hamilton, ontario, canada l8r 2k3 hamilton · pdf filehamilton, ontario, canada l8r 2k3...

Hamilton

City of Hamilton

City Centre, 77 James Street North

Hamilton, Ontario,

Canada L8R 2K3

www.hamilton.ca

Environment and Sustainable Infrastructure Division,

Public Works Department

Physical Address: 400-77 James Street North, Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3

Phone: 905.546.2424 ext. 5109 Fax: 905.546.4491

Email: [email protected]

May 8, 2012

Invitation to Stakeholder MeetingRegarding the West Hamilton Harbour Breakwater and Shoreline Class EnvironmentalAssessment

The City of Hamilton would like to invite you to attend a stakeholder meeting to discuss futureshoreline and breakwater improvements for the West Hamilton Harbour. The meeting will beheld on May 24,2012 at 2:00 p.m. at Everqreen Meeting Room at The Royal Hamilton YachtClub (RHYC),555 Bay St N, Hamilton. The purpose of this meeting is to obtain input from thoseoperating in the West Harbour on the assessment of shoreline and breakwater improvementscurrently underway.

Municipal infrastructure, such as shoreline works and breakwaters, must meet the requirementsof the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA). An initial Public InformationCentre (PIC) was held in June 2009, where information was presented and feedback requestedon the need to address deteriorating shoreline structures and improve the existing floatingbreakwater. Following the PIC the City concluded that:

• To address erosion, improve public safety and enhance fish habitat the shoreline shouldbe either repaired or replaced depending on the extent of deterioration

• To provide protection from waves a new and reconfigured floating breakwater should beconstructed

Work is now underway on the next step in the Class EA process where consideration is given toalternative ways to design the proposed infrastructure and reduce any negative impacts.

We have invited 1-2 representatives from each of the marina operators and others interested inthe West Harbour to this meeting to obtain initial input on the shoreline and breakwater designprior to it being presented for review and comment at a Public Information Centre later thisspring. We note that this Class EA focuses solely on the shoreline and floatingbreakwater infrastructure and that will be the focus of this stakeholder meeting and thesubsequent PIC.

If you have any questions about the stakeholder meeting or the project in general, please feelfree to contact me. We look forward to discussing this project with you on May 24, 2012.

Yours truly,

Bhajan Sarker, P.Eng.Project Manager

Phases 3 and 4 of the Hamilton West Harbour Recreation Master Plan Class EA

Staff Technical Committee Meeting NOTES OF MEETING

FILE: 11-5710 DATE: January 24, 2012 LOCATION: City of Hamilton, 77 James Street N, Suite 400 PRESENT: City of Hamilton: Bhajan Saker, Chris Gainham, Udo Ehrenberg, Al Dore, Justin

Readman, Alyssa Mahood, Lawrence Stasiuk, Chris Phillips, Mark Bainbridge Consulting Team: Karla Kolli, Mark Brobbel (Dillon), Milo Sturm (Shoreplan

Engineering) DISTRIBUTION: all above Overview and Project Background Karla provided an overview of the background of the West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan and the work on Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA. Milo Sturm presented the shoreline and breakwater improvement alternatives being considered. Action: Karla to provide copy of presentation. Udo asked about what documentation went to the public. It was discussed that the Phase 1 Issues and Options report and the Recreation Master Plan were both publicly released but the Class EA Phases 1 and 2 report is in draft only and remained internal. The information in the Phase 1 and 2 draft report will be incorporated into the Environmental Study Report for the Breakwater and Shoreline Improvements. Chris asked about land use servicing and whether it was part of this Class EA. Karla indicated that servicing was looked at early on in the project as part of the Recreation Master Plan and that servicing requirements were all Schedule A or A+ projects not requiring additional class EA work. Justin indicated that parking under Bayview Park would be a separate Schedule B Class EA if it went forward. Udo asked if a Notice of Commencement had been issued for the Class EA. It was noted that the Notice of Commencement was combined with the Public Information Centre held in June 2010. This will be confirmed. The Breakwater Al indicated that the City is working with the Hamilton Port Authority (HPA) on winter boat storage and that HPA would prefer to build the marina out as needed. Milo indicated that we are working with the ultimate of approximately 900 slips and that breakwater options would allow this long term marina expansion.

Phases 3 and 4 of the Hamilton West Harbour Recreation Master Plan Class EA January 24, 2012 Staff Technical Committee - Notes of Meeting 2

Al noted that the Police Marine Unit has identified a desire to relocate and require approximately $10 million for a move from their current location. It was noted that Remedial Action Plan (RAP) targets for shoreline access should be considered. During the work to date, pedestrian connection to the breakwater was raised. Justin noted that connections to the breakwaters for public access could result in navigation issues that would need to be addressed. Al asked for the total length of the breakwaters Action: Milo to provide the total length of the breakwaters. Milo noted that we would use appropriate guidelines for boat openings that take into consideration the traffic and size of boats; and that the breakwaters would be designed for the lifespan requirements. The Shoreline Milo noted that most of the shoreline walls are currently at 76.0 masl; we are looking to increase the height of the wall to 76.3 masl (up to 76.5 on the St. James pier just west of the police dock). There is a letter from Conservation Halton in support of a mix of actions to address potential for flooding including breakwater, changes in shoreline and floodproofing of new buildings. A meeting with Hamilton Conservation is planned to confirm that the information in the letter is still applicable. Al indicated that the St. James Pier is actually very protected so there may be a need to revisit the need for a higher wall there. Milo noted that an underwater survey was required to confirm the condition of the shore under the water line. Al has an underwater study on the piles in the marina. Action: Al to provide this report to the study team. Mark indicated that several areas in the main basin provide an opportunity for fish habitat enhancement in association with shoreline works. There are three areas where existing buildings include wet slips and an understanding on the future use or need for these wet slips is required in order to determine the appropriate shoreline treatment:

existing slips at the Marina varnishing building, information is needed on the future plans for the sailing school building, wet slips at the police marine unit (it was agreed that these do not need to be accommodated in the

longer term) Action: Al will discuss with the Hamilton Yacht Club and Port Authority. Al noted that there has been sliding of the structure at the pool of the yacht club; the yacht club is more accepting of public access on the water side of their facility and public access is provided for in their current lease. General Discussion It was noted that there is provision to meet with a Stakeholder group for this project. The stakeholder group that existing for the Recreation Master Plan (the Waterfront Advisory Group) was a large group

Phases 3 and 4 of the Hamilton West Harbour Recreation Master Plan Class EA January 24, 2012 Staff Technical Committee - Notes of Meeting 3

with large meetings. At this point the project is very focused on the shoreline and breakwater and it will be important to keep the stakeholder group focused as well. It was agreed that the Royal Hamilton Yacht Club, Waterfront Trust and HPA would be interested in the breakwater and those interested in the shoreline would include tenants along the waterfront. Action: Karla to further discuss the stakeholder list with Bhajan and Chris Phillip so that the list can be updated and we ensure that we communicate appropriately with key stakeholders. It was noted that although the intention is to keep discussions on this project focused to the breakwater and shoreline improvements, there are many people interested in a broader picture of what is happening in the West Harbour. Action: Alyssa to share the key messages she gathered when completing the Open House for the Setting Sail OMB. These will be confirmed through Bhajan and used to answer questions for this project. It was suggested that discussion be initiated with Kelly Anderson and that a Communications Plan be prepared. Action: Karla and Bhajan to discuss with Kelly. Action: Al/Udo will meet with the local Councilor to discuss the focused scope of this assignment. Justin noted that during the Recreation Master Plan the Hamilton Conservation Authority had requested to be part of the City's technical team meetings in the future. It was suggested that we first meet separately with HCA and then consider inviting them to the next Staff Technical Committee meeting. Mark Bainbridge indicated that we should consider RAP as a stakeholder and include them in upcoming meeting(s), particularly as the issue of shoreline access and habitat improvements align with their objectives; we should calculate the actual percentage of shoreline accessibility (existing versus proposed). Action: Dillon to set up a meeting with DFO and Hamilton Conservation and a representative from the RAP. A similar presentation as was made at this meeting will be made to this group. Action: Al to set up a meeting with the Waterfront Trust. ERRORS AND/OR OMISSIONS Please advise Karla Kolli of any errors or omissions.

West Harbour Breakwater and ShorelineImprovement Class EA - Phases 3 and 4

Staff Technical MeetingJanuary 24, 2012

Agenda

• Brief overview of project background including:- Existing conditions related to the shoreline and

breakwater- Results of the Class EA Phase 1 and 2 work

• Update our current Phase 3 and 4 work including:– Alternatives being considered– Evaluation Criteria– Next steps

Project Background

• City retained a consulting team in 2006 as a follow-up to the work on the Setting Sail Secondary Plan

• Focus:– better understand the waterfront recreation challenges and identify ways to

meet them;– provide long term guidance on the development of the waterfront – address recreational aspects– address resulting infrastructure needs

• Issues and Options Report (October 2006)

• Draft Class EA Phase 1 and 2 Report (Jan 2010)

• West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan (April 2010)

A Coordinated Planning Process

Significant Consultation to Date• Meetings with all the boating clubs

• Waterfront Advisory Group (five)

• Survey of waterfront trail users

• Mall displays

• Public Information Centres (four)

• opportunity for improvement to fish habitat in Macassa Bay and main harbour

• Areas around Bayfront Park should be protected

Issues and Options - Aquatic Environment

• Some areas of the shoreline have limited access

Issues and Options – Shoreline Access

Issues and Options –Shoreline Conditions

Class EA Phases 1 & 2 – An Overview

• Works such as shoreline improvements and breakwaters must follow the Municipal Class EA process

Phase 1 – Problem - Opportunity • Deteriorated sections of the

shoreline

• Opportunities to enhance fish habitat

• Opportunity to improve flood elevation

• Aging breakwater that is not of sufficient size to accommodate the existing and planned marina facilities

Phase 2 – Alternative Solutions

Conclusion: new floating breakwater is preferred option

BREAKWATER ALTERNATIVES

• Repair existing floating breakwater

• Replace existing floating breakwater

• Replace existing floating breakwater with a fixed breakwater

Conclusion: Do-nothing is not an option; minimal difference from a social or natural environment perspective. Determination must be based on technical issues.

SHORELINE ALTERATIVES

• Do nothing

• Repair

• Replace

Impact on Erosion and Water Quality

Relative cost differences (including capital, property, operational and maintenance)Cost

Constructability

Potential impacts on utilities

Flexibility

Potential for contamination issues

Design life/ Maintenance requirements

Level of protection provided

Structural integrityTechnical

Impact on Navigability

Potential to impact cultural heritage and/or treaty rights

Opportunity to improve safety

Opportunity for enhancement of waterfront recreational or commercial facilities/ amenities

Potential for impacts of waterfront recreational or commercial facilitiesSocio-Economicand Cultural Environment

Potential for impact to aquatic or terrestrial habitat

Opportunity to improve fish habitatNaturalEnvironment

•TTwo breakwater entrance configurations

•DDesigned to accommodate the ultimate marina dock numbers

The Breakwater

Breakwater types must meet minimum performance specifications for:

• Wave conditions

• Water levels

• Ice

Coastal ConditionsCoastal Conditions

• Wave reduction

• Surface treatments

• Accessory features

• Anchoring systems

Functions, MaterialFunctions, Material

A frame designA frame design

• Two types of floating breakwater

• Both anchored to the bottom with concrete blocks and chain

Concrete pontoon designConcrete pontoon design

Installation of a concrete breakwater

The Shoreline

• Maintain existing alignment

• Increase height of wall to 76.3m (76.5 on James St. Pier)

• Alternative shoreline improvements will be considered for areas where replacement is required

• We are developing the ultimate shoreline; construction will be phased over time

Refinement of Shoreline Areas to be ReplacedRefinement of Shoreline Areas to be Replaced

MacassaMacassa BayBay-- Plan of SubPlan of Sub--ReachesReaches

MacassaMacassa Bay SubBay Sub--Reaches 8.1 to 8.5Reaches 8.1 to 8.5

MacassaMacassa Bay SubBay Sub--Reaches 8.4 and 8.5Reaches 8.4 and 8.5

SubSub--Reaches in Main BasinReaches in Main Basin

Notice of Completion of ESR

Environmental Study Report

Public Information Centre

Meetings with Key Stakeholders

Stakeholders Committee

Technical Committee Meeting

Documentation of Effects and Mitigation

Conceptual Design




Evaluation of Alternative

Collect Data

Confirm Evaluation Criteria

Identify Alternatives

JuneMayAprilMarchFebruaryJanuary

Next Steps

Questions and Discussion


DFO and Hamilton Conservation Authority NOTES OF MEETING

FILE: 11-5710 DATE: February 23, 2012 LOCATION: City Offices, 77 James Street PRESENT: Darren Kenney (Hamilton Conservation Authority) Rick Kiriluk (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) City of Hamilton: Bhajan Sarker, Chris Gainham Consulting Team: Karla Kolli, Mark Brobbel (Dillon), Milo Sturm (Shoreplan

Engineering) DISTRIBUTION: all above Karla provided an overview of the background of the West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan and the work on Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA. Mark Brobbel provided information on the existing fisheries and opportunities for improvement. Milo Sturm presented the shoreline and breakwater improvement alternatives being considered. The following comments and questions were raised: Rick asked if a larger anchor system would be required for different types of breakwater or if the

breakwater is positioned further out. Milo indicated that the anchor system would not be significantly different - it might require a few extra or heavier blocks. It was confirmed that the area was too deep for piles.

Darren asked if there were revised calculations for wave uprush with a new breakwater. Milo indicated that revised calculations are not available but that we are proposing an increase to the shoreline of about 1 foot throughout with the exception of the Pier at the foot of James Street which would be slightly higher as buildings are proposed close to the edge. We will define overtopping in each reach and use a combination of secondary walls/landscaping, surface treatment and floodproofing to deal with any overtopping.

Darren indicated that new buildings should be out of the flood zone altogether. Milo noted that this would be accomplished by making the buildings slightly higher.

Darren confirmed that the mix of methods to manage flooding will meet the objectives of the Conservation Authority letter.

All were in agreement with the intention of keeping the existing shoreline alignment. Darren asked if dredging in Macassa Bay was still being discussed. This information is not currently

know. Action: Bhajan to confirm whether there has been recent requests to dredge the Bay. Darren indicated that he did not believe that Hamilton Conservation Authority was circulated the

Recreation Master Plan; his last correspondence on the project is August 2009. Action: Bhajan to forward the Recreation Master Plan document.

Rick indicated that DFO has an Operational Statement for moorings which would apply to the breakwaters. The proposed breakwater system will not result in harmful alteration and thus no

Phases 3 and 4 of the Hamilton West Harbour Recreation Master Plan Class EA February 23, 2012 DFO and Hamilton Conservation - Notes of Meeting 2

Fisheries Act approval would be required. If no Fisheries Act approval is required a CEAA screening is not needed. It will need to be confirmed if Navigable Waters Protection Act authorization is required and the implications for CEAA.

Rick encouraged the City to make this a positive project by adding fish habitat where possible and making people aware of the project benefits as there are lots of opportunities to improve the sterile bottom. This would be in keeping with both the RAP and Hamilton Conservation policies. Darren suggested that trees from areas in the city could be used as structure for fish habitat.

Rick identified that the Macassa Bay area is where he would be most interested as there is some fish habitat there along the shoreline.

It was noted that there is a small scale infill that may occur at the Police Marine unit to fill in the slips under the existing building. Rick indicated that based on the scale of this work an authorization would not be required for this and other shoreline works discussed.

Darren confirmed that the works will require approval from the Conservation Authority. Keep both Darren and Rick informed of the stakeholder meetings and Public Information Centre and

they will decide whether they are able to attend. ERRORS AND/OR OMISSIONS Please advise Karla Kolli of any errors or omissions.


Waterfront Trust Meeting NOTES OF MEETING

FILE: 11-5710 DATE: February 23, 2012 LOCATION: Discovery Centre PRESENT: City of Hamilton: Bhajan Sarker, Al Dore Consulting Team: Karla Kolli (Dillon), Milo Sturm (Shoreplan Engineering) Waterfront Trust: Werner Plessl, Chris Firth-Eagland DISTRIBUTION: all above Karla provided an overview of the background of the West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan and the work on Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA. Milo Sturm presented the shoreline and breakwater improvement alternatives being considered. The following comments and questions were raised: Is computer modeling technology sufficient to model breakwaters or is a physical model required? It

was noted that computer model is sufficient for this project. The Waterfront Trust concept did not look at specific dock layout; only considered connection to the

shore and overall capacity. It is noted that the dock layout is sensitive and graphics should show the connection points and docks as they have been shown in the past or be clearly marked as conceptual.

One suggestion that might be raised is using the Haida as a breakwater. Milo noted that there are significant challenges with this option.

It was noted that the Hamilton Yacht Club had suggested that the breakwater connect to the shore. This was presented as a way to increase the water access. Milo noted that connecting to shore would limit boat access into the harbour and limit ability to move the breakwater.

The location of the breakwater was discussed. It was indicated that we will look at both the long term placement as well as the option to position the breakwater closer and then move the breakwater when the marina expands.

There was discussion on whether there should be tie offs on the breakwater and whether access would be allowed. It was agreed that this is a decision that the City can make at a later date.

The use of the old breakwater could be used in Macassa Bay. It was agreed that the team will consider how the EA would apply.

It was noted that the sailing school area will not be publically accessible. It was confirmed that even if part of the shore is not currently publically accessible the entire shoreline should still be considered as part of this project since it is all owned by the City.

It was noted that the sailing school has a design for a new building. Slips need to be maintained in the Shed building. Police Marine building will be replaced and slips do not need to be retained. There was some

discussion about a minor infill in this area to straighten out the shoreline once the slips are removed.

Phases 3 and 4 of the Hamilton West Harbour Recreation Master Plan Class EA February 23, 2012 Waterfront Trust - Notes of Meeting 2

The basin at the Police Marine unit – the pier to the west needs to be solid; the pier to the east can be

open under the decking to allow for fish habitat Master Plan gets closer to RAP target related to access to shoreline. Need to confirm with John Hall

what had been assumed about the harbour when they calculated the km of shoreline that is accessible to the public.

In Macassa Bay, the intention is for a subtle softening of the shoreline. Could put a wetland on the land side of the trail to open up an old marshy area. However, need to recognize that this is a very narrow corridor. It was clarified that the EA will address the shoreline only.

Waterfront Trust has two key principles: no infill and increased public access to shoreline. ERRORS AND/OR OMISSIONS Please advise Karla Kolli of any errors or omissions.

West Harbour Breakwater and ShorelineImprovement Class EA - Phases 3 and 4

Agency MeetingFebruary 23, 2012

Agenda

• Brief overview of project background including:- Existing conditions related to the shoreline and

breakwater- Results of the Class EA Phase 1 and 2 work

• Update our current Phase 3 and 4 work including:– Alternatives being considered– Evaluation Criteria– Next steps

Project Background

• City retained a consulting team in 2006 as a follow-up to the work on the Setting Sail Secondary Plan

• Focus:– better understand the waterfront recreation challenges and identify ways to

meet them;– provide long term guidance on the development of the waterfront – address recreational aspects– address resulting infrastructure needs

• Issues and Options Report (October 2006)

• Draft Class EA Phase 1 and 2 Report (Jan 2010)

• West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan (April 2010)

A Coordinated Planning Process

Significant Consultation to Date• Meetings with all the boating clubs

• Waterfront Advisory Group (five)

• Survey of waterfront trail users

• Mall displays

• Public Information Centres (four)

• opportunity for improvement to fish habitat in Macassa Bay and main harbour

• Areas around Bayfront Park should be protected

Issues and Options - Aquatic Environment

• Based on YOY bass observed, Central Basin important for both largemouth and smallmouth bass production

2006 Bass Nesting Survey

• Some areas of the shoreline have limited access

Issues and Options – Shoreline Access

Issues and Options –Shoreline Conditions

Class EA Phases 1 & 2 – An Overview

• Works such as shoreline improvements and breakwaters must follow the Municipal Class EA process

Phase 1 – Problem - Opportunity • Deteriorated sections of the

shoreline

• Opportunities to enhance fish habitat

• Opportunity to improve flood elevation

• Aging breakwater that is not of sufficient size to accommodate the existing and planned marina facilities

Phase 2 – Alternative Solutions

Conclusion: new floating breakwater is preferred option

BREAKWATER ALTERNATIVES

• Repair existing floating breakwater

• Replace existing floating breakwater

• Replace existing floating breakwater with a fixed breakwater

Conclusion: Do-nothing is not an option; minimal difference from a social or natural environment perspective. Determination must be based on technical issues.

SHORELINE ALTERATIVES

• Do nothing

• Repair

• Replace

Impact on Erosion and Water Quality

Relative cost differences (including capital, property, operational and maintenance)Cost

Constructability


Flexibility






Potential to impact cultural heritage and/or treaty rights



Potential for impacts of waterfront recreational or commercial facilitiesSocio-Economicand Cultural Environment

Potential for impact to aquatic or terrestrial habitat

Opportunity to improve fish habitatNaturalEnvironment

•TTwo breakwater entrance configurations

•DDesigned to accommodate the ultimate marina dock numbers

The Breakwater

Breakwater types must meet minimum performance specifications for:

• Wave conditions

• Water levels

• Ice

Coastal ConditionsCoastal Conditions

• Wave reduction

• Surface treatments

• Accessory features

• Anchoring systems

Functions, MaterialFunctions, Material

A frame designA frame design

• Two types of floating breakwater

• Both anchored to the bottom with concrete blocks and chain

Concrete pontoon designConcrete pontoon design

Installation of a concrete breakwater

The Shoreline

• Maintain existing alignment

• Increase height of wall to 76.3m (76.5 on James St. Pier)

• Alternative shoreline improvements will be considered for areas where replacement is required

• We are developing the ultimate shoreline; construction will be phased over time

Refinement of Shoreline Areas to be ReplacedRefinement of Shoreline Areas to be Replaced

MacassaMacassa BayBay-- Plan of SubPlan of Sub--ReachesReaches

MacassaMacassa Bay SubBay Sub--Reaches 8.1 to 8.5Reaches 8.1 to 8.5

MacassaMacassa Bay SubBay Sub--Reaches 8.4 and 8.5Reaches 8.4 and 8.5

SubSub--Reaches in Main BasinReaches in Main Basin

Notice of Completion of ESR

Environmental Study Report

Public Information Centre




Documentation of Effects and Mitigation

Conceptual Design




Evaluation of Alternative

Collect Data

Confirm Evaluation Criteria

Identify Alternatives

JuneMayAprilMarchFebruaryJanuary

Next Steps

Questions and Discussion


Waterfront Stakeholders NOTES OF MEETING

FILE: 11-5710 DATE: May 24, 2012 LOCATION: Royal Hamilton Yacht Club PRESENT: Hamilton Bay Sailing Club – Ray Langer; RHYC - Russ Perry, Mark Easdew;

MacDonald Marine – Sandy MacDonald; MBYC – Charlie Mitchell, William Mitchell; Hamilton Port Authority – Jeff Papiez; City of Hamilton - Darlene Cole, Al Dore, Bhajan Sarker, Chris Gainham, Justin Readman, Lawrence Stasiuk; Dillon Consulting – Karla Kolli, Sophie Xiong; Shoreplan Engineering – Milo Sturm

The purpose of this meeting was to provide information on the project work underway and to obtain input from those operating in the West Harbour on the assessment of shoreline and breakwater improvements. Karla Kolli provided an overview of the background of the West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan and work on the consideration of alternative solutions for the breakwater and shoreline. Milo Sturm presented the alternative design concepts for the shoreline and breakwater. The following comments/questions were raised: Prefer the opening towards the northeast or northwest; north-west option seems better and would

collect less garbage Is the breakwater connected to the shore? Will boats be able to get through at the ends? Milo

responded that there is a gap between the breakwater and shore. In the current layout the main boat access is provided in the centre section of the breakwater. Access is still possible around the ends.

The ability for the sailing school to use the outside gaps between the breakwater and shore would be beneficial

If the breakwater is not connected to the shore, how would it be possible to dock boats to it? Milo responded that the breakwater could be designed to accommodate docking of visiting boats during events providing the weather is appropriate. Passengers would need to be transported to the shore. Whether the City wishes to allow docking is still to be determined.

With the existing A-frame, is there visible deterioration? Milo responded that the existing breakwater is structurally sound, however the problem the design capacity is not sufficient for the wave climate.

Concerns about the ability of the current breakwater to handle waves was noted The importance of providing adequate lighting on the new breakwater were raised. The profile of the

structure is low and sufficient lighting is required to make it visible for navigation. The NW option seems to make more sense for the orientation. Most problems come from the NE

direction. For the concrete option, will there be more depth to the breakwater? For the A-frame option, what is

Phases 3 and 4 of the Hamilton West Harbour Recreation Master Plan Class EA May 24, 2012 Waterfront Stakeholders - Notes of Meeting 2

the depth? Milo responded that both structure options would be deeper than the existing structure. The specific depth will be determined by the manufacturer based in specifications provided by the City.

There was some discussion on whether it would be beneficial to have the breakwater attached to the shore. Liability and public safety were identified as two key issues for consideration. If the breakwater is designed for public access/use it would likely need to be wider which would increase capital cost and require additional maintenance.

Can the existing breakwater be reused to serve as any of the 3 sections of the proposed breakwater configuration, particularly the sections that are inside or sheltered? Milo responded that this has not specifically been looked into but that it is likely that the segments will be too small.

What width is proposed for the walkway in front of the yacht clubs? It was noted that a specific width was not identified in the Hamilton West Harbour Recreation Master Plan, however it is assumed that the width would be approximately 12 feet. One attendee noted that 12 feet seemed reasonable but 18 feet was too large to accommodate equipment to haul out boats.

Is police building going to be moved? Based on the Hamilton West Harbour Recreation Master Plan, the Police Marine Unit will be rebuilt in Macassa Bay. Discussions regarding any relocation are still underway.

If a wetland type treatment is done (Reach 5), there is concern about the ability to clean garbage if there is vegetation that the wind would bring in on the west exposure.

Suggestion was made about the possibility of a boom being used to collect garbage. What is the initial estimate for budgets and timing? The team responded that the initial estimate for

the breakwater is approximately $4.7 million dollars. The budget for the shoreline improvements is still being determined. It was noted that the shoreline improvements will be implemented in phases.

Will it be started in the next year? The City responded that their is money in the budget for next year pending the council’s approval.

There was some discussion on how the timing of the breakwater related to any expansion of the marina. It was noted that with a floating breakwater there is the opportunity to place it temporarily then move it to the permanent location at a later date. Attendees noted that it would make more sense to go for the final configuration from the beginning.

What is the existing space between the shore and the existing breakwall? Attendees noted that a gap of 50-100 feet would be adequate for the mobility of boats. It was noted that if the space is smaller, it is less likely to be mistaken for a public entrance.

Concern was expressed about maintenance and cleaning of breakwater. ERRORS AND/OR OMISSIONS Please advise Karla Kolli of any errors or omissions.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE WEST HAMILTON HARBOUR WATERFRONT

SHORELINE AND BREAKWATER INFRASTRUCTURE MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The City of Hamilton by way of this notice is inviting public input and comment. A Public Information Centre will be held: DATE: June 12, 2012 TIME: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

LOCATION: Bennetto Elementary School, 47 Simcoe Street East, Hamilton, ON L8L 3N2

THE PROCESS The study is being conducted as a Schedule C project and is intended to satisfy Phases 3 and 4 of the Municipal Engineers Association’s (MEA’s) Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) process. Stakeholder consultation is an important part of the EA process, and a key component of the study. THE STUDY

An initial Public Information Centre (PIC) was held in June 2009 where a process of problem/opportunity identification, evaluation of alternative solutions, selection of a preferred solution, and confirmation of the Class EA Schedule was presented and

feedback requested on the need to address deteriorating shoreline structures and improve the existing floating breakwater. Following the PIC the City concluded that:

• To address erosion, improve public safety and enhance fish habitat the shoreline should be either repaired or replaced depending on the extent of deterioration.

• To provide protection from waves a new and reconfigured floating breakwater should be constructed.

Work is now underway on the next step in the Class EA process where consideration is given to alternative ways to design the proposed infrastructure and reduce any negative impacts. Phases 3 and 4 of this Class EA address the shoreline and floating breakwater infrastructure and this will be the focus of the June 12th PIC.

PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE A Public Information Centre will be held to present the Phase 3 and Phase 4 findings for West Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Shoreline and Breakwater Infrastructure Municipal Class EA Study. The intent of the public consultation is to present the findings to date and to obtain feedback. The information presented will include a preferred plan for the shoreline protection and floating breakwater. Information on potential effects and mitigation will also be presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS INVITED Questions or comments about the study can be directed to the attention of the Project Managers: Bhajan Sarker, P.Eng Project Manager Environment & Sustainable Infrastructure Division, Public Works Department City of Hamilton 400-77 James St. North Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3 Phone: (905)546-2424 Ext. 5109 Fax: (905)546-4491 Email: [email protected]

Karla Kolli Project Manager Associate, Dillon Consulting Ltd 235 Yorkland Blvd,Suite 800 Toronto, ON M2J 4V8 Phone: (416) 229-4647 Ext.2354 Fax: (416) 229-4692 Email: [email protected]

Please contact the City Project Manager regarding disability accommodation requirements. Information will be collected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record. This Notice Issued June 01 & June 08, 2012

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTCapital Planning & Implementation DivisionStrategic and Environmental Planning Section

du Toit Allsopp Hillier | du Toit Architects Limited

WEST HARBOUR WATERFRONT RECREATION MASTER PLAN

Public Information Centre No. 1JUNE 23rd, 2009


HAMILTON HARBOUR WEST CONCEPTPublic Information Centre No. 1

June 23rd, 2009


BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND & PROCESS

The study area for the West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan spans along Guise Street N and Bay Street N, excluding existing residential areas and encompasses the area on the adjacent map. There has been an ongoing study for this site, started in 2005.

The West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan is a follow-up to recommendations included in the West Harbour Secondary Plan (WHSP) also known as Setting Sail. The WHSP provides the planning context for the Recreation Master Plan.



June 23rd, 2009


BACKGROUND


On January 12th, 2009 Council endorsed the following:

West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan (PW09004) (City Wide) (Item 6.2)

That the General Manager of Public Works be authorized a. and directed to revise the Waterfront Recreation Master Plan, based on the Hamilton Waterfront Trust Plan attached as Appendix “B” to report PW09004, incorporating stakeholder comments and that the revised preferred plan include the following principals:

That the long term vision for the West Harbour include various Waterfront i. Recreation Institutions within their separate, existing facilities;

Utilize floating breakwaters within the main basin as flood mitigation; ii.

Maintain as much of the existing shoreline configuration as possible; iii.

Incorporate the use of wall structures or other measures as flood iv. protection of buildings, rather than filling to raise building elevations’ providing it is cost effective;

Greater reuse of existing buildings, where feasible and cost effective; v.

Increased use of structured parking to reduce the amount of surface vi. parking required within the West Harbour Area;

Apply up to the maximum amounts and types of commercial space vii. outlined in Malone Given Parsons West Harbour Waterfront Commercial Opportunity Study Report, dated July 2008;

Staging to reduce the impacts on leaseholders and in recognition of viii. lease terms;

Investigate options for relocation of the majority of summer and winter ix. storage offsite to maximize waterfront potential.

That the General Manager of Public Works complete b. the consultation process and report back to committee.

That Pier 7 be included as denoted in schedule A c. within the boundaries of the West Harbour Recreation Master Plan and that staff work with all stakeholders to determine the appropriate amount of square footage for that space.

That Hamilton Waterfront Trust and staff work with all d. stakeholders to continue to work on the final design plans which will be presented to committee at a later date.

That staff be directed to initiate a lease renewal process e. for all Waterfront Stakeholders and report back to Committee and Council before years end 2009.

That the item related to Recommendations from the f. Waterfront Revitalization Task Force re: West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan be removed from the Public Works Committee Outstanding Business List.



June 23rd, 2009


WEST HARBOUR WATERFRONT OBJECTIVES


The following Objectives are the basis for the Hamilton Waterfront Trust Plan:

Increase in public access to the waterfront•

Positive environmental approach, especially with • respect to shoreline and habitat

A harbourfront precinct designed as a destination • for all Hamiltonians

Financial viability•

Innovative and sustainable adaptive reuse of • existing elements

Recognition of historical and cultural waterfront • institutions

Positive integration with the community in a local • context

In addition, Setting Sail identifies a number of Policies that guide the development of the West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan



June 23rd, 2009


WATERFRONT PLANNING


The City has put significant effort into planning the West Harbour Waterfront. Studies to date have included:

West Harbour Secondary Plan: Setting Sail • (2005)

West Harbour Transportation Master Plan • (2005)

Gartner Lee Phase I (2003) and II (2004) • Fisheries Study

Stantec Environmental Review Hamilton • West Harbour Planning Area (2003)

Malone Given Parsons West Harbour • Waterfront Commercial Opportunity Study (2008)

West Hamilton Harbour Recreation Master • Plan (ongoing)

North End Traffic Management Plan • (ongoing)

° Traffic Circulation and Parking Feasibility

IBI Group

° Coastal EngineeringShoreplan

° Environmental Assessment

° Aquatic Resources° Civil Engineering° Traffic & transportation

Engineering

Dillon Consulting

° Landscape Architecture° Architectural Guidelines° Waterfront Design

du ToitAllsopp Hillier

Area of ExpertiseTeam Member

The team assisting the City and the Hamilton Waterfront Trail in completing the West HarbourRecreation Master Plan includes

° Traffic Circulation and Parking Feasibility

IBI Group

° Coastal EngineeringShoreplan

° Environmental Assessment

° Aquatic Resources° Civil Engineering° Traffic & transportation

Engineering

Dillon Consulting

° Landscape Architecture° Architectural Guidelines° Waterfront Design

du ToitAllsopp Hillier

Area of ExpertiseTeam Member

The team assisting the City and the Hamilton Waterfront Trail in completing the West HarbourRecreation Master Plan includes



June 23rd, 2009


COORDINATED PLANNING PROCESS


The city is following a coordinated process for this project to ensure that Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act requirements are met.

The Recreation Master Plan will be adopted as an Official • Plan amendment. Thus the work must meet requirements of the Planning Act

Infrastructure improvements such as shoreline • reconstruction, stormwater quality improvements, breakwater improvements, etc., must be planned in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process

PUBLIC CONSULTATION TO DATE:

PIC 1: May 16th, 2006

PIC 2: December 14th, 2006

PIC 3: May 7th, 2007

PIC 4: Today

April/May



June 23rd, 2009


MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PROCESS


Municipal Infrastructure is planned using the Class Environmental Assessment Process. Key steps for the infrastructure improvements proposed for the waterfront include:

Determining the problem/• opportunity (Phase 1) – the West Harbour Recreation Master Plan provides the need for improvements to key infrastructure

Identifying and evaluating • alternative solutions (Phase 2) – for each type of infrastructure, alternatives have been identified and are compared using evaluation criteria. The preliminary preferred alternatives are presented at this PIC for public input.

WE ARE

HERE



June 23rd, 2009


EVALUATION CRITERIA


Relative cost differences (including capital, property, operational and maintenance)

Cost

Constructability


Flexibility






Potential to impact cultural heritage (archaeological resources or built heritage and cultural landscapes) and/or treaty rights



Potential for impacts of waterfront recreational or commercial facilitiesSocio-Economic and Cultural Environment

Impact on Erosion

Potential for water quality improvement

Potential for impact to aquatic or terrestrial habitat during construction

Opportunity to naturalize the shoreline and improve fish habitatNatural Environment

Relative cost differences (including capital, property, operational and maintenance)

Cost

Constructability


Flexibility






Potential to impact cultural heritage (archaeological resources or built heritage and cultural landscapes) and/or treaty rights



Potential for impacts of waterfront recreational or commercial facilitiesSocio-Economic and Cultural Environment

Impact on Erosion

Potential for water quality improvement

Potential for impact to aquatic or terrestrial habitat during construction

Opportunity to naturalize the shoreline and improve fish habitatNatural Environment This master list of criteria has been used to compare infrastructure alternatives

The evaluation criteria are based on consideration of all aspects of the environment



June 23rd, 2009


SHORELINE

WATER RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

Problem/Opportunity: Sections of the Shoreline are showing deterioration, which could result in safety and erosion issues. Shoreline improvement alternatives considered include:

Do nothing•

Repair existing shoreline: Try to reuse as much of the existing structure • as possible and replace elements that are at the end of their design life

Replace existing shoreline: This is done for areas that are completely • failed, or nothing can be salvaged, therefore all elements need to be replaced

It was determined that the Do-nothing option is only appropriate for the locations where the shoreline is in good condition.

The remaining alternatives were compared using the evaluation criteria as previously listed. The full evaluation matrix will be available in the Master Plan, for the purpose of this PIC please see summary below.

Operational and maintenance costs will be similar for both alternatives. There may be some differences in capital costs but these differences are relatively minor.

Cost

Both alternatives can be constructed and provide flexibility for shoreline use.

Replace is an appropriate solution when there is no longer sufficient structural integrity in the existing shoreline structure and when a repair will not provide a reasonable design life.

Repair is an appropriate solution when there is still structural integrity in the existing shoreline structure and rehabilitation will achieve a reasonable design life.

Technical

Both alternatives will improve waterfront opportunities and safety. Neither is anticipated to have impacts on cultural heritage or navigability.

Socio-Economic and Cultural Environment

Any construction has potential for short term disruption to fish habitat. However for both alternatives there is opportunity to naturalize the shoreline and develop long term improvement to fish habitat. Both alternatives will reduce erosion impacts.

Natural Environment

ReplaceRepairEvaluation Criteria

Operational and maintenance costs will be similar for both alternatives. There may be some differences in capital costs but these differences are relatively minor.

Cost

Both alternatives can be constructed and provide flexibility for shoreline use.

Replace is an appropriate solution when there is no longer sufficient structural integrity in the existing shoreline structure and when a repair will not provide a reasonable design life.

Repair is an appropriate solution when there is still structural integrity in the existing shoreline structure and rehabilitation will achieve a reasonable design life.

Technical

Both alternatives will improve waterfront opportunities and safety. Neither is anticipated to have impacts on cultural heritage or navigability.

Socio-Economic and Cultural Environment

Any construction has potential for short term disruption to fish habitat. However for both alternatives there is opportunity to naturalize the shoreline and develop long term improvement to fish habitat. Both alternatives will reduce erosion impacts.

Natural Environment

ReplaceRepairEvaluation Criteria



June 23rd, 2009


SHORELINE


After conducting the evaluation using the criteria listed, it was evident that the natural environment and socio-economic/cultural factors were fairly similar whether the shoreline was to be replaced or repaired. Technical differences represent the main factor in determining whether sections of shoreline should

be repaired or replaced as cost differences are relatively minor. The map below demonstrates the preferred option to mitigate flood and erosion hazards.



June 23rd, 2009


SHORELINEWest Hamilton Harbour provides important • habitat for a number of fish species

Impacts to fish habitat from shoreline • work or other activities (e.g. breakwater or dredging) would require mitigation and compensation. The ideal location for this compensation is in Macassa Bay.


Repair or replacement of shorewalls provides • opportunity to enhance fish habitat

Fish habitat enhancements can include• Replacing steep walls with gently sloping profiles • to allow vegetation to grow providing spawning habitat

Added decking over water providing cover for fish•



June 23rd, 2009


DOCKS

Initial Phase - 750 docks

Preferred Target - 900 docks

Location of breakwater is to accomodate ultimate phase• Docks will be fully serviced with electrical and water• Security gates at shore• Washrooms will be provided in key locations on the • spines Fuel depot will remain in current location• The distance from shore to outer most dock is maximum • 320 m for the 750 slip concept and 380 m for the 900 slip concept.


For illustrative purposes and input.



June 23rd, 2009


BREAKWATERAlternatives for providing Harbour protection include:

Do nothing – not considered an option due to potential for this • aging infrastructure to fail and thus not provide the safety to people and property required for a public waterfront.

Raise the shoreline•

Construct raised edge along shoreline•

Flood proof buildings•

Breakwater for wave protection•

Based on the evaluation criteria provided, wave protection through breakwaters combined with constructed raised edges along shoreline is preferred. New buildings could be flood proofed or built at a higher elevation.


• Contamination may be encountered during reconstruction• Designed to accommodate existing building and site grading so minimal impact

• No impact on navigability• Will be designed to provide flood and erosion protection• Moderately high cost

Construct Raised Edge AlongShoreline

• Does not fully protect from flood hazard unless combined with other alternatives

• Could impact navigability but can design to not be an issue • High cost

• Reduces potential for erosion and flooding• Minimal impact on facilities• Unlikely to result in contamination during construction• High design life (25-50 years)

Water Protection-Breakwater

• Does not address erosion problems• Less desirable solution to flood hazard as it is site specific

• No impact on navigability and minimal impact on facilities• Unlikely to result in contamination during construction• Moderate cost

Flood Proof Buildings

• Requires significant reconstruction of shoreline which will havenegative impacts on existing boating operations and facilities

• Contamination may be encountered during construction• High cost

• No impact on navigability• Will be designed to provide flood and erosion protection• High design life (25-50 years)

RaisedShoreline

DisadvantagesAdvantagesPotential Technology

• Contamination may be encountered during reconstruction• Designed to accommodate existing building and site grading so minimal impact

• No impact on navigability• Will be designed to provide flood and erosion protection• Moderately high cost

Construct Raised Edge AlongShoreline

• Does not fully protect from flood hazard unless combined with other alternatives

• Could impact navigability but can design to not be an issue • High cost

• Reduces potential for erosion and flooding• Minimal impact on facilities• Unlikely to result in contamination during construction• High design life (25-50 years)

Water Protection-Breakwater

• Does not address erosion problems• Less desirable solution to flood hazard as it is site specific

• No impact on navigability and minimal impact on facilities• Unlikely to result in contamination during construction• Moderate cost

Flood Proof Buildings

• Requires significant reconstruction of shoreline which will havenegative impacts on existing boating operations and facilities

• Contamination may be encountered during construction• High cost

• No impact on navigability• Will be designed to provide flood and erosion protection• High design life (25-50 years)

RaisedShoreline




June 23rd, 2009


BREAKWATER

Consideration was also given to the type of breakwater to be provided:

Repair the existing floating breakwater•

Replace existing breakwater with a new floating • breakwater

Replace existing breakwater with a new fixed breakwater•




June 23rd, 2009


BREAKWATER


After conducting the evaluation, it was determined that the preferred option is a floating breakwater due to its flexibility and low-impact on existing systems (natural and utilities).

• High impact on existing habitat due to material deposited on lake bottom

• Breakwater cannot be relocated readily• High cost $30,000/m• Some potential for contamination• Cannot be located over existing utilities

• Sufficient to protect docked boats• Design life of 50 years with maintenance

Fixed Breakwater

• Low impact on existing habitat• Sufficient to protect docked boats• Design life of 25-50 years• Minimal potential for contamination issues• Very flexible solution as breakwater can be

relocated• No potential conflict with existing utilities

Floating Breakwater

• Existing breakwater cannot realistically be repaired• A repair is not expected to provide reliable adequate

protection from wave action• Minimal design life

• Low impact on existing habitatRepair Existing


• High impact on existing habitat due to material deposited on lake bottom

• Breakwater cannot be relocated readily• High cost $30,000/m• Some potential for contamination• Cannot be located over existing utilities

• Sufficient to protect docked boats• Design life of 50 years with maintenance

Fixed Breakwater

• Low impact on existing habitat• Sufficient to protect docked boats• Design life of 25-50 years• Minimal potential for contamination issues• Very flexible solution as breakwater can be

relocated• No potential conflict with existing utilities

Floating Breakwater

• Existing breakwater cannot realistically be repaired• A repair is not expected to provide reliable adequate

protection from wave action• Minimal design life

• Low impact on existing habitatRepair Existing




June 23rd, 2009


STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Problem/Opportunity: Rainwater runoff from roofs and pathways is relatively clean water. Directing this water to our sewer system can result in unnecessary treatment costs. Runoff from parking lots has the potential to be contaminated with salt and oil. Stormwater management for the West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan should ensure appropriate stormwater quality treatment. Quality control alternatives to treat this stormwater include:

Do-nothing – continue to allow the parking lot stormwater to enter the combined • sewer system and be treated off-site

Source controls – includes measures such as rainwater reuse,• infiltration areas, porus pavements. Source control measure can not solve the problem on their own but will be part of the preferred solution

Conveyance controls – re-grade parking lot and install grassed swales•

End-of-pipe controls – disconnect from the storm sewer system and provide • treatment using an oil and grit separator or stormwater pond/wetland

OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE

NOTE: it is assumed that parking lot runoff from frequent storm events is directed to a minor system and ultimately conveyed to the CSO tank, which provides some form of quality treatment. Given the limited information available concerning existing onsite storm infrastructure, a sewer locates survey should be conducted to confirm this assumption.



June 23rd, 2009




Reducing stormwater at the source is an important component of sustainable site design. The West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan will incorporate measures to manage stormwater at its source, including:

Gre• en areas and gardens;

Rain barrels; •

Rooftop gardens;•

Bioswales & biofilters; •

Porous pavement.•



June 23rd, 2009




The preferred solution to manage stormwater in the West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan study area is to reduce the amount of stormwater generated on site through source controls and enhanced swales, or other appropriate stormwater management technology. Opportunity for the cost-effective installation of an oil and grit separator will also be investigated.

• Potential impact to terrestrial habitat and erosion during construction• Short term impacts on waterfront recreation and facilities during construction• Construction may result in conflicts with existing underground infrastructure • High material cost and annual maintenance

• May improve fish habitat and water quality of discharge• Enhanced quality control for frequent storms (5yr event)• Potential onsite enhanced treatment of >80% Total

Suspended Solids removal and good ability to trap spill pollutants

Oil and Grit Separator

• Potential impact to terrestrial habitat and erosion during construction• Short term impacts on waterfront recreation and facilities during construction

(limited or no access to Pier 4 during construction)• Potential safety issues around open water and source of standing water for

breeding of mosquitoes• Loss of usable recreation land in Pier 4• Extensive maintenance requirements• Construction may result in conflicts with existing underground infrastructure • Potentially highest cost option

• A natural way to improve fish habitat and water quality of discharge

• Creation of natural habitat for migratory fowl and landscaped water feature (could be located in Pier 4)

• Greatest capacity to treat runoff from less frequent storms (100y event)

• Enhanced onsite treatment of >80% Total Suspended Solids removal and good ability to trap spill pollutants

Wetland

• Potential impact to terrestrial habitat and erosion during construction• Short term impact on waterfront recreation and facilities during construction• Some annual maintenance required• Removal of some parking to allow for swales


• Enhanced quality control for frequent storms (5yr event)• Provide greening of parking lot• Potential enhanced treatment of >80% Total Suspended

Solids removal• Lower cost

Enhanced Swales and Other Source Control Measures

• No natural treatment of runoff• No cost• Based on our understanding, it is understood that the

parking lot runoff is currently being effectively managed

Do Nothing


• Potential impact to terrestrial habitat and erosion during construction• Short term impacts on waterfront recreation and facilities during construction• Construction may result in conflicts with existing underground infrastructure • High material cost and annual maintenance

• May improve fish habitat and water quality of discharge• Enhanced quality control for frequent storms (5yr event)• Potential onsite enhanced treatment of >80% Total

Suspended Solids removal and good ability to trap spill pollutants

Oil and Grit Separator

• Potential impact to terrestrial habitat and erosion during construction• Short term impacts on waterfront recreation and facilities during construction

(limited or no access to Pier 4 during construction)• Potential safety issues around open water and source of standing water for

breeding of mosquitoes• Loss of usable recreation land in Pier 4• Extensive maintenance requirements• Construction may result in conflicts with existing underground infrastructure • Potentially highest cost option


• Creation of natural habitat for migratory fowl and landscaped water feature (could be located in Pier 4)

• Greatest capacity to treat runoff from less frequent storms (100y event)

• Enhanced onsite treatment of >80% Total Suspended Solids removal and good ability to trap spill pollutants

Wetland

• Potential impact to terrestrial habitat and erosion during construction• Short term impact on waterfront recreation and facilities during construction• Some annual maintenance required• Removal of some parking to allow for swales


• Enhanced quality control for frequent storms (5yr event)• Provide greening of parking lot• Potential enhanced treatment of >80% Total Suspended

Solids removal• Lower cost

Enhanced Swales and Other Source Control Measures

• No natural treatment of runoff• No cost• Based on our understanding, it is understood that the

parking lot runoff is currently being effectively managed

Do Nothing





June 23rd, 2009


PARKINGExisting:

Approximately 540 spaces in main • basin and 515 in Bayfront/Macassa Bay area.

Proposed:

Parking Requirements• Marina uses - up to 750 spaces for ◦future phaseCommercial uses - approx. 400 ◦spaces

Desire for shared-use structured • parking to replace surface parking

Future parking on Pier 8 may • contribute to Harbour west parking supply

Reliance on off-site parking with • transit/shuttle for large events

Continued permit parking system • for adjacent residents during events

Potential parking structures (feasibility to be determined)



June 23rd, 2009


EVALUATION SUMMARY


• Continues to encourage auto based planning• Large land requirements; may not be sufficient space to accommodate all parking needs

• Less cost than parking structureProvide at-grade facilities

• High cost and maintenance requirements• Limited locations to place structures without impeding view

• Less land requirement• Can provide adequate number of parking spaces including flexibility to accommodate event parking

Provide parking structure

• Could cause parking infiltration in the neighbourhood

• Important part of transportation strategy supporting healthy sustainable communities• Limits congestion in the area• Supports the City transit initiative along James street

Encourage transit, walking and cycling

• Likely not able to meet parking needs for the area• Low direct costDo Nothing

DisadvantagesAdvantages

• Continues to encourage auto based planning• Large land requirements; may not be sufficient space to accommodate all parking needs

• Less cost than parking structureProvide at-grade facilities

• High cost and maintenance requirements• Limited locations to place structures without impeding view

• Less land requirement• Can provide adequate number of parking spaces including flexibility to accommodate event parking

Provide parking structure

• Could cause parking infiltration in the neighbourhood

• Important part of transportation strategy supporting healthy sustainable communities• Limits congestion in the area• Supports the City transit initiative along James street

Encourage transit, walking and cycling

• Likely not able to meet parking needs for the area• Low direct costDo Nothing

DisadvantagesAdvantages

Based on a preliminary review, it was determined that the do nothing option is not an effective means to manage parking needs. The preferred solution will encourage transit, walking, and cycling and include at grade or parking structures where appropriate. Further review into the feasibility of parking structures at each potential location will have to be conducted.




June 23rd, 2009


TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIONS

Special transit services and shuttles for large events

Connections into North End (see recommended traffic management plan)

Active transportation: cycling, walking, skating etc. via improved trail

James St. identified as potential RT corridor




June 23rd, 2009


SUMMARY OF NORTH END TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANObjectives:

To create a child and family-friendly community in • Downtown HamiltonBuild on unique attributes of North End • NeighbourhoodFoster live-work opportunities• Create pedestrian-friendly streets• Increase walking, cycling and transit use• Integrate Pier 8 into community through active • transportation links and economic/cultural links Promote waterfront events while managing traffic • and parking

Recommended Plan:Speed limit• reductionsTraffic calming• and selected road restrictionsArea-wide • directional signagePedestrian-oriented streets• Signage• and public artSpecial event parking• and permit parkingImproved transit• connectionsComprehensive • monitoring program

Full Road closure(bike/ped access maintained)

Legend:

Partial Road closure

One-way street conversion Roundabout

Additional on-street parking

Lane narrowingCrossing enhancementsOn-street bike lanes

Off-street bike trail New/Proposed Road (as per Setting Sail)

Curb extension Choker

Optional Bay St Northbound closure proposed by NEN (for discussion)

Proposed Traffic Management Plan from North End Study



June 23rd, 2009


NEXT STEPS

NEXT STEPS

LOOKING FOR YOUR INPUTProvide your comments using the comment form provided or contact:Justin Readman, B.Sc.(Env.), Project Manager, Environmental Planning, City of Hamilton

Tel: 905-546-2424 ext 2218

Fax: 905-546-4435

E-mail: [email protected]

Summer/Fall 2009Community Consultation (PICs, Stakeholder Meetings)

Fall 2009Public Meeting under the Planning Act for

Fall 2009Final Master Plan Document

Fall 2009Committee Presentation / Council Endorsement

Summer 2009Draft Master Plan Document

June/July 2009Waterfront Concept Financial Report

Approximate TimingKey Project Steps

Summer/Fall 2009Community Consultation (PICs, Stakeholder Meetings)

Fall 2009Public Meeting under the Planning Act for

Fall 2009Final Master Plan Document

Fall 2009Committee Presentation / Council Endorsement

Summer 2009Draft Master Plan Document

June/July 2009Waterfront Concept Financial Report

Approximate TimingKey Project Steps

��

� ��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

�� !"# ��$�� %��&� �'�� #��'�(��)� ��*��+��)� ��,� ��-��./�#�� )��'�)��)�� -�

�� '�� .�� &��#�� '�� -

� ��

��

��

��

��

0��

1�� "�� '� �� .�� '��.�� #��&��

1� ��#�� &� �� .��/ �� /��#��2�� '�� '��#��

1�3#�� 4�� 5�� "��&�� )#��.�� '��

1�� #��

�� #�� .�� 6��#��&� ��-

1��# �&�� 6.�� 1��# �&��

�� .�� 6�� #�� # �7�� 8�� ##� ��9

��#� #��# �� .� 6��#��# �� '��

�� -�

� ��

��

��

��

��

��#�� #�� 8�� #��*"-�

�� # �� '�� # �7��#��'��#��9

��

��

��

�� !��

��

" ��

" �� #��$�� %

" �� %

" �� %

" �� &��

" �� %

" ��

" ��

" �� !�� !�

" �� !�� '��() ��

" *�� ! ��+�� %

" �� ,��%

" -�� %

�� !

��$��

��$��

��

��

��

1�� &��

1�&��&��)��6��

1��'��#��

� ��

��

��

��

� ��

*&�� #� �� 6.�� &��-� � �� #� �� #��&� �� 6�'-

�� '� �� .�� .��6�'�� 6.�� :

+��

��.��

�� '��

+��'�� &��

+��

��&��

��*��

��

/��

�� &-��.��

��

�� 0��1��

��2��

��

�� !�� #��#��

� ��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

� ��

��

��

�

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !"

��#$"�% ��!�&�% ��'(� &&$�!()* !+,�!(��' �

��-&�% ��.��(��%%#(

��((��-��"'/

��% �"0��$ !�!�1$�!(

��#$�"% ��-��$"$ 2�"'/)��.( 3!��$% (*��(�%�!��%#3(% �'$"0$ 2,

�!� 0!��%+$ 2�"'/

�%-�"��#$"�% ��"'/

��/%'��!(�*��#$"�% �%��'��%�$�-,

��#$"�% 4��"�% �%"$�!��$ !� $�

��!+!�5(��$ !

��#$"�% �%��'��%�$�-�%��%��2!��!0(

��.(�%�.(��0�%#3%' 0

�� 0��$ !�$(�%1!�-�! ��!

��

��#$"�% ��/%'��'!! �%'��%��$!6'3

��#$"�% �%��'��%�$�-��$33$ 2��%��2!��!0(

��!5��$0�5

��!��!��$% ��(�!��"� ��'0-��!�77

77�($""'(��!0$ �!��$ 2��$"8�!�% 0��-�"� &%��!(��/%'�9�$�-%&��#$"�% 9��:;;<

�%�! �$�"��$02!�% !��$% 77

�$(�!�$!(�%"$�-��!�(877

��!�%& 33%��' $�-

��!�%&�! ($�$1$�-

��!�%&�$2 $&$�� !

��$"()��+�-(6=$($�$ 2

��.() 3! �3��!77

��!�&�% ��$"

��$"()��+�-(6�'�'�!77

��

�>'��$��#3�%1!#! ��!�(*�%'��!�� ,

��

� ��

1�3##� �� # �&�� +��

1�" �� +�� 6��# ��

1�� +��#� �� '��# ��

0��;��'�

<��4��'�� &� ��.�� '�� &��.��6' �� .�� &��"�� ,�� .� 6��'��'�� &��-

� ��

��

��

��

� ��

1�)�� &��

1�" �� '�� # �� .� �� +�� 6�� =�� 6-

1��#�� #�� 8�� .�� '��-

� ��

��

��

��!

� ��

��*"��

1�<��

1�3##� ��

1�3##� �� # �&�� &��

1�"'�'�� 6.�� 2�� 4��'� �� #��

� ��

��

��

��

� ��

��*"��

�� 3��

3��

3��

��!�� 3��2� ��$'��

3��2� ��$'��

3��2� ��$'��

'��2��$'��

��4�� 5�� %�� %

*�'��$'��

� ��

��

��

��!��

� ��

��*"��>

1��.�� 6.�� '� ��.� ��

1�� 6.�� '��#��?�� #��-�� '��.��&�� 6.�� ' �� #��-�� '�.�� 6��#� ��# �7��-

,� ��/*��;��'�*� �� ,� ��/��;��'�*� ��

� ��

��

��

��

��

"�� &��<��'��#��9�;��'�+ ��6.�� @"A3B�)

��"�#�� $�%� ��" ��#& ��"�#�� '�%(��" ��#&� ��

6�� '�� .��'��

6��'� �� .��'�� #��'�� '��

��

*��'��

��

7�� 2��.�� 2�� $'�� .��

�� $'�� ,� ��

7�� .��

*��'��

7��$'�� .��

��

+�� .�� #� �� .�� .��'��# �&�� &�'��-

� ��

��

��

��

��

��'�� &�� 6.�� .�&��-��

�� 6��.�� #��>�C�� #��.�&��'��#�.� ��#� ��-

��.�� '��.��.�&��

�� .�� '�� .��-�3 ��'�� .�� '��.�&��'�� -

;� �� .�� #�� -��'�� &�� 6.�� .�&��-��

;��A�� &��<��

*�� * � � � �� 0 0� � *0 *��)

8

9)

98

:)

:8

()

(8

;)

)%)

)%:

)%;

)%<

)%=

9%)

9%:

9%;

9%<

� ��)(��%*

�"�� &

� ��#��%�

&

0��>��

?0��'��

) )%8 9 9%8 : :%8 ( (%8 ; ;%8

)%)))9

)%))9

)%)9

)%9

9

9)

9))

) )%( )%< )%@ 9%: 9%8

�+�� %*

&

� ��#��%�&

'��'��

� ��)��%&

��#��+��'�)��

*�� * � � � �� 0 0� � *0 *��)

8

9)

98

:)

:8

()

(8

;)

)%)

)%:

)%;

)%<

)%=

9%)

9%:

9%;

9%<

� ��)(��%*

�"�� &

� ��#��%�

&

0��>��

?0��'��

�

) )%8 9 9%8 : :%8 ( (%8 ; ;%8

)%)))9

)%))9

)%)9

)%9

9

9)

9))

) )%( )%< )%@ 9%: 9%8

�+�� %*

&

� ��#��%�&

'��'��

� ��)��%&

<� ��<�� '��&��'��

��&��.�

��&��'�� *4�� &��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��,�� -�� ,�� -��.��/� �� 0 � .��/� �� 0 �

�� #�� "��1�$234��'4$$ �� #�� "��1�$234��'4$$ ��(��

� ��)��%��& � ��)��%��&

$54��$56 $56��'54 '54��'56 '56��754 754��756 756��854 854��856 �� $54��$56 $56��'54 '54��'56 '56��754 754��756 756��854 854��856 ��

45$��45' 98: (8< 8)= 45$��45' 9@= :): ;))

45'��457 ::: :;A ;<@ 45'��457 @; 9: 9)<

457��458 :<( 99%:< :A8 457��458 9: 9:

458��4564 )%< 9(: 9(( 458��4564 9%9 ) 9

456��459 8:%( :%9< 8;%8 456��459 )%) )%)

459��453 )%9 :(%@ :;%) 459��453

453��45: @%) @%) 453��45:

45:��452 :%: 9%A< (%@ 45:��452

452��$54 )%A@ )%A@ 452��$54

;�$54 )%:: )%): )%:8 ;�$54

�� 98: 8A@ 899 9@< (A%: :%= )%): 9#;AA �� 9@= :@< :< ) 89@

��,�� -�� ,�� -��<=�� #�� 1�, <�$6��=��>��74 �<=�� #�� 1�, <�$6��=��>��74

�� #�� "��1�$234��'4$$ �� #�� "��1�$234��'4$$ ��(��

� ��)��%��& � ��)��%��&

$54��$56 $56��'54 '54��'56 '56��754 754��756 756��854 854��856 �� $54��$56 $56��'54 '54��'56 '56��754 754��756 756��854 854��856 ��

45$��45' A8 9<( :(= 45$��45' =< <= 98;

45'��457 @9 @) 9=9 45'��457 9= 9 9@

457��458 A; :%88 AA 457��458 9 9

458��4564 )%9 ::%< ::%< 458��4564 )%9 )%9

456��459 ;%@ )%: 8%) 456��459

459��453 9%); 9%); 459��453

453��45: )%9A )%9A 453��45:

45:��452 )%)8 )%)8 45:��452

452��$54 452��$54

;�$54 ;�$54

�� A8 :8; 9<; ()%) 9%;9 8:; �� =< =< ( 9A8

� ��#��%�&

� ��#��%�&

� ��#��%�&

� ��#��%�&

�� .�� .�&��-� �� 4��'�.�&�� -�

)�� <��' �� .�&��'��#� �� 8�� ,*��,��.�&��-

� ��

��

��

��!��

��

1��.��#��'�� 6.��

1�+�� .�� 6��

�3,��*�*��3,�33,��"5*�+�*"0"/;�" *��"5*�+�*"0

� ��

��

��

��

��

"�� &��<��'��#��9�;��'�+ ��6.�� A�*)

��"� �� )��

��4��$'��$��2�� $'�� $��

��

7��

��

��

7��

7�� :84;)�� '��%

7�� '��.��*��0�� %

*��'��

7�� $'��'��.��'�� '� ��

��

+��"/� �� #�� 6.�� #��.��8��# �� -

� ��

��

��

��

��

� �� + ��6.�� <��'

)#��.��9

��# �� # �� '� �� 6.�� 7�� .��'��.�� "/� �� #��'�� 6.�� -�

�� # �#� �� #�� 6.�� .�� '� � ��6.�� '� �� -

1�� 6.�� '9�B .�&��B .�� &��B ��

1�� 4��.�&�� 6.�� # �&��# ��

1�<��

1�"�� !�'-��#� � ��/�#�� $

1�<�� '� �� !��6�� 6� .�� $

�� #�� .� ��'� � ��6.�� # �#��.�� '��D=/%��-��.��6��.�� 4��'�� 6.�� -��

��#��# �#��.�� 6.�� .��#�� !�� .� ��&�$-� ��.�&� �� .� 6� ��'�� 6�� .�� .�� ## �# ��#� � ��# �#��.�� 6.�� 4��'��6��&�� 4#��-�

,� ��/��;��'�*� ��!� �� $

� ��

��

��

��

��

1� ��4��'��'��

1�� '�� EF->��!EF-%��)�-�� $�

�� &��#�'�� G�� .��#��&� ��-

��)�� " ��#��

1�"��.� 6�.��#�� '�&��&�'-

1�)� �� '� �#�� .�� )��)�� '��'��%��

1�)� �� .�� '�� !�4��#�� #�� '$�� # �#�� #��.��'�� #�� H ��

1� �� #�� .�� 4��'��#��'� �� -� �" �� 6�� #�� #��&��&�� '�� &��EF->��

(�� # �&�� .��9

��.�'�#��.�#�� 4��'�� # �#��

��# �&��-��##� �� # �&��'��.�� #��-

� ��

��

��

�� !

��

�� +��)��/��I-��I-%

I-�

I->

I-=

I-=

I-%

I-%

� ��

��

��

�� !

��

�*"��I

� ��

��

��

��

��

)��/�� +��

� ��

��

��

��

��

�*"��

�-�

�->

� ��

��

��

��

��

�*"��

�-� �-� �-> �-= �-%

� ��

��

��

��

��

>-� >-� >-> >-=/>-F >-E

�*"��>

� ��

��

��

��

��

�*"��=

=-�

=->

=-�

=-%

� ��

��

��

��

��

�*"��%

%-�

%-�

%->

� ��

��

��

��

��

��6��.�� #�� +��##�� .�� &� ��'�'�� .��6�� #��-��

��#��&��&��#��.��' �&�� .�� '��&�'��.��#��.�� -��.��# �&��# �&�� -�� .��6��# �&�� -

� ��

��

��

��

��

�� # �#�� # �&�� #�� # �&�� '��G�� 6.�� .��# ��4��'�� # �&��4�� 4#��#��?��#�-��

<� �'�� #�� '��&��&� ��.��.�� -� �� 2�'��'��&�� .�� 6.�� -

��*��J�� #�� '��)��..�� )��)��0�,��?��

�� '��.��%

�� '�� C� ��'��.�� %

0��$'��'�� >��%

!�� '��'�� %

��'��'��$� �� -��98��D��98%

6�� '�� '�� %

�� % �� '��$��'��>�� 4��' %�� ,�� 2�� '��'��$��,��'��%

7��$'�� '�� 4 �� $'�� 2��(4;'��$ �%

6��2� ��$'��'��$'�� ,�� %

��'��$�� '��$��%

�� '�� C�� %

�� '�� %

0�� '��4 �� '�� '��%

�� '�� '�� %

�� #�� '�� '��

�� % 6�� '�� %

0��$'��>�� 2� �� %

�� $'��'�� %

�� '�� #�� '��$%

� ��

��

��

��

��

"��"## �&��#��

,�.�+ ��6.��

1�"�� ## �&�� 8�� ,�&�'�� "��

1�� # �#�� 6.�� .�� '��>/=�.��6�� #� ��-��

1�"��## �&�� 8�� &��"��

1�� # �&��#��&� ��#��'��# �� -

1�<��.�� .�� '�� '��#� ��'�� 6�#�� -

)�� # �&��

� ��

��

��

��

��

!�/��,�� ))��@�,��,��?�� 7��$'��0�� &��:)9:

�� :)9:

�� -�� :)9:

��!�� /��:)9:

*�� !�� /��:)9:

�� 6�'�� #�� # �� -

�� &��.�� -�;� �� #��9

��#��.��#��.��9�

��#9HH...-��-��H��<�#� ��H�� 6�H*&� ��K)��K� �� H)� ��'��'H)� ��'��*&� ��'� �7��

��-*'�� 7�� '�

*&� ��J�)�� <�&��

�� 6��<�#� ��

��

EE��)�-�,� ��

��3,��@I��0>

��9�!?�%$�%=F/�=�=�*4�-�%��?

;�49�!?�%$�%=F/==?�

*��9��7�-�� 6� L��-��

��

��'�J�<�&��#��)� ��'��

<��'�@��

��%%�,� ��)� &��

��B��=

3�6&��3,��@F �>*>

��9�!?�%$�?��/�?��*4�-��>%=

;�49�!?�%$�?��/�?�I

*��9�66��L��-��

COMMENT FORM

HamiltonCity of Hamilton

West Harbour Waterfront Breakwater & Shoreline lmprovementPublic lnformation Centre

June 12,20'12

THANK YOU for attending our Public lnformation Centre.

Please take a few minutes and provide us with your thoughts and comments on the project.Comments received will be considered during completion of the environmental assessment process

1) Do you have any questions or comments on the proposed shoreline improvement?

2) Do you have any questions or comments on the preferred breakwater alternative?

3) Do you have any additional concerns regarding the potential construction impacts?

4) Do you have any other questions or comments?

I I

f-rt í f20q

Ì-

'7- ,/{e,uAtKit/u- ni t-)

úß- y

Comments can be left at the registration table or sent by June 26. 2012 to either of the following

,(J .¿..-¿_ (- f ¿l¡<-

Mr. Bhajan Sarker, P.Eng, ProjectManagerPublic Works DepartmentCity of Hamilton77 James St. NorthHamilton, ON L8R 2K3Tel: 905.546.2424 ext. 5109Fax: 905,546.4491E-mail : [email protected]

Ms. Karla Kolli, MCIP

Project ManagerDillon Consulting Limited1155 North Service Road West, Unit 14Oakville, ON L6M 3E3Tel: 905,901.2912 ext. 2354Fax: 905.901.2918E-mail : [email protected]

@

COMMENT FORM

HamiltonGity of Hamilton

West Harbour Waterfront Breakwater & Shoreline lmprovementPublic lnformation Centre

June 12,2012


Please take a few minutes and provide us with your thoughts and comments on the project.

Comments received will be considered during completion of the environmental assessment process.

'1) Do you have any questions or comments on the proposed shoreline improvement?




Comments can be left at the registration table or sent by June 26. 2012 to either of the following:

Mr. Bhajan Sarker, P.Eng, ProjectManagerPublic Works DepartmentCity of Hamilton77 James St. NorthHamilton, ON L8R 2K3Tel: 905.546.2424 ext. 5109Fax: 905.546.4491E-mail: [email protected]

Ms, Karla Kolli, MGIP

Project ManagerDillon Consulting Limited1 155 North Service Road West, Unit 14Oakville, ON LOM 3E3Tel: 905.901.2912 exl 2354Fax: 905,901.2918E-mail : [email protected]

@COMMENT FORM

HamiltonCity of Hamilton

West Harbour Waterfront Breakwater & Shoreline lmprovementPublic lnformation Gentre

June 12,2012


Please take a few minutes and provide us with your thoughts and comments on the project.Comments received will be considered during completion of the environmental assessment process.

1) Do you have any questions or comments on the proposed shoreline improvement?



T ,;;ou] c1 be concer¡-eci- a-bou-t. the effects on fi,sh E.nC- iui1.¿Ij.fe

j.n the .are:-s th=t- ¡ o'l- ti on is ta}ri ns' ¡-l;ree - eo rl .j

-i-."'l e ;z e -r'i vi t-i a s t aonronri at.e times,/seâ,sons ^


Safet¡' for ihe ueers and frequenters of ehorel-ìne a,reas isa u:riversa.l concern, ,-rarticularly d-uri-ng hÍgh l'','ind or srorn

conCì ti-ons.

Gomments can be left at the registration table or sent by June 26,2012 to either of the following: -tal¿l

ñ(Ju¡ü,

Mr. Bhajan Sarker, P.Eng, ProjectManagerPublic Works DepartmentCity of Hamilton77 James St. NorthHamilton, ON LBR 2K3Tel: 905.546.2424 ext. 51 09Fax: 905.546.4491E-mail: [email protected]

Ms. Karla Kolli, MCIP

Project ManagerDillon Consulting Limited1155 North Service Road West, Unit 14Oakville, ON L6M 3E3Tel: 905.901 .2912 ext.2354Fax: 905.901.2918E-mail : [email protected]

4t15t13 Dillon Consultìng Mail - Fud: West Harbour Waterftont Breala¡ater & Shøeline lnpro\ernent - PIC - June 12,2012

i3';" 1| & rx\Y . * Çzj ft *:,t!\foe ll a *ty ffidtll * n "*:awÞTTJ.ÐNcoNÉttft,iTlñ¡G

Fwd: West Harbour Waterfront Breakwater & Shoreline lmprovement - PIL -June 12,2012

Fonruarded messageFrom : Sa rke r, Bhaja n < Bhajan. Sarker@ham ilton. ca>Date: Wed, Oct24,2012at2:51 PMSubject: RE: West Harbour Waterfront Breakwater & Shoreline lmprolement - PIC - June 12,2012

Cc: "Gainham, Christophef' <[email protected]>, KarlaKolli <[email protected]>, "Ehrenberg,Udo" < Udo, E [email protected]>

Hello

Thank you for your email.Your concerns regarding the extent of information available during the EA

process have been noted.The Environmental Study Report (ESR) will document the work undertaken

for this project.lt is anticipated that this ESR will be available for public and agency review in early

2013.We look fonvard to receiving your comments on the ESR during the review period.

Regards,

Bhajan

Bhajan Sarker.P.Enq.Project Manager

1t13

4115113 Dillon Consulting Mail - Fud: West Harbour Waterfror¡t Breale€ter & Shoretine lnprolement- PIC - June 12,2012

lnfrastructure & Source Water PlanningEnvironment & Susfarnab le Infrastructure DivisionPublic Works Depañment, City of Hamitton77 James Streef Notth, Suite 400Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3Phone: 905-546-2424, Ext. 5109E m ai I : b h aj a n, s a rk eíÒ h a m i lto n. c a

Sent: October 6,2012 1:11 PM

To: Sarker, BhajanC¡: Gainham, Christopher; KarlaKolli; Ehrenberg, UdoSubject: RE: West Harbour Waterfront Breah¡¡ater & Shoreline Improvement - PIC - June IZ, ZOII

Since the start of this process and the rery first public meeting, nothing in the City's approach to the environmentassessment has changed. Although all publíc meetings were entitled Environment Assessment meetings litfle ifany information regarding the assessment was presented. Most was conceptional information.

No true Environment impact studies harc been done, just some cheap modelling.

It strikes me that the City wishes only to pay lip service to the Environment issues and the only thing that isgoing to change this attitude is a bump-up request at time of submission backed up with an appropiate number ofsignatures.

- On Wed, 9119112, Sarker, Bhajan <[email protected]> wrote:

From : Sarker, Bhajan < B hajan. Sarker@hamilton. ca>S RE: West Harbour Waterfront Breakwater & Shoreline - PIC - June 12,2012

@dillon.ca>," Ehrenberg, Udo" < Udo. Ehrenberg@ham ílton. ca>Receircd: Wednesday, September 19, 2012, 3:4S pM

Hello

As Udo mentioned, please find below additional details to your follow-up questions:

Follow-up Question (1) The break wallwill change ware action on the shore and current flows, bothupper and lower water regions as well as changing bottom pattems. What envíronment studies harc youdone to determine impacts on fish, wildlife, plant life and use and enjoyment of the current residents?Response: The Environmental Study Report (ESR) for this project will document the work completed toassess the proposed breakwater and shorelíne improrements. We beliere that an appropriate lerel ofdetail has been incorporated into the assessment of potential natural environment impacts and thederclopment of mitigation.Existing condition information for the area has been collected and is documented in the Phase 1

Technical Report ( Existing Conditions, lssues and Opportunities) which can be found on the Citywebsite:

4t15t13 Dillon Consulting Mail - Fud: West Harbour Waterfront Breala¡ater & Shoreline lnpror,enrent - PIC - June 12,2012

This information was updated as appropriate and used to assist in determining the potential impactsassociated with the proposed breakwater and shoreline impror,ements. Updated exist¡ng conditioninformation will be included in the ESR.Any concerns expressed throughout the consultation process regarding potential impacts on use andenjoyment of the West Harbour by the residents and boaters will be documented in the ESR. We notethat the proposed improrement to the breakwater has the opportunity to enhance use and enjoyment byboaters as it willfully protect the existing marina. The design of the breakwater has been proposed toallow flexibility for the marina to expand. Use and enjoyment by the fishing community will be enhancedby the creation of fisheries habitat where possible as recommended by the Depaftment of Fisheries andOceans (DFO).Follow-up Question (2) lt is also part of any environmental assessment to perform testing in regards tothe project's impacts and to present the results of this testing to the public. I hare yet to see actual testresults performed in this area of the harbour. A modelling program is only as good as the data and localconditions entered into it. Where is this data set? What harc you done to prorc that the model isapplicable to this location? The environmental assessment should also show impacts on animals, fish,plant life, etc. Where is this information?Response: The wale modeling was undertaken using a numerical model dercloped by the U.S. Corp. ofEngineers. An initial assessment was undertaken using wind data fom the Toronto lsland Airport. Thiswork is presented in the Phase 1 Report (see link noted abole). This work has been updated based onthe wind data ftom the Hamilton Airport. The updated hindcast data WâS pfesented at the June12,2012 Public lnformation Centre you attended and witt atso oe included in tre esn.The war,e hindcast model used for thís project is a common tool that has been used by coastalengineers for many years. The hindcast procedure has been calibrated by Shoreplan Engineering Ltd inpast projects against measured wa\es on Lake Ontario. There is no wa\e calibration data in HamiltonHarbour that the project technical team is aware of. The lack of calibration data at a location does notinwlidate the use of the model. The results of the hindcasts produced by this model hare been used todesign many shoreline projects without site specific calibrations including the design of reretments,seawalls and beaches along Lake Ontario . These structures harc performed well since their design.The designs har,e been accepted by approving agencies including Consenation Authorities, Ministry ofNatural Resources, Department of Fisheries and Oceans , and TranspoÉ Canada. The project technicalteam is confident that the ware data produced for the Hamilton West Harbour project is suitable for theanalysis completed in the EnvironmentalAssessment phase of the project.We are proposing to replace an existing floating breakwater with another floating one which will be moreeffectile against large inftequent wares. Its impact on frequent low to moderate wares is the same asthe existing breakwater. The existing f oating breakwater occupies approximately the top three meters ofthe water column. The proposed floating breakwaters are not expected to occupy any greater portion ofthe water column. lt may occupy less if a concrete pontoon design is selected during the tenderingprocess. Therefore, the water circulation will be wry similar to existing conditions.As noted in the previous response, data on the existing conditions has been collected and potentialimpact on the natural environment including animals,fish,plant life etc, will be incorporated into the ESRand appropriate mitigation recommended if necessary.Follow-up Question (3) I would like to point out that although Class EA's are referred to in the Act theguidelines you are trying to apply are not (beyond recognizing the proponent as the MEA).The Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Guidelines for Class Assessments harc no legal authorityin the Act. Trying to stretch a section of a Guideline that refers to water and sewer plants to aparklmarinalcommercial and possibility residential complex is not reasonable and not in tune with theMOE class guidelines orthe intention of the Class EA's http://www.ene.gov.on.calenvironment/en/industry/assessment and_appromls/ environmental_assessments/STDPROD_075722.hhn1, hence this alone is grounds for a Paft ll order.Eren a Class EA must consider: public, gorernment agency and Aboriginal community consultation;assessment of potential environmental effects; assessment of altematires.To my knowledge you harc presented no assessments, studies, orsampling of potential environmentaleffects on the natural environment. No animal, fish or rcgetation studies. No possible effects on thecurrent users that could effect their use and enjoyment. No data inrclving current changes and possiblesilting, no studies of possíble habitat changes. From my point of view you haw not ercn met the basicrequirements for a Class EA which I still do not beliele applies to a marina/park and commercial

4t15t13 Dillon Consulting Mail - Fr¡d: West Harbour Waterftor¡t Brealu/ater & Shoreline lnprowment - PIC - June 12,2012

complex that you are going to build.Response: As noted in previous correspondence, Appendix 1 (ii)of Municipal Class EA, MunicipalWater and Wastewater projects identifies the construction of "new shoreline works, such as off-shorebreakwaters, shore-connected breakwaters, groynes and sea walls" as Schedule C projects.We agree with your listing of things that must be considered in a Municipal Class EA and all har.e beenincorporated as part of this project. There was information on the assessment of alternatir,es andpotential environmental effects at the June 12,2012 Public lnformation Centre you attended. Theinformation will be documented in more detail in the ESR,Lastly we note that this Municipal Class EA relates to shoreline and breakwater improrements and isnot intended to address improrements to the marina/park or any commercial complex.Follow- up Question (a) (a) lt is dificult to separate what is to be real and what is not considering allpresentations show a larger marina. ln one public meeting two questions were asked. "ls there anyoneon this engineering team that has operated a boat orcr 30 feet." Answer, "rìo"."What size boat fits in a30 foot slip". No answer. Has any of the abore changed? By the way, the answer to the first question is28 feet maximum.Response: This Municipal Class EA is for the breakwater and shoreline which considers existing andfuture boating and marina use. We beliele that the technical team has the appropriate skill set andknowledge for this work.Follow-up Question (a) (b)The dock design/lay-out does not take into consideration the predominantlyeast/westerly winds in the bay. I can't see a boater trying to navigate down a long boat dock to docktheir boat at the end - the boat could be sideways by the time they get to the end of the dock. Docklengths haw not been identified but most boats, on a\erage, are well or,er 30 feet. Not certain that thishas been taken into consideration,Response: The dock layout presented at the June 12th Public lnformation Centre was intended to beconceptual only and was presented to show the location of the breakwater for a marina of that size. Theconfiguration of the marina will be confirmed at the time that expansion occurs.Additional Follow-up Question (a) (b) Then I assume you will be doing another EA at that time beforeproceeding?

Response: The type and extent of study depends on a number of things including the proponent of theproject and the nature of the works proposed. No details are awilable on the future of the marina andsuch the need for an EA can not be confirmed.Follow-up Question (a) (f) So you acknowledge you still after all these years do not have any expertiseon the committee? I still do not hare any of the environment test data needed for the assessment likecurrent and bottom information, bottom soil testing, war,e action testing, etc.....So what hare youactually done in the way of an environmental assessment?Response: We note that war,e action within the project area has been appropriately studied asdescribed in the response to question (2) abore. As noted in the Phase 1, there har,e been a numberofgeotechnical reports completed in the Hamilton West Harbour. Additional geotechnical work was notrequired for this project.Regards,BhajanBhaian Sarker.P.Eno.Project Managerlnfrastructure & Source Water PlanningEnvironment & Sustainab le lnfrastructure DivisionPublic Works Depañment, City of Hamilton77 James Sfreef NotÍh, Suite 400Hamilton, ON t8R 2K3Phone: 905-546-2424. Fxt 5109E m ai I : b h aj an. s a rk e íÒ h a m i lton. c a

Fom: Ehrenberg, UdoSent: September 1

To: Sarker, Bhajan;2012 4:16 PM

4t15t13 Dillon Consulüng Maii - Fr¡d: West Harbour Waterfront Breakuater & Shoreline lnprolenent - PIC - June 12,2012

Cc: Gainham, Christopher; 'Kolli, lGrla'Subject: RE: West Harbour Waterfront Breal<rruater & Shoreline Improvement - PIC - June 12,2072

He llo

While the pertinent supporting material for the Class EA will be contained in the ESR, we willaddress your follow-up questions in more detail where possible within a few days.

Thank you,

Udo Ehrenberg, P.Eng.Manager, lnfastructure and Source Water PlanningPublic Works Department77 Ja mes St. N., Suite 400Hami lton, ON L8R 2K3

tel : 905-546-2424 ext. 2499mob: 905-973-3258

fax: 905-546-4491

email: [email protected]

From: Sarker, BhajanSent: September 10, 20123:32PM

Cc: Ehrenberg, Udo; Gainham, Christopher; Kolli, lGrlaSubject: RE: West Harbour Waterfront Brealcwater & Shoreline Improvement - PIC - June t2,20t2

Hello

Thank you for your comments and interest in this project.Your comments,excluding your personalinformation, will form paft of the public record.We feel that your concerns hare adequately beenaddressed in the Class EnvironmentalAssessment Environmental Study Report (ESR).

Regards,

Bhajan

4t15t13 Dillon Consultlng Mail - Fr¡d: West Harbour Waterfront Breahuter & Shoreline lnprolennnt - PIC - June 12,2012

action protection and a full environmental assessment should be carried out because there is somelandfilling inlolled in the modifications. ln my opinion, the money would be much better spentelsewhere.

Response: Your comment is noted. The response to some of the additional comments belowaddresses your specific engineering questions, lt is noted that there is a minimal change in theshoreline. The only area where it is anticipated that the shoreline will change is at the existing policemarine building. There will be a small amount of infilling in this location to remore the existing slip forthe police boat. This has been discussed with the Hamilton Consenation Authority and theDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans and no concerns hare been raised. The area of infill will bebalanced or exceeded with remowl of existing docks in the same area.

The break wall will change ware action on the shore and curent flows, both upper and lower waterregions as well as changing bottom patterns. What environment studies harc you done to determineimpacts on fish, wildlife, plant life and use and enjoyment of the cunent residents?

2) Do you have anv questions or comments on the preferred breakwater alternative?

Engineering is lery much in question as it is based on computer modelling rather than data collectedfom actual monitors and instrumentation - the model is based on assumptions that could be flawed.Suggesting an entrance facing the longest fetch as an option shows a lack of experience of theproject team.

Response : Computer modeling of waw conditions is an acceptable method of analysis used by allpracticing coastal engineering firms. Basic formulations used by the models are well established andhaw been used for decades. The actual models used were dereloped and made public by the USCorp of Engineers and are well accepted in the scientific community. A number of entranceconfigurations were deleloped including an option facing the east quadrant which provides mostdirect access to the open paft of the bay. lt is the purpose of the class environmental assessmentto consider and ewluate altematircs.

It is also paft of any environmental assessment to perform testing in regards to the project's impactsand to present the results of this testing to the public. I hare yet to see actual test results performedin this area of the harbour. A modelling program is only as good as the data and local conditionsentered ínto it. Where is this data set? What haw you done to prow that the model is applicable tothis location? The environmental assessment should also show impacts on anímals, fish, plant life,etc. Where is this information?

A full environmental assessment must be done - not a Class assessment. lf this does not happen anapplication for a Part ll Order will be necessary.

Response : The applicability of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment ( Class EA)wasdiscussed at the meeting with yourself and Barbara Slattery fom the Ministry of the Environment onSeptember 30, 2009. The Municipal Class EA (October 2000, as amended in 2007 & 2011) has been

4115t13 Dillon Consulting Mail - Fr¡d: West Harbour Waterfront Breahwater & Shoreline lnprowment - PIC - June 12,2012

dercloped to meet the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. lt is appropriate formunicipalities to use this Class EA for projects that are identified in one of the Class EA Schedules.

ln Appendix 1 (ii) of Municipal Class EA, Municipal Water and Wastewater projects identifies theconstruction of "new shoreline works, such as off-shore breakwaters, shore-connected breakwaters,groynes and sea walls" as Schedule C projects.

ft has yet to be determined if a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment is appropriate for thisproject. Any project can be subject to a bump up. Just repeating the statement does not make it afact.

ln the meeting lasked Ms Slattery "who shetrusted more, the Ministry she works fororthe City".Her reply was "the City" I wonder if she has informed the Deputy Minister of her feelings? ltcertainly doesnt girc me a lot of confidence that this project has proper orcrsight.

4) Do vou have any other ques{ions or comments?

a) There are many flawed assumptions - 900 boat marina? The Discolery Centre didn't fly here inHamilton. I'm not certain where the additional boaters will come fom giren that they will probably notbe able to winter store their boats (no room) at the marina. Few boaters would want to mow theirboat to a bay that did not harc at least one good anchorage. Boats in Hamilton hare a lift bridge todeal with as well. lt costs about $100 in fuel to get to the lake.

Response: lmpror,ements to the breakwater are required to fully protect the exísting marina. Thedesign of the breakwater has been proposed to allow flexibility for the marina to expand. The HarbourWest Concept Plan prepared by the Hamilton Waterfront Trust (January 2009) identified the desire for750+boatslips. Thenumberofslipswerealsoestimatedusingana\erageboatlength,forconceptual purposes. New slips would only be constructed based on demand.

It is diffcult to separate what is to be real and what is not considering all presentations show a largermarina.

ln one public meeting two guestions were asked. "ls there anyone on this engineering team that hasoperated a boat or,er 30 feet." Answer, "no".

"What size boat fits in a 30 foot slip". No answer.

Has any of the abor,e changed? By the way, the answer to the first question is 28 feet maximum.

b) The dock design/lay-out does not take into consideration the predominantly east/westerly winds inthe bay. I can't see a boater trying to navigate down a long boat dock to dock their boat at the end -the boat could be sideways by the time they get to the end of the dock. Dock lengths harc not beenidentified but most boats, on a\erage, are well orcr 30 feet. Not certain that this has been taken intoconsideration.

Response: The dock layout presented at the June 12th PIC was intended to be conceptual only andwas presented to show the location of the breakwater for a marina of that size. The configuration ofthe marina will be conllrmed at the time that expansion occurs.

4t15t13 Dillon Consulting Mail - Fr¡d: West Harbour Waterftont Breakmter & Shoreline lnprowrnent - PIC - June '12,2012

Then I assume you will be doing another EA at that time before proceeding?

c) The walkway at Macassa Bay Yacht Club is ridiculous. lt's a waste of money. The gates atMacassa Bay Yacht Club are open for any one that wants to get closer to the water.

Response: One of the key ideas in the Hamilton West Harbour Recreation Master Plan is theWaterfront Trail as the continuous recreational link throughout the City's waterfront. lt has beenrecognized that priwcy and security are important to the members of the Macassa Bay Yacht Cluband the plan includes a publicly accessible boardwalk in Macassa Bay and identifies the need for acombination of attractiw security gates, security fencing and priwcy landscaping in this area.

I'm glad the City is fully aware of the security issues and is willing to accept liability for security andlosses.

d) Security is a huge issue for the Macassa Bay Yacht Club boaters. Would you want a walkwayrunning across the ftont ofyour cottage?

Response: One of the key ideas in the Hamilton West Harbour Recreation Master Plan is theWaterftont Trail as the continuous recreational link throughout the City's waterfront. lt has beenrecognized that primcy and security are important to the members of the Macassa Bay Yacht Cluband the plan includes a publicly accessible boardwalk in Macassa Bay and identifies the need for acombination of attractiw security gates, security fencing and priwcy landscaping in this area.

I'm glad the City is fully aware of the security issues and is willing to accept liability forsecurity andlosses

e) Any new boat 30 feet or larger costs orer a hundred thousand dollars. Would you want to leaw aboat costíng orer sewral hundred thousand dollars at one of these marinas with little or no security?

Response: One of the key ideas in the Hamilton West Harbour Recreation Master Plan is theWaterftont Trail as the continuous recreational link throughout the City's waterftont. lt has beenrecognized that priwcy and security are important to the members of the Macassa Bay Yacht Cluband the plan includes a publicly accessible boardwalk in Macassa Bay and identifies the need for acombination of attractirc security gates, security fencing and priwcy landscaping in this area.

l'm glad the City is fully aware of the security issues and is willing to accept liability forsecurity andlosses

f) lt would be nice to see a few people on the design/build committee that haw actually operated a

boat owr 30 feet and haw some knowledge of the requirements to do so. The engineering groupseems to be composed of all theory and no practical knowledge.

4t15t13 Dillon Consulting Mail - Fr¡d: West Harbour Waterfront Breakuater & Shoreline lnprorenent - PIC - June ,12,201¡2

Response: The team working on the Class Environmental Assessment harc significant combinedexperience in environmental assessment, marina design and shoreline engineering. The lercl ofexpertise is appropriate for the project. We harc also engaged stakeholders, such as the RoyalHamilton Yacht Club and Macassa Bay Yacht Club to provide comments on the design.

So you acknowledge you still after all these years do not hale any expertise on the committee? I

still do not haw any of the environment test data needed for the assessment like current and bottominformation, bottom soil testíng, war,e action testing, etc.....So what harc you actually done in theway of an environmental assessment?

g) lt makes no sense to design a breakwall when you haren't designed the marina it is going toprotect. That is like designing a foundation when you haw no idea the size of the building that youare going to put on it.

Response : The breakwater proposed is needed to protect the existing marina. A foating breakwaterprovides flexibility.lt can be readily relocated and implemented in phases,if necessary. lt has beendesigned to be flexible to sene an expanded marina as well.

h) Finally, it seems comments made since 2007 hare not in any way influenced the design or plansfor the waterftont dewlopment Are you just going through the steps to try to show that you meet therequirements of the Environmental Assessment?

Response: The City of Hamilton has completed significant consultation on the plans for the WestHamilton Harbour and numerous comments harc been receir,ed.l may also want to direct you tounruw'hamilton.calwaterfront-plal'ì where there is a 45 page comment response table from plC4. Comments on the West Hamilton Harbour plans in general were considered in the preparation ofthe Hamilton West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan. ln planníng processes it ís not alwayspossible to reach consensus as there are often competing priorities from different user groups. Allcomments harc been considered; howerer, they may not all become part of the recommendedplan. Comments specific to the shoreline and breakwater are being considered in this Class EA.

should you harc any additional questions, please contact the undersigned

Regards

Bhajan

Bhajan Sarker.P.EnSProject Managerlnfrastructure & Source Water PlanningE nvi ronment & S ustai nab le I nfrast ructure Divi sionPublic Works Depaftment, City of Hamitton

4t15t13 Dillon Consulting Mail - Fud: West Harbour Waterfront Brealcvater & Shøeline lnprorement - PIC - June 12,2012

77 James Sfreef North, Suite 400Hamilton, ON L&R2K3Phone: 905-546-2424, Ext. 5109E m a i I : b h a i an. s ark e r(Ò h a m i lt o n. c a

Sent: June 74,20L2 2:15 PM

To: Sarker, BhajanSubject: West Harbour Waterfront Breakwater & Shoreline Improvement - PIC - June 12,20L2

Good day Bhajan,

I attended the June 12, 2012 PIC and harc some comments based on the Comment Form:

1) Do you haw any questions or comments on the proposed shoreline improlement?

I don't consider it an improrement - basically a waste of money. The engineering is in question- wa\e action protection and a full environmental assessment should be canied out becausethere is some landfilling inrclrcd in the modifications. ln my opinion, the money would bemuch better spent elsewhere.

2) Do you haw any questions or comments on the prefened breakwater altematile?

Engineering is rcry much in question as it is based on computermodelling ratherthan datacollected ftom actual monitors and instrumentation - the model is based on assumptions thatcould be flawed. Suggesting an entrance facing the longest fetch as an option shows a lack ofexperience of the project team.

3) Do you harc any additional concerns regarding the potential construction impacts?

A full environmental assessment must be done - not a Class assessment. lf this does nothappen an application for a Part ll Order will be necessary.

4) Do you haw any other questions or comments?

a) There are many flawed assumptions - 900 boat marina? The Discowry Centre didn't flyhere in Hamilton. l'm not certain where the additional boaters will come ftom giwn that theywill probably not be able to winter store their boats (no room) at the marina, Few boaterswould want to more their boat to a bay that did not hare at least one good anchorage. Boatsin Hamilton hare a lift bridge to deal with as well. lt costs about $100 in fuel to get to the lake.

b) The dock design/lay-out does not take into consideration the predominantly east/westerly

4t15t13 Dillon Consulting Mail - Fr¡d: West Harbour Waterfront Breakvr,ater & Shoreline lnpror,enrent - PIC - June 12,2012

winds in the bay. I can't see a boater trying to naligate down a long boat dock to dock theirboat at the end - the boat could be sideways by the time they get to the end of the dock.Dock lengths hale not been identified but most boats, on a\€rage, are well o\er 30 feet. Notcertain that this has been taken into consideration.

c) The walkway at Macassa Bay Yacht Club is ridiculous. lt's a waste of money. The gatesat Macassa Bay Yacht Club are open for any one that wants to get closer to the water.

d) Security is a huge issue for the Macassa Bay Yacht Club boaters. Would you want awalkway running across the font of your cottage?

e) Any new boat 30 feet or larger costs orcr a hundred thousand dollars. Would you want toleare a boat costing orer serreral hundred thousand dollars at one of these marinas with littleor no security?

f) lt would be nice to see a few people on the design/buíld committee that haræ actuallyoperated a boat orcr 30 feet and hare some knowledge of the requirements to do so. Theengineering group seems to be composed of all theory and no practical knowledge.

g) lt makes no sense to design a breakwall when you halen't designed the marina it is goingto protect. That is like designing a foundation when you have no idea the size of the buildingthat you are going to put on it.

h) Finally, it seems comments made since 2007 hatæ not in any way influenced the design orplans for the waterfront derclopment Are you just going through the steps to try to show thatyou meet the requirements of the Environmental Assessment?

I would like to be added to the project contact list:

Please confirm that you hare receired my email.

of4

Hello Graham,

Dillon Consulting has been retained by the City of'Hamilton to assist with a CIass EnvironmentalAssessment for proposed shoreline stabilization works and breakwater construction at the HamiltonWest Harbour Waterfront (shown on the attached Coogle Earth image)'

Based on our preliminary review of the NHIC database for the study area, 3 tultles protected under the

Endangered Sþecies Act,2007 are listed within this project area; Spiny SoftshellTurtls is listed as THRboth Federally and Provincially (G5, S3), Northern Map Tqrtle is listed as SC both Federally and

Provincially (G5, S3), and the East_ern-L4usk-Tur!þ is listed as THR both Federally and Provincially(Gs, s3).

At this time, we would appreciate feedback frorn MNR regarding potential species protected under the

Endangered Species Act,2007,within this project area. (NHIC feature names for screening purposes

17NI-I99_01,17NH99_12, 17NH99_21. l7NH99_1 l, I 7NH99_02, I 7NH99 22).

If you have any questions, please clo not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks,

Mark

Mark BrobbelPaftnerD¡¡lon Consulting Limited1155 North Servlce Road West Unit 14Oakville, Ontarlo, L6M 3E3r - .90.5.90,1,?91?_ext,-14p*5F - 905,9_01,2918M -

"s-_o5,.0-9-1-3-U-5MùaÞÞ.pl@d-ilþ-n.çêwww,dlllpn-,ca

Sl ct""u" consider the envlronment hefore pr¡nt¡ng this email

Page? of 4

Hi Mark,

Of the three species of turtles you listed the 2 threatened have species protection under section 9 of theEndangered Species Act (ESA) and the special concern species does not'

Under the ESA none of the species have habitat protection.

Under the Provincial Policy Statement these species may have significant wildlife habitat protection, if the City of

Hamilton has deemed Hamilton Harbour to be so, for any or all of these species.

Species protection underthe ESA means a person can not kill, harm, harass, possess, transport, buy, sell, trade

the species, without an authorization under the ESA. An authorization to violate section 9 of the ESA forprotection or recovery of the species is a 17 2(b) permit. An authorization is also provided for projects for which it

is not the protection or recovery of the species, but the activity will provide an overall benefit to the species. Thisis a 17 2(ó) permit. This permit has other test, such as avoidance, mitigation and the activity will not jeopardize therecovery of the species in Ontario.

Graham Buck

Species at Risk Biologist

Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District

1 Stone Road West,

Guelph ON

N1G 4Y2

P:5_1__9_12.6:150Q

F: 519826 4--e-2-e-

gra ham. buck@ ontario.ca

24/08/2012 Dillon C onsulting Mail - Hamilton Report Items

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=7ea7e8dbce&v iew=pt&search=inbox&msg=13959186130abfb1

Geisberger, Stacy <[email protected]>

Hamilton Report Items

Sarker, Bhajan <[email protected]> Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:45 AMTo: "Geisberger, Stacy" <[email protected]>

Attached also please find an email from Transport Canada.

From: Sarker, Bhajan Sent : August 24, 2012 10:43 AMTo: 'Geisberger, Stacy'Subject : FW: Hamilton Report Items

[Quoted text hidden]

---------- Forwarded message ----------From: "EnviroOnt" <[email protected]>To: "Sarker, Bhajan" <[email protected]>Cc: <[email protected]>Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:07:28 -0400Subject: Class EA WEST HAMILTON HARBOUR WATERFRONT SHORELINE AND BREAKWATERINFRASTRUCTURE NEATS 34360

Thank you for the information regarding the above referenced project. You may have already been incontact with Transport Canada’s Navigable Waters Protection Group We have reviewed theinformation, and note the following:

Transport Canada is responsible for the administration of the Navigable Waters Protection Act(NWPA), which prohibits the construction or placement of any “works” in navigable waters withoutfirst obtaining approval. If any of the related project undertakings cross or affect a potentially navigablewaterway, the proponent should prepare and submit an application in accordance with therequirements as outlined in the attached Application Guide and Form. Any questions about the NWPAapplication process should be directed to the Navigable Waters Protection Program at (519) 383-1863 or [email protected].

Please review the Minor Works and Waters (Navigable Waters Protection Act) Order, established tooutline the specific standards and criteria under which Transport Canada considers a work as aminor and does not require an application under the NWPA. It is the responsibility of the applicant,prior to submitting an application to the Navigable Waters Protection Program for review, to assesswhether their work meets the criteria, as described, and, therefore, falls within one of the excludedclasses. An application will only be required if it is determined that the work cannot meet the criteriaestablished for that particular “class” of excluded work.

24/08/2012 Dillon C onsulting Mail - Hamilton Report Items

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=7ea7e8dbce&v iew=pt&search=inbox&msg=13959186130abfb1

Transport Canada is also responsible for inspecting and auditing federally regulated railwaycompanies that are subject to the Railway Safety Act. Transport Canada also regulates someprovincial shortlines from the Province of Ontario that are part of an Agreement between the FederalGovernment and the Province of Ontario. The Railway Safety Act, with related regulations and rules,provides the legislative and regulatory framework for safe railway operations in Canada. The railsafety program develops, implements and promotes safety policy, regulations, standards andresearch, and in the case of railway grade crossings, subsidizes safety improvements. A list of allthe Rail Safety legislations (the Act, Regulations, Rules, Guidelines, Policies and Standards) thatapplies to the federally regulated railways, can be found here:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/legislation.htm

The Act also addresses the construction and alteration of railway works, the operation andmaintenance of railway equipment and certain non-railway operations that may affect the safety offederally regulated railways. If a proposed railway work is of a prescribed kind, pursuant to the Noticeof Railway Works Regulations, the proponent shall not undertake the work unless it has first givennotice of the work in accordance with the regulation. More information related to railway works isavailable at the following internet sites:

· Railway Safety Act: http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/acts/1985s4-32/menu.htm

· Notice of Railway Works Regulations: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/SOR-91-103/

· Standards Respecting Pipeline Crossings Under Railways: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/standards-tce10-236.htm

· Guideline on Requesting Approval to Undertake Certain Railway Works:http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/guideline-283.htm

General inquiries about the Rail Safety Program can be directed to [email protected] or by calling613-998-2985.

Thank you,

Jeremy Craigs

Environmental Officer, Transport Canada - Ontario Region (PHE)4900 Yonge Street, North York, ON M2N 6A5 Phone: 416-952-0502

2 attachments

RDIMS-#6077714-v2-NWP_APP_GUIDE_EN.PDF

l'hmlltonConservatbn runority

1 958. Celebrati ng 5O Yea rc of Conseruatlon. 2OO8r.rù¡*{h

BY FÆ( A¡ID MAIL

Ootobcr 30,2008 File: CEAiïvfUN/06-09

Mr. JustinReadmanProject Mânâger - WaterÊont Recreation and Environmental PlamingCity of Hamiltou77 Jamcs Street NorthHamilton CityCenteHamilton, ON LBR 2K3

Dear Mr. Readman:

RE: Hanrilton Consew¿tion Authority Comments Regarding Flood and ErosionHâzsrd Protection Requirements for Proposed Dovolopment Associatcd with theWest Harbor¡r Recreational Master Plan

In tesponse to the letter and commonts from Milo Stutm of Shoreplan end the subsoquentquestions posed &orn you ofñce regarding the floodhazar'd, wave uprush, and thc 6mete erosion ac¡ccss allowance, [Iamilton Conservation Authority ([ICA) staff offets thefollowing.

HCA developm€nt policy rcquiros that any developnent along Lake Onta¡io and thaHamilton llarbour shot€line address the limit of the floqd hazard (100 yr lake levol pluwave uprush). Protcction to the flood haza¡d does not h¿ve to be provided tbrough anysinglc means or approach, but cen ta&e many forms including through shorewallconstuotion onlS raieing the ground elçvation, or througþ building consfuotionmoasures. During our joint mecting with the Hamilton Waterfront Ttust on October 24,200E, an approach was suggested of baving a primary shorerwall that wavs upnrsh willoverto,p and a secoudary wall situ¿ted landwud that is constructed to tho hâzard limit -this approach would be accepAble to the HCA. Please bear in mind that acceptableflooding limits for pedestrian ârea¡¡ should not exceed 0.3 mebee for vehicular traffic and0.8 metres for walkways. Onoo the wave uprush limit has been refi¡ed for the variousshorelinc reachcs of the mastor plm study area, our ofñce can discuss any proposedshoreline teatments and flood-proofing with all stakeholders.

Itrith regards to thc ó metre orosion aocess allowance, the Cþ provided information thatttre majority of the þ¡il¡lings currentlyproposcd in the WHRMP meet the 6 mebesetbaßk.. Howcvef, it was st¿tcd lhat some of the shn¡ctures would not meet the setbacka¡rd that thc requiromc¡rt of a 6 mete allowance would be onerous givcn oxistingdcvelopment in the area and tha desire to maintain the cunent shoreline confgruation tothe extent possiblc. Staffhas reviewed PanT of the Ministry ofNanral ResourcesTeohnical Guide for Gteat Lakes - St. Lawrence River Shoreliues in ligbt of thissituation.

P.o. tu)( 7099, æe Minanl sodngs Ræd, Ancag,ìai On8,rþ ¿9G 3¿J . Phone: æ#z5¡2(gt or goffilg.tlzt ia|-Ofltce Fax: COffi4&1622 o Shop Fat<: 9O152Ç22t4 . E-meit: nature(Øclneeruationhemnon,ce . We ,o: t*i¡¡llonslla¡Íonnamnnn.ca Iê

H¿ø 39Vd ¿¿9Þ-8Þ9 LrtÞt gøø¿lfElør

T'he HCA would be wiltíng to consider a redrrced erosion ascess allowâ¡ce for thc

buildings ín question through thisdemonstrated that opporh¡nity exi

bargès, otc. to facilitate the complneeded i¡ the ñ¡tu¡e. It Êhould be noted th

setbaok roquírements will have to bç constructed/designed using accepred coastal

e¿gineering practices to eosup adequate protcction ftom thc flood aud crosion haz¡trds.

If you have any qucstions, ploase contâct Darren Kenny, Watærshed OfEcôr, c)ct 13l.

Your¡

' K¡thcrino J.and Engineering

DW

c.c. Milo Engineering Ltd. (fax: 4læ87 -5129)WernerPlessl - Hamilton Waterfront Trust (fÌlx 905-5404498)

HEø 39VdzzgÞ-8Þ9 LliÞÍ \øøZlÍeløf

hamilton, ontario, canada l8r 2k3 hamilton · pdf filehamilton, ontario, canada l8r 2k3...

Documents