Fiinal PMH1 Socio-Community Issues Tracking Mar 31 2008€¦ · PMH1 SOCIO-COMMUNITY ISSUES TRACKING TABLE March 31, 2008 Page 1 Issue

PORT MANN/HIGHWAY 1 PROJECT (PMH1)

SOCIO-COMMUNITY/SOCIO-ECONOMIC TRACKING OF ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN WORKING GROUP COMMENTS

March 31, 2008

Purpose: This table compiles the issues identified by Working Group members in their comments on the PMH1 Application. The table includes a categorization of issues by the Environmental Assessment Office using three general categories:

C – Certificate Issue – Strategic level issues, within the scope of the provincial environmental assessment, pertaining to the potential effects of the project and/or proposed measures to avoid or mitigate potential adverse effects.

S - Screening Issue –To be addressed to the satisfaction of the responsible authorities to complete the federal review of the project. (May also be a certificate issue).

P – Permit Issue – Issues normally addressed/managed through existing processes under other enactments for the issuance of authorizations, licences, permits or other approvals.

Table of Contents

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 TRAFFIC / TRANSPORTATION / ROAD USER ASSESSMENT............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

Pedestrian and cycling modes........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 TOLLING ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 NOISE ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12

Noise during Construction .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 SOCIO-COMMUNITY / SOCIO-ECONOMIC .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 AGRICULTURE ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 ARCHAEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 34 EFFECTS TO CULTURAL AND HERITAGE FEATURES ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38 NAVIGABLE WATERS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 38 RAIL CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 39

PMH1 SOCIO-COMMUNITY ISSUES TRACKING TABLE March 31, 2008 Page 1

Issue # AGENCY

AGENCY COMMENTS/ISSUES ON PMH1 APPLICATION

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION RESPONSE

(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT

19 TC MOT has fulfilled section 16(2)(b) of the CEAA by considering alternative means of carrying out the project that are functionally different than the proposed project but still within the ability of the proponent to implement. MOT has also briefly described alternatives that are outside the ability of the proponent to implement.

Comment noted. S Satisfactorily addressed for the purpose of EA

23 Burnaby The Reference Concept is a multi-modal proposal incorporating all modes of transportation, plus demand management (tolling). In contrast, the “alternatives” are single-mode options, or stand-alone demand management. Clearly, these will be less effective than the broader approach being proposed for the Reference Concept. In short, the “alternatives” have been designed to fail. The Proponent should be required to analyze realistic, viable alternatives that can meet its project goals.

MOT has been reviewing options for improvements to goods and people movement on Highway 1 since the early 1990’s. The alternatives discussed in Chapter 3.2 of the EAC Application have been analyzed by some of the foremost transportation engineering firms in Canada consistent with this type of project under the purview of MOT. Environmental impact assessments were part of that process.

S Satisfactorily addressed for the purpose of EA

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

29 Burnaby Table 4-2 provides the Application’s only information on pedestrian and cycling facilities for PMH1. This should be stipulated as the minimum infrastructure to be provided for these modes. This is a concern because separate discussions between the City and the proponent have left the impression that the Proponent is not in fact prepared to fund all the facilities listed in Table 4-2. Implementation of these facilities is important for the mitigation of some of the project’s environmental impacts.

Throughout discussion with the City of Burnaby, the PMH1 project team has continued to indicate that cycling and pedestrian facilities are an important part of the Project. Cycling and pedestrian facilities within MOT jurisdiction will be funded by MOT/Gateway. Cyclists and pedestrians will be accommodated on all municipal roads crossing Highway 1 where the structure is either new or replaced, regardless whether they are part of an interchange or not. Where it exists, the infrastructure will be connected on both sides of the highway to existing municipal cycling and pedestrian networks.

TOCA 16.24 changed to include “within the Project area, except where otherwise agreed upon with municipalities”.

C 9.5

16.15

16.24

Satisfactorily addressed for the purpose of EA

31 Burnaby The Proponent should commit to meeting or exceeding Transportation Association of Canada guidelines for cycling facilities.

The design will be required to meet Transportation Association of Canada guidelines for cycling and pedestrian facilities, and abide by the requirements of the Contract.

C 16.1 Satisfactorily addressed for the purpose of EA


Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

43 Coquitlam The Gateway Program Stakeholder Advisory Committee was concerned with the level of service assigned to traffic generated from businesses on United Boulevard wishing to access the Cape Horn Interchange to travel westward on Highway 1. The current access was considered circuitous and safety and efficiency may be comprised given the current proposal shown in the Reference Concept. The City requests Gateway to consider the review of the current arrangement at the Cape Horn interchange, whereby an enhanced access can be provided to traffic from United Boulevard wishing to travel west on Highway 1.

The proximity and alignment of Lougheed Highway, Mary Hill Bypass, and United Boulevard to Highway 1 make it challenging to provide direct connections to all of these arterials. Due to the need to accommodate these major movements of traffic to Highway 1 within the Cape Horn Interchange, enhanced access to United Boulevard could compromise the safety and efficiency of the interchange. At a minimum, United Boulevard connections to Highway 1 will be maintained and where possible, improved. We will continue to consult with the City of Coquitlam regarding this and other connections to the Project corridor.

C 16.3

16.22 Satisfactorily addressed for the purpose of EA

TRAFFIC / TRANSPORTATION / ROAD USER ASSESSMENT

65 Burnaby The City of Vancouver has made it clear that they will not be accepting any more traffic from Highway 1, directing their staff to “consider other modifications to the eastern approaches to the city which do not add to the number of vehicles coming into the city.” This invalidates the model assumptions used for this Application. Modelling by the Proponent indicates that peak-hour peak-direction volumes on Grandview Highway are expected to be 1,400 vehicles higher in 2021 than today. Since Vancouver has chosen not to accommodate this increase, there will be greater queuing and congestion in the vicinity of Grandview Highway. What will be the impacts on Highway 1, and on the surrounding municipal road network?

All municipalities in the region were solicited for proposed road and transit improvements over the next 30 years and these network changes were explicitly built into future year model scenarios. It is our understanding that, the City of Vancouver’s statement relates to the increase in throughput at a specific intersection due to staff’s proposed combination of HOV queue jumpers AND left turn lanes (which are beyond the PMH1 project scope). As these left turn lanes primarily have municipal (and not Highway 1) benefits, their presence (or absence) is not anticipated to affect Highway 1 traffic operations. With respect to impacts on Highway 1 and the surrouding municipal road network, analysis has been conducted and presented in the report, “Analysis of Potential Impact of the Gateway Program on Vancouver Arterial Roads” (May, 2006). While we are unclear of the source of the 1400 vph variance described in the comment, it is important to note that comparing 2003 volumes to 2021 volumes with the project is not illustrative of project impacts, as much of the increase in traffic volumes is associated with background growth that would occur regardless. The specific effects of the project can be discerned by comparing the future year base scenario to the future scenario with the project. In doing so, the increase in westbound traffic volumes on Grandview Highway are in the range of 1% to 5% (20 to 80 vph) in 2011 and 4% to 9% (60 - 165 vph) in 2031.

C Satisfactorily addressed for the purpose of EA


Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

66 Burnaby Modelling by the Proponent indicates that northbound peak-hour volumes on the Second Narrows Bridge will be 800 vehicles greater than today. Since this location is already congested today, an additional 800 vehicles will lead to significantly greater congestion and queuing. What will be the impacts on Highway 1? The EMME/2 model does not model traffic queues and as a result significant traffic impacts have been missed.

The Reference Concept was designed to accommodate the projected increase in traffic volumes. The PMH1 team used a number of analytical tools to examine the effects of the upgraded Highway 1 corridor. The first major tool is the travel demand forecasting model (GSAM – EMME/2) which was used to estimate travel demand in the corridor and adjacent road network for future planning horizons. The second major tool is the traffic operations model (PARAMICS) which was used to examine the traffic operations effects associated with the upgraded Highway 1 corridor. This operational model was used primarily to refine the more detailed aspects of the Reference Concept. Estimates of vehicle queues are related to traffic operations and assessed using this model. It is worth noting that the Gateway Program is one of the few major transportation infrastructure programs in the region to employ such detailed and extensive operational modeling in its project definition phase. The GSAM travel demand forecasting model is the most appropriate tool for assessing future travel demands and patterns across a regional network. These travel demands and patterns were then used by the project team as inputs to the corridor-specific operational models to assess the operation of the specific roadway and interchange configurations in the Reference Concept, ensuring a robust design solution.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

75 New West The Application states “improvements include the redesigned interchange of Brunette Avenue… in particular Braid Street west of Brunette is anticipated to see increased traffic in the am period.” Appropriate mitigation strategies to address local traffic impacts should be incorporated into the project scope. The response states that traffic volume increases are “anticipated to be less than 10% of the two way hourly volume on Braid St.” It is not clear if this represents an average condition throughout a 24 hour period, or if this is reflective of peak hour travel periods, which is our primary concern. It is also our understanding that westbound (southbound) traffic on Brunette Ave. (and possibly other local roads) in the am peak period is anticipated to increase by much higher than 10%. This needs to be confirmed, and a commitment received from MOT that impacts from additional traffic volume will be adequately mitigated.

Traffic demand on Braid Street west of Brunette Avenue is anticipated to increase slightly with the Port Mann / Highway 1 improvements as compared to the base case. However, this increase is anticipated to be less than 10 percent of the two way hourly volume on Braid Street, and as such is within the typical daily fluctuations in traffic demand that an arterial street such as Braid Street would see during the course of a typical week.

The Gateway Program is committed to continued discussions with the City of New Westminster, through ongoing municipal liaison. Concurrent to this, the Ministry is participating in a TransLink study to assess options for the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge. Any such changes to the Pattullo crossing arising from this study could have implications that would supersede the findings of diversion presented in the environmental assessment for PMH1.


83N Coquitlam Given the increased shadowing and other impacts to Maquabeak Park from the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, the City requests that Gateway consider the provision of public access from Colony Farm to the Fraser River as mitigation/compensation through the design phase related to the Cape Horn interchange area and planned new approaches to the Port Mann Bridge.

The PMH1 project is committed to continued discussion with city staff regarding access to the Fraser River via Maquabeak Park. In the final configuration, access from Colony Farm to Maquabeak park will be maintained via the underpass of the Port Mann Bridge and the Mary Hill Bypass.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

84N Coquitlam The City requests additional details, such as delay threshold and service level, with regard to the impact on travel in and out of Coquitlam resulting from Gateway’s construction management. Although traffic management during construction was covered in this chapter, there is no provision made to define base travel conditions within the corridor, e.g., travel time, accessibility indices to Pacific Reach and other neighbourhoods, and thresholds for mitigating measures. The maintenance of a base accessibility and service level will ensure economic viability for businesses in the affected areas during the construction period. (i.e. 12 hr closures, several days, etc)

The preliminary Traffic Management Plan has been revised to reflect changes that were suggested during consultation with stakeholders, including Coquitlam staff, and includes provisions that during Restricted Periods, no lane closures along the highway mainline, interchange ramps and cross-streets will be permitted. These Restricted Periods, for weekdays, extend from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. on both Lougheed Highway and the TransCanada Highway, and 6 am to 8 pm on cross streets and United Boulevard and will require the Contractor to maintain all existing roadway and turning capacities throughout these periods, and to maintain existing coordination between traffic signals. There is also a requirement for maintenance of existing pedestrian and cyclist movements, for consultation with TransLink/Coast Mountain Bus Company around transit operating schedules, for maintenance of local access to adjacent properties, for consultation with First Responders in developing an Emergency Response Plan. Where lane closures are permitted outside of the Restricted Periods, requirements will be prescribed on the permitted closures, and heavy financial penalties/traffic disruption charges are applicable if these requirements are not been followed. Full closures of crossstreets will not be permitted at any time (even outside of the Restricted Periods), unless prior agreement has been obtained from the relevant municipality.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

88 Burnaby Gateway has assumed that the price of gasoline will be $0.80 / litre, forever. It is unrealistic to base this Application on a low price of gasoline. The Application should consider a range of gasoline prices between $1.00 and $2.00 / litre, as well as a price that is sufficient to achieve the Province’s goal of a 33% reduction in emissions, in just 12 years. The issue of gasoline price is particularly significant for the benefit / cost analysis in Chapter 3’s project rationale.

The Gateway Sub Area Travel Model was calibrated to existing conditions, including fuel prices, at the time of model development in 2004. The traffic model does not use the price of gasoline directly as a parameter; rather it uses vehicle operating costs expressed in terms of $2003 per kilometer. In addition, the model also uses parking costs and transit fares as input parameters, also expressed in terms of $2003. There is no implicit or explicit assumption within the model or by the Gateway Program that "the price of gasoline will be $0.80 / litre, forever”. The model does assume that the relationship between the inflation adjusted values for vehicle operating costs, parking costs, transit fares, and the value of time will remain approximately the same over the planning horizon. Additionally, a review of historical vehicle operating costs suggest that recent increases in gasoline prices have been offset by changes in fuel efficiency, maintenance costs, and tire costs, keeping overall operating costs relatively constant over the period of time since the model was calibrated.


93 Moved to Biophysical table (issue #66 )


Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

Pedestrian and cycling modes

95 Burnaby The Application’s discussion of the pedestrian and cycling modes is inadequate. There is virtually no information on these modes. What quality of facility can these travellers expect? How will the design mitigate conflicts between these modes and motorized traffic? This is of particular concern because of the potential of these modes to mitigate some of the project’s harmful impacts. It is therefore important that these facilities be designed to the highest possible standard; higher than what is being proposed by the Proponent.

Our analysis indicates that the toll, combined with other congestion reduction measures such as HOV lanes, transit and commercial vehicle priority access to highway on-ramps, and dedicated commercial vehicle ramps, will limit traffic growth and assure effective operations for the longer term. If the improvements are not effectively managed through tolls and other congestion reduction measures, analysis shows that the corridor would reach current levels of congestion in five to ten years after project completion. The Gateway Program has prepared a cycling plan overview which can be found online at: http://www.gatewayprogram.bc.ca. Cycling and pedestrian facilities within the Project will be constructed to meet Transportation Association of Canada guidelines. In addition, the Ministry of Transportation has committed $50M to provision of cycling and pedestrian facilities for the Gateway Program. Subsequent to this plan, the Project team has been meeting with municipalities, including Burnaby to discuss interchange-specific pedestrian and cycling improvements. The results of these discussions are reflected in the Reference Concept. MOT will provide facilities across the highway (including a pedestrian/cycling path across the new Port Mann Bridge) that is appropriate to the municipal network on either side. For example, separated multiuse urban trail standards will be provided if the municipality has a similar system that continues on.

C 16.10

16.24


98 Burnaby Design standards should be specified for all cycling and pedestrian facilities, and these should meet or exceed the guidelines of the Transportation Association of Canada.

Following consultation with municipalities, the Reference Concept drawings show proposed cycling facilities that meet TAC Geometric Design guidelines, and also provide suitable alternatives for both experienced cyclists and leisure cyclists within the Project limits. The cycling and pedestrian facilities as part of this Project will be designed



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

99 Burnaby The Environmental Assessment Certificate should specify the extent and quality of facilities to be provided for cyclists and pedestrians, as one means of mitigating the numerous environmental impacts of PMH1.

and constructed in accordance with TAC Geometric guidelines. TOCA 16.10 changed to include separation or physical barrier where appropriate and feasible.


100 Surrey The proponent should be directed to work with the community to plan facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and access to recreation and natural areas affected by the project.

Pedestrian and cycling facilities are included as a part of the scope of the Project. The proposed cycling improvements were developed based on early consultation with municipalities; TransLink and Metro Vancouver (see Cycling Plan Overview Final Draft, September 2005 can be found online at: http://www.gatewayprogram.bc.ca ). MOT will continue working with the City as evidenced by a new proposed partnership on a pedestrian/cycling overpass at 112th Avenue in addition to an improved crossing at the new 156th Street underpass. The Contractor will be required to undertake further public consultation during the different design stages to accommodate pedestrian and cycling requirements and maintain existing or reinstate pedestrian and cycling facilities in the Project area.

C 16.7a

16.15

9.5


TOLLING


Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

103 Burnaby Section 21.6.1 of the Application notes that peak hour traffic volumes will increase on the Pattullo and Alex Fraser Bridges, as a result of the toll at Port Mann. The impacts of these increases on the communities to the north and south of these bridges should be assessed.

In 2021 the model forecasts approximately 1% more daily traffic on the Pattullo Bridge and 2% less traffic on the Alex Fraser Bridge with the PMH1 project in place than in the 2021 base case (no Project) scenario. Within the limitations of traffic forecasting, this effectively represents no change. Based on drivers’ trip origin and destination there are two effects at play: • traffic attracted to the Port Mann Bridge due to the travel time

savings it offers; and • traffic adverse to paying the toll resulting in traffic diversion from the

Port Mann Bridge. Since the analysis shows virtually no change in daily travel demand across the alternate bridges, this suggests that as many people divert to the improved Port Mann Bridge as divert away from it over the course of a day.(Chapter 21.6.1 (p.21-7)of the Application) MoT is participating in a TransLink study to assess options for the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge. Any such changes to the Pattullo crossing arising from this study could have implications that would supersede the findings of diversion presented in the environmental assessment for PMH1.


105 Burnaby The tolling assessment and resultant traffic impacts are based on a toll of $2.50. The Province newspaper reported on 2007 September 25 that the toll would be “about $3”. This may have a higher traffic diversionary effect. The assessment should be repeated for the toll that is actually being proposed.

Using the initial toll rate and taking into account Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases, the toll will be in the $3.00 range by 2013, when the Project opens. As such, there is no higher diversionary effect anticipated, since the relative cost of the toll as a percentage of consumer spending won’t change.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

110 Surrey Tolling the Port Mann will also create demand for the free alternative; in this case, the Pattullo Bridge. The applicant acknowledges that the free alternative is currently experiencing levels of congestion. The application indicates that eastbound/southbound traffic demand across the Pattullo in the morning will grow by 11% and that westbound/northbound traffic will decrease by 9% due to a combination of tolling and reduced Port Mann congestion. All other movements will only vary slightly. The applicant should be required to work with the City of Surrey to ensure that the tolling of the Port Mann Bridge will not create residual traffic impacts due to the presence of the “free alternative” in Surrey.

In 2021 the model forecasts that there will be approximately 1% more daily traffic on the Pattullo Bridge and 2% less traffic on the Alex Fraser Bridge with the PMH1 project in place as there will be in the 2021 base case (no Project) scenario. Within the margin of error of traffic forecasting, this effectively represents no change. Based on drivers’ trip origin and destination there are two effects at play:

• traffic attracted to the Port Mann Bridge due to the travel time savings it offers; and

• traffic adverse to paying the toll resulting in traffic diversion from the Port Mann Bridge.

Since the analysis shows virtually no change in daily travel demand across the alternate bridges, this suggests that as many people divert to the improved Port Mann Bridge as divert away from it over the course of a day.(Chapter 21.6.1 (p.21-7) of the EAC Application) The Gateway Program is committed to continued discussions with the City of Surrey, through ongoing municipal liaison. Concurrent to this, the Ministry is participating in a TransLink study to assess options for the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge. Any such changes to the Pattullo crossing arising from this study could have implications that would supersede the findings of diversion presented in the environmental assessment for PMH1.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

111 New West The Application indicates diversion of traffic to Pattullo Bridge (and therefore New Westminster roadways). Diversion effects are estimated to be 11 percent (increase of approx 500 vehicles) in the morning peak hour in the off-peak direction. Mitigation of diversion effects are not addressed in the Application. The MOT response only discusses daily traffic (we assume two-way travel over a 24 hour period). What is not addressed is the impact of peak hour traffic.

In 2021 the model forecasts approximately 1% more daily traffic on the Pattullo Bridge and 2% less traffic on the Alex Fraser Bridge with the PMH1 project in place than in the 2021 base case (no Project) scenario. Within the limitations of traffic forecasting, this effectively represents no change. Based on drivers’ trip origin and destination there are two effects at play:

• traffic attracted to the Port Mann Bridge due to the travel time savings it offers; and

• traffic adverse to paying the toll resulting in traffic diversion from the Port Mann Bridge.

Since the analysis shows virtually no change in daily travel demand across the alternate bridges, this suggests that as many people divert to the improved Port Mann Bridge as divert away from it over the course of a day. (Chapter 21.6.1 of the Application).

The Gateway Program is committed to continued discussions with the City of New Westminster, through ongoing municipal liaison. Concurrent to this, the Ministry is participating in a TransLink study to assess options for the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge. Any such changes to the Pattullo crossing arising from this study could have implications that would supersede the findings of diversion presented in the environmental assessment for PMH1.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

NOISE

117 Burnaby The spatial boundaries for this chapter (defined by noise at ground level of adjacent homes) appear to be inadequate to capture the full impacts. These boundaries do not consider situations where the nearby homes are shielded by an elevated freeway (i.e., nearby homes are at a lower elevation than the highway), whereas homes further away may still be impacted. They also fail to consider potential impacts for taller multi-family buildings that are somewhat further away. Monitoring was undertaken at various locations along the alignment. It is noted that the microphone was held 1.7 metres from ground level. In cases where the freeway is elevated, such measurements could underestimate the noise levels, particularly for residents at higher elevations. In addition, the noise monitoring locations considered only the front two rows of residences. This could be inadequate in cases where there is an elevated section of roadway, or adjoining apartment buildings.

Spatial boundaries for the noise assessment are consistent with methodology used on other provincial and regional projects in the Lower Mainland, have been accepted by regulatory agencies responsible for review of these projects and are consistent with MOT mitigation requirements. It is noted that, where monitoring was conducted, microphones were setup at a height of 1.7 m above the ground level of the residence (not ground level at the Highway). The residences chosen for noise monitoring were those where “Project-related traffic noise impacts are expected to be greatest, typically at one of the closest residences to the proposed alignment.” (Chapter 15.2.3, p. 15-6)

C 10.2

10.6


120 Burnaby In addition to the Monitoring Plan which will be established for the construction phase, there must be a commitment for a post-operational monitoring plan which includes monitoring at all previously monitored sites to validate assumptions made in the Application and, where warranted, undertake additional mitigation measures.

Commitment to conduct noise measurements, based on site-specific locations and standard measurement procedures as per the Noise Policy, at the final Project design stage and one year following completion of construction to document the new noise level along the corridor. Evaluate the effectiveness of any mitigation measures, with a commitment to further mitigation if necessary, where technically feasible and practical.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

121 Burnaby Based on the MOT noise policy, a total of two sites in Burnaby warrant consideration of mitigation and seven sites potentially warrant consideration of mitigation. In contrast, applying Health Canada guidelines to the 12 Burnaby sites indicates that the existing baseline measurements at six sites already exceed the Health Canada guidelines for “serious impact”. According to Health Canada, mitigation measures would be “strongly recommended” to mitigate existing noise impacts. Consider the 4900 block of Manor Street with the highest baseline noise level of all the sites in the entire study corridor, at up to 72 dBA. According to Health Canada, this area is “very seriously impacted” by existing highway noise. However, no noise treatment would be warranted using MOT criteria. It is our understanding that, on the South Fraser Perimeter Road project, the same Proponent has committed to abide by the highest available noise mitigation criteria. The same standard should be applied to PMH1, and should at a minimum encompass the criteria of Health Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

MOT is committed to appropriate noise mitigation in accordance with MOT guidelines. This is the same commitment made for the SFPR project. MOT recognizes that noise may be a concern for some of the communities along Highway 1, and is committed to working with communities to identify appropriate and effective mitigation measures where required. Noise impacts will be further assessed at detailed design. As the Project design progresses, MOT will undertake additional noise modeling to determine the location and design of appropriate mitigation measures. There will be further opportunities for public input on types of noise mitigation during preliminary and detailed design consultation, and the Project team will continue to meet with residents to better understand the needs of each community. Public consultation will ensure residents have an opportunity to comment on proposed mitigation measures. WG Discussion: Health Canada guidelines are in Draft.

C 10.5

10.6

10.7

10.10


122 Surrey The Environmental Assessment applied a variety of methods, including those based on absolute noise levels and those based on differences in noise levels between the pre-construction noise level to the anticipated 2021 level. Health Canada, World Health Organization and BC Ministry of Transportation guidelines were considered. This is of concern to Surrey.

The mitigation guidelines that were noted in the noise description were:

• The Ministry of Transportation (MOT) Noise Policy • ISO 1996-1:2003 • Health Canada (HC) National Guidelines for Environmental Noise

Control • The United States Federal Transit Administration • The United States Federal Highway Administration • World Health Organization • Alberta Infrastructure

However, assessment and qualification for mitigation consideration was assessed according to MOT Noise Policy.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

130 Surrey The applicant will need to indicate whether or not the following areas can be appropriately mitigated.

• Anniedale triangle including Anniedale School; • 16600 block of 102 Avenue; • 17700 block of Barnston Drive; • 10400 block of 156 Street; • Birdland/Riverdale area; • Fraser Heights near 152 Street.

Site 5 Anniedale school, potentially qualifies for mitigation consideration. If during detailed design it is found to qualify for mitigation, it is expected that it could be “appropriately mitigated” through the construction of a noise barrier and / or upgrading the school’s façade would achieve reductions of 5 dBA or more in traffic noise levels inside the school. As outlined above, the following sites do not qualify for mitigation consideration (based on the reference concept):

• Site 31 16600 Block of 102 Avenue

• Site s6 17700 Block of Barnston Drive

• Site 28 10400 Block of 156th Street See response for comment 16.8 above, regarding Birdland / Riverdale. Sites 24 and 25, both on 152nd Street but on opposite sides of PMH1 are estimated to experience 2021 Leq(24)’s of 68.5 and 67.1 dBA respectively. Site 24 clearly qualifies, and Site 25 potentially qualifies for mitigation consideration.

C 10.5

10.6


131 Surrey The design/build team should monitor noise levels for the first five years and provide noise contour drawings to the City on an annual basis; these drawings will guide redevelopment in the City and guide any further mitigation work. The design/build proponents should be made aware of this requirement.

As per the EAC Application, pre-construction and post construction monitoring and assessment are required. In addition, monitoring will be conducted during construction on a site-specific basis.

The noise impact assessment has identified 1 residential location that clearly qualifies, and 5 locations that potentially qualify for mitigation consideration under MOT policy Noise monitoring will be conducted “at the final design and post-construction phases of the Project to document the new noise environment along the corridor and evaluate the effectiveness of any mitigation measures. Mitigation measures will be designed to provide a minimum 5 dBA reduction in predicted 2021 noise levels. The two additional monitoring assessments will provide verification of modelling and assessment made for the pre-design concept.

C 10.8

10.10

10.11



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

132 New West Mitigation measures are proposed to be within the context of Ministry policy and existing noise bylaws. To the extent that there may be conflict between Ministry Policy and local bylaws, there is a need to establish a protocol to define which prevail. These issues relate to noise generation both during and post construction. Although it is stated that a number of measures would be undertaken to mitigate construction noise, including requiring the “contractor” to attend meetings with local government to “address” noise issues, we believe there should be a stated protocol to address construction noise issues that recognize local bylaws, particularly for night time work in proximity to residential areas.

Permanent mitigation measures for noise impacts are to be implemented in accordance with MOT policy. Mitigation during construction will include measures to control noise at the source; use of barriers to control noise along the sound-receiver path, selection of quieter equipment and processes, and consultation with affected communities. In addition, the Noise Management Plan for construction will describe site-specific schedules, procedures and BMPs to control construction noise emissions. The Contractor will be required participate in meetings with affected communities/residents to address site-specific noise issues in the event that late-evening or night-time construction works proves necessary in the vicinity of residential areas.

C 10.3

10.6

10.12

10.13

10.14

10.15


133 New West The noise evaluation and development of mitigation strategies need to address existing (and future) residential areas in proximity to the Highway corridor that are already affected or may be affected by noise.

The noise impact assessment component of the EA included all residential areas and schools that, at the time of the 2004 baseline noise monitoring program, were found to front closely (roughly within 200 m) upon Highway 1. More recent orthographic mapping revealed a few more residential areas and these were added to the list of sites to be assessed. Regarding any further residential developments which may in future occur along Highway 1, the MOT Noise Policy specifies that in order to be eligible for mitigation consideration, a residential development or school must have received planning approval from the relevant municipality prior to the first public announcement of the Project.” The MOT Noise Policy is included in Appendix 15A of the EAC Application.


134 Coquitlam All five sites in Coquitlam which were assessed require appropriate and effective noise mitigation based on additional noise impact measures that were also used beyond the MOT measures. e.g. ISO, Canadian National Guidelines for Environmental Noise Control, US Federal Highway Administration Authority and US Federal Transit Authority Guidelines)

The preliminary noise impact assessment conducted during the Environmental Impact Assessment Phase revealed that, of the five sites representing residential enclaves bordering upon Highway 1 within Coquitlam, one site (No. 18, 200 Block Jackson St.) was found to “Potentially” warrant mitigation consideration under the MOT noise policy and one site (No. 20 130 Block San Juan Place) was found to clearly warrant mitigation consideration. Noise impacts at all sites will be assessed in greater detail during subsequent design phases.

C 10.6

10.10



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

135 Coquitlam Based on MOT guidelines, only one site in Coquitlam warrants mitigation. It is reported that this site on San Juan Place (Cape Horn area) has one of the largest noise impacts within the Gateway project particularly for residual noise (e.g. noise that cannot or will not be mitigated after any mitigation measure is applied.) The report also outlines the results of several other commonly accepted methods/measures to measure the noise impacts at the five sites. These measures identified additional sites that should be mitigated. Taking all of these measures into account, all five sites in Coquitlam, not only the two sites identified through the BC MOT guidelines, have noise impacts that should be mitigated. Report recognized that operational and construction impacts and associated site specific mitigation measures need to be confirmed at a later more detailed design stage.

See response directly above. C 10.6

10.10


136 HC Assessment of residual impacts (i.e., those after mitigation and avoidance measures have been applied) are a key part of the assessment as they represent what human receptors will actually experience. As much as possible, estimates of the duration of exposure of individual receptor sites should be made in order to permit more precise evaluation of the severity of impacts.

Residual effects discussed in the main body of the assessment are summarized in Chapter 15.2.9 of the Application. Additional detail is provided in Appendix 15H of the Application, where effects on each residential enclave are presented.

The duration of construction and resulting noise exposure at individual receptor sites will be assessed during the detailed design stage. Durations for major phases of work, such as clearing and grubbing, excavation, grading, paving and structures will vary, dependant on the scope of work and the characteristics of the specific location. That being said, durations typically range, within a given locale, from a minimum of a few weeks to a few months to a maximum of 1 to 2 years (such as for Port Mann Bridge construction).



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

137 HC The assessment characterizes residual impacts using Noise Impact Indexes (NII) and averages of noise level increases. NIIs are no-longer widely accepted as an evaluation method. Deficiencies of this method include the implied equivalence of very large impacts to a small number of receptors with very small impacts to a large number of receptors. NII cannot evaluate the absolute impacts of the project as no information is given on what severity of impact is represented by a certain difference in NII.

The limitation of NII, specifically that the metric is not sensitive to the absolute levels of noise but only to increases in noise levels, is appreciated. As such, NII is not well suited to the quantification of the absolute impact of project noise on individual neighbourhoods or residential enclaves. However

NII is useful in making general ranking comparisons of various project scenarios - in this case, impact mitigation and/or avoidance scenarios. It is agreed that the Change in %Highly Annoyed is a better indicator of the absolute impact of project-related noise increases at specific locations. While the site-specific Tables in Appendix 15H of the EAC Application provide residual effects only in terms of NII, Table 15-19 in Chapter 15.6 of the EAC Application indicates, for each project section, the average residual effect in terms of Change in %Highly Annoyed as well as the range of such residual effects among sites within each section. Therefore the worst case residual effect situation within each project section is provided.


138 HC The averaging of increased noise levels over the entire project or over several receptors is also not an appropriate method. More severe adverse impacts on one receptor may not be averaged out with less severe impacts to another. This is consistent with CEAA guidance in aiming to avoid locally significant effects. Residual noise level increases should be assessed individually for each receptor site.

Site-by-site information is provided in the Appendices of the noise assessment. The section by section averaging of project noise impacts within the body of the report was done in the interest of developing a clear and concise report. With the exception of the residual effects in terms of %Highly Annoyed, all data was provided in this manner on a site-bysite basis. In arriving at the Change in %Highly Annoyed data in Table 15-19 of the EAC Application, Residual Effects were assessed on a site-by-site basis.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

139 HC Whether or not the mitigation measures detailed in the assessment will be implemented has yet to be determined. The proponent should indicate what specific commitments it is prepared to implement regarding the mitigation measures described in the Application. Once this is determined, the severity of the predicted impacts on individual receptors at each site, before and after mitigation should be discussed and evaluated, and the conclusions of this evaluation should be reported. The feasibility of implementing additional mitigation measures should then be discussed for cases where post-mitigation impacts are high (as per the criteria outlined in the assessment). There should be opportunities to go beyond MoT Noise Policy on a site specific basis.

Noise impacts will be further assessed at detailed design. As the Project design progresses, MOT will undertake additional noise modeling to determine the location and design of appropriate mitigation measures.

The preliminary noise impact assessment was unable to model project-related noise impacts with the level of certainty required to determine where mitigation would be warranted under the MOT Noise Policy. Thus, Tables 15G-33 to 15G- 40 of the Application, identified individual sites as definitely, potentially or not warranting mitigation consideration. This analysis will be finalized during subsequent design phases after the Contractor has been selected. However, MOT is committed to mitigating all significant noise impacts associated with the PMH1 project to the extent practically possible, in accordance with the MOTNoise Policy.

C 10.6

10.10


142 HC Appendix G states that sites 8 and 28 have been removed from the list of sites that qualify for mitigation because “The noise impact … is primarily due to increased traffic volumes from municipal road improvements that will precede the PMH1 project. As such they are not eligible for mitigation consideration as per MoT mitigation guidelines”. Under CEAA this impact should be considered a cumulative impact and receive consideration as such. Because sites 8 and 28 fall outside of the scope of the MOT noise policy, these locations (and other similar locations) will have high un-mitigated residual noise impacts. The residents at these locations will experience high noise impacts, regardless of whether the project belongs to the Province or local governments.

Noise effects of other projects that are outside the scope of the PMH1 project are not eligible for mitigation. As the improvements at these sites are being implemented by municipalities, it is at their discretion as to whether mitigation would be applied.

Site 8 on Norland Avenue, based on discussions with City of Burnaby, is unlikely to remain within the Project limits. If it does remain within the Project limits, the site will be assessed and appropriate mitigation developed in the context of other Project commitments.

Site 28 is on 156th Street and is outside the Project scope (part of a City of Surrey project currently underway). The City of Surrey is currently meeting with affected residents to discuss community concerns and appropriate mitigation.


Noise during Construction

144 HC The construction period for this project is over one year in duration. While it is acknowledged that not every receptor site will be exposed to noise for the entire duration of the construction phase, no information on the predicted length of exposure to construction noise of individual receptor sites is given.

Duration of exposure to construction noise will be assessed once construction staging information is available during future stages of design. This information will be provided in the noise assessment carried out during detailed design.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

145 HC This section states “it is expected that there will be some night-time construction work in some segments of the PMH1 corridor”. The assessment of construction noise impacts was completed assuming daytime construction only. In order to minimize potential sleep disturbance in nearby residents, construction should be restricted to daytime hours as much as feasible, and in the case that night-time construction may be deemed necessary, efforts should be made to avoid louder activities such as pile driving and riveting during night-time hours.

At this stage of the process, the scope of night-time construction work is unknown. As such, estimated construction noise levels used to assess the community impact were based upon a 7.5 hr daytime shift. However, since there will most likely be some night-time construction work, Chapter 15.4 (p. 15-28) of the EAC Application discusses the effects of a night-time construction shift on noise exposures and degrees of community reaction. Mitigation, including those potential measures for night-time construction, are discussed in Chapter 15.5 (p. 15-34 to 15- 36) of the EAC Application. As noted in the Application, MOT will ensure that the Contractor’s noise assessment and mitigation conducted prior to construction will be based on the Contractor’s site specific activities, including the physical extent and types of night work.


148 N Coquitlam Will aesthetics be considered in the selection of barrier materials/design including, but not limited to landscape buffers to walls and bas relief designs incorporated into noise barrier?

The MOT noise policy requires that mitigation measures be supported by the majority of the affected community. This will include input into the aesthetic aspects of any noise barriers.


149 Burnaby The Application is based on construction occurring during normal working hours, with some limited night time work. However, discussions with the Proponent have indicated that much of the work will occur at night, when disruption to traffic is reduced. In addition, it has been our experience that, due to delays in achieving project timelines, additional work gets shifted to the night time as a project progresses. The noise annoyance associated with construction will thus be greater than shown in the Application. The document should be amended accordingly, and suitable mitigation will be required. Frequency and duration should be considered.

At this stage of the process, the scope of night-time construction work is unknown. As such, estimated construction noise levels used to assess the community impact were based upon a 7.5 hr daytime shift. However, since there will most likely be some night-time construction work, Chapter 15.4.1.4 of the EAC Application discusses the effects of a night-time construction shift on construction noise exposures and degrees of community reaction. As noted in the Application, MOT will ensure that the Contractor’s noise assessment and mitigation conducted prior to construction will be based on the Contractor’s site specific activities, including the physical extent and types of night work.


150 Burnaby The noise contribution from construction staging area should be included explicitly. This will have differing implications from a noise annoyance perspective.

Noise from construction staging areas will be considered as part of the construction Noise Management Plan. C 10.1 Satisfactorily

addressed for the purpose of EA


Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

151 N Coquitlam Where mitigation measures that include permanent noise barriers are identified, can the construction of these barriers be required prior to the commencement of Gateway improvements to help mitigate the construction noise as well? How and when will this be determined?

Where Project noise levels during construction and operation exceed specific thresholds, provision of noise mitigation may be required prior to the start of other construction.


152 New West Conclusions of Chapter 15 state that during construction “the means that the contractor could reduce community noise impacts include: avoidance of high emission activities during late evening and night-time hours”, however staff have been advised by Gateway PMH1 staff that construction periods will be restricted to night-time hours. It is recommended that noise mitigation strategies be reconciled with highway construction related traffic management requirements.

Lane closures will be restricted to night-time hours, however, the Contractor will be able to conduct construction during the day. Mitigation measures during construction will be implemented and will include measures to control noise at the source; use of barriers to control noise along the sound-receiver path, selection of quieter equipment and processes, and consultation with affected communities. In addition, the Noise Management Plan for construction will describe site-specific schedules and procedures and BMPs to control construction noise emissions.

C 10.3

10.7

10.13

10.14

10.15


SOCIO-COMMUNITY / SOCIO-ECONOMIC

154 Burnaby Section 17.5.2.2 is entitled “traffic network pattern changes” yet contains not a single traffic projection. A discussion of traffic needs to be more comprehensive than “volumes will go up” and “volumes will go down”. Which neighbourhoods are at increased risk of “ratrunning” due to the forecast increase in car travel? What will the Proponent do to mitigate these effects?

The intent of Chapter 17.5.2.2 of the EAC Application was to provide general patterns of traffic change, not specific volumes. Chapter 22 of the EAC Application deals with traffic volumes. The Gateway Program undertook an analysis of traffic on Burnaby roads (excluding Highway 1) and found that, consistent with project objectives to restore and retain regional traffic on regional roads, overall vehicle km of travel on City of Burnaby streets declined by 2.7 % with the introduction of the Gateway Program (2031 analysis). MoT will provide the auto volume difference plots, of the Burnaby street network, for the horizon years and time periods requested by the City as well as projected Highway 1 volumes through Burnaby.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

155 Burnaby Section 17.5.5 would have us believe that the impacts on property access are universally positive. This Application should contain a balanced assessment. Areas of negative impact should be discussed. For example, the Reference Concept cuts off the primary southern access to the Still Creek industrial area, severely limiting access from the west. The impact of this should be assessed in the Application.

In conjunction with Chapter 17.5.2.1 of the EAC Application (Local Street Connectivity and Access), the assessment provides a balanced view on the potential impacts on local street and property access. In addition, the Land Use Impact Maps included in Chapter 17 provide specific comments on access issues, primarily at interchanges (see Figures 17-12 to 17-23 of the EAC Application) noting where access has been improved or replaced with less direct access. This access referenced by City of Burnaby is not the primary southern access for the Still Creek industrial area and primarily serves a small amount of traffic from Grandview Hwy. The movement eliminated by the Reference Concept from Grandview Highway to Still Creek industrial area is a low volume, left-turn across a high volume freeway off-ramp which is not a desirable movement. The Reference Concept maintains other existing connection options, including Canada Way and Gilmore. There will also be an ability to use the Grandview Hwy connection the auxiliary lanes to route this traffic to Willingdon Avenue or Gilmore Ave.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

157 Burnaby This chapter has a lot of information, but ultimately says little about community. It should identify potential impacts (positive and negative) from the PMH1 project, proposing mitigation measures for the negative impacts and community-enhancement strategies for building upon the positive impacts.

Chapter 17 of the EAC Application material incorporates a characterization of the community and areas that may be affected by capacity and safety improvements to PMH1. Chapter 17 of the EAC Application provides information on:

• A demographic profile of the City, including labour force/employment data, growth trends

• Indication of economic development goals (both commercial and industrial) as well as overall economic trends

• Municipal house values, and a comparison to other centres in the study area

• A demographic and labour force profile of the socio-community study area, including commuter transportation mode share and resident mobility (degree to which residents relocate) data

• An overview of existing land use for the land areas adjacent to PMH1, with commentary on the nature and extent of nearby economic activities

• Land use and impact mapping for areas where interchange reconstruction is likely to affect current land use activities and configuration

• Information on current community facilities, parks and recreation features, schools, and heritage buildings in the study area

Both text and map references are used to comment on the overall impact of proposed PMH1 improvements. This includes information on access, general traffic changes, potential land absorption, potential property losses resulting from highway widening and interchange alterations (e.g. new ramps), visual impact assessment, mitigation measures, and connectivity between areas traversed by the highway. Every effort has been made to note both positive and negative impacts as appropriate.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

164 Burnaby The term “community cohesion” is used to refer to “the physical continuity of a community to its outermost boundaries” (page 17-62). This is a very narrow, engineering-oriented definition and indicative of the generally superficial approach that has been used in assessing the socio-economic impacts of the project. Community is about people. The PMH1 project will inevitably affect community (e.g., commuting and driving patterns, traffic impacts in neighbourhoods, decisions about locations of employment). The Application thus needs to recognize such impacts and propose approaches that would address them in a meaningful way.

The definition of “community cohesion” is consistent with standard socio-community impact assessments for projects of this scale including other recent regional projects. Chapter 17 of the EAC Application material incorporates a characterization of the community and areas that may be affected by capacity and safety improvements to PMH1 as outlined previously.


168 Metro V. Burnaby Lake: The PMH1 proposal identifies impacts due to widening the highway in the vicinity of the urban trail parallel to the H1 alignment. The proponent’s proposed mitigation (p17-101 and p25-10) is to replace fences/barriers along sections of trails that are closer to PMH1 to protect/screen all users including horse-riding on the trails in Burnaby Lake Regional Park.

Staff indicate that maintaining the integrity of the urban trails should require new fences, barriers, and vegetation to mitigate the impact (as opposed to ‘replacement’ of what is currently in place) along the affected area, and that there may also be creek crossings / culvert replacements that will provide opportunities for habitat enhancement.

The PMH1 team will continue to work with Metro Vancouver to identify and provide habitat enhancement opportunities along the entire corridor. Mitigation for noise impacts to park areas is not addressed in the MOT noise policy and therefore is beyond the scope of the assessment, as set out in the Application Terms of Reference (ATOR), which identify issues to be addressed and the information to be provided by MOT in its Application. Burnaby Lake Where feasible, the PMH1 project team proposes to recycle and re-use existing fences and vegetation. The project team agrees that there are habitat enhancement opportunities in this area. With reference to existing creek crossings and culvert replacements or retrofits within the Project area, on fish-bearing watercourses, MOT will maintain, or if possible improve, fish passage.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

172 Surrey A significant direct community impact is the site of the Dogwood RV Park north of 112 Ave and east of Highway 1. Although the submission states, “existing housing units may be affected by potential encroachment of a new retaining wall resulting from a necessity to widen the highway in this area,” the current plans for the alignment show that a significant proportion of this property will be required and the remainder will be affected. Approxi. 50 trailer pads, some of which are used (against City by-laws) as permanent residences, appear to be directly affected by the currently proposed alignment. There are limited locations for relocation of these units in the Lower Mainland. Additional consultation with campground residents and assistance with relocation is warranted. For the Dogwood RV Park, our understanding is that 95% of residents have been renting their pads on a month to month basis and as such could be entitled to compensation if the property were converted to other uses under the provisions of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act. Consequently, we believe that the owner should commit to providing compensation to those displaced by the project. For the Anniedale School site, it is unclear to us how the term "immediately adjacent area" will be applied. In addition to impacts on the northern edge of the school site and the grove of mature trees in the northeast corner of the site, access to the school site will be affected by the proposed closures of 96th and 97th Avenue that would necessitate improved access via 180th Street. The commitments should show all impacts to the site being mitigated or minimized, whether these are immediately adjacent or indirect, such as the access issue.

MOT recognizes and respects the City of Surrey’s role in setting and enforcing city bylaws. The Project and City of Surrey representatives (property owners) have met with the operator of the campground to explore options as part of our consultation with potentially impacted properties. Refinements to the alignment at the municipal interface regarding the RV Park will be the subject of ongoing discussions between MOT and the municipality.

C 16.7a Satisfactorily addressed for the purpose of EA

175 Surrey Access to areas in Surrey that are severed by the Highway need to be maintained or enhanced, particularly the Fraser Heights area and the Port Kells area. At this time, Fraser Heights is accessed by 152 Street, 160 Street and 176 Street. The interchange at 160 Street includes a RI/RO movement from the eastbound off ramp and the City would like these ramps to be retained and the adjacent intersection upgraded accordingly.

Refinement of the alignment will occur through continued discussions between the Gateway team and the City. The new 156th street underpass funded by the Gateway Program and the City of Surrey, will also help maintain and enhance access to Fraser Heights.

C 16.7a Satisfactorily addressed for the purpose of EA


Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

180 Coquitlam The City seeks assucrance from Gateway that all pedestrian, cycling and transit connections and routes need to be enhanced along the Brunette Avenue corridor from King Edward through to the interchange with the Trans Canada Highway and the Braid Street Skytrain station.

the PMH1 project includes $50 million planned infrastructure to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians across Hwy 1 at all interchanges and overpasses. These provisions are included as a part of the PMH1 project. Therefore, pedestrian and cycling connections will be included for the Brunette Ave and King Edward overpass within the Project area. The PMH1 team is committed to ongoing consultation with municipal staff regarding cycling and pedestrian access. Improving transit connections at Brunette Ave interchange and any other interchanges along the corridor will be subject to ongoing discussions with Translink staff.

C 16.1

16.2

16.10

16.24


181 Coquitlam Maillardville is home to key cultural facilities including Place des Arts, Mackin House, Heritage Square and the Buddhist Temple on Jackson Street. Access to these important facilities shall be protected during the construction and operation of the Gateway project.

While these cultural facilities are located within the socio-community study area for PMH1, with the exception of the Buddhist Temple on Jackson Street, they are located some distance from proposed improvements and direct access to these facilities is likely not to be affected, although these sites may be affected indirectly by construction at Brunette Avenue and the Highway.

With respect to access to the Buddhist Temple on Jackson Street, Chapter 17.5.2.2 of the EAC Application (p. 17-54) (Coquitlam) notes that “…the intersection improvements at Blue Mountain/Lougheed/Brunette are under joint review by the City of Coquitlam and the Gateway project team,…potential traffic and property impacts will (likely) change for this area” The recognition of on-going review with Coquitlam staff creates an opportunity to consider the protection of access to the Buddhist Temple during construction and operation.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

182 Coquitlam The City requests more detailed analysis of the positive and negative impacts to businesses within the PMH1 corridor in Coquitlam needs to ensure that impacts are minimized during construction and operation and ultimately enhanced as a result of the Gateway project. This analysis needs to ensure that business impacts are minimized including: the potential elimination of viable uses, reducing access to businesses, ensuring that residual lands which may be created through the project are able to support a viable economic use consistent with community plans and goals for the area and minimize negative visual and aesthetic impacts on adjacent residential and business areas.

Chapter 17.6 of the EAC Application provides a qualitative review of potential business impacts to areas within the PMH1 study area, including Coquitlam between Brunette and Cape Horn. Business areas in Coquitlam accessed by the Brunette Avenue/Cape Horn interchanges are specifically mentioned and are expected to benefit by increased efficiency of Highway 1 and improved access. From Brunette to Cape Horn, Figures 17-15, 17-16 and 17-17 of the EAC Application indicate specific property impacts, business interruptions, and potential access issues. Mitigation measures for business activity are described in Table 17- 288 of the EAC Application (p. 17-102) suggest that for parcels that are reduced in size by PMH1 improvements (parcel remainders) and where the entire business is affected that an appropriate


183 Coquitlam Staff note the lack of any substantial analysis which examines project impacts related to property values and tax impacts, projected taxes and commercial /industrial growth potential associated with the project for business and employment areas in Coquitlam located within the PMH1 corridor. Coquitlam’s business areas (Maillardville, Blue Mountain/ Tupper area, Lougheed Highway business corridor, Fraser Mills/Pacific Reach and Mayfair Industrial Park) warrant the same rigor of assessment with regards to operational and land use redevelopment opportunities, land value and economic costs and benefits as well as potential employment generation and property tax impacts that was accorded to lands within the PMH1 corridor in other municipalities. King Edward interchange will have an impact on property values and business.

In accordance with the ATOR, property values and tax impacts focused on areas which experience clear and significant value shifts due to PMH1 improvements, specifically due to altered access which open new areas for economic development. As a result, the assessment focused on business impacts in areas where current access is not available, but new access is proposed, such asat 216th Street in Langley.


184 Coquitlam The EA report provided very limited assessment of the full impacts of the rebuilt Cape Horn interchange on business areas within this specific area. The full impacts of the complete redesign and rebuild of the Cape Horn interchange area and potential impacts (both positive and negative) on land use, property access as well as the local road network needs to be fully examined and reported on by Gateway. The City requests more information and analysis related to the planned changes at the Cape Horn Interchange areas.

The socio-community impacts for the Cape Horn interchange area are documented on Figure 17-17 of the Application in a similar manner to other interchanges throughout the PMH1 corridor. For the Cape Horn area, Figure 17-17 indicates areas of potential business interruption, property impact, access issues, visual impact, and intrusion of infrastructure into an existing community.

The PMH1 team is committed to ongoing consultation with municipal staff regarding the planned changes at the Cape Horn interchange.

C 16.7b Satisfactorily addressed for the purpose of EA


Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

185 Coquitlam It is the City's understanding that this concept for Brunette Avenue interchange presents significant operational challenges yet Gateway’s assessment provides very little information on solutions and alternatives. Staff seek clarification from Gateway on how the ongoing planning and technical assessments of interchange options which may provide superior operational and community benefits for Brunette Avenue between Gateway and the City be incorporated into the assessment so that impacts can be more fully vetted through the EA Process? Gateway is requested to provide more information and analysis regarding the operational and business/property impacts associated with the redesigned Brunette Avenue interchange. The City recommends that Gateway provides sound technical functional options for the Brunette Avenue interchange which provide superior operational and community benefit.

The PMH1 team is committed to ongoing consultation with municipal staff regarding the Brunette Ave. Interchange as ongoing planning and technical assessments of interchange options become available. Once the scope is defined, this information will be forwarded to the EAO to determine whether an amendment to the Environmental Assessment Certificate is required.

Socio-community impacts for the Brunette Interchange were provided in accordance with the Application Terms of Reference, in a similar manner to other interchanges throughout the PMH1 corridor. For the Brunette area, Figure 17-15 of the EAC Application indicates property impacts and access issues


186 Coquitlam Tree replacement for those trees removed as part of the project is not adequately addressed. The City seeks confirmation from Gateway that it tends to develop as part of their Environmental Management Program a tree replacement policy to ensure that there will be no net loss of trees or canopy cover.

Specific details regarding tree replacement, site specific vegetation treatments, and monitoring requirements will be developed during the design and preconstruction phase of the Project. However, the Project will preserve, to the extent possible, native trees and understory plants in areas outside of the actual roadwork footprint where safety concerns or infrastructure requirements are not of concern. Where trees must be removed, close cut or no grubbing techniques will be used where possible, and any replanting will utilize native species to assist in the control of noxious and invasive weeds.


187 Coquitlam Maquabeak Park has the potential to be the most severely impacted of all the City’s parks due to its proximity to the proposed twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. Any amenities or amenity values lost as a result of the bridge construction will need to be compensated for by the provision of land and replacement or relocation of those same amenities in a nearby area on the Fraser River foreshore. Could there be loss of land to the Lower Lougheed neighbourhood park?

Maquabeak Park may be potentially encroached upon by the PMH1 footprint as a result of the new Port Mann Bridge crossing. Impacts are anticipated to be temporary, construction-related effects. Should any park improvements be permanently lost or altered, as a result of construction of the new Port Mann Bridge, these will becompensated for in a nearby area of Fraser River foreshore.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

188 Coquitlam The development of an integrated, intermunicipal trail network connecting the Central Valley greenway, proposed Fraser and Brunette Rivers is a key community goal reflected in the City's Master Trail Plan. The Gateway project is a significant opportunity to assist in realizing these goals given many of these areas are directly within the PMH1 corridor and more specifically within areas that will be seeing significant road infrastructure construction. The City seeks assurance that existing and planned trail corridors linking the proposed Fraser River Greenway and Brunette River trails with the PoCo trail system and the Central Valley Greenway shall be protected.

In Coquitlam, existing pedestrian and cycling facilities currently used will be either maintained or reinstated in a safe and efficient manner throughout construction. All temporary closures or re-routing of any existing pedestrian or cycling facilities during construction will only be permitted upon provisions of a suitable alternative route and with adequate signage indicating the dates and duration of any closures, as well as alternate routes available.

As the design proceeds, additional information on potential impacts

C 9.5

9.6


189 Coquitlam The City recognizes the functional requirements associated with the PMH1 project however much more attention needs to be paid to the visual and aesthetic impacts of all project elements and how they contribute positively to adjacent business and residential communities. All elements of the Gateway project should contribute to the beautification of Coquitlam. The City requests that Gateway develop comprehensive urban and landscape design principles which need to be applied to all project elements including interchanges, intersections approaches and corridor as a whole. More information is needed about the nature and scope of landscape and tree planting proposed and how aesthetics will be effectively integrated into the overall design of the project. Very critical attention to the location and urban design of these structures and others planned for the project is required.

The MOT Manual of Aesthetic Design Practice (available online at: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/eng_publications/environment/design_practice.htm)

provides a comprehensive reference document to help ensure good appearance and consistency throughout the Project. This document will form part of the landscape and site restoration design criteria to be considered for the Project along with the MOT Landscape Policy and Design Standards. If there are specific project areas where Coquitlam wishes to fund and maintain special aesthetic or restoration activities, the Project may consider such requests.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

192 Coquitlam The City seeks assurance that all planned future transportation connections across the Highway be planned and designed as multi modal corridors and facilities. This includes the new King Edward Street crossing and the re built Brunette Avenue interchange which will need to accommodate transit, pedestrian and bikes from Maillardville to the Braid Street sky train station. All designs for Brunette Avenue and King Edward Street crossings shall make provision for enhanced pedestrian and cycle friendly environment as well as transit priority measures to ensure efficient connections to the Millennium Sky train Line.

The PMH1 project includes $50 million planned infrastructure to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians across Hwy 1 at all interchanges and overpasses. These provisions are included as a part of the PMH1project. Therefore, pedestrian and cycling connections will be included for the Brunette Ave and King Edward overpass within the Project area. The PMH1 team is committed to ongoing consultation with municipal staff regarding cycling and pedestrian access. Improving transit connections at Brunette Ave interchange and any other interchanges along the corridor will be subject to ongoing discussions with Translink staff.

C 16.1

16.2

16.10

16.24


193 Coquitlam It is noted that while local governments will work within their legislative authority and control to ensure that community and area plans recognize the impacts and benefits of improved transportation circulation for both people and goods within the corridor, more onus than that which is implied in the proposed mitigation section should be placed on the Provincial government to ensure that the project effectively recognizes, integrates and supports local government long range economic development and revitalization goals. Overall the list of mitigation measures to address residential, business area, parks, recreation, community cohesion, visual and aesthetic impacts, lighting, and business is very limited. The level of commitment from Gateway to effectively address and mitigate impacts remains unclear. The City requests more detailed assessment information and statement of commitments by Gateway to address identified socio economic and community impacts.

The description of mitigation measures is in accordance with the ATOR for socio-community impact assessment. The level of detail is consistent given the conceptual nature of the Project.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

194 Coquitlam Staff note that the section on Mitigation During Construction stage of the project is very limited and needs much more analysis and detail which can more adequately address the impacts on both residents and businesses of construction of this major, multi year construction project. The construction phase of the project will undoubtedly impact the livability and economic viability of many residents and businesses within the corridor. The City clearly recognizes the longer term benefit of a well planned PMH1 Project but given the scale and scope of the pending construction phase stronger recognition and assurances by Gateway to fully anticipate and effectively address construction and post construction impacts are needed.

Given that the design of the Project has not been determined, requirements for construction-related activities and associated impacts have not been confirmed. The Contractor will be required to prepare aTraffic Management Plan for the Project. The goal of the Traffic Management Plan will be to minimize disruption and maximize predictability for travelers. The Project team has recently completed traffic management consultation with key representative highway user groups, including Coquitlam, to gather feedback on potential traffic closure schedules and traffic management communications.


195 Coquitlam The City requests a comprehensive construction management and mitigation plan which will consider loss of business impacts, and the mitigation plan be forwarded to the City for review before any project approvals are granted. Request MoT provid a commitment to maintain accessibility to businesses in the corridor during construction and discuss how to deal with business losses resulted from construction. It is not known at the current project procurement stage, what terms of reference Gateway had issued to the three proponents regarding construction traffic management and the thresholds of disruption to businesses during the extensive construction period.

The Contractor will be responsible for preparation of a Traffic Management Plan, a Traffic Control Plan and a Traffic Communications Management Plan. The Traffic Management Plan identifies traffic management risks and related communications issues and documents how they will be addressed. The Traffic Control Plan will detail how traffic management during construction will comply and address performance requirements. The goal of the Traffic Communications Management Plan is to minimize disruption and maximize predictability for the public, commuters, local residents, businesses and goods movers throughout the construction period.

MOT will ensure that construction vehicle access to the Project area is addressed in the Contractor’s Traffic Management Plan and that the Contractor consults with Municipalities regarding access points and routes through municipalities. The project team has recently completed traffic management consultation with key representative user groups, including the City of Coquitlam, to gather feedback on potential traffic closure schedules and traffic management communications.

C 9.1

9.2



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

213 Coquitlam The City requests thast Gateway gives full consideration and takes into account the City's current long range community planning and economic development goals for Coquitlam communities along the PMH1 corridor so that the full impacts of the project can be identified. The EA assessment completely excluded any reference to relevant long range community and economic development plan goals and objectives for communities and areas within Coquitlam and within the PMH1 corridor. Reference should be made to the Citywide OCP, Southwest Area Plan, Lougheed Neighbourhood Plan, and the Maillardville Neighbourhood Plan.

Chapter 17.3.2.2 of the EAC Application provides a listing of Economic Development Goals and Priorities, Economic Trends and Economic Challenges which includes references, for example, to goals to enhance access to employment-based land uses. This information was based on existing Coquitlam documents as well as personal communications with City staff.

Among the goals and priorities listed in Chapter 17.3.2.2, there are references to revitalization plans for Maillardville Village (Maillardville Neighbourhood Plan), and redevelopment of the North Road Corridor (Lougheed Neighbourhood Plan). Chapter 17.4 summarizes areas with potential for redevelopment according to existing Plan policies (e.g. infill to higher densities in the Maillardville neighbourhood) or changes to plan designations (e.g. proposed change of land use from industrial to mixed use for the Interfor site). Designations from the City-wide OCP and the Maillardville Neighbourhood Plan are found in Figures17-26 and 17-27, respectively.


214 N Coquitlam Opportunities exist with the Gateway project to incorporate and construct key linkages in the region’s greenway and trail system resulting in greater connectivity for non motorized transportation modes throughout the area. Staff note that the assessment report and associated mapping does not provide enough information and coverage west of Brunette Avenue and east of the Cape Horn Interchange towards the Fraser River to determine specific impacts to the Lower Lougheed Neighbourhood Park and to Maquabeak Park along the riverfront. More information and assessment of the impacts of the PMH1 project on these important community recreational assets is needed.

Cycling and pedestrian facilities within MOT jurisdiction will be funded by MOT/Gateway. Cyclists and pedestrians will be accommodated on all municipal roads crossing Highway 1 where the structure is either new or replaced, regardless whether they are part of an interchange or not. Where it exists, the infrastructure will be connected on both sides of the highway to existing municipal cycling and pedestrian networks. The design will be required to meet Transportation Association of Canada guidelines for cycling and pedestrian facilities, and abide by the requirements of the Contract.

In Coquitlam, existing pedestrian and cycling facilities currently used will be either maintained or reinstated in a safe and efficient manner throughout construction. All temporary closures or re-routing of any existing pedestrian or cycling facilities during construction will only be permitted upon provisions of a suitable alternative route and with adequate signage indicating the dates and duration of any closures, as well as alternate routes available. As the design proceeds, additional information on potential impacts and proposed mitigation will be available.

C 9.5

9.6

16.10

16.15

16.24



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

215 N Coquitlam The introduction of significant additional highway capacity in terms of more freeway lanes, interchange infrastructure, signage and noise attenuation features has the potential to reinforce negative perceptions of the PMH1 corridor in general and Coquitlam in particular. For example, staff conclude that the visual impact of the rebuilt Cape Horn interchange from adjacent residential neighbourhoods will be quite significant given the proposed multi level ramp system.

The visual impact rating for the Cape Horn Interchange and Lougheed Highway/United Boulevard area of Coquitlam was listed as high (p. 17-67), acknowledging that proposed improvements are likely to substantially modify existing configurations with multiple gradeseparated roads and new elevated overpasses.


216 Coquitlam The City requests Gateway include Council adopted Maillardville Streetscape and Pedestrian Corridor Design Guidelines for project components within the Maillardville Neighbourhood Plan area. Community goals to enhance the pedestrian and transit orientation of the Maillardville/Lower Lougheed area have been expressed by area residents and businesses and also reflected in the Maillardville Neighbourhood Plan and current policy and urban design analysis in the village core area. Pedestrian and bike connections to the Braid Street Skytrain station in particular need to be protected and enhanced as part of the design of options to rebuild the Brunette Avenue Interchange.

Page 17-11 recognizes “revitalization goals and plans for the Maillardville Village” as one of the City’s “Economic Development Goals and Priorities”. Figure 17-19 of the EAC Application notes that “As part of detailed design, (Gateway) should consider City of Coquitlam’s goals to revitalize Maillardville”.

As stated in the Gateway Program Definition Report, the PMH1 project includes $50 million planned infrastructure to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians across Hwy 1 at all interchanges and overpasses. These provisions are included as a part of the PMH1 project. Therefore, pedestrian and cycling connections will be included for the Brunette Ave and King Edward overpass within the Project area. The PMH1 team is committed to ongoing consultation with municipal staff regarding cycling and pedestrian access. Improving transit connections at Brunette Ave interchange and any other interchanges along the corridor will be subject to ongoing discussions with Translink staff.

C 16.15

16.24


217 Coquitlam Maillardville Revitalization Task Force recommendation supported by Council in March 2007 to provide a more direct connection from Maillardville and areas north of the Highway 1 to areas south of the Highway 1. The City recommends that more analysis and detail be provided with regards to the proposed King Edward Street overpass which reflects Council and community goals for a more direct multi modal route connecting Maillardville and the area north of the TCH with key employment and emerging mixed use community in the Fraser Mills area.

The PMH1 team is committed to ongoing consultation with municipal staff regarding the proposed alignment for the King Edward Street Overpass.


AGRICULTURE


Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

223 ALC The report omits any mention of the southeast corner of the 216 Street Interchange, which will be occupied by an east-facing onramp from northbound 216 Street.

The on-ramp in the southeast corner of the proposed 216th Street interchange will affect two properties in the ALR. The most affected property is the small holding immediately south of Highway 1 (Figure 18-2 of the EAC Application). It is owned by the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority and is 1.18 ha (2.92 acres) in area, and is currently rented. From a review of the aerial photograph it appears that the property includes a 0.2 ha area of pasture or paddock. The next property to the south on 216th Street is 1.91 ha (4.72 acres) and is privately owned. Widening of 216th Street to facilitate the ramp onto Highway 1 will encroach upon land currently used for pasture (Figure 18-2 of the EAC Application), but does not fragment the parcel. Gateway has initiated discussions with this landowner. Please note that although the above-noted information was not included in the AIA report, the footprint effects on these properties are included in the totals presented in Chapter 18.4.1 of the EAC Application.


224 ALC The report speaks of modifying the mushroom farm so it can function on the land left over from interchange construction. At the Working Group, the Commission has raised the alternative of finding another site for the farm. The report does not appear to address that scenario, which the Commission has raised without specific knowledge of the aspirations of the farmers involved.

As stated in Chapter 18.4.1 of the EAC Application, moving the mushroom barn to allow the operation to remain in business could further impact agricultural lands if the proprietors choose to locate it on ALR land. Based on the mushroom operation’s current dimensions (including the driveway and parking areas) it is possible that if relocated it would occupy between about 1.0 and 1.5 ha of land.

Gateway has initiated discussions with the proprietors of the mushroom operations but their plans for the future have not been confirmed.


228 MAL Given proposed configuration of the 216th interchange, consider providing a vegetative strip between the exit ramp and the mushroom farm to reduce dust. Higher levels of dust increase disease levels at the mushroom farms resulting in a reduction in production.

The Project’s EMP will include dust control measures as per MOT’s “Design Build Specifications for Highway Construction”. The particular sensitivity of the 216th Street interchange area and nearby agricultural operations will be indicated in the design notes of the Project drawings.

C 1.4

7.6


232 Surrey The changing of the 192 Street overpass to align with 192 Street on both sides of PMH1 may require some additional agricultural assessment work in the area. WG discussion: This would affect ALR land.

Agreed, especially the east bound on-ramp. Once a design concept has been developed, the potential impacts on agricultural land and drainage will be assessed and quantified, and mitigation measures developed as required. Every effort will be made to design the interchange so that it does not, or minimizes encroachment upon the ALR.

C 7.3

7.7



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

ARCHAEOLOGY

234 MTSA

North Side of Fraser River (Coquitlam) Archaeological site DhRq-034 is described as a small lithic surface scatter confined to the beach/intertidal area. All subsurface tests of the immediate site area were placed on the upland with no apparent testing of the beach/intertidal area to assess the possibility of buried deposits. There is a need to at least account for this possibility and offer some explanation as to why it was unnecessary to test for buried deposits within the boundary of the site. MTSA follow up: The proponent responded stating that the intertidal area has been subject to "annual scour and in-filling" due to seasonal fluctuations in water levels. If this is the case, the Application should include the relevant supporting data (e.g., results of geotechnical testing, hydrologic modelling, etc.). The Archaeology Branch proposes that a more thorough examination of the site be carried out at this time so that an appropriate mitigation program can be developed for inclusion in the Application as part of the proponent's commitments and assurances. Implementation of such a program would then follow after project certification. It is the Branch's position that the proponent's proposed approach in its response to this issue (i.e., to further investigate the site and develop a mitigation plan subsequent to project approval - p. 81) would be ineffectual and potentially counter productive in addressing this matter in a timely and cost-effective manner.

The likelihood of preservation of archaeological deposits in the beach/intertidal area was considered low due to annual scour and in-filling associated with seasonal fluctuations and water levels. While there is a possibility that recent or disturbed artifacts exist in this area, proposed mitigation strategies should adequately address this concern. (please see Chapter 19, (p. 19-31 to 19-32) of the EAC Application).

MoT provided supplemental Archeological inventory of site DhRq-34, March 28, 2008.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

235 MTSA 192nd Street Interchange The wording is ambiguous on whether much of the survey coverage of the "area of extreme cultural sensitivity" in fact refers to Minni's 2004 study or to the current investigation. For this potentially significant area, no information on the nature of the sediments encountered in the subsurface tests is presented other than to state that "no archaeological materials were identified." If the stratigraphy is identical/similar to that encountered north of the existing highway or encountered in the two geotechnical test holes, then it should be stated. MTSA follow up: Clarification by the proponent on the number and distribution of shovel tests within the "area of extreme cultural sensitivity" (N = 51 subsurface tests) indicates reasonable coverage, and while not ruling out the possibility of burials at this locality, it does lessen the potential. Worth noting is that the nearby Perkins Memorial may in some way also have a role in this account.

The majority of survey coverage conducted in this area refers to Minni's 2004 study. Sediments encountered in the area of “extreme cultural sensitivity” were generally similar to surrounding areas. The Consultant’s Heritage Conservation Act Permit report will include a detailed description of the sediments encountered in subsurface tests and reconcile the number of shovel tests represented in Figure 19-27 of the EAC Application

Minni's 2004 survey consisted of 15 m spacing for shovel tests, while the Golder survey consisted of 10 m spacing (please see p. 19-40 of the EAC Application).


236 MTSA Further assessment of this area, including machine stripping of the top soil, is advisable as a highly effective means to detect any burials and ensure complete and thorough coverage in advance of construction. The Heritage Conservation Act s.14 Inspection Permit authorizing the assessment allows for "machine testing." Use of this method would alleviate the possibility of costly construction delays or the need for design changes if burials were to be encountered during construction. This measure would also eliminate the need for monitoring during construction. MTSA follow up: the Archaeology Branch believes that controlled systematic stripping of the top soil can be closely timed to coincide with general site preparation to avoid "environmental constraints" (as well as facilitate soil reclamation). For the record, this approach is used for the purpose of detection only (not in the removal of the burials) and would ensure complete and thorough coverage.

Given the environmental constraints and the nature of the Project, it would be difficult to conduct machine stripping prior to the development. As stated in the EAC Application, prior to construction an Archaeological Management Plan will be developed to address work procedures and site specific protection measures. Additionally, archaeologists will monitor construction activities in this area and a ‘Chance Find Discovery Plan’ will be implemented (please see p. 19-48 of the EAC Application)

C 1.4

15.4



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

237 MTSA Petroglyph Site DhRr-030: We concur with the need to ensure the location is clearly identified both on final design plans and in the field as a 'no work area', especially if there is any possibility for the project to encroach upon the site. As part of these measures, consideration should be given to the placement of a temporary, protective cover over the feature. The suitability and viability of such a measure, however, needs to be addressed by the consultant and the consultant's conservator in consultation with the proponent, and the results of their findings made to the Archaeology Branch for review and comment. A full and complete record of this feature is required whether or not any of the above measures need to be acted on.

If development impacts are anticipated, MOT will apply for the necessary permits under the Heritage Conservation Act. The suitability and viability of a temporary, protective cover over the feature will be determined through consultation with the Project archaeologist, the Conservator, and the Contractor, with findings presented to the Archaeology Branch. To date, the following measures have been taken with regard to the detailed recording of site DhRr-30: • Site photographs, • Preparation of a detailed site location map, using post-processed GPS data (+/- 1 m horizontal accuracy); and • Commissioning of a conservation inspection report.

The need for additional site recording measures will be determined in the future, based on the detailed design.

P 15.1

15.5


238 MTSA Archaeological Site DhRq-034: Anticipated impacts to this site will require a Heritage Conservation Act s. 12 Site Alteration Permit. The permit will need to include provisions to monitor impacts and to undertake some systematic data recovery as necessary. If significant archaeological deposits (e.g., water logged deposits) are inadvertently encountered, there may be the need for a s. 14 Heritage Investigation Permit to mitigate.

MOT is committed to obtaining relevant Heritage Conservation Act permits and completing additional archaeological investigations at DhRq-34, as required by the Archaeology Branch (Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts).

TOCA 15.1 changed to include periodic monitoring of DhRq-34.

P 15.1

15.5


239 MTSA Archaeological Site DhRq-034 Site capping cannot be supported as a mitigation strategy at this time until it can be reasonably demonstrated to the Archaeology Branch that this site is as confined as described (i.e., a small intertidal lithic scatter). Site capping could be an acceptable option, but we need first to determine the nature, extent and integrity of the site in order to establish whether or not such a measure is even necessary and that the procedure itself will not negatively affect the site. The assessment to date does not provide sufficient information to make any such determination.

Comment noted. If site capping is supported by the Archaeology Branch at a later date, as a site mitigation strategy, the Contractor will undertake further field investigations as required. MoT provided supplemental Archeological inventory of site DhRq-34, March 28, 2008.

P 15.1

15.6



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

240 MTSA Downstream Effects: areas of archaeological potential downstream of the proposed bridge crossing, which could be affected by hydrological changes as a result of the project, should be considered under cumulative effects.

Refer to p. 19-47 of the EAC Application. Areas downstream of the proposed Port Mann Bridge will be subject to archaeological impact assessments once hydraulic modeling has been completed to determine potentially affected areas. Hydraulic modeling to be conducted in association with bridge design already takes into account the existing conditions that are present due to the effects of other projects and that may influence the area of concern.

C 15.1

15.3


241 Burnaby This assessment did not include a City-owned site at 6665 Kensington Avenue which is impacted by the Reference Concept. Additionally, the lands adjacent to Deer Lake Brook were not surveyed with shovel tests. As these lands are documented with a history of significant archaeological finds that have not been registered with the Archaeology Branch, the Proponent should review the site’s history with the City’s Heritage Planner, undertake the appropriate assessment, and update the Application.

The portion of the PMH1 alignment which falls within 6665 Kensington Avenue was inspected by archaeologists. Areas adjacent to Deer Lake Brook are outside of the proposed PMH1 alignment, except where Deer Lake Brook intersects the existing Highway 1. Given the nature of the proposed development and past disturbances (i.e., road construction and stream channel realignment), this area was inspected but not shovel tested. The MOTarchaeologist met with the City’s Heritage Planner (23-11-07) and discussed the nature of the unregistered archaeological finds and concluded the level of effort completed was adequate.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

EFFECTS TO CULTURAL AND HERITAGE FEATURES

244 Surrey This brief chapter states that designated heritage sites have been avoided by the alignment but does not mention mitigation measures for sites close by, such as the Anniedale School, the Charlie Perkins Memorial Tree Trunk, and the Gerow Barn. Of particular concern are the Anniedale School trees where effort needs to be made to save as many of the significant trees as possible. There are a number of additional locations along the alignment that have heritage designations or values that have not been noted in the report and there are concerns regarding limited references by the proponent to mitigation strategies

Chapter 19 (p. 19-37) of the EAC Application addresses the cultural and heritage significance of Charles Perkins Memorial Tree Trunk and notes that the tree trunk is located approximately 15 m south of the edge of the existing Highway 1 pavement. Further to the assessment, as the highway in this area will be widened into the median, no impacts on this site are anticipated. Note also that in Table 3-6 of the EAC Application specifies that the tree trunk will be protected. With respect to Anniedale School (9744 176th Street), access to the site will remain as existing, 177A Street. Chapter 15 of the EAC Application addresses issues related to noise and PMH1. Heritage structures were examined based on information available to the team at the time of the assessment. We would appreciate receiving any information the City can provide regarding an updated list of heritage structures and significant trees. Table 17-9 of the EAC Application provides a listing of heritage sites from Surrey’s Heritage Registry which are located within the Surrey portion of the socio-community study area. Table 3-6 of the EAC Application, notes that the Charlie Perkins heritage tree trunk is to be protected.

C 15.2

16.7a


NAVIGABLE WATERS

247 N VFPA In the event the bridge pier footings cause scouring and erosion downstream (resulting in sandbars downstream) VFPA requests that the proponent mitigate these effects for the duration of the tenure of the bridge. VFPA requests that post hydrographic surveys and necessary mitigation be conducted annually for the tenure of the bridge.

Post-construction assessment of scour and deposition will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Transport Canada’s Navigable Waters Protection Division. MOT has met with Golden Ears Bridge representatives to better understand the sequence of events leading up to the formation of the sand island downstream of the new pier foundations. We understand that, due to timing of completion of the bridge foundations coinciding with the fish in-stream construction window in mid-March, a riprap apron required to prevent scour around the pier foundation could not be placed prior to freshet, which is believed to be the reason the sand island formed. As the riprap apron has now been placed, and the sand island is to be removed, a recurrence of this event is not expected.



Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

248 N VFPA The reports indicate there are approximately 30 VFPA tenants who operate within the vacinity of the new bridge crossing (i.e. log storage grounds, etc.). However, only two companies appear to be affected - Timberwest and Western Forest Products. It isn't clear in the documents if others are affected and if so, how will they be compensated?

Water lots affected by the Project and therefore potentially requiring compensation are those lots directly affected by the Project footprint. As stated in Chapter 23.3.6 of the Application, based on the Reference Concept, only four water lots and two water lot lease holders, International Forest Products and Timberwest, may be affected directly as a result of the right-of-way requirements of the new Port Mann Bridge. Figure 4 of Appendix 23A shows the affected water lot areas. Discussions and agreement on compensation has taken place between these two companies and VFPA at the time


249 TC Under CEAA, the definition of “environmental effect” includes indirect effects on socio-economic components (i.e. navigation); that is, any change in the environment that in turn may impact navigation. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants performed a hydrotechnical assessment that identified a suite of potential impacts – see section 6 (page 20) of their report. These environmental effects should be considered for their ability to in turn affect navigation. Indirect effects on navigation and recommended mitigation measures should be described in Section 23 of the Application.

MOT is currently reviewing how best to address potential indirect effects to navigation.

S Satisfactorily addressed for the purpose of EA

250 TC Suggested mitigation measure: “In the event that infill occurs to the extent that an interference to navigation occurs, the proponent is responsible for removing the infill to the satisfaction of regulatory agencies.” Note that there is evidence of such indirect effects from similar new bridge piers in the Fraser River upstream of the proposed crossing, where scour and infill processes have resulted in the formation of significant sandbars which in turn have impacted navigation. TC follow-up: If deposition over the long term should affect navigation, then an ongoing annual program needs to be considered.

A post-construction assessment of the new Port Mann Bridge pier placement will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Transport Canada. Should there be deposition of materials within 500m upstream or downstream of the new instream piers that interferes or could potentially interfere with marine use of the navigation channels or working passages, remedial action to remove these materials will be undertaken by the Project within a reasonable timeframe acceptable to authorities having jurisdiction.

S 17.1

17.3

17.13


251 Coquitlam The City seeks assurance that the boat launch facility and overall operation and accessibility of Maquabeak Park be maintained during construction (for recreational and emergency use) and potentially enhanced after the completion of the project.

The PMH1 project will work with the City of Coquitlam to determine timing of any temporary closures of the boat launch at Maquabeak Park and provision of temporary access for recreational and emergency first response uses.


RAIL CONSIDERATIONS


Issue # AGENCY



(C) (S) (P)

MOT COMMIT

MENT EA STATUS

252 Coquitlam It was indicated that approximately two kilometres of CPR tracks will be relocated south of Highway 1 between Schoolhouse Street and the Cape Horn interchange. It was unclear if the relocation will affect existing watercourses and sensitive habitats along the new alignment of Highway 1, or what mitigation measures or compensation would be required as a result of the track relocation. The City seeks information on the implication of the CPR re-alignment on the watercourses and environmental sensitive habitat.

All watercourses were assessed in proximity of the PMH1 using City of Coquitlam mapping available for the area. Specifically watercourses 81, 83 and 56 were assessed during the study around the CPR rail lines.

All ditches impacted by the Project have been estimated and used to predict impacts and habitat loss. As above, ditches will be recreated where needed and will follow MOT best management practices to mitigate, avoid and minimize impacts and compensate for impacts where required.

C 5.2

12.30 Satisfactorily addressed for the purpose of EA

Documents

Fiinal PMH1 Socio-Community Issues Tracking Mar 31 2008€¦ · PMH1 SOCIO-COMMUNITY ISSUES TRACKING TABLE March 31, 2008 Page 1 Issue