final eis - ec90980 2006-05-10 - prince edward island · charlottetown marine terminal 2 tn-06-06,...

FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX B Information on Cruise Ships and Petroleum Tanker

Class Ship Name Length Beam Draft Gross Tonnage Capacity

Grand Carribean Princess 950 118 27 116000 3110

Grand Diamond Princess 952 123 28 116000 2670

Grand Golden Princess 935 118 26 109000 2600

Grand Grand Princess 951 118 26 109000 2600

Grand Sapphire Princess 951 123 27 113000 2670

Grand Star Princess 935 118 26 109000 3100

Sun Coral Princess 965 106 27 88000 1950

Sun Dawn Princess 856 106 26 77000 1950

Sun Island Princess 965 106 27 88000 1970

Sun Sea Princess 856 106 26 77000 1950

Sun Sun Princess 856 106 25 77000 2250

Explorer Pacific Princess 594 84 20 30200 670

Explorer Regal Princess 811 105 20 70,000 1500

Explorer Royal Princess 757 96 26 45000 1275

Explorer Tahitian Princess 594 84 20 30200 680

Length Beam Draft Gross Tonnage Capacity

Maximum 965 123 28 116000 3110

Average 862 108 25 83627 2063


Carnival Conquest 952 125 27 110000 2974

Carnival Legend 963 106 26 88500 2124

Carnival Destiny 893 116 27 101353 2642

Carnival Liberty 952 116 27 110000 2974

Carnival Glory 952 116 27 110000 2974

Carnival Miracle 963 106 27 88500 2124

Carnival Pride 963 106 27 88500 2124

Carnival Valor 952 116 27 110000 2974

Carnival Spirit 963 106 27 88500 2124

Carnival Triumph 893 116 27 102353 2758

Carnival Victory 893 116 27 101509 2758

Elation 855 103 26 70367 2040

Ecstasy 855 103 26 70367 2040

Celebration 733 92 26 47262 1486

Fantasy 855 103 26 70367 2044

Fascination 855 103 26 70367 2040

Inspiration 855 103 26 70367 2052

Holiday 727 92 26 46052 1452

Paradise 855 103 26 70367 2040

Imagination 855 103 26 70367 2040

Sensation 855 103 26 70367 2040

Jubilee 733 92 25 47262 1486


Maximum 963 116 27 110000 2974

Average 881 107 26 81942 2241

Princess Cruise Line

Carnival Cruise Line


Amsterdam 780 105.8 26 61000 2027

Maasdam 720 101 25 55451 1823

Noordam 935 106 24.5 81769 2648

Oosterdam 951 105.8 26 85000 2648

Prinsendam 669 106 24 38000 1236

Rotterdam 778 105.8 26 59652 1909

Ryndam 720 101 25 55451 2215

Statendam 720 101 25 55451 1815

Veendam 720 101 25 55451 1826

Volendam 780 105.8 26 60906 2087

Westerdam 951 105.8 26 85000 2648

Zaandam 780 105.8 26 60906 2087

Zuiderdam 951 105.8 26 85000 2648


Maximum 951 106 26 85000 2648

Average 804 104 25 64541 2124

Holland America

MV Nor’easter Ship’s Particulars

Port of Registry: Majuro Call Sign: V7HF2 IMO Number: 9298703 Official Number: 2219 MMSI Number: 538002219 Inmarsat C Number: 453846315/6 Inmarsat F Voice: 764181823 Inmarsat F Fax: 764181824 Email: [email protected] Summer DWT: 37,515 mt Displacement 45,971.4 mt Summer Draft: 11.21 m Lightship Displacement: 8473.2 mt TPC Loaded: 46.09 mt LOA: 182.55 m LBP: 176.08 Beam: 27.34 Moulded Depth: 16.7 m Keel To Mast: 44.79 m Bridge to Bow: 148.91 m Bridge Front to Man: 56.71 m Bow to Manifold: 92.04 m Deck to Center Manifold: 2.10 m Freeboard Summer: 5.513 m Gross Tonnage: 23,356 Net Tonnage: 10,119 Suez Tonnage: 21,114 Panama Tonnage: 19,455 Cargo Tank Capacity: 42,165 m3 100% Ballast Tank Capacity: 18,609 m3 100% Tank Coatings: Phenolic Epoxy Main Engine: Hyundai HI B&W Keel Laid: 25 Oct 2004 Date Delivered: 09 Mar 2005

Owners: A & L CF June (5) Limited Manchester, United Kingdom

Ship Managers: Norbulk Shipping UK Limited 68 Glassford Street Glasgow, G1 1UP UK Tel: +44 141 552 3000 Fax: +44 141 559 5250

FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX C Oceanographic Modelling

Smart Solutions for Engineering, Science and Computing

Martec Limited tel. 902.425.5101 1888 Brunswick Street, Suite 400 fax. 902.421.1923

Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3J8 Canada www.martec.com

Charlottetown Marine Terminal Study

Martec Technical Note

March 21, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TWO - DIMENSIONAL TIDAL FLOW AND MARINA FLUSHING

PREDICTIONS......................................................................................................... 1

2. SUMMARY OF PIER AND BREAKWATER EFFECTS ................................... 9

2.1 SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION:................................................................................ 9

2.2 SEA LEVEL RISE AND STORM SURGE ................................................................. 10

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Layout #1........................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2: Layout #5.......................................................................................................... 3

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Water Particle Tracking Results for Various Harbour Layouts Charlottetown

Marine Terminal Expansion ....................................................................................... 5

Table 2: Water Particle Tracking Results for Harbour Layout #3 with Culvert -

Charlottetown Marine Terminal Expansion................................................................ 7


Charlottetown Marine Terminal Expansion................................................................ 8

Charlottetown Marine Terminal 1

TN-06-06, Rev. 01

1. TWO - DIMENSIONAL TIDAL FLOW AND MARINA FLUSHING PREDICTIONS

An expansion of the Charlottetown Marine terminal and incorporation of a marina adjacent to

the terminal is being proposed. The expansions proposed will have an effect on water retention

in the marina region. In order to assess the effect of the development, a two-dimensional finite-

element hydrodynamic model was developed to assess the tidal current patterns in the vicinity

of the Charlottetown Marine Terminal, surrounding harbour and basin. The model solves the

shallow water flow equations using the Galerkin finite element method where elements can be

wetted and dewatered due to tidal variations. The model therefore accounts for the drying and

flooding of the shallower regions within the adjacent harbour basins. In order to properly

simulate the exchange of tidal flows through the entrance to the harbour basin, detailed finite

elements were digitized within the harbour for eight different harbour configurations:

Harbour Layout # 1 – Existing Harbour Configuration

Harbour Layout # 2 – Phase I Pier Extension (183m)

Harbour Layout # 3 – Phase I Pier Extension(183m) + Rock Breakwater

Harbour Layout # 4 – Phase I(183m) + II Pier Extension(96.6)

Harbour Layout # 5 – Phase I + II Pier Extension + Rock Breakwater

Harbour Layout # 6 – Phase I + Rock Breakwater + Shallow Culvert

Harbour Layout # 7 – Phase I + Rock Breakwater + Deep Culvert

Harbour Layout # 8 – Phase I +Phase II Pier Extension + Rock Breakwater + Deep Culvert

The effects of proposed structures (Harbour Layouts #2 through # 8) on water quality and

flushing from the adjacent basin were compared to existing conditions (Harbour Layout # 1). A

total of 18 common water particle tracking stations, located within the basin for each harbour

layout, were used to assess the flushing time in which particles are transported out of the basin.

Individual water particle stations provide insight into stagnant areas within the basin. The

average flushing time for the eight different harbour layouts was computed from time -

averaging the individual water particle tracking times.

Tidal elevation time-series data for the 2-dimensional model was estimated from a large-scale

tidal model of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Northumberland Strait, developed by the Coastal

Hydrodynamics Department at DFO Ocean Sciences Branch. Their model consists of tidal and

current predictions, based on five tidal constituents (M2, N2, S2, K1 and O1), and outputs time-

series tidal elevation and currents (speed and direction) at any location within the model.


TN-06-06, Rev. 01

Tidal time-series predictions for Charlottetown were based on this large-scale model and was

used as tidal forcing at the outer boundaries of the more detailed 2-dimensional model used in

this study. Tidal simulations were carried out for mean tidal conditions (1.7 to 1.9 meter tidal

range) and a 36-hour period.

Water depths for the model domain were based on Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) chart

data and recent detailed sounding data surrounding the proposed terminal expansion and

adjacent basins.

Figure 1 presents the predicted tidal circulation patter for the existing configuration. Figure 2

presents the predicted tidal circulation pattern for the case of phase I and phase II expansion

plus a rock breakwater.

Figure 1: Layout #1


TN-06-06, Rev. 01

Figure 2: Layout #5

Table 1 presents the 5 layouts including phase I and phase II expansions and the breakwater as

noted in the table.

Results of the tidal flow analysis of figures 1 and 2 and flushing analysis of table 1 provide the

following:

1. The existing harbour basin (Layout # 1) is subject to a relatively strong tidal

circulation (peak current speeds of 7 to 16 cm/sec) that can effectively flush

particles from the basin within 1.5 hours (average flushing time). Flood tidal

flows tend to impinge on the existing pier face (west side) and create a counter-

clockwise circulation of flow within the basin. This circulation provides

sufficient flushing at all the tracking stations and prevents stagnation areas from

developing.


TN-06-06, Rev. 01

2. The Phase I extension of the terminal (Layout # 2) prevents a complete

circulation of water into an out of the marina area reducing current speeds in and

out of the marina. This reduction in current slows the flushing time at 13 of the

14 water particle tracking stations. The average flushing time for this layout is

approximately 4.2 hours (2.8 times longer than existing conditions). Because the

average flushing time for this layout still remains less than a half tidal cycle, it is

very unlikely that stagnation or a significant degradation in water quality will

occur.

3. Harbour Layouts #3, #4 and #5 show a significant reduction in flushing when

compared to existing conditions. This reduction will likely cause areas of

stagnation and reduced water quality. Reduced currents within the protected

basin of these three layouts cause particles to be trapped and reduce flushing

over a tidal cycle. Comparison of figures 1 and 2 circulation patterns shows the

reduced circulation in the existing configuration compared to the case of phase I

and phase II expansion with a breakwater.

It is important to note that although the average flushing time for harbour layouts #3, # 4, and #

5 are significantly higher than existing conditions, these layouts may still provide adequate

water quality for small craft activities. It will be important to assess the potential of sewage

entering the marina from existing outfall locations. If the existing sewer outfalls discharge

sewage into the marina on rare occasions (power outages or large storm flows), the effect on

water quality in the marina (Layouts #3, #4 or #5) would be poor, particularly if large quantities

of sewage enters the marina over a short time period (<1-day). The smell of sewage in the

marina for 2 or 3 tidal cycles after the discharge event is very likely. In addition, any saltwater

intakes located within the marina may be pumping unacceptable levels of diluted sewage

through their intake for this 24 to 36 hour period.

Extra safety back-up systems should be considered to circumvent the possibility of any sewage

overflow into the marina.

Relocating sewer outfalls outside the marina in deeper water and where sufficient free-stream

flows exist for dilution may be the only feasible approach if Layouts #3, #4 or #5 are to be

considered unless it can shown that no significant sewage discharge events would occur. The

location of this deep-water outfall would need to be designed to reduce the risk of re-circulation

into the marina.


TN-06-06, Rev. 01

Table 1: Water Particle Tracking Results for Various Harbour Layouts Charlottetown

Marine Terminal Expansion

Flushing Time (Hours) for Various Harbour Layouts Station

Number

Node

Number

Local

Coordinates

X (m) Y (m) Layout #1

Existing

Harbour

Layout #2

Phase I

Extension

Layout #3

Phase I +

Breakwater

Layout #4

Phase I+II

Extension

Layout #5

Phase I+II+

Breakwater

1 245 1757 1287 1.0 4.9 16.9 >33 >33

2 242 1722 1254 1.7 3.8 15.4 >33 >33

3 247 1703 1211 0.6 2.2 7.2 16.1 >33

4 218 1687 1173 1.0 3.9 18.0 6.2 >33

5 200 1656 1137 2.2 3.2 14.1 4.8 >33

6 202 1682 1127 0.7 4.8 5.9 3.8 >33

7 212 1692 1149 0.3 6.4 6.2 1.9 19.3

8 279 1735 1188 2.5 5.9 3.1 6.9 >33

9 276 1753 1230 2.5 6.1 3.0 >33 >33

10 224 1792 1261 2.3 4.3 17.4 >33 >33

11 227 1832 1217 2.2 2.8 29.6 >33 >33

12 293 1784 1191 2.3 3.9 14.9 18.4 28.5

13 206 1745 1152 1.9 1.2 1.2 2.6 17.4

14 289 1824 1169 0.1 4.9 >33.0 3.0 11.9

Average Flushing Time (Hours) 1.5 4.2 >13.3 >16.3 >29.1

Flushing Ratio

(Relative to Existing Conditions) 1.00 2.80 >8.87 >10.86 >19.40


TN-06-06, Rev. 01

All of the proposed modifications beyond layout #2 (phase I expansion) cause flushing times to

increase on average greater than 1 tidal cycle. Harbour layout #3 (phase I expansion + a

breakwater) causes flushing time to increase to 13.3 hours. Layout #4 (phase I +phase II pier

expansion) bring the flushing time to greater than 16.3 hours and the addition of a breakwater to

the phase I and phase II expansion increases the flushing time to greater than 2 complete tidal

cycles.

The results show that the phase I pier with no breakwater, gives a slightly increased residence

time within the harbour of 4.2 hours (versus 1.5 hours for the existing configuration).

Inclusion of the breakwater with the phase I pier causes a significant increase in residence time

to values near a full tidal cycle, and further extension of the pier (phase I +phase II) increases

residence time to greater than two tidal cycles (29.1hrs).

Thus the breakwater in both configurations causes residence time to be close to or greater than a

tidal cycle therefore retaining and accumulating some of the material in each subsequent tidal

cycle.

The results show that the major changes in flushing time are caused by the incorporation of the

breakwater into the region. In order to improve the flushing characteristics of the basin, the

circulation model was re-run with a large passage-way(“culvert”) through the breakwater as

shown in Table #2 which presents results for the following cases:

(a) Layout #1 Existing Conditions

(b) Layout #3 Phase I plus the breakwater

(c) Layout #6 Phase I plus a breakwater with a 5m wide shallow culvert

with a maximum depth to Lower Low Water

(d) Layout #7 Phase I plus a breakwater with a 5m wide deep culvert to a

depth of 2m below Lower Low Water

The “culvert” was modelled as a 5m wide u-shaped opening in the breakwater. The bottom of

the opening was at lower low water for the shallow opening and at 2m below lower low water

for the deep opening.

The addition of the large culvert opening in the breakwater improves the circulation pattern

interior to the region of the phase I expansion and flushing times are improved to 11.4 hours for

the shallow culvert and 8.6 hours for the deeper culvert. These flushing times are both less than

the approximately 12 tidal cycle period and thus the region would be less prone to retain any

material for potential build-up of contaminants.


TN-06-06, Rev. 01


Charlottetown Marine Terminal Expansion

Flushing Time (Hours) for Layout # 3 with Culverts Station

Number

Node

Number

Local

Coordinates


Existing

Harbour

Layout #3

Phase I +

Breakwater

Layout #6

Phase I +

Breakwater +

Shallow Culvert

Layout #7

Phase I+

Breakwater +

Deep Culvert

1 245 1757 1287 1.0 16.9 11.9 10.2

2 242 1722 1254 1.7 15.4 10.5 11.9

3 247 1703 1211 0.6 7.2 9.7 8.1

4 218 1687 1173 1.0 18.0 23.1 9.1

5 200 1656 1137 2.2 14.1 14.0 8.3

6 202 1682 1127 0.7 5.9 5.5 1.8

7 212 1692 1149 0.3 6.2 11.1 4.8

8 279 1735 1188 2.5 3.1 8.3 5.1

9 276 1753 1230 2.5 3.0 5.3 4.4

10 224 1792 1261 2.3 17.4 24.2 11.7

11 227 1832 1217 2.2 29.6 4.5 3.7

12 293 1784 1191 2.3 14.9 15.8 14.0

13 206 1745 1152 1.9 1.2 4.5 4.9

14 289 1824 1169 0.1 >33.0 11.6 21.7

Average Flushing Time (Hours) 1.5 >13.3 11.4 8.6

Flushing Ratio

(Relative to Existing Conditions) 1.00 >8.87 7.60 5.7


TN-06-06, Rev. 01

Table #3 shows the comparison of the existing layout with the full phase I and phase II

expansion with the breakwater (layout #5) and with the insertion of a deep “culvert” in the

breakwater (layout #8). Here one can see the large increase in flushing time for layout #5

versus the existing layout. Installation of the wide culvert (5m wide) into the breakwater

(layout #8) is seen to decrease the flushing time but only to 23.2 hours from 29.1 hours. It

appears from these analysis that the “culvert”, although a fairly large opening in the breakwater,

can not make a great influence on the circulation within the marina and would only have a local

effect in the region near the culvert opening. Note that looking in detail in at the flushing time

for individual stations within the marina table 3, that stations 5. 6, 7 and 8 near the “culvert”

opening have a significantly reduced flushing time but the other stations have had little change.


Charlottetown Marine Terminal Expansion

Flushing Time (Hours) for Layout # 5 with Culvert Station

Number

Node

Number

Local

Coordinates


Existing

Harbour

Layout #5

Phase I + II +

Breakwater

Layout #8

Phase I+ II +

Breakwater +

Deep Culvert

1 245 1757 1287 1.0 >33 25.1

2 242 1722 1254 1.7 >33 >33

3 247 1703 1211 0.6 >33 >33

4 218 1687 1173 1.0 >33 >33

5 200 1656 1137 2.2 >33 5.9

6 202 1682 1127 0.7 >33 3.1

7 212 1692 1149 0.3 19.3 2.9

8 279 1735 1188 2.5 >33 14.7

9 276 1753 1230 2.5 >33 >33

10 224 1792 1261 2.3 >33 >33

11 227 1832 1217 2.2 >33 >33

12 293 1784 1191 2.3 28.5 >33

13 206 1745 1152 1.9 17.4 8.9

14 289 1824 1169 0.1 11.9 >33

Average Flushing Time (Hours) 1.5 >29.1 >23.2

Flushing Ratio

(Relative to Existing Conditions) 1.00 >19.40 >15.46


TN-06-06, Rev. 01

2. SUMMARY OF PIER AND BREAKWATER EFFECTS

The Phase I extension has only very slight effect on the flushing time in the proposed marina

area. Adding on the Phase II extension does increase flushing time to greater than 16.3 hours.

The addition of the breakwater increases the flushing time further for each configuration. In

particular, for the Phase I expansion the addition of the breakwater would bring the flushing

time to greater than 13.3 hours (greater than one tidal cycle).

Of concern is the presence of a storm water overflow into the marina area with the potential of

sewage entering the region and not flushing rapidly. Mitigation of this potential would be

important. Thus, improvement of the flushing by installation of the “culvert (s)” in the

breakwater was considered . However, Table 3 has shown the resulting improvement in

circulation with the addition of culverts is not significant.

In this analysis we have been comparing the flushing in the expanded marine terminal with the

base case of the existing configuration. This base case is basically an open cove in the

shoreline of Charlottetown Harbour and experiences very rapid flushing. The expansions that

have been considered for the Marine Terminal area decreases the flushing time in the proposed

marina area to several tidal cycles. However, if there is no sewage efferent entering the marina

area then the decreased flushing time would not have a significant adverse effect on the use of

the region for recreational boating.

2.1 SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION:

The tidal modelling carried out has also been useful in evaluating the potential for

sedimentation around the newly positioned piers. The large currents flowing along the south

face (harbour face) of the pier would mitigate against any excessive sediment deposition in this

area.

Also the water depth is too great to have wave induced sediment transported to the area. Again,

the current pattern past the newly formed opening into the new marina is strong and material

should by-pass the opening and continue along the front face of the new piers.

It would therefore not be appropriate to put wave attenuators extending between the breakwater

and the new piers as the attenuators would tend to reduce current flow with the potential for

sediment fall-out and long term accumulation at this location.


TN-06-06, Rev. 01

2.2 SEA LEVEL RISE AND STORM SURGE

The Charlottetown area has been studied fairly extensively regarding the long term effect of

sea-level rise and storm surge. The sea level rise between the years 1911 and 1996 was

approximately 27 cm.

A large part of this increase (approximately 20cm) may be due to local long-term sinking of

land and the rest may be linked to global sea level changes resulting from global warming.

Higher sea levels are increasing the exposure of the Charlottetown waterfront area to severe

flooding from storm surge. Between 1911 and 2001, seven storm surge events were large

enough to flood the Charlottetown waterfront.

A low atmosphere pressure system in the centre of the storm pulls the ocean surface upwards

and the large winds force the water towards shore.

In Charlottetown, near-shore sea-levels have risen to 1.5 over a coincident high tide. Under

these conditions wide spread damage can occur to unprotected docks and other shoreline

structures. These events must be designed into any proposed new shoreline structures in the

Charlottetown shoreline.

FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX D Summaries of Stakeholder Consultations

CHARLOTTETOWN MARINE TERMINAL REPAIRS AND EXPANSION

AND NEW MARINA DEVELOPMENT – 2006 CONSULTATION RECORD

TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

DATE: January 12, 2006

PARTICIPANTS: Mr. Ed Frenette, PEI Fishermen’s Association Ms. Loretta Hardwick, Jacques Whitford

PURPOSE:

To discuss the proposed Charlottetown Marine Terminal repairs and expansion and new marina development with the local fishermen who fish in the Charlottetown Harbour area to identify potential environmental issues associated with the project. Local fishers were consulted as obvious stakeholders with an interest in the proposed project.

SUMMARY:

Ms. Hardwick summarized the project to date, explaining the Charlottetown Marine Terminal expansion and the construction of the new marina. Environmental issues and potential environmental interactions of the project with the fisheries resources were discussed. Invitation to meet to discuss the project was extended.

ISSUES:

Mr. Frenette declined the invitation to meet and outlined the Association’s concerns.

Mr. Frenette indicated that the PEI Fishermens Association has concerns with respect to increased vessel traffic in the Northumberland Strait and the potential for gear damage or loss.

The potential for introduction of invasive species is also a concern.

Mr. Frenette also suggested that there may be concerns due to open water aquaculture sites.

ACTIONS:

The above noted concerns will be addressed in the environmental assessment.

The PEI Aquaculture Alliance will be invited to express their concerns regarding potential interactions of the Project with aquaculture.




DATE: January 12, January 31 and February 15, 2006.

PARTICIPANTS: Ms. Jean MacDonald of PEI Aquaculture Alliance Ms. Loretta Hardwick, Jacques Whitford Mr. Dale Conroy, Jacques Whitford

PURPOSE:

To discuss the proposed Charlottetown Marine Terminal repairs and expansion and new marina development with the local aquaculture operators in the Charlottetown Harbour area to identify potential environmental issues associated with the project. Local aquaculture operators were consulted as obvious stakeholders with an interest in the proposed project.

SUMMARY:

Mr. Conroy left a message on both occasions for Ms. MacDonald to call back regarding proposed project activities and fisher concerns.

ISSUES/ACTIONS: No response to date





PARTICIPANTS: Mr. Sheldon Bryan, DFO Ms. Loretta Hardwick, Jacques Whitford

PURPOSE:

To discuss the proposed Charlottetown Marine Terminal repairs and expansion and new marina development and determine what species are fished in the Charlottetown Harbour area to identify potential environmental issues associated with the project.

SUMMARY:

Ms. Hardwick provided a brief description of the Project and the reason for the call.

RESPONSE:

Shellfishery is carried out across the harbour from the Project. A substantial shellfishery is conducted in Hillsborough River above Hillsborough Bridge.

Rock crab are fished in the harbour.

A silverside fishery is conducted in the harbour from October through December.

A smelt fishery is carried out in the harbour, mainly in the winter through the ice. Very little gill netting is conducted in the area.

Eel and gaspereau are fished upstream of the Project area.

The fisheries in the harbour are carried out using small boats (dories).





PARTICIPANTS: Mr. David Baglole, Independent Fisher Mr. Dale Conroy, Jacques Whitford

PURPOSE:

To discuss the proposed Charlottetown Marine Terminal repairs and expansion and new marina development with the local fishers who fish in the Charlottetown Harbour area to identify potential environmental issues associated with the project. Local fishers were consulted as obvious stakeholders with an interest in the proposed project.

SUMMARY:

Mr. Conroy summarized the project to date, explaining the Charlottetown Marine Terminal expansion and the construction of the new marina. He explained that dredging will be required and showed the location of the proposed ocean disposal site. Environmental issues and potential environmental interactions of the project with the fisheries resources were discussed.

ISSUES:

Mr. Baglole fishes oyster in the West River and North River.

Mr. Baglole has an oyster lease in the West River and a mussel lease in the North River.

Mr. Baglole is worried about taking the lobster traps out at night when they don’t stay in the channel.

ACTIONS:

Mr. Baglole will be contacting Blair Smith to organize a group to attend a public meeting during the week of February 6th, 2006.





PARTICIPANTS: Mr. Brain Francis, DFO Mr. Dale Conroy, Jacques Whitford

PURPOSE:


SUMMARY:


ISSUES:

Mr. Francis indicated that both the Native Council of PEI and the Abegweit Band fish in the project area. Primary catches include oyster, clams, quahogs and silverside.

Mr. Jordan Crane is a contact for the Native Council.

Mr. Ken MacLeod fishes silverside in the project area, and Abegweit Band members fish silverside in Hospital Pond. Mr. Roger Sark was identified as a contact for these activities.

The majority of the native fishing occurs further up the rivers, out of the project area.

ACTIONS:

Contacts identified by Mr. Francis will be invited for comment.





PARTICIPANTS: Mr. Blair Smith, Queens County Shellfish Association Mr. Dale Conroy, Jacques Whitford

PURPOSE:

To discuss the proposed Charlottetown Marine Terminal repairs and expansion and new marina development with the local shellfishers who fish in the Charlottetown Harbour area to identify potential environmental issues associated with the project. Local fishers were consulted as obvious stakeholders with an interest in the proposed project.

SUMMARY:


ISSUES/ACTIONS:

Mr. Smith indicated that he will contact shellfishers from the East, West, and North Rivers to inform them of the project and upcoming opportunities to comment on the project.

Mr. Smith was advised of the shellfishers consultation meeting held on February 8, 2006.





PARTICIPANTS: Mrs. Cameron King Mr. Dale Conroy, Jacques Whitford

PURPOSE:


SUMMARY:


ISSUES:

Mrs. King indicated that her husband does not fish silverside in Charlottetown but that her brother in-law used to. The brother in-law has since sold his license and no longer fishes in Hospital Pond.

ACTIONS: None




DATE: February 2, 2006

PARTICIPANTS: Mr. Kenny Tuplin, Independent Smelt Fisherman Mr. Dale Conroy, Jacques Whitford

PURPOSE:


SUMMARY:


ISSUES:

Mr. Tuplin indicated no concerns with the project in relation to smelt fishing as he feels the environmental impacts of the project will not overlap with the timing of the smelt fishery.

ACTIONS:

Mr. Tuplin will contact Mr. Conroy with any further concerns.





PARTICIPANTS: Mr. Herbert Ashley, Independent Smelt Fisherman Mr. Dale Conroy, Jacques Whitford

PURPOSE:


SUMMARY:


ISSUES:

Mr. Ashley is interested in attending a public meeting regarding the proposed project but, at this point he doesn’t see how it would affect the fishery.

ACTIONS:

Mr. Ashley indicated that he would be in contact if he has any further concerns.





PARTICIPANTS: Mr. Kenneth MacLeod, Silverside Fisherman Mr. Dale Conroy, Jacques Whitford

PURPOSE:


SUMMARY:


ISSUES:

Mr. MacLeod is concerned that the proposed project will alter silverside migration, based on new current regimes and fish habitat areas.

Mr. MacLeod reminded Mr. Conroy that silverside are very active during full moons, especially during August through December.

Mr. MacLeod is concerned that the smelt fishery will also be disrupted, especially in the East River. He has been earning approximately $30,000 each season from smelt fishing and a drastic change to that income will hurt his family.

Mr. MacLeod indicated he will confer with the PEI Fisherman Association.

Mr. MacLeod indicated concern that it will take a few years after the completion of the project before knowing whether or not the fish will return to the rivers.

Mr. MacLeod is concerned that there will be no fish next season if the project is allowed to commence, and that fishery results from the proposed project will be similar to the results from the Cardigan Bridge Project.

ACTIONS: The above noted concerns will be addressed in the environmental assessment.

Mr. MacLeod will be advised of the schedule for the public meeting.




DATE: MARCH 2, 2006

PARTICIPANTS: Mr. Guy MacKenzie, Independent Fisherman Mr. Dale Conroy, Jacques Whitford

PURPOSE:


SUMMARY:


ISSUES:

Mr. MacKenzie fishes in the harbour. Last year catches were low, but each year is different.

Mr. MacKenzie has seen notice of the project in the local newspaper but has no comments at this time.

ACTIONS:

Mr. Conroy left his number and indicated his willingness to respond to concerns in the future.

Mr. MacKenzie will be advised of the schedule for the public meeting.



LOCAL SHELLFISHERS

LOCATION: Holiday Inn Express, Charlottetown, PEI

DATE: February 8th, 2006

PARTICIPANTS: Mr. Fred Dunsford, Director for the East River Shellfish Association Mr. Earl Proctor, Director of the North River Shellfish Association Mr. Blair Smith, President of the Queens County Shellfish Association Mr. Frank Hansen, Director of the PEI Shellfish Association Mr. Dale Conroy, Jacques Whitford Limited Ms. Stephanie Rankin, Jacques Whitford Limited

PURPOSE:

To discuss the proposed Charlottetown Marine Terminal repairs and expansion and new marina development with the local shellfishers who fish in the Charlottetown Harbour area to identify potential environmental issues associated with the project. Local fishers were consulted as obvious stakeholders with an interest in the proposed project.

SUMMARY:

Mr. Conroy summarized the project to date, explaining the CMT expansion and the construction of the new marina. He explained that dredging will be required and showed the location of the proposed ocean disposal site. Environmental issues and potential environmental interactions of the project with the fisheries resources were discussed.

ISSUES:

• All indicated that spring fishing for quahogs an oyster occurs in the East river from the Hillsborough Bridge to approximately Johnson’s River, in Stewart Cove east of the disposal site, the north river and the mouth of the west river (York Point to Rocky Point).

• All indicated that the ocean disposal site is located adjacent to the closed contaminated spring fishing ground (i.e., Stewart Cove), which they pointed out on a map.

• The quahog and oyster spring fishery runs from the first of May to the Middle of July.

• All the fishers requested that the work be done as quickly as possible, especially if it was going to be occurring during the spring fishery.

• Mr. Hanson asked if the dredging could be conducted during the rising tide and dumping be conducted during the falling tide.

• Mr. Dunsford requested that water monitoring be conducted during the dredging and ocean dumping, with one sampling location above the Hillsborough Bridge considering all the

desilting that has been conducted in the East river of the last number years. Mr. Dunsford also requested that the dumping if possible be conducted during the falling tide.

• All requested that if the work was going to be conducted then it would be better on the fishery if it could be conducted by the middle of May.

ACTION:

• The above noted concerns will be addressed in the environmental assessment.

• All will be advised of the schedule of the public meeting.



MI’KMAQ CONFERACY OF PEI


DATE: MARCH 7TH, 2006

PARTICIPANTS: Mr. Chris Milley, Director – Integrated Resource Management, Mi’kmaq Confederacy of PEI Mr. Dale Conroy, Jacques Whitford Limited

PURPOSE:

To discuss the proposed Charlottetown Marine Terminal repairs and expansion and new marina development with First Nations communities to identify potential environmental issues associated with the project.

SUMMARY:

Mr. Conroy summarized the project to date, explaining the CMT expansion and the construction of the new marina. He explained that dredging will be required and showed the location of the proposed ocean disposal site. Environmental issues and potential environmental interactions of the project with the fisheries resources were discussed.

ISSUES:

• Mr. Milly explained that the Rocky Point Band was worried about the potential increase to navigational traffic and the effect on potential ecotourism opportunities in the area of Rocky Point and Warren Cove.

• Mr. Milly would like to see predictive modeling on the economic impact along the Charlottetown waterfront for a potential fuel spill from a tanker vessel.

• Mr. Milly stated that the chief and council would like to see the environmental management plans from all the proponents that would be using the proposed construction area.

• Mr. Milly also expressed concern with regards to the smelt, gaspereau and silverside runs and the effect the proposed project would have on them.

ACTIONS:

• Mr. Conroy left his number and indicated his willingness to respond to concerns in the future.

• Mr. Milly was advised of the schedule for the public meeting in Charlottetown at the end of March 2006.

• Mr. Milly was going to put a letter together with regards to the concerns that the chiefs and council had.

Charlottetown Marine Terminal Repairs and Construction and new Marina Development

Issues Raised During Public Meeting

Issue Type Issue Details How CHAI has/will address Issue

Two attendees expressed concern regarding water quality in the new basin.

As outlined in the EIS, modelling of flushing within the new

marina basin was completed. Although the flushing time will be

increased in the basin, it is expected that marine water in the

basin will be exchanged with each tidal cycle, thereby minimizing

the potential for stagnation and reduced water quality within the

marina basin. Phase 2 of the Charlottetown Marine Terminal will

allow for adequate flushing of the marina basin.

Water Quality

One fisherman raised concerns regarding the accuracy of the sediment plume modeling.

As outlined in the EIS, modelling of dredge material disposal at

the Project disposal site was completed for previous dredging at

the Marine Terminal. The modelling suggested that suspended

sediment plumes of approximately 100 m in diameter were

expected to be advected approximately 2 km upstream and

downstream of the disposal site with suspended sediment

concentrations varying from less than 50 mg/L at the outside of

the plume to up to 600 mg/L at the centre of the plume.

Monitoring of suspended sediments during dredging and

disposal in the Project area was also carried out for previous

dredging at the Marine Terminal. Suspended sediments at the

dredge site during dredging were generally less than 50 mg/L

and dispersed to background concentrations within 10 to 30

minutes.

For this Project, sampling of dredge materials shows an overall lower percentage of fine materials than was reported for the 1998 dredge material; therefore, the dredge material would be expected to settle to the bottom more rapidly and any sediment plume resulting from disposal activities is expected to be smaller in diameter and have a smaller zone of influence than was projected for the 1998 dredging.

Several fishers expressed concern regarding the potential for introduction of invasive species.

As outlined in the EIS, to avoid the introduction of invasive

species, prior to deployment in the waters of Hillsborough Bay,

any construction equipment that will be used in the marine

environment must be thoroughly cleaned to remove any

sediment, plants or other organisms that may have been

transported from other waters.

Marine vessels must comply with the Ballast Water Control and

Discharge Regulations under the Canada Shipping Act. To

avoid the introduction of invasive species, prior to deployment in

the waters of Hillsborough Bay, any equipment that will be used

in the marine environment must be thoroughly cleaned to

remove any sediment, plants or other organisms that may have

been transported from other waters. Environmental

Management Plans (EMPs) will be developed for the

Charlottetown Marine Terminal and the new marina. The EMPs

will include policies and procedures to prevent the introduction of

invasive species into the Hillsborough Bay system.

Fish Habitat

Several fishers expressed a concern regarding future dredging for the project.

As outlined in the EIS, modelling of sedimentation at the Project site suggests that maintenance dredging will not be required for the Marine Terminal extension.




Representatives from the PEI Fishermen's Association and local shellfishers expressed concern regarding potential effects on fisheries resources from the proposed disposal of dredged sediments; particularly with respect to the potential for contaminants in the sediments and the potential for sediment plumes and sedimentation and associated effects on fish and shellfish.

Information was provided at the open house on the sediment sampling program that has been conducted for the project as well as the proposed monitoring during disposal. Results of sediment sample analysis has shown that the dredge material is within CEPA Ocean Disposal Guidelines and suitable for ocean disposal. Modelling predictions for sediment plumes during disposal and results of previous monitoring during disposal were also available at the open house; these indicate that the sediment plume will dissipate quickly over a short distance.

Shellfishers at the meeting advocated early dredging to avoid potential effects during shellfish spawning and spat settlement periods (July-August). In addition, they requested that live shellfish be relayed from Stewart Cove to areas in North River to increase the growth rate and productive capacity of the oysters.

CHAI is also open to including the shellfish relay in the habitat compensation plan proposed for the project.

Fisheries

Representatives of the PEI Fishermen's Association expressed concern regarding damage to fishing gear in the Northumberland Strait. They indicated that they are lobbying for the establishment of shipping lanes through the Strait to separate ship traffic from fishing areas.

CHAI indicated that they are open to establishing communications with the fishers to support the establishment of shipping lanes in the Northumberland Strait.

One attendee expressed concern that the new berth for cruise ships would interfere with the boat races organized by the CYC in Charlottetown Harbour; specifically that there is a zone of exclusion established around cruise ships that would restrict pleasure craft from approaching a cruise ship during a race.

Jacques Whitford indicated that this would be taken into consideration. Further investigation since the public meeting has indicated that there are no regulations in place to establish a zone of exclusion around cruise ships in Canada; such regulations do exist in the United States. Under current regulations, it is not likely that the berthing of cruise ships would interfere with pleasure craft use in Charlottetown Harbour. Cruise ship schedules are posted on the internet well in advance of a ship's arrival and the schedule is strictly adhered to; cruise ship schedules may be obtained from CHAI.

Marine Navigation

Several attendees raised concerns regarding navigational safety in the disposal area due to accumulations of sediment.

Investigations during previous disposal activities at the proposed disposal site indicated that there were “high spots” in the proposed area that must be avoided in order to maintain water depth and navigational safety. Bathymetry data has been collected at the disposal site (March 2006) and will be used to prepare dredge disposal plans as part of the EPP for construction. The bathymetry data will be used to identify areas to avoid during dredge disposal.

Currents One attendee expressed concern Modelling of currents at the Project site suggests that, although




regarding alteration of current regime in Hillsborough River.

current and flow patterns will be altered in the newly formed marina basin, the Project is not expected to alter overall current patterns in Hillsborough River.

Issues not related to the proposed project:

Other concerns expressed during the public meeting were not directly related to the proposed project.

One attendee expressed concern over the availability of publicly accessible slips to access the waterway in Charlottetown. The proposed project will not interact with currently available pubic access to the waterfront. The existing slip in the proposed project area is not currently publicly available and is proposed to be used for the new marina development.

Another concern expressed by attendees was with respect to the upgrades currently being conducted at the Charlottetown sanitary wastewater treatment plant; specifically with respect to the brief transition period when sanitary wastewater will be diverted directly into Charlottetown Harbour. The dredging for the project is not expected to result in cumulative effects with the Charlottetown treatment plant upgrades; previous sampling for faecal coliform bacteria during dredging indicated that increased faecal coliform bacteria in Charlottetown Harbour was not related to dredging activities (i.e., faecal coliform levels were not elevated in the vicinity of the disposal site during dredge disposal).

Charlottetown Marine Terminal Repairs and Expansion and New Marina Development

Fishers Consultation

Holiday Inn Express, Charlottetown, PE

April 11, 2006

6-9 pm

Attendees:

David Gaudet (Oyster Fisher and Lease Owner)

Robert Ellsworth (Oyster Fisher and Lease Owner)

Jackie Baird (Oyster Fisher and Lease Owner)

Marc Sheeran (Environment Canada (EC))

Chris Mills (PEI Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture (PEIDAFA)

Richard Gallant (PEIDAFA)

Greg Wilson (PEI Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry (PEIDEEF))

Blair Smith (Director Queens County Shellfish Association)

Ed Frenette (Executive Director PEI Fishermen’s Association (PEIFA))

Charlie McGeoghegan (Director Northumberland Strait Fishermen’s Association (NSFA) and Lobster Fisher)

John Dennis (Charlottetown Yacht Club (CYC) Representative)

Gerry Gallant (Charlottetown Harbour Authority (CHAI) Representative)

Linda McLean (Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO))

Carol Godin (DFO)

Guy Robichaud (DFO)

Scott Lewis (EC)

Dale Conroy (Jacques Whitford (JW))

Jeff Karn (JW)

Minutes

Mr. Conroy – starting the meeting by having all present introduce themselves and explained the purpose of meeting.

Explaining that the meeting was being conducted to try and address the concerns of Fishers that where raised at the

Public Open House (i.e., ocean disposal of the dredge material).

Mr. Wilson – asked for information on EC’s protocol for choosing Ocean Disposal Site and why the site for the

construction project was the site proposed.

Mr. Lewis – explained the protocol for selecting an ocean disposal site and the history of the Charlottetown Ocean

Disposal Site. He then went into the mitigation measures that were implemented for the disposal project conducted

in 1998 in Charlottetown Harbour (i.e., sampling, dividing disposal site into grids, conducting bathymetry prior to

and post disposal and underwater video during disposal)

Mr. Ellsworth – Asked what time of year where the previous disposal project conducted in Charlottetown Harbour

Mr. Gallant – Explained that the past disposal projects were conducted in (1998 – October/November, 1985 – July,

etc.), which lead into prior monitoring that was conducted during dredging 1998.

Mr. Conroy – Explained the modeling that was conducted in 1998 prior to the disposal project and showed the

extent of the proposed plume according to the modeling. He then discussed the final results of the TSS monitoring

conducted in 1998 and that the results showed that a sediment plume was visibly noticeable within 100 to 200 m

from the disposal site and that the sediment plume dropped out of the water column within the 10 to 20 minutes of

disposal. The results from sampling confirmed this. JW produced graphs showing the TSS monitoring results and

that all the sample locations were within the background levels collected with the exception of two results (i.e., 26

and 25 mg/L above background). Mr. Conroy indicated that both these samples were “bottom samples.” Given the

“clean” results of the TSS monitoring for the remaining (approximately 70) samples, the two high readings were

more probably be due to disruption of the local sediment during (Niskin bottle) sampling.

Mr. Smith – Stated that the model and the TSS sampling from 1998 showed that the sediment did not reach the

upper East River, West River or North River and that he was not concerned with the proposed dredging project.

Mr Frenette – concerned about cumulative effects and quoted a report conducted by Jeff Ollerhead from Mount

Allison that indicated a tenfold increase in particulate matter in the Northumberland Strait since the construction of

the Confederation Bridge. He also expressed concerns on who conducted the sediment surveys for the CMT project

and that conflict of interest maybe involved (i.e., different company should have conducted the sediment sampling).

Mr. Gaudet – Raised the issue of ‘why the material was not being proposed to be disposed on land or why it could

not be placed in the marine environment near the Hillsborough bridge on the Charlottetown side?”

Mr. Conroy – Explained that the option of placing the material in a new location adjacent to land would result in

HADD and that in filling in Charlottetown Harbour is not viable option by DFO.

Mr. Ellsworth – Was concerned that the timing of the project (i.e., early summer) that a greater sediment plume

could be created due to the warmer water temperatures.

Mr McGeghegan – Expressed his concern with the disposal at sea issue and again went back to the results from the

Northumberland Strait paper by Jeff Ollerhead. He also expressed his preferred option of placing the material on

land and mentioned a location that was set aside in the 1990s for the disposal of the Irving Whale (i.e., located

somewhere in the eastern end of PEI)

Mr. Conroy – Asked Mr. McGeghagan if he knew where the Irving Whale site was located and that if it was

somewhere in eastern PEI the trucking of the material to that location would not be feasible.

Mr. Smith – Asked if there were heavy metals in the sediment?

Mr. McGeghegan – Also expressed that the material from the Naval Base located directly east of the CMT was dirty

during the time of dredging and wondered where that material had been placed.

Mr. Wilson – Explained to Mr. McGeghegan that the material from the Naval Base was disposed in the wharf

back-up area on federal property and the federal government risk managed the upland disposal.

Mr. Conroy and Mr. Lewis – Explained that there were heavy metals detected in the sediment but that the analysis

was below CEPA guidelines for Ocean Disposal and again Mr. Lewis explained EC’s sampling protocol,

requirements and the importance of the mitigation measures. He also explained that if the mitigation measures

showed that the threshold levels for TSS were not met the proponent would have to stop the work and re-evaluate

the mitigation in order to start work again. Mr. Lewis also explained the nature of the sediment and how metals are

more apt to bond to silts and clays than sand and gravel, hence the results of the sediment sampling program (i.e.,

concentrations below guidelines, material grain size was more sand and gravel).

Mr. Mcgeghegan – Asked about the one sample that was above the guideline for Ocean Disposal and how that was

taken in to consideration when determining what material should go to sea.

Mr. Lewis – Further explained the protocol of EC and that the 95% confidence level was used to determine the over

all make up of the material being dredged.

Mr. Conroy – Further explained that the last dredging project at the CMT required a majority of the material to be

land disposed because it did not meet the ocean disposal guidelines at that time and the remainder the of the material

towards the end of the marine terminal was disposed at the ocean disposal site as it had met ocean disposal

guidelines.

Mr. McGeghenan – Asked how an imaginary line was selected in order to determine what material goes to land and

what material goes to sea.

Mr. Conroy – Explained that the area was delineated in order to make that determination.

Mr. Baird – Wondered if the project could really be stopped if the monitoring showed TSS results above the

predetermined threshold levels.

Mr. Lewis – Re-iterated that mitigation measure that are agreed upon prior to issuing the ocean disposal permit are

required to be followed and if there are exceedences the project would be required to stop until the issues can be

resolved. Again expressing the importance of the permit EC issues.

Mr. Baird, Mr. Gaudet and Mr. Ellsworth – Express their concern with the location of the proposed disposal site and

that they believed that the proximity to the channel and the fast currents will move the material being disposed into

the East River. They again proposed that if the material cannot go on land that the disposal site should be moved

adjacent to the Hillsborough Bridge.

Mr. Robichaud - Explained DFO’s policy of the destruction of fish habitat and how a new disposal site would result

in a HADD.

Mr. Baird, Mr. Gaudet and Mr. Ellsworth – Explained that there was no fish habitat in that area.

Mr. Robichaud – Explained further the policy of DFO. He then asked the fishers if they there were open to ocean

disposal at the proposed site if the amount of material was reduced.

Group Response – No.

Mr. Frenette – Asked what the responsibilities of the Province are for this project and also stated that a rumor was

floating through the fishers community that the Shellfish groups took a bribe from the proponent in order to have the

shellfishers on side (i.e., compensation)

Mr. Conroy and Mr. Robichaud – Explained that there was no bribe and that what Mr. Frenette was referring to was

the compensation that was being worked on with the PEISA.

Mr. McGeghagan – Requested additional information on Habitat Compensation and wondered about the potential

risk of HADD due to the use of the disposal site and at the construction site.

Mr. Robichaud and Mr. Conroy – Further explained that compensation was required for the loss of habitat from the

construction footprint of the CMT and breakwater. Mr. Robichaud went on to explain that the historic disposal site

was chosen in consultation with fishers back in the 1980’s and that the site would have been selected due to historic

information on the location (i.e., lack of fish or fish habitat).

Mr. Frenette – Again requested a response from the province on provincial responsibilities for the project.

Mr. Wilson – Explained that dredge materials from Small Craft Harbour projects were allowed to be placed on

federal properties. Further, Mr. Wilson explained that under the CCME guidelines, land disposal regulations are

more stringent than ocean disposal guidelines. The provincial issue with this project would be ground water

contamination by salt water from land disposed sediment. He also explained the transportation of dredge material

through downtown Charlottetown during summer would not be a viable option and that no location for dredge spoils

was located in reasonable proximity to the project.

Mr. Frenette – Inquired if there was an area designated for land disposal in the province.

Mr. Wilson – Replied that there was no such location.

Mr. Baird, Mr. Gaudet and Mr. Ellsworth – Inquired if using the dredge spoils for infilling purposes somewhere

nearby could be an option, perhaps near the Hillsborough Bridge.

Mr. McGeghagan – Indicated that he and his fellow fishers have no problem with the project but that they don’t

want the material disposed of at sea, due to the issues of material ending up in the Northumberland Strait.

Mr. Conroy – Indicated that the TSS monitoring was conducted in 1998 and the results showed that the sediment

plume did not extend over 200 m beyond the disposal site.

Mr. McGeghagan – Indicated that there was one TSS sample from 1998 that showed TSS levels approximately

30mg/L at the mouth of the Charlottetown Harbour (i.e. sample location 6).

Mr. Conroy – explained again the high TSS level on the single occasion at the mouth of the Charlottetown Harbour

was probably due to the Niskin bottle hitting the sea bed and stirring sediments.

Mr. Wilson – Commented that the TSS sampling that was conducted during the 1998 dredging activities indicated

that TSS levels due to the dredging were much lower (by a factor of approximately 4) then TSS levels encountered

in the Charlottetown Harbour during windy days.

Mr. Gaudet – Inquired if the material stays at the disposal site or moves away from the disposal site.

Mr. Lewis – Stated that from the 1998 dredge, the pre and post bathymetry study showed that the material remained

at the disposal site.

Mr. Lewis and Mr. Conroy – Explained that the results of a recent bathymetric survey were not yet available, but

would be able to indicate any movement of the 1998 dredge spoils from the disposal site.

Mr. Baird – Asked if future monitoring of the disposal site would be conducted.

Mr. Lewis – Explained that Environment Canada does select certain disposal sites for monitoring and that part of the

Ocean Disposal Tipping fee and Application fee is used for monitoring. Sites are selected on the basis of public

concern, and that this site would potentially be a candidate for future monitoring based on public concern.

Mr. McGeghagan – Indicated that 1998 was a good season for fishing. He further indicated that his catches in 1999

were diminished by 2/3. He indicated this probably due to the 1998 dredging. Further, Mr. McGeghagan posed a

hypothetical question: even if the bathymetric studies show no change to the sea floor elevations, how do “we”

know that dredge spoils didn’t migrate from the disposal location, and that silts from further up the rivers did not fill

in the void at the disposal site?

Mr. Conroy – Inquired of the fishers if they would be willing to use the disposal site if similar mitigation was

imposed as in 1998.

Mr. McGeghahan/Mr. Frenette – Both were opposed to disposal at sea.

Mr. Baird, Mr. Gaudet and Mr. Ellsworth – If the material cannot go on land the material should be placed by the

Hillsborough Bridge.

Mr. Frenette – Indicated that the official position of the PEIFA is they have grave doubts about the 1998 study,

including the model and the chemical analysis. He wants to see more chemical analysis, new hydrographic data for

Charlottetown Harbour, and new modeling results that incorporate recent changes to weather. He is concerned that

cumulative effects are not being addressed. The PEIFA is opposed to ocean dumping of the material.

Mr. Gallant – Indicated that the science has already been completed with diligence, and that the scientific facts

provided on the project thus far are in agreement with both DFO and EC regulations. Further, Mr. Gallant indicated

a lack of trust between the proponents, government, and the fishers. Mr. Gallant suggested to the fishers that the

proponent would pay for an environmental technician, chosen by the PEIFA, to conduct monitoring during dredging

activities to assure the legitimacy of the scientific results. Mr. Gallant indicated that issues concerning the

Confederation Bridge and the perceived notion of fishery destruction in the Northumberland Strait due to the

Confederation Bridge were not relevant to this project.

Mr. Frenette – Indicated that it was the job of fishermen to question such projects.

Mr. Gaudet – Indicated that the preferred course of action would be (a) land disposal or (b) disposal of dredge

material by the Hillsborough Bridge.

Mr. McGahgahan – Introduced the topic of McCauley’s Wharf. At this particular wharf, there was only five boats

operating, no heavy industry, no lead paints, no obvious environmental hazards, but that the sediment from the

harbour was still classified as “dirty.” Mr. McGahgahan asked how that harbour, with no obvious sources of

pollution, could have dirty sediment but that sediment from Charlottetown Harbour was “clean.”

Mr. Lewis – Indicated again that samples collected from the proposed dredge area were clean according to CEPA

criteria and that each harbour is unique (contamination at McCauley’s Harbour could be due to a multitude of

factors), and this is why sampling is conducted in the first place.

Mr. McGahgahan – Inquired about the closed shellfishing area around Charlottetown Harbour, and why it was

closed to shellfishing if the sediment was not contaminated.

Mr. Lewis – Replied that the closure was due to faecal coliform levels in the harbour.

Mr. Richard Gallant – Indicated that storm sewers and sewage out-fall were the factors behind shellfish

contamination in Charlottetown Harbour. Further, there are areas closed to shellfish harvesting around wharfs due

to security reasons all across the maritime region; hence the reasons for closed contaminated shellfishing in

Charlottetown Harbour.

Mr. McGahgahan – Reiterated that he is opposed to ocean disposal.

Mr. Gaudet – Reiterated that he would like to see a land disposal site, or if not possible, a disposal site near the

Hillsborough Bridge.

Mr. Gallant – Reiterated that as the science is demonstrating the environmental compliance of the project, that the

project proceed; Mr. Gallant reiterated that the proponent would provide for an environmental technician, as selected

by the PEIFA, for environmental monitoring of the project during dredge activities.

Mr. Guy Robichaud – In closing, Mr. Robichaud indicated the role of DFO is to balance the environmental and

fishery issues. He is well aware of the struggles of fishermen as his father was a lobster fisher in New Brunswick.

He indicated that he would suggest to the proponent that the options raised this evening be examined.

Mr, Conroy – In closing Mr. Conroy thanked the fishers and the regulators for coming to the meeting and stated that

he would discuss the meeting with the client (the proponent) and options raised at the meeting.

Mr. Gallant – Thanked everyone as well.

Mr. Gaudet – Asked if there would be another meeting regarding the project.

Mr. Conroy – Indicated that he would be in touch.

Charlottetown Harbour Disposal Site

Fishers Consultation

Holiday Inn Express, Charlottetown, PEI

April 26, 2006

6:30 – 8:30 p.m.

David Gaudet (Oyster Fisher / Lease Owner)

Jackie Baird (Oyster Fisher / Lease Owner)

Charlie McGeoghegan (Director Northumberland Strait Fisherman’s Association / Lobster Fisher)

Lorne Bonnell (Crab Fisher)

David McLeod (Silverside Fisher)

Kenneth McLeod (Silverside Fisher)

Ed Frenette (Executive Director PEI Fishermen’s Association)

Marc Sheeran (EC)

K.L. Tay (EC)

Russell Parrott (NRCan)

Lea Murphy (DFO)

Wade Landsburg (DFO)

Scott Lewis (EC)

Summary

- Introductions by all were followed by a brief summary of purpose of the meeting. EC explained that

meeting was being held to further discuss what disposal site options may be available for this project

- EC explained that the infill site adjacent to the Hillsborough Bridge on the Charlottetown side that was

proposed by fishermen at the previous meeting was not feasible due to the presence of a water intake

pipeline and water lot lease owned by Maritime Electric. EC handed out several maps showing the existing

site and two additional potential ocean disposal sites for discussion.

- Several fishers raised the question of why upland disposal was not being considered. It was reiterated to

the fishers that upland disposal presented several environmental concerns including salt contamination of

upland water tables. It was also conveyed that the proponent had indicated that this possibility was

investigated; however, finding an upland disposal site proximal to the project was problematic.

- Russell Parrott of Natural Resources Canada presented a short PowerPoint slide show of multi-beam

bathymetric data collected by the Canadian Hydrographic Service in 2004 following Hurricane Juan. The

high resolution data captured half of the area of the existing ocean disposal site and showed the presence of

distinct dredge disposal mounds still remaining 6 years after the last disposal activity. He explained that

some of the fine material would be carried off of the site; however, a portion of the material had remained

stable at the site (the portion remaining was not quantifiable).

- The fishers expressed continued concerns about both TSS levels and site stability. They did not feel that

the two proposed alternative sites were good options and remained opposed to the use of the existing site.

Concerns were also expressed about what influence the wharf extension itself would have on existing river

flow patterns (by way of creating an artificial bank and deflecting the rivers natural flow). They were

concerned about what impact this extension would have in the long term on fishing and sediment transport.

- The Silverside fishers expressed concern about the wharf and marina w.r.t. excluding them from

accessing any fishing grounds at the proposed site.

- A couple of the fishers indicated that there have been previous occurrences when they have not been

allowed to tie up at the wharf and have in fact been forced to move their boats to a distant wharf facility for

moorage. There was general discontent at the lack of publicly accessible moorage along the Charlottetown

waterfront.

- David Gaudet inquired about whether or not divers had collected video at the existing disposal site. He

indicated that he would like a diver to go down and conduct a video survey of the area with and collect

samples at the existing site to see what was there.

- It was mentioned several times by EC and DFO that the proponent had offered as a goodwill gesture to

finance a qualified individual (to be selected by the fishers) to monitor during disposal activities. The

fishers were unwilling to acknowledge acceptance of this offer as it would imply that they were in support

of the project which they are not.

- EC also mentioned again that the proponent was required to pay a monitoring fee as part of the cost of the

Ocean Disposal Permit and that this fee goes towards a National Disposal at Sea Monitoring Fund. It was

indicated to the fishers that any proposed ocean disposal site used for this project could be eligible for

monitoring funding under that program.

- It was explained by EC that the alternate site locations were selected based on the constraint that the

bottom-dumping barge to be used on this project requires a minimum of 18 feet of water at the disposal

site. The fishers indicated that they wanted the proponent to explore the use of a different type of barge or

equipment that would enable them to dispose of material in shallower water away from the channel.

- The meeting was concluded with the fishers in opposition to ocean disposal for this project. DFO

indicated that they would take the available science into consideration, as well as concerns raised by

fishers, and provide expert advice to EC about use of the site w.r.t. fish and fish habitat. EC indicated that

they would take this advice and existing information into consideration when making a decision about

issuing a Permit.

final eis - ec90980 2006-05-10 - prince edward island · charlottetown marine terminal 2 tn-06-06,...

Documents