Federal-Provincial Assessment Review Panel for the Halifax-Dartmouth Wastewater Management System Volume 12 30 March 1993 (Halifax: Halifax Harbour Cleanup Inc. 1994)
Commonwealth Ballroom, Halifax Hilton, Halifax, NS, 30 March 1993, Evening Session]
The Chairperson: I think most of you have heard the introduction, so I will try and cut it back a bit.
Opening Remarks (condensed):
HHCI : Cy Allan
Peter Connor, Architectural partner in charge, HHCI:
Thank you, Mr. Allan. This portion of our presentation deals with the island design and aesthetics. I think it is significant and important to understand that in realizing that we had to deal with a problem that required an island to be designed by the design team, we then came quickly to the notion that what we wanted to do was to create an island that would fit within the environment, that was both natural and seemed as though it belonged, and in order to do that we then looked very closely at the predominant landforms within the Halifax Harbour area. […] On the infill island we then decided to create an island which featured two of these drumlin forms, and we have created a valley in between them.i
The other thing that we looked at in dealing with the natural setting of the Harbour were an understanding or is an understanding of the forces of nature that define the shorelines, and came to recognize that there are actually two major wave directions existing within the Harbour: one which is a wave from the south direction which is a major storm wave, something in the order of three metres in height, and the second major wind direction would be the Inner Harbour generated waves from the north, and that is the order of two metres in height.
We looked at the island in different shapes and in different areas; we started initially with a plat that was rather disjointed or in separate components and in a functional sense, we were able to group these tighter together to make a more efficient sewage treatment plant, and also to reduce the requirement for the site to support the plant, and I think you can see that as we went through our studies, we were able then to create a plant that was rather compact in nature if you weigh it against the original shapes that you see in the upper left-hand corner, and we were also able to create a rather natural looking and free-formed perimeter around the island, so the one at the topii is rather simplistic and a bit of a blob. The one that is in the bottom right-hand corner is the final concept which is a rather well articulated edge.
The other thing we looked at was the placement of the island itself, as it is seen against McNabs Island. We looked at coming off the gravel spit out into deeper water with the original island. We then looked at very much the same location, but in a reduced island with the compact plant. We moved the island off the gravel spit and on to Ives Knoll, in which case we had to reverse the orientation of the plant, which would allow expansion of the island towards McNabs Island, to stay away from deeper water.iii
[…] We also looked at a variety of shoreline protection solutions. One thing we did not want to do in creating a natural island would be to armour a;; the way around the island and create a fortified unnatural looking solution. In doing this, we have found a solution which has two rocky points or promontories with a beach-like area. When I say “beach,” it is a more gentle slope. These will take – the rocky points will take the energy out of the wave and tend to dissipate the energy as it breaks against the island. These will be boulder-type beaches, but still offer the shoreline protection.iv
[…] This is an overview of the island in plan; very briefly, we have two of the drumlins – if you recall the earlier slide, one that is in the northwest, a second that is in the southeast – I am sorry, southwest, and we have a drumlin valley in between, which is featuring a pond. We have a loading dock on the east side; this (indicating) portion of the sewage treatment plant is the headworks plant, the headworks building. This midsection (indicating) is both the pumping station and the administration wing, and would be the public arrival spot. It also has a visitors’ centre and an interpretation function. This (indicating) wing, if you like, on the lower portion of the slide is the Oil From Sludge facility.v
[…]
There s a great deal of vegetation on the landscaping plan, in the landscaping plan. We have looked closed at the various plant communities that exist on McNabs Island, and we have sought to replicate those in developing the island.
We have exactly – or approximately nine plant communities identified, with different topsoil types for each plant community. We are looking at mature trees in the larger form, and then the shrub and supporting cover will likely have to be – sorry, the mature trees will be from nursery stock, large calibre. The supporting growth and shrub, the undergrowth will likely have to be generated from collected seed and from cuttings, and we will need two to three years of lead time to be able to achieve that.vi
Royce Walker, Friends of McNabs Island Society
Mr. Walker: Good evening, Madam Chair and Panel members. I am Royce Walker speaking on behalf of the Friends of McNabs Island Society. […] I would question whether the site selection criteria as been equally applied. As we know, the Task Force developed basic criteria and initially identified sixteen (16) potential sites which met teie criteria which as a site had to be within 1.6 kilometres of shoreline or inside the watershed boundary; the land had to be vacant or obviously underused; the minimum size had to be six (6) hectares to allow a plant of at least 90,000 cubic metres per day; and a site could be created by extending – or extended by infilling at the water’s edge to a depth of ten metres.vii
These initial sixteen (16) sites were further reduced when more extensive criteria was applied, which included such considerations as ownership, potential for expansion, residential buffer, length of outfall, highway, sea and rail access, visual impacts, replacement value, significant cultural or environmental resources, and others.
[…] I would like to compare two sites from the original Task Force list of sixteen (16).viii
[…] An objective site evaluation should have resulted in these two locations receiving equal attention. This is not the case. One of these sites has received a lot of attention; the other has been virtually forgotten; and from the overhead I would ask you “why?” What is the difference?
There are a couple of more characteristics for these sites. This slide might give away the sit[e]s to some; nonetheless, site 1 seems to have an advantage from a development point of view. It borders the mainland and municipal services are available.
Site 2 is an island.
In terms of the proposal HHCI has before us, if site 1 was near the outfall and if it fit the present tunnel configuration, it might be a good site forix the STP. A site like site 1 might permit infill trucked and dumped from shore saving barging and shipping costs. It might reduce the length of expensive tunnels to Ives Point and the depth of the tunnel at the STP would be less, since it would not need to go under the harbour channel. Therefore, we could save some of the operations and maintenance costs of pumping from about minus 50 metres at Ives Point. In addition, we could save the cost of operating a ferry to service Ives Point for its lifetime of sixty (60) to one hundred (100) years.
[…] As some may have guessed, site 1 is Pleasant Shoal. Site 2 is Ives Point. […] The savings I have mentioned might very well be possible at Pleasant Shoal. It fits the proposal nicely in terms of both tunnel configuration and outfall location. However, it was eliminated fromx consideration when the Task Force sixteen (16) sites were reduced to five (5), apparently for high visual impact.
Te Task Force final report says in reference to the sixteen (16) sites three (3) of these sites, Dartmouth Cove, Pleasant Shoal and Purcells Cove were eliminated because of the difficulty of achieving an adequate buffer or because of their potential for high visual impact. Pleasant shoal has plenty of buffer, so I conclude it was high visual impact that eliminated it.
But Ives Point has high visual impact so it should have been eliminated, or should Pleasant Shoal have been included? The answer is we don’t know because public siting criteria was not established. We do know the sites are very similar.
We also know HHCI did not public evaluate Pleasant Shoal after the request of the Environmental Assessment Review Panel.xi
I must be absolutely clear on my next statement. Pleasant Shoal should not be considered as a potential sewage treatment plant site. I do not in any way suggest it even be considered. Friends of McNabs Island do not endorse it and neither does the Metro Coalition for Harbour Cleanup. It is just used for comparison.
Te point of my comparison is: whether Pleasant Shoal was eliminated too high visual impact because it borders on a park or whatever does not matter. Whatever it was must also apply to the Ives Point site. If the public is to believe that site selection has been objective, if we are to think HHCI has followed a public process and listened to the public, then Pleasant Shoal and Ives Point should receive the same attention and evaluation. It is imperative that a thorough, acceptable and open public consultation be undertaken to ensure social equity and ultimate success of the harbour cleanup project.xii
Thank you, Madam Chair.xiii
