DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION REPORThighway400innisfilbeach.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/...Design and...

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION REPORT

Highway 400 Structural Replacements at Innisfil Beach Road (Site No. 30-210) and Barrie/Collingwood Railway

(Site No. 30-209), Reconstruction of Highway 400 Innisfil Beach Road Interchange and Associated Works

MTO Assignment No. 2017-E-0030

G.W.P. 2493-15-00

MP Project No.: 0KM-17-7115-00

Prepared for:

Ministry of Transportation – Central Region

159 Sir William Hearst Ave. Building D, 2nd Floor

Toronto, Ontario M3M 0B7

Prepared by:

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

2010 Winston Park Drive, Suite 400

Oakville, Ontario, L6H 5R7

September 2020

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION REPORT

HIGHWAY 400 STRUCTURAL REPLACEMENTS AT INNISFIL BEACH ROAD (SITE NO. 30-210) AND

BARRIE/COLLINGWOOD RAILWAY (SITE NO. 30-209), RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY 400

INNISFIL BEACH ROAD INTERCHANGE AND ASSOCIATED WORKS

G.W.P. 2493-15-00

CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR PROVINCIAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES

GROUP ‘B’

Prepared by:


_____________________________ Nathan Farrell, MCIP, RPP, CAN-CISEC

Environmental Planner McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

_____________________________ Jeff King, C.Tech

Vice President, Environmental McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

Reviewed by:

Ministry of Transportation – Central Region

Jordan Lee _____________________________

Jordan Lee Environmental Planner

Ministry of Transportation

N. Kandiah

_______________________ Nanda Kandiah, P.Eng. Senior Project Engineer


Approved by:

Linda Fischer _____________________________

Linda Fischer Head, Environmental Planning


Jason White

_____________________________ Jason White, P. Eng.

Manager, Engineering Ministry of Transportation

Design and Construction Report Highway 400 Structures, Town of Innisfil

G.W.P 2493-15-00 MTO Assignment No. 2017-E-0030

i

THE PUBLIC RECORD

This Design and Construction Report has been prepared under the Ministry of Transpiration’s Class

Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities, in compliance with the requirements of the

Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. A Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR) was approved in

2004, and a subsequent TESR Addendum was approved in 2017, for the Highway 400 improvements from

Highway 89 to Highway 11. The recommendations from the TESR (URS, 2004) and TESR Addendum (AECOM,

2017) have been built upon as part of the Detail Design for the study area specified within.

This DCR is available for a 30-day agency and public review period commencing on September 17, 2020 and

ending on October 16, 2020. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, this document is only available electronically on the

Project Website: http://highway400innisfilbeach.com.

To obtain additional information, to provide comments, or if you have any accessibility requirements in order

to participate in this project, please contact one of the following Project Team members:

Ms. Laura Donaldson, P.Eng.

Consultant Project Manager


1-1329 Gardiners Road,

Kingston, ON K7P 0L8

T. (343) 344-2635

F. (613) 542-7583

E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Nanda Kandiah, P.Eng.

MTO Senior Project Engineer


159 Sir William Hearst Avenue, 4th Floor

Downsview, ON M3M 0B7

T. (416) 235-5397

F. (416) 253-3576

E-mail: [email protected]

Cette publication hautement spécialisée n'est disponible qu'en anglais en vertu du règlement 671/92, qui en

exempte la traduction selon l'application de la loi sur les services en français. Pour obtenir des renseignements

en français, veuillez communiquer avec le ministère des transports, bureau des services en français au: 905-

704-2045.

http://highway400innisfilbeach.com/

Design and Construction Report Highway 400 Structures, Town of Innisfil G.W.P 2493-15-00

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Central Region is planning to undertake improvements to

Highway 400 in the Town of Innisfil and City of Barrie. McIntosh Perry was retained by the MTO under

Assignment No. 2017-E-0030 to conduct a Detail Design and Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for the

replacement of the existing Highway 400 Innisfil Beach Road overpass structure (Site 30-210), replacement of

the Highway 400 Barrie-Collingwood Railway overhead structure (Site 30-209), widening of the Innisfil Beach

Road from 2-lanes to 4-lanes and reconfiguration of the Highway 400 Innisfil Beach Road interchange to

accommodate the future 10-lane widening of Highway 400. The project works are being completed under

Group Work Project (GWP) 2493-15-00.

A Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR) was approved in 2004, and a subsequent TESR Addendum

was approved in 2017, for Highway 400 improvements from Highway 89 to Highway 11. The recommendations

from the TESR (URS, 2004) and TESR Addendum (AECOM, 2017) have been built upon as part of the Detail

Design for the study area specified within.

This Design and Construction Report (DCR) presents the results of the transportation engineering and

environmental assessment study in accordance with the approved environmental planning process for Group

‘B’ undertakings under the MTO’s Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities

(MTO, 2000), approved under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act for provincial transportation projects

of a defined scope and magnitude. This Report has been prepared to document the consultation program,

recommended design details, environmental issues and commitments and construction monitoring

requirements.

The recommended design consists of the following:

• Staged removal of existing superstructure and substructure at both Highway 400 structures;

• Construction of substructure for the full future 10-lane Highway 400 cross-section at both structures;

• Construction of the superstructure will be limited to the interim 6-lane Highway 400 at both structures;

• Re-configuration of Innisfil Beach Road interchange;

• Vertical clearance to Innisfil Beach Road is minimum 5.1 m;

• Innisfil Beach Road cross-section includes 4 lanes plus speed change lanes, and an allowance for a 3.0

m Simcoe County Active Transportation trail;

• Vertical and horizontal clearance to Barrie-Collingwood Railway track in accordance with the Standard

Respecting Railway Clearance Guidelines;

• Installation of snowdrift mitigation measures at specific locations within project limits;

• Non-structural culvert replacements and extensions;

• Drainage improvements including two (2) Stormwater Management Ponds, and

• Roadside safety improvements.

Commitments have been made to protect environmental features with appropriate mitigation measures for

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, species at risk, traffic disruptions, and construction staging, among others.


iii

A Summary of Existing Environmental Concerns and Commitments Table is included in this document, which

outlines the environmental issues and concerns identified during the Class EA process and the measures and

approaches that have been developed to address these issues and concerns. All mitigation measures have been

incorporated into the Contract Documents for implementation during construction.

This DCR is available for a 30-day review period commencing on September 17, 2020 and ending on October

16, 2020. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, this document is only available electronically on the Project Website:

http://highway400innisfilbeach.com.

http://highway400innisfilbeach.com/


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE PUBLIC RECORD ..................................................................................................................................... I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. II

REFERENCE MATERIALS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ........................................................................... VII

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 1

1.2.1 Impact Assessment Act ................................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 CONSULTATION ................................................................................................................................. 4

2.3.1 Agency Meeting .............................................................................................................................................. 9

2.3.2 Private Stakeholder Meeting ........................................................................................................................ 11

3.0 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED DESIGN ................................................................ 12

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, ISSUES AND COMMITMENTS ......................................................... 15

4.1.1 Aquatic Habitat and Fish Communities ......................................................................................................... 15


v

4.1.2 Vegetation and Vegetation Communities ..................................................................................................... 17

4.1.3 Erosion and Sediment Control ...................................................................................................................... 20

4.1.4 Landscape Plantings ...................................................................................................................................... 20

4.1.5 Wetland Communities .................................................................................................................................. 20

4.1.6 Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................................... 21

4.1.7 Species At Risk ............................................................................................................................................... 21

4.1.8 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................................. 25

4.1.9 Surface Water ............................................................................................................................................... 25

4.2.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................................ 26

4.2.2 Designated areas ........................................................................................................................................... 27

4.2.3 Municipal Services and Traffic Operations ................................................................................................... 27

4.2.4 Construction Noise ........................................................................................................................................ 28

4.2.5 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................................... 28

4.2.6 Waste & Contamination ................................................................................................................................ 29

4.2.7 Utilities .......................................................................................................................................................... 30

4.2.8 Snow Drift Assessment ................................................................................................................................. 30

4.3.1 Archaeology .................................................................................................................................................. 30

4.3.2 Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape ........................................................................................... 31

5.0 FOLLOW UP AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING ................................................................................. 37

6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 38


vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Consultation Comments ....................................................................................................................... 6

Table 2: Summary of Agency Stakeholder Information Meeting Comments ......................................................................... 9

Table 3: Construction Noise Constraints ............................................................................................................................... 28

Table 4: Summary of Environmental Concerns and Commitments ....................................................................................... 32

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Highway 400 – Innisfil Study Area Key Map............................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2: Vegetation Communities and ELC Vegetation Types ............................................................................................. 19

Figure 3: Confirmed Eastern Meadowlark Habitat ............................................................................................................... 23

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Detail Design Consultation Materials

Appendix B – Recommended Design Drawing


vii

REFERENCE MATERIALS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

The following documents provide supporting information relative to this Class Environmental Assessment

Study. These documents are on file with the Ministry of Transportation – Central Region.

1. Air Quality Review, Highway 400 Bridge Replacements, MTO 2017-E-0030, prepared by RWDI, dated

September 11, 2019.

2. Cultural Heritage Technical Report, prepared by Unterman McPhail Associates Heritage Resource

Management Consultants, dated May 6, 2019 (revised January 14, 2020).

3. Designated Substance Survey, prepared by McIntosh Perry, dated November 20, 2018.

4. Drainage and Hydrology Report, prepared by McIntosh Perry, dated January 13, 2020.

5. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Technical Memo, prepared by McIntosh Perry, dated June 26, 2020.

6. Fish and Fish Habitat Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment Report, prepared by McIntosh Perry,

dated June 26, 2020.

7. Noise Assessment, Highway 400 Bridge Replacements, MTO 2017-E-0030, prepared by RWDI, dated

September 11, 2019.

8. Snow Drift Review, MTO Hwy 400 Innisfil Beach Road, Barrie, Ontario, prepared by RWDI, dated September

23, 2019.

9. Stage 1 & 2 Archaeological Assessments, prepared by Past Recovery Archaeological Services Inc., dated

March 14, 2020.

10. Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, prepared by Past Recovery Archaeological Services Inc., dated August

29, 2020.

11. Terrestrial Ecosystems Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment Report, prepared by McIntosh Perry,

dated December 13, 2019.


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

In 2004, a Preliminary Design Study and associated Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR) was

undertaken to document the required improvements and widening requirements along 30 km of Highway 400

from 1 km south of Highway 89 northerly to the Highway 400 junction at Highway 11. That study recommended

an ultimate 10-lane cross-section for Highway 400.

In 2014, a subsequent Preliminary Design Study was undertaken to provide an update of the required widening

improvements along the same stretch of Highway 400. The study included a review of the then-present (2013),

short-term (2021), and long-term (2031) transportation planning horizons and examined the transportation

problems, opportunities, and issues relating to the existing Highway 400 interchanges within the study area.

This study reaffirmed the need for widening of the Highway 400 corridor to 10 lanes before the year 2031. An

Addendum to the 2004 TESR was prepared and placed on the mandatory 30-Day Public Review Period, resulting

in an approved plan (AECOM, 2017).

In 2017, the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) retained McIntosh Perry to conduct Detail Design and

Environmental Assessment study for the replacement of the existing Highway 400 Innisfil Beach Road (IBR)

overpass structure (Site No. 30-210), replacement of the Highway 400 Barrie Collingwood Railway (BCR)

overhead structure (Site No. 30-209), widening of Innisfil Beach Road (IBR) from 2-lanes to 4-lanes, and

reconfiguration of the Highway 400 IBR interchange to accommodate the future Highway 400 widening, in the

Town of Innisfil (see Figure 1). The Detail Design is a continuation of the recommendations made during the

Preliminary Design Study.

This Design and Construction Report (DCR) presents the results of the transportation engineering and

environmental assessment study in accordance with the approved environmental planning process for Group

‘B’ undertakings under the MTO’s Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for Provincial Transportation

Facilities (MTO, 2000), which has been approved under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (OEAA) for

provincial transportation projects of a defined scope and magnitude. This DCR has been prepared to document

the consultation program, recommended design details, environmental issues and commitments and

construction monitoring requirements.

Study Area

The IBR overpass structure is located 9.6 km north of the Highway 400 and Highway 89 interchange and carries

three (3) through lanes and one (1) speed change lane of Highway 400 traffic in each direction over the IBR.

The Highway 400 BCR overpass structure is located 10.2 km north of the Highway 400 and Highway 89

interchange and carries three (3) through lanes of Highway 400 traffic in each direction over a multi-rail track.

BCR line at Highway 400 is active and is operated by Cando Rail Services. There is an existing rail siding (second

track) that begins immediately west of the existing structure and will be within the proposed structure limits.

Vertical and horizontal clearances to the BCR track shall be in accordance with the Standards Respecting

Railway Clearance Guidelines, (Transport Canada, 1992).


2

The study area extends from 8.2 km north of the Highway 89 Overpass northerly for 3.3 km (Figure 1). The

project limits are confined to the highway right-of-way (ROW), directly adjacent lands.

Figure 1: Highway 400 – Innisfil Study Area Key Map

Overview of the Environmental Assessment Process

The planning and design of MTO provincial transportation projects follow an approved Provincial Class EA

process that has been in place and updated regularly since 1979. The MTO Class EA parent document, Class

Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities, was approved under the Environmental

Assessment Act in the fall of 1999 (revised, July 14, 2000). This process is a principal-based approach rather

than prescriptive in nature. This means that the Class EA defines what must be achieved, rather than defining

how it should be done.


3

The MTO Class EA planning process classifies projects into activity ‘groups’ with a primary focus on consultation,

environmental documentation, and opportunities for ‘bump-up’ to a formal Environmental Assessment. The

groups are as follows:

• Group A: projects that are new facilities;

• Group B: projects that are major improvements to existing facilities;

• Group C: projects that are minor improvements to existing facilities, and

• Group D: projects that involve operation, maintenance, administration, and miscellaneous work for

provincial transportation facilities.

The Class EA outlines principles and processes that must be followed for applicable projects, including

consultation, development and evaluation of alternatives, and documentation. Public participation and

consultation with property owners and other interested parties is a significant element of the decision-making

process. The commitments to mitigate potential environmental impacts of the project work were made

available to external agencies and stakeholders through the public consultation process.

1.2.1 Impact Assessment Act

On August 28, 2019 the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) replaced the former Canadian Environmental Assessment

Act (CEEA), 2012. The projects and activities that are subject to the IAA are very similar to those that were

subject to environmental assessment under the CEAA, 2012. However, some changes have been made to the

“Project List”, such as new thresholds or projects have been introduced or increased. Under the IAA, only those

projects designated by the Physical Activities Regulations or designated by the Minister of Environment on a

discretionary basis may be subject to federal environmental assessment.

It has been determined that this project does not include physical activities identified on the list and is therefore

not subject to the IAA process.


4

2.0 CONSULTATION

Consultation is a fundamental component of the Class EA process. Consultation was ongoing throughout the

planning of the project in conjunction with the transportation, engineering and environmental protection

principles. It is essential for the success of Class EA studies that the consultation program be fully transparent,

open and inclusive; all public / stakeholder communication must be clear, timely and accessible to all.

The Consultation Program was developed in collaboration with the MTO and meets or exceeds the mandatory

requirement of the MTO Class EA for a Group ‘B’ project. The primary objective of the consultation program

was to keep stakeholders informed throughout the study and encourage comments using effective

consultation methods. Opportunities were provided throughout the study for interested agencies, stakeholder

groups, and individuals to provide input and obtain information about the study.

The consultation program for this study included the following:

• Maintenance of an external agency/stakeholder contact list and property owner/interested public

contact list provided by MTO from the preliminary design process;

• Preparation and publication of Ontario Government Notices (OGNs), including:

o Notice of Study Commencement, and

o Notice of Submission of Design Construction Report and 30-day Public Review Period.

• Preparation and distribution of notification letters to external agency/stakeholders and property

owner/interested public contacts;

• Development and maintenance of a project website;

• Ongoing communication, negotiation, and consultation with municipalities, agencies, stakeholders,

property owners and local businesses, as required;

• Consultation with potentially interested Indigenous Communities,

• Stakeholder meetings with affected agencies and stakeholders, and

• Summary of the consultation process in the environmental project documentation.

Project Contact List

An external Contact List of potentially interested stakeholder groups and individuals used during the

Preliminary Design Study was provided by MTO and maintained throughout this study; updated for

completeness and accuracy as required. This list included federal and provincial government agencies and

ministries, municipal staff and elected officials, Members of Provincial Parliament (MPP), Indigenous

Communities, emergency services, utility companies, public interest groups, businesses, and property

owners/tenants who may be directly or indirectly affected by the project. The full contact list used for this

project can be found in Appendix A.

Notice of Study Commencement

At the onset of the project a Notice of Study Commencement was produced, which included a brief background

of the Highway 400 transportation studies, as well as the subject study and Class EA process. Notifications were

distributed as follows:


5

• Letters were mailed to the project Contact List on November 15, 2018;

• An OGN was posted in the Innisfil Journal on November 15, 2018;

• A website was launched, which contained the OGN and additional details for stakeholders to access.

Notice of Study Commencement materials, including example letters and advertisements can be found in

Appendix A.

A summary of all stakeholder comments and responses from the Project Team are included in Table 1.

Consultation responses, including emails received and sent by the Project Team, can be found in Appendix A



6

Stakeholder Group

Comments Received How It Was Addressed / Response Sent

Public Comments: Your two proposals make sense. Firstly, the Innisfil Beach Road off ramp needs to be updated and secondly, the overpass just to the north needs to be made better so that icing in the winter is not such an issue.

Comments noted.

Public 1) Stakeholder spoke with MP PM and informed her that they were told by a friend that the CN bridge was no longer used for rail traffic and inquired as to why it was being replaced.

2) The stakeholder was curious as to why the project was happening.

3) The Stakeholder asked if the ramps at IBR would be impacted during construction.

1) MP PM informed the stakeholder that the rail was actively operated and owned by the City of Barrie.

2) MP PM indicated that the bridges are at the end of their functional life and require replacement.

3) MP PM advised that there would likely be temporary impacts on the ramps during construction but that the project had not progressed to the point where they could be quantified.

The stakeholder was satisfied with the phone call, and no further response was required.

Public A stakeholder expressed concerns regarding snowmobile passage at the BCR Bridge (Site 30-209), as this is the only means of safe passage across Highway 400. The stakeholder advised that they would hope consideration will be given to alternate safe passage for snowmobilers across Highway 400 during construction. Additionally, the stakeholder suggested that the project team contact the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs for their input as well.

The project team advised that the Barrie-Collingwood Railway Bridge is proposed for replacement, and therefore it is expected that most aspects will remain the same or be similar to the existing conditions.

Additionally, the project team advised that local snowmobile clubs have been included as part of the consultation project for this project.

Public The stakeholder requested information related to the new bridge and interchange design and asked for the design team to consider accommodating long commercial vehicles (LVCs).

The stakeholder was advised that the final design of the reconstruction of the existing Innisfil Beach Road interchange at Highway 400 will accommodate LCVs. The project team noted that the project limits do not include any work along Industrial Park Road.

Public Stakeholder called the MP PM to convey that they were surprised the BCR Bridge was being replaced. They felt that the rail line is almost

The project team considered the Stakeholder’s comments during design; however, MTO direction was provided to replace the bridge as planned.

Table 1: Summary of Consultation Comments



7

Stakeholder Group


defunct. The stakeholder was concerned about the cost to replace the bridge in comparison to the purpose it serves, indicating it was not a good use of tax payer’s money. The stakeholder believes that taxpayers are paying a lot of money for a rail line and the MTO should review cheaper ways to allow rail lines to service industrial areas rather than spending millions on replacing the bridge. The stakeholder suggested constructing a turnout east of Highway 400.

Hydro One Networks

Advised that in their initial review, they confirmed that there are no Hydro One Transmission and Distribution Facilities within the subject area.

They advised that this is only based on current information and that no further consultation with Hydro One Networks Inc. is required if no changes are made.

No response was required.

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority

Requested an electronic copy of the 2017 Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design Study Update.

Asked that they receive a hard copy of the DCR upon its completion.

LSRCA further indicated that this project does not trigger “major development” under the definition of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan so does not trigger LSPP 4.8-DP or LSPP 6.40-DP and therefore a water balance assessment and review by a hydrogeologist is not required.

Link to website (TESR) provided.

LSRCA is included in the project Contact List and will be informed of when the DCR becomes available for the 30-day public review.

Noted.

County of Simcoe Paramedic Services

No concerns at this point. The County of Simcoe Paramedic Services was included in the Stakeholder Information Meeting to discuss further.

Chippewas of Rama First Nation

Advised that Chippewas of Rama First Nation had no comments or concerns regarding the project but wanted to be included in the project consultation. Additionally, they would like to receive the final report of the detail design as well as the archaeological report.

Chippewas of Rama First Nation is included in the project Contact List and will be informed of when the DCR becomes available for the 30-day public review. The Archaeological Report is an appendix of the DCR.



8

Stakeholder Group


Scugog First Nation

The project lies within the Treaty #18 area, of which we at Mississaugas of Scugog Island are not a signatory, and therefore we will defer to Rama, Beausoleil and Georgina Island First Nations.

No response required.

Aurora Ontario Provincial Police

The OPP provided several suggestions from the perspective of both policing and road safety, including:

o Regular consultation with emergency services during the project to afford the opportunity to give feedback on specific policing and roadside safety concerns;

o Police can assist with providing input such as localized police issues as well as information regarding collisions;

o Construction zone design includes space to be implemented in assisting with the passage of emergency service vehicles during significant incidents in or near the construction area when traffic comes to a halt;

o The creation of safe enforcement zones to assist with reducing speeds in the construction zone;

o Ensure adequate shoulder space during winter months both for snow removal and safe space for vehicles that may break down;

o Ensure adequate signage of the construction zone to supplement police enforcement and increase driver awareness within the construction zone;

o Upon completion of the project, considerations for safe static enforcement zones.

No response was required at the time this letter was received. Aurora OPP was sent the Stakeholder Information Meeting Invitation to provide an opportunity for discussion and coordination.



9

Stakeholder Information Meetings

The Project Team hosted a Stakeholder Information Meeting (SIM) to disseminate information related to the

proposed project work and discuss potential impacts that the proposed traffic management may cause to the

travelling public during construction. Information gathered during the SIMs were used during the decision-

making process and preparation of mitigation measures. The following sections summarize the SIMs.

2.3.1 Agency Meeting

An Agency SIM invite was sent on March 21, 2019 to emergency services (OPP, police departments, fire

departments and ambulance service provides), student transportation consortiums and County of Simcoe,

Town of Innisfil and City of Barrie engineering departments. SIM invitation and meeting minutes can be found

in Appendix A.

The SIM was held on April 3, 2019 at the South Innisfil Banquet Hall (Lefroy) to provide details regarding the

project, including anticipated temporary ramp and road closures. Attendees at the SIM were as follows:

• Sherly Sutton – South Simcoe Police • Nanda Kandiah – MTO, P&D PM

• Derek Wilson – Innisfil Fire & Rescue • Susan Sieradzki – MTO, Environmental

• Brett Gratrix – City of Barrie • Les Dzbik – MTO, Traffic

• Kate Fitzgerald – City of Barrie • Laura Donaldson – MP, PM & Bridge

• Carolina Cautillo – Town of Innisfil • Curtis Stewart – MP, Asst PM & Bridge

• Jeremy Nyenhuis – Town of Innisfil • Nathan Farrell – MP, Environmental

• Greg McGrath – County of Simcoe

Table 2 summarizes comments and discussions held during the SIM.

Concern Response

City of Barrie (COB) noted that a short-term closure

would be acceptable and preferred compared to

longer-term traffic disruptions. COB inquired whether

there are additional closures expected beyond the

short-term closure.

MP noted that short-term closures are required for tie-

ins of elevations. COB agreed that additional detours

might be able to provide help to distribute the detour

traffic. MP agreed to work with COB to identify these

detours.

Post Meeting Note: There will be one official signed

detour for each closed turning movement (Hwy 89 to

south, Essa to North), 5th and 10th Sideroads to east

and west.

Table 2: Summary of Agency Stakeholder Information Meeting Comments



10

Concern Response

No additional detours will be included, but expectation

that local traffic may use alternate routes given their

knowledge of the road network.

COB noted that the construction of IBR should not be

delayed due to the potential overlap with the timing of

McKay interchange construction. It was pointed out

that the short-term closure would have minimal impact

on the McKay project.

MTO & COB agreed to work together to ensure McKay

Road crossing over Highway 400 will have no

restrictions on traffic flow during the full closure of

Innisfil Beach Road.

Post Meeting Note: MTO project proceeding as planned

regardless of McKay Road progress.

South Simcoe Police Department (SSP) inquired whether

all turning movements will be closed during this time.

MP noted that some movements would remain open (E-

N, W-S ramps), while detours would be provided for

closed movements.

Innisfil Fire & Rescue (IFR) inquired whether the IBR

closure would still allow emergency vehicles to pass as

needed

MP noted that due to extensive grading requirements,

emergency services will not. Emergency service

providers agreed to review their coverage as it relates to

the closure.

SSP noted that they do not cover the highway, so Ontario

Provincial Police (OPP) must be contacted directly.

MP to follow-up with OPP.

Post Meeting Note: MP followed up with OPP. OPP had

no concerns.

IFR Noted that MP should contact the Barrie Fire Chief,

Cory Mainprize.

MP agreed to contact Barrie Fire Chief.

Post Meeting Note: MP contacted Barrie Fire Chief – No

comments.

SSP inquired about the impacts of the construction

occurring at Highway 400/ Highway 89 interchange.

MTO noted that all lanes of Highway 89 are maintained

during construction, so it is not anticipated that this

construction will have any impacts on the detoured

traffic.

IFR were concerned with ramp closures and access to

Highway 400.

Advanced notice to Barrie and IFR is required to alter

coverage of Highway 400 during ramp closures.

COB discussed permitting requirements with MP for

work adjacent to the tracks.

MP to liaise with COB regarding traffic control/flagging

at the crossing during construction activities and provide

a construction staging/sequence plan to the COB for

replacement of the railway structure.



11

2.3.2 Private Stakeholder Meeting

The MTO Project Team met with a private stakeholder on August 15, 2019. Various topics were discussed

including: sound, light spillage, construction equipment storage and timing. Construction Operational

Constraints have been added to the Contract Package to address relevant issues.

Notice of Submission – Design Construction Report

On September 17, 2020, Notice of Submission – Design Construction Report notification letters were

distributed to the project mailing list. The letters contained information about the detail design for the bridge

replacements and interchange and Highway 400 reconstruction assignment and notified recipients of this DCR

being available for a 30-day public review period. In addition, one (1) OGN was placed in the Innisfil Journal on

September 17, 2020.

Notice of Submission – Design Construction Report letters were distributed by the MTO to the local Member

of Provincial Parliament and Indigenous Communities with an interest in the study area on September 17, 2020.

Notice of Submission materials, including example letters, contact list, and advertisements, can be found in

Appendix A.

2.4.1 Enhanced Covid-19 Consultation

Due to challenges and restrictions associated with Covid-19, consultation efforts have been enhanced to allow

appropriate project review opportunity. To avoid handling of hard copy reports and encourage social distancing

efforts, the DCR is not being placed in public locations for review, and instead will be available to stakeholders

online. Additionally, as many Indigenous Communities have closed their offices due to Covid-19, and are now

working remotely, extra steps are being taken to provide a suitable opportunity for Indigenous Communities

to participate in the review of the DCR, by distributing the Notice of Submission by both letter mail and email.



12

3.0 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED DESIGN

The purpose of this section is to provide a summary of the major features of the detail design and construction

staging. Emphasis on the environmental protection/mitigation and environmental monitoring are integral

components of the detail design, which are incorporated into the Contract Documents that the Contractor is

required to follow. Drawings of the Recommended Design are included in Appendix B.

As mentioned previously, the IBR structural replacement, BCR structural replacement and IBR interchange

reconstruction are components of a major upgrade of Highway 400, extending from Highway 89 to Highway

11, as outlined in the Preliminary Design Report and TESR (2004, addendum 2017). This Detail Design is a

continuation of the recommendations made during the Preliminary Design Study.

Major Features of the Proposed Work

The new IBR overpass bridge will consist of a 33.74 m single-span structure. The foundation and substructure

will be constructed to accommodate the future 10-lane cross-section; however, the superstructure will be

constructed as two separate bridges to provide the required 3-through lanes on the outermost sides of the

future 10 lane configuration. The overall substructure width will be 68.06 m; a northbound lanes (NBL)

superstructure width of 24.21 m and a southbound lanes (SBL) superstructure width of 24.10 m. The minimum

vertical clearance provided below the structure to IBR is 5.125 m. Cast-in-place semi-continuous abutments

will be constructed on spread footings behind the existing abutments. The General Arrangement drawings are

included in Appendix B.

The new BCR overhead bridge will consist of a 14.6 m single-span structure. The foundation and substructure

will be constructed to accommodate the future 10-lane cross-section; however, the superstructure will be

constructed as two separate bridges to provide the required 3-through lanes on the outermost sides of the

future 10-lane configuration. The overall substructure width will be approximately 75.56 m; a NBL

superstructure width of approximately 22.82 m and a SBL superstructure width of approximately 32.99 m. The

minimum vertical clearance provided is 7.2 m over the rail tracks. Cast-in-place semi-continuous abutments

will be constructed on spread footings. The south abutment will be constructed behind the existing abutment

and the north abutment will be constructed at the same location as the existing north abutment. The General

Arrangement drawings are included in Appendix B.

The Highway 400 Innisfil Beach Road interchange will be reconfigured to accommodate the new structures and

future 10-lane widening. New on-ramps, off-ramps and ramp terminals will be constructed within the new MTO

ROW (Appendix B, New Construction).

Innisfil Beach Road will be widened from 2-lanes to 4-lanes within the interchange (i.e. between ramp

terminals). In addition, the roadway platform will include a 3.5 m side clearance on both sides, a 2.0 m median,

3.0 m north sidewalk and 4.8 m south sidewalk/Multi-Use Pathway (to be installed by Simcoe County at a later

date).



13

Drainage

In accordance with MTO Standards and Guidelines, the recommended drainage works are summarized as

follows:

• Extension of two Highway 400 existing box culverts to the north and south of IBR;

• Replacement of four culverts within the IBR Interchanged that are impacted by the reconstruction;

• Installation of five additional ramp culverts and one additional culvert on IBR;

• Installation of one culvert under Highway 400 to drain the open median;

• Construction of a wet pond approximately 1 km south of IBR on the west side of Highway 400 within

the MTO ROW;

• Construction of a dry pond within the E-S Ramp;

• Construction of two storage ditches on the east side of Highway 400 north of the BCR structure, and

one storage ditch along IBR in the N-E quadrant of the interchange;

• Placement of sewer systems and curb outlets along Highway 400, such that no deck drains are required

at both bridge locations;

• Implementation of a storm sewer system along IBR; and

• Installation of Rip-Rap pads at pipe outlets where erosion is expected.

Roadside Safety and Signing

All roadside features have been designed to the MTO Roadside Design Manual (2017). Existing barriers and end

treatments will be removed and new guide rail and end treatments meeting current MTO Warrants and

Standards will be placed where required.

Existing signs not impacted by the works will be relocated and/or replaced if their condition requires

replacement within two years of completion of construction, or if any existing signs do not comply with the

Ontario Traffic Manuals. French signing is not required under the French Language Services Act.

Electrical/Illumination

The scope of illumination for Highway 400 IBR Interchange includes the following:

• Conventional partial illumination at Hwy 400 IBR interchange decision points will be provided by

utilizing LED fixtures.

• Intersection partial illumination by utilizing LED fixtures will be provided at Hwy 400 IBR Interchange

ramp terminal intersections.

• Temporary illumination will be provided as required at ramp terminal intersections.

Entrances

An existing right-in only entrance in the southeast quadrant servicing a gas station and Tim Hortons will be

reinstated to accommodate the widening on Innisfil Beach Road.



14

All construction activities will be carried out in such a manner that access to side roads, driveways, and

commercial/private entrances will be maintained at all times.

Intersections

The following intersections will be modified as required to accommodate the widening of Innisfil Beach Road

and the future widening of Highway 400:

• S-E/W Ramp Terminal at Innisfil Beach Road, and

• N-E/W Ramp Terminal at Innisfil Beach Road

All turning movements at the ramp terminals will accommodate A-Train long commercial vehicles (LCV).

Active Transportation Infrastructure

A minimum 3.0 m wide area will be provided along the south side of IBR within the limits of the IBR widening

being completed under this project to accommodate a future Simcoe County active transportation trail. The

3.0 m area has bee designed in accordance with the MTO Bikeway Design Manual (2014) to allow for the future

trail to be implemented accordingly.

Snow Drift Mitigation

New snow drift mitigation measures will be installed along the western perimeter of the new MTO ROW. The

new snow drift mitigation measures include 1.2 m snow fence in combination with strategically selected

landscape plantings, as illustrated in Appendix B.

Utilities and Pipe Lines

The following utilities requiring relocation are located within or adjacent to the Highway 400 right-of-way:

• Bell Canada;

• Enbridge;

• InnPower;

• Rogers, and

• InnServices (water).

Construction Staging

Highway 400 staging will be completed such that 6-lanes will remain open at all times, excluding night-time

single lane closures required to complete temporary pavement transitions and shifting traffic. Lane widths will

be reduced to 3.5 m along both Highway 400 and Innisfil Beach Road during construction to facilitate the

staging sequence relating to the structure replacement.

Full closure of IBR will be required for 4-6 weeks to complete the interim grade lowering. Some turning

movements, including E-S and W-N, will be restricted due to the closures. Signed detours will be provided. Full

closure of the S-E/W ramp will be required for a period of 2-3 weeks to facilitate the construction of the new

S-E/W ramp. Signed detours will be provided.



15

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, ISSUES AND COMMITMENTS

This section presents an overview of the existing conditions, environmental concerns and potential impacts to

the natural, socio-economic and cultural environments associated with the project. To mitigate the potential

impacts on the natural, socio-economic, and cultural environments, the Contractor is responsible for

implementing the requirements of referenced Special Provisions (SP), Non-Standard Special Provisions (NSSP),

and Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications (OPSS) prescribed in the Contract Documents. In general, the

Contractor is responsible for the protection of people, property and the natural environment from adverse

impacts and damage that may result from this work, in accordance with Operational Constraint –

Environmental Protection Requirements – General.

Natural Environment

During preliminary design, the MTO’s service provider conducted an Existing Environmental Conditions study

(FRi Ecological Services, 2015) and Natural Heritage Impact Assessment study (FRi Ecological Services, 2017) for

the larger study corridor of Highway 400 from Highway 89 to Highway 11.

McIntosh Perry conducted several field investigations during the 2018 and 2019 field seasons, collecting data

related to existing natural environmental conditions through the study area. The investigations included

identification of the following, where applicable:

• Aquatic habitat and fish communities;

• Existing vegetation communities;

• Existing wetland areas;

• Observations of SAR and their habitat (including suitable habitat);

• Resident or migrant bird and wildlife species;

• Wildlife corridors;

• Significant habitat areas or vegetation communities, and

• Current land uses surrounding the study area.

4.1.1 Aquatic Habitat and Fish Communities

One (1) fish-bearing watercourse was identified to be associated with the study area; a tributary of Lover’s

Creek, Culvert 58, at STN 18+398. The tributary of Lover’s Creek flows eastward through Culvert 58 under

Highway 400, towards Lover’s Creek and ultimately outlets to Lake Simcoe. Culvert 58 will require a 14.5 m

extension on the west side of Highway 400 to allow for the future widening of Highway 400. To facilitate the

extension of the culvert, a realignment of the watercourse is required.

The project works do not represent routine MTO works and the MTO Best Management Practices for Fisheries

Draft (DFO, 2018a) are not applicable. As potential habitat for cool-water and warm-water baitfish species was

identified in the tributary of Lover’s Creek upstream and downstream of Culvert 58, a detailed impact

assessment of aquatic effects was completed for the Culvert (Culvert 58) extension. This information is



16

ultimately required to ensure a defensible determination as to the likelihood of the project causing the death

of fish or harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat.

Standard mitigation measures will be implemented during construction including, construction timing windows

(July 16 to September 30), erosion and sediment control measures, designed specifically for this project, and

rehabilitation of disturbed areas within and adjacent to Culvert 58.

In addition, based on hydraulic modelling of existing and proposed flows through Culvert 58, the installation of

22 baffles spaced at 2 m intervals throughout the entirety of the culvert is proposed as a means to enable fish

passage through the culvert under conditions of a 1 in 2-year storm event.

There is also be enhancement opportunity at the culvert located approximately 20 m south of the outlet of

Culvert 58 that will be addressed as part of this project. The installation of rip rap at the median drain outlet to

attenuate high intensity discharges will reduce erosion and sediment inputs to the watercourse. These

measures will be of benefit to downstream fish habitat within the Lover’s Creek watershed.

Full details related to aquatic habitat and fish communities can be found in the Fish and Fish Habitat Existing

Conditions and Impact Assessment Report, prepared by McIntosh Perry, dated June 12, 2020.

To ensure compliance under the Fisheries Act, this project was submitted to DFO for review (i.e., as a result of

the proposed destruction of fish habitat).

The Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program (the Program) of DFO provide a response to the Request for

Review form and associated documents for the proposed culvert expansion in Lover’s Creek. DFO’s Letter of

Advice (LOA) noted that the Program is of the view that the proposed work will not require an authorization

under the Fisheries Act or the Species at Risk Act, provided that all recommended mitigation measures are

incorporated into the Contract. To avoid and mitigate the potential for prohibited effects to fish and fish

habitat, DFO recommended implementing the following measures:

• Plan in-water works, undertakings and activities to respect timing windows to protect fish, including

their eggs, juveniles, spawning adults and/or the organisms upon which they feed and migrate

o No in-water works between October 1st – July 15th.

• Capture, relocate and monitor for fish trapped within isolated, enclosed, or dewatered areas

• Screen intake pipes to prevent entrainment or impingement of fish

o Use the code of practice for water intake screens

• Limit impacts on riparian vegetation to those approved for the work, undertaking or activity

o Re-vegetate the disturbed area with native species suitable for the site

• Salvage, reinstate or match habitat structure (e.g., large wood debris, boulders, instream aquatic

vegetation/substrate) to its initial state

o Replace/restore any other disturbed habitat features and remediate any areas impacted by the

work, undertaking or activity

• Limit the duration of in-water works, undertakings and activities so that it does not diminish the ability

of fish to carry out one or more of their life processes (spawning, rearing, feeding, migrating)



17

• Develop and implement and erosion and sediment control plan to avoid the introduction of sediment

into any waterbody during all phases of the work, undertaking or activity

o Regularly monitor the watercourse for signs of sedimentation during all phases of the work,

undertaking or activity and take corrective action

o Schedule work to avoid wet, windy and rainy periods (and heed weather advisories) that may

result in high flow volumes and/or increase erosion and sedimentation

• Develop and implement a response plan to avoid a spill of deleterious substances

o Keep an emergency spill kit on site during the work, undertaking or activity

o Report any spills of sewage, oil, fuel or other deleterious material, whether near or directly into

a waterbody

• Embed culverts to ensure fish passage through the watercourse is maintained

All recommended mitigation measures outlined in DFO’s LOA have been incorporated into the Contract

Documents for implementation during construction of this project, and a copy of the LOA shall be kept on site

while the work is in progress.

4.1.2 Vegetation and Vegetation Communities

The study area vegetation is dominated by agricultural fields and sparse cultural vegetation. The land adjacent

to the southwest of the interchange consists of an agricultural crop field, treed fencerows and one small (1 ha)

deciduous woodlot. The land west of the southbound off-ramp consists of an agricultural crop field and treed

fencerows. A graminoid field is present north of the southbound off-ramp, which continues along the west side

of the Highway to the BCR Overhead structure. The interchange loops consist of a mix of cultural meadow,

manicured lawn and cultural thickets containing sparse woody vegetation. The southwest and southeast loops

of the interchange were under construction during the 2018 field investigations. Commercial property is

present east of Highway 400 between the Innisfil Beach Road interchange and the BCR Overhead structure,

containing manicured lawn and sparse woody vegetation. Commercial and residential properties are present

directly southwest of the interchange. No rare vegetation communities or vegetation species at risk (SAR) were

observed in association with the study area.

Lands adjacent to the Highway 400 travel corridor consist of a variety of vegetative communities. Based on

Ecological Land Classification (ELC) vegetation types, vegetation communities were identified through field

review and satellite image interpretation within, and adjacent to, the study area. Figure 2 illustrates the

vegetation communities and ELC vegetation types identified within the study area. For a complete list of

vegetation observed within the study area, refer to the Terrestrial Ecosystems Existing Conditions and Impact

Assessment Report, GWP 2493-15-00, prepared by McIntosh Perry, dated December 13, 2019.

The project will result in the removal of approximately 18,686 m2 of trees/vegetation to accommodate

construction activities, see Appendix B ‘Removals’. The study area is heavily influenced by human activities and

contains a range of native and non-native herbaceous vegetation species. No impacts on SAR plant species are

anticipated, as none were identified. A Landscape Plantings plan has been developed for the stabilization of

disturbed areas during construction, as discussed in Section 4.1.4 below.



18

4.1.2.1 Invasive and Noxious Plant Species

During the 2018/2019 field investigations, no species classified as ‘Invasive Plant Species’ under the Invasive

Species Act (2015) were observed within the study area. However, one (1) ‘Noxious Species’, as defined by the

Weed Control Act, 1990, was identified: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). There were no concentrated areas or

‘stands’ of this species observed within the study area, and abundance was low; therefore, NSSP ENVR0011

Invasive and Noxious Vegetation Spraying/Invasive and Noxious Vegetation Cutting, will not be included in the

contract package.

FIGURE:PROJECT NO: DateGISChecked By

TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

115 Walgreen Road, RR3, Carp, ON K0A1L0Tel: 613-836-2184 Fax: 613-836-3742

www.mcintoshperry.com

SIDEROAD 5

INNISFIL BEACH ROAD

9TH LINE

THOMAS STREET

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser Community

REFERENCEGIS data provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resourcesand Forestry, 2019.

LEGEND

2LCCH

KM-17-7115

H:\01

Proje

ct - P

ropos

als\20

17 Jo

bs\KM

\0KM-

17-71

15 - M

TO C

R - D

D Re

pl Str

uctur

es H

wy 40

0 Inn

isfil\G

IS\mx

d\Env

\Terre

strial

_July

2019

\KM-17

-7115

_02_

Vege

tation

Comm

unitie

s_Co

nstra

ints&

Oppo

rtunit

ies.m

xd

Jul., 29, 2019

0 210 420105

Scale 1:8,500 Metres

TERRESTRIAL REPORTHIGHWAY 400 INNISFIL

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATIONCENTRAL REGION

SIDEROAD 5

COMMERCE PARK DRIVE

SIDEROAD 5

7TH LINE

INNISFIL BEACH ROAD

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser Community

Provincially Significant Wetland

Wetland

Right of Way

Agriculture AG

Mixed Plantation TAGM2

Woodland WO

Coniferous Plantation TAGM1

Deciduous Forest FOD

Fencerow TAGM5

Graminoid Meadow MEG

Mixed Meadow MEM

Mowed Areas

Under Construction (disturbed)



20

4.1.3 Erosion and Sediment Control

McIntosh Perry prepared an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) to satisfy the requirements set out in

Approach 2 of the MTO’s Environmental Guide for Erosion and Sediment Control During Construction of

Highway Projects (ESC Guide). The ESCP consists of three components:

1) ESC Non-Standard Special Provisions (NSSPs);

2) A series of site plans illustrating and describing mitigation measures to be undertaken during all phases

of the project (Site Drawings), and

3) A Technical Memo that is a record of the information and design criteria used in developing the ESC

strategy for the highway project.

The purpose of an ESCP is to minimize erosion potential, apply erosion control measures to prevent

mobilization of sediment, and apply sediment control measures to prevent off-site sediment release in the

event of sediment mobilization. ESC measures may include, but are not limited to, light-duty silt fence barriers,

light-duty fibre roll barriers and fibre roll flow check dams. In addition, temporary erosion control measures

will be applied as per Special Provision No. ENVR0005. Alternate methods may be accepted provided they meet

the industry standard and are approved by the Contract Administrator (and by ESC Design Consultant where

determined to be required by the Contract Administrator). It should be noted that the ESCP constitutes the

minimum requirements; however, the Contractor is required to adaptively manage erosion and sediment

control from construction activities as needed.

Details of the ESCP can be found in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Technical Memo, prepared by

McIntosh Perry, dated June 26, 2020 and Appendix B, Construction Staging.

4.1.4 Landscape Plantings

Developed in conjunction with the highway design and staging plans, a Landscape Planting Plan aims to address

the need for stabilization of disturbed areas due to construction through revegetation. CSW Landscape

Architects Ltd. (CSW) prepared a series of landscape plantings that are designed to integrate infrastructure

needs, such as stormwater management ponds, with landscape works to minimise the environmental and

visual impact of construction. In addition, landscape plantings incorporate recommendations made for snow

drift mitigation (Appendix B, Landscape Plans).

4.1.5 Wetland Communities

Lover’s Creek Swamp is a provincially significant wetland (PSW) located 200 m east of the study area. Lover’s

Creek Swamp PSW is over 160 ha and is comprised of mostly mixed swamp, Thicket Swamp, coniferous swamp,

deciduous swamp, meadow marsh and shallow marsh (LSRCA, 2012).

Mitigation measures to control the release of water and/or sediment during construction will prevent negative

impacts to the identified PSW.



21

4.1.6 Wildlife

Wildlife observed during the 2018/2019 field investigations were characteristic of the Lake Simcoe-Rideau

Ecoregion. Observations of thirty (30) bird species, two (2) mammals, and one (1) insect were documented

during the field investigations through signs, visual observations and vocalizations.

No significant wildlife habitat is known to occur within or directly adjacent to the study area based on a review

of background information and field investigations. As such, it is not anticipated that the proposed project

works will result in impacts on the function of significant wildlife habitat. However, the lands associated with

the study area provide several ecological functions including, but are not necessarily limited to:

• Nesting habitat for several species of migratory birds;

• Local travel corridors for small wildlife along fencerows, and

• Habitat for endangered and threatened species (Eastern Meadowlark), refer to Section 4.1.7, below.

4.1.6.1 Migratory Birds

Migratory birds are known to nest in vegetation present within the study area, including areas planned for

permanent removal. The period when a bird is actively nesting is considered its most critical life stage, as many

species are highly dependant on habitat around their nest sites to supply food for nestlings and to conceal their

nests, eggs, and young. As detailed information on the bird species (migratory birds, provincially protected

birds, and birds not afforded protection) is readily available for the study area, a detailed nesting window has

been provided for this location. The Bird Studies Canada Nesting Calendar Query Tool (OBBA, 2006) was used

to determine the most appropriate nesting period based on the individual bird species known to utilize the

study area for the purpose of nesting. The core nesting period for birds within the study area is approximately

April 1 to September 15 of any year (i.e., the period when most birds are anticipated to be actively nesting).

A total of sixteen (16) active Cliff Swallow nests were observed on the BCR overhead structure during the field

investigations on June 11, 2018. During the 2019 field investigations, the species remained present within the

general study area; however, no active nests of the species were observed on the structure. It was confirmed

that the birds did not nest on the structure during the 2019 nesting season.

The Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) (MBCA) protects migratory birds as well as their nests and eggs

across Canada. Due to the history of Cliff Swallows utilizing the BCR overhead structure, bird exclusionary

measures (e.g. tarping) shall be installed on the existing bridge prior to May 15th and must be maintained until

August 15th of any year. If construction on the existing structure is completed outside the bird nesting window,

exclusionary measures are not required.

4.1.7 Species At Risk

Three (3) SAR were observed within the study area during the 2018/2019 field investigations. These species

include the Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), Monarch (Danaus plexippus), and Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella

magna).



22

4.1.7.1 Barn Swallows

Of the SAR species observed during the 2018/2019 field investigations, the Barn Swallow was not observed

nesting in association with any of the existing infrastructure (i.e., bridges, underpasses, culverts, etc.) or

vegetation within the study area. Barn Swallows were observed foraging over the area of suitable Eastern

Meadowlark habitat. Several suitable structures (i.e., barns) are present within the general study area, which

is assumed to be where the Barn Swallows were nesting. No suitable structures or confirmed nest sites are

known to exist within 200 m of any proposed construction (i.e., habitat will be disturbed) which is the maximum

area that is protected for this species as per the General Habitat Description for Barn Swallow. The Barn

Swallow may indirectly benefit from mitigation associated with the Eastern Meadowlark habitat outlined

below.

4.1.7.2 Monarch

The Monarch was observed within the study area during the 2019 field investigations. This species relies heavily

on milkweed (Asclepias spp.) for several life processes. Common milkweed was identified within the study area.

The Monarch is listed as ‘Special Concern’ under the ESA and SARA and does not receive habitat protection.

Seed mix used for revegetating disturbed areas will contain native species (i.e., Old Field Mix as per OPSS 804)

that Monarch uses for a variety of life processes, which will improve monarch habitat in the study area.

4.1.7.3 Eastern Meadowlark

Targeted surveys for grassland avian SAR (i.e. Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark, Grasshopper Sparrow) were

conducted during three (3) field investigations in 2018. During the June 20, 2018 field investigation, a single

Eastern Meadowlark was heard singing north of the fence line beyond the Highway 400 southbound exit ramp

of the Innisfil Beach Road Interchange. The Eastern Meadowlark is listed as ‘Threatened’ under the ESA and

the SARA. Though this individual was observed during the June 20, 2018 survey, no observations of the Eastern

Meadowlark were made during the June 11 or June 26, 2018 field investigations. During the surveys the existing

habitat remained suitable as habitat (i.e. un-mowed etc.). While the surveys were completed at the appropriate

time (i.e. between 5:00 am and 9:00 am each survey, during the species nesting season) the finding of the bird

in the middle survey resulted in inconclusive data in terms of concluding as to whether the area meets the

criteria of “habitat” protected under the ESA (i.e. whether the bird held a territory or not).

Based on the observation, additional targeted surveys were completed during the spring of 2019 to collect

additional information on the presence of Eastern Meadowlarks and their habitat within the study area. The

first 2019 survey was completed on May 29, 2019. During this survey two (2) individual male Eastern

Meadowlarks and one (1) female Eastern Meadowlark were observed within the area of suitable habtiat

associated with the interchange. During the June 13, 2019 field investigation both male Eastern Meadowlarks

remained on site and two (2) individual female Eastern Meadowlarks were also observed. Based on these

observations, and the 2018 observation, both Category 2 and Category 3 Eastern Meadowlark habitat (as per

the General Habitat Description for Eastern Meadowlark https://www.ontario.ca/page/eastern-meadowlark-

general-habitat-description) is confirmed present within the area of suitable habitat north west of the existing

interchange alignment (Figure 3).

https://www.ontario.ca/page/eastern-meadowlark-general-habitat-description

https://www.ontario.ca/page/eastern-meadowlark-general-habitat-description

REFERENCEGIS data provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resourcesand Forestry, 2019.

LEGEND

TERRESTRIAL REPORTHIGHWAY 400 INNISFIL

EASTERN MEADOWLARK HABITAT

6FIGURE:

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATIONCENTRAL REGION

LCCH

KM-17-7115PROJECT NO: DateGISChecked By

H:\01

Proje

ct - P

ropos

als\20

17 Jo

bs\KM

\0KM-

17-71

15 - M

TO C

R - D

D Re

pl Str

uctur

es H

wy 40

0 Inn

isfil\G

IS\mx

d\Env

\Terre

strial

_July

2019

\KM-17

-7115

_06_

Terre

strial

_Con

strain

ts&Op

portu

nities

.mxd

Jul., 19, 2019

0 50 10025

Scale 1:2,000 Metres

TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

115 Walgreen Road, RR3, Carp, ON K0A1L0Tel: 613-836-2184 Fax: 613-836-3742

www.mcintoshperry.com

Right of Way

Watercourse

New Interchange Alignment Boundary

Area of suitable Eastern Meadowlark Habitat

Category 2 Eastern Meadowlark Habitat

Category 3 Eastern Meadowlark Habitat

Wetland

n.farrell

Rectangle

n.farrell

Typewriter

3



24

Due to the identified nesting of Eastern Meadowlark adjacent to the interchange, there is the potential for the

project works to impact individual Eastern Meadowlarks (i.e. harm, harassment under the ESA). The Eastern

Meadowlark is generally intolerant of human presence (e.g. worker presence) and often displays agitated

behaviours and may stop feeding young when humans are present. The species typically does not respond

aggressively to human presence (i.e. as do Red-winged Blackbirds) but rather moves away from the perceived

threat and discontinues normal foraging and nesting activities to avoid the perceived threat detecting the nest,

which is located on the ground. The species is capable of habituating to human presence, noise and activity

where they are accustomed to frequently seeing humans. Given observations made during 2018/2019, the

Eastern Meadowlarks nesting within the study area appear accustomed to noise and vehicle traffic (i.e. due to

the close proximity to Highway 400), but do not appear accustomed to human presence. During the 2019 field

investigations all birds present were observed to modify their activities and responded with alarm calls to

observer presence. As such, it is likely that worker presence and ongoing construction activity is likely to result

in impacts to individuals (i.e. harm, harassment).

Based on the Bird Studies Canada Nesting Calendar Query Tool (OBBA, 2006), the core nesting window for the

Eastern Meadowlark within the study area is May 1 to July 30 of any year. This represents the period when the

Eastern Meadowlark is most likely to have a nest with eggs or young. The species begins its nesting cycle (i.e.

territory establishment etc.) earlier typically arriving back on the breeding grounds by April 15. Based on the

project design and associated works, impacts to individual Eastern Meadowlarks are anticipated.

The project has a high potential to result in harm or harassment of individual Eastern Meadowlarks due to the

relatively long timeframe of construction and significant volume of work that must occur within and directly

adjacent to the species and its habitat. Harm and Harassment are not permitted under the provisions of the

MBCA or SARA legislation, which also protect the Eastern Meadowlark wherever it occurs in Canada. The MBCA

does not have habitat provisions (the nest is protected however). Critical Habitat has not been defined for the

Eastern Meadowlark under SARA (currently only the “residence”, which equates to the nest in the case of most

bird species). The habitat of the Eastern Meadowlark is only afforded protection under the provincial ESA and

associated regulations.

Based on planned works within and adjacent to Eastern Meadowlark Habitat, the project is anticipated to result

in the following:

• Permanent destruction of approximately 2.36 ha of Eastern Meadowlark habitat (approximately 1.25

hectares of Category 2 and approximately 1.11 hectares of Category 3 Eastern Meadowlark habitat),

and

• Temporary damage for four (4) years of construction of approximately 4.65 ha of Eastern Meadowlark

habitat to avoid harm/harassment of the species during construction.

Given the proposed interchange works, it is not anticipated that the 2.36 ha or destroyed habitat will be

returned to a suitable state to be used by the Eastern Meadowlark.



25

Under section 23.6 of Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 242/08, made under the ESA, the project meets the criteria

for an exemption under the ESA based on size (i.e. under 30 hectares of Eastern Meadowlark Habitat impacted).

As such, the project has been registered with the MECP and the required Eastern Meadowlark Habitat

Management Plan (EMHMP) has been developed for implementation by the MTO. The EMHMP includes

compensation for habitat loss, to be created elsewhere on MTO lands.

4.1.8 Groundwater

During the 2018/2019 field investigations, no evidence of groundwater seeps was identified within the study

area. However, groundwater seepage and stormwater inflow into excavations is expected. Construction

dewatering will be required to ensure that the work areas remain dry. Based on calculations made by McIntosh

Perry it is expected that the typical volume of groundwater and stormwater being pumped per day will be in

excess of 400,000 L/day. Therefore, a Category 3 Permit to Take Water (PTTW) was applied for with the MECP.

Groundwater that seeps into the excavations, as well as any collected stormwater within the excavations, will

be discharged downgradient of the work area as per OPSS 517. It is recommended that the groundwater and

stormwater be directed to a sediment control device installed on a well vegetated area prior to release to the

natural environmental (i.e. the surrounding area). If a sediment control device is used, a minimum of 30 m

setback shall be maintained from any watercourse (i.e. any permanent or intermittent natural or constructed

waterbody such as lakes, ponds, wetlands and watercourses).

A comprehensive water monitoring plan is not considered to be necessary as part of the PTTW because the

water taking will be in stages of a short-term nature and there are no identified nearby shallow groundwater

users.

The study area is located in the South Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe Region Source Water Protection Area.

Consultation with the LSRCA confirmed that this project does not trigger “major development” under the

definition of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan so does not trigger LSPP 4.8-DP or LSPP 6.40-DP and therefore a

water balance assessment and review by a hydrogeologist is not required.

4.1.9 Surface Water

Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were performed for the study area based on design criteria and guidelines

detailed in a variety of MTO and other relevant standards documents. The area within the project limits was

divided into five major areas/outlets, considering roadway separations for the existing, interim and proposed

future drainage patterns. Four of these major areas ultimately drain eastward to Lake Simcoe and one area

ultimately drains westward to the Nottawasaga River. Where these areas outlet from the project limits an

assessment was undertaken to ensure that the post-development peak flows are attenuated to the

corresponding pre-development levels. Stormwater management facilities have been proposed in three of the

five areas to achieve the required reduction in peak flows.

A Drainage and Hydrology Report was prepared by McIntosh Perry (January 13, 2020), which details the

following:



26

• Hydrologic and hydraulic assessment of storm sewers for interim and ultimate drainage conditions

along Highway 400 and IBR;

• Capacity assessments for all ditches and culverts (existing and proposed) within the project limits;

• The design of five (5) stormwater management storage facilities (ponds/storage ditches) to mitigate

runoffs from three (3) major outlets that account for water quality and quantity control; and

• The design of pavement drainage to meet the allowable spread of runoff on the travelled lanes.

Culverts associated with existing, interim and ultimate conditions were hydrologically and hydraulically

assessed. All interim culverts were also analyzed for the ultimate conditions to assess whether they have the

capacity to convey the expected ultimate increases of flow. As a result, the following drainage works were

included in this Contract Package:

• Extension of two Highway 400 existing centreline box culverts to the north and south of IBR;

• Replacement of four culverts within the IBR Interchanged that will be impacted by the reconstruction;

• Installation of five additional ramp culverts and one additional culvert on IBR;

• Installation of one culvert under Highway 400 to drain the open median;

• Construction of a wet pond approximately 1 km south of IBR on the west side of Highway 400 within

the MTO ROW;

• Construction of a dry pond within the E-S Ramp;

• Construction of two storage ditches on the east side of Highway 400 north of the Barrie Collingwood

Rail Structure, and one storage ditch along IBR in the N-E quadrant of the interchange;

• Placement of sewer systems and curb outlets along Highway 400, such that no deck drains are required

at both bridge locations;

• Implementation of a proposed storm sewer system along IBR; and

• Installation of Rip-Rap pads at pipe outlets where erosion is expected.

Socio-Economic Environment

A thorough review of the socio-economic environment within the study area was conducted during detail

design. The existing conditions outlined in the preliminary design report and TESR were examined and are

generally consistent with current conditions. Potential socio-economic impacts of the proposed work to the

study area are restricted to the Highway 400 and Innisfil Beach Road ROW, adjacent land uses, as well as local

road detour routes and staging areas.

The following sections describe the potential impacts to the socio-economic environment associated with the

project works and provide a summary of mitigation measures included in the contract documents.

4.2.1 Land Use

The study area is located within the geographic boundaries of the Town of Innisfil, County of Simcoe; the City

of Barrie border is approximately 2 km north of Innisfil Beach Road. Identified in the Town of Innisfil Official

Plan (November 2018) as ‘Innisfil Heights’, the land surrounding the Highway 400 interchange is zoned to be

an employment hub, with light industry, office and retail businesses. The lands adjacent to the west of Highway



27

400 consist of agriculture lands and the Georgian Downs Racetrack and Casino. Lands to the east of Highway

400 include commercial, light industrial and residential. The IBR Interchange is the primary access for the Town

of Innisfil and also provides access to Lake Simcoe and Innisfil Beach Park. There is an MTO carpool lot to the

northeast of the IBR Interchange.

The BCR overhead structure is utilized by the Barrie-Collingwood Railway (BCRY) which is a short-line railway

operation used for shipping and receiving of industrial products in the City of Barrie and surrounding areas. The

BCRY is owned by the City of Barrie and operated by Cando Rail Services Ltd. Land use surrounding this structure

is industrial/commercial on three sides and agricultural/rural residential on the southwest quadrant. A railway

yard and turnaround area are located adjacent to the west of the BCR overhead structure. The Contractor is

required to adhere to all restrictions and requirements described in Operational Constraint – Work On, Above

or Below Railway Right Of Way.

The Innisfil Cemetery and Mausoleum is located in the northwest limits of the study area, north of Georgian

Downs Racetrack and Casino.

A number of property acquisitions were required for the Highway 400 IBR Interchange improvements and

future widening of Highway 400 to 10-lanes. With the exception of the MTO acquired property, land uses within

the study area will not be impacted due to the project work.

4.2.2 Designated areas

The Thornton-Cookstown Trans Canada Trail commences southwest of Cookstown and terminates in a small

parking lot approximately 600 west of the BCR Overhead structure. The trail is a 15.6 km long former railbed,

now consisting of a shared use trail (walking, cycling, horseback riding, cross country skiing, snowmobiling) that

travels through pastureland, forests and crosses Cookstown Creek six times. The project is not anticipated to

impact the trail or trail users.

4.2.3 Municipal Services and Traffic Operations

Highway 400 is classified as a Rural Freeway Divided and has a posted speed limit of 100 km/h. Within the

project limits the highway has a rural/suburban surrounding with the main traffic generators expected to be

the City of Barrie to the north and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) to the south. MTO has classified this segment

of Highway 400 as having a ‘Commuter Tourist Recreation’ traffic pattern. Highway 400 at this location varies

from six to eight lanes (three through lanes and one speed change lane for each direction). The ultimate cross

section for Highway 400, as approved in the TESR (URS, 2004) and TESR Addendum (AECOM, 2017) will include

a 10-lane cross section consisting of 4 General Purpose Lanes and 1 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each

direction.

Innisfil Beach Road runs east-west from Simcoe County Road 27 in the west through the Town of Innisfil and

ending at Lake Simcoe. Within the project limits, Innisfil Beach Road has a posted speed limit of 60 km/h and

varies from two to three lanes (one through lane for each direction and one auxiliary lane). The ultimate cross

section for Innisfil Beach Road will be a 4-lane cross section consisting of 2 lanes in each direction, and auxiliary

lanes for the interchange ramps.



28

In order to complete the planned work for this project construction staging is required and has been broken

down into three (3) stages involving eight (8) substages.

Traffic disruptions are anticipated throughout construction, including temporary Highway 400 lane and ramp

closures, long duration shoulder closures, and detours to the adjacent road networks. In addition, Innisfil Beach

Road is expected to be closed at Highway 400 for up to 6 weeks to facilitate a major grade lowering. During

this time detour routes will be communicated to the pubic with signage, as illustrated in Appendix B, Detours.

Impacts associated with traffic disruptions include emergency service response times and an anticipated

increase to municipal road traffic volumes within the vicinity of the project area (i.e., the Town of Innisfil, the

City of Barrie, and the County of Simcoe) and detour route. The detour route has been discussed with the

affected emergency service provides and affected municipalities. The contractor will be required to notify the

potentially impacted municipalities and emergency services a minimum of two weeks in advance of any full

road closures. Additionally, Portable Variable Message Signs (PVMS) will be used to provide up-to-date

information to drivers regarding construction works on Highway 400, and temporary advanced notification

signs will be used to provide drivers with advance notification of ramp closures at the Innisfil Beach Road

interchange.

4.2.4 Construction Noise

Unlike operational traffic noise, the MTO does not establish a quantitative threshold noise level to establish

construction noise impacts. However, in accordance with MTO policy, a Contractor shall strictly adhere to the

Construction Noise Constraints, Special Provision No. 199F33. Construction noise produced by the Contractor’s

operations shall be mitigated as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Construction Noise Constraints

Constraint Constraint Details

Equipment Maintenance Equipment shall be maintained in an operating condition that

prevents unnecessary noise, including but not limited to non-

defective muffler systems, properly secured components, and the

lubrication of moving parts.

Equipment Operation Idling of equipment shall be restricted to the minimum necessary to

perform the specified work.

Georgian Downs Racetrack The Contractor shall minimize construction noise during days that

racing occurs at the Georgian Downs Racetrack (Saturdays, Sundays

& Tuesdays from June 1st to August 31st).

4.2.5 Air Quality

The MTO has a methodology for assessing local air quality impact, which is set out in the Environmental Guide

for Assessing and Mitigating the Air Quality Impacts and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Provincial Transportation



29

Projects (AQ Guide) (MTO, 2012). During the preliminary deign study the Highway 400 corridor from Highway

89 to Highway 11 was analyzed under the AQ Guide. The study determined that proposed work at the IBR and

BCR structures would have negligible impacts to air quality and no design changes were recommended.

The project work generally has the potential to create dust due of construction activities. Dust suppressants

will be required to be used by the contractor during construction to ensure dust is kept to a minimum.

4.2.6 Waste & Contamination

McIntosh Perry conducted desktop and field survey to determine the possible presence of the eleven (11)

designated substances identified by Ontario Regulation 490/09 under the Occupational Health and Safety Act,

including:

• Acrylonitrile • Coke Oven Emissions • Mercury

• Arsenic • Ethylene Oxide • Silica

• Asbestos • Isocyanates • Vinyl Chloride

• Benzene • Lead

Where available, documentation such as construction drawings and Ontario Structure Manual – Inspection

Forms, were reviewed to determine the potential for designated substances to be associated with the bridges

slated for replacement. Following documentation review, the bridges were inspected and where accessible

sampling was performed for analytical assessment.

As no painted components were identified on the structures, the collection of paint samples for the analysis of

arsenic, lead and mercury was deemed to be not warranted.

The collection of concrete samples for analysis of asbestos was undertaken at both bridge locations (Sites 30-

209 & 30-210). Asbestos was not detected within the concrete samples submitted for analysis.

While the designated substance benzene was not detected with the preserved wood samples submitted for

analysis, it is assumed to be present throughout the working area in the form of bituminous based products

(asphalt). Additionally, analysis of the submitted wood samples indicated detections of arsenic as well as the

hazardous material chromium.

Silica is also assumed to be present throughout the working area, but not limited to, asphalt, granular materials

and concrete.

Of the remaining ten designated substances, it is assumed that acrylonitrile and vinyl chloride are constituents

of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) materials, however once polymerized

these two substances are no longer considered designated substances. The remaining designated substances

(coke oven emissions, ethylene oxide, isocyanates and mercury) are not likely to be encountered in typical

construction or maintenance activities of MTO infrastructure.



30

No other designated substances were identified during the investigations.

Details related to the designated substances survey can be found in the Designated Substances Survey Report,

prepared by McIntosh Perry, dated November 20, 2018.

4.2.7 Utilities

It is the Contractor’s responsibility as ‘Constructor’ under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to coordinate

the activities of all employees and subcontractors and works operation within the contract limits to ensure that

the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act are satisfied.

The Tender documents advise the Contractor that there are existing utilities within the project limits owned by

various utility companies/authorities. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to liaise with appropriate utility

companies/authorities to confirm the exact nature, extent, and number of the existing utilities. The Contractor

shall be responsible for the protection of all utilities during construction operations. The Contractor shall

exercise due care so as to not cause any detrimental effects to these utilities. Any damages to these utilities

shall be immediately reported to the Contract Administrator and the affected utility owner. Any repairs to

damaged utilities shall be the responsibility of the Contractor at no additional cost to MTO.

4.2.8 Snow Drift Assessment

McIntosh Perry retained RWDI to review the snow drift assessment prepared during preliminary design (RWDI,

2016), which provided recommended snow drift mitigation measures to be incorporated into various landscape

and grading design.

As a result, snow drift mitigation measures will consist of a combination of mass plantings (trees, shrubs, etc.)

and snow fences to be installed on the west side of the new highway ROW (Appendix B, Landscape Plans). The

installation of these snow drift mitigation measures will improve as they become more established and will be

out of the way of future Highway 400 10-lane expansion. For additional details refer to Snow Drift Review, MTO

Hwy 400 Innisfil Beach Road, Barrie, Ontario, prepared by RWDI, dated September 23, 2019.

Cultural Environment

4.3.1 Archaeology

During the preliminary design study, a Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment Report was prepared to

document archaeological potential within the greater study area from Highway 89 to Highway 11 (AECOM,

2017a). Further, A Supplemental Documentation Report (AECOM, 2017b) was prepared to record the findings

and recommended Stage 3 Archaeological Investigation for a single site (H1, BbGW-78), located in the

northwest quadrant of the BCR bridge.

MP retained Past Recovery Archaeological Services to conduct further Stage 1, 2 & 3 Archaeological

Assessments in the project study area. The Stage 1 and 2 Assessments were conducted within the study area

not covered by the AECOM 2017a Report. The Stage 1 and 2 Assessments found no additional potential

archaeological resources within the study area, other than the H1 site noted above.



31

A Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment was conducted on the H1 site located in the northwest quadrant of the

BCR bridge. While the site appears to have had a relatively short occupation span of 20 to 25 years, it seems to

date from the mid-1860s to the mid-1880s and is thus fairly late for settlement in Innisfil Township (surveyed

in 1820), with at least half of the occupation post-dating 1870. Further, it appears that the cellar pit (the main

farmhouse feature) lies on the edge of the new ROW with only the small portion encountered in our test units

lying within (and thus already documented); the remainder of this feature will be unaffected by the proposed

work. Thus, no Stage 4 work will be recommended for this site

Details of the Stages 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments can be found in the Stage 1 & 2 Archaeological

Assessments Report, prepared by Past Recovery Archaeological Services Inc., dated March 14, 2020.

Details of the Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment can be found in the Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment

Report, prepared by Past Recovery Services Inc., dated August 29, 2020.

4.3.2 Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape

McIntosh Perry retained Unterman McPhail Associates Heritage Resource Management Consultants to

complete a Cultural Heritage Technical Memorandum for the study area.

No cultural heritage landscape or built heritage resources recognized at the municipal, federal or international

levels are identified as being located within or adjacent to the study area. Therefore, there are no anticipated

potential impacts, including the abandoned farm complex located adjacent to the study area on southeast

corner of the intersection of Innisfil Beach Road and Sideroad 5. The eastern boundary of the Innisfil Cemetery

and Crematorium, which was opened in 1984 at 7551 Sideroad 5, is adjacent to west side of Highway 400.

There are no anticipated impacts to this property as a result of the proposed MTO work in the study area.

Highway 400 is considered to be a cultural heritage landscape of historical/associative interest or value to the

provincial history; however, its original highway design has been significantly altered.

Details of Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape within the study area can be found in the Cultural

Heritage Technical Report, prepared by Unterman McPhail Associates Heritage Resource Management

Consultants, dated May 6, 2019 (revised January 14, 2020).

Summary of Environmental Concerns and Commitments

The environmental protection/mitigation measures identified in the DCR have been incorporated into the

contract package to address potential environmental effects resulting from this project. Areas of environmental

sensitivity or concern, the sources of those concerns, and the mitigation measures associated with the

undertaking are described in Table 4.



32

ID # Issues/Concerns/Potential Affects Concerned Agencies ID # Mitigation/Protection/Monitoring

1.0 Fish and Fish Habitat

1.1 Construction activities may result in the suspension of sediments within the Tributary of Lover’s Creek, associated with Culvert 58, which may have direct negative effects on resident fish by causing respiratory stress, reduced feeding efficiency, and impairment of physiologic processes such as growth and reproduction.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF)

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

1.1.1 In order to protect fisheries and aquatic habitat resources within the study areas, this Contract includes Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS) 182 - General Specification for Environmental Protection for Construction in Waterbodies and on Waterbody Banks and Standard Special Provision (SSP) No. 101F23 – Amendment to OPSS 182.

1.1.2 The Contract Administrator’s Fisheries Contract Specialist shall monitor construction on a bi-weekly basis to ensure construction is in compliance with environmental mitigation measures included in applicable Contract Documents. Monitoring frequency shall be daily when construction is within 30 m of the Tributary of Lover’s Creek, per Table B of SSP 101F23 – Amendment to OPSS 182.

1.1.3 In order to avoid disruption to sensitive fish life stages, in-water work will only be permitted from July 16 to September 30 of any year, Table A of Special Provision No. 101F23 – Amendment to OPSS 182.

1.2 Removal of riparian vegetation has the potential to increase erosion, affect water temperatures, and impact nutrient inputs into the Tributary of Lover’s Creek.

MNRF

DFO

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP)

1.2.1 Removal or disturbance of riparian vegetation shall be minimized during construction operations in order to prevent unnecessary loss of stream shading, overhead cover or bank stability, per OPSS 182 - Environmental Protection for Construction in Waterbodies and on Waterbody Banks.

1.2.2 Construction staging areas will be set back from the watercourse and held on the existing roadway platform wherever possible, as described in the Contract Drawings. The Contractor shall plan access points to minimize the amount of riparian vegetation lost or disturbed. All Access routes to be reviewed and accepted by Contract Administrator prior to vegetation removal and construction of access route, per Operational Constraint (OC) – Construction Ingress, Egress and/or Access Locations.

1.2.3 Erosion and sediment control measures, as described on the Contract Drawings, shall remain in place and maintained until all disturbed areas are stabilized and/or vegetation has been re-established, per Contract Drawings and Non-Standard Special Provision (NSSP) No. ENVR0005 – Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Measures and NSSP No. ENVR0007 – Adaptive Management for Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control.

1.2.4 Landscape plantings shall be installed per Contract Drawings. Old Field Mix (the only permanent seed mix as outlined in Table 1 of OPSS 804 containing only native species is designed for seeding of areas where there will be fallow areas left alone with little or no maintenance, no mowing and the area will be required to be self-sustaining) shall be used to re-seed all disturbed areas associated with the work zone, including access routes.

1.3 Dewatering operations are required to complete the proposed work throughout the study area, which may lead to entrainment of sediment leading to fish habitat watercourses.

MNRF

MECP

DFO

1.3.1 Water from dewatering and unwatering operations shall be directed to a sediment control measure and/or a vegetated discharge area 30 m away from waterbodies or as far away as practicable from the top of the bank of any waterbody, prior to discharge to the natural environment per OPSS 805 – Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Measures and OPSS 517 – Dewatering.

1.3.2 Fish Rescue, where required, shall be carried out as per OPSS 182.

1.3.3 Where the dewatering system involves taking of water from a waterbody, the design shall maintain the flow of water and the natural functions of the waterbody upstream and downstream of the work area, per OPSS 517.

1.3.4 Should temporary diversion channels by employed, the design shall include provision for fish passage during low flows, per OPSS 517 and SSP 517F01 – Temporary Flow Passage System.

Table 4: Summary of Environmental Concerns and Commitments



33


2.0 Erosion and Sediment Control

2.1 Disturbance of existing vegetation and general grading works in the project area has the potential for erosion and sedimentation concerns due to soil types, slopes and sensitive receptors (watercourses and wetlands).

MNRF

MECP

DFO

2.1.1 Temporary erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed and removed according to the timing constraints set out in Table A of SSP No. 805F01 – Amendment to OPSS 805, NSSP – Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Measures and NSSP No. ENVR0005 – Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Measures and NSSP No. ENVR0007 – Adaptive Management for Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control.

2.1.2 In order to prevent the entrainment of sediment in watercourses adjacent to the ROW study area, the Contractor shall install appropriate erosion and sediment control measures appropriate to site conditions and stages of Construction as illustrated in the Contract Drawings.

2.1.3 All dewatering and flow diversion will be conducted in a manner that prevents the release of sediments into the watercourses/wetlands, per OPSS 517 - Dewatering of Pipeline, Utility and Associated Structure Excavation.

3.0 Terrestrial Ecosystems

3.1

Construction activities, including excavation, grading, bridge replacement, interchange reconstruction, etc. have the potential to disturb wildlife and bird habitat such as nesting and foraging habitat.

MNRF

EC

3.1.1

Vegetation clearing during the breeding bird-window (April 1 to September 15) shall not occur in order to prevent disturbance of migratory birds, per OC – Migratory Bird Protection. Should vegetation clearing be required during the timing restriction, a qualified bird specialist must complete an assessment of the site to identify active bird nests, if any.

3.1.2 The removal of trees and other vegetation shall only occur where specified in the Contract Drawings. Any removals outside of the delineated areas shall be reviewed and approved by the MTO Contract Administrator and Environmental Planner.

3.1.3 All disturbed areas will be stabilized as soon as possible using applicable erosion and sediment control measures.

3.1.4 Access routes and staging areas will be delineated on-site to prevent workers from unintentionally straying from the work platform, per OC – Construction Ingress, Egress and/or Access Locations.

3.1.5 Vegetated areas disturbed during construction shall be stabilized and re-vegetated as soon as possible. Tree and shrub plantings identified in the Contract Drawings’ Plantings Plan shall be implemented per SSP LAND0001 – Requirements for Planting.

3.2 The Barrie Collingwood Railway overhead structure is known Cliff Swallow nesting habitat. The Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) (MBCA) protects migratory birds as well as their nests and eggs across Canada.

Environment Canada 3.2.1 Due to the history of Cliff Swallows utilizing the BCR overhead structure, exclusionary measures (e.g. tarping) shall be installed on the existing bridge prior to May 15th and must be maintained until August 15 of any year, per Bird Nesting Preventative Measures - Item No. 109. If construction on the existing structure is completed outside the bird nesting window, exclusionary measures are not required.

4.0 Species at Risk

4.1 Species at Risk (SAR) may be encountered during construction, which may have impacts on the individual species or their habitat.

MECP 4.1.1 Fact sheets and identification training must be provided to all onsite personnel for the identification of SAR which may be encountered within or directly adjacent to the work area.

4.1.2 The Contractor shall perform daily site inspections for SAR for the duration of the project work. If SAR have entered the site, the Contractor shall:

- Temporarily stop work - SAR should be allowed a reasonable amount of time to leave the work area.



34


- Report SAR Observations to the MECP - The Contractor will contact MTO’s Contract Administrator and report SAR observations within 24-hours to the MECP to seek advice on how to proceed.

4.2 Known Eastern Meadowlark (EML) habitat is located in the northwest quadrant of the Innisfil Beach Road Interchange. Any impact to EML habitat is prohibited under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) without proper permission. Harm and Harassment of EML is also prohibited under the ESA.

MECP

MTO

4.2.1 A Notice of Activity has been submitted to the MECP under Section 23.6 of Ontario Regulation 242/08. The Contractor shall abide by the applicable conditions of this regulatory exemption and shall adhere to applicable conditions of the Eastern Meadowlark Habitat Management Plan prepared for this project, as noted in SSP 199F33 – Environmental Permits and Exemptions.

4.2.2 A copy of the Eastern Meadowlark Habitat Management Plan will be kept on file with the MTO for at least five (5) years after completion of the project.

5.0 Groundwater

5.1 Construction activities, such as refuelling, can increase the potential for accidental spillage and subsequent contamination of groundwater sources.

MNRF

MECP

5.1.1 Construction activities, such as refuelling, can increase the potential for accidental spillage and subsequent contamination of groundwater sources. The Contractor is required to have a spill kit available on site in the event of a spill. All spills that may have an adverse effect should be reported to the MECP Spills Action Centre (1-800-268-6060) in accordance with provincial and federal legislation.

5.1.2 The Contractor shall have a Spill Prevention and Response Contingency Plan, per OC – Spill Prevention and Response Contingency Plan.

5.2 Groundwater seepage and stormwater inflow into excavations is expected. Construction dewatering will be required to ensure that the work areas remain dry. It is expected that the typical volume of groundwater and stormwater being pumped per day will be in excess of 400,000 L/day.

MECP 5.2.1 An Application for Approval of a Category 3 Permit to Take Water has been submitted to the MECP by the MTO: Reference Number 0106-BMBHJM, per SSP No. 199F31 - Environmental Exemptions and Permits.

5.2.2 Groundwater that seeps into the excavations, as well as any collected stormwater within the excavations, will be discharged downgradient of the work area as per OPSS 517. It is recommended that the groundwater and stormwater be directed to a sediment control device installed on a well vegetated area prior to release to the natural environmental (i.e. the surrounding area).

6.0 Surface Water

6.1

There is potential for contamination spills entering the surface water and spreading the contamination.

MECP

DFO

MNRF

6.1.1 The Contractor shall have a Spill Prevention and Response Contingency Plan, per OC – Spill Prevention and Response Contingency Plan. As part of this Plan, the Contractor shall make use of a Spill Containment System. This system shall ensure no deleterious substances, as outlined in the Fisheries Act, enter waterbodies

6.1.2 Mobile equipment refuelling shall take place no closer than 30 m from any waterbody in order to prevent water contamination due to accidental fuel spills. For non-mobile equipment, refuelling should be carried out in a controlled manner so as to prevent fuel spillage, and drip pans should be located under the equipment at all times, per OC – Equipment Refueling, Maintenance and Washing.

6.1.3 Equipment operating near any waterbody shall be in good working condition, properly maintained and free of excess oil/grease to reduce the risk of contaminant leakage. In the event that a spill occurs, proper containment, clean up, and reporting, in accordance with provincial requirements, shall be completed.

6.1.4 The Contractor is required have a spill kit available on site in the event of a spill. All spills that may have an adverse effect should be reported to the MECP Spills Action Centre (1-800-268-6060) in accordance with provincial and federal legislation.



35


6.2 Construction activities can lead to the accumulation of litter and debris within watercourses.

MTO 6.2.1 The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent the accumulation of litter and construction debris within watercourses, per OPSS 182.

7.0 Contamination and Waste Management

7.1 Exposed soils and/or stockpiles of excess material located onsite may potentially leave the site and impact environmentally sensitive areas.

MECP 7.1.1 Management of excess material outside the right-of-way, stockpiling and wood management will depend upon local circumstances and be managed per Tender Documents and OPSS 180 - Management of Excess Materials.

7.2 Designated substances may be present in on-site existing construction materials, which may pose a threat to the health and safety of the construction workers.

MECP 7.2.1 In accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.1, Special Provision No. 101F21, Occupational Health, and Safety Act Compliance, has been added to the Contract Package to advise the Contractor of the presence of the following Designated Substance(s):

• Silica is assumed present throughout the working area including, but not limited to, all concrete and masonry products,

materials, and finishes;

• Arsenic is confirmed present in all pressure treated wood guide rail posts, and

• Benzene is assumed to be present throughout the work area in the form of asphalt, which is a bituminous based product.

8.0 Noise During Construction

8.1 Improper maintenance of construction equipment can cause excessive noise that may disturb neighbouring residents.

Nearby Residents and Businesses

Town of Innisfil

Simcoe County

8.1.1 The Contractor is required to maintain equipment in an operating condition that prevents unnecessary noise, including but not limited to non-defective muffler systems, properly secured components, and the lubrication of moving parts, per SSP 199F33 – Construction Noise Constraints.

8.1.2 Idling of equipment shall be restricted to the minimum necessary to perform the specified work, per SSP 199F33 – Construction Noise Constraints.

8.1.3 The Contractor shall minimize construction noise during days that racing occurs at the Georgian Downs Racetrack (Saturdays, Sundays & Tuesdays from June 1 to August 31), per SSP 199F33 – Construction Noise Constraints.

9.0 Air Quality

9.1 It is anticipated that dust and emissions from machinery will be generated during construction.

MECP

MTO

9.1.1 Odour and fume impacts will be minimized by ensuring that all equipment is properly maintained and that all pollution control devices on the equipment are operational and properly maintained.

9.1.2 Dust shall be controlled as per OPSS. PROV 100 – MTO General Conditions of the Contract (GC 7.07).

10.0 Traffic Operations

10.1 Project work will temporarily disturb normal traffic operations on Highway 400, Innisfil Beach Road and other

MTO

Motorists

10.1.1 Temporary disruption to traffic shall conform to the stipulated access, lane closures, ramp closures, and various restrictions set out on the SSP 199F01 - Temporary Roadway Closures.



36


affected local roads. Safety of construction workers, motorists and pedestrians is of primary concern.

Local Municipalities

Nearby Commercial Businesses

Emergency Services

10.1.2 Per Notice to Contractor – Notification of Local Authorities of Detours, the Contractor shall notify identified emergency services, the County of Simcoe, the City of Barrie, the Town of Innisfil and in writing at least 14 days in advance of the implementation of each detour required for the interchange ramp closures, including which detour routes will be used and when and for how long each detour will be in use.

10.1.3 The Contractor shall notify in writing and provide the detour route and signage plan to the Town of Innisfil, City of Barrie, and County of Simcoe at least two (2) weeks in advance of the detour route and signage work on Municipal roads, per OC – Coordination with the City of Barrie and OC – Coordination with the Town of Innisfil.

11.0 Cultural Environment

11.1 During construction, there is always a chance of encountering buried archaeological material.

Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Cultural Industries (MHSTCI)

Ministry of Indigenous Affairs (MIA)

11.1.1

If this occurs, the Contractor shall immediately stop all construction activities in the area and contact the office of the Heritage Operations Unit MHSTCI (416-314-7159). If unmarked human remains are uncovered, the provisions of the Ontario Cemeteries Act apply. The Contractor shall immediately stop all construction activities in the area and contact the office of the Heritage Operations Unit, MHSTCI the Registrar of Cemeteries (416-326-8394), the local Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and the local Coroner.

12.0 Utilities

12.1 There are existing utilities located within or near the Contract Limits. The locations of existing utilities shown on the Contract Drawings, including plans and sections, are indicative only and may not show all utilities (or their service connections) within or near the Contract Limits.

Bell Canada

Enbridge Gas Inc.

InnPower Corp.

InnServices Utilities Inc.

12.1.1

It is the Contractor’s responsibility to liaise with appropriate utility companies/authorities to confirm the exact nature, extent, and number of the existing utilities. The Contractor shall be responsible for the protection of all utilities during construction operations. The Contractor shall exercise due care so as not to cause any detrimental effects to these utilities. Any damage to these utilities shall be immediately reported to the Contract Administrator and the affected utility owner. These responsibilities are outlined in OC – Utility Coordination and Constraints.

13.0 Storage of Equipment

13.1 Storage of construction equipment may cause unnecessary stress and harm to horses stabled at Georgian Downs Racetrack.

Georgian Downs Racetrack

13.1.1 The Contractor shall ensure that no equipment shall be stored within 50 m of the Georgian Downs Racetrack property, per OC – Storage of Equipment.

14.0 Snow Drift

14.1 The drifting of snow on Highway 400 during the winter is a concern to public safety and could result in hazards to motorists.

MTO

Emergency Services

Motorists

14.1.1 Snow drift mitigation measures (snow fence and trees) currently exist along the western portion of the study area, along the MTO right-of-way. The Contractor shall schedule their work to ensure permanent (or temporary) snow drift mitigation measures are in place prior to winter shut down in all construction years, per Notice to Contractor – Snow Drift Mitigation.

14.1.2 Permanent snow fence shall be erected in locations illustrated in the Contract Drawings, installed per Snow Fence Item no. 65.



37

5.0 FOLLOW UP AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING

On-site contract administration/inspection staff (retained by MTO) will be responsible for inspecting the

construction area and for ensuring that the construction contractor complies with all environmental,

operational constraints, has all required environmental permits/approvals and has all required environmental

protection measures properly sited, installed and maintained as per the Construction Contract.

The Contract Administrator and their inspectors will be responsible for monitoring the Contractor’s operations

on a day-to-day basis as per the MTO Construction Administration and Inspection Task Manual. The Contract

Administrator’s inspectors will be responsible for maintaining an environmental diary, which will include a daily

recording of activities related to the environment, such as the condition and effectiveness of erosion and

sedimentation control measures and weather conditions.

The Contract Administrator’s Environmental Specialty (Environmental Monitor) shall conduct a site inspection

at minimum biweekly and within 24 hours of significant rainfall to ensure erosion and sediment control

measures are in full working order and there is no release of sediment or a spill of potentially deleterious

substance to any watercourse or wetlands within the study area. In the event of a release of sediment or a spill

of a potentially deleterious substance into watercourses or wetlands within the study area, the Contractor shall

follow the appropriate notification procedures.

The Contract Administrator’s Fisheries Contract Specialist shall monitor construction on a bi-weekly basis to

ensure construction is in compliance with environmental mitigation measures included in applicable Contract

Documents. Monitoring frequency shall increase to daily when the Contractor is performing work within 30 m

of the Tributary of Lover’s Creek. All components of the watercourse and culvert details shall be inspected by

the Fisheries Contract Specialist and a report shall be provided to the Contract Administrator weekly.



38

6.0 REFERENCES

AECOM, 2017a. Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment. Preliminary Design. Highway 400 Improvements from 1km

South of Highway 89 to the Junction of Highway 11. Town of Innisfil, Township of Springwater and City of Barrie,

Simcoe County, Ontario. GWP 06-20016. February 3, 2017. 123p.

AECOM 2017b. Supplementary Documentation. Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment. Preliminary Design.

Highway 400 Improvements from 1km South of Highway 89 to the Junction of Highway 11. Town of Innisfil,

Township of Springwater and City of Barrie, Simcoe County, Ontario. GWP 06-20016. February 3, 2017. 6p.

AECOM 2017c. Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR) Addendum. Highway 400 Improvements

from 1 km South of Highway 89 to the Junction of Highway 11. W.O. 06-20016. Class Environmental Assessment

and Preliminary Design Study Update. November 2017. 143p.

Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Nature, Ontario Field

Ornithologists, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OBBA). 2006. Atlas Data Summary. Ontario Breeding

Bird Atlas Website. http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/index.jsp. Accessed 28 December 2018.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. (CEAA), S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52. https://laws-

lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-15.21/

Fri Ecological Services. 2015. Existing Environmental Conditions study. Highway 400 from 1km South of Highway

89 to the Junction of Highway 11. GWP 06-20016. February 4, 2015. 72p.

Fri Ecological Services. 2017. Natural Heritage Impact Assessment study. Highway 400 from 1km South of

Highway 89 to the Junction of Highway 11. GWP 06-20016. February 17, 2017. 62p.

Impact Assessment Act. (IAA), S.C. 2019, c. 28, s.1. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.75/page-1.html

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA). 2012. Barrie Creeks, Lovers Creek, and Hewitt’s Creek

Subwatershed Plan. 345 pp

Ministry of Transportation (MTO). 2000. Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation

Facilities. As amended on July 14, 2000.

Ministry of Transportation (MTO). 2012. Environmental Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Air Quality

Impacts and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Provincial Transportation Projects. Ontario Ministry of

Transportation. January 2012.

Ministry of Transportation (MTO). 2013. Environmental Reference for Highway Design. Ontario Ministry of

Transportation. Version: June 2013.

Town of Innisfil. 2018. Our Place. Innisfil Official Plan. November 2018.

Transport Canada. 1992. Standards Respecting Railway Clearances. May 14, 1992. 10p.

http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/index.jsp.%20Accessed%2028%20December%202018

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-15.21/

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-15.21/

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.75/page-1.html



39

URS. 2004. Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR). Highway 400 Planning and Preliminary Design

Study. From 1 km South of Highway 89 Northerly 30 km to the Junction at Highway 11. Town of Bradford West

Gwillimbury, Town of Innisfil, City of Barrie, Township of Springwater, County of Simcoe. Class Environmental

Assessment Group ‘B’. April 2004.

Date post:	16-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times