HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-108-95THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
DN:NWPA.GPA
REPORT
6(-)q oP0 W1 (-91)l'd
Meeting. General Purpose and Administration Committee File # C-
Date: Monday, October 2, 1995 � } � `�
Res. # `
Report #. PD- 108 -9-:hle #: OPA 89- 68 /D /N and DEV 89 -074 By-law #
Subject. REVIEW OF FINDINGS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW
GUIDELINES ORDER AND NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT FOR DOCK
EXPANSION
ST. MARYS CEMENT
323:12 * PA 89-68AWN AND D-RAX 29-024
Recommendations.
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD- 108 -95 be received;
2. THAT the Canadian Coast Guard be advised the Municipality of
Clarington does not concur with the findings of the Environmental
Assessment and Review for the St. Marys Cement Corporation dock
expansion as outlined in this report;
3. THAT Canadian Coast Guard be requested to require as a condition of
approval a remedial plan if loss of wetland function is proven, and
a remedial plan for the shoreline impacts resulting from existing
dock and expanded dock;
4. THAT the Canadian Coast Guard be requested to establish a
Monitoring Committee with representation from the Municipality of
Clarington; and
5. THAT the Canadian Coast Guard, St.Marys Cement Corporation, the
Port Darlington Community Association and the Waterfront
Regeneration Trust and all other interest parties listed on the
attachment receives a copy of this Report and Council's resolution.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 On June 7, 1995 a notice was placed in the Canadian Statesman
by the Canadian Coast Guard advising the dock expansion
proposed by St. Marys Cement Corporation had been assessed
under the Environmental Assessment Review Process Guidelines
Order (EARPGO). The Notice indicated the Federal Minister of
Transport had determined that potentially adverse
environmental effects from the dock expansion are mitigable.
524
REPORT NO.: PD- 108 -95 PAGE 2
The Notice activates a 30 day public consultation period. Once
all comments are received, the Coast Guard reviews and
responds to the comments or recommends a public review under
the Environmental Assessment Review Process.
1.2 Staff received a copy of the Coast Guard's report to the
Minister and requested all information used to render the
decision on the dock expansion. The information was obtained
under the Access to Information and the Privacy Act. Staff
were granted a 35 day extension from the day the material was
sent, being September 6, 1995.
1.3 The purpose of this Report is to inform Council of the Coast
Guard's findings and seek approval from Council of the
recommendations contained herein.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 St. Marys Cement Co. is seeking to lakefill a 32 hectare area
of Lake Ontario to expand the existing dock.
The number of approvals necessary for the dock expansion are
extensive:
• Federal approvals are required under the Fisheries Act
and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Approval under
the Navigable Waters Protection Act triggers an
Environmental Assessment and Review Process.
• Approvals from various provincial agencies are being
processed. Work Permit under the Lakes and Rivers
Improvement Act was issued by the Ministry of Natural
Resources, in December 1993. The Company must fulfill a
number of conditions under the permit.
• Approval under the Planning Act is required for the dock
expansion. In 1989, St. Marys applied for an Official
525
REPORT NO.: PD- 108 -95 PAGE 3
Plan and Zoning By -law Amendment and site plan approval
to recognize the existing dock expansion and to permit
the dock expansion.
2.2 The Durham Regional Official Plan designates St. Marys Cement
lands as a Special Policy Area. The designation for St.
Marys' lands and the proposed dock expansion and related
policies have been deferred.
The St. Marys is recognized as a Special Policy Area in the
Draft Clarington Official Plan. The Plan recognizes the
existing dock. Recognition of the dock expansion requires
approval from all relevant government agencies.
2.3 In January 4, 1993 Staff reported on St. Marys Cement's
application under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the
dock expansion.
The Report sited a number of concerns with the proposed dock
expansion and suggested the following items needed further
consideration:
• justification of need and identification of type and
volume of commercial port activities;
• impact of dock expansion on Raby Head 1 Marsh;
• impact of dock construction and increased port activities
on wildlife in the Westside Marsh;
• impact of increased port activities on nearby residential
areas;
• resolution of erosion problems which appear to have
resulted from the existing dock;
• compensation for the loss of fish habitat;
• conservation of archeological resources.
526
REPORT NO.: PD- 108 -95 PAGE 4
2.4 Council resolved not to support the dock expansion until all
concerns were addressed. Council also requested the assistance
of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust to review and resolve
where possible issues related to the dock expansion and future
plans of St. Marys Cement holdings.
3. FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW PROCESS
3.1 Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) is
used to identify potential environmental and social effects
that may arise from a particular project. The EARP is
applicable to any project which involves:
• federal regulatory responsibility
• federal financial commitment
• lands and waters administered by the Federal Government.
Application under the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA)
is required for the dock expansion. The Act is administered by
the Canadian Coast Guard. The Coast Guard, in consultation
with other agencies must evaluate the project through an
Initial Assessment. The Coast Guard may conclude:
• that the potentially adverse environmental effects are
known and mitigable; or
• further investigation is required and the proponent must
prepare an Initial Environmental Evaluation, detailing
environmental effects.
If the Coast Guard recommends the preparation of a Initial
Environmental Evaluation, the project will be re- evaluated. If
the environmental effects are still unknown, it may be denied
or referred to the Federal Minister of Environment for public
review.
527
REPORT NO.: PD- 108 -95 PAGE 5
3.2 The Coast Guard's initial review of the St. Marys' dock
expansion concluded that effects related to wetlands and
archaeological finds were unknown. As such, an Initial
Environmental Evaluation was undertaken by the Company.
Upon submission and review of the Initial Environmental
Evaluation, the Coast Guard concluded that "the potentially
adverse environmental effects are mitigable with known
technology."
3.3 Staff obtained the Coast Guard's Report to the Minister of
Transport. The Report is based on comments received from
various government related to the EARP process. A summary of
the Report is provided below.
3.3.1 Effects on Wetlands
Raby Head 1 Marsh:
The effects of dock construction on wetland function in Raby
Head 1 were assessed. Environment Canada is satisfied that
potential impacts on water level fluctuations and loss of
biodiversity can be mitigated by creating a 30 metre shoreline
buffer between the dock and the marsh. A monitoring plan would
be used to ensure mitigation is effective in maintaining the
wetland function.
Westside Marsh:
Rock from Phase II will be used to construct the dock. As
such, the environmental assessment only reviewed the impacts
of mining of Phase II on the Marsh as it exists today.
Effects of groundwater and surface runoff were examined.
Environment Canada considers of loss of groundwater and
surface runoff on the Marsh to be minimal and can be
mitigated. Environment Canada suggests a monitoring program be
used to ensure loss of wetland function is not occurring
during extraction of Phase II. Monitoring programs before
528
REPORT NO.: PD- 108 -95 PAGE 6
during and after construction are recommended to evaluate
plants and vegetative communities, birds, amphibians, reptiles
and fish. Water quality as it relates to the plants and animal
life will also be monitored.
3.3.2 Cultural Resources
Archeological resources are suspected in Phase II. Shipwrecks
are suspected off the shore of the dock.
Heritage Canada has requested an assessment of heritage
resources in Phase II. The Company shall consult with Ministry
of Culture Tourism and Recreation and Indian and Northern
Affairs Canada through this process.
The Company has completed a underwater video as part of the
assessing the lakebed prior dock expansion. The video does not
indicate shipwrecks. However, Heritage Canada has requested
the tape be reviewed by a professional archeologist to ensure
the presence or absence of shipwrecks. In the event shipwrecks
are found, mitigation measures are required.
3.3.3 Fisheries Compensation
The proposed dock expansion will result in the loss of 32
hectares of fish habitat. The area of expansion is considered
to have limited capabilities of spawning due to the quality of
sediment. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)
maintains a No Net Loss of fish habitat policy. DFO has agreed
to the creation of a lake trout spawning shoal as acceptable
compensation for loss of fish habitat. The proposed location
for the spawning shoal is near Bond Head. Construction is
expected to commence in July or August, 1996. The Company is
required to maintain the shoal for two years.
3.3.4 Shoreline Processes
Environment Canada had raised concerns regarding shoreline
erosion to the east of the existing dock as a result of
529
REPORT NO.: PD- 108 -95 PAGE 7
widening the dock. Environment Canada consulted with Natural
Resources Canada (NRCan) . The effects of the dock expansion on
shoreline stability and sediment transport along the adjacent
shoreline were reviewed.
Both agencies concluded that the expanded dock area would not
have a significant impact to the shoreline to the east.
Monitoring programs will be implemented both east and west of
the dock. The agencies note the effects of erosion can be
mitigated with known technology.
3.3.5 Wildlife
The Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) has concerns with a
potential increase in gull populations. The dock expansion is
expected to create additional nesting areas. CWS is satisfied
that the populations can be managed with known technology.
3.3.6 Noise and Dust
Noise and dust levels are currently monitored for the dock
operation and blasting. The levels are within the standards
established by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
(MOEE). Monitoring will continue throughout the construction
of the dock expansion. Appropriate construction techniques
should ensure that levels remain within those standards.
3.3.7 Navigation
The installation of navigational buoys and lighting on the
dock are considered satisfactory to the Coast Guard for
navigational purposes.
4. STAFF COMMENT
4.1 Staff have reviewed the Coast Guard's Report and all other
information that was used to render the decision of the
application. We note that the Municipality's previous Report
did not form part of the material received, nor are our
concerns noted or referenced in the material.
530
REPORT NO.: PD- 108 -95 PAGE 8
We are satisfied that the issues surrounding Cultural
Resources, Fisheries Compensation and Navigation have been
appropriately addressed. However, we are of the opinion that
a number of issues have not been sufficiently addressed.
4.2 Westside Creek Marsh and Raby Head 1
The impacts on the Westside Marsh and on Raby Head I from the
dock construction or from subsequent dock activities are
unpredictable. Monitoring both marshes will take place before
during and after construction. Staff encourage the Coast
Guard to require remedial measures if loss in wetland function
is proven.
4.3 Justification of need and identification of type and volumes
of commercial port activities.
4.3.1 Staff had noted this concern in our previous Report. Reports"
submitted by the Company states the dock presently handles
cargo for St. Marys operation and other users in the Region.
The expanded dock will accommodate the simultaneous docking of
two cargo ships as well as provide additional storage for
cargo. Reports indicate that waterborne transportation is an
economical way of shipping bulk cargo. It is essential to
maintain the economic viability of the Company.
The Reports do not provide any alternatives to transporting by
water. Other shipping modes such as rail, trucking have not
been assessed through the Federal review process.
In 19931 the following volumes were handled by the existing
dock:
531
REPORT NO.: PD- 108 -95 PAGE 9
OUTGOING
• St. Marys
Clinker
600,000
tonnes
• St. Marys
Cement
200,000
tonnes
Total:
800,000
tonnes
INCOMING
• Municipal /Province
Salt
200,000
tonnes
• General Motors
Coal
20,000
tonnes
• St.Marys
Coal
125,000
tonnes
• St.Marys
Gypsum
26,000
tonnes
Total:
371,000
tonnes
Other cargo not associated with St. Marys' operation form
sixty percent of all incoming cargo, and twenty percent of the
overall cargo handled on the dock.
Reports indicate that "volumes will significantly increase as
domestic and U.S. markets expand." There is no information as
to the need for the simultaneous docking of two cargo ships
and whether it is to accommodate St. Marys' or other
commercial uses.
Staff cannot find any information as to whether additional
storage space will be used for the Company's operation or is
necessary to meet other Regional needs. The type of cargo and
projected volumes are not documented. The number of ships
using this facility during the shipping season is not
discussed.
We are concerned that increased commercial activity on the
dock may lead to unexpected negative impacts on neighbouring
residential areas such as increased truck traffic and noise,
and dust associated with moving cargo.
St. Marys has mitigated noise and dust by constructing silos
and conveyors to move their goods to and from the plant.
However, other storage material must be moved off the dock by
other means.
532
REPORT NO.: PD- 108 -95 PAGE 10
The construction of a berm on the eastern periphery of the
existing dock will partially form a visual barrier to the dock
operation, and may not serve to mitigate noise and dust from
surrounding residential neighbourhoods.
We are of the opinion the Federal EARP did not examine
thoroughly the need for the dock expansion. Any significant
impact on the environment should be weighed on the basis of
need. We do not believe need has been demonstrated. As such,
the EARP failed to address the impacts of the dock expansion
and future operation on neighbouring residential areas.
4.3.2 St. Marys facility is being considered as a Regional Port
Facility according to the Durham Region Official Plan and
Durham Waterfront Report. The City of Oshawa is seeking to
relocate industrial port activities including the bulk fuel
tanks. The increased use of the dock for commercial purpose is
premature and should be examined in light of the Region's
policy directions.
4.3.3 In order to properly evaluate St. Marys' proposal, the Company
must clarify and document its long term plan for these lands.
Given the critical nature of the proposal, further development
of this area should not be done in a haphazard manner. All
information must be provided in order to fairly evaluate this
proposal and subsequent proposals along the waterfront.
4.4 Review of Shoreline Processes
4.4.1 Documentation submitted by the Company related to effects on
shoreline processes has been reviewed by Natural Resources
Canada (NRCan). NRcan has provided an analysis of influences
from the existing dock and expected influences from the dock
expansion.
Influences from Existing Dock
NRCan notes the construction of the existing dock has three
effects on natural shoreline process.
53-
REPORT NO.: PD- 108 -95 PAGE 11
1. The existing dock introduces a barrier to some or all
sediment transported alongshore.
2. The existing dock site was an area of erosion, once the
dock was constructed less sediment was available for
beach building.
3. The dock acts as a "hard point", which captures more wave
energy and will leave behind sediment once it reaches a
hard point. As such, sediment to nourish shoreline areas
is diminished.
A copy of NRCan's to the Coast Guard was obtained through the
Access to Information and the Privacy Act. Much of the letter
is "blocked out" so it is difficult to understand exactly what
is implied by NRCan's comments on shoreline processes
resulting from the existing and proposed dock expansion.
Review of the shoreline processes are difficult given that
there is no expertise on Staff. As, such we are unable to
determine the conclusions of the federal review with respect
to the existing dock.
Influences from Dock Expansion
NRCan notes that dock expansion will extend into the lake same
length as the existing dock resulting in a minimal increase in
shoreline erosion.
4.4.2 In addition to NRcan's discussion on the influences from the
dock and dock expansion, they do predict an increase in lake
levels as a result of hydrologic cycles as well as a gradual
increase in relative lake levels. As such, shoreline erosion
will continue in the future.
Shoreline erosion is a concern property owners along the
Bowmanville waterfront area. Residents are concerned about the
534
REPORT NO.: PD- 108 -95 PAGE 12
future use of their properties. NRCan suggests property
owners in the area need to understand the shoreline process
and the cause of shoreline erosion.
4.4.3 In addition to monitoring of shoreline activities before and
after dock expansion, NRCan recommends a detailed study of
wave activity is necessary to understand the short and long
term impacts of the dock expansion. This recommendation is not
carried forward in the Coast Guard's report.
Staff are of the opinion that detailed examination of the
shoreline erosion to the east of the dock should be
undertaken. The study process should involve area residents so
the processes are understood.
4.5 Monitoring Requirements:
Extensive monitoring is required as a result of the dock
expansion and extraction of Phase II. Verbal discussions with
Coast Guard Staff indicate that they are proposing a
Monitoring Committee be established. Representatives from
government agencies and citizens could form the Committee.
Details for the Committee's mandate have not been released,
however criteria for monitoring and frequency of monitoring
may be included.
4.6 Waterfront Regeneration Trust:
The Waterfront Regeneration Trust has undertaken to assist the
Municipality in resolving issues surrounding the Company's
operation. The Westside Marsh, the relocation of CBM stone
crusher and Hutton Transport are currently being examined by
the Trust. The Trust will report their findings on these
issues in October. The Trust has been reviewing the dock
expansion issue. Staff will advise Council when the Trust has
more information available.
535
REPORT NO.: PD- 108 -95 PAGE 13
5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 The initial dock was constructed between 1974 and 1979. Our
file records did not indicate that the local municipality was
consulted, therefore any impacts on surrounding land uses were
not examined. The dock has been in use for over twenty years,
and it appears that there are some impacts from its creation
and use. As such, we believe all the impacts should be
understood before its size and usability increases.
5.2 After reviewing the documentation submitted as part of the
Federal Environmental Review, it is Staffs conclusion that:
• the examination of issues surrounding fisheries habitat
was thorough and the compensation package for loss of
habitat is sufficient;
• the assessment of cultural resources is satisfactory and
mitigation measures can be implemented in the event
shipwrecks are found;
• the mitigation for the impact of the dock expansion on
Raby Head 1 and Westside Marsh are sufficient, however a
remedial plan should be required in the event that loss
of function can be proven;
• the shoreline impacts of the existing is not fully
disclosed;
• there is a need for more study on shoreline process,
including a wave activity to determine short and long
effects of the dock;
• the social impacts have not been addressed;
• the need has not been sufficiently documented to justify
the impacts of this project;
• alternatives to shipping by water was not reviewed.
536
REPORT NO.: PD- 108 -95 PAGE 14
Since the Federal review did not address key concerns of the
Municipality it is recommended that the Coast Guard revisit
the application under the Navigable Water Protection Act and
the EARPGO.
5.2 Finally, Staff commend St. Marys for participating in the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust's process and for assisting in
finding a workable solution to saving Westside Marsh. The
Company has been co- operative and accommodating. Equally
important, however is the need to ensure the quality of life
for neighbouring residents and for the entire community is
maintained and improved. Until the issues surrounding need
for the dock expansion and future uses of the dock are
discussed, Staff do not support the application under the
Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Respectfully submitted,
a-0
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
CS *DC *FW *df
25 September 1995
Reviewed by,
!f4 9
W.H. Stockwell
Chief Administrative
Officer
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
Mr. Gene Wrinkle
St. Marys Cement Corporation
2200 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario.
M5S 2C6
Mr. Michael McQuaid
Weir and Foulds
Exchange Tower
Suite 1600, P.O. Box 480
2 First Canadian Place
Toronto, Ontario.
M5X 1J5
Mr. David Crombie
Waterfront Regeneration Trust
207 Queen's Quay West, Suite 580
Toronto, Ontario.
M5J 1A7
Mrs. Mavis Carlton
Port Darlington Community Assoc.
Group 2, Box 63
R.R. #2
Bowmanville, Ontario.
L1C 3K3
537
REPORT NO.: PD- 108 -95 PAGE 15
Ric Symmes
Sternsman International
P.O. Box 660
Terra Cotta, Ontario.
LOP 1N0
The Honourable Douglas Young
Minister of Transport
Transport Canada
Place de'Ville, Tower C
29th Floor
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario.
KlA ON5
Mr. Robert Kingston
Director General
Marine Navigation Services
6th Floor, Canada Building
344 Slater Street
Ottawa, Ontario.
K1A ON7
Mr. Alex Sheppard, M.P.
1240 Simcoe Street North
Oshawa, Ontario.
L1G 1X3
538
LOT 10 LOT 18 LOT 17 LOT 18 LOT 15 LOT 14
LOT 1J IA7 12 LOT 11
vi
rl
r o , i 3 H'� a -' ""'�R
SIDE
EEK
����;.• / / �� . . -r�;i ' Phase 3
0
C!1 _1 �, •1� �viLi.i3.^14 ?S I `f('�),l 1
Q) 0 c'�... ; Phase 2a I
r�
v Active'
I-% e�llt
N -j o^ AP
%� v l O 11i Phase 2b �_ y . V, ..�
Lake Ontario
Phase 4 ' WESTSIDE
CREEK MARSH
•` RABY HEAD I � �•�`
MARSH •,���
�i
PROPOSED DOCK EXPANSION
Source St Marys Cement Company
LOT 10
0
O
O Ii O
r a w
LL • _
Ar�
cT
M
Ln