Appendix A: Notification Materials...N2G 4G7 Mr. John McBride Director, Transportation Planning City of Kitchener City Hall, 200 King Street West P.O. Box 1118, 9th Floor, Berlin Tower

Appendix A: Notification Materials

Notification of Study Commencement

Memo

n v:\01650\active\165000675\preliminary\correspondence\environmental\initial notification\675_mem_notif_strategy_study_commencement_mmcrev.doc

To: S. Howard, J. Corcoran From: Maya Caron MTO Southwestern Region Toronto Office File: 1650 00675 Date: May 13, 2008

Reference: Highway 8 and Highway 401 Interchange Improvements (GWP 3039-07-00) Initial Notification Timing Strategy

KEY STAGE DATE

Final MTO Advertisement Approval Friday, May 30, 2008

Send Notice to MPPs Wednesday, June 4, 2008

External Agency Mailing – Letter, Flyer & Comment Sheet Friday, June 6, 2008

First Nations Notification MTO to advise FN at regular monthly meeting in May

MTO to mail FN Letters Ad runs in:

The Kitchener Waterloo Record Cambridge Times

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 and

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Tekewennake News

Turtle Island News

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 and

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Deadline for External Agency Comments Friday, July 18, 2008

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. Maya Caron, MCIP, RPP Environmental Planner [email protected]


Wednesday, June 11, 2008 Saturday, June 14, 2008

Tekewennake News

Turtle Island News Wednesday, June 11, 2008 Wednesday, June 18, 2008

NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT Highway 8 and Highway 401 Interchange Improvements

THE STUDY Stantec Consulting Ltd. has been retained by the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) to undertake the planning and preliminary design for improvements to Highway 8 from 1.0 km north of the Sportsworld Drive Interchange southerly to Highway 401; and Highway 401 from the Grand River easterly to 0.5 km east of Speedsville Road, within the City of Kitchener and City of Cambridge, in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The study area is shown on the map below.

The purpose of the project is to address existing operational concerns and future transportation needs by developing alternatives to improve the interchanges at Highway 8/Sportsworld Drive and Highway 8/Highway 401 and to evaluate the feasibility of new access at Highway 401 and Speedsville Road. The study includes: Carrying out engineering and environmental field

investigations Developing and evaluating interchange and access

alternatives for Sportsworld Drive, King Street, Highway 8, and Speedsville Road

Seeking input from the public, property owners, local municipalities, external ministries/agencies and businesses

Identifying a recommended plan for improvements Conducting an Environmental Assessment under MTO’s

Class EA process to obtain environmental approval for the recommended alternative

THE PROCESS The project is subject to the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act and is being carried out as a Group “B” project under the Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities (2000) with the opportunity for public input throughout. Upon completion of the study, a Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR) will be available for public review and comment. This notice is to initiate the environmental assessment process for this project and to obtain preliminary comments from agencies, stakeholders, and the public. You are invited to submit comments or questions to the project team until July 18, 2008. A Public Information Centre (PIC) will be held during the study to provide opportunities to review and comment on the improvement alternatives. Notices will be placed in this newspaper and sent to the project mailing list in advance of the PIC. COMMENTS If you wish to comment on this project, have your name added to the project mailing list, or have any questions regarding the study, please contact one of the following project team members:

Mr. Gregg Cooke, P. Eng. Consultant Project Manager Stantec Consulting Ltd. 1400 Rymal Road East Hamilton ON L8W 3N9 Tel: (905) 381-3227 Call Collect: (905) 385-3234 Fax: (905) 385-3534 Email: [email protected]

Mr. Scott Howard Project Manager Ministry of Transportation MTO Southwestern Region 659 Exeter Road London ON N6E 1L3 Tel: (519) 873-4568 or 1-800-265-6072 Fax: (519) 873-4600 Email: [email protected]

Comments and information are being collected to assist the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) in meeting the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. Information will be collected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. All comments will be maintained on file for use during the Study and, with the exception of personal information, may be included in study documentation and become part of the public record.

June 6, 2008 File: 1650 00675

«Organization» «Address1» «Address2» «City» «Province» «Postal_Code»

Attention: «Title» «FirstName» «LastName» «JobTitle» EXTERNAL AGENCY LETTER

Dear:

Reference: Highway 8 and Highway 401 Interchange Improvements (GWP 3039-07-00) Notice of Study Commencement

Stantec Consulting Ltd. has been retained by the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) to undertake the planning, preliminary design, and environmental assessment for improvements to Highway 8 from 1.0 km north of the Sportsworld Drive Interchange southerly to Highway 401; and Highway 401 from the Grand River easterly to 0.5 km east of Speedsville Road in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. A notice providing detailed information and a key map is enclosed.

The purpose of this letter is to introduce the project, to seek your input on the existing conditions within the study area, and to identify any issues, concerns or approval requirements that your organization may have. Please complete and return the enclosed comment sheet by July 18, 2008.

If you have any questions, you may contact either the undersigned or one of the Project Managers named in the enclosed material.

Sincerely,

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.

Maya Caron, MCIP, RPP Environmental Planner Tel: (416) 598-7162 Fax: (416) 596-6680 [email protected]

c. S. Howard, J. Corcoran – Ministry of Transportation G. Cooke – Stantec Consulting Ltd.

Commencement of Planning, Preliminary Design, and Environmental Assessment

Highway 8 and Highway 401 Interchange Improvements (GWP 3039-07-00)

EXTERNAL AGENCY COMMENT SHEET

Please provide your comments on the project. Use the other side if required. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record. Your interests or concerns regarding the study area or undertaking are: Your organization/agency can provide the following environmental (i.e., natural, social, economic or cultural) information: The level of involvement you wish to have on this project is: Other concerns or comments you have are: The contact name and mailing address for your organization/agency (please check one):

is correct; should be deleted from the project mailing list; or should be changed to

Comments may be sent in by mail, fax or email to:

Maya Caron, B.Sc., MCIP, RPP, Environmental Planner Stantec Consulting Ltd., 100 - 401 Wellington Street West, Toronto ON M5V 1E7

Tel. (416) 598-7162, Fax (416) 596-6680 Email: [email protected]

Please submit your comments before July 18, 2008 Comments submitted by: Name of Contact:

Organization:

Address (including Postal Code):

Telephone Number:

Email

Hig

hway

8 a

nd H

ighw

ay 4

01 In

terc

hang

e Im

prov

emen

ts (G

WP

303

9-07

-00)

E

xter

nal A

genc

y M

ailin

g Li

st

June

6, 2

008

1 of

7

Exte

rnal

Age

ncie

s Ti

tle

Firs

t N

ame

Last

Nam

e Po

sitio

n O

rgan

izat

ion

Add

ress

1

Add

ress

2

City

Pr

ovin

cePo

stal

C

ode

Ms.

Le

eann

a P

ende

rgas

t M

PP

, Kitc

hene

r-C

ones

toga

230-

1170

Fis

her-

Hal

lman

Roa

d

Kitc

hene

r O

ntar

io

N2Z

3Z

3 M

r. G

erry

M

artin

uik

MP

P, C

ambr

idge

2-14

0 H

espe

ler

Roa

d

Cam

brid

ge

Ont

ario

N

1R

6J6

Mr.

Stu

Niv

en

Fish

Hab

itat B

iolo

gist

Fi

sher

ies

and

Oce

ans

Can

ada

- S

outh

ern

Ont

ario

D

istri

ct

304-

3027

H

arve

ster

Roa

d P

O B

ox 8

5060

B

urlin

gton

O

ntar

io

L7R

4K

3

Mr.

Bar

ry

Putt

Nav

igab

le W

ater

s P

rote

ctio

n M

anag

er

Tran

spor

t Can

ada

(Nav

igab

le W

ater

s P

rote

ctio

n P

rogr

am)

100

Sou

th F

ront

S

treet

Sar

nia

Ont

ario

N

7T

2M4

Ms.

R

ebec

ca E

arl

Env

ironm

enta

l Offi

cer

Tran

spor

t Can

ada

4900

Yon

ge

Stre

et, 4

th F

loor

Toro

nto

Ont

ario

M

2N

6A5

Mr.

Ala

n K

ary

Dep

uty

Dire

ctor

, Pol

icy

and

Rel

atio

nshi

ps B

ranc

hM

inis

try o

f A

borig

inal

Affa

irs

720

Bay

Stre

et

4th

Floo

r To

ront

o O

ntar

io

M5G

2K

1 M

r.

Fred

H

oski

ng

Sen

ior C

laim

s A

naly

st,

Spe

cific

Cla

ims

Bra

nch

Dep

artm

ent o

f In

dian

and

Nor

ther

n A

ffairs

10 W

ellin

gton

S

treet

R

oom

131

0 G

atin

eau

Que

bec

K1A

0H4

Mr.

Fran

klin

R

oy

Dire

ctor

, Liti

gatio

n M

anag

emen

t and

R

esol

utio

n Br

anch

Dep

artm

ent o

f In

dian

and

Nor

ther

n A

ffairs

10 W

ellin

gton

S

treet

Gat

inea

u Q

uebe

c K1

A 0H

4

Mr.

Kev

in

Cle

men

t A

/Dire

ctor

, C

ompr

ehen

sive

Cla

ims

Bra

nch

Indi

an a

nd N

orth

ern

Affa

irs C

anad

a -

Cla

ims

Eas

t of

Man

itoba

10 W

ellin

gton

S

treet

8t

h Fl

oor

Gat

inea

u Q

uebe

c K1

A 0H

4

Mr.

Bill

Mon

tour

C

hief

S

ix N

atio

ns o

f the

G

rand

Riv

er

Terr

itory

PO

Box

500

0

Ohs

wek

en

Ont

ario

N

0A

1M0

Mr.

Lero

y H

ill

Sec

reta

ry

Six

Nat

ions

C

onfe

dera

cy

2634

6th

Lin

e R

R 2

O

hsw

eken

O

ntar

io

N0A

1M

0

Hig

hway

8 a

nd H

ighw

ay 4

01 In

terc

hang

e Im

prov

emen

ts (G

WP

303

9-07

-00)

E

xter

nal A

genc

y M

ailin

g Li

st

June

6, 2

008

2 of

7

Exte

rnal

Age

ncie

s Ti

tle

Firs

t N

ame

Last

Nam

e Po

sitio

n O

rgan

izat

ion

Add

ress

1

Add

ress

2

City

Pr

ovin

cePo

stal

C

ode

Cou

ncil

Ms.

Jo

-Ann

G

reen

e La

nds

and

Res

ourc

es

Man

ager

S

ix N

atio

ns o

f the

G

rand

Riv

er

PO

Box

500

0 24

98 C

hief

swoo

d R

oad

Ohs

wek

en

Ont

ario

N

0A

1M0

Ms.

M

arga

ret S

ault

Dire

ctor

of R

esea

rch,

La

nds

and

Mem

bers

hip

Mis

siss

uaga

s of

the

New

Cre

dit F

irst

Nat

ion

2789

M

issi

ssau

ga

Roa

d

R.R

. 6

Hag

ersv

ille

Ont

ario

N

0A

1H0

Chi

ef B

rian

LeFo

rme

Chi

ef

Mis

siss

uaga

s of

the

New

Cre

dit F

irst

Nat

ion

2789

M

issi

ssau

ga

Roa

d

R.R

. 6

Hag

ersv

ille

Ont

ario

N

0A

1H0

Mr.

Al

Mur

ray

Are

a S

uper

viso

r - G

uelp

h M

inis

try o

f Nat

ural

R

esou

rces

- G

uelp

h D

istri

ct O

ffice

1 S

tone

Roa

d W

est

G

uelp

h O

ntar

io

N1G

4Y

2

Mr.

Ken

C

orne

lisse

A

rea

Bio

logi

st

Min

istry

of N

atur

al

Res

ourc

es -

Gue

lph

Dis

trict

Offi

ce

1 S

tone

Roa

d W

est

G

uelp

h O

ntar

io

N1G

4Y

2

Mr.

M

ike

Sto

ne

Gue

lph

Dis

trict

Pla

nner

M

inis

try o

f Nat

ural

R

esou

rces

- G

uelp

h D

istri

ct O

ffice

1 S

tone

Roa

d W

est

G

uelp

h O

ntar

io

N1G

4Y

2

Ms.

Je

nnife

r A

rthur

E

nviro

nmen

tal

Ass

essm

ent a

nd P

lann

ing

Coo

rdin

ator

Min

istry

of t

he

Env

ironm

ent -

Wes

t C

entra

l Reg

ion

119

Kin

g S

treet

W

est

12th

Flo

or

Ham

ilton

O

ntar

io

L8P

4Y

7

Mr.

Bar

ry

Duf

fey

A/A

PE

P S

uper

viso

r M

inis

try o

f the

E

nviro

nmen

t - W

est

Cen

tral R

egio

n

119

Kin

g S

treet

W

est

12th

Flo

or

Ham

ilton

O

ntar

io

L8P

4Y

7

Ms.

D

olly

G

oyet

te

Gue

lph

Dis

trict

Man

ager

M

inis

try o

f the

E

nviro

nmen

t - W

est

Cen

tral R

egio

n

1 S

tone

Roa

d W

est

4th

Floo

r G

uelp

h O

ntar

io

N1G

4Y

2

Mr.

Todd

P

aylo

r A

rea

Env

ironm

enta

l O

ffice

r M

inis

try o

f the

E

nviro

nmen

t - W

est

Cen

tral R

egio

n

1 S

tone

Roa

d W

est

4th

Floo

r G

uelp

h O

ntar

io

N1G

4Y

2

Hig

hway

8 a

nd H

ighw

ay 4

01 In

terc

hang

e Im

prov

emen

ts (G

WP

303

9-07

-00)

E

xter

nal A

genc

y M

ailin

g Li

st

June

6, 2

008

3 of

7

Exte

rnal

Age

ncie

s Ti

tle

Firs

t N

ame

Last

Nam

e Po

sitio

n O

rgan

izat

ion

Add

ress

1

Add

ress

2

City

Pr

ovin

cePo

stal

C

ode

Ms.

K

athy

G

lase

r R

egio

nal S

ervi

ces

Coo

rdin

ator

M

inis

tries

of

Citi

zens

hip,

Im

mig

ratio

n,

Cul

ture

, Tou

rism

, an

d H

ealth

P

rom

otio

n

30 D

uke

Stre

et W

K

itche

ner

Ont

ario

N

2H

3W5

Mr.

Pau

l Sa

mso

n To

uris

m In

dust

ry A

dvis

or

Min

istry

of T

ouris

m

and

Rec

reat

ion

30 D

uke

Stre

et W

Sui

te 4

05

Kitc

hene

r O

ntar

io

N2H

3W

5 M

r. D

rew

C

rinkl

aw

Rur

al P

lann

er

Sou

thw

este

rn O

ntar

io

Min

istry

of

Agr

icul

ture

66

7 E

xete

r Roa

d

Lond

on

Ont

ario

N

6E

1L3

Mr.

Dav

id

Coo

per

Rur

al P

lann

er, W

est

Cen

tral O

ntar

io

Min

istry

of

Agr

icul

ture

, Foo

d an

d R

ural

Affa

irs,

Agr

icul

tura

l Lan

d U

se

Wel

lingt

on P

lace

RR

1

Ferg

us

Ont

ario

N

1M

2W3

Ms.

Ta

mar

a An

son-

Car

twrig

ht

Her

itage

Adv

iser

M

inis

try o

f Cul

ture

- C

ultu

ral S

ervi

ces

Uni

t

400

Uni

vers

ity

Ave

nue

4th

Floo

r To

ront

o O

ntar

io

M7A

2R

9

Mr.

Mic

hael

Jo

hnso

n M

anag

er, H

erita

ge

Ope

ratio

ns U

nit

Min

istry

of C

ultu

re -

Cul

tura

l Ser

vice

s U

nit

400

Uni

vers

ity

Ave

nue

4th

Floo

r To

ront

o O

ntar

io

M7A

2R

9

Mr.

John

D.

Mac

dona

ld

Her

itage

P

lann

er/A

rcha

eolo

gist

M

inis

try o

f Cul

ture

, H

erita

ge O

pera

tions

U

nit

900

Hig

hbur

y A

venu

e

Lond

on

Ont

ario

N

5Y

1A4

Mr.

Bru

ce

Cur

tis

Man

ager

, Com

mun

ity

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Min

istry

of M

unic

ipal

A

ffairs

and

Hou

sing

64

9 E

xete

r Roa

d2n

d Fl

oor

Lond

on

Ont

ario

N

6E

1L3

Mr.

Ala

n D

illab

ough

M

anag

er, A

sset

Pla

nnin

g O

ntar

io R

ealty

C

orpo

ratio

n 1

Dun

das

Stre

et

W

To

ront

o O

ntar

io

M5G

2L

5 S/

Sgt.

John

M

raud

D

etac

hmen

t Com

man

der

Ont

ario

Pro

vinc

ial

Pol

ice,

Cam

brid

ge

500

Bea

verd

ale

Roa

d B

ox 2

1060

C

ambr

idge

O

ntar

io

N3C

4B

1

Hig

hway

8 a

nd H

ighw

ay 4

01 In

terc

hang

e Im

prov

emen

ts (G

WP

303

9-07

-00)

E

xter

nal A

genc

y M

ailin

g Li

st

June

6, 2

008

4 of

7

Exte

rnal

Age

ncie

s Ti

tle

Firs

t N

ame

Last

Nam

e Po

sitio

n O

rgan

izat

ion

Add

ress

1

Add

ress

2

City

Pr

ovin

cePo

stal

C

ode

Det

achm

ent

Mr.

R.

Gos

se

City

Cle

rk

City

of K

itche

ner

City

Hal

l, 20

0 K

ing

Stre

et W

est

P.O

. Box

111

8,

2nd

Floo

r, B

erlin

To

wer

Kitc

hene

r O

ntar

io

N2G

4G

7

Mr.

John

M

cBrid

e D

irect

or, T

rans

porta

tion

Pla

nnin

g C

ity o

f Kitc

hene

r C

ity H

all,

200

Kin

g S

treet

Wes

tP

.O. B

ox 1

118,

9t

h Fl

oor,

Ber

lin

Tow

er

Kitc

hene

r O

ntar

io

N2G

4G

7

Mr.

Jeff

Willm

er

Dire

ctor

of P

lann

ing

City

of K

itche

ner

City

Hal

l, 20

0 K

ing

Stre

et W

est

P.O

. Box

111

8,

6th

Floo

r, B

erlin

To

wer

Kitc

hene

r O

ntar

io

N2G

4G

7

Ms.

M

iche

lle W

ade

Her

itage

Pla

nner

C

ity o

f Kitc

hene

r C

ity H

all,

200

Kin

g S

treet

Wes

tP

.O. B

ox 1

118,

6t

h Fl

oor,

Ber

lin

Tow

er

Kitc

hene

r O

ntar

io

N2G

4G

7

Mr.

Rod

R

egie

r E

xecu

tive

Dire

ctor

, E

cono

mic

Dev

elop

men

t C

ity o

f Kitc

hene

r C

ity H

all,

200

Kin

g S

treet

Wes

tP

.O. B

ox 1

118,

6t

h Fl

oor,

Ber

lin

Tow

er

Kitc

hene

r O

ntar

io

N2G

4G

7

Ms.

B

arba

ra

Ste

iner

S

enio

r Env

ironm

enta

l P

lann

er

City

of K

itche

ner

City

Hal

l, 20

0 K

ing

Stre

et W

est

P.O

. Box

111

8,

6th

Floo

r, B

erlin

To

wer

Kitc

hene

r O

ntar

io

N2G

4G

7

K.

Fl

etch

er

Reg

iona

l Cle

rk

Reg

iona

l M

unic

ipal

ity o

f W

ater

loo

150

Fred

eric

k S

treet

1s

t Flo

or

Kitc

hene

r O

ntar

io

N2G

4J

3

Mr.

John

F.

Ham

mer

D

irect

or, T

rans

porta

tion

Reg

iona

l M

unic

ipal

ity o

f W

ater

loo

150

Fred

eric

k S

treet

Kitc

hene

r O

ntar

io

N2G

4J

3

Ms.

N

ancy

B

utto

n M

anag

er o

f Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Eng

inee

ring

Reg

iona

l M

unic

ipal

ity o

f W

ater

loo

150

Fred

eric

k S

treet

7t

h Fl

oor

Kitc

hene

r O

ntar

io

N2G

4J

3

Mr.

Chr

is

Gos

selin

M

anag

er, E

nviro

nmen

tal

Pla

nnin

g R

egio

nal

Mun

icip

ality

of

150

Fred

eric

k S

treet

7t

h Fl

oor

Kitc

hene

r O

ntar

io

N2G

4J

3

Hig

hway

8 a

nd H

ighw

ay 4

01 In

terc

hang

e Im

prov

emen

ts (G

WP

303

9-07

-00)

E

xter

nal A

genc

y M

ailin

g Li

st

June

6, 2

008

5 of

7

Exte

rnal

Age

ncie

s Ti

tle

Firs

t N

ame

Last

Nam

e Po

sitio

n O

rgan

izat

ion

Add

ress

1

Add

ress

2

City

Pr

ovin

cePo

stal

C

ode

Wat

erlo

o

Chi

ef M

atth

ew

A.

Torig

ian

W

ater

loo

Reg

iona

l P

olic

e S

ervi

ce

200

Map

le G

rove

R

oad

PO

Box

307

0 K

itche

ner

Ont

ario

N

3H

5M1

Mr.

Ale

x M

itche

ll C

ity C

lerk

C

ity o

f Cam

brid

ge

50 D

icks

on S

treet

PO

Box

669

C

ambr

idge

O

ntar

io

N1R

5W

8 M

r. Ed

K

ovac

s C

omm

issi

oner

of

Tran

spor

tatio

n an

d P

ublic

W

orks

City

of C

ambr

idge

50

Dic

kson

Stre

etP

O B

ox 6

69

Cam

brid

ge

Ont

ario

N

1R

5W8

Mr.

Bo

Den

smor

e D

irect

or o

f Eco

nom

ic

Dev

elop

men

t C

ity o

f Cam

brid

ge

50 D

icks

on S

treet

PO

Box

669

C

ambr

idge

O

ntar

io

N1R

5W

8 M

s.

Jane

t B

abco

ck

Com

mis

sion

er o

f Pla

nnin

g Se

rvic

es

City

of C

ambr

idge

50

Dic

kson

Stre

etP

O B

ox 6

69

Cam

brid

ge

Ont

ario

N

1R

5W8

Mr.

Phi

l D

eche

ne

Dire

ctor

of P

ublic

Wor

ks

The

Cor

pora

tion

of

the

City

of

Cam

brid

ge

1310

Bis

hop

Stre

et

C

ambr

idge

O

ntar

io

N1R

6V

5

Mr.

John

P

rno

Dire

ctor

E

MS

, Reg

iona

l M

unic

ipal

ity o

f W

ater

loo

120

Map

le G

rove

R

oad

C

ambr

idge

O

ntar

io

N3H

4R

6

Mr.

Tim

B

ecke

tt Fi

re C

hief

C

ity o

f Kitc

hene

r 27

0 S

trasb

urg

Roa

d Fi

re

Hea

dqua

rters

K

itche

ner

Ont

ario

N

2E

3M6

Mr.

Terr

y A

llen

Fire

Chi

ef

The

Cor

pora

tion

of

the

City

of

Cam

brid

ge -

Fire

D

epar

tmen

t

1625

Bis

hop

Stre

et N

orth

Cam

brid

ge

Ont

ario

N

1R

7J4

Ms.

M

ary

Sue

Fi

tzpa

trick

In

terim

Pre

side

nt/C

EO

G

reat

er K

itche

ner-

Wat

erlo

o C

ham

ber

of C

omm

erce

PO

Box

236

7 80

Que

en S

treet

N

K

itche

ner

Ont

ario

N

2H

6C4

Mr.

John

C

icut

tin

Man

ager

- Tr

ansi

t Se

rvic

es

Gra

nd R

iver

Tra

nsit

City

Hal

l -

Pla

nnin

g D

epar

tmen

t, 20

0

P.O

. Box

111

8,

8th

Floo

r K

itche

ner

Ont

ario

N

2G

4G7

Hig

hway

8 a

nd H

ighw

ay 4

01 In

terc

hang

e Im

prov

emen

ts (G

WP

303

9-07

-00)

E

xter

nal A

genc

y M

ailin

g Li

st

June

6, 2

008

6 of

7

Exte

rnal

Age

ncie

s Ti

tle

Firs

t N

ame

Last

Nam

e Po

sitio

n O

rgan

izat

ion

Add

ress

1

Add

ress

2

City

Pr

ovin

cePo

stal

C

ode

Kin

g S

treet

Wes

tM

r. P

aul

Em

erso

n C

hief

Adm

inis

trativ

e O

ffice

r G

rand

Riv

er

Con

serv

atio

n A

utho

rity

400

Cly

de R

oad

PO

Box

729

C

ambr

idge

O

ntar

io

N1R

5W

6

Mr.

Joe

Farw

ell,

P.

Eng

M

anag

er o

f Eng

inee

ring,

P

lann

ing

and

Wat

ersh

ed

Res

tora

tion

Gra

nd R

iver

C

onse

rvat

ion

Aut

horit

y

400

Cly

de R

oad

PO

Box

729

C

ambr

idge

O

ntar

io

N1R

5W

6

Ms.

S

ara

Wilb

ur

Dire

ctor

of D

evel

opm

ent

Gra

nd R

iver

C

onse

rvat

ion

Foun

datio

n

400

Cly

de R

oad

PO

Box

729

C

ambr

idge

O

ntar

io

N1R

5W

6

Mr.

Larr

y R

. M

cGra

tton

Pre

side

nt

Frie

nds

of th

e G

rand

R

iver

P

O B

ox 2

71

Fe

rgus

O

ntar

io

N1M

2W

7 M

r. N

orm

an

Rag

etlie

P

resi

dent

S

peed

Riv

er L

and

Trus

t 1

Tren

t Lan

e

Gue

lph

Ont

ario

N

1Q

2W1

Mr.

Shi

rly

Free

man

E

xecu

tive

Offi

cer

Rea

l Est

ate

Boar

d of

C

ambr

idge

75

Ain

sle

Stre

et

Nor

th

C

ambr

idge

O

ntar

io

N1R

3J

7 M

r. Fr

ed

Bitt

ner

Tran

spor

tatio

n M

anag

er

Wat

erlo

o C

atho

lic

Dis

trict

Sch

ool

Boa

rd

35 W

eber

Stre

et

Wes

t U

nit A

, PO

Box

91

116

Kitc

hene

r O

ntar

io

N2G

4G

2

Ms.

Li

nda

Fabi

D

irect

or o

f Edu

catio

n W

ater

loo

Reg

ion

Dis

trict

Sch

ool

Boa

rd

51 A

rdel

t Ave

nue

K

itche

ner

Ont

ario

N

2C

2R5

Ms.

V

aler

ie

Spr

ing

Her

itage

Pla

nner

C

ambr

idge

M

unic

ipal

Her

itage

A

dvis

ory

Com

mitt

ee 50

Dic

kson

Stre

etP

O B

ox 6

69

Cam

brid

ge

Ont

ario

N

1R

8S1

Mr.

Col

in

Goo

deve

C

omm

ittee

Adm

inis

trato

r H

erita

ge K

itche

ner

City

Hal

l, 20

0 K

ing

Stre

et W

est

P.O

. Box

111

8 K

itche

ner

Ont

ario

N

2G

4G7

Mr.

M

ike

Griv

icic

A

dmin

istra

tive

Ser

vice

s W

ater

loo

Reg

ion

Her

itage

Fou

ndat

ion

150

Fred

eric

k S

treet

R

egio

nal

Adm

inis

tratio

n B

uild

ing,

2nd

Kitc

hene

r O

ntar

io

N2G

4J

3

Hig

hway

8 a

nd H

ighw

ay 4

01 In

terc

hang

e Im

prov

emen

ts (G

WP

303

9-07

-00)

E

xter

nal A

genc

y M

ailin

g Li

st

June

6, 2

008

7 of

7

Exte

rnal

Age

ncie

s Ti

tle

Firs

t N

ame

Last

Nam

e Po

sitio

n O

rgan

izat

ion

Add

ress

1

Add

ress

2

City

Pr

ovin

cePo

stal

C

ode

Floo

r M

r. Jo

e M

cEw

en

Sup

ervi

sing

Tec

hnic

ian

Hyd

ro O

ne B

usin

ess

Cen

tre

45 S

arje

nt D

rive

P.O

. Box

670

0 B

arrie

O

ntar

io

L4M

5N

5 M

r. K

evin

Sc

him

us

Map

ping

Tea

m L

ead

Uni

on G

as L

td.

603

Kum

pf D

rive

W

ater

loo

Ont

ario

N

2V

1K3

Mr.

Way

ne

Cor

rigan

R

egio

nal M

anag

er

Bel

l Can

ada

P.O

. Box

920

S

tatio

n A

Toro

nto

Ont

ario

M

5W

1G5

Mr.

Dou

glas

Mac

Ken

ize

Gen

eral

Man

ager

G

oder

ich-

Exe

ter

Rai

lway

10

1 S

hake

spea

re

Stre

et

2nd

Floo

r S

tratfo

rd

Ont

ario

N

5A

3W5

Mr.

Dav

id

Luki

anow

M

anag

er, P

ublic

Wor

ks

Can

adia

n P

acifi

c R

ailw

ay

1290

Cen

tral

Par

kway

W

Sui

te 7

07

Mis

siss

auga

Ont

ario

L5

C

4R3

Public Information Centre

Memo

rjd v:\01650\active\165000675\preliminary\correspondence\environmental\pic_1\notification\675_mem_pic1_notif_strategy_apr16_09.doc

To: S. Howard, J. Corcoran From: Maya Caron MTO West Region Toronto Office File: 1650 00675 Date:

Reference: Highway 8 and Highway 401 Interchange Improvements (GWP 3039-07-00) Public Information Centre 1 Timing Strategy

KEY STAGE DATE

Final MTO Advertisement and Notification Materials Approval February 3, 2009

Meeting with Six Nations of the Grand River February 12, 2009

MPP Notification – Letter and Flyer mailed and faxed to MPP on or before Thursday, February 5, 2009

External Agency Mailing – Letter, Flyer & Comment Sheet Property Owners Mailing

Friday, February 6, 2009

Canada Post Bulk Mailing to: Post Code N3H, RR 32 and LC 0086 Post Code N2P, SS0016, SS0013, and RR 3 Post Code N3E, RR 32

Week of February 9, 2009

Ad runs in: The Kitchener Waterloo Record

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 and

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Cambridge Times Thursday, February 12, 2009

and Thursday, February 19, 2009

Page 2 of 2

Reference: Highway 8 and Highway 401 Interchange Improvements (GWP 3039-07-00) Public Information Centre 1 Timing Strategy

Tekewennake News and Turtle Island News

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 and

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Business Owner and Developers Meeting

Monday, February 23, 2009

1:00 PM to 3:00 PM

External Agency Meeting

Monday, February 23, 2009

3:00 PM to 4:00 PM

Public Information Centre Monday, February 23, 2009

4:00 PM to 8:00 PM

PIC Comment Deadline Friday, March 27, 2009

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. Maya Caron, MCIP, RPP Environmental Planner [email protected]


Monday, February 9, 2009 Saturday, February 21, 2009

Tekewennake News Turtle Island News

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 Wednesday, February 18, 2009

NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE Highway 8 and Highway 401 Interchange Improvements

THE STUDY

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) is conducting a planning and preliminary design study for improvements to Highway 401 from the Grand River easterly to 0.5 km east of Speedsville Road, and to Highway 8 from 1.0 km north of the Sportsworld Drive Interchange southerly to Highway 401 in the Cities of Kitchener and Cambridge and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The study area is shown on the map below. This notice is to announce a Public Information Centre (PIC).

The purpose of the project is to address existing operational concerns and future transportation needs by developing alternatives to improve access between Highway 8 and Highway 401 including an evaluation of the impacts and feasibility of new access at Speedsville Road and Highway 401. The following materials will be available for review at the Public Information Centre:

Access and interchange alternatives for Highway 401 with Highway 8, King Street and Speedsville Road and the Highway 8/Sportsworld Drive Interchange

Preliminary advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives

Results of environmental and engineering studies that have been undertaken

Environmental conditions in the study area (natural, social, economic and cultural)

Evaluation criteria and process to identify a Preferred Plan

Preferred Plan Members of the project team will be available to discuss the project and to answer questions. The Public Information Centre is scheduled for:

Monday, February 23, 2009 At the Knights of Columbus Hall

333 Speedsville Road, Cambridge 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM

THE PROCESS

The project is subject to the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act and is being carried out as a Group “B” project under the Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities (2000) with the opportunity for public input throughout. Upon completion of the study, a Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR) will be available for public review and comment. Notices will be placed in this newspaper and sent to the project mailing list in advance of the TESR Public Review Period. Stantec Consulting Ltd. has been retained by MTO to complete the planning and preliminary design study.

COMMENTS

If you wish to comment on this project, have your name added to the project mailing list, or have any questions regarding the study, please contact one of the following project team members:

Mr. Gregg Cooke, P. Eng. Consultant Project Manager Stantec Consulting Ltd. 1400 Rymal Road East Hamilton ON L8W 3N9 Tel: (905) 381-3227 Call Collect: (905) 385-3234 Fax: (905) 385-3534 Email: [email protected]

Mr. Scott Howard Project Manager Ministry of Transportation MTO Southwestern Region 659 Exeter Road London ON N6E 1L3 Tel: (519) 873-4568 or 1-800-265-6072 Fax: (519) 873-4600 Email: [email protected]

Comments and information are being collected to assist the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) in meeting the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. Information will be collected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. All comments will be maintained on file for use during the Study and, with the exception of personal information, may be included in study documentation and become part of the public record.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 100 - 401 Wellington Street West Toronto ON M5V 1E7 Tel: (416) 596-6686 Fax: (416) 596-6680

EXTERNAL AGENCY LETTER Friday, February 6, 2009 File: 1650.00675

Dear

Reference: Highway 8 and Highway 401 Interchange Improvements (GWP 3039-07-00) Notice of External Agency Meeting

I am writing to advise you of the first Public Information Centre (PIC) and External Agency Meeting for the planning, preliminary design and environmental assessment study the planning, preliminary design, and environmental assessment for improvements to Highway 8 from 1.0 km north of the Sportsworld Drive Interchange southerly to Highway 401; and Highway 401 from the Grand River easterly to 0.5 km east of Speedsville Road in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. A notice providing detailed information and a key map is enclosed.

A drop-in External Agency Meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 23, 2009 from 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM at the Knights of Columbus Hall, 333 Speedsville Road, Cambridge. A general public meeting is planned from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM. The meeting will provide you with an opportunity to review the Preferred Plan, provide comments, and address questions or concerns directly with representatives of the project team.

Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions prior to the meeting or if you are not able to attend and would like additional information about the study.

Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.

Maya Caron, MCIP, RPP Environmental Planner Tel: (416) 598-7162 Fax: (416) 596-6680 [email protected] c. S. Howard, J. Corcoran – Ministry of Transportation

G. Cooke – Stantec Consulting Ltd.


LETTER TO BUSINESSES AND DEVELOPERS Friday, February 6, 2009 File: 1650.00674 Reference: Highway 8 and Highway 401 Interchange Improvements (GWP 3039-07-00)

Notice of Business Owners and Developers Meeting

I am writing to advise you of a Public Information Centre (PIC) and Business Owners/Developers Meeting for the planning, preliminary design and environmental assessment study the planning, preliminary design, and environmental assessment for improvements to Highway 8 from 1.0 km north of the Sportsworld Drive Interchange southerly to Highway 401; and Highway 401 from the Grand River easterly to 0.5 km east of Speedsville Road in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. A notice providing detailed information and a key map is enclosed.

A drop-in Business Owners and Developers Meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 23, 2009 from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM at the Knights of Columbus Hall, 333 Speedsville Road, Cambridge. The meeting will provide you with an opportunity to review the Preferred Plan, provide comments, and address questions or concerns directly with representatives of the project team. You are also welcome to attend during the general public session planned later in the day from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM.






LETTER TO DIRECTLY IMPACTED PROPERTY OWNERS February 10, 2009 File: 1650.00675

Reference: Highway 8 and Highway 401 Interchange Improvements (GWP 3039-07-00) Notice of Public Information Centre

I am writing to advise you of a Public Information Centre (PIC) for the planning, preliminary design and environmental assessment study the planning, preliminary design, and environmental assessment for improvements to Highway 8 from 1.0 km north of the Sportsworld Drive Interchange southerly to Highway 401; and Highway 401 from the Grand River easterly to 0.5 km east of Speedsville Road in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. A notice providing detailed information and a key map is enclosed.

A drop-in Public Information Centre is scheduled for Monday, February 23, 2009 from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM at the Knights of Columbus Hall, 333 Speedsville Road, Cambridge. The PIC will provide you with an opportunity to review the Preferred Plan, provide comments, and address questions or concerns directly with representatives of the project team.

I am writing to notify you that the Preferred Plan has direct impacts to your property. Plans detailing the proposed impacts and property requirements will be on display at the upcoming PIC.


Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. Maya Caron, MCIP, RPP Environmental Planner Tel: (416) 598-7162 Fax: (416) 596-6680 [email protected] c. S. Howard, J. Corcoran – Ministry of Transportation



March 2, 2009 File: 1650.00675

Hand Delivered

Dear Resident:

Reference: Highway 8 and Highway 401 Interchange Improvements (GWP 3039-07-00) Notice of Community Meeting

The Ministry of Transportation is holding a meeting for residents and property owners whose property may be directly impacted by the outcome of the above planning study.

This meeting will be attended by a MTO property specialist who will be able to answer questions concerning the Ministries property acquisition process. The meeting will also provide an opportunity for residents to obtain additional information on other aspects of the project from MTO specialty staff and their consultants.

The meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 9, 2009 at the Region of Waterloo Operations Centre, 100 Maple Grove Road, Cambridge. The meeting will be a drop in centre format from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM.

Please contact the undersigned if you are unable to attend the meeting or if you require further information.




Appendix B: Public Comments and External Agency Correspondence

Public Input Received and Responses Provided

Highway 401 / Highway 8 Improvements (GWP 3039-07-00) Transportation Enviornmental Study Report Appendix B

Public Input Received and Response Provided or Action Taken Comment Response Provided or Action Taken

Do You Support the Preferred Plan? Yes • Yes, evaluation process appeared fair • Safety and the volume of traffic lead to support for

the Preferred Plan • Support the Preferred Plan since there is no

interchange at Speedsville Road – this interchange would negatively impact traffic operations

• Best option in terms of safety • The Preferred Plan moves truck traffic off of King

Street in both directions • There are already high traffic volumes on Highway

401 westbound – the existing Highway 8 Grand River Bridge requires expansion

• Support since there is no Speedsville Interchange, there are direct ramps from Highway 401 to Highway 8, and it provides for a transit terminal at the Highway 8/Sportsworld Drive interchange

• Relieves volumes on King Street while maintaining good access to the area

• Support sound barrier • Support proposed improvements to Sportsworld

Drive to address capacity and traffic flow issues for the southwest Hespeler industrial area

• Provides access to local business development

• Support noted

No • Do not see the need for the proposed

improvements • The Preferred Plan will attract more cars and lead

to more development and does not consider the opinion of local residents

• Traffic volumes for the Highway 401 eastbound to Highway 8 northbound move are not high enough to warrant this development

• Comment noted • The purpose of this study is to identify the

ultimate provincial transportation needs for Highway 401 and Highway 8 within the study area

• There is currently no direct access between Highway 401 and Highway 8 to and from the west. Provincial traffic is required to exit from the provincial highway system and use King Street (which is under the jurisdiction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo) to make the connection between Highway 8 and Highway 401 west.

• The addition of direct ramps between Highway 401 and Highway 8 to and from the west will provide a more convenient and appropriate connection for provincial traffic, and will significantly reduce traffic volume on King Street.

• This study was initiated to identify the ultimate property requirements to assist the ministry, local municipalities, and private landowners with planning and development within the study area.

1 of 15



• The Preferred Plan will increase noise and light impacts in the community

• Do not see anything to minimize noise issues

• Comment noted • A noise study was carried out as part of this

study in accordance with the MTO Noise Guide (2006) that was developed in consultation with the Ministry of the Environment.

• The noise study compared existing sound levels with future sound levels (with and without the proposed improvements)

• The study results indicate that the future sound levels will not increase significantly in the future (2021) as a result of the proposed improvements. The predicted increase ranges from 1 dBA to 3 dBA, even when considering future traffic volumes. Sound level increases in the range of 1 to 3 dBA are considered to be imperceptible to the human ear.

• Current noise policy indicates that a receiver experiencing an increase of 5 decibels or more at its outdoor living area (OLA) or noise levels in excess of 65 dBA as a result of highway improvements would qualify for the consideration of noise mitigation. Since the majority of Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs) in the study area are currently experiencing sound levels above 65 dBA, the noise study recommends the installation of sound barriers in the southeast quadrant and northwest quadrants of the existing Highway 401/King Street interchange. Noise barriers will be provided in several specific areas adjacent to the Highway where benefits can be achieved.

• Illumination will be designed to minimize light trespass beyond the property line. Measures to minimize light trespass on private property include the use of shields to make sure that light is directed to the highway instead of to adjacent properties. Final illumination details will be confirmed during detail design

2 of 15



• Too expensive – Speedsville Road Interchange serves a better purpose

• The feasibility of an interchange at Speedsville Road was considered to improve local access. However, an interchange at this location was not carried forward for the following reasons:

o The addition of interchange ramps at this location would create significant traffic backups on Highway 401 during peak periods, which would create delays for provincial traffic and compromise traffic safety

o Interchange ramps would impact the Speed River floodplain, the associated Provincially Significant Wetland, and Riverside Park

o There is a reasonable alternative (i.e. a full interchange at Highway 8) that avoids the Provincially Significant Wetland and that addresses local and provincial transportation needs.

o The proposed design could be constructed in several phases, as required, to extend the cost over several years.

• What were the traffic volumes that were used to evaluate the Speedsville Road interchange? Was future development considered?

• The Region of Waterloo Transportation Model (RoWTM) was used to assess the impact to the transportation network (i.e. changes in travel patterns and traffic volumes on provincial highways and local roads) for the improvement alternatives. The RoWTM is based on parameters such as population, employment, growth, and known travel origins and destinations within the Region. Future development growth projections are based on the current Region Official Plan.

• The Preferred Plan does not ease existing traffic on contiguous roads

• Comment noted. The purpose of this study is to identify the ultimate provincial transportation needs for Highway 401 and Highway 8 within the study area. Please contact the Region of Waterloo, City of Kitchener, or City of Cambridge if you have concerns regarding traffic volumes on local roads.

• Traffic volumes on King Street are expected to decrease by approximately 30% as a result of the proposed improvements, as vehicles on the provincial highway network will not have to use King Street to access Highway 8 or Highway 401.

3 of 15



Partial • Support all proposed improvements, but there

should also be an interchange at Speedsville Road • Support the Preferred Plan but there should be

additional consideration for access northerly to Speedsville Road

• The feasibility of an interchange at Speedsville was considered to improve local access. However, an interchange at this location was not carried forward for the following reasons:



o There is a reasonable alternative (i.e. a full interchange at Highway 8) that avoids the Provincially Significant Wetland

King Street Interchange Alternatives • Can the King Street ramp to Highway 401

westbound be maintained? Concerned about time delays, safety, and pollution with vehicles waiting to turn left from King Street to the ramp to access Highway 401 westbound.

• Traffic volumes on King Street are expected to decrease by approximately 30% as a result of the proposed improvements, as vehicles on the provincial highway network will not have to use King Street to access Highway 8 or Highway 401.

• The proposed interchange configuration, including the southbound left turn, will operate at an acceptable level of service.

Highway 8 / Highway 401 Direct Ramp Alternatives • Was a tunnel considered for the direct ramp from

Highway 401 to Highway 8? This may eliminate the need for sound barriers and minimize disruption to existing traffic during construction.

• The sound levels in the study area are predominantly from the existing Highway 401 and Highway 8 and do not increase significantly as a result of this study. Sound levels in the study area at most Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs) would still be above 65 dBA, therefore sound barriers would still be required.

• The tunnel option is not economically feasible and was removed from consideration in advance of the development of detailed alternatives.

• A lane from Highway 8 southbound should extend all the way to Highway 24 without providing access to Highway 401

• The Planning and Preliminary Design Study for Highway 401 from Regional Road 8 to Regional Road 24/Hespeler Road has recently received Environmental Clearance from the Ministry of the Environment. The study includes an interim stage for 8-laning and the ultimate 10-laning of Highway 401 between Highway 8 and Hespeler Road to improve traffic operations on the highway.

4 of 15



Sportsworld Drive Interchange Alternatives • Support a full interchange at Highway 8/Sportworld

Drive • Support noted. The Preferred Plan includes a

full Parclo A interchange at Sportsworld Drive that provides free-flow ramps to and from Sportsworld Drive and Highway 8.

• Access from Sportsworld Drive to Highway 8 requires a left turn – can the existing ramp be maintained from Sportsworld Drive to Highway 8 south?

• The interchange ramp terminal intersections on Sportsworld Drive will operate at an acceptable level of service.

• The Highway 8 southbound entrance ramp at Sportsworld Drive is located too close to the Highway 401 exit ramps, which would create traffic conflicts, increase congestion, and compromise highway safety.

• The configuration of the Sportsworld Drive interchange will significantly benefit Highway 8 southbound travel time between King Street and Highway 401; and will significantly benefit traffic operations (i.e. weaving) on Highway 8 southbound between Sportsworld Drive and Highway 401.

• Proposed a direct merge lane from Highway 8 northbound to Maplegrove Road eastbound instead of forcing vehicles to stop before turning east.

• Comment noted. The project team is currently refining the Preferred Plan and will consider including this connection in the final Recommended Plan, if possible.

Speedsville Road Interchange Alternatives • Believe that there should be an interchange at

Speedsville Road

•

• The feasibility of an interchange at Speedsville was considered to improve local access. However, an interchange at this location was not carried forward for the following reasons:



o There is a reasonable alternative (i.e. a full interchange at Highway 8) that avoids the Provincially Significant Wetland

• Do not support access ramps at Speedsville Road • Comment noted. The Preferred Plan at Speedsville Road does not include direct access to and from Highway 401 to Speedsville Road.

5 of 15



Noise • Noise prevention should be included for the

Preston Heights Area • The noise study was carried out as part of this

study in accordance with the MTO Noise Guide (2006) that was developed in consultation with the Ministry of the Environment and compared existing sound levels with future sound levels (with the proposed improvements), in accordance with current requirements.

• Current noise policy indicates that a receiver experiencing an increase of 5 decibels or more at its OLA or noise levels in excess of 65 dBA as a result of highway improvements would qualify for the consideration of noise mitigation.

• This comparison indicated that the future 2021 sound levels in the Preston Heights are predicted to be below 65 dBA and will not increase by 5 dBA.

• Use quiet pavement to decrease noise

• The project team has noted local residents’ concerns regarding noise from the adjacent highways. Your request that the project team consider using noise reducing pavement types (i.e. concrete) will be noted in the final Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR) and will be considered during the next stage of the study, detail design.

• Noise levels at Highway 8 and Highway 401 are currently unacceptable

• Comment noted. • The noise study was carried out as part of this

study in accordance with the MTO Noise Guide (2006) that was developed in consultation with the Ministry of the Environment.

• The noise study compared existing sound levels with future sound levels (with the proposed improvements)

• This comparison indicated that the future sound levels in the study area will not increase significantly in the future (2021) and range from 1 dBA to 3 dBA, even when considering future traffic volumes.

• Current noise policy indicates that a receiver experiencing an increase of 5 decibels or more at its OLA or noise levels in excess of 65 dBA as a result of highway improvements would qualify for the consideration of noise mitigation. Since the majority of Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs) in the study area are currently experiencing sound levels above 65 dBA, the noise study recommends the installation of sound barriers in the southeast quadrant and northwest quadrants of the existing Highway 401/King Street Interchange.

6 of 15



• Request consideration of a landscaped berm instead of noise wall

• Noise barrier locations are based on current Ministry of Transportation practice for sound barrier locations and are generally located where highway sound will be best absorbed. The sound barriers can be a combination noise berm/wall, or a noise berm, where possible and where property is available, and are normally placed adjacent to the highway right-of-way where they provide good acoustical value and allow for maintenance of the barrier and the right-of-way without creating a ‘dead zone’ behind the barrier. Alternative noise wall locations, the potential for a noise wall/berm combination and details, such as height, colour, and landscape treatments, will be determined during detail design in consultation with adjacent property owners.

• Noise from the new direct ramp will not be blocked by the proposed noise walls

• Noise levels on Limerick Drive are already too high • Aesthetics of the sound barrier should fit the

‘upscale’ houses

• The noise study carried out as part of this assignment in accordance with the MTO Noise Guide (2006) which has been approved and endorsed by the Ministry of the Environment. The sound level calculations for the noise study are based on a variety of parameters, including traffic volumes, percentage of trucks, speed, topography, distance between a receptor (i.e. house) and the grade of the road.

• Current noise policy indicates that a receiver experiencing an increase of 5 decibels or more at its Outdoor Living Area (OLA) or noise levels in excess of 65 dBA as a result of highway improvements would qualify for the consideration of noise mitigation.

• The noise study compared existing sound levels with future sound levels (with the proposed improvements)

• This comparison indicated that the future sound levels in the study area will not increase significantly in the future (2021) and range from 1 dBA to 3 dBA, even when considering future traffic volumes.

• The required noise barrier is primarily based on traffic volumes from Highway 401 and Highway 8 and does not change significantly as a result of the Preferred Plan.

• The proposed noise barrier (noise wall, berm, or wall/berm combination) and is approximately 3-5 metres in height in the vicinity of your property to reduce sound levels in this area to below 65 dBA. Alternative noise wall locations, the potential for a noise wall/berm combination and details, such as height, colour, and landscape treatments, will be determined during detail design.

7 of 15



• The existing Highway 401 bridge over the Grand River, and proposed new bridge should be built to reduce or minimize noise. The noise from these structures currently impacts residents along the watercourse.

• Will noise from the new structures over the Grand River affect the watercourse?

• Your comments regarding noise from the existing Highway 401, Grand River bridges have been noted. The new bridge will be designed to current MTO standards, which reduces or eliminates the need for bridge expansion joints, where possible.

• In addition, the rehabilitation of the existing Grand River bridges will improve the riding quality of the pavement, which should minimize noise from the structures. The final design of the widening of the existing bridges and the new bridge will be confirmed during detail design.

• Request that 24 hour sound monitoring be conducted to confirm noise levels, including weekend sound levels

• The Noise Study carried out as part of this assignment has been conducted using the Ministry of the Environment’s Ontario Road Noise Analysis Method for Environment and Transportation (ORNAMENT) Model in accordance with the MTO Noise Policy, which is the approved guidance at this time and has been endorsed by the Ministry of the Environment.

• Environmental guidance and standards are reviewed periodically to make sure that they meet current standards.

• Noise Monitoring is not currently proposed for this study.

• Who will maintain the noise barrier? • MTO will be responsible for the maintenance of the proposed noise barrier. Noise barriers are placed on MTO property and do not require access on private property for maintenance.

Environment • Too much time spent considering the natural

environment • In response to your interest in potential impacts

to the natural environment, this project is subject to the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act and is being carried out as a Group B project in accordance with the Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for Provincial Transportation Facilities (2000), which requires consideration for impacts to the natural environment. The current Provincial Policy Statement requires that impacts to Provincially Significant Wetlands be avoided, where possible

8 of 15



• Concerned about air quality • Concerned about air quality in backyard and

construction dust/pollution

• This study has included an Air Quality study to quantify air contaminant emissions from vehicular traffic along, entering, exiting, and crossing the highway and to determine how these emissions will affect air quality in the vicinity of the proposed improvements.

• The assessment was undertaken for a future no-build (2021) and a future build alternative (with improvements assumed for the year 2021) and used maximum emission rates (winter condition), worst-case meteorological conditions, and reasonable worst-case background concentrations. This type of assessment is consistent with other Air Quality studies for highway projects in the province of Ontario.

• The results of the air quality study indicate that air quality levels in the study area (at nearby sensitive receptors such as residential properties) will be within provincial standards. There was no appreciable difference between the future air quality with or without the proposed improvements.

• Concerned about construction dust/noise • Concerned that dust and fumes from highway

construction and machinery will require that the house (currently stained wood) be restained – this is an expensive undertaking.

• Short-term impacts to air quality include dust created by construction activities. Standard dust suppressants and erosion and sediment control measures will be used to minimize dust impacts during construction.

• Contractors are also required to abide by local Noise By-Laws.

• Request tree plantings to mitigate visual impact of new ramps

• Your request for tree planting to minimize the visual impact of the new direct ramps from Highway 401 eastbound to Highway 8 northbound has been noted and will be documented in the final Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR). A detailed landscaping program will be developed during detail design, in consultation with adjacent property owners.

Traffic Operations • Will increasing the number of lanes on

Highway 401 ease the congestion at peak hours? • Yes.

• Concerned about traffic flow on Regional Roads – would synchronizing the lights on King Street and Sportsworld Drive resolve this problem?

• Comments forwarded to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for further discussion on this matter.

• Vehicles traveling on Highway 401 should be advised (via a changeable message sign) to change lanes safely – this would minimize traffic delays on this stretch of the highway, and would eliminate the need for the proposed improvements.

• Comment noted. Traffic signage on Highway 401 will be reviewed during detail design.

9 of 15



Evaluation Criteria • Did the evaluation criteria consider the future

commercial development proposed north of Speedsville Road?

• The Region of Waterloo Transportation Model (RoWTM) was used to assess the impact to the transportation network (i.e. changes in travel patterns and traffic volumes on provincial highways and local roads) for the improvement alternatives. The RoWTM is based on parameters such as population, employment, growth, and known travel origins and destinations within the Region. Future development growth projections are based on the current Region Official Plan.

Property Impacts • Concerned about visual impact of proposed ramps

– suggest that noise barrier will have to be higher to minimize visual impact

• Alternately, trees could be planted to minimize the view from the property to the highway

• Your request for tree planting to minimize the visual impact of the new direct ramps from Highway 401 eastbound to Highway 8 northbound has been noted and will be documented in the final Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR). A detailed landscaping program will be developed during detail design, in consultation with adjacent property owners.

• Concerned about vibration from truck ‘jake brakes’ on the downhill grade from the proposed ramp from Highway 8 to Highway 401 westbound. Will this affect the vibration of the house foundations?

• The ramp from Highway 8 to Highway 401 westbound is designed as a high-speed freeway-to-freeway ramp, which will minimize the need for decelerating on the ramp. Any potential vibration related to the new structure will be assessed during detail design. A preconstruction program for existing buildings will be considered during detail design where warranted.

• Will headlights from vehicles on the westbound ramp shine into our property?

• It is not expected that headlights from vehicles on the westbound ramp will shine directly onto your property. However, your comments will be noted in the final Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR) and opportunities for screening possible headlight glare will be considered during detail design.

• Property acquisition requires relocation of a shed (currently right on fenceline), garden, and invisible fence – will MTO be responsible for the relocation of these materials?

• Your comments regarding direct impacts to your property have been noted. The project team is currently working to minimize property requirements at your property. However, since the shed is adjacent to the property line it is expected that it will not be able to avoid this impact. Issues such as impacts to landscaping, fencing, and minor structures are dealt with at the start of detail design through the property acquisition process. The timing for the detail design stage is not currently known and the project is not included on the 2006-2010 Southern Ontario Highways Program.

• Provided contact information for MTO property section

10 of 15



• Placement of sound barrier may impact views, and therefore, property value

• The MTO attempts to mitigate impacts to adjacent property owners. In some situations this has included the installation of sound barriers with transparent panels. The final design of sound barriers will be addressed during detail design in consultation with property owners.

• A detailed landscaping program, including trees to soften the views, will be developed during detail design, in consultation with adjacent property owners.

• Where will the sound barrier be constructed? Will private property be required for the construction of the barrier?

• All construction activities will occur on MTO property. Where property is required temporarily for construction purposes, the Ministry can request a ‘Temporary Limited Interest’ on a property. Property required temporarily will be identified during the detail design stage when additional details can be confirmed, and is compensated for according to fair market value.

• The construction zone will be fenced.

• Concerned about safety in the vicinity of the roundabout at the confluence of Limerick Road and Greensview Drive – the safety of this dark area will be further diminished when the sound barrier is installed. Planners should work with local residents to resolve this issue

• The project team has noted residents concerns regarding the safety and lack of light at the cul-de-sac at the intersection of Limerick Road and Greensview Drive. These comments have been forwarded to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for further discussion on this matter. Personal information is not included when forwarding comments as per the requirements of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). However, impacts of the sound barrier on local roads will be studied further as part of the future detail design.

• Trees cut down on private property must be replaced and the property owner would like to retain the wood.

• Request that the Ministry plant trees (such as Scotch pines or Douglas Firs) on the highway side of the proposed noise wall

• The Ministry’s standard practice is to replace compensation for trees lost due to highway improvement projects through new planting. A detailed tree inventory will be carried out during detail design to confirm trees impacted by the proposed ramp. A landscape plan will also be developed during detail design in consultation with adjacent property owners.

• Request that survey stakes be placed to identify property required.

• A survey is not being carried out at this stage of the study. However, to help you to understand the proposed property requirements at your property, a plan outlining the property requirements is attached.

• Concerned that the proposed work will impact house foundations (note – some homes in the Limerick Road area were built in the late 1800’s)

• Request a pre-construction to inspection, and an additional inspection one year following construction

• We understand that some of the homes in the area were constructed in the late 1800s. Impacts related to the new structures will be assessed during detail design. A preconstruction program for existing buildings will be considered during detail design where warranted.

11 of 15



• Concerned about impacts to wells and septic beds • This study includes consideration for impacts to well water and private septic systems. The detail design stage of the study will include identifying private wells adjacent to the study area for inclusion in a well water monitoring program. Details of well water monitoring will be confirmed with residents during detail design.

General • There should be another interchange from Highway

401 to Cambridge • Comment noted. The Ministry of Transportation

is aware of the municipality’s interest in additional access from Highway 401.

• The feasibility of an interchange at Speedsville Road Interchange was considered to improve local access. However, an interchange at this location was not carried forward for the following reasons:

• The addition of interchange ramps at this location would create significant traffic backups on Highway 401 during peak periods, which would create delays for provincial traffic and compromise traffic safety

• Interchange ramps would impact the Speed River floodplain, the associated Provincially Significant Wetland, and Riverside Park

• There is a reasonable alternative (i.e. a full interchange at Highway 8) that avoids the Provincially Significant Wetland

• The Ministry is working with the Region of Waterloo to address other access issues along Highway 401. The MTO would consider a future interchange at Trussler Road if desired by the Region.

• Local traffic from Shantz Hill Road accesses the new Highway 8 at Sportsworld Drive

• Commented noted. The Preferred Plan maintains access in all directions by providing minor modifications to the existing Highway 8/Sportwold Drive and Highway 401/King Street interchanges.

• Residents on Royal Oak have poor pedestrian/bicycle access to Cambridge – request provision for pedestrians/cyclists on the Fountain Street and Speedsville Road overpasses

• The Planning and Preliminary Design Study for Highway 401 from Regional Road 8 to Regional Road 24/Hespeler Road has recently received Environmental Clearance from the Ministry of the Environment. The study includes provision for bike lanes and sidewalks on the structures, if desired by the local municipalities. The Preferred Plan does not change these previous recommendations.

• Request information about who is filling in the Speed River floodplain south of Highway 401

• The project team is not aware of the work being carried out on private property adjacent to the Speed River referred to you in your comment sheet. Your comments have been forwarded to the Grand River Conservation Authority and Regional Municipality of Waterloo for further discussion on this matter.

12 of 15



• Illumination will affect residential properties adjacent to the highway

• Please provide additional information about light pollution

• Project team did not consider light trespass impacts on adjacent residential properties

• Proposed lighting will trespass on residential property.

• The project team explained that the proposed highway illumination would be a combination of conventional and high mast lighting. Do not think illumination is required.

• Highway 401 and Highway 8 will have full illumination in accordance with current design standards, which require consideration of highway geometrics, traffic volumes, interchange configurations, and the grade on the highway.

• Illumination will be designed to minimize light trespass beyond the property line. Measures to minimize light trespass on private property include the use of shields to make sure that light is directed to the highway instead of to adjacent properties. Final illumination details will be confirmed during detail design. The timing for the detail design stage is not currently known and the project is not included on the 2006-2010 Southern Ontario Highways Program.

• Request status of Highway 401 10-laning study (GWP 4-00-00)

• The Planning and Preliminary Design Study for Highway 401 from Regional Road 8 to Regional Road 24/Hespeler Road has recently received Environmental Clearance from the Ministry of the Environment. Please contact Mr. Bill Moore, MTO Senior Project Engineer at [email protected] or (519) 873-4653 for additional information regarding this matter.

• What is the construction timing? • Although the traffic volumes do not indicate that the ramps are warranted, as discussed above, there are traffic operations concerns on the existing section of King Street between Highway 401 and the Highway 8 / Sportsworld Drive interchange.

• This study was initiated to identify the ultimate property requirements to assist the ministry, local municipalities, and private landowners with planning and development within the study area.

• The timing for the detail design stage is not currently known and the project is not included on the 2006-2010 Southern Ontario Highways Program.

• The existing left turn signal for Maple Grove Drive to Highway 8 north is too long, causing delays for vehicles.

• Your comments have been forwarded to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for further discussion on this matter.

13 of 15



• Project should consider Light Rapid Transit • The Regional Municipality of Waterloo is currently carrying out an Environmental Assessment study to identify the potential for a proposed Rapid Transit line within the 30 km Central Transit Corridor (CTC) that links the city centres of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo. The study is intended to support the Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS), as well as the new Provincial Places to Grow Growth Plan, as one of the key catalysts in Waterloo to support downtown revitalization and control urban sprawl in the region. It would also provide one part of a planned inter-regional transit system linking the region to the Greater Toronto Area, Guelph, Brantford and Hamilton.

• The study is underway, and has identified a possible Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route along Highway 8, north of Highway 401, and a rapid transit station at Sportsworld Drive/Maple Grove Road. The Preferred Plan for a Parclo A interchange at Highway 8/Sportsworld Drive would provide for convenient access to the proposed rapid transit station.

• The Places to Grow Legislation directs investments in public transit as the first priority to move people and investments in highways as a priority for moving goods.

• The Ministry of Transportation is in support of alternative modes of transportation, including the Regional Municipality of Waterloo’s proposed BRT and ‘Moving Forward 2031’, the Region’s new Transportation Master Plan. Please contact the Municipality for additional information about these initiatives.

• Alternatives should be designed for average traffic flow instead of peak traffic flow.

• The purpose of this study is to identify the ultimate provincial transportation needs for Highway 401 and Highway 8 within the study area. The ultimate needs are based on future projected traffic volumes, which is standard practice throughout North America.

• Require schedule for ramp closures • Do not want Limerick Drive to be used by

construction vehicles

• A detailed construction staging and traffic management plan will be developed during the next stage of the study, detail design. Local residents and businesses will be consulted during the development of the plan, and will be advised of the timing of ramp closures in advance of the proposed work.

• Request additional information about property acquisition process

• Provided contact details for MTO property section.

14 of 15


15 of 15


• The Region of Waterloo requires an additional connection with Highway 401 in a location west of Highway 8 – West Kitchener-Waterloo has experienced rapid urban growth and there is significant development planned in the area

• Has there been consideration of a west By-Pass into Kitchener Waterloo from Highway 401 / Highway 97

• The Ministry is working with the Region of Waterloo to address other access issues along Highway 401. The MTO would consider a future interchange at Trussler Road if desired by the Region.

• What is the cost of the proposed basket-weave? • The preliminary design cost estimate for the “basket weave” structure is approximately $7 Million.

• Request a 3-D model of the proposed improvements

• A 3-D model of the Preferred Plan is not available. However, additional cross-sections have been developed to help visualize the elevation of the ramps from your property. A copy of these cross-sections is attached. We welcome you to contact the project team when you receive these if you have any additional questions.

• Concerned about property value loss • MTO typically only provides compensation where properties are directly impacted (i.e. where property acquisition is required).

• Concerned about garbage during construction • Your concern regarding debris from construction operations has been noted. MTO Contractors are required to contain construction-related materials.

• Future PICs should be held in Kitchener and Waterloo

• Your request that future PICs be held in Kitchener or Waterloo has been noted and will be considered if additional public meetings are planned during the next stage of the study, detail design.

External Agency Correspondence

Appendix C: Public Information Centre Materials

(available under separate cover)

Appendix D: Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystem Report

FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS REPORT HIGHWAY 401/HIGHWAY 8 IMPROVMENTS (GWP 3039-07-00)

Prepared for: Ministry of Transportation Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 49 Frederick Street Kitchener ON N2H 6M7 165000675 September 2009

FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS REPORT HIGHWAY 401/HIGHWAY 8 IMPROVEMENTS (GWP 3039-07-00) PLANNING. PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1.1

2.0 METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................2.1 2.1 AGENCY CONSULTATION................................................................................................2.1 2.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ........................................................................................2.1 2.3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS...................................................................................................2.1

3.0 EXISTING ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS...........................................................................3.1 3.1 SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES ...............................................................................3.1 3.2 FISH AND AQUATIC HABITAT ..........................................................................................3.2 3.3 SENSITIVITY OF FISH AND FISH HABITAT...................................................................3.11

4.0 PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT...........................................................................4.1 4.1 PREFERRED PLAN ...........................................................................................................4.1 4.2 FISHERIES ACT IMPLICATIONS ......................................................................................4.1

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES...............................................................5.1

6.0 SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................6.1

7.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................7.1

i

FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS REPORT HIGHWAY 401/HIGHWAY 8 IMPROVEMENTS (GWP 3039-07-00)

PLANNING. PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY

Table of Contents

List of Appendices

Appendix A MTO Riverine Field Collection Records Appendix B Photographs Appendix C Agency Correspondence

List of Figures Appendix A

Figure 1: Study Area Location and Limits ............................................................................1.1 Figure 2 Location of surveyed watercourses in the Highway 401/8 Study Area near Cambridge

Ontario. .................................................................................................................3.3

List of Tables Appendix B

Table 1 Water Quality Conditions in the Grand River at Highway 401 (September 3, 2008)3.4 Table 2 Water Quality Conditions at Station 16+300 (August 12, 2008) ...........................3.5 Table 3 Water Quality Conditions at Station 17+353.........................................................3.7 Table 4 Water Quality Conditions at the Speed River – West Branch; 2008 surveys .......3.8 Table 5 Water Quality Conditions at the Speed River – East Branch; 2008 surveys ........3.9 Table 6 Summary of watercourse attributes and fish habitat sensitivity for three Study

Area watercourses..............................................................................................3.11 Table 7 Summary of Speed River attributes and fish habitat sensitivity near

Highway 401 .......................................................................................................3.11 Table 8 Highway 401/8 – Preliminary Fisheries Habitat Impact and Mitigation

Summary ..............................................................................................................4.1 Table 9 Highway 401/8 – Preliminary Project Risk and HADD Determination ..................4.1

ii


1.1

1.0 Introduction

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) has been retained by the Ministry of Transportation, Ontario (MTO) to complete a Planning, Preliminary Design, and Environmental Assessment Study for improvements to Highway 8 from 1.0 km north of the Sportsworld Drive interchange southerly to Highway 401; and Highway 401 from the Grand River easterly to 0.5 km east of Speedsville Road, within the City of Kitchener and City of Cambridge in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Figure 1). Although the Study Area extends up Highway 8 to Sportsworld Drive, the only watercourses in the Study Area occur along Highway 401. Therefore for this Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems Report, there is no discussion regarding aquatic resources along Highway 8.

Figure 1: Study Area Location and Limits

FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS REPORT HIGHWAY 401/HIGHWAY 8 IMPROVEMENTS (GWP 3039-07-00) PLANNING. PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Introduction September 2009

1.2

The purpose of the project is to address existing operational concerns and future transportation needs by developing alternatives to improve the interchanges at Highway 8/Sportsworld Drive and Highway 8/Highway 401 and to evaluate the feasibility of new access at Highway 401 and Speedsville Road.

The study includes:

• Carrying out engineering and environmental field investigations

• Developing and evaluating interchange and access alternatives for Sportsworld Drive, King Street, Highway 8, and Speedsville Road

• Seeking input from the public, property owners, local municipalities, external ministries/agencies and businesses

• Identifying a recommended plan for improvements

• Conducting an Environmental Assessment under MTO’s Class EA process to obtain environmental approval for the recommended alternative

The purpose of this Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems Report is to document the existing aquatic ecological features at culverts and bridges in the Study Area. All natural environment features have been characterized based upon field assessment, secondary source data, and consultation with agency staff.

The scope of work for this report is limited to fish and aquatic habitat. The Natural Sciences Report (Terrestrial Ecosystems Report) was submitted concurrently with this report. Together, these two documents summarize the natural environment component of the planning, preliminary design and environmental assessment study for this project.


2.1

2.0 Methodology

2.1 AGENCY CONSULTATION

The study area is located within the Guelph District of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) jurisdiction. Both MNR and GRCA staff were contacted to obtain available background data pertinent to the study area.

Consultation with agency staff included:

• Mr. Al Murray, Fish and Wildlife Supervisor at the Guelph District office of the MNR was the contact for background fisheries data for the Study Area. Mr. Dave Marriott replied to the information request, providing text and a map with respect to the presence/absence of designated Natural Areas, wetlands and rare species within the Study Area.

• Mr. John Brum (Resource Planner) of the GRCA provided information and mapping regarding floodplains, wetlands and valley slopes within the Study Area.

• In addition to the above, the MTO Transportation Environmental Study Report for the Highway 401 Planning and Preliminary Design Study (Regional Road 8 to Regional Road 24) (GWP 4-00-00) was reviewed and any relevant information was incorporated into this report.

2.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

An ecosystems study along Highway 401 between Regional Road 8 and Regional Road 24 was completed as part of the Planning and Preliminary Design Study for the 10-laning of Highway 401 (GWP 4-00-00). This study was conducted in 2004 and 2005 for the purpose of identifying deficiencies and addressing the need for improvements related to traffic operation, capacity, and safety (FRi Ecological Services, 2005).

In addition, an Environmental Assessment for the widening and reconstruction of 1.5 km of Regional Road 38 (Sportsworld Drive / Maple Grove Road), as well as extensive road improvements at the Highway 8 Sportsworld Drive Interchange were completed in 2004 (McCormick Rankin Corporation, 2004).

Each of these reports included data pertinent to the requirements of the Terrestrial Ecosystems Report and the FRi report had some background fisheries data. Data within the reports was reviewed to enhance the scope of investigations for this assignment, where possible.

2.3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

Stantec staff conducted site-specific fisheries field investigations at culvert crossings and the Speed River on June 20th and August 12th 2008. Due to the probability of the presence of

FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS REPORT HIGHWAY 401/HIGHWAY 8 IMPROVEMENTS (GWP 3039-07-00) PLANNING. PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Methodology September 2009

2.2

mussel Species at Risk in the Grand River at Highway 401, fish community surveys were not conducted at this location (as per Stantec’s proposal). The habitat mapping component of the fisheries assessment was completed by canoe at this location on September 3, 2008. All fisheries field investigations were conducted according to the MTO Environmental Reference for Highway Design (2006). The purpose of the field investigations was to document existing aquatic ecological conditions in the watercourses that cross Highway 401 in the areas that may be affected by the project alternatives.

The spring fisheries collections were conducted utilizing a Smith-Root Model LR-24 backpack electrofisher and summer collections used a Model 12 backpack unit. All fish were identified and live-released in the field. The field investigations included a description of site-specific aquatic habitat (i.e., dimensions, bank stability, streamflow, riffle-pool-run formation), identification of key habitat features (i.e., in-stream and riparian cover, substrate characteristics, etc.), and the determination of general water quality parameters (i.e., dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH, temperature). The surveys concentrated on identifying sensitive habitat areas (such as spawning, nursery and feeding areas), potential migration routes, and any barriers to fish migration.

MTO Fish Community Inventory Record Forms were completed for each fish community survey. The Watercourse Field Collection Records and Habitat Mapping were completed during the June site visits for most stations. Habitat mapping at the Grand River and one reach of the Speedsville Road tributary were completed in September 2008. All field forms are included in Appendix A.


3.1

3.0 Existing Ecological Conditions

3.1 SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES

Data provided by the GRCA indicate there are a number of significant natural features in the Study Area including the Speed River Wetland Complex (Provincially Significant) and a locally significant wetland on the north side of Highway 8 just south of Maple Grove Road. Data provided by the MNR include the Freeport Esker Regional Earth Science ANSI in the vicinity of Highway 8 at Sportsworld Drive and deer wintering areas east of Highway 8 near Sportsworld Drive and on the north side of Highway 401 on both sides of the Speed River. The Grand River at Highway 401 has been identified as a Bald Eagle wintering area (MNR data).

Additional information regarding the above features and species of interest is provided in the Terrestrial Ecosystems report, submitted concurrently with this report.

Potential impacts to Aquatic Species at Risk (SAR) must be considered if any in water works are anticipated. Projects that do not cause a HADD of fish habitat would protect any fish SAR present through proposed mitigation measures. Maps of the Distribution of Mussel Species at Risk in the Grand River Conservation Authority’s jurisdiction indicate there is a mussel SAR in the Grand River in the vicinity of Highway 401 (DFO 2007). The wavy-rayed lampmussel is a Schedule 1 species (endangered) known to inhabit the Grand River. The most up-to-date Fish Species at Risk maps indicate the presence of a fish species that may be listed in the future – the Black redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei). This species is currently not listed on any SAR Schedules and the latest COSEWIC designation classifies the species as Threatened. The NHIC database identifies and occurrence of silver shiner (Notropis photogenis) in or near the Study Area. Silver shiner is a species of Special Concern (COSEWIC and SAR) and is a Schedule 3 species under the Species at Risk Act. This species was designated at risk by COSEWIC prior to October 1999 thefore must be reassessed using revised criteria before being considered for addition to Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act.

FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS REPORT HIGHWAY 401/HIGHWAY 8 IMPROVEMENTS (GWP 3039-07-00) PLANNING. PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Existing Ecological Conditions September 2009

3.2

3.2 FISH AND AQUATIC HABITAT

The Highway 401 Study Area from the Grand River to the Speed River is located in the Grand River watershed within the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (City of Kitchener and City of Cambridge). The aquatic resources within the Study Area are illustrated in Figure 2.

The following drainage features (described from west to east within the Study Area) were included in 2008 the fisheries and aquatic habitat field investigations. All watercourses flow in a southerly direction beneath Highway 401. Field notes and photographs of each section are included in Appendix A and B respectively.

In addition to the watercourses detailed below, there are several other centerline culverts along Highway 401 between Highway 8 and the Speed River. These locations were investigated in 2004 by FRi Ecological Services (see URS, 2008) in accordance with the Environmental Reference for Highway Design (2002) and it was determined that none of these locations provided fish habitat therefore they were not re-surveyed in 2008.

Grand River

In the reach within the current Study Area, the Grand River is classified as warmwater habitat (GRCA GRINs database). There is a large volume of data available regarding fish communities and populations in the Grand River therefore fish community sampling was not conducted as part of this survey. Furthermore, a mussel Species at Risk may be present in the area. Information provided by the Guelph District MNR indicated that in the vicinity of Highway 401, the Grand River supports Black redhorse (THR), Silver shiner (SC), Wavy-rayed Lamp mussels (END), and possibly Rainbow mussels (THR) (see Appendix C).

Aquatic habitat features and mapping were recorded on September 3, 2008. Upstream of the Highway 401 bridge, the river is approximately 100m wide with habitat alternating between runs and riffles. Instream cover is provided by cobble and boulders, which are the predominant substrate types. Water depth in the mid-channel ranged from 30 to 80 cm and there are areas of submergent and emergent vegetation. Nearby land use consists of the Doon Valley golf course on the west bank and an ‘urban’ woodlot and housing on the east bank.

Downstream of the Highway 401 bridge, river morphology is mostly run habitat with riffle areas found closer to the bridge. Riffle areas are 10 to 20 cm deep, while depth of the run areas reach a maximum of approximately 160 cm. Some submergent vegetation is present in the west half of the channel. Cobble is the dominant substrate which also provides instream cover. Instream cover is also provided by small proportions of overhanging vegetation, large woody debris and undercut banks. The immediate riparian area is densely vegetated with grasses and/or deciduous trees.


3.4

Due to the availability of data for Grand River and the probability of the presence of mussel Species at Risk in the vicinity of Highway 401, the fish community was not sampled as part of the 2008 Fisheries Assessment for this site. The following fish species have been documented in the Grand River in the Cambridge area.

• Northern pike • Largemouth bass • Smallmouth bass • Rock bass

• Green sunfish • Pumpkinseed sunfish • Bluegill • Yellow perch

• Common white sucker • Northern hog sucker • Redhorse

black (COSEWIC status: “threatened”) river (COSEWIC status: “special concern”) silver, golden, shorthead, greater

• Central mudminnow

• Blackside darter • Greenside darter (SARA Schedule 3) • Other darters

Rainbow, Iowa, Fantail, Least, Johnny

• Log perch • Northern redbelly dace

• Brassy minnow • Silver shiner (COSEWIC status: “special concern”, SARA Schedule 3) • Brown bullhead • Brook stickleback

• Common carp • Goldfish • Cyprinids

Water quality data collected during the summer field investigation are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Water Quality Conditions in the Grand River at Highway 401 (September 3, 2008)

Parameter Upstream of 401 Downstream of 401

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 6.2 8.8

Conductivity (μS/cm) 660 631

pH 7.64 8.05

Water Temperature (oC) 22.8 23.5

Unnamed Watercourse (Kinsmen Driveway) (Station 16+300)

This watercourse is identified on the GRCA’s GRINS mapping resource and is mapped as an unclassified stream. The watercourse was surveyed by FRI in June 2004, including electrofishing however it is not clear where the electrofishing station was located. Due to the nature of the watercourse, it is likely that fish sampling was conducted near Roger’s Road in Riverbank Park. After flowing under Highway 401, the watercourse is exposed within the highway ROW for a very short reach (<10m) prior to entering a large CSP culvert under the


3.5

Kinsmen Canada driveway. The outflow of the CSP culvert falls approximately 1 m to a large constructed pond. Water flows out of the pond over and through a series of limestone blocks prior to crossing under Rogers Road and eventually to the Speed River. No fish were captured during the 2004 electrofishing survey.

Aquatic habitat assessments (mapping only) were conducted by Stantec on August 8th (upstream) and September 19th, 2008 (downstream). Electrofishing was not conducted at this location due to the unusual nature of this watercourse (see below) however numerous fish were observed in the pond near the Kinsmen Canada driveway during the September 2008 site visit.

Upstream of Highway 401, there is no defined channel and the area is characterized by tall grasses and cattails. A small pool area (standing water) was present during the August survey in which patches of watercress were observed. The wetted area was approximately 1.2 m wide and 15 cm deep. The bottom substrate in the area of standing water consisted of muck and detritus.

As described above, the area downstream of Highway 401 has been highly altered and there are no fish present until the constructed pond approximately 30 meters downstream (via culvert) of the highway ROW. The pond is approximately 10 m long and exits through two other constructed wetland ponds and limestone cascades before entering a culvert under Rogers Road and eventually draining to the Speed River within Riverbank Park. Adjacent land use at this location is urban park.

As described in the Highway 401 Preliminary Design Report (W.P. 4-00-00) (URS, 2008) this watercourse does not provide fish habitat in the immediate vicinity of Highway 401.

Water quality data collected during the August field survey upstream of Highway 401 are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Water Quality Conditions at Station 16+300 (August 12, 2008)

Parameter Immediately Upstream of Station 16+300

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 3.6

Conductivity (μS/cm) 1328

pH 7.25

Water Temperature (oC) 16.3


3.6

Speedsville Road Tributary (West Creek) (Station 17+353)

This watercourse is an unclassified stream (GRCA mapping) that runs parallel to Speedsville Rd and enters the Speed River just downstream of the Speed River bridge on Speedsville Road. It was surveyed in June 2002 (PEIL, 2004), June 2004 (URS, 2008) and re-surveyed for this study on June 20th and August 12th 2008. In the Hespeler West Subwatersheds Study, this watercourse was referred to as West Creek (PEIL, 2004).

Due to the configuration of the creek relative to Highway 401 and Rogers Road., there are two downstream reaches in this survey, located upstream and downstream of Rogers Rd. The MNR and GRCA have no information regarding the fish or fish habitat in this watercourse, however it was surveyed in 2004 by FRI Ecological Resources as part of the Highway 401 Planning and Preliminary Design Study (URS, 2006). Fish species collected in that survey are summarized below and it was concluded that the watercourse provided warmwater habitat. As with all watercourses, specific terms and conditions apply to any construction activities in the watercourse and are described below. No Species at Risk are known to occur in this watercourse (DFO, 2007).

Aquatic habitat features and mapping were recorded on separate dates in each of the three survey reaches. Fish were collected by electrofishing on June 20th and August 12th, 2008. Upstream of Highway 401, maximum stream width during the summer survey was 2 meters. Stream morphology is primarily run habitat with a low percentage of pools, riffles and flats. Water depth ranges from 10 cm in riffle areas to 50 cm in an area of flat flow. Bottom substrate varies with stream morphology, with sand and gravel being the dominant substrate types.

Habitat in the reach between Highway 401 and Rogers Road was mapped on September 19th, 2008. Total length of this reach is less than 20 meters and the watercourse receives stormwater runoff from Highway 401. It is primarily ‘run’ habitat with some deeper pool areas at the downstream end near Rogers Road. Width ranges from 1 to 1.5 meters and depths from 10 cm to 40 cm. Surficial substrate is primarily sand however in the pool areas in the south end, softer fine sediment is present beneath the gravel. Organic fines accumulate on the east bank and near the entrance to the culvert. Instream cover is provided by overhanging riparian vegetation and some undercut banks.

The area downstream of Rogers Road was also inventoried and is predominantly ‘run’ habitat with some pools and riffles. Stream width varies from 0.75m to 1.5m with depths between 10 and 40 cm. Bottom substrate is varies along the reach, with the upper section having more cobble and boulder. Sand and gravel are more prevalent downstream of a large pool at a bend in the stream. Instream cover is provided by boulders and cobble and stream banks are stable.

The following fish species were collected by Stantec in 2008 and are consistent with species found in June 2004 (P = species present):


3.7

Date

Species June 2002 (C. Portt)

June 2004 (FRi/URS)

June 2008* (Stantec)

Aug 2008 (Stantec)

Creek chub P P P P Longnose dace P Central mudminnow P Brook stickleback P P P P White sucker P P P Bluntnose minnow P P P Blacknose dace P P P P Common shiner P P P P Hornyhead chub P P P Pumpkinseed P P Northern redbelly dace P Brassy minnow P yoy cyprinids P Goldfish P No. of Species 9 8 5 11

P = species present * safety feature of Electrofishing unit in high conductivity water resulted in low voltage settings and low catch efficiency therefore fewer species captured in June ’08 relative to other surveys

Water quality data collected during the 2008 field investigations are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 Water Quality Conditions at Station 17+353

Parameter Immediately Upstream of Station 17+353

(August 12, 2008)

Immediately Downstream of Station 17+353 (June 20, 2008)

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 9.1 9.2

Conductivity (μS/cm) 1428 3000

pH 8.2 8.45

Water Temperature (oC) 17.1 16.5


3.8

Speed River (Sta. 17+800 and 17+910)

The Speed River is categorized as warmwater habitat (MNR data). Approximately 200 meters upstream of Highway 401 the Speed River splits into two channels therefore there are two separate channels as it crosses under Highway 401. Approximately 50 meters downstream of the highway there is a short reach that provides a connection between the two channels. The two channels rejoin approximately 800 meters downstream of the highway. There are no migration barriers between the two channels, therefore they are considered as a single waterbody. Fish habitat for each branch is described separately while the fish community is discussed collectively.

Within the Study Area the Speed River is part of the Speed River Wetland Complex.

West Branch (17+800)

On the downstream side of Highway 401 the Speed River is approximately 30m wide. Mean water depth is approximately 45 cm in run habitats and 20 cm in riffle areas. Instream cover is provided by cobble and aquatic vegetation. Little cover is provided by riparian vegetation, which is comprised of tall grasses on both banks. The area is characterized by stable stream banks and bottom substrate dominated by cobble. Smaller amounts of gravel, sand and silt are also present.

Upstream habitat at this crossing is characterized primarily by runs, with some pools also present. Average water depth is about 40 cm. Instream cover is similar to that observed downstream, with cobble providing much of the available cover. The stream banks support dense grasses and erosion is occurring along a portion of the east bank. The bottom substrate is primarily cobble, followed by boulders, sand and some areas of bedrock.

Water quality data collected during the 2008 field investigations are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 Water Quality Conditions at the Speed River – West Branch; 2008 surveys

Upstream Downstream

Parameter June 20 Aug 1 June 20 Aug 1

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 12.1 - nr -

Conductivity (μS/cm) 825 818 nr 820

pH 8.80 - nr -

Water Temperature (oC) 18.1 23.0 nr 22.9

Air Temperature (oC) 23 27 23 27

nr = not recorded - probe malfunction; data not available


3.9

East Branch (Sta. 17+910)

Downstream of Highway 401 the east branch of the Speed River is approximately 20 meters wide, with depths ranging from 30 to 70 cm at the time of the June 20th survey. The river morphology is primarily ‘run’ type habitat with about 20% of the area comprised of riffles and 10% pools. Bottom substrate is predominantly cobble in most areas and there is submergent vegetation in some areas near the stream banks. During the spring survey, a number of young-of the-year minnows were observed in a quiet water area near the east river bank within the highway ROW.

Upstream of the highway, the river is slightly narrower and deeper with habitats alternating between riffles and runs. Boulders are more common in the bottom substrate in this upstream area and submergent vegetation is also present. Stream banks are stable and vegetated with dense grasses.

Water quality data collected during the field investigations are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5 Water Quality Conditions at the Speed River – East Branch; 2008 surveys

Upstream Downstream

Parameter June 20 Aug 1 June 20 Aug 1

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 11.9 - 11.4 -

Conductivity (μS/cm) 877 843 895 890

pH 8.76 - 8.69 -

Water Temperature (oC) 17.9 23.1 17.1 22.2

Air Temperature (oC) 23 27 23 27

- probe malfunction; data not available

Fish Community

Fish species captured in the Speed River in 2004 (historical survey) and 2008 are summarized below. The 2004 survey collected fish only in the west branch. Equipment failure in June 2008 resulted in the collection of fish from only the East branch at that time, while both branches were fished in August 2008. Species composition was similar between the 2004 and 2008 surveys. The reduced number of species in June 2008 was due to equipment problems. Greenside darter, a Schedule 3 Species at Risk was collected in all surveys. The MNR did not provide data with respect to fish collections or species lists for the Speed River however previous reports indicate that northern pike are also in the Speed River (URS, 2008).


3.10

Date/Surveyor

Species Jun 2004 – FRi West branch

Jun 2008* - Stantec East branch

Aug 2008 - Stantec West East

Creek chub p p - Longnose dace p Central mudminnow p p p - Brook stickleback p - p White sucker p - p Bluntnose minnow p p Common shiner p Hornyhead chub p p p Smallmouth bass p p p Rock bass p p p p Pumpkinseed p p Black crappie p Common carp p p - Greenside darter p p p p Iowa darter p p p Johnny darter p p p Stonecat p Rainbow darter p p p - Tesellated darter p p p Bullhead (species unknown) - p yoy cyprinids p p p Goldfish p p No. of Species 17 7 14 13 p = species present * safety feature of Electrofishing unit in high conductivity water resulted in low voltage settings and low catch efficiency therefore fewer species captured in June ’08 relative to other surveys.

Aquatic habitat in the Speed River at Highway 401 is significant as it is part of the Speed River Provincially Significant Wetland Complex, provides habitat for warmwater sportfish species and provides potential spawning and nursery habitat for species such as northern pike. The URS report indicates the presence of a species at risk, specifically greenside darter however its status was reexamined and designated Not at Risk in November 2006.


3.11

3.3 SENSITIVITY OF FISH AND FISH HABITAT

Tables 6 and Table 7 summarize the background and field data presented above and the overall sensitivity of the fisheries resources in the watercourses of the study area.

Table 6 Summary of watercourse attributes and fish habitat sensitivity for three Study Area watercourses

Watercourse/Crossing ID Attributes

Grand River Unnamed trib Speedsville Rd. trib Species Present Large diversity of warm

and cool water species None within ROW ; warmwater baitfish approx.20 m downstream (but fish cannot access ROW)

Cyprinids

Habitat Resiliency Classified as warmwater habitat (MNR)

unclassified watercourse that has been highly altered downstream ; poorly defined channel upstream

Not classified by MNR; determined to be warmwater habitat by 2004 survey

Species’ Dependence on Habitat

Habitat used to fulfill various requirements of species present

Fish do not depend directly on habitat of this tributary

Habitat used to fulfill various requirements of species present

Rarity Wavy-rayed lamp mussel may be present (SARA Schedule 1); two Schedule 3 fish species may also inhabit the area

No rare species or rare habitat identified or expected


Overall Sensitivity High Low – not fish habitat Low

Table 7 Summary of Speed River attributes and fish habitat sensitivity near Highway 401

Watercourse/Crossing ID Attributes

Speed River (West Branch) Speed River (East Branch) Species Present Large diversity of warm and cool water

species Large diversity of warm and cool water species

Habitat Resiliency Stable, warmwater stream Stable, warmwater stream Species’ Dependence on Habitat

Habitat used to fulfill various requirements of species present, including potential spawning and nursery habitat

Habitat used to fulfill various requirements of species present, including potential spawning and nursery habitat

Rarity No rare species or rare habitat identified or expected


Overall Sensitivity Moderate Moderate


4.1

4.0 Preliminary Impact Assessment

4.1 PREFERRED PLAN

The Preferred plan for the Highway 401 improvements does not include a new interchange at Speedsville Road, therefore this area is not discussed further. Impacts of highway widening in the vicinity of Speedsville Rd. and the Speed River were addressed in previous reports (URS, 2008) therefore the following section pertains only to proposed highway modifications in the vicinity of the Grand River. A more detailed impact assessment will be required at the Detail Design stage of the project.

Grand River

The existing Grand River Bridge is a 6-lane, 6-span structure. It is 30.4 m long and is supported by 5 rectangular piers. Preliminary plans for changes at this location to accommodate the Preferred Plan include:

• Widening of the existing bridge (additional 6 m to the south, additional 15 m to the north);

• Addition of a new two-lane bridge (W-N ramp) on the south side of Highway 401 (approximately 12 m wide).

In-water work will be required to complete the above tasks both for the bridge widening and the new structure to accommodate the direct ramps from eastbound Highway 401 to Highway 8. The Environmental Protection Measures in Section 5 (timing window, sediment and erosion control) should be employed to protect fish and fish habitat.

Widening of the existing structures and the addition of new piers to accommodate the new structure will require DFO approval due to the permanent nature of the structures. The presence/absence of fish and mussel species protected by the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) and the provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA) SAR must be confirmed at the Detail Design stage when additional details are available regarding the final design and placement of the proposed structures.

4.2 FISHERIES ACT IMPLICATIONS

As specified in the MTO/DFO/OMNR Protocol, the federal Fisheries Act is the primary piece of environmental legislation governing the protection of fisheries and aquatic habitat, including the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat (Section 35), and the deposition of deleterious substances into fisheries waters (Section 36). Where a HADD of fish habitat is identified, a Fisheries Habitat Compensation Plan needs to be developed, in accordance with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (DFO) No Net Loss policy. A

FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS REPORT HIGHWAY 401/HIGHWAY 8 IMPROVEMENTS (GWP 3039-07-00) PLANNING. PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Preliminary Impact Assessment September 2009

4.2

detailed Letter of Intent to Implement Construction Measures also needs to be submitted in order to obtain Authorization for Works or Undertakings Affecting Fish Habitat.

The potential for HADD is greatest at bridges and culverts adjacent to fish habitat, where new structures, widening, extensive rehabilitation, clean outs and/or extensions may be required. A preliminary assessment indicates that a HADD will likely occur at the Grand River, since new piers will be required in the watercourse. Table 8 summarizes potential impacts of highway widening, however it should be recognized that this information will require updating once details of the final design are available.

Potential impacts to fish habitat can be realized as direct habitat loss (i.e., the addition of piers) or indirect impacts to habitat. During construction, problems can arise with management of continuous flows and the onset of inclement weather that could raise flow levels and potentially flood the work site. Sediment introductions from adjacent graded areas can also cause potential impacts to fish habitat. Suspended sediments increase stream turbidity, which can impair vision and subsequent feeding by fish that are sight-hunters, abrade gill membranes leading to physical stress, and impact prey organisms. Heavier sediments can deposit on the stream bottom and clog coarser substrates that may be used for spawning, incubation of juvenile fish, or food production. However, these potential indirect effects to fish habitat can be mitigated through the use of standard sediment and erosion control measures, outlined in Section 5.1.

Impacts

In-water works would be required at this location both for bridge widening (piers) and the addition of the new N-W ramp. Direct impacts on aquatic habitat in Grand River the vicinity of the Highway 401 Grand River Bridge include:

• The loss of fish and mussel habitat caused by construction of the new W-N ramp. The footprint of each new pier has an area of approximately 60m2, however only three of the five piers are within the permanently flowing portion of the Grand River.

3 piers X 60 m2 = 180 m2

• The loss of fish and mussel habitat caused by widening of existing piers to accommodate highway widening. Two of the five bridge piers are within the permanently flowing portion of the Grand River. Area needed for each pier extension on north side = 65 m2 to 75 m2

2 piers x 75 m2 = 150 m2

Area needed for each pier extension of south side= 30 m2

2 piers x 30 m2 = 60 m2


4.3

Total footprint area for new piers and pier extensions: TOTAL: 180 m2 + 150 m2 + 60 m2 = 390 m2

The activities described above result in the permanent loss of approximately 400 m2 of fish habitat. The ‘Scale of Negative Effect’ identified in Table 8 may be refined at the Detail Design stage of the project, once final design details are known (e.g. precise area of river bottom required for piers, precise location of piers).

Compensation

The following measures are proposed as compensation for the loss of habitat described above:

The GRCA’s fish community objective for the reach of the Grand River that includes the Highway 401 bridge is a “diverse warmwater community dominated by top predators (walleye, smallmouth bass and pike) (GRCA, 1997). Following approval of the Plan in 1998, the Grand River Fisheries Implementation Plan was developed, which also included a “Best Bets” summary that identifies 42 types of projects that could improve the fishery and habitat in the Grand River Watershed. Habitat compensation for the approximately 390 m2 of river bottom required for the new piers and pier extensions should be developed in consultation with the Implementation Committee, as there may be specific locations where the need for habitat creation/enhancement has already been identified. A project of this nature would provide the necessary habitat compensation, while fulfilling specific goals of the Fisheries Management Plan.

There may also be opportunities within the Cruickston Charitable Research Reserve (CCRR); now known as rare. The CCRR (rare) is a not-for-profit organization located near the confluence of the Grand River and Speed River in the City of Cambridge. The mission of rare is to preserve, protect, restore and improve the natural resources and environment of lands in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. There are several small watercourses within the property that would benefit from the creation or enhancement of aquatic habitat.

Mitigation

The environmental protection measures described in Section 5 should be applied including timing windows and the use of netting to prevent materials from falling into the watercourses.

Species at Risk mapping (DFO, 2007) indicates the presence of mussel species in this watercourse. MNR correspondence indicates the Grand River at this location supports Wavy-rayed Lamp mussels (THR) and possibly Rainbow mussels (THR). Furthermore, the Grand River also provides habitat for Black redhorse (THR) and Silver shiners (SC). The presence of these species should be confirmed at the Detail Design stage in order that appropriate mitigation strategies can be developed (e.g. mussel relocation if required). If it is confirmed that species protected by the SARA and ESA are present within the proposed area of construction, permits will be required from both the MNR and DFO to ensure the protection of the species


4.4

during construction (mussel relocation) and after construction (habitat creation). A protocol for the relocation of mussel Species at Risk is described by Mackie et al (2008) and was implemented in the Grand River at Highway 8 (2009) and at Bridge Street East in the City of Kitchener (2008).

FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS REPORT HIGHWAY 401/HIGHWAY 8 IMPROVEMENTS (GWP 3039-07-00) PLANNING. PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Preliminary Impact Assessment September 28, 2009

4.1

Table 8 Highway 401/8 – Preliminary Fisheries Habitat Impact and Mitigation Summary

Negative Effects Waterbody Type of Fishery Type of

Work/Undertaking* Potential Impact

(from PoE) Mitigation

Measures** Description Scale (L,M,H) Comments

Grand River Warmwater sportfish

Bridge Widening on N and S side of existing bridge;

Additional bridge for W-N ramp

- Downstream sedimentation - Contaminants from heavy equip - Change in habitat structure and cover - Direct mortality of fish

D-Br O-TW O-Acc R-Bk R-Veg M-ESC M-DwD M-Eqp M-WSCon M- FSc M-FTr

390 m2 of river bottom required for bridge widening and new bridge for N-W

ramp

H Will likely require

relocation of mussels and compensation for

‘footprint’ of piers

* see section 4.1 for additional details ** codes as per Appendix 6.C of MTO Environmental Guide for Fish and Fish Habitat (MTO, 2006); see Section 5 below for additional details *** to be confirmed when additional details are available

Table 9 Highway 401/8 – Preliminary Project Risk and HADD Determination

Waterbody Sensitivity of Fish Habitat*

(L,M,H)

Scale of Negative Effects** (L,M,H)

Risk of Project (L,M,H)

HADD (Yes/No)

Comments

Grand River H H H Y DFO approval will be required due to need for widening of existing piers and addition of new piers for the W-N ramp

*from Table 4 ** from Table 8


5.1

5.0 Environmental Protection Measures

Since the potential presence of mussel SAR has been identified in the Grand River, DFO should be contacted to determine if a sampling program is required to confirm if they are present and have the potential to be impacted by the proposed improvements.

In general, sampling to detect the presence of a SAR would not be required if a species at risk is known to occur within the survey area or if based on habitat; there is a very high probability of the species occurring within the project site. Mussel SAR are known to occur in the Grand River including locations upstream at Highway 8 and at Bridge Street in the City of Waterloo. If a confirmation survey is to proceed, a SARA Permit would be required. Detailed methods for such a survey including sampling gear, required staff qualifications, timing, etc. are provided in the “Protocol for the Detection and Relocation of Freshwater Mussel Species at Risk in Ontario” (Mackie et al, 2008). If it is determined that SAR are present (either by DFO or a permitted field survey), a mussel move would be required if the project cannot be redesigned. A mussel move consists of the following:

• Delineation of a relocation site (upstream) with suitable area, depth, substrate, etc.;

• Timing restrictions: must be done at least one month before water temperature is expected to drop below 16oC (typically need to complete a mussel move before mid-August);

• The entire bottom in the potentially impacted area must be surveyed using a grid system. All mussels found are measured, marked and moved to the relocation site following specific DFO guidelines and protocols;

• Monitoring is required for one month, one year and two years after the relocation.

A complete and detailed description of how to complete and submit an application for a SARA permit and methods for mussel species at risk surveys and relocations is provided in Mackie et al, 2008.

Various other mitigation techniques will be employed during construction to reduce the risk of impacts to natural environment features. The following is a preliminary list of mitigation measures that should be applied to works associated with highway widening at the watercourse discussed above. Additional measures will likely be required following the completion of the detail design.

• No in-water work allowed between April 1st and July 15th in any given year in order to project critical spawning and nursery periods of resident fish species;

• If dewatering is required in areas where fish habitat is present, DFO’s Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guideline will apply;

FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS REPORT HIGHWAY 401/HIGHWAY 8 IMPROVEMENTS (GWP 3039-07-00) PLANNING. PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Environmental Protection Measures September 2009

5.2

• Any displaced fish will be captured and released outside of the work area;

• Refueling of equipment will be carried out a minimum of 50 metres away from any aquatic resources to avoid potential impacts, in the event that an accidental spill occurs;

• Materials and equipment used for site preparation and project completion shall be operated and stored in a manner that prevents any deleterious substance from entering the water;

• Isolate the in-water work areas such that clean flow is maintained downstream/around the work area; and

• A comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan will be developed (see below).

Sediment and Erosion Control Measures

Mitigation measures for sediment erosion and dust control will be implemented to prevent sediment and dust from entering aquatic resources. The primary principles associated with sedimentation and erosion protection measures are to: (1) minimize the duration of soil exposure; (2) retain existing vegetation, where feasible; (3) encourage re-vegetation; (4) divert runoff away from exposed soils; (5) keep runoff velocities low; and to (6) trap sediment as close to the source as possible.

To address these principles, the following mitigation measures are proposed:

• Silt fencing will be used along all construction areas adjacent to aquatic resources and the boundaries of the site. Additionally, straw bale flow checks, rock flow checks, or silt fence flow checks should be installed in all ditches immediately upstream of their discharge into any aquatic resources;

• All excavated materials requiring stockpiling (fill, topsoil, etc.) will be stabilized and kept a safe distance from any sensitive natural features. The perimeter of the stockpiles will be encircled with silt fencing;

• All exposed soil areas will be stabilized and re-vegetated, through the placement of seeding, mulching or sodding, immediately upon completion of construction activities;

• Straw bale dams will be placed in advance of sewer (catchment) inlets;

• In addition to the specified requirements, additional silt fence, straw bales, and rip-rap should be moved on site prior to grading operations to provide a contingency supply in the case of an emergency;

FISHERIES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS REPORT HIGHWAY 401/HIGHWAY 8 IMPROVEMENTS (GWP 3039-07-00) PLANNING. PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Environmental Protection Measures September 2009

5.3

• Sediment-laden or turbid waters generated from activities such as excavation or dewatering shall be discharged to a proper sediment containment system for settling and filtration prior to water re-entering a waterbody.

• All sediment and erosion controls should be monitored regularly (weekly and following rain events) and properly maintained as required. Excess trapped sediments and controls are to be removed only after the soils of the construction area have been stabilized and adequately re-vegetated; and

• The limits of construction adjacent to all natural features to be retained will be flagged and fenced prior to construction, and monitored during construction (along with sediment and erosion control measures) to ensure the limits are maintained with respect to vehicular traffic and soil or equipment stockpiling.

A separate Erosion and Sediment Overview Risk Assessment is being carried out as part of this assignment. Recommendations from the Risk Assessment will be carried forward to the detail design stage.


6.1

6.0 Summary

This Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems Report documents existing aquatic ecological features within the Highway 401 Study Area, from the Grand River to 0.5 km east of Speedsville Road. The overall project includes Highway 8 between Sportsworld Drive and Highway 401, however there are no aquatic resources in that section of the Study Area. Together with the Terrestrial Ecosystems Report, these two documents summarize the natural environment components for the Preliminary Design stage of the Highway 8/401 interchange improvements project.

The preferred alternative does not include any work east of the CPR tracks, therefore the only aquatic habitat that may be potentially affected is in the Grand River. The Grand River supports a warmwater sportfish community and fish and mussel Species at Risk. Due to the increase in pier footprints needed for bridge widening and new piers for the proposed W-N ramp, DFO approvals will be required for the loss of aquatic habitat associated with these structures.


7.0 References

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 2007. Distribution of Mussel Species at Risk (Grand River Conservation Authority). Map produced May 31, 2007.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 2007. Distribution of Fish Species at Risk (Grand River Conservation Authority). Map produced May 31, 2007.

FRi Ecological Services. 2005. Fisheries & Aquatic Ecosystems and Terrestrial Ecosystems Technical Report. Preliminary Design, GWP 4-00-00.

Grand River Conservation Authority. 2008. Letter from Mr. John Brum, Resource Planner, to Maya Caron (Stantec) July 2008.

Grand River Conservation Authority. 1997. Grand River Fisheries Management Plan.

Mackie, G., Morris, T.J., and Ming, D. 2008. Protocol for the detection and relocation of freshwater mussel species at risk in Ontario-Great Lakes Area (OGLA). Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2790: vi+50p.

McCormick Rankin Corporation. 2004. Sportsworld Drive/Maple Grove Road Improvements. Class Environmental Assessment. Region of Waterloo/MTO.

Ministry of Natural Resources, Guelph District. 2008. Email correspondence with Mr. Dave Marriot, Planning Intern November 2008.

Ministry of Transportation, 2006. Environmental Guide for Fish and Fish Habitat – Part of the MTO Environmental Standards and Practices.

Natural Heritage Information Centre internet database. 2008. Ministry of Natural Resources. Accessed in September, 2008. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic.html

PEIL, 2004. Hespeler West Subwatersheds Study. Prepared for the City of Cambridge, November 2004.

URS Canada Inc. 2008. Preliminary Design Report Highway 401; Appendix L – Natural Environment Reports. March 2008

7.1

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic.html

Appendix E: Terrestrial Ecosystem Report

TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS REPORT Highway 401/Highway 8 Improvements (GWP 3039-07-00)

Prepared for: Ministry of Transportation Ontario Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 70 Southgate Drive Suite 1 Guelph ON N1G 4P5 165000675 September 2009

TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS REPORT HIGHWAY 401/HIGHWAY 8 IMPROVEMENTS (GWP 3039-07-00) PLANNING, PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1.1

2.0 METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................2.1 2.1 AGENCY CONSULTATION................................................................................................2.1 2.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ........................................................................................2.1 2.3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS...................................................................................................2.2

3.0 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES...................................................................................3.1 3.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT...............................................................................................3.1 3.2 SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES ...............................................................................3.1 3.3 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS .........................................................................................3.2

3.3.1 Field Investigations ..............................................................................................3.2 3.3.2 Significant Flora ...................................................................................................3.6 3.3.3 Ecological Constraints Ratings ............................................................................3.6

3.4 WILDLIFE .........................................................................................................................3.12 3.4.1 Mammals ...........................................................................................................3.12 3.4.2 Reptiles and Amphibians ...................................................................................3.12 3.4.3 Birds...................................................................................................................3.14 Bird Nesting ......................................................................................................................3.15 3.4.4 Significant Wildlife Habitat .................................................................................3.15

4.0 PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT...........................................................................4.1 4.1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY ...................4.2

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES...............................................................5.1 5.1 SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL.............................................................................5.1 5.2 MINIMIZING DAMAGE TO PERIPHERAL VEGETATION .................................................5.2 5.3 WILDLIFE PROTECTION...................................................................................................5.2

6.0 SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................6.1

7.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................7.1

i


Table of Contents

List of Appendices

Appendix A Agency Correspondence Appendix B Photographic Record Appendix B Ecological Land Classification Data Sheets Appendix C Wildlife List

List of Figures

Figure 1 Study Area Location.............................................................................................1.1 Figure 2 Significant Natural Features in the Highway 8 and 401 Study Area ...................3.9 Figure 3 Vegetation Communities/Constraints of the Highway 8 and 401 Study Area ....3.10

List of Tables

Table 1 Vegetation Communities within the Highway 401/8 Study Area ..........................3.2 Table 2 Preliminary Terrestrial Constraints Ratings and Rationale ..................................3.6

ii


1.1

1.0 Introduction

Stantec Consulting Ltd. was retained by the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) to undertake the Planning, Preliminary Design, and Environmental Assessment for improvements to Highway 8 from 1.0 km north of the Sportsworld Drive Interchange southerly to Highway 401; and Highway 401 from the Grand River easterly to 0.5 km east of Speedsville Road, within the City of Kitchener and City of Cambridge, in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Study Area Location

The purpose of the project is to address existing operational concerns and future transportation needs by developing alternatives to improve the interchanges at Highway 8/Sportsworld Drive and Highway 8/Highway 401 and to evaluate the feasibility of new access at Highway 401 and Speedsville Road.

TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS REPORT HIGHWAY 401/HIGHWAY 8 IMPROVEMENTS (GWP 3039-07-00) PLANNING, PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Introduction September 2009

1.2

The study includes:

• Carrying out engineering and environmental field investigations

• Developing and evaluating interchange and access alternatives for Sportsworld Drive, King Street, Highway 8, and Speedsville Road

• Seeking input from the public, property owners, local municipalities, external ministries/agencies and businesses

• Identifying a recommended plan for improvements

• Conducting an Environmental Assessment under MTO’s Class EA process to obtain environmental approval for the recommended alternative

The purpose of this Terrestrial Ecosystems Report is to document the existing terrestrial features within the designated study area. All natural environment features have been characterized based upon field assessment, secondary source data, and consultation with agency staff.

The scope of work for this report is limited to terrestrial conditions and migratory birds. However, a Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems Report is being submitted concurrently with this report. Together, these two documents summarize the natural environment component of the Highway 401/8 planning, preliminary design, and environmental assessment study.


2.1

2.0 Methodology

2.1 AGENCY CONSULTATION

The study area is located within the Guelph district of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), and Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). Agency staff were contacted to obtain available background terrestrial data pertinent to the study area.

Consultation with agency staff included:

• Mr. Al Murray, Fish and Wildlife Supervisor at the Guelph District office of the MNR was the contact for background fisheries data for the Study Area. Mr. Dave Marriott replied to the information request, providing text and a map with respect to the presence/absence of designated Natural Areas, wetlands and rare species within the Study Area.

• Mr. John Brum (Resource Planner) of the GRCA provided information and mapping regarding floodplains, wetlands and valley slopes within the Study Area.

• In addition to the above, the MTO Transportation Environmental Study Report for the Highway 401 Planning and Preliminary Design Study (Regional Road 8 to Regional Road 24) (GWP 4-00-00) was reviewed and any relevant information was incorporated into this report.

Copies of agency correspondence and information provided are included in Appendix A.

2.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

An ecosystems study along Highway 401 between Regional Road 8 and Regional Road 24 was completed as part of the Planning and Preliminary Design Study for the 10-laning of Highway 401 (GWP 4-00-00). This study was conducted in 2004 and 2005 for the purpose of identifying deficiencies and addressing the need for improvements related to traffic operation, capacity, and safety (FRi Ecological Services, 2005).

In addition, an Environmental Assessment for the widening and reconstruction of 1.5 km of Regional Road 38 (Sportsworld Drive / Maple Grove Road), as well as extensive road improvements at the Highway 8 Sportsworld Drive Interchange were completed in 2004 (McCormick Rankin Corporation, 2004).

These projects included terrestrial studies in accordance with the relevant Class EA document.

TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS REPORT HIGHWAY 401/HIGHWAY 8 IMPROVEMENTS (GWP 3039-07-00) PLANNING, PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Methodology September 2009

2.2

Each of these reports included data pertinent to the requirements of this Terrestrial Ecosystems Report. Data within the reports was reviewed to enhance the scope of terrestrial investigations for this assignment.

2.3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

Stantec staff conducted site-specific Terrestrial Ecosystems field investigations on July 22, 2008. All field investigations were conducted according to the MTO Environmental Reference for Highway Design (2006). The purpose of the field investigations was to document existing terrestrial ecological conditions within the study area. A photographic record of field surveys is included in Appendix B.

Significant Natural Features

The MNR’s Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) database was consulted to document the presence / absence of known occurrences of rare floral or faunal species (i.e., nationally and/or provincially endangered, threatened or special concern species) within the study area. Additionally, the presence / absence of known sensitive natural environment features was checked, including areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSIs), provincially significant wetlands (PSWs), environmentally significant areas (ESAs), provincial or national parks, or conservation areas. Local MNR staff were consulted to confirm this information.

Terrestrial Ecosystems

Vegetation communities were identified within the study areas through interpretation of aerial photography. Community characterizations were then confirmed in the field using the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system for Southern Ontario (Lee et al., 1998). ELC data sheets were completed for every unit identified and are included in Appendix C.

Wildlife Habitat

Incidental wildlife observations were also recorded during field investigations. Secondary source data were used to augment these data to determine potential wildlife habitat in the study area, including wildlife species recorded within the Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario (Dobbyn, 1994), the Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary Atlas (Oldham and Weller, 2001), and the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (Bird Studies Canada, 2005). A complete list of species recorded or potentially found within the study area is provided in Appendix D.


3.1

3.0 Natural Heritage Features

3.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The Study Area is located within the Huron-Ontario section of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Forest Region (Rowe, 1972). This section covers much of southwestern Ontario, the northern boundary of which is generally coincident with the Precambrian Shield. Sugar maple and beech are common over the entire section, with associates such as basswood, white and red ash, yellow birch, red maple, red, white, black and bur oaks, aspen species, butternut, bitternut hickory, hop-hornbeam, black cherry, sycamore and black walnut. In lowlands, other hardwood species can be found, such as blue-beech, silver maple, red and rock elm, black ash, eastern white cedar. Coniferous species including eastern red cedar, eastern white pine, eastern hemlock and balsam fir can be found amongst hardwood species where appropriate conditions are present (Rowe, 1972).

3.2 SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES

Four significant natural features occur within the study area. Included are the Speed River Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW), the regionally significant Freeport Esker Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), an Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area (ESPA), and a locally significant wetland as designated by the City of Kitchener.

The Speed River PSW complex is influenced by palustrine and riverine conditions. It is composed of two wetland types – 71% swamp and 29% marsh, with a total area encompassing 546.1 hectares (NHIC, 2008). The easternmost section of the study area overlies a small area of this PSW complex (Figure 2). Vegetation communities within this area were delineated as Green Ash Mineral Deciduous Swamp (SWD2-2), Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh (MAS2-1), and Reed-canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAS2-2). PSWs are protected under Section 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Under the Preferred Plan, this PSW will not be impacted.

The Freeport Esker consists of a single-ridge esker associated with the Wentworth Till and was deposited between the Breslau and Paris Moraines (NHIC, 2008). The northwest section of the study area overlies a small portion of this ANSI (Figure 2). Regionally significant ANSIs are not protected under the PPS.

The Grand River Floodplain Forest ESPA occurs on both the east and west sides of the Grand River, extending south from Highway 401 (City of Cambridge, 2004). This Policy Area overlaps with the Sugar Maple – Hackberry Deciduous Forest (FOD6-6*) east of the Grand River and the Reed-canary Grass Meadow Marsh (MAM2-2) west of the Grand River. Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas (ESPAs) are designated by the Region in the Regional Official Policies Plan (ROPP) and protected under municipal legislation.

TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS REPORT HIGHWAY 401/HIGHWAY 8 IMPROVEMENTS (GWP 3039-07-00) PLANNING, PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Natural Heritage Features September 2009

3.2

The deciduous/mixed swamp (SWD3-1/SWM2-1) northeast of the Highway 8 and Sportsworld Drive interchange is designated as a locally significant wetland (City of Kitchener, 2005). As indicated by the MNR, this is an unevaluated wetland (Figure 2) that is not currently protected under the PPS.

3.3 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS

3.3.1 Field Investigations

During the July 22, 2008 field investigations, Stantec field staff identified nineteen vegetation communities within the study area, along with additional anthropogenic communities (e.g., residential, business areas). Each of these communities (if ranked by the NHIC) are considered S5 (provincially secure). A brief description of each unit is provided in Table 1. Figure 3 depicts the type and extent of vegetation communities. ELC data sheets are provided in Appendix C.

Table 1 Vegetation Communities within the Highway 401/8 Study Area

Vegetation Unit Community Description

Forest Communities

Mixed Forest FOM9* Fresh-moist White Pine – Hardwood Mixed Forest

White pine, white ash, and black walnut were abundant in the canopy of this culturally influenced community, with occasional occurrences of scotch pine, balsam fir, red oak, red pine, and trembling aspen. Most of these species were also present in the subcanopy, with specific abundances of black walnut, and scotch pine. The understory contained an abundance of common buckthorn, and occasional occurrences of red-berried elderberry and alternate-leaved dogwood. Enchanter’s nightshade and white avens was abundant in the groundlayer, with occasional occurrences of garlic mustard, sedge species, moss, and goldenrod, among others.

Deciduous Forest FOD3-1 Dry-fresh Poplar Deciduous Forest

Trembling aspen was abundant in this canopy and subcanopy, while black walnut was also frequently encountered. Tatarian honeysuckle was the abundant shrub; common buckthorn, and staghorn sumac shrubs were scattered throughout the community. The groundlayer consisted of species typical of a cultural meadow, such as crown vetch, goldenrod, and orchard grass.

FOD5-1 Dry-fresh Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest

This was a former sugar maple plantation evidenced by linear rows of mature sugar maple trees. Sugar maple was dominant in the canopy and abundant in the subcanopy where black walnut was occasionally found. Sapling regeneration contained a greater amount of white ash than sugar maple. The shrub layer was thick, containing and abundance of common buckthorn and chokecherry. Garlic mustard thrived in the herbaceous layer, with fewer occurrences of sedges and enchanter’s nightshade, among others.


3.3



FOD5-2 Dry-fresh Sugar Maple – Beech Deciduous Forest

Sugar maple was the most frequently encountered canopy and subcanopy species, with American beech, white ash, and black cherry present in a lesser extent. Chokecherry was abundant in the understory, with rare occurrences of wild red current. Garlic mustard thrived in the groundlayer, along with jack-in-the-pulpit, false solomen’s seal, bloodroot, and trillium, among others.

FOD5-3 Dry-fresh Sugar Maple – Oak Deciduous Forest

Sugar maple was abundant in the canopy and subcanopy with many mature red oak in these layers. Tree regeneration was thick and appeared to be white ash and sugar maple. Common buckthorn was commonly found in the understory. Sedge species, bottlebrush grass, bracken fern, and dog-strangling vine were found in the groundlayer in various abundances.

FOD6-6* Fresh-moist Sugar Maple – Hackberry Deciduous Forest

This community was situated on a steep east-west slope down toward the Grand River. There was a narrow floodplain inclusion between the river and the FOD6-7*. Abundant canopy species consisted of mature hackberry and sugar maple. Hackberry, sugar maple, white ash, and basswood were often encountered in the subcanopy and understory – sugar maple being the most abundant. Shrub species included tatarian honeysuckle, chokecherry, poison-ivy, common buckthorn, and wild red current. A wide variety of herbaceous plants were found, including false-solomen’s seal, tall meadowrue, spotted touch-me-not, herb robert, and jack-in-the-pulpit. Tree species within the floodplain were mainly crack willow, black walnut, and cottonwood. The herbaceous layer within the floodplain varied with species such as reed-canary grass, hemp nettle, spotted-joe-pyeweed, common reed, and false nettle.

FOD6-7* Fresh-moist Sugar Maple – Basswood Deciduous Forest

American basswood was abundant in the canopy, with occasional occurrences of sugar maple, white ash, red ash, and crack willow. Sugar maple saplings were the most abundant of all tree saplings. The understory consisted of alternate-leaved dogwood, common buckthorn, and chokecherry. Jack-in-the-pulpit, mayapple, skunk cabbage, and tall meadowrue, among others, were frequently encountered in the groundlayer. A stream meandered through this community.

Cultural Communities

Cultural Plantation CUP1-3 Black Walnut Deciduous Plantation

Black walnut was the dominant species growing in the canopy and subcanopy, with occasional occurrences of white ash. This was generally a young/mid-age plantation but contained a mature population in the east side of the polygon. The understory consisted of staghorn sumac, blackberry, and red raspberry. Riverbank grape and Virginia creeper were often encountered. Ground cover generally consisted of cultural meadow species with scattered occurrences of bloodroot, yellow wood sorrel, enchanter’s nightshade, and white avens.

CUP1-11* Norway Maple Deciduous Plantation

These were small, mid-age plantations situated between highways and entry/exit ramps. Norway maples were abundant with scattered occurrences of poplars. No shrubs were seen, while ground cover was abundant with grass and vetch species.


3.4



CUP3-12* Red Pine – Scotch Pine Coniferous Plantation

This community was complexed with CUM1 and CUW1, occurring in the east and west area of the polygon. Red pine were generally more mature than the scotch pine. Species such as common buckthorn and staghorn sumac occurred within the understory in varying densities. Ground cover consisted of species typically found in cultural meadows, while unvegetated soil was present where canopy density prevented sufficient lighting.

Cultural Woodland CUW1/1a Mixed Cultural Woodland

Two variations of this community were delineated – CUW1 and CUW1a. Each of these communities were mid-age and contained a variety of canopy species. Generally, canopy cover in CUW1 contained European larch, black locust, black walnut, and white ash. Canopy cover in CUW1(a) was generally the same, but contained more willows and poplars, slightly more scotch pine, and no European larch. Shrubs in both communities generally consisted of ninebark, tatarian honeysuckle, common buckthorn, Russian olive, and staghorn sumac. Ground cover in each community contained similar species composition to that of a cultural meadow.

CUW1-3* Black Walnut Cultural Woodland

The distinction between this community and the CUP1-3 relates to the tree basal area and understory composition. The canopy of this community contained a greater proportion of saplings and fewer trees in the canopy; black walnut was the dominant canopy species. The understory/ground cover appeared to be city maintained, with rare occurrences of common buckthorn, and ground cover typical of cultural meadow communities, such as grasses, crown vetch, and goldenrod. Areas of mowed grass were observed.

Cultural Thicket CUT1-7* Buckthorn Cultural Thicket

This community was situated alongside a railroad track. A variety of young tree species were observed, such as white birch, trembling aspen, black cherry, sugar maple, Manitoba maple, among others. Density of the shrub layer varied, but contained an abundance of common buckthorn and occurrences of ninebark and tatarian honeysuckle. Ground cover was composed of species typical of cultural meadows.

Cultural Meadow CUM1/1a Mineral Cultural Meadow

Two variations of this community were observed based on soil moisture: CUM1 polygons were generally delineated in dry areas of recent disturbance. Shrub specimens were scattered and generally consisted of common buckthorn, tatarian honeysuckle, and staghorn sumac. Ground cover contained a mix of exotic and indigenous species, such as wild carrot, common St. John’s wort, timothy, butter and eggs, knapweed, fleabane, black medic, ribgrass, orchard grass, chicory, and common dandelion. CUM1a also persisted in a disturbed area but contained soil with a varying moisture regime. Species composition varied but often contained bracken fern, spreading dogbane, reed-canary grass, purple loosestrife, common St. John’s wort, red raspberry, and perfoliate thoroghwort. This community was situated in a maintained hydro corridor.


3.5



Swamp Communities

Deciduous / Mixed Swamp

SWD2-2 Green Ash Mineral Deciduous Swamp

Green ash was abundant in this canopy, with fewer occurrences of crack willow and white cedar. Glossy buckthorn and common buckthorn were frequently encountered in the understory. Ground cover contained ground ivy, stinging nettle, spotted touch-me-not, dame’s rocket, reed-canary grass, avens, and fringed loosestrife among others.

SWD3-1 / SWM2-1 Red Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp / Red Maple – Conifer Mineral Mixed Swamp

The majority of this complexed swamp was deciduous, containing small areas of red maple/white pine mix. The red maple swamp contained occurrences of freeman’s maple and yellow birch in the canopy/subcanopy. Shrub cover varied from sparse to dense; species in this layer consisted of winterberry and glossy buckthorn, with fewer occurrences of high-bush blueberry, and common buckthorn. Ground cover was rich in ferns, including interrupted fern, sensitive fern, ostrich fern, and royal fern; other herbaceous plants include spotted touch-me-not, wild lily-of-the-valley, and cut-leaved water-horehound. The red maple/white pine mixed swamp contained a similar composition of species, with the inclusion of white pine. No surface water was seen at the time of the survey, although soils were moist.

Marsh Communities Meadow Marsh MAM2-2 Reed-canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh

This community, found within various locations of the study area, was dominated by reed-canary grass. Scattered occurrences of mature trees were observed, including crack willow, green ash, and white cedar. Shrub presence was minimal, but included willow species, glaucous honeysuckle, common buckthorn, and red-osier dogwood. Regionally rare buttonbush was observed in the MAM2-2 adjacent to Sportsworld Drive. In addition to reed-canary grass, purple loosestrife, narrow-leaved cattail, stick-tight, and aster species were commonly observed. No surface water was observed.

MAM2-11* Common Reed Mineral Meadow Marsh

Crack willow and balsam poplar were rare to occasional within the sparse tree cover of this community. Tatarian honeysuckle, red-osier dogwood, common elderberry, and ninebark were present in the shrub layer. Common reed was abundant in the ground cover, with occasional occurrences of goldenrod, spotted joe-pye-weed, purple loosestrife, and reed-canary grass. No surface water was observed.

MAS2-1 Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh

White cedar was the most abundant tree species in this community, with fewer occurrences of green ash. No shrubs were observed. Narrow-leaved cattail dominated this community, with occasional occurrences of stick-tight and cut-leaved water-horehound, among others. Surface water was observed in this community.

* Not listed in the ELC manual for southern Ontario (Lee et al., 1998). No rankings are assigned to these units or to cultural associations.


3.6

In addition to the ELC units described above, a number of anthropogenic communities, including residential and business areas, also occur within the study area.

3.3.2 Significant Flora

While no Endangered, Threatened, or Vulnerable species were observed in the study area, two regionally rare plant species were detected. A small thicket of buttonbush shrubs (Cephalanthus occidentalis) was observed in the Reed-canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAM2-2) in the northeast quadrant of the Highway 8 / Sportsworld Drive interchange. It occupied an area approximately 9x7 metres. This thicket previously covered a larger area but was reduced in size, possibly due to maintenance of the existing hydro corridor; many severed stems were observed. The remaining specimens did not occupy an area large enough to be classified as an individual community or an inclusion. This species is ranked as S5, indicating it is common and demonstrably secure in Ontario (NHIC, 2008).

Occasional occurrences of highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) were observed throughout the deciduous/mixed swamp (SWD3-1/SWM2-1). This species is rare in the Region of Waterloo with a Provincial S4 status, indicating it is uncommon but apparently secure in Ontario (NHIC, 2008).

3.3.3 Ecological Constraints Ratings

The identification of terrestrial and wildlife resource constraints in the study area is intended to assist in the analysis and evaluation of alternative plans and the selection of a preferred plan. The information will also be used in the development of appropriate mitigation measures for minimizing impacts to regulated areas, populations of significant flora and fauna, sensitive vegetation communities, significant wildlife habitats, etc. Natural sciences constraints within the study area were identified using information available through secondary sources and confirmed/refined through the field data collection described above.

The screening of potential constraint criteria falls into six categories. Based on the presence/absence of the identified features, constraint ratings of high, medium and low were assigned to individual vegetation polygons (ELC units). Table 2 summarizes the preliminary constraint criteria, the constraint rating, and provides the rationale for their selection. Figure 3 illustrates the ELC communities and their respective constraints rating.

Table 2 Preliminary Terrestrial Constraints Ratings and Rationale

Category Features Constraint Level Rationale


3.7



Provincially Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) Parks and Nature Reserves Ontario Living Legacy Sites Habitat for regulated endangered species listed in Ontario’s Endangered Species Act

HIGH

Existing protected areas that are recognized for their ecological values, as well as significant habitat for endangered species protected in the Endangered Species Act. Regulated Areas

Regionally Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest

MEDIUM Existing areas that are protected regionally for their geological or ecological value.

Endangered or threatened species identified by COSEWIC, which are not protected under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act Species listed as Special Concern, either federally or provincially Provincially rare species (S1‐S3) tracked by the NHIC

HIGH Habitat for those species considered in the Natural Heritage component of the Provincial Policy Statement.

Species of Conservation Concern

Species identified as “Priority Landbird Species” by Ontario Partners in Flight

MEDIUM

Based on comprehensive assessment considering information on population declines, vulnerability and future threats. Note: Constraint ranking does not apply to recent cutovers.

Seasonal Concentration of Animals

Deer wintering yards Moose aquatic feeding areas Colonial bird nesting sites Stick nests Staging / stopover areas Waterfowl nesting Raptor feeding and roosting areas

HIGH

Areas identified as providing significant cover and protection, abundant food access, over‐wintering resources etc., needed to maintain populations of wildlife.

Animal Movement Corridors

Significant linear landscape features, such as riparian corridors, shorelines, and valley systems etc., which promote the safe movement of wildlife.

HIGH

Protection of these features helps offset negative impacts on wildlife in fragmented landscapes, and ensures the dispersal abilities of species requiring large home ranges.

Rare Vegetation Communities

Areas containing provincially rare vegetation communities identified by Bakowsky (1996), as well as updates provided and tracked by the NHIC.

HIGH

Often contain concentrations of rare species and specialized habitat; are extremely sensitive to disturbance; & have limited geographic distributions.


3.8



Cliff and Talus Rock Barrens Old Growth Forests

HIGH

Ecosystems that are highly sensitive to changes in hydrology; structure and function; are high in species diversity; and often contain specialized habitat features.

Forests Unevaluated Wetlands

MEDIUM

Provide important ecological functions and services, but are considered less sensitive to disturbance, and are widespread within the area.

Vegetation Resources

Meadows Thickets Cutovers Plantations

LOW Recently modified communities with altered physiognomy; having lower representational values than intact, natural communities.

Documents

Appendix A: Notification Materials...N2G 4G7 Mr. John McBride Director, Transportation Planning City of Kitchener City Hall, 200 King Street West P.O. Box 1118, 9th Floor, Berlin Tower