HomeMy WebLinkAboutEGD-015-17Engineering Services
Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the
Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: June 19, 2017
Report Number: EGD-015-17 Resolution: GG-356-17
File Number: By-law Number: Report
Subject: Cedar Crest Beach Erosion Mitigation
Recommendations:
1.That Report EGD-015-17 be received;
2.That Council select one of the options provided in Section 5.5 to respond to the
residents' of Cedar Crest Beach June 20, 2016 petition to protect the shoreline of
Lake Ontario across the frontages of their properties;
3.That all interested parties listed in Report EGD-015-17 and any delegations be
advised of Council's decision.
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 2
Report Overview
This report provides the follow up to a request by Cedar Crest Beach Road residents to have
Clarington aid them in developing and implementing a comprehensive unified shoreline
erosion mitigation plan for the area generally bounded by 37 and 155 Cedar Crest Beach
Road. The report provides background of past studies on the erosion issue, previous
reports by staff on the matter, relevant legislation, input by area residents, suggested erosion
measures for further design and study and potential funding options for design and
construction work. It also highlights the fact that the erosion issues are separate from the
flooding issues that are occurring due to the high water levels in Lake Ontario.
1. Background
1.1 Delegation, June 20, 2016
On June 20, 2016, Council received a petition from delegates James Mackenzie and
Sarah Delicate who were representing several residents from the Cedar Crest Beach
area regarding ongoing erosion issues along the Lake Ontario shoreline. The purpose of
the petition was to request municipal expertise and assistance with coordinating a unified
plan for erosion mitigation on private lands in the Cedar Crest Beach area. In response to
this request, Council approved resolution #GG-341-16 to refer the petition to staff asking
for a report to outline recommendations for this purpose. A copy of the presentation to
Council by the residents is provided as Attachment 1.
1.2 Staff Undertakings
In order to better understand this issue staff met with St. Marys Cement, the Central Lake
Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA), the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
(GRCA), the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and consulted with two
different coastal engineering experts. Staff also researched our files and reports to
Council on the matter and reviewed two reports prepared by coastal engineering experts,
Lake Ontario Shoreline Management Plan, 1990 and Port Darlington Shoreline Study,
2004 (DRAFT), specific to the Clarington shoreline issue.
1.3 Flooding and Erosion History
There have been 4 years with Lake Ontario water levels over 75.5 metres (1973, 1974,
1976 and 1993) but reports of flooding and heavy erosion damage have been noted more
frequently locally.
Over the last 44 years flooding events average to about 1 in every 5-6 years; however
they often comes in groups. Below is a summary of flooding events and resulting impacts
and actions taken as a result of the flooding and erosion:
1973/1974 - High water levels and damage were experienced along the shore. The
Provincial Shoreline Assistance Program was activated and the Municipality
borrowed $50,000 to administer through loans to affected property owners with
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 3
interest. Only one loan for $18,000 appears to have been taken as part of the
program.
1985/1986 - High water levels and damage were again experienced along the shore.
The Municipality borrowed $150,000 for use in the Provincial Shoreline Assistance
Program for use by residents through loans with 8 % interest. There is no information
on how many residents applied.
1990/1991 - Residents at the west end of Cedar Crest Beach Road (43-83) applied and
received a permit from CLOCA for constructing erosion protection. The permit was
approved by CLOCA with 4 conditions one of which was “CLOCA in no way
guarantees or authorizes the proposed work as an effective means of long term
shoreline erosion protection”.
The residents had discussions with St. Marys Cement about the use of quarry stone
for use as shoreline protection. The Clarington Works Department responded to an
offer of St. Marys Cement for 2000 tons of quarry stone by recommending that the
Municipality decline it on expert advice this was ineffective on a dynamic beach or as
long term protection. The Municipality offered to undertake shoreline erosion works
under the Local Improvement Act provided the residents paid for the work (WD-1-91).
The residents objected and no work was undertaken under that Act. As this
permitting was provided by CLOCA, our files are incomplete but it appears that the
residents proceeded to undertake some work of their own in summer/fall of 1991
under the above-reference CLOCA permit.
The Municipality undertook $33,000 worth of shoreline protection works on
Municipality owned lands in four areas (two in Bowmanville and two in Bond Head).
This included the property at 87 Cedar Crest Beach to tie in with the residents’ work.
1993 - Reports again of damage even after erosion control work was completed on the
shoreline.
1997/1998 – These were high water years but there were no reports of damage found in
our files.
2. Document Review and Existing Conditions
This Section of the report provides an overview of the reference documents that pertain
to the Cedar Crest Beach erosion issue that were reviewed in preparation of this report
(Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4). Definitions for supporting terminology are provided in
this section as well as a summary of the natural processes occurring in the Cedar Crest
Beach area (Sections 2.4 through 2.14) and general commentary regarding erosion
mitigation efforts to date by land owners in the area is also provided in this section
(Section 2.15).
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 4
Document Review:
2.1 Lake Ontario Shoreline Management Plan, 1990
This broad and comprehensive study was prepared for the CLOCA, GRCA and the Lower
Trent Region Conservation Authority (LTRCA), Sandwell et al, in association with Beak
Consultants Limited and EDA Collaborative in December 1990. It provides a shoreline
management plan for Lake Ontario shoreline within the CLOCA, GRCA and LTRCA
areas. It is a good resource that describes the basic processes at play in the Cedar Crest
Beach area.
2.2 Port Darlington Shoreline Study, 2004 (DRAFT)
This study was prepared by Aqua Solutions, March 2004 for the CLOCA. It is an
outgrowth of the Lake Ontario Shoreline Management Plan based on identification of the
beaches immediately west of Port Darlington as a Damage Centre. It coverd 1.8
kilometres of shoreline encompassing both the West Beach and Cedar Crest Beach
areas.
2.3 Newcastle Waterfront: Preliminary Coastal Engineering Assessment
Although not directly related to the erosion issues in the Cedar Crest Beach area this
report prepared in 2003 by W.F. Baird and Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd. does
provide a very good overview of a number of shoreline erosion mitigation measures.
2.4 Policy and Procedural Document for Regulation and Plan Review, 2013
This document was prepared by CLOCA in April, 2013, and provides policy direction,
clarity and transparency on how CLOCA administers and implements Ontario Regulation
42/06: Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority—Regulation of Development,
Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses.
Existing Conditions:
2.5 Sediment Transport
The net direction of alongshore drift in Lake Ontario is from west to east. Drift can move
from east to west, but this is less common. Net potential transport rates vary significantly
along the shoreline and are largely dependent on shoreline orientation.
2.6 Surf Zone
The surf zone refers to the region in a body of water near the shoreline where waves
break. The width of the surf zone in the study area varies from 500 metres to 1500
metres with peak potential transport rates occurring anywhere from 200 to 500 metres
from the shoreline. This information is taken into consideration when designing structures
which interrupt alongshore sediment transport.
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 5
2.7 Littoral Cells and Sub-Cells
A littoral zone is the part of a sea, lake or river that is close to the shore extending from
the high water mark to shoreline areas that are permanently submerged.
Within the littoral zone are littoral cells which are self-contained segments of shoreline
that neither receive sediments from nor contribute sediments to adjacent littoral cells.
Littoral cells can range in length from a few hundred metres to hundreds of kilometres.
The Cedar Crest Beach shoreline is contained in a littoral cell with boundaries defined by
East Point in Pickering (west extent) and Presqu’ille (east extent).
Natural features (bays and headlands) and manmade structures within a littoral cell
contribute to the formation of littoral sub-cells. These features act as partial barriers to the
alongshore movement of littoral sediments.
The Cedar Crest Beach shoreline is contained in a littoral sub-cell defined by St. Marys
Cement Pier in the west and Peter Rock Shoal in the east. St. Marys Cement Pier is
listed as a primary littoral sub-cell barrier, which means that it appears to intercept
upwards of 60% of alongshore sediment transport in the surf zone.
2.8 Sediment Sources
Lakeshore sediment can originate from several sources including bluff erosion, fluvial
sediments (rivers, creeks and streams) and foreshore erosion. Within the Cedar Crest
Beach area, the foreshore is predominantly clay, does not contain beach-building
material, and is not considered to be a significant source of sediment.
Cedar Crest Beach is situated in an area that receives limited sediment transport from the
west. The nearest source of sediment to the east is Westside Creek which outlets to Lake
Ontario at the east end of Cedar Crest Beach Road. Bowmanville Creek is the next
nearest source of sediment in the area and outlets to Lake Ontario at the easterly limit of
West Beach Road. West beach and Cedar Crest Beach do receive sediment from these
sources when alongshore drift in Lake Ontario is moving from east to west. (see map
below)
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 6
2.9 Damage Centres
Damage Centres are defined as areas of high risk due to flooding or erosion potential and
include shorelines subject to high erosion rates, low-lying regions prone to flooding and
areas where structures are located in close proximity to the shoreline.
The beach west of Port Darlington, which includes West Beach and the Cedar Crest
Beach cottage development (approximately 50 houses), is identified in the Lake Ontario
Shoreline Management Plan as a Damage Centre and is at risk of flooding from the
marsh and creeks as well as flooding due to wave activity on Lake Ontario.
2.10 Flooding Hazard
Flood hazard posed by wave activity on Lake Ontario is summarized in the following
points:
• Seasonal fluctuations in lake level typically average about 0.6 to 1.1 metres between
the summer and winter months.
• By far, natural phenomena (e.g., rainfall, evaporation, wind, storms, etc.) are the
greater cause of flooding along the Lake Ontario shoreline than human intervention
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 7
(i.e., diversions, water control structures, etc.) although the flood control measures in
Cornwall to regulate levels does also contribute to the high water levels.
• Storm winds can cause periods of significantly larger magnitudes of lake level changes
and induce the added hazard of wave run-up (the uprush movement of a wave
breaking on a shoreline), which can flood low-lying areas behind erosion barriers.
2.11 Erosion Hazard
Erosion hazard posed by wave activity on Lake Ontario is summarized in the following
points:
• Many geological, topographical and meteorological factors determine the erodibility of
a shoreline. These include soil type, surface and groundwater, bluff height, vegetation
cover, shoreline orientation, shoreline processes, wind and wave climate and lake level
fluctuations.
• The rate of erosion may be heightened during severe storm events, resulting in large
losses of land over a very short period of time. These large losses can obscure the
more continuing long-term processes of erosion.
• Once material is removed, dislodged or extracted from the shore face and near shore
profile, it cannot reconstitute with the original material and is essentially lost forever.
• Erosion remediation measures may only offer a limited protection and may only reduce
or address the erosion hazard over a temporary period of time.
2.12 Dynamic Beach Hazard
• A dynamic beach is considered to be an unstable accumulation of shoreline sediments
• Topographic elevations can change quite rapidly due to the accumulation or loss of
beach materials through the effects of wind and wave action.
• Changes can occur seasonally or yearly.
2.13 Setback Limits
Flood and erosion setbacks for lakeshore properties are determined based on the
shoreline type, typically either beach or bluff. The shoreline type in the Cedar Crest
Beach area is defined as a dynamic beach with an area of cohesive bluff at the west end.
However, as is noted below this setback limit is not intended for use on dynamic
beaches.
The flood level allowance for the Port Darlington area shoreline is 76.27 metres IGLD
(International Great Lakes Datum). This is equal to the 100-year flood limit, which is
calculated to include the 100-year peak instantaneous water level + wave run-up
allowance. It should be noted that the highest lake level experienced this year was 75.88
metres, 0.39 metres below the 100 year flood limit. Flooding levels from West Side
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 8
Creek (76.75 m) and Bowmanville Creek (78.3 m) are significantly higher than the 100
year lake levels.
The illustration below shows how this hazard is translated into a Regulated Shoreline
Area (illustration taken from p.39 of CLOCA’s policy and procedure document, 2013)
The erosion hazard limit setback for the Port Darlington area, which includes both bluffs
and dynamic beach areas, was determined to be 36 metres by the Lake Ontario
Shoreline Management Plan (1990). The following illustration is taken from the 2004
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 9
Port Darlington Shoreline Study. Option (b) shows how the erosion hazard limit setback
was determined under the Great Lakes Protection Works Standard.
It is important to remember, however, that this setback limit is not intended for use in
dynamic beach areas. When determining set-back limits for development, beaches are
treated differently from other shorelines because they erode and accrete; that is,
beaches are dynamic and naturally appear and disappear. Because the beach profile is
constantly changing, it is not possible to define an erosion set-back limit. In place of an
erosion set-back limit, a dynamic beach hazard limit is used.
The following illustration is taken from page 24 of the 2004 Port Darlington Shoreline
Study and shows how the dynamic beach hazard limit is determined.
2.14 Dynamic Beach Standard
The importance of this natural feature is reflected in various policies as provided in
Section 4.1 recommending measures to support protection of the feature.
Our understanding of dynamic beach processes has evolved over time. This means that
historically development along Cedar Crest Beach was not held to the same standard in
use today. Provincial and local policy reflect this reality.
In the Cedar Crest Beach area, historic cottage development occurred within the currently
defined dynamic beach hazard limit. This interfered with natural dynamic beach
processes and also put the properties at risk during natural flooding events. Additionally,
the collective efforts of property owners to protect their properties from natural erosion
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 10
and flooding events has inadvertently contributed to degradation of Cedar Crest Beach
and in some cases heightened flooding potential from wave activity on Lake Ontario
mainly due to the configuration of the erosion works.
Under current guidelines, development along dynamic beaches is not encouraged and no
permanent construction immediately behind an active beach face is recommended. When
development is to be considered, the recommendation generally includes a cross-shore
beach survey, preservation of the most lakeward line of dunes and consideration for the
sensitive nature of the beach, with potential specifications to plant dune grass to assist in
preservation of the dune.
2.15 Pitfalls of Unplanned Erosion Mitigation
During storms, beach material may be moved offshore and alongshore. This results in
low shallow beach profiles. During times with more normal wave events beach material is
usually brought back up on shore and alongshore transport rates are reduced.
Intervention by property owners can often interrupt this natural process, as noted in the
following examples:
• Structures such as groynes and breakwaters often have a deleterious effect on down-
drift properties
• Shoreline structures such as seawalls often accelerate the loss of beach material
during storms.
There are no groynes or breakwaters situated in the Cedar Crest Beach area; however, a
series of ad hoc barriers (seawalls) have been constructed by individual property owners
over time.
When seawalls are not properly constructed, there are often deleterious effects to the
environment surrounding the seawall. If the seawall has not been constructed to allow
trapped water to escape, wave action hitting the seawall will generally cause short-term
flooding behind the structure due to overspray. Further, if the footings of the seawall were
not constructed at a sufficient depth below the natural lake level, water trapped behind
the wall will drain beneath the wall and remove finer sediments, causing erosion behind
and beneath the wall. This, in turn, causes eventual failure of the wall as it collapses into
its foundation and loses supporting soils from the behind. As mentioned above, outwash
from beneath the wall combined with increased energy from wave action hitting the wall,
often also accelerates loss of beach material.
3. Current Efforts
3.1 Discussions with St. Marys Cement
Municipal staff met with St. Marys Cement representatives on November 15, 2016, to
review the Cedar Crest Beach residents’ petition. Staff also confirmed ongoing
monitoring requirements as part of the dock expansion that took place in the late 1990s.
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 11
The reach of monitoring stations includes locations both west and east of the docking
facility. The eastward extension covers the area between the St. Marys Cement property
and the Port Darlington harbour piers. The consultant responsible for the monitoring
program was present at the meeting and confirmed that the erosion monitoring study is
updated approximately every five years.
At the Council meeting on June 12, 2017 the representative from St. Marys Cement
advised Council that he could not respond to certain questions from Council because
several of the residents had commenced litigation against St. Marys. Staff have been
advised by counsel acting for the Cedar Crest Beach residents that as so far as he is
aware no lawsuit has been filed.
3.2 Discussions with Approving Agencies: CLOCA and GRCA
Municipal staff met with CLOCA and GRCA staff on December 12, 2016, to collect
background information.
3.3 Update to Council and Cedar Crest Beach Representative
In mid-December, a brief memo was circulated to Council regarding meetings with St.
Marys Cement and the conservation authorities. The memo was forwarded to Cedar
Crest Beach representative, Mrs. Delicate, in mid-January. This memo is provided as
Attachment 2.
3.4 Cedar Crest Beach Site Visits
Municipal staff were invited to the Cedar Crest Beach area on March 31, 2017, to
observe the wave action and impact of waves during higher water levels and high winds.
Staff visited six properties, spoke with several residents and took photos.
On May 2, 2017, Clarington Engineering and Operations staff were on site with
representatives from CLOCA to review marsh levels. On the following day, engineering
staff returned by invitation to review erosion protection with property owner Karl
Vermillion.
On May 31, 2017 Clarington staff from Operations, Emergency Services, Engineering
and the Mayor’s Office attended a meeting on West Beach and Cedar Crest Beach with a
coastal engineering consultant to discuss some of the issues being faced by area
residents during this record high water level as well as ongoing erosion. A summary of
his notes are attached for your information (Attachment 5).
Engineering staff have made several other visits to the area to review flooding and
erosion impacts and gather background information.
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 12
3.5 Discussions with Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
Municipal staff met with a TRCA representative on April 19, 2017, to discuss how the
TRCA deals with Lakeshore erosion in the Scarborough area as the type of erosion
protection employed there is similar to the solution that the residents would like to see
across their beach. Several approaches were discussed with most involving public
acquisition of hazard lands and creation of a public amenity through protection works.
TRCA staff noted that the rock groyne and beach examples that most people reference in
Scarborough were done with fill from Toronto.
3.6 Discussions and Input from Cedar Crest Beach Road Residents
Representatives
As a follow up to our meeting with Cedar Crest Beach Road residents on June 6, 2017, a
representative of the residents provided a follow up e-mail providing some additional
historic information from the residents, views on the erosion issues and flooding as well
as their expectations of outcomes from this report. The contents of this e-mail are
provided below.
Our community located on Cedar Crest Beach Road has been here for over 100 years.
This area, much like Cove Road and West Beach Road to the east, used to have an
expansive beach were many citizens came to cottage, picnic and enjoy the beauty of
Lake Ontario.
However, in the early 1970’s, St. Marys Cement was approved by governments to put in
a large shipping pier jutting thousands of feet out into the lake that has ever since
completely disrupted the delicate balance of natural beach shoreline processes that had
existed since the last ice age. In 40 short years, the beach that was developed and
sustained for tens of thousands of years has been completely destroyed. Community
residents have petitioned the municipality many times for assistance in halting the
erosion, to no avail. Back in 1990 and lately with a petition, signed by over 100 residents,
was presented to Council on June 20th, 2016, warning that erosion was now complete,
violent flooding was imminent, and a comprehensive shoreline protection strategy was
urgent and critical. Council ratified a motion to present a plan by December 2016. It did
not happen. On April 26th, 2017, residents warned the Municipality that flooding was
imminent and requested an emergency flood response plan be activated. It was not
activated – there is no plan. Even though a clear recommended option to rejuvenate the
beach and resist shoreline erosion was provided back in 1990 by Sandwell in their
Shoreline Management Report to CLOCA none of the recommendations have been
actioned.
The residents of Cedar Crest Beach Road experienced their first violent flood event this
year on April 30th and there have been 3 additional events since. People are physically,
emotionally and spiritually exhausted, and as long as lake levels remain high, our homes
are at risk. Over the years, private residents have been forced to pay for expensive rock
wall armour stones to protect individual properties because the local Conservation
Authority, Municipality and province has refused to build or fund any structures to protect
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 13
the shoreline and build back the beach that was destroyed. Recently, these rock wall
structures have cost individual property owners upwards of $60,000 to have installed as
directed by the Conservation Authority. Many of these walls are failing and many others
will fail soon. Individual property owners and their rock walls are no match for Lake
Ontario. We have been told that damage from these lake storm surge events are not
covered by homeowners insurance and the province has not activated our area for
disaster relief funding.
Many of our residents are seniors, others are getting by on disability benefits, and we are
average Canadians trying to do whatever we can to protect our properties, our families
and our future. Thank you for caring.
The following Comments and Expectations are provided:
• The current state of erosion is critical and that the sand bags installed are only an
emergency measure and most certainly will not survive the intense storms from
the east commonly occurring in the fall.
• Plans must be developed now to address short term needs until long term
solution measures can be implemented.
• A Federal Review Committee was appointed in 1986 to study the long term
management of the Lake Ontario Shoreline. The Review commission clearly
mandated that the Conservation Authorities were designated as the agency
responsible for the implementation and administration of the shoreline policies
emanating from the Ministry of Natural Resources, Flooding and Erosion Hazard
Policies.
• The Shoreline Management Report by Sandwell 1990 prepared for CLOCA in
response to the Review Commission, clearly identified recommendations for
shoreline protection for the Port Darlington area including groins and beach
nourishment. This strategy not only will provide long term erosion control but also
will help to rejuvenate the large expanse of beaches well known in Port
Darlington.
• No other reports since then have been developed to suggest any other shoreline
management method.
• Since the 1990 report to CLOCA, the Conservation Authority have allowed
significant shoreline protection works to be completed which clearly were known
not to be adequate for any long term shoreline erosion protection even though a
long term solution was known.
• The existing stone gabions, loose rock shore barriers and stacked armour stone
walls accepted by and approved by CLOCA have clearly all failed over a short
period of time and are clearly not a long term solution. These methods are
applicable for small lakes and rivers but are no way strong enough for conditions
on the Great Lakes even under normal conditions.
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 14
• Accelerated erosion rates along the Port Darlington shores have been clearly
identified in reports and substantiated by property owners through years of
historical photos and documentation to have started following the original
construction of St Marys Cement Pier. It has been clearly seen, despite empirical
models that the pier has modified the natural beach dynamics in the area and cut
off the movement of sand along the north shore which is necessary for the
maintenance and preservation of the beach.
• As shoreline protection works were built over time to combat the erosion, matters
got worse since rock walls prevented natural beach maintenance and were
inadequate to take the forces of the waves common to Lake Ontario.
• The Municipality must recognize the urgency of the situation and implement the
shoreline protection strategy recommended in 1990 some 27 years ago.
• The Municipality must strive to appropriate the funding necessary for the
shoreline strategy which again not only provides long term erosion protection but
also rejuvenates the large beaches that Port Darlington has been famous for,
based on benefit to stakeholders as well as contributors to the change in
circumstances leading to the erosion problem. They include St Marys Cement,
Federal, Provincial, Municipal governments and to a much lesser extent private
land owners for futile efforts ultimately aggravating the problem to protect their
individual property without any assistance from government but only the limited
knowledge and experience they have.
• The Municipality must engage the Community in consultations as agreed to since
there is a wealth of beneficial data and history that we have which empirical
models, calculations and guess work are no match against.
• The residents fully acknowledge that shoreline management strategies are not
developed to prevent flooding caused by high water levels but only to maintain
shoreline from constant wave action.
• Some of the references to negative effects brought on by the initial construction
of the St Marys Cement Pier are noted below:
• Design notes on St Marys Dock and Landfill Project , submitted by A.
Brebner and J.W. Kamphuis Dec 8, 1972
• Lake Ontario Shoreline Management submitted to CLOCA Dec 1990,
General Recommendations for Shore Protection
• St Marys Cement Open House , Meeting notes by Willms Shier ( Barristers
and Solicitors ) May 23, 1991
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 15
• It is noted that the Shoreline Engineering report 1992 simply sites the
conclusions of Kamphuis 1991 with absolutely no independent peer review.
• It is noted that the comments from MNR to our solicitor Sept 15, 1993 again
states firstly that their own engineers draw little correlation between St Marys
Cement pier construction to the accelerated erosion but later to state that
their position was based on a review of once again the Kamphuis report.
• It appears very little independent review or study was completed by any agency
to substantiate the Kamphuis report.
• We attach a short video showing shoreline protection in the US which shows
leadership, common sense and compassion.
http://buffalonews.com/2017/06/06/niagara-county-battles-lake-ontario-wins/
Attachment A - Design notes on St Marys Dock and Landfill Project submitted by A. Brebner
and J.W. Kamphuis Dec 8, 1972
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 16
Attachment B - Lake Ontario Shoreline Management submitted to CLOCA Dec 1990
General Recommendations for Shore Protection (Table 10.1 page 67)
• “Damage Center C4 is a good candidate for beach nourishment. The beach is
starved by St Marys Cement Pier.”
• Please note the comment regarding St Marys is clear and conclusive with no
qualification statements.
3.7 St. Marys Docking Facility
The original dock (approved by Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the Ministry of
Natural Resources (MNR) in the early 1970’s) and dock expansion (approved by
Canadian Coast Guard in the mid-late 1990’s) were under provincial and federal
regulation. The Municipality submitted comments for consideration as part of the dock
expansion review process and provided these to Council through staff report PD-108-95
(Resolution C-731-95). The report summarized Staff’s review of the findings of the dock
expansion approvals being sought by SMC. The corresponding motion passed by
Council indicated that the Municipality “does not concur with the findings of the
Environmental Assessment and Review for the St. Marys Cement Corporation dock
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 17
expansion.” The concern was that the impacts of the existing dock and the proposed
expansion were not fully understood. The motion further requested that the Canadian
Coast Guard require as a condition of issuing their approval for the dock expansion a
remedial plan for wetland loss and or shoreline impacts resulting from the existing and
expanded dock. In addition, the establishment of a monitoring committee by the
Canadian Coast Guard was requested, which would include representation from the
Municipality.
4. Current Planning and Policy Context
4.1 Planning Regime
The following provides an overview of the current relevant planning regime elements
along the Lake Ontario shoreline in the Cedar Crest Beach area:
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) sets out the policy foundation for regulating the
development and use of land in Ontario. In both the 2005 and 2014 PPS, Section 3.1
deals with the protection of public health and safety, and requires that development be
directed to areas outside of hazardous shoreline and riverine lands which may be
impacted by flooding, erosion and/or dynamic beach hazards. Of key relevance to
Cedar Crest Beach, the PPS contains a clear prohibition against development by stating
that “development and site alteration shall not be permitted within the dynamic beach
hazard.”.
The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 (2017 Growth Plan), which
will come into effect July 1, 2017, provides a framework for implementation of the PPS
in the region. In implementing the PPS, the 2017 Growth Plan requires that growth
management planning direct development away from hazardous lands.
The Durham Region Official Plan (DROP) designates the Cedar Crest Beach area as
“Waterfront Areas.” Lands in the “Waterfront Areas” designation are to be developed as
people-places, with the exception of significant natural areas, which are to be protected
in their natural states. Environment policies contained in Section 2 of the DROP do not
permit development or site alteration within dynamic beach hazard areas.
The 1996 Clarington Official Plan designates the Cedar Crest Beach area as
“Waterfront Greenway”. The predominant use of land in this designation is recreation,
tourism uses, conservation and agricultural uses. The properties along the edge of
Lake Ontario, including the Cedar Crest Beach area, are also designated as being
within the “Regulatory Shoreline Area”. Policies of the “Regulatory Shoreline Area” do
not permit the construction of new buildings or structures of any type. Existing
residential uses are permitted to continue; however, only limited construction and/or
expansion is permitted provided certain conditions are met including flood proofing, not
being located in a stream floodplain, a dynamic beach, or a Damage Centre, and
vehicles have a safe way of entering and existing during a flood event. Further, if an
existing dwelling is destroyed or demolished, reconstruction must commence within a 24
month period, after which reconstruction is not permitted.
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 18
On November 1, 2016 Council adopted Official Plan Amendment 107 (OPA 107), which
brought the Clarington Official Plan into conformity with the Regional Official Plan and
provincial policies. Through OPA 107, land use in the Cedar Crest Beach area was
amended, changing the primary designation to “Environmental Protection” with limited
inland areas remaining “Waterfront Greenway”. Within areas designated
“Environmental Protection,” permitted development is limited to low-intensity recreation
and uses related to forest, fish and wildlife management or erosion control and
stormwater management. The Cedar Crest Beach area remains within the Regulatory
Shoreline Area and construction of new buildings and structures, or reconstruction of a
destroyed or demolished existing residence after a 24 month period is not permitted.
In accordance with the Planning Act, the Municipality is required to update its Zoning
By-Laws within three years of the new Official Plan coming into effect. As Staff continue
to work with the Region of Durham to complete the review of OPA107, Planning
Services has begun the process of undertaking a comprehensive review of the
Municipal Zoning By-laws to implement the Official Plan. This will include the updating
of regulations for development in Cedar Crest Beach area to be consistent with
provincial natural hazard policy.
Implementation of the policies set out in the Official Plan is achieved through zoning by-
laws. It is important to note, however, that an existing building or structure which is
lawfully in existence prior to the passing of the relevant zoning by-law and which does
not conform to the Official Plan, but continues to be used for such purposes, shall be
deemed legal non-conforming.
Zoning By-law 84-63 is applicable to the Cedar Crest Beach area and zones the Cedar
Crest Beach area “Residential Shoreline (RS) Zone”. The RS zone permits seasonal
dwellings and single detached dwellings on lots with minimum 30 metres of frontage
and 2,800 square metres of lot area. The RS regulations permit the conversion of an
existing seasonal dwelling to a single detached dwelling. The current zoning developed
now, more than 30 years ago, provides for RS zone in the Cedar Crest Beach. This
area is not consistent with the PPS prohibition against development within the dynamic
beach hazard, the flooding hazard.
4.2 Other Considerations
Any recommendations made in this report must be considered within the context of
existing planning and policy frameworks and using the following shoreline management
approach, which includes, in order of preference:
• Prevention
• Protection works
• Emergency response
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 19
4.3 Prevention
Clarington and CLOCA recognize that the community along Cedar Crest Beach Road has
developed over time during which natural hazard land use planning policy and regulation
have evolved to more strictly regulate development within dynamic beach hazards and
flooding hazards. There is now a clear conflict between the level of historical
development that has taken place and provincial requirements that development not take
place on hazardous lands.
The most recent shoreline management study for this area is the draft 2004 Port
Darlington Study, which recommended:
• Short term: direct all new development and site alteration away from the area by
ensuring that zoning regulations and conservation authority permit decisions conform
to provincial prohibitions in dynamic beach hazards and flooding hazards.
• Long term: public acquisition of properties in the dynamic beach hazard limits
4.4 Protection Works
The following outlines basic assumptions and considerations that must be considered
prior to implementation of any protection works:
Cedar Crest Beach is a dynamic beach which undergoes changes on a broad range of
time-scales, from hours or days to years and decades, in response to changing wave,
wind, and water level conditions and to changes in the rate of sediment supply to a
particular section of shoreline.
The installation of protection works within a dynamic beach system interferes with these
natural sediment processes causing further erosion of the system.
The natural erosion process will continue to occur with or without the installation of
Protection Works. Backshore, shore parallel structures, such as revetments and armour
stone walls only protect the backshore area. These structures typically do nothing to
reduce the erosion of the nearshore lakebed which is the root of the long-term recession
of cohesive shorelines. Along cohesive shorelines, revetments and armour stone walls
only postpone the inevitable by "buying time" for the property owner who is then faced
with the decision to increase the size of the structure at a later date or to abandon the
structure.
When considering protection works, the response of littoral processes to installation of
potential protection works must be evaluated to protect down-drift areas and potential
future liability.
A delicate, dynamic balance exists between ecological, geomorphological and socio-
economic elements. This balance can be easily altered or upset and any protection works
must consider all elements to determine whether they are justified from a cost-benefit
perspective.
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 20
4.5 Emergency Response
Staff will be completing reports under separate cover as requested at the May 23rd
Council meeting.
It is important to note that although shoreline works would mitigate erosion in the area it
would not address flooding and under current conditions the houses on Cedar Crest
Beach would still be subject to flooding. This is also recognized by the Cedar Crest
Beach residents by the following comment provided by them:
“The residents fully acknowledge that shoreline management strategies are not
developed to prevent flooding caused by high water levels but only to maintain
shoreline from constant wave action.”
5. Steps and Options for an Engineered Solution
Should the residents, despite this understanding regarding flooding, still wish to move
forward with an engineered approach, then the key steps and options are as outlined
below.
5.1 First Step: Retain a Shoreline/Coastal Engineer
Prior to introduction of the Great Lakes Protection Works Standard which was introduced
under Provincial policy in February of 1997, the Lake Ontario Shoreline Management
Plan (1990) proposed protection from flooding and erosion on the lake ward face of the
Cedar Crest Beach and West Beach through a beach widening scheme that would
involve constructing a series of headlands or breakwaters and filled bays. This process
would essentially involve importing and placing sand on the beach and containing the
sand between hard-points or behind offshore breakwaters. These protection works are
similar to the Oshawa, Scarborough and Toronto examples illustrated in the petition
presented to Council on June 20, 2016, Attachment 1. However, all of these examples
are for the protection of public lands, not private. Further study would be required to
determine if these type of shoreline erosion mitigation measures are appropriate for the
Cedar Crest Beach area.
It should be noted that any type of shoreline structure is temporary in nature and will have
ongoing maintenance costs. It should also be noted that in addition to the 39 private lots
and roughly 700 metres of eroding shoreline on Cedar Crest Beach the Municipality has
over 35 km of shoreline with 140 individual private lots fronting on the lake all of which
are subject to shoreline erosion.
In 2003 Clarington commissioned the “Newcastle Waterfront: Preliminary Coastal
Engineering Assessment” prepared by W.F. Baird and Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd.
in order to evaluate erosion protection measures to protect the public lands that make up
the Newcastle waterfront as part of the Port of Newcastle development. This document
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 21
provides a good description of the breakwater/headland erosion mitigation mentioned
above as well as the pros and cons that could be associated with constructing them. The
portion of the report dealing with this erosion mitigation measure is provide as Attachment
3.
The 1990 Sandwell study acknowledged that the cost of these protection works may be
too much for most property owners. To determine the cost of such a venture and whether
it may be implemented under current provincial policy and legislation, a shoreline/coastal
engineer would need to be retained to investigate potential for this solution or any other
potential solutions that may be implemented under existing policy and site conditions.
Based on the input from two of the coastal engineer that were consulted they suggested
that to complete the necessary studies and design to confirm potential impacts of the
erosion mitigation measures it is estimated that design work could range in cost
from $400,000 to $700,000 due to the complexity of this type of work and necessary
studies required to evaluate the potential impacts to adjacent properties, fisheries and
other natural heritage features. This cost could be determined definitively through a
competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process for the provision of coastal engineering
consulting services.
5.2 Second Step: Design and Construction
With the services of a coastal engineer and the completion of the necessary design and
studies a works cost estimate for the erosion mitigation measures can be developed.
Based on past construction experience and cost estimates provided in the 2003
Newcastle Waterfront assessment a rough estimate for the shoreline erosion
mitigation work is $4 to $7 Million. Clarington Staff could work with area residents and
other stakeholders to develop the RFP to ensure that there is a clear understanding by
the expert coastal engineers of what is expected of them to design and analyze the
recommended erosion mitigation treatment.
As noted before it should be made clear that this or any other erosion mitigation measure
implemented will not eliminate flooding in the area.
As part of this process, approving agencies would be consulted, including Department of
Fisheries and Oceans (Fisheries Act), Transport Canada (Navigable Waters Act), Ministry
of Natural Resources and Forestry (Public Lands Act), Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority (shoreline permit) and possibly the Ministry of the Environment and Climate
Change (Environmental Assessment).
5.3 Third Step: Investigate Funding Sources
National Disaster Mitigation Program
There may be some funding available for shoreline protection through the National
Disaster Mitigation Program; however, staff will need to review the program to see if the
Cedar Crest Beach residents’ group would be eligible. Much of the eligibility criteria has
to do with flood mitigation and not erosion mitigation so it assumed that there may not be
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 22
funding from this source. The funding would need to be applied for by the Province and
in turn they can redistribute the funding to either public or private groups provided the
project is eligible. Based on the brief review of the program there may be an opportunity
for funding under the Streams 1, 3 and 4, which represent Risk Assessments, Mitigation
and Investments in Non-structural and Small Scale Structural Mitigation Projects streams.
Shoreline Property Assistance Act
The Shoreline Property Assistance Act is another avenue for funding support for these
types of works where landowners can borrow money from the Municipality to fund
improvement works. This was offered in the past by Clarington and only one resident
took advantage of the program.
5.4 Options for Financing the Engineered Solution
a) Local Improvement Charges (Ontario Regulation 586/06)
Through local improvement charges, municipalities in Ontario have the ability to recover
the costs of capital improvements made on public or privately owned land from property
owners who will benefit from the improvement. Regulation 586/06 of the Municipal Act,
2001 sets out the process whereby a municipality may pass a by-law to undertake work
including shore protection works as a local improvement. The Regulation sets out two
processes, one where the residents want Council to entertain a local improvement and
one where Council proposes the local improvement. A petition in favour of undertaking a
work as a local improvement must be signed by at least two-thirds of the owners
representing at least one-half of the value of the lots liable to be specially charged for the
work (O. Reg. 586/06, s. 9 (2)). This may be an option to fund the works, supplemented
by funding from any other sources. It should be noted that this option was brought
forward by the Public Works Department in 1991 (Report WD61-91), provided as
Attachment 4, and the residents did not want to proceed under this funding scenario at
that time.
b) Stakeholder Cost Sharing Agreement
One option that was not pursued in the past was to look to all stakeholders that have
jurisdiction and responsibility over the privately owned shoreline to enter into a cost
sharing arrangement. Clarington has no jurisdiction over the shoreline and therefore
would not be a stakeholder in any cost sharing other than contributor in its capacity of
owner of 87 and 155 Cedar Crest Beach Road. A cost sharing agreement could be used
to fund both the design and supporting studies that would be required to complete the
erosion mitigation works and to the cost of the works themselves. If directed by Council
Clarington staff could assist in discussions between the stakeholders to hopefully come
up with an equitable and affordable cost sharing arrangement amongst stakeholders.
Upon review of those funding options noted above that may be viable, the final
cost sharing arrangement may be a hybrid solution that would include funding
from various sources from appropriate funding or relief programs as well as a local
improvement component for the balance of the necessary funding.
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 23
5.5 Options for Consideration
In order to address the requests of the Cedar Crest Beach petitioners we provide the
following options for Council’s consideration:
a) Undertake a Coastal Engineering Study for Cedar Crest Beach shoreline erosion
mitigation funded by the benefiting landowners through a local improvement;
b) Undertake a Coastal Engineering Study for Cedar Crest Beach shoreline erosion
mitigation funded through a cost sharing agreement;
c) Pursue previous recommendations to rezoning to prohibit further development in
the Cedar Crest Beach area and consider public acquisition of properties in the
dynamic beach hazard limits;
d) Do nothing.
6. Concurrence
This report has been developed in consultation with the Director of Finance/Treasurer
and the Director of Planning Services.
7. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Clarington Council respond to the petitioners request
through the selection of options presented in Section 5.5. Upon confirmation of funding, if
directed by Clarington Council, Clarington staff could aid area residents in taking the
necessary steps to retain the services of a shoreline/coastal engineer to complete design
and study of the appropriate erosion measures before moving forward with detailed
design, necessary approvals, tendering of works and construction of the works.
8. Strategic Plan Application
Not applicable.
Submitted by: Reviewed by:
Anthony Cannella, Curry Clifford, MPA, CMO
Director of Engineering Services Interim CAO
Staff Contact: Ron Albright, Assistant Director, Engineering Services, (905) 623-3379,
Ext. 2305 or ralbright@clarington.net
Municipality of Clarington
Report EGD-015-17 Page 24
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Shoreline Erosion Presentation to Council, June 20, 2016
Attachment 2 -Update Memo to Council, December 14, 2016
Attachment 3 - Newcastle Waterfront: Preliminary Coastal Engineering Assessment Excerpt
Attachment 4 - Report WD61-91
Attachment 5 - May 31, 2017 ShorePlan site meeting notes
List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision is on file in the Engineering
Services Department.
Presented to
Clarington
City Council
June 20,
2016
Jim Mackenzie &
Sarah Delicate on
behalf of
Petitioners
Petition to Protect the Shoreline
Attachment 1 to
Report EGD-015-17
Petition Summary and Background
Sections of the shoreline of Lake Ontario between the shipping pier at St. Mary’s
Cement and the lighthouse pier to Port Darlington are experiencing rapid and
accelerating erosion and damage.
Without additional protective shoreline structures and/or erosion control measures, the
rock walls co-constructed by St. Mary’s, the municipality and private property owners to
stop further shoreline property loss after the shipping pier was built will remain openly
exposed to the lake and will continue to fail.
We know the lake
can be rough…
Wave Forecasts, 1972
There was a time that wave size and
frequency did not impact CCB
Just like West Beach today, rock walls
were not necessary on Cedar Crest
Beach.
However, in the decades since, upwards of 80
feet of shoreline has been eroded, with many
unsuccessful mitigation attempts.
Our property lines now
run into Lake Ontario.
There used to be public
shoreline between us and
the lake.
Cedar Crest and West Beach today
West to east current carries
sand out into lake around
piers creating starvation and
accumulation areas
Today, the beach has eroded so completely that
we are in a crisis situation.
The waves are too high, the
energy is too great,
and there is no buffer
Water is breaching the walls and
flooding properties
Flood line:
Causing
destruction and
instilling fear
Storm on West Beach
Storm on CCB
Our closest
neighbour is
a Protected
Great Lakes
Coastal
Wetland
CCB private property is the only remaining line
of defense for Bowmanville’s Protected Costal
Wetland, and it is being compromised.
THE PRESENT APPROACH IS FOR EACH
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER TO
MITIGATE THE RISK.
This approach is FAILING.
Brand new rock
wall installed this
year, 27k, 10
year life span.(?)
Built a few years ago, this
wall was compromised in
the first year of install, and
needed to be re-built the
next year.
Flat rock walls take the full force of the wave energy, and shoots the
water up and over the walls… as well as underneath.
…as well as underneath.
Even the city’s
properties are
compromised
More City Property walls
Massive stones are
being displaced
Individual efforts will not fix this.
We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our
leaders to act now to develop and implement a comprehensive
shoreline protection plan with landowner consultation for the
shoreline between the St. Mary’s pier and the Port Darlington
lighthouse pier on Lake Ontario in the Municipality of Clarington,
Ontario Canada in order to protect against increasingly
destructive lake wave action and to promote natural beach
deposition, restoration and retention.
Action Petitioned for:
Lakeview Park -Oshawa
Rouge Beach -Pickering
The Beaches -Toronto
Scarborough -Birchmount
Thank you for
your time and
consideration.
Memo
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville ON L1C 3A6 | 905-623-3379
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
On June 20, 2016 Council received a petition from delegates James Mackenzie and
Sarah Delicate who were representing several residents from the Cedar Crest Beach
area who are experiencing ongoing erosion issues. From that meeting the following
resolution was approved:
Resolution #GG-341-16
Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper
That the delegation James Mackenzie and Sarah Delicate regarding a Petition to
Protect the Lake Ontario Shoreline, be referred to Staff to provide a Report in the Fall of
2016.
The CAO’s office turned the file over to the Engineering Services Department to take
the lead on looking at ways that we might be able to assist.
The Director of Engineering Services contacted the main proponent of the petition, Ms.
Delicate. Ms. Delicate explained her concerns in detail, fully recognizing that these
works would be required on private property but seeking our expertise and assistance in
a very complex matter.
Staff has begun a thorough review of all available background information and previous
study work related to shoreline protection in this area and have met with staff from St.
Mary’s Cement, CLOCA and GRCA. All have agreed that due to the scope and
complexity of a project such as this one it will be necessary to look at the possibility of
preparing a fully integrated shoreline management plan.
To: Mayor, Members of Clarington Council, Curry Clifford, Interim CAO and
Department Heads
From: Anthony Cannella, Director of Engineering Services
Date: December 14, 2016
Subject: Shoreline Protection Petition and Request for Support
File:
Attachment 2 to
Report EGD-015-17
Memo
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville ON L1C 3A6 | 905-623-3379
We have spoken with Ms. Delicate to update her as to where we stand at this time. We
have advised her that we need to work with St. Mary’s, with CLOCA and with GRCA to
identify the potential scope of the project and to look at any potential opportunities for
funding. In the next short while we intend to discuss this matter with coastal
engineering firms that we have dealt with in the past to try to get a sense of the
strategies we might consider as we move forward.
We will be working with the residents and various agencies in the upcoming months and
will update Council further once we have something substantive that we can share.
________________________
Anthony S. Cannella, C.E.T.
Director of Engineering Services
cc: Ron Albright, Assistant Director of Engineering Services
Amy Burke, Sustainable Development Coordinator, Planning Services
June Gallagher, Deputy Clerk
Attachment 3 to
Report EGD-015-17
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
r . ~
REPORT File
Res. #
By-Law #
SING: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
DATE: , JANUARY 7, 1991
REPORT #: WD-1-91 FILE #: B.BF. 12 . 03
JB.ECT: ST. MARYS CEMENT COMPANY - OFFER OF 2000 TONS OF STONE FOR
SHORELINE PROTECTION ON CEDAR CREST BEACH, BOWMANVILLE
i
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and aAdministrationCommitteerecommendtoCouncilthefollowing:
l
1. THAT Report WD-1-91 be received;
i
i
2 . THAT St. Marys Cement Company be thanked for their offer of j
providing 2000 tons of pit run stone delivered in trucks for j
iplacementinfrontofthatportionofthebeachlyingbetweenthe
two properties owned by the Town on Cedar Crest Beach;
3 . THAT St. Marys Cement Company be advised that the proposal has
been reviewed by the Town and it has been concluded that the
placing of the stone, as suggested, will not solve the erosion
problem and will not rectify the situation;
I
4 . THAT the Director of Public Works be authorized to meet with the
executive of the Port Darlington Community Association to
investigate the feasibility of the use of the Local Improvement
Act as a mechanism to provide a solution to the erosion problem;
2
Its
Attachment 4 to Report EGD-015-17
REPORT NO. : WD-1-91 PAGE 2
5. THAT a copy of Report WD-1-91 be forwarded to Mr. Dickson Wood,
St. Marys Cement Company; Mr. William Campbell, Central Lake
Ontario Conservation Authority; Mr. Gordon White, Chairman, Port
Darlington Community Association and the residents of Cedar Crest
Beach located between the two properties owned by the Town on
Cedar Crest Beach; and
6 . THAT they be advised of Council 's decision.
REPORT
1.0 ATTACHMENTS
No. l: Key Map
No.2 : Correspondence dated May 3, 1990 from Mr. William
Campbell, Chief Administrative Officer, Central
Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
i
No. 3: Correspondence dated May 22, 1990, from C.E. Meta,
Plant Manager, St. Marys Cement Company
No.4: Correspondence dated October 10, 1990, from Mr. R.
Warme, P. Eng. , Totten Sims Hubicki Associates
I
2.0 BACKGROUND
2 . 1 At a regular meeting held on April 9, 1990, Council passed
Resolution #C-272-90:
ITHATthedelegationofMr. Dickson Wood be
acknowledged;
I
THAT Mr. Wood be thanked for advising Council of
the possible date of the meeting with the area
residents to discuss their concern relating to St.
Marys ' application for dock expansion;
3
i
i
REPORT NO. : WD-1-91 PAGE 3
THAT St. Marys ' offer to bring in 2000 tons of
stone to offset the shoreline erosion with the
Town's assistance with placement of same be
referred to the Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority to liaise with the Director of Public
Works;
THAT all concerned residents be advised of St.
Marys ' offer; and
THAT the Director of Public Works report back to
the General Purpose and Administration Committee
on his discussions with the Conservation Authority
FORTHWITH. "
3.0 REVIEW AND COIMNT
3. 1 Correspondence from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority
In his letter, Mr. Campbell expresses doubt that the placing of
2000 tons of stone is a proper solution and, in particular,
states:
Great Lakes shoreline protection is a matter for
coastal engineering. It is most effectively done
with 3-5 ton armour stone, each of which must be
fitted into place. "
3.2 Correspondence from Totten Sims Hubicki Associates
Mr. Warme makes the following points in his letter:
I
1. "With some reluctance Ministry personnel have indicated
that they will issue a permit to construct the
shoreline berm, essentially as proposed by the
cottagers . "4
Iii
REPORT NO. : WD-1-91 PAGE 4
2 . "The Ministry of Natural Resources noted that the
cottagers ' applications requested this form of
protection "to reduce the rate of shoreline erosion" .
When the construction permit is issued to the
cottagers, it will clearly state that the cottagers
must realize that this shoreline protection will
provide only temporary relief from wave erosion. An
armour stone revetment, properly engineered, is their
preferred long term solution. "
3 . "A construction permit recently issued by the Central
Lake Ontario Conservation Authority contains similar
disclaimers and requirements . A copy of this permit is
attached for your records . "
4 . "At this point, it is necessary that Totten Sims
Hubicki Associates go on record to state that in our
opinion, the material to be provided and the method of
placement indicate that the shoreline protection to be
afforded by these works will at best be only temporary
and it is not possible for us to predict how long the
material will remain in place. We have not expressed
our opinion on this matter to the landowners as of j
yet. "
I
3.3 Discussions with Property Owners
I have carefully reviewed this problem in the field and have
discussed the problems and history of the area with some of the
residents who have lived in the area for several years .
During storms, the wave action in Lake Ontario delivers
itremendousenergytotheshoreline. One of the residents stated
that, "if we get a 'big blow' from the east, it could wipe out
i
the proposed shoreline protection in less than a day" .
I believe her.
s 5
REPORT NO. : WD-1-91 PAGE 5
3.4 The Proposed Works Should Not Proceed
Based on the above, it is my opinion that the proposed works will
not solve the problem, will be a waste of money and should not
proceed.
3.5 A Solution Must Be Found
Many of the property owners on Cedar Crest Beach have spent a
considerable amount of money and hard work erecting gabions and
other protective devices on their beaches . It is my opinion that
they are temporary only and unless a more permanent solution is
found, it would appear that some of the property owners on Cedar
Crest Beach may lose their homes
3.6 Local Improvement Act
Section 2 .-( 1) (m) of the Local Improvement Act reads as follows:
A work of any of the characters or
descriptions hereinafter mentioned may
be undertaken by the Council of a
corporation as a local improvement,
m) constructing retaining walls, dykes, breakwaters,
groynes, cribs and other shore protection works
along the banks of rivers, streams or creeks or j
along the shores of lakes; "
i
i
6
I
REPORT NO. : WD-1-91 PAGE- 6
Section 7 .-( 1) reads in part, as follows:
A by-law may be passed for undertaking a work as a
local improvement,
a) on petition
b) without petition, on the initiative of the
Council, hereinafter called the initiative
plan, except in the case of a park or square
or public drive mentioned in Clause 2 ( 1) (L) ; "
Other sections of the Local Improvement Act provide for the
method of obtaining a petition, the number of signatures required
on a petition before the works can proceed, appeal to the Ontario
Municipal Board by persons opposed to the works, the assessment
of the costs to the benefitting property owners, the financing of
the costs by the Town and the repayment of the costs to the Town
either by cash or by taxes over a period of time, usually between
ten to twenty years .
4.0 CONCLUSIONS i
4. 1 From the above, it is concluded:
1. The placing of 2000 tons (or more) of stone on the shoreline
of the properties on Cedar Crest Beach will not solve the
erosion problem and will not rectify the situation.
i
2 . Unless a solution to the erosion problem is found soon, some
of the property owners on Cedar Crest Beach may lose their
homes .
I
7
i
REPORT NO. : WD-1-91 PAGE 7
3 . The correct solution to the erosion problem is to have
erosion protection works designed by a qualified
professional engineer experienced in coastal engineering and
shoreline protection.
4 . The Local Improvement Act provides a mechanism to provide
for the property owners working toward a common solution and
a means of financing the costs involved and paying the costs
over a period of time. This option should be further
investigated in consultation with the property owners.
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee,
Walter A. Evans, P.Eng. , Lawrenc Kotseff,
Director of Public Works Chief nistrative Officer
WAE*llv
December 17, 1990
Attachments
Mr. Dickson Wood Mr. & Mrs . Terry WynnCorporateSecretary71CedarCrestBeachSt. Marys Cement Company Group 5, Box 272200YongeStreetR. R. #2
Toronto, Ontario Bowmanville, OntarioM4S2C6L1C3K3
Mr. William Campbell Mr. & Mrs . Derek LamontChiefAdministrativeOfficer67CedarCrestBeach100WhitingAvenueBox23, R.R. #2Oshawa, Ontario Bowmanville, OntarioL1H3T3L1C3K3
Mr. Gordon White, Chairman Mr. & Mrs. Hugo KleinjanPortDarlingtonCommunityAssociation79CedarCrestBeachGroup2, Box 21 Group 5, Box 28R.R. #2 R.R. #2
Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, OntarioL1C3K3L1C3K3
I
I
8
i
REPORT NO. : WD-1-91 PAGE 8
Janet Patch Mr. & Mrs . R. Mitchell37CedarCrestBeach81CedarCrestBeach
R.R. #2 R.R. #2
Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K3 L1C 3K3
Mr. & Mrs . Raymond Myette Ms . Ann Footitt
40 Tarsus Crescent 373 The Thicket
West Hill, Ontario Mississauga, Ontario
M1C 3W7 L5G 4P6
Mr. Douglas Baker Ms . Esther Poupart
9 Miramar Crescent 55 Cedar Crest Beach
Scarborough, Ontario R.R. #2
M1J 1R3 Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K3
Mr. & Mrs . James Flood Mr. & Mrs . TissaaratchyGroup5, Box 14 69 Cedar Crest Beach
R.R. #2 R.R. #2
Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K3 L1C 3K3
Mr. David Ashcroft
63 Cedar Crest Beach
Box 36, Group 5
R.R. #2
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K3
i
i
I
I
D
O
a
PGA
0
5
J
Q TOWN
PROPERTY
Q G
SHORELINE
RECEIVING
PROPOSED
STONE
ei a ISr.I
as uaa
F
W f
N
PORT
DARLINGTON
DRAWN S. R. EDATE : NOV, 14 90
I
SUBJECT
SITE ATTACHMENT NO, 1
KEY
I
AKE
APP
I !lot V,.
0
44/ - 99
i o
o
Lq 7,10 N P
CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
100 WHITING AVENUE,OSHAWA,ONTARIO L1 H 3T3 TEL:(416)579-0411 FAX:(416)579-0994
REF NO.
May 3, 1990.
Mr. W. A. Evans,
Director of Works,
Town of Newcastle,
40 Temperance Street,
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
Dear Sir:
Re: St. Mary's Cement Corporation
Offer of Shoreline Protection at Bowmanville Beach
We are in receipt of the Town's letter of April 30, 1990 concerning
the referenced matter, and it raises several issues. The letter mentions im-
porting 2,000 tonnes of stone and placing it with the Town's assistance. What
kind of stone? From what source? What equipment and expertise does the Town
possess for such an undertaking?
Great Lakes shoreline protection is a matter for coastal engineering.
It is most effectively done with 3-5 ton armour stone, each of which must be
fitted into place. This is specialized work and it would be unusual to find such
capability for performing it within a municipal Works Department.
Also, we know of no local source of suitable armour stone. Materials
from the St. Mary's quarry are porous and friable.
Lastly, the letter does not describe the length of shoreline to be pro-
tected, but 2,000 tonnes of stone will not provide for an extensive strip, nor
indeed may everyone appreciate the aesthetics of such protection.
Yours truly,
W. M. Campbell,
WMC/jmb Chief Administrative Officer,A T ACHLJfIE J I
WD-1-91
1 r t
I
I
S$ Marys Cement Co.St. Marys Cement
ST N1ARYS Company
P.O. Box 68
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K8
1416) 623-3341
May 22, 1990
MAY 10190
1t'•'"-:3 'f" iii'".`. .-c
To The Residents of F_
Cedarcrest Beach
Dear Neighbour,
As a follow-up to our last open house, we propose that the next
open house be held at -the Technical Centre (410 Waverly Rd. , S. ,
just south of the St. Marys Cement Company access road) on Mon-
day, June 11 , 1990 between 5:30 and 8:30 p.m. At the open house,
the issues of noise, dust and blasting will be discussed.
Recently some Cedarcrest Beach residents and the Port Darlington
Community Association had requested St. Marys' assistance as a
neighbour in respect of design of protection for beach homes from
shoreline erosion. As a goodwill gesture, we are prepared to
provide 2000 tons of pit run stone delivered in trucks for place-
ment in front of that portion of the beach lying between the two
properties on the beach owned by the Town. We have requested the
Town of Newcastle's permission to use their property for access
to the waterfront and to assist you in placement of the stone.
The Town, prior to granting access, has referred the matter to
the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. . In due course
the Town's Director of Public works will be in touch with .you.
Looking forward to seeing you at our next open house.
Yours very truly,
ST. MARYS CEMENT COMPANY
C. E. Meta
Plant Manager
ATTACHMENT 1'10 .3
t^JD-1-01
A divlsum of Si. Marys C(wnl Corix)(auon
i
G.L.TOTTEN B.Sc., P.Eng.
R.E.SIMS B.A.Sc.,P.Eng.
J.M. HUBICKI B.A.Sc.,OAA,P.Eng.
R.L.WINDOVER M.Sc.,P.Eng.
P.C. EBERLEE B.A.Sc., P.Eng.
CONSULTANTS TOTTEN SIMS HUBICKI ASSOCIATES(1981)UMITED
1A KING STREET EAST P.O.BOX 398,COBOURG
ONTARIO,CANADA K9A 4L1
totten sims hubicki associates 418)372.2121 FAX(418)372,Wl
Mr. Don Patterson
Manager of Operations
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle
40 Temperance Street
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 3A6
October 10, 1990
Dear Sir:
Re: Cedar Crest Beach Shoreline Erosion,
TSH Project no. 24 14029.
We have discussed, in detail, Cedar Crest Beach shoreline erosion problems with
Ministry of Natural Resources personnel including Mr. Dean Rivett of the
Lindsay District Office and Mr. Quazi Alam, P.Eng. of the Central Region
office.
With some reluctance Ministry personnel have indicated that they will issue a
permit to construct the shoreline berm, essentially as proposed by the
cottagers. They assume that St. Marys will provide the required stone,
delivered to the site, and the Town will provide a machine and operator to
spread it as it is delivered. (We are not aware of the Town making a
commitment to provide a machine) . Although there are no fisheries concerns,
they insist that the material be placed as close along the shoreline as
possible and against the existing gabion baskets.
The Ministry of Natural Resources noted that the cottagers' applications
requested this form of protection "to reduce the rate of shoreline erosion" .
When the construction permit is issued to the cottagers, it will clearly state
that the cottagers must realize that this shoreline protection will provide
only temporary relief from wave erosion. An armour stone reventment, properly
engineered, is their preferred long term solution.
The Ministry of Natural Resources requirement for works tight to the existing
shoreline stems from the fact that offshore lake bottom is Crown land and would
require purchase of a water lot by each individual cottager (a process
involving several years of negotiations with the Federal Government and
considerable expense) .
A construction permit recently issued by the Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority contains similar disclaimers and requirements. A copy of this permit
is attached for your records.
ATTAC!H1`1E9JT ;J014
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS i
cont'd. 2
Town of Newcastle - Cedar Crest Beach 2.
October 10, 1990
The Ministry of the Environment was contacted by the Ministry of Natural
Resources, but no comments were received regarding the proposed works.
To this point, Ministry of Natural Resources has released a "Location Approval"
only. A copy of this correspondence is also attached for your files. You will
note the Ministry's additional requirements before their construction permit
will be issued. We assume you wish Totten Sims Hubicki to supply the required
plans and specifications, including:
i) shoreline protection details,
ii) construction material details.
An additional item concerns shoreline protection for the Town's property
immediately east of the Waverly Road road allowance and possibly Lot 23, owned
by the numbered Toronto company. Do you wish your lands to be protected,
including the trimming of the steep buff at the shore? Will St. Marys provide
materials for this section? Their current offer of 2,000 tonnes of stone falls
far short of the possible 10,000 tonnes we estimate is required for the
cottagers, plus an additional 5,000 tonnes for the Town's lands. Further, if
your lands are to be protected together with the rest, an application to the
Ministry of Natural Resources and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
must be sent out immediately. (It will receive fast-track processing, we have
been assured) .
At this point, it is necessary that Totten Sims Hubicki Associates go on record
to state that in our opinion, the material to be provided and the method of
placement indicate that the shoreline protection to be afforded by these works
will at best be only temporary and it is not possible for us to predict how
long the material will remain in place. We have not expressed our opinion on
this matter to the landowners as of yet.
We await your comments and instructions on the above items.
Yours very truly,
I
TOTTEN SIMS HUBICKI ASSOCIATES
i
Rudi Warme, P.Eng.
RW/rd
encl.
i
cc: Mr. W. A. Evans, P.Eng. , Town of Newcastle
Mr. D. R. Bourne, TSH
I
totten sims hubicki associates
4698/6/3/WR
I
September 7, 1990 Our File: 4.29.8
LNWP# 60/90
I
Mrs. Rose Wynn
R. R. # 2. Box 27
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K.3
Dear Rose:
SUBJECT: Application Assessment under the Lakes
and Rivers Improvement Act
Lot 14, Conc. BF, Darlington Township.
The District assessmjnt of dour proposal bas been completed and
finds the location for your work to be acceptable. No approval
to commence work has been granted.
Under the provisions of the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act you
must now submit to this Mlnistry -for review, ,your plans and
specifications for the work. They must inc,ludke tine foti-owing
information,
1 . ful t description of how the beach prote,ctiQn is -to be
constructed:
2 . a cietai led descript`:on of alt construction nteriatS to
be usedl.
T;)e Ministry may require you to furnish additional 'Dfarmactiom
as is considered necessary far tk e purpose of reviewing ¢>ur
application.
Please forward three (3) copies of the completed puns and
specifications for the project, to this office.
Yours truly,
i
Z,--Paul trans rger
District Manager, Lindsay District
Ministry of Natural Resources
322 Kent Street West
Lindsay, Ontario
K9V 4T7
1-705-324-6121
D.Rivett/am
c.c. — Don Paterson, Town of Newcastle
Totten Sims Hubicki Associates a `
e
V
XXIVED
0
AUG 14 1990
o n
of Natural ResourcesZ. Q
Lq r10N
PO LINDSAY DISTRICT
CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
I
100 WHITING AVENUE,OSHAWA,ONTARIO L1H 3T3 (416) 579-0411
REF NO.
August 8, 1990.
Ministry of Natural Resources, i
Lindsay District,
322 Kent Street West, i
Lindsay, Ontario,
K9V 4T7.
Attention: Mr. P. A. Strassburger i
Dear Sir: J Gp a
Subject: Comments on an Application for- Mork, .1
The Residents of Cedar Crest Beach c/o Rose Wynn,
Lot 14, Broken Front Concession, Town of Newcastle,
Your File: 4.29.8
LNWP#60/90
In response to the above subject matter, Authority staff provide the
following comments.
Authority staff note that the location of the proposed work is within
an area regulated by the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority,
under Ontario Regulation 161/80.
Staff further note that at the June 26, 1990 meeting of the Authority
Board, the Residents of Cedar Crest Beach received Authority approval
for this project subject to specific conditions (Authority Permit
N90-113-F enclosed) . Also enclosed for your information is a copy
of the report, including Authority Resolution #125 whereby Authority
approval for this project was granted by the Authority Board.
i
We thank you for this opportunity to comment on this matter. We would
appreciate receiving in writing your decision on this matter.
Yours truly,
Robert Hersey,
Planning Technician. l
RH/ms
4
CEN' L LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATIOI 'JTHORITY r_ 5 4 6
c.1 ^ •'o x#"$6 T'E"tYdrl StybAt dt9t',Wt#ttt3y;fSt9Pi'6r,#{'Q K8
100 Waiting Avenue 7O awa, Ontario, UH 3T3
PERMIT
No.G
s
9
Arroh h°
File No. N90- _3-F
Os*.awa,Whitbw, Ontario,7une 29,
161/80,
In accordance with Ontario Regulation s8{Lc .72, permission
as been granted to RE.IDENTS OF CrDAR CREST BEACI? Phone X23-7927
Address House #43 - 83 Cedar Crest Beach Road, R.R% No, 2, Bowmanyille ontariQ
Location: Lot 13 Concession Broken Front Municipality Newcastle
Municipal Address
For the following works:
place fill to pzcvi4e shoreline prote,:tion.
on the above-described property
During the period of June 29, 19 9G to June 29, 1991
subject to the following general and specific conditions:
General Conditions: See Reverse Side
Specific Conditions:
le project ShLll e OLL ac: c : .,-.c o tthe plans and
spccifications sul-,nit.ted in support of the application.
Auc:,or'_t; in no ..ay gu£I s or authorizes thy propcsec_ wort:
as an e*,r7z Yi: cns Qb<1rH\\ term e.osion protc•::Lion.
c enus c,i `:lie proposed structure shall L.e tapered to jc n ;.hc
s:lo_el_ne ai adjacent properties.
4. All areas disturbed during the operation shall be seeded, socded
or stabilized in some other manner acceptable to the Authority.
I, Rose Wynn agree to carry out or cause to be carried out the work(s) indi-
cated above in compliance with the General and Specific conditions set out herein, and in accordance with
the information contained in the application and any accompanying plans. 1 realize that should I carry out
the work(s) contrary to the terms of this permit that this permit may be revoked. I also realize that this
permit is valid only for the time period noted and I agree to reapply to the Authority prior to the expira-
tion of this period should an extension be required. (PLEASE ALSO SIGN ON REVERSE SIDE, EACH COPY)
Signature of Applicant ,
Signature of Enforcement Officer CHRISTOPHER L. CONTI
Signature of Owner
NOTE: This Permit does not relieve the applicant of the obligation to secure any other necessary approvals.
LAKE
G
File No. Ugn-F
o 4
4loom 0'J
j
CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
100 Whiting Avenue, Oshawa, Ontario, L1 H 3T3
579-0411 Fax 579-0994
E FILL
SEe
Telephone 3 7 Z
1, Name of applicant n
Address
2. Name and address of owner (if different fro m applicant)
A '- z'f'* -
unicipa Ylit
3, Location of area to be filled: Lot ncCoession i
Municipal address and registered Plan (where applicable)
an1
r-
4. Proposed use of land following completion of fill
5. Description of type of fill proposed
S
6. Proposed means of stabilization and revegetation of fill area
J
e
7. Dates between which placing of fill will be carried out
3 i a
2 o Date of completion Year
Date of start
S '
Day M nth
Day Month Yesr
declare that the above information is correct to the best
I,Lake Ontario
of my knowledge and I agree to abide by the Regulations made by the Central nserva-
tion Auth ity under The Conservation Authorities Act.
Date lc / 9C
f" Signature of Applicant
NOTE signature of nar or thorized Agent
application must be accompanied by TWO COPIES of a plan of he prO he depth to which it is
1. This app grades
is to be placed, showing the proposed location of the filling, existing gproposedtofill, and the proposed final grade of the land when filling is completed.I '. 6 i
b d
WAVERLEY ROAD J p• r
Oa
REGIONAL STORM----
FLOODLINE
O '
LOCATION OF PROPOSED
11 WORK
a
o
I
o i
i
i
1" = 400'
CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO, `ONSERVATION AUTHORITY
DATE: ,Tune 21, 1990
FILE: N90-113-F
S.R. : 2694-90 APPROVED BY C.A.O.
MEMO TO: The Chairman and Members of the Authority
FROM: Chris Conti, Conservation Services Manager
APPLICANT(OWNER) : Residents of Cedar Crest Beach
I
APPLICATION(S) : To place fill to provide shoreline
protection.
LOCATION OF SITE: Lot 13, Broken Front Concession,
Newcastle
WATERCOURSE DESCRIPTION: Lake Ontario
ELEVATION OF SITE: N.A.
FLOODLINE ELEVATION: N.A.
REGIONAL STORM)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The applicants live in the Cedar Crest Beach area of Bowmanville which
is a location that has suffered erosion damage in recent years due
to the action of Lake Ontario. The residents have been attempting
to correct the erosion problem and have received an offer from St.
Mary's Cement to dump quarry stone on the lake side of the properties.
The area is regulated for filling due to its proximity to Westside
Creek and therefore Authority permits are required for the work.
The material to be used will be material from the quarry blast and
I
I
I
FILE: N90-113-F
S.R. : 2694-90 June 21 , 1990
Page 2
i
Res. #125
tl:e application be approved subject to the fol"OWTZng cond.tions:
1. The project shall be carried out according to the plans andspecificationssubmittedinsupportoftheapplication.
2. The Authority in no way guarantees or authorizes the proposed workasaneffectivemeansoflong-term erosion protection.
3. The ends of the proposed structure shall be tapered to join theshorelineatadjacentproperties.
4. All areas dis urhed during the operation, shall be seeded, sodded
or stabilized in some other manner acceptable to the Authority.
CARRIED
I
I
I
i
i
i
Shoreplan Engineering Limited
20 Holly Street, Suite 202
Toronto, ON Canada M4S 3B1
T) 416.487.4756 F) 416.487.5129
E) mail@shoreplan.com
June 13, 2017
Ron Albright, P. Eng., Assistant Director
Engineering Services
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
Dear Sir
Re: West Beach and Cedar Crest Road
Our File: 17-2633
This is a brief summary of our discussion at a site meeting organized by you
and attended by the Mayor, staff of the Municipality and staff of Central Lake
Ontario Conservation. The points discussed during the meeting included the
following:
1.The use of standard sand bags along the shoreline of Lake Ontario
within the wave uprush area is not recommended. The waves can be
large enough to dislodge and/or undermine the sand bags. It is also
common to have large debris moved along the shoreline by waves
and this could result in puncture of the bags and loss of sand material.
We recently used armour stones to build emergency barriers along a
waterfront to prevent waves from entering the backshore and sand
bags were only used as a secondary barrier behind the armour stones
to reduce water flow into the backshore where water was being
pumped out. We suggest that this approach could be employed along
the sites reviewed as TEMPORARY measures. Sample photos of
those installations are attached.
Armour stones are typically large blocks of limestone in the order of a
cubic metre in size with near flat top and bottom and relatively square
sides. They can be placed closely together and leave relatively small
gaps.
2.The use of other types of sand fill or other fill plastic containers can be
considered. However, we again caution that damage to a relatively
thin shell of the container due to large floating debris is possible.
3.Due to the reasons outlined above, our experience with use of sand
bags is limited. We have attached “Flood Fighting: How to Use
Sandbags” bulletin produced by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
This will provide you with a general guide. There are many other
guides available on the internet published by various public agencies.
Attachment 5 to
Report EGD-015-17
File 17-2633 2017 06 13 2
Our quick review of the readily available information only found
examples of sand bag applications under riverine or small lake
scenarios where wave activity, if any, is limited.
4. The Cedar Crest Beach Road and West Beach Road properties are
located on what can be described as a barrier beach. Under the terms
of the natural hazards designations described in the Provincial Policy,
this shoreline is described as Dynamic Beach. This means that no
development is allowed within the dynamic beach. Regardless which
term is used to describe the shoreline, it means that the shoreline is
made up mostly of cohesionless materials, mostly sand and gravels.
Provision of any type of shore protection works on this type of
shoreline is very challenging. Typical shoreline protection structures
used on cohesive shorelines are not suitable for construction on
dynamic shorelines. The main reason for this incompatibility is rooted
in the dynamic nature of the shoreline. The profile of the nearshore
and on-shore zones changes in response to changing water levels
and wave conditions. Provision of fixed structures leads to wave
reflections which further disturb the dynamic profile and beach
alignment. Provision of a fixed structure within a dynamic beach zone
is NOT recommended. It often leads to the destruction of the beach
nature of the shoreline.
5. Stabilization of a dynamic beach can be considered on a reach or cell
basis, where the headlands that control the position of the beach are
reinforced and/or enlarged. This could also be done in combination
with the provision of structures in the nearshore that reduce the
amount of wave energy that reaches the shoreline. The design of
these types of projects is very complex and construction very
expensive. It can change the nature of the shoreline by altering the
sediment size, impacting aquatic habitat and water quality. Such
projects are subject to environmental assessment which evaluates the
pros and cons of such work. Complete stability cannot always be
achieved.
We hope that these comments assist you in dealing with the present situation
at the West Beach and Cedar Crest Road sites. Should you have any other
specific questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Yours truly
Shoreplan Engineering Limited
M. Sturm, P. Eng.
File 17-2633 2017 06 13 3
Photo 1
Example of Use of Armour Stone as Wave Barrier
Photo 2
Example of Use of Sand Bags as Secondary Barrier
Page 1 of 3
Sandbag Construction
The use of sandbags is a simple, but effective way to prevent or reduce flood water damage. Properly filled and placed
sandbags can act as a barrier to divert moving water around, instead of through, buildings. Sandbag construction does
not guarantee a water-tight seal, but is satisfactory for use in most situations. Sandbags are also used successfully to
prevent overtopping of streams with levees, and for training current flows to specific areas.
Untied sandbags are recommended for most situations. Tied sandbags should be used only for special situations when
pre-filling and stockpiling may be required, or for specific purposes such as filling holes, holding objects in position, or to
form barriers backed by supportive planks. Tied sandbags are generally easier to handle and stockpile. However,
sandbag filling operations can generally be best accomplished at or near the placement site, and tying of the bags would
be a waste of valuable time and effort. If the bags are to be pre-filled at a distant location, due consideration must be
given to transportation vehicles and placement site access.
The most commonly used bags are untreated burlap sacks available at feed or hardware stores. Empty bags can be
stockpiled for emergency use, and will be serviceable for several years, if properly stored. Filled bags of earth material
will deteriorate quickly.
Commercial plastic sandbags, made from polypropylene, are also available from most bag suppliers. These will store for
a long time with minimum care, but are not biodegradable. Thus, they have to be disposed of, or will remain around for a
long time. Do not use garbage bags, as they are too slick to stack. Do not use feed sacks, as they are too large to
handle. Use bags about 14-18" wide, and 30-36" deep.
A heavy bodied or sandy soil is most desirable for filling sandbags, but any usable material at or near the site has definite
advantages. Coarse sand could leak out through the weave in the bag. To prevent this, double bag the material.
Gravelly or rocky soils are generally poor choices because of their permeability.
Sandbag barriers can easily be constructed by two people, as most individuals have the physical capability to carry or
drag a sandbag weighing approximately 30 pounds.
How to fill a sandbag
Filling sandbags is a two-person operation. Both people should be
wearing gloves to protect their hands. One member of the team should
place the empty bag between or slightly in front of widespread feet with
arms extended. The throat of the bag is folded to form a collar, and held
with the hands in a position that will enable the other team member to
empty a rounded shovel full of material into the open end. The person
holding the sack should be standing with knees slightly flexed, and head
and face as far away from the shovel as possible.
The shoveler should carefully release the rounded shovel full of soil into
the throat of the bag. Haste in this operation can result in undue spillage
and added work. The use of safety goggles and gloves is desirable, and
sometimes necessary.
Bags should be filled between one-third (1/3) to one-half (1/2) of their
capacity. This keeps the bag from getting too heavy, and permits the
bags to be stacked with a good seal.
For large scale operations, filling sandbags can be expedited by using bag-holding racks, metal funnels, and power
loading equipment. However, the special equipment required is not always available during an emergency.
Flood Fighting: How To Use Sandbags
Emergency Management Branch
201 North 3rd Avenue
Walla Walla, Washington 99362-1876
509-527-7146 or CENWW-EOC@NWW01.USACE.ARMY.MIL
Flood Fighting: How To Use Sandbags
Page 2 of 3
Sandbag placement
Remove any debris from the area where the bags are to be placed.
Fold the open end of the unfilled portion of the bag to form a
triangle. If tied bags are used, flatten or flare the tied end.
Place the partially filled bags lengthwise and parallel to the
direction of flow, with the open end facing against the water flow.
Tuck the flaps under, keeping the unfilled portion under the weight
of the sack.
Place succeeding bags on top, offsetting by one-half (1/2) filled
length of the previous bag, and stamp into place to eliminate voids, and form a tight seal.
Stagger the joint connections when multiple layers are necessary. For unsupported layers over three (3) courses high,
use the pyramid placement method.
Pyramid Placement Method
The pyramid placement is used to increase the height of sandbag protection.
Place the sandbags to form a pyramid by
alternating header courses (bags placed
crosswise) and stretcher courses (bags placed
lengthwise).
Stamp each bag in place, overlap sacks, maintain staggered joint
placement, and tuck in any loose ends. Use the following table to
estimate the number of bags required:
Height above levee Bags/100 feet
1 foot 800
2 feet 2000
3 feet 3400
Ringing boils
A boil is a condition where water is flowing through or under an earth structure (such as a levee) that is retaining water.
Free flowing water wants to move to lower elevations. If a levee is stopping floodwaters, the water may be able to find
weak points to enter. This action is called "piping". If the water finds a large enough path, the flow will become visible,
and is a serious threat to the integrity of the levee. Most boils occur in sand, silt, or some combination.
A boil is found on the landward side of the levee, or in the ground past the levee toe (the exact distance varies with local
conditions). Possible boil sites can be identified by free standing or flowing water (other than culverts, pumps, etc). A boil
can be found only by close inspection. A prime indicator is water bubbling (or "boiling"), much like a natural spring.
Another is obvious water movement in what appears to be standing water.
Carefully examine the water for movement. Boils will have an obvious exit (such as a rodent hole), but the water may be
cloudy from siltation, or the hole very small. If there is any movement in the water, carefully approach the site, disturbing
the water as little as possible. Let the water settle, and look at the suspected site. If you see the hole, examine it
carefully. If the water flow is clear, there are no problems as yet. If there is no distinct hole, the water flow is not a threat.
Monitor the site regularly for changes, and take no other actions.
Flood Fighting: How To Use Sandbags
Page 3 of 3
A dirty water flow indicates that the soil is being eroded by the water, and that could mean failure of the levee. A boil ring
is the best solution. The idea is to reduce the water flow until the water is flowing clear, but not to stop the water flow.
This acts as a relief valve for the water pressure; the water continues to flow, but is not eroding the material. If the water
flow is stopped, the pressure will remain, and another boil will form.
Ring the boil with sandbags, with the first bags back 1-2 feet from the boil. More,
if the soil is unstable. Build the first layer in a circle, 2-4 bags across, and then
build up, bringing each layer in. If possible, keep the interior face straight. Build
the ring wall with the means for water to flow out, leaving a gap in the wall, or
using pipes. Adjust the flows until the water slows, and becomes clear. Monitor
the ring wall constantly. Raise or lower the height of the wall as necessary,
maintaining a slow, clear flow.
The height should be only enough to create enough head to slow flow so that no
more material is displaced, and the water runs clear.
Notes:
Do not sack a boil which does not put out material.
The entire base should be cleared of debris and scarified.
Tie into the levee if the boil is near a toe.
Use loose earth between all of the sacks.
All joints must be staggered.
Be sure to clear the sand discharge.
Never attempt to completely stop the flow through a boil.
Corps of Engineers Sandbag Policy
Local governments, flood control districts, and other government agencies, are responsible for maintaining a supply of
sandbags adequate to cover anticipated emergencies. The Walla Walla District maintains a limited sandbag stockpile to
augment local jurisdictions during actual flood emergencies. The Corps will issue only to agencies or governments.
Individual citizens requesting sandbags will be directed to their local government.
At the discretion of the District Commander, a portion of the District's stockpile may be loaned to meet a specific local
flood emergency. Unused stocks must be returned to Walla Walla District as soon as the emergency is over. Consumed
stocks must be replaced in kind, or paid for by the local interests, unless the District Commander has declared a flood
emergency for that locality, in which case no reimbursement is necessary.
To request sandbags, contact the Walla Walla District Emergency Operations Center at 509-527-7146.
Reproduction and further information
This document is not copyrighted and can be reproduced as required. This and similar documents can be downloaded
from http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/html/offices/op/em/EM_library.htm. Send inquiries to Corps of Engineers, Walla
Walla District, Emergency Management Branch, 201 North 3rd Avenue, Walla Walla, Washington 99362-1876. Our 24
hour phone is 509-527-7146, or you can e-mail to CENWW-EOC@nww01.usace.army.mil.
Updated 22 March 2001