HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-7-93
THE
OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
1')(5\ /t,. .{,r611:)/~1
File # 1::> \4 ,br:~U ,9,()r '
Res, # QPA -~~3
#
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Date:
Monday, January 4, 1993
#: - PD 7 93 File #:
APPLICATION BY ST. MARYS CEMENT CORPORATION
UNDER THE NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT FOR THE DOCK
EXPANSION
FILE: OPA 89-68 DIN & DEV 89-74
Recommendations:
It is Respectfully recommended to the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-7-93 be received;
2. THAT the Canadian Coast Guard of the Department of Transport,
be advised that the Town of Newcastle does not support the
approval of the application under the Navigable Waters
Protection Act until such time as the concerns of all agencies
with regard to the dock expansion have been addressed;
3. THAT the Shoreline Regeneration Trust Agency be requested to
organize and facilitate sessions with all affected parties to
resolve outstanding issues surrounding the dock expansion and
future plans for all st. Marys Cement holdings; and
4. THAT a copy of this report and Council's resolution be
forwarded to the Canadian Coast Guard, Shoreline Regeneration
Trust Agency, st. Marys Cement Company, the Region of Durham
and the Port Darlington Community Association.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 On September 2, 1992, a notice was placed in the Canadian
Statesman by st. Marys Cement Company advising that
application had been submitted to the Canadian Coast Guard
under the Navigable Waters Protection Act R.S.C, Chapter N-22
for approval of an expansion to the existing dock.
On the basis of the advertisement, staff made inquiries and
subsequently requested circulation of the application and
support materials. ...2
L 49
j
RECYCLED PAPIER
PAPEf1 RECYCLE
Tl-IIS IS PI1!IHED ON RECYCLED PAPEH
REPORT NO.: PD-7-93
PAGE 2
written objection based on the effect of the work on marine
navigation was requested by the Coast Guard within a one month
period. At that time, staff responded to inform the Coast
Guard of the waterfront planning study and the applications
made to the Town under the Planning Act. In assessing the
issues surrounding the dock expansion and in light of the
workload related to the Official Plan review, staff requested
an extension to the deadline in order to seek Council's
direction.
2 . BACKGROUND
2.1 The Docking Facility
In 1973, st. Marys was granted a license of occupation by the
Federal Government for a Crown Waterlot. Between 1974 and
1979 the dock was created, the lakefill and construction of
the dock was authorized and monitored by the Ministry of
Natural Resources and the Ministry of Environment. A
certificate of Approval had been issued under the Environment
Protection Act.
The existing dock is approximately 32 hectares (79 acres) in
size, extending 650 metres into Lake ontario and is capable of
handling one seaway bulk cargo carrier. The dock is used for
stockpiling cargo necessary in the production of cement, such
as clinker, gypsum, slag, and coal. The dock also receives
coal used by both st. Marys and General Motors and salt used
by the Ministry of Transportation and the Region of Durham
Works Department for the winter maintenance of roads.
In 1987, st. Marys purchased the waterlot containing the
existing dock as a minor disposition of Crown Resources by
Order-in-Council. At the time, the Company was provided with
. . . 3
550
REPORT NO.: PD-7-93
PAGE 3
a five year option to purchase an adjacent water lot for an
expansion to the existing dock.
2.2
The Proposed Dock Expansion
In 1989, st. Marys Cement announced a 180 million dollar
expansion to the Bowmanville plant. The expansion would
accommodate an increased production limit from 1,814,000
metric tonnes to 3,000,000 metric tonnes annually (2,000
metric tonnes to 5,000 metric tonnes per day).
Apparently, expansion to the docking facility is to be an
integral part of the overall expansion plans.
In 1989, st. Marys exercised its option with respect to
the adjacent waterlot and submitted to the Ministry of
Natural Resources, a request for disposition of a Crown
Water lot immediately west of the existing dock, allowing
for the dock expansion. (See Attachment No.1). The
expansion would occupy 32 hectares (79 acres) ,
accommodating the simultaneous handling of two maximum-
f3J:z:~ci......f3~cl\VC\ y ..}:)\ll.Jc c:C\:r-9().. .... c:C\:r-:r-:l~:r-$ and w ou 1 d cll..$() ......P :r-9V:l <i~
additional storage for necessary cargo.
3. THE APPROVALS PROCESS
3.1 There are a number of approvals necessary for the dock
expansion, from all levels of government. Although the
Ministry of Natural Resources have agreed on a fixed price for
the sale of the waterlot, it is contingent on st. Marys Cement
receiving the necessary government approvals. The approvals
are as follows: '
. Federal Approvals
Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP)
Fisheries Act
. . .4
551
REPORT NO.: PD-7-93
PAGE 4
. Provincial Approvals
Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act
Public Lands Act .
Guidelines for Open Water Disposal
Environmental Protection Act
ontario Water Resources Act
Planning Act
3.2, The Planning Act
In 1989, st. Marys applied for a Official Plan and Zoning By-
law amendments and site plan approval to recognize the
existing dock as well as to permit the expansion of the dock.
These applications are still under review by government
agencies, although the 1991 Durham Regional Official Plan
recognizes both the existing and proposed dock expansion.
3.3
3.4
3.4.1
Federal Navigable Waters Protection Act
The Navigable Waters Protection Act, R.S.C. 1985 Chapter N-22
is administered by the Canadian Coast Guard of the Department
of Transport. The Act is a Federal statue created to protect
t:l1~........P\ll::>l.:tC:.'$ ........:r-:i911t:.. ...t:9 I1Cl.V:tgCl.t::i.()I1l::>Y..... P:r-()l1:i}:)Jt::iI1gt:l1~,l::>ll:il<i:iI1g
or placement of any work in navigable waters without Federal
Approval. Works wi thin navigable waters that require approval
include among other things, a wharf, dock or marina facility.
It is for this reason that prompted the preparation of this
report in response to the newspaper Notice by st. Marys
Cement.
Environmental Assessment Review Process (EARP)
As of January 1992, the Federal Minister of Transport is
required to apply the Environmental Assessment Review
Process (EARP) Guidelines Order to all applications under
the Navigable Waters Protection Act before approval is
granted.
. . .5
r~2
J _,' _
REPORT NO.: PD-7-93
PAGE 5
The Guideline Order is intended to ensure that the
environmental consequences of the project are understood
before authorization is granted. In this regard, a
environmental study must be prepared by the proponent
detailing a number of issues, such as proj ect
justification and description, an evaluation of the
existing environment and project-environment
interactions, environmental impacts and mitigation and
compensation measures.
3.4.2
In accordance with this requirement st. Marys Cement
retained a consultant to prepare the appropriate
documentation. This report, entitled "st. Marys Cement
Bowmanville Dock Expansion Environmental study Report",
was prepared by Shoreline Engineering Limited. A summary
of the report is provided below:
proiect Justification
The justification of the dock expansion is tied to the
increase in extraction of annual tonnage and the recent
plant expansion. The dock will be able to accommodate the
s imultaneousdocking'oftwo-maximumsiz ed'seawaybulk
carriers as well as provide additional storage for cargo.
The report notes that shipping is far more cost effective
than other modes of transportation.
Project Description
The dock expansion will be created by constructing a
stone berm around the perimeter of the water lot . A
sequence of cells will be constructed from stone within
the perimeter of the dock. The stone and earth infill
will be supplied from the overburden soil removed from
quarry expansion areas.
It is estimated to take five years to complete the entire
dock, commencing in the spring of 1993. Once complete, it
will be necessary to reorganize the layout for the cargo
storage area. Sufficient space is also required to
construct a landscape berm along the east side of the
existing dock to buffer the residents to the east from
the activities on the dock.
. . .' 6
553
REPORT NO.: PD-7-93
PAGE 6
The report further discusses
environment, description
assessments and mitigation
synopsis is provided below.
the many aspects of the existing
of interactions and impact
and compensation measures. A
Fish Habitat
As a result of the construction of the dock, a 32 ha (79 acre)
fish habitat will be lost.
st. Marys will construct an experimental lake trout spawning
shoal in compensation for the destruction of fish habitat.
Lake trout have not reproduced successfully in Lake ontario
since 1950. The creation of an artificial experimental
spawning shoal may lead to the natural spawning of lake trout
in the future.
The report suggests four locations for the spawning shoal, two
of which are located in the Town of Newcastle, the others are
located in the Township of Hope.
The project is subject to the provisions of the Canada
Fisheries Act. Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of
Natural Resources have agreed that the proposed compensation
is acceptable. The fish shoal construction and monitoring
program will begin in the spring of 1993.
wildlife
The report identifies a problem associated with an increase in
ther ing--b illedgullpopul ation'onmthepresent ... and mmfuture ,
dock.
st. Marys in conjunction with the Canadian Wildlife Service
and Provincial Authorities will monitor and control the on-
site populations.
Coastal Effects Overview
Two main issues have been raised as a result of the dock
expansion.
a) widening of the dock may increase the erosion rate of
Cedar Crest Beach
There has been claims that the existing dock compromises
an eastward littoral drift of sediment and thereby
starving beaches to the east. Homeowners fear that they
may lose their property to the lake, due to increased
erosion.
. . . 7
rS4
J ,
REPORT NO.: PD-7-93
PAGE 7
The report states that numerous studies have been
out by consultants to investigate the problem.
have concluded that no measurable impacts
recession rate to the east can be attributed
existing dock.
carried
Studies
on the
to the
The Report notes that there will be a program in place to
monitor the bottom and shorelines in vicinity of the dock
to provide a record of changes that are occurring.
b) Increase in sediment that may get into cooling water
intake pipes of the future Darlington B
ontario Hydro is concerned that the dock expansion will
increase the amount of sediment that could collect in the
Darlington B cooling water intake pipe that will be
located within 2 kilometres of the dock area.
The Report states little sediment will escape as a result
of the construction of the expanded dock. A monitoring
program will measure changes in bottom sediment in the
vicinity of the dock. However, report notes that
monitoring sediment over the intake pipe would be futile
given the distance from the dock.
Noise, Dust and Visual Impacts
The Report notes that residents on Cedar Crest Beach Area may
endure noise, dust and visual impacts as a result of the dock
construction'~' ... The report-claims due to westward 'expansion"of
the dock, the impacts will be minimal because of the distance
away from residents.
Upon completion of the dock a landscaped berm will be
constructed to mitigate any impacts.
The report notes that the company will construct a new road,
west and parallel to Waverly Road, to facilitate traffic to
the dock area, once into the second phase of extraction.
Residents in the area will endure some impact necessitated
from truck traffic. The, report notes the road systems were
part of the overall expansion plans.
Water Ouality
During construction of the dock the surface drainage will be
contained within the closed cells. Runoff from the stockpiles
is contained within a central pond and is disposed of through
evaporation. This discharge is regulated by the Ministry of
Environment.
. . .8
5-~ ir:;:.~
J,J
REPORT NO.: PD-7-93
PAGE 8
4. AGENCY COMMENTS
Although no formal circulation of the application is required
by the federal government agency under the NWPA, the Central
Lake ontario Conservation Authority had provided a response to
the Canadian Coast Guard regarding the dock expansion.
4.1 CLOCA objects to the proposed dock expansion, noting that the
report submitted by Shoreline Engineering Ltd. is inadequate
in its fundamental identification of environmental concerns
associated with the project.
CLOCA states the report only identifies a problem with the
increased ring-billed gull population. CLOCA suggests that the
report fails to identify any impact on the wildlife habitat of
the Bowmanville Third Marsh (Rabyhead). This wetland will be
effected by the construction of the dock as well as by the
ongoing activities on the dock once completed.
J:I1J-~~Q,G1:JQGAl1Cl..<ix~g\l~$t:~<it:l1~MJI1:i$t:r-Y():f:NCl.t:\l:r-Cl.l. Resources
to have the proponents provide information to address the
impacts on this wetland. To date this information has not
been received.
CLOCA notes the report suggests that the construction of the
dock, as well as the increase of activity on the dock and
truck traffic to the dock may have an effect on the residents
of Cedar Crest Beach. The report fails to address the impact
of dock activities and traffic will have on the wildlife
habi tat of the West Side Creek Marsh. This wetland is a
Provincially Significant Wetland and is host to two bird
species of National Interest, the Least Bittern and Black
Tern.
. . .9
556
REPORT NO.: PD-7-93
PAGE 9
The Conservation Authority notes that the Report prepared by
Shoreline Engineering Limited alludes to the possibility of
other bulk cargo requirements of the Region may be stored on
the dock. CLOCA raises the question as to whether the
expansion project is necessitated by the plant expansion or is
created to satisfy future regional requirements for a port
facility. If this is the case, regional requirements may be
met at another location, for example at the Port of Oshawa.
4.2 The Region of Durham
Staff contacted the Region of Durham Planning Department with
respect to the application under the Navigable Waters
Protection Act. The Regional Planning staff have verbally
indicated that they will not respond to the application.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
5.1 Port Darlington community Association
The Port Darlington Community Association (PDCA) has
:r-~gJ$t:~:r-~<i an ()l::>j~c:::t::i()I1 with the Canadian Coast Guard
regarding the proposed dock expansion.
In a letter to the Coast Guard (Attachment NO.2) the
Communi ty Association claims that they have endured
significant impact on their quality of life since st. Marys
Cement first settled in the Bowmanville location. The letter
states that the quarry operation, processing and manufacturing
operations have contributed to dust, noise and increased truck
traffic in the area. As well, the construction of the present
dock has brought numerous ships to the facility, the
stockpiling of goods and materials also have contributed to
"wind-carried dust and all night noise associated with
unloading of equipment".
. . .10
557
REPORT NO.: PD-7-93
PAGE10
The PDCA is most concerned with the increased erosion of the
beach areas to the east of the dock, most notably the Cedar
Crest Beach Area. The PDCA fear that an increase in the
dock's size will increase the magnitude of the erosion
problems currently experienced. In addition, future expansion
may lead to its recognition as a regional shipping facility,
and the possibility of other types of cargo being shipped to
and from this facility.
The PDCA are concerned that extraction of the Wests ide Creek
Marsh is linked to the dock expansion which may be used as a
source of fill and quarried stone.
5.2 In addition to its comments on the application under the NWPA,
the Community Association has also launched a referral of a
portion of the 1991 Region of Durham Official Plan regarding
the recognition of the existing and expanded dock areas as a
potential commercial docking. The PDCA notes that the
C:::lllllll:I.Cl."t::iy~JlllPCl.qt:()tCl.g()llllll~:r-c:::JCl.J<:l()c:::K:iI1g.....:f:.Cl.c::il:i"t: yw:il1....I1()"t: .....lJ~
investigated through the current approval processes. The PDCA
believes that the erosion issues and nuisance effects from the
existing dock will be exacerbated by the proposed expansion.
6. STAFF COMMENTS
6.1 The report provided by Shoreline Engineering Ltd. has been
prepared to satiSfy the requirements of NWPA and the EARP.
Staff have reviewed the document with the assistance of Bird
and Hale, the Town's consultant for the Waterfront Study.
Some issues should be addressed prior to any decision on the
proposed dock expansion.
. . .11
558
REPORT NO.: PD-7-93
PAGEll
6.2 Cultural Resources
The Newcastle Waterfront study, Background Report indicates
occurrence of buried First Nation material resources on the
applicant's property, to the east and west of Waverly Road. At
least one such site reported human remains. Archeological
resources are considered to be a matter of provincial interest
according to section 2(b) of the Planning Act. Since st. Marys
plan to use stone and fill derived from adjacent lands for the
dock expansion, the disturbance of the overburden may destroy
buried archaeological resources.
It is unknown whether st. Marys has undertaken an
archaeological reconnaissance of their property, to identify
features that may require documentation, excavation or
protection.
6.3 Wetlands
Third Marsh (Rabvhead 1)
The p:r-QPQsed expansionQf the dock .may.. negativelyirnpact the
wildlife wi thin the Third Marsh area, as a result of the
noise, dust and vibration. This wetland provides habitat for
species protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act,
which prohibits adverse impact on certain species during
breeding season unless permitted by agreement. Breeding season
is from April to October which corresponds to the time where
greatest activity would occur for construction of the dock as
well as the greatest activity on the dock once completed.
. . . 12
559
REPORT NO.: PD-7-93
PAGE 12
Wests ide Creek Marsh
Staff agree in principal with the comments made by CLOCA
regarding Shoreline Engineering Ltd.'s report omission of any
possible impacts on the Wests ide Creek Marsh as a result of
the construction of the dock and subsequent activity related
to the dock.
As it stands now the marsh is licensed for extraction and
forms Phase III of the extraction plans, the timing of which
in unknown.
There still remains the outstanding issue surrounding the two
conflicting policy Statements applied to this one single
property, the Wetlands Policy Statement and the Mineral
Aggregate Resources Policy Statement. MNR is apparently
obligated to honour the quarry license which predated both
policy statements.
6.4 Fisheries Habitat
The construction of lake trout spawning shoals is the
compensation package considered under the Fisheries Act. only
two of the four shoals are proposed off the shore of
Newcastle. However, no documentation is provided to indicate
how the four potential shoal locations were identified. Staff
wish to provide input into the selection of a suitable site to
ensure that the compensation package would benefit Newcastle
and that other future plans and activities of the Town related
to waterfront improvements are not compromised by a potential
spawning area. In addition, it would appear that the proposed
spawning shoal is experimental in nature and there should be
. . .13
5\6l~
REPORT NO.: PD-7-93
PAGE 13
an exploration of other compensation measures which would have
a greater success rate.
6.5 Regional Port Facility
6.5.1 The proiect Justification indicate the enlarged dock will
provide storage for cargo integral for company operations
as well as "possibly other bulk cargo requirements of the
Region."
The 1991 Regional Official Plan permits a commercial
docking facility at the st. Marys Cement site. Town's
comments on the new Regional Official Plan, offered no
objection to the commercial docking facility, as it
related to the existing, dock. However, the Town has yet
to render its decision on the proposed dock expansion
despite recognition of such in the 1991 Durham Plan.
Staff would provide comment on the proposed expansion
area once all government agencies have reviewed the
P:r-QPo$a.l. .a.I1clP:r-()viclecl qQlllllleI1t: s .
6.5.2
Waterfront Studies
The consultants engaged to prepare the Newcastle
Waterfront Study were required to undertake a peer review
of the applications submitted by st. Marys Cement. The
applications as submitted in 1989, did not indicate any
desire on behalf of the applicant to propose a commercial
docking facility.
A Waterfront Secondary Plan prepared by the City of
Oshawa, has recently been completed. The City Council
. . .14
561
REPORT NO.: PD-7-93
PAGE14
requested the Region of Durham to undertake appropriate
initiatives and investigations to secure an alternative
industrial port facility in the Region to accommodate
existing and future port related industrial uses from the
Oshawa Harbour.
The Region of Durham Planning Department has also
initiated the Durham Region Waterfront Plan study. The
study outline indicates broad framework for the
development of the waterfront within the Region but does
not give specific attention to a regional harbour
facility. However, in comments related to the city of
Oshawa Waterfront Plan, the Region indicates that the
Durham Waterfront Plan will examine the role of a
commercial port facility in the Region and the necessary
investigation to secure an alternative port facility.
It is obvious that the dock is being considered as a
regional commercial docking facility by the Regiona.nd
the city of Oshawa although there is no documentation to
justify the need, at this time, nor was such a use
indicated in the st. Marys Cement application for
Official Plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment.
staff are concerned that the integrity of both the Town's
waterfront plans may be in jeopardy if the issue
surrounding a regional commercial dock facility is not
resolved. As such, st. Marys Cement should clarify the
usage of the dock and provide the necessary
justification, all of which should be considered within
the context of the Region's and the Town's Waterfront
Studies currently in progress.
. . .15
562
REPORT NO.: PD-7-93
PAGE15
6.6 Coastal Processes
Review of the coastal processes are difficult given that there
is no coastal expertise on staff. The application under the
NWPA was reviewed by consultants from the Newcastle Waterfront
study upon Staff's request.
The Town's consultant concluded that the proposed lakefilling
measures are considered satisfactory, and will minimize the
amounts of sediment entering the adjacent water during the
filling operations. Since the lake bottom varies on seasonal
basis, it is suggested by our consultants that monitoring
results should be at one yea.r intervals on the same date, for
three consecutive years.
There has been an ongoing concern regarding the effect of the
dock on the erosion of the beach areas to the east.
Consultants engaged by st. Marys note that existing dock only
has had a minor effect on the erosion problems to the east and
therefore concluded that the westward dock will have
no effect on erosion to the east of the dock.
The Lake ontario Shoreline Management Plan prepared by
Sandwell Swan Wooster Inc. concluded that the construction of
the existing dock has affected the delivery of sediment to the
beach east of the dock. It may be in fact that the effects
are minor, and confined to an area east of the dock. However,
further research maybe necessary to resolve conflicting
opinions.
. . . 16
563
REPORT NO.: PD-7-93
PAGE16
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 In reviewing the documentation submitted by st. Marys Cement
with respect to the application under the Federal Navigable
Waterways Act and the Federal Environmental Assessment Review
Process, staff find the supporting documentation to be
insufficient. In particular the following items require more
detailed consideration:
justification of the need and the identification of the
type and volume of commercial port activities
impact of dock expansion on the Bowmanville Third Marsh
(Raby Head)
impact of construction of dock and increased port
activity on wildlife related to Wests ide Creek Marsh
impact of increased port activity on nearby residential
areas
resolution of, erosion problems which appear to have
resulted from the existing dock
compensation proposal for the loss of fisheries habitat
conservation of archeological resources
It is noted that the Ontario Minister of the Environment
specifically exempted the dock expansion from the requirements
of the Environmental Assessment Act, on the basis that a
Federal Environmental Assessment Review Process and other
legislation would provide for a thorough review of the
matters related to this project. The documentation submitted
to date does not, in the opinion of staff, represent a
thorough consideration of environmental impacts associated
with the dock expansion.
7 . 2 st. Marys Cement is an important industry to the Town.
Equally important, however, is the waterfront area as a
...17
564
REPORT NO.: PD-7-93
PAGE17
resource to the entire community, the quality of life for
nearby residents and the existing natural environmental
resources. In order to secure a stable future for st. Marys
Cement and to resolve the many impacts resulting from their
proposed and approved expansions, staff believe that the
issues should be considered by regulatory agencies and
stakeholders in a comprehensive manner. Given the complexity
of the issues, of which many are part of the mandate of the
federal and provincial governments, it is recommended that the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust be requested to assist in the
resolution issues surrounding st. Marys Cement Co. operations.
7.3 until such time as the many outstanding issues surrounding the
st. Marys Cement Co. operations, and in particular the dock
expansion, staff recommend that Council not support the
application made under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Respectfully submitted,
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
,
C': r ()J~~ ~
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
CRS*FW*jip
*Attach
18 December 1992
Mr. Ken Brant, Supt. Navigable
Waters
Canadian Coast Guard
P.O. Box 1000
Prescott, ontario
KOE 1TO
Mr. Jean Corbeil
Minister of Transport
Transport Canada
Ottawa, ontario
KiA ON5
. . . 18
REPORT NO.: PD-7-93
PAGE18
Mr. J.O. Down, P.Eng.
st.' Marys Cement Co.
Engineering & Research Dept.
R.R. #2, 410 Waverly Road
Bowmanville, ontario
L1C 3K3
Mr. Dixon Wood
st. Marys Cement Co.
A Division of st. Marys Cement Corp.
22GO Yonge street
Toronto, ontario
M5S 2C6
The Honourable David Crombie
Waterfront Regeneration Trust
207 Queens Quay West
5th Floor, Box 4111, station A
Toronto, ontario
M5W 2V4
Ms. Thea Dorsey
Willms & Shier
4 King st. West, Ste. 900
Toronto, ontario M5H 3X2
Mrs. Mavis Carlton
Port Darlington Community Assoc.
, ,
Bowmanville, ontario
L1C 3K3
j
V
01-
<to
o.:J-
0::
lIJlO
z_
:JI-
~g
(I)
Attachment #1 to
Report PD-7-93
NOISS3JNOJ l.NOH:I N3>tO~8
o
b
.-I
..c:
(/)
...
o
::!:
I-
9
..c:
Uo
0(1)
(1)...
aJ<(
-- '"
~.~ ~
... - 0::
(.)c
... (1) :q:
0:2 j...::
"O(/) ~
(1)(1) c;;.
(.)0:: C
~
~
-.I
(\J
I-
o
...J
(0
-
5
...J
I
I
I
,J
,*"
,*"
*"
~
I-
9
-
1~
) I .
~
c
o
.Ci)
c
o
0.
)(
LaJ
~
U
o
o
"0
(1)
(/)
o
0.
-e
a..
" .
ATyltc\t NE-NT N lL 2-
To P.E:: Po fZ T' PS} 7-<'13
WILLMS & SHIER
BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS
4 KING STREET WEST, SUITE 900
TORONTO, ONTARIO M5H 3X2
FAX, 416 863-1938
JOHN R. WILLMS
BARRY N, SPIEGEL
p, DOUGLAS PETRIE
JEFFREY E, STREISFIELD
DONNA SK SHIER
MIMI N, SINGH
THEA M, DORSEY
ELISABETH D, CASSAVOY
CYNTHIA R,C. SEFTON, COUNSEL
416 863-0711
September 22, 1992,
~~~~OW[@
SEP ~ 5 1992
TOWN OF NEWCASTlE
MA YOR'S OFFICE
BY FAX to (613) 925-5540
Mr. Ken Brant
Supt. Navigable Waters
Canadian Coast Guard
Regional Office
Navigable Waters Protection Office
P.O. Box 1000
Prescot~ Ontario
K2E IPO
[0;., ,)~t(C[Err\~yr~F-~lTh."
ll\~~ ~~
,~ov 20 1992
Dear Sirs:
TOWii Of ~hv(ASlU
PLANNING OEPARTMENT
Re:
Application on behalf of St. Mary's Cement for Approval of a Dock
Expansion into Lake Ontario, fronting lots 15 and 16, Broken Front
€oncession,'fownofNewcastle,'Regional'Municipality-of-f)urham,-
Province of Ontario
We enclose submissions prepared by the Port Darlington Community
Association. The PDCA is an organization composed of members in the Town
of Newcastle whose residences are in the area fronting on the lake, in the
vicinity of St. Mary's Cement, Bowmanville site.
Our clients have strong concerns about the proposal, which essentially is a
proposal to establish a regional port facility to service various companies in the
RegioIiof Durham. The proponents' stated intention is that it should
ultimately replace the Oshawa Harbour as the regional port.
The impacts from the proposed dock expansion range from socio-economic
impacts, which would include the spin-off effects from development of the area
as well as the direct environmental impacts from the dock expansion, and the
secondary environmental impacts from the increase in shipping activity, and
other types of traffic(rail and road) which may increase as a result.
568
PPtNTl=n flN 1N)(l/. ~:u::rvrll=n DAPI=I=l
- 2 -
WILLMS & SHIER
BARRISTERS &' SOLlCI1ORS
To date, the impacts of this proposal have not been addressed in a
comprehensive manner; there has been no provincial environmental assessment
and these issues have not been addressed in the context of an approved .
municipal Official Plan and planning process. Since it is in Lake Ontario, the
dock area has heretofore not had any design.ition in the Regional Municipality
of Durham or Town of Newcastle Official Plans; neither is it zoned.
The cOmmunity in the vicinity of S1. Mary's Cement was established long before
the company moved into the area. The impacts from the cqrnpany's operation
have continued to increase since the company moved into the area in the
1960's. Since the construction of the existing dock the rate of erosion to the
east of the existing dock has significantly increased. Many residents have
already lost their waterfront yards, and are in danger of losing their homes if
the erosion continues unchecked.
The expansion of the dock also threatens the existence of the provincially
designated Class 2 wetland, part of which is located on the eastern part of St.
Mary's property.
By copy of this letter to the Minister of Transport, the PDCA requests that the
dock expansion and corresponding application under the Navigable Waters
Protection Act be referred to a Panel for a public review to ensure that all
impacts of the project are evaluated and addressed in a thorough and
fashion.
Further, we request copies of any information filed with Transport Canada and
the Canadian Coast Guard in connection with this proposal" and the
opportunity to make submissions on this material to the appropriate parties.
I will contact you shortly to discuss this further.
Yours very truly,
WILLMS & SHIER
....
f7 , /_ 4/N)e~
) ~~I I/t
Thea M. Dorsey
TMD:ecs
2150/brant.04
569
PRINTED ON 100% RFC:Vr., Fn PAPI=Q
- 3 -
WILLMS & SHIER
BARRISTERS & SOLlCIIDRS
cc: Mr. Jean Corbeil
Minister of Transport
Tranport Canada
Transport Canada Building
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A ONS
cc: Ms. Shelley' Martin
Minister of State for Transport
Tranport Canada
Transport Canada Building
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A ONS
cc: Mr. Robert Kingston
Director General
Marine Navigation Services
6th Floor.
Canada Building
344 Slater Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A ON?
cc: Town of Newcastle
Attention: Mayor and
Members of Council
Attention: Planning Department
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
cc: The Honourable Ruth Grier
Minister of the Environment
Ministry of the Environment
lSth Floor
13S S1. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1PS
PAINTED ON 100% RECYCLED PAPFR
570
- 4 -
WILLMS & SHIER
BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS
cc: The Honourable David Crombie
Royal Commission of the Future
of the Toronto Waterfront
207 Queens Quay West
5th Floor
P.O. Box 4111
Station "A"
Toronto, Ontario
M5W 2V4
cc: Regional Municipality of Durham
Attention: Chairman and Members
of Council
Attention: Planning Department
Box 623
605 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 6A3
cc: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Lindsay District
Attention:, Jim Patterson
322 I<.ent Street West
Lindsay, Ontario
K9V 41'7
cc:, Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority
Attention: Don Wright
100 Whiting Avenue
Oshawa, Ontario
L1H 31'3
PRINTED ON 100% RECYCLED PAPER
571
.H'
J
PORT DARLINGTON
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
BOWMANVILLE. ONTARIO
,~~ ! j~~
\ j I
~ \_~~ J ~
~~ ~~ l(~' i.
< ~ fYlItM ""J
:'.~ .
. .
Group 2, SQx 21, RR2
Bowmanville, Ontario
L 1 C 3K3
September 16, 1992
BY FAX to (613) 925-5540
Mr. Ken Brant
Supt. Navigable Waters
Canadian Coast Guard
Regional Office .
Navigable Waters Protection Office
P.O. Box 1000 '
Prescott, Ontario
K2E 1 PO
Re: Application by 8t.Marys Cement Corporation for approval of a dock expansion into
Lake Ontario, fronting lots 15 and 16, Broken Front Concession, Town of
Newcastle. Regional Municipality of Durham. Province of Ontario
This letter is sent on behalf of the Port Darlington Community Association, a group
of concerned residents living along the Lake Ontario shoreline, east of the 81. Marys
Cement Company's Bowmanville site.
We are hereby registering our objection to the 81. Marys' proposed dock expansion
and requesNhe Minister of Transport to refer the St. Marys' application to the Minister of
the Environment for a public review by a Panel.
We have studied the document entitled 8t. Marys Cement Company Bowmanville
Dock Expansion Environmental Study Report prepared by Shoreline Engineering Ltd.,
dated August 1992, and find information contained in it misleading and inaccurate. Our
specific comments on this report are attached as Attachment A.
572
- 2 -
Since the late 1960's when the St. Marys Cement Company first began its
Bowmanville facility, our community has endured ever increasing difficulties arising from
the company's quarrying, aggregate processing, manufacturing operations and the
building of a dock and its operation. Attempts made by the neighbours to have the
company mitigate the negative impacts have been frustrated by St. Marys Cement
Company.
The families living on Cedarcrest and at the Cove, who were on the land prior to St.
. Marys 'setting up shop', remember the early years.
In the late sixties there was some blasting and a slight sCarring of the landscape as
we looked to the west.
In the seventies there was the construction of the present wharf and the
introduction of lakeboats to bring in supplies for the plant. This was the beginning of
wind-carried dust and all-night noise associated with unloading equipment. Growth of the
plant led to more blasting. '
".
The eighties has seen the dock become a storage place for great piles of coal, salt
and gypsum.
The dock usage extended to cover industries other than St. Marys and its materials.
The noise and dust increased and the sea gulls found a natural breeding spot on
the dock. settling... pond... ......Aswell,Jn.the eighties,. the Canada Building Materialsplantwas
established which was the beginning of traffic safety concerns on Waverley Road. The
addition of the rock crusher on this site became a contributor to night long noise and a
further generator of clouds of dust.
By this time, erosion of the Cedarcrest shoreline prompted by the St. Marys' dock
became entrenched.
Our history with St. Marys as a neighbour has been one where each succeeding
year brought greater amounts of unfavourable impact on our quality of life. What is most
bothersome to us is that these things have happened with no prior warning, with no
consultation, and with no regard for the residents living in the vicinity and along the
lakefront. ...
The new plant and dock, having new technology and being over twice the size of
the present one, will increase the magnitude <:;>f today's problems and also present new
ones. For example, we're particularly concerned about disposal of the new type kiln dust
considered by some communities to be a hazardous waste and also its potential for
ground water contamination and loss of wildlife and vegetation. We're concerned about
accelerated erosion of the shoreline where a number of homes show increased
un ermining of their properties. We're concerned that as St. Marys' quarrying advances
at higher rates and in closer proximity to our community, our wells will go dry.
f--7~
J -,
- 3 -
We're concerned about other types of commodities that may be stored on the
expanded dock and we're concerned about Mure plans to create a deep water harbour.
In 1989, St. Marys Cement Company sought zoning approval for the existing dock it
had built, as well as for an expansion to it. Recognition also was' sought for these
structures in the Region of Durham Official Plan. As we believed that the ,municipdl
planning processes were inadequate in protecting the environment, our association
requested that the Ontario Minister of the Environment designate the dock expansion for
an Environmental Assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act.
In February 1992, the Honourable Ruth Grier, Ontario Minister of the Environment,
made a decision not to require an environmental assessment of S1. Marys proposed dock
expansion, in the belief that the outstanding concerns could be addressed through other
legislation which applies to the undertaking. We believe this is based on a conclusion
drawn by the Honourable David Crombie (Royal Commission on the Future, of the Greater
Toronto Waterfront) in his letter to the Honourable Ruth Grier, January 28, 1992 which
states:
"We conclude that a Provincial Environmental Assessment of the proposed dock
expansion is not necessary because the potential environmental issues can be
addressed through the existing review and approvals process, particularly the
Federal Environmental Assessment and Review process, the Environmental
Protection Act, the Planning Act, and the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. It
You need to know that there is little, if any, meaningful dialogue taking place. We
objecttothe-referencesih....the...Ddck.EXpahsioh..ErivironmeritarRep6ffleadiiig'One'.'fO ....
believe that our concerns are being addressed.
It simply is not happening - we are being ignored. This is illustrated by the
following:
· At a 1986 meeting of the Cedarcrest Ratepayers Association, S1. Marys told the
group that their concerns for dust generation at the C.B.M. plant were unfounded,
and that the noise level cannot be considered excessive.
· On October 18, 1989, S1. Marys Cement convened an Open House. Technical
consUltants and S1. Marys' staff attended. Some consultants advised that their
attendance at the Open House was their first day on the job. These consultants
did not say what their terms of reference would be. Their planning consultant (not
a new consultant to S1. Marys since he had attended the previous September 27
meeting) is reported to have counselled some of the residents to withdraw support.
He said that the mission of the Port Darlington Community Association in
challenging the S1. Marys' expansion to an Environmental Assessment would be
costly and futile.
574
- 4 -
· Mr. Jack Jones of Shoreline Engineering (a consultant already retained by St. Marys
at the time of the Town's meeting of September 27, 1989), arranged appointments
to discuss beach erosion with individual residents of Cedarcrest and the Cove for
November 1989. Because the early interviews took longer
than expected, a number of interviews did not occur at the appointed times. Mr.
Jones advised he would phone the next week to re-schedule the missed interviews.
This never happened.
As you consider our objections, we believe it will be helpful for you to know the
following:
Severe shoreline erosion is damaging property and threatening lakefront homes
on the east side of the St. Marys Cement existing dock. Prior to the
construction of the dock there was an expansive beach which had been
relatively stable for many, many years. Consultants (Sandwell, Swan and
Wooster Inc., who prepared a study entitled "Lake Ontario Shoreline
Management Plan") report that the present dock is a barrier to sediment drift,
causing this particular section of the beach to be starved of nourishment.
(Copies of two relevant excerpts from the report are attached).
Studies Or) coastal changes to the west of the dock show significant increases
in the lake, bottom and this supports the theory that the natural sediment flow
from west to east is being trapped on the west side of the dock.
An expanded dock will further aggravate the erosion since plans call for it
protruding....asabarrierevenfurtherintdl:.:akeOntaritfand......ha.vingamUcffIOnger
base which will eliminate more of the natural shoreline.
We believe that St. Marys Cement Company has become defensive about the
impact that the dock is having on the shoreline changes that are occurring.
The company maintains that the dock is not responsible.
It is our belief that the shoreline processes to the east of the dock were studied.
St. Marys Cement Company has not commented on this and did not include
details in their Application to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources for
Disposition of a Crown Waterlot (1989) or in their Supplemental Submission
(f990). However, independent studies are required, in the event that shoreline
processes to the east of the dock have not been studied.
Our local Town of Newcastle Council has been somewhat sympathetic to our
concerns, but has great difficulty in dealing with one of its largest taxpayers and
employers. '
The continued existence of a community is at stake. The project should not
proceed until adequate enviror .melltal safeguar ds af e a~~ur ed alld, to date, thi~
has not been done. ,-- "'7 /-
') I ~1
- 5 -
Other issues at hand go beyond the dock. As an example: St. Marys Cement
Company plans to quarry the Westside Creek Marsh, which carries a provincial Class 2
Wetlaild designation, and is a habitat recommended. for protection by the Royal
Commission on the Greater Toronto Waterfront in their Reports. Due to the geographic
relationship of this marsh to Cedarcrest Beach and The Cove, the viability of nearly 100
h0mes in these areas is at risk.
We are concerned that the loss of the Westside Creek Marsh may be linked directly
to the construction of the expanded wharf. This scenario would involve using overburden
and quarried stone 'from the Westside Creek Marsh area for construction of the wharf.
We are convinced that the involvement of senior government is called for.
Therefore, we ask you to respond to our objection accordingly.
Yours very truly,
PORT DARLINGTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
!i tI ~ ud/a/}/7lJ
Mavis Carlton
President
cc: Mr. Jean Corbeil
Tranport Canada
Transport Canada Building
Ottawa, Ontario
K1 A ON5
cc: Ms. Shelley Martin
Minister of State for Transport
Tranport Canada
Transport Canada Building
Ottawa, Ontario
K1 A ON5
cc: Mr. Robert Kingston
Director General
Marine Navigation Services
6th Floor
Canada Building
344 Slater Street
K1 A ON?
- 6 -
cc: Town of Newcastle
Attention: Mayor and
Members of Council
Attention: Planning Department
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
cc: The Honourable Ruth Grier
Ministry of the Environment
135 S1. Clair Avenue West, 15th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1 P5
cc: The Honourable David Crombie
Royal Commission of the Future
of the Toronto Waterfront
207 Queens Quay West
5th Floor
P.O. Box 4111
Station "A"
.
Toronto, Onta~io
M5W 2V4
cc: Regional Municipality of Durham
, 'Attention:6hairmanandMembers
of Council
Attention: Planning Department
Box 623
605 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario
L1 N 6A3
cc: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Undsay District
Attention: Jim Patterson
322 Kent Street West
Undsay, Ontario
K9V 4T7
cc: Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority
Attention: Don Wright
100 Avenue
L 1 H 3T3 577
ATTACHMENT A
APPUCATION BY ST. MARYS CEMENT CORPORATION
FOR
APPROVAL OF A DOCK EXPANSION IN LAKE ONTARIO
FRONTING LOTS 15 AND 16, BROKEN FRONT CONCESSION
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE, REGIONAL MUNICIPAUTY OF DURHAM
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
Inaccurate and misleading information contained in St. Ma~s Cement Company
Bowmanville Plant Expansion Environmental Report prepared by Shoreline Engineering
Ltd. dated August 1992.
· The Cedarcrest community is not located over. I km east of the dock as reported on
page 9. Residences at the west end of Cedarcrest Beach are within 300 metres of
the existing dock.
· Most of the residents' concerns raised at the September 27, 1989 public meeting
still remain unresolved. (page ii).
· Professor Kamphuis reported in St. Marys' Supplemental Submission to the Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources (February 1990) that "Since the existing structure is a
complete littoral barrier, the westerly widening of the existing structure will have no
effect on the erosion to the east." In other words, Mr. Kamphuis was saying that
whatever contribution to erosion would occur had already been created by the
existing dock (page ii).
· EfosioncaUsed....t5ylheexistingdoclfisClealfWitn,OflpagesIii: 18, ana 20 of the
Environmental Study Report. We disagree with the conclusion that the existing
dock does not have a significant impact on erosion on Cedarcrest Beach. This is
based on the information shared by Jack Jones (Shoreline Engineering) and Bill
Kamphuis (J.W. Kamphuis Associates) at the May 23, 1991 public meeting.
At that meeting no detailed studies were provided, but the following three
arguments were put forward by Kamphuis to convince the residents that the existing
dock had not had an imp'act on the devastating erosion taking place.
- ThEl first argument was that erosion has occurred on the north side of Lake
Ontario for 10,000 years, so it is not new. We accept that as fact, but, our concern
is that the dock considerably increased the rate of erosion. Those residents who
have owned their properties for 70 years recall a stable beach until the existing
dock was built.
- The second argument was that an analysis of aerial photographs taken at three
different times did not reveal that the dock had had any negative impact on erosion
to the east.
578
The aerial photographs used were dated 1931 (45 years before the dock), 1971
(five years before the dock), and 1989 (12 years after the dock was constructed).
It was pointed out tha~ this analysis showed:
(a) the shoreline recession rate has been greater by 2-1/2 times since the dock
was built than it was before over a four km extent of shore extending two 2
km west of the dock to two km east of the dock.
(2)
(b) the shoreline recession rate to the west of the dock since its construction
has been greater than the recession rate to the east of the dock as below:
Recessions Rates (m/yr.)
Location
1931-71
1971-89
West of Dock
.12
.55
East of Dock
.30
.45
Further, the recession to the East has increased by 50 percent since the
dock was constructed.
It was propos~d that since the erosion had been greater to the west, a thesis could
be supported that the dock did not contribute to the erosion on the east. However,
no details of the analysis were shared and the investigation was cursory.
No consideration was made of the possibility t~at the dock may have accelerated
erosion in both directions.
No consideration was cgivenc to the building of the DarlingtonNu clear Generating
Plant immediately to the west of 8t. Marys Cement Company lands during this same
period and which also modified the shoreline.
As well, no consideration was given to the diversion by 8t. Marys Cement of the
Darlington Creek. This creek flows into Lake Ontario, a short distance to the west
of the existing dock. .
- The third argument was hypothetical. It suggested that there may be a point
1000 metres east of the dock where the direction of sediment transport is from the
east to the west. If this is the case, then the construction of the dock had no
influeilce on erosion along Cedarcrest Beach. Upon questioning about the theory
it became apparent that the facts presented by Mr. Kamphuis did not in fact
support this hypothesis.
Neither 8t. Marys Cement, nor their consultants, have responded to the pitfalls which the
residents raised in connection with the three arguments put forth at that meeting.
· Page 10 states that the existing dock has little impact on water quality. The existing
dock has attracted a large number of gulls. These gulls nest on the dock and their
579
, (3)
contributed to the fouling of the Bowmanville waterfront and the closing of the
beach to swimming. A larger. dock means more gulls.
· Quarry Transportation is dealt with in a chart on page 14. The dock expansion is
only 800 metres to the closest residence on Cedarcrest Beach and not over 1 km
as reported. Further, if the Westside Creek Marsh is the source of any
construction materials, then transport could be as close as 200 metrea to the
homes on Cedarcrest.
. · We are not aware of any approval in principle given by the Ontario Ministry of
the Environment as indicated on page iv. Nor is there any substantiation
given for this claim. The Ontario Minister of the Environ'ment decided not to
require an Environmental Assessment on the dock expansion in the belief
that the outstanding concerns could be addressed through other legislation
applying to the undertaking.
A proposed buffer mound is discussed on pages iv, 5, 15 and 21 of the Report and
it is suggested that this will mitigate the visual impact of the dock as well as the
noise and the dust. Our understanding is that the mound is planned to be 5
metres high, or about 16 feet. Stockpiles of aggregate situated on the dock are as
high as 60 feet while the storage silos and ship loading system approach 200 feet
high. Accord!ngly, any mitigation.of the visual, noise and dust impact will be
minimal since t~e bufferin'g mound is so low in height in relation to what it is to
screen.
· Page 19 suggests that the visual impact, the noise, and the dust affect only
., u., , ., , , .. - ,GeclarcrestBeach;Thecommunitiescofthe60ve;thecWestBeachand'1hecEastcc=c===c==
Beach as well feel significant impacts. The visual impact extends well beyond
these areas.
Page 10 suggests the expanded dock will not add to the existing problems of noise
and dust. We believe that the increased dock area will allow more bulk storage,
hence more handling, creating more noise and more dust. The Environmental
Study Report shows the annual tonnage to be handled will increase from 119,000 to
1,027,000 without any allowances for salt or other non-S1. Marys Cement materials.
580
Lake Ontario Shoreline Management Plan
De~ember, 1990
Page 26
6.0 RELEVANT COASTAL PROCESSES (Cont'd)
6.3.2 Potential AlonQshore Sediment Transport
Potential alongshore sediment transport rates were calculated using the in-house
numerical model, SGATRAN. (See Appendix F). This model takes an annualized
deep-water scatter diagram and calculates the yearly sediment transport in each
direction across a profile. The model combines the results of wave
transformation calculations using energy saturation with a bulk sedimenttransport
predictor and then redistributes the sediment transport rate across the surf zone
according to the Fulford distribution.
For each selected sediment profile site in the study area, a modified deep-water
scatter diagram was constructed from the MNR hindcast database. These
modified scatter diagrams used a 16 point compass and weighted average values
of the two adjacent existing deep-water MNR hindcast sites. It was felt that this
modified scatter diagram better reflected the total energy at each site and gave
a smoother distribution of deep-water wave energy by direction.
Seve'nteen profiles were selected for investigation as shown in Figure 6.3. The
profiles were selected in locations, and at particular distances apart, to be
representative of all 66 reaches identified in the project shoreline. For example,
profiles were selected to represent both bluff-type and beach-type shorelines
are presented in
Appendix I.
A review of the sediment transport results indicates that the net direction of
alongshore drift is from west to east. The net potential transport rates vary
significantly along the shoreline and are largely dependent upon shoreline'
orientation.
At the east end of the study area approaching Popham Bay, potential transport
rates are significantly less than elsewhere along the shoreline. This is
understandable because the area is protected by a number of shoals and the
wave heights are therefore reduced. Potential transport rates east of Presqu'i1e
and within Weller's Bay are similarly reduced.
The width of the surf zone varies from 500 metres to 1500 metres with peak
potential transport rates occurring anywhere from 100 to 500 metres from the
shoreline. This information is particularly relevant when designing structures
ge 0 e cross-s ore distribution
of transport rates can be used to ensure that downstream shorelines are not
starved of littoral drift. (See Appendix I) 5 B 1
.-
1
J
IT
IT
]
]
]
]
[]
E
m
---~,---"'--- -~"""'~,,----""-'"--~
\
I
f
~
~
!
Q
Lake Ontario Shoreline Management Plan
December, 1990
Page 67
TABLE 10.1 - GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SHORE PROTECTION
I Reach No. t COMMENTS I
5 I Protection of these bluffs should not adversely affect Damage Centre C1.
7 Should be left in their natural state.
8,9, 10 Protection of bluffs should not adversely affect adjacent shorelines including
Damage Centre C2 which is in a low lying area inappropriate for houses.
12 Should be left in their natural state.
13 Avoid further protection as this may adversely affect McLaughlin Bay.
15 Protection would not be detrimental to adjacent shorelines as it is at the
downdrift end of littoral cell PLSC 1.
17 Damage Centre C4 is a good candidate for beach nourishment. The beach is
starved by St. Mary's Cement pier.
19,21 protection of these reaches may starve 18 and 20 of valuable sediment sources.
24 If a residential development occurs in the future, some consideration should be
given to including a waterfront park which would provide an additional buffer
beyond the set-back. Hard protection would then be avoided.
_m ... ..26 ;;;;;. ;; ; BlUffs' 5e left in leir
OUI state.
27, 29, 30 Bluffs should be left in their natural state.
31 This reach is characterized by low lying flood prone lands and it is therefore not
suitable for development. In the long term, the Authority may wish to aquire
those properties and utilize the area as some form of parkland.
32 This shoreline is zoned for future development. If a residential development
occurs in the future, some consideration should be given to including a
waterfront park which would provide an additional buffer beyond the set-back.
.... Hard protection would then be avoided.
33 This reach is characterized by low lying flood prone lands and it is therefore not
suitable for development. In the long term, the Authority may wish to acquire
those properties and utilize the area as some form of parkland.
34 The sediment source within this littoral subcell is largely riverine. As a result,
protection of Reach 34 should not have a serious detrimental effect on Reach
35 and Damage Centre G6.
582