hamilton west harbour shoreline & breakwater environmental ... · hamilton west harbour...

Hamilton West Harbour Shoreline & Breakwater

Environmental Study Report

Prepared byDillon Consulting Limited

11-5710

April 17th, 2013

Class Environmental Assessment

Hamilton West Harbour Shoreline and Breakwater Class Environmental Assessment: Environmental Study Report, April 17, 2013

Dillon Consulting Limited Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... i

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

2.0 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................2

3.0 STUDY APPROACH ..........................................................................................................8

3.1. Evaluation Criteria ...............................................................................................................9

4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................10

4.1. Natural Environment ..........................................................................................................10

4.2. Public Access, Parks and Open Space ...............................................................................14

4.2.1. Public Access .........................................................................................................14

4.2.2. Parks and Open Space Areas .................................................................................15

4.3. Land Use/Technical ...........................................................................................................15

4.3.1. Municipal Infrastructure ........................................................................................15

4.3.2. Marine Facilities ....................................................................................................15

4.3.3. Shore Facilities and Water Levels .........................................................................16

4.3.4. On-Water Facilities ................................................................................................19

5.0 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION (Class EA Phase 1) ........................................................20

6.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION .............................................................................................21

6.1. Consultation for the Shoreline and Breakwater .................................................................21

6.1.1. Stakeholder Meetings.............................................................................................21

6.1.2. Public Information Centres ....................................................................................21

6.1.3. Communication ......................................................................................................22

6.2. Consultation for Hamilton West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan .…………23

6.3. First Nations Consultation .................................................................................................24

6.4. Comments Received ..........................................................................................................25

7.0 SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS .....................................................................................45

7.1. Shoreline Alternative Solutions (Class EA Phase 2) .........................................................45

7.1.1. Shoreline Structure Alternative Solutions .............................................................45

7.1.2. Shoreline Flood Hazards Alternative Solutions .....................................................45

7.2. Shoreline Design Concepts ................................................................................................56

8.0 BREAKWATER IMPROVEMENTS ...............................................................................70

8.1. Breakwater Alternative Solutions (Class EA Phase 2) ......................................................70

8.1.1. Breakwater Alternative Solutions ..........................................................................70

8.1.2. Breakwater Evaluation and Preferred Solution......................................................71

8.2. Breakwater Alternative Design Concepts (Class EA Phase 3) ..........................................75

8.2.1. Coastal Assessment ................................................................................................75

8.2.2. Breakwater Design Alternatives ............................................................................77

8.2.3. Breakwater Layout Alternatives ............................................................................78

9.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION ............................................86

9.1. Proposed Shoreline and Breakwater Improvement............................................................86

9.2. Potential Effects and Mitigation ........................................................................................92

10.0 FUTURE APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................97


Dillon Consulting Limited Page iv

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 9

Table 6.1: First Nations Consultation Activities ......................................................................................... 24

Table 6.2: Summary of Comments Received on the Proposed Breakwater and Shoreline Improvements 26

Table 7.1: Evaluation of Shoreline Structure Improvement Solutions ....................................................... 49

Table 7.2: Evaluation of Alternative Flood Hazard Improvement Solutions ............................................ 52

Table 7.3: Shoreline Characteristics and Proposed Improvements by Reach ............................................ 60

Table 8.1: Evaluation of Breakwater Types ................................................................................................ 73

Table 8.2: Evaluation of Breakwater Design .............................................................................................. 82

Table 8.3: Evaluation of Breakwater Layout .............................................................................................. 84

Table 9.1: Shoreline Cost Estimate by Reach ............................................................................................ 89

Table 9.2: Summary of Effects and Mitigation .......................................................................................... 94

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Hamilton West Harbour Concept Plan ....................................................................................... 6

Figure 3.1: Municipal Class EA Process ..................................................................................................... 8

Figure 4.1: Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................. 11

Figure 4.2: Natural Environment ............................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4.3: Shoreline Conditions ............................................................................................................... 18

Figure 7.1: – Shoreline Reaches – Macassa Bay ...................................................................................... 56

Figure 8.1: Directional Distribution of Wave Energy and Wave Heights (Full year) ............................... 76

Figure 8.2: Exceedance of Wave Height and Period (Full year) ............................................................... 76

Figure 8.3: A-Frame Breakwater ............................................................................................................... 77

Figure 8.4: Concrete Pontoon Breakwater ................................................................................................. 77

Figure 8.5: Option 1 – North East Facing Entrance Breakwater Concept ................................................. 79

Figure 8.6: Option 2 – North West Facing Entrance Breakwater Concept ................................................ 80

List of Appendices

Appendix A Phase 1 Technical Report - Existing Conditions, Issues and Opportunities

Summary of Underwater Inspection

Appendix B Consultation Materials:

Stakeholder meeting notes

Notices

Display panels

Comments received

Appendix C Shoreline Cross Sections

Appendix D Wave Climate Assessment


Dillon Consulting Limited Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Hamilton has completed this Environmental Study Report to address two separate projects:

West Harbour Shoreline Improvements; and

West Harbour Breakwater Improvements.

These two projects, while separate, have been documented in the same report, as the technical work and

consultation were completed simultaneously.

Work on this project began in 2006 as part of the Hamilton West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master

Plan (WHRMP), a follow-up to the Setting Sail planning process. The Hamilton West Harbour

Waterfront Recreation Master Plan concluded in April 2010 with a Harbour West Concept to enhance and

balance the recreational, ecological and marine functions of the west harbour.

As part of the development of the Recreation Master Plan, the City initiated the Municipal Class

Environmental Assessment process to address any infrastructure required to implement the Harbour West

Concept. It was identified that improvements to the breakwater were needed to adequately protect the

existing marina and any future expansion and that improvements to the shoreline were needed to address

structural issues and improve public safety as well as flood standards. Breakwater infrastructure is

considered a Schedule C project and shoreline improvements are considered a Schedule B project under

the Municipal Class EA.

Shoreline Improvements

Alternative solutions to address shoreline structural conditions were identified for those areas where

conditions were considered deficient included the repair of the existing shoreline or the replacement of

the existing shoreline. It was concluded that both alternatives presented opportunities to improve public

safety as well as aquatic habitat and that the decision should be based on site specific technical feasibility

and cost.

Alternative solutions to address flood hazards included raising the shoreline, raising the edge of the

shoreline, flood proofing buildings and providing an offshore breakwater for protection. The preferred

solution was to raise the crest of the replaced or repaired shoreline to 76 m as much as possible. Where

this was not possible, a combination of solutions could be put in place including incorporating a

secondary wall, flood-proofing existing buildings and locating new buildings above the flood hazard.

Design concepts were prepared for the shoreline on a reach by reach basis to address site specific

characteristics. Where possible, improvements to aquatic habitat have been incorporated.

Breakwater Improvements

Alternative solutions to address the need for additional protection at the marina included the repair of the

existing breakwater, a new floating breakwater or a new fixed breakwater. It was concluded that the

existing breakwater could not be upgraded to provide adequate wave reduction. When comparing the

remaining alternative solutions a floating breakwater was preferred as it offers sufficient protection with

minimal impact on fish habitat and water circulation, flexibility to relocation to accommodate changes at

the marina and at a moderate cost.

Alternative Design Concepts for the breakwater included types of floating breakwater designs (A-Frame

and Concrete Pontoon). It was concluded that the types of floating breakwaters have similar impacts and

both are appropriate for this location. It is recommended that the determination of floating breakwater


Dillon Consulting Limited Page ii

type be based on the market response to minimum performance specifications set by the City of

Hamilton. Layout alternatives (north-east facing entrance and north-west facing entrance) were also

considered. It was concluded that the layout with a north-west facing entrance is slightly preferred as it

will best address the less frequent but larger waves from the east.

The proposed new floating breakwater would be constructed off-site and towed to its location.

Depending on the configuration of the marina at the time it is installed it may need to be anchored in a

temporary location closer to the shore to avoid excessive waves inside the breakwater. The cost for the

breakwater is expected to be approximately $4.5 million. The shoreline improvements would be

constructed in phases likely timed to coincide with changes or improvements to the on-shore facilities.

The approximate cost of the shoreline improvements is $11.4 million.

Potential Effects and Mitigation

Section 9 of this Environmental Study Report discusses the potential effects associated with construction

and operation of the proposed shoreline works and new floating breakwater. Overall impacts to the

natural environment are minimal and the shoreline improvements provide an opportunity to enhance fish

habitat. Impacts to the community involve temporary construction impacts which can be managed by

best practices.


Dillon Consulting Limited Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Historically, public access to Hamilton Harbour has been limited. The City of Hamilton has gradually been

acquiring waterfront lands and as of 2000 is now the owner of Piers 3 to 8 in the west harbour. Over the

last 5-10 years the City has been undertaking the planning and engineering studies necessary to support this

vibrant waterfront area. This work has included:

Setting Sail (approved by Council in 2005, and approved after an appeal at the Ontario Municipal

Board in December 2012) – the West Harbour Secondary Plan which establishes a framework for

public improvement and private development aimed at enhancing the area as a community and

recreation destination.

West Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan (2010) – which establishes a

waterfront vision and defines the planning design guidelines to guide and shape development of

buildings and landscapes of the west harbour.

The Hamilton West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan

(WHRMP) develops a concept for the waterfront that balances

the recreational, ecological and marine function of the west

harbour. A key component of developing an appropriate concept

for this area is an understanding of the need for, and

incorporating appropriate supporting municipal infrastructure.

Improvements to the shoreline and breakwater infrastructure are

keys to the successful development of the west harbour.

Municipal infrastructure requires approval under the

Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act). The Municipal Class

Environmental Assessment (EA) (October 2000, as amended in

2007 & 2011) provides an approved approach for municipalities

to follow to plan infrastructure improvements to meet the

requirements of the EA process.

This Environmental Study Report (ESR) documents the Class EA

process undertaken for improvements to the shoreline and

breakwater infrastructure. These two projects, while separate,

have been documented in the same report, as the technical work and consultation were completed

simultaneously.



2.0 BACKGROUND

The Hamilton West Harbour stretches from Bayfront Park in the west to Pier 7 in the east (see Figure 2.1).

The area has changed significantly over the years with much of the industry that inhabited the waterfront

now gone. While the Hamilton West Harbour has been an area cherished by the North End Neighbourhood

and the boating community for a long while, it is only since the establishment of Bayfront Park (1993),

Pier 4 Park (1992-1993) and the Waterfront Trail (2000), that this area has become much more of a

destination for other residents of Hamilton and the surrounding area.

Much of the Hamilton West Harbour area had been owned by the Hamilton Port Authority (HPA) until

2000 when it conveyed the bulk of Piers 1, 2, and 5-8 to the City.

Setting Sail

A planning exercise called the West Harbour Secondary Plan, or

Setting Sail as it is commonly known, was initiated by the City to

respond to the opportunities provided by ownership of the west

harbour lands. The Setting Sail Secondary Plan was approved by

Council in March 2005 and was approved after an appeal at the

Ontario Municipal Board in December 2012.

Setting Sail establishes a framework for public improvement and

private development aimed at enhancing the area as a community

and recreational destination. The plan has two primary purposes: to

guide detailed planning, zoning, and development decisions; and, to

identify the City’s priorities for publicly funded initiatives. Setting

Sail is a comprehensive plan for the west harbour, with an emphasis

on three areas where major change is appropriate and desirable.

These areas include the Waterfront; the area south of the CN rail

yard, called Barton-Tiffany; and the former industrial lands along

Ferguson Avenue, referred to as the Ferguson-Wellington Corridor.

The Setting Sail planning process was guided by eight core

principles which balance the aspirations of the city and local

community for the West Harbour and reflect and build on the City’s

Vision 2020 goals for creating a healthy and sustainable city. These

core principles also helped to guide the West Harbour Recreation

Master Plan.

The Setting Sail Secondary Plan confirms the west harbour area

should be used for waterfront recreation and marine activities.

A key outcome of the secondary planning process was the

recommendation that the City of Hamilton undertake a Waterfront

Recreation Master Plan for those lands designated “Marine

Recreational” including Bayfront Park and Pier 4 Park (see Figure

4.1).

West Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan

Eight Core Principles from Setting Sail:

1) Promote a healthy harbour

2) Strengthen existing neighbourhoods

3) Provide save, continuous public access along the water’s edge

4) Create a diverse, balanced and animated waterfront

5) Enhance physical and visual connections

6) Promote a balanced transportation network

7) Celebrate the City’s heritage

8) Promote excellence in design



The City of Hamilton initiated the Hamilton West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan (referred to

as WHRMP) in the Spring of 2006. The focus of this study was to better understand the current and future

challenges in the west harbour waterfront area from Bayfront Park through Pier 7 and to consider ways to

meet these challenges.

A key goal for the Hamilton West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan was to achieve the

appropriate balance between the recreational, marine and ecological functions of the west harbour area. To

do this, the Master Plan addresses marina needs and boating facilities, fish habitat and terrestrial habitat

issues, active and passive recreational uses including the waterfront trail, public amenities, and services and

transportation improvements needed to accommodate waterfront improvements.

Adhering to the eight core principles from Setting Sail, and working towards the vision set out for the

waterfront, the following objectives for the Hamilton West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan

were outlined in the Setting Sail Secondary Plan (Section A.6.3.8.8.3):

i) accommodate and facilitate a range of recreational boating facilities;

ii) maximize public access to the water’s edge, balancing the operational needs of marine and boating

activities for safe and secure water access;

iii) minimize the size of paved areas for parking and storage;

iv) encourage sharing of facilities among boating organizations;

v) ensure safety and security for boaters, trail users and park visitors.

In June 2009 City Council added the following objectives:

Significantly increase 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;

and

Positive integration with the community in a local context.

The Master Plan was undertaken in the following key steps:

Identification of Opportunities and Challenges - This step

documented existing conditions and from that information,

developed an understanding of opportunities, challenges and

issues. Phase 1 Technical Report – Existing Conditions, Issues

and Opportunities (October 2006) included as Appendix A,

documents the technical data collected and opportunities identified.

Consideration of Alternative Waterfront Concepts - Based on the opportunities and challenges identified, a

basic framework and four long-term concepts for the waterfront were developed. The Basic Framework

identified key areas and improvements that were common to each of the alternatives including areas for

fish habitat improvement, an improved parks maintenance structure, the addition of park structures at

Bayfront Park, waterfront gateway treatments at Bayfront Park, the foot of James Street and the foot of



MacNab Street, breakwater improvement, and maintaining and enhancing the existing open space. The

long-term concepts included different configurations and locations for the accommodation of the yacht

clubs, public marina and commercial uses.

The long-term concepts were compared using evaluation criteria that considered the natural environment,

socio-economic environment, technical considerations and cost. A preliminary preferred concept was

presented at a Public Information Centre on May 8, 2007. Generally the preferred waterfront concept

provided a transition from Pier 8 (active, mixed use) to more passive ecologically focused lands in the west.

The preliminary preferred concept included consolidation of the marina facilities into a single mooring

basin. This concept involved improvements to the breakwater to appropriately protect the shoreline and

marina facilities. Significant changes to the shoreline were also proposed including elevating the shoreline

to address potential flooding.

While there were elements of the preferred concept that were appealing, concern remained among

stakeholders regarding consolidation of the existing boating clubs. In the fall of 2007, the Hamilton

Waterfront Trust came forward with an alternate plan for the area developed in consultation with the

boating community. The Harbour West Concept Plan essentially leaves intact the shoreline and the boating

facilities/clubs. The need for improvements to the breakwater remained an important component of the

Harbour West Concept Plan. Shoreline improvements while smaller in scale were still required to address

deteriorating shoreline structures.

Discussions between the City and the Hamilton Waterfront Trust continued through 2008 and on January

12th, 2009 Council endorsed the Waterfront Trust plan as the plan to go forward. The following is text

from the January 12, 2009 Council meeting minutes:

a) That the General Manager of Public Works be authorized 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:

i. That the long term vision for the west harbour include various Waterfront Recreation

Institutions within their separate, existing facilities;

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

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

iv. Incorporate the use of wall structures or other measures as flood protection of buildings,

rather than filling to raise building elevations’ providing it is cost effective;

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

vi. Increased use of structured parking to reduce the amount of surface parking required

within the West Harbour Area;

vii. Apply up to the maximum amounts and types of commercial space outlined in Malone

Given Parsons West Harbour Waterfront Commercial Opportunity Study Report, dated

July 2008;

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

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

maximize waterfront potential.

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

committee.

c) That Pier 7 be included as denoted in schedule A 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.

d) That Hamilton Waterfront Trust and staff work with all stakeholders to continue to work on the

final design plans which will be presented to committee at a later date.



e) That staff be directed to initiate a lease renewal process for all Waterfront Stakeholders and report

back to Committee and Council before years end 2009.

f) That the item related to Recommendations from the Waterfront Revitalization Task Force re: West

Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan be removed from the Public Works Committee

Outstanding Business List.

Preparation of the Master Plan Document - The City and Hamilton Waterfront Trust finalized the

waterfront concept and developed accompanying policies and guidelines for its implementation and

development which are included in the April 2010 Hamilton West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master

Plan. The waterfront concept that is the basis for the work in this Environmental Study Report is shown on

Figure 2.1.

Hamilton West Harbour Shoreline and Breakwater Class Environmental Assessment: Environmental Study Report

April 17, 2013


Figure 2.1: Hamilton West Harbour Concept Plan


April 17, 2013


Other Related Work

In addition to the West Harbour Secondary Plan: Setting Sail, and the West Harbour Recreation Master

Plan, the City has put significant effort into planning the West Harbour Waterfront. Studies to date have

included:

o West Harbour Transportation Master Plan (2005);

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

o Stantec Environmental Review Hamilton West Harbour Planning Area (2003);

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

and

o North End Traffic Management Plan (October 2011).


April 17, 2013


3.0 STUDY APPROACH

Municipal undertakings are subject to the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. As the types of projects

undertaken by municipalities are often similar in nature, the Municipal Engineers Association developed a

decision making process for municipalities to follow to ensure that infrastructure projects meet the intent

and requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

(October 2000, as amended in 2007 & 2011) is a process approved under the Environmental Assessment

Act. The Class EA approach to planning projects has been successfully carried out for over 20 years.

Provided municipalities follow this process their infrastructure projects are considered to have EA approval

and can proceed to implementation. Figure 3.1 shows the five phase Municipal Class EA process.

Figure 3.1: Municipal Class EA Process

Within the Municipal Class EA, projects are classified into one of four schedules:

Schedule A Projects that are common and typically have minimal environmental effects. This includes

emergency and maintenance activities. These projects are pre-approved.

Schedule A+ Projects are pre-approved however the public is to be advised prior to project

implementation.

Schedule B Generally includes improvements and minor expansions to existing facilities with some

potential for adverse environmental impacts. Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process need

to be completed.

Schedule C Generally includes new facilities and major expansions to existing facilities with potential

for adverse environmental impacts. Proponents must proceed through all phases of the

Class EA process.


April 17, 2013


Breakwater infrastructure is considered a Schedule C project and shoreline improvements are considered a

Schedule B project under the Class EA. These two projects, while separate, have been documented in the

same report, as the technical work and consultation was completed simultaneously.

3.1. Evaluation Criteria

A key component of the Class EA process is the identification and evaluation of alternatives. Evaluation

criteria to compare alternatives were developed based on knowledge of the waterfront concept, the types of

infrastructure that might be required, and to meet EA requirements. The evaluation criteria consider all

aspects of the environment (i.e. socio-economic, natural, and cultural) as well as technical considerations

and cost. The evaluation criteria groups and criteria are presented in Table 3.1.

The evaluation criteria were presented to the public for review at a Public Information Centre held on June

23, 2009.

Table 3.1: Evaluation Criteria

Criteria Group Evaluation Criteria

Natural Environment Opportunity to naturalize the shoreline and

improve fish habitat.

Potential for impact to aquatic or terrestrial

habitat during construction.

Potential for water quality improvement.

Impact on Erosion.

Socio-Economic and Cultural

Environment

Potential for impacts on waterfront recreation

facilities/activities and commercial

businesses/activities.

Opportunity for enhancement of waterfront

recreational or commercial facilities/ amenities.

Potential for impact on public safety.

Potential to impact cultural heritage

(archaeological resources or built heritage and

cultural landscapes) and/or treaty rights.

Impact on navigability.

Technical Structural integrity.

Level of protection provided (for shoreline

and/or marina).

Design life/maintenance requirement.

Potential for soil/sediment contamination issues.

Flexibility.

Potential impacts on utilities.

Constructability.

Cost Relative cost (focus on capital cost as property,

operational and maintenance costs are not

significantly different).


April 17, 2013


4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Existing conditions were documented as part of the WHRMP in the Phase 1 Technical Report – Existing

Conditions, Issues and Opportunities (October 2006) which is included as Appendix A. This section

provides a summary of the existing conditions included in that document. Figure 4.1 summarizes the

existing site conditions.

4.1. Natural Environment

Existing natural environment features are shown in Figure 4.2 and discussed below.

Fisheries Resources

The fish community within and adjacent to the west harbour study area is currently the only portion of the

Harbour that meets the RAP fish community biodiversity goals (V. Cairns, DFO-Emeritus, personal

communication) and is characterized by a relatively high proportion of native species and predators,

including largemouth bass, black crappie, yellow perch and sunfish. Previous shoreline restoration works

that have been completed in the Bayfront Park area were found to have greater piscivore biomass and a

greater number of native and total species, compared to areas where no shoreline restoration took place

(Faulkenham and Theysmeyer, 2001). Public access to the area is good and fishing opportunities are

excellent, with much potential for a high quality urban fishery (R. Kiriluk, DFO, personal communication).

However, there are concerns on the part of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) that fisheries objectives

may be at cross purposes if the urban fishery results in suppression of top predator populations. In

particular, nesting largemouth bass are susceptible to capture, and resulting reproductive failure, in the

shallow areas in the western portion of the west harbour study area.

Between Bayfront Park and Pier 8, existing boat clubs and docking facilities are present. As a result, much

of the shoreline in this area consists of vertical walls with limited shoreline diversity. Vertical shoreline

walls are comprised of many materials including sheet piles, cement block, poured concrete, and wood

(GLL, 2003). The vertical walls would be limiting to fish species in terms of productivity, but may provide

some shelter in areas not exposed to wave action. Macrophytes (aquatic plants) were historically surveyed

along several transects in the west harbour boat basins. Up to seven species of macrophytes were found,

and growth was found to be dense along most transects (Theysmeyer and Cleveland, 2001). Aquatic plant

control measures are necessary in some parts of the marinas and at the boat launch in Strachan Channel to

maintain safe navigation. Removal of some plant material likely maintains a mix of open and thickly

vegetated areas that is beneficial to maintaining habitat for a variety of species and life stages of fish.


April 17, 2013


Figure 4.1: Existing Conditions


April 17, 2013


Figure 4.2: Natural Environment


April 17, 2013


Fisheries resources and, in particular, fish habitat in the west harbour study area are subject to conservation,

protection and management at federal, provincial and municipal levels. Key non-governmental

stakeholders, such as the Royal Botanical Gardens, are also involved in these efforts through cooperation

with the agencies at all levels.

In addition to conservation, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is also charged with managing and

promoting sustainable use of resources, including fish. In the case of the west harbour study area, MNR has

identified the area, along with other sites within the Harbour and watershed, for primarily shore-based

recreational fishing as part of its Urban Fishery initiative. MNR hopes to promote fishing by local residents

and visitors, taking advantage of proximity of urban residential areas, shoreline accessibility, the diversity

of fish species and the relatively high productivity, while also conserving high standing stocks of top

predator fish species (R. Kiriluk, DFO, personal communication). Options include enhancement of access

and amenities for shore-based anglers in the vicinity of the Marine Discovery Centre, which could reduce

fishing pressure in shallow areas of Bayfront and Pier 4 Parks where spawning and nesting fish,

particularly largemouth bass, are vulnerable to incidental out-of-season capture. Enhancement of access in

the eastern portion of the study area may be coupled with shoreline plantings, establishment of emergent

littoral vegetation or construction of in-water barriers/cover that wards anglers away from key nesting

areas.

To supplement previous investigations of existing natural conditions at the west harbour, including the bass

nesting survey conducted in 2006, a shore-based review of conditions at the Marine Police Unit took place

on May 15, 2009. This area was not included in the previous assessment of existing conditions as it was

outside of the original study area.

The area in the vicinity of the Marine Police Unit is sheltered from wave action by existing

boardwalks/docks with only a narrow opening for boat traffic. Therefore the area, which is approximately

30 m wide by 50 m long, is expected to provide good refuge habitat for resident fish. The majority of the

area is lined with vertical sheet piling or wooden walls. Turbid water conditions on the date of the survey

did not permit observations of existing substrate conditions in the near-shore areas. Regardless, the fish

community would benefit from softer shoreline approaches, such as gently sloping littoral zone habitat with

a mixture of fine gravel substrates that would benefit spawning centrarchid species, such as largemouth

bass.

The area immediately north of the partially enclosed Marine Police Unit area included a canoe launch and

overhanging vegetation, including willow shrubs and Manitoba maple. The shoreline appeared to be gently

sloping in this area, with sporadic rock/concrete on shore giving way to gravel and finer substrates as the

water deepened.

As mentioned above, the re-development of shorelines in this area, particularly adjacent to the Marine

Police Unit, could provide more gently-sloping littoral habitat that could aid in nesting habitat for bass.

Given that this area is protected from wind and wave action, it represents good refuge habitat that ideally

will remain sheltered from these elements to preserve the current fish habitat function of this section of the

harbour.

Terrestrial Resources

The majority of the study area has limited terrestrial vegetation along the shoreline, with the exception of

Bayfront and Pier 4 Park, where manicured grass and trees are present. These open areas next to the water

provide habitat for large numbers of Canada geese (Branta canadensis), a species which is not entirely

compatible with human use of the terrestrial and aquatic portions of the waterfront due to fouling of lawns

and degradation of water quality by their droppings. In general, there is limited terrestrial wildlife habitat


April 17, 2013


within the lands along the shoreline, based on the current land use and limited naturally vegetated areas

within the study area.

Nesting birds would be limited to those species that are tolerant of human disturbance and will also use

buildings and other structures as nest sites. There are no colonial waterbird nesting areas within the study

area. Breeding birds within the Hamilton Harbour ESA include several duck species that are rare in the

City of Hamilton (Dwyer and Lindsay, 2003). Although nesting habitat for these species likely does not

exist within the study area, the extensive weedy shallow waters may provide important foraging habitat.

Several significant species have been documented in Hamilton Harbour, and may include the west harbour

study area as part of their range. Two federally and provincially threatened turtles, the eastern spiny

softshell (Apalone spinifera spinifera) and the common musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), are known to

occur in the harbour. The most recent sighting of a common musk turtle was in the nearby Cootes Paradise

fishway. Based on the lack of natural habitat, sparse vegetation, lack of cover and the prevalence of

vertical shoreline walls in the study area, quality habitat for these species does not occur within the study

area.

4.2. Public Access, Parks and Open Space

4.2.1. Public Access

Shoreline Access

A significant portion of shoreline is accessible to members of the public (67%). These areas include the full

extent of shoreline at Bayfront Park; the hand launch at the east end of Macassa Bay; the shoreline of Pier 4

Park; and the eastern portion of the study area beyond Pier 7. There are also a number of shoreline stretches

where public access is not fully limited, but instead controlled at specific times for managed leaseholder

use. These areas can be found from the shoreline at Leander east toward Royal Hamilton Yacht Club

(RHYC). There is also a portion of the shoreline around RHYC where access is not fully understood, and

where the shoreline is technically public, but not fully accessible.

Waterfront Trail

The Hamilton Waterfront Trail Extension is a 'continuation' of the Hamilton Waterfront Trail (located

between Princess Point and Pier 4). The 1.9 km trail extension starts at Pier 4 and proceeds eastward, just

past Pier 8, to Eastwood Park. The trail runs at or near the waterfront, parallel to Guise Street and Dock

Service Road, and along the perimeter of Pier 8. Within and adjacent to the Hamilton west harbour study

area, the main access points to the Waterfront Trail (with parking and bicycle access) are:

Dundurn Park-York Boulevard (access to Trail along Strachan Channel via staircase with bike

trough);

Bayfront Park-Harbourfront Drive and Bay Street;

Pier 4 Park - Leander Drive and Guise Street;

Pier 8 - Canada Marine Discover Centre; and,

HMCS Haida at Catherine Street.

From Pier 4 Park to the Harbour West Marina (Hamilton Port Authority) there are two trail routes for the

Waterfront Trail:

the street level trail that runs parallel to Leander Drive and Guise Street, and offers a direct

connection for those passing through; and,

The water’s edge trail that runs in proximity to the shoreline, wherever possible, bypassing the

private operational areas of the clubs and the marina.


April 17, 2013


4.2.2. Parks and Open Space Areas

Bayfront Park

Bayfront Park is a large 8.97 hectare (46.87 acre) park, opened in 1993, and located at the west end of the

study area. Developed on impacted industrial landfill, Bayfront Park is one of the west end’s most popular

green spaces. Bayfront Park hosts several festivals and events annually. Some are located primarily within

the park itself, while others may extend to other areas of the waterfront as well. Key features in the park

include: Waterfront Trail; beach; public boat launch; grass amphitheatre; pavilion and boardwalk; war

memorial gazebo; walkways; picnic tables; benches; washrooms; telephone booth; parking; bike racks.

Bayfront Park to Macassa Bay Walkway

The 1.96 hectare (4.84 acre) Macassa Bay Walkway property links Bayfront Park to Pier 4 Park. Part of the

Waterfront Trail, the walkway goes past the Macassa Bay Yacht Club and through MacDonald Marine,

which are located on land leased from the City.

Pier 4 Park

Pier 4 Park is located to the east of Bayfront Park on Bay Street North, at Leander Drive. Key features in

the park include: the Waterfront Trail; a boardwalk with pavilion and benches; open lawn area (with

depressed area for potential ice rink flooding); small beach; an 80 foot tugboat play structure; washrooms,

meeting room and club space at the Gartshore-Thomson Building. Pier 4 Park also holds events such as the

United Federation of Commercial Workers Picnic (approximate attendance is 30 people). Some of the

City’s larger waterfront-wide events and festivals also may extend into the park.

4.3. Land Use/Technical

4.3.1. Municipal Infrastructure

Sewers- There are two combined sewer overflow (CSO) tanks located within the study area. The first is

located within the Bayfront parking area adjacent to Harbour Front Drive, and the second, north of the

intersection of Guise and James Streets. Local sewers are located on the boundary streets adjacent to the

study area. These include; (i) storm and combined sewers on Guise Street from James to John Street, (ii) a

combined sewer on Guise Street from MacNab Street to James Street and (iii) a combined sewer on Bay

Street between Guise and Strachan Streets. Within the immediate West Harbour Recreation Master Plan

study area, sanitary and storm sewers are located in front of the Leander Boat Club and drain south-

westerly to Harbour Front Drive along the internal lane that runs from Harbour Front Drive to Pier 4 Park.

Watermains- Watermains exist on the boundary streets to the study area. These include distribution

watermains on; (i) Guise Street from Hughson Street to Bay Street, on (ii) Bay Street between Wood and

Guise Streets, and on (iii) Bay Street from Burlington Street to Strachan Street. There is an existing

watermain located on Harbour Front Drive that services the combined sewer overflow tank flushing

operations; however, this watermain has limited potential for further extension west.

All existing facilities in the study area are connected to the trunk sewer and distribution mains noted above.

Existing municipal infrastructure is shown on Figure 4.1.

4.3.2. Marine Facilities

From west to east the Hamilton West Harbour is home to the Macassa Bay Yacht Club, MacDonald Marine

Service, Hamilton Bay Sailing Club, Leander Rowing Club, the RHYC, the Harbour-West Marina, and the

Hamilton-Halton Police Marine Unit. Each of these operations occupies a discrete and separate area of the

waterfront, with varied jurisdiction over water-based marine areas. The approximate location of these

existing facilities is shown on Figure 4.2.


April 17, 2013


Interviews with each of the boat clubs were conducted to understand the make-up of the club and help

determine future facility needs. The following summarizes the status of each club. The shore and on-water

facilities associated with the boating clubs/facilities are described in Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4.

Macassa Bay Yacht Club – operating since the late 1970s this club is comprised of about 500 individuals

with 150 voting members. They have approximately 110 boat slips serving both sailing and power boat

enthusiasts. Slips are 100% occupied and there continues to be strong demand.

MacDonald Marine Service – This is a privately owned and operated marine storage and repair business

operating since the mid-1970s. It operates approximately 130+ boat slips and accommodates winter

storage for about 160 boats. In recent years this facility has been operating at about 90% occupancy.

Hamilton Bay Sailing Club – A co-operative type sailing club that owns and operates a fleet of about 18-20

boats.

Leander Boat Club – This club has an 80-year history in the Hamilton Area and has been operating out of

its current location since the early 1970s. The club has approximately 450 members. It is home to the

McMaster University’s rowing program. According to club representatives, the membership base has been

expanding in recent years as a result Canada’s emerging presence in the sport at the Olympic level. Interest

in the sport is growing, spanning all age segments ranging from teens to seniors.

Royal Hamilton Yacht Club – This club has been operating in Hamilton Harbour since 1888 and is

considered to be one of Ontario’s oldest sailing clubs. The RHYC has a member base between 250 and

300 full-time voting members plus family. While the club membership has been declining in recent years

the RHYC has been actively engaged in promoting youth sailing programs. This is the only sailing club

that hosts regatta events.

Harbour West Marina – This full service public marina is owned and operated by the HPA. The marina has

220 slips, approximately 95% of which are leased on a seasonal basis, with winter storage for

approximately 400 boats. It is one of the largest marinas on Lake Ontario.

Hamilton/Halton Police Marine Unit - The marine unit provides both water based and land based

emergency response. It also provides search and rescue and armed response for marine-related customs

incidents. The unit has identified that its existing operation at Pier 7 is not adequately located or equipped

to provide the services required.

4.3.3. Shore Facilities and Water Levels

A review of shoreline facilities was undertaken to determine the type of shoreline protection, crest

elevation, and depth of water in front of the structure as well as the general condition of the shoreline

structures where noted. The shoreline was divided into 11 reaches bases on similar coastal conditions.

Descriptions of shoreline conditions initially reported were based on visual observation above water level

only, made by a professional engineer with experience in coastal engineering and marine structures and

covered by all reaches.

A further assessment and detailed underwater inspection of the some of the structures within the main basin

were undertaken in April 2012 to confirm and refine shoreline areas needing improvements. The

underwater inspection focused on structures where potential repairs are being considered to assist with

determination of the remaining design life. A report detailing the findings of the underwater review is

included in Appendix A.


April 17, 2013


The condition of the shoreline structures is shown in Figure 4.31.

An initial assessment of the Wave Climate was undertaken using wind data from the Toronto Island Airport

and is presented in the Phase 1 Technical Report (see Appendix A). This work was updated based on wind

data from the Hamilton Airport and is included in Appendix D.

Based on available water level data, a design high water level of 76.0 m global sea level is recommended

for the West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan. The review of the wave climate in the west

harbour indicated that a typical design wave height is approximately 1.0 m or less and maximum design

wave height is less than 1.5 m. Wave uprush elevations for each reach of the shoreline and for typical

structures found within each reach are presented in the Phase 1 report (Appendix A). A significant portion

of the shoreline (with the exception of Bayfront Park) is susceptible to wave overtopping during severe

storms at design high water levels.

The approach to backshore flood control and mitigations was discussed with staff of Hamilton

Conservation Authority (HCA) on a number of occasions. The position of the HCA is outlines in a letter

dated October 30, 2008 forwarded to Mr. Readman at the City of Hamilton. The overall approach outlined

in the letter indicates that overtopping of primary shore structure is acceptable if other measures, such as

secondary walls, are taken to control the effects of the wave overtopping. The letter recognizes that one

single method does not need to be employed along the entire shoreline of the study area. The presence of

extensive existing development in proximity of the shore, existing site grading and proposed staged

implementation of the plan make it impossible to apply one single approach and whole scale rising of the

site. We also note that the floating breakwater that now exists provides some reduction of waves during

low to moderately heavy wave conditions and this will further reduce flood frequency and extent.

1 Note that the format of Figure 4.3 is slightly different than what was presented at the PIC in June 2012. The yellow colour shown

on the figure on the PIC panels is indicative of routine maintenance done by the City of Hamilton, while the yellow on Figure 4.3

shows areas of no structural concern. In addition, Figure 4.3 only shows the condition of shoreline structures within the main basin

and Macassa Bay. The linear extents of each improvement category are conceptual in nature.

Figure 4.3: Shoreline Conditions

Note: linear extent of improvement categories is conceptual only

No Structural Concern (below flood level)Good Condition

Structural Concerns (near end of deisgn life or inadequate for public use)

Structure Competency of Immediate Concern


April 17, 2013


4.3.4. On-Water Facilities

On-water facilities in the study area include docks and the existing floating breakwater fronting mooring

facilities of the HPA and the RHYC. There are seven organizations that operate or own docks and

breakwater in the study area. These include the City of Hamilton, HPA, RHYC, Leander Boat Club,

Hamilton Bay Sailing Club, MacDonald Marine Services and the Macassa Bay Yacht Club.

Boat Docks- The docks of the HPA marina include both fixed and floating docks. The docks are primarily

located off an extension pier at the end of James Street and off the west side of the pier enclosing the

Hamilton/Halton Police Marine Unit facility. The Iroquois dock is a relatively new dock constructed in

1990 by the HPA. The dock suffered damage during a storm in December of 1991. The damage was

repaired and appears to be in good condition now.

The docks of the RHYC are located on the west side of club area and the finger docks are either connected

to the land or to two main docks extending in the northerly direction. The docks of the RHYC are

functional but considered to be in poor condition. There is evidence of on-going repair and further

maintenance is expected to be required.

Leander Rowing Club operates no permanent dock. Only two seasonal floating boarding docks are shown

along the shore in aerial photographs. Docks were not installed during our site reviews.

Hamilton Bay Sailing Club operates no permanent dock. Only one seasonal floating boarding dock is

shown along the shore in aerial photographs. This dock was not installed during our site reviews.

Docks in the MacDonald Marine Services area consist of three main docks. The east dock is the floating

type. The central dock is the fixed type at the shore and a floating section was added to approximately

double its total length. The west dock is a fixed dock. Floating docks appear to be in good condition and

well maintained. The fixed docks show some movement and settlement. A detailed structural analysis of

the docks was not completed.

Docks in the Macassa Bay Yacht Club (MBYC) basin include both floating and fixed docks. The docks

include four main docks and additional floating finger piers off the east side of the inner basin. The east

main dock has a finger dock on the west side only. The third main dock from the west side is a fixed dock

at the shore and floating docks were added at the end to extend it and double the capacity.

Floating Breakwaters- Two floating breakwaters were installed in 1990

as part of a planned expansion of docking facilities by the Hamilton

Harbour Commission. The intent of the breakwater was to provide

protection for the floating docks installed as part of the same project

west of the RHYC known as the Iroquois Dock and to allow for future

expansion of docking facilities. The floating breakwater and the

Iroquois dock were damaged in a storm that occurred in early December

1991. The City of Hamilton continues to monitor the conditions of the

breakwater. The most recent survey was completed in 2011.


April 17, 2013


5.0 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION (Class EA Phase 1)

The Waterfront Concept Plan, as presented in Section 2 of this report and shown in Figure 2.1, requires a

number of improvement projects including buildings, trails, sewer and water connections and shoreline

improvements. Not all of the improvements required as a result of the Waterfront Concept Plan require EA

approval. As noted previously, both the shoreline and breakwater are infrastructure components that fall

under the Class EA process.

The review of existing conditions in the study area lead to the following opportunities related to shoreline

and breakwater facilities.

Shoreline Problem/Opportunity

The structural conditions of the existing shoreline were assessed in the first part of this study and

summarized in the Phase 1 Technical Report (Envision et al, 2006). Additional work was undertaken in

2012 to confirm underwater conditions. As shown in Figure 4.3, there are sections of the shoreline in good

condition; sections where there are no structural concerns below the flood level; areas where the existing

structure is near the end of its design life or inadequate for public use; and areas where the structural

competency of the existing structure is of immediate concern. The deficient shoreline structures are mostly

located in areas of Hamilton Harbour Authority Harbour West, the RHYC, the MacDonald Marina and

Macassa Bay Yacht Club.

For much of the shoreline, with the exception of Bayfront Park and Pier 4, the crests of the shoreline

structures are below present applicable flood standards. As noted in Section 4.3.3, the redevelopment of

the shoreline areas will require shoreline hazards to be addressed and stable shoreline treatments that

accommodate the proposed development provided. Thus, the problem/opportunity to be addressed is the

need to improve existing shoreline structures to a) ensure public safety and provide an acceptable design

life for shoreline areas identified as deficient on Figure 4.3; and b) meet applicable flood standards.

Where improvements are taking place, there is also an opportunity to

increase the area and extent of naturalization of shoreline areas to

improve fish habitat. For example, replacing straight walls with gently

sloping shore profiles has the potential to allow the growth of cattail,

bulrush, water lily and other emergents. The greatest potential exists in

the western end of the study area, where relatively shallow water abuts

the existing pier works.

Breakwater Problem/Opportunity

An existing floating breakwater is located between Pier 8 and Pier 4. It is

placed in two sections with an approximately 20 metre opening between

the structures. Wider openings are provided between the breakwaters and

Pier 8 and Pier 4. The existing breakwater is an “A” frame floating

structure anchored to concrete blocks placed on the lake bottom. It has

experienced past damage and required significant repairs. Although no

significant damage to the breakwater and docks behind it has been reported

since a significant event in 1991, more damage in the future is likely.

The problem/opportunity associated with the breakwater is to provide adequate

protection to the harbour and marina.


April 17, 2013


6.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Consultation on the Hamilton West Harbour has been extensive including events related to Setting Sail, the

Hamilton West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan, and specific to this shoreline and breakwater

Class EA. This section focuses on the consultation specific to the shoreline and breakwater. A brief

summary of the consultation during the Master Plan is also presented.

6.1. Consultation for the Shoreline and Breakwater

To provide information for public review and input on the shoreline and breakwater, two public

information centres (PIC) as well as meetings with stakeholders and agencies were held. The following

provides a summary of the consultation activities. All consultation materials and comments are included in

Appendix B.

6.1.1. Stakeholder Meetings

The following stakeholder meetings were held. Notes from these meetings are included in Appendix B.

Technical Committee Meeting - November 10, 2011: The purpose of this meeting was to introduce City

staff and key team members and to ensure everyone had an understanding of the project history and to

discuss the project plan and timeline. Key discussion items included project objectives to fulfill the Class

EA process and result in a design for the shoreline and breakwater, project history and status, and

stakeholder and agency consultation.

Agency Meeting – February 23, 2012: This meeting involved a presentation on the project background, the

problems and opportunities, alternative solutions considered and the work to be undertaken on alternative

designs. Representatives from the Hamilton Conservation Authority and Department of Fisheries and

Oceans were present at this meeting. Waterfront Trust Meeting - February 23, 2012: This meeting involved a discussion with Waterfront Trust

representatives to confirm that the shoreline and breakwater works would fit in with the principles and

intentions of the waterfront concept.

Stakeholder Meeting- May 24, 2012: All boat club and marina operators were invited to attend a meeting

prior to the Public Information Centre to learn about the ongoing work on the breakwater and shoreline and

provide their input from a waterfront user perspective.

6.1.2. Public Information Centres

Two Public Information Centres were held to introduce and review the shoreline and breakwater water

study. The following provides information on each event.

First PIC on Need and Alternative Solutions (June 23, 2009)

This PIC was held on Tuesday June 23, 2009 at the Hamilton Convention Centre from 6-8pm. The purpose

of this PIC was to present the Waterfront Concept Plan and the Class Environmental Assessment work on

the shoreline and breakwater. Information on the problem and opportunity associated with the shoreline

and breakwater as well as alternative solutions and the preliminary preferred solutions were presented for

public review and comment.


April 17, 2013


Notification for the PIC included a newspaper notice in the Hamilton Spectator on June 12, 2012, and June

19, 2012. The notice was also mailed out to those on the project contact list which included technical

agencies and members of the waterfront advisory group.

Approximately 92 people attended this PIC and 74 comment forms were received.

Second PIC on Alternative Design Concepts, Effects and Mitigation (June 12, 2012)

This PIC was held on Tuesday, June 12, 2012 at Bennetto Elementary School from 6-8pm. Display panels

were set up around the room to remind attendees of the work completed previously on alternative solutions

for the breakwater and shoreline and to illustrate the current work on alternative design concepts.

Specifically, display panels showed the following for review and comment:

alternative layouts and types of floating breakwaters being considered;

evaluation of these alternatives and the preliminary preferred alternative;

proposed shoreline treatments; and,

potential effects and proposed mitigation associated with the proposed shoreline and

breakwater improvements.

Notification for the PIC included a newspaper notice in the Hamilton Spectator on June 1, 2012 and June 8,

2012. The notice was also mailed to those on the project contact list.

Approximately twenty-nine (29) people attended this PIC and two comment forms were received.

6.1.3. Communication

Notice of Commencement

The City issued a Notice of Commencement for the Class EA at the initiation of the Hamilton West

Harbour Recreation Master Plan. The Notice of Commencement was combined with the notice of the 1st

PIC held on May 16, 2006.

Notice of Completion

The City issued a Notice of Completion placed in the Hamilton Spectator on April 26 and May 3, 2013.

The notice was also mailed to those on the project contact list.

This notice initiates the 30-day public and agency review period of this Environmental Study Report. The

notice also advises of the opportunity to submit a request for a Part II Order to the Minister of the

Environment if there are outstanding concerns that have not been addressed through the work undertaken.

Although incorporated into the same Environmental Study Report, the proposed shoreline and breakwater

improvements are essentially separate projects and as indicated in the Notice of Completion, any Part II

Order should specify the project component.

Website

The City provides easy access to project information through its web site www.hamilton.ca. PIC materials

and reports were posted on the City web site. A contact was provided so that those reviewing this on-line

information could call to provide comment.


April 17, 2013


6.2. Consultation for Hamilton West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan

The potential for improvement to the shoreline and breakwater were initially integrated into the discussions

on the West Harbour Waterfront through the Recreation Master Plan. The following is a summary of the

consultation that was undertaken as part of the Recreation Master Plan.

Waterfront Advisory Group - The City of Hamilton formed the Waterfront Advisory Group (WAG) to

provide a forum for key stakeholders and the City of Hamilton to discuss waterfront recreation

opportunities, identify issues and to explore solutions that are right for the West Harbour community and

the City. The WAG provided advice to the project study team on all aspects of the study. Five WAG

meetings were held between May 2006 and October 2009. All meetings included a presentation, a question

and answer session and for some meetings a small group discussion.

Public Information Centres - To provide information for public review and input, four public information

centres were held on the following dates:

May 16, 2006 – to initiate the recreation master plan project and discuss issues and

opportunities;

December 14, 2006 – to present the decision making process and existing conditions;

May 8, 2007 – to present a preferred concept for the West Hamilton Waterfront; and

June 23, 2009 – to present a revised concept for the West Hamilton Waterfront and Phases 1

and 2 of the Class EA process.

Additional Stakeholder Consultation - In addition to the formal events noted above, consultation on this

project also included individual meetings, mall displays, and a survey of Waterfront Trail users and posting

of information on the City web site.

Technical Team Meetings - The City convened a technical team for this project which included staff from

key City departments including Planning and Economic Development, Public Works, Traffic Engineering

and Operations, Public Health, Hamilton Emergency Services and Culture and Recreation. The technical

team provided valuable input based on their mandate as it related to the waterfront. The team met six (6)

times during the study. Typically the meetings were held in advance of a WAG meeting or PIC to ensure

that the technical elements of the information being presented were accurate. Meetings were held on the

following dates:

April 11, 2006 – to initiate the project and discuss background information and issues;

June 13, 2006 – to present and obtain input on the draft Phase 1 Technical Report;

August 9, 2006 – to discuss the long term concepts for the waterfront;

February 21, 2007 – to discuss the preferred concept;

May 7, 2009 – to review the Waterfront Trust Concept Plan;

May 25, 2009 – prior to the 4th WAG meeting and 4

th PIC; and

October 8, 2009 – to discuss the final waterfront concept plan prior to the 5th and final WAG

meeting.

Agency Meetings - Meetings were held with agencies as noted below. These meetings were primarily to

deal with issues associated with water levels, flooding potential, fisheries issues and dredging.

May 19, 2006 - Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Hamilton Remedial Action Plan

Coordinator;

February 16, 2007 - Hamilton Conservation Authority;

January 28, 2008 - Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Hamilton Conservation Authority,

Hamilton Remedial Action Plan Coordinator, Bay Area Restoration Committee; and


April 17, 2013


July 30, 2009 - Hamilton Conservation Authority and Hamilton Remedial Action Plan

Coordinator.

6.3. First Nations Consultation

The City of Hamilton identified the following Aboriginal communities and groups as potentially having an

interest in this project:

Assembly of First Nations

Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians

Council of Ontario Chiefs

Hamilton Executive Director’s Aboriginal Coalition

Hamilton Indian Centre – BOND

Hamilton Regional Indian Centre

Hamilton/Wentworth Métis Council

Haudenosaunee

Huronne-Wendat

McMaster University Indigenous Studies Program

Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO)

Mississaugas of New Credit

Mohawk College Aboriginal Student Services

Native Women’s Centre

Six Nations

Project notices were sent and follow up letters were sent to the groups listed above. Follow-up calls were

also made to the groups to ensure any comments, questions and concerns were captured. A summary of

consultation activities is presented in Table 6.3, below. It should be noted that throughout the process, no

correspondence has been received from any of these groups or First Nations.

Table 6.1: First Nations Consultation Activities

First Nation Group Notice of PIC

(May 24, 2012)

Update Letter

(October 2,

2012)

Follow-up Call Notice of

Completion

Assembly of First

Nations

Association of Iroquois

and Allied Indians

Council of Ontario

Chiefs

Hamilton Executive

Director’s Aboriginal

Coalition

Hamilton Indian Centre

– BOND

Hamilton Regional

Indian Centre

Hamilton/Wentworth

Métis Council


April 17, 2013


First Nation Group Notice of PIC

(May 24, 2012)

Update Letter

(October 2,

2012)

Follow-up Call Notice of

Completion

Haudenosaunee

Huronne-Wendat First

Nation

McMaster University

Indigenous Studies

Program

Métis Nation Ontario

(MNO)

Mississaugas of New

Credit First Nation

Mohawk College

Aboriginal Student

Services

Native Women’s

Centre

Six Nations

The City of Hamilton is committed to responding to any First Nations comments or questions through the

detailed design and construction phases of the project.

6.4. Comments Received

Comments received during recent consultation specifically related to the shoreline and breakwater have

been responded to and included in Table 6.1. These letters, comment forms and emails recently received

are included in Appendix B.

All comments received during the West Harbour Recreation Master Plan were summarized and responded

to, where necessary, on the project website (www.hamilton.ca/waterfront-plan). This earlier input was

reviewed and comments specific to the shoreline or breakwater were incorporated into Table 6.1.

http://www.hamilton.ca/waterfront-plan


April 17, 2013


Table 6.2: Summary of Comments Received on the Proposed Breakwater and Shoreline Improvements

Date Comment Response

June 23/09 Public

Information

Centre

Breakwater- consider moving to outer edge of Harbour. Would

add space for putting 900+ docks and add space for moving Haida

to space opposite the inland water museum.

Breakwater locations are being considered as part of the

Environmental Assessment.

The proposed “break water” construction is an invitation for

chaos. Wind and waves will slide up the sloping sides and base to

height ratio is not necessary. Use smaller imprint as suggests by

Randal Reef engineers that encase the stone and rubble to prevent

decay and pollution. By blocking the ends you could add buttress

walls at a later date.

The breakwater panel was showing an example of a fixed

and floating breakwater for illustration purposes.

Alternative designs for the breakwater will be considered

further during Phase 3 of the Municipal Class

Environmental Assessment.

It is also noted that a floating breakwater was the

preferred option, not a fixed breakwater.

The breakwater should become a public walkway- part of the trail

connected at the Discovery Centre. This would help address traffic

and parking issues as well as increasing exposure to an

underutilized facility.

The project team is looking at utilizing the breakwater as

a public walkway but also must consider marine

navigability and the risks of allowing public access on a

floating breakwater.

My first concern is that the break wall should be a real break wall,

capable of protecting the boats from waves. The current break wall

is totally inadequate. In fact, any floating break wall is inadequate.

Waves are not just a movement of water on the surface. Waves

reach right to the bottom of the body of water. Therefore, the

break wall must also reach to the bottom of the Bay. Essentially,

that is landfill such as at Bronte’s Outer harbour. Such a break

wall would provide a proper seaworthy space (or “basin”) within

which owners can have confidence to keep their boats and define a

space on the water within which the club can manage the needs of

the boaters.

Breakwall design is being evaluated through the

Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process and

it is understood that the existing floating structures are

undersized.

A comparison of floating and fixed breakwaters was

presented and a floating breakwater identified as the

preferred option at the June 23rd

Public Information

Centre. This preference will be confirmed and

documented in the project reporting.


April 17, 2013



I reviewed the Hamilton Waterfront Trust’s (HWT) Harbour West

Concept Plan dated January, 2009 before attending Public

Information Centre #4 and seeing the West Harbour Waterfront

Recreation Master Plan (the Plan).

1. IP11 deals with “Impacts to Fish Habitats”. Although I

have been a keen fisherman for much of my life, I

question the appropriateness or need to accord this

particular aspect the emphasis which it appears to have

been given in the Plan.

2. IP15 lists a fixed breakwater, costing $30 million, as a

possible improvement. It almost goes without saying that

this particular item fails the Financial Viability test

completely.

The Remedial Action Plan office, Department of

Fisheries and Oceans, the Bay Area Restoration Council

and Hamilton Conservation Authority are other

stakeholders involved in the project that have objectives

of improving fisheries habitat. In addition Habitat

Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of fish habitat

requires authorization from the Department of Fisheries

and Oceans. Simple reconstruction of the shoreline may

trigger this. This has to be taken into account in the

planning process.

The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process

requires the project team to evaluate “alternative

solutions to” addressing the problem of the existing

floating breakwaters. It should be noted that the preferred

solution is a floating breakwater, not fixed.

June 12, 2012

Public

Information

Centre

Macassa Bay Yacht Club member. Concerned with walkway at

the docks, e.g. pedestrian safety + boat security. Hoping fence isn't

answer. Walking along road works very well for everyone.

One of the key ideas in the Hamilton West Harbour

Recreation Master Plan is the Waterfront Trail as the

continuous recreational link throughout the City's

waterfront. It has been recognized that privacy and security

are important to the members of the Macassa Bay Yacht Club

and the plan includes a publicly accessible boardwalk in

Macassa Bay and identifies the need for a combination of

attractive security gates, security fencing and privacy

landscaping in this area.

Prefer fixed fill breakwater A floating breakwater was identified as the preferred solution.

It provides adequate protection in the Wave Climate in

Hamilton Harbour, provides flexibility for future movement

and is cost effective.

Concerned about safety The floating wave break will improve the safety for boaters.

During construction, appropriate signs and fencing will keep

people safely away from construction areas.

Should scrap the inner basin bridge The Inner Basin bridge is an element of the final Waterfront

Concept Plan to provide a continuous pedestrian route at the

edge.


April 17, 2013



Do you have any questions or comments on the proposed shoreline

improvement?

I don't consider it an improvement - basically a waste of

money. The engineering is in question - wave action protection

and a full environmental assessment should be carried out because

there is some landfilling involved in the modifications. In my

opinion, the money would be much better spent elsewhere.

Your comment is noted. The response to some of the

additional comments below addresses your specific

engineering questions. It is noted that there is a minimal

change in the shoreline. The only area where it is anticipated

that the shoreline will change is at the existing police marine

building. There will be a small amount of infilling in this

location to remove the existing slip for the police boat. This

has been discussed with the Hamilton Conservation Authority

and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and no concerns

have been raised. The area of infill will be balanced or

exceeded with removal of existing docks in the same area.


April 17, 2013



The break wall will change wave action on the shore and current

flows, both upper and lower water regions as well as changing

bottom patterns. What environment studies have you done to

determine impacts on fish, wildlife, plant life and use and

enjoyment of the current residents?

The Environmental Study Report (ESR) for this project will

document the work completed to assess the proposed

breakwater and shoreline improvements. We believe that an

appropriate level of detail has been incorporated into the

assessment of potential natural environment impacts and the

development of mitigation.

Existing condition information for the area has been collected

and is documented in the Phase 1 Technical Report - Existing

Conditions, Issues and Opportunities which can be found on

the City website

( http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/4999833C-B9E3-

431A-9AE1-DA8AB16CA39F/0/iiTableofContents.pdf) This

information was updated as appropriate and used to assist in

determining the potential impacts associated with the proposed

breakwater and shoreline improvements. Updated existing

conditions information will be included in the ESR.

Any concerns expressed throughout the consultation process

regarding potential impacts on use and enjoyment of the west

harbour by the residents and boaters will be documented in the

ESR. We note that the proposed improvement to the

breakwater has the opportunity to enhance use and enjoyment

by boaters as it will fully protect the existing marina. The

design of the breakwater has been proposed to allow flexibility

for the marina to expand. Use and enjoyment by the fishing

community will be enhanced by the creation of fisheries

habitat where possible as recommended by the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).

http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/4999833C-B9E3-431A-9AE1-DA8AB16CA39F/0/iiTableofContents.pdf

http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/4999833C-B9E3-431A-9AE1-DA8AB16CA39F/0/iiTableofContents.pdf


April 17, 2013



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

breakwater alternative?

Engineering is very much in question as it is based on computer

modeling rather than data collected from 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 the project team.

Computer modeling of wave conditions is an acceptable

method of analysis used by all practicing coastal engineering

firms. Basic formulations used by the models are well

established and have been used for decades. The actual

models used were developed and made public by the US Corp

of Engineers and are well accepted in the scientific

community. A number of entrance configurations were

developed including an option facing the east quadrant which

provides most direct access to the open part of the bay. It is

the purpose of the class environmental assessment to consider

and evaluate alternatives.


April 17, 2013



It is also part of any environmental assessment to perform testing

in regards to the project's impacts and to present the results of this

testing to the public. I have yet to see actual test results performed

in this area of the harbour. A modeling program is only as good

as the data and local conditions entered into it. Where is this data

set? What have you done to prove that the model is applicable to

this location? The environmental assessment should also show

impacts on animals, fish, plant life, etc. Where is this

information?

The wave hindcast model used for this project is a common

tool that has been used by coastal engineers for many

years. The hindcast procedure has been calibrated by

Shoreplan Engineering Ltd in past projects against measured

waves on Lake Ontario. There is no wave calibration data in

Hamilton Harbour that the project technical team is aware

of. The lack of calibration data at a location does not

invalidate the use of the model. The results of the hindcasts

produced by this model have been used to design many

shoreline projects without site specific calibrations including

the design of revetments, seawalls and beaches along Lake

Ontario. These structures have performed well since their

design. The designs have been accepted by approving

agencies including Conservation Authorities, Ministry of

Natural Resources, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and

Transport Canada. The project technical team is confident that

the wave data produced for the Hamilton West Harbour

project is suitable for the analysis completed in the

Environmental Assessment phase of the project.

We are proposing to replace an existing floating breakwater

with another floating one which will be more effective against

large infrequent waves. Its impact on frequent low to

moderate waves is the same as the existing breakwater. The

existing floating breakwater occupies approximately the top

three metres of the water column. The proposed floating

breakwaters are not expected to occupy any greater portion of

the water column. It may occupy less if a concrete pontoon

design is selected during the tendering process. Therefore, the

water circulation will be very similar to existing conditions.

As noted in the previous response, data on the existing

conditions has been collected and potential impact on the

natural environment including animals, fish, plant life etc. will

be incorporated into the ESR and appropriate mitigation

recommended if necessary.


April 17, 2013



3) Do you have any additional concerns regarding the potential

construction impacts?

A full environmental assessment must be done - not a Class

assessment. If this does not happen an application for a Part II

Order will be necessary.

The applicability of the Municipal Class Environmental

Assessment ( Class EA) was discussed at the meeting with

yourself and Barbara Slattery from the Ministry of the

Environment on September 30, 2009. The Municipal Class EA

(October 2000, as amended in 2007 & 2011) has been

developed to meet the requirements of the Environmental

Assessment Act. It is appropriate for municipalities to use this

Class EA for projects that are identified in one of the Class EA

Schedules.

In Appendix 1 (ii) of Municipal Class EA, Municipal Water

and Wastewater projects identifies the construction of "new

shoreline works, such as off-shore breakwaters, shore-

connected breakwaters, groynes and sea walls" as Schedule C

projects.

It has yet to be determined if a Municipal Class Environmental

Assessment is appropriate for this project. Any project can be

subject to a bump up. Just repeating the statement does not make

it a fact.

In the meeting I asked Ms. Slattery "who she trusted more, the

Ministry she works for or the City". Her reply was "the City". I

wonder if she has informed the Deputy Minister of her feelings? It

certainly doesn't give me a lot of confidence that this project has

proper oversight.

It is true that citizens have the opportunity to request that the

Minister of the Environment make an order for the project to

comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act. If

granted, this could result in a requirement to complete an

individual environmental assessment.


April 17, 2013



I would like to point out that although Class EA's are referred to in

the Act the guidelines you are trying to apply are not (beyond

recognizing the proponent as the MEA).

The Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Guidelines for Class

Assessments have no legal authority in the Act. Trying to stretch a

section of a Guideline that refers to water and sewer plants to a

park/marina/commercial and possibility residential complex is not

reasonable and not in tune with the MOE class guidelines or the

intention of the Class EA's http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/industry/assessment_and_approvals/ environmental_assessments/ STDPROD_075722.html, hence this

alone is grounds for a Part II order.

Even a Class EA must consider: public, government agency and

Aboriginal community consultation; assessment of potential

environmental effects; assessment of alternatives.

To my knowledge you have presented no assessments, studies, or

sampling of potential environmental effects on the natural

environment. No animal, fish or vegetation studies. No possible

effects on the current users that could affect their use and

enjoyment. No data involving current changes and possible silting,

no studies of possible habitat changes. From my point of view you

have not even met the basic requirements for a Class EA which I

still do not believe applies to a marina/park and commercial

complex that you are going to build.

As noted in previous correspondence Appendix 1 (ii) of

Municipal Class EA, Municipal Water and Wastewater

projects identifies the construction of "new shoreline works,

such as off-shore breakwaters, shore-connected breakwaters,

groynes and sea walls" as Schedule C projects.

We agree with your listing of things that must be considered in

a Class EA and all have been incorporated as part of this

project. There was information on the assessment of

alternatives and potential environmental effects at the June 12,

2012 Public Information Centre you attended. The

information will be documented in more detail in the ESR.

Lastly we note that this Class EA relates to shoreline and

breakwater improvements and is not intended to address

improvements to the marina/park or any commercial complex.

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/industry/assessment_and_approvals/


April 17, 2013



4) Do you have any other questions or comments?

a) There are many flawed assumptions - 900 boat marina? The

Discovery Centre didn't fly here in Hamilton. I'm not certain

where the additional boaters will come from given that they will

probably not be able to winter store their boats (no room) at the

marina. Few boaters would want to move their boat to a bay that

did not have at least one good anchorage. Boats in Hamilton have

a lift bridge to deal with as well. It costs about $100 in fuel to get

to the lake.

Improvements to the breakwater are required to fully protect

the existing marina. The design of the breakwater has been

proposed to allow flexibility for the marina to expand. The

Harbour West Concept Plan prepared by the Hamilton

Waterfront Trust (January 2009) identified the desire for 750+

boat slips. The number of slips were also estimated using an

average boat length, for conceptual purposes. New slips

would only be constructed based on demand.

It is difficult to separate what is to be real and what is not

considering all presentations show a larger marina.

In one public meeting two questions were asked. "Is there anyone

on this engineering team that has operated a boat over 30 feet."

Answer, "no".

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

Has any of the above changed? By the way, the answer to the

first question is 28 feet maximum.

This Class EA is for the breakwater and shoreline which

considers existing and future boating and marina use. We

believe that the technical team has the appropriate skill set and

knowledge for this work.

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

predominantly east/westerly winds in the 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 have not been identified but

most boats, on average, are well over 30 feet. Not certain that

this has been taken into consideration.

The dock layout presented at the June 12th PIC was intended

to be conceptual only and was presented to show the location

of the breakwater for a marina of that size. The configuration

of the marina will be confirmed at the time that expansion

occurs.

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

proceeding?

The type and extent of study depends on a number of things

including the proponent of the project and the nature of the

works proposed. No details are available on the future of the

Marina and as such the need for an EA cannot be confirmed.

The Recreation Master Plan.


April 17, 2013



c) The walkway at Macassa Bay Yacht Club is ridiculous. It's a

waste of money. The gates at Macassa Bay Yacht Club are open

for any one that wants to get closer to the water.



continuous recreational link throughout the City's waterfront.

It has been recognized that privacy and security are important

to the members of the Macassa Bay Yacht Club and the plan

includes a publicly accessible boardwalk in Macassa Bay and

identifies the need for a combination of attractive security

gates, security fencing and privacy landscaping in this area.

d) Security is a huge issue for the Macassa Bay Yacht Club

boaters. Would you want a walkway running across the front of

your cottage?









e) Any new boat 30 feet or larger costs over a hundred thousand

dollars. Would you want to leave a boat costing over several

hundred thousand dollars at one of these marinas with little or no

security?









f) It would be nice to see a few people on the design/build

committee that have actually operated a boat over 30 feet and

have some knowledge of the requirements to do so. The

engineering group seems to be composed of all theory and no

practical knowledge.

The team working on the Class Environmental Assessment

has significant combined experience in environmental

assessment, marina design and shoreline engineering. The

level of expertise is appropriate for the project. We have also

engaged stakeholders, such as the Royal Hamilton Yacht Club

and Macassa Bay Yacht Club to provide comments on the

design.


April 17, 2013



So you acknowledge you still after all these years do not have

any expertise on the committee? I still do not have any of the

environment test data needed for the assessment like current and

bottom information, bottom soil testing, wave action testing,

etc.....So what have you actually done in the way of an

environmental assessment?

We note that wave action within the project area has been

appropriately studied as described in the response to question

(2) above. As noted in the Phase 1 Issues and Options report,

there have been a number of geotechnical reports completed in

the West Hamilton Harbour. Additional geotechnical work

was not required for this project.

g) It makes no sense to design a breakwall when you haven't

designed the marina it is going to protect. That is like designing

a foundation when you have no idea the size of the building that

you are going to put on it.

The breakwater proposed is needed to protect the existing

marina. A floating breakwater provides flexibility. It can be

readily relocated and implemented in phases, if necessary. It

has been designed to be flexible to serve an expanded marina

as well.

h) Finally, it seems comments made since 2007 have not in any

way influenced the design or plans for the waterfront

development Are you just going through the steps to try to

show that you meet the requirements of the Environmental

Assessment?

The City of Hamilton has completed significant consultation

on the plans for the Hamilton West Harbour and numerous

comments have been received. I may also want to direct you

to www.hamilton.ca/waterfront-plan where there is a 45 page

comment response table from PIC 4. Comments on the

Hamilton West Harbour plans in general were considered in

the preparation of the Hamilton West Harbour Waterfront

Recreation Master Plan. In planning processes it is not always

possible to reach consensus as there are often competing

priorities from different user groups. All comments have been

considered; however, they may not all become part of the

recommended plan. Comments specific to the shoreline and

breakwater are being considered in this Class EA.

http://www.hamilton.ca/waterfront-plan


April 17, 2013



Since the start of this process and the very first public meeting,

nothing in the City’s approach to the environmental assessment

has changed. Although all public meetings were entitled

Environmental Assessment meetings, little if any information

regarding the assessment was presented. Most was conceptual

information.

No true Environment impact studies have been done, just some

cheap modeling.

It strikes me that the City wishes only to pay lip service to the

Environment issues and the only thing that is going to change

this attitude is a bump-up request at time of submission backed

up with an appropriate number of signatures.

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. It is anticipated that this

ESR will be available for public and agency review in early

2013. We look forward to receiving your comments on the

ESR during the review period.

Concerned about the effects on fish and wildlife in the area the

construction is taking place (e.g., schedule the activities to

appropriate times/seasons).

Section 9 of this Environmental Study Report addresses

potential effects on the natural environment and proposed

mitigation. As suggested the mitigation scheduling activities

such that in-water works are conducted during the appropriate

timing window (e.g. avoiding the spring period and

completing in-water works between July 16 and March 14)

and not during periods of elevated lake levels.

Safety for the users and frequenters of shoreline areas is a

universal concern, particularly during high wind or storm

conditions.

The new breakwater will improve the safety for boaters and

others in the harbour.

May 24, 2012 -

Waterfront

Stakeholder

Meeting

A prefer for the layout option with the opening towards the

northwest. Most problems come from the NE direction.

Comment noted, this preference was incorporated into the

evaluation of breakwater layout alternatives.

Interested in having the sailing school use the gap between the

breakwater and shore. 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.

This can be accommodated in the final layout.


April 17, 2013



The question was raised on whether it would be beneficial to have

the breakwater attached to the shore.

If the breakwater is not connected to the shore, how would it be

possible to dock boats to it?

Allowing full public access to the breakwater through a shore

connection would require consideration of public safety and

liability on the part of the City. In addition, 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. At this point, a shore connection is not being

considered.

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 will be

confirmed during detailed design and contract award.

With the existing A-frame, is there visible deterioration?

Concerns about the ability of the current breakwater to handle

waves were noted.

Milo responded that the existing breakwater is structurally

sound; however the design capacity is not sufficient for the

wave climate. The new breakwater will be sized to manage

the wave climate experienced in the harbour.

The importance of providing adequate lighting on the new

breakwater was raised. The profile of the structure is low and

sufficient lighting is required to make it visible for navigation.

Appropriate lighting and signage will be included for the

breakwater. It is noted that a Navigable Waters Protection Act

Permit will be required for the new breakwater.

For the concrete option, will there be more depth to the

breakwater? For the A-frame option, what is 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.


April 17, 2013



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?

The only location at the main basin where the existing

breakwater is expected to provide suitable wave reduction is

on the west side. The waves from the west and northwest

quadrants are considerably smaller and with a shorter wave

period than from the east quadrant. Thus, the existing

breakwater will be effective. The preliminary configuration of

the entrance breakwater proposes a relatively short breakwater

section, in the order of 60 m long, on the west side. A portion

of the existing breakwater could be used on this side.

However, the remaining life of the breakwater is only about

half of the design life of the new breakwater and early

replacement may be required.

The Condition Review Report of the floating breakwater

(Riggs, 2011) indicates the breakwater requires some

immediate maintenance. The cost of the maintenance is

estimated to be in the order of $90,000. Longer term

maintenance, to be carried out in the next ten years, is

estimated to be in the order of $328,000. The remaining

service life is estimated to be 20 years. The condition of the

existing breakwater must be considered when re-deployment

is being evaluated.

What width is proposed for the walkway in front of the yacht

clubs? A wide walkway (e.g. 18 feet) would be too large to

accommodate equipment to haul out boats.

It is noted that a specific width for the walkway was not

identified in the Hamilton West Harbour Recreation Master

Plan; however it is assumed that the width would be

approximately 12 feet.

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.

Questions were raised regarding maintenance of the breakwater

and harbour. It was noted that there can be a challenge with

collecting garbage floating on the surface in areas with vegetation.

It is assumed that the maintenance of the breakwater and

harbour would be similar to what exists today. A new floating

breakwater and shoreline improvements should not

significantly change the maintenance requirements.


April 17, 2013



What is the initial estimate for budgets and timing? Will it be

started in the next year?

The initial estimate for the breakwater is approximately $4.5

million dollars. The budget for the shoreline improvements is

approximately $11.4 million dollars. It is noted that the

shoreline improvements will be implemented in phases.

What is the timing of the breakwater related to any expansion of

the marina. It was noted that it would make more sense to go for

the final configuration from the beginning.

An assessment of potential wave generation between the

breakwater location and moored boats was undertaken to

determine the amount of open water that could exist between

the docks and marina at this location. The results of this

assessment indicate that at the time of installation there should

be no more than 100 m of open water between the breakwater

and the floating docks.

With a floating breakwater there is the opportunity to place it

temporarily then move it to the permanent location at a later

date.

February 23,

2012 - Agency

Meeting

Will a larger anchor system be required for different types of

breakwater or if the breakwater is positioned further out.

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.

Have there been revised calculations for wave uprush with a new

breakwater.

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.

It was indicated that new buildings should be out of the flood zone

altogether.

For new buildings this could 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.

Comment noted.

All were in agreement with the intention of keeping the existing

shoreline alignment.

Comment noted.

Is dredging in Macassa Bay still being discussed?

The City is not aware of any recent requests to dredge

Macassa Bay.


April 17, 2013



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 Fisheries Act approval

would be required. It will need to be confirmed if Navigable

Waters Protection Act authorization is required.

Comment noted. It is anticipated that approval under NWPA

will be required. Application for this approval will be

submitted subsequent to this environmental assessment.

The City is encouraged 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. It was suggested that trees from

areas in the city could be used as structure for fish habitat.

Macassa Bay was identified as an area of focus for fish habitat

improvement.

Opportunities to add fish habitat have been included where

appropriate, including within Macassa Bay.

There is a small scale infill that may occur at the Police Marine

unit to fill in the slips under the existing building. The DFO

representative indicated that based on the scale of this work an

authorization would not be required for this and other shoreline

works discussed.

Comment noted.

It was noted that the proposed works will require approval from

the Conservation Authority.

Comment noted.

February 23,

2012 – Meeting

with Waterfront

Trust

Is computer modeling technology sufficient to model breakwaters

or is a physical model required?

Yes, 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.

It was agreed to show the dock layouts that had been shown at

earlier Public Information Centres during the development of

the Hamilton West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master

Plan as well as include a note that these dock layouts are

conceptual.

It was suggested that using the Haida as a breakwater be

considered.

There are significant challenges associated with using ships as

breakwaters. This option will not be considered.

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.

Connecting to shore would limit boat access into the harbour

and limit ability to move the breakwater.


April 17, 2013



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.

An assessment of potential wave generation between the

breakwater location and moored boats was undertaken to

determine the amount of open water that could exist between

the docks and marina at this location. The results of this

assessment indicate that at the time of installation there should

be no more than 100 meters of open water between the

breakwater and the floating docks.

To determine the final breakwater layout and location, the

number of docks and approximate configuration must be

confirmed. It is recommended that a final decision regarding

the location of the breakwaters should be made at the time of

final design and contract award.

There was discussion on whether there should be tie offs on the

breakwater and whether access would be allowed.

This is a decision that the City will make at a later date.

Can the old breakwater be used in Macassa Bay?

The existing wave break could be used to reduce waves in

Macassa Bay but there will still be limitations.

A review of wave conditions indicates that waves reaching the

mouth of the Macassa Bay are smaller in magnitude than in

the main basin. Our analysis indicates that waves just reach

the upper limit of acceptable range. The existing floating

breakwater, if relocated, is expected to reduce waves below

the upper limit and provide more suitable mooring conditions.

It is likely that only the shorter eastern breakwater,

approximately 116 m long, would be required at this location.

The exact length and positioning can be confirmed during

detailed design. The condition of the existing breakwater

must also be considered when re-deployment is being

evaluated. The Condition Review Report (Riggs, 2011)

indicates some maintenance is required and there is only half

the remaining design life.


April 17, 2013



The following points of clarification were made regarding the

Waterfront Concept:

the sailing school area will not be publically accessible. The

sailing school has a design for a new building;

slips need to be maintained in the Shed building;

The Police Marine building will be replaced and slips do not

need to be retained. Minor infill in this area may be needed to

straighten out the shoreline once the slips are removed;

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;

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;

Waterfront Trust has two key principles: no infill and

increased public access to shoreline.

This information was incorporated into the EA where

appropriate. It was noted at the PIC that the wetland is not part

of the EA, and that the EA will address the shoreline only.

Transport Canada

(email dated

August 14, 2012)

Transport Canada is responsible for administration of the

Navigable Waters Protection Act which prohibits the

construction or placement of any “works” in navigable waters

without first obtaining approval. If any of the related project

undertakings cross or affect a potentially navigable waterway,

the proponent should prepare and submit an application in

accordance with the requirements as outlined in the Application

Guide and Form.

We anticipate that the proposed new breakwater will require

NWPA approval. An application will be submitted following

completion of the Class Environmental Assessment.


April 17, 2013



Ministry of

Natural

Resources (email

dated November

29, 2011)

Of the three species of turtles listed as protected in the Natural

Heritage Information Centre database the 2 threatened have

species protection under section 9 of the Endangered 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 under the ESA means a person cannot kill,

harm, harass, possess, transport, buy, sell, trade the species,

without an authorization under the ESA. An authorization to

violate section g of the ESA for protection 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. This is a 17 2(c) permit. This permit has other test, such as

avoidance, mitigation and the activity will not jeopardize the

recovery of the species in Ontario.

Based consultation with regulatory agencies and

characterization of the study area though various field studies,

it has been determined that no significant natural features or

species protected under the Ontario Endangered Species Act,

2007 or federal Species at Risk Act will be impacted.


April 17, 2013


7.0 SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS

7.1. Shoreline Alternative Solutions (Class EA Phase 2)

7.1.1. Shoreline Structure Alternative Solutions

Alternative solutions to address shoreline structural conditions were investigated for those areas that were

identified as deficient in the Phase 1 Technical Report and through subsequent underwater investigation.

The deficient areas would be those described in Figure 4.3 as either: 1) “Structural Concerns” (Near end of

Design Life or inadequate for Public Use) or 2) “Structural Competency of Immediate Concern”. A “do-

nothing” option for the areas where these deficiencies occur was not considered a feasible option as

follows:

A lack of suitable shoreline protection structure puts portions of the study area into the erosion

hazard zone. Hamilton Region Conservation Authority (HRCA) cannot issue a permit for new

development for areas within the erosion hazard zone. Thus, a “do-nothing” option would greatly

restrict the potential area of development under the plan as only areas outside the erosion hazard

could be developed.

Portions of the shoreline that are now within the areas used by three boating clubs are not in a

condition where safe public access can be allowed. There is evidence of ongoing significant

settlement of the shoreline structures and adjacent areas and repair work that was completed in the

past. There are uneven surfaces within the walkway areas and the shore structures that are not

consistent with normal public park elements. These parts of the shoreline are not suitable to be

opened up for public access.

The deficiencies can be corrected by either repairing the shoreline structure or by replacing the structure.

7.1.1.1. Shoreline Structure Evaluation and Preferred Solution

The evaluation of shoreline improvement solutions is presented in Table 7.1

at the end of this section and discussed below.

Both repairs and replacement provide an opportunity to enhance the aquatic

environment and are expected to have similar impacts on the natural

environment during and after construction. The function of the structures,

as is relates to the backshore development, will also be similar. The

decision on the type of shoreline structure improvement is therefore

primarily based on cost and technical feasibility of repairs or replacement.

7.1.2. Shoreline Flood Hazards Alternative Solutions

As noted previously, the crests of the shoreline structures along much of the shoreline are below present

applicable flood standards. From the perspective of flood hazard, this leaves a substantial portion of the

shoreline subject to flooding under design high water levels. Any new development in the backshore

requires a permit from the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority (HRCA) under Ontario Regulation

161/06. A permit cannot be issued unless the flood hazard is addressed. A “do-nothing” option would

greatly restrict the potential area of development under the plan as only areas outside the flood hazard

could be developed.


April 17, 2013


As discussed in Section 5, erosion hazard and public safety are also reasons why the option of leaving the

shoreline “as-is” is not appropriate. The “do-nothing” option was not considered to be an acceptable option

for those areas identified as inadequate in the Phase 1 Technical Report and subsequent underwater

assessment and thus is not discussed further.

The following alternative solutions to address potential flood hazards were identified:

Option 1: Raise the shoreline;

Option 2: Raise the edge of the shoreline;

Option 3: Flood proof buildings; and

Option 4: Provide wave protection with offshore breakwater.

Option 1: Raised Shoreline

This option would involve the raising of the shoreline to adequate elevations and reconstruction or

upgrading/reinforcement of the shore protection structures to accommodate the raised shoreline. The work

would include placement of additional fill to raise lands above the flood level. The shore structures would

need to be modified to accommodate the placement of clean fill. The decision on the exact type of action

with respect to the shore structure would be governed by a detailed assessment of the structure at the time

of design.

Option 2: Construction of Raised Edge along the Shoreline

This option involves raising the edge of the shoreline to prevent wave overtopping. It does not involve the

raising or filling of the backshore areas. The work would involve the construction of walls along the edge

or near the edge of the shoreline. These wall structures could provide secondary function such as a seat

wall or railing depending on their height. The height of the wall in each reach would vary depending on

the wave exposure and the elevation of existing shoreline edge. The construction of such a seawall on top

of a repaired shoreline structure or as part of a reconstructed seawall is technically feasible.

The raised edge could be also constructed as a secondary wall set some distance back of the primary shore

protection structure. This would require that the surface between the two walls would need to be

constructed of non-erodible material. Depending on the amount of overtopping that would occur, access to

part of the site may need to be controlled during extreme storm events.

The analysis of potential wave uprush documented in the in Phase 1 report indicates that wall height would

vary from as low as 0.5 m to as much as 1.5 meters. The construction of the raised edge would also

necessitate modifications to the backshore drainage, as the sheet flow over the edge drainage that exists in

parts of the site would no longer be possible. The raised edge does not provide any protection for the

backshore facilities where they are located below the instantaneous water level as water may rise through

the storm sewer system.

Option 3: Flood Proofing of the Buildings

This option would involve the wet flood proofing of all existing building and dry flood proofing of all new

building to ensure that no damage occurs as a result of flooding associated with Lake Ontario. Finish floor

elevations of existing buildings are, with the exception of a portion of the RHYC above the 1: 100 years

instantaneous water level (76.0 m). The flood proofing requirements are therefore limited to modifications

of the exterior walls to prevent water from penetrating the wall. The actual level of flooding would depend

on the wave uprush on the wall of the building structure, which is dependent on the distance back from the

water’s edge and the type of surface finish and grade of the land between the building the water’s edge.

This option may also require entrance doors be located on sides of the buildings away from direct wave


April 17, 2013


attack. This option assumes that the flood proofing requirement of the existing building would be

relatively minor and readily achieved.

Flood proofing of new buildings can be achieved in a number of ways. As much as possible, new building

would need to be located outside of the wave uprush area. The extent of wave flood penetration into the

backshore would need to be determined based on the actual backshore grading. Where buildings must be

located within the wave uprush area, the building ground floor and mechanical and electrical components

of the building would be located above the wave uprush elevation. Lower parts of the building would be

designed using materials that are water resistant.

Option 4: Wave Protection by Breakwater

This option involves the reduction of the wave uprush by constructing offshore breakwaters to reduce wave

activity at the shore and therefore reducing the wave uprush. Most of the shoreline is above the 1:100 years

instantaneous water level and the flood hazard is associated with wave uprush. Breakwaters can be either

fixed or floating. A more detailed discussion of the types of breakwaters associated with the marina

(including differences between floating and fixed breakwaters) is provided in the next section of the report.

In this section, the focus is on the function of an offshore breakwater as it relates to on-shore flooding.

The use of permanent or fixed breakwater structures for the reduction of wave activity and therefore wave

uprush at the shore is considered standard practice. However, the consideration of reduction of hazard due

to wave activity behind a movable floating structure, as it relates to shoreline hazard regulations is not

common. This option was discussed with the staff of Hamilton Region Conservation Authority and was

found to be a feasible option to consider.

The construction of an offshore breakwater can reduce the wave height substantially along the shore. It is

feasible to reduce wave heights at the shore to less than 0.3 m. (suggested limit for boat mooring areas),

thus the limit of the wave uprush is reduced to approximately 76.5 m or so, depending on the details of the

shoreline structures. The capital cost of the breakwater is considered high. For this reason, it is suggested

that the use of breakwaters to reduce shoreline flood hazard is considered only in areas where protection of

boat mooring areas is also required.

7.1.2.1. Shoreline Flood Hazard Evaluation and Preferred Solution

A detailed evaluation matrix was completed showing the advantages and disadvantages for each alternative

based on four principal evaluation criteria groups:

Natural environment;

Socio economic and cultural environmental considerations;

Technical considerations; and

Relative cost considerations.

This evaluation matrix is provided in Table 7.2 at the end of this section and further discussed below based

on the above criteria groups.

Natural Environment: The difference between the alternatives from a natural environment perspective is

relatively minimal as all alternatives provide erosion protection; involve limited impact on water quality

and habitat. The only exception to this is a fixed breakwater which could impact water circulation within

the harbour and marina as well as result in possible fish habitat impacts.

Socio-Economic and Cultural Environment: Option 1 – Raised Shoreline has significant impacts on the

existing waterfront recreational and commercial facilities and is considered least preferred for this criteria


April 17, 2013


group. It could alter the surface drainage patterns, raise land higher than the existing buildings or cause the

need to reconstruct existing building and increase loads on buried services. All other alternatives are

considered relatively equal from the socio-economic perspective as they all provide some measure of

protection to the shore and/or buildings providing opportunities to enhance shore amenities and improve

public safety.

Technical: For many of the technical criteria including flexibility, potential to impact utilities,

constructability, the four options are similar. For the criterion “level of protection provided”, all four

alternatives provide a measure of flood protection. However, Option 1 – Raised Shoreline and Option 4 –

Breakwater provided the best protection from flooding and are considered preferred for this criteria group.

Cost: Option 1 – Raised Shoreline and Option 4 – Breakwater are the highest cost alternatives.

Constructing a raised edge (Option 2) is anticipated to range from a moderate to high cost and Flood

Proofing buildings (Option 3) is considered to be low cost.

The preferred solution to reduce flood hazard is a comprehensive approach that considers a combination of

raised edge along the shoreline, flood proofing of buildings and a breakwater. The option of raising the

shoreline (Option 1) was considered to be less preferred overall given its significant impact and relatively

high cost.

Given the high cost of a breakwater, this flood reduction method is only being considered for the main

basin where protection is also required for boat docks. Further information on the main basin breakwater

can be found in section 8.0 of this report.

As much as possible, when shore structures are being replaced or repaired, the crest of the structure should

be extended to above the 1:100 years design high water level of 76.0 m. Preferably, the crest of the

structure should be extended above the wave uprush elevation as established in a detailed design process.

Where this is not feasible, the crest of the seawall should be set above 76.3 m and a secondary wall, located

some distance back, should extend high enough to prevent backshore flooding. The location of the

secondary wall will need to be determined to accommodate site development features. For example,

locating the secondary wall behind the waterfront walk would be one possible scenario. Flood proofing of

the existing buildings, where required, should be implemented in areas where seawalls cannot be

incorporated into the waterfront design concept. New buildings should be located above flood hazard.

The shoreline improvements proposed are considered Schedule B projects under the Municipal Class EA.

This section documents the design concepts prepared for the proposed improvements.


April 17, 2013


Table 7.1: Evaluation of Shoreline Structure Improvement Solutions

Evaluation Criteria Option 1: Repair the Existing Shoreline Option 2: Replace the Shoreline

Natural Environment

Opportunity to naturalize

the shoreline and improve

fish habitat.

Both alternatives present opportunities to

improve the shoreline and provide more natural

habitat.

Both alternatives present opportunities to improve the

shoreline and provide more natural habitat.

Potential for impact to

aquatic or terrestrial habitat

during construction.

This alternative may have some impact on the

existing habitat depending on the nature of the

repair. In both cases, habitat disruption would be

mitigated through improved shoreline.

This alternative will likely involve more disruption to habitat

as construction is expected to be more significant. In both

cases, habitat disruption would be mitigated through improved

shoreline.

Potential for water quality

improvement.

Both alternatives will have minimal impact on

water quality.

Both alternatives will have minimal impact on water quality.

Impact on Erosion. Both alternatives will improve the shoreline and

minimize erosion impacts.

Both alternatives will improve the shoreline and minimize

erosion impacts.

Natural Environment

Summary

Most of the Hamilton West Harbour provides good fish habitat including Bass nesting areas, as well as good

areas for urban fishing. Any construction associated with repair or replace options has the potential to impact

habitat. However, with proper mitigation, potential construction impacts can be minimized. Repair or

replacement of the shoreline walls can include overall improvements to the shoreline and fish habitat thus

resulting in no overall change or perhaps improvement to the shoreline from a natural environment

perspective. Thus, either of the alternatives is considered acceptable.

Socio-Economic and Cultural Environment

Potential for impacts on

waterfront recreational or

commercial facilities.

Both alternatives will improve the shoreline

without negative impacts on the existing

facilities.

Both alternatives will improve the shoreline without negative

impacts on the existing facilities.

Opportunity for enhance-

ment of waterfront

recreational or commercial

facilities/ amenities.

Both alternatives will improve the shoreline

allowing for enhancement of facilities/amenities.

Both alternatives will improve the shoreline allowing for

enhancement of facilities/amenities.

Potential for impact on

public safety.

Both alternatives will improve safety of the

shoreline.

Both alternatives will improve safety of the shoreline.

Potential to impact cultural

heritage (archaeological

resources or built heritage

and cultural landscapes)

and/or treaty rights.

Neither alternative is anticipated to impact

cultural heritage or treaty rights.

Neither alternative is anticipated to impact cultural heritage or

treaty rights.


April 17, 2013



Impact on Navigability. Neither alternative will impact navigability. Neither alternative will impact navigability.

Socio-Economic and

Cultural Summary

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

cultural heritage or navigability.

Technical

Structural integrity. The repair alternative is appropriate when there

is structural integrity remaining in the existing

shorewall.

The replace alternative is appropriate when the structural

integrity of the shorewall is not sufficient to remain in the

longer term.

Level of protection

provided.

Both alternatives would be designed to provide

the required level of protection.

Both alternatives would be designed to provide the required

level of protection.

Design life/maintenance

requirement.

Both alternatives would be designed to provide a

reasonable design life. Maintenance may be

slightly higher on a repaired structure compared

to a new structure.

Both alternatives would be designed to provide a reasonable

design life. Maintenance may be slightly higher on a repaired

structure compared to a new structure.

Potential for contamination

issues.

Both alternatives have some potential to

encounter contamination as much of the

shoreline is constructed from unknown fill.

Testing of the soils will be undertaken and

appropriate management should contamination

be uncovered.

Both alternatives have some potential to encounter

contamination as much of the shoreline is constructed from

unknown fill. Testing of the soils will be undertaken and

appropriate management should contamination be uncovered.

Flexibility Both alternatives provide flexibility. Both alternatives provide flexibility.

Potential impacts on utilities Neither alternative is anticipated to impact

utilities.

Neither alternative is anticipated to impact utilities.

Constructability This alternative can be constructed provided

there is structural integrity remaining in the

existing shorewall.

A replacement alternative can be constructed.

Technical Summary Both repair and replace are reasonable solutions. The preference for one over the other will need to be based

on the structural integrity of the existing shoreline structure.


April 17, 2013



Cost

Relative cost differences. The cost to repair the shoreline would likely be

less than to replace however, the repair option is

only applicable when there is structural integrity

in the existing structure.

The cost to replace the shoreline would likely be more

expensive than to repair however, the replacement option is

necessary when the structural integrity of the shoreline is not

sufficient to allow for repair.


April 17, 2013


Table 7.2: Evaluation of Alternative Flood Hazard Improvement Solutions

Evaluation Criteria

Option 1:

Raised Shoreline

Option 2:

Construct Raised

Edge along

Shoreline

Option 3: Flood

Proof Buildings

Option 4:

Breakwater

Natural

Environment

Opportunity to

naturalize the

shoreline and

improve fish habitat

None of the

alternatives impede

the opportunity to

naturalize the

shoreline and

improve fish

habitat.

None of the

alternatives impede

the opportunity to

naturalize the

shoreline and

improve fish

habitat.

None of the

alternatives impede

the opportunity to

naturalize the

shoreline and

improve fish

habitat.

None of the

alternatives

impede the

opportunity to

naturalize the

shoreline and

improve fish

habitat.

Potential for impact

to aquatic or

terrestrial habitat

during construction

Construction will

not impact

underwater habitat.

Due to proximity

to the edge there is

some potential for

temporary impacts

(e.g. spills).

Construction will

not impact

underwater habitat.

Due to proximity


some potential for

temporary impacts

(e.g. spills).

Construction will

not impact

underwater habitat.

Due to proximity


some potential for

temporary impacts

(e.g. spills).

Construction will

temporarily

impact habitat

however this can

be mitigated. It

is also noted that

depending on the

type of

breakwater (i.e.

floating or fixed)

there will be an

area of fish

habitat

permanently

impacted.

Potential for water

quality

improvement.

Construction is out

of the water and

thus there is

limited potential

for impact on water

quality assuming

run-off is managed.

Construction is out

of the water and

thus there is

limited potential

for impact on water

quality assuming

run-off is managed.

Construction is out

of the water and

thus there is

limited potential

for impact on water

quality assuming

run-off is managed.

Construction

involves

materials on the

lakebed which

has the potential

to stir up

sediments on the

bottom. This is a

temporary

situation during

construction only.

Fixed breakwater

has potential to

impact water

circulation in the

harbour and

marina.

Impact on Erosion. All of the

alternatives

provide protection

from wave action

All of the

alternatives

provide protection

from wave action

All of the

alternatives

provide protection

from wave action

All of the

alternatives

provide

protection from


April 17, 2013


Evaluation Criteria

Option 1:

Raised Shoreline

Option 2:

Construct Raised

Edge along

Shoreline

Option 3: Flood

Proof Buildings

Option 4:

Breakwater

and erosion

provided they are

constructed in

conjunction with

appropriate

shoreline

treatment.

and erosion

provided they are

constructed in

conjunction with

appropriate

shoreline

treatment.

and erosion

provided they are

constructed in

conjunction with

appropriate

shoreline

treatment.

wave action and

erosion provided

they are

constructed in

conjunction with

appropriate

shoreline

treatment.

Natural

Environment

Summary

The differences between the alternatives from the natural environment

perspective are relatively minimal except that a fixed breakwater may impact

water circulation. There is potential for impacts during construction, these

impacts can be mitigated through design and appropriate construction practices

including spills management and erosion and sediment control.

Socio-Economic and Environment

Potential for impacts

on waterfront

recreational or

commercial

facilities.

This alternative

will have the

greatest impact on

all existing

shoreline facilities

requiring

reconstruction in

many instances.

The remaining

alternatives will

have minimal

impact on the

existing facilities.

The remaining

alternatives will

have minimal

impact on the


The remaining

alternatives will

have minimal

impact on the


Opportunity for

enhancement of

waterfront

recreational or

commercial


All alternatives

involve

improvement to the

protection of the

land and/or water

and thus all

provide

opportunities for

enhancement of

amenities.

All alternatives

involve

improvement to the

protection of the

land and/or water

and thus all

provide

opportunities for

enhancement of

amenities.

All alternatives

involve

improvement to the

protection of the

land and/or water

and thus all

provide

opportunities for

enhancement of

amenities.

All alternatives

involve

improvement to

the protection of

the land and/or

water and thus all

provide

opportunities for

enhancement of

amenities.

Opportunity to

improve safety.

All alternatives

involve

improvement to the

protection of the

land and/or water

and thus all

provide safety

improvement.

All alternatives

involve

improvement to the

protection of the

land and/or water

and thus all

provide safety

improvement.

All alternatives

involve

improvement to the

protection of the

land and/or water

and thus all

provide safety

improvement.

All alternatives

involve

improvement to

the protection of

the land and/or

water and thus all

provide safety

improvement.

Potential to impact

cultural heritage

(archaeological

resources or built

heritage and cultural

landscapes) and/or

treaty rights.

Minimal impact on

cultural heritage or

treaty rights.

Minimal impact on


treaty rights.

Minimal impact on


treaty rights.

Minimal impact

on cultural

heritage or treaty

rights.


April 17, 2013


Evaluation Criteria

Option 1:

Raised Shoreline

Option 2:

Construct Raised

Edge along

Shoreline

Option 3: Flood

Proof Buildings

Option 4:

Breakwater

Impact on

Navigability.

No impact on

navigability.

No impact on

navigability.

No impact on

navigability.

This alternative

has potential to

impact

navigability but

can be

constructed such

that the impact is

neutral.

Socio-Economic

and Cultural

Environment

Summary

Raising the existing shoreline has significant impacts on the existing waterfront

and associated on-shore facilities and is least preferred. The remaining

alternatives all provide some measure of protection to existing facilities and

provide opportunities for enhancement.

Technical

Structural integrity. All alternatives can

be designed to

provide structural

integrity.

All alternatives can

be designed to

provide structural

integrity.

All alternatives can

be designed to

provide structural

integrity.

All alternatives

can be designed

to provide

structural

integrity.

Level of protection

provided.

All alternatives

will provide a

measure of flood

protection. This

alternative

provides the

greatest flood

protection to the

shore but no

protection for the

water facilities and

boats.

All alternatives

will provide a

measure of flood

protection. This

alternative

provides some

flood protection to

the shore but no

protection for the

water facilities and

boats.

All alternatives

will provide a

measure of flood

protection. This

alternative

provides some

flood protection for

the buildings but

no protection for

the water facilities

and boats.

All alternatives

will provide a

measure of flood

protection. This

alternative

provides the best

protection to the

water facilities

and boats as well

as providing

some protection

for the shore.

Design life/

Maintenance

requirements.

All alternatives

have a reasonable

design life.

All alternatives

have a reasonable

design life.

All alternatives

have a reasonable

design life.

All alternatives

have a reasonable

design life. This

alternative has

the greatest

maintenance

requirements

with repairs often

required after

large storms.


April 17, 2013


Evaluation Criteria

Option 1:

Raised Shoreline

Option 2:

Construct Raised

Edge along

Shoreline

Option 3: Flood

Proof Buildings

Option 4:

Breakwater

Potential for

contamination

issues.

Any construction

in the vicinity of

the waterfront has

some potential to

encounter

contamination

issues as much of

the waterfront is

unknown fill.

None of the

alternatives involve

significant

excavation so any

impact is

anticipated to be

minimal. Soils

will be identified

prior to

construction and

all precautions will

be taken to

minimize impacts.

Any construction

in the vicinity of

the waterfront has

some potential to

encounter

contamination

issues as much of

the waterfront is

unknown fill.

None of the


significant

excavation so any

impact is

anticipated to be

minimal. Soils

will be identified

prior to

construction and


be taken to

minimize impacts.

Any construction

in the vicinity of

the waterfront has

some potential to

encounter

contamination

issues as much of

the waterfront is

unknown fill.

None of the


significant

excavation so any

impact is

anticipated to be

minimal. Soils

will be identified

prior to

construction and


be taken to

minimize impacts.

Any construction

in the vicinity of

the waterfront has

some potential to

encounter

contamination

issues as much of

the waterfront is

unknown fill.

None of the

alternatives

involve

significant

excavation so any

impact is

anticipated to be

minimal. This

alternative has

the potential to

encounter

contaminated

sediments.

Potential

contamination

will be identified

prior to

construction and

all precautions

will be taken to

minimize

impacts.

Flexibility All alternatives

provide flexibility;

especially when

considered in

combination.

All alternatives


especially when

considered in

combination.

All alternatives


especially when

considered in

combination.

All alternatives

provide

flexibility;

especially when

considered in

combination.

Potential impacts on

utilities

Unlikely to impact

utilities.

Unlikely to impact

utilities as

construction effort

is minimal.

Unlikely to impact

utilities as

construction effort

is minimal.

Unlikely to

impact utilities

due to the

location within

the water.


April 17, 2013


Evaluation Criteria

Option 1:

Raised Shoreline

Option 2:

Construct Raised

Edge along

Shoreline

Option 3: Flood

Proof Buildings

Option 4:

Breakwater

Constructability Relatively easy to

construct although

may require

staging with

relocation/

reconstruction of

existing buildings.

Relatively easy to

construct.

Relatively easy to

construct.

Relatively easy to

construct.

Technical Summary All alternatives are technically viable. Raising the shoreline and improving the

breakwater provides the best protection. The other two alternatives still do

provide protection with minimal disadvantages.

Cost

Relative cost

differences.

High Cost Moderate to high

cost

Moderate cost High cost

7.2. Shoreline Design Concepts

The preferred shoreline improvements involve making repairs to some sections of the existing shoreline

structure and replacing others. Figure 4.3 indicates places where improvement is necessary. This section

provides further information on the design of the proposed improvements. The design concepts for the

shoreline improvements all maintain the existing alignment and increase the height of the shore to 76.3m

(76.5 on James St. Pier). The following points are noted about the areas to be replaced:

Steel sheet pile structures are being repaired only if it was determined that steel sheet pile has a

remaining design life of 50 years based on normal rusting rates.

Structures within buildings (except the police building) are proposed to be replaced when the

buildings are repaired / reconstructed.

Most of the repairs are to areas where there is existing sheet pile along the shore. Areas of rock

shore line that are identified for repair or replacement mostly involve raising the shore elevation to

76.3 m.

Replacement of structures is being undertaken where existing steel sheet pile walls do not provide

50 year design life or existing gravity structures do not meet normal engineering and public safety

requirements.

The shoreline has been divided into a six reaches in the main basin and one reach in Macassa Bay as

described below and shown in Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.3. Figure 7.1 depicts all reaches and sub-reaches.

Scale 1:5000

West Harbour Waterfront Recreation Master Plan (WHWRMP) – Class EA All Phases

SITE PLAN

Reaches and Sub-Reach Location Plan

LEGEND:

- REACH

- SUB-REACH

20MJB

Text Box

Figure 7.1: Reaches and Sub-Reaches


April 17, 2013


Macassa Bay

Reach 8 represents the area in the west part of the harbour that is presently used by Macassa Bay Yacht

Club, MacDonald Marine Services and the Hamilton Bay Sailing Club. It includes approximately 630 m

of shoreline. Reach 8 is subdivided into five sub-reaches. Improvements are proposed for approximately

470 m of shoreline within this reach.

Main Basin

The shoreline of the main basin is divided into six reaches. Reach 1 starts at the northeast part of the main

basin and numbering continues in a clockwise direction along the shore of the basin.

Figure 7.3: Shoreline Reaches – Main Basin

Figure 7.2: Shoreline Reaches – Macassa Bay


April 17, 2013


Reach 1 represents an area in the northeast part of the main basin. The shoreline in the reach is

approximately 255 m long. The shore includes the south side of Pier 8. The reach is subdivided

into three sub-reaches. Portions of the shoreline within the reach were reviewed during the

underwater inspection noted previously. Improvements are proposed for approximately 115 m of

shoreline within this reach.

Reach 2 represents an area in the east part of the basin. The shoreline in the reach is approximately

227 m long not including the timber pier at the north end of the reach. The shore includes a semi-

enclosed area fronting the present police marine unit dock/building. It also includes the north end

of the shore along the east side of the James Street basin. The reach is subdivided into five sub-

reaches. Portions of the shoreline within the reach were reviewed during the underwater inspection

noted previously. Improvements are proposed for all of the shoreline within this reach.

Reach 3 includes the south east part of the main basin. The shoreline in the reach is approximately

485 m long. This reach is divided into seven sub-reaches. The shore includes a basin fronting

James Street, the adjacent pier on the west side and most of the shoreline now utilized by the HPA

marina operations. Portions of the shoreline within the reach were reviewed during the underwater

inspection noted previously. Improvements are proposed for all of shoreline within this reach.

However, maintaining the shore function is sub-reaches 3.4 to 3.6 requires the shoreline remain

unaltered.

Reach 4 includes shores on all sides of a small basin on the east side of the RHYC. The basin is

used for sailing school launches. The shoreline in the reach is approximately 240 m long. The

reach is subdivided into five sub-reaches. Portions of the shoreline within the reach were reviewed

during the underwater inspection noted previously. Improvements are proposed for all of shoreline

within this reach. However, maintaining the shore function is sub-reaches 4.3 and 4.4 requires the

shoreline remain unaltered.

Reach 5 includes shore along the south and west shores of the headland fronting the RHYC

building and boat storage area. The shoreline in the reach is approximately 156 m long. The reach

is subdivided into three sub-reaches. Improvements are proposed for all of shoreline within this

reach.

The shoreline in Reach 6 was reconstructed as part of site redevelopment by the City and no work

is required. Therefore, no discussion of Reach 6 is provided. 2

Table 7.3 describes the current condition, proposed design concept and fish habitat opportunity for each

sub reach along the existing shoreline. Cross-sections of the proposed improvements can be found in

Appendix C.

2 Shoreline conditions were initially shown at the public information centre held in June 2008. Since that time conditions were

updated based on both a visual assessment and underwater assessment. While Reach 6 was initially identified as needing repair, it

was later confirmed that minor maintenance is all that was required.


April 17, 2013


Table 7.3: Shoreline Characteristics and Proposed Improvements by Reach

Sub-

Reach

Description Current Condition Proposed Design Concept Fish Habitat

Opportunity3

Macassa Bay Reach 8

8.1 This sub-reach includes the

north part of the east shore

of the bay protected with a

stone revetment.

No structural concerns were

identified during the above water

review.

No improvements are required. No proposed fish habitat

enhancements.


south part of the east shore

of the bay protected with an

armour stone wall.

No structural concerns identified

during above water review.

No improvements are required. No proposed fish habitat

enhancements.


south shore around the

launch ramp area protected

by armour stone walls,

concrete launch ramp and

associated dock structure.



Crest of structure below design

flood level.

Improvement proposed consists

of raising the crest of the

existing armour stone wall by

one stone to an elevation of

approximately 76.3 m.

No proposed fish habitat

enhancements.


central south shore of the

bay within the area now used

by MacDonald Marine

Services. Shore protection

consists mainly of concrete

block walls.

Wall in various states of disrepair

and failure. Structural concerns

were identified during the above

water review.

Shore protection alternatives

are determined by the

backshore uses. First

alternative for shore protection

consists of an armour stone

wall similar to sub-reach 8.2.

Second alternative consists of a

gently sloping shore (slopes at

4h:1v to 6h:1v) covered with

randomly placed boulders,

cobbles, cobble and soil

mixture. The shore is to be

planted with various plant

materials, both below and

The first alternative has

limited opportunity for fish

habitat enhancement.

The second alternative

provides the greatest

diversity of habitat features

(such as, boulders, cobble,

soil and gravel mix as well

as plant material) for the fish

assemblage in the area.

3 Fish habitat opportunities have been considered only in areas where other in-water improvements are being made.


April 17, 2013


Sub-

Reach


Opportunity3

above water.

Varying the type of shore

protection will create an

undulating shoreline.

Alignment of the shore and

extent of each type of

protection has not been

established and will need to be

finalized at the time of detailed

site plan preparation.

A portion of the shore within

this sub-reach is required to

accommodate boating activities

and docking and will be

protected with a steel sheet pile

wall.


western part of the south

shore within the area now

used by Macassa Bay Yacht

Club. Shore protection is

composed of various

structures including concrete

block walls and timber walls.

Most structures show signs of

failure and excessive settlement.

Insufficient space on land exists to

accommodate existing/proposed

land uses and public access to the

waterfront.

Shoreline protection involves a

steel sheet pile wall with or

without a lakeside boardwalk

supported on piles.

The steel sheet pile wall with

lakeside boardwalk would be

used where insufficient space

exists on land to accommodate

both existing/proposed land

uses and public access to the

waterfront.

Aquatic habitat features and

improvements, such as

boulders and other structural

habitat, will be incorporated

along the toe of the structure

wherever possible.

A lakeside boardwalk would

provide added shade for fish

habitat.


April 17, 2013


Sub-

Reach


Opportunity3

Main Basin - Reach 1


south shore of Pier 8

protected with a concrete

capped steel sheet pile wall

with a rip rap revetment.



No improvements required No proposed fish habitat

enhancements.


shore west of Discovery

Drive protected by ‘H’ piles

with steel lagging and steel

sheet pile wall.


during above and below water

review. Structure found to have 50

year design life remaining.


flood level.

Improvement consists of

raising the crest elevation of the

wall by provision of a

reinforced concrete cap.


enhancements.


shore west of Discovery

Drive protected with a rip

rap and rubble revetment.

Minor erosion was noted along

shore protected with scattered

rubble and stone during review.

Crest of revetment below design

flood level.


placing additional rip rap to

produce a more stable and

uniform appearance and

provision of armour stone cap

to raise the crest elevation of

the structure.

This is an area identified in

the Waterfront Concept as

an area for urban fishing and

habitat enhancement.

Where possible rip rap of

varying sizes will be used

and gaps filled with gravel

substrate to create a

gravel/rock substrate. Area

will be enhanced with

aquatic vegetation.



pier at the north end of the

reach. The pier is

constructed with timber

piles. There is a gap in the

structure approximately 7 m

wide that creates the opening

Structural concerns identified

during above water review

including leaning piles and

weathered timber at the water line.


removing the existing timber

pier above elevation 72.2 m

and installing a prefabricated

pedestrian bridge. Bridge

would be founded on piles with

a concrete cap behind proposed


enhancements.


April 17, 2013


Sub-

Reach


Opportunity3

for the basin fronting the

police marine unit

dock/boathouse.

steel sheet pile walls in sub-

reaches 2.2 and 2.5.


shore along the east side of

the basin protected by a

timber pile structure.


during above water review

including missing tie rods and

weathered timbers at the

waterline.


flood level.

Improvements consist of

installing a concrete capped

steel sheet pile wall in front of

the existing timber pile wall

and removing the timber piles

above the waterline.






wherever possible.


shore along the south side of

the basin protected by a steel

sheet pile wall.


during above and below water

review. Structure found to have 50

year design life remaining for

future design loading.

There are holes in wall where a

fender was once attached to the

wall.

Crest of wall below design flood

level.



wall by provision of a

reinforced concrete cap and

repairing holes in the wall.


enhancements.


police marine unit boathouse

constructed on steel sheet

piles.


during above water review. There

are large holes in the steel sheet

piles at the waterline.

Condition of structure of

significant concern and requires

further investigation.

Improvements consist of a

concrete capped steel sheet pile

wall. Alignment of shoreline

and possible infilling will

depend on the future location

of the police marine unit.

Maintenance of the existing

function is likely to require

improvements to the building

foundation and building. These

are not included as part of the






wherever possible.


April 17, 2013


Sub-

Reach


Opportunity3

shoreline improvements.


shore along the pier on the

west side of the police

marine unit basin. The north

end of the pier is constructed

with timber piles. The south

end is constructed with steel

sheet piles.

The timber pile pier has been

closed to public access.

Above and below water review

found that the steel sheet pile wall

does not have remaining design

life of 50 years.




the existing timber pile or steel

sheet pile wall and removing

the timber/steel pile above the

water line. The type of surface

treatment will depend on future

use of the structure.

This area is over 4 m deep

and an area with heavy boat

traffic, thus aquatic habitat

enhancement is not

proposed.



shore south of the Police

boathouse along the east side

of the James Street basin

protected by a steel sheet

pile wall.


found that the steel sheet pile wall

does not have a remaining design

life of 50 years.

Crest of wall below design flood

level.




the existing wall and removing

the existing wall above the

water line.


and an area with heavy boat

traffic, thus aquatic habitat

enhancement is not

proposed.


shore along the south end of

the James Street basin

protected by a steel sheet

pile wall and a masonry wall

with a storm sewer outlet.

Above and below review of the

structures found that the walls do

not have a remaining design life

of 50 years.




the existing structures and

removing the existing

structures above the water line.

The new structure will need to

accommodate the existing

outlet.






wherever possible.


April 17, 2013


Sub-

Reach


Opportunity3


pier on the west side of the

James Street basin

constructed with steel sheet

piles.



Proposed intensification for this

sub-reach includes new buildings.






water line. The type of surface

treatment will depend on the

future use of the pier.

No fish habitat is proposed

to be added as this is an area

of high boat traffic.

3.4 This sub-reach includes

shore east of the HPA haul

out dock. It is protected with

a steel sheet pile wall.

Additional underwater

investigation required during

detailed design work.


land use along this sub-reach is

likely to require a steel sheet

pile wall. However, the current

function requires the shoreline

remain unaltered.


and aquatic habitat

enhancement is not

proposed.


shoreline at the HPA haul

out dock. The shore is

protected with steel sheet

pile wall.





land use is likely to require a

steel sheet pile wall. However

the current function requires

the shoreline remain unaltered.


and aquatic habitat enhance-

ment is not proposed.


shore with covered docks

located west of the haul out

dock. The shore is protected

with a steel sheet pile wall.





land use is likely to require a

steel sheet pile wall. However,

the current function requires

the shoreline remain unaltered.


and aquatic habitat enhance-

ment is not proposed.


April 17, 2013


Sub-

Reach


Opportunity3


shore along the east and

north faces of the service

wharf protected with a steel

sheet pile wall.


found that the wall does not to

have a remaining design life of 50

years.






water line. Improvements

address only the shoreline

protection. Maintenance or

repairs to the gas service

facilities may be required, but

is not included in the scope of

this work.


and is an area of high boat

traffic thus, aquatic habitat

enhancement is not

proposed.



shore along the west and

south side of the service

wharf area protected by a

steel sheet pile wall.


found that the wall along the west

side of service wharf does not

have a remaining design life of 50

years. The wall along the south

side of the service wharf was

found to have a remaining 50 year

design life.






waterline along the west side of

the service wharf (sub-reach

4.1a) and raising the elevation

of the wall by installing a

reinforced concrete cap along

the south side of the service

wharf (sub-reach 4.1b).

No additional fish habitat is

proposed as this area is

entirely within the sailing

school basin.


April 17, 2013


Sub-

Reach


Opportunity3


shore along the east side of

the basin protected by a rip

rap revetment.

The above water review found the

structure to be in good condition.


flood level.



revetment by placing additional

rip rap stone along the crest of

the revetment.

This would be the only

section within Reach 4 to

propose fish habitat as the

boats will stay away from

rocky shore and the

shoreline isn’t a vertical

wall. The rocky shoreline

provides habitat complexity.

Habitat improvements such

as infilling gaps with gravel

will be incorporated

wherever possible.


south shore of the basin at

the east end including the

launch ramp. The shore is

protected by a concrete wall

with rip rap revetment.

The above water review found the

structure to be in good condition.



concrete wall and grading to

maintain the launch ramp

function. The current function

requires that the shoreline

remain unaltered.


enhancements.


shore along the south side of

the basin that covered by the

Royal Hamilton Yacht Club

boathouse/deck. The shore

is protected by a rip

rap/rubble revetment that is

covered by a deck supported

on piles.





function is likely to require a

rip rap revetment with a deck

supported on piles or a steel

sheet pile wall. The current

function requires the shoreline

remain unaltered.


enhancements.

4.5 Sub-reach includes the shore

along the west side of the

basin protected by a timber

retaining wall.

Above water review found the

wall was in poor condition.

Timber wall is deteriorated.


replacement of the timber wall

with a concrete capped steel

sheet pile wall.

No aquatic habitat

improvements are proposed

along the base of this wall to

accommodate intense

boating use in the area.


April 17, 2013


Sub-

Reach


Opportunity3



shore along the north and

west sides of the headland in

front of the RHYC. The

shore is protected by a

timber retaining wall.


during above water review. The

timber retaining wall is

deteriorated.

Improvements considered two

potential structures. Alternative

designs include steel sheet pile

wall or a steel sheet pile wall

with boardwalk supported on

piles. The seawall and

boardwalk section would be

used where insufficient space

exists on land to accommodate

existing land uses and provide

public access the waterfront.

Both alternatives could

include aquatic habitat

improvements along the

seawall.

Boardwalk design

(alternative 2) will provide

overhanging cover for fish

habitat and areas of

emergent vegetation will

enhance habitat. Rocky

slope with gravel pockets

will provide a diverse mix of

substrate for fish and other

aquatic species.


shore in front of the RHYC

pool protected by a steel bin

structure with a concrete

deck and rip-rap base.


during above water review. The

steel bin structure is severely

rusted.

Improvements consist of a steel

sheet pile seawall with a

boardwalk supported on piles.

This system is required to

provide public access in the

confined area between the pool

and the shore. Special

considerations will need to be

given to the location of the pool

and the steel sheet pile wall

designed as a cantilever wall or

piles used as anchor instead of

traditional dead man anchors to

accommodate the pool location.

Boardwalk design will

provide overhanging cover

for fish habitat and areas of



slope at the toe of the wall

under the boardwalk with

gravel pockets will provide a

diverse mix of substrate for

fish and other aquatic

species.


April 17, 2013


Sub-

Reach


Opportunity3


shore in front of the RHYC

parking lot protected by a

rip rap revetment, armour

stone and asphalt pavement

over the graded bank.


during above water review. Minor

erosion was noted along shore.

Improvements consist of a steel

sheet pile wall with boardwalk

supported on piles. This

system is required to provide

public access in a confined area

between the parking area and

the shore.

Boardwalk design will

provide overhanging cover

for fish habitat and areas of



slope at the toe of the wall

under the boardwalk with

gravel pockets will provide a

diverse mix of substrate for

fish and other aquatic

species.


April 17, 2013


8.0 BREAKWATER IMPROVEMENTS

8.1. Breakwater Alternative Solutions (Class EA Phase 2)

As discussed in Section 4.3.3, a breakwater reduces on-shore wave activity and assists in the reduction of

on-shore flood hazard. Breakwaters also provide protection to boats moored on off-shore docks. The main

basin is the area housing the greatest number of boats and it is the most open to wave action. This section

of the report specifically addresses the breakwater for the main basin.

8.1.1. Breakwater Alternative Solutions

The alternative solutions must primarily address the wave conditions within the basin. The wave

conditions must be reduced to an acceptable standard. A wave height of less than 0.3 m is generally

considered to be an acceptable wave agitation within a marina basin within the boating season.

Breakwaters must also be able to withstand wave and ice conditions at the site.

A “do-nothing” alternative would continue use of the existing breakwater. Floating breakwaters function

by reducing the wave energy that can be transmitted through and under the structure, thus reducing the

wave height on the back (sheltered) side of the breakwater. The design of a floating breakwater is

primarily governed by wave period. Floating breakwater structures become very inefficient when the

design wave period is exceeded. Continued use of the existing breakwater would provide adequate wave

reduction and protection for the existing mooring basin only up to the design wave period. This design

wave period will be exceeded periodically, as it has been in the past. When exceeded, the docks and boats

will be potentially subject to damage, as has occurred in the past. In addition, the length of the existing

breakwater is not sufficient to allow for future expansion of the marina basin, as envisioned under the

Waterfront Concept Plan. Thus, a “do-nothing” option was not considered further.

Alternative solutions to addressing the wave conditions within the main basin were identified and include:

Option 1: Repair Breakwater;

Option 2: New Breakwater – Fixed;

Option 3: New Breakwater –Floating.

Option 1: Repair Existing Breakwater

A review of the previously completed assessments that were carried out by others after the significant

damage to breakwater and docks in the early 1990s concluded that a replacement of the breakwater rather

than a repair is required. Due to the overall physical limitations of the existing structure, it is anticipated

that it cannot be upgraded to provide adequate wave reduction.

Option 2: New Breakwater – Fixed

A new fixed breakwater could be constructed along the outer perimeter of the expanded basin. Fixed

breakwater refers to structures that are placed on the lake bottom and are statically stable. The most

common type of fixed breakwater on the Great Lakes is a stone structure. Other types of fixed breakwater

could include steel sheet pile caisson, crib structures or H Pile with lagging.

Option 3: New Breakwater –Floating

A new floating breakwater can also be constructed along the perimeter of the expanded basin. Preliminary

assessment of wave climate at the location and review of commercially available floating breakwaters

indicates that suitable floating breakwaters exist. The type of breakwater likely to be utilized is a pontoon

type. These are most commonly concrete structures with integrated flotation systems. Pontoon


April 17, 2013


breakwaters can be utilized as walkways or temporary docks. Other types of floating breakwaters can also

be design to provide the required protection.

A floating breakwater can be relocated should future plans for the marina basin size or shape be altered.

The most common type of anchoring system for a floating breakwater for water depths in excess of 10 m is

a concrete block connected to the breakwater with chain or cable. The concrete blocks can readily be

moved.

The interaction of floating breakwaters with ice is difficult to predict and potential for ice damage to a

floating breakwater exists. Potential for ice damage must be assessed based mostly on local experience and

experience of the manufacturer with their particular type of structure and design. Given that an “A” frame

floating breakwater existed at this location for nearly twenty years without notable ice damage suggests

that use of floating breakwater at this site is feasible.

8.1.2. Breakwater Evaluation and Preferred Solution

A detailed evaluation was completed to compare the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative

based on four principal evaluation criteria groups:

Natural environment considerations;

Socio economic and cultural environmental considerations;

Technical considerations; and

Relative cost considerations.

This evaluation if documented in Table 8.1 at the end of this Section and further discussed below based on

the criteria groups noted.

Natural Environment: Both floating breakwater alternatives (Option 1: Repair Existing Breakwater and

Option 3: New Breakwater - Floating) result in minimal impacts to the natural environment. In both cases

work will be required on the anchor system for the floating breakwater however this work is anticipated to

be short term and result in minimal long term disturbance to fish habitat. The fixed breakwater (Option 2)

is placed on the lake bottom and has a greater potential for loss of fish habitat than the floating structure. It

is noted however, that habitat can often be built into the breakwater structure itself. A fixed breakwater

will also impact water circulation within the main basin and water exchange between the main basin and

the Hamilton West Harbour area. The impact on water quality due to the change in circulation pattern

cannot be quantified without detailed modelling. From a natural environment perspective, a floating

breakwater is preferred. There is limited difference in natural environment benefits between Option 1:

Repair Existing Breakwater and Option3: New Breakwater - Floating.

Socio-Economic and Cultural: None of the three alternatives are anticipated to result in negative impacts

on the existing waterfront recreation or commercial facilities, public safety, or cultural heritage.

Regardless of the type of breakwater structure, there is a potential for impact on navigability but all

structures can be designed to minimize impact. From a socio-economic and cultural perspective, all

options are considered similar.

Technical: It is not anticipated that Option 1: Repair Existing Breakwater can result in a structural integrity

that can provide the appropriate level of protection to the main basin. So, from a technical perspective, this

option is least preferred. Considering construction of a new breakwater, a floating structure (Option 3) is

preferred over a fixed structure (Option 2) as it offers greater flexibility for movement to accommodate

changes in the docks within the basin.


April 17, 2013


Cost: From a cost perspective, Option 1 – Repair Existing is the lowest cost. Option 2: New Breakwater –

Fixed has the highest cost (approximately $30,000/m) and Option 3 – New Breakwater – Floating has a

moderate cost (approximately $4,000/m). From a cost only perspective Option 1 is preferred.

The preferred option for the main basin breakwater is a new floating breakwater. It offers sufficient level

of protection from wave action with minimal impact on fish habitat and water circulation. It also offers

flexibility to accommodate changes to the docks4 and/or allow for public access and can be constructed for

a moderate cost.

4 The preliminary dock arrangement shown during consultation on this project within the basin is conceptual and was prepared for

the purpose of determining an approximate size of the water area required for the basin and to assist with the general layout and

configuration of the breakwaters. The preliminary dock layout is based on an average boat size of 10 m. The final dock layout will

be determined as the land side configurations are finalized, suitability of dock access points confirmed and operational aspect of the

boating facility confirmed.


April 17, 2013


Table 8.1: Evaluation of Breakwater Types

Evaluation Criteria Option 1: Repair

Existing Breakwater

Option 2: New Fixed

Breakwater

Option 3: New Floating

Breakwater

Natural

Environment

Opportunity to

naturalize the

shoreline and improve

fish habitat.

None of the alternatives

impede the opportunity

to naturalize the


fish habitat.


impede the opportunity to

naturalize the shoreline

and improve fish habitat.


impede the opportunity to

naturalize the shoreline

and improve fish habitat.


aquatic or terrestrial

habitat during

construction.

May include some

improvement to the

anchor system but

overall low potential for

impact on existing

habitat expected.

Construction of a fixed

breakwater involves

depositing material on the

lake bottom resulting in

high potential for habitat

impact.

Construction of a new

anchor system but overall

low potential for impact

on existing habitat

expected.

Potential for water

quality improvement.

Involves construction

within the water and has

some potential for

impact to water quality

during construction.

Fixed breakwater

involved long

construction period within

the water and has high

potential for impact to

water quality during

construction.

Fixed breakwater will

impact the water

circulation pattern in the

harbour and has potential

to impact water quality in

the marina.

Involves construction

within the water and has

some potential for impact

to water quality during

construction.

Impact on Erosion. All of the alternatives

provide protection from

wave action and erosion

provided they are

constructed in

conjunction with

appropriate shoreline

treatment.

All of the alternatives



provided they are

constructed in

conjunction with


treatment.

All of the alternatives



provided they are

constructed in

conjunction with


treatment.

Natural Environment

Summary

Both floating breakwater alternatives (repair existing or replace with new

floating breakwater) result in minimal impacts to the natural environment

compared to the fixed breakwater which has the potential to remove fish habitat

and alter water circulation and possibly water quality in the marina.



on waterfront

recreational or


All alternatives will

have minimal impact on

existing shoreline and

on-shore facilities.

All alternatives will have

minimal impact on

existing shoreline and on-

shore facilities.

All alternatives will have

minimal impact on

existing shoreline and on-

shore facilities.


April 17, 2013



Existing Breakwater

Option 2: New Fixed

Breakwater


Breakwater

Opportunity for

enhancement of

waterfront recreational

or commercial


All alternatives involve

improvement to the

protection of the land

and/or water and thus all

provide opportunities

for enhancement of

amenities.


improvement to the



provide opportunities for

enhancement of

amenities. New fixed

breakwater may provide

an opportunity to provide

public access.


improvement to the



provide opportunities for

enhancement of

amenities. New floating

breakwater may provide

an opportunity to provide

public access.


public safety.


improvement to the



provide safety

improvement.


improvement to the



provide safety

improvement.


improvement to the



provide safety

improvement.

Potential to impact

cultural heritage

(archaeological

resources or built


landscapes) and/or

treaty rights.

Minimal impact on


treaty rights.

Minimal impact on

cultural heritage or treaty

rights.

Minimal impact on

cultural heritage or treaty

rights.

Impact on

Navigability.

All alternatives have

potential to impact

navigability. Care will

be taken to design the

breakwater to minimize

potential for negative

impact.


potential to impact

navigability. Care will be

taken to design the



impact.


potential to impact

navigability. Care will be

taken to design the



impact.

Socio-Economic and

Cultural Environment

Summary

All alternatives are similar in their potential for socio-economic and cultural

environment impact. A new breakwater provides the best opportunity for public

access.

Technical

Structural integrity It is not anticipated that

the existing breakwater

can be repaired to

provide adequate

protection for the

marina.

A new breakwater, fixed

or floating can be

designed to provide

structural integrity.


or floating can be

designed to provide

structural integrity.

Level of protection

provided.

It is not anticipated that

the existing breakwater

can be repaired to

provide an appropriate

level of protection.


or floating can be

designed to provide an

appropriate level of

protection.


or floating can be

designed to provide an

appropriate level of

protection.

Design life/

Maintenance

requirements.

This alternative has a

minimal design life.

A new fixed breakwater

has a design life of

approximately 50 years.

A new floating

breakwater has a design

life of approximately 20-

40 years.


April 17, 2013



Existing Breakwater

Option 2: New Fixed

Breakwater


Breakwater

Potential for

contamination issues

Minimal potential to

encounter

contamination issues as

only anchors on the lake

bottom.

Some potential to

encounter contamination

issues due to greater lake-

bottom disturbance.

Minimal potential to

encounter contamination

issues as only anchors on

the lake bottom.

Flexibility A floating breakwater

provides the most

flexibility as it can be

moved to accommodate

changes to the docks.

Additional new

breakwater needed to

accommodate expanded

marina basin.

A fixed breakwater is the

least flexible as the

structure cannot be

moved.

A floating breakwater

provides the most

flexibility as it can be

moved to accommodate

changes to the docks.


utilities.

Anchors can easily be

located away from any

utilities.

Cannot be located on top

of any utilities.

Anchors can easily be

located away from any

utilities.

Constructability Relatively easy to

construct.

Relatively easy to

construct.

Relatively easy to

construct.

Technical Summary The new floating breakwater is preferred as it provides more flexibility than a

fixed breakwater and the existing floating structure is not easily upgraded.

Cost

Relative cost

differences.

Lowest Cost. Highest Cost

(approximately $30,000

per m).

Moderate cost

(approximately $4,000

per m).

8.2. Breakwater Alternative Design Concepts (Class EA Phase 3)

Phase 2 of the class environmental assessment considered potential breakwater alternative solutions. The

alternative solutions included repair of the existing breakwater, replacement of the existing floating

breakwater with a new functional floating breakwater or replacement of the floating breakwater with a

fixed breakwater. The process concluded with a new floating breakwater being the preferred alternative

solution option due to a number of environmental advantages and a substantial capital cost advantage.

The alternative design concept stage work included further development of coastal design criteria and

further refinements of construction costs estimates and breakwater layout and configurations.

8.2.1. Coastal Assessment

A coastal assessment was completed including the development of wave climate for the breakwater

location for a full year and for a typical boating season. Boating season is considered to extend from May

15 to September 30. A wave hindcast was completed which looks at wind data from the last 30+ years to

determine the typical wave height, power and period. The winds used in the hindcast were from the

Hamilton Airport and covered a period of August 1971 to December 2011.

The results of the analysis are presented on Figures 8.1 and 8.2. Figure 8.1 indicates the directional

distribution of wave energy and wave heights. Generally, the hindcast shows that the largest winds and

waves in the west harbour come from the northeast with the second largest from the west. The directional

distributions are similar for the full year and the boating season. However, the full year shows a substantial

increase in wave height from the northeast and west quadrants. Figure 8.2 shows the exceedance of wave


April 17, 2013


height and wave period for the hindcast period. The wave period was determined as it is a critical factor in

determining the performance a floating breakwater. The figures show that significant waves in the order of

1.2 m in height with a period of 4.1 seconds can be expected to approach the site from the most critical NE

direction during the year. The wave height and period are reduced to approximately 0.8 m and 3.4 seconds

during the boating season.

Wave scatter diagrams and other figures illustrating monthly and annual wave power distribution for full

year and a boating season hindcast are presented in Appendix D.

Figure 8.1: Directional Distribution of Wave Energy and Wave Heights (Full year)

Figure 8.2: Exceedance of Wave Height and Period (Full year)

North NE East SE South SW West NW North

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Wave P

ow

er

(% o

f to

tal)

Wave H

eig

ht

(m)

Wave Height

% Wave Power

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5

Excced

an

ce (

%)

Wave Height (m)

wave height

wave period

Wave Period (s)


April 17, 2013


8.2.2. Breakwater Design Alternatives

The breakwaters that can function with the local wave environment are expected to fall into two basic

design types. These design types include an “A” frame design and a concrete pontoon design, although

other systems can be also designed for the site conditions.

A-Frame: Figure 8.3 shows an example of an A-

frame breakwater design. An A-frame type

breakwater includes an inverted “A” frame

structure with floats and an underwater frame that

supports a central baffle board that reflects wave

energy. Floats are typically constructed using steel

pipes. The breakwater is secured in its position

with steel chains connected to concrete blocks on

the lake bottom. The breakwater is typically made

up of a number of sections that are connected

together in a straight line to act as one unit. . This

design is the same type as currently used at the site.

However, the main components of the breakwater,

that is the spacing and size of the floats and the size

of the baffle board would need to be properly sized

to function under design conditions.

Concrete Pontoon: Figure 8.4 shows an example of

a concrete pontoon breakwater design. A concrete

pontoon design typically includes a main body of the breakwater which serves as floatation chamber. It is

typically a concrete shell that encloses a foam core. Underwater walls or baffles extend down along the

sides of the caisson. The top of the concrete can be dressed with timber or other products to provide

walking surface and fenders can be attached to the sides of the pontoon to accommodate fair weather

mooring. The breakwater is secured in its position with steel chains connected to concrete blocks on the

lake bottom. The breakwater is typically made up of a number of sections that are connected together in a

straight line to act as one unit.

Figure 8.4: Concrete Pontoon Breakwater

Figure 8.3: A-Frame Breakwater


April 17, 2013


Both types of breakwater would be manufactured off-site and likely floated to the site from a remote

location. Both breakwater types have similar anchoring systems consisting of chain connecting it to

concrete blocks on the bottom of the lake.

Using the evaluation criteria developed early in the project, the alternative breakwater types were

evaluated. Table 8.2 at the end of this section shows the comparison for the two breakwater types for each

of the evaluation criteria. The following summarizes the evaluation based on each of the criteria groups.

Natural Environment – The anchoring system for both alternatives is similar and there is limited impact to

the aquatic environment for either alternative. Neither type of floating breakwater will result in a

significant change in water circulation. The existing breakwater occupies approximately the top 3 m of the

water column. The floating systems under consideration are not expected to occupy any greater portion of

the water column.

Socio-Economic and Cultural Environment – Both design types, i.e. “A” frame or concrete pontoon, are

well suited for application at this location. They can be designed to perform well within the wave climate

of the site adequately reduce the waves providing protection for the marina as well as an element of flood

protection for the shoreline features. Neither alternative will impact cultural heritage.

Technical – Both alternatives have a reasonable 20-40 year lifespan and are readily available5. The only

difference between alternatives relates to their ability to provide an opportunity for docking during special

events. The concrete pontoon breakwater can readily provide additional mooring for special events during

light wave conditions. It can potentially also provide pedestrian access if appropriate ramps are provided.

Public access to the main east breakwater would also require appropriate controls in place to restrict access

during times of severe weather. However, no decision regarding pedestrian access to the breakwater has

been made at this point by the City of Hamilton. The evaluation process assumes that no public access is

being provided.

Cost – Costs are expected to be similar, although the “A” frame design has not been manufactured locally

for some time and up-to-date prices from manufacturers are not available. It is anticipated that the cost for

both options would be in the range of $5,500 to $6,500 per metre.

Overall the breakwater types have very similar impacts and both would be appropriate for this location.

Since there is no clear preference between the alternatives, it is recommended that the determination of

breakwater type be based on the market response to minimum performance specifications set by the City of

Hamilton.

During final design, performance specifications should be set out in a document that describes in detail the

functional and physical properties of the breakwater desired. For example, the document would describe

the incident wave conditions the breakwater is expected to operate in with the maximum transmitted wave

conditions permitted. The document would also describe the materials permitted in the manufacture of the

breakwater and applicable standard material specifications, such as CSA or ASTM standards. This

approach is proposed as it allows manufacturers of various proprietary systems to respond to a tender call.

8.2.3. Breakwater Layout Alternatives

Two alternative breakwater entrance configurations were developed. These include a northeast facing

entrance:

5 The approximate lifespan of a floating breakwater as provided by the manufacturer is approximately 25 years. Based on

experiences including the current Hamilton floating breakwater, it can be assumed that with regular maintenance, the lifespan can

extend to 40 years.


April 17, 2013


Option 1: Northeast Facing Breakwater Layout (Figure 8.5) – this option provides protection to

boats entering and exiting from the more frequent but smaller waves from the west; and

Option 2: Northwest Facing Breakwater Layout (Figure 8.6) – this option provides protection to

boats entering and exiting from the less frequent but larger waves from the east.

The configurations were developed to assist in the illustration and assessment of the function and costs of

the design concepts of the breakwaters. Each breakwater layout protects a marina basin designed to

accommodate up to 900 boat slips using a typical boat size of 9 m. The breakwater layouts are conceptual

only, as the final marina design will be undertaken as a separate project.

Both concept designs provide a main entrance 50 m wide. In addition to this wide entrance, access to the

basin can be potentially obtained around the ends of the two main breakwaters. The breakwaters are not

shore connected. Two secondary breakwaters are used in both concepts to control wave penetration through

the main entrance and to control waves diffracting around the tip of Pier 4. The layouts were developed to

provide protection for the ultimate marina size, minimizing breakwater lengths while providing sufficient

channels to allow boats to move properly. The criteria for selection of channel widths and marina entrance

are based on publications produced by the SCHB of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the US

Corps. of Engineers6

Figure 8.5: Option 1 – North East Facing Entrance Breakwater Concept

6 Small-Craft Harbor: Design, Construction and Operation, J. W. Dunham and A. A. Finn, Special Report No. 2, U.S. Army Corps.

Of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, December 1974. Planning Guidelines for Recreational Harbours in Ontario,

Small Craft Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, prepared by Hough Stansbury, Woodland Limited, 1992.


April 17, 2013


Figure 8.6: Option 2 – North West Facing Entrance Breakwater Concept

Using the evaluation criteria developed early in the project, the alternative breakwater layouts were

evaluated. Table 8.3 at the end of this section shows the comparison for the two breakwater layouts for

each of the evaluation criteria. The following summarizes the evaluation based on each of the criteria

groups.

Natural Environment – The layout of the breakwater will have no impact on the natural environment.

Socio-Economic and Cultural Environment – Both layouts provide adequate protection for the marina.

During the consultation process with stakeholders the boaters expressed a slight preference for the west

facing entrance.

Technical – There is no technical difference between the layout alternatives.

Cost – There is no cost difference between the layout alternatives.

Overall the differences between the layout alternatives relate solely to the type and frequency of wave they

protect against for boaters entering or leaving the basin. As noted above, during consultation boaters

indicated a slight preference for a west facing entrance so that there is protection from the less frequent but

larger waves coming from the east. Thus, overall Option 2: the northwest facing entrance is preferred.

It is noted that the layout concepts shown on Figures 8.5 and 8.6 were prepared for the ultimate marina

size. In reality, the size and operations of the marina will evolve over many years. Although the maximum

size is based on a market study incorporated in the Phase 1 Technical Report (Appendix A), it may take

many years before this capacity is achieved. If the breakwater is installed to far from the docks there is


April 17, 2013


potential for waves to be generated in the space between the docks and the breakwater. An assessment of

potential wave generation between the breakwater location and moored boats was undertaken to determine

the amount of open water that could exist between the docks and marina at this location. The results of this

assessment indicate that at the time of installation there should be no more than 100 meters of open water

between the breakwater and the floating docks.

To determine the final breakwater layout and location, the number of docks and approximate configuration

must be confirmed. It is recommended that a final decision regarding the location of the breakwaters

should be made at the time of final design and contract award.

Installation of the new floating breakwater will require approval of the Hamilton Port Authority. Other

agencies, such as the department of Fisheries and Oceans and Hamilton Conservation Authority should be

advised of the work. Their approvals may be required.


April 17, 2013


Table 8.2: Evaluation of Breakwater Design

Evaluation Criteria Option 1: A-Frame Option 2: Concrete Pontoon

Natural

Environment

Opportunity to

naturalize the


fish habitat.

No difference – neither alternative significantly

changes shoreline or fish habitat.

No difference – neither alternative

significantly changes shoreline or fish

habitat.



habitat during

construction.

No difference – both alternatives have the

minimal impact on fish habitat as a result of the

anchoring system and no impact on terrestrial

habitat.

No difference – both alternatives have

the minimal impact on fish habitat as

a result of the anchoring system and

no impact on terrestrial habitat.

Potential for water


No difference – both alternatives provide

adequate water circulation.

No difference – both alternatives

provide adequate water circulation.

Impact on Erosion. No difference – both alternatives will assist in

the reduction of on shore flooding and erosion

potential.

No difference – both alternatives will

assist in the reduction of on shore

flooding and erosion potential.

Natural Environment

Summary

Both alternatives will assist in reducing on-shore wave action and flooding and thus

erosion and neither will have a significant impact on fish habitat or terrestrial habitat.



on waterfront

recreational or


No difference – both alternatives will protect

recreation and commercial facilities.


protect recreation and commercial

facilities.

Opportunity for

enhancement of


or commercial


Both alternatives will protect recreation and


Both alternatives will protect



public safety.





facilities.

Potential to impact

cultural heritage

(archaeological

resources or built


landscapes) and/or

treaty rights.

No difference – neither alternative will impact

cultural heritage.


will impact cultural heritage.

Impact on

Navigability


protection during storms and require navigable

waters protection act approval.


provide protection during storms and

require navigable waters protection

act approval.

Socio-Economic and


Summary

Both alternatives will protect the amenities at the waterfront.

Technical

Structural integrity No difference – both are suitable for site

conditions.

No difference – both are suitable for

site conditions.


April 17, 2013


Evaluation Criteria Option 1: A-Frame Option 2: Concrete Pontoon

Level of protection

provided.

No difference – both are suitable for site

conditions.

No difference – both are suitable for

site conditions.

Design life/

Maintenance

requirements.

No difference – both have a life of 20-40 years

and require the same maintenance.

No difference – both have a life of

20-40 years and require the same

maintenance.

Potential for

contamination issues.

No difference – both are in the same location

and contamination issues are not anticipated.

No difference – both are in the same

location and contamination issues are

not anticipated.

Flexibility Less suitable for boat docking but can be

modified for boat docking at an extra cost.

More suitable for boat docking.


utilities

No difference – neither alternative is likely to

impact utilities.

No difference – neither alternative is

likely to impact utilities.

Constructability No difference – both are straightforward to

construct.

No difference – both are

straightforward to construct.

Technical Summary Both alternatives have a reasonable design life and provide the same level of

protection. The Concrete breakwater provides a more suitable opportunity for

temporary boat docking should that be desirable.

Cost

Relative cost

differences.

Capital costs are similar for both alternatives

(approximately $4,000 per metre). Operation

and maintenance costs would also be similar for

both alternatives.

(Note: Budget pricing estimates presented in this

document are based on information supplied by the

manufacturer, SF Marine)

Capital costs are similar for both

alternatives (approximately $4,000

per metre). Operation and

maintenance costs would also be

similar for both alternatives.

(Note: Budget pricing estimates presented in

this document are based on information

supplied by the manufacturer, SF Marine)


April 17, 2013


Table 8.3: Evaluation of Breakwater Layout

Evaluation Criteria Option 1: North-East Facing Entrance Option 2: North-West Facing

Entrance

Natural

Environment

Opportunity to

naturalize the


fish habitat.

No difference – neither alternative significantly

changes shoreline or fish habitat.


significantly changes shoreline or

fish habitat.



habitat during

construction.

No difference – both alternatives have the

minimal impact on fish habitat as a result of the

anchoring system and no impact on terrestrial

habitat.

No difference – both

alternatives have the minimal

impact on fish habitat as a

result of the anchoring system

and no impact on terrestrial

habitat.

Potential for water



adequate water circulation.


provide adequate water circulation.

Impact on Erosion. No difference – both alternatives will assist in

the reduction of on shore flooding and erosion

potential.


will assist in the reduction of on

shore flooding and erosion

potential.

Natural Environment

Summary

There is no difference between these alternatives from a natural environment

perspective.



on waterfront

recreational or





will protect recreation and


Opportunity for

enhancement of


or commercial


Both alternatives will protect recreation and

commercial facilities. The north-east facing

entrance layout will provide the best protection

against the smaller more frequent waves.

Both alternatives will protect

recreation and commercial

facilities. The north-west facing

entrance layout will provide the

best protection against the larger

although less frequent waves.

During consultation, boaters

expressed a slight preference for

this alternative.


public safety.



No difference – both options will


facilities.

Potential to impact

cultural heritage

(archaeological

resources or built


landscapes) and/or

treaty rights.

No difference – neither option will impact

cultural heritage.

No difference – neither option will

impact cultural heritage.


April 17, 2013


Evaluation Criteria Option 1: North-East Facing Entrance Option 2: North-West Facing

Entrance

Impact on

Navigability

No difference – both options provide protection

during storms and require navigable waters

protection act approval.

No difference – both options

provide protection during storms

and require navigable waters

protection act approval.

Socio-Economic and


Summary

Both options with protect the waterfront amenities. A slight preference for the

north-west facing entrance was expressed by representatives of some of the boating

organizations.

Technical

Structural integrity No difference – both are suitable for site

conditions.

No difference – both are suitable

for site conditions.

Level of protection

provided.

No difference – both are suitable for site

conditions.

No difference – both are suitable

for site conditions.

Design life/

Maintenance

requirements.

No difference – both have a life of 20-40 years

and require the same maintenance.

No difference – both have a life of

20-40 years and require the same

maintenance

Potential for

contamination issues

No difference – both are in the same location

and contamination issues are not anticipated.

No difference – both are in the

same location and contamination

issues are not anticipated.

Flexibility No difference – both provide similar flexibility. No difference – both provide

similar flexibility.


utilities

No difference – neither option is likely to

impact utilities.

No difference – neither option is

likely to impact utilities.

Constructability No difference – both are straightforward to

construct.

No difference – both are

straightforward to construct.

Technical Summary There is no difference between the layout options from a technical perspective.

Cost

Relative cost

differences.

No difference – cost is the same for both

options.

No difference – cost is the same for

both options.


April 17, 2013


9.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION

9.1. Proposed Shoreline and Breakwater Improvement

Proposed Shoreline Improvements

The proposed shoreline improvements as summarized in Table 7.3 are anticipated to improve the safety of

the shoreline for those using the waterfront as well as add fish habitat where appropriate; and the new

floating breakwater will protect the existing marina and provide flexibility for future expansion.

Design concepts for the improvements to the shoreline were developed for each sub-reach where

improvements were identified (see Table 7.3 and Appendix C). The design concepts were developed using

assumed soil parameters typical of the area and our understanding of the future use of the structure. Cost

estimates of the design concepts are provided for each sub-reach in Table 9.1. The estimates are based on

typical construction costs for similar work in southern Ontario. The estimates do not include an allowance

for design, contingency or taxes. Other associated works such as fish habitat improvements and servicing

infrastructure are also not included.

The following provides comments about the costing and phasing of each reach. Overall, the approximate

cost for improvements to the shoreline is $11.4 million. This cost would not occur all at once as it is

envisioned that shoreline improvements will be implemented over time.

Reach 8

Shoreline improvements are proposed for approximately 470 m of the shoreline within Reach 8. The cost

estimate assumes that approximately 126 m of the shoreline is protected with either an armour stone wall or

gently sloping shore. The rest of the shoreline is protected with a steel sheet pile wall. Future backshore

uses may require change to the type of shoreline protection required. Details of future backshore uses (e.g.,

size of police dock/building) may require change the extent of each type of shoreline protection required.

The cost of the steel sheet pile wall is based on the depth of water shown in the section. No allowance for

dredging was included in the estimate. The cost estimate for the boardwalk is based on pedestrian loading

of a 4 m wide boardwalk.

Reach 1

Shoreline improvements are proposed for approximately 115 m of the shoreline within Reach 1. The cost

estimates do not include an allowance for landscaping or grading behind the walls or revetment. The cost

estimate for the revetment assumes that the existing stone and rubble would be supplemented with new

stone as required.

This work would be phased with the future development of the harbour.

Reach 2

Shoreline improvements are proposed for all of the shoreline within Reach 2. The cost estimates do not

include an allowance for landscaping or grading behind the walls or on the pier. The cost estimate for the

pedestrian bridge in sub-reach 2.1 assumes that the bridge would be for pedestrian use only, less than 4 m

wide and consist of one span. The bridge would be prefabricated, supported on a pile foundation located

landward of the shore protection.


April 17, 2013


The cost estimate for sub-reach 2.3 addresses the shore protection structure. It does not include an

allowance for infilling if the Police Marine Unit is relocated and shoreline realigned or an allowance for a

new building if the Police Marine Unit were to remain.

The condition of the steel sheet pile wall in sub-reach 2.4, Police Marine Unit boathouse is of significant

concern and further investigation into the soundness of the retaining wall and the sheet pile which forms the

foundation for the building should be investigated. The replacement of the existing structure should be a

priority for the City.

Currently sub-reach 2.5 has been closed to public use. Improvements in this sub-reach should be carried

out with the improvements in sub-reach 2.4. Other improvements should be phased with the future

development of the harbour.

Reach 3

Shoreline improvements are proposed for all of the shoreline within Reach 3. Cost estimates were not

prepared for sub-reaches 3.4 to 3.6 because the current land use requires the existing structure to remain

unaltered. The depth of water within the James Street basin is deeper than other shoreline areas within the

harbor which is reflected in the cost estimate. The cost estimates do not include an allowance for

landscaping or grading behind the walls or on the pier. An allowance for the existing storm sewer outlet is

included but no allowance any repairs to the storm sewer landward of the wall are not included. No

allowance has been made for the any work associate with the fuel service infrastructure at the wharf.

Improvements should be phased with the future development of the harbour.

Reach 4

Shoreline improvements are proposed for all of the shoreline within Reach 4. Cost estimates were not

prepared for sub-reach 4.3 and 4.4 because the current land use requires the existing structure remain

unaltered. The cost estimates do not include an allowance for landscaping or grading behind the walls.


Reach 5

Shoreline improvements are proposed for all of the shoreline within Reach 5. Cost estimates are based on

public access being provided on the lakeside of the shore protection structure. The cost estimates do not

include an allowance for landscaping or grading behind the walls.


Proposed Breakwater Improvements

The breakwater will likely be constructed in an off-site location and floated to Hamilton Harbour. Once it

is in the appropriate location anchors will be dropped. The time required for complete installation of the

new floating breakwater is estimated at 2-3 months. Should the breakwater need to be moved, the anchors

would be raised and boats would tow the breakwater to its new location. As previously noted, it is

recommended that the breakwater be placed so there is no more than 100 m of open water between the

breakwater and floating docks. It is recommended that a final decision on the location of the breakwater be

made based on the number of docks and configuration to be confirmed during final design to contract

award. The approximate cost for the breakwater is $4.5 million.


April 17, 2013


The question has been raised about whether the existing breakwater can be used either in Macassa Bay or

as one of the sections of the proposed new floating system.

The existing floating breakwater can be potentially used to reduce wave agitation in the Macassa Bay

mooring area and as part of the new breakwater configuration at the main basin. The length of the existing

breakwaters are sufficient to be used at both locations. The existing breakwaters are 324 m long in total.

The condition review report of the existing floating breakwater (Riggs, 2011) indicates that the breakwater

requires some immediate maintenance. The cost of the maintenance is estimated to be in the order of

$90,000. Longer term maintenance, to be carried out in the next 10 years, is estimated to be in the order of

$328,000. The remaining service life is estimated to be 20 years. The condition of the existing breakwater

must be considered when re-deployment is being evaluated.

A review of wave conditions indicates that waves reaching the mouth of the Macassa Bay are smaller, in

magnitude than in the main basin. Our analysis indicates that wave just reach the upper limit of acceptable

range. The existing floating breakwater, if relocated, is expected to reduce waves below the upper limit

and provide more suitable mooring conditions. It is likely that only the shorter eastern breakwater,

approximately 116 m long, would be required at this location. The exact length and positioning can be

confirmed during detailed design.

The only location at the main basin where the existing breakwater is expected to provide suitable wave

reduction is on the west side. The waves from the west and northwest quadrants are considerably smaller

and with a shorter wave period than from the east quadrant. Thus, the existing breakwater will be effective.

The preliminary configuration of the entrance breakwater proposes a relatively short breakwater section, in

the order of 60 m long, on the west side. A portion of the existing breakwater could be used on this side.

However, the remaining life of the breakwater is only about half of the design life of the new breakwater

and early replacement may be required.

Construction Methods

Construction method and the equipment required for the different design concepts proposed are described

in general below. The actual method used will depend on the contractor and site specific constraints. All

work along the shoreline is typically carried out behind a silt curtain to prevent debris and sediment from

entering the lake.

Raising the existing crest of the structure with a reinforced concrete cap involves preparing the

existing wall to support the concrete cap, installing the steel reinforcement, forming the cap and

placing the concrete. Equipment would likely include a backhoe and welding equipment.

Materials would be brought in by truck.

Rip Rap revetments and armour stone walls can involve the addition of stones to an area of the

shore with existing rip-rap/armour stone or the removal of existing protection, re-grading and the

placement of new rip-rap/armour stone. Equipment would likely include a small backhoe and

materials will be brought in by truck.

Steel sheet pile wall construction typically involves driving steel sheet piles either in front of the

existing wall, or in the same location as the existing wall, installing the anchor wall and rods,

installing the concrete cap and backfill behind wall to final grade. Equipment would likely include

a crane, excavator and backhoe. A barge and tug may be required if the work is completed from

the water. Materials would be brought to the site by truck.

Pedestrian bridge installation typically involves constructing the bridge foundation, trucking the

prefabricated bridge to the site and installing it. Equipment would likely include a crane, excavator


April 17, 2013


or backhoe and vibrator or hammer to drive piles for the foundation. Materials would be brought

in by truck.

Table 9.1: Shoreline Cost Estimate by Reach

Reach Existing Improvements Length

(m)

$/metre Total

($)

Reach 8

8.1 Stone Revetment None Required 133 - -

8.2 Armour Stone all None Required 15 - -

8.3 Armour Stone Wall Raise crest of existing

Armour Stone by

adding one additional

Armour Stone (76.3 m

elevation)

38 500 19,000

8.4a Concrete Block Wall Armour Stone Wall or

Gently Sloping Shore

126 1,500 189,000

8.4b Concrete Block Wall Steel Sheet Pile Wall

with Concrete Cap

87 6,500 565,500

8.5a Concrete Block Wall Steel Sheet Pile Wall

with Concrete Cap

69 6,500 448,500

8.5b Concrete Block Wall Steel Sheet Pile Wall

with Walkway on

Lakeside

152 11,000 1,672,000

Reach 1

1.1 Sheet Pile Wall None required 145 - -

1.2 Steel Sheet Pile Wall Concrete Cap 36 1,000 36,000

1.3 Rubble Revetment Rip Rap Revetment 77 1,500 115,500

Reach 2

2.1 Timber Pile Pier Remove existing timber

pier and install

Pedestrian Bridge

1 150,000 150,000

2.2 Timber Pile Wall Remove timber piles

along the waterline and

install Steel Sheet Pile

Wall with Concrete

Cap

50 8,000 400,000

2.3 Steel Sheet Pile Wall

(Dock)

Concrete Cap and hole

repair

40 1,000 40,000

2.4 Steel Sheet Pile Wall

(Boathouse)

Steel Sheet Pile Wall

with Concrete Cap

31 8,000 248,000

2.5 Timber Pile Pier Steel Sheet Pile Wall

with Concrete Cap

106 8,500 901,000

Reach 3

3.1 Steel Sheet Pile Wall Remove existing wall

above the waterline and


Wall with Concrete

Cap

69 9,000 621,000

3.2 Steel Sheet Pile Wall Remove existing wall 35 8,200 287,000


April 17, 2013



(m)

$/metre Total

($)

and Masonry Wall above the waterline and


Wall with Concrete

Cap


above the waterline and


Wall with Concrete

Cap

183 8,000 1,464,000

3.4 Steel Sheet Pile Wall Existing to be

maintained with current

use

41 8,000 328,000



use

16 8,000 128,000



use

24 8,000 192,000


above shoreline and


Wall with Concrete

Cap

115 8,000 920,000

Reach 4

4.1a Steel Sheet Pile Wall Remove existing wall

above shoreline and


Wall with Concrete

Cap

33 8,000 264,000

4.1b Steel Sheet Pile Wall Concrete Cap 29 1,000 29,000

4.2 Rip Rap Revetment Additional Rip Rap 52 200 10,400

4.3 Concrete Wall and

Launch Ramp

Raise crest elevation of

concrete wall and

grading to maintain

launch ramp

27 6,000 132,000

4.4 Rip Rap Revetment and

Pile Supported Dock

Existing to be


use

22 - -

4.5 Timber Retaining Wall Steel Sheet Pile Wall

with Concrete Cap

77 8,000 616,000

Reach 5

5.1 Timber Retaining Wall Steel Sheet Pile Wall or

Steel Sheet Pile Wall

with Walkway on

Lakeside supported by

piles

95 16,000 1,520,000

5.2 Steel Bin Wall Steel Sheet Pile Wall

with Walkway on

37 15,000 555,000


April 17, 2013



(m)

$/metre Total

($)


piles

5.3 Rock/Rubble Slope Steel Sheet Pile Wall

with Walkway on


piles

24 15,000 360,000

TOTAL 1692 11,430,900


April 17, 2013


9.2. Potential Effects and Mitigation

During construction there is some potential for negative effects on the environment and those who use the

waterfront. The City is committed to minimizing negative effects associated with the breakwater and

shoreline. The following text outlines the potential effect and proposed mitigation. The effects and

mitigation are described below and summarized in Table 9.2.

Natural Environment

Overall, the proposed installation of a new floating breakwater, solutions to shoreline flood hazards and the

repair and/or replacement of the shoreline will have minimal impacts on the terrestrial environment.

Through consultation with regulatory agencies and characterization of the study area though various field

studies, it has been determined that no significant natural features or species protected under the Ontario

Endangered Species Act, 2007 or federal Species at Risk Act will be impacted. However, as the proposed

works are located in or immediately adjacent to the water, potential impacts to the aquatic environment are

discussed below.

Floating Breakwater - The installation of a new floating breakwater has been determined to have minimal

impacts to the aquatic environment. Installation of the anchor system for a new floating breakwater is

anticipated to have minimal impacts, most of which can be mitigated by construction occurring outside of

the warm water fisheries timing window in the harbour (i.e., no in-water work from March 15 – July 15).

The anchoring system for the various potential types of floating breakwater systems are all anticipated to

have a similar level of temporary disturbance to fish habitat.

Shoreline Improvements – As discussed in the above sections, most of Hamilton West Harbour provides

good fish habitat, including bass nesting areas and opportunities for urban fishing. Construction activities

associated with the repair or replacement of shoreline areas has the potential to impact fish habitat.

Mitigation measures may include:

In-water works to be conducted during the appropriate timing window (e.g. avoiding the spring

period and completing in-water works between July 16 and March 14) and not during periods of

elevated lake levels;

All construction materials and equipment used for the purposes of site preparation and project

completion should be operated and stored in a manner that prevents any deleterious substances

from entering water;

An emergency spill kit should be kept on site in case of fluid leaks or spills from machinery;

Any stockpiled construction materials should be stored more than 30 m from any water;

Vehicular and equipment refueling and maintenance should be conducted away from any water;

Implementation of sediment and erosion control measures should occur prior to the commencement

of construction, and maintained and upgraded as necessary during the construction phase to prevent

entry of sediment into the water. This will likely involve the use of a silt curtain;

Shoreline materials to be used should be environmentally-friendly materials that will not release

potential contaminants into the aquatic environment;

Riparian vegetation removed for shoreline repair/replacement should be reinstated post-

construction using native species; and,

All disturbed surfaces should be stabilized as soon as possible after construction. Effective erosion

and sediment control measures should be maintained until disturbed areas are stabilized.

With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the potential for construction impacts to fish and

fish habitat can be minimized. The repair or replacement of shoreline vertical walls is proposed to include

overall improvements to both the shoreline and fish habitat. Overall, it is anticipated there will be no net

loss to fish habitat; with the incorporation of fish habitat feature where shoreline replacement is proposed, a


April 17, 2013


net benefit to fish habitat will likely be achieved. This net benefit to fish habitat is directly in-line with the

RAP objectives of providing and/or enhancing areas of emergent and submergent aquatic plants and

converting 15 km of littoral shoreline from vertical walls to a shallow, sloping shoreline.

Further, in support of the MNR’s urban fisheries initiative in the harbour, and to reduce the pressure on top

predator populations such as largemouth bass, the Hamilton West Harbour Recreation Master Plan

identifies shore-based amenities targeted towards anglers are proposed in the vicinity of the Marine

Discovery Centre. With the improved waterfront shoreline, it will be prudent to reduce fishing pressure in

shallow areas where spawning and nesting fish occur and would be vulnerable to incidental out-of-season

capture. To help ease fishing pressure, elements such as shoreline plantings, emergent littoral vegetation or

construction of in-water barriers are options to limit the accessibility of key nesting areas by anglers.


The re-construction of the shoreline will be undertaken in smaller parcels of work implemented as the use

of the waterfront changes over time. This will control the level of interference with waterfront use to a

nominal level. All work areas will be fenced and appropriate signage posted to warn waterfront users of

potential danger due to construction.

There is likely to be some construction related disruption including noise, dust and traffic. Construction

will occur during normal working hours and will abide by the municipal noise by-law. Dust is not

expected to be significant; however, dust suppressants will be used where necessary. Trucks will be

required to bring equipment and materials on-site. Given that the shoreline construction will be staged it is

not anticipated that there will be a significant number of trucks at one time. Truck drivers will be

instructed to maintain speed limits and exert caution through the North End neighbourhood.

Based on the Draft City of Hamilton Archaeology Management Plan (June 2012), the west Hamilton

waterfront is identified as an area with overall archaeological potential. As such, the City will review site

specific information for the area and confirm the need for an archaeological assessment. If it is determined

that an assessment is required it will be conducted prior to initiating construction. The Draft Archaeology

Management Plan identifies preservation in place as the preferred approach for archaeological sites and

preservation by excavation where in place preservation is not possible. The draft plan also articulates the

importance of informing and involving relevant parties including First Nations and appropriate provincial

representatives when working around identified archaeological sites. If unanticipated archaeological sites

are uncovered during construction the following must occur:

Work on the site and within 20 m is to cease;

Site is to be secured; and

Contact must be made with the City and appropriate City staff will conduct a site visit, inform First

Nations and other relevant parties and formulate a site specific remediation plan.

The installation of the new breakwater does have the potential to temporarily interrupt boat travel. It is

anticipated that the installation time will be relatively short (approximately 2-3 months). To the extent

possible, the installation will be timed to avoid the boating season. The new floating breakwater will

incorporate appropriate signage and lighting to assist in navigation as per Transport Canada’s requirement

under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

It is expected that most of the work activities for the shoreline will be land based and interference with

boating activities in the harbour as a result of shoreline work will be limited. Temporary disruption may

occur for those using the Waterfront Trail or accessing the waterfront for other reasons. As the shoreline

improvements are expected to be phased in over time, the disruption is anticipated to be localized and over

short periods of time. Appropriate signage and fencing will be put in place to minimize impact and


April 17, 2013


maintain public safety during construction. Shoreline construction will be designed to incorporate all

existing outfalls and other existing infrastructure, where necessary.

Table 9.2: Summary of Effects and Mitigation

Criteria Potential Effect Proposed Mitigation

Natural

Environment

Water quality Potential for sedimentation and

erosion during construction to

temporarily impact water

quality.

Shoreline construction will use silt fencing as

appropriate to minimize siltation and water quality

impacts.

Disturbed surfaces will be stabilized as soon as

possible and sediment and erosion control

measures maintained until disturbed areas are

stabilized.

Stockpiled soils or other materials will be kept

more than 30 m from the water.

Shoreline materials used will be environmentally-

friendly materials that will not release potential

contaminants.

Work with machinery around

water introduces the potential

for spills into the Harbour.

Equipment will be stored and operated in a

manner that prevents deleterious substances from

entering water. Refueling of machines will be

done away from the shoreline. An emergency

spill kit will be kept on-site.

Potential for changes to water

circulation. The floating breakwater will not result in a

significant change to circulation in the Harbour.

Fish Habitat Placement of anchors and

shoreline improvements have

the potential to damage existing

fish habitat.

The footprint associated with the floating

breakwater anchors will be minimal.

In water work restricted from March 15 to July 15.

The design of shoreline improvements has

incorporated the production of new fish habitat

wherever possible.

Terrestrial Habitat Removal of shoreline

vegetation. This disruption to shoreline vegetation is

temporary during construction and

habitat/landscaping will be replaced.

Birds will likely use the new

floating breakwater for roosting. This currently occurs with the existing floating

breakwater. No mitigation is proposed.

Erosion Improves erosion protection

along the shore. No mitigation required.

Socio-Cultural

Environment

Impact on

Waterfront

Facilities

Construction has the potential to

cause noise and dust. Construction will be undertaken within the City of

Hamilton noise by-law.

Dust for this project is expected to be minimal;

dust suppressants will be used, where necessary.


April 17, 2013



Construction of shoreline has

the potential to result in truck

traffic through the North End

neighbourhood.

The phasing of shoreline construction will

minimize the number of trucks at one time.

Truck drivers will be instructed to maintain speed

limits and exert caution through the north end

neighbourhood.

Construction of the breakwater

could interfere with boating

activities.

Breakwater construction will mostly be completed

off-site and the installation of the breakwater can

be carried out over a relatively short period of

time (approximately 2 -3 months).

To the extent possible, breakwater installation will

take place outside of the primary boating season.

The existing breakwater can be removed after the

new breakwater is installed so negative impact on

the enjoyment of the area should be minimal.

Care will be taken to ensure that barges and other

construction related traffic in the water are clearly

marked.

All marinas and boat clubs will be informed of the

timing of construction in advance.

Construction of the shoreline

improvements could interfere

with people using the shoreline

to access boats, fish or walk

along the Waterfront Trail.

Where possible shoreline construction will be

done during off-season when there is less activity

on the waterfront.

Construction will be completed in sections so

there will only be smaller areas of disruption.

All marinas, boat clubs and other permanent

waterfront operations will be informed of timing

in advance of construction.

Appropriate detour signs for the Waterfront Trail

will be provided.

Potential for impact on existing

features and buildings at the

shore.

Construction of shoreline improvements within or

immediately adjacent to buildings will be timed to

coincide with changes to buildings where possible.

Impact to existing onshore features such as the

Waterfront Trail will be temporary and features

will be replaced.

Specific improvements and timing will be

discussed with tenants.

Enhancement of

Waterfront

Facilities

Reduction in potential for

flooding. The combination of shoreline improvements

where the shoreline is raised and the addition of a

new floating breakwater will reduce the potential

for flooding but the City may still need to

floodproof new buildings.

Public Safety Potential for public safety

concerns during construction. The construction area will be fenced so that there

is no public access to the construction area.

Improves protection for the

marina and shoreline. No mitigation required.

Navigation New floating breakwater has the

potential to impact navigation. Navigation lights and signage will be added as

appropriate.

Transport Canada approval under the Navigable


April 17, 2013



Waters Protection Act is required.

Cultural Heritage Potential for archaeological

resources. Prior to construction the City will complete a

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment and if

required further assessment to determine the

possibility for archaeological sites along the

waterfront.

Impact on Utilities Potential impact to existing

infrastructure Changes proposed to the shoreline will be

designed to incorporate all existing outfalls and

other existing infrastructure.


April 17, 2013


10.0 FUTURE APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS

The following documents additional approvals required prior to the construction of the proposed

breakwater and shoreline improvements:

Navigable Waters Protection Act – Approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act protects the

public right to boat freely on the waterways in Canada. Approval is required for any structure to be placed

in any navigable waters. Transport Canada review or approval is not required for erosion protection works

that are considered a minor works based on the terms and conditions outlined in the Minor Works and

Waters (Navigable Waters Protection Act) Order. Transport Canada review and approval would be

required for the construction of the proposed breakwater.

Fisheries Act – Section 35 (1) of the Fisheries Act states that “No person shall carry on any work,

undertaking or activity that results in the harmful alteration or disruption, or the destruction, of fish

habitat”. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has a Level II agreement with the Hamilton Conservation Authority

(HCA). Under this agreement, HCA is responsible for reviewing projects to identify any impact to fish and

fish habitat and working with proponents to identify mitigation measures. If impacts can be mitigated,

HCA will issue a letter of advice for the project and authorization under the Fisheries Act is not required.

The City has identified a number of areas where fish habitat will be enhanced as part of this shoreline

improvements proposed. During their review of this Environmental Study Report and subsequent

discussions, HCA will confirm whether impacts to fish and fish habitat have been adequately mitigated.

Hamilton Port Authority - The Hamilton Port Authority (HPA) regulates all activities within and on the

waters of Hamilton Harbour as per the Canada Marine Act. Authorization is required from the HPA for the

proposed floating breakwater and shoreline work. It will need to be confirmed if this document will fulfill

their environmental assessment requirements.

Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation

(Ontario Regulation 161/06) – Proposed shoreline works in the Harbour are regulated by the Hamilton

Conservation Authority in order to prevent flooding and erosion. Approval will be required for any and all

works proposed within the lands regulated pursuant to Ontario Regulation 161/06. The City of Hamilton

will work with HCA during the design phase for the shoreline to fulfill their requirements.

hamilton west harbour shoreline & breakwater environmental ... · hamilton west harbour...

Documents