LaSalle Park Marina Wave Break Federal and Municipal Environmental Assessment
Background History of the Marina and LaSalle Park The LaSalle Park Marina is located in LaSalle Park at the foot of LaSalle Park Road. The 57 acre park was initially developed in 1951, and is surrounded by an older residential community. The LaSalle Park Pavillion is a community landmark where banquets, weddings, business meetings and other events are held. The park also includes walking trails, sports fields, a playground, a wading pool and splash pad and a picnic area. The constructed walking trail and lookouts are connected to the Waterfront Trail along Lake Ontario. The LaSalle Park Marina is a valuable resource, as it is the only marina in the City of Burlington offering an important haven for local recreational boaters and those that enjoy viewing marina and boating activities. It also houses a public launch ramp and is one of the only accessible marinas in Hamilton Harbour.
Background LaSalle Park Marina Association The LaSalle Park Marina Association (LPMA) is a non-profit organization that was created in 1981 and provides a venue for recreational boating at the Marina through a Joint Venture Agreement with the City of Burlington. The Joint Venture Agreement gives LPMA the authority to utilize the Marina and outlines their maintenance, operational and capital renewal responsibilities. The current Marina operation has 219 slips and a floating wave break that was installed in 1998. The docks and floating wave break are installed in the spring and removed in the fall each year. The City leases the water lots from the Hamilton Port Authority (HPA) and in turn, sub-leases the water lots to LPMA. The City has received approval and authorization from HPA to proceed with an Environmental Assessment (EA).
Project Description Why is there a need for a wave break study? The LaSalle Park Marina is currently protected by a floating wave break. The current system has proven to be insufficient during high wind events, resulting in damage to some boats moored at the Marina. In 2009, LPMA submitted their Vision 2012 to City Council which proposes a permanent wave break and an expanded Marina to 320 slips plus 20 transient slips. The key benefits of the proposed vision include: Enhanced fish and wildlife habitat Reduced wave agitation levels and prevention of damage caused by waves Reduced dock infrastructure wear Docks remain in place during the winter Working cooperatively, the City of Burlington and LPMA have initiated this study to confirm an appropriate wave break. Wave Break study objectives: To assess wave and wind conditions at the LaSalle Park Marina To weigh the advantages and disadvantages of wave break options considering the environment, community, technical acceptability and cost Vision 2012 Identify a preferred wave break to provide protection for the LaSalle Park Marina
Process Municipal Class EA Process Municipal infrastructure projects such as improvements to the LaSalle Park Marina Wave Break must follow the Municipal Class EA process: Phase 1: Determining the problem and/or opportunity ~ collection of the appropriate baseline information to fully understand this dynamic area and assist in documenting the need for improved wave protection Phase 2: Identifying and evaluating alternative solutions ~ development and evaluation of appropriate alternatives to provide additional protection to the Marina Phase 3: Identifying and evaluating alternative designs ~ assessment of design details and development of a strategy to mitigate potential negative effects Phase 4: Documentation ~ documentation of work completed for public and agency review Federal EA Process A Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Screening will be required if the preferred solution requires approval under the Fisheries Act or Navigable Waters Protection Act. The focus of this work will be documentation of potential effects and the development of mitigation.
Existing Conditions Natural Environment The LaSalle Park Marina area provides habitat for a range of native and non-native fish species Habitat restoration took place in the 1990s as part of the Fish & Wildlife Restoration Project for Hamilton Harbour and Cootes Paradise. The restoration project involved many partners including the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Stakeholders, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and several others Habitat restoration included the construction of seasonally emergent shoals to help diversify the native fish community and provide improved spawning habitat for fish such as bass and sunfish Aquatic vegetation and constructed shoals in the near shore zone provide habitat for fish and invertebrates, and food sources for water birds and waterfowl
Existing Conditions Natural Environment The restored sandy pebble beach links the harbour with the wetland located to the north, while native shrubs and trees that were planted along the shoreline provide a connection with the adjacent forested slope Sheltering effect from the current floating wave break system provides areas of dense submerged aquatic vegetation and resulting habitat benefits One of the objectives of the Hamilton Harbour and Watershed Fisheries Management Plan for Hamiton Harbour is to increase the capacity for native fish species such as Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, Walleye, Yellow Perch, Northern Pike, Sunfish, Lake Herring and Muskellunge In recent years, small numbers of Herring Gulls and Ring-Billed Gulls have bred near the LaSalle Park Marina on the emergent shoals. In the past, Common Terns also nested on these shoals. Both Herring Gulls and Common Terns are of conservation concern in Hamilton Harbour Trumpeter swans are also known to utilize the shoreline as habitat
Existing Conditions Bathymetry 1996 data on the depth of the Bay is available. This data is appropriate for use as there is limited sediment build up in the area: Potential sediment transport rate in the order of 300 m3/ year Actual sediment transport significantly less because there is no supply of sediment due to protected shoreline No evidence of alongshore transport of sediment (fillet beach) along either side of LaSalle Park Pier and habitat headlands The current wave break area has a water depth of up to approximately 10m over a silty sand bottom
Existing Conditions Wind & Wave Action LASALLE PARK MARINA BREAKWALL EA Full Year Wave Data Scatter diagrams show wave height and period occurrences within Average Annual Hours of Occurrence, 1970-2011 Waves from All Directions Wave Height (m) Wave Period (seconds) - 1.5 1.5-2.0 2.0-2.5 2.5-3.0 3.0-3.5 3.5-4.0 4.0-4.5 Totals selected increments: 0.1-0.2 1,108 1,704 2,812 Data from the Hamilton Airport supplemented with wind data from Burlington Canal is appropriate for this location Winds are predominately from the South West, West and North East Highest wave height from the South West is 1.2 metres with a 4.1 s wave period Highest wave height from North East is 0.9 metres with a 3.5 second wave period 0.2-0.3 923 741 1,664 0.3-0.4 0.02 804 804 0.4-0.50 33.1 263 296 0.5-0.6 94.7 94.7 0.6-0.7 6.5 19.7 26.3 0.7-0.8 7.9 7.9 0.8-0.9 2.2 0.35 2.5 0.9-0.69 0.69 > 0.27 0.02 0.3 Totals 1,108 2,627 1,577 365 29.8 1.3 0.02 5,708 Wave Height (m) LASALLE PARK MARINA BREAKWALL EA Operational Season, April 15 - October 31 Average Annual Hours of Occurrence, 1970-2011 Wave Period (seconds) Waves from All Directions - 1.5 1.5-2.0 2.0-2.5 2.5-3.0 3.0-3.5 3.5-4.0 4.0-4.5 Totals 0.1-0.2 665 1,018 1,683 0.2-0.3 474 318 792 0.3-0.4 259 259 0.4-0.50 8.9 57.0 65.8 0.5-0.6 18.5 18.5 0.6-0.7 1.5 4.3 5.8 0.7-0.8 1.5 1.5 0.8-0.9 0.22 0.05 0.27 0.9-0.15 0.15 > 0.07 0.07 Totals 665 1,492 586 77.0 6.0 0.27 2,827 Significant Wave Height (m) Peak Wave Period (s) 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Hamilton winds Burlington winds 0.0 North NE East SE South SW West NW North 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 0.5 Hamilton winds Burlington winds 0.0 North NE East SE South SW West NW North
Alternative Solutions Fixed Wave Break 2500± 76.0m± (A.S.W.L.) 76.5± ARMOUR STONE PROTECTION CORE STONE 75.0m± (A.S.W.L.) 0.00 74.2m± (DATUM) 0 2.00 3.00 1.5± 1 1.5± 1 8.00 9.00 10.00.00 11 12.00 13.00 64.0m± 64.0m± 1 1 1 EXISTING BOTTOM (VARIES) Conceptual Sketch of Wave Break 1 18.00 Fixed Wave Break - Existing Marina (Conceptual) Fixed wave breaks involve filling to create a permanentlasalle structure Park Marina TYPICAL STONE BREAKWATER The permanent structure needs to be located to provide the space required as it can not be moved. The location also needs to be sensitive to depths, as deeper water creates higher cost and potentially greater habitat impact It is assumed that a fixed wave break option would be located along the 10m contour line 0.00 0 2.00 3.00 8.00 9.00 10.00.00 11 12.00 13.00 1 1 1 1 18.00 Fixed Wave Break - Sized for Marina Expansion (Conceptual)
Alternative Solutions Floating Wave Break There are two key types of floating systems that are used for Marina protection: A-FRAME WAVE BREAK Floating wave breaks are anchored to the bottom with concrete block and chain A floating wave break can be sized to meet the needs of the LaSalle Park Marina CONCRETE PONTOON WAVE BREAK It is assumed that floating wave break option would be located along the 10m contour line 0.00 0 2.00 3.00 8.00 9.00 10.00.00 11 12.00 13.00 1 1 1 1 Floating Wave Break - Existing Marina (Conceptual) 18.00 0.00 0 2.00 3.00 8.00 9.00 10.00.00 11 12.00 13.00 1 1 1 1 Floating Wave Break - Sized for Marina Expansion (Conceptual) 18.00
Alternative Solutions Combination Fixed and Floating Wave Break 0.00 0.00 0 0 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 8.00 9.00 9.00 10.00 10.00.00.00 11 11 12.00 12.00 13.00 13.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Combination Fixed and Floating Wave Break - Existing Marina Combination Fixed and Floating Wave Break - Sized for Marina (Conceptual) Expansion (Conceptual) 18.00 18.00 This alternative would include both fixed and floating sections of wave break The combination alternative recognizes that there are advantages and disadvantages to both fixed and floating systems
Evaluation Evaluation Criteria OBJECTIVE Improvement to Habitat Reduction in Wave Damage Limit impact on community Limit impact on navigability Low maintenance operation and constructability Cost (funded by LPMA) EVALUATION CRITERIA Opportunity to improve fish habitat Potential for impact to aquatic or terrestrial habitat during construction Potential for impacts to water quality Potential impacts to species at risk Potential to improve colonial bird habitat Ability to manage wave conditions Potential for impacts on waterfront recreational facilities during construction Opportunity for enhancement of waterfront recreational 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 Potential for construction impacts on park users and/or neighbourhood Potential to attract undesirable nesting birds Impact on Navigability Structural integrity Design life/ Maintenance requirements Potential for contamination issues Operational Flexibility Ability to withstand winter Ice Potential impacts on utilities Constructability Relative cost differences (including capital, property, operational and maintenance) This set of criteria have been developed for use in comparing the wave break options and are based on consideration of all aspects of the environment. Let us know... Is there anything else we should consider when comparing wave break options?
Evaluation Comparing Wave Break Options OBJECTIVE FIXED WAVE BREAK FLOATING WAVE BREAK COMBINATION FIXED AND FLOATING WAVE BREAK Improvement to Habitat Opportunity to provide fish habitat improvements that are in line with objectives of the Hamilton Harbour and Watershed Fisheries Management Plan (2009) Potential for fish habitat impacts due to new footprint of a fixed wave break Potential for impact to water quality during construction Could impact water circulation pattern in the harbour Could provide surface for colonial bird nesting for species of conservation concern Limited change to existing fish habitat Impact to water quality during construction Will provide surface for bird roosting Provides less impact and improvement opportunity for fish habitat than a fixed option but more than a floating option Could impact water circulation patterns depending on configuration Could provide surface for both nesting and roosting birds Reduction in Wave Damage All alternatives provide improved protection from wave action All alternatives have minimal impact on existing shoreline and on-shore facilities Provides Safety improvement Limit impact on community Minimal impact on cultural heritage or treaty rights Potential for construction impacts on park users and/or neighbourhood depending on construction method (eg. truck traffic) Minimal impact on cultural heritage or treaty rights Minimal potential for construction impacts on park users and/or neighbourhood Some construction impacts particularly for the fixed section Limit impact on navigability All alternatives have potential to impact navigability Care will be taken to minimize potential for negative impact Low maintenance operation and constructability Minimal maintenance as wave break and docks can remain in place over winter Relatively easy to construct with a design life of 50+ years Limited flexibility as structure can not be moved Continued need to remove wave break and docks in winter Relatively easy to construct with a design life of 25-40 years Lots of flexibility to be relocated if desired Whether the wave break and docks could overwinter in locations should be tested through experience over the first few years Relatively easy to construct with design life varying for fixed and floating sections Flexibility limited to location of fixed portion of wave break Cost (funded by LPMA) Highest Cost Lowest Cost Moderate Cost Let us know... Have we captured the key differences between options?
Next Steps Key Project Milestones KEY PROJECT STEPS APPROXIMATE TIMING Selection of a Preferred Wave Break Solution Spring/ Summer 2012 Consideration of Design Concepts for Preferred Wave Break Summer 2012 Public Information Centre #2 Late Summer/ Early Fall 2012 Environmental Study Report and CEAA Screening Late 2012/ Early 2013 Detailed Design Pending Approvals and Funding Construction Pending Approvals and Funding CONSULTATION ~ Your input is important to us! A second PIC will be held end of summer/early fall to report back For more information of if you have questions please contact us: on the preferred wave break and present design concepts for your feedback. Information on what you might expect during construction and ways to minimize impacts will also be presented. Provide your comments on the information you viewed today by completing a comment form. More information posted at: www.burlington.ca/lasalle-wave-break Mr. Doug Pladsen Recreation Planner - Community Development City of Burlington 426 Brant Street, P.O. Box 5013 Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6 Tel: 905.335.7600 ext. 7627 Fax: 905.335.7782 Toll Free 1.877.213.3609 E-mail: pladsend@burlington.ca Ms. Karla Kolli, MCIP Project Manager Dillon Consulting Limited 1155 North Service Road W, Unit 14 Oakville, ON L6M 3E3 Tel: 905.901.2912 ext. 2354 Fax: 905.901.2918 E-mail : kkolli@dillon.ca