? Every year it's becoming increasingly smaller.
 
dob467 said:
I'm glad there's a plan to deal with flooding on the Island, but I'm concerned Hanlan's seems to be left out. Anyone know if they city has plans to deal with the erosion on that beach? Every year it's becoming increasingly smaller.
Click to expand...

We must protect the playground of the nudes!
 
dob467 said:
I'm glad there's a plan to deal with flooding on the Island, but I'm concerned Hanlan's seems to be left out. Anyone know if they city has plans to deal with the erosion on that beach? Every year it's becoming increasingly smaller.
Click to expand...

Part of the Gibraltar Point Erosion control project:

trca.ca

Gibraltar Point Erosion Control Project

PROJECT STATUS Spring 2023 The sand dune construction phase of the Gibraltar Point Erosion Control Project is now complete! PLEASE NOTE: Fencing has been
trca.ca trca.ca

The 2018 ESR Addendum seem to indicate historical shoreline growth at Hanlan's.

AoD
 
lenaitch said:
Shoreline protection and erosion control are good things but probably of little defence against an overall rise in lake level.
Click to expand...
Isn't the outflow largely controlled by the various locks between the lakes?

I roughly recall that they were going to let the lake levels rise in order to "restore natural wetlands", or something like that.

Edit:
Suspicion is growing that this year's high water levels in the Great Lakes are not simply the result of a snowy winter, a big spring melt, and heavy rainfall this summer.

Fingers are pointing at the Canadian and American officials who manage shared bodies of water. The International Joint Commission introduced a new plan that allows for higher water levels in the Great Lakes three years ago.

The IJC insists weather is the problem and cites environmental science to support its position, but business owners who see the impact question the policy.
Click to expand...
"The term I use is a perfect storm," says Wendy Merkley, before listing climate change, record snowfalls and Plan 2014 as a disastrous combination. "Everything contrived to make this happen."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jje1000 said:
Isn't the outflow largely controlled by the various locks between the lakes?

I roughly recall that they were going to let the lake levels rise in order to "restore natural wetlands", or something like that.

Edit:

Click to expand...

It's a delicate dance that the IJC has to perform, trying to predict seasonal watershed flows in the entire system and balance water levels in all of the lakes. Considerations include water levels, navigation, energy production, shorelines, erosion, etc. The outflow of Lake Ontario is controlled by dams in the Cornwall area; navigation locks do virtually nothing for level control. If you open it up too much you run the risk of flooding downstream, including Montreal.
There are watershed controls on rivers flowing into Lake Ontario, but the major input from Lake Erie and beyond is very limited.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top