10361 Project File Report Final - Town of Whitby · 2011-12-05 · project file report schedule ‘b’ municipal class environmental assessment white’s bridge (structure no. 25)

Municipal Engineering | Environmental Assessments | Transportation Structures | Transit Planning and Engineering | Roundabouts

A Member of The Sernas Group Inc.

PROJECT FILE REPORT SCHEDULE ‘B’ MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WHITE’S BRIDGE (STRUCTURE NO. 25) RECONSTRUCTION ON COLUMBUS ROAD WEST OF COUNTRY LANE

PREPARED FOR: TOWN OF WHITBY November 25, 2011 SRM Project No: 10361

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Through the Municipal Bridge Appraisal inspection, the Town of Whitby identified White’s Bridge as part of their overall Asset Management Strategy. The Asset Management Strategy is used to identify preventative maintenance and rehabilitation issues and opportunities. The following items were identified as a concern for White’s Bridge:

1. Severe erosion at the northwest and southwest embankments resulting in poor condition of the west abutment. Embankment rehabilitation and erosion protection is required.

2. The existing bridge width is a safety concern as it does not meet current code requirements.

As a result, the Town of Whitby initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment in accordance with Schedule ‘B’ requirements – as outlined in the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document (MEA 2000, amended 2007) – to identify and evaluate alternatives for addressing the above-noted deficiencies. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Natural Environment White’s Bridge crosses Lynde Creek within the Heber Down subwatershed, and the study area is within an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) – High Sensitivity. These areas, on their own or in combination with other biophysical factors, are highly sensitive to disturbance. Redside Dace and Butternut, both classified as Species at Risk, were identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) as being in the general vicinity of the study area. The site specific inventory data were reviewed against federal and provincial rarity lists, and it was confirmed that Redside Dace are present at the site, but no vegetation species at risk are present. Cold and cool water fish species currently occupy the subwatershed, and use Lynde Creek for spawning and rearing of young. Warm water species are present throughout the year. A meander belt width assessment and channel migration assessment were conducted to assess potential risk to infrastructure on Columbus Road and to protect terrestrial habitat. A detailed geomorphic assessment of the reach at White’s Bridge was also performed to assess channel geometry and geomorphological processes. A geotechnical investigation was conducted to document the subsurface soil profile in the proposed location of the replacement bridge, identify potential groundwater concerns in the area, and provide geotechnical recommendations for construction. Socio-Economic Environment The Class EA study area is within the agricultural land use area as identified in the Town of Whitby Official Plan. Where White’s Bridge crosses Lynde Creek, the land is designated as Hazard Lands.

ii

Columbus Road is identified in the Town of Whitby Official Plan as a Type ‘B’ Arterial Road. Type ‘B’ Arterial Roads are designed to move moderate volumes of traffic at moderate speeds from one part of the Region to another. Cultural Environment Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments were conducted to document the cultural heritage significance of the Class EA study area. Nothing of archaeological or heritage significance, from either the historic or pre-contact time periods, was discovered in the study area. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS The following alternative solutions were considered for this project:

1. Do Nothing – no change to the bridge or current operation of the road. 2. Bridge Repair – repair the existing bridge structure to address known deficiencies. 3. Bridge Reconstruction – replacement of the existing bridge with a new structure. 4. Road Closure – permanent closure of the section of Columbus Road at White’s

Bridge. 5. Diversion of Traffic – long-term re-routing of traffic until such time as bridge safety

issues can be addressed. 6. Bridge Modification – changes to the bridge to widen the structure to correct the width

deficiency.

Each of the alternatives was evaluated on the basis of how well the identified problems and opportunities could be addressed. Based on the evaluation, it was decided that Alternative 3 – Bridge Reconstruction was the preferred solution. The evaluation of the alternative solutions was presented to the public and review agencies for comment and input. PREFERRED SOLUTION Full reconstruction of the existing bridge was considered to be the best solution to address safety issues, and maintain the viability of the road as an important Municipal arterial route for the movement of traffic. The new bridge structure will be designed and constructed according to current bridge code standards, and will result in wider lanes for traffic to improve existing conditions. The replacement bridge structure will be slightly larger than the existing structure, with a wider span over Lynde Creek, resulting in improvements to hydraulics and watercourse functions. IMPLEMENTATION Upon completion of the Class EA process, detailed design of the bridge will commence. Given the environmental timing restrictions associated with fisheries and wildlife, construction will likely commence in 2013. Since a complete road closure will be required during construction, a detour plan will be developed and reviewed with the Town during the detailed design phase of this project.

iii

PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION PROGRAM Public and stakeholder consultation occurred throughout all applicable phases of the Municipal Class EA process. A stakeholder list was compiled, representing all parties that could have an interest or regulatory authority over the project. Notices of Study Commencement and Consultation opportunities were provided to all stakeholders, including affected property owners. A Project Information Package was also sent out to stakeholders in lieu of an open house. The package was also available to others upon request, or could be downloaded from the Town’s website. Following the Schedule ‘B’ Class EA process, the study was concluded with the preparation of this Project File Report and filing of the Notice of Study Completion. Copies of the report are available for review and comment during normal business hours at the following locations:

Town of Whitby Municipal Building Public Works Department 575 Rossland Rd. East Whitby, ON, L1N 2M8 905-430-4307 Whitby Public Library (Brooklin Branch) 8 Vipond Rd. Brooklin, ON, L1M 1B3 905-655-3191 Whitby Central Library 405 Dundas St. West Whitby, ON, L1N 6A1 905-668-6531

Copies of the report are also available on-line at the Town of Whitby’s website:

www.whitby.ca > Town Hall > Public Works > Engineering Services > Environmental Assessments

If concerns regarding the project cannot be resolved in discussion with the Town of Whitby, a person or party may request that the Minister of the Environment make an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a Part II Order), which requires an Individual Environmental Assessment. An individual may also request the MOE to elevate the project to a Schedule ‘C’. Requests must be received by the Minister within the 30-day review period. If no new or outstanding concerns are brought forward during the review period, the Town may complete the detailed design and construction of the project. Anyone wishing to request a Part II Order must submit a written request, by the end of the thirty (30) calendar day review period, to the Minister of the Environment at the following address, with a copy sent to the Town’s Project Engineer. Hon. John Wilkinson Minister of the Environment 77 Wellesley Street West 11th Floor, Ferguson Block Toronto, ON, M7A 2T5

Horace Look, P. Eng Project Engineer, Works Department Town of Whitby 575 Rossland Road East Whitby, ON, L1N 2M8

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 NEED AND JUSTIFICATION .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 STUDY AREA ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS .................................................... 1 1.4 PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................................ 6

2.0 CLASS EA STUDY CONTEXT ........................................................................................................ 7 2.1 TOWN OF WHITBY OFFICAL PLAN ................................................................................. 7 2.2 TOWN OF WHITBY TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN ............................................... 7 2.3 TOWN OF WHITBY CYCLING AND LEISURE TRAILS PLAN .......................................... 8 2.4 BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT ....................................................................................... 8

3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................... 13 3.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................. 13

3.1.1 SIGNIFICANT NATURAL AREAS ....................................................................... 13 3.1.2 AQUATIC HABITAT ............................................................................................. 13 3.1.3 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................... 14 3.1.4 SPECIES AT RISK ............................................................................................... 14 3.1.5 GEOMORPHIC AND HAZARD ASSESSMENT .................................................. 17

3.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................. 19 3.2.1 LAND USE ........................................................................................................... 19 3.2.2 UTILITIES ............................................................................................................. 19 3.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................... 19

3.3 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 20 3.4 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS / CONSIDERATIONS .................................................. 21

4.0 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS AND EVALUATION PROCESS ..................................................... 23 4.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...................................................................................... 23 4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA ................................................................................................. 23 4.3 EVALUATION PROCESS ................................................................................................. 25

4.3.1 DO NOTHING ...................................................................................................... 26 4.3.2 BRIDGE REPAIR ................................................................................................. 26 4.3.3 BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 26

5.0 PREFERRED SOLUTION ............................................................................................................. 30 5.1 BRIDGE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ..................................... 30 5.2 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 32 5.3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................... 34 5.4 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................. 34 5.5 PERMITTING AND APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS / GUIDELINES ................................ 37 5.6 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING ......................................................................... 39

6.0 PUBLIC AND REVIEW AGENCY CONSULTATION PROGRAM ................................................. 40 6.1 STAKEHOLDERS AND NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT ................................. 40 6.2 CONSULTATION WITH REVIEW AGENCIES ................................................................. 40 6.3 CONSULTATION WITH FIRST NATIONS ....................................................................... 46 6.4 PROJECT INFORMATION PACKAGE ............................................................................. 46 6.5 CONSULTATION WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC ........................................................... 46 6.6 NOTICE OF STUDY COMPLETION AND PROJECT FILE REPORT ............................. 47

7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 48

v

PAGE FIGURES

FIGURE 1 Class Environmental Assessment Study Location ............................................................. 2

FIGURE 2 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process ........................................................ 5

FIGURE 3 Town of Whitby Official Plan Schedule ‘A’ – Land Use ...................................................... 9

FIGURE 4 Town of Whitby Official Plan Schedule ‘C’ – Environmental Management ...................... 10

FIGURE 5 Town of Whitby Official Plan Schedule ‘D’ – Transportation Map .................................... 11

FIGURE 6 Recommended Core/Priority Cycling and Leisure Trail Network ..................................... 12

FIGURE 7 Terrestrial Environment and Vegetation Community Designations ................................. 15

FIGURE 8 CLOC Fisheries Data ........................................................................................................ 16

FIGURE 9 Archaeological Assessment Zones .................................................................................. 22

FIGURE 10 Proposed Bridge Plan View, Elevation, and Deck Section ............................................... 33

FIGURE 11 Property Requirements for Proposed Grading ................................................................. 35

TABLES

TABLE 1 Williams Meander Belt Width Modelling Results (1986) ................................................... 17

TABLE 2 Lynde Creek Measured and Computed Channel Parameters .......................................... 18

TABLE 3 Alternative Solutions Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................... 24

TABLE 4 Ratings for the Alternative Solutions Evaluation Matrix .................................................... 25

TABLE 5 Alternative Solution Evaluation Matrix .............................................................................. 27

TABLE 6 Present Value Analysis for the Reconstruction of White’s Bridge .................................... 31

TABLE 7 Evaluation of Reconstruction Options for White’s Bridge ................................................ 32

TABLE 8 Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures ............................. 36

TABLE 9 Legislative and Policy Issues Identified by Review Agencies ........................................... 41

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 Bridge Inspection Report

APPENDIX 2 Geomorphology and Natural Environment Report

APPENDIX 3 Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS) Report

APPENDIX 4 Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment Report

APPENDIX 5 Geotechnical Investigation Report

APPENDIX 6 Class EA Stakeholder List

APPENDIX 7 Class EA Notices and Advertisements

APPENDIX 8 Class EA Correspondence

APPENDIX 9 Class EA Project Information Package

SRM Associates November 25, 2011 White’s Bridge (Structure No.25) Replacement Project No. 10361 1 Schedule ‘B’ Municipal Class EA

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 NEED AND JUSTIFICATION The White’s Bridge was built in 1930 as a concrete bridge of T-beams and slab construction, and asphalt wearing surface with two lanes for vehicular travel. There are three spans at 7.6 m, 9.2 m, 7.6 m with a deck length of 26.2 m and a deck width of 7.3 m. The most recent bridge appraisal report indicated that a structural replacement was required to alleviate a deck width deficiency, and other safety concerns and deficiencies. In summary, the following items were identified as a concern:

1. Severe erosion at the northwest and southwest embankments resulting in poor condition of the west abutment. Embankment rehabilitation and erosion protection is required.

2. The existing bridge width is a safety concern as it does not meet current code requirements.

The Town initiated this Municipal Class Environmental Assessment to identify and evaluate alternatives for addressing the above-noted deficiencies. 1.2 STUDY AREA The White’s Bridge is located on Columbus Road West, west of Country Lane, in the Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham. The land use is predominately agriculture. The Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) study area is focused on White’s Bridge and the surrounding natural environment of Lynde Creek and associated environmental sensitive area (Figure 1). The Class EA study area is within the jurisdiction of Central Lake Ontario Conservation. 1.3 CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS The planning of major municipal projects or activities in Ontario is subject to the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter E.18. The purpose of the Act is:

“the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment.”

Within the definitions of the Act, “environment” includes social, economic, cultural and natural conditions at a site. The Act requires a Municipality to complete an environmental assessment for major municipal projects, describing the existing environment, the rationale for the undertaking, advantages and disadvantages of various alternative solutions, and the results of public consultation for the project. The Act identifies two alternate planning and approval processes that can be followed:


Figure 1. Class Environmental Assessment Study Location

Study Location


Individual Environmental Assessment Projects for which a Terms of Reference is developed, and an Individual Environmental Assessment is carried out and submitted to the Minister of Environment for review and approval. Class Environmental Assessment Projects that are considered approved subject to compliance with an approved class environmental assessment process. By following a pre-approved process, the proponent has complied with the requirements of the Act.

The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process was developed by the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA 2000, amended 2007), to streamline the EA process for recurring municipal projects that are similar in nature, usually limited in scale, and with a predictable range of environmental effects that are responsive to mitigating measures. The Municipal Class EA process is outlined in Figure 2. Projects undertaken by municipalities vary in their potential for environmental impact. As a result, projects are classified according to their potential for adverse environmental effect. The classifications under the Municipal Class EA process are:

Schedule A These projects are limited in scale, have minimal adverse environmental effects, and typically consist of normal maintenance and operational activities. These projects are considered pre-approved and may proceed without following the full Class EA planning process. Schedule A+ These projects are also limited in scale, have minimal adverse environmental effects, and are considered pre-approved, but there is a requirement for public notification prior to construction or implementation of the project. The purpose of the notification is to inform the public of projects occurring in their local area. Although the public is informed of the project, there is no appeal mechanism to the MOE; concerns are addressed at municipal council. Schedule B These projects have the potential for some adverse environmental effects, thus requiring a screening process involving mandatory contact with directly affected public and relevant review agencies. If all concerns can be adequately addressed, the project may proceed. These projects generally include improvements and minor expansions to existing facilities. Schedule C These projects have potential for significant environmental effect and are subject to the full planning and documentation procedures specified in the Class EA document. An Environmental Study Report must be prepared and submitted for review by the public and relevant review agencies. If all public and agency comments and issues are resolved during the public review period, the project may proceed. These projects generally include construction of new facilities or major expansions to existing facilities.


This study has been undertaken following the Schedule ‘B’ process for municipal roads and structures, as the bridge is greater than 40 years old, and the cost estimate for the reconstruction is less than $2.7 million. This Project File Report (PFR) documents the Class EA process that was followed, including the steps outlined below. It is important to note that consultation with all stakeholders occurred throughout each step of the process.

Phase 1 – Problem or Opportunity Step 1. Identification and description of the problem or opportunity Step 2. Issuance of a Notice of Study Commencement Phase 2 – Alternative Solutions Step 1. Identification of alternative solutions to the problem Step 2. Inventory and description of the natural, social, economic and cultural

environments in the study area Step 3. Evaluation of the alternative solutions relative to the environmental features

identified in Step 2 Step 4. Preliminary identification of a preferred solution Step 5. Consultation with the public and review agencies Step 6. Confirmation of the preferred solution Step 7. Documentation of the Class EA planning process in a file or report Step 8. Filing of a Notice of Study Completion and provision of project files for public

review Step 9. Address comments and conclude the Class EA process

The completion of this PFR and filing of the Notice of Study Completion concludes the Class EA process for this project. The PFR is made available to the public for review for thirty (30) calendar days. If concerns regarding the project cannot be resolved in discussion with the Town, a person or party may request that the Minister of the Environment make an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a Part II Order), which requires an Individual Environmental Assessment. An individual may also request the MOE to elevate the project to a Schedule ‘C’. Requests must be received by the Minister within the 30-day review period. If no new or outstanding concerns are brought forward during the review period, the Town of Whitby may complete detailed design and construction of the project.


Figure 2. M

unicipal Class Environmental A

ssessment Process


1.4 PROJECT TEAM The Project Team assembled for this Class EA is as follows: Town of Whitby Horace Look, P.Eng. Project Engineer – Capital Projects Greg Hardy, P.Eng. Manager of Engineering Services Ed Belsey, P. Eng. Manager of Long Range Planning & Strategic Design SRM Associates John Semjan, P.Eng. Project Manager / Structural Design Leader Erica Tsang, MES, BES Environmental Assessment Coordinator Paul Turner, P.Eng. Project Engineer Supporting Studies Advance Archaeology Archaeological Assessment Geomorphic Solutions Natural Environment Brief AMEC Earth and Environmental Geotechnical Report Sernas Associates Hydraulic Analysis J.D. Barnes Limited Topographic Survey


2.0 CLASS EA STUDY CONTEXT 2.1 TOWN OF WHITBY OFFICAL PLAN The Town of Whitby Official Plan (1995) was developed to provide direction for policies to control future land use development and redevelopment, while safeguarding significant natural features and rural areas. One of the major policy directions, Environmental Management, is to provide a high quality living environment for all residents through the protection and enhancement of the natural environment for its valuable ecological functions. In the Town’s Official Plan, the Class EA study area falls within lands designated under Schedule ‘A’ as Hazard Lands, and under Schedule ‘C’ as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Figures 3 and 4). Lands designated Hazard Lands are to be managed to complement adjacent land uses and protect them from any physical hazards or their effects and/or to provide adequate protection to areas of significant environmental function. Lands designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas are to be preserved to the maximum degree possible, have buildings and structures that should be minor in scale, and have no or minimal parking provided on-site. Columbus Road is identified in the Town of Whitby Official Plan as a Type ‘B’ Arterial Road (Figure 5). Type ‘B’ Arterial Roads are designed to move moderate volumes of traffic at moderate speeds from one part of the Region to another. Such roads provide a level of service relative to other types of arterial roads and can extend beyond the Municipal boundaries. The bridge carries two lanes of east-west traffic on Columbus Road over Lynde Creek. This portion of Columbus Road is outside of the urban boundary, and is currently a rural cross-section. Under Town policies, sidewalks are not provided for roads with a rural cross-section. The Class EA study has examined the significant environmental features and their related ecological function, focusing on avoiding and mitigating potential impacts to these features, consistent with the protection policies in the Town’s Official Plan. 2.2 TOWN OF WHITBY TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) for the Town of Whitby is a strategic document designed to identify the transportation facilities and services required to meet the demands of continued growth, and safe, efficient and reliable movement of people and goods. The TMP identified that the development of Brooklin may create a need for increased capacity on local existing arterials, such as Columbus Road. Based on the traffic data analyses presented in Appendix E of the TMP, maintaining Columbus Road as a 2-lane cross section will accommodate projected future traffic needs until 2031. Beyond the 2031 timeframe, a 4-lane cross-section may be required; therefore Columbus Road is identified as a strategic corridor to be protected for widening in the future (Town of Whitby, 2010). Further, the Region of Durham has completed a Long Term Transit Strategy to establish the direction of transit in the Region and the role that rapid transit will take over a 50 year period. Within the Town of Whitby, Columbus Road between Brock Road in Pickering and Simcoe Street in Oshawa has been highlighted as a road to protect for future rapid transit.


2.3 TOWN OF WHITBY CYCLING AND LEISURE TRAILS PLAN The Town of Whitby Cycling and Leisure Trails plan was developed in recognition of the environmental and health benefits of increased cycling and the increasing demand for accommodating non-motorized modes of transportation. It was also developed in response to the popularity of the Town’s existing trail network and a desire to create a more connected system of trails. The recommended cycling and leisure trails network is intended to be implemented over the next 20 years and beyond. A core network has been identified as a priority over the next several years. The core network consists of 18 km of leisure trails and 74 km of bikeways for a total of 92 km. Columbus Road, from the east to west Town boundary, has been identified as one of the east-west routes. At the study area, Columbus Road has been identified as a core/priority network area, as well as having a proposed paved shoulder which would incorporate an on-road bikeway (Figure 6). During the Class EA study, consideration was given to incorporating the vision for the core network. 2.4 BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT The 2009 inspection of the White’s Bridge identified safety deficiencies that prompted the initiation of this Class EA. A copy of the appraisal report is included as Appendix 1. White’s Bridge (Structure No. 25) is a 3-span concrete structure (7.6 m; 9.2 m; 7.6 m) constructed in 1930, and is a T-beam and slab with open abutments. The bridge carries two lanes of east-west traffic on Columbus Road West over Lynde Creek. The deck length is 26.2 m with an area of 191.3 m2. The asphalt riding surface of the bridge is in generally good condition, with some cracking. However, according to the Municipal Bridge Appraisal, the existing structure was identified for replacement to eliminate the deck width deficiency. It was also recommended that erosion protection be placed in the northwest and southwest quadrants and in front of the west abutment.


Figure 3. Town of Whitby Official Plan Schedule ‘A’ – Land Use


Figure 4. Town of Whitby Official Plan Schedule ‘C’ – Environmental Management


Figure 5. Town of Whitby Official Plan Schedule ‘D’ – Transportation


Figure 6. Recommended Core / Priority Cycling and Leisure Trail Network


3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT As part of Phase 2 of the Class EA process, a review and inventory of environmental features is required to support the evaluation of potential project effects. Under the Environmental Assessment Act, the definition of “environment” includes natural, social, economic, and cultural conditions at a site. The following sections provide an overview of environmental conditions that were considered for this project. 3.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT To document the natural environment conditions at the site, background research was conducted including consultations with Central Lake Ontario Conservation (CLOC), the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). The results of the background review were verified and augmented with a field assessment program, examining the aquatic, geomorphic and terrestrial features of the site. The full report is included as Appendix 2. 3.1.1 Significant Natural Areas The Heber Down subwatershed is the largest subwatershed of the Lynde Creek system, draining approximately 4600 ha. The headwaters of the subwatershed reach into the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM), with the south portion draining into main Lynde Creek just north of Dundas Street in the urban area of Whitby. The ORM and Greenbelt lands outside of the ORM represent a major portion of the subwatershed, having 18% and 40% respectively of the land area (CLOC, 2008). The largest physiographic unit that Lynde Creek passes through is a till plain, which is bordered by the ORM to the north and the former Glacial Lake Iroquois shoreline to the south (CLOC et al. 2007). The Class EA study area is within the Heber Down Wetland Complex, which has been identified as a Provincially Significant Wetland (CLOC, 2005). The MNR has also identified the study area as part of the Heber Down Iroquois Beach Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), which is an area of land and water representing significant geological and biological features. CLOC’s 1977 Environmental Sensitivity Mapping Project also shows the study area as being within an Environmentally Sensitive Area – High Sensitivity (Figure 7). These areas, on their own or in combination with other biophysical factors, are highly sensitive to disturbance. Thus, detailed site specific study is required to better define the physical and biological factors and the interrelationships among them. Special consideration was given to engineering design and construction approaches to prevent serious negative environmental impacts. 3.1.2 Aquatic Habitat The Central Lake Ontario Fisheries Management Plan includes a list of fish species sampled in the Heber Down subwatershed. In 2001, sampling efforts revealed 22 fish species. Cold and cool water species occupy the subwatershed to spawn and for rearing young, and warm water species are present throughout the year (Figure 8). Aquatic habitat characteristics were recorded at White’s Bridge in fall 2010 to document existing conditions and provide guidance and support for any potential aquatic habitat enhancements resulting from activities related to the bridge.


Upstream of the bridge, pool depth was up to 0.40 m and consisted of sand and large boulders. Pools were also found around woody debris and large boulders. Riffles were comprised of gravel, cobbles and small boulders. Downstream of the bridge, the channel had a low gradient as a result of a woody debris jam 90 m downstream of White’s Bridge. At this point, the channel is dominated by runs with few riffles and localized pools. The debris jam is a potential barrier to fish passage under low-flow conditions. Although water passes through the structure, flows accelerate through the openings and may result in velocities impassable to resident fish. Both upstream and downstream of the bridge the channel is heavily shaded by the canopy cover provided by the cedar forest. In addition to the trees, the overbank area is vegetated with low lying grasses. Within the channel, boulders and woody debris provide complexity to the aquatic habitat. The water was observed to be colourless with filamentous and non-filamentous algae. Groundwater input was not apparent, and there were no barriers to fish passage with the exception of the woody debris dam downstream. Minnow species were observed on the day of investigation. 3.1.3 Terrestrial Environment Preliminary vegetation community information was provided by CLOC, from a desktop assessment based on the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system for southern Ontario (Figure 7). The vegetation communities within the Class EA study area were field verified, and an inventory of vegetation species within the potential footprint of disturbance was prepared. The study area was divided into four quadrants around the existing bridge. Overall, the study area was dominated by natural forest cover with minimal open areas. Approximately 85% of the species documented in the study area were native. A single black walnut sapling (Juglans nigra) was located in the northwest quadrant along the road embankment between a property fence and the road. Black walnut is an uncommon species in Durham Region, but does not have any legislative species at risk status. 3.1.4 Species at Risk MNR identified a record of Butternut within a 1 km square in the vicinity of the study area. This species is protected by the Endangered Species Act, 2007. A detailed tree inventory was completed as part of this study to determine if the Butternut was within the study area; none were identified (Appendix 2). CLOC records indicated presence of Redside Dace in Lynde Creek. Redside Dace are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, 2007. Therefore, any in-stream work at White’s Bridge must be reviewed and approved by the MNR, in addition to the approvals required from CLOC and DFO. Based on the resident fish species and their respective life cycles, the in-stream work period would be restricted to the coldwater construction timing window of July 1 to September 15.


Figure 7. Terrestrial Environment and Vegetation Community Designations


Figure 8. CLOC Fisheries Data


3.1.5 Geomorphic and Hazard Assessment Field data and observations were collected to identify active geomorphological processes, assess channel stability and characterize conditions using rapid assessments. The form of a watercourse is fundamentally a product of the channel flow and the availability and type of sediments within the stream corridor. Upstream of Columbus Road, the channel is well-shaded by a dense cedar forest. The bed material is coarse, which is at least in part sourced from an armour layer in the banks. The armour layer, in combination with the soil stability afforded by tree roots, helps to limit bank erosion. Bank erosion is noticeably higher where banks are comprised of finer materials or where the rooting density is relatively low. The channel within the study area is underlain by Newmarket Till, which is comprised of 1 to 50 m of sandy silt to sand with >3% stone content, and stratified interbeds. These surficial materials are readily erodible and allow for the development of a fully alluvial watercourse. A meander belt width assessment and channel migration assessment was conducted on Lynde Creek at White’s Bridge to assess potential risk to infrastructure on Columbus Road and to protect terrestrial habitat. Considering the dense canopy cover at Lynde Creek, a historical aerial photograph assessment of the study area could not be conducted. As such, various models were applied to generate estimates of bankfull channel values. In addition field assessments were used to characterize systematic adjustments, channel stability, and identify any areas of concern. Following the Williams (1986) model, bankfull channel values are provided in Table 1. Table 1: Williams Meander Belt Width Modelling Results (1986)

Meander Belt Width Model Belt Width (m) Belt Width and Buffer (m)

Williams (1986): Cross-sectional area 40 48 (20% Buffer)

Williams (1986): Bankfull width 34 41 (20% Buffer)

Williams (1986): Bankfull depth 58 70 (20% Buffer)

The Williams (1986) relations generate results that vary by almost 50%. Based on previous projects in which the channel is clearly visible on aerial photography, the measured meander belt is most similar to the Williams (1986) model based on the cross-sectional area. A detailed geomorphological assessment was completed for Lynde Creek and included a 110 m topographic survey of the channel longitudinal profile (bed, water level, and bankfull level) approximately 170 m upstream of Columbus Road. Eight cross sections were also surveyed to allow for characterization of the bankfull channel. At each cross section, bank characteristics were also noted, and a modified Wolman (1954) pebble count was completed to determine the channel bed grain size distribution. A summary of the measured and computed values is presented in Table 2.


Table 2: Lynde Creek Measured and Computed Channel Parameters

Channel Parameter Parameter Value

Measured Channel bed gradient (%) 0.61 Bankfull width (m) 6.30 Average bankfull depth (m) 0.54 Maximum bankfull depth (m) 0.83 D50 (mm) 2.70 D90 (mm) 12.0 Manning’s n 0.038

Computed Bankfull discharge (m3/s) 4.68 Average bankfull velocity (m/s) 1.37 Unit stream power at bankfull (W/m2) 45.0 Tractive force at bankfull (N/m2) 33.0 Flow competency for D50 (m/s) 0.90 Flow competency for D84 (m/s) 1.50 Critical shear stress (N/m2) 20.0

Observations were quantified using an index that identifies channel sensitivity based on evidence of aggradation, degradation, channel widening and planimetric form adjustments. The index produces values that indicate whether the channel is stable / in regime (score <0.20), stressed / transitional (score 0.21-0.40) or adjusting (score >0.41). Within the study area, Lynde Creek was assessed to be in transition / stress (score 0.29). Channel degradation and widening were the most prominent factors contributing to the condition. The Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT) was used to provide a broader view of the system and consider the ecological functioning of the watercourse. Observations were made of channel stability, channel scouring or sediment deposition, instream and riparian habitats, and water quality. The RSAT score ranks the channel as maintaining a poor (<13), fair (13-24), good (25-34) or excellent (35-42) degree of stream health. With a score of 30, Lynde Creek was assessed to be in a good state of health. However, channel stability and scouring / sediment deposition scored low in the overall RSAT assessment. Water quality was found to have an individual score of 4/8 (fair), which is consistent with the “fair” rating in CLOC et al. (2007). The channel banks upstream of White’s Bridge were deemed to be stable despite the localized channel widening at the bridge. A generally straight section of channel approaches the bridge at a right angle to Columbus Road West, and there is no migrating meander bend. Further, the banks are lined with trees, which provide stability through the root system. As such, significant long-term channel migration is improbable. Generally, in the vicinity of White’s Bridge, Lynde Creek exhibits evidence of erosion; however, the dense riparian woody vegetation provides sufficient stability to limit channel migration. In the long term, channel migration may be further limited by the presence of valley walls. Although channel stability is high at White’s Bridge, the loss of the downstream woody debris jam would increase erosion potential by locally increasing the channel gradient or by producing a knick point that migrates upstream. Therefore, it would be prudent to construct erosion protection


measures along the channel bank at White’s Bridge. This would not only provide erosion protection, but also near-bank channel cover for aquatic habitat improvements. 3.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 3.2.1 Land Use The tablelands adjacent to the study area are used primarily for agriculture, but also contain residential homes. Approximately 1.2 km north of Columbus Road, Lynde Creek runs through Lakeridge Links Golf Club. There is significantly less buffer vegetation through the golf course, and some sections of channel are fully lined with manicured grass. The land use surrounding the study area is forested within the channel corridor, with an average buffer of 150 m. White’s Bridge is within the agricultural land use area as identified in the Town of Whitby Official Plan (Figure 3). Where White’s Bridge crosses Lynde Creek, the land is designated as Hazard Lands. The goal of the Hazard Land designation is to maintain and enhance local resources in an environmentally sound manner. The goals of agricultural land use areas are to maintain the agricultural area of the Town consistent with the preservation of its natural amenities, its agricultural function and existing rural settlement pattern (Town of Whitby, 2009). No changes to existing land uses are proposed as part of this project. 3.2.2 Utilities Correspondence was initiated with utility companies in the Class EA study area to document the presence of existing infrastructure and determine the potential for any conflicts. Whitby Hydro Energy Services Corporation, Rogers Cable Communication Inc. and the Region of Durham have confirmed that they do not have existing underground facilities in the area; therefore there are no underground conflicts with the proposed bridge replacement. However, Whitby Hydro did identify overhead facilities which would require relocation to accommodate a wider bridge. Correspondence with both Trans-Northern Pipelines Inc. and TransCanada Pipelines Inc. confirmed that there are no pipeline facilities within or near the Class EA study area, therefore there is no conflict. Enbridge Pipelines Inc. also confirmed that there are no facilities in the area of White’s Bridge. Bell Canada was contacted for information on their plant, but their ‘desktop’ response was inconclusive. Bell’s plant will be confirmed at the detailed design phase of the project. 3.2.3 Environmental Risk Assessment To investigate potential site issues identified by the Ministry of Environment (MOE), an assessment of environmental risks was undertaken using a database search of MOE water well records, a search of Durham Region databases, and a review of known landfill sites from the Town of Whitby. Records of underground storage sites, water well records and waste disposal sites for the Class EA study area were investigated with a database report run by EcoLog Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS) Ltd. The report researches federal, provincial and private sector databases to identify possible environmental concerns. Findings from the report showed that


there are seven water wells and one waste generator location within a 250 m radius of the site; none of which were found in the study area. The full ERIS Report is provided as Appendix 3. 3.3 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments were conducted to document the cultural heritage significance of the Class EA study area. The full report is provided as Appendix 4. The Stage 1 historical research showed that the subject property consists primarily of the road allowance for Columbus Road and adjacent sections extending 15 m south on Lot 31, Concession 6 and 15 m north on Lot 31, Concession 7. A request for a search of the archaeological sites database (maintained by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture) was submitted to determine whether or not there are any registered archaeological sites on or within a 2 km radius of the Class EA study area. The results of the search determined that there are no registered sites on the subject property itself. However, due to the rural nature and the lack of archaeological research within the study area it did not necessarily indicate a low potential for the presence of archaeological sites. Any undisturbed lands within 300 m of a primary water source or within 200 m of a secondary water source are considered to have high potential for the presence of archaeological or cultural heritage resources. This is because potable water is one of the most important factors in human survival; therefore, proximity to water is considered to be an excellent indicator of high archaeological site potential. Other factors such as suitable topography, lack of soil disturbance, and the presence of, or proximity to, known pre-contact or historic sites or features such as roads are also good indicators of archaeological potential. The Class EA study area contains a 215 m section of a well established 19th century transportation corridor, Columbus Road, which provided significant connections during the 1800s with the village of Brooklin and smaller surrounding settlements such as Ashburn, Myrtle, and Columbus. In addition, a secondary watercourse, Lynde Creek, flows southward through the centre of the study area, which would have been topographically suitable for Euro-Canadian or Aboriginal use and habitation. Given the intensity of local historic settlement, the presence of a secondary watercourse, as well as the presence of undisturbed lands on either side of Lynde Creek, the subject property was considered to have generalized potential for the presence of archaeological sites or other cultural heritage resources. Therefore, it was necessary to carry out a Stage 2 archaeological assessment on the sections of the subject property with high archaeological potential. Figure 9 highlights portions of the study area that have been adversely affected or disturbed by prior road and bridge construction, and steep slopes and sections of waterlogged soils which are considered to have low archaeological potential (exempt from Stage 2 assessment). The Stage 2 fieldwork consisted of hand-excavation of a single line of shovel tests carried out at 5 m survey intervals in all of the high-potential zones. All shovel tests were screened and backfilled. No artifacts or other cultural heritage resources were found in the test pits and no structural remains were noted. Since nothing of archaeological or heritage significance, from either the historic or pre-contact time periods, was discovered on the subject property during the Stage 1 and 2 assessments, a


complete clearance of archaeological condition on the subject property is recommended. Construction work and/or soil disturbance however, must not occur until a signed clearance letter has been issued by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC). The MTC also requires that structures greater than 40 years old be assessed for cultural heritage value as part of the Class EA process. Through correspondence with MTC, it was confirmed that the characteristics and condition of the existing bridge preclude the requirement for a Heritage Impact Assessment for this project. 3.4 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS / CONSIDERATIONS A geotechnical investigation was conducted to document the subsurface soil profile in the proposed location of the replacement bridge, identify potential groundwater concerns in the area, and provide geotechnical recommendations for construction. The full report is provided as Appendix 5. Borehole drilling was undertaken at eight sites to obtain information on existing soil conditions. Soil samples were obtained from each of the boreholes and submitted for laboratory testing. The subsurface conditions were comprised of predominantly existing asphaltic concrete underlain by fill soils (sand and gravel fill, silty sand fill, silty clay fill) overlying native sand and silt till. On the paved surfaces, asphaltic concrete was approximately 35 mm to 40 mm in thickness. Sand and gravel fill was encountered underlying the asphaltic concrete to a depth of about 0.2 m to 0.9 m. Groundwater levels were monitored in open boreholes during the course of the fieldwork and upon completion of drilling. Groundwater was encountered in four of the eight boreholes. Groundwater depths ranged from 3.2 m to 7.6 m below grade, which is well below the elevation of the bridge footings. No interference with groundwater, or private wells dependent on groundwater, is anticipated. For detailed results, refer to the borehole logs in Appendix 5.


Figure 9. A

rchaeological A

ssessment Zo

nes


4.0 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS AND EVALUATION PROCESS The main focus of Phase 2 of the Class EA process is the identification and evaluation of various solutions to the problems identified at the onset of the assignment. The following sections outline the process that was followed to review and evaluate potential solutions. 4.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Class EA planning process requires that various reasonable and feasible solutions to the identified problem be examined, including the option of “Do Nothing”. The following alternative solutions were considered for this project:

1. Do Nothing – no change to the bridge or current operation of the road. 2. Bridge Repair – repair the existing bridge structure without addressing width deficiency. 3. Bridge Reconstruction – replacement of the existing bridge with a new structure of

proper width.

4. Road Closure – permanent closure of the section of Columbus Road at White’s Bridge.

5. Diversion of Traffic – long-term re-routing of traffic until such time as bridge safety issues can be addressed.

6. Bridge Modification – changes to the bridge to widen the structure to correct the width deficiency.

Alternatives 4, 5, and 6: Road Closure, Diversion of Traffic and Bridge Modification were considered during an initial screening of potential alternatives at the onset of the project. Road Closure and Diversion of Traffic were not considered feasible, because Columbus Road is identified by the Town as a key local Municipal arterial. Columbus Road provides an integral service across the Town, and connects into other Regional and Provincial transportation systems both within the Municipal boundaries and beyond (Town of Whitby, 2010). Further, the Bridge Modification option was not considered feasible as the modifications would not address the basic structural and road geometry concerns identified as the root problem to be solved. 4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA The three ‘feasible’ alternatives (1, 2 and 3) were evaluated on the basis of how well the problems and opportunities could be addressed by each. Table 3 provides a summary of the criteria and measures that were used for evaluating each alternative solution.


Table 3: Alternative Solution Evaluation Criteria

Natural Environment

Natural Habitat and Species

What are the temporary and long-term impacts to natural vegetation communities? What is the extent of impacts to terrestrial and avian wildlife habitat and species at risk? Will the alternative solution have a negative effect, no effect or a positive effect on habitat and species?

Forest Cover

What are the potential long-term impacts to the existing forest cover? Will the alternative solution have a negative effect, a neutral effect or a net benefit to forest cover? Or will the alternative solution produce a negative impact that cannot be mitigated?

Watercourse

What are the potential impacts on Lynde Creek and local tributaries, including aquatic habitat and natural hazards? Will the alternative solution have residual effects on the features and functions of the creek? Is a net benefit to either features or functions anticipated?

Valleyland What are the potential effects of the alternative solution on the existing wildlife corridor? Will the existing wildlife corridor worsen, stay the same or improve?

Construction Impacts

During the construction phase of the project, what are the potential impacts to the natural environment? What are the extent of impacts of noise to natural habitat, disturbance to local groundwater and sedimentation of the watercourse?

Social Environment

Public Safety How does the alternative solution affect public safety, including the bridge deck width and the load carrying capacity of the bridge? Will safety issues worsen, stay the same, or be improved?

Land Tenancy How many existing property owners will be impacted? Will property beyond the road right-of-way be required?

Cycling and Leisure Trails Plan

Is the alternative solution consistent with the direction and goals of the Town’s Cycling and Leisure Trails Plan? Will the proposed alternative provide opportunities to achieve the goals of the plan, or will it preclude future opportunities?

Construction Disturbance

During the construction phase of the project, what are the potential disturbances to the social environment, including noise disturbances to local residents, movement of traffic, vibration, dust accumulation and impact on well water supplies? Will construction disturbance issues worsen, stay the same, or be improved?

Economic Environment

Capital Cost What is the capital construction cost of the alternative solution? Is the cost within the expected range of the Town’s budget, prohibitively expensive, or less costly than anticipated?

Property Cost What is the capital cost of acquiring property for the alternative solution? Is the cost within the expected range of the Town’s budget, prohibitively expensive, or less costly than anticipated?

Maintenance

What are the costs associated with maintaining and operating the bridge to Town standards? Will the alternative solution change the current costs associated with maintenance and operation of the structure today? Will the costs decrease, stay the same or increase?


Table 3: Alternative Solution Evaluation Criteria (cont’d)

Cultural Environment

Archaeological Resources What are the impacts on historical artifacts and cultural heritage? Will cultural heritage resources be affected by soil disturbance?

Built Heritage Are there any culturally significant buildings or structures that may be affected? Will significant buildings or structures be affected by soil disturbance?

Technical Factors

Construction What is the construction duration for the alternative solution? Are there construction complexities related to the alternative solution?

Utility Conflict Are there any conflicts with utilities in the proposed construction area of the alternative solution?

4.3 EVALUATION PROCESS Based upon the criteria presented in Section 4.2, each alternative solution was evaluated in the context of natural, social, cultural, and economic environments. For each of the criteria, a scoring system of relative merit was used, as outlined in Table 4. Table 4: Ratings for the Alternative Solutions Evaluation Matrix

● MOST PREFERRED The effect will be positive, and may provide an overall benefit compared to existing conditions.

◕ BETTER THAN NEUTRAL The effect will be somewhat positive compared to the existing condition, but there may be minor impacts that require mitigation measures.

◑ NEUTRAL There will be no change, either positive or negative, to the existing condition.

◔ WORSE THAN NEUTRAL The effect will be somewhat negative compared to the existing condition, but may be acceptable if appropriate mitigation measures can be utilized.

○ LEAST PREFERRED The effect will be negative, and impacts cannot easily be mitigated.

To evaluate each alternative solution, professional judgement was used to weigh the significance of each criterion, dependent upon the magnitude of potential impact. The evaluation of alternatives was circulated to the Class EA stakeholders for comment and input as part of the overall public consultation plan. The results of the evaluation are presented in Table 5.


4.3.1 Do Nothing It was concluded that ‘Do Nothing’ is not a viable option, as it fails to address the fundamental safety issues identified in the bridge inspection report. Without addressing safety issues, regular inspection and maintenance costs are greatly elevated, and there is potential for closure of the bridge and road as an emergency measure. Although there are no impacts to the natural and cultural environments with this alternative, the negative social and economic impacts would be significant, thus eliminating further consideration. 4.3.2 Bridge Repair A short-term repair of the bridge structure would address immediate structural concerns, but would not address the design deficiencies: a substandard deck width and road grade. Due to the age of the structure, and the materials from which it was constructed, full replacement in the near-term would be inevitable. Consequently, it is not considered economically practical to expend funds on repairing the bridge when a replacement would be required in the near future. There would be minimal immediate impact to natural, social and cultural environments, but the short-term repair would not address all safety concerns. It was therefore not considered to be the best option. 4.3.3 Bridge Reconstruction Full reconstruction of the existing bridge was considered to be the best solution to address all safety issues, and maintain the viability of the road as an important local Municipal arterial route to provide integral service across the Town and connect into other Regional and Provincial transportation systems both within the Municipal boundaries and beyond. The new bridge structure will be designed and constructed according to current bridge standards, and provide wider lanes for traffic to improve existing conditions. The overall footprint of the new bridge structure and approaches will be larger than existing, requiring encroachment into the vegetated areas beyond the road right-of-way and onto private property. The new bridge structure, however, would result in a longer span of Lynde Creek which provides an opportunity to improve watercourse form and wildlife corridor functions of the valley.


Tab

le 5

: Alte

rnat

ive

Sol

utio

n E

valu

atio

n M

atrix


Tab

le 5

: Alte

rnat

ive

Sol

utio

n E

valu

atio

n M

atrix

(co

nt’d

)


Tab

le 5

: Alte

rnat

ive

Sol

utio

n E

valu

atio

n M

atrix

(co

nt’d

)


5.0 PREFERRED SOLUTION The evaluation of the alternative solutions was presented to the public and review agencies for comment and input. Details of this consultation process are provided in Section 6.0 of this report. It was concluded that Alternative 3 – Bridge Reconstruction was of most benefit overall, most importantly to address safety. After selection of the preferred solution, the project scope was re-reviewed and it was confirmed that Schedule ‘B’ of the Municipal Class EA process was appropriate. 5.1 BRIDGE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Full reconstruction of White’s Bridge will address the safety issues identified at the outset of the project, and will maintain the viability of Columbus Road as an important arterial route across the Town and Region. The new bridge structure will be designed for 2-lanes, consistent with the traffic needs of the 2031 planning horizon outlined in the Town’s Transportation Master Plan (refer to Section 2.2). Beyond the 2031 horizon, the bridge structure can be widened to accommodate additional lanes, if traffic warrants at that time. The newly designed 2-lanes will be wider to improve existing traffic conditions (Figure 10). This will result in a larger overall footprint for the new bridge structure and approaches, requiring encroachment into the vegetated areas beyond the road right-of-way and onto private property. The new structure, however, will result in a longer span of Lynde Creek, which provides an opportunity to improve watercourse form and wildlife corridor functions of the valley. To further improve watercourse function and stream bank habitat, the existing bridge abutments will be fully removed from the watercourse. The design of the replacement bridge will be carried out in accordance with the latest edition of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, and the road design will be in accordance with the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, Transportation Association of Canada (TAC). To guide detailed design for the replacement bridge structure, various profile (vertical alignment) and centreline (horizontal alignment) alternatives were considered: Profile (vertical alignment) options:

Option 1: This option would have a road sag* of 17, with the addition of illumination. It would utilize a design speed of 80 km/h and require a bridge span of 31 m.

Option 2: This option would have a road sag of 20, without illumination. It would utilize a

design speed of 70 km/h and require a bridge span of 32 m. Option 3: This option would have a road sag of 25, without illumination. It would utilize a

design speed of 80 km/h and require a bridge span of 35 m.

* Road sag is the valley section of a roadway, and is defined by a non-dimensional geometric parameter where the valley becomes flatter as the number increases.


Centerline (horizontal alignment) options:

Option A: Constructing the bridge at approximately the centreline of the municipal right-of-way

Option B: Constructing the bridge 3.5m off the centreline of the municipal right-of-way

The profile and centreline options were evaluated to determine whether any possessed an economic advantage over the others. Consideration was given to constructing the bridge to one side to achieve cost savings by salvaging portions of the bridge when widened in the future. A present value analysis, however, identified that it is economically advantageous to construct any of the three profile options at approximately the centreline of the municipal right-of-way, rather than constructing the bridge to one side of the right-of-way. Table 6 shows the present value analysis for the three profile options for both of the centreline options. Table 6: Present Value Analysis for the Reconstruction of White’s Bridge

Present Value Analysis for the Reconstruction of White’s Bridge

Option A – Bridge Constructed at Approximately the Centreline ROW

Profile Options Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Illumination $ 30 000 $ 0 $ 0

Bridge $1 000 000 $1 010 000 $1 100 000

Approach embankment footprint $ 4 000 $ 12 000 $ 30 000

Tie-in to approach roads $ 70 000 $ 100 000 $ 125 000

Total preliminary cost estimate to construct at the centreline of the road

$1 104 000 $1 122 000 $1 255 000

Option B – Bridge Constructed 3.5m Off Center Line

Additional cost of shifting bridge 3.5 m to either side of the centreline

$ 175 000 $ 200 000 $ 250 000

Since the cost estimates for Profile Options 1 to 3 are within 15% of each other, any of the alternatives would be acceptable for implementation based solely on economics. A summary of the design issues is presented in Table 7 to assist with understanding the reconstruction options that will be explored at the detailed design phase.


Table 7: Evaluation of Reconstruction Options for White’s Bridge Positive Issues Negative Issues

Profile Alternatives Option 1 Least amount of grade raise over

the existing profile, approximately 500 mm required

80 km/h design speed

Illumination is required which creates light pollution and requires energy

More care needed to operate vehicles at night in ‘black-out’ conditions

Option 2 No illumination required Higher grade raise, approximately 900mm required

70 km/h design speed

Option 3 No illumination required 80 km/h design speed

Highest grade raise; approximately 1400 mm required

Wider approach embankment footprint required (more property required)

Center Line Alternatives Option A Lowest present value cost option

Least impact to current approach embankments and footprint width

Road alignment remains tangential

Future widening would be required on both sides, hence increasing construction duration

Option B Decreased construction duration for future widening

Highest present value cost option Greater impact to environment with

wider approach embankment Non-tangential road alignment on bridge

approaches in the interim stage Saved parapet wall may require future

repairs 5.2 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS In support of the preferred solution for White’s Bridge reconstruction, the hydrology and hydraulics of the site were reviewed. Existing conditions were compared to proposed conditions, to determine if there would be any change (positive or negative) resulting from the new structure. It was found that the proposed bridge would not significantly alter the existing hydraulic characteristics at the site, as the flows of the Regulatory Storm currently pass under the existing bridge with sufficient clearance to the underside of the concrete beams supporting the deck. The replacement bridge will be situated such that the bottom of the new girders will remain above the Regulatory Storm flood elevation. During detailed design, the hydraulic model for the site will be updated to reflect the new crossing and reviewed to confirm that any changes, upstream or downstream, caused by the new waterway opening are insignificant.


Figure 10. Proposed Bridge Plan View, Elevation, and Deck Section

DECK SECTION

ELEVATION

PLAN VIEW


5.3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Under current conditions, there is no formal stormwater management at the bridge site. Stormwater is conveyed from the road approaches and bridge deck directly to the watercourse, by way of catch basins and deck drains. As indicated by the MOE through correspondence pertaining to this Class EA, stormwater runoff from new pavement can impact receiving watercourses and flood conditions. To address this condition, the proposed design of the replacement bridge includes concrete curbs along the sides of the deck and concrete curb and gutter along the shoulders of the approaches to capture and convey stormwater runoff away from the watercourse. The overall proposed grade at the site will direct stormwater from east to west across the bridge, and be conveyed into grassed swales (roadside ditches), where the water can be filtered before discharging back into the watercourse. The intent is to improve water quality at the site by reducing the condition whereby potentially contaminated water is discharged directly to the watercourse. With capture and conveyance of stormwater from the bridge deck and road approaches, there is an opportunity for natural grassed swale treatment before discharge to the watercourse. 5.4 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Throughout the consultative planning and design process, potential environmental concerns were identified, to allow for design modifications to eliminate impact wherever possible. Where re-design could not entirely eliminate potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures were incorporated to limit the effect of the impacts. Specifically, multi-agency meetings were held among CLOC, MNR, DFO, the Town of Whitby, Geomorphic Solutions and SRM Associates to discuss specific design issues. Table 8 provides a summary of all mitigation measures that were incorporated into the design and implementation plan for this project. 5.5 PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS To accommodate the site grading that will be required for installation of a larger bridge structure, the Town of Whitby will require land on the margins of adjacent properties. The proposed limits of property requirements for grading are shown on Figure 11.


Figure 11. Property Requirements for Proposed Grading

Zoomed-in view of property requirements

Not to Scale

960 Columbus Rd. W. 300m2




Table 8: Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures ISSUE POTENTIAL IMPACTS PROPOSED MITIGATION

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

WATERCOURSE

Erosion and sedimentation

Erosion and sediment controls will be installed around the watercourse prior to construction activities, and maintained throughout the duration of the project. Specific measures will be clearly outlined on detailed design drawings in accordance with the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities’ Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction (2006). Extent and duration of exposed soils will be minimized and restored quickly. Double heavy duty sediment control fencing with straw bales will be a requirement of the MNR to protect Redside Dace habitat.

Water quality degradation

The existing bridge design has deck drains which allow for road runoff to discharge directly into the watercourse. The new design of the bridge will direct stormwater runoff to grassed swales for treatment and water quality improvements before discharging to the creek.

Impacts to geomorphology

The new bridge span will allow for the construction of a low-flow channel under the bridge which will improve natural watercourse form and function.

Impacts to the aquatic community

The cold water construction timing window of July 1 to September 15 will be adhered to for the protection of aquatic species within the watercourse.

Species at Risk

To prevent possible disruption to the habitat of Redside Dace, a Species at Risk permit will be acquired from the MNR. All in-stream work will be completed in an isolated area, with fish removed from the area by a qualified technician with a valid Licence to Collect Fish for Scientific Purposes from MNR. Double heavy duty sediment control fencing with straw bales will be a requirement of the MNR to protect Redside Dace habitat.

VALLEY LAND Loss of habitat and wildlife corridor function

The existing three-span structure restricts the wildlife corridor function. The new bridge span will be greater than the existing span, thereby increasing the area available under the bridge for wildlife corridor functions.

VEGETATION Removal of vegetation from natural communities

No rare or significant species were located within the disturbance zone for the proposed bridge, however a black walnut sapling (uncommon species for Durham Region) was found. Tree removals will be necessary for construction and grading, so the limit of construction should be staked out to minimize unnecessary removal of vegetation. Any re-vegetation plans will use only native species suitable to the site conditions, and compatible with the adjacent communities. Incorporation of black walnut into restoration plans should be considered.

WILDLIFE Disturbance to breeding and nesting birds

Tree clearing will occur outside of the nesting period for local migratory and resident birds to limit potential impact and comply with regulations of the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Tree clearing will occur before May 1, or after July 15. Otherwise, a nesting survey will be completed to ensure that there are no nesting migratory birds present at the time of clearing. Tree clearing shall not include stump removal or soil exposure within the Regulated Area of the watercourse until the in-water construction window (July 1 – September 15).


Table 8: Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures (cont’d)

ISSUE POTENTIAL IMPACTS

PROPOSED MITIGATION

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

NOISE Elevated noise levels during construction

Regional and Town noise by-laws will be adhered to for hours of construction operation.

VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC

Road closures during construction

Adequate detours will be delineated, and construction will be expedited to minimize delays.

VIBRATION Vibration disturbance from construction operations

Vibration in the vicinity of the bridge will occur during bridge reconstruction and be limited to the duration of approximately one week.

AIR QUALITY Dust and pollution from construction operations

During dry periods, bare soil will be covered with water and non-chloride dust suppressant to limit generation of excessive dust. All disturbed areas will be restored quickly. Odour and pollution impacts will be minimized by ensuring that all equipment is properly maintained and that all pollution control devices on the equipment are operating properly.

WASTE

Generation of construction related waste in proximity to a natural area

All waste generated during construction will be disposed of in a proper manner.

5.6 PERMITTING AND APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS / GUIDELINES Throughout the planning and design process of this Class EA, and through consultations with review and approval agencies, a number of legislative and policy guidelines were identified as being relevant to the project. Each of the following permits and/or approvals applies to the project. Fisheries Act CLOC has a Level 3 work-sharing agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to administer Section 35 of the federal Fisheries Act. This agreement enables CLOC to conduct the review of in-stream activities to determine if there will be any impact on fish and fish habitat. If no residual Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of fish habitat will result from the project, a Letter of Advice to proceed may be issued. If it is determined that an Authorization is required under s.35, a screening under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) would also be triggered. The documentation from this Class EA process can be used to support the CEAA screening. Transport Canada confirmed that Lynde Creek was not considered navigable at this location; therefore no approval is required under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Endangered Species Act White’s Bridge crosses a tributary of Lynde Creek which is identified by the MNR as an occupied Redside Dace reach. Redside Dace is listed as provincially endangered and receives species protection under s.9 and general habitat protection under s.10 of the Endangered


Species Act, 2007. Any of the proposed works that will cause harm to the species and/or its habitat will require a permit under s.17(2)(c) before commencing. Greenbelt Act Section 4.2.1 of the Greenbelt Plan contains policies that pertain to infrastructure projects. The Class EA study area falls within the Natural Heritage System of the Protected Countryside within the Greenbelt Plan. Infrastructure projects that are approved under the Environmental Assessment Act are permitted within the Protected Countryside, provided that the policies of the Plan are adhered to. The policies were reviewed, and the project as proposed meets all requirements.

The bridge reconstruction serves growth and development within southern Ontario by maintaining infrastructure that connects settlement areas.

The proposed bridge reconstruction minimizes intrusion into the Greenbelt by maintaining the existing infrastructure location.

Proposed design and construction practices minimize negative impacts and disturbance to the existing landscape, wherever possible.

The bridge reconstruction is coordinated with long-term transportation plans so that the rural and existing character of the Protected Countryside, the overall urban structure for southern Ontario and any provincial growth management initiatives are supported.

The design of the bridge reconstruction minimizes encroachment into key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features of the Greenbelt.

The bridge reconstruction minimizes negative impacts and disturbance on key natural heritage and hydrologic features, and improves connectivity of natural features.

Planning Act Under the authority of Section 3 of the Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement provides policy direction on matters of Provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Specific policies pertaining to infrastructure, natural heritage and cultural heritage were reviewed, and it was determined that the project as proposed meets all requirements.

The bridge reconstruction will be conducted in a coordinated, efficient and cost effective manner to accommodate projected needs.

The bridge reconstruction is integrated with planning for growth so that it meets current and projected needs.

The proposed bridge reconstruction will improve use of the existing facility, and be designed to current bridge design guidelines to improve the safety of emergency services delivery over the long-term.

Impacts to natural heritage features and functions of the area will be restored and where possible be improved. The bridge reconstruction design recognizes linkages for wildlife corridor functions.

Site alteration within areas identified as fish habitat is planned in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.

No significant built heritage or archaeological resources were located within the study area.


Ontario Regulation 42/06 – Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses The proposed bridge reconstruction falls within an area regulated by Central Lake Ontario Conservation (CLOC). Under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, each Conservation Authority has the ability to regulate alterations or interference with watercourses or wetlands in the area over which it has jurisdiction. Any work within a regulated area requires a permit from the CLOC. 5.7 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING Upon completion of the Class EA process, detailed design of the bridge will commence. Given the environmental timing restrictions associated with fisheries and wildlife, construction will likely commence in the summer; specifically, all in-water work will occur between July 1 and September 15. Details of environmental protection measures, mitigation strategies, and construction monitoring will be provided to contractors as per the recommendations in this report. Since a complete road closure will be required for the bridge reconstruction, a detour route will be reviewed with the Town and examined in more detail during the detailed design phase of the project. Advanced notifications (i.e. website, mail-outs, and newspaper advertisements) will be provided to the public prior to implementation of any detours. A construction monitoring program will also be implemented to ensure compliance with the contract requirements regarding construction practices specified for the project, and to assess the overall performance and effectiveness of the required environmental mitigation measures in the field. Provincial, Regional, local municipal, and Conservation Authority standards and procedures will be used by the Town to ensure that this project is constructed as specified in the contract documents, with monitoring in accordance with ‘industry standard’ inspection practices. Approvals and permits as outlined in Section 5.5 of this report will be secured prior to the construction of this project.


6.0 PUBLIC AND REVIEW AGENCY CONSULTATION PROGRAM Consultation with the public and review agencies throughout all planning and design phases of a project is a key component of the Class EA process. Effective consultation provides an opportunity for all stakeholders to have a meaningful exchange of ideas and information. This collaborative approach results in better project design, less controversy, and consistent application of relevant legislative and policy guidelines. Section 1.3 of this report outlined the three phases of the Schedule ‘B’ Class EA process, indicating where points of public and agency consultation were mandatory. The following sections provide the details of each of these consultations, and the overall approach to soliciting meaningful project input. 6.1 STAKEHOLDERS AND NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT In Phase 1 of the Class EA process, the key project problems and opportunities were identified. At that time, a stakeholder list was compiled, representing all parties that could have an interest or regulatory authority over the project. The stakeholder list was comprised of members of the general public, government review agencies, municipal staff, First Nations, and any organizations or individuals that expressed an interest in the project. The list of stakeholders is summarized below, with a full contact list provided as Appendix 6. Ministry of Environment Ministry of Tourism and Culture

Regional Municipality of Durham Department of Fisheries & Oceans Canada

Durham EMS Canada Post Corporation

Durham Region Environmental Advisory Committee Transport Canada

Durham Regional Police Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Durham District School Board Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure

Durham Catholic District School Board Assembly of First Nations

Durham Student Transportation Services Chiefs of Ontario

Town of Whitby Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

Whitby Fire Department Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs

Central Lake Ontario Conservation Ministry of the Attorney General

To complete Phase 1 of the Class EA process, a Notice of Study Commencement was circulated to all stakeholders to initiate the consultation process. A copy of the Notice that was provided to all stakeholders is included in Appendix 7. 6.2 CONSULTATION WITH REVIEW AGENCIES In response to the Notice of Study Commencement, a number of comments were received from review and approval agencies, indicating their particular interests in the project. All Class EA related correspondence is provided as Appendix 8. Table 9 summarizes the issues that were raised by the review agencies, and the approach that was taken to address each of the concerns.


Table 9: Legislative and Policy Issues Identified by Review Agencies

ISSUE RESPONSE REPORT SECTION

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

Impacts to ecosystem form and function must be avoided where possible. Proposed mitigation measures and project planning should protect and enhance the local ecosystem.

Ecosystem form and function was studied as part of the existing environment documentation. Important features were identified and considered during the planning and design phases of the project. Mitigation measures were outlined for any potential residual impacts.

3.1

5.4

All natural heritage features should be identified and described in detail to assess potential impacts and to develop appropriate mitigation measures.

A natural heritage inventory was conducted as part of the existing environment documentation. Mitigation measures for potential impacts were based on that assessment.

3.1

5.4

Consult with the MNR, DFO and the local Conservation Authority to determine sensitivity of the ESA’s, watercourses, and woodlots in the study area.

The agencies were contacted to obtain relevant natural heritage information, and determine sensitivity of the features in the study area.

3.1.1

Demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or ecological functions of any watercourses within the Study Area. The MOE Guideline B-6, Evaluating Construction Activities Impacting on Water Resources should be used to plan and construct this project.

A study of Lynde Creek was conducted to determine the local sensitivities of the site. MOE Guideline B-6, Evaluating Construction Activities Impacting on Water Resources was reviewed, and appropriate mitigation measures were recommended to minimize potential impact.

3.1.2

5.4

Quality and quantity control measures to treat stormwater runoff should be considered for all new impervious areas and, where possible, existing surfaces.

The existing rural road cross-section will be maintained on the bridge approaches. The existing stormwater controls measures (deck drains) will be replaced with concrete curbs to direct drainage to grassed swales. No storm sewers are being proposed nor alteration to existing drainage patterns.

5.3

MOE’s Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (2003) should be referenced in the Project File and utilized when designing stormwater control methods. We recommend that Level 1 (enhanced) water quality is maintained.

The existing rural road cross-section will be maintained on the bridge approaches. The existing stormwater controls measures (deck drains) will be replaced with concrete curbs to direct drainage to grassed swales. No storm sewers are being proposed nor alteration to existing drainage patterns.

5.3

The status of and potential impacts to any well water supplies should be addressed. Appropriate information to define existing groundwater conditions should be included in the Project File.

Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 3.2 m to 7.6 m below grade, which is well below the elevation of the bridge footings. No interference with groundwater, or private wells dependent on groundwater, is anticipated.

3.1.6


Table 9: Legislative and Policy Issues Identified by Review Agencies (cont’d)



If the potential construction or decommissioning of water wells is identified as an issue, the Project File should refer to Ontario Regulation 903, Wells, under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

No construction or decommissioning of wells is required as part of this project.

n/a

Potential impacts to groundwater dependent natural features should be addressed, and appropriate mitigation measures provided. The level of detail required will be dependent on the significance of the potential impacts.

All excavations are expected to be above the groundwater table. Therefore, no disruption to groundwater-dependent features is anticipated. Further, no damming or pumping of the watercourse is required.

3.1.6

Any requirements for groundwater takings or discharge should be identified, and takings exceeding 50,000 L/day will require a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) under the Ontario Water Resources Act. Refer to the MOE Permit to Take Water Manual (April 2005).

Based upon the results of the geotechnical investigation, it is anticipated that no PTTW will be required for this project.

3.1.6

Dust and noise control measures should be addressed in construction plans to minimize effects on sensitive land uses. If dust suppressants are proposed, only non-chloride based compounds should be utilized to protect water quality.

Regional and Town noise by-laws will be respected for hours of construction operation. During dry periods, bare soil will be covered with water and non-chloride dust suppressant to limit generation of excessive dust. All disturbed areas will be restored quickly.

5.4

The Project File should consider the potential impacts of increased noise levels during the operation of the undertaking, and potentially higher traffic volumes resulting from this project. All potential measures to mitigate significant noise impacts during the assessment of alternatives should be explored.

Regional and Town noise by-laws will be respected for hours of construction operation. The road capacity will not change as a result of the bridge reconstruction; therefore traffic volumes will not be affected.

5.4

Prior to removal or movement of soil, contaminant levels testing should occur. If soils are contaminated, disposal should be consistent with Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Regulation 153/04.

Soil samples from the geotechnical investigation were analyzed and compared with criteria under the Ministry of Environment’s Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. The parameters tested satisfy the commercial standards.

3.1.6

5.4

If contaminated sites are present on the study site, contact the MOE York Durham District Office in Ajax for further consultation.

No contaminated sites were found in the study area.

3.1.6





The location of underground storage tanks should be identified, and measures should be taken to ensure integrity of the tanks. The MOE Spills Action Centre must be contacted in the event of a spill.

An environmental risk assessment report was obtained, providing confirmation that there are no underground storage tanks in the Class EA study area.

3.2.3

Any current or historical waste disposal sites should be identified, and status determined pursuant to Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act.

Regional and Township records were searched, and an environmental risk assessment report was obtained, providing confirmation that there are no waste disposal sites in the Class EA study area.

3.2.3

Underground transmission lines should be identified, and owners consulted to avoid impacts to this infrastructure.

Underground transmission line companies were contacted as part of the stakeholder consultation for this project. No facilities were identified in the Class EA study area.

3.2.2

Design and construction reports and plans should be based on a best management practices approach to limit impact on the existing environment.

Recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures and best management practices for construction were provided, and will be incorporated into detailed design drawings and documents.

5.4

All waste generated during construction must be disposed of in accordance with MOE requirements.

Recommendations for appropriate waste disposal are provided. 5.4

Contractors must be made aware of all environmental protection measures, and mitigation measures should be monitored during construction. A post-construction monitoring plan is also recommended.

Details of environmental protection measures, mitigation strategies, and construction monitoring will be provided to contractors as per the recommendations in this report.

5.6

Demonstrate adherence to Section 4.2.1 – General Infrastructure Policies of the Greenbelt Plan.

The Greenbelt Plan was reviewed, and it was confirmed that the proposed project conforms with all relevant infrastructure policies.

5.5

Demonstrate consistency with applicable policies of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement.

The Provincial Policy Statement was reviewed, and it was confirmed that the proposed project conforms with all relevant policies.

5.5

Provide clear and complete documentation of the Class EA planning process, and demonstrate how public consultation requirements have been met.

Full public consultation was employed throughout the Class EA process, with all required documentation provided within this Project File Report (including appendices).

6.0





Identify all potential impacts of the alternative solutions considered. Provide supporting studies referenced in the Class EA document.

Supporting studies for the Class EA are summarized in this report and are appended for public and agency review.

3.0

4.0

5.0

Provide a list of all permits and approvals that are required for implementation of the preferred solution. Including Permits to Take Water, Certificates of Approval, or other ministerial approvals under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and Conservation Authority permits.

All required permits and approvals are identified, including those that could trigger a screening under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

5.5

Contact the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to determine potentially affected Aboriginal peoples in the project area.

First Nations and the associated provincial and federal agencies responsible for First Nations affairs were contacted through the public consultation process for this Class EA.

6.3

Provide notification directly to the Aboriginal peoples who may be affected by the project, and provide an opportunity to participate in public consultation on the project.

Notification to specific First Nations identified as having an interest in the Study Area were contacted directly to solicit input and provide an opportunity for participation in consultations.

6.3

Review all applicable MOE guidelines and reference relevant information in the Project File.

All applicable MOE guidelines were reviewed and referenced in this report as appropriate.

5.0

MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

If any Aboriginal archaeological resources could be impacted by your project, you should contact your regulating or approving Ministry to inquire about whether any additional Aboriginal communities should be contacted.

The cultural heritage assessment confirmed that there were no artifacts or cultural heritage resources in the Class EA study area.

3.3

Aboriginal communities with an interest in archaeological resources may include communities who are not presently located in the vicinity of the project.

Aboriginal communities identified by relevant agencies were included in the stakeholder list.

6.3

The project appears to be located in an area where First Nations may have existing or asserted rights or claims in MAA’s land claims process or litigation that could be impacted by your project. Contact should be made with the identified communities.

Communities identified by MAA were included in the stakeholder list to ensure contact is made with communities.

6.3


Table 9: Legislative and Policy Issues Identified By Review Agencies (cont’d)


MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

The Government of Canada sometimes receives claims that Ontario does not receive, or with which Ontario does not become involved. It is recommended that the provided federal contacts be contacted.

The federal contacts provided were included in the stakeholder list.

6.3

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

The study area is located upstream of an occupied Redside Dace reach. The MNR has records of Butternut in the vicinity of the study area. Both Redside Dace and Butternut receive protection under the Endangered Species Act 2007.

Designation of species at risk habitat in the Class EA study area was acknowledged. It was confirmed that Butternut was not located within the study area.

3.1.4

Natural heritage features recorded for the study area include the Heber Down Iroquois Beach ANSI, the provincially significant Heber Down Wetland Complex, and a number of identified wetlands as well as an Environmentally Significant Area.

The presence and sensitivity of these features was identified, and appropriate mitigation measures were recommended.

3.1.1

Report all information related to any species at risk to the NHIC and to the MNR office.

No new information on species at risk was documented as part of this study.

n/a

MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND CULTURE

An archaeological assessment is required for the entire project area prior to ground disturbance or site alteration.

An archaeological assessment was conducted in accordance with Ministry guidelines. The Stage 1 and 2 assessments confirmed absence of cultural heritage resources.

3.3

A Built Landscape Checklist must be completed to determine if a Heritage Impact Assessment is required.

Heritage information pertaining to the bridge was submitted to MTC for review. It was confirmed that a Heritage Impact Assessment for the bridge structure was not required.

3.3

WHITBY FIRE DEPARTMENT

The bridge reconstruction would be required to support the weight of emergency vehicles.

The new bridge will support the weight of emergency vehicles.

5.0

Is temporary access going to be provided for east-west travel on Columbus Road?

East-west travel will not be provided during bridge reconstruction, which will last for about five months. However, access to local properties will be provided.

5.6

The width of the new construction should allow for traffic flow in both directions.

The new bridge will have a standard cross section that will allow for traffic flow in both directions.

5.0


6.3 CONSULTATION WITH FIRST NATIONS To assist with developing a meaningful stakeholders list for the project, and to fulfill the requirements of the Class EA process, correspondence was initiated with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Assembly of First Nations, and the Chiefs of Ontario to identify which First Nations would have a local interest in the project. The following individual Nations were identified by the agencies that responded:

Alderville First Nation

Curve Lake First Nation

Hiawatha First Nation

Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation

Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation

Upon identification of the First Nations with potential interests in the project, individual mailings of project Notices and Public Information documents were provided. Full correspondence details are provided in Appendix 8. 6.4 PROJECT INFORMATION PACKAGE It was identified early in the consultation process that it would be difficult for local stakeholders to attend a centralized Public Information Centre; hence a printed Project Information Package was chosen as a more effective form of communication due to the rural nature of the project, and the small number of local residents in the area. The preliminary selection of a preferred solution was communicated to all stakeholders through a Project Information Package, to outline the planning process to date and receive feedback on the proposed solution. The Project Information Package was mailed on March 10, 2011 to all individuals and agencies on the stakeholder list. An email Notice was also sent on March 10, 2011 to stakeholders who requested to be contacted by email. In addition, the Notice was included with the Project Information Package, posted on the Town of Whitby website on March 10, 2011, and advertised in Whitby This Week on March 11 and 16, 2011. Copies of the Notice and advertisement are provided in Appendix 7. A copy of the Project Information Package is provided in Appendix 9. 6.5 CONSULTATION WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC Project information was provided to the general public, including adjacent landowners, via a project website, newspaper advertisements, and mail-out packages. In addition to the formal points of consultation with review and regulatory agencies, correspondence was received from the general public, providing opinion and input on local issues for the project. Two residents requested a meeting with representatives of the Town of Whitby and the consultation team. The meetings were held on March 28, 2011 and April 4, 2011 to discuss the following issues:


project time frame grading and fill guiderail construction techniques landscaping future 4-lane bridge roadside ditch maintenance well water testing project next steps

local traffic concerns utility relocations construction access points sidewalks for pedestrians proposed bridge elevation compensation resurveying property limits

One resident was concerned with the maintenance of Country Lane, south of Columbus Road, as a result of traffic detouring during the construction phase of the project. The Town of Whitby has documented this concern. Further, the same resident requested continued use of the name White’s Bridge, as it is significant to them. Two other residents commented in support of the reconstruction of White’s Bridge. 6.6 NOTICE OF STUDY COMPLETION AND PROJECT FILE REPORT The Notice of Study Completion was sent to all stakeholders, including the property owners, detailing opportunities for review of the final Project File Report. Compilation of project files and filing of a Notice of Study Completion completes the Class EA process. The Notice was mailed directly to all stakeholders, and advertised in Whitby This Week on November 25 and 30, 2011. A copy of the Notice is provided in Appendix 6. The Project File Report is available for public review and comment for thirty (30) calendar days from the date on the Notice of Study Completion. Copies of the report are available for review and comment during normal business hours at the following locations listed below, and on-line at the Town of Whitby’s website:

Town of Whitby Municipal Building

Public Works Department 575 Rossland Rd. East Whitby, ON, L1N 2M8

905-430-4307

Whitby Public Library (Brooklin Branch)

8 Vipond Rd., Brooklin, ON, L1M 1B3

905-655-3191

Whitby Central Library 405 Dundas St. West Whitby,

ON, L1N 6A1 905-668-6531

If concerns regarding the project cannot be resolved in discussion with the Town of Whitby, a person or party may request that the Minister of the Environment make an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a Part II Order), which requires an Individual Environmental Assessment. An individual may also request the MOE to elevate the project to a Schedule ‘C’ project. Requests must be received by the Minister within the 30-day review period. If no new or outstanding concerns are brought forward during the review period, the Town may complete the detailed design and construction of the project. Anyone wishing to request a Part II Order must submit a written request, by the end of the thirty (30) calendar day review period (December 31, 2011), to the Minister of the Environment at the following address, with a copy sent to the Town’s Project Engineer. Hon. John Wilkinson Minister of the Environment 77 Wellesley Street West 11th Floor, Ferguson Block Toronto, ON, M7A 2T5

Horace Look, P. Eng Project Engineer, Works Department Town of Whitby 575 Rossland Road East Whitby, ON, L1N 2M8


7.0 REFERENCES Central Lake Ontario Conservation (CLOCA). (2005). Land & Water Conservation: Wetland

Evaluation. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. (2006). Ontario Regulation 42/06 made under the

Conservation Authorities Act. Central Lake Ontario Conservation (CLOCA), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). (2007). Central Lake Ontario Fisheries Management Plan – Draft. July 2007

Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. (2008). Lynde Creek Watershed Existing

Conditions Report Chapter 1 – Study Area. Department of Justice Canada. (1985). Fisheries Act (R.S., 1985, c. F-14). Department of Justice Canada. (1992). Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, c.37. Department of Justice Canada. (2002). Species at Risk Act (2002, c. 29). The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. (1978). Environmental Sensitivity Mapping

Project for the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. Markham, Ontario: Gartner Lee Associates Limited.

Town of Whitby. (2009). Office Consolidation Copy for the Whitby Official Plan. Town of Whitby. (2010). Town of Whitby Cycling and Leisure Trails Plan. Town of Whitby. (2010). Town of Whitby Transportation Master Plan. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (1990). Planning Act (R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P. 13). Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2005). Greenbelt Act (S.O. 2005). Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2005). Greenbelt Plan. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2005). Provincial Policy Statement. Ministry of Natural Resources. (2007). Endangered Species Act. Municipal Engineers Association. (2007). Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. October

2000, as amended 2007.

10361 Project File Report Final - Town of Whitby · 2011-12-05 · project file report schedule ‘b’ municipal class environmental assessment white’s bridge (structure no. 25)

Documents