Appendix C1 – Agency
Correspondence
From: Margaret Kish [[email protected]]
Sent: November 26, 2012 3:06 PM
To: Addley, Diana
Subject:
RE: Heritage Resource Inventory
Attachments: Heritage Impact Study Report - Windfields Farm Ltd.pdf; study area map.pdf
Hi Diana,
Attached is a copy of part of the Heritage Impact Study Report prepared by Unterman McPhail
Associates in 2002. Please note it is not a complete copy but it does contain the Executive Summary.
Also attached is a copy of a map of the study area of the report.
For your reference and as discussed: ”Class A”, in the opinion of Heritage Oshawa, means “highest
potential for designation”;
“Class B”, in the opinion of Heritage Oshawa, means “good potential for designation”.
The southeast corner of Winchester and Simcoe Street North that you were asking about is Class A and
refers to the stone house we discussed that sits on the Minto property.
The northeast corner of Winchester and Simcoe Street North that you were asking about, that is north
of the hydro corridor, is 2951 Simcoe Street North and is Class B (built circa 1880).
Please note that the stone pillars and the gates marking the entrance to the former Windfields Farm is
considered a significant heritage feature by Heritage Oshawa.
You are welcome to come into the office to review the Unterman McPhail report. Unfortunately,
since it is the only copy, I cannot lend it out to you.
I hope this helps,
Margaret
Margaret Kish, M.Sc.Pl., MCIP, RPP | Planning Services | City of Oshawa
905-436-3311 Ext. 2945 | 1-800-667-4292 | TTY 905-436-5627
[email protected] | www.oshawa.ca
From: Addley, Diana [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 2:52 PM
To: Margaret Kish
Subject: Heritage Resource Inventory
Hello Margaret,
I am reviewing the existing conditions within the Simcoe Street North corridor, between Winchester
Road and Conlin Road, in association with the Region of Durham’s Simcoe Street Environmental
Assessment study. An inventory map of the listed/designated properties and/or ‘A’ and ‘B’ listed
properties was available on the Heritage Oshawa website, however wanted to confirm if any
additional properties have been listed/designated since the date of the mapping (i.e., 2009). In
addition, I noted that a large parcel of land, located at the southeast corner of Simcoe Street North and
Winchester Road was identified as a ‘B’ listed property. Additional ‘B’ listed properties were located
immediately north of our study area limits, north of the hydro corridor. Could you please indicate the
significance of these types of properties?
file:////cawby2vfp001/...06-Consultation/Agency%20Correspondence/Incoming/City%20of%20Oshawa_M.Kish_Heritage_Nov%2026'12.txt[10/9/2013 2:30:25 PM]
In addition, I understand that a Heritage Assessment may have been completed for the study area by
Unterman McPhail Associates in association with proposed surrounding land developments. Could
you please provide a copy of this report, if available?
Any additional information you may have with respect to this study area would be greatly
appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Kind regards,
Diana
Diana Addley, A.Sc.T.
Environmental Planner, Transportation
D 905.668.4021 x2322
[email protected]
300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario, Canada L1N 9J2
www.aecom.com
T 905.668.9363 F 905.668.0221
file:////cawby2vfp001/...06-Consultation/Agency%20Correspondence/Incoming/City%20of%20Oshawa_M.Kish_Heritage_Nov%2026'12.txt[10/9/2013 2:30:25 PM]
January 9, 2013
Diana Addley
Environmental Planner
Transportation, AECOM
300 Water Street
Whitby, Ontario L1N 9J2
[email protected]
Dear Ms. Addley,
Thank you for your e-mail of January 3, 2013 regarding your request for information held by
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) on established or potential
Aboriginal and treaty rights in the vicinity of Simcoe Street (Regional Road 2) corridor project in
Oshawa, Ontario.
Consulting with Canadians on matters of interest or concern to them is an important part of
good governance, sound policy development and decision-making. In addition to good
governance objectives, there may be statutory or contractual reasons for consulting, as well as
the common law duty to consult with First Nations, Métis and Inuit when conduct that might
adversely impact rights Aboriginal or treaty rights (established or potential) is contemplated.
It is important to note that the information held by AANDC is provided as contextual information
and may or may not pertain directly to Aboriginal or treaty rights. In most cases, the Aboriginal
community remains best positioned to explain their traditional use of land, their practices or
claims that may fall under section 35, including claims they may have put before the courts.
AANDC has developed the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System (ATRIS), which
brings together information regarding Aboriginal groups such as their location, related treaty
information, claims (specific, comprehensive and special) and litigation data.
The Consultation Information Service (CIS) response
The CIS of the Consultation and Accommodation Unit responds to requests sent to AANDC for
information on established or potential Aboriginal and treaty rights known to the Department.
The CIS has prepared the attached response which combines the resources of ATRIS and the
support of sectors and regions within the AANDC. Using a 100 km radius surrounding the
project location, information regarding potentially affected Aboriginal communities is presented
in the attached report in the following sections for each community:
Aboriginal Community Information includes key contact information and any other
information such as Tribal Council affiliation.
Treaties includes information on historic and modern treaties.
Claims includes specific, comprehensive and special claims.
Self-Government Agreements and other negotiations may be part of comprehensive claims
or stand-alone negotiations.
1
NCR#4931754 - v1
Litigation usually refers to litigation between the Aboriginal Group and the Crown, often
pertaining to section 35 rights assertions or consultation matters.
Also included, where available, is a section entitled Other Considerations. This may include
information on Métis rights or information on the assertions of other Aboriginal groups,
consultation-related protocols or agreements and other relevant information.
Should you require further assistance regarding the information provided, or if you have any
questions and/or comments about the enclosed response, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Allison Berman
Regional Subject Expert for Ontario
Consultation and Accommodation Unit
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
5H- 5th Floor,
Gatineau, QC K1A 0H4
Tel: 819-934-5267
Disclaimer
This information is provided as a public service by the Government of Canada. All of the information is provided "as
is" without warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, including, without limitation, implied warranties as to the
accuracy or reliability of any of the information provided, its fitness for a particular purpose or use, or noninfringement, which implied warranties are hereby expressly disclaimed. References to any website are provided for
information only shall not be taken as endorsement of any kind. The Government of Canada is not responsible for the
content or reliability of any referenced website and does not endorse the content, products, services or views
expressed within them.
Limitation of Liabilities
Under no circumstances will the Government of Canada be liable to any person or business entity for any reliance on
the completeness or accuracy of this information or for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or other
damages based on any use of this information including, without limitation, any lost profits, business interruption, or
loss of programs or information, even if the Government of Canada has been specifically advised of the possibility of
such damages.
2
NCR#4931754 - v1
Within a 100 km radius of your project there are 6 First Nation communities. The following
information should assist you in planning any consultation that may be required.
In general, where historic treaties have been signed, the rights of signatory First Nation’s are
defined by the terms of the Treaty. In many cases, however, there are divergent views between
First Nations and the Crown as to what the treaty provisions imply or signify. For each First
Nation below, the relevant treaty area is provided.
In areas where no historic treaty exists or where such treaties were limited in scope (i.e. where
only certain rights were addressed by the treaty, such as the Peace and Friendship Treaties),
there may be comprehensive claims that are asserted or being negotiated. Comprehensive
claim negotiations are the means by which modern treaties are achieved.
Specific claims refer to claims made by a First Nation against the federal government related to
outstanding lawful obligations, such as the administration of land and other First Nation assets,
and to the fulfillment of Indian treaties, although the treaties themselves are not open to renegotiation. The below response provides summaries of relevant claims that are current to the
date of the response. Claims that have been settled or closed may also be included to give a
sense of the First Nation’s claims history with the Crown.
As the claims progress regularly, it is recommended that the status of each claim be reviewed
through the Reporting Centre on Specific Claims at:
http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/SCBRI_E/Main/ReportingCentre/External/externalreporting.aspx
3
NCR#4931754 - v1
Self-government agreements set out arrangements for Aboriginal groups to govern their internal
affairs and assume greater responsibility and control over the decision making that affects their
communities. Many comprehensive claims settlements also include various self-government
arrangements. Self-government agreements address: the structure and accountability of
Aboriginal governments, their law-making powers, financial arrangements and their
responsibilities for providing programs and services to their members. Self-government enables
Aboriginal governments to work in partnership with other governments and the private sector to
promote economic development and improve social conditions.
First Nation/Aboriginal Communities
Alderville First Nation
James (Jim Bob) Marsden (tenure expires July 22, 2013)
11696 2nd Line Road
P.O. Box 46
Alderville, Ontario, K0K 2X0
Phone: (905) 352-2011
Fax: (905) 352-3242
www.aldervillefirstnation.ca
Treaty Area - Williams Treaties of 1923
For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.
Membership
Union of Ontario Indians
Ogemawahj Tribal Council
Chiefs of Ontario
See “Other Considerations” below for more information.
Specific Claims
Name: 1923 Williams Treaty
Status: active litigation
Description: The First Nation alleged that the Williams Treaty was invalid, and inadequate
compensation has been received for land taken. There has also been a failure to provide
reserves. The First Nations involved are: Alderville, Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island,
Chippewas of Mnjikaning, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississauga of Scugog Island, Mississauga of
the Credit and Moose Deer Point.
Name: Loss of Bay Quinte Reserve Lands
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found 2011/03/22
Description: The First Nation alleges that four reserves, totaling 2,350 acres were set aside at
the Bay of Quinte for the Mississaugas of Alderville First Nation, and these lands were alienated
without proper surrender and compensation. The four reserves involved in the claim were
located in Prince Edward County at Mississauga Point, Grassy Point, Cape Vessey and Bald
Head.
Name: Crawford Purchase
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
4
NCR#4931754 - v1
Description: The First Nation alleged that the purchase of 1783-1784 covering lands in
Frontenac, Prince Edward and Hastings counties and United County of Lennox Addington was
illegal.
Name: Damages to Wild Rice
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The First Nation alleged that Mississauga title to wild rice, traditional economy,
waters and lands beneath the waters. They state there has been destruction of the wild rice
and traditional economy due to flooding by the Trent canal.
Name: Gunshot Treaty
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The First Nation alleged the Gunshot Treaty of 1788 covering lands in Prince
Edward and Northumberland counties and regional municipality of Durham was illegal.
Name: Lake Ontario Lakeshore
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council alleged that part of the lakeshore in the
townships of Oakville Burlington, Mississauga and Etobicoke were never ceded by treaty or
otherwise. The First Nations involved are: Curve Lake, Mississauga of the Credit, Alderville,
Mississauga’s of Scugog Island and Hiawatha.
Name: Navy Island
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council alleged that islands were never ceded in
the Niagara treaty of 1781.
Name: Niagara Treaty Lands
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council (MTCC) alleged that lands covered by the
Niagara Treaty of 1781 (Regional municipality of Niagara) were never properly ceded and the
Mississauga compensated. This claim was originally submitted in 1986 by the MTCC as a
component of the Williams Treaty claim, however, in 1990, it became a separate claim.
Name: Thurlow Purchase
Status: settled
Description: The First Nation alleged lands covered by the Thurlow Purchase of 1811 & 1816 in
Thurlow Township were improperly ceded. They state that the Mississauga Nation was never
adequately compensated for them. The claim is located in Belleville by the Moira River.
Name: Toronto Purchase
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found 1993
Description: The First Nation alleged that the Toronto Purchase (1787 & 1805) covering lands in
the regional municipality of York, was illegal.
Agreement negotiations
Anishinabek Nation (UOI) negotiations on Governance and Education
Please see “Other Considerations” below for more details.
Litigation
Name: Alderville Indian Band v. Attorney General of Canada
5
NCR#4931754 - v1
Status: active
Court File No.: CV-11-417797
Description: The Plaintiffs claim irregularities with the surveys on township and country roads
running through the Alderville Indian Reserve No. 37.
Name: Alderville Indian Band et al v. HMTQ in Right of Canada
Status: active
Court File No.: T-195-92 (Superior Court File No. 92-CU-55061)
Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad
faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Litigation to resolve the allegations was launched in
1992 by the Alderville First Nation and six other First Nations, and is now at trial which is
scheduled to continue October 22, 2012.
Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation
Chief Donna Big Canoe (tenure expires March, 2013)
RR 2, PO Box 13
Sutton West, Ontario, L0E 1R0
Phone: (705) 437-1337
Fax: (705) 437-4597
www.georginaisland.com
Treaty Area - Williams Treaties of 1923
For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.
Membership
Chippewa Tri-Council
Union of Ontario Indians
Ogemawahj Tribal Council
Chiefs of Ontario
See “Other Considerations” below for more information.
Specific Claims
Name: 1923 Williams Treaties
Status: active litigation
Description: The United Indian Council alleged that the Williams Treaty was invalid. They state
that compensation has been inadequate for land taken, along with a failure to provide reserves.
The First Nations involved are: Alderville, Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas
of Mnjikaning, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississauga of Scugog Island, Mississaugas of the Credit
and Moose Deer Point.
Name: Coldwater Narrows
Status: settled through negotiations, November 2012
Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged the illegal taking of reserve lands in 1836,
and inadequate compensation. The First Nations involved in this claim are: Beausoleil,
Chippewas of Mjikaning (Rama), Nawash and Georgina Island. For further information and
mapping of this claim area, visit: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100030387
Name: 1815 Treaty Payments
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
6
NCR#4931754 - v1
Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged Canada failed to honour terms of treaty
regarding compensation for lands.
Name: Penetanguishene and Matchedash Bays
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council (Beausoleil First Nation; Chippewas of Georgina Island
First Nation and Chippewas of Mnjikaning) alleged that lands covered by the Penetanguishene
& Matchedash Bays treaty of 1798 were never properly ceded. In addition, the lands were
wrongfully included in the Robinson Huron treaty of 1850, and the Chippewa Nation was never
adequately compensated.
Name: Awenda
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council (Beausoleil First Nation; Chippewas of Georgina Island
First Nation and Chippewas of Mnjikaning) alleged that a 50,000 acre tract in Simcoe County
was not included in the Penetanguishene Treaty of 1798, yet was taken without consent by the
provisional agreement of 1811. They state it should remain in the control of the First Nation.
Name: Notawasaga
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council (Beausoleil First Nation; Chippewas of Georgina Island
First Nation and Chippewas of Mnjikaning) alleged there has been improper cession of lands in
Simcoe County by the Notawasaga treaty of 1815, and inadequate compensation provided.
Agreement negotiations
Anishinabek Nation (UOI) negotiations on Governance and Education
Please see “Other Considerations” below for more details.
Litigation
Name: Alderville Indian Band et al v. HMTQ in Right of Canada
Status: active
Court File No.: T-195-92
Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad
faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Litigation to resolve the allegations was launched in
1992 by the Alderville First Nation and six other First Nations, and is now at trial which is
scheduled to continue October 22, 2012.
Chippewas of Rama (Mnjikaning)
Chief Sharon Stinson Henry (tenure expires 2012)
5884 Rama Road, Suite 200
Rama, Ontario, L0K 1T0
Phone: (705) 325-3611
Fax: (705) 325-0879
www.mnjikaning.ca
Treaty Area - Williams Treaties of 1923
For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.
7
NCR#4931754 - v1
Membership
Chippewa Tri-Council
Ogemawahj Tribal Council
Chiefs of Ontario
See “Other Considerations” below for more information.
Specific Claims
Name: 1923 Williams Treaties
Status: active litigation
Description: The United Indian Council alleges that the Williams Treaty was invalid, and
inadequate compensation has been received for land taken. There has also been a failure to
provide reserves. The First Nations involved are: Alderville, Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina
Island, Chippewas of Mnjikaning, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississauga of Scugog Island,
Mississaugas of the Credit, and Moose Deer Point.
Name: 1815 Treaty Payments
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged Canada failed to honour terms of treaty
regarding compensation for lands.
Name: Coldwater Narrows
Status: settled through negotiations, November 2012
Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged the illegal taking of reserve lands in 1836,
and inadequate compensation. The First Nations involved in this claim are: Beausoleil,
Chippewas of Mjikaning (Rama), Nawash and Georgina Island. For further information and
mapping of this claim area, visit: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100030387
Name: Notawasaga
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council (Beausoleil First Nation; Chippewas of Georgina Island
First Nation and Chippewas of Mnjikaning) alleged there has been improper cession of lands in
Simcoe County by the Notawasaga treaty of 1815, and inadequate compensation provided.
Name: Awenda
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council (Beausoleil First Nation; Chippewas of Georgina Island
First Nation and Chippewas of Mnjikaning) alleged that a 50,000 acre tract in Simcoe County
was not included in the Penetanguishene Treaty of 1798, yet was taken without consent by the
provisional agreement of 1811. They state it should remain in the control of the First Nation.
Name: Penetanguishene and Matchedash Bays
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council (Beausoleil First Nation; Chippewas of Georgina Island
First Nation and Chippewas of Mnjikaning) alleged that lands covered by the Penetanguishene
& Matchedash Bays treaty of 1798 were never properly ceded. In addition, the lands were
wrongfully included in the Robinson Huron treaty of 1850, and the Chippewa Nation was never
adequately compensated.
Litigation
Name: Alderville Indian Band et al v. HMTQ in Right of Canada
Status: active
8
NCR#4931754 - v1
Court File No.: T-195-92
Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad
faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Litigation to resolve the allegations was launched in
1992 by the Alderville First Nation and six other First Nations, and is now at trial which is
scheduled to continue October 22, 2012.
Curve Lake First Nation
Chief Phyllis Williams (tenure expires June 25, 2014)
General Delivery
Curve Lake, Ontario, K0L 1R0
Phone: (705) 657-8045
Fax: (705) 657-8708
www.curvelakefn.com
Treaty Area – Southern Ontario treaties to open the interior: 1815 to 1862
For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.
Membership
Union of Ontario Indians
Chiefs of Ontario
See “Other Considerations” below for more information.
Specific Claims
Name: Flooding of IR 35
Status: active negotiations
Description: The First Nation alleges that between 300-600 acres of reserve land, set aside in
1837 for the Mud Lake Indian Band (now Curve Lake), were flooded when dams constructed for
the Trent-Severn Waterway raised water levels in the Buckhorn section of the TSW in 1838.
Name: Islands in the Trent System
Status: settled through negotiations October 7, 2012
Description: The First Nation alleges that title to certain islands in regional municipality of
Durham, county of Peterborough Victoria and Northumberland and loss of some of these
islands due to flooding by Trent canal and illegal sale.
Name: Crawford Purchase
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The First Nation alleged that the purchase of 1783-1784 covering lands in
Frontenac, Prince Edward and Hastings counties and United County of Lennox Addington was
illegal.
Name: Damages to Wild Rice
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The First Nation alleged that Mississauga title to wild rice, traditional economy,
waters and lands beneath the waters. They state there has been destruction of the wild rice
and traditional economy due to flooding by the Trent canal.
Name: Gunshot Treaty
9
NCR#4931754 - v1
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The First Nation alleged the Gunshot Treaty of 1788 covering lands in Prince
Edward and Northumberland counties and regional municipality of Durham was illegal.
Name: Lake Ontario Lakeshore
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council alleged that part of the lakeshore in the
townships of Oakville Burlington, Mississauga and Etobicoke were never ceded by treaty or
otherwise. The First Nations involved are: Curve Lake, New Credit, Alderville, Scugog and
Hiawatha.
Name: Navy Island
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council alleged that islands were never ceded in
the Niagara treaty of 1781.
Name: Niagara Treaty Lands
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council (MTCC) alleged that lands covered by the
Niagara Treaty of 1781 (Regional municipality of Niagara) were never properly ceded and the
Mississauga compensated. This claim was originally submitted in 1986 by the MTCC as a
component of the Williams Treaty claim, however, in 1990, it became a separate claim.
Name: 1923 Williams Treaties
Status: active litigation
Description: The United Indian Council alleged that the Williams Treaty was invalid. They state
that compensation has been inadequate for land taken, along with a failure to provide reserves.
The First Nations involved are: Alderville, Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas
of Mnjikaning, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississauga of Scugog Island, Mississaugas of the
Credit, and Moose Deer Point.
Name: Toronto Purchase
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found 1993
Description: The First Nation alleged that the Toronto Purchase (1787 & 1805) covering lands in
the regional municipality of York, was illegal.
Agreement Negotiations
Anishinabek Nation (UOI) negotiations on Governance and Education
Please see “Other Considerations” for more details.
Litigation
Name: Alderville Indian Band v. HMTQ in Right of Canada
Status: active
Court File No.: T-195-92
Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad
faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Other First Nations involved as plaintiffs in the
litigation include Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Rama, Hiawatha First
Nation, and the Mississauga’s of Scugog (Blind River, Ontario). Litigation to resolve the
allegations was launched in 1992 by the Alderville First Nation and six other First Nations, and
is now at trial which is scheduled to continue October 22, 2012.
10
NCR#4931754 - v1
Name: Curve Lake First Nation et al, and Hiawatha First Nation et al, and Mississauga of
Scugog Island First Nation v. HMTQ in Right of Canada
Status: closed due to lack of activity on the case
Court Number: T-1358-99
Description: The Plaintiffs allege that the construction of Trent Severn Waterway resulted in the
flooding of reserve lands held by the Crown for the use and benefit of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
further allege that the Crown breached a fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs to hold the reserves for
the use and benefit of the Plaintiffs. They maintain that the fiduciary duty was breached when
the Crown failed to inform the Plaintiffs of the flooding, failed to consult with the Plaintiffs, and
failed to compensate the Plaintiffs for their loss.
Hiawatha First Nation
Chief Sandra Moore (tenure expires January 31, 2013)
123 Paudash Street
Keene, Ontario, K0L 2G0
Phone: (705) 295-4421
Fax: (705) 295-4424
www.hiawathafirstnation.com
Treaty Area – Southern Ontario treaties for settlement: 1783 to 1815
For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.
Membership
Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians
Chiefs of Ontario
For more information, see “Other Considerations” below.
Specific Claims
Name: Islands in the Trent System
Status: settled through negotiations October 7, 2012
Description: The First Nation alleges that title to certain islands in regional municipality of
Durham, county of Peterborough Victoria and Northumberland and loss of some of these
islands due to flooding by Trent canal and illegal sale. The community agreed to settle in March
2012.
Name: Lake Ontario Lakeshore
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council alleged that part of the lakeshore in the
townships of Oakville Burlington, Mississauga and Etobicoke were never ceded by treaty or
otherwise. The First Nations involved are: Curve Lake, New Credit, Alderville, Scugog and
Hiawatha)
Name: Navy Island
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council alleged that islands were never ceded in
the Niagara treaty of 1781.
Name: Gunshot Treaty
11
NCR#4931754 - v1
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The First Nation alleged the Gunshot Treaty of 1788 covering lands in Prince
Edward and Northumberland counties and regional municipality of Durham was illegal.
Name: Niagara Treaty Lands
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council (MTCC) alleged that lands covered by the
Niagara Treaty of 1781 (Regional municipality of Niagara) were never properly ceded and the
Mississauga compensated. This claim was originally submitted in 1986 by the MTCC as a
component of the Williams Treaty claim, however, in 1990, it became a separate claim.
Name: 1923 Williams Treaties
Status: active litigation
Description: The United Indian Council alleged that the Williams Treaty was invalid. They state
that compensation has been inadequate for land taken, along with a failure to provide reserves.
The First Nations involved are: Alderville, Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas
of Mnjikaning, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississauga’s of Scugog Island, Mississaugas of the
Credit, and Moose Deer Point.
Name: Serpent Mounds
Status: settled
Description: The First Nation alleged that the federal government was in breach of statute for
failing to set aside Serpent Mounds as an addition to reserve (43 year delay). They also alleged
the improper granting of a lease to the lands pursuant to the Public Lands Grants Act. Finally,
there was an allegation of a breach of fiduciary obligation as a result of mismanagement by the
federal government from 1933-1992.
Name: Crawford Purchase
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The First Nation alleged that the purchase of 1783-1784 covering lands in
Frontenac, Prince Edward and Hastings counties and United County of Lennox Addington was
illegal.
Name: Damages to Wild Rice
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The First Nation alleged that Mississauga title to wild rice, traditional economy,
waters and lands beneath the waters. They state there has been destruction of the wild rice
and traditional economy due to flooding by the Trent canal.
Name: Toronto Purchase
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found 1993
Description: The First Nation alleged that the Toronto Purchase (1787 & 1805) covering lands in
the regional municipality of York, was illegal.
Litigation
Name: Alderville Indian Band et al v. HMTQ in Right of Canada
Status: active
Court No: T-195-92
Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad
faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Litigation to resolve the allegations was launched in
12
NCR#4931754 - v1
1992 by the Alderville First Nation and six other First Nations, and is now at trial which is
scheduled to continue October 22, 2012.
Name: Curve Lake First Nation et al, and Hiawatha First Nation et al, and Mississauga of
Scugog Island First Nation v. HMTQ in Right of Canada
Status: closed due to inactivity
Court Number: T-1358-99
Description: The Plaintiffs allege that the construction of Trent Severn Waterway resulted in the
flooding of reserve lands held by the Crown for the use and benefit of the Plaintiffs. The
Plaintiffs further allege that the Crown breached a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs to hold the
reserves for the use and benefit of the Plaintiffs. They maintain that the fiduciary duty was
breached when the Crown failed to inform the Plaintiffs of the flooding, failed to consult with the
Plaintiffs, and failed to compensate the Plaintiffs for their loss.
Name: R. v. George Henry Howard
Status: closed
Court File No.: 22999
Description: This case involved an Ontario fishing prosecution of an alleged breach of federal
fisheries regulations. The courts ruled that the Williams Treaties of 1923 extinguished the First
Nation’s treaty fishing rights previously granted under the Treaty of 1818. The SCC dismissed
Howard’s appeal on May 12, 1994.
Mississauga’s of Scugog Island First Nation
Chief Tracy Gauthier (tenure expires June 27, 2013)
22521 Island Road
Port Perry, Ontario L9L 1B6
Phone (905) 985-3337
Fax (905) 985-8828
http://www.scugogfirstnation.com/
Treaty Area - Southern Ontario treaties to open the interior: 1815 to 1862
For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.
Membership
Union of Ontario Indians
Ogemawahj Tribal Council
Chiefs of Ontario
See “Other Considerations” below for more information.
Specific Claims
Name: 1923 Williams Treaties
Status: active litigation
Description: The United Indian Council alleged that the Williams Treaty was invalid. They state
that compensation has been inadequate for land taken, along with a failure to provide reserves.
The First Nations involved are: Alderville, Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas
of Mnjikaning, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississauga’s of Scugog Island, Mississaugas of the
Credit, and Moose Deer Point.
13
NCR#4931754 - v1
Name: Islands in the Trent System
Status: settled through negotiations October 7, 2012
Description: The First Nation alleges that title to certain islands in regional municipality of
Durham, county of Peterborough Victoria and Northumberland and loss of some of these
islands due to flooding by Trent canal and illegal sale.
Name: Crawford Purchase
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The First Nation alleged that the purchase of 1783-1784 covering lands in
Frontenac, Prince Edward and Hastings counties and United County of Lennox Addington was
illegal.
Name: Damages to Wild Rice
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The First Nation alleged that Mississauga title to wild rice, traditional economy,
waters and lands beneath the waters. They state there has been destruction of the wild rice
and traditional economy due to flooding by the Trent canal.
Name: Gunshot Treaty
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The First Nation alleged the Gunshot Treaty of 1788 covering lands in Prince
Edward and Northumberland counties and regional municipality of Durham was illegal.
Name: Lake Ontario Lakeshore
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council alleged that part of the lakeshore in the
townships of Oakville Burlington, Mississauga and Etobicoke were never ceded by treaty or
otherwise. The First Nations involved are: Curve Lake, New Credit, Alderville, Scugog and
Hiawatha.
Name: Navy Island
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council alleged that islands were never ceded in
the Niagara treaty of 1781.
Name: Niagara Treaty Lands
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found
Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council (MTCC) alleged that lands covered by the
Niagara Treaty of 1781 (Regional municipality of Niagara) were never properly ceded and the
Mississauga compensated. This claim was originally submitted in 1986 by the MTCC as a
component of the Williams Treaty claim, however, in 1990, it became a separate claim.
Name: Toronto Purchase
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found 1993
Description: The First Nation alleged that the Toronto Purchase (1787 & 1805) covering lands in
the regional municipality of York, was illegal.
Agreement negotiations
Anishinabek Nation (UOI) negotiations on Governance and Education
Please see “Other Considerations” below for more details.
14
NCR#4931754 - v1
Litigation
Name: Alderville Indian Band et al v. HMTQ in right of Canada
Status: active
Court File No: T-195-92
Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad
faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Litigation to resolve the allegations was launched in
1992 by the Alderville First Nation and six other First Nations, and is now at trial which is
scheduled to continue October 22, 2012.
Name: Curve Lake First Nation et al, and Hiawatha First Nation et al, and Mississauga of
Scugog Island First Nation v. HMTQ in Right of Canada
Status: closed due to inactivity
Court File No. : T-1358-99
Description: The Plaintiffs allege that the construction of Trent Severn Waterway resulted in the
flooding of reserve lands held by the Crown for the use and benefit of the Plaintiffs. The
Plaintiffs further allege that the Crown breached a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs to hold the
reserves for the use and benefit of the Plaintiffs. They maintain that the fiduciary duty was
breached when the Crown failed to inform the Plaintiffs of the flooding, failed to consult with the
Plaintiffs, and failed to compensate the Plaintiffs for their loss.
Land Management:
The Mississauga’s of Scugog Island First Nation is party to the First Nation Land Management
Regime. This Agreement was signed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development in 1996, and is an initiative allowing signatory First Nations the ability to take over
management and control of their lands and resources outside of the Indian Act. For more
information, visit: http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1327090675492/1327090738973
Other Considerations
Other Aboriginal Groups
Non-status Aboriginal groups are not a recognized as “Indian Bands” under the Indian Act.
However, the communities can be engaged in active litigation that may or may not intersect with
specific Section 35 right (s).
Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation
Chief Kris Nahrgang (as of 2009)
P.O. Box 1432
Lakefield, Ontario KOL 2H0
Phone: (705) 654-4661
Membership:
This community traces its ancestry back to a Mississauga Band originally consisting of what are
now called the Beausoleil, and the Chippewas of Mnjikaning (Rama) and Georgina Island.
Location:
The Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation (KNFN) community is located in and around the Burleigh
Falls area of Ontario. This area is located south of the Kawartha Highlands Provincial Park, in
the counties of Durham and Kawartha Lakes.
15
NCR#4931754 - v1
This community is located outside the boundaries of the Williams Treaties of 1923, and they
maintain that they were not a party to these Treaties. They state that they retain their treaty
rights to hunt and fish which were assured them under the Rice Lake Treaty (Treaty no. 20) of
1818.
Court decision:
In the case R v. Johnson (2002), the Court confirmed the existence of an Indian community
existing in the Burleigh Falls area, now known as the Kawartha Nishnawbe. The Court also
confirmed that members of the community are descendants of the Chippewa and Mississauga
who signed Treaty number 20 in 1818, and who were a separate community from Curve Lake
First Nation prior to 1923, when the William’s Treaty was signed.
Asserted Rights and Harvesting Area:
The Kawartha Nishnawbe assert that they exercise Treaty and Aboriginal rights including
hunting and fishing rights over a territory extending from Kingston to the Georgian Bay area.
This assertion was submitted in a letter to the Simcoe County Council in August of 2009. The
letter was sent in protest of proposed Dump site 41 in Tiny Township, which KNFN argued
would have the potential to affect a large portion of water and land which they consider their
traditional territory. In their statement they note:
“following the Johnson decision, the Government of Ontario negotiated an agreement
with Kawartha Nishnawbe which recognizes that our members continue to hold
constitutionally protected harvesting rights throughout the traditional territory of the
Mississauga Nation”.
The link to the letter is:
http://stopdumpsite41.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/KN.ltr.DS41.Aug.20.09.pdf
In the R v. Johnson court record it is noted that the Williams Treaty is very specific as to who
was included, stating that the signatories were “the undersigned chiefs and headsmen on their
own behalf and on behalf of all the Indians they represent.” The Court agreed that records
showed that the Kawartha Nishnawbe Chief of the time, Jack Jacobs was not allowed to
participate in the negotiations in 1923, nor is he listed as a signatory to the Treaties. Therefore,
their Aboriginal right to fish should not have been restricted without consultation.
Aboriginal Rights Assertions: the Métis
The inclusion of the Métis in s.35 represents Canada’s commitment to recognize and value their
distinctive cultures, which can only survive if they are protected along with other Aboriginal
communities. In 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed Métis rights under s.35 of the
Constitution Act, 1982, in the Sault St. Marie area, in the Powley decision. For more information
on the Powley decision visit the following link: www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014419
The Office of the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians (OFI) is aware that the
Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO), its regional and community councils, have asserted a Métis right
to harvest in a large section of the province.
The provincial government has accommodated Métis rights on a regional basis within Métis
harvesting territories identified by the MNO. These accommodations are based on credible
Métis rights assertions. An interim agreement (2004) between the MNO and the Ministry of
Natural Resources (MNR) recognizes the MNO’s Harvest Card system. This means that
16
NCR#4931754 - v1
Harvester’s Certificate holders engage in traditional Métis harvest activities within identified
Métis traditional territories across the province. For a map of Métis traditional harvesting
territories visit the MNO website at: http://www.metisnation.org/harvesting/harvesting-map.aspx
The MNO maintains that Aboriginal ‘rights-holders’ are Métis communities which are collectively
represented through the MNO and its community councils. In partnership with community
councils, MNO has established a consultation process. The MNO has published regional
consultation protocols on their website which offer pre-consultation stage instructions on
engaging the Métis through their community councils (via the consultation committee made up
of an MNO regional councilor, a community councilor representative and a Captain of the Hunt).
Please note however, that this organization does not represent all Métis in Ontario.
Métis Nation of Ontario
Métis Consultation Unit is located within the MNO head office.
500 Old St. Patrick Street, Unit 3
Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 9G4
Phone: (613) 798-1488
Fax: (613) 725-4225
www.metisnation.org/home.aspx
Métis National Council
4-340 MacLaren Street,
Ottawa, Ontario, K2P 0M6
Phone: (613) 232-3216
Fax: (613) 232-4262
www.metisnation.ca
For an indication of the population in Ontario who self-identify as Métis, visit the Statistics
Canada website. The Ontario map indicates populations as small as 250 up to over 2,000 within
its borders.
http://geodepot.statcan.gc.ca/2006/13011619/200805130120090313011619/16181522091403090112_13011619
/151401021518090709140112_201520011213052009190904161516_0503-eng.pdf
Métis Litigation in Ontario
Name: HMTQ in Right of Canada v. Michel Blais
Status: active
Court File No.: 08-213
Description: The Applicant is charged with unlawfully harvesting forest resources in a Crown
forest without a license contrary to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994. The Applicant, a
Métis, asserts that he is an Aboriginal person within the meaning of s. 35 of the Constitution Act,
1982 and that the alleged harvesting occurred in lands set apart for the Batchewana Band
pursuant to the Robinson Treaty of 1850. He claims that the Batchewana First Nation may
permit Métis persons to exercise the same Aboriginal and treaty rights as its members pursuant
to this treaty.
Name: HMTQ in Right of Canada, Laurie Desautels v. Henry Wetelainen Jr.
Status: active
Court File No.: CV-08-151
Description: The defendant, Henry Wetelainen Jr., intends to question the constitutional validity
of sections 28, 31 and 40 of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (1994), S.O. 1994, c. 25 and
Ontario Regulation 167/95, as amended, in relation to an act or omission of the government of
Ontario. The defendant claims that he was exercising Aboriginal and treaty rights afforded by
the Adhesion to Treaty 3, by harvesting wood within his traditional territory. He claims that he is
17
NCR#4931754 - v1
a Métis/Non-Status Indian and that the imposition of payment for harvesting or use of the forest
resource is an infringement and violates his constitutional rights.
Name: Ministry of Natural Resources v. Kenneth Sr. Paquette
Status: active
Court File No.: to be determined
Description: This Notice of Constitutional Question relates to a provincial prosecution involving a
charge pertaining to hunting moose. The Defendant intends to assert his s. 35 right as a Métis
person to hunt moose, and he also intends to seek a Charter remedy under s. 15 of the Charter.
Court Decisions concerning Métis in Ontario
R. v. Laurin, Lemieux, Lemieux - 2007
Court No.: ONCJ 265
Three Métis defendants were charged with fishing violations and claimed that the decision of the
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to prosecute them violated the terms of the Interim
Agreement (2004) between the MNR and the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO). As the defendants
were indeed Harvester Card holders authorized to fish in the Mattawa/Nipissing territory,
therefore, they were entitled to the exemption in the agreement.
The Court concluded that laying of charges against any valid Harvester Card holder who is
harvesting in the territory designated on the card within 2 years of the 2004 agreement was a
breach. The Interim Agreement itself was silent as to any geographic limitations. There was no
mention of the Agreement only applying north and east of Sudbury. Further, the reliance on
Harvester Cards, which explicitly contained the territorial designation of the cardholder, signified
that the MNR accepted such designations for the purpose of the agreement. The Court was
clear to note that this case did not make any ruling regarding the merits of any claim that the
Mattawa/Nipissing area contains section 35 rights bearing Métis communities.
Membership
First Nations may or may not delegate certain authority and/or powers to tribal councils to
administer programs, funding and/or services on their behalf. The best source of information
with respect to consultation is though individual First Nations themselves.
Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians
This is a political organization which advocates the interests of its eight members. Using
political lines the members form a collective to protect their Aboriginal and treaty rights.
www.aiai.on.ca
387 Princess Avenue
London, Ontario, N6B 2A7
Phone: (519) 434-2761
Chippewa Tri-Council
This council is an alliance of three First Nation communities composed of the:
Beausoleil First Nation- located on Christina Island in Georgian Bay
Georgina Island First Nation- located on Georgina Island in Lake Simcoe
Rama Mnjikanning First Nation-located near Orillia
There is not an official location for this council. Please contact the Chief of each First Nation
individually.
Chiefs of Ontario
18
NCR#4931754 - v1
The Chiefs of Ontario is a coordinating body for 133 First Nation communities in Ontario. The
main objective of this body is to facilitate the discussion, planning, implementation and
evaluation of all local, regional and national matters affecting its members.
www.chiefs-of-ontario.org
Administrative Office:
111 Peter Street, Suite 804
Toronto, Ontario, M5V 2H1
Phone: (416) 597-1266
Fax: (416) 597-8365
Political Office:
Fort William First Nation
RR 4, Suite 101, 9- Anemki Drive
Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7J 1A5
Phone: (807) 626-9339
Fax: (807) 626-9404
Ogemawahj Tribal Council
The Council provides professional services through the pooling of six First Nation member’s
resources.
www.ogemawahj.on.ca
5984 Rama Road
P.O. Box 46 Rama, Ontario, L0K 1T0
Phone: (705) 329-2511
Fax: (705) 329-2509
The Union of Ontario Indians (UOI)
The UOI is a political advocate for approximately 40 member First Nations across Ontario. Its
headquarters is located on Nipissing First Nation, just outside of North Bay Ontario, and has
satellite offices in Thunder Bay, Curve Lake First Nation and Munsee-Delaware First Nation.
The UOI delivers a variety of programs and services. The Anishinabek Nation incorporated the
Union of Ontario Indians (UOI) as its secretariat in 1949.
www.anishinabek.ca
Head Office:
1 Miigizi Mikan
Regional Office
North Bay, Ontario, P1B 8J8
300 Anemki Place
Phone: (705) 497-9127
Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7J 1H9
Fax: (705) 497-9135
Phone: (807) 623-8887
Treaty Areas
Treaties of Southern Ontario- The Upper Canada Treaties
There are several treaty making eras which impact the province of Ontario. These eras are
known as the Upper Canada Land Surrenders from 1764 to 1862. These surrenders are seen
as treaties which transfer all Aboriginal rights and title to the Crown in exchange for one-time
payments or annuities. They tended to be made with individual First Nation groups for tracts of
land. In light of the evolution of Aboriginal law over the past twenty years, this position may not
be as clear as believed. There may be residual rights remaining especially relating to hunting
and fishing.
1764-1782 – Early Land Surrenders
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 established the protection from encroachment of an Aboriginal
territory outside of the colonial boundaries. Rules and protocols for the acquisition of Aboriginal
lands by Crown officials were set out and became the basis for all future land treaties. In
response to military and defensive needs around the Great Lakes, the Indian Department
negotiated several land surrender treaties in the Niagara region.
19
NCR#4931754 - v1
*Atlas of Canada
1783-1815- Treaties for Settlement
As part of the plan to resettle some 30,000 United Empire Loyalists who refused to accept
American rule, and fled to Montreal, the Indian Department undertook a series of land
surrenders west of the Ottawa River with the Mississauga and the Chippewa of the southern
Great Lakes. These tended to be uncomplicated arrangements whereby for a particular
Aboriginal group was paid a specific sum paid in trade goods, to surrender a stated amount of
land.
1815-1862- Treaties to Open the Interior
After the war of 1812, the colonial administration of Upper Canada focused on greater
settlement of the colony. The Indian Department completed the last of the over 30 Upper
Canada Land Surrenders around the Kawartha, Georgian Bay, and the Rideau and Ottawa
Rivers. All of this land which today is known as Southern Ontario, was ceded to the Crown.
Southern Ontario Treaty Making after the Upper Canada Land Surrenders
While the protocols for surrenders established in 1763 by the Royal Proclamation, were largely
followed by the Indian Department, complaints and petitions to the Crown were submitted by
First Nation signatories regarding these surrenders as early as 1866. They claimed they had an
unsurrendered interest in the so-called “northern hunting grounds”. In response, the province of
Ontario and Canada enlisted a Commission in 1916 to investigate the veracity of these claims
once and for all. If the claims were found to be valid, the Commission was to negotiate a treaty.
The Commission’s investigation found a number of places where the certainty of the validity of
the surrenders was questionable, and recommended that new treaties be made. They
appointed A.S. Williams to negotiate with the Ojibway in 1923. The areas of uncertainty were
brought into the boundaries of the Williams Treaties to achieve certainty.
Unlike the terms of the Robinson Treaties in Ontario (1850) and the more recent numbered
treaties in the west, the Williams Treaties were cash for land deals. Aboriginal (Ojibway)
20
NCR#4931754 - v1
signatories surrendered all of their rights and benefits to the Crown on lands in central Ontario
and the northern shore of Lake Ontario. The Potawatomi and the Mississaugas of the New
Credit were not involved in these negotiations.
Since the signing of these treaties, there have been questions as to whether the signatory First
Nations had surrendered all of their rights to hunt and fish. In 1994, this debate was ended by
the Supreme Court of Canada, when in R. v. Howard, the Court decided that the seven First
Nations Georgina Island, Mnjikaning and Beausoleil, Curve Lake, Alderville, Scugog and
Hiawatha by way of the Williams Treaties “basket clause”, had knowingly surrendered all of their
hunting, fishing and trapping rights (whether they be Aboriginal rights or treaty rights) outside of
their existing reserves.
*Atlas of Canada Map: Treaty boundaries on the above
map are approximate. The treaty areas listed for
Aboriginal communities are based on the
geographic location of each First Nation.
Litigation to resolve the allegations that Canada negotiated the Williams Treaties in bad faith
was launched in 1992 by the Alderville First Nation and six other First Nations. A trial in this
matter is scheduled to resume on October 22, 2012.
Self Government Agreement Negotiations
Anishinabek Nation (Union of Ontario Indians) negotiations on Governance and Education
In 1995, the Anishinabek Nation’s Grand Council authorized its secretariat arm, the
Union of Ontario Indians (UOI), to begin self-government negotiations with Canada.
Negotiations towards agreements in the areas of education and governance began in
1998.
An agreement-in-principle (AIP) on education was signed in November 2002. In February 2007,
the parties signed the AIP with respect to governance. Final agreement negotiations are
proceeding in parallel, and together these agreements would mark important steps towards the
21
NCR#4931754 - v1
Anishinabek Nation’s long-term objective of supporting participating First Nations to move out
from under the Indian Act.
The governance agreement will provide the establishment of the Anishinabek Nation
government and the recognition of participating First Nation lawmaking authority in four core
governance areas: leadership selection, citizenship, culture and language, and management
and operations of government.
The education AIP authorized the parties to negotiate a final agreement with respect to
lawmaking authority for primary, elementary and secondary education for on-reserve members,
and to administer AANDC’s post-secondary education assistance program. Negotiations
towards a final agreement with respect to education are nearing conclusion. The Province of
Ontario is not a party to these negotiations but is engaged in tripartite discussions on particular
issues that would assist in the implementation of the final agreement.
To prepare for self-government in member communities, the Union of Ontario Indians has
undertaken a range of activities including a Community Engagement Strategy, the development
of an appeal and redress process, a constitutional development process and a number of
capacity development activities.
Provincial guidelines
Under its responsibility to promote stronger Aboriginal relationships, the Ontario Ministry of
Aboriginal Affairs has produced Draft Guidelines on Consultation with Aboriginal Peoples
Related to Aboriginal Rights and Treaty Rights. These guidelines are for use by ministries who
seek input from key First Nations and Métis organizations, all Ontario First Nations and selected
non-Aboriginal stakeholders. To review the guidelines, visit:
http://www.aboriginalaffairs.gov.on.ca/english/policy/draftconsultjune2006.pdf
22
NCR#4931754 - v1
January 28, 2013
Mr. Marco Finocchi
Engineering Coordinator
The Regional Municipality of Durham
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Whitby, ON
L1N 6A3
Via email:
[email protected]
Dear Mr. Finocchi:
Re:
Simcoe St. Road Improvements
Class Environmental Assessment Study
Our File No. PAR 24780
We have received notice of the above noted study. TransCanada has two high pressure
natural gas pipelines crossing Simcoe St., just north of Winchester Rd. TransCanada
reviews all development within 200 metres of its facilities to ensure that it does not affect
the safety and integrity of those facilities.
We would like to provide the following TransCanada and National Energy Board
requirements for any construction or development in close proximity to the pipeline:
1. Section 112 of the National Energy Board Act requires that anyone excavating with
power-operated equipment or explosives within 30m of the pipeline right-of-way
must obtain leave from the pipeline company before starting any work. To satisfy this
NEB requirement, you may send your request for leave through Ontario One Call at
1-800-400-2255 at least 72 hours before the start of any excavation using poweroperated equipment and the use of explosives within 40m of the pipeline right-of-way
limits.
2. All crossings of the pipeline right-of-way by any facility as defined by the National
Energy Board Act (NEB Act) Section 112 must have TransCanada’s prior written
authorisation. A crossing facility may include, but is not limited to, driveways, roads,
access ramps, trails, pathways or utilities. In accordance with the NEB Act, the owner
shall be required to enter into a crossing agreement with TransCanada prior to the
construction of any facility. The owner agrees to meet all clearances and design
requirements outlined in the crossing agreement and the NEB Pipeline Crossing
Regulations.
Please
contact
TransCanada’s
crossing
staff
at
[email protected] or call 1-877-872-5177 for more information.
Authorized commenting Agency for
97 Collier St.,
Barrie, ON L4M 1H2
(705) 727-0663
2
3. Any grading not otherwise permitted by Section 112 of the NEB Act and regulations
that may affect the right-of-way or drainage onto it, regardless of whether or not the
grading is conducted on the right-of-way, must receive TransCanada’s prior written
approval. Grading activities on the right-of-way will only be permitted when a
TransCanada representative is present to inspect and supervise them.
4. No fill or building material may be stored on the pipeline right-of-way before, during
or after construction unless prior written approval is obtained from TransCanada.
5. Paving is not permitted on the pipeline right-of-way, except at authorised crossings.
Parking is not permitted on the pipeline right-of-way.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
Darlene Presley,
Project Manager
Authorized commenting Agency for
97 Collier St.,
Barrie, ON L4M 1H2
(705) 727-0663
February 4, 2013
Thank you for circulating Infrastructure Ontario (formerly the Ontario Realty Corporation) on your
Notice. Infrastructure Ontario (IO) is the strategic manager of the provincial government's real
estate property with a mandate of maintaining and optimizing value of the portfolio, while ensuring
real estate decisions reflect public policy objectives of the government.
As you may be aware, IO is responsible for managing real estate property that is owned by Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure (MOI).
There is a potential that IO manages lands that fall within your study area. As a result, your
proposal may impact IO managed properties and/or the activities of tenants present on IOmanaged lands. In order to determine if IO property is within your study area, IO requires that the
proponent of the project conduct a title search by reviewing parcel register(s) for adjoining lands,
to determine the extent of ownership by MOI or it’s predecessors (listed below) ownership.
Please contact IO if any ownership of provincial government lands are known to occur within your
study area and are proposed to be impacted. IO is obligated to complete due diligence for any
realty activity on IO managed lands and this should be incorporated into all project timelines. IO
managed lands can include within the title but is not limited to variations of the following: Her
Majesty the Queen/King, OLC, ORC, Public Works, Hydro One, PIR, MGS, MBS, MOI, MTO,
MNR and MEI*. Please ensure that a copy of your notice is also sent to the ministry/agency on
title. As an example, if the study area includes a Provincial Park, then MNR is to also to be
circulated notices related to your project.
Potential Negative Impacts to IO Tenants and Lands
General Impacts
Negative environmental impacts associated with the project design and construction, such as the
potential for dewatering, dust, noise and vibration impacts, and impacts to natural heritage
features/habitat and functions, should be avoided and/or appropriately mitigated in accordance
with applicable regulations best practices and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and Ministry
of the Environment (MOE) standards. Avoidance and mitigation options that characterize
baseline conditions and quantify the potential impacts should be present as part of the EA project
file.
Details of appropriate mitigation, contingency plans and triggers for implementing
contingency plans should also be present.
Impacts to Land holdings
Negative impacts to land holdings, such as the taking of developable parcels of IO managed land
or fragmentation of utility or transportation corridors, should be avoided. If the potential for such
impacts is present as part of this undertaking, you should contact the undersigned to discuss
these issues at the earliest possible stage of your study.
If takings are suggested as part of any alternative these should be appropriately mapped and
quantified within EA report documentation. In addition, details of appropriate mitigation and or
next steps related to compensation for any required takings should be present. IO requests
circulation of the draft EA report prior to finalization if potential impacts to IO-managed lands are
present as part of this study.
Heritage Management Process & Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Process
Should the proposed activities impact cultural heritage features on IO managed lands, a request
to examine cultural heritage issues which can include the cultural landscape, archaeology and
places of sacred and secular value could be required. The IO (formerly Ontario Realty
Corporation) Heritage Management Process should be used for identifying and conserving
heritage properties in the provincial portfolio (this document can be downloaded from the Heritage
section of our website: http://www.ontariorealty.ca/What-We-Do/Heritage.htm). Through this
process, IO identifies, communicates and conserves the values of its heritage places. In addition,
the Class EA ensures that IO considers the potential effects of proposed undertakings on the
environment, including cultural heritage.
Potential Triggers Related to MOI’s Class EA
IO is required to follow the MOI Class Environmental Assessment Process for Realty Activities
Not Related to Electricity Projects (MOI Class EA). The MOI Class EA applies to a wide range of
realty and planning activities including leasing or letting, planning approvals, dispostion, granting
of easements, demolition and property maintenance/repair. For details on the MOI Class EA
please visit the Environment and Heritage page of our website found at
http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/What-We-Do/Buildings/Realty-Services/EnvironmentalManagement/Class-EAs/
Please note that completion of any EA process does not necessarily provide an approval for IO’s
EA process unless the alternative EA incorporates IO’s applicable Class EA requirements.
If the MOI Class EA is triggered, and deferral to another ministry’s or agency’s Class EA or
individual EA is requested, the alternative EA will be subject to a critical review prior to approval
for any signoff of a deferral by the proponent. The alternative EA needs to fulfill the minimum
criteria of the MOI Class EA. When evaluating an alternative EA there must be explicit reference
to the corresponding undertaking in the MOI Class EA (e.g., if the proponent identifies the need
to acquire land owned by MOI, then “acquisition of MOI-owned land”, or similar statement, must
be referenced in the EA document). Furthermore, sufficient levels of consultation with MOI’s/IO’s
specific stakeholders, such as the MNR, must be documented with the relevant information
corresponding to MOI’s/IO’s undertaking and the associated maps. In addition to archaeological
and heritage reports, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), on IO lands should also
be incorporated into the alternative EA study. Deficiencies in any of these requirements could
result in an inability to defer to the alternative EA study and require completing MOI’s Class EA
prior to commencement of the proposed undertaking.
In summary, the purchase of MOI-owned/IO-managed lands or disposal of rights and
responsibilities (e.g. easement) for IO-managed lands triggers the application of the MOI Class
EA. If any of these realty activities affecting IO-managed lands are being proposed as part of any
alternative, please contact the Sales and Marketing Group through IO’s main line (Phone: 416327-3937, Toll Free: 1-877-863-9672), and contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience
to discuss next steps.
Specific Comments
If an EA for this project is currently being undertaken and only if the undertaking directly affects
all or in part any IO-managed property, please send the undersigned a copy of the DRAFT EA
report and allow sufficient time (minimum of 30 calendar days) for comments and discussion prior
to finalizing the report to ensure that all MOI Class EA requirements can be met through the EA
study.
Please remove IO from your circulation list, with respect to this project, if there are no IO
managed lands in the study area. In addition, in the future, please send only electronic copies
of notices for any projects impacting IO managed lands to:
[email protected]
Thank you for the opportunity to provide initial comments on this undertaking. If you have any
questions on the above I can be reached at the contacts below.
Sincerely,
Lisa Myslicki
Environmental Advisor, Environmental Management
Infrastructure Ontario
1 Dundas Street West,
Suite 2000, Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2L5
(416) 212-3768
[email protected]
* Below are the acronyms for agencies/ministries listed in the above letter
OLC: Ontario Lands Corporation
ORC: Ontario Realty Corporation
PIR: Public Infrastructure and Renewal
MGS: Ministry of Government Services
MBS: Management Board and Secretariat
MOI: Ministry of Infrastructure
MTO: Ministry of Transportation
MNR: Ministry of Natural Resources
MEI: Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure
February 4, 2013
Thank you for circulating Infrastructure Ontario (formerly the Ontario Realty Corporation) on your
Notice. Infrastructure Ontario (IO) is the strategic manager of the provincial government's real
estate property with a mandate of maintaining and optimizing value of the portfolio, while ensuring
real estate decisions reflect public policy objectives of the government.
As you may be aware, IO is responsible for managing real estate property that is owned by Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure (MOI).
There is a potential that IO manages lands that fall within your study area. As a result, your
proposal may impact IO managed properties and/or the activities of tenants present on IOmanaged lands. In order to determine if IO property is within your study area, IO requires that the
proponent of the project conduct a title search by reviewing parcel register(s) for adjoining lands,
to determine the extent of ownership by MOI or it’s predecessors (listed below) ownership.
Please contact IO if any ownership of provincial government lands are known to occur within your
study area and are proposed to be impacted. IO is obligated to complete due diligence for any
realty activity on IO managed lands and this should be incorporated into all project timelines. IO
managed lands can include within the title but is not limited to variations of the following: Her
Majesty the Queen/King, OLC, ORC, Public Works, Hydro One, PIR, MGS, MBS, MOI, MTO,
MNR and MEI*. Please ensure that a copy of your notice is also sent to the ministry/agency on
title. As an example, if the study area includes a Provincial Park, then MNR is to also to be
circulated notices related to your project.
Potential Negative Impacts to IO Tenants and Lands
General Impacts
Negative environmental impacts associated with the project design and construction, such as the
potential for dewatering, dust, noise and vibration impacts, and impacts to natural heritage
features/habitat and functions, should be avoided and/or appropriately mitigated in accordance
with applicable regulations best practices and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and Ministry
of the Environment (MOE) standards. Avoidance and mitigation options that characterize
baseline conditions and quantify the potential impacts should be present as part of the EA project
file.
Details of appropriate mitigation, contingency plans and triggers for implementing
contingency plans should also be present.
Impacts to Land holdings
Negative impacts to land holdings, such as the taking of developable parcels of IO managed land
or fragmentation of utility or transportation corridors, should be avoided. If the potential for such
impacts is present as part of this undertaking, you should contact the undersigned to discuss
these issues at the earliest possible stage of your study.
If takings are suggested as part of any alternative these should be appropriately mapped and
quantified within EA report documentation. In addition, details of appropriate mitigation and or
next steps related to compensation for any required takings should be present. IO requests
circulation of the draft EA report prior to finalization if potential impacts to IO-managed lands are
present as part of this study.
Heritage Management Process & Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Process
Should the proposed activities impact cultural heritage features on IO managed lands, a request
to examine cultural heritage issues which can include the cultural landscape, archaeology and
places of sacred and secular value could be required. The IO (formerly Ontario Realty
Corporation) Heritage Management Process should be used for identifying and conserving
heritage properties in the provincial portfolio (this document can be downloaded from the Heritage
section of our website: http://www.ontariorealty.ca/What-We-Do/Heritage.htm). Through this
process, IO identifies, communicates and conserves the values of its heritage places. In addition,
the Class EA ensures that IO considers the potential effects of proposed undertakings on the
environment, including cultural heritage.
Potential Triggers Related to MOI’s Class EA
IO is required to follow the MOI Class Environmental Assessment Process for Realty Activities
Not Related to Electricity Projects (MOI Class EA). The MOI Class EA applies to a wide range of
realty and planning activities including leasing or letting, planning approvals, dispostion, granting
of easements, demolition and property maintenance/repair. For details on the MOI Class EA
please visit the Environment and Heritage page of our website found at
http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/What-We-Do/Buildings/Realty-Services/EnvironmentalManagement/Class-EAs/
Please note that completion of any EA process does not necessarily provide an approval for IO’s
EA process unless the alternative EA incorporates IO’s applicable Class EA requirements.
If the MOI Class EA is triggered, and deferral to another ministry’s or agency’s Class EA or
individual EA is requested, the alternative EA will be subject to a critical review prior to approval
for any signoff of a deferral by the proponent. The alternative EA needs to fulfill the minimum
criteria of the MOI Class EA. When evaluating an alternative EA there must be explicit reference
to the corresponding undertaking in the MOI Class EA (e.g., if the proponent identifies the need
to acquire land owned by MOI, then “acquisition of MOI-owned land”, or similar statement, must
be referenced in the EA document). Furthermore, sufficient levels of consultation with MOI’s/IO’s
specific stakeholders, such as the MNR, must be documented with the relevant information
corresponding to MOI’s/IO’s undertaking and the associated maps. In addition to archaeological
and heritage reports, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), on IO lands should also
be incorporated into the alternative EA study. Deficiencies in any of these requirements could
result in an inability to defer to the alternative EA study and require completing MOI’s Class EA
prior to commencement of the proposed undertaking.
In summary, the purchase of MOI-owned/IO-managed lands or disposal of rights and
responsibilities (e.g. easement) for IO-managed lands triggers the application of the MOI Class
EA. If any of these realty activities affecting IO-managed lands are being proposed as part of any
alternative, please contact the Sales and Marketing Group through IO’s main line (Phone: 416327-3937, Toll Free: 1-877-863-9672), and contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience
to discuss next steps.
Specific Comments
If an EA for this project is currently being undertaken and only if the undertaking directly affects
all or in part any IO-managed property, please send the undersigned a copy of the DRAFT EA
report and allow sufficient time (minimum of 30 calendar days) for comments and discussion prior
to finalizing the report to ensure that all MOI Class EA requirements can be met through the EA
study.
Please remove IO from your circulation list, with respect to this project, if there are no IO
managed lands in the study area. In addition, in the future, please send only electronic copies
of notices for any projects impacting IO managed lands to:
[email protected]
Thank you for the opportunity to provide initial comments on this undertaking. If you have any
questions on the above I can be reached at the contacts below.
Sincerely,
Lisa Myslicki
Environmental Advisor, Environmental Management
Infrastructure Ontario
1 Dundas Street West,
Suite 2000, Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2L5
(416) 212-3768
[email protected]
* Below are the acronyms for agencies/ministries listed in the above letter
OLC: Ontario Lands Corporation
ORC: Ontario Realty Corporation
PIR: Public Infrastructure and Renewal
MGS: Ministry of Government Services
MBS: Management Board and Secretariat
MOI: Ministry of Infrastructure
MTO: Ministry of Transportation
MNR: Ministry of Natural Resources
MEI: Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure
May 17, 2013
Thank you for circulating Infrastructure Ontario (formerly the Ontario Realty Corporation) on your
Notice. Infrastructure Ontario (IO) is the strategic manager of the provincial government's real
estate property with a mandate of maintaining and optimizing value of the portfolio, while ensuring
real estate decisions reflect public policy objectives of the government.
As you may be aware, IO is responsible for managing real estate property that is owned by Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure (MOI).
There is a potential that IO manages lands that fall within your study area. As a result, your
proposal may impact IO managed properties and/or the activities of tenants present on IOmanaged lands. In order to determine if IO property is within your study area, IO requires that the
proponent of the project conduct a title search by reviewing parcel register(s) for adjoining lands,
to determine the extent of ownership by MOI or it’s predecessors (listed below) ownership.
Please contact IO if any ownership of provincial government lands are known to occur within your
study area and are proposed to be impacted. IO is obligated to complete due diligence for any
realty activity on IO managed lands and this should be incorporated into all project timelines. IO
managed lands can include within the title but is not limited to variations of the following: Her
Majesty the Queen/King, OLC, ORC, Public Works, Hydro One, PIR, MGS, MBS, MOI, MTO,
MNR and MEI*. Please ensure that a copy of your notice is also sent to the ministry/agency on
title. As an example, if the study area includes a Provincial Park, then MNR is to also to be
circulated notices related to your project.
Potential Negative Impacts to IO Tenants and Lands
General Impacts
Negative environmental impacts associated with the project design and construction, such as the
potential for dewatering, dust, noise and vibration impacts, and impacts to natural heritage
features/habitat and functions, should be avoided and/or appropriately mitigated in accordance
with applicable regulations best practices and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and Ministry
of the Environment (MOE) standards. Avoidance and mitigation options that characterize
baseline conditions and quantify the potential impacts should be present as part of the EA project
file.
Details of appropriate mitigation, contingency plans and triggers for implementing
contingency plans should also be present.
Impacts to Land holdings
Negative impacts to land holdings, such as the taking of developable parcels of IO managed land
or fragmentation of utility or transportation corridors, should be avoided. If the potential for such
impacts is present as part of this undertaking, you should contact the undersigned to discuss
these issues at the earliest possible stage of your study.
If takings are suggested as part of any alternative these should be appropriately mapped and
quantified within EA report documentation. In addition, details of appropriate mitigation and or
next steps related to compensation for any required takings should be present. IO requests
circulation of the draft EA report prior to finalization if potential impacts to IO-managed lands are
present as part of this study.
Heritage Management Process & Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Process
Should the proposed activities impact cultural heritage features on IO managed lands, a request
to examine cultural heritage issues which can include the cultural landscape, archaeology and
places of sacred and secular value could be required. The IO (formerly Ontario Realty
Corporation) Heritage Management Process should be used for identifying and conserving
heritage properties in the provincial portfolio (this document can be downloaded from the Heritage
section of our website: http://www.ontariorealty.ca/What-We-Do/Heritage.htm). Through this
process, IO identifies, communicates and conserves the values of its heritage places. In addition,
the Class EA ensures that IO considers the potential effects of proposed undertakings on the
environment, including cultural heritage.
Potential Triggers Related to MOI’s Class EA
IO is required to follow the MOI Class Environmental Assessment Process for Realty Activities
Not Related to Electricity Projects (MOI Class EA). The MOI Class EA applies to a wide range of
realty and planning activities including leasing or letting, planning approvals, dispostion, granting
of easements, demolition and property maintenance/repair. For details on the MOI Class EA
please visit the Environment and Heritage page of our website found at
http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/What-We-Do/Buildings/Realty-Services/EnvironmentalManagement/Class-EAs/
Please note that completion of any EA process does not necessarily provide an approval for IO’s
EA process unless the alternative EA incorporates IO’s applicable Class EA requirements.
If the MOI Class EA is triggered, and deferral to another ministry’s or agency’s Class EA or
individual EA is requested, the alternative EA will be subject to a critical review prior to approval
for any signoff of a deferral by the proponent. The alternative EA needs to fulfill the minimum
criteria of the MOI Class EA. When evaluating an alternative EA there must be explicit reference
to the corresponding undertaking in the MOI Class EA (e.g., if the proponent identifies the need
to acquire land owned by MOI, then “acquisition of MOI-owned land”, or similar statement, must
be referenced in the EA document). Furthermore, sufficient levels of consultation with MOI’s/IO’s
specific stakeholders, such as the MNR, must be documented with the relevant information
corresponding to MOI’s/IO’s undertaking and the associated maps. In addition to archaeological
and heritage reports, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), on IO lands should also
be incorporated into the alternative EA study. Deficiencies in any of these requirements could
result in an inability to defer to the alternative EA study and require completing MOI’s Class EA
prior to commencement of the proposed undertaking.
In summary, the purchase of MOI-owned/IO-managed lands or disposal of rights and
responsibilities (e.g. easement) for IO-managed lands triggers the application of the MOI Class
EA. If any of these realty activities affecting IO-managed lands are being proposed as part of any
alternative, please contact the Sales and Marketing Group through IO’s main line (Phone: 416327-3937, Toll Free: 1-877-863-9672), and contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience
to discuss next steps.
Specific Comments
If an EA for this project is currently being undertaken and only if the undertaking directly affects
all or in part any IO-managed property, please send the undersigned a copy of the DRAFT EA
report and allow sufficient time (minimum of 30 calendar days) for comments and discussion prior
to finalizing the report to ensure that all MOI Class EA requirements can be met through the EA
study.
Please remove IO from your circulation list, with respect to this project, if there are no IO
managed lands in the study area. In addition, in the future, please send only electronic copies
of notices for any projects impacting IO managed lands to:
[email protected]
Thank you for the opportunity to provide initial comments on this undertaking. If you have any
questions on the above I can be reached at the contacts below.
Sincerely,
Lisa Myslicki
Environmental Advisor, Environmental Management
Infrastructure Ontario
1 Dundas Street West,
Suite 2000, Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2L5
(416) 212-3768
[email protected]
* Below are the acronyms for agencies/ministries listed in the above letter
OLC: Ontario Lands Corporation
ORC: Ontario Realty Corporation
PIR: Public Infrastructure and Renewal
MGS: Ministry of Government Services
MBS: Management Board and Secretariat
MOI: Ministry of Infrastructure
MTO: Ministry of Transportation
MNR: Ministry of Natural Resources
MEI: Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure
Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
801 Upper Canada Drive
P.O. Box 128
Sarnia, Ontario
N7T 7H8
(Courier N7W 1A3)
May 24, 2013
File No. 73.11 Durham
Email: [email protected]
Marco Finocchi
Engineering Coordinator
Re: Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Comments Environmental Assessment Study for
proposed Simcoe Street widening.
Dear Mr. Finocchi:
Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge) operates a 760mm diameter high pressure petroleum
pipelines contained in an 18.3 m wide right-of-way/easement through the subject lands as per
Figure 1 below.
Enbridge has no concerns with the proposed road widening providing the following conditions
are adhered to:

Any proposed crossings of the right-of-way by roads, laneways, bike/walking paths, services
and utilities are permitted in accordance with the regulations of the National Energy Board
(NEB) Act and subject to approval by Enbridge. The applicant will be required to enter
Enbridge’s Standard Crossing Agreement.

Prior to construction Enbridge must have the opportunity to expose, inspect and make any
necessary modification to the existing pipeline. Cost for all work will be the responsibility of
the developer.

The Enbridge right-of-way shall be delineated with a permanent fence during the
construction phase.

Enbridge is regulated by the National Energy Board (NEB) Act. Section 112 of the Act
states that ”No person shall, unless leave is first obtained from the Board, construct a facility
across, on, along or under a pipeline or excavate using power-operated equipment or
explosives within 30 meters of a pipeline”.

No grading or placing fill on Enbridge’s right-of-way will be permitted without the prior written
approval of Enbridge.

No work shall take place on Enbridge’s right-of-way without the presence of an Enbridge
inspector.

No heavy machinery will be permitted to cross Enbridge’s right-of-way outside existing
roadway without the prior written approval of Enbridge.

No landscaping shall take place on Enbridge’s right-of-way without Enbridge’s written
approval.
To obtain locates of our facilities please contact (613) 966-1955 and Ontario One Call at
Direct Line: 519-339-0503
e-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.enbridge.com
Office: 519-339-0500
Fax: 519-339-0510
Page 2
July 21, 2011
1-800-400-2255. Request to meet “Enbridge Pipelines Inc.” onsite at the specified address.
Please call if you have any questions.
Yours truly,
Ann Newman CET
Supervisor, Right-of-Way Services
Eastern Region
AN/av
Figure 1
August 20, 2013
Re: Streamlining the Ministry of Infrastructure’s (MOI) Class EA with other Class EA processes
Thank for Contacting Infrastructure Ontario (formerly the Ontario Realty Corporation) regarding
the proposed undertaking and MOI (IO) Class EA requirements.
IO is required, by the MOE and the environmental assessment act, to follow the “MOI Class EA
Process for Realty Activities Other Than Electricity Projects (approved April 2004, amended
September 11, 2008)” – now MOI - prior to any activities on IO managed lands.
The Class EA parent document can be found at:
http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/What-We-Do/Buildings/Realty-Services/EnvironmentalManagement/Class-EAs/
Issue #1: Identification of undertaking(s) and trigger to MOI Class EA
Generally, for EA projects, IO is consulted regarding the applicability of the MEA/IEA Class EA
processes and requirements when a proponent’s proposed undertaking may directly or indirectly
affect lands or facilities owned by MOI and managed by IO. This would ensure that the correct
undertaking described in the MOI Class EA is clearly identified and addressed. Please refer to
section 9.7 of the Class EA, referenced in the preceding section, which explains that despite a
proponent receiving an approval under the EA Act (“Act”), MOI, IO, or an authorized agency
under MOI (“MOI/IO/Agency”), are still responsible for meeting the requirements of the Act when
carrying out an undertaking on behalf of the proponent. (For example, this means that if a
proponent’s undertaking includes acquiring an easement or transfer of ownership of land owned
by MOI and transacted by IO on the ministry’s behalf, then such realty activities to be conducted
by IO must be clearly identified and assessed in the proponent’s EA study; otherwise,
MOI/IO/Agency must conduct a separate EA under the MOI Class EA process to meet its
requirements under the Act.)
In addition, please ensure to include any lands that have been, or are subject to, an easement
that include Hydro One towers and transmission lines on Bill 58 lands. MOI/IO’s realty
undertaking should be clearly identified, and be made separate from undertakings conducted by
Hydro One. MOI is the owner for all Bill 58 lands and is solely responsible for granting any
easements or conducting any disposition of such lands to another party.
For a description of Bill 58 lands and the Provincial Secondary Land Use Program please follow
http://www.ontariorealty.ca/What-We-Do/Managing-Hydro-Corridorthe
following
link:
Lands/PSLUP.htm
The proponent is requested to identify how the EA meets MOI/IO’s minimum EA requirements by
referring to the seven point analysis, as described in section 4.2, Step B1 of the MOI Class EA
and detailed within the Consultation and Documentation Report template located in Appendix
3.
According to the MOI Class EA, an undertaking is defined on Page 9-11, in the Glossary of
Terms. Undertakings are broken down into components; that is, one or more actions which may
apply to one or more subgroups. MOI/IO/Agency undertakings need to be identified as real
estate activities, including the issuance of a license/lease, granting of an easement, or
disposition. Each undertaking has a different category level of consultation and analysis
associated with it, as identified in Figure 2.2 EA Category Listing Matrix of the MOI Class EA.
Issue #2: Identifying the associated EA Category and ability to defer to an alternative EA
Please note that different undertakings in combination with the type of land to be impacted,
determines the IO EA Class. As an example, granting an easement on IO managed lands is
considered a Category “B” and an easement on Bill 58 lands, managed by Hydro One, is
considered a Category “A”. Category “A” is applied to undertakings that are minor in scale and
have minimal or no adverse environmental effects. Based on the criteria of a Category “A” EA
and depending on the scale of the area to be impacted by an undertaking, proper due diligence of
an easement, impacting hydro corridor land, could require an elevation to a Category “B”. Please
note that licenses and leases on Hydro corridor lands are considered a Category “A” and
therefore, generally do not require any EA work; however, the purchase of Hydro corridor lands is
considered a Category “B” EA, according to the Figure 2.2 Category Listing Matrix.
As stated previously, the EA must meet the 7 point analysis identified in the MOI/IO’s Class EA.
Issue #3: Consultation with IO Stakeholders
MOI/IO/Agency is required to circulate major stakeholders prior to land transfer, dispositions or
easements, depending on the type of land to be impacted and it is possible under the MOI Class
EA Process to defer to an alternative EA, if the client ministry or agency’s EA circulates the
appropriate stakeholder. One major stakeholder that is required to be contacted is the MNR.
Often the MNR is not a significant contributor to the MEA process; however, they are to IO’s
Class EA, as the MNR has a greater interest in IO projects (being another government agency).
This is where confusion lies between a Municipal Class EA and IO's Class EA. Because of
MNR's significant role in the IO EA, especially where there are significant natural features, we
need to ensure that there comments are addressed. It would create potential future problems,
with the MNR, if we choose to ignore there concerns, especially when they could be quite
reasonable. As such, a “no response” is not sufficient for IO. IO will require a letter indicating the
MNR is choosing to decline and this documentation of consultation with the stakeholder is
required.
Issue #4: Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments/Cultural Heritage Assessments
Assessment
and
Stage
1/II
Archaeolgoical
Depending on the type of realty activity to be completed, there is potential, based on the MOI
Class EA Process, that a Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), Stage I/II
Archaeological Assessment or Cultural Heritage Assessment may be required. Please note that
if a Phase I ESA was not completed within the EA document, for the IO managed lands, the
deferral to the EA is still possible; however, the Phase I ESA must still be completed prior to
disposition or granting of the easements according to the standards indicated. Please note that
any required technical reports are to be procured and paid for by the proponent of the project.
IO has certain standards for a Phase I ESA. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment must
be conducted in accordance with Schedule D of the Revised Brownfield Regulation. In addition
to a site visit and interviews, the site history and records review shall include all the relevant
sources to ensure compliance with Schedule D. Although Part VII is focused on risks to soil and
groundwater, IO expects the Phase I ESA work done for this assignment to include investigation
and comment on designated substances and typical hazardous building materials. This is
intended to capture topics such as asbestos, PCB-containing electrical equipment, lead-based
paints, mercury containing materials, UFFI, mould, etc. With respect to Section 16(3)(c) of
Schedule D, the likelihood of contaminants affecting the property must be presented as either
high, medium, low or minimal for each potential risk identified. Please note that *full* reliance of
the report is required to be extended to the IO without any liability cap. IO will require written
confirmation of this, from the proponent’s consultant.
.
Issue #5: Ability to defer
The ability to defer to an alternative EA is determined if the EA meets MOI’s Class EA seven
point analysis. The identification of the MOI realty undertaking and sufficient consultation must
be adequately documented. When the EA has been reviewed by IO staff, and approval to defer
has been granted, then the proponent will be required to complete and sign a deferral sheet
acknowledging that the EA meets IO’s/MOI’s Class EA requirements.
Concluding Remarks
If the proposed undertaking has a potential to cause impacts to MOI-owned property, it also has
the potential to cause net negative environmental effects. Our comments are intended to ensure
that outstanding issues of environmental, socio-economic and cultural heritage concerns related
to this property, as well as complying with all regulations, will be appropriately addressed prior to
the commencement of this undertaking. IO looks forward to continuing communication regarding
this project.
Please note that in addition to the above requirements, and depending on the type of agreement,
IO may also be required to circulate First Nations regarding the undertaking. Should First Nations
consultation be a requirement of your EA, I recommend you contact IO for further details
regarding this subject.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions.
Regards,
Lisa Myslicki
Environmental Advisor
Infrastructure Ontario – Environmental Management
1 Dundas Street West,
Suite 2000, Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2L5
(416) 212-3768
[email protected]
3
Page 1 of 2
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Ministère du Tourisme, de la Culture et du Sport
Culture Programs Unit
Programs and Services Branch
Culture Division
401 Bay Street, Suite 1700
Toronto ON M7A 0A7
Tel.: (416) 314-5192
Email: [email protected]
Unité des programmes culturels
Direction des programmes et des services
Division de culture
401, rue Bay, bureau 1700
Toronto ON M7A 0A7
Tél. : (416) 314-5192
Email: [email protected]
Dec 10, 2013
Nimal Nithiyanantham (P390)
Archeoworks Inc. - 16715-12 Yonge Street, Newmarket
1029 - 16715-12 Yonge Newmarket ON L3X 1X4
RE:
Review and Entry into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports:
Archaeological Assessment Report Entitled, "Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment:
Proposed Simcoe Street (Regional Road 2) Reconstruction and Widening from
Conlin Road to Winchester Road (Regional Road 3), within parts of Lots 12-13,
Concession 5, in the former Geographic Township of East Whitby, Historical
County of Ontario, now the City of Oshawa, Regional Municipality of Durham,
Ontario", Dated Nov 18, 2013, Filed with MTCS Toronto Office on Nov 22, 2013,
MTCS Project Information Form Number P390-003-2013, MTCS File Number
0000379
Dear Mr. Nithiyanantham:
This office has reviewed the above-mentioned report, which has been submitted to this ministry as a
condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18.1 This
review has been carried out in order to determine whether the licensed professional consultant
archaeologist has met the terms and conditions of their licence, that the licensee assessed the property
and documented archaeological resources using a process that accords with the 2011 Standards and
Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists set by the ministry, and that the archaeological fieldwork and
report recommendations are consistent with the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural
heritage of Ontario.
The report documents the assessment of the study area as depicted in Maps 5-6 of the above titled report
and recommends the following:
1. The paved and developed areas identified in Maps 5-6 are considered to have had their archaeological
potential removed. It is, therefore, recommended that these areas be exempt from Stage 2 AA.
2. Having fulfilled the Stage 2 requirements within their respective areas, portions of the study corridor that
had been subjected to previous archaeological assessments (see Section 1.3.2) are recommended to be
exempt from Stage 2 AA.
3. Following the completion of the detailed design, all identified undisturbed and unassessed segments
which contain archaeological potential and that fall within the limits of proposed construction should be
subjected to Stage 2 field assessment following the standards outlined in Section 2.1 of the 2011 S&G(see
Maps 5-6). All portions of agricultural fields must be ploughed and weathered, and subjected to pedestrian
survey at 5 m intervals. All other areas requiring assessment must be subjected to test pit survey at 5 m
intervals.
Based on the information contained in the report, the ministry is satisfied that the fieldwork and reporting for
the archaeological assessment are consistent with the ministry's 2011 Standards and Guidelines for
Page 2 of 2
Consultant Archaeologists and the terms and conditions for archaeological licences. This report has been
entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports. Please note that the ministry makes no
representation or warranty as to the completeness, accuracy or quality of reports in the register.
Should you require any further information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Bryant
Archaeology Review Officer
cc. Archaeology Licensing Officer
Diana Addley,AECOM
Doug MacKay,The Regional Municipality of Durham Works Department
1
In no way will the ministry be liable for any harm, damages, costs, expenses, losses, claims or actions that may result: (a) if the Report(s) or its
recommendations are discovered to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent; or (b) from the issuance of this letter. Further measures
may need to be taken in the event that additional artifacts or archaeological sites are identified or the Report(s) is otherwise found to be inaccurate,
incomplete, misleading or fraudulent.
From: Margaret Kish [[email protected]]
Sent: December 16, 2013 3:16 PM
To: Addley, Diana
Subject:
Pillars and Gates of the Former Windfields Farm
Hi Diana,
I have confirmed with Susan Ashton, Manager, Development and Urban Design,
that the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) has committed to
preserving the pillars and gates of the main entrance to the former Windfields
Farm. However, as I suspected, I have nothing to give you in writing from the
University that confirms this.
Regards,
Margaret
Margaret Kish, M.Sc.Pl., MCIP, RPP | Senior Planner | Planning Services | City
of Oshawa
905-436-3311 Ext. 2945 | 1-800-667-4292 | TTY 905-436-5627 [email protected] |
www.oshawa.ca
file:////cawby2vfp001/...tation/Agency%20Correspondence/Incoming/Originals/City%20of%20Oshawa_Pillars'Gates%20Dec%2017'13.txt[12/18/2013 11:26:46 AM]
100 Whiting Avenue
Oshawa, Ontario
L1H 3T3
Phone (905) 579-0411
Fax (905) 579-0994
Web: www.cloca.com
Email: [email protected]
Member
Conservation
Ontario
Januaryof9,
2014
January 9, 2014
AECOM
300 Water Street
Whitby, ON L1N 8Y7
Attention: Ryan Cressman
Dear Sir:
Subject:
Simcoe Street Reconstruction & Widening EA
AECOM Project No.: 60271514
CLOCA IMS#:
PSSE 13
CLOCA staff has reviewed the draft Drainage and SWM Report dated November 2013 for the
above noted Class EA and provide the following comments.
Stormwater Quantity
It is mentioned in the report that Catchment area 102 will be accounted in 407 East SWM design
in the future, but it is not currently included in the HWY 407 East SWM design. Therefore
please provide documents in writing to ensure its future direction.
Given the stormsewer capacity deficiencies on Conlin Rd and the anticipated surcharging of the
Simcoe Street system, it is recommended that an overland flow analysis be completed for the 100
year storm to identify flow depth on Simcoe Street.
Stormwater Quality
Stormceptors are only considered for 50% TSS removal efficiency by CLOCA as per City of
Toronto and New Jersey Dept of Environmental Protection Agency. CLOCA concurs with this
approach and suggests that they be used as part of a treatment train. The existing OGS is only
sized to treat runoff from Simcoe St ROW south of Britannia Rd and a portion of Conlin Rd. The
report identifies that the development directs runoff from Simcoe Street ROW south of
Winchester Rd until Conlin Rd, part of the Conlin Rd and minor flow from catchment area 107.
With the detailed design, please provide more details such as model name, number and the size
of the existing OGS systems to verify that it can handle the flow rate.
Page 1 of 2
Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Also please provide additional low impact development measures for this site to achieve 80%
TSS removal (Level 1).
Sediment Control
It is expected to provide sediment control measures around the road development site area to
protect the creeks from additional TSS loadings. Portions of the proposed works are within
CLOCA regulated area under Ont. Regulation 42/06. Accordingly, a permit from CLOCA is
required prior to any development/site alteration. Erosion and Sediment Control Plans must be
submitted with the permit application.
Floodplain impacts
We note that hydrologic modeling of the post development runoff from Winchester to Britannia
has been addressed in the RioCan Stormwater Report. Please provide documentation on how the
runoff from Simcoe St between Britannia Rd and Conlin Rd is handled.
Please contact myself if you have any questions.
Yours truly,
Chris Darling, MCIP, RPP
Director, Planning and Regulation
g:\planning\env. assessments\simcoe st. widening.doc
G:\PLANNING\Env. Assessments\Simcoe St. Widening.doc
Page 2 of 2
Ministry of the Environment
Ministère de l’Environnement
Central Region
Technical Support Section
Région du Centre
Section d'appui technique
5775 Yonge Street
8th Floor
Toronto, ON, M2M 4J1
Tel.: 416-326-6700
Fax: 416-325-6347
5775, rue Yonge12e étage
8e ètage
Toronto, ON, M2M 4J1
Tél.: 416-325-6966
Téléc: 41-325-6347
January 29, 2014
File: EA01-06-05
Marco Finocchi
Engineering Coordinator
The Regional Municipality of Durham Works Department
605 Rossland Road East
Whitby, ON L1N 6A3
RE:
Simcoe Street (Regional Road 2)
from Conlin Road to Winchester Road (Regional Road 3)
Class Environmental Assessment Study, Schedule ‘C’
City of Oshawa
Comments on Environmental Study Report
Dear Mr. Finocchi,
The Environmental Study Report (ESR) for the above project has been reviewed by the Ministry
of the Environment (ministry).
Our understanding is that the preferred alternative involves widening Simcoe Street between
Conlin Road and Winchester Road from two lanes to six through lanes. The roadway will have
curb and gutter and an impervious and continuous 6.7 m centre median with a 3.0 m asphaltpaved multi-use path along both sides of the street. The six lane cross-section of Simcoe Street
will extend to the Highway 407 interchange ramps.
Winchester Road will also be widened from two lanes to four lanes with curb and gutter and a
5.0 m centre median 340 m east and west of Simcoe Street. Furthermore, Conlin Road will be
widened from two lanes to four lanes with curb and gutter and a 5.0 m centre median 285 m
east of Simcoe Street and between Simcoe Street and Founders Drive to the west. West of
Founders Drive, Conlin Road is also proposed to be expanded to four lanes by the City of
Oshawa; however, it is not contemplated as part of this Class EA.
The following comments from the ministry are offered for your consideration:
General


In Section 1.3 of the ESR, “The Municipal Class EA Process and Selection of Schedule”,
Part II orders are mentioned in relation to Schedule B projects but not in relation to
Schedule C projects. On page 6, please clarify that requests can also be received to
elevate a Schedule C project to an individual Environmental Assessment.
Please include in the ESR a list of all subsequent permits or other approvals that may be
required for the implementation of the preferred alternative, including Permits to Take
Water, Environmental Compliance Approvals or other ministerial approvals, approval
under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), and Conservation Authority
permits.
1



Public Consultation
o Section 2.4.2, “Public Information Centre” states that a discussion and summary
of the PIC is provided in Section 7.4 of this report. Section 7.4 should be
changed to 6.4 in this sentence.
o Section 6.4, “Public Information Centre”, states that a notice advertising the PIC
was mailed to nearby property owners and agencies. Please note that it is
mandatory to deliver notices to persons directly affected by the project. Notices
should be delivered to all properties abutting the project. Please clarify whether
this was done.
o Section 6.4, “Public Information Centre” states that attendees generally
supported the technically recommended design. Please provide more details
about the comments provided by attendees at the meeting and how the
comments were addressed or responded to.
o Section 6.4, “Public Information Centre”, states that a copy of the PIC summary
report including information presented at the PIC is provided in Appendix D.
While Appendix D includes the presentation presented to the public at the PIC, it
does not constitute a summary report of the PIC.
In Section 8, “Mitigation Measures and Implementation Commitments”, Exhibit 34,
please include a commitment that all waste generated during construction will be
disposed of in accordance with ministry requirements.
Appendix E – Natural Environment Conditions Memorandum
o Attachment A should include an illustration of the geographic coverage of the
RioCan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Minto EIS.
o In Section 2.1 of Appendix E, “Terrestrial Environment”, it is stated that
consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources is ongoing to determine the
requirements for species of conservation concern protected under the
Endangered Species Act (2007) and known to occur in the study area. Please
clarify whether these requirements have been determined as yet and, if so, how
they will be met.
o In Section 2.1 of Appendix E, “Terrestrial Environment”, it is stated that the most
sensitive vegetation features within the study area are associated with the
woodland marsh and small swamp communities. It is stated that these
communities will be retained and protected with setbacks. This section should
indicate the approximate width of the setbacks that will be provided to protect
these sensitive vegetation features.
o The Ecological Land Classification field notes in Attachment H indicate that field
work was carried out in December. The timing of this field work should be verified
with the Conservation Authority or Ministry of Natural Resources staff to
determine appropriateness.
Air



Section 7.5.3 of the ESR notes that a quantitative Air Quality Impact Assessment has
not been completed for the modifications to Simcoe Street. A reason as to why this
assessment was not warranted should be provided.
Since the length of road is approximately 2.19 km in length, it is recommended that the
ESR include an overview of the current emissions versus future projected emissions
using current and projected traffic counts. This would include an overview of emissions
contribution from the proposed undertaking compared to current emissions (PM10,
PM2.5, NOx, CO, SO2, Benzene, 1,3-Butadiene, etc.).
Since the widening of Simcoe Street will bring the road closer to residential receptors,
mitigation measures such as tree planting in the vicinity of sensitive receptors should be
considered by the proponent.
2
Surface Water: General






In Section 3.2.1 of the main report, the description of the surface waters in the area
should be improved. This section describes in detail what is referred to as the Simcoe
Street Feature (the intermittent tributary that joins the larger unnamed tributary near
Britannia Ave) but only minimally describes the unnamed tributary that is the direct
receiver of runoff from the road widening project. The Simcoe Street Feature is being
removed under future development and is only a direct receiver in the interim. The report
should mention that the unnamed tributary is classified as coolwater by CLOCA and
receives some groundwater input. The aquatic environment should also be described for
the unnamed tributary in the main body of the report. References to the tributaries
should be referred to consistently throughout the main body of the report and
Appendices.
Inconsistent information has been provided regarding the existing/future stormwater
(SWM) flows along Simcoe Street between Winchester Road and intermittent stream
crossing D and the existing/future SWM flows on the north part of Winchester Road, east
of Simcoe Street. Some sections (Main Report, Section 7.2; Appendix K, Section 2.5,
Flow Node 1; Appendix K, Conclusion 2; Appendix K, Recommendation 1) state that this
area drains north to 407 lands under existing and future conditions, while other sections
(Appendix K, Section 2.5, Flow Node 2; Appendix K, Section 5.1, catchment 2), state
that this area drains north to 407 lands under existing conditions, but will flow west to the
unnamed tributary in the future. Please clarify this information.
The report concludes that the existing and future roadway drainage in the north part of
the study area along Simcoe Street and Winchester Road (area to be clarified as noted
in above comment) will be incorporated into SWM Pond 32E under the 407 East
Stormwater Management Plan. The proponent should be aware that some of the
conveyance systems and SWM ponds for Highway 407 have been designed to be
oversized to allow for future expansion of the 407 and may not be able to accommodate
additional flows. It has been the ministry’s experience that the owners of the SWM
systems for the 407 generally do not allow additional flows to be added. Therefore, we
do not support the Region relying on this alternative unless clear and unambiguous
agreement can be secured at the ESR stage. The following should be provided at this
stage:
o Information that supports utilization of the planned SWM pond and includes the
level of treatment the SWM pond will achieve with the additional flows.
o Analysis that shows that the pond will be able to handle the "excess" flows from
the road widening.
o Information that demonstrates how the SWM flow in this area will be handled in
the interim period prior to the 407 pond construction.
The comment above also applies to the planned incorporation of the widened roadway
runoff into the trunk sewer along Britannia Ave and the SWM Pond A that is being
developed by a private developer west of Simcoe Street.
Please note that the ministry recently issued a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) to the
developer on the east side of Simcoe Street for construction dewatering work associated
with the residential development. The application package from the developer noted
that the construction of SWM Pond A may be deferred to a later stage of construction
(until build-out of the east side of the development).
There is no mention of potential impacts related to construction dewatering in the ESR.
Please consult with the ministry to confirm any approval requirements for water takings
during construction. This includes groundwater or surface water extraction, and the
active diversion of surface water flows by pumping in exceedence of 50,000 litres per
day. If a PTTW is required for construction dewatering, a monitoring program for
discharge of water quality and quantity as well as a mitigation program may need to be
3
developed. For more information, please contact the ministry’s Central Region PTTW
coordinator at 416-326-3323.
Surface Water: Water Quality






Please clarify whether Enhanced Level 1 Protection for water quality will be achieved as
part of this project. Furthermore, the ESR should demonstrate how SWM for the project
can achieve this level of control. SWM measures should be clearly stated and applied as
part of a treatment train approach as described in the ministry’s 2003 Stormwater
Management Planning and Design Manual.
Further to the comment above, more detail should be provided regarding the treatment
level of the proposed SWM measures along Winchester Road that discharge to the
unnamed tributary. No SWM measures beyond the existing under-sized oil/grit separator
(OGS) at the Conlin Road outfall location are discussed for the interim stage before final
SWM measures are in place. The runoff discharging at Conlin Road should not be
overlooked as the excess major/minor flows from the Simcoe Street widening north of
Britannia Road (in the interim) and all of the flows south of Britannia will be channelled
this way.
Improvements to the SWM measures, or new SWM measures, between the Conlin Road
outfall and the unnamed tributary and the treatment level provided should be discussed.
Clarification needs to be provided regarding the locations and stages at which OGSs will
be installed. The following inconsistencies were noted:
o The ESR is unclear as to whether an OGS will be installed at the intersection of
Simcoe Street and Conlin Road. Section 8, ID#27 in the main report states that
an additional OGS shall be provided at this intersection. However, in a number of
other places, the report states that this will be investigated and sized during
detailed design.
o Sections 5.1 and 7 of Appendix K recommend installation of an OGS along
Winchester Road (catchbasin 2). This is not mentioned in the main body of the
report in Sections 7.2 or 8.0. It should be clarified whether the OGS is part of
the treatment in this area that includes deep sumps, a perforated base in the
catchbasins and efforts to improve the ditches to enhanced swales.
o The report states in the interim period before final SWM measures are in place,
quality control (no indication of what level) will be achieved using the existing
OGS at the Conlin Road outfall. However, the report notes in Appendix K,
Section 2.4 that this unit is only sized to treat runoff from Conlin Road. Please
clarify if the existing OGS will provide adequate treatment in the interim.
Commitments to appropriate sizing of OGSs should be included in the ESR. OGSs are
typically used for small drainage areas (<2 ha). If runoff is over the capacity of the OGS,
the potential for by-pass conditions with no treatment occurring during storm events
increases. OGS sizing requirements will need to be considered to ensure that they
capture and treat at least 90% of runoff volume to achieve a long-term average basis for
water quality objectives of ‘enhanced protection’.
The discussion of the SWM measures proposed in catchbasin 2 in Appendix K, Section
5.1, is confusing. It should be updated to reflect the conclusions and recommendations
provided in the Appendix and main body of the ESR.
Surface Water: Water Quantity

Section 7.2 of the main report states that SWM quantity control for minor and major
roadway flows to the unnamed tributary is not required and specifically that all major
flows shall be conveyed, un-attenuated, along Simcoe Street and discharged to the
unnamed tributary (Section 8, ID#28). Section 5.2 of Appendix K notes that CLOCA is in
agreement with this approach. Please provide the analysis used to eliminate quantity
control for peak flows as well as CLOCA’s agreement with this approach in the ESR.
4

In Sections 4.2 and 4.3, the water quantity assessment should discuss the impact to
unnamed tributary, also called Oshawa Creek West Tributary 1, in more detail. The
impacts after its confluence with Oshawa Creek West Branch should also be discussed,
as the unnamed tributary is the direct receiver.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions on the
above comments, please contact me at 416-326-3469.
Yours sincerely,
Nisha Shirali
Environmental Resource Planner and EA Coordinator
Air, Pesticides and Environmental Planning
c. Dave Fumerton, Manager, York Durham District Office, MOE
Central Region EA File
A & P File
5
100 Whiting Avenue
Oshawa, Ontario
L1H 3T3
Phone (905) 579-0411
Fax (905) 579-0994
Web: www.cloca.com
Email: [email protected]
Member
of Conservation
Ontario
February
11, 2014
February 11, 2014
AECOM
300 Water Street
Whitby, ON L1N 8Y7
Attention: Jon Newman
Dear Sir:
Subject:
Simcoe Street Reconstruction & Widening Draft Environmental Study
Report
AECOM Project No.: 60271514
CLOCA IMS#:
PSSE 13
CLOCA staff has reviewed the draft Environmental Study Report dated December 2013 for the
above noted Class EA and have no objections and provide the following comments your
consideration.
Section 3.2.1 Fisheries and Aquatic Environment, Page 15 states that the Main Branch of
Oshawa Creek is classified as a warmwater watercourse. As a point of information, it should be
noted that this statement is based on outdated information and should be updated based on the
data request provided by CLOCA (CLOCA. 2012.). The subject area is located within the Main
Branch subwatershed as described in the Central Lake Ontario Fisheries Management Plan
(CLOFMP; CLOCA/MNR 2007). Oshawa Creek watershed supports coldwater fish
communities and as such is managed as a coldwater fishery.
The coming into force of the amended Fisheries Act Regulations and Information Requirements
on November 25, 2013 brought changes in the way the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Canada (DFO) conducts reviews and/or approvals under the Fisheries Act. It is now the
responsibility of the proponent to ensure that your project meets DFO requirements under the
self-assessment process. With regard to the Fisheries Act requirements and the self-assessment
process you can find more information on the DFO website http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnwppe/index-eng.html, 1 855 852- 8320 phone number or email [email protected].
Page 1 of 2
Central Lake Ontario Conservation
CLOCA’s terrestrial interests regarding the widening, relate to impacts to features and functions
thereof and not individual trees. As such, the only terrestrial feature that appears to be impacted
by the road widening is the woodland at the south-east intersection of Simcoe St. and Winchester
Rd. It is recognized that this feature is somewhat impaired in its current condition, but has been
identified as part of the natural heritage system for the Oshawa Creek watershed for protection.
We are satisfied that the mitigation measures for the woodland will limit overall impacts to the
feature and potentially provide enhancements. In addition to the proposed mitigation measures,
we offer the following:
 While already proposed, staff reiterates that ALL tree cutting should occur outside of the
breeding bird season (May 1st to July 31st in any given year).
 European buckthorn is noted in the woodland feature at Simcoe and Winchester. We
supports the removal of invasive species using Best Management Practices (BMPs). A
BMP document for the removal of this species has been developed which can be found at
http://www.ontarioinvasiveplants.ca/files/OIPC_BMP_Buckthorn_May042012_D6.pdf
Please contact myself if you have any questions.
Yours truly,
Chris Darling, MCIP, RPP
Director, Planning and Regulation
g:\planning\env. assessments\simcoe st. widening_eis.doc
G:\PLANNING\Env. Assessments\Simcoe St. Widening_EIS.doc
Page 2 of 2
AECOM
300 Water Street
Whitby, ON, Canada L1N 9J2
www.aecom.com
905 668 9363
905 668 0221
tel
fax
March 31, 2014
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
100 Whiting Avenue
Oshawa, Ontario L1H 3T3
Attn:
Mr. Chris Darling, MCIP, RPP
Director, Planning and Regulation
Dear Mr. Darling:
Regarding: Comments on Environmental Study Report
Simcoe Street (Regional Road 2)
From Conlin Road to Winchester Road (Regional Road 3), Oshawa
Schedule ‘C’, Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study
This letter has been prepared in response to your letter dated February 11, 2014, to Jon Newman of
AECOM related to the draft Environmental Study Report (ESR) referenced above and dated
December 2013. Thank you for taking the time to review the ESR and provide your comments. The
information provided below is being offered in response to the issues/concerns raised in your letter.
It is understood that the Oshawa Creek watershed supports coldwater fish communities. Section
3.2.1 of the final ESR has been updated to reflect that Oshawa Creek is managed as a coldwater
fishery.
The changes to the amended Fisheries Act Regulations and Information Requirements that came into
force on November 25, 2013 are noted.
It is understood that CLOCA is satisfied with the mitigation measures being proposed to limit overall
impacts to the woodland situated at the southeast portion of the Simcoe Street and Winchester Road
intersection. A commitment to remove invasive European Buckthorn using Best Management
Practices, as per the MOE, Invasive Common (European) Buckthorn, Best Management Practices in
Ontario guidance document, dated 2012 has been included in Section 8 of the final ESR.
Sincerely,
AECOM Canada Ltd.
Diana Addley
Environmental Planner, Transportation
DLA:jn
cc: Doug MacKay – ROD
Marco Finocchi – ROD
Jon Newman – AECOM
CLOCA Response To ESR Mar 31'14.Docx
AECOM
300 Water Street
Whitby, ON, Canada L1N 9J2
www.aecom.com
905 668 9363
905 668 0221
tel
fax
April 4, 2014
Ministry of the Environment
Central Region
Technical Support Section
th
5775 Yonge Street, 8 floor
Toronto, ON M2M 4J1
Attn:
Ms. Nisha Shirali
Environmental Resource Planner and EA Coordinator
Air, Pesticides and Environmental Planner
Dear Ms. Shirali:
Regarding: Simcoe Street (Regional Road 2)
From Conlin Road to Winchester Road (Regional Road 3), Oshawa
Schedule ‘C’, Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study
Comments on Draft Environmental Study Report
This letter has been prepared in response to your letter dated January 29, 2014 to Mr. Marco
Finocchi of the Regional Municipality of Durham (Region). The information provided in the
subsequent sections is being offered in response to the issues/concerns raised in your letter. Please
th
note that the section headings correspond to those outlined in your January 29 letter. In addition,
revisions to the ESR report and associated appendices have been made, where indicated, and will be
reflected in the final documentation.
General
“In Section 1.3 of the ESR…”
 The Schedule C process is described in 9 paragraphs within Section 1.3. Part II orders, in
relation to Schedule C projects, are discussed in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Section 1.3.
“Please include in the ESR…”
 A list of all subsequent permits or other approvals that may be required for the
implementation of the preferred alternative has been included as part of Section 8.1 of the
ESR.
“Public Consultation”
o Section 2.4.2 of the ESR has been revised accordingly.
o Section 6.4 of the ESR has been revised to reflect the public notification program
carried out as part of this study. Please note that all property owners situated
adjacent to the study area limits were contacted throughout the course of the study.
In addition, those who had expressed an interest in the study were also placed on the
public mailing list to ensure that they were included in subsequent study mail outs.
o Details related to the number of attendees are provided in the Public Information
Centre Summary Report, provided in Appendix D of the ESR. In total, eleven (11)
MOE Response FINAL April'14.Docx
Ministry of Environment – Central Region
Simcoe Street EA Study – Response to MOE Comments
MOE File #EA01-06-05
January 29, 2014
Page 2
attendees were present at the PIC, only four of which were members of the public.
No comment sheets were submitted by or following the requested submission date of
June 25, 2013 and no notable comments were received from attendees, other than
questions related to the EA process and/or the recommended design. Five members
of the study team were also present at the PIC and were each engaged with PIC
attendees to discuss the study.
o A copy of the PIC Summary Report is included in Appendix D of the draft ESR.
Please refer to pages 19 through 25 as part of the 48 page appendix.
“In Section 8, Mitigation…”
 A commitment to dispose of all waste materials generated during construction in accordance
with applicable MOE requirements has been added to Section 8, Exhibit 34.
“Appendix E – Natural Environment Conditions Memorandum”
 Appendix E – Natural Environment Conditions Memorandum
o An illustration of the geographic area assessed as part of the RioCan Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) and the Minto EIS has been included in Figure 1 of the
Natural Environment Conditions Memorandum (NEC Memo)
o Section 2.1 consists of a summary of the background literature related to the RioCan
EIS reviewed as part of assessment. The statement is related to RioCan’s ongoing
consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and was included for
information purposes only. Section 4.3 of the NEC Memo discusses the habitat
assessment for Species at Risk (SAR) carried out as part of this study. As part of
this assessment, endangered species (butternut species) were observed, but are not
anticipated to be affected by the road widening. In addition, habitat for Barn Swallow
and Chimney Swift are present, however these species will not be affected by the
road widening activities.
o As noted above, Section 2.1 is related to the findings of the RioCan EIS. The
proposed modifications to Simcoe Street will not be affecting these communities.
Section 2.10 of the NEC Memo (Identified Natural Heritage Features) notes that
given the intervening distances between the Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW)
and/or Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) and the study area (i.e., 120 m and
700 m, respectively) impacts to these features in association with the proposed
modifications to Simcoe Street are not anticipated.
o The application of the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system is based on the
composition of woody vegetation which can clearly be identified during winter months
by a skilled and experienced ecologist. ELC is based on the assessment of
vegetation layers such as canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs and herbaceous layers.
Vegetation communities can be identified through winter ELC surveys through the
assessment of canopy, sub-canopy and shrub layers. If these characteristics are not
present and it is not obvious as to what herbaceous species are present, further
summer surveys would be triggered. It is common practice to complete ELC surveys
during the winter using only woody vegetation to determine vegetation types. It
should be further noted that the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
(CLOCA) carried out a review of the ESR and did not note any concerns associated
with the timing of the fieldwork. A copy of the responses prepared by CLOCA will be
included in the appendices to the final ESR.
MOE Response FINAL April'14.Docx
Ministry of Environment – Central Region
Simcoe Street EA Study – Response to MOE Comments
MOE File #EA01-06-05
January 29, 2014
Page 3
Air
“Section 7.5.3 of the ESR notes…”
 The completion of an air assessment is not warranted for this study based on the following
rationale:
‐
The Region is currently implementing a series of region-wide initiatives and
community action plans to improve air quality;
‐
An approximate population of 13,000 people is expected in the areas designated as
Residential (i.e., does not include Planned Commercial Centre and future resident
student population generated by UOIT), however the study area currently consists of
vacant/undeveloped land, with the exception of the south portion;
‐
With the construction of Highway 407 East to the north and extensive development in
the surrounding area, including major residential, commercial, institutional and
recreational uses, traffic volumes and patterns along Simcoe Street will change
significantly, including at study area intersections where high delays and congestion
are expected; and
‐
The modifications to Simcoe Street will improve operating conditions and reduce
congestion and associated idling on roads and intersections in the study area.
“Since the length of the road…”
 Please refer to above response.
“Since the widening of Simcoe Street will bring the road closer…”
 Existing residential receptors are limited to the southeast portion of the study area.
Vegetated berms, including trees and shrubs, are present between the residences and the
Simcoe Street roadway and are not impacted by the proposed modifications. A Landscape
Plan is included in Appendix I of the ESR.
Surface Water: General
“In Section 3.2.1 of the main report…”
 Section 3.2.1 of the ESR describes the fisheries and aquatic environment within the study
area (i.e., within 50 m of the Simcoe Street right-of-way), however drainage/stormwater
considerations are discussed as part of Section 7.2. The three watercourses that relate to
Simcoe Street drainage between Conlin and Winchester are labelled in Figure 1-1 of the
Drainage and SWM Report (Appendix K). The three watercourses consist of the following:
‐
The West Branch of Oshawa Creek;
‐
Tributary 1 of the West Branch of Oshawa Creek; and
‐
An unnamed tributary of Tributary 1 of the West Branch of Oshawa Creek (Simcoe
Street Feature).
 The unnamed tributary of Tributary 1 of the West Branch of Oshawa Creek (Simcoe Street
Feature) is the only watercourse situated within the study area limits (i.e., within 50 m of the
Simcoe Street ROW). Watercourse nomenclature in the ESR, NEC Memo and Drainage and
SWM report has been revised for consistency.
“Inconsistent information has been provided…”
 The Drainage and SWM report has been revised to demonstrate that the area north of
Winchester and east of Simcoe drains in a northerly direction towards the 407 lands under
both existing and future conditions.
“The report concludes that the existing and future roadway drainage…”
 AECOM has contacted the MTO and their drainage design teams to confirm that drainage
from this area (catchment 2a) will be accepted by SWM Pond 32E. Roadside ditches and
check dams will be used to attenuate post widening flows to pre-widening levels at detailed
MOE Response FINAL April'14.Docx
Ministry of Environment – Central Region
Simcoe Street EA Study – Response to MOE Comments
MOE File #EA01-06-05
January 29, 2014
Page 4
design so that there will be no “excess” flow. This will be documented in the Appendix K
Drainage and SWM Report. If the Simcoe/Winchester Intersection precedes SWM Pond 32E
construction, the existing watercourse will continue to receive runoff from this area as it
currently does and water quality treatment will be provided by the existing ditch system and
any enhancements such as perforated sumps for catchbasins and enhanced swales and
check dams as part of the intersection design as a “best effort” to achieve water quality
objectives, until SWMP 32E is constructed.
“The comment above also applies to the planned incorporation…”
 The City of Oshawa, the Region and the adjacent landowners are aware of the drainage
obligations, as established in the Secondary Planning documents for the area and in
association with SWM Pond A. This facility will be designed to accept drainage from Simcoe
Street. If the Simcoe widening, north of Britannia, precedes SWM Pond A construction, the
existing watercourse will continue to receive current levels of runoff from Simcoe Street while
the balance of runoff will be bypassed south, along Simcoe Street to an oversized
stormsewer that will be under major surcharge (to the roadway surface), to the Conlin trunk
sewer. When SWM Pond A is constructed, flows will be diverted and the trunk sewer will be
under minor surcharge (within the MH/CB system).
“Please note that the ministry recently issued a Permit to Take Water...”
 AECOM is aware of this potential delay and believe it has been addressed as part of this EA
study (please refer to previous response).
“There is no mention of potential impacts related to construction dewatering…”
 AECOM notes the MOE’s PTTW requirements that are required during construction and, if
required, these will be addressed at the time of construction.
Surface Water: Water Quality
“Please clarify whether Enhanced Level 1 Protection…”
 This project is the incremental widening of a roadway which currently has no water quality
treatment, with the exception of a small portion south of Britannia that is conveyed to an
existing OGS on Conlin Road. The ability to treat the incremental runoff so that a Level 1
objective can be achieved for the incremental runoff, does not have a practical solution, nor
would it be warranted from a cost/benefit perspective to separate and solely treat the
incremental runoff.
What we try to achieve is a “best effort” in treating the complete runoff from the roadway,
using current acceptable BMPs. The addition of an OGS at the intersection of Conlin Road
and Simcoe Street for treatment of the runoff to node 4, the use of the intermittent stream
(the Oshawa Creek Feature) for node 3, and the use of roadside ditches and perforated CB
sumps for nodes 1and 2 all provide “best effort” solutions that treat the complete roadway
runoff, not just the incremental runoff. Whether or not Level 1 objectives are achieved with
these BMPs is unknown at this time.
When adjacent development is finalized and Simcoe Street is fully widened, the
implementation of SWMP A and SWMP 32E, will ensure that Level 1 objectives are met, in
the long term, for node 1 and node 3.
“Further to the comment above, more detail should be provided…”
 The complications resulting from phased SWM elements of adjacent landowners (SWM Pond
32E and SWM Pond A) and the phased nature of the Simcoe Street widening (i.e.,
Winchester Road and Simcoe Street intersection, Winchester to Britannia, Britannia to
MOE Response FINAL April'14.Docx
Ministry of Environment – Central Region
Simcoe Street EA Study – Response to MOE Comments
MOE File #EA01-06-05
January 29, 2014
Page 5
Conlin, etc.) could lead to the construction of additional SWM facilities for water quality
treatment that would eventually be abandoned once the various phases are realized. The
proposed water quality mitigation measures for the interim and final conditions are as follows:
Location
Simcoe Street/
Winchester Road
‐
‐
‐
Simcoe Street,
Winchester Road to
Britannia Road
‐
Simcoe Street,
Britannia to Conlin
Road
‐
Interim
Grassed ditch
Perforated sumps
Existing to unnamed tributary
(Simcoe Street Feature)
Incremental to Conlin via
oversized storm
OGS
‐
‐
‐
Final
Grassed ditch and SWMP 32E
Perforated sumps
SWMP A
‐
OGS
“Improvements to the SWM measures…”
 The Drainage and SWM report discusses the addition of an OGS at the Conlin Road and
Simcoe Street intersection, however there are no plans for SWM measures between the
Conlin Road outfall and the” unnamed tributary” MOE refers to (Tributary1 of the West
Branch of Oshawa Creek).
“Clarification needs to be provided regarding…”
o Yes, an additional OGS will be provided at this location and will be sized during
detailed design. Given the potential phasing of the Simcoe Street widening and
adjacent lands, it is prudent to defer sizing. The ESR has been revised accordingly.
o Grassed ditches and perforated deep sumps have been recommended along
Winchester Road. The Drainage and SWM report has been revised accordingly.
The first statement is not correct and the text of the ESR has been revised accordingly.
An additional OGS has been recommended at the Simcoe Street and Conlin Road
intersection that will treat flows from Simcoe Street, between Conlin Road and Britannia
Avenue.
“Commitments to appropriate sizing of OGSs…”
 The OGS will be designed to treat a minimum 90% of the runoff volume while achieving 80%
TSS removal. However, given the multiple phasing combinations possible when considering
the widening and adjacent development, the OGS will be sized for ultimate conditions. Water
quality objectives will likely not be achieved in the interim.
“The discussion of the SWM measures…”
 The Drainage and SWM report has been revised for clarity.
Surface Water: Water Quantity
“Section 7.2 of the main report…”
 The analysis was completed at the Secondary Plan stage in “The Windfields Planning Area
(East) Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MMM 2003)”. This report was reviewed and
approved by the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA), the Region and the
City of Oshawa. This reference will be included in the Drainage and SWM Report prepared
as part of this EA study
“In Sections 4.2 and 4.3…”
 Yes, the “unnamed tributary” the MOE refers to (i.e., Tributary 1 of the West Branch of
Oshawa Creek) is the main receiver. However, as per the previous comment, CLOCA has
no concern over flow increase in this tributary and the flow increase has been identified as
negligible due to timing and relative drainage areas. A statement has been added about the
MOE Response FINAL April'14.Docx
Ministry of Environment – Central Region
Simcoe Street EA Study – Response to MOE Comments
MOE File #EA01-06-05
January 29, 2014
Page 6
negligible impact of the road widening downstream of Tributary 1’s confluence with Oshawa
Creek West Branch.
Sincerely,
AECOM Canada Ltd.
Jon Newman, P.Eng.
Senior Project Manager
[email protected]
DLA:dla/bj/jn
cc: Doug MacKay – ROD
Marco Finocchi – ROD
Diana Addley– AECOM
MOE Response FINAL April'14.Docx
Agency Meetings
AECOM
300 Water Street
Whitby, ON, Canada L1N 9J2
www.aecom.com
905 668 9363
905 668 0221
tel
fax
Minutes of Meeting
Date of Meeting
September 11, 2012
Project Name
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
Location
City of Oshawa – Rundle Tower 8 Floor West Meeting Room
Regarding
City of Oshawa Meeting #1 - REVISED
10:30 am
Project Number
60271514
th
Doug MacKay
Jon Newman
Reid McGregor
Paula Neto
Diana Addley
Gary Carroll
Paul D. Ralph
Robert Bedic
Salisha Price
Susan Ashton
Anthony Ambra
Attendees
Distribution
Attendees
Minutes Prepared By
R. McGregor
Date Minutes Prepared
September 14, 2012
PLEASE NOTE:
Start Time
Region of Durham – Project Manager
AECOM – Project Manager
AECOM – Roadway Design
AECOM – Environmental Lead
AECOM – Environmental Planner
City of Oshawa
City of Oshawa
City of Oshawa
City of Oshawa
City of Oshawa
City of Oshawa
If this report does not agree with your records of the meeting, or if there are any omissions, please advise,
otherwise we will assume the contents to be correct.
1. Introductions
2. Study Overview and Schedule
The project limits were presented including a discussion on integration with the
Highway 407 / Simcoe Street interchange work at the north end of the study
area.
Action
Info
The Simcoe Street / Winchester Road intersection will be constructed by the
Region of Durham. MTO has committed funding to a portion of the cost to
reconstruct the intersection to accommodate the impact of the 407.
Info
The Simcoe Street EA is scheduled to be filed in the late spring or summer of
2013.
Info
MIN-2012-09-11-City Of Oshawa Meeting 1 REVISED-60271514.Docx
Page 2
Minutes of Meeting
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
City of Oshawa Meeting #1
September 11, 2012
The project is expected to be tendered as three separate construction contracts Info
with tentative dates as follows:
1. Winchester Road intersection – 2015 (completed before completion and
opening of Highway 407)
2. Conlin Road intersection – completed at the same time as Winchester
intersection in 2015.
3. Simcoe Street midblock section between Winchester Road and Conlin Road beyond the Region’s 2012 Road Program and Four Year Forecast.
Major utility relocation is required at the Conlin Road intersection. Less
Info
significant relocations are anticipated elsewhere.
The roadway improvements at the Winchester Road intersection will be designed
to avoid or minimize conflicts with the major Hydro One Transmission Corridor
and TCPL / Enbridge pipelines.
With agreement from the City, Simcoe Street will be fully illuminated as part of
the urbanization of the corridor.
Info
Three new traffic control signals will be constructed when warranted between
Conlin Road and Winchester Road:
Northern Dancer Drive
Britannia Avenue
Windfields Drive (name to be confirmed – new EW road through the
RioCan development)
Info
Feedermain and force mains requirements
A new 1050mm feedermain and twin 1050mm sanitary force mains are
proposed within the ROW on the east side of Simcoe Street between Conlin
Road and Britannia Avenue. A preliminary location for these facilities within
the ROW has been provided by MMM Group.
It is anticipated that these will be constructed after Simcoe Street is
completed.
The Region’s Engineering Planning and Studies Division has requested that
“free and clear” work areas (no trees or landscaping) be provided within the
ROW to facilitate their future construction. The roadway is considered to be
“free and clear” however the study team does not want to disrupt the newly
constructed roadway and will identify an appropriate location as the EA
progresses.
It is noted that although a location under the roadway is not preferred the
most likely location is under the northbound lanes.
Info
3. City of Oshawa - Issues and Concerns
The City sees Simcoe Street as having a high quality urban design. A desired
typical cross section for a 45m ROW was presented, which is the cross section
suggested by the Region during negotiations with RioCan.
MIN-2012-09-11-City Of Oshawa Meeting 1 REVISED-60271514.Docx
Action
Info
Page 3
Minutes of Meeting
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
City of Oshawa Meeting #1
September 11, 2012
A 40m ROW is present between the Minto and Tribute subdivisions along
Simcoe Street. An additional widening to 45m will not be taken in this section.
Heritage
Heritage is a sensitive issue in the study area.
Unterman McPhail has completed a heritage study for the area. Oshawa will
provide a copy to AECOM.
The stone gates west of Simcoe leading to the old farm entrance were
identified in the heritage study and will need to be considered as they would
likely be in conflict with the future widened Simcoe Street.
A stone house outside of the potential Simcoe Street construction limits was
also identified in the heritage study.
A meeting with heritage Oshawa may be required.
Natural Environment
AECOM will complete a natural environment review as part of the EA study.
Few natural features exist within the corridor.
The creek crossing at the approximate midway point of the study area is
proposed to be removed as part of adjacent developments.
The widening at the Winchester Road intersection may affect the woodlot at
the SE corner of the intersection. This woodlot will be conveyed to the City.
Oshawa – SA
AECOM – PN
Info
Oshawa - AA
4. Development within the Study Area
Action
Developments in north Oshawa of Kedron, Windfield Farms and Columbus will
Info.
add many thousands of new residents to the area.
At full build out, the proposed population of the Windfields Part II Plan is 13,000.
Proposed Development Plans are currently at the OMB (regarding zoning) for
Info
three major developments along the Simcoe Street corridor:
RioCan owns the undeveloped lands south of Winchester on the east and
west sides of Simcoe Street.
Tribute (formerly Dantonbury) owns the land south of RioCan on the west side
of Simcoe.
Minto owns the land south of the RioCan lands on the east side of Simcoe.
MMM is completing site design for all three developers.
The Simcoe Street ROW width through the new development lands (40m or
45m) needs to be confirmed.
RioCan
A draft approved plan of subdivision was provided to AECOM.
The first phase of development is planned for completion in 2015 to coincide
with the Highway 407 opening. Full build out is anticipated by 2020.
The RioCan development is contingent on the Minto site development as
Minto will be providing the servicing for the RioCan site.
MIN-2012-09-11-City Of Oshawa Meeting 1 REVISED-60271514.Docx
Oshawa - AA
RMD – DM
Page 4
Minutes of Meeting
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
City of Oshawa Meeting #1
September 11, 2012
Oshawa will provide AECOM the draft design guidelines for the RioCan site.
A new signalized intersection (Windfields Drive – name to be determined) at
Simcoe Street will provide access to the development.
A possible new collector road and driveway to Winchester Road through the
hydro corridor will provide access to the site west of Simcoe Street.
The green trail shown on the plans should cross Simcoe Street at the
Winchester Road intersection, not just south of the intersection as shown.
Minto
A draft approved plan of subdivision was provided to AECOM.
Oshawa – RB
Info
Tribute (formerly Dantonbury)
Info
A preliminary draft plan of subdivision is in circulation and was provided to
AECOM.
The residential development on the west portion of the site is anticipated to be
constructed first. The mixed use village on the east portion of the site
(adjacent to Simcoe Street) is anticipated for construction after the residential
portion.
An interim SWM plan will be required for Simcoe Street drainage if the
proposed SWM pond schedule as part of the Tribute development is not
constructed before the midblock section of the Simcoe Street.
UOIT / Durham College
UOIT/DC owns the land west of Simcoe Street between Conlin Road and the
Tribute site. The UOIT/DC master plan is ongoing. There are no immediate
plans to develop these lands.
UOIT (Ken Bright) and DC (Ralph Aprile) should be consulted throughout the
Simcoe Street study. These names are to be added to the contact list.
D.G. Biddle is the consultant engineer for UOIT/DC and can be contacted for
information regarding UOIT/DC campus development.
Info
Metrus owns lands east of Minto and the development has also been appealed
to OMB.
DG Biddle is completing site design for Metrus. A copy of the draft approved
plan of subdivision will be provided.
Info
Oshawa - RB
Soccer Facility
Info
A soccer facility is being investigated by the Oshawa Kicks Soccer Club within
the hydro corridor west of Simcoe Street with access to Winchester Road.
RMD has the background reports for all of the development sites. The City
recommends that RMD/AECOM review the MESP (Master Environmental
Servicing Plan).
Info
RMD will confirm if trunk sewer and watermains will be constructed on Simcoe
Street during roadway construction.
It was noted that much of the servicing will be internal within the subdivisions.
RMD – DM
MIN-2012-09-11-City Of Oshawa Meeting 1 REVISED-60271514.Docx
Page 5
Minutes of Meeting
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
City of Oshawa Meeting #1
September 11, 2012
Conlin Road
Info
The City is currently completing detail design for Conlin Road from Thornton
Road to Founders Drive. The work will be completed in multiple phases.
Phase 1A – Stevenson to Founders Drive and Phase 1B – Roundabout at the
Thornton intersection will be constructed first.
Conlin Road will likely have a 5 lane cross section with on-road cycling lanes
and a continuous landscaped median at Founders Drive. This design on
Conlin Road should be carried through to east of the Simcoe Street
intersection as part of the Simcoe Street / Conlin Road intersection work. Cost
sharing between the City and RMD for work on Conlin Road will be
determined as the project proceeds.
A preliminary drawing for the Simcoe Street / Conlin Road intersection was
presented. The option presented is preferred by RMD and has slotted lefthand turn lanes on Simcoe Street. The cross section shown on Conlin Road
would need to be updated to include cycling lanes as desired by the City.
The City of Oshawa is currently preparing the terms of reference for an EA on
Conlin Road east of Simcoe Street. It is assumed the same cross section (5
lanes with on-road cycling lanes and a continuous median landscaped
between intersections) as discussed above will be selected for Conlin Road
east of Simcoe Street. Construction on Conlin Road east of Simcoe Street is
estimated for 2018 by the City.
5. Bicycle Requirements – Cycle Track
The city agrees a cycling facility of some form should be provided on Simcoe
Street within the project limits. Official comments from the City on the draft 2012
RMD cycling plan are forthcoming.
6. Transit Requirements
MTO is proposing a transit facility within the future Transitway lands at the NW
corner of Simcoe Street and Winchester Road. The exact type of facility is
unknown.
Action
Info
Action
Info
The City predicts that dedicated transit lanes on Simcoe Street will be added
either as part of this EA or in the near future.
Info
The City predicts that LRT on Simcoe Street from the new central Oshawa GO
Transit Station to the UOIT/DC campus will be constructed in the not so distant
future.
Info
MIN-2012-09-11-City Of Oshawa Meeting 1 REVISED-60271514.Docx
Page 6
Minutes of Meeting
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
City of Oshawa Meeting #1
September 11, 2012
7. Landscaping / Streetscaping Requirements
The City requested landscaping treatments be added on Simcoe Street in both
east and west boulevards and the median. A special median treatment between
Conlin and Britannia is desired to highlight the university district.
Action
Info
The City questioned if landscaping treatments would be present before full build- Info
out. RMD noted they would attempt to include landscaping in this project that
would not need to be removed in potential future expansion.
RMD noted that any special median treatments would need to be maintained by
the City or UOIT/DC.
Info
RMD recently adopted a new noise policy.
It is anticipated that the landscaping/noise treatments applied along the
Windfield Farms Phase 1 subdivision will satisfy the Region’s noise
requirements.
The developers will be responsible for providing noise mitigation where required
for the new subdivisions.
Info
8. City Involvement in EA Process and Reporting Structure
Anthony Ambra will be the City of Oshawa contact for this project. All
correspondence with the City will go through Anthony and he will distribute to
the correct City staff.
Meetings with the City will be held at key points in the EA and detail design
process to address any issues/concerns that arise.
9. Coordination Requirements with MTO
The project team will liaise with MTO throughout the study regarding the tie-in to
Highway 407 works at the north end and the proposed transit facility at the NW
corner of Simcoe and Winchester.
10. Review of Documentation – Impacts to Schedule
City reviews of the ESR and background documents will be done in parallel with
agency reviews. Due to the compressed schedule, all comments will need to be
received within the prescribed time period to be incorporated in the documents.
MIN-2012-09-11-City Of Oshawa Meeting 1 REVISED-60271514.Docx
Action
Info
Info
Action
Info
Action
Info
Page 7
Minutes of Meeting
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
City of Oshawa Meeting #1
September 11, 2012
11. Contact List
A draft contact list was distributed to the City review.
Action
Info
The City noted the UOIT/DC student associations should be added to the contact AECOM - DA
list.
12. Public Consultation
A notice of study commencement will be mailed/ advertised in the coming
weeks.
Action
Info
The project team is planning a newsletter mailing in place of PIC #1. This letter
Info
will include information up to the selection of the recommended alternative
solution (Do Nothing, Widen Other Roadways, TDM, Widen Simcoe Street, etc.)
The newsletter is anticipated for circulation in November/December of this year.
***After Meeting Note*** – it is anticipated the first newsletter will combine both
the notice of commencement and a public comment invited component.
A PIC will be held as a typical drop-in information session likely at the UOIT/DC
hockey arena. The recommended alternative design concept will be presented
at the PIC. The PIC is tentatively scheduled for early spring 2013.
Info
City of Oshawa politicians will be on all project mailings.
Info
The City noted that Oshawa councillors no longer represent wards. Therefore all
councillors will need to be included on project mailings.
End of Minutes
MIN-2012-09-11-City Of Oshawa Meeting 1 REVISED-60271514.Docx
AECOM
300 Water Street
Whitby, ON, Canada L1N 9J2
www.aecom.com
905 668 9363
905 668 0221
tel
fax
Minutes of Meeting
Date of Meeting
March 21, 2013
Project Name
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
Location
AECOM Whitby North Office – Large Boardroom
Regarding
Progress Meeting #1
Doug MacKay
Marco Finocchi
Jon Newman
Reid McGregor
Attendees
Start Time
1:30 pm
Project Number
60271514
Region of Durham – Project Manager
Region of Durham – Project Coordinator
AECOM – Project Manager
AECOM – Roadway Design
Distribution
Attendees, Diana Addley (AECOM), Sheri Harmsworth (AECOM), Justin Chin
(AECOM), Mark Cavanaugh (T2)
Minutes Prepared By
R. McGregor
Date Minutes Prepared
March 21, 2013
PLEASE NOTE:
If this report does not agree with your records of the meeting, or if there are any omissions, please advise,
otherwise we will assume the contents to be correct.
1. Simcoe Alignment at Conlin Road
Action
The alignment recommendation made in the March 7, 2013 Memo will be carried Info
forward as the recommended alignment – 450m radius, no superelevation, no
pavement widening.
2. Conlin Road Alignment
Action
Option 3 will be carried forward as the recommended alignment for Conlin Road. Info
The possibility of placing the south sidewalk on UOIT/DC property at the SW
RMD - DM
corner of the Conlin/Simcoe intersection will be explored.
3. Simcoe Street / 407EDG Tie-In and Winchester Road Intersection
RMD will follow up with MTO regarding the recommended tie-in with 407EDG’s
Simcoe Street alignment north of Winchester Road.
Slotted lefts will not be used on Simcoe Street at Winchester Road due to the
complication of tying in with the 407EDG work to the north.
MIN-2013-03-21-Progress Meeting 1-60271514.Docx
Action
RMD – DM
Info
Page 2
Minutes of Meeting
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
Progress Meeting #1
March 21, 2013
RMD will inform AECOM if slotted left are to be used on Winchester Road.
RMD will provide comments on the proposed design for Winchester Road.
AECOM will investigate rural and urban cross sections on Winchester Road.
4. Simcoe Street Design
RMD will provide comments on the design from Simcoe Street between Conlin
Road and Winchester Road.
It was agreed a 6.7m median with slotted left turns at intersections will be used
from south of Conlin Road to south of Winchester Road.
The exact location of Windfield Farms Drive and the lane configurations for
Northern Dancer Drive and Britannia Avenue need to be confirmed and agreed
upon with the developers.
AECOM will show short sections of the future roads (20m beyond Simcoe
Street) at the PIC with a note that the future roadways are to be completed by
others.
5. Advanced Circulation of Design to RMD Traffic and City of Oshawa
st
An advanced circulation of the design is planned for the week of April 1 .
RMD – DM
RMD – MF
AECOM - RM
Action
RMD - MF
Info
AECOM - RM
Action
Info
6. Typical Cross Section
Action
The forcemain location proposed by MMM does not work with the recommended Info
cross sections.
Looking at the typical sections, the forcemains will need to be located under
Simcoe Street. A location will be confirmed once other utilities have been sited.
RMD is in discussions with Oshawa regarding median treatments. The median
treatment will need to be presented at the PIC.
RMD - DM
The 2.5m two-way cycle track and 1.8m sidewalk on the 45m cross section will
be replaced with a 3m multi-use use path, which is consistent with the 40m
cross section.
AECOM - RM
7. Noise Study
RMD will request previous noise studies from RMD Planning and Oshawa.
Requirements for additional noise work will be determined after reviewing the
studies that have been completed.
MIN-2013-03-21-Progress Meeting 1-60271514.Docx
Action
RMD – DM
Info
Page 3
Minutes of Meeting
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
Progress Meeting #1
March 21, 2013
8. Traffic Study
AECOM is currently revising the 5-lane traffic analysis. The final report is
anticipated next week.
Traffic analysis for the 7-lane cross section will be prepared subject to further
direction from the Region.
9. Utilities
Utilities are awaiting a recommended roadway design plan to identify required
relocation and begin relocation design. The roadway design that is circulated to
Oshawa and RMD Traffic will also be circulated to the utilities.
10. Heritage Gates
The heritage gates within the Simcoe Street ROW will need to be relocated onto
UOIT/DC property. RMD will contact UOIT/DC regarding a potential location.
11. City of Oshawa Meeting
RMD will schedule a meeting with the City of Oshawa for mid-April (subsequent
to circulation of drawings).
12. PIC
Alternatives to the UOIT/DC Student Services Building for the PIC will be
investigated by AECOM. Potential options include a local school in the Windfield
Farms neighbourhood or the Campus Ice Centre.
Action
Info
RMD - DM
Action
Info
Action
RMD - DM
Action
RMD - DM
Action
AECOM - DA
The PIC target date is late May or early June, depending on venue availability.
Info
Sheets with potential questions from the public and suggested answers will be
provided and discussed prior to the PIC.
AECOM - DA
13. Discipline Update
An archaeology Phase 1 draft report has been reviewed by AECOM. AECOM
has provided comments to Archeoworks and is awaiting a revised draft for
submission to RMD.
MIN-2013-03-21-Progress Meeting 1-60271514.Docx
Action
Info
Page 4
Minutes of Meeting
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
Progress Meeting #1
March 21, 2013
Natural Environment inventory work is completed. A draft report will be
submitted to the Region in the next few weeks.
Info
AECOM is having an internal stormwater management meeting next week and
Info
will review how to incorporate future sub-division drainage plans with the Simcoe
Street work recognizing construction timing considerations.
AECOM will contact Golder regarding the geotechnical investigation timeline.
Info
Illumination work will be completed in detail design. It will be documented at the
PIC and in the ESR that Simcoe Street will be illuminated.
RMD will confirm funding for illumination with Oshawa.
Info
End of Minutes
MIN-2013-03-21-Progress Meeting 1-60271514.Docx
RMD - DM
AECOM
300 Water Street
Whitby, ON, Canada L1N 9J2
www.aecom.com
905 668 9363
905 668 0221
tel
fax
Minutes of Meeting
Date of Meeting
April 17, 2013
Project Name
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
Location
407 East Development Group Office – 400 Dundas Street East
Regarding
Simcoe Street / Highway 407 Coordination Meeting
Gustavo Rojas
Rita Venneri (telephone)
Calvin Curtis
Rob Ahola
Pablo Lopez Barro
Paul Ruttan
William Maize
Ron Trewin
Nathalie McCutcheon
Janet Mosher
Karen Matthews
Doug MacKay
Marco Finocchi
Jon Newman
Reid McGregor
Attendees
Distribution
Attendees
Minutes Prepared By
J. Newman
Date Minutes Prepared
April 18, 2013
PLEASE NOTE:
Start Time
3:30 pm
Project Number
60271514
MTO
MTO
MTO
CH2M Hill (MTO Owner Engineer)
Ferrovial
407 EDG
407 ECGP
Region of Durham
Region of Durham
Region of Durham
Region of Durham
Region of Durham
Region of Durham
AECOM
AECOM
If this report does not agree with your records of the meeting, or if there are any omissions, please advise,
otherwise we will assume the contents to be correct.
Purpose
The proposed Highway 407 East Extension (Phase 1) includes grade separations and new
interchanges on a number of regional roads under the jurisdiction of the Regional Municipality of
Durham. At the same time, the Region is undertaking a number of projects on these roads that are in
close proximity or in some cases abutting the work on Highway 407. This meeting was held as an
initial coordination meeting to review geometric and staging issues at Simcoe Street and Harmony
Road to:
Ensure that the proposed designs are consistent;
Minimize any “throw-away”; and,
Ensure that there are no contractor conflicts between the 407 work and the Regional projects.
MIN-2013-04-17-Simcoe Street Highway 407 Coordination Meeting-60271514.Docx
Page 2
Minutes of Meeting
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
Simcoe Street / Highway 407 Coordination Meeting
April 17, 2013
Although some of the coordination details below may be common for more than one project,
the intent of these minutes is to document issues and decisions made relating to the
coordination of the Region’s proposed Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening with the
proposed Highway 407/Simcoe Street interchange.
Action
1. Coordinate System
It was noted that the design for Highway 407 is being prepared using the MTM
(NAD 83) Coordinate System and that the Region works in the UTM (NAD 83)
Coordinate System. To simplify any issues of coordination between these 2
systems it was agreed that AECOM would do all the translating and that all
coordination between Highway 407 and Simcoe Street would be in MTM.
All
2. Alignment Details
Prior to this meeting, AECOM had received a copy of the 50% complete
drawings for the proposed Highway 407/Simcoe Street Interchange, and
proposed a horizontal alignment shift (of approximately 3-4m) towards the west
at the south end of the interchange. This alignment will tie in with the centreline
for the proposed widening of Simcoe Street south of Winchester Road.
AECOM noted that with the proposed shift, a five lane cross-section on the north
approach to the Winchester Road intersection will still line up with the existing
lanes on Simcoe Street.
It was generally agreed that the centreline for Simcoe Street would be revised by
407EDG based on the suggestion by AECOM. Any issues of concern will be
discussed between 407 ECGP and MTO.
All
The profile of Simcoe Street will basically follow the existing pavement through
the Winchester Road intersection. Immediately north of Winchester Road
(within 407EDG limits), the profile will rise towards the north to cross over
Highway 407.
Info.
AECOM will provide the Simcoe Street alignment in InRoads format in the MTM
coordinate system to Ferrovial.
AECOM - RM
It was agreed that AECOM could work directly with Ferrovial (Pablo Lopez
Barro) to resolve any technical issues.
All
3. Simcoe Street Cross-section
The cross-section of Simcoe Street at the north approach to Winchester Road
as proposed by the Region of Durham includes four through lanes (2 lanes NB
and 2 lanes SB) plus exclusive left turn lane and right turn lane.
MIN-2013-04-17-Simcoe Street Highway 407 Coordination Meeting-60271514.Docx
Info.
Page 3
Minutes of Meeting
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
Simcoe Street / Highway 407 Coordination Meeting
April 17, 2013
It was agreed that 407EDG would construct the north approach to include the
four through lanes and the exclusive left turn lane but that the exclusive right
turn lane would be deferred for now.
All
4. Staging Issues
It was agreed that 407EDG would construct the north leg of the Winchester
Road intersection prior to the Region’s contract to reconstruct (widen) the
intersection. This alternative will minimize any temporary construction and any
throw-away costs.
All
It was agreed that 407EDG would construct the full platform width of the north
leg of the intersection to upper binder and temporarily realign the traffic lanes to
line up with the existing intersection and traffic signal.
AECOM to provide the preliminary design drawings that show the proposed
works at the Simcoe Street / Winchester Road intersection to Ferrovial
AECOM - RM
5. Proposed Commuter Parking Lot
MTO indicated that they are in the process of preparing an RFP for the
implementation of a commuter parking lot in the north-west quadrant of the
Simcoe Street/Winchester Road intersection. This parking lot will include a
right-in/right-out access on Simcoe Street (north of Winchester Road) and a full
moves signalized access on Winchester Road (west of Simcoe).
Info.
The Region indicated that there should be 300m of separation between the
Simcoe/Winchester intersection and this new commuter parking lot intersection.
The Region will confirm this separation distance.
Region – DM
It was noted that the proposed new access on Winchester Road will be located
within the transition area (4-2 lanes) of the approach to the Simcoe intersection.
The Region will discuss directly with MTO any additional work to be completed
by the Region to facilitate this entrance.
Region-DM
MTO-RV
End of Minutes
MIN-2013-04-17-Simcoe Street Highway 407 Coordination Meeting-60271514.Docx
AECOM
300 Water Street
Whitby, ON, Canada L1N 9J2
www.aecom.com
905 668 9363
905 668 0221
tel
fax
Minutes of Meeting
April 29, 2013
Date of Meeting
Start Time
10:00 am
Project Number
60271514
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
Project Name
Location
Oshawa City Hall - C-Wing, Committee Room
Regarding
City of Oshawa Meeting #2
Attendees
Doug MacKay
Marco Finocchi
Jon Newman
Reid McGregor
Diana Addley
Kevin Wilson
Robert Bedic
Salisha Price
Susan Ashton
Regional Municipality of Durham – Project Manager
Regional Municipality of Durham - Engineering Coordinator
AECOM – Project Manager
AECOM – Roadway Design
AECOM – Environmental Planner
City of Oshawa
City of Oshawa
City of Oshawa
City of Oshawa
Distribution
Attendees, Gary Carroll (City of Oshawa) and Anthony Ambra (City of Oshawa)
Minutes Prepared By
D. Addley
Date Minutes Prepared
April 29, 2013
PLEASE NOTE:
If this report does not agree with your records of the meeting, or if there are any omissions, please advise,
otherwise we will assume the contents to be correct.
1. Introductions
2. Status of EA Study
Action
Info
The Regional Municipality of Durham (RMD) provided an overview of the
progress of the study to date.
The EA is expected to be completed (and filed) before the end of 2013.
Construction is anticipated to be divided into three separate contracts as follows:
Simcoe Street/Conlin Road intersection planned for 2015
Simcoe Street/Winchester Road intersection planned for 2015
Widening of Simcoe Street between Conlin Road and Winchester Road
planned for 2016/2017.
The design is being progressed to meet the requirements of the planned
opening of Highway 407 in 2015.
A PIC has been scheduled for June 4th, 2013
MIN-2012-04-29-City Of Oshawa Meeting 2-60271514 Final.Doc
Page 2
Minutes of Meeting
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
City of Oshawa Meeting #2
April 29, 2013
The Region noted that a response was not received from the City on the ‘Public
Information Package/Public Comment Invited’ documents issued in January
2013
City planning /development staff produced response/comments that had been
prepared in February 2013. It would appear that these were never forwarded to
the Region. The Study Team accepted these internal memos as official
comments.
Comments were also received on the meeting minutes from the first meeting
with the City (September 11, 2013).
Info
RMD/AECOM
3. Proposed Simcoe Street Design
Action
The Region provided the City with preliminary design drawings for Simcoe Street City
on April 5, 2013, for their review. The City indicated that they had not as of yet
completed their review and that these would be provided in sufficient time to be
incorporate for the PIC.
R. McGregor
A hard copy of the plans in the format presented at the meeting was requested
by the City. AECOM indicated that both PDF and printed versions of the plans
could be provided to them by the end of the week.
AECOM described the modifications proposed as part of the technically
recommended design
EA approval is being sought for an ultimate 7-lane urban cross section. The
initial construction is expected to include 5 lanes plus right turn lanes at all
intersections.
It was noted that the EA also includes the widening of Simcoe Street north of
Winchester Road (to Highway 407) to include a six lane cross-section (three
lanes in each direction) plus southbound left turn lane at Winchester Road. This
will allow for proper connection of the ultimate widening of Simcoe Street to
Highway 407.
The proposed improvements of Simcoe Street include a 6.7 metre wide raised
median with slotted lefts at all intersections (except Winchester Road). The use
of slotted lefts will improve the sight distance for left turning vehicles and is
anticipated to improve safety.
The proposed improvements to Simcoe Street, between Conlin Road and
Winchester Road, can be constructed within the Region’s existing right-of-way
(ROW). It was noted that the right-of-way adjacent to the Minto and Tribute
properties is expected to be 40 metres wide and that adjacent to the Riocan
property, 45 metres wide.
It was noted that the design will allow for installation of traffic control signals (as
demand warrants) at Windfields Farm Drive, Britannia Avenue, and Northern
Dancer Drive.
It was noted that the current design is based on a design speed of 100km/hr
which allows for a posted speed of 80 km/hr. The City questioned whether RMD
would consider a lower speed to be consistent with their vision of the Simcoe
Street corridor which is to have a “downtown” feel. The Region agreed to
consider a possible reduction but noted that vehicles will drive whatever speed
they feel comfortable with and that an artificially low posted speed is not
MIN-2012-04-29-City Of Oshawa Meeting 2-60271514 Final.Doc
Page 3
Minutes of Meeting
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
City of Oshawa Meeting #2
April 29, 2013
appropriate. It is expected that the posted speed limit will be less than 80 km/h
once the area is fully built out.
Stone Pillars and Gates
It was noted that AECOM has been corresponding with the Diane Stephan,
Chair of Heritage Oshawa Advisory Committee, with regards to impacts to the
heritage feature
The City noted that UOIT has committed to removing and storing the feature,
and incorporating the feature into their development plan.
AECOM indicated that they will contact Ms. Stephan to provide her with an
update with regards to UOIT’s plans for the feature.
The entrance to the planned fire hall at Simcoe Street and Britannia Road was
discussed. It was noted that, at present, an entrance is being planned on
Britannia Avenue only.
4. Development of the Simcoe Street/Conlin Road Intersection Design
The proposed cross-section of Conlin Road at the approaches to Simcoe Street
will include four through lanes plus left and right turning lanes. In addition 1.5
metre on-street bike lanes will be provided. This is consistent with the proposed
design being prepared for Conlin Road, west of Founders Gate.
It was noted that the centreline of Conlin Road for the design west of Founders
Gate is approximately 1 to 2 metres south of the proposed centreline through
the Simcoe Street intersection. Given the fact that the City’s design is only 60%
complete, the Region asked if the City could consider revising their centreline to
be consistent with the Region’s design. This would eliminate a pair of back-toback curves west of Simcoe Street
Due to the limited available right-of-way, the proposed sidewalk on the north
side of Conlin Road, east of Simcoe Street runs outside the road right-of-way
and is partially located within the city- owned landscaping strip. The City is to
advise if they have any issues with this.
It was noted that the City had recently initiated the Conlin Road Environmental
Assessment Study between Simcoe Street and Townline Road.
AECOM advised that grading activities may temporarily impact the landscaped
feature at the northeast corner of Conlin Road and Simcoe Street. However, it
was confirmed that the associated structure would not be impacted by the
modifications
A minor amount of City property will be required in association with the sidewalk
realignment at the southeast corner of Conlin Road and Simcoe Street
The RMD noted that there will be construction activities (by OPUC) in the
upcoming summer months along Conlin Road in the vicinity of Simcoe Street.
This work is in relation to the hydro/OPUC service improvements at UOIT.
5. Proposed Simcoe Street/Winchester Road Intersection Design
The proposed widening of Winchester Road on the approaches to the Simcoe
Street intersection will require the acquisition of some property from
Infrastructure Ontario.
MIN-2012-04-29-City Of Oshawa Meeting 2-60271514 Final.Doc
Info
D. Addley
Info
Action
Info
K. Wilson
K. Wilson
Info
Action
Info
Page 4
Minutes of Meeting
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
City of Oshawa Meeting #2
April 29, 2013
Winchester Road will include a five lane urban cross-section with right turn lanes
at the two approaches to Simcoe Street.
It was noted that MTO is planning to implement a transit/parking facility in the
northwest quadrant of the Simcoe Street/Winchester Road intersection. The
main (ultimately signalized) access to this facility will be located on Winchester
Road, west of Simcoe Street. Some of the required additional widening of
Winchester Road as well as a portion of the entrance may be included in the
Simcoe Street project depending on direction from MTO.
The City indicated that there is a planned trail crossing of Simcoe Street,
immediately south of the Winchester Road intersection. The design for Simcoe
Street may need to incorporate some treatments to identify the crossing the
location (i.e. pavement markings/signing)
6. Simcoe Street Typical Cross-section
Simcoe Street will consist of a typical urban cross-section and will include 3.0m
multi-use trails on both sides of the road.
Other alternative cross-sections including the provision of a boulevard cycletrack were reviewed but it was determined that the existing 40 metre ROW
(between Conlin Road to Windfields Farm Drive) is too narrow to include cycle
tracks as well as sidewalks along Simcoe Street. North of Windfields Farm
Drive the planned 45 metre ROW would be able to support both types of
facilities but it is recommended that a consistent cross-section for the entire
length of the project is appropriate.
North of Winchester Road, Simcoe Street will be a rural cross-section. This is
consistent with the planning (by MTO) for Simcoe Street at the Highway 407
interchange.
7. Median Treatments
With the use of a 6.7m wide median with slotted lefts at all intersections, there
are a number of areas where the median island will be sufficiently wide to
provide something other than a paved surface. These areas are depicted in
green on the proposed PIC plans.
The Region’s current plan will be to sod these areas; however, the Region has
had discussions with the City recently about the opportunity to provide
something more elaborate that may be more consistent with the City’s long term
vision of the corridor. (One example illustrated to the City is a section of Dufferin
Street, north of Steeles Avenue, however it was noted that this alternative was
very costly (upwards of $1000/m)).
It was noted that any additional cost over and above the Region’s current plan
for the median will be the responsibility of the City.
Further discussions on possible alternative treatments will occur as the design
for Simcoe Street proceeds
The City noted that even though there are some areas that are shown to allow
for a landscaped treatment, there is a significant length of the project where the
median is too narrow and will be a paved surface. AECOM indicated that the
MIN-2012-04-29-City Of Oshawa Meeting 2-60271514 Final.Doc
Action
Info
Action
Info.
City of Oshawa
All
All
Page 5
Minutes of Meeting
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
City of Oshawa Meeting #2
April 29, 2013
reason for the significant areas of narrow paved median is due to the number of
intersections and the long taper/parallel lengths required based on the future
traffic demand. It was pointed out that any possible speed reduction
implemented may reduce the required taper/storage lengths which may increase
the available areas for possible alternative treatments.
8. Pedestrian facilities (Multi-use Path)
A 3.0 m multi-use path (MUP) is being proposed along both sides of Simcoe
Street
The City advised that this may not be in line with RioCan’s vision of both and
multiuse trail and sidewalk facility
The RMD pointed out though that (as noted under Item 6.) a 40 m ROW cannot
accommodate both multi-use trails and sidewalks.
9. Development Activities (Site Plan updates, SWM Plans)
MTO Commuter Parking Lot
An MTO commuter parking lot is being planned within the northwest quadrant of
the Simcoe Street/Winchester Road intersection. This facility will include a rightin/right-out access on Simcoe Street (north of Winchester Road) and a full
moves signalized access on Winchester Road (west of Simcoe)
The City noted that RioCan is considering an entrance to their property on
Winchester Road to the east of the Oshawa Creek. Opportunities to potentially
align these entrances will be explored as the project moves forward.
Minto Property
Construction activities are anticipated to commence on the property this summer
(2013)
RioCan Property
The City noted that the RioCan development plan envisaged a downtown-type
environment, as opposed to a typical ‘big box’ landscape
The first phase of development is planned for completion in 2015 to coincide
with the Highway 407 opening. Full build out is anticipated by 2020.
The RioCan development is contingent on the Minto site development as Minto
will be providing the servicing for the RioCan site
The RMD will review the recently received Riocan functional plan
Tribute (formerly Dantonbury)
The City advised that the Tribute subdivision, located at the west-central side of
the Simcoe Street study area, is expected to be submitted for draft Approval at
the end May 2013
It was noted that two SWM ponds are to be developed on the property as part of
Phase 1, east of Tributary W1.
The Region noted that it is their understanding that the SWM facilities within the
Tribute Development are to be designed to incorporate the SWM requirements
for the ultimate Simcoe Street north of Britannia Avenue and that this had been
a condition of their approval.
MIN-2012-04-29-City Of Oshawa Meeting 2-60271514 Final.Doc
Action
Info
Action
Info
All
Info
Info
Info
Page 6
Minutes of Meeting
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
City of Oshawa Meeting #2
April 29, 2013
Sanitary/Watermain Infrastructure
The proposed Simcoe Street improvements will include the protection for a 12
metre wide corridor along the east side of the ROW between Conlin Road and
Britannia Avenue. This corridor is to accommodate a 1050 mm water
feedermain and two 1050mm sanitary forcemains.
This corridor could be located partially within the Simcoe Street ROW and/or
partially within the landscaping strip outside the Simcoe Street ROW. As this is
future infrastructure ideally it will be located outside of the proposed pavement
areas.
It was noted that the timing for this infrastructure will be development driven.
Stormwater Management
AECOM indicated that a SWM study is currently underway. The current SWM
management strategy is as follows:
- The Stormwater outlet for Simcoe Street from Winchester Road to Britannia
Avenue will be east along Britannia Avenue to the proposed SWM facilities
within the Tribute development. These ponds will include quantity and
quality control in accordance with the requirements of CLOCA.
- From Britannia Avenue south to Conlin Road, the outlet will be the existing
storm sewer on Conlin Road, which runs west towards the Oshawa Creek.
It was noted that there is an existing OGS located at the outlet of this
existing sewer into the Oshawa Creek. AECOM indicated that they will be
evaluating alternatives to address stormwater quality for the additional flow
from the Simcoe Street storm sewer. Alternatives include upgrading or
replacement of the existing OGS, or addition of a new OGS at the
connection point for the new sewer on Simcoe Street.
AECOM will follow up with Patrick Lee at the City to get details for the existing
storm sewer design along Conlin Road, as well as for the existing OGS.
10. Public/Agency Comments Received to Date
It was noted that there have been a small number of responses received from
the public to date. One resident, whose property backs onto the Simcoe Street
corridor, expressed concern with noise in association with the modifications.
The correspondence with Heritage Oshawa and associated concerns with the
stone pillars and gates was briefly discussed
11. PIC
The RMD noted that they are planning to include notice of PIC signage along
Simcoe Street one week in advance of the PIC.
The PIC will present the information collected to date, as well as the
recommended design.
The PIC has been scheduled for June 4, 2013, between 5:00 pm and 8:00 pm
K. Wilson indicated that he would be present at the PIC, as well as some other
representatives of the City
12. Other Business
K. Wilson indicated that moving forward; he would be the main contact for the
City in association with study.
MIN-2012-04-29-City Of Oshawa Meeting 2-60271514 Final.Doc
AECOM
Action
Info
Action
Info
City
Action
Info
Page 7
Minutes of Meeting
Simcoe Street Reconstruction and Widening
Conlin Road to Winchester Road
Class EA and Detail Design
City of Oshawa Meeting #2
April 29, 2013
The City will forward comments to the RMD with regards to the recommended
City
design within the next two weeks
These comments will be reviewed and incorporated to the designs in advance of AECOM/RMD
the PIC
End of Minutes
MIN-2012-04-29-City Of Oshawa Meeting 2-60271514 Final.Doc