RECREATIONAL HARBOURS STUDY
DFO lll~i1!~~1~1i1~ifllill~i 1lii~1lleque 12016982
Fisheries and Oceans Small Craft Harbours Branch Newfoundland Region December 1979
I I .J. I ~ -~ • • a ...... , . .. ~ =-i .._ .....
I I ·~
VK 369.8.C2 ... • N4 R42 C.2 n LIBRARY FI:;frnJur:s A'.'ID OCEANS li~DU0 l :J L'JUE OCEAMOGR/.\r'MY P~CULS El' OctANS BOX 1006 DARTMOUTH, N.S. B2Y 4A2
RECREATIONAL HARBOURS STUDY
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
SMALL CRAFT HARBOURS BRANCH
NEWFOUNDLAND REGION
December 1979
SEASHORE ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES LTD. ST. JOHN'S NFL D. I N D E X
Item Description Page
1. Introduction 1-3
2. Methodology 4-5
3. Inventory of Existing Facilities and Boats 6-11
4. Review of Selected Policy Options 12-24
5. Review of Meetings with Provincial 25-27 Governments
6. Recommended Policy for the Development of 28-34 Recreational Harbour Facilities in the Newfoundland Region
7. Estimated Cost of Program 35-38
Appendix 11 A11
Appendix 11 811
( i ) - 1 -
1. INTRODUCTION
In 1973 the responsibility for the programming, funding and administration of marine facilities used mainly by corrunercial fisher men and recreational boaters was transferred from the Department of Public Works and Transport to the Small Craft Harbours Branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (then Department of Environment). Nationally, and particularly in Newfoundland, the program has been administered in a manner that has given priority to harbour develop ments that are used primarily by corrunercial fishermen. This is due to the importance of the fishing industry to the Newfoundland economy and the urgent need to upgrade facilities to service the independent fishermen. To date there has been limited demand for assistance under the Marina Policy Assistance Program and the Tourist Wharf Program due to the minimal current level of recreational boating activity within the provirice and the somewhat restrictive nature of the ex isting programs.
The Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, proclaimed October 5, 1973, gives the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a broader and legislated mandate in the area of recreational harbour development. The Small Craft Harbours Branch is considering various departmental policy options on recreational harbours with corresponding levels of funding. Assistance is required in examining the implications of various alternate policy options on a regional basis. - 2 -
The purpose of this study is to review selected policy and program options and make specific recommendations as to their applic ability to Newfoundland. The review will also include an indication of the demand for recreational harbour facilities to 1985 and the approximate total costs associated with policy option No. 3, i.e. Enhancement of Current Policy with Increased Involvement from Other Levels of Government.
1.1 Terms of Reference
The work to be carried out by the consultant, Seashore Engineering and Associates Ltd. was defined as follows:-
l. Review preliminary reports on alternate policy options prepared for other regions.
2. Obtain, review and index readily available relevant data and other available studies from Small Craft Harbours, the private sector, boating organizations and the Provincial Government. Review pertinent provincial (Nfld.) legislation and policy.
3. Without conducting field studies, estimate the scope and geographical distribution of recreational boating in the Province, indicate future demand and probable areas of shortfall in supply up to 1985. Prepare an inventory of - 3 -
major existing facilities by type and capacity, (marinas, launching ramps, yacht clubs, etc.).
4. Contact the related Provincial Government departments and principal municipal agencies to determine the implications of proposed policy options and the possibility of joint participation in future recreational harbour developments.
5. Prepare order of magnitude costs for the preferred policy option, Option No. 3.
6. Review selected policy and program options and make specific recommendations as to their applicability to Newfoundland.
7. Produce a report tabulating all data, listing facilities by size and type, outlining the methodology, sources of information and organizations contacted. - 4 -
2. METHODOLOGY
In order to carry out the study objectives, as outlined in the Terms of Reference, the following methodology was used:-
A. Inventory of Existing Facilities
Without conducting any field studies, an inventory of major existing facilities was prepared. This was done by communication with various yacht clubs, boating associations, municipal councils, etc. There are no available statistics for recreational boaters in the Newfoundland Region, thus making it difficult to provide an accurate inventory.
B. Review of Policy Options
The preliminary reports on alternate policy options that were prepared for other regions were reviewed. Each of the policy options outlined for the Newfoundland Region was reviewed, with the preferred policy option No. 3 being re viewed in detail.
C. Estimate of Costs for Recreational Harbours to 1985
Prepare estimate of costs for provision of required facil ities to 1985. A list of proposed facilities together with a preliminary estimate of costs was prepared for the region. - 5 -
This was done in consultation with input from the Province, Small Craft Harbours Branch, Public Works, as well as the private sector.
D. Development of Specific Policy for Newfoundland Region
To assist in the formulation of a specific policy for the region, meetings and subsequent discussions were held with various Provincial Government departments, Small Craft Harbours Branch, and Public Works, Canada. An analysis was made of the recreational harbour facilities to 1985; and the benefits of a joint Federal-Provincial policy, with the Province as the developer, are discussed. - 6 -
3. INVENTORY OF EXISTING FACILITIES AND BOATS
In the past, very little effort has been expended throughout the Province towards the development of recreational harbour facilities. The development of small craft harbour facilities for recreational purposes has been almost entirely carried out by the private sector and/or boating clubs, and the Provincial and Municipal Governments. Any development by the Provincial Government has been generally in the fresh water lakes or ponds.
In an attempt to determine the existing facilities that are available for recreational boating, a form letter questionnaire (Appendix B) was sent to the following boating organizations or individuals.
1. Mr. Merlin Mills, Shoal Harbour, Trinity Bay 2. Mr. G. Brewer, Bay of Islands Yacht Club, Curling 3. Royal Newfoundland Yacht Club, Long Pond, Conception Bay South 4. Bay St. George Yacht Club, Stephenville 5. Mr. J. A. Voyer, Goose Bay 6. The Town of Holyrood 7. Superintendent, Terra Nova National Park 8. Mr. C. Mills, Clarenville - (No reply) 9. Mr. C. Dwyer, Grand Falls - (No reply) 10. Superintendent, Gros Morne National Park - 7 -
Copies of replies that were received are included in Appendix B of this report. From information received the numbers of boats and wet berths are shown in Table I. The geographical location for each facility is shown on the map on page 8,
TABLE I
Projected No. Name of Pl ace No. of No. of Wet of Wet Berths or Facility Boats Berths Provided Required to 1985
1. Shoal Harbour 30 Nil 50
2. Bay of Islands Yacht Club 50 30 100 Curling
3. Royal Newfoundland Yacht 168 100 220 Club - Long Pond
4. Bay St. George Yacht Club 20 5 30 Stephenville
5. Goose Bay 60 25 60
6. Holyrood Marina 150 125 300
7. Terra Nova National Park Transients 30 30 (Salton's Brook)
Totals 478 315 790 - 8 -
rJ
<>
NEWFOUNDLAND MAJOR RECREATIONAL HARBOURS - 9 -
Accordingly, there will be an additional 475 wet berths required to 1985. In addition there will be other areas of shortfall to 1985, e.g. Botwood, Placentia, where it is projected there will be .required 115 wet berths; for a total additional number of 600 wet berths required to 1985. The estimated costs of providing these berths is outlined in Section 7.
The only involvement which the Federal Government has had to date in Newfoundland was at Holyrood {provision of breakwater and dredging, although today this development is as much a commercial fishing harbour as it is a recreational harbour); and the construction of two gravel surfaced access roads on the Avalon Peninsula for trailered boat owners to have better accessibility to inland fishing areas. Incidentally, these access roads have been turned over to the Provincial Department of Tourism for operation and maintenance. In projects developed by either the Provincial Government or Municipal Councils, some federal funding may have been injected through such agencies as OREE, or Canada Works.
The development of facilities for recreational boating by the Province has been limited to the provision of launching ramps in some of the Provincial Parks. These ramps are of timber construction, or in some cases the terrain is suitable and the beach is used as the ramp. In other words, the expenditure has been quite minor, as is the maintenance. However, these facilities do serve a need in the summer months. In many localities around the Province local town councils have become involved in recent years in the development of recreational harbour facilities. - 10 -
These developments have been confined to launching ramps for trailered boats, breastwork construction, and the provision of small docking facilities for boats up to about 25 - 30 feet. Usually these municipal projects have been completed with the aid of Provincial and/or Federal funding, either in the way of grants or special work programs.
Since 1974 the Province has constructed fifteen (15) marine service centres in Newfoundland and Labrador, primarily for the use of commercial fishermen. Two more of these facilities are presently under construction. These service centres consist essentially of a lift-out service (Travelift) for boats up to 50 tons dead weight, and storage facilities. The storage area consists of an open space, usually paved, where fishing boats, usually longliners, can be stored for the winter months. The number of dry berths provided at each centre varies from 20 to 100, dependent on the concentration of longliners in that partic ular area. Generally at the larger centres, buildings have been pro vided to affect boat repairs. The commercial fishing boats have priority over pleasure craft at these centres. However, in the summer months when the pleasure craft would want to use the centres there is no problem with getting services since the fishing boats are fishing at this time. These facilities were constructed jointly by the Federal (90%) and Provincial (10%) Governments, and are now managed and operated by the Province. These facilities have been used to a limited extent by pleasure craft from the Maritimes and the North Eastern United States for services and storage during the past three years. - 11 -
In many places around the Province the owners of pleasure craft use the fishing harbour facilities to their best advantage. Without any harbour management this often creates jurisdictional dis putes with the cornnercial fishermen, and adds to the level of congestion in many fishing harbours.
The boat dealers in the St. John's area indicate that during the past five years the majority of boats sold consist of 16 feet (average length) aluminum boats and 14.5 feet (average length) fibre glass boats. 75% of the fibreglass boats and 25% of the aluminum boats are sold complete with trailers. The majority of the larger pleasure craft, say longer than 25 feet, are either built locally or are purchased outside of the Province.
The information that is available in this rrovince with regard to recreational boating is very limited. There is no information avail able as to the number of boats, and the demand for publicly available facilities or how much effort has been directed towards the area of recreational boating. Information on boat ownership, types of boats, the recent growth statistics, and probable development trends during the next five years has not been collected by any agency or department in the Province. Statistics Canada do not have any information available for this Province as to the number and types of pleasure boats. As a result of our study it is evident that information regarding recreational boating and its relative importance is limited to personal experience and opinions of the persons contacted. As a result, any planning or magnitude of costs estimating for recreational harbour development in the Province has to be done on the basis of very limited data. - 12 -
4. REVIEW OF SELECTED POLICY OPTIONS
The four policy options which we have reviewed are as follows:-
1. No Federal involvement. 2. Continuation of the status quo. 3. Enhancement of current policy with increased involvement from other levels of government. 4. Total development by the Federal Government.
Policy options 1, 2 and 4 will be reviewed only in a general manner, whereas the preferred policy option, No. 3, will be reviewed in detail.
4.1 Option No. - No Federal Involvement
Under this policy option there would not be any direct financial assistance by the Federal Government in the provision and operation of recreational harbours or similar facilities. However, if grants were available to the Province from the Federal Government for recreational purposes,the monies could be allocated to whichever projects or programs it deemed appropriate at the time. Also, under this policy, the Province could avail of the Federal Govern ment for technical assistance, for example from the Small Craft Harbours Branch on a regional basis.
By authority of the B.N.A. Act, the construction of harbour facilities is a responsibility of the Federal Government; hence, to - 13 -
phase out Federal involvement totally may, in fact, require an amendment to the Constitution. Even though, it may be rightly argued, that the provision of recreational harbour facilities should be the responsibility of the Provincial and Municipal .Governments.
Some other disadvantages of this policy option are as follows:-
a) Without the federal funding it would be even more difficult than now to develop any form of recreational boating faci 1iti es.
b) The Province would have to acquire or develop technical expertise in the marine field which is now available from the Federal Government.
c) The Province presently does not have any policy or legislation in reference to recreational harbours, and it could conceivably take 2 - 3 years before such legislation is passed. During this period if there were locations which needed direction and/or assistance to develop recreational boating facilities, there would not be any responsible government agency to assist with the development.
4.2 Option No. 2 - Continuation of the Status Quo
Under the existing policy the Small Craft Harbours Branch has - 14 - two clearly defined programs. These programs are:- a) The Marina Policy Assistance Program, developed in 1965, whereby the Federal Government may build breakwaters and/or carry out initial dredging work, to a maximum value of 50 per cent of the total project costs, excluding land purchase costs. b) The Tourist Wharf Program, developed in 1970, whereby the Federal Government may provide launching ramps, with associated wharves if necessary, in specific areas with an established tourist industry or a potential for the develop ment of such an industry. The maximum expenditure that may be made at any one place is $15,000.
To date, assistance under t~e Marina Policy Assistance Program has been provided only at one location, Holyrood. This was a development undertaken by the Municipal Council with the Federal Government through Small Craft Harbours Branch providing a break water and dredging work to the total value of approximately $400,000. Any other requests for assistance have been turned down at the regional level due to lack of funding. The recent demands on federal funds to provide and maintain commercial fishing harbours have been ex tensive and no monies have been available for other work.
Some of the advantages of this policy option are:- - 15 -
1. The policy has been established for some time now and the application and implementation of the program is known by Small Craft Harbours Branch and other Government departments.
2. The technical expertise required to complete the projects is available through either Small Craft Harbours Branch or Public Works, Canada.
3. Under this policy option the Provincial Government could still negotiate for funding for tourism and recreational development, including harbour facilities, from other Federal departments. For example, the Province could sign an agreement with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for a recreational program, whereby the Province would have the authority to spend the federal funds in the best interests of the Province, which could be the development of recreational harbour facilities.
Some of the disadvantages of this policy option are:-
1. Because of the specified programs under which developers may receive assistance from the Federal Government projects have to be budgeted for well in advance and even after approval, are still subject to the availability of funds for that particular fiscal year. As a result, a developer may be looking 3 - 5 years down the road from the time his initial application is made, and, as a result, interest in the overall planned develop ment may be reduced or lost altogether because of this so called - 16 -
"red tape". Also, recreational harbour facilities must compete for fishing harbours funding, and hence receive a 1ow pri ori ty .
2. There is very little, if -any, involvement by the Provincial Government. Without the Province having an active role in such developments, their objectives cannot be related to the overall scheme which could very likely cause unnecessary confusion when other directly related cost shared programs are being priorized.
3. The role of the Federal Government may be described as a reactive one, whereby the Small Craft Harbours Branch is confined to responding. to development proposals by others . In other words, under the present policy, the Branch cannot initiate projects related to recreational harbour facilities.
4.3 Option No. 3 - Enhancement of Current Policy with Increased Involvement from Other Levels of Government
This is the preferred policy option and will be reviewed in terms of:-
a) More Operational Flexibility in Provision of Assistance to Developers
Under the present Marina Policy, the developer is not entitled to receive any assistance if a breakwater and/or dredging is not required. Policy could be changed to include all developments, - 17 - such as docking facilities, slipways and launching ramps, that are viable and necessary for the improvement of rec reational harbour facilities.
In a large number of places with potential a$ recreational harbours, maintenance dredging will be required every year or two. However, under existing policy no provision is made for this work and hence it is a major deterrent to prospective developers of facilities where maintenance dredging would be required. The policy could be expanded to include redredging.
The circumstances under which tourist wharves may be constructed are far too restrictive. For example, development is not permitted in provincial or municipal parks where recreational • boating facilities, such as launching ramps, would be a desirable asset. Presently, if this type of facility is being constructed, funds are provided through programs such as Canada Works. Due to the nature of this program, however, facilities are usually constructed without any proper planning or construction expertise and in many cases the project does not fulfill its purpose, or only lasts for a season or two before it is no longer suitable for public use. The current policy should be expanded to per mit the construction of recreational boating facilities in provincial and municipal parks. - 18 b) Joint Planning and Participation at the Federal/Provincial/Municipal Levels
The policy and programs of the F~deral Government must be more clearly structured to coincide with public requirements and available funding. The policies and programs must achieve a desired mix of recreational harbour facilities, tourism devel- opment and regional economic stimulation. The role of the Federal Government in recreational boating and harbour require ments should be assessed in detail before any definite policies or budgets are formulated. Planning should be done on an area
or district basis in order to id~ntify needs and determine priorities, and to assess exactly the federal contribution that will be required. To date there have been no studies done on a province wide basis, and statistical data on requirements
are pra~tically unknown.
The various levels of government must co-ordinate their efforts to develop a master plan to provide facilities in a shorter time frame and to promote the total development of facilities both on the land and offshore. By so doing, the recreational, tourism, and local development objectives of the Federal, Provincial and Municipal Governments can be better achieved. The planning, administration and maintenance can best be carried out by Municipal or Provincial agencies which are active in the local region. The existing Federal system is - 19 -
not at all suited to the operation and management of a large number of small facilities that would be scattered far and wide throughout the Province.
Presently, the Provincial Government does not have any policies or legislation with which they could be active in the develop ment of a recreational harbours program, nor do they have any agency which could work in conjunction with the Small Craft Harbours Branch on such a program. As a result, there has been very little, if any, Provincial interest or commitment to participate in any program for the development of recreational harbours.
The problem that exists under the present policy is the possib ility of each level of government funding the same aspect or phase of a project. This overlapping and duplication of effort would be erased if the planning of the recreational harbour development were carried out by the Provincial Government; this would result in a development program that would best serve the overall needs of the public and private sectors. c) Increased Levels of Funding to Meet Projected Demands
During recent years, in this Province there have been insuff icient funds to fulfill the needs of the commercial fishing harbours. It is the opinion of some provincial representatives - 20 -
that if funds are expended for recreational harbour develop ment the amount of funding for fishing harbours may be decreased. Commercial fishing harbour facilities will have to be given priority over recreational harbour development. Thus unless more funds are made available to Small Craft Harbours Branch, there will be no facilities provided for recreational harbours. This indicates the need to incorporate a separate budget or vote in the Small Craft Harbours Branch program for recreational harbour development.
In this Province where there has been very little development by the Federal Government for recreational harbours, the amount of funding required to meet the demand is in excess of present resources. The level of funding should be adequate to meet the expectations of the developers. These present policies and programs give the impression that the funding is easily obtained and the developer usually requests a number of harbour improve ments only to discover that very limited funding is available.
It would appear also that there is some justification for in creased funding on the basis of the total impact that the harbour developments would have on the economy of the Province, both directly and indirectly. d) Increased Incentive to Private Development
As is the situation in regards to recreational harbour develop- - 21 - ment by the Government, the extent of private development is also very limited. Presently there is not sufficient demand to warrant major investment from the private sector. The only major private development we have in this Province is the Royal Newfoundland Yacht Club, located approximately 20 miles west of St. John's. However, with the increased interest in recreational boating which has taken place during the past five years, there could be sufficient future demand for rec reational harbour facilities to entice or encourage the private developer to become more involved in this type of business. In this instance we are speaking strictly of the urban areas such as St. John's, Grand Falls (Botwood), Corner Brook, Stephenville, Marystown, etc.
The incentive to private development should be increased in order to make.such operations more viable; and also to provide adequate facilities for the boating public. Under existing policies the manner in which federal funding is to be spent on these projects is too limited, e.g. a developer can only obtain assistance for breakwaters or dredging. The concept of providing federal assistance to developers in the form of marine facilities, whichever type is required, should be considered, in order to provide a more flexible development.
Another consideration would be to have better defined assistance programs and improved procedures for project approvals whereby - 22 -
private enterprise could deal more readily with the Federal Government. An effort should be made by the government to make the public more aware of these programs. If the Marina Assistance policies are changed, steps should be taken to ensure that future assistance programs are flexible enough such that equal opportunities avail for the private sector and Provincial and/or Municipal participation.
Planning and priorizing of recreational harbour facilities on a district or area basis should allow for complete involve ment by the private sector, and also would guard against excess development and duplication of effort. There is a need for a master plan involving the three levels of government, as well as .the private sector. e) Improved Cost Recovery Mechanisms
With the relatively insignificant degree of involvement by the Federal Government in the development of recreational harbour facilities in this province, no cost recovery mechanisms have been introduced.
It would appear, however, that the existing policies do not have sufficient stringent controls to ensure that private developers will fulfill their terms of the agreement, or ensure that the developer makes the facility available for - 23 -
public use. The user-pay concept through berthage fees could be adopted for use in future recreational harbours in or near the urban centres. It is the concensus that the operator/ owners of the larger pleasure craft would be willing to pay for harbour development and berthing; the· rates for which would depend on wh"ich utilities are provided, such as water, electricity, etc. .
4.4 Option No. 4 - Total Development by the Federal Government
Under this policy the Federal Government would develop all the harbour facilities, and if necessary, also develop facilities on land provided there is sufficient demand. The Federal Government would also operate and manage these facilities. It would appear that this policy option would be totally unacceptable for the following reasons:-
1. Funding would be excessive. In order to recover costs, the charges for licenses and harbour fees would have to be too high. This is mainly due to the present set-up whereby the Federal Government bureaucracy does not lend itself to the operation of small harbour facilities, especially in remote areas.
2. In many cases there would not be any joint planning effort with the Provincial and Municipal Governments, leading to - 24 -
confusion and, in some cases, duplication of effort.
3. The program planning and adm~nistration would require a substantial increase in Federal Government staff, especially to manage the recreational harbour developments and to collect revenues.
4. Unfair competition to private developers. - 25 -
5. REVIEW OF MEETINGS WITH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
During the course of the study, meetings were held with the following officials of the Provincial Government:-
Mr. A. Stanl~y Assistant Deputy Minister Tourism, Recreation & Culture
Mr. H. Goudie Assistant Deputy Minister Fisheries
Mr. C. Randell Deputy Minister Municipal Affairs &Housing
Mr. C. Abery Executive Director Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat
The following are the most important issues that were discussed:-
1. Presently the Province does not have any legislation or policy to cover the development of recreational harbours or tourist wharves. As we pointed out earlier in this report, Government involvement to date has been very limited; the Tourism Depart ment has provided limited development for trailered boats in some of their Provincial Parks. However, it is felt that specific legislation and policy is not required for entering into an agreement with the Federal Government for the develop- ment of recreational harbours. - 26 -
2. If the Province were to become the planning authority for the development of recreational harbours, consultation with municipal councils would be necessary. Only the larger urban centres, e.g. Stephenville and Clarenville, should be in-
volved in ~he actual operation and management of any facilities. The smaller municipalities would not have the resources nor the demand to sponsor or support such development. In the larger urban centres the major portion, if not all, of the funding required for operation and maintenance could be re covered from user fees. Also in the larger centres, the Municipal Government must be involved to ensure that any proposed landward development is planned to tie in with the necessary marine infrastructure as will be required.
3. With the exception of Holyrood, in recent years the Province has not received any requests from municipalities for assist ance in the development of recreational harbour facilities. This would indicate that to date there has been little or no interest on the part of the municipalities in the development of rec reational harbours around the Province. This apparent lack of interest may be partially accredited to the fact that these people have not been fully informed as to what programs and/or assistance has been available for such development.
4. If federal funding is provided for recreational harbour devel
opment, it should not be at th~ expense of any other program. - 27 -
If funds are available to develop a recreational harbour in a given community, and there is need for fishing harbour development, then obviously the Province will support the latter. In other words funding for economically justified fishing harbour facilities will have priority over recreational harbour development in a given area.
5. Recreational harbour development should be a joint effort in conjunction with the provision of fishing harbour facilities but this would only be viable where there is proper harbour management, and even then, a great deal of controversy is almost certain to develop. There are harbours which were developed for either water transport or fishing and now the facilities are not required for these activities and the wharves and slipways are now being used by pleasure craft owners. A list of these places is attached in Appendix A.
6. Looking ahead, it has been suggested that recreational harbour facilities on salt water could be operated and maintained by the Provincial Fisheries Department and any inland or fresh water facilities would be managed by Provincial Department of Tourism, Recreation and Culture. - 28 -
6. RECOMMENDED POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATIONAL HARBOUR FACILITIES IN THE NHJFOUNDLAND REGION
6 .1 Discussion As it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide adequate harbour facilities for the safe mooring of boats, it is the responsibility of the Province to provide and develop recreation and tourism facilities. Consequently, any planned small craft harbour development by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should be carried out in close consultation with the relevant provin'cial department. By so doing, the recreational harbour or tourist development can be associated with the overall planned harbour development. Usually, as is common in this province, the commercial fishermen and sports fishermen use essentially the same harbours as do the recreational boaters. For mutually satisfactory achievement of objectives, Federal Provincial agreements for recreation and tourism, and specifically recreational harbours, would be desirable.
The unplanned sharing of harbour facilities by commercial fishermen and recreational boaters has resulted in the misuse of the limited harbour resources in some areas, and represents a major problem im implementing a future planned harbour development. When harbours are used jointly, there is usually conflict because of the competition for the use of that specific harbour. The demands for each type of boat must be evaluated and balanced in order that - 29 - any new facilities provided will satisfy the basic requirements.
The image of the Federal Government would be greatly enhanced by the implementation of a small craft harbours policy which would ensure the provision of recreational harbour facilities to meet the growing demand of pleasure craft and the sports fishing industry. Programs should emphasize joint planning and co-operation with the Province so as to provide adequate harbour facilities to meet the needs of the recreational boaters. Funding by the Federal Government offers inducement to the Provincial Government departments, and also permits the Province to set their own priorities. The Province has, or can establish, good working relationships with boating clubs or organizations in the planning, development, and operation of recreational harbour facilities. The operation and maintenance of recreational harbour facilities should be primarily the concern of the Provincial Government, and funding by the Federal Government should be proposed to encourage this type of development.
In cases where the Province takes over a recreational harbour facility for its operation and maintenance, it is important to note that the Province must recognize the Federal jurisdictional control within the confines of any designated multipurpose harbour.
According to past experience in other parts of Canada, indic ations are that in areas where berth requirements are in the order of 200, private marinas are economically viable, provided development costs are not excessive. Based on the foregoing, any recreational - 30 -
harbour development in the Newfoundland Region would be done by the Federal Government, with the exception of maybe one or two locations, such as the St. John's area. Essentially, in regards to marinas or similar installations, the largest requirement in the Newfoundland Region to 1985 will be, generally, extensions to, and/or modifications to existing facilities and the provision of launching ramps.
The most pressing need for recreational boating facilities in this region centers on the lack of availability of access to the water for trailered boats, together with short term tie-up facilities, parking space, washrooms, etc. These are the real basic needs for the average income person whether he is interested in recreational boating or sports fishing. Federal Government pa rti ci pa tion in launching ramps need only to consist of the construction costs for the ramp itself, and any other directly related marine works. Launching ramps could be located either in urban areas where local control and user-charge fees can be implemented, or in isolated rural areas where user-charge fees would not be feasible to collect.
6.2 Criteria for Policy Development
The policy which is recommended for recreational harbour develop ment in the Newfoundland Region is Policy Option No. 3 (modified) whereby the Provincial Government would be in the lead or would be the developer. The criteria recommended to be used in the development - 31 - of this policy is as follows:-
A. Federal-Provincial Agreement
Under this policy there would be a joint Federal-Provincial agreement, between the Small Craft Harbours Branch and the Province which would extend over a period of 5 years, and would be extended or new agreements entered into as the demand for recreational harbours dictates. The Province would be recognized as the responsible planning authority for all harbour facilities related to recreational boating. The Province, as part of its responsibility in meeting recreational needs, would take the initiative, and assist the Small
Craft Harbours Branch in the ~mplementation of its policies and programs. Any decisions on locations and the priorizing of projects would be essentially by the Province through its appropriate line departments. All decisions would, of course, be subject to review by the Federal Government and Small Craft Harbours Branch would be responsible for the programming and construction of the facilities.
B. Projects Included in the Program
The program would include the construction of all types of marine facilities, as well as dredging and re-dredging. The program would include repairs and/or extensions to existing facilities as well as new facilities both in coastal areas and in inland waters. - 32 -
C. Funding
The initial cost of all marine facilities would be funded by the Federal Government. A separate budget or vote would be identified and established for recreational harbours as part of the overall program of the Small Craft Harbours Branch. The projects carried out each fiscal year would be subject to the availability of funds.
D. Provision for Private Development
Provision would be made to allow for participation by private enterprise to the fullest extent. In this instance, private enterprise would include the yacht clubs, boating associations, etc.
In regards to the provision of recreational harbour facilities for prospective priyate developers, the developer would apply for assistance through the Province. The Province would in turn review the proposal, either through the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation or an appropriate line department. If it were determined to be a viable project, the Province would recommend to the Small Craft Harbours Branch that the developer be provided assistance from the Federal Government. This assistance would be in the form of the provision of marine facilities; the value of which would have to be matched by the developer in landward development or other necessary infrastructure. It is expected that there will be very little, if - 33 - any, private marina development to 1985 due to the high operating costs and projected low cost recovery because of the small number of boats in a specific area.
E. Operation and Maintenance
The Province would be responsible for the management and oper ation of the facilities, similar to the program which was developed for the construction of the marine service centres in the Newfound land Region. In this regard the Department of Fisheries will be operating and managing seventeen (17) marine service centres by 1980, and therefore would be in a good position to manage any recreational harbour facilities that would be provided. This could be appropriate in regards to smaller facilities such as launching ramps, especially in the rural or remote areas. Otherwise any larger development in or near the urban areas could be turned over by the Province to the appropriate yachting association or municipality for operation and management. The private developer would also be responsible for management and operation of the facilities provided for him.
The Small Craft Harbours Branch would be responsible for all repairs in excess of $2,000. For repairs less than $2,000. the Province or the private developer would be responsible. The Small Craft Harbours Branch would be totally responsible for all re dredging work. - 34 -
F. Cost Recovery
The program should be adaptable to a cost-recovery system. This would be especially necessary in the larger urban areas where initial expenditures would be high. Boat owners would be re quired to pay a predetennined annual fee for the use of the harbour facilities; this would be acceptable to the majority of the recreational boaters. Also, a user-charge system could be implemented for launching ramps in areas where this kind of control is possible. Of course, in the more remote and rural areas it would not be feasible to collect user fees. -· - 35 -
7. ESTIMATED COST OF PROGRAM
7.1 Recreational Harbour Development
As we have sununarized in Section 3, the projected additional number of wet berths required to 1985 is 600. A list of projects for recreational harbour development that will provide the additional 600 berths required is shown in Table II. These projects have an estimated cost of $1 ,000,000. In addition, for other areas where there may be a shortfall of facilities, e.g. Botwood, we have in cluded an amount of $250,000, for a total estimated value of $1,250,000. These cost estimates are not based on any actual surveys or design, but instead are based on our general knowledge of each specific area, and hence these figures are subject to revision. All cost estimates are based on 1979 dollars. - 36 -
TABLE II
Estimated Additional No. Place Proposed Work Cost of ·Berths Provided l. Shoal Harbour New wharf $ 100,000 50
2. Curling Haul out 200,000 70 (Allen's Cove) Breakwater Marginal wharf
3. Long Pond Dredging & improvements 250,000 120 . Docking faci 1iti es
4. Stephenville Wharf & breakwater 75,000 25 improvements
5. Goose Bay Wharf & slipway 75,000 35
6. Holyrood Wharf (Finger Piers) 300,000 175 Slipway and utilities
7. Other Areas New harbour facilities 250,000 125 e.g. Botwood
Totals $1 ,250,000 600 - 37 -
7.2 Launching Ramps
As we have discussed in the report, there is presently a high demand for launching ramps for trailered boats throughout the region. These facilities would consist of a concrete ramp, and a gravelled turning area and parking lot. The est'imated cost (1979 dollars) of this launching ramp program is $1,000,000; based on an average estim- ated cost of $40,000. per facility. The following is a list of commun- ities or areas where the proposed launching ramps may be constructed:-
1. St. John's Area 14. Hampden 2. Long Pond 15. St. Anthony 3. Holyrood 16. Port Saunders 4 .. Bay Roberts l 7. Bonne Bay 5. Heart's Delight 18. Bay of Islands 6. Bellevue 19. Stephenville 7. Sunnyside 20. Port aux Basques 8. Clarenvi ll e 2l. Bay d'Espoir 9. Glovertown 22. Grand Bank 10. Lewisporte 23. Marys town 11. Botwood 24. Swift Current 12. Springdale 25. Placentia 13. Baie Verte - 38 -
7.3 Summary of Estimated Costs - (1979 Dollars)
Projects Recreati ona 1 Launching Harbour Total Year Ramps Development Costs
1980-81 $ 200,000. $ 100,000. $ 300,000. 1981-82 200,000. 200,000. 400,000. 1982-83 200,000. 300,000. 500,000. 1983-84 200,000. 350,000. 550,000. 1984-85 200,000. 300,000. 500,000.
Totals $1 ,000,000. $1,250,000. $2,250,000. APPENDIX 11 A11 I N D E X
APPENDIX 11 A11
Pages l. List of Facilities Available for use by Recreational Boaters
A. Marine Railway Haulouts lA B. Marine Service Centres 2A c. Provincial Parks with Facilities 3A for Launching Trailered Boats D. Other Launching Ramps 4A.
E. Small Craft Harbours Wharves Presently SA not being used by Fishermen
2. Number of Pleasure Craft using 6A Marine Service Centres Storage - lA -
1. A. MAR !NE RAILWAY HAUL OUTS
1. Heart's Content 2. Port au Chaix 3. Southern Harbour 4. Southport
These facilities are operated by Provincial Department of Fisheries.
Haulout capacity - 75 tons. - 2A -
B . MARINE SERVICE CENTRES
1. Admiral's Beach 2. Bona vista 3. Burgeo 4. Durrell 5. Englee 6. Flower's Cove 7. Little Seldom (Fogo Island) 8. Harbour Grace 9. Isle aux Marts 10. LaScie 11. L'Anse au Diab le 12. Old Perlican 13. Port Saunders 14. Southern Harbour 15. Wes 1eyvi11 e * 16. Winterhouse Brook (Bonne Bay) * 17. Harbour Breton
* Under construction.
These facilities are operated by Provincial Department of Fisheries.
Travelift capacity - 50 tons. - 3A - c. PROVINCIAL PARKS WITH FACILITIES FOR LAUNCHING TRAILERED BOATS
1. Barachois Pond 2. Bellevue Beach 3. Beothuck 4. Catamaran 5. Duley Lake (Labrador) 6. Fl atwater Pond 7. Freshwater Pond 8. Holyrood Pond 9. Jack's Pond 10. Jonathan's Pond 11. Lockston Path 12. Mummichog 13. River of Ponds 14. Square Pond - 4A -
D. OTHER LAUNCHING RAMPS
1. St. Phillips 2. Cupids 3. South River 4. Happy Adventure 5. Hare Bay, B. Bay * 6. Salton's Brook, Terra Nova National Park
* With the exception of No. 6, these launching ramps are managed and operated by the local town council or committee; and were constructed by them, usually in
conjunction with or ~s part of a Canada Works program for that community. - SA -
E. List of Communities where there are wharves which are not being used by the fishing industry, but could possibly be used to a limited extent by recreational boaters. In some cases the structures are presently being used solely by pleasure craft owners.
1. Rattling Brook 14. Musgravetown 2. King 1 s Point 15. Portland 3. Jackson 1 s Cove 16. Sweet Bay 4. Exploits 17. Champney•s East 5. Norris Arm North 18. Dunfield 6. Davidsville 19. Burgoyne 1 s Cove 7. Pound Cove 20. Lady Cove 8. Middle Brook 21. Admiral •s Cove 9. Glovertown 22. Forest Field 10. Traytown 23. Woods Island 11. St. Chad 1 s 24. Summerside 12. Upper Happy Adventure 25. Mc Ivers
13. Sandy Cove 26. Neddy 1 s Harbour - 6A
2. The following is a list of pleasure craft presently being stored at the Marine Service Centres for the winter of 1979-80. Approximately the same number of boats could not be stored due to lack of storage space. Similar statistics would apply for the 1978-79 winter storage period.
No. of Boats Place Stored Durrell 7 Harbour Grace 3 LaScie 1 Old Perlican 3 Port Saunders 4 Little Seldom 1 Southern Harbour 1
Total 20 APPENDIX 11 8 11 I N D E X
APPENDIX 11 811
Pages
1. Sample of Form Letter Questionnaire 1-2
2. Results of Questionnaire 19 SEASHORE ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES LTD. MARINE & CONSULTING ENGINEERS
P. 0. BOX 54i8S, EAST BND POSTAL STATION • ST. JOHN'S, NFLD. Al C 5 W 4 PH. 709-726-8750
October 12, 1979
Seashore Engineering and Associates Ltd. have been engaged by the Small Craft Harbours Branch of the Federal Department of Fisheries & Oceans as engineering consultants to carry out a Recreational Harbours Study for Newfoundland and Labrador. One aspect of our study will consist of assessing the extent of present Recreational Harbour facilities, and providing a preliminary engineering report as to what Recreational Harbour development should be provided to the year 1985. To assist us in making our study as complete as possible, we would appreciate you and/or your executive providing the following information:-
1. (a) Number of boats presently registered at your club or marina.
(b) Anticipated number of boats to 1985. 2. Total number of pleasure craft in your area, also indicating communities included. J. Number of wet berths provided by your club/marina. 4. Number of dry berths provided. 5. Brief description of facilities. 6. Federal or Provincial Government involvement to date; i.e. breakwater, dredging, etc., if any.
6 (a) Docking fee p~esently charged, i£ any.
...... 2 2 ••••.•
7. Brief description of any planned expansion or development. 8. Any other general information or comments you may have which you feei might be useful to us at this time. If you should have any questions regarding this query please contact either me or E. Paul at this office. We would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience. Yours very truly, /,;/~ fl >!!~ ., ~ '1-1 C'cJ~ £ / ~· J. BURDEN, P. Eng . 1 / SEASHORE ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES LTD. November 28, 1979
Seashore Engineering &Associates Limited P. 0. Box 5485 St. John's, Newfoundland AlC 5W4 Attention: Mr. Eric Paul Dear Eric: In reply to your questionaire, the following infonnation is supplied for Town of Shoal Harbour. At present there is approximately 30 pleasure boats, relatively small in size, using the harbour and I expect there will be around 50 by 1985. At present there is no wet or dry berths provided and people have to rely on keeping boats at anchor or pull them up on a sandy beach. There is, however, a small wharf facility in Clarenville which actually boarders on Shoal Harbour, but it needs to be extended to provide deeper water. Because it is such a good natural harbour, Shoal Harbour itself actually needs some sort of facility. A few years ago the Council applied for a Canada Works grant to build a small boat marina, but was unsuccessful. I can speak for the Town of Shoal Harbour when I say that although there is no actual plan for maine facilities for the next few years, we would welcome any discussion or participation in any suggestion re this sort of development. Yours truly, ..,,:/) / -· ,// I -~ L C ~- ·- /__~-- -~- MERLIN MILLS, MAYOR MM/ww Appraisal Construction Limited DE&llJNERS & BUILDERS OF CU&TDM HOMES, HANOVER KITCHENS, REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS & CONSULTANTS TELEPHONE 639-B949-i1940 - 40 MAIN STREET CORNER BROOK NEWFOUNDLAND AZH 1C3
December 12, 1979
Seashore Engineering & Associates Ltd. P. O. Box 5485 East End Postal Station St. John's, Nfld. Attention: Mr. D. J. Burden, P. Eng. Gentlemen: This is in response to your request of October 12, 1979 to Mr. George Stunden re boating activity in this area. Mr. Stunden has passed this request to me for reply. The information you require is as follows: l.(a) Approximately 50 boats registered at our club. (b) Anticipated number of boats tb 1985 is 100. 2. It is unknown the total number of pleasure craft in the area, as I assume this would include small runabouts as well as the larger cruising yachts. An estimate of this number would be in the hundreds. 3. We presently have 25 to 30 wet berths at our marina and the remainder of our boat owning club members use other facilities at this time. These other facilities are not totally suitable and these people intend to relocate their boats as the marina expands. 4. No dry berths are provided as most day sailing is done on a nearby lake. This will probably change with continued growth in the sport. 5. Facilities consist of a 200 ft. pier, used as a service wharf and an approximately 600 ft. shore breastwork which was placed in 1978. There is presently area for boat storage and parking behind the service wharf. Power is Seashore Engineering & Associates Ltd. Page 2 December 12, 1979
available in the storage area and there is water on the wharf. All boats are kept on moorings with the nearest being approximately 300 ft. from the shore. This is necessary because of the shallow nature of the cove out of which we operate. Some limited dredging has provided access to the service wharf, but this is not totally satisfactory at low tides. Some members have marine railways and we have made provision for a future haul-out facility. 6. Most of the work carried out has been through our own club efforts, as well as involvement by Canada Works with some assistance by Small Craft Harbours and provincial financing. 6.(a) The present fee is an annual one at $25 per season per boat. 7. It is intended to provide a proper haul-out facility, provide electricity to the service wharf and provide for a fuel service. Also, our plans include breakwatering of the cove, dredging, and additional shore breastworks so that we can provide proper berths for 100 to 125 boats. There would also be dry berths for day sailing. 8. There is a considerable amount of boating activity in this area, both from local enthusiasts and some cruising boats from other parts of the country do stop here. At the present time, of course, we have little to offer them in the way of facilities as our marina is only in the development stages. We are currently attempting to do additional work on the marina through a Canada Works grant, but so far have not received approval of our application. There have been various promises of help from both the municipal and provincial governments but, with the exception of one small grant in 1977 from the Province, have been unsuccessful in this. We did understand that there would be more provincial money allocated for Seashore Engineering & Associates Ltd. Page 3 December 12, 1979
recreational harbour development and that we would probably receive assistance in this manner. However, it would now appear that with spending restraints, this program has been scrapped.
I trust this is satisfactory but, should you require additional information, please advise. Yours very truly,
/lh ROYAL NEWFOUNDLAND YACHT CLUB LONG POND, CONCEPTION BAY SOUTH NEWFOUNDLAND P.O. Box 214 Topsail
13 DECE1·33P. 1979
Seashore Engineering and Associates Ltd. PO BOX 5'1+85 St John's,Hfld.
ATTE~,TTIOI;: l·:r DJ Burden.
Dear Sir: Reference your letter on Recreational Harbours Study for newfoundlc>...nd and Labrador dated 12 Oct. 1979. The following information is subr.iitted for your perusal.
1. (a) :L'he number of boats registered at this Club is one hundred and sixty ei;ht.(168). (b) :L'he a.ntici~ated nur:iber of boats b::r 1985 is two hundred and twenty. (220).
') '-. The total nu~ber of pleasure craft in the are~ is approximately three hundred and fifty, (350), ·which includes t~1e cor.i.muni ties of 7opsail, Cha;:ibe:-lains, l·:a.nuels, Lon~ Pond, ?o:-:trap, ~~elligre'.rs, Upper Gullies, and Seal Cove. 3. The nur.iber of ·wet berths provided by this Club is eighty (80) at wharves a.nd another twenty (20) o:i moorings.
L. ' . The number of dry berths is ninety ( 90), (·winter storage only).
5. I'he facilities consist of wharves • ••••• 2 ROYAL NEWFOUNDLAND YACHT CLUB LONG POND, CONCEPTION BAY SOUTH NEWFOUNDLAND P.O. Box 214 Topsail •••••• 2 6. (a) There has been no Federal or Provinci.:i.l involvement in any area other ~;han some dredging to acconodate The Summer Ganes (1977). (b) There is no dockin~ ~ee charges by the club as all available space is occupied by qlub rJenters. 7. Tremendous pressure for narina and ~oo~inB facilities have been exerted on this club and we are having great difficulties fundint; the e::i:pansion of such fci.cilities in order to meet public de~and. 8. (a) This club is situated in a landlocked salt water pond with access to the ocean via a channel. This channel is a public tho!t'ouc;h-fare used b~,t club mer:i'oers, other recreational craft, cor... nercia.l fisher:~2.n, fl.CLP, • • • 1 ':'T • • t • r • -, h - • ,.,, c r1 • r.er.10r1a :.;n1ve!'s1 y rla.rine ~\esearcl iiac, ..-r1e ar:.av.ian Coast Guard and visi tL1rr pleasure craft. (b) As a result of all this tr11ffic the c:1annel e.rea adjacent to the club property is constantly eroded by the ':Tal:e of so r:1a:J.:r vessels. Cribbing, shorinG-:..tp and li~ited dred~in~ is on ~oinc, the financial burden for this naintenance is placed on the ncr:J.bershi:p of this club. The Executive of this club apolosi~es for this late return and are Grateful for any ~ssistance e~tended on this subj~ct. ~u~ther infor:rra.tion if reqt1ired r:!~:r 1:e ot.tai:ied f!'Ot:l ~l1e Coa~odore: J Christopher Pratt or the undersi3ned. u 0.ll~~ t"" • l•r .-:1 /' .!.ll ~· ~ /-'--:'JC./. . <' - p --'~, 'T- --·_,.,..,-, - ( . ..: • ~-:._· .. 1 ·- J.. ~.:. '· I""' I .~ ~ l I:'- i"'i Roy.al Yacht ._...ti b'I ~ P. 0. Box 2, 4. Toosa1 ,t..'='~LICATION FOR MEMSERSH!" (To be accompanied by Membership ;.:e2s) Name ------····--··-·····-············--,. ------Address ... ------. ------Occupation ----.. ------·------.. ------Business Address ------Applicant Signature ------ Classification: i=ees: "3 \ 0 . ""'V l1 Social D Social ______$2f - : a ;1 Boating 0 (size of boat ______Junior ______•. $20. 00 Junior 0 Boatina: . 'IP ~\ "~ .,.....~ ~ s. ~ '<""" """~"\\:.. . I Up to 14 ft. ______s 1.::.00 15 - 20 ·rt. ______. _. _.$20.GO Proposed by 21 - 30 tt. __ • ____ • _. $.:.JO.CO ;I 'I Seconded by 3 ~ - 40 rt...... _. __ ~ 350.JO 41 . 50 ft. ------$60.00 il Date 51 ft. and over ______$75.00 t! Harcour d1...es •• ____ ~ _ _ _ S1. 50 !! :1 CYA •• - •.••. _ .• .:. ___ S::.OO ii •I . . - ...Jc,.,l UN;;_ :do I\'.:) • "' . '('VV -~ . ';cw mcmh " r ~ arc rc November 19th, 1979 Bay St. George Yacht Club Stephenville Newfoundland Seashore Engineering & Assoc. Ltd. St. John's Newfoundland ATTENTION: D.J. BURDEN, P. ENG. Dear Sir, In reply to your letter dated October 12, 1979, I am pleased to provide the information pertinent to your enquiry. Answers to the eight questions are listed as follows: l.(a) Presently utilizing facilities are six Laser Sailboats, two Power Boats, and a number of small boats. Indications are that additional boats will use the facilities during the 1980 season. - (b) It is not possible to anticipate the number of boats to 1985, but the Club expects an increase in membership over the next couple of years. 2. Sorry, but there is no way to estimate the total number of Pleasure Craft in this area. Most are used on inland lakes. 3. The club has two mooring berths. 4. There are no dry berths at present. 5. The existing facilities include: (a) Clubhouse is a converted Tugboat, LOA-90'. The interior has been PAGE 2 renovated. (b) Storage shed is approx. 10' X 16'. (c) Wharf runs East-West and is 120' long located at North end of facilities. (d) Breakwater runs parallel with and 100' South of wharf, projects 70'. (e) Wooden decked small boat laydown is between the clubhouse and the storage shed. (f) Slipway for launching trailered boats has concrete base, length approx. 25'. (g) Beach between wharf and breakwater is 100' in length. 6. These facilities were upgraded with the help of the Provincial Government prior to the Summer Games in 1974. 7. There is no planned expansion of facilities at this time. The Club is committed to increasing its membership and maintaining existing facilities. 8. It is evident there will be an increase in economic activity in the Stephenville area very shortly with the new paper mill coming on stream in early 1981. We woulp expect the club facilities will be heavily utilized by 1985 and improvements to berthing facilities and breakwater will then be necessary. Attached is three pictures taken November 19th, 1979, (unfortunately after the first snow fall). I hope these will aid you in your eval uation of the club facilities. Please feel free to contact myself if you have any questions or PAGE 3 require a tour of the facilities. This can be arranged almost any day at your convenience. My business phone number is 643-2141 or (Res. 643-5209). I wish you good luck in your endeavours. Wayne Cole VICE COMMODORE, BSGYC CC: Campbell Engineering, S'ville Arthur Germani, Commodore Colin Smith, Sec.-Treasurer Dr. Dermott Murphy December 14, 1979 P.O. Box 308 Sub Station 11A11 Goose Bay, Labrador Nfld., AOP lSO Seashore Engineering & Associated Limited Marine and Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 5485 East End Postal Station St. John's, Newfoundland Al C 5W4 Dear Sir: The Terrlngton Basin Boat Club was established about 25 years ago on a 10.5 acres parcel of crown land that was then within the boundaries of the Goose Bay Military Reserve. ft was originally organized to provide a recreational facility, boating sunmer, ice fishing winter, for military personnel and civilian employees of the military establish ment. During the early years the club enjoyed a large measure of support from the military system, principally U.S.A.F., and managed to build and, for a number of years, maintain an elaborate Labyrinth Floating Dock that afforded maximum protection to small crafts in the occurence of severe storms. Upon departure of the military, land management was transferred to the federal Ministry of Transport. This regulatory body allowed the con tinuation of the club charter, as a private members club under a land lease agreement, but refused to provide any support beyond the occasional grading of the access road. As a consequence, the floating dock was gradually washed away by ice pressure and severe storms and the remnants had to be dismantled in the interest of water safety. The only remaining facilities consist of two rather delapidated finger crib docks extending some 50 feet into the bay and one small, also more de 1ap i dated, shore 1 i ne dock. The club could qualify as a marina in the more primitive sense of the word, in that the shoreline is ideally sloped for the ease of handling of small boats, but those support facilities, la slipways, refueling, catering, communications, etc. normally associated with marinas are non-existent. ...... /2 -2- Now to answer your basic questions: 1. a.b. The club charter limits membership to 51, and stipulates that each member must own at least one boat. We have now reached this plateau, the boat count is 56 and is expected to remain at this level into 1985. Note;may even decline if the price of gas keeps rising. 2. The total number of pleasure crafts in this area is estimated at approximately 250 distributed more or less as follows: Terrington Basin 70 includes club membership Northwest River 75 Sabaskwashu Inlet 10 Mulligan Bay 6 Rigolet 50 Hopedale 40 If you are looking for an accurate boat count for all of the settlements on the coast of Labrador, I would suggest you contact the Boat Registration Division of the federal Ministry of Transport. They are supposed to maintain a complete log of boat registration by area code numbers and usage categories. 3~ The twg finger docks will accommodate 24 small crafts 12 1 to 14' tied at 30 angle from to the side of the dock. The shore dock will accommodate one 18 1 craft. All other crafts are either at anchor in the bay or brought to shore. The total number of wet berths is then 25. 4. The shoreline is a continuous dry berth. In the fall, the boats are either winched on boat trailers and towed to the owners backyard or rolled ashore on sticks and turned bottom up for winter storage. Sheltered boat storage and seltered bry berths are non existent. 5. The leased property extends some 1500 feet along the shore line at the end of Terrington Basin (see attached area maps). Topography; area . is substantially flat densely wooded, beach is sandy bottomed and slopes gently from the shore line, average water depth 10 ft from shore line is 4 feet. Mean tide is approximately 2 feet, maximum tide is approximately 2 feet, maximum high tide about 3,5 feet. Water is brackish and non potable. Site is situated about ~mile from sewer outfall so pollution count is rather high when tide recedes. Site is about 300 yards from sea-plane dock so one has to be cautious when maneuvering in the channel . .. .. ./3 -3- 6. Non existent beyond occasional grading of the access road. ]. The club membership of 20.00 a year covers all docking fees. 8. The present facility has expanded to the territorial limits and population density imposed by the lease and no further expan sions is contemplated at this time. As for improvement~ideally we would like to see the facility upgraded to full marina status but practically I think that everybody would be satisfied with a new docking facilities and. a slipway to maneuver the boats in and out of the water. I trust this information will satisfy your requirements. Should your require more information, feel free to call at any time during business hours 896-3354. Sincerely yours, /~v/vlfd~ Joseph A. Voyer Electrical Engineer P. o. Box 100 The Town of Holyrood NEWFOUNDLAND AOA 2RO HOLYROOD,---=D~e....,c=e..,_m~b=e-.r~7--197L Seashore Engi.neeri.ng & Associates Ltd. P.O.Box 5485, East End Postal Station, St. John's, Newfoundland. AIC 5W4 Dear Mr. Burden: As a follow up to your letter of October 12, 1979 the following information was supplied by Mr. Joseph Byrne, Chairman of our Marina Committee: 1. (a) Boats i.n Marina 1979 season .•.. 150 (b) Anti.ci.pated to 1985: The Marina i.s now filled to capacity. If #of wet berths could double i.n 5 yrs. the :#of boats by 1985 would double. 2. 50 - Holyrood and many communities from N. E. Avalon i.ncludi.ng many from metro St. John's. 3. 125 wet berths: Some boats have to be double berthed because of lack of space. 4. The number of dry berths i.s far beyond the demand. There are approximately 300 - 400. 5. Bri.ef description: (1) Seasonal Marina custodian. (2) Spring and fall launching and hall up service. (3) Reserved space and wet berth docking service. 6. Federal Government - Breakwater, dredging. Canada Works & L. I. P. construction of perimeter breast work. Provincial Government - perimeter breast work and finger pier. 7. Docking fee $3. 00 per boat foot (effective January 1980). 7. There i.s an obvious need for (1) several more finger piers. (2) a sl i.pway (3) electric hook up service for dry berths. Page 2 Seashore Engineering & Associates Ltd. December 7, 1979. 8. General Information: When the idea of a recreational marina was proposed for Holyrood several years ago the squid fishing was non existant and the marina developed along the line of recreational use only. However, since 1977 there has been a drastic change in this picture, with several millon pounds of squid fish been shipped out of the marina each year. This necessitates the marina to be now developed along these lines - (1) recreational (2) fishing. As per fishing there is a blantant need for modern loading facilities for the fishermen in a special loading zone which is now being set aside. Trusting the above information will prove helpful in your study. Yours truly, / / (Mrs.) Germaine Crawley, Assistant Town Clerk. JB:gc Parks Pares I+ Canada Canada Glovertown, Newfoundland November 19, 1979 Your hie VOl!e reference Our hie Nolfe reference 8310-2 Seashore Engineering & Associates Ltd. Marine & Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 5485, East End Postal Station St. John's, Newfoundland AlC 5W4 Attention: D. J. Burden 2 P. Eng. Dear Sir: Reference your letter of October 12, 1979 concerning recreational harbour facilities in Newfoundland and Labrador. l. (a) There are no boats presently registered at Terra Nova National Park. Our docking facilities are open approximately May through to Thanksgiving weekend. During the past operating season we issued 10 annual docking permits and 51 daily permits to vessels occupying space at our main public wharf. Pleasure craft using our three (3) wilderness docking facili ties are not required to purchase a docking permit. (b) Our main docking facility can accommodate approximately 15 vessels. This figure will vary slightly depending on the length of the vessels. 2. This figure is not available. Due to our protected coastline and resulting excellent boating conditions, we attract vessels from various locales along the east coast of' Newf'oundland • . . . /2 - 2 - 3. The docking facilities are not divided into individual berths. 4. Nil 5. Picnic Area Kitchen Shelter Washrooms Shower Facilities Laundromat Electrical Hook-ups Parking Lot 6. (a) Funding by Parks Canada 6. (b) Boats 18 ft. in length and under $2.00 Over 18 ft. and up to 26 ft. $3.00 Over 26 ft. and up to 34 ft. $4.oo Over 34 ft. and up to 42 ft. $5.00 Over 42 ft. $6.oo Seasonal Permit $2.00/ft. of overall boat length. 7. Nil Should you require further details, please contact the undersigned. Yours sincerely, P. Lamb for H. Brown Acting Superintendent Terra Nova National Park Parks Pares I+ Canada Canada GROS MORNE NATIONAL PARK P. O. Box 130 Rocky Harbour, Newfoundland AOK 4NO January 16, 1980 Your hie vo~e reterence D. J. Burden, P. Eng. Our fife N~e r8ference 8573-1 Seashore Engineering & Associates Ltd. P. O• •Box 5485 East End Postal Station St. John's, Newfoundland AlC 5W4 Dear Mr. Burden: I refer to your enquiry pertaining to an inventory of recreational boats in the area. Please excuse the lateness of my response. Gros Marne National Park has no marinas as such but I will provide general information that may be beneficial. Under a DREE funding program for the Region, an assessment was made to determine the need for a marina. The committee agreed not to recommend the facility as there was no apparent need. Instead recreational facilities in conjunction with fishing facilities was recommended. A haulout marine service center has been approved for Woody Point. In conjunction with this, a small boat launch has been addea for recreational boating. A small boat launch has been approved for Norris Point (Neddies Harbour) and should be constructed next summer. All local communities have wharves and most have one or more boats used exclusively for recreational. I would estimate approximately 12 large 1 1 craft in this category. In addition, many small boats (14 -18 ) are used for recreation as well. I do not expect to see a large increase in boating by 1985. I see a requirement for someone to have a small boat rental and also several tour boats for visitors. Bonne Bay provides some excellent scenery and also jigging is an attraction for visitors. . .. /2 r 2 The park is engaged in a planning exercise to determine our future needs. We see several small boat ramps and possibly one wharf for recreational potential. If a boat taxi need arises, several floating docks or a similar facility will be provided at several water oriented picnic, small primitive campsites or trail heads. The commercial fishing potential for the area is good. Many facilities will be provided and existing facilities maintained well. These facilities should consume most of the local recreational boats. I hope this information will be of some value and trust it is not too late for your study. Once again, sorry for the delay . . -, YourJS sincerely, M. H. Estabrooks Superintendent Gros Marne National Park Parks Canada