Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 - Port Burwell Outer Harbour Study - JSW Report PORT BURWELL OUTER HARBOUR STUDY Port Burwell, Ontario I. //' ArStUto i ,.. .„-49.,....„, \r Ii __, ii.,./ 1 + ^,,, if1 lit ,..._.___.__:5 , ....,...__._ .. ,__._ ,. ......... ........... . . . . . / , /: ;J. ' .—....z. ..... — .. ...—.- --____=..... ___,,.....; ....,..„_ . 1 . . . ___,..,........7x: 1 +. 1�1 _ ti � 4 / ,,v"�/ :I dkI r i 1 '� _. _ 1 , �' r rd-1-7-4:N. . C 1- r _ k ______ ., . ,, , , • , , . . , , . • . ,, .. :r, : , ,. ,., • „, 1 , , . / ---11--1‘)r-' 4 16_ _ / 1 , It 0__.111Pmlimi`;-1.1 ___ ._____. .A.*P-- i ' _ '� \ }' JSW + JUNE ,1988 OUTER HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT STUDY PORT BURWELL, ONTARIO J.S.W.+ June, 1988 JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No._ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION 1 - 3 PREVIOUS DEMAND STUDIES 3 - 5 EXISTING SMALL CRAFT FACILITIES 6 - 11 a) 1980 Survey Results (Plate 1 ) 6 - 8 b) 1987 Survey Results (Plate. 2) 9 - 11 EXISTING COMMERCIAL HARBOUR USES 11 - 15 a) Fishing 11 - 12 B) Consumers Gas 12 - 15 MARKET AREA FOR RECREATIONAL CRAFT FACILITIES "6 - 22 a) General 16 - 16 b) General Demand 15 - 17 c) Suitability of Facility for a Specific Type of Recreational Boating 17 - 18 d) Travel Distances (Plates 3 and 4) 18 - 20 e) Quality and Range of Services and Amenities 20 - 21 f) Competition from Other Facilities 21 - 22 ANTICIPATED DEMAND 22 - 26 a) Recreational Craft 22 - 24 B) Commercial Fishing 25 - 25 c) Consumers Gas 25 -- 26 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 26 - 31 a) Dredging 26 - 27 b) Windblown Sand 27 - 28 c) Cladophora Growth 28 - 31 COASTAL AREA (Plates 5 and 6) 32 - 35 JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO,ONTARIO Table of Contents (Continued) Page No. ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS 36 - 42 a) General 36 - 36 b) Concept "A" (Plate 7) 36 - 37 c) Concept "B" (Plate 8) 37 - 38 d) Concept "C" (Plate 9) 38 - 39 e) Concept "D" (Plate 10) 39 - 39 f) Concept "E" (Plate 11 ) 40 - 40 g) Summary 40 - 41 MASTERPLAN 43 - 52 a) Alternate Preliminary Masterplan Concepts, C-1 & C-2 (plates 12 & 13) 43 - 45 b) Village Development (Plate 14) 45 - 46 c) Masterplan (Plate 15) 46 - 47 d) Phasing and Cost Estimates 47 - 52 IMPACT OF PROPOSED OUTER HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 53 - 59 a) Commercial Fishing 53 - 53 b) Recreational Craft 53 - 58 c) Village Development 58 - 59 BIBLIOGRAPHY JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS a. Conclusions .1 Port Burwell , which was once a major commercial and fishing harbour, still retains two local fishing tug operators and two fish processing plants. Despite present harbour conditions, Port Burwell continues to be in demand for berthing space by Lake Erie commercial fishermen. This in part is due to Port Burwell being considered a better harbour than Port Stanley and in part to the increasing Lake Erie fish harvest. .2 There is a regional demand for 290 seasonal recreational craft wetberths in Port Burwell by 1990, anticipated to increase to + 425 by the year 2000. .3 There is a demand for a harbour of refuge along this section of the Lake Erie shoreline for commercial fishing tugs, Consumers Gas vessels and recreational craft. .4 Since the above vessels have similar navigation requirements, it would be logical that a new outer harbour development accommodate all of the above. .5 Based on the latest depth soundings, the inshore zone is more or less balanced. This means that the longshore littoral drift sand transport is bypassing Port Burwell . JOHNSON Sl1STRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO,ONTARIO .6 As part of this study a total of 5 concepts for development of a new outer harbour were evaluated for development costs, effect on littoral drift transport, maintenance dredging requirements, etc. The selected concept, represented by the proposed development plan, will have the lowest initial cost and will provide the greatest benefit to the Village. .7 Although an outer harbour development off the existing west pier would require little annual maintenance dredging, due to its location it would not provide a great benefit to the existing Village. On the other hand, an outer harbour development off the existing east pier would be of great benefit to the economic well-being of the Village. .8 A new outer harbour development off the existing east pier will be in close proximity to the existing commercial Village centre and could thus become a major attraction for transients, especially U.S. boaters from Erie, Penn. and a slightly lesser degree From Cleveland, Ohio. .9 The proposed development will not be a source of accelerated downdrift shoreline erosion to the east. .10 The masterplan proposes for the initial development the provision of 300 recreational craft berths (255 seasonal and 75 transient) and 10 commercial fishing tug docks. The plan has a built-in capacity for expansion to 500 recreational craft berths and 20 commercial docks. .11 The total estimated development cost of the project as shown in the masterplan is $8,165,000, including an allowance for fees and contingencies, broken down as follows: JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO Components Common Commercial Recreation Total Description Fishing 1 . Basic site de- velopment ,420,000 1 ,185,000 1 ,840,000 4,445,000 2. Balance site de- velopment 1st phase 250,000 620,000 1 ,800,000 2,670,000 possible future phases - --- 1 ,050,000 1 ,050,000 Total estimated Project Cost 1 ,670,000 1 ,805,000 4,690,000 8,165,000 .12 The construction of the project is anticipated to generate a total of 278 man/years of employment, + $1 ,175,000 in Federal tax receipts and $865,000 in Provincial tax receipts. .13 Exclusive of the benefits generated by the commercial fishing component, marina operations are anticipated to provide an annual total employment (direct and indirect) of 80 persons, Federal tax receipts of $295,000 and Provincial tax reciepts of $335,000. .14 A major landowner in the Village has proposed a major development of his holdings, contingent on the proposed outer harbour project proceeding. The proposal is to construct 42,000 square feet of commercial space on Robinson Street, a total of 186 townhouse units and 150 retirement home units (see plate 14) . JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO The construction of the above is anticipated to generate a total employment, direct and indirect, of 1025 man/years, $5,475,000 in Federal tax receipts and $3,700,000 in Provincial tax receipts, i .e. tax receipts alone by both levels of government exceed the construction cost of the outer harbour development cost. The proposed development will increase the present Village population of 675 to approximately 1500 persons. The proposed commercial space will provide employment for approximately 80 persons. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO b. Recommendations 1 . That the Village of Port Burwell consider and approve the results of this study. 2. That presentations are made to the various levels of Government for financial assistance with the project. 3. That in order to attract the transient boaters, the project is competed, as soon as possible, into a high quality, upscale marina. 4. That once a construction date of the project has been established. the necessary approval process for the proposed redevelopment of the existing harbour lands is started, with the aim of completing the first phase of the proposed commercial development at the date the outer harbour project becomes operational . 5. That the recommendations in the 1980 Commercial Fishing Harbour Study are reviewed in light of 1 ) the present Lake Erie commercial fish harvest levels being considerably greater than anticipated in 1980, 2) the strong desire of the Lake Erie fishing fleet as a whole to maintain Port Burwell for their use and as a harbour of refuge. 6. That the beach property adjacent to the existing west pier, in the process of being transferred to the Province, is closed to public use and that the Ministry of Natural Resources be requested to stabilize this property. The property is now a major source of windblown sand being deposited into the existing harbour and could create similar problems for the proposed outer harbour development. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO INTRODUCTION Port Burwell is located at the mouth of Big Otter Creek on the north shore of Lake Erie. The harbour existed as far back as the year 1890. By 1909, Port Burwell was a busy commercial harbour used for the shipment of coal and servicing ships and tugs transporting railway cars. Commercial activity in the harbour has dissipated substantially since the mid 1960's. During the mid 1970's the harbour was used by an average of 5 commercial vessels engaged in underwater gas exploration, 4 locally based commercial fishing vessels and approximately 20 recreational craft. In 1987 the harbour was used by two vessels of Consumers Gas, 2 locally based commercial fishing vessels, a temporary base for 6 - 8 fishing tugs and a few recreational craft. The harbour also serves as an access to Big Otter Marina, a small boat marina and campground opened in 1983 on Big Otter Creek, up stream of Bridge Street, which accommodated some 53 small pleasure craft in 1987. In addition, two fish processors operate from the harbour. The diminishing use of Port Burwell by Consumers Gas, commerical fishing vessels and recreational craft is due to the harbour and approach becoming progressively shallower in available water depth. The harbour is located at the mouth of Big Otter Creek and is subject to silting, while the nearshore is subject to an active littoral drift. Maintenance of the harbour in the past required almost annual dredging. Because of the continuous maintenance JOHNSON SIISTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 2 dredging required Transport Canada decided in 1974 to relocate all commercial traffic to Port Stanley and transferred the harbour's administration to the Small Craft Harbours Branch of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. No dredging of the harbour has been done by the Federal Government since 1973. A sounding survey made in 1976 indicated that some 106,000 cubic yards (+81 ,000 m3) would have to be dredged to provide an 8 feet water depth in the harbour and a 10 feet water depth in the approach. It was further estimated that to maintain this depth approximately 66,500 cubic yards (+51 ,000 m3) would have to be dredged annually to maintain this depth at an annual estimated cost of $260,000 in 1976 dollar values. This cost was not considered to warrant the resulting benefit. In 1977 the Federal Government provided the Village of Port Burwell with financial assistance in the amount of $130,000.00 towards the cost of purchasing a hydraulic dredge and equipment. In turn the Village of Port Burwell agreed to accept future responsibility for dredging the harbour and its approach. Subsequently, some dredging of the harbour was carried out by the Village. Again the cost of dredging became a major factor and the Village of Port Burwell advised the Small Craft Harbours Branch in December of 1983 that the Village would no longer do any dredging. As a result, the harbour and approach has silted in and is no longer suitable as a harbour, except for a few shallow draft vessels. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 3 In 1980 an application was made by Port Burwell Marina Inc. to the Small Craft Harbours Branch for assistance under the Marina Policy Assistance Program with a proposed marina in the harbour. In view of the past problems in maintaining a navigable water depth in the harbour, the applicant subsequently changed his proposal to a 500 boat marina along the lake shoreline immediately east and adjacent to the easterly harbour entrance pier. Shortly thereafter the proponent advised the Small Craft Harbours Branch that he was no conger interested in the project. In October of 1987 the Small Craft Harbours Branch retained the firm of J.S.W.+ (Johnson Sustronk Weinstein + Associates) to:- 1 ) assess present and future demand for harbour facilities to support commercial fishing, sports fishing and recreational boating and 2) review feasibility of an alternate harbour development to the east of the east pier. PREVIOUS DEMAND STUDIES To date, two studies have been made on the demand for recreational boating facilities in Lake Erie as a whole. The first study was done by the Small Craft Harbours Branch in 1977, "The Federal Small Craft Harbours Program on Lake Erie: The Socio-economic Need for the Program and Its Potential for Success by William F. Sinclair, Small Craft Harbours Branch, Fisheries and Marine Services, Department of Fisheries and the Environment, Ontario Region, May, 1978." JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO,ONTARIO 4 The second study "Program for Recreational Harbours in Ontario" , dated November 1979 was prepared by Hough, Stansbury + Michalski Limited for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Small Craft Harbours Branch, Ontario Region. This study was updated in March 1985, "Recreational Boating in Ontario, An Update to - 985", The first study dealt with the whole of the Canadian shoreline of Lake Erie and concluded that: "Existing facilities on Lake Erie are less than totally adequate. Not only does there appear to be a shortage of particular services, but the availability of those services that are provided is sporadic and inconsistent" (page 144) . With reference to future demand the author stated: "It is estimated that the requirements for on-water berthage will grow from roughly 5,400 in 1977 to 14,400 in 1986, and to 47,600 in 1996. However, it is unlikely that either private investments or the Small Craft Harbours program will be able to satisfy these demands, unless a great deal more resources are devoted to maintaining, upgrading and adding to the harbour facilities on the Lake." (pages 174 and 175) The second (1979) study considered that there was a slight oversupply in berths in 1978 for the lakeshore taken as a whole which would not necessarily apply to some specific locations. The report forecasted a deficit of approximately 1 ,100 berths by 1985, even allowing for some 450 additional berths, including 200 in Port Burwell , to be provided in Harbours owned by the Small Craft Harbours Branch. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES TORONTO, ONTARIO 5 The 1985 update of this study showed that even though between 1979 and 1985 the supply of wetberths in the Lake Erie zone had increased from 5,326 to 7,410, the anticipated deficiency would remain at 1 ,100 berths. Both studies thus foresaw a shortage in supply of wetberths. The first study anticipated an annual growth rate in the demand of approximately 10.3% between 1977 and 1986. The second study showed an annual demand growth for the Lake Erie shoreline of only 4% between 1979 and 1986 and 3.7% for the 1985 - 1990 period. It should be noted both studies dealt with the overall demand for small craft facilities in Lake Erie and were not site-specific. A third demand study, not published, was made by J.S.W.4- in 1980 to support Port Burwell Marina Inc. ' s request for Federal Government assistance for their proposed marina in Port Burwell . The results of this study indicated that the demand by 1990 could be in the range of 335 seasonal berths and a minimum of 25 transient berths. This was based on the assumption that the marina would be of a good quality. A 1980 "Commercial Fishing Harbours Study" for Small Craft Harbours Branch of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, prepared by the IBI Group recommended Port Burwell be reclassified as a harbour of refuge/recreation harbour. The prime reason for this recommendation was that the fishing activity was low in comparison with other harbours (1978 reported weight at Port Burwell was 275,000 lbs with 6 resident fishermen, total annual Lake Erie catch was 40,160,000 lbs. anticipated to reduce to 33 million pounds in landings by 1985) . To date Port Burwell has 2 resident commercial fishermen remaining. JOHNSON SIISTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 6 EXISTING SMALL CRAFT FACILITIES a) 1980 Survey Results (Plate 1 ) A survey was made in 1980 of existing small craft facilities along the Lake Erie shoreline from Port Dover to Erieau. The number of marinas or yacht clubs surveyed at each municipality, the number of wetberths available and the percentage of sailboats and powerboats in the fleet, are graphically shown on Plate 1 . As can be seen, facilities in the Long Point Bay area (i .e. Turkey point, St. Williams, Port Rowan and Long Point) catered primarily to powerboats. This bay offers excellent sport fishing and is shallow in depth. It is thus an obvious base for the sports fisherman and not too attractive to sailboat owners. As could be expected, facilities in Port Dover and Port Stanley have a higher proportion of sailboats in the fleet (+55%) but not as high as found along the Lake Huron shoreline. The main reason for this would be that Lake Erie as a whole offers better sport fishing opportunities than Lake Huron, and vice versa Lake Huron is considered by many a better lake for sailing, since it is deeper. In addition, small craft facilities available for sailboat owners along the section of shoreline between Long Point and Port Stanley are marginal and lack surplus capacity. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO • 3 ..---..- ...••••l 7 0 N^2 GODERICH ARTHUR w-195 Q 9IW PION LAKE r,,,,BAYFJELD!I 7o9 HURON -360 �,-20% *.".� 1GEORGETOWN 80% / __.-, 0GUELPH1 ST JOSEPH{+ S� NiUERL00KITCHEN,- 0marrow Gahm BEND/ V:' GALTLAKE J-�® fl 0 NTARIO 0 ell J' WOOOSTOCN ORANWORD ---------..--- al 4 INGERSOLL CALEDONIA t CP d t N UP O � m t?:t O DELHI JARyJS :i:JNE ar i . PORT PORT 1 STANLEY PORT - STIYLI:AMS TURKEY POINT N-4 5-57 © THAMESVILLE /'� TALJ30T BRUCE ` W fl45 ,,,,/ �� W 547 W 196 BURWELL .• i RT ROWAN N-2 S 9I /}o P-$5% P-83% IN-I ��_ , W 149 5'55 % 5-17% W"IOt - S-23 CHATHAM POIN N- LEGEND LAKE ERIE w-558 P-97.5% N No. of Facilities s-2'5% W No. Of Wetbirths I` P Perc. of Powerboats EXISTING FACILITIES - REGION 1980 w.` 5 Perc. of Sailboats ERIEAII PORT BURWELL SMALL CRAFT HARBOUI W 6I Plate:1 P-46% 5-54% Johnson Sustronk Weinstein + Associates-- Toronto 7 The results of the 1980 survey were compared with the survey results of the 1977 Small Craft harbours Study (see Table I) . As can be seen, a considerable increase in occupied berths has taken place in Long Point Bay since 1977. As a matter of fact, the shoreline section surveyed from Port Dover to Port Stanley showed an increase of 636 berths (from 1 ,524 to 2,160) or an annual increase of 12%, i .e. in excess of the growth rate of 10.3% forecast in the 1977 Small Craft Harbours study by Mr. Sinclair . TABLE I: RECREATIONAL CRAFT WETBERTHS (1980) Comparison of 1976 (SCH) and 1980 Survey Results 1976 1980 1976--1980 Possible Annual No.of No.of No.of No.of No.of No.of Expan- Growth Location Fac. Berths Boats Fac. Berths Boats sion Rate Port Dover 3 122 120 3 175 155 100 8.0% St. Williams - Turkey Point 5 784 736 4 1 ,145 1 ,110 1 ,200 14.5% Port Rowan 3 200 56 2 149 119 90 27.0% Long Point 6 442 383 6 558 558 +450 13.5% Port Bruce 4 126 78 3 96 74 30 Nil Port Stanley 6 217 149 5 147 144 -- Nil JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 8 Although as part of the survey the residence locations of individual boat owners were not tabulated, an approximate residence location was determined of most of the facilities surveyed, based on discussions with marine operators and boat owners (see Table H) . This table does show clearly that as the travel distances increase, the facilities become less attractive. An exception to this are the 'facilities in Port Rowan and Long Point which include a high proportion of boat owners residing in the London area. TABLE II: 1980 BOAT OWNERS' LOCATION & TRAVEL DISTANCE Local within Harbour Kitchener 25 mile Location Hamilton Brandford Woodstock Galt London St.Thomas Radius Total Port Dover 15% 25% 10% 10% 5% --- 35% 100% (+ 150 35 mi . 32 mi . 53 mi . 54 mi . 77 mi . boats St. Williams/ Turkey Point (+1 ,100 10% 50% 5% 10% 5% -- 20% 100% boats) 45 mi . 39 mi . 48 mi . 60 mi . 70 mi . Port Rowan/ Long Point 5% 5% 10% -- 60% 20% 100% (+700 boats) 58 mi . 55 mi . 49 mi . 60 mi . 66 mi 45 mi . Port Bruce -- -- 10% -- 25% 35% 30% 100% (+ 75 boats) 80 mi . 72 mi . 51 mi . 80 mi . 39 mi . 21 mi . Port Stanley -- -- -- -- 65% 25% 10% 100% (+150 boats) 91 mi . 83 mi . 62 mi . 91 mi . 31 mi . 9 mi . JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO,ONTARIO 9 b) 1987 Survey Results (Plate 2) As part of this study, a survey was made of small craft facilities along the shoreline from Port Dover to Leamington. Due to the time of the year the survey had to be conducted, November, a number of marina operators could not be contacted. The majority of these were owners of small marinas. The results of the 1987 survey show that between 1980 and 1987 the number of wetberths increased by 560 or +33.5% at the facilities included in both surveys. This represents a growth rate of 4.1% per year, which is as was forecast in the 1979 Hough, Stansbury study. A comparison with the 1980 survey results also shows that since 1980 there has been a marginal shift towards a higher proportion of powerboats in the wet berthed fleet. This is consistent with the general trend in Ontario over the last five years. The number of facilities surveyed at each location, the number of available wetberths for seasonal and visitor use, and percent increase in available seasonal wetberths are shown on Plate 2. Except for the increase in available berths, the results of the 1987 survey are not too different from those of the 1980 survey. The percentage of boat owners residing in major urban centres, (see Table II) did not change. The exception to this is that there is an increasing demand for transient docks and that these are not being supplied in the central portion of the Lake Erie shoreline. Port Dover, Erieau and Leamington which all do have suitable transient docking facilities said they had to turn away transients during a certain peak weekend. JOHNSON SLISTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO , ./ �rJ ID GODERICH 4 23 ARTHUR i{{ 0 A I BRAMPTON LAKE BAYFELO ty ft4 HURON JA i 0 GEORGETOWN l \\\ GUELPH ST JOSEPH!f � WATERLOO � Ai.. 1��` KITCHENr• s �l GRAD BEND%/ t) STRATFORDGALT E /f� 0 RIO �" m �� O O M TFORO _�� WOODSTOCK 10 O 1.76) !frill © INGERSOLL�O CALEDONIA 1 J I° 42, O DELHI JARYIS OUNNVILLE SMICOE 0 tilli _ ST.THOMAS ANTICOKE Ill' ia 73© DOVERN© PORTRTERSEW• POR '�. �- ST.WILt:IAYS ° TURKEYPOINTN-3 I `- TALBOT II::Y PORT r W-1033 Q, THAMESVILLE �� N-2 PORT, N-1 �iRT ROWAN Y-N,A, W-64 1-86 BURWELL N-1 I-NIL V-6 V-NA. NV/1260 -2 �` i W-160 1-21°!0 1'NiL W-60t � V-d V-N.A. LONG PpINT �_�_____.• 1-a9 CHATHAM 1-500% IN-2 � LEGEND LAKE ERIE w-#00 V-N.A. N No. of Facilities Surveyed 1-235% W No. of Werberlhs 4,1 V No. of Visitor Docks EXISTING FACILITIES -' REGION 1987 I .°/0 Increase Over 1980 PORT BURWELL SMALL CRAFT HARBOUF ter_-_ --`� in Wetberlhs EMI;""' Plate: 2 I w-w0 V-70 1-130% Johnson Sustronk Weinstein + Associates- Toronto 10 Leamington accommodated 732 transient boating days in 1985 which increased to 1 ,764 in 1986 and 3,304 in 1987. Leamington reported that 97% of the visiting boats were registered in the U.S.A. , the majority of which were from Ohio (Cleveland and Toledo) . Erieau has experienced similar increases and provided a dock to approximately 2,400 visitors in 1987. Port Dover reported a total of 203 transients during the 1985 season, which increased to 556 in 1987. The distance by water between Erieau and Port Dover is some 190 kms. The only suitable harbour of refuge between these two ports is Port Stanley, some 80 kms. east of Erieau. Although Port Stanley can and is serving as a harbour of refuge, it lacks facilities for visitors. The two local marinas surveyed reported a total of 300 visiting boats accommodated in 1987 but also advised they could have increased this number if they had the facilities available. Port Burwell with its limited waterdepth cannot serve at present as a harbour of refuge and perhaps should have not been shown on the charts as such. (Note: the latest chart shows the results of 1977 soundings, clearly shows the limited water depth existing at that time and also provides a caution to mariners) . In a number of instances, vessels ran aground at the harbour entrance during the past years. In 1980 Port Burwell had some 10 recreational craft using the harbour during the summer season. In 1987 the total increased to approximately 60. This increase is due to the opening in 1983 of the Big Otter Marina and Campground on the Big Otter Creek flood plain, upstream of Bridge Street. This marina JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO,ONTARIO 11 is essentially a campground for sports fishermen who launch and keep their boats at the marina for a certain period during the season. Boat access to the marina is limited by the bridge clearance and the shallow water depth. Even despite those restrictions the marina is in demand and an additional 40 docks are being constructed for the 1988 season. The majority of the customers are from the local region residing in Vienna, Stratfordville, Tilsonburg, and Aylmer, but also include some residents from Woodstock. A few customers come from London or Toronto. EXISTING COMMERCIAL HARBOUR USES a) Fishing Port Burwell which had a local active fishing fleet of approximately 6 vessels during the 1970's at present provides a base for only two local fishing tugs. In addition, the harbour was used on a temporary basin during the 1987 fishing season by some 6 - 8 fishing vessels whose homeport was some distance away from Port Burwell , i .e. Port Dover. Since pickerel fishing has improved in central Lake Erie basin area, it is assumed that more fishing tugs would have used the harbour if sufficient harbour depth had been available. The Central Lake Erie basin area is served by two harbours, Port Burwell and Port Stanley, some 30 kms. west of Port Burwell . Although Port Stanley is JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 12 maintained by Transport Canada as a commercial harbour, fishermen prefer Port Burwell as it is a quieter, more protected harbour. It is reported that in 1958 there were 54 fishing tugs in the harbour at one time. Based on anticipated fish catch of 33 million pounds by 1985 for the whole of Lake Erie, the 1980 Commercial Fishing Harbour Study did not consider it warranted to maintain Port Burwell for commercial fishing purposes. The study recommended consolidation of commercial fishing activities In Kingsville, Wheatley, Erieau, Port Stanley and Port Dover, The Actual 1986 and 1987 commercial fish harvest was considerably higher than anticipated by the 1980 study. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources advised that in 1986 commercial fish landings for the whole of Lake Erie was 39,112,618 pounds increasing to 47,542,123 lbs in 1987, of which 378,000 lbs. were landed in Port Burwell . The Ministry representative suggested that Port Burwell fish landings would have been higher if the harbour was not as shallow as it is at present. However, even with no improvements to the harbour, they expect 1990 landings to increase to 430,000 lbs. with a corresponding increase in the commercial fish catch for Lake Erie as a whole. b). Consumers Gas Various companies, including Consumers Gas and UGD, its subsidiary, have used the harbour as a base of operations in support of the exploration and production of natural gas from the bed of Lake Erie since the late 50's and JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 13 early 60's. During this period, the harbour utilization was seasonal and sporadic. The exploration and production companies operating on Lake Erie generally consider an operating season to be from March 5 to December 31 . By 1968, Consumers Gas stepped up its Lake Erie exploration program and had two jack-up drilling rigs working on the lake off Port Burwell . The harbour was the base of operation for the Company, providing dockage and wharfage for two rig support vessels and a diving support vessel . In 1975, the Company' s drilling rig fleet increased to three and the support vessel fleet increased to three rig support vessels, a crew boat, one full-time diving support vessel and one part-time diving support vessel . This level of activity was maintained until 1981 . Also during this period, the Company deployed a combination pipeline/stimulation barge on the lake. This vessel required support from three supply vessels and a small barge. At the present time, Consumers Gas owns and operates 224 natural gas wells and approximately 500 kms of pipeline on the bed of Lake Erie and in the vicinity of Port Burwell . This area has been designated by Consumers Gas as Central Lake Erie Operations (CLEO), In support of the exploration and production of natural gas in CLEO, the Company operates a number of vessels. The following table lists the vessels operated, port of operation, type of vessel and dimensions of the vessel . JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 14 Name of Type of Port of Vessel Vessel Operation LOA Beam Draft *C. West Pete supply tug Port Burwell 60' 17' 6' Elmore M. Misner supply/ Port Stanley 92' 25' 9' anchor handling tug Jay Vee II diving support vessel Port Burwell 65' 15' 5' Phantom IV diving support vessel Port stanley 85' 20' 6' Telesis drillship Port Stanley 253' 44' 15' Mr. Neil production platform Port Stanley 115' 50' 16' *The supply tug "C. West Pete" was recently moved to Port Stanley due to the lack of water in Port Burwell Harbour. Ideally, the Company would prefer to see Port Burwell Harbour dredged to a depth which could accommodate all of its rigs and support vessels. Realistically, the Company would like, at the very least, to see the harbour dredged or a facility developed which could accommodate the vessels "C. West Pete" and "Jay Vee H" . Virtually all of the Company's CLEO offshore facilities are within a 25 nautical mile radius of Port Burwell . If the Company is totally shut out of Port Burwell , operations presently based there would have to be shifted to Port Stanley and CLEO would be within a 40 nautical mile radius of that port. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 15 A difference of 15 nautical miles may not seem a significant distance but, in the operation of supply vessels, it increases running time (transit time) by three to four hours. This translates directly into increased vessel costs, fuel costs and crew wages, The availability of shore facilities in Port Stanley is very limited whereas in Port Burwell the Company has leased considerable shore facilities consisting of most of the westerly side of the harbour. Consumers Gas stated that the development or lack of development of the harbour facilities at Port Burwell will have a definite impact on the Company's present and future operations in Central Lake Erie from both an economical and logistical standpoint. JOHNSON SIJSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 16 MARKET AREA FOR RECREATIONAL CRAFT FACILITIES a) General In a case such as this, with only limited facilities and a few boats, mainly small run-abouts used for sports fishing, one cannot make a forecast for anticipated demand on historic data. In this instance one has to analyze the factors which cause boaters to choose one facility over another. The following reviews the major factors. In general these are: 1 ) the general demand for boat mooring and storage space ii ) the suitability of the facility to cater to a specific type of recreational boating iii )travel distance to facility iv) quality and range of services provided v) competition from other facilities Note: The cost of berthing one' s boat at a particular facility is not a major factor. The 1977 Small Craft Harbours Study of Lake Erie indicated that whether or not a facility was inexpensive compared to others was only a major factor in choosing that facility for 5% of the boaters. We have come to similar conclusions as a result of other studies done by us. b) General Demand It is well recognized that recreational boating and the demand for mooring space has increased dramatically over the last 20 years. That the growth rate for facilities in Port Stanley and Port Bruce was virtually nil is because the existing facilities are marginal and lack capacity to expand. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOGIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 17 With the great increase in the number of seasonal wetberths, the demand for transient boating facilities has increased correspondingly and so has the need for harbours of refuge spaced at reasonable distances along the shoreline. Another more recent development is the attraction that harbours which have good transient docking facilities, cater to visitors and are located close to shopping areas and restaurants have as week-end destination harbours, i .e. in Lake Erie, Leamington and Erieau being examples. c) Suitability of Facility for a Specific Type of Recreational Boating Lake Erie is not one of the best of the Great Lakes for cruising; hence, from that point of view, Port Burwell would not have an advantage over a similar marina along the Lake Huron or Georgian Bay shoreline. Lake Erie does, however, offer better fishing opportunities than Lake Huron or Lake Ontario. Although the prime location for this form of recreation is Long Point Bay, Port Burwell would also attract boaters interested in sports fishing. Lake Erie also has a vast boating population on the American side of the Lake, thus any facility offering the necessary amenities should be an attraction to the American visitor, especially if the facility is located within a short walking distance from stores and restaurants. This suggests that a Port Burwell outer harbour development east of the east pier could be highly successful in attracting visitors. An outer harbour development off the west pier would be less attractive to visitors. The location of the harbour would not be a major consideration for seasonal boaters. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO,ONTARIO 18 As a harbour of refuge, Port Burwell would be an excellent location. Port Stanley is + 30 kms to the west and Port Dover + 80 kms to the east. By the same token, however, the general lack of harbours along this shoreline makes Port Burwell less desireable for a seasonal berth location since the opportunities for short distance cruising are limited. d. Travel Distance to Facility A number of studies have shown that travel distance to a recreational area is an important factor; Clawson found that, "Recreationists are faced with two constraints: income and time. Those living the furthest away from the recreation site will have higher travel cost and use more time in getting there than those in adjacent zones; this dual constraint will result in a lower use rate for distant zones". A survey done by the U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation indicates that over half of the participants in fishing, sailing and boating do not travel more than one hour to boat or fish, with sailing being the most localized activity. By extending this finding to a general rule, each hour of travel loses one half of the participants. A study done by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources states: "Based on data from the Ontario Recreation survey and other sources, it is clearly shown that few people are willing to travel more than two hours for an outing to a beach, to go boating or fishing". JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 19 In our opinion, even a two hour travel time is highly optimistic, especially for day use purposes. Our Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront study showed a distance of 30 miles to be more or less the limit for 99.5% of the recreational boaters using the Toronto Waterfront. A study done for the Texas Gulf coast found over 96% of sailors to reside within 50 miles of their marina. There is obviously no hard and fast rule which applies in all cases but, without question, participation rates drop rapidly as travel distances increase. This is also indicated by the information given in Table II (Existing Small Craft Facilities) . Some researchers have attempted to establish a ratio for the demand for wetberths per 1 ,000 population based on travel distances. This has not been too successful as a number of factors affect demand. In Ontario the ratio for wetberths/1 ,000 population more or less ranges from approximately 12.5 to 4.5 for distances less than 15 kms (10 miles) , generally between 4.0 and 2.8 for distances up to 25 kms (15 miles) and reduces to 1 .4 to 2.0 for distances between 40 and 80 kms (25 and 50 miles) and below 0.5 where the travel distance is between 80 and 120 kms. (50 and 75 miles). Using a distance of 80 kms (50 miles) , more or less, as the limit which boat owners would be willing to drive to Port Burwell , then the market area would include such urban population centres as London, St. Thomas and Woodstock (See Plate 3) . This, however, is not necessarily so. As is indicated on Plate 4, residents of London are within a shorter distance from Port Stanley and more or less the same distance from Grand Bend or Bayfield. Residents of Woodstock have a similar choice. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO NsNN GODERICH 0 9 ARTHUR 9 0 BR MPTON i1, LAKE BAYFIELD � HURON 11111°P) GEORGETOWN -- j GUELPH 5T.JOSEPH�I MY4TERLDO /'f/ UE / KITCHEN'' '�ia:� 1 .4., 1 :iTRATFORD /. GRAB BEND/1 . I/ GALT LAKE „f-- O ONTARIO ‘11ei. m o Q �' # J( _ WOOpSTOC K � BRANTFORD - _ 0 Ali © IINGERSOLLglOW fakOON 4 e A Izmir sliii ` IN m nLLsoN: 0 CD Q rit HOSS ® � CD DEL' IRVIS DUNNVILIE Ikt:4) E.y a 1$ AYLMEIi �© 4`1VERT RYERSE ,� PORT �RR -` ST.WIL IAM$ •'TURKEY POINT TABOT STANLEY PBRUCE PART Lir . Z 7HAMESNLLE i BURWELL 7.RT ROWAN CHATHAMX LD INT _'�-_ . LAKE ERIE II TRAVEL DISTANCE - MARKET AREA r PORT BURWELL SMALL CRAFT HARBOUR JANUARY, 1988 Plate: 3 .lnhnenn Cnctrnnb UI ..e.fdi.. . A.+......:..s..... ^w.+---+.. .41% GODERICH 0 p ARTHUR 0 1/1111 BR(1MPTON LAKE HAYFIELD Tka HURON GEORGETOWN j�� At GUELPH ST.JOSpPHIf*11:04D MOITERLOD /��1KITCHEN=' P I /'VSTRATFORDGA,4ND MEND/ , G `� �1a !IIP �, ONTARIO Co / 1111MhiNlik , `�WOODSTOC fRA�ITFORD fl INGERSOLL 11111, cs I CALEDO ' • 4 , 111111110VDAP13E1 .‘ i,0 AI) c'i Q Ti SON'I_�,ilh CD ` '4iLJARVISDUNNVILIE ST.THCMilt /1111Lillif _V v • V O �ANTICOKE �1 �r `_�Jr�-�p t1 I� -1P _1, 9 a' 0 II I r ip � PORT AYERSER 1 © !�f PORT -- -� ST.WARS 'TURKEY POINT Z THAMESVILLE TALBOT STAY PQRUCE PORT �� .-•- ,. UURWELL` \/•RT ROWAN LPOIN7 CHATHAM LL' LAKE ERIE '` ALTERNATE TRAVEL DISTANCES(MILES) *- PORT BURWELL SMALL CRAFT HARBOUI JANUARY, 1988 Plate: 4 Johnson Sustronk Weinstein + Associates- Toronto 20 Although residents of St. Thomas obviously would prefer Port Stanley and next Port Bruce, the lack of space and boat harbours could attract some St. Thomas residents to Port Burwell . e. Quality and Range of Services and Amenities Provided A small craft facility is no different from any other service business. If it is to successfully cater to a particular form of boating, it should provide at least basic amenities. A seasonal moored fleet will require as a minimum a protected water area with the maximum wave height not exceeding 0.75 feet in mooring areas, easy access to good quality docks, washrooms, showers, provision of a fuel dock with holding tank pumpout, dock power and water services, some provision to haul and launch boats, an area where boats can be temporarily stored or repaired in the summer, winter boat storage and sufficient parking for cars. Boaters are increasingly attracted to upscale development at marinas which do provide a vast range of services, ranging from provisional and upkeep services to cleaning/washing/valet service. Obviously, the higher the quality and range of amenities provided, the higher the rating the users will give the facility. The 1977 Small Craft Harbours Study of Lake Erie by Mr. Sinclair showed the following factors which boat owners considered the prime reason for choosing a specific facility over another. These apply today as well . JOHNSON SIJSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 21 Non-Resident Canadian Resident Travel distance 29.9% 41 .4% Right services and amenities 23.5% 16.3% Good fishing nearby 12.2% 11 .2% No alternate facilities 2.9% 9.8% Social activity 11 .7% 5.8% Low cost 5.8% 4.6% Other 14.0% 10.9% Thus, although travel distance is the major consideration, the services and amenities provided are the second most important reason. f. Competition From Other Facilities The direct competition for Port Burwell would be: 1 . Facilities in the Grand Bend to Goderich portion of the Lake Huron shoreline for London residents. Existing facilities in Bayfield are already of a good to excellent quality and this combined with their location on Lake Huron would, in our opinion, make these facilities slightly more attractive to London residents than Port Burwell facilities. 2. Port Dover for Norwich, Delhi , Tilsonburg and Woodstock residents. 3. Long Point Bay facilities for powerboat owners (relatively protected water area and day cruising opportunities) and sports fishermen. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 22 While Port Stanley and Port Bruce Harbours could at some time in the future become competition, they are not now and are unlikely to become this in the near future. ANTICIPATED DEMAND a) Recreational Craft There clearly is a need for more harbours of refuge on the Lake Erie shoreline west of Port Dover, and Port Burwell would make an excellent location for this. Similarly, Port Burwell could be an attractive stop-over harbour for transient boaters on an extended cruise. Subject to the location of the harbour in relation to the Village' s "downtown" area, it also could become a destination harbour for visitors on a week-end trip. With regard to attracting seasonal boaters, unfortunately, Port Burwell ''s immediate market area, within a distance of 30 miles, does not contain any major urban population centres, except for St. Thomas which is already partially served by facilities in Port Stanley. Residents of the major regional urban centres within a range of 80 kms (50 miles), i .e. London and Woodstock do have alternate choices, most of which are facilities which either have surplus berths or can expand. Port Burwell could, however, be the logical choice for residents of Ingersoll , based on travel distance. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 23 In order to arrive at some indication of the demand for small craft facilities at Port Burwell , we made the assumption that the facility would be developed over a 2 - 3 year period to a standard and level of service similar to that of Leamington and Port Dover. Based on this assumption and considering all the factors listed above, we anticipate that the seasonal berthed fleet would be made up of owners residing in the following locations: Possible number of Market Area Occupied Berths (1990) .1 Local (including Tilsonburg) 100 .2 Regional 25 - 50 km (15 - 30 mile) radius .1 St. Thomas/Belmont 25 .2 Norwich, Delhi 15 .3 Ingersoll/Dorchester 20 .3 50 - 80 km (30 - 50 mile) distance .1 London 50 .2 Woodstock 25 .3 Brantford 15 .4 Other .1 Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge 35 .2 Stratford & others 5 Total Possible Wetberths by 1990 +290 No. This is slightly less than we anticipated in our 1980 demand study, the reason for this being the 1983 outer harbour development of Port Dover. Assuming an annual growth rate of 3.5% between 1990 and 1995, the demand in 1995 could be in the range of 375 berths. Allowing for a growth rate of 3.0% per year between 1995 and 2000, a capacity for + 425 seasonal wetberths would be required by the year 2000. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES TORONTO,ONTARIO 24 With reference to transient berths, the location of the harbour in relation to the "downtown" area is an important factor. An outer harbour development off the west pier will require some 20 visitor berths by 1990 and allowing for an annual growth rate of 5.0% approximately 25 - 30 berths by the year 2000. (Note: the above assumes that during peak week-ends visitors will also be accommodated in temporarily vacant seasonal berths.) Outer harbour development off the east pier could, depending how well the development is executed and local business reacted in providing shopping and food services, greatly increase the number of visitor berths required. In this instance, it would not be unrealistic to provide a minimum of 50 wetberths by 1990 and allow for a requirement of 75 - 100 berths by the year 2000. Even though Port Burwell does not have the major Ohio boating population directly across the Lake, which is the case in Leamington, Erie, PA is starting to develop as a major boating centre. Thus a well executed outer harbour development off the east pier will most likely be a major attraction for U.S. visitors from that port and to a slightly lesser degree U.S. boaters with their homeport in Cleveland. The above anticipated demand for the year 2000 requires the provision of a + 5.75 ha. in size protected basin area off the east pier and + 5.0 ha. basin off the west pier. In both cases a land base of at least 3.25 ha. is required. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 25 b) Commercial Fishing Even though the 1980 "Commercial Fishing Harbour Study" recommended Port Burwell be reclassified as a harbour of refuge/recreation harbour. this recommendation may no longer be valid since instead of an anticipated reduction in future commercial fish harvest, the harvest is increasing. Thus, it would be logical to provide for at least some fishing vessels if an outer harbour is developed. Both types of vessels, recreational and commercial fishing, have generally similar manouvering and water depth requirements. Local fishermen suggested that the redeveloped harbour should be able to accommodate a total of 20 tugs. In view of the recommendations in the 1980 IBI report, and taking into account that the recommendations should be reviewed, we consider a capacity for some 10 vessels more appropriate. This would require a basin area of ± 0.6 ha. To serve these vessels a fish unloading dock with truck access is required where two vessels can tie up at the same time. In addition, an area may have to be reserved for 4 - 5 storage sheds and a parking area for some 20 - 30 cars. This will require a land base of + 0.5 ha. c) Consumers Gas While it obviously would not be practical to attempt to accommodate Consumers Gas' larger vessels, by the same token it would be logical to provide facilities for their small vessels, i .e. their supply tugs and even their JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 26 diving support vessel . These three vessels are of a similar size as the fishing tugs and have a similar draft. This would require a tie up space or docks for three vessels which translates in a basin area of + 0.2 ha. and a landbase for access, storage and parking of 0.1 to 0.15 ha. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS a. Dredging The existing harbour requires annual maintenace dredging if it is to provide for sufficient depth for recreational craft and fishing tugs. Sediments are deposited in the existing harbour by the discharge of the Big Otter Creek, windblown sand and wave action on the Lake. Most of the sand accumulation at the entrance and lakeside portion of the harbour is either due to sand transported by wave action from the lake or due to the deposit of windblown sand from the adjacent beaches and sand dunes. Both of these sources can be expected to be relatively free of contaminants. A sediment survey made in 1978 by the Great Lakes Biolimnology Laboratory showed that based on 13 bottom samples taken in the existing Port Burwell harbour, the sediment was suitable for open water disposal under 1978 M.O.E. criteria. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATESTORONTO, ONTARIO 27 Eleven bottom samples taken in 1983 were tested by Enviroclean who reported that all parameters for open water disposal were below the guidelines, except in three samples which had an oil and grease content of 1870, )540 and 1540 u/g, marginally exceeding the upper limit of 1500. In support of an application to remove sand from the harbour additional bottom samples were taken in 1985. The result of these tests showed that the majority of sediment in Port Burwell Harbour was clean and met open water disposal criteria. However, surficial sediments appeared to be contaminated as a result of agricultural activities in the Big Otter Creek watershed (letter from Mr. K. Shikazi of Environment Canada to the Village of Port Burwell dated September 30, 1986) . The above suggests that maintaining the existing harbour in its present location most likely will result in an ongoing deterioration of sediment quality to the point it will no longer be suitable for open water disposal . This would greatly increase the cost of dredging and could be prohibitively expensive. Therefore, any proposed harbour development should be separate from the creek. b. Windblown Sand Most, if not all , of the windblown sand is from the beach and sand dunes west of the westerly pier. Although the Ministry of Natural Resources attempts to control windblown sand by plantings, snow fencing and controlling public JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO,ONTARIO 28 access at the Port Burwell Provincial Park, no such mitigating measures have been taken for the beach and dune area in Federal Government ownership immediately adjacent to the west pier. As a result, this beach and dune area is the major source for windblown sand being deposited in the harbour. The ownership of this property is in the process of being transferred to the Province to be administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The Ministry intends to close this property for public use to allow it to stabilize the area. c. Cladophora Growth The 1980 outer harbour development proposed by Port Burwell Marina Inc. was reviewed both by Environment Canada and the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry of Environment questioned the use of armour stone for breakwater construction on the basis it would support the growth of Cladophora. In Mr. D. M. Huber' s letter of November 18, 1980 to the Inter-ministerial Committee on Great Lakes Access it is suggested that a standing crop of 18 tons could be produced under peak growning conditions. It was further suggested that when this material sloughs off, it could theoretically cover over 14 kilometers of shoreline with a mat 15 metres wide by 25 centimetres thick. Similar earlier comments made by M.O.E. were reviewed and commented on by Environment Canada. In a letter dated August 11 , 1980 to Mr. Moffat of S.C.H. , Mr. Boulden of Environment Canada stated: JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO,ONTARIO 29 "Cladophora is an attached algal genus which shows preferences for rough, fissured surfaces and consequently rubble mound breakwaters of limestone can provide an ideal substrate for growth. The algae also require water movement to provide for the constant supply of nutrients. The breakwater in question will potentially encourage the growth of the algae but this should be considered in context with other suitable substrates in the area - eg. the extensive federal breakwater along the shoreline to the east. Within this context, it is believed that the additional substrate surface provided by the proposed breakwater is a marginal concern. It is generally recognized that control of clado bora in the Great Lakes will occur through reduced nutrient loading {reduced P) and possible localized chemical treatments - not through the control of substrate which is available. To reduce the potential for nuisance growth at Port Burwell , some design precautions are possible: 1 ) armouring with smooth surfaced rock such as slate 2) installation of small culverts to facilitate circulation and at the same time not cause surges." Since the growth of Cladophora was a concern in 1980, we assumed that it still may be a concern in 1988 and have requested our consultants, the Environmental Applications Group to review and comment on the above. Their comments on each of the above letters are provided below: August 11 , 1980 Letter - Boulden to Moffatt The information regarding Cladophora growth in this letter is essentially correct. The rubble or armourstone used in construction will certainly support Cladophora growth. While reduced nutrient loading is an admirable goal , Clado hora is an effective scavenger of a wide range of available forms of phosphorus in turbulent water, so that complete eradication of the alga is unlikely in the Port Burwell area. Studies by Verduin (1969) in western Lake Erie indicated that the metabolic of Cladophora is linearly proportional to the phosphorus supply in the 10-40 ug/L range of concentration. The author suggested that if phosphorus levels in Lake Erie could be reduced by only one-half or two-thirds, a significant reduction in abundance in aquatic plants such as Cladophora could be expected. While substantial lakewide efforts have been made to reduce phosphorus concentrations, waters around river mouths or communities such as Port Burwell may continue to have surplus nutrients for some time to come. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 30 Chemical treatments for Cladophora are generally quite ineffective (Yeager 1975, Neil 1975a) . Since the alga grows in turbulent zones along exposed shorelines, there is some difficulty in maintaining adequate exposure to an applied herbicide. Those chemicals which have shown modest success in controlling Cladophora are also toxic to fish in useful concentrations. Licensing of herbicide applications sufficient to do the job would be unlikely in the Port Burwell area. In terms of the proposed control measures outlined in Mr. Boulden's letter, these are as likely to be effective as any others we have seen. While limestone armourstone is considered ideal in terms of substrate, Cladophora grows abundantly on coarse gravel , boulders, bedrock, wood, iron, fibreglass, concrete and painted surfaces (Neil and Owen 1964) . In a study of attached Cladophora and other alga on artificial and natural algal assemblages on reefs and rocky outcrops was very similar to that encountered on buoys, ruling out the possibility that the painted buoy surfaces acted as a highly selective substrate. In our opinion, even a smooth-surfaced armourstone such as slate is likely to support substantial fringe growths of Cladophora. With respect to the provision of culverts, these are not likely to significantly affect Clado,hora growth, and in fact, improved circulation might slightly favour the growth of this alga. Neil and Owen (1964) found that Cladophora was first established and became most prolific in niches where a maximum movement of water was observed, adding that growth often occurs along piers and seawalls in areas which generally do not support growth on the bottom. The alga is often restricted to fissures and cracks in the bedrock which might be expected to funnel water and provide local turbulence. This is particularly evident in areas considered to be marginal with respect to water fertility. On the other hand, Neil and Owen (1964) found that in areas where growths were established, any enclosures which interefered with normal water movement was not populated by the alga. From the Cladophora control point of view, there would appear to be no benefit in providing culverts. November 18, 1980 Letter - Huber to Maher The estimate of Cladophora growth on a proposed breakwall and its subsequent impact on nearby beaches would probably be considered preliminary and subject to re-examination by most MOE limnologists. It would certainly represent an extreme "worst case" scenario, and we consider it unrealistic to expect that 3600 feet or approximately 1 km of substrate could produce enough Cladophora to cover 14 km of shoreline with a significant amount of deposited alga under any circumstances. Average Cladophora biomass per month 2 dry weight) estimates for Lake Erie range fromm 5.20 to 149.48 g/m , while localized values up to 329.58 g/m were recorded for Lake Ontario (Neil 1975) . Even using the JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 31 greatest of these values, and assuming a total breakwater shoreline length of 1 km2(approximately 3600 ft) and a depth of 5 m (approximately 15 ft) , 5000 m would support a biomass of 1650 kg of Cladophora. Since all of this is not likely to detach at one time, it would not likely have a widespread additional effect to local Cladophora deposition patterns, even should such maximum biomass figures be relevant. Rather than becoming concerned with alternative assumptions and calculations of algal masses, there are two distinct aspects related to nuisance growths that are of relevance to this discussion. The first relates to the actual growth of the living Cladophora on the breakwater and other suitable substrates, and the second is the actual deposition of detached algal material on beaches. Neil (1975) differentiated between "fringe" growths on rocks, breakwalls, rip-rap, etc. as opposed to "bottom" growths, which are present in broad meadows on the lake bottom near shore. He noted that fringe growths differ from bottom growths in that they live in association with different organisms, remain green during much of the open water season, and are subject to different forces than bottom populations. Local -fringe growths, although they are most apparent to observers because of their green colour and proximity to the shoreline, probably contribute only a small proportion of the Cladophora which accumulates along the shore. The bulk results from bottom growths, which reach their greatest development on the beds when maximum daily temperatures reach about 18oC (Taft 1975) whereupon the mass of filaments detaches and follows longshore currents or wave motion until the mass is driven ashore, or is carried into deep water by descending currents. In summary, we do not believe that the potential growths of Cladophora should be a major consideration in the design of the proposed structure. Almost any type of shoreline work in the Great Lakes includes materials which might provide suitable substrate. While a breakwater might tend to accumulate detached algae or other floating debris, this can be mitigated by establishing routine clean-up procedures. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 32 COASTAL AREA The north shoreline of Lake Erie has been and continues to be subject to shoreline erosion by wave action and the transport of material , littoral drift, in the nearshore zone. The direction of the littoral drift at Port Burwell is in an easterly direction causing accretion of beach fillets on the west side of headlands, breakwaters or groins. As a result of a recent court case, the history and reasons for past shore changes are well documented (See Plate 5) . In 1909 the harbour entrance was formed by two jetties, extending some 500 feet into the lake. Because of silting, frequent dredging was required to maintain a depth of twenty feet in the port and a depth of 22 feet in the 180 feet wide by 2,500 long approach channel . To reduce maintenance dredging cost, the westerly pier was extended during the period 1912 to 1913. By 1921 the necessity of ongoing maintenance dredging again became costly. It was estimated that to maintain the harbour and approach over the next 5 years, some 225,000 cubic yards would have to be dredged annually. As a result, it was suggested that the westerly pier be extended further. In 1931 the rubble mound was completed which was thought would cure accelerated silting at the outer entrance to the harbour. In July 1933 it was reported that the results contemplated by this rubble mound extension were not as good as anticipated; that the beach was continuing to extend and JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 33 advance on the west side of the pier; and considerable shoaling was noticed already building up at the end of the extended breakwater. By 1934 the final extension no longer had any influence on build-up at the entrance to the harbour. A 1942 report prepared by Mr. T. M. Dick, a professional engineer who did a study of Port Burwell , states that the prevailing westerly winds over the lake indicate a net lateral movement from west to east. He suggests that west of the breakwater there has now accumulated so much sediment that they are no longer able to stop it. It is replete with material and it is now passing eastward around the end of the breakwater. In conclusion, he suggests that "construction of new jetties should not be carried out at present, but delayed until the controlling forces governing the movement of the sediment are better understood." Finally in 1961 . in a memo by Public Works Canada entitled "Littoral drift problems at Port Burwell ", the magnitude of the problem, as well as subdredging is discussed. It suggests that since there is now very little income from the port, nothing should be done on the site. It further states that from an engineering standpoint, it is probably the worst possible location for a port on the north shore of Lake Erie. Note: based on the littoral drift sand/gravel transport rate along the Lake Erie shoreline between Port Stanley and Clear Creek, a similar statement could equally apply to any harbour development along this section of the Lake Erie shoreline. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 1 L_— 1 ; 34 As a contribution to the Federal Government' s case on not being responsible for shoreline erosion, a study was done by Messrs. Rukavina and Zeman of the National Water Research Institute. This study reports that because of the high input and littoral drift transport rates, adjustment in the coastal area to structures takes place very quickly (this confirms the observation made in 1933) and that the contribution of rivers and creeks to the nearshore sediment is negligible. The littoral drift transport rate in Reach 6, fronting Port Burwell was considered 522,000 m3 of sand and gravel annually. The volume of slope erosion in the adjacent Reach 7 (Port Burwell - Clear Creek) is 1 ,034,100 m3/year. The above suggests the present inshore zone should, by to date (1987) , be more or less in balance with no dredging being done since 1979. Since the 1977 water depths sounding at the harbour entrance (see Plate 5) did not indicate this, the Canadian Hydrographic Service of Fisheries and Oceans Canada was requested by the Small Craft Harbours Branch to survey the nearshore zone south of the harbour entrance. The results of this sounding survey, carried out in November 1987, are shown on Plate 6. The results of the last survey compared with 1977 and 1980 survey results show considerable changes since 1977 but little change since 1980, except for a general decrease of approximately 0.3m in water depth in the inshore zone. Applying the Sylvester theory of crenulated shaped bays in equilibrium to the bay area east of the westerly pier, a similar conclusion can be reached. Although at JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 11 . IL«J i -1it—_-1i ! e%'/ ; I �- _J1 V // ////ii '/ I1 II r—� f� 'Lilt- 1 L J L r I /I ,--, tat."o i�TR f i- -1 _ ri t � 1r it II _ II i �-- i _FYI L _ L.--J L--i i____J I____� _ I I , I 17---11-16"1"1 ; -I i------- -1 r--i 1-----------:z 1 \ \ IL 1 101 i kr; — Tway1. // --I r II I o LJ I Ii �� I ! 1 5 1 1 t �� 4 �I _ J 11 I 1 (1 rte- 1 '� _."------1-_.....--- --���J `---- -`-z----- ��--. ' f-''- _-_f-- _li ‘ 0 III _0 I �r 'v._J I PORT BURWELL rf--- S PROVINCIAL PARK NN I ,---- S ....i N f.,,,,r-j\-,-d"\.1 -'#°\1.-N,..-. " . \ .. II 71 r, ' Jam_•al. • �� 1\.r.r✓ f lij fi j"---s--....f 1 1 illj (--.:_•., 1 / ,/\\,;:"./--\\,„-._,-----r\__.__"_ _,..j\_.J‘-P\i'' vc- I.'r�. �r ` NOTE: r WATER DEPTHS ARE SHOWN ( fillt1 ! IN METERS BELOW CHART DATUM 5 AND ARE BASED ON / 1987 SOUNDINGS 4iiI � ' C` V _ J. ' \_-)----L_"- --) � r�- PORT BURWELL 1, ~�` �-,`------,,_1,,---- OUTER HARBOUR JSW-Ii N, 1 C-, ,r-`- -, JAN.88 PLATE 6 35 face value it may appear that dredging requirements for the existing harbour are caused by creek sediment deposits, this is not necessarily so. Although the creek is a contributor, the major reasons are sand transported by wave action and the deposit of wind blown sand into the harbour basin. A harbour suitable for recreational craft, as well as fishing tugs, requires an entrance water depth of 8 feet (+ 2.5 m) below datum and an approach having a water depth of approximately 10 feet (+ 3.0 m) below datum, if the full range of pleasure craft is to be provided for. Since the necessity for ongoing maintenance dredging is expensive and thus should be avoided, as apart from the cost of dredging it will become increasingly more difficult to find an acceptable disposal site, any proposed new harbour layout should attempt to negate this. It can be readily seen, on the basis of the existing water depths shown on Plate 6, that the preferred location for the development of an outer harbour is not to the east and adjacent to the east pier. From a coastal engineering point of view, if a harbour is to be developed which minimizes the requirement for maintenance dredging, a more logical location would be adjacent to the west pier. Unfortunately, such a location would provide the least benefit to the Village. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO,ONTARIO 36 ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS a) General Based on the preliminary small craft facility programme discussed under "Anticipated Demand" five alternate concept plans were prepared. Concepts "A" and "B" provide for a harbour entrance at the -3.5m lakebed elevation. Concepts "C", "D" and "E" have their proposed harbour entrances at the -2.5m contour and thus restrict the size of craft which could use these harbours in all weather and lake conditions. For each alternate plan preliminary cost estimates were prepared broken down into the following 3 or 4 parts; Part 1 : Consists of breakwater construction, dredging and filling and interior basin protection. Part 2: Consists of extending exising municipal services (sewer, water, hydro and paved access) to the site limit. Part 3: Consists of the diversion of Big Otter Creek (Concept E only) . Part 4: Completes site development for the year 2000 programme requirements and includes for site servicing, paving, landscaping, a washroom/shower and marina administration building, a fuel and pump-out dock, and docks. This part can be staged over a 10-15 year period. b) Concept "A" (Plate 7) This concept proposes the development of a new harbour on the east side of the outer end of the existing west pier. The harbour entrance is located at the -3.5 m lakebed contour. Since the harbour's configuration is unlikely to have a major effect on the existing lake bottom at this location, the harbour entrance should only have minimal maintenance dredging requirements. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 1L,— I i — I , -111 i'tt,�'/I I 1 L- 1 r- 1 1 1} / /R I\ �. I I ' [ -J 1 / 1; i f/// •� 1 1 1 1 — I--. // %,/-1 L— i L_---j L- tlf[RL00 STII[IT 1 i r1 .---I r----1 1- 1 -- 1- , , �� ' 1 1 1 I f 1 + I 1I I I I I I ! _i { �� , 1 I I , „ 11 I1 I i -1 I f --1 I LiL___ - -— I L -J _J L- 4 \ 1 I \ I fL 4.1 1a1 ti ��\ ? } Irl � � \\\\ k - rJ IJ I \ ! : I II 1 f 1 0l rl1 ` \\ �� Ipl -. .J 1 I 1_ iLMa k J Liriii[r �I \ -' I` Id C�——J 71 /1 1t ---'� rawlV I I I .----. ,- �4r --. t \\ % Ill „ I eAi N �_. - ,- - f . 1�, y I t 11 r'--• f`" ;I (-N._�n`-`___1` �`\ / ,_ f 1 I 11 L, f / (�•_--' I 1J c----,, --ia., i -1---' r 1 -' ', /L7...../NEARoximATE R ULTINBYI / NEAR ..r1LB-AT TUM. ,1"\----\.1-\,.......--- ,--' / . ''\ ' tea_ i i 1'� �- \ j,_) /7 „I, �.� �`� N.N. .19p\ 1r i f ' '^ - is r. �__ r-d i� • 1,y� ; i / , ' •ti.--rte-- . '.!1 i I 1 r^� ^. I 11 N I ! 11r _ \ i j 1 �,,. t? `- ,-- \J ,, ; \ 1 i 1 ?: /,,' 1 jRECREATIONA `� !';' ►° I 1 J BOAT ATIBASINAI N OTE: WATER DEPTHS ARE SHOWN IN , '', 1 1i-i= i r' 7,# ,g c-+ METERS BELOW CHART DATUM `, 5 t I t.; •�;/ / i �`� AND ARE BASED ON 1987 `, 1, , I' + , ; ,, '' J SOUNDINGS. 1:• ' + 1 • \\51 I1 11 S ,,,I.,-,. , 1 1, f 6‘.- \ \\\ ', I!' 1 III I f V� • `;;;;�\ ;i;,i, .. CONCEPT 'A' , r! ,��.,;, vtigek PORT BURWELL OUTER HARBOUR STUDY • L, �" APRIL, 1988 PLATE 7 ..\ ��` �\ �' \_ ��' SCALE IN METERS ,JSW+ `\\ '',_._� \4-' J�`y~�� _i I o b Ibo ado 310 - �o `\ , L� -� 37 The proposed configuration will have a major effect on the near shore zone between the north limit of the new harbour and the existing shoreline immediately to the east of the existing east pier (see plate 7) . The entrance to the existing harbour will convert to a shallow delta mouth. Because of the existing large volumes of sand transported in the nearshore zone, the accretion of the new beach to the east of the east pier will be rapid and thus the short term acceleration of further downdrift shoreline erosion will be negligible. The access to the new harbour will have to be across Provincial Park lands as an extension of Chatham Street. This makes the existing commercial area of the Village somewhat remote from the harbour and thus the concept less desireable. Of all the alternates evaluated, this concept has the highest cost for parts 1 and 2 (+ $10.5 million). c) Concept "B" (Plate 8) This concept assumes a new harbour development to the west of the existing west pier. Again, it requires access from the extension of Chatham Street but in this instance requires more Provincial Park land to be transferred to the Federal Government. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES.TORONTO, ONTARIO I L`__I I ...?..,b,4..../ _� 1 - 1 -1 h �� ./ ' // ' j , L_./.I /�/\___,/„, I I 1 r- I I / //// 11 I -J i / 4'L ! 1 1 I I 1NT[NL00 !711[[7 I I "1 --i r-----� �-- , - 4 /� I I I _J I / 10(1 II i I I 1 ! 11 I I 1i 11 j I f ' ---11-- �LL1lYiT911 _iiRLQ— — — L—` I I I r---� I 1 1 1 ------- --- I II 1 \ \ I I 6I 4_, IA Ir `� �\ e ft Irl ti p I \\ I � -=L_ 2'�I',�w1 STREET I I \ I ! —1 -1 - rj I7 ! X31 1!r 11 j tL1LJ1 Wj! ! I \,.. IN r1 II 1 _I Sr11Err I \ \ 10, -• __ I 1 1 ' i -..,-..,ii _1 ! I ,� 1 I ; 11 I I I I �,” I ---� J rw L / II ------` .. w �� v' , r Il1� `-4� `` O ,, /• ( + . �tip✓ ��• , 2, ii 1A��P.P.R,�OX1'I�A�E NEARSHORE AT I m /•' OATUM. NOT CHANGED Bir DEVELOPMENT----�. , I ``, i ..-- 31 \? u , 11 -.p..J , I � 1 � _�f' 1 I Ii L, , /rte' 1"`rf I Iv /I- ,- - , .f Y° N I � -.... 1 k ri ,.... + ,-.,--��`- \ % _ / I ' c--.... ��, • d 1 - ` f J" , 1..` , - RECREarNoh,u. \ - 1 �-� • '841. eAsny • • \ \ r' .• 1 •_i . / ,/\ \\ ' /�` a--'`�-f, r% l•\ •/\ o ` 1 / 7 -10 • \FN$�Oyj Ci4L 1 1r•.:�'r, I 1/ / , r 9 ;T i • N. , f i ' ,^J� 1 ', I,11 • N. `^ . `\,• \`. ``` ‘, ; ‘'\1J,1 r11r' cF NOTE: WATER DEPTHS ARE SHOWN IN CONCEPT IB' •• `\` •,... ..;........*k :/�;;� METERS BELOW CHART DATUM PORT BURWELL OUTER AND ARE BASED ON 1987 ` F�'\"\ HARBOUR STUDY SOUNDINGS. 1 • APRIL, 1988 PLATE 8 t • r �`\ �` I d`�yr t SCALE IN METERS ,l -\ \ + L \. \\ \\ --ti `tea '-. /2/1,A . 38 As in Concept "A" the new harbour entrance should have only minimal maintenance dredging requirements, however, being located to the west of the existing west pier, will not change existing nearshore or shoreline conditions to the east of the west pier. The construction cost for parts 1 and 2 is estimated at approximately $8.3 million or + $2.2 million less than that for Concept "A" , Despite this reduction,the cost on a per boat accommodated basis is still well above average. In view of this and that the proposed harbour would not be within convenient walking distance from the centre of the Village, the Small Craft Harbours Branch requested that an outer harbour development off the east pier be investigated. At the same time, it was suggested that a water depth of 2.5 m at the harbour entrance and increased maintenance dredging requirements could be considered acceptable. The following alternate Concepts "C" and "D" iillustrate this possibility. d) Concept "C" (Plate 9) This alternative shows schematically a possible harbour layout immediately to the east of the east pier and the anticipated resulting near shore bottom changes. The anticipated accretion south of the entrance to the existing harbour will in turn cause a decreased water depth at the new harbour entrance which thus will require maintenance dredging. A small beach will also develop to the east of the new harbour. The total volume of anticipated JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO,ONTARIO T __, z z I V � rI -, 1 ^-1 , /f ,6 �,1 I 1 f- I Ij V � /%//' Ir Ij I r —� I ////_I L_--_J L__ __J L_ -- r �' wATERL O STRUT 11 �. /i'--� 1------i --- fil- - 1 [ // I L� : I I I � _J r I r lr, I I 1 1 .II II I I i 1 II ---1 L_ ____J L_- _l L---1 J.__ J1--.11----- i_--_ I I � J1!l1LIIID� _>EI�RLI� - --- --- --I --- �� I [ � r---I I 1 � I I , I � I 1 \ 1 I Iti I I I I . Iv \�\ / II 10l I le, GI ISI \�" F 1 r % \''=L_� _ri i r —__I L. N IEI �� c, j i �IYf; RT AT rf ---1 ` -41 �s---li�`\� I�r I 1 or I rte ' I ! U 1'+I Iwi I j5 I�I 1 0 1/ 1___—__.ISL 11.1 Roai iT�cst I J I _ J II r__ --./L— f f -_ _� nrlg +IL.J .ate _ ,. r, r �, [,j ._1� s if `11 m I� /4.1 —APPROXI ATLJE rDiG I 1 11 r,_�-- RECREATIONAL ;� / •NEARSRE AT DATUM yi \ 'I' BOAT BA IN i r-/' I _/ r I 1 11 � ri i ,-..,......p.„.„,/ � /��\` I r_. 1 1r r 1 1 r —COMMERCIAL , �-'� I FISHING 1i ...r..../-.\\..)---\____. h r-3 .,,....N... „,, .....-4----- \.`'� ^ \ N - ‘,:ii,',. (,) ., ,..„./. ,,,`.\ �`.` 1�1 i' �f g1PPROXIMATE R IJLTING U . � 1 i ! ,.BEAp$HeRE-*I' DATUM ♦ \ \ 1 ' r', ; % ``.\ `♦ e r/-.:• i� ,_ I ms. `\ �`'1 ..q 1. ,-,1/4 F.....1\ I ,— / .... \ I i / j 1 ! �'/ ! v ,� ,� ,`♦ \ ee ) 1, r,9f 4 # i,. I NOTE: WATER DEPTHS ARE SHOWN IN ♦. `, + L i; P / / �/ ��� METERS BElDW CHART DATUM .`� `• ‘+ 1 1, % 1 I ,-•.r- AND ARE BASED ON 1987 �`. •\ \\ \ r 14 /!`r Ie i /--� SOUNDINGS .\.. '♦ \; I It II I,\ j 1 / I `. `. \ : 1`, 1 lei L i 1 1 I i ♦�`4. `I`i1"11 CONCEPT C II �� `:;'r; PORT BURWELL OUTER - __4 ;`-- �•_`` HARBOUR STUDY • . •\ —__ �,_' ; APRIL, 1988 PLATE 9 ti ••• 'NN5 '\ '.` .`` `♦ �� • \ �_ \ �� SCALE IN METERS _ JSW+ L \ ��.. , _ . \ �'� \ V^�✓—` 39 accretion will be + 100,000 m3 of sand and gravel . This accretion can be expected to occur over a 6 - 7 year period with the accretion during the first year to approach + 30,000 m3, gradually decreasing to nil at the end of the 6 - 7 year period following construction of the breakwaters. This 6 - 7 year accreted volume constitutes 2.9% of the annual littoral drift transport rate during that period and thus will have a negligible effect on downdrift slope erosion. With reference to the Village Centre the harbour is in an ideal location, being in the extension of Robinson Street and thus within a short walking distance from existing commercial establishments. The preliminary estimated construction cost for part 1 and 2 is + $7,000,000, i .e. approximately 1 .3 million less than for Concept "B" . e) Concept "D" (Plate 10) This is a variant of Concept "C" which proved to offer no advantages over Concept "C". Both the distance to the Village centre and the cost for part 1 and part 2 increased (by + $1 ,200,000) . The only advantage it offers is that the effect on nearshore changes at entrance to the existing harbour is somewhat reduced. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO IL� I / —J ��' \ "" \/ / I I 1II `-1 \ `G���//I 1 1 ff U / A/\ II ir— r 1 1I i �// /, I1 If JI --=-.m. i /,.//_111 I1 I � �_ J L____J 1—_ 1 j1NfERLAp STI- — // 1I I I1 � Ip II 11 Ii __1 ! 11 II I 1 i 1 f 1 Iii -1 1 I•_---I L_ _I L-- _I L---' L_ L-' I----� L_-_� I I I i 1MILL I _MIKE_ ` l \ el ; ; I w ill r ti ` �s=L__ 1L in J I\ 0 1E1 F } rr1T-- -irnErr ��.11 I I u r f 1 1---I r-- -I I— - 1 f-"__3�`� 1 i I ! r' 1 I I I� NI ��` I =I I kru 1'r / 1 U 11 i i �.�. 19 i l� E O j!1 1I �� Jg 1 ir�Etr�I \... -1 IN — 1 I .�`1 _1 j I — i 2/I I ` 1. C—`—J C l 1 11 II 4r11 \ �.1 iI ! IE 1 I ' It? II Y � 1 ! 5 1 1 1 ....._e- _�--�� „' \ 11t RECREATIONAL �� u m /c' ; ___/---...._,/ .`J ����� ll \ , �I yi BOAT BASIN- -• _ -�\ I1 '� J t'O -` 'APPROXIMATE RESULTING 1 •-`r-- ' �' ��• " NEARSHORE AT DATUM �{ f r f/ I 1 1t rte.• / .' clara"",-1 X-- 1 / I --s2.‘NN V `♦ y / ��. ^I_-fir • \ joi", \1 t's ,e I 1 ,\ \\ 11 ; 1 1 !. I :,\ � / ` iIce` tit / .I`. I r- • !I' 1 / j r \\ \ , r '/, f / / `�' N OTE: WATER DEPTHS ARE SHOWN IN I ' ' i I / ' METERS BELOW CHART DATUM `\ , s , t I ;1,.1 + r---- ‘• -- AND ARE BASED ON 1987 ``\ \\ \`` ', II ,l i\ ' I/ 1 'SOUNDINGS `- \ \\fir yI`II '1I -- N.\ `\ `\\Yrr i l a, II \ " 1i !11 r CONCEPT D \ \,\.� ,;iii . r ;� PORT BURWELL OUTER ' ` _ HARBOUR STUDY \.`\ -'e ��� APRIL, 1988 PLATE 10 -\ \ I \\ I\I ` \`�� I \`\ \\ ‘\-‘ � --� '-------,----\-) SCALE IN METERS JSW+ • \\\ \ 55- L� �`�. -.., IDD �Q k 0 2 0 30 O \ \ 1 \ I -I 1 T� --I 1 4 / % /j1 . . 1 1 S 1 � �t•// f ! r ,- II V • / i, , 11 it 2/(i_ i I^1 1 1 1 1 • `are-fail !! g f I- 11 o I I I I 1 —1 ' r 11 11 I �� L ----_1 - _F L--J +--1 r----_I i -MAY_ --- L—�� \ I �I I fj II I, ' \\\ it ? a 0 I ►1 s i G h }-=1__ i.l -I L 1w1 \ I ir f _ r _I1. rlfY_ _ rT tt_ `�\ I4 1 1 �I u 1 1 $j I I I I t !1 f LJ I :i i �� j� I.� ` I E i1 II 1 al ..4r el \\ ' IV' I d I ! r 1---—Jg EmotTer -� iT ET IS ' ' 1 osF j l --J _11 �`- 1 1 i ^ \�� i CZ__—i i +u 1 ti. i 1 1 I I ? 1 . . .----V- --1 + ? 1 a t_.:=7,71, L ✓/ 1 1 .--- r jai \ `^ --�• ;_ i� :__Jr-�-"n �`3./�---��`�r.- 1 \ 1 1 '. ��-• • r - 1t`1 r-_% r `tri �``i ,--1 I ; ; .^-. 1 r\---) ./ FUEL r / DOCK I f/ /� —.r~. \ ` y$0.‘AERCIAL � ���j l\ r -es ��/f r i'SHING '* ; r__.• / -..�/ `. i °. ; • `t ;; r • �� \` r_1 .\\ \\ \ 1‘ 1 ,' `� \` `` \..Y-y' r '" BREAKWATER EXTENSIONS i • -`\ 1 • •'/, ' ,til �- ,_ - ' \ � • ,\ ` , 1 •• f,�f p i i t r 1`J) `, \ 1 r11 .• ('° i ,i % J 1 r ' ° " g11 NOTE: WATER DEPTHS ARE SHOWN IN ., ‘ i ;r ', { 1 I % r.• i METERS BELOW CHART DATUM `�� `\`, r; „ i 1' / r'l AND ARE BASED ON 1987 ' `,. ‘\ i ii 1.4 1.1ei F% i e•----. .SOUNDINGS \ 1 F`� 1 1 \�� \ ` i 1. l l r � 1 ! �` `` r r ,t '!'\'J CONCEPT `E' 1 is, -- — '/'' PORT BURWELL OUTER '\'�'` HARBOUR STUDY ! l • 1 } APRIL, 1988 PLATE II -1 N.___----‘ .•� �� �`, ` `�-_•� \`_`\�—JL_i ¢GLE IN !al.ENS.. • JSW+ 1 \ i [- .. •�•\ \�._, '~`-_; \-- AC._.� i . b.. . . . Ib° • abo -abo - 4bo • .` t \ \ `i \ r_- 43 MASTERPLAN a. Alternate Preliminary Masterplan Concepts C-1 and C-2 Both concept plans are based on a harbour development programme accommodating 10 commercial fishing vessels and initially 300 recreational berths (225 seasonal and 75 transient) , with provision for a future expansion to 500 recreational berths. Although both concepts are fairly similar, there are some differences between the two which are: Concept C-I (Plate 12) .1 Provides the possibility, at an extra cost, to extend the access road for the commercial fishing docks to the end of the breakwater. This would allow the entrance to be dredged with landbased equipment. .2 This layout will result in a slight surplus of dredged material which would have to be disposed of on the east side of the easterly breakwater. .3 The proposed landbase does not allow for public boat launching ramp car and trailer parking which Concept C-2 will . JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO r w •- _ JiL � _ j V/, 1 I 1 ce _— r HAG ER I I � �j �� -- MAN I . � ���d����� .: , ., ztit, I � '�f /1 99-6 1 W I ' 1-""%.. , -0.! 1.-- 1 I u¢o epos,-Vro P AIWA. �` i \ 1 4:15 1 -31 � epvacyr• arsaPLAsr 41 II firie216A:!, ___--FUTUe E-I .‘itj-A.-1"7-=-1-1— ---—1 . DOUAI 61oa•Laus 11 Iv/ if---.0""I�r � I ---------'CI a )\ Ilt% _.----------------- , i Il! Maial 6h1. P& A. r.`' ltc _- -' - I1 I V - 1 1 r• I ,1 1 r� 1 ! A 1 1 -1. �iI,, ,_ �u►.,fl 1 -, 1 1 , 9,-„,,,,,,,,,p,,,,,_J , ....,.„,, _____ ____ „. . 1 /- $(,' 1 ,......_ 1 , ii, -,...__., t= 1 1 1 1 . , 1 ,,...--,----' ` l' 1 4...=J.1-,,,D,-.6;_..,/ 1 1 . I , ii. DP1 if/ NN..- : Lciervott ,, \\ i 1 1 l J fi —/,-� \ hal. It 1 / you. /a AT PII 1 1 # '-'. ...."\14.............-7--........:-- .-..1 \1 + i / /r i ,r-.-- `\ - \ A r , , / / / / PORT BURWELL aures w�naour+STUDY r trey•ligeATE 3 ' / ' w e 'ewe ' �V� l 45 The anticipated accretion at the entrance of the existing harbour may also negate access up the creek by small run abouts or similar shallow draft craft under certain lake water level elevations. This type of craft now dock and launch at the Big Otter Marina and Campground, upstream of Bridge Street. To accommodate these boaters, it would be desireable to provide a public launching ramp with associated car and trailer parking in the new harbour. In view of the above, JSW-1- was requested to finalize the masterplan based on Concept C-2 but incorporate provision for landbased equipment access to the end of the south breakwater. b. Village Development The Village of Port Burwell is considering a mixed use development proposal for 17.5 acres of the existing harbour lands between Robinson and Chatham Streets, south of Bridge Street (see Plate 14). This proposal by 345990 Ontario Limited has a construction value of 31 .7 M and is contingent on Port Burwell having a harbour suitable for recreational craft. The Developer has prepared a development plan for his holdings on the basis that a new outer harbour will be developed, as proposed by this study. The land holdings on Robinson Street, south of Pitt Street are posposed for an upscale commercial use, consisting of boutiques, stores and restaurants catering to both visitors and residents while still maintaining the Village character. The balance of the land holdings are proposed to be developed for a retirement community and medium density housing. JOHNSON SIISTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO,ONTARIO , LOCATION PLAN : SCALE 100 200 VFLLAGE OF PORT BURWELL METERS I 1 HARBOUR PORT PROJECT LANDS- DiSIOET ' L .Jflr . •ya w v' '4 �.II.. .......P„.�56r.7 � v moi }. ,'r.. . OTTER CREEK i3.�'.; ��=� ^ '4;:4$1...�...: BIG � .ti ..••II. �'fff��t�Iy':.;r.rI •1. `:"5!,--"Py ‘ i� -4—4-'•.. ,:w:..f •.1' a Pi.p;J,{iieP• Iw.4 T.r \ s.. 2:ki.- - Y ��R IN N RE LAKE ERIE 1 IS rair FIC1) 4. \.Allih . v 111P, A o . 41 11 • \ ' rl, PROPOSED HARBOUR PORT DEVELOPMENT PROJ ECT PORT BURWELL OUTER HARBOUR STUDY MAY, 1988 PLATE 14 46 With the new outer harbour serving as a catalyst for this development, we anticipate both projects to rejuvinate the whole of the Village. Besides attracting transient boaters we also expect the Village to become an attraction for other tourists as well . Typical examples of this are, amongst others, the Brockville Harbour, Bronte Harbour and the Orillia Waterfront. c. Masterplan The proposed development plan is a more detailed version of the revised Concept C-2, which allows for access by land-based equipment to the end of the proposed south breakwater. The plan also shows the proposed linkage with the commercial centre of the Village and the relationship with the proposed private Harbour Port Development Project. The plan also identifies potential future development sites, two for residential and one for commercial on municipally owned property adjacent to the outer harbour. These sites could, in our opinion, become prime development properties once the outer harbour project is completed. A possible future boat storage area is shown to be provided at the foot of the present bluff. This location would shield this function from direct view from the residential area to the north. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN{-ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 47 The anticipated accretion adjacent to the proposed east breakwater will provide a small beach replacing the present beach adjacent to the existing easterly harbour entrance pier. In order to allow for harbour expansion at some time in the far future to 500 recreational berths, the 300 dock berthing layout shown on the plan will not completely fill the created basin, i .e. the harbour has a built-in potential to expand at a modest cost. The plan envisions a redevelopment of the harbour and its adjacent waterfront so that it will become a focal point in Port Burwell 's commercial core. The prime goal of the outer harbour development is not only to provide sufficient docks, but to make the harbour and adjacent area into a "people place" which attracts boaters and non-boaters alike to the Village of Port Burwell . d. Phasing and Cost Estimates 1 . Phasing: The plan dictates that the basic site development for the harbour, i .e. dredging, filling, shore protection, etc. is done in one phase. It has been assumed that the commercial fishing harbour will be developed in one phase but that the recreational marina facilities will be provided in two or more phases. For instance, the provision of floating docks should be done in incremental phases as the demand dictates. Similarly, the provision of parking lots can be done in two or more phases. 48 In the following estimates, we have included in Phase 1 what we consider the minimal facilities required by boaters, i .e. docks (50 transient and 100 seasonal ), dock services, washroom and shower facilities and vehicular access. The cost estimates for the future phases include for the aditional docks to bring the total to 300 berths, additional parking, launching ramp, etc. but also those site ammenities such as landscaping, site furniture, etc. which gives the project the finished appearance, important to attract the boaters. The success of the project and thus the impact it will have on the Village will be dependent on how soon these ammenities are provided. A partially finished construction site is not too inviting to boaters and the general public. 2. Cost Estimates: The following preliminary cost estimates are based on present (1988) unit construction costs and will require to be adjusted to market conditions at the time of construction. Separate estimates have been made for the basic site development, i .e. dredging, filling, breakwater, external shore protection and harbour basin shore protection, and the balance of the site development. With reference to the basic site development costs, these include for the following design assumptions: JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 49 1 . External shore protection and breakwaters. Since it is anticipated that accretion of the lake bottom will occur as a result of this project, we have assumed the design of the shore protection may take this into account. This will result in a cost saving reflected in the following estimates. It should, however, be understood that there is risk of damage during and for a period following construction. 2. With reference to the supply cost of quarried materials, the lowest unit price per tonne will result if rock material from Stelco's Ingersoll quarry is used. To guarantee a supply from this quarry, it will be necessary to make prior arrangements for this with Stelco 6 months to 1 year in advance of the material being required. The estimates assume this is possible. 3. It is further assumed M.O.E. will allow the use of blast furnace slag along the perimeter of the basin to contain the dredged fill material and to provide access to the extension of the easterly pier. Another assumption made is that the interim blast furnace slag berm at the north end of the basin will be temporary and thus not require rip-rap protection. Since the proposed harbour will accommodate both commercial fishing and recreational craft, the estimates separate the cost for each use as well as the portion they have in common and require to be provided regardless if the harbour has a single or dual use. Following is a summary of the preliminary estimated cost for the proposed development plan: JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO,ONTARIO 50 Part 1 - Basic Site Development Components Commercial Description Common Fishing Recreation Total 1 . Breakwater & external shore protection 1 ,130,000 660,000 790,000 2,580,000 it9G.o.2 2. Internal slag berms -- 140,000 225,000 365,000 43 ,- ao 3. Dredging & Filling 105,000 55,000 385,000 545,000 454 on 4. Basin edge protection --- 175,000 200,000 375,000 4 50. , Subtotal 1 ,235,000 1 ,030,060 1 ,600,000 3,865,000 15% Contingency & Fee allowance 185,000 155,000 240,000 580,000 615,7at Totals 1 ,420,000 1 ,185,000 1 ,840,00084,445,000 I ri TI7G b 1,70,crtr) j ,0 �J''':; Z,Z 0 g WOO Part 2 - Balance of Site Development 1 . Common Components: First Future Description Phase Phases Total .1 Extension of municipal services to site limit 30,000 --- 30,000 34-.1-e-', .2 Watermain supply extension into site 20,000 --- 20,000 2 ( 01>-0 .3 Primary hydro extension into site 50,000 --- 50,000 &c1 ' r .4 Asphalt paved site access road 80,000 --- 80,000 '4,0/5-15 .5 Navigation light, incl . elec. supply 35,000 --- 35,000 -2,0.h. Subtotals 215,000 --- 215,000 ,,N 15% Fee & Contingency allowance 35,000 --- 35,000 Aloo Totals 250,000 - 250,000 z16,10r0 JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN-ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 51 .2 Commercial Fishing .1 Electrical supply, distribution and lighting 65,000 --- 65,000 .2 site grading and drainage 20,000 --- 20,000 .3 Dock piers, incl . electrical 350,000 --- 350,000 .4 Pavement 85,000 --- 85,000 .5 Landscaping 15,000 --- 15,000 .6 Signage _ 5,000 --- 5,000 Subtotals 540,000 --- 540,000 15% Fee & Contingency Allowance 80,000 --- 80,000 Totals 620,000 --- 620,000 744:.d .3 Recreation .1 Sanitary pumping station and forcemain 100,000 --- 100,000 .2 Water distribution 25,000 5,000 30,000 .3 Electrical distribution 30,000 10,000) Roadway lighting 45,000 --- ) 125,000 Basin edge lighting --- 40,000) .4 Site grading and drainage 70,000 --- 70,000 .5 Marina centre building (washrooms, showers, harbour master) 250,000 --- 250,000 .6 Fuel Dock Electrical supply 20,000 --- ) Water supply 10,000 --- ) Fuel tanks & dispensers 35,000 --- ) 135,000 Sewage pumpout & forcemain 40,000 --- ) Dock lighting & paving 30,000 --- ) .7 Docks Pier 1 (34 berths) 275,000 --- ) Pier 2 (52 berths) 260,000 --- ) Pier 3 (80 berths) 205,000) 1 ,050,000 Pier 4 (64 + 24 berths) 150,000 50,000) Pier 5 (46 berths) --- 100,000) .8 Dock services 95,000 75,000 170,000 .9 Boat launching ramp --- 50,000 50,000 .10 Pavements: Phase 1 of car parking lot (stone) 60 cars 50,000 --- ) Phase 2 car parking lot (asphalt) 150 cars --- 85,000) Car & trailer parking lot --- 80,000) 315,000 Building entrance & area paving --- 60,000) Pedestrian walkways --- 40,000) JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 52 .2 Commercial Fishing (Con't) .11 Landscaping: Topsoil & seeding 75,000 --- ) 155,000 Planting & sodding --- 80,000) ,l2 Site furniture --- 20,000 20,000 Subtotals 1 ,560,000 910,000 , 2,470,000 15Z Fee & Contingency Allow. 240,000 140,000 380,000 Totals 1 ,800,000 1 ,050,000 2,850,000 Sumaary of Project Cost Components Commercial Description Common Fishing Recreation Total .1 Basic site devel- opment 1 ,420,000_ 1 ,185,000< 1 ,840,000 4,495,00 .2 Balance site de- I i�oq,or' lLt��•, ? 2,7.01 o`er velopment 250,000 620,000- ,2-; 0 3,720,000 Total Estimated Project Cost 1 ,670,000 1 ,805,000 4,690,000 8,165,000 4,495 , co-0 . a0 `F t ' (577,56)+Pm(I2-0, aod) 7 r 4� fitly C .42,450 �-P"^6, , opo 917,o, cro -Zd I/1 f7 t JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES TORONTO, ONTARIO 53 IMPACT OF PROPOSED OUTER HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS a. Commercial Fishing The continuance of Port Burwell as a base for local fishing tugs and a harbour of refuge or temporary port for Lake Erie fishing tugs may well provide some new economic benefits to the Village. Besides allowing the present two local vessels to remain based in the harbour, it may also, considering the increasing Lake Erie fish harvest, attract more commercial fishing tugs on a permanent or short term basis. Thus, it will be an incentive for the two fish processors to continue their operation in the Village. The main indirect benefit will be to Lake Erie' s commericial fishermen as a whole, who already prefer Port Burwell over Port Stanley, in that they can use Port Burwell as a harbour of refuge and during certain periods during the season can reduce the travel time to and from the fishing grounds. b. Recreational Boating The impact of recreational boating expenditures on employment, income and tax receipts is significant. The 1985 Small Craft Harbours update of recreational boating in Ontario suggests a total direct spending of $1 ,091 ,000 in 1985 for the Province in activity spending, boat and equipment sales. This in turn resulted in a direct employment of 29,990, an indirect employment of 54,470, Federal tax revenues of $142,300.000 and Provincial tax revenues of $141 ,000,000. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTE1N+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 54 A number of the various indexes, multipliers and methodology of impact multipliers used in the SCH study were obtained from the 1984 Ministry of Tourism and Recreation study, "The Economic Impact of Tourism in Ontario and Regions". Our evaluation of the impact on Port Burwell is based on the same study. The 1984 MTR study does not differentiate between boating and non-boating tourists. Neither has the Ministry done to date any specific surveys on spending activities of the various recreational boaters. As a result, existing data is limited. The 1985 SCH report in evaluating Bayfield, on Lake Huron, which could be considered somewhat similar to Port Burwell, used a standard expenditure figure of $27.40 per visitor per day with .3.4 persons per boat or $93.16 to arrive at an expenditure per visitor boat day. The figure of $93.16 corrected for the C.P.I. would be approximately $106.00 per boat day in 1988. A 1986 survey made by the Town of Midland of transient boaters staying in town showed an average expenditure in the town of $202.49 per boat or $211 for 1987, exclusive of docking fees, fuel pumpout charges, etc. Midland has an attractive transient docking facility close to its downtown. It is an ideal location for stocking the boat with supplies prior or during cruising Georgian Bay. Midland' s downtown has more shopping facilities and food services than Port Burwell can be expected to provide in the immediate future. Thus the average transient boater' s expenditure in Midland will be JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 55 greater than in Port Burwell . Should, however, Port Burwell 's existing harbourfront develop as proposed, transient boater expenditures will increase to above the average for Ontario. A 1987 Market and Economic Impact Assessment prepared for Wisconsin's Sheboygan Harbour Marina by the Recreation Resource Centre of the University of Wisconsin broke down the spending patterns of boaters into 3 classes: power 20' to 25' ; power 26' and over; sail 20' and over. The survey results provided the following information, expressed in Canadian funds, as shown in the following table: Power Power Sail 20'-25' +26' +20' Average Annual Craft expenses (equipment, storage, insurance and repairs) $2,700 $5,488 $4,270 $3,880 Trip expenses (per boat day) $ 114 $ 161 $ 65 $ 120 The average annual boat expenditures are similar to figures we have estimated as the results of other surveys. We believe the average "marina" boater annual expenditure is in the range of $2,400 - $2,600 for maintenance and storage plus an amount of approximately $1 ,400 for equipment for a total of $3,800 - $4,000. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 56 Average trip boat/day expenditure of $120 is slightly above the average updated figure of $106.00 of the SOH study. The Wisconsin study does however clearly show, as could be expected, a considerable difference in spending patterns by boat types and sizes. A factor to consider in the Wisconsin study is that the Wisconsin boating market is predominantly power boat oriented, as opposed to sail in Ontario. Also in this particular instance a large number of power boats were primarily used for sports fishing. The median boat size surveyed was 23.5' compared with an anticipated median boat size of 26.5' anticipated for Port Burwell . Being located on Lake Erie, Port Burwell can be anticipated to attract a higher proportion of power boats than average for Ontario. As a result, we believe that the annual seasonal boat expenditure in Port Burwell will be approximately 4,250/year and the transient boat spending initially approximately $120.00 per boat day. Once the existing harbour area is redeveloped transient boating expenditure can be anticipated to increase to approximately $175 per boat day. Redevelopment of the existing harbour area, with all its commercial uses, will not only cause Port Burwell to become a destination harbour for transients, it also will extend their average stay from + 1 .5 to + 2.0 days per visiting craft. Based on the above, the economic impact of a 300 berth capacity outer harbour is summarized in the following tables. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 57 Annual Impact of Marina Operation Only Source Total Annual expenditures Seasonal boaters - 225 No. @ $4,250 $ 956,250 Transients boaters - 3000 boat days @ $120 $ 360,000 Total $1 ,316,250 Resulting annual (1987) value of: Total economic output created in Ontario (2.34 mult) $3,080,000 Resulting income to regional residents (1 .14 mult) $1 ,500,000 Direct employment (32.2 jobs/M) 48 No. Total employment (1 .65 mult.) 80 No. Federal tax receipts (9.6%) $ 295,000 Provincial tax receipts (10.8%) $ 335,000 In addition to the above, there also will be a one time economic benefit generated by the construction of the facility itself in the Region. Of the anticipated $8,165,000 expenditure, approximately $3,750,000 in construction will be labour-intensive with a labour content of + 45%. The balance of + $4.4 M is more equipment-intensive and will have a labour content of approximately 25%. The direct and total employment in man years and taxes resulting from the construction are shown in the following table: JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 58 One Time Impact of Construction Total Source Direct (Direct & Indirect) .1 Employment income $2,780,000 $6,500,000 .2 Purchases in Ontario $5,100,000 $8,300,000 .3 Employment ($32,500/year average) 85 man/years 200 man/years .4 Income Taxes: Federal (13.3%) $ 370,000 $ 860,000 Provincial (6.7%) $ 185,000 $ 430,000 .5 Sales Taxes: Federal (3.75%) $ 190,000 $ 315,000 Provincial (5.25%) $ 265,000 $ 435,000 c. Village Development The proposed Harbour Port Development Project with an estimated construction value of $31 .7 M in labour intensive construction could provide the following economic benefits: One Time Impact of Construction Total Construction Impacts Direct (Direct & Indirect) .1 Employment income $14,250,000 $33,300,000 .2 Purchases in Ontario $17,450,000 $28,700,000 .3 Employment ($32,500/ year average) 438 man/years 1025 man/years .4 Income taxes: Federal (13.3%) $ 1 ,895,000 $ 4,400,000 Provincial (6.7%) $ 950,000 $ 2,200,000 .5 Sales Taxes: Federal (3.75%) $ 650,000 $ 1 ,075,000 Provincial (5.25%) $ 950,000 $ 1 ,500,000 JOHNSON SLJSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO 59 In addition to the above, there will be regional employment resulting from the increased Village population caused by the residential component of the Harbour Port Development Project. The present development plan proposes the construction of 186 townhouse units, at + 2.8 persons per unit, and 150 retirement home complex units at + 2.0 persons per unit. This would increase the present Vi'` lage population of 675 by 820 to approximately 1500 persons. The proposed 42,000 sq. ft. of commercial development is anticipated to provide employment for some 80 persons. The long term economic benefits from the above will far exceed the one time impact of construction. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO,ONTARIO BIBLIOGRAPHY Program for Recreational Harbours in Ontario, November 1979. Prepared by Hough, Stansbury + Michalski Limited for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Small Craft Harbours Branch, Ontario Region. Recreational Boating in Ontario - an update to 1985, March 1985. Prepared by Hough, Stansbury + Associates Limited for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Small Craft Harbours Branch, Ontario Region. Commercial Fishing Harbours Study, January 1980. Prepared by the IBI Group for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Small Craft Harbours Branch, Ontario Region. Small Craft Harbours Sediment Survey, December 1979. Prepared by the Great Lakes Biolimnology Laboratory for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Small Craft Harbours Branch, Ontario Region. Evans, D., and J. Stockner. 1972. Attached algae on Artificial and natural substrates in Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba. J. Fish Res. Bd. Can. 29:31-34. Neil , J. 1975a. Control pp. 131-139 in: M. Shear and D. Konasewich (eds) Cladophera in the Great Lakes. Great Lakes Research Advisory Board, International Joint Commission. Neil , J. 1975b. Biomass, standing crop and production. pp 51-60 in H. Shear and D. Konasewick (eds) , Cladophora in the Great Lakes Research Advisory Board, International Joint Commission Neil , J. and G. Owen. 198=64. Distribution, environmental requirements and significance of Cladophora. 11th Conf. Great Lakes Res. Div. , University of Michigan: 113-121 . The Federal Small Craft Harbours Program on Lake Erie: the Socio-economic Need for the Program and Its Potential Success by William F. Sinclair, Small Craft Harbours Branch, Fisheries and Marine Service, Department of Fisheries and the Environment, Ontario Region, May, 1978. Taft, L. 1975. Summary of workshop present, "History of Cladophora in the Great Lakes." pp 9-15 in: H. Shear and D. Konasewicli (eds) , Clado?kora in the Great Lakes. Great Lakes Research Advisory Board, International Joint Commission. Verduin, J. 1969. Man's influence on Lake Erie. Ohio J. Sci . (69(2): 65-69. Yeager, K. L. 1985. Biology and ecology of the filamentous green alga Cladophora with particular reference to Lake Erie. York University M.Sc. Thesis, Toronto. 135pp. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN+ASSOCIATES•TORONTO, ONTARIO BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued) Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division Regional North Shoreline of Lake Erie Landowners versus the Federal Government, Judgment dated July 12, 1985. Erosion and Sedimentation Along a Cohesive Shoreline - the North-Central Shore of Lake Erie, paper by N. A. Rukavina and A. J. Zeman, National Water Research Institute, Canada Centre for Inland Waters Growth of Crenulate Shaped Bays to Equilibrium, paper in the May 1970 issue of the Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division of the A.S.C.E. by Richard Silvester. The Impact of Tourism in Ontario and Regions 1982, dated June, 1984 by the Tourism Research Section of the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. 1986 Town of Midland Survey of Transient Boaters Staying in Town. Market Study and Economic Impact Assessment for Sheboygan Harbour Marina Slips, dated May, 1987, prepared by the University of Wisconsin Extension's Recreation Resource Centre. JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN -ASSOCIATES•TORONTO,ONTARIO