Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment …Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor...

Ministry of Transportation Provincial & Environmental Planning Office Head Office – St. Catharines

Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor

Environmental AssessmentTerms of Reference

May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.

Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 MTO Planning and Environmental Assessment Process.................................................................................2 1.3 Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment Study ..........................................................................6 1.4 Purpose of the EA Terms of Reference ...........................................................................................................9 1.5 Timing of Transportation Improvements ......................................................................................................10 1.6 Proponent ......................................................................................................................................................10

2. PURPOSE OF THE UNDERTAKING................................................................................................................11 2.1 Transportation Problems and Opportunities..................................................................................................11 2.2 Purpose of the Undertaking...........................................................................................................................18

3. ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................................20 3.1 Alternatives to the Undertaking (Planning Alternatives) ..............................................................................20 3.2 Roadway and Transportation Corridor Alternatives Considered ..................................................................24 3.3 Summary of Alternatives to be Carried Forward into this Route Location Environmental Assessment.......28 3.4 Description of the Proposed Undertaking .....................................................................................................29 3.5 How the Proposed Undertaking Addresses Problems and Opportunities......................................................29

4. ROUTE LOCATION EA STUDY AREA, ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS..........................................................................................................................30 4.1 Route Location EA Study Area.....................................................................................................................30 4.2 Environmental Overview of the Proposed Study Area..................................................................................30 4.3 Anticipated Environmental Effects of the Undertaking ................................................................................34

5. ROUTE GENERATION AND EVALUATION PROCESS ...............................................................................35 5.1 Process to Generate Alternatives...................................................................................................................35

5.1.1 Factor Specific Environmental Inputs to the Generation of Alternatives ...........................................37 5.1.2 Refinement of Route Alternatives ......................................................................................................37

5.2 Evaluation of Route Alternatives ..................................................................................................................43 5.2.1 Factor Specific Environmental Inputs to the Evaluation of Alternatives............................................46

5.3 Concept Design .............................................................................................................................................51 5.3.1 Factor Specific Environmental Inputs to the Generation and Assessment of Concept Design

Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................51 5.3.2 Selection of the Preferred Concept Design Alternative ......................................................................51

5.4 Activities Following Approval of the EA......................................................................................................52 5.5 Monitoring.....................................................................................................................................................53

5.5.1 Project Technical Monitoring .............................................................................................................53 5.5.2 EA Process Monitoring ......................................................................................................................53

6. CONSULTATION ...............................................................................................................................................54 6.1 Consultation in Preparation of the EA Terms of Reference ..........................................................................54

6.1.1 Public Consultation During the EA Terms of Reference....................................................................54 6.1.2 Municipal / Agency, Ministry, and First Nation Consultation During the EA Terms of Reference...64 6.1.3 Workshop Sessions.............................................................................................................................66 6.1.4 Pre-Submission Review of the EA Terms of Reference.....................................................................66

6.2 Consultation Plan for the Route Location Environmental Assessment .........................................................68 6.2.1 Public Consultation During the Route Location EA...........................................................................69 6.2.2 Approach for Consulting External Agencies, Ministries and First Nations during the Route Location

EA.......................................................................................................................................................70 6.2.3 Pre Submission Review of the draft Environmental Assessment Report ...........................................74

7. OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED ...................................................................................................................75 7.1 Federal / Provincial EA Policy Coordination ................................................................................................75

7.1.1 Need for Federal/Provincial EA Coordination ...................................................................................75 7.1.2 Proposed Approach For Coordination Of New MTO Projects...........................................................77 7.1.3 Application of the Coordinated Process to MPTC .............................................................................78

Page i May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.

Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1.1 MTO Planning and EA Process ..........................................................................................................3 Exhibit 2.1 Existing and Future Transportation Deficiencies on Provincial Network.........................................16 Exhibit 3.1 Alternative Transportation Corridors Proposed to be Carried Forward into the

Route Location EA ...........................................................................................................................27 Exhibit 4.1 Proposed Route Location EA Study Area.........................................................................................31 Exhibit 4.2 Environmental Features in the Study Area .......................................................................................32 Exhibit 5.1 Process for Generating and Evaluation Alternatives.........................................................................36 Exhibit 5.2 Segment Analysis .............................................................................................................................43

TABLES

Table 5.1 Proposed Route Generation Criteria .................................................................................................38 Table 5.2 Evaluation Measures, Rationale and Data Sources...........................................................................47 Table 6.1 Summary of Key Issues and Concerns Raised in Preparation of the

EA Terms of Reference ....................................................................................................................55 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS (Under Separate Cover – 2 Volumes) Volume 1

Document A Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment January 2003 (updated May 2003)

Volume 2

Document B Environmental Work Plans - Natural Environment Work Plan - Socio Economic Work Plan - Archaeological Work Plan - Cultural Heritage Work Plan - Noise Work Plan - Air Quality Work Plan - Contaminated Property and Waste Management Work Plan - Technical Work Plan - Cumulative Effects Work Plan

Document C Report on External Consultation

Document D Public Consultation Summaries

Document E Workshop Summary

Document F Minutes of Meetings

Document G Agency and Municipal Correspondence on the draft EA Process Commitments Report, EA Work Plans and Report on External Consultation

Document H Agency and Municipal Correspondence During Pre-submission Review of the EA Terms of Reference

Document I Conceptual Project Schedule for Undertaking the Route Location EA

Document J Federal / Provincial EA Process Coordination

Page ii May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


1. Introduction and Background

1.1 Introduction One of the features of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, January 1, 1997, is the requirement for the preparation, submission and approval of a Terms of Reference before work begins on an Individual Environmental Assessment (EA). Once approved by the Minister of the Environment, the Terms of Reference set out a framework that will guide and focus the preparation of the EA. The approval of the Terms of Reference is the first statutory decision by the Minister of the Environment in the EA planning and approval process.

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO), as the proponent, has prepared a Terms of Reference for the proposed Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor including a new 400-series highway and possible transitway in accordance with Section 6 (2)(c) of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.

The Terms of Reference is submitted to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) for public and government agency comment and review. Along with the Terms of Reference, the MTO is submitting supporting documentation setting out the justification of the need for the project and the scoping of alternatives to the proposed undertaking. This documentation is available under separate cover: Volume 1, Supporting Document A - Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment Study (January 2003). A description of the purpose of the undertaking, a statement of the rationale for the undertaking and consideration of alternatives is summarized in this report, in Chapters 2 and 3.

The Terms of Reference provides the purpose of the proposed undertaking; a project description; consideration of alternatives to the proposed undertaking; the study area and potential effects, and the approach to route generation and evaluation. This approach is summarized in Chapters 4 and 5 and further detailed through a number of environmental work plans available under separate cover: Volume 2, Supporting Document B – Environmental Work Plans. The work plans include a detailed process for the generation, evaluation and Concept Design of route alternatives and have been prepared for the following disciplines: Natural Environment Work Plan Socio Economic Work Plan Archaeological Work Plan Cultural Heritage Work Plan Noise Work Plan Air Quality Work Plan Contaminated Property and Waste Management Work Plan Technical Work Plan Cumulative Effects Work Plan

As required by the EA Act, the Terms of Reference is accompanied by a description of the public and agency consultation that was undertaken during the preparation of the

Page 1 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Terms of Reference (Section 6.1) and includes a description of the kinds of public/agency consultation that will take place during the preparation of the EA (Section 6.2). This consultation program for the subsequent EA is further detailed in the Report on External Consultation, available under separate cover: Volume 2, Supporting Document C.

Over the last year, an extensive consultation program was carried out with municipalities, government agencies, stakeholders and the general public. The results are contained under separate cover in the supporting documentation in Volume 2. These documents serve as the consultation record and include the following:

Document D – Public Consultation Summaries

Document E – Stakeholder Workshop Summaries

Document F – Minutes of Meetings

Document G – Agency/Municipal Correspondence During Preparation of the draft EA ToR

Document H – Agency/Municipal Correspondence During Pre-Submission Review of the EA ToR

A conceptual project schedule for the Route Location EA is available under separate cover: Volume 2, Supporting Document I. This schedule adds clarity to the process as it illustrates the general flow and order of activities involved in the proposed EA study, and indicates general time frames. However, this schedule is for information purposes only, is subject to change, and does not form part of the EA Terms of Reference for which approval is being sought.

Document J can be viewed in Volume 2 of the supporting documents and contains information on Federal/Provincial EA Process Co-ordination. MTO, MOE and the Canadian Environment Assessment (CEAA) Agency are working together to ensure that requirements of the provincial and federal EA process are addressed during the course of the EA.

It should be noted that the Terms of Reference set out at a minimum, what the proponent will do during the preparation of the subsequent EA. MTO will consider enhancements to the process and work tasks, as required over the course of the EA study, based on consultation input, changes to Provincial Policy and the availability of new environmental information. MTO will undertake this EA based on the legislative requirements, policies, procedures and protocols that are in place at the time the work is done.

If the Terms of Reference are approved by the Minister of the Environment, MTO will be able to proceed with the EA Study to determine a preferred route for the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor.

1.2 MTO Planning and Environmental Assessment Process

MTO is undertaking the planning and Environmental Assessment (EA) process for the proposed Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor. The EA Terms of the Reference is the

Page 2 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


first step in the formal EA process. If MOE approves the Terms of Reference, then the next step is a Route Location EA Study to determine a preferred route. If this EA is approved by MOE, then MTO can designate the route, protect property and proceed with detail design and EA work required prior to construction of the facility. The overall planning and EA process takes at least 8-10 years. The actual timing of construction will be dependent on government priorities and the availability of funding.

The EA study to determine a preferred route and subsequent protection by the province is a key step in providing the required certainty for municipalities to proceed with land use planning as well as certainty for affected residents. Since an EA study takes several years, MTO wishes to proceed with an EA process that is well grounded. The Terms of Reference provides the framework for this EA process.

Conducting a Needs Assessment Study constitutes the first phase in the planning for transportation improvements. A needs assessment study involves an assessment of future transportation problems, opportunities and transportation options within a broad analysis area. A key product of the needs assessment process is a multi-modal “Transportation Development Strategy” that consists of a number of recommendations for transportation initiatives to be carried forward by the appropriate proponent under separate EA processes. The overall MTO planning and EA process is shown in Exhibit 1.1.

Exhibit 1.1 – MTO Planning and EA Process

DraftTransportation

Needs Assessment

EA Terms of Reference

EA Study for Detail Design

and Construction

WE ARE HERE

Public Consultation

EA Study Route

Location


Draft Transportation

Needs Assessment Review


Needs Assessment

MOE ApprovalMOE Approval of Preferred Route

DraftTransportation

Needs Assessment


EA Study for Detail Design

and Construction

WE ARE HERE

Public Consultation

EA Study Route

Location



Needs Assessment Review


Needs Assessment

MOE ApprovalMOE Approval of Preferred Route

The Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment Study was completed as a component of the Ministry of Transportation’s long range planning program to improve travel through Ontario’s major international and provincial transportation corridors. MTO initiated this study in 2000 to assess existing and future transportation problems from the Niagara frontier into the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and southwestern Ontario over the next 30 years. The study recommended a number of initiatives to improve transit, rail, ferry and roadways through the Niagara Peninsula into the GTA. One

Page 3 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


recommended undertaking to be pursued by MTO is the proposed Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor.

The original Transportation Needs Assessment Study (June, 2001) provided the technical basis for MTO to proceed with the formal EA process for the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor. Consultation was limited to discussions with staff of Niagara Region, the City of Hamilton, Halton Region and Haldimand County. No public consultation was undertaken at the time. This study report was therefore considered draft for subsequent stakeholder and public comment during the EA Terms of Reference phase.

The draft Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment Study was posted by MTO on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (July 18, 2001), for 60 days, to advise the public of the opportunity to comment on the results in response to this notice or during the preparation of the EA Terms of Reference.

In the development of the EA Terms of Reference for the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor, the findings of the transportation needs assessment study were the subject of extensive consultation with municipalities, government agencies, First Nations, stakeholders and the general public. The first four rounds of Public Consultation Centres (12 total) and three stakeholder workshops focused on the needs assessment work. A Municipal Advisory Group (MAG) provided input over the course of the study. MAG members included staff representing Niagara, Hamilton, Halton and their constituent local municipalities, the Niagara Escarpment Commission and area conservation authorities, and later in the process, First Nations and Haldimand County. This extensive public/agency/municipal consultation led to the revised needs assessment document dated January 2003 (available under separate cover as Supporting Document A).

All transportation projects or “undertakings” carried out by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation are subject to the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.18, as amended (“EAA”). The EAA provides for class environmental assessment approval for a class of undertakings. A “Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities” was approved under the EAA by Order In Council 1653/99 as amended July 14, 2000 (“Class EA”). MTO was the proponent of the Class EA undertaking.

The Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities document can be purchased (or viewed for free) through the ministry’s publishing house at www.ronen.com.

The Class EA applies to undertakings by MTO (Section 1.4) and applies to provincial highways and freeways, provincial transitways, provincial ferryboats, etc. (Section 1.5 and page 2-2).

Within the Class EA, projects are classified into three groups (A, B and C). New facilities (such as the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor) are designated as Group A projects. A new freeway/transitway project is required by the Class EA to obtain approval as an individual undertaking under the provisions of the EAA (Section 1.5, page 1-5; page 2-1). Other undertakings listed in the documentation follow the Class EA process set out in the appropriate sections of the document.

Page 4 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


The Class EA includes a stage called the Transportation Needs Assessment. This stage is described as part of MTO’s ongoing activities, which precedes the planning stage of a Class EA undertaking. Section 4.4 states that the following provisions apply to the Transportation Needs Assessment process:

• “The transportation needs assessment process is considered “research” and/or “feasibility study” work under the EA Act, and therefore is not subject to the EA process/public consultation requirements of the EA Act at the time it is conducted.

• Where this process results in the decision to pursue Group A and/or Group B transportation studies, the EA and public consultation processes of those studies are initiated through a review of the Transportation Needs Assessment findings, which then becomes a formal part of the study process conducted under this Class EA, or in the case of new freeway planning is conducted under the individual EA process.” (page 4-8)

The section goes on to state: (page 4-9)

“However, where a Group A, B, and/or C study is subsequently pursued, the Transportation Needs Assessment serves to:

• Identify transportation problems and opportunities (see Section 4.4.1); • Evaluate and select reasonable “alternatives to” (see Section 4.4.2); • Develop provincial transportation facility study objectives – “the purpose of the

undertaking” (see Section 4.4.3); and • Initiate the study process of the Group A, B and/or C project (see Section 4.4.4).”

The Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment was carried out by MTO as a separate planning and decision-making process in accordance with the above description contained in the Class EA. The document was originally completed in June 2001 and released as a draft for public and stakeholder comment at the EA Terms of Reference stage.

The Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment Study report (January 2003) was subsequently revised based on extensive consultation and forms the basis for proceeding with this Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference for the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor under Section 6 (2)(c) of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.

The following statement from the draft “Guide to Preparing Terms of Reference For Environmental Assessments (December 15, 2000)”, (the “MOE Draft Guidelines”), describes the Needs Assessment process and supports MTO’s decision to prepare this EA ToR in accordance with Section 6 (2)(c) of the EA Act:

“Alternatively, proponents may have previously considered some alternatives during a separate planning or decision-making process. If that process provided for public consultation in a manner that is consistent with the opportunities for public comment provided in the EA process, the proponent may propose to limit the discussion of those alternatives previously considered and discarded in order

Page 5 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


to focus the EA on the examination of other alternatives. Master Plans and business plans are two examples of supporting documentation that may be submitted with a ToR to support both the range of alternatives readily available to the proponent, and the range of alternatives previously considered.” (page 14, first full paragraph)

The Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment examined a wide range of transportation alternatives and consulted extensively on the recommendation for a new transportation corridor in addition to other transportation improvements. These transportation alternatives are not being eliminated by pursuing the new transportation corridor but are part of the overall Transportation Development Strategy for the area. These initiatives will, however, be subject to their own planning and EA processes.

In summary, the Transportation Needs Assessment identifies the need for transportation improvements and examines a range of transportation alternatives as contemplated by the Class EA for projects that fall within its procedures, including Group A - new freeways. It is the approved Class EA process that requires that these types of projects be carried forward as an Individual EA. It is through a transportation needs assessment study that the ministry determines whether a new 400-series highway or transitway is needed and hence, an Individual EA required. Alternatively, the transportation needs assessment study may recommend transportation improvements that require a Class EA. Only in the case of an Individual EA process is an EA Terms of Reference required for the proposed undertaking.

1.3 Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment Study

In June 2001, the Premier of Ontario and the Minister of Transportation announced completion of the draft Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment study. This needs assessment study was a technical exercise, involving a comprehensive examination of future transportation problems, opportunities, and a range of transportation alternatives including road, transit, rail, ferry and other options. Various commuter, tourist and commercial traffic growth scenarios were considered for a 30-year planning period based on municipal population and employment projections, tourism targets and assumptions regarding economic growth and exchange rates.

The needs assessment study concluded that additional transportation capacity would be required through the Niagara Peninsula into the Greater Toronto Area to accommodate future growth in the movement of people and goods. The needs assessment study proposed a multi-modal “Transportation Development Strategy” comprised of a number of recommendations for transportation system improvements to be implemented by the appropriate agencies.

The study recommended a tourism train service between Toronto and Niagara Falls in the short term and commuter rail service to Niagara Region in the long term. However, in view of the magnitude of future travel growth over the next 30 years through the Niagara Peninsula, it was concluded that a new transportation corridor was required to augment

Page 6 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


the QEW and provide greater transportation system reliability, efficiency and safety as well as address municipal planning and economic development objectives in Niagara and Hamilton.

The originally proposed Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor would link to the QEW and the international crossings at the Niagara frontier, then run westerly to Hamilton International Airport and connect to Highway 403, whereupon it was recommended to proceed easterly and connect to Highway 407 in Burlington.

The first phase of the Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference Study (EA ToR) for the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor involved extensive municipal, agency, stakeholder and public consultation on the findings of the Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment Study. Through additional technical analysis and consultation input, several alternative highway connections were recommended for consideration in the subsequent Route Location Environmental Assessment Study including connections to Highway 401 west of the Niagara Escarpment, Highway 6 North, or Highway 403 through Hamilton. The proposed EA Study Area has been broadened to encompass a variety of possible routes linking to these highways.

The consultation program included five rounds of Public Consultation Centres all at three locations (fifteen in total) and three stakeholder workshops held at locations in Niagara, Hamilton and Halton. The first four rounds of public meetings focused on addressing questions and concerns regarding the Transportation Needs Assessment findings, proposed alternative transportation corridors, and the recommended broader EA Study Area.

In view of the First Nations’ interest (e.g., traditional hunting grounds) in the study area and at the request of the First Nations, presentations were made to the elected and traditional councils of the Six Nations and the Mississaugas of the New Credit. In addition, two public meetings were held with the members of these two First Nations communities.

Presentations were provided to the Council / Council Committees of Niagara, Hamilton, Halton and the City of Burlington. In addition, several meetings were held with a Municipal Advisory Group including staff of the upper tier and lower tier municipalities, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, local conservation authorities and representatives of First Nations.

Over the course of the needs assessment review phase, the Project Team worked with an independent Technical Review consultant team sponsored by the Cities of Burlington and Hamilton to address municipal concerns regarding the transportation needs assessment findings. Substantial additional work was conducted and several meetings were held with staff of Burlington, Hamilton and their retained consultants leading to substantial revisions of the needs assessment report.

In response to comments received during the consultation over the past year, the draft Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment was revised (January 2003). The revised document can be seen under separate cover as Supporting Document A.

Page 7 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


The Needs Assessment Study recognized the need for a balanced multi-modal transportation solution including transit, rail and ferry services, intelligent transportation system applications and other complementary measures in addition to highway expansion. The proposed Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor would provide for both a new highway and dedicated transit facilities such as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes or a transitway.

This multi-modal approach is consistent with the vision of the Smart Growth Panel for Central Ontario. While the Panel recommends a “Transit First” priority, the planning and environmental assessment process for new transportation infrastructure is a long-term exercise and takes 8-10 years. To ensure that the proposed new transportation corridor is protected for the future and to facilitate integrated municipal land use planning it is therefore important that MTO proceeds with the Environmental Assessment study to determine a preferred route.

In support of a comprehensive inter-regional transit strategy for the Central Ontario area, MTO has initiated a Transit Opportunities Study to examine the potential for HOV lanes and transitways along existing 400-series highways and in new transportation corridors. In the future, a transitway within the proposed Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor could link Hamilton International Airport to a broader inter-regional transit system throughout the Greater Toronto Area.

It should be noted that this approach is different from traditional Environmental Assessment projects where typically “Alternatives To” are eliminated from further consideration. The conventional approach fails to acknowledge the value in proceeding with options that address the transportation problem, but not as a stand-alone alternative. Further, complementary alternatives such as HOV lanes or transitways within the transportation corridor might not be considered because they would not address travel needs in the shorter term.

In view of the extent of the “Transportation Development Strategy” (44 recommended initiatives) recommended as part of the Transportation Needs Assessment, one Environmental Assessment process is not feasible. Moreover, several recommendations require initiation by other proponents such as local municipalities and GO Transit. This Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference is focused on just one of the many recommendations of the Needs Assessment – The Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor (MPTC). As a component of the Transportation Development Strategy, the Ministry of Transportation has identified the need to commence the planning process for a new Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor (comprised of a highway and/or transitway) which provides a connection from the Niagara Frontier to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). This proposed new transportation corridor is required to meet the 30-year transportation needs and to support population, economic and planned urban growth in the area, provide additional transportation capacity and highway network reliability, efficiency and safety between the Canada / U.S. border and the GTA, and to address significant transportation problems between Hamilton and Halton.

Page 8 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.

Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference 1.4 Purpose of the EA Terms of Reference

The preparation of an EA Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor, and subsequent submission to the Minister of the Environment for review and a decision regarding approval, is a requirement of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.

The ToR is intended to provide guidance to the proponent (MTO) and all stakeholders that the Environmental Assessment will be prepared to an acceptable level of detail. This ToR is prepared in accordance with Section 6 (2)(c) of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act and specifically addresses the following:

Identification of the Proponent (Section 1 of this document); The purpose of the undertaking (Section 2); A description of the alternatives that will be considered (Section 3); A description of the undertaking (Section 3); A description of the study area and potential effects (Section 4); Environmental Assessment Work Plans that identify the scope of work to be carried

out to generate and assess impacts of the various alternative (Section 5); A Monitoring Plan (Section 5); A description of the consultation undertaken to prepare this ToR (Section 6); A description of the Consultation Plan proposed for the Route Location EA (Section

6); and, Identification of other approvals required (Section 7).

In order to provide for flexibility, it should be noted that the Terms of Reference set out at a minimum, what the proponent will do during the preparation of the subsequent EA. MTO will consider enhancements to the process and work tasks, as required over the course of the EA study, based on consultation input, changes to Provincial Policy and the availability of new environmental information. MTO will undertake this EA based on the legislative requirements, policies, procedures and protocols that are in place at the time the work is done.

The subsequent Route Location Environmental Assessment will be prepared in accordance with the Terms of Reference approved for this proposed undertaking and subsection 6.1(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

A suggested schedule for the completion of the Environmental Assessment is included under separate cover as Supporting Document I. This schedule is for information purposes only and does not form part of the EA Terms of Reference for which approval is being sought.

Page 9 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.

Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference 1.5 Timing of Transportation Improvements

As described earlier, the Transportation Needs Assessment recommended a Transportation Development Strategy that included a complete set of multi-modal improvements necessary to address the transportation problems and opportunities. The Ministry of Transportation is proceeding with the EA for the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor now, to accommodate the lengthy process required for a Route Location EA. The other components of the recommended multi-modal strategy will be implemented by the appropriate proponent through separate EA processes.

1.6 Proponent

The Ontario Ministry of Transportation is the proponent for this Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference for the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor.

Page 10 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


2. Purpose of the Undertaking Consideration of the Purpose of the Undertaking for a transportation project is a two-step process. The first step (see section 2.1) is to clearly understand the problems and opportunities that exist within the analysis area and within the planning horizon timeframe (30 years). These problems and opportunities are fully documented in the Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment available under separate cover as Supporting Document A.

The second step (see Section 2.2) is to clearly articulate the Purpose of the Undertaking to help shape the consideration of alternatives.

As described in Section 1.2, this EA is being prepared in accordance with Section 6 (2)(c) of the EA Act. As such, transportation Problems and Opportunities will not be considered during the Route Location EA.

2.1 Transportation Problems and Opportunities

The purpose of the Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment Study was to assess the operation of the transportation system, identify long-range problems and opportunities, and to recommend transportation improvement options through the Niagara Peninsula into the GTA. The broader analysis area considered in the context of the study included the Region of Niagara, The City of Hamilton, the Region of Halton, the Greater Toronto Area, Haldimand County and other portions of Southwestern Ontario and the Niagara Frontier international border crossings. The study provides a Transportation Development Strategy for a 30 year planning horizon. The need for significant improvements to the transportation network are driven by several factors including population growth (and associated employment growth), trade growth, tourism growth, land use policies, and growing congestion in the existing transportation system.

Analysis Area Overview The Niagara Peninsula area is strategically located within central Ontario and acts as an international trade and tourism gateway between the Greater Toronto Area, and southwestern Ontario and the United States. Some 120 million people and major industry markets in Ontario, and neighbouring states in the U.S., lie within 500 kilometres of the Analysis Area. The long-term viability of the international crossings is fundamental to trade, tourism and economic growth in the region, Central Ontario and the Province of Ontario.

The Regional Municipality of Niagara is part of a larger, bi-national region spanning the Niagara River, which has 6 road/rail bridge crossings. With a variety of major tourist attractions, the Niagara area is both a major tourism gateway and a vital tourism growth centre in Ontario. Niagara Region is comprised of 12 local municipalities with a total population of 430,000.

Page 11 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


The City of Hamilton is also in a unique position, functioning as a gateway from Niagara to the Greater Toronto Area and other economic centres in southwestern Ontario. The population of Hamilton is 500,000. John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport is a future economic growth centre and major development area in the region. The QEW and Highways 403, 6 and 8 are key highways linking Hamilton to Niagara and Halton Regions, Haldimand County and the Kitchener-Waterloo-Guelph areas. The efficiency of the provincial highway system in, and through, the Hamilton area can therefore be considered as essential to economic prosperity in the broader Golden Horseshoe Area.

The Region of Halton lies directly to the east of Hamilton and is part of the Greater Toronto Area. Given its location, the region is transected by several provincial highways – the QEW 403, 407 and 401. The Niagara Escarpment is a major natural feature within this area. Halton Region is comprised of four municipalities: The Town of Oakville and City of Burlington make up the urban area in the southern portion of Region and the Towns of Halton Hills and Milton make up the largely rural area to the north. The population of Halton is approximately 380,000 with another 300,000 people anticipated over the next 30 years. In view of the commuter, tourist and commercial traffic traveling through Halton the efficiency of the provincial highway system is key to local, regional and provincial economic prosperity.

Population and Employment Growth Central Ontario is projected to grow by approximately 3.0 million people over the next 25 years. This growth is largely driven by immigration. As a result of increases in population and continued economic growth through trade with the United States, the level of employment will also grow.

The population of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is projected to grow by approximately 2.3 million and the rest of Central Ontario is projected to grow by 900,000 by the rear 2031. Population and employment growth will result in greater levels of local and inter-regional travel demand.

The Official Plans and strategic growth policies for all of the jurisdictions within the analysis area recognize that growth will occur and that growth is necessary for continued economic prosperity. However, the existing transportation network is not capable of supporting this growth.

It is anticipated that future transportation congestion issues in the GTA may result in a "spill-over" of a component of population and employment growth from the GTA core areas to surrounding municipalities. Niagara, Hamilton and Halton are well positioned to attract and accommodate some of this growth. Niagara, Hamilton and Halton have an adequate supply of land available for development within their current Official Plan timeframes. Lands currently designated in Municipal Official Plans can accommodate an accelerated level of growth in areas that can readily be provided with municipal services.

Other municipalities such as Waterloo, Wellington, Haldimand and Brant may likewise attract greater population and employment for the GTA over time. However, for the purposes of the needs assessment study, the population and employment projections

Page 12 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


underlying the travel forecasting were based on existing municipal Official Plans and data from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. A “spill-over” scenario was tested (i.e. shifting another 700,000 people outside of the GTA) to assess the impacts on travel in the analysis area.

Higher population and employment growth in Central Ontario surrounding the GTA will necessitate greater investment in inter-regional linkages in terms of commuter rail, bus-based transit services and road infrastructure. Directing this growth to existing urban centres will be important to constrain urban sprawl and generate demand for higher order transit in major transportation corridors. This challenge has been recognized by the Smart Growth Panel for Central Ontario “Shape the Future” report released April 2003.

Transportation access and mobility are two important considerations in the location decisions of industry and business. Given the anticipated congestion levels in the GTA and the importance of the Niagara Peninsula as an international trade corridor, investment in passenger rail and transit systems to reduce automobile congestion will provide benefits to industry and business. However, additional road infrastructure will also be required to provide highway accessibility to planned development (e.g., Hamilton International Airport) and support a reliable, efficient and safe highway system over the next 30 years.

Trade The Niagara Peninsula is a strategic region of central Ontario as it acts as an international trade and tourist gateway between the Greater Toronto Area and the United States. International trade and goods movement through the Peninsula into Canada's economic heartland is critical to the regional, provincial and national economies. Canada and the United States enjoy the largest bi-national trading relationship in the world, at about $590 billion in 2000. Approximately 87% of Canadian exports and 93% of Ontario's exports go to the United States. Increases in exports during the past few years account for 20% of Ontario's economic growth.

The Niagara Peninsula is a key economic trade corridor connecting the eastern U.S. seaboard and northeastern U.S. industrial centres to the GTA, and to a lesser extent, to Kitchener-Waterloo and southwestern Ontario. The Niagara Frontier plays a significant role in this trade, accounting for approximately 16% of all Canada-U.S. trade - $100 billion annually.

The QEW is a primary truck route linking the Niagara Frontier to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and the rest of southern Ontario. Currently, all international trade through the Peninsula carried by truck relies on one single controlled access facility: the QEW. Temporary capacity restrictions on the QEW caused by construction, weather or emergency situations have significant and immediate impacts on the ability of goods to travel through this trade corridor. Other parallel routes do not have sufficient capacity or the potential to absorb this overflow of high-speed, high-volume and long-distance traffic. As part of the Needs Assessment Study, it was assumed that goods movement by truck will increase along this trade corridor by approximately 3% per annum between 2001 and 2031. This is substantially lower than the historical trend (5-6% annually).

Page 13 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Just-in-time delivery is, and will continue to be, the key to shipping in the manufacturing sector with a continued heavy reliance on truck transport.

Currently, on an average workday, approximately 8,600 trucks cross the Niagara Frontier bridges. Of those, 62% originate or are destined to the GTA or Hamilton. Another 17% travel to, or from, centres in southwestern Ontario. Truck trips “in-transit’ between Michigan and New York account for only 6% of total international movements.

Rail transport is also an important mode serving 31% of goods transport across the Niagara frontier. With the anticipated growth in international trade over the next 30 years, railway capacity improvements will be required to handle the corresponding increase in rail shipments and separate freight rail from passenger rail operations. With further integration between rail and truck operations, there will also be a need for good highway access to intermodal stations.

International trade across the Niagara Frontier, through the Niagara Peninsula and to the GTA and other economic centres is of vital importance to the economic health of communities and industry in Central Ontario, the province and the country. The efficiency of the transportation system throughout this area is therefore essential.

Tourism Tourism is one of the largest export industries in the Province. The Niagara Falls area is a key tourist node in central Ontario driven by the region’s proximity to large urban populations in southern Ontario and the eastern seaboard of the U.S., significant attractions (e.g. Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake) and the population-driven component of tourism (i.e. visiting friends and family). Tourist visitations to the Niagara area are expected to grow from 15 million annually today to between 22 million and 40 million by 2031 and the share of tourist visitations from the Greater Toronto Area (relative to cross-border visits) is expected to increase with the anticipated population growth in Central Ontario. For the needs assessment study, the conservative low growth scenario (22 million visitors annually) was assumed. While Niagara Falls remains the key tourist attraction, the wine industry, agri-tourism, eco-tourism, etc., are becoming more significant. Transportation improvements are needed to support tourism as an important economic growth sector.

The City of Toronto is also a major tourism centre is Ontario with some 17 million visitors annually. Approximately 20% of tourists visiting Toronto arrive by auto from the Niagara frontier. The QEW is therefore a key tourism as well as trade corridor.

The City of Hamilton is centrally located in the Golden Horseshoe Area encircling a large bay area that provides international port facilities, access to industry, and also provides recreational and tourism opportunities. John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport serves passengers traveling in and out of Hamilton, Toronto and Southern Ontario. In 2001, John C. Munro Airport handled approximately 900,000 passengers. This number is projected to increase significantly with planned expansion of the facility.

Halton, like Hamilton, is uniquely situated as it lies at the heart of the Golden Horseshoe and is conveniently located between Toronto and Niagara Falls. With a majority of the

Page 14 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


urban area within Halton adjacent to the QEW, businesses and attractions within the community have the opportunity to capitalize on significant volumes of tourist traffic traveling between Niagara Falls, the US border crossings and Toronto and the remainder of the GTA. In addition, Halton is home to a major portion of the Niagara Escarpment, a significant tourist attraction unto itself, offering unique eco-tourism opportunities.

Land Use Policies The Regional Municipality of Niagara has recognized the importance of developing a transportation system that encourages land use and economic development south of the escarpment to alleviate urbanization pressures on the tender fruitlands/ wine-growing region along the QEW corridor between the Niagara Escarpment and Lake Ontario.

In the City of Hamilton, most employment and community services are currently located below the escarpment while the majority of the City’s planned growth opportunities are situated above the escarpment in Waterdown and the south Mountain districts. Transportation improvements to increase accessibility to strategic assets such as the Hamilton International Airport and other urban districts are needed to enable the City to achieve its full potential. The City of Hamilton is undertaking an integrated land use and infrastructure master plan (GRIDS) to review its growth aspirations, municipal service needs and land use policies. The Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor is a key component of this review.

In Halton Region, there is a desire to constrain future population growth in the City of Burlington and avoid development in rural lands north of the urbanized area. Presently, the Niagara Escarpment Commission is seeking an amendment encompassing these lands that would effectively limit development in the area. Nonetheless, there remains a concern with the environmental impacts associated with a possible route through the existing Niagara Escarpment Plan area, the Parkway Belt West Plan area and future amended lands.

Growing Congestion As population and employment grows in Niagara Region, the City of Hamilton and Halton Region and surrounding municipalities, levels of traffic congestion on existing highways will continue to increase. Several sections of the provincial highway network presently operate under high levels of congestion during peak periods such as the QEW and Highway 403 through Hamilton. This is particularly problematic as the QEW and Highway 403 are the only major freeways through the Hamilton area.

Congestion on the QEW through Niagara Region is currently primarily related to tourism and truck traffic, which is anticipated to grow substantially in the future. Only 7% of all Niagara Region auto trips are destined to Hamilton and 1% to the GTA.

In contrast, 15% of daily auto trips from Hamilton are destined to the GTA and 12% of all Burlington trips are destined to Hamilton. This results in high commuter travel between Hamilton and the GTA that is exacerbated by the long distance tourist travel during the summer, and international and local trucks traveling the QEW and Highway 403 corridors.

Page 15 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Within the 30-year planning horizon, it is projected that unacceptable traffic conditions will be experienced on the QEW and Highway 403. This will result in increased travel time, congestion, increased potential for collisions and fuel wastage. To address the projected levels of traffic growth, additional highway capacity from the Niagara Peninsula to the Greater Toronto Area will be required.

Additional details pertaining to population and employment growth, trade growth, tourism growth, land use policies and projected traffic congestion in relation to the Need for the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor is outlined in Supporting Document A (Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment, January 2003).

Summary of Transportation Problems The above trends underlie the forecast travel on the provincial highway system and future transportation capacity needs. Exhibit 2.1 shown below (source: Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment - January 2003), illustrates existing and future transportation deficiencies on the provincial highway network in the analysis area.

Exhibit 2.1 – Existing and Future Transportation Deficiencies on Provincial Network

Page 16 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


The following points summarize the identified transportation problems:

• There are existing capacity constraints on the QEW between the Freeman Interchange (i.e. QEW/Highway 403/Highway 497) in Burlington and the Burlington Bay Skyway and on the 4-lane section through St. Catharines;

• There are existing capacity constraints on the QEW during the peak hour between the Burlington Bay Skyway and St. Catharines. The widening of the QEW from 4 to 6 lanes through St. Catharines would provide some short-term relief to this problem; however, additional capacity in the QEW corridor is required in the near term (i.e. by 2011);

• There are existing capacity constraints in the QEW corridor in Halton and Highways 403 and 6 (north) in Hamilton;

• Near term capacity problems will be experienced as follows: - QEW through Halton, from the Burlington Bay Skyway to the Freeman

Interchange and through St. Catharines; - Highway 407 through Halton; - Highway 403 between QEW and the Lincoln Alexander Parkway; - Highway 406 between Highway 58 and Geneva Street; - Capacity constraints on various Regional Roads throughout the Analysis Area

• Additional capacity problems will occur in the longer terms as follows: - QEW between Burlington Street in Hamilton and Highway 406 in St. Catharines,

and between Mountain Road and Highway 420 in Niagara Falls; - Highway 407 through Halton; - Highway 6 from Highway 403 to north of Regional Road 5.

Traffic forecasts indicate that by 2031, there will be an east-west capacity deficiency through the Niagara Peninsula of one to two freeway lanes. As the QEW is the only continuous freeway between the Niagara Frontier and Hamilton, travel through the area can be severely impacts by accidents, incidents, construction or maintenance activities on the QEW. Between Hamilton and Halton, traffic forecasts indicate a capacity deficiency of between four and six freeway lanes by 2031. The planned widening of Highway 403 from six to eight lanes will not, however, fully address this forecast deficiency. As Highway 403 is the only freeway route through west Hamilton, travel through this area can also be severely impacted by accidents, incidents, construction or maintenance activities.

Failure to address these transportation deficiencies will result in greater traffic congestion and travel delay that will be costly to shippers, will deter recreational and tourist travel, and divert inter-regional commuter traffic to the municipal road system. The reduction in mobility and access will restrict the ability of Hamilton and Niagara and the broader region to attract new business and promote economic growth. Further, congested conditions are associated with an increase in accidents, greater fuel consumption and higher vehicle emissions.

Page 17 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


It should be noted that these transportation deficiencies could occur earlier and/or increase in duration, extent or severity if higher population, tourism or economic growth scenarios are realized (as the assumptions used in the Transportation Needs Assessment were conservative).

Summary of Opportunities A range of opportunities could be realized in the study area through selected transportation improvements.

• Improve the international trade corridor through the Niagara Peninsula between the United States and central and Southwestern Ontario;

• Improve tourism travel between the Greater Toronto Area, the Niagara Peninsula and United States;

• Improve accessibility for tourism, industry and commerce; • Support economic growth at the provincial and municipal levels; • Reduce traffic congestion and delay, accidents, fuel consumption and emissions

on existing area road network; • Defer rehabilitation requirements on existing local highways/roadways; • Improve access to Hamilton International Airport; • Optimize use of existing rights-of-way/facilities; • Reduce travel demand and optimize existing infrastructure through use of

innovation/technologies such as Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation System Management (TSM);

• Promote development opportunities through improved accessibility in southern Niagara Region to reduce urbanization pressure on tender fruitlands;

• Plan for existing and new transportation corridors to minimize impacts associated with adjacent highway development; and,

• Protect for a multi-modal transportation corridor comprising a new highway and protection for dedicated transit facilities i.e. transitway.

Additional details pertaining to population and employment growth, trade growth, tourism growth, land use policies and projected traffic congestion in relation to the need for the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor are outlined in Supporting Document A (Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment, January 2003).

2.2 Purpose of the Undertaking The purpose of the undertaking is to proceed with the planning for a Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor. The proposed Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor will accommodate the future growth in recreational, tourist and truck traffic through the Niagara Peninsula into Central Ontario and commuter traffic between Hamilton and Halton. The new transportation corridor will support economic development in urban areas in southern Niagara, near the Hamilton International Airport, and other urban centres in Central Ontario.

Page 18 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


As noted previously, the transportation problems and opportunities identified by the Needs Assessment are significant and challenging to the point that unlike a traditional project, no “Alternative To” has been eliminated from further consideration. All possible alternative modes of transportation including rail, marine, air, transit and roads are required to adequately address the documented transportation problems and opportunities, and to ensure future prosperity for Ontario. The Ministry of Transportation is proceeding with planning for the protection of this critical corridor at this time, to accommodate the lengthy planning process. The other components of the recommended multi-modal strategy (including transit) are and will continue to be implemented concurrently by the appropriate proponent. Additional details are included in Chapter 3.

Page 19 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.

Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference 3. Alternatives

3.1 Alternatives to the Undertaking (Planning Alternatives) The Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment provides a multi-modal transportation strategy to meet future travel demand for the movement of goods and people, provide choice to travelers and promote a strong economy. This includes improvements to rail, transit, roads, marine and air, in addition to maximizing operation of the existing network through innovative techniques to improve efficiency and/or reduce the amount of travel (e.g. carpooling).

This “Transportation Development Strategy” recognizes the value in proceeding with a number of complementary transportation improvement initiatives that combined, address the long-term transportation problems and opportunities in the area. In this approach, the “Alternatives To” the undertaking are not eliminated from further consideration if they are not a stand-alone solution to the transportation problem. Each recommended improvement, however, would have to be carried out by the appropriate proponent using the proper planning (EA) process. In all cases, the “Do Nothing” should be carried forward for comparison purposes throughout the EA process.

As described in Section 1.2, this EA is being prepared in accordance with Section 6 (2)(c) of the EA Act. As such, these transportation alternatives will not be considered during the Route Location EA.

The following sections outline the proposed “Alternatives To” considered in the Transportation Needs Assessment:

Transportation System Management (TSM) Transportation System Management relates to the wide range of systems and technology to improve the efficiency and safety of existing and future highways. Driver messaging/directional signing, ramp metering and incident monitoring can improve traffic flow during congested periods, inclement weather, traffic accidents and special events. MTO is presently developing specific Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) strategies to support transit system integration, improve highway system efficiency and safety, expedite border crossing vehicle processing and provide information to allow people to plan trips more effectively and re-direct road users during emergencies or traffic congestion.

MTO is working with federal and state agencies to develop Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) strategies to enhance the safe and efficient travel of commercial and passenger vehicles traveling between Ontario and the United States.

These strategies optimize the use of existing and future roadway and bridge infrastructure but do not provide additional transportation system capacity as is required through the Niagara Peninsula into the GTA.

Page 20 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Travel Demand Management (TDM) TDM includes strategies implemented to improve the operation of the transportation system by managing travel demand independent of other structural initiatives. Options include:

• Provision of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and car pool lots; • Implementation of municipal / regional land use policies directed at increasing

densities and supporting increased transit viability; • Telecommuting (work at home), compressed work weeks, flexible hours; • Congestion or road pricing (tolls); and, • Transit strategies and incentives.

Given the rate of population and employment growth coupled with the densities of development and reliance on the automobile (and single occupancy trend) the ability of TDM strategies to significantly reduce inter-regional commuter travel is limited. However, MTO has implemented many car pool lots on the provincial highway system and conducted HOV lane planning studies. Strategies to promote transit and TDM are being considered in Niagara, Hamilton, and Halton to reduce local auto use. The provision of HOV lanes could lead to a shift in single auto drivers into carpools or buses for the journey-to-work. However, there is limited potential through the Niagara Peninsula because the peak summer periods are largely comprised of recreational and tourist travellers which rely on the automobile for carrying several passengers and their baggage. In the Hamilton area, the QEW and Highway 403 corridors are physically limited in their potential to add a dedicated HOV lane. MTO’s Transit Opportunities Study is examining the feasibility of HOV lanes or dedicated transit facilities along existing 400 series highways and proposed new transportation corridors in Central Ontario.

Passenger Rail Service A balanced transportation solution that provides flexibility and choice is needed to address future travel demand. Increased passenger rail service particularly for tourist travel is an important component of the overall transportation strategy. The expansion of the GO Transit system including new stations and services are being examined for Niagara Region and other areas in Central Ontario. GO Transit has a long-term plan that includes the expansion of existing service to Hamilton.

The needs assessment study indicated that a tourism train service between Toronto and Niagara Region would alleviate summer peak period travel congestion, but not eliminate the need for additional highway capacity over the long term. Since the number of commuters from Niagara to the GTA is presently minimal, commuter rail service was viewed only as a long-term consideration. Further, additional track capacity is required between Hamilton and Toronto and significant track improvements necessary through Niagara to support higher train operating speeds.

MTO in cooperation with the New York Department of Transportation (NYDOT) and other agencies has initiated a Bi-National Transportation Strategy for the Niagara

Page 21 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Frontier to develop multi-modal strategies to ensure the efficient short and long-term movement of people and goods across the border.

Freight Movement Rail is an important facet of goods movement, carrying approximately one-third of total freight across the Niagara frontier. This is a significant mode share and with the projected growth in international trade, railways will require additional track capacity and separation of slower, long freight trains from higher speed passenger rail services. In view of this existing high mode share, the expected continued reliance on trucks for Canada-U.S. “Just-In-Time” business requirements, and given the shipping distance and nature of the commodities transported between New York / Eastern U.S. Seaboard and Central Ontario, a higher rail mode share is not envisaged across the Niagara Frontier.

In view of the continued growth in truck transport and in response to a recommendation of the Smart Growth Panel for Central Ontario, MTO has initiated a Goods Movement Strategy Study to assess goods movement issues, freight transport needs and recommend strategies to improve goods movement throughout Central Ontario. In addition, the ministry is working with stakeholders to develop Freight Supportive Land Use Guidelines to address municipal concerns with truck transport of goods and services.

Air transport is typically used for high value goods or time sensitive goods such as courier services. Marine transport is predominately used to transport bulky, low value, time insensitive freight such as grain and ore. Although these modes, play an important transportation role, the potential to shift goods from truck to air or marine is very limited by the nature of the commodities, business logistics and trip orientation. It should be noted, however, that good road access is required to support airport and marine port services. This is particularly important in the case of the City of Hamilton.

Ferry Service Increased ferry services/capacity could be used to address a portion of the travel demand between Toronto/GTA and the Niagara Peninsula. Over the last year, a high-speed ferry service between Rochester and Toronto has been proposed that would carry 200 vehicles and 800 passengers a trip (3-6 trips daily). A competing proposal has been proposed for similar service between Niagara County (New York) and Toronto. And another ferry operation is currently being considered running between Erie, Pennsylvania and Port Dover, Ontario carrying 300 people and 75 cars. While part of an overall transportation strategy, these volumes are not significant in light of the existing and future traffic volumes through the Niagara Peninsula into Central Ontario.

Transit (Protection for a new Transitway is carried forward as part of this EA ToR) MTO has initiated a Transit Opportunities Study to protect for HOV lanes or dedicated transit facilities (such as a transitway) on 400-series highways and new transportation corridors in Central Ontario. The proposed Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor includes a highway as well as protection for a dedicated transitway, possibly on separate routes.

Page 22 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


The Province of Ontario has proposed a 10 year $9 billion transit plan that would involve partnering with the federal and municipal governments, and the private sector to renew and enhance transit services in Ontario.

Up to $1.25 billion has been announced by the Province for eligible transit expansion projects through the Golden Horseshoe Transit Investment Partnership (GTIP) program. The Province and GO Transit are presently reviewing a number of municipal requests for funding of inter-regional and local transit projects in the Golden Horseshoe Area. The Region of Niagara has undertaken a regional inter-city transit study and requested provincial funding support for an extension of GO Rail services to Niagara Falls. Other transit initiatives are recommended as part of the Transportation Development Strategy.

GO rail and bus services currently operate between Hamilton and the GTA. In order to address the significant growth in travel forecast between Hamilton and Halton and rest of the GTA, improvements to both roads and transit services are required.

The transportation needs assessment study concluded that a significant increase in transit mode share (from less than 5% today to greater than 25%) would be required to avoid major capacity improvements between Hamilton and Halton/GTA. To achieve a mode share of 10% equates to increasing ridership by a factor of 2.5 times over existing transit use levels. A mode share of 25% represents a 7 times increase in ridership.

A doubling of the current transit mode share to 10% across the Hamilton/Halton boundary is consistent with the recommendations of the Hamilton and Burlington Technical Review consultant and Halton Region’s study “Making Connections” which has a transit mode split target of 10% for travel to Hamilton. This implies a significant improvement in GO Rail services between Toronto and Hamilton, inter-regional bus services and local transit operations.

The feasibility, phasing and costing of major transit improvements were not examined in the needs assessment study and would be the subject of future study by the appropriate proponent. Although a 10% transit modal share is an ambitious target, the increase in transit use does not eliminate the need for additional highway capacity between Hamilton and Halton/GTA to address long-term travel needs. A transitway on a separate corridor may achieve a higher modal share in the longer term, therefore, protection for a transitway is being carried forward into the Route Location EA.

Roadways – Carried Forward for Ongoing Study and Implementation (new roadway to be part of this EA ToR)

A range of roadway improvements were outlined in the Transportation Development Strategy. These alternatives included consideration for the expansion of existing facilities and the development of new ones. A new Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor is the focus of this EA Terms of Reference. Roadway/transitway corridor alternatives are considered in further detail in Section 3.2.

Page 23 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Do Nothing – Carried Forward for Comparison in this EA

The “Do Nothing” alternative does not address the identified transportation problems and opportunities. Clearly, “doing nothing” will have severe impacts on the movement of people and goods in, and through the analysis area. Increased congestion will result in greater travel delay, cost and stress to travellers which will impact on tourism, industry and community quality of life at the local, regional and provincial levels. However, the “Do Nothing” alternative will be carried forward into the subsequent Route Location EA to represent a base case for comparison to the preferred route alternative.

3.2 Roadway and Transportation Corridor Alternatives Considered

While various planning alternatives are recommended as part of the Transportation Development Strategy, there are a range of roadway options that required detailed examination including road widenings and new transportation corridor options. (Refer to Needs Assessment Report - Supporting Document A).

The Transportation Needs Assessment technical work fully considered the following major roadway alternatives:

• QEW widening from Highway 407 to Highway 420 in Niagara Falls; • QEW widening from Highway 407 to Highway 406 including a Highway 420

Extension from the QEW to the Thorold Tunnel; • A new “Cross-Lake” bridge providing a direct connection between Niagara and

Toronto; and • A new Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor (MPTC).

QEW widening from Highway 407 to Highway 420 in Niagara Falls The QEW alternatives were generally out-performed by the MPTC options. Improvements in travel speeds are limited to the QEW corridor in Niagara and have limited benefit in other locations within the analysis area. While the QEW through Niagara could be widened to 8 lanes, the potential to add capacity on the QEW from Stoney Creek to the Skyway Bridges and to the Freeman Interchange (QEW/Highway 403/Highway 407) and through Burlington is very constrained. Further, it retains the reliance on a single freeway link with no alternative route in case of congestion, accidents, bad weather, highway rehabilitation, etc. There is also limited flexibility for expansion for HOV lanes and no corridor right-of-way to add a separate transitway. Trucks destined to Kitchener-Waterloo-Guelph, and other southwestern Ontario or Michigan areas, would continue to travel through Hamilton via the QEW and Highway 403. Lastly, the QEW does not provide access to municipal economic development areas in southern Niagara, Hamilton and Haldimand County.

The QEW will however, continue to play a strategic role in the provincial road network, for commuting, tourist travel and goods movement. Strategic widening of the QEW has been identified by other studies as a requirement to address local traffic issues in St. Catharines (widen to 6 lanes) and Hamilton, currently 8 lanes at the Red Hill Creek

Page 24 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Expressway. In the longer term, this could include widening of the freeway to 8 lanes, widening the Skyway bridge crossings to ten lanes and improvements to the Freeman Interchange. The feasibility of these improvements, however, has not been determined through detailed study. Another bridge/Skyway would be required to accommodate long-term travel needs and the required modifications to add major capacity at the Freeman Interchange would be problematic.

In spite of the limitations of this alternative as a stand-alone solution, it is recommended that a strategic widening of the QEW be carried forward for future consideration, particularly, if the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor is not implemented, as part of the overall Transportation Development Strategy for the analysis area. However, if the proposed Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor and complementary transit improvements, passenger rail improvements and other measures are implemented, this would minimize or negate the need for further widening of the QEW beyond current commitments (6 lanes from Hamilton to Niagara Falls).

QEW widening from Highway 407 to Highway 406 including a Highway 420 Extension from the QEW to the Thorold Tunnel; The combination of an 8 lane QEW throughout the study area and a Highway 420 partial extension from the QEW at Niagara Falls to the Thorold Tunnel (Highway 58) is less effective than the basic QEW improvement alternative in resolving future capacity deficiencies in the Niagara Area, because of the noted operational limitations in the existing Highway 406 corridor. The importance of this option in creating an alternate route for local commuters to the QEW through the St. Catharines area is recognized especially in consideration of the planned rehabilitation of the Garden City Skyway and during periods of congestion on the QEW in St. Catharines.

This alternative, like the QEW option above, is not a stand-alone solution and is not carried forward for more detailed assessment and evaluation. However, when combined with appropriate ITS strategies on the freeway system, the Highway 420 Extension has the potential to play an important role in the provincial network and should be considered as part of an overall Transportation Development Strategy for the analysis area. However, it is recognized that this is subject to a separate EA and that there is now significant development within the corridor near the QEW (Niagara Falls).

Cross-Lake Bridge A cross-lake bridge would carry traffic from the QEW in the St. Catharines area to Toronto, bypassing the QEW in Hamilton/Burlington was proposed by a private sector proponent so the ministry examined this option. While no detailed work was conducted, there are significant constructability (a very long, fully raised structure in deep water is required) and terminus issues (connection to down Toronto area) associated with this alternative. There may also be traveller’s concerns over safety issues (e.g., accidents, high winds, winter weather) and crossing fees. If it were feasible, this alternative would have potential to attract tourist/recreation traffic between the GTA and the Niagara Peninsula and the US. Its utility as a route for goods movement however, would be limited, as origins and destinations for goods delivery/pick-up are distributed throughout

Page 25 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


the Golden Horseshoe area. The needs assessment work indicated that this bridge alternative does not eliminate the need for additional east-west freeway capacity in the analysis area. Trips from Hamilton to the GTA would have to travel east to St. Catharines to access the cross-lake bridge which is a circuitous and time intensive route to travel to Toronto or the western GTA. As this option fails to address the transportation problems and opportunities it was not carried forward for further assessment.

Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor (MPTC) In overall network performance, the MPTC alternatives outperformed all of the non-MPTC options in terms of average system travel speed, reliability and network flexibility. As documented in the Needs Assessment report, the evaluation process indicates that a Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor provides the best potential for improvement to the overall road network and meeting the transportation system goals, when implemented in conjunction with a broader, comprehensive, multi-modal transportation strategy as well as supporting Hamilton, Niagara and Haldimand growth aspirations.

The original Needs Assessment study (June 2001) considered a range of Alternative Transportation Corridors for the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor (Alternatives A, B1, B2, C, D1, D2 and E) and recommended corridors C and D2 as shown in Exhibit 3.1 as the preferred alternatives as they best addressed the technical considerations. The recommended conceptual corridor extended from the QEW between Niagara Falls and Fort Erie, running south of the City of Welland (Alternative “C”) north of Welland (Alternative “D2”) westerly to the vicinity of Hamilton International Airport, proceeding around the urban area of Hamilton and connecting to Highway 407 in Burlington. The two options around Welland were retained because both served the same transportation objectives. The close proximity of urban development and community affects of D2 were noted, but did not precluded consideration of these corridor alternatives in the EA Route Location study.

In the EA Terms of Reference phase, additional transportation corridors were examined in response to municipal, stakeholder and public consultation input. These include possible transportation corridors connecting to Highway 401 west of the Niagara Escarpment (Alternative F), Highway 401 east of the Town of Milton (Alternative F’), Highway 407 (Alternative C), Highway 403 in Hamilton (Alternative G) and Highway 403 via Highway 6 (Alternative H) were examined. These alternative transportation corridors were assessed based on the following considerations:

Transportation Considerations: ability to address problems and opportunities

Land Use Considerations: regional land use benefits and challenges Environmental Considerations: environmental challenges and issues that would preclude or constrain highway/transitway development

Based on these considerations, all transportation corridor alternatives were found to address the problems to varying degrees (and in different ways). The corridors result in different land use and environmental effects, but no detailed EA level work was undertaken as no route alternatives were generated. At this stage of the planning process, the identified land use and environmental effects to not appear to preclude development of a new transportation corridor.

Page 26 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.

MID-PENINSULA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TERMS OF REFERENCE

Alternative Transportation

Corridors Proposed to be carried forward into the

Route Location EA

EXHIBIT

3.1 Ministry of Transportation

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


The technical transportation work undertaken to examine alternative transportation corridors resulted in a recommendation that two conceptual corridor alternatives be carried forward into the Route Location EA: the original Alternative C connecting to Highway 407 in Burlington and Alternative F connecting to Highway 401 west of the Niagara Escarpment.

Through the consultation process, however, it was clear that a broad range of alternatives should be considered. As such, the study area for Route Location EA was expanded to include the Highway 403 corridor (Alternatives G and H).

Alternative F’ (connection to Highway 401 east of the Town of Milton) was not carried forward, as it was determined to be functionally similar to Alternative C (connection to Highway 407) but resulted in higher environmental risks in all categories. It was recognized that this alternative did not provide any environmental advantages relative to Alternative C and was therefore not carried forward for further consideration.

Given that highway and transit needs differ in terms of travel patterns, each transportation corridor will be examined during the Route Location EA to determine its ability to accommodate a highway and / or a transitway. A combination of transportation corridors may be necessary to accommodate both a highway and transitway.

The Alternative Transportation Corridors that are proposed to be carried forward into the Route Location EA are presented in Exhibit 3.1.

3.3 Summary of Alternatives to be Carried Forward into this Route Location Environmental Assessment The Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor is the focus of this Route Location Environmental Assessment. The EA Study Area that is shown in gray represents the area within which route alternatives will be generated. The routes generated will not be restricted to the conceptual corridors carried forward as described in Exhibit 3.1. In the Niagara portion of the EA Study Area, various route alternatives will be generated which connect to the QEW to the north and south of the City of Welland. In the Hamilton / Halton section of the study area, various routes will be generated with connections to Highway 401, Highway 407 and the QEW via Highway 403 and Highway 6. Protection for both a new highway and transitway, possibly on separate routes will be considered during the Route Location EA. The best route for each connection will be identified through the evaluation process described Section 5.3 and compared to each other to identify a preferred alternative.

A “Do Nothing” scenario will also be carried forward into the process to represent a base case for comparison to the preferred alternative. The “Do Nothing” scenario will recognize existing and planned improvements to transportation infrastructure and services.

A noted previously, the transportation problems and opportunities identified by the Needs Assessment are significant and challenging to the point that unlike a traditional project, no “Alternative To” has been eliminated from further consideration. All possible alternative modes of transportation including rail, marine, air, transit and roads are

Page 28 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


required to adequately address the documented transportation problems and opportunities, and to ensure future prosperity for Ontario. The Ministry of Transportation is proceeding with planning for the protection of this critical corridor at this time, to accommodate the lengthy planning process. The other components of the recommended multi-modal strategy (including transit) are and will continue to be implemented concurrently by the appropriate proponent.

3.4 Description of the Proposed Undertaking The Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor is envisioned as a multi-use transportation corridor that will include a 4 lane (6 lanes in the Hamilton/Halton area) highway and a transitway. The highway component will be a limited access facility adhering to MTO’s standards for a new rural freeway. All points of access will be controlled through fully grade-separated interchange designs with major crossing roads and other provincial highways. The total right-of-way width will vary based on design requirements, but will typically be 170 metres – 110 metres for the highway component and 30-60 metres for the transitway component. The extent of the transitway protection will be determined as part of the Ministry’s Transit Opportunities study.

3.5 How the Proposed Undertaking Addresses Problems and Opportunities A Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor provides a high level of support to trade, tourism, growth and accessibility goals. It also provides relief to the overall road network by reducing the amount of congestion and increasing average vehicle speeds. It addresses the identified problems and opportunities by providing much needed additional roadway and transitway capacity into the transportation network. This allows additional flexibility and choice for commuters, tourists and the movement of goods. The MPTC would also be an important alternative to the QEW or Highway 403 through Hamilton in the event of major construction (or rehabilitation), serious accidents or inclement weather. The MPTC best supports the opportunities identified in Section 2.1.

Page 29 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.

Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference 4. Route Location EA Study Area, Environmental Overview

and Potential Environmental Effects 4.1 Route Location EA Study Area

The proposed Route Location EA Study Area encompasses several alternative transportation corridors that were carried forward from the EA Terms of Reference (refer to Section 3.2). It must be noted, however, that the generation of alternative route locations will not be restricted to the conceptual transportation corridors.

The Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment (June 2001) identified a Draft EA Study Area, which was based on the two transportation corridors connecting to the QEW in Niagara Region and a single transportation corridor connecting to Highway 407 in Burlington.

During the EA Terms of Reference, additional transportation corridors were examined in response to consultation input. Based on an assessment of alternative transportation corridors, transportation corridors connecting to Highway 401 (east of Highway 6), Highway 407, Highway 6 and Highway 403 (in Hamilton) were carried forward to represent the proposed EA Study Area. The proposed EA Study Area is schematically illustrated in Exhibit 4.1.

It should be noted that the EA Study Area shown in Exhibit 4.1 was developed based on available mapping and environmental data, and is intended to depict the general area within which routes will be generated. The consideration of direct impacts of the transportation corridor will not be limited to the study area. In addition, the actual edges of the study area may be fine-tuned as further information becomes available; however, it is not expected that the essence of the study area will change.

4.2 Environmental Overview of the Proposed Study Area The purpose of this section is to provide a brief overview of the major environmental features and conditions in the EA Study Area. Additional environmental investigations will occur during the Route Location EA. A graphic overview of the major natural and built environmental features within the study area is illustrated in Exhibit 4.2. Additional details regarding environmental features are outlined in environmental work plans (refer to Supporting Document B). Specific work plans have been developed by specialists for the following areas: Natural Environment Work Plan Socio Economic Work Plan Archaeological Work Plan Cultural Heritage Work Plan Noise Work Plan Air Quality Work Plan Contaminated Property and Waste Management Work Plan Technical Work Plan Cumulative Effects Work Plan

Page 30 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.

Route Location

EA Study Area



Proposed Route Location EA Study Area

EXHIBIT


Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.

NOTE: This map was prepared using data from the Municipalities, Conservation Authorities, Provincial Ministries and a variety of source documents, and management plans.

During the Route Location EA, environmental data will be reviewed and updated based on newly available secondary sources information, consultation with agencies / municipalities and supplemental field investigations for the purpose of generating route alternatives and assessing impacts.

Not to scale



Overview of Environmental Features of the Study Area

EXHIBIT


Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Upon commencement of the Route Location EA, additional work will be undertaken to further identify environmental conditions and develop extensive mapping describing the environmental features in more detail. This will assist in the generation and evaluation of route alternatives.

The study area includes portions of the Region of Niagara, the City of Hamilton, the Region of Halton and Wellington County. The study area is predominantly rural in nature and includes portions of the urban centres of Fort Erie, Welland, Hamilton and Burlington. The study area contains numerous rural residential clusters and settlements.

From a natural environment perspective, the study area contains deciduous woods, prairies, alvars and wetlands. Several surface water features are located in the study area including Cootes Paradise in the City of Hamilton and numerous other inland lakes and reservoirs including Lake Gibson/Moody Lake and Lake Niapenco. Several major river systems drain the study area. The study area includes the Niagara River, Welland River, Lower Grand River, Red Hill Creek, Twelve Mile Creek, Sixteen Mile Creek, Twenty Mile Creek, Forty Mile Creek, Galt Creek, Tutton Creek, Fairchild Creek, Barlow Creek, Big Creek, Ushers Creek, Lyon’s Creek, Fifteen Mile Creek, Seneca Creek, Black Creek, Beaver Creek, Frenchman Creek, Chippewa Creek, Spring Creek, Little Fork Creek, Grindstone Creek, Shoreacres Creek, Tuck Creek, Bronte Creek and Spencer Creek.

The study area comprises provincially significant wetlands, particularly in the southern part of Niagara and areas north of Hamilton.

Throughout the study area are special land designations including environmentally sensitive areas, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), with the most predominant feature being the Niagara Escarpment. The study area traverses the Niagara Escarpment within the City of Hamilton and Region of Halton as well as (to a lesser extent) to the north of the City of Welland.

The majority of undeveloped lands not occupied by other environmental features are used for agricultural purposes. A large section of land in Niagara Region is classed as tender fruit lands.

In terms of urban development, the predominant urban centres located in the study area include The City of Hamilton, City of Burlington and the City of Welland. The proposed study area also hosts several small towns, hamlets and rural communities. Niagara Region, the City of Hamilton and Halton Region are the setting of numerous tourist facilities that attract international visitation, a unique agricultural resource in the tender fruit lands and a major corridor for international trade. Niagara is Ontario’s primary tourism gateway. Tourist visitation to Niagara in 2000 was approximately 15 million and it continues to increase. Although Niagara Falls remains the key tourist attraction, other interests such as the wine industry are becoming more significant tourist opportunities.

With respect to key community features, the Welland Canal is a prominent feature of the landscape in eastern Niagara Region. The canal is an integral part of the St. Lawrence Seaway that links the Great Lakes with international waters. The canal is of regional importance for its historical, cultural and economic value as well as areas of ecological importance. John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport located in south Hamilton (in

Page 33 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


the vicinity of Mt. Hope) is also within the EA Study Area. Another key feature within the study area is the Burlington Skyway (a highway bridge for QEW), which traverses the entrance to Hamilton Harbour.

4.3 Anticipated Environmental Effects of the Undertaking A team of specialists from the following key disciplines was assembled to aid in the preparation of this EA Terms of Reference: natural sciences, socio-economics, acoustics, vibration, air quality, archaeology, heritage, waste/contamination, drainage, stormwater management, geotechnical, EA process and consultation. These specialists were instrumental in the preparation of documentation, the administration of the study process, the research and consideration of secondary source information, and the consultation with government agencies.

It is difficult to comment on the specific environmental impacts associated with a Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor at the Terms of Reference stage, as a preferred route location alternative has not been selected. However, the specialists from the disciplines noted above have a good understanding of the existing environmental conditions (based on their experience and secondary source research) and the further study required to generate route alternatives, assess the impacts of route alternatives and complete the evaluation that will lead to a preferred route. This understanding is clearly documented in a series of environmental and technical work plans that can be seen in Supporting Document B.

The work plans outline objectives for generating routes to minimize adverse environmental impacts, describe how impacts associated with route alternatives will be assessed, and outline the specific studies and field work that will be undertaken to assess impacts and develop mitigation measures. Examples of work to be undertaken during the Route Location EA include but are not limited to studies for terrestrial habitat, aquatic habitat, ecosystem integrity/connectivity, air quality, noise, archaeology, heritage and economic considerations. The Project Team’s understanding of the environment and the potential effects of this project on the environment are reflected in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2. These tables list all of the various environmental features, measures and data sources that will be used to generate route alternatives and assess impacts. It is recognized that for some factor areas, impacts will occur outside of the Route Location EA Study Area.

As described in Chapter 5 of the Terms of Reference, natural environment, socio-economic environment, cultural environment as well as technical considerations will be examined during the generation and evaluation of route alternatives. Table 5.2 of this report outlines a set of evaluation criteria to be used to identify impacts on each component of the environment (i.e. Natural Environment, Socio-economic Environment, Cultural Environment and Technical Requirements / Considerations) associated with route alternatives. This table also outlines the specific measures and data sources, which will be used to assess impacts. The evaluation criteria provide an indication of the potential environmental effects.

Page 34 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


5. Route Generation and Evaluation Process The Ontario Ministry of Transportation is committed to planning, designing, implementing and maintaining new facilities in an environmentally sensitive manner. As such, an EA process and associated work plans have been developed (refer to Supporting Document B) to aid in developing routes which minimize adverse environmental impacts, and address the need for additional highway capacity from the Niagara Peninsula to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The method for the generation and evaluation of alternative routes is schematically illustrated on Exhibit 5.1.

A conceptual study schedule for the completion of the Route Location EA is included in Supporting Document I. This schedule is for information purposes only and recognizes the time period to complete study activities may vary depending on issues that arise during the route location process. The following sections outline how routes will be generated and evaluated.

The underlying principle regarding the route location process is to start with a broad perspective and narrow to the more focused as the project progresses. The starting point is the EA Study Area and environmental information based largely on secondary source research and consultation. As routes are developed, this information is supplemented with field data and additional research as required. When a preferred route is selected, concept design proceeds with even more focused data that will include detailed field surveys. This process continues on into preliminary design, the Class EA process and finally detail design. This process of collecting additional environmental data as the project becomes more focused ensures that current information is sought and used throughout planning and design. The 8-10 year process ends with detail design, a task that requires the very most exacting field survey data and detailed environmental research to fine-tune the designs and finalize mitigation measures to address environmental impacts.

This approach is based on MTO’s existing policies and protocols and has been used on all previous Route Location EAs.

5.1 Process to Generate Alternatives The EA Study Area outlined in Exhibit 4.1 represents the area within which route alternatives will be generated. The routes generated will not be restricted to the conceptual corridors carried forward as described in Exhibit 3.1. In the Niagara portion of the EA Study Area, various route alternatives will be generated which connect to the QEW to the north and south of the City of Welland. In the Hamilton / Halton section of the study area, various routes will be generated with connections to Highway 401, Highway 407 and the QEW via Highway 403 and Highway 6. Protection for both a new highway and transitway, possibly on separate routes will be considered during the Route Location EA. The best route for each connection will be identified through the evaluation process described in Section 5.2 and compared to each other to identify a preferred alternative.

Page 35 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.

Project team Expertise / Stakeholder Consultation

Secondary Data / Field Visits / PIC 3 comments / Follow-up Consultation / Stakeholder Consultation

Field Visits /PIC 3 comments/ Follow-up

Consultation / Stakeholder Consultation

PIC 2 comments / Follow-up Consultation / Analysis

/ Stakeholder Consultation / Project

Team Expertise

Secondary Data / Field Visits / PIC 1 comments / Follow-up Consultation / Stakeholder Consultation

PIC 1 comments /Follow-up Consultation / Stakeholder Consultation

Secondary Data / Field Visits

Secondary Data / Field Visits / Stakeholder

Consultation

Secondary Data (Aerial Photographs, Constraint

Mapping (GIS) and Municipal Official P

CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES

CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES

Fifth Round of Advisory Group Meetings / Pre-EA Report Submission Review

Additional Agency Meetings as Required to Finalize Mitigation / Commitments to Future Work

Fourth RoundAdvisory GroMeetings / PI

Second Round of Advisory Group Meetings / PIC 2

Third Round of Advisory Group Meetings / PIC 3

Consultation follow-up activities

Refine Route Alternatives

(Refer to Section 5.1.2 for details)

INPUTS

STEP

rst Round of Advisory Group Meetings / PIC 1

EA Report

(Refer to Section 6.2.3 for details)

Present Preferred Concept Design /

Impacts and Proposed Mitigation

Measures (Refer to Section 5.3.2

for details

Examine Concept

Design Alternatives

(Refer to Section 5.3 for details)

Evaluate and Select

Preferred RouteAlternative

(Refer to Section 5.2 for de

Assess Route Alternatives

(Refer to Section 5.2.1 and Table 5.2 for details)

Generate Route

Alternatives


Identify Significant Study Area Features


INPUTS

STEP

Ministry of Transportation EXHIBIT

rocess for Generating & ULA

TRAN CORRIDOR E

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.

Consultation follow-up activities

MID-PENINSSPORTATION

lans)

Fi

nvironmental Assessment Terms of Reference

of up C 4

P

tails)

5.1 Evaluating Alternatives


Secondary sources data, such as aerial photography, constraint mapping (i.e. G.I.S. data) compiled during the preparation of the Terms of Reference and from external agencies and municipal Official Plans, will serve as a starting point to assist in the generation of route alternatives. More detailed mapping will be prepared and additional secondary source data will be complied prior to route generation during the Route Location EA. Detailed data collection, including limited field investigations, air photo interpretation, meetings with interested groups and individuals and discussions with ministries, agencies and the public, will then be conducted to obtain input into the generation of alternatives and to gain an appreciation of potential impacts to environmental features.

Route alternatives will be developed based on the technical and environmental objectives outlined in Table 5.1 to avoid the most significant/sensitive environmental resource areas and study area features to the extent possible. The alternatives will then be reviewed with agencies and the public through the consultation process and Public Information Centres. This consultation phase is critical to developing a reasonable set of route alternatives. Local residents can add very valuable information to the database gathered by the Project Team. Refinements to the alternatives will be integrated where warranted and a finalized set of route alternatives will be brought forward to the evaluation process.

The development of route alternatives will include an examination of potential interchange locations, grade separations and road closures.

5.1.1 Factor Specific Environmental Inputs to the Generation of Alternatives Route alternatives will be generated in consideration of the natural environment, socio-economic environment, cultural environment as well as technical considerations. Route generation criteria will provide guidance to developing route alternatives that minimize adverse impacts. The generation criteria to be considered during the generation of route alternatives is outlined in Table 5.1.

Route generation criteria are subject to refinement and modification during the Route Location EA based on study findings and input received from stakeholders. Further details on how this data will be collected is included in Supporting Document B.

5.1.2 Refinement of Route Alternatives It is anticipated that during the first round of consultation events, comments and suggestions will be submitted regarding modifying / refining route alternatives. The process for assessing the refinements suggested during these consultation events is based on the factor specific environmental inputs.

The criteria employed for generating alternatives will form the basis for determining whether suggested refinements should be carried forward. Refinements will be examined based on consideration of the natural, socio-economic, cultural environments and technical generation criteria.

Page 37 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Table 5.1: Proposed Route Generation Criteria OBJECTIVE RATIONALE DATA SOURCE

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Minimize the number of

water crossings required.

2. Minimize impacts to water bodies including channel realignments and fill.

3. Avoid wherever possible critical fish habitat features (spawning, rearing, nursery, important feeding areas).

The Federal Fisheries Act prohibits the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, the introduction of deleterious substances to fish habitat and the blockage of fish passage. Where impacts cannot be mitigated, a Fisheries Compensation Plan is prepared in consultation with the CA/DFO to address agency concerns/requirements. It is an objective of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) to protect or enhance the quality and quantity

of surface water, including headwaters. Surface water features are an important part of the natural, economic and cultural landscape in the study area (Policy 2.4.1). There are numerous watercourses in the study area and aquatic ecosystems are a mix of coldwater, warmwater urbanized, warmwater baitfish and warmwater sportfish. The majority of the systems are classified as warmwater. There are several creeks classified as coldwater for at least some of their length. Some of these support populations of trout. The crossing of water bodies by transportation facilities has the potential to affect fish and fish habitat

through impediments to fish passage, loss of vegetation, changes to channel geomorphology (channel form and function), substrate and cover, changes to the water quality due to erosion and sedimentation, stormwater discharge and temperature changes. The PPS permits development and site alteration in fish habitat if it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or functions for which the area is identified (Policy 2.3.1 (b))

1:50 000 or 1:25 000 topographic maps 1:10 000 base maps MNR Natural Resource Values Information System (NRVIS) Conservation Authorities Watershed Management Plans Interest Groups Public consultation NHIC Provincial Policy Statement and associated MNR Natural Heritage

Training Manual Other relevant sources in Section 2.1 of the Natural Environment Work

Plan

4. Avoid where possible or minimize potential impact to species at risk (vegetation, fish and wildlife).

The presence of species identified by COSEWIC and COSSARO as vulnerable, threatened or endangered (VTE) requires consideration in the generation of route alternatives. Species or populations may be under pressure or susceptible to stress as a result of development. Since habitat for these species is often limited, the generation of route alternatives will seek to avoid or minimize impacts to areas where the presence of species at risk is suspected or confirmed. The assessment should have regard for the PPS objective that development and site alteration will not be permitted in significant portions of the habitat of Threatened and Endangered Species. The reported presence of Species of Conservation Concern (as defined by MNR in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guides (SWHTG – MNR, 2000) will also be considered.

NHIC MNR CA Species at Risk database Species at Risk Act (SAR) Species at Risk Recovery Plans and Management Guidelines (where

available) MNR Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG) Provincial Policy Statement and associated MNR Natural Heritage

Training Manual Canadian Canada Big Picture Mapping Other relevant sources in Section 2.1 of the Natural Environment Work

Plan 5. Minimize encroachment

into ecologically functional areas such as connective corridors or travel ways.

Not only is it important to consider the individual environmental factors or habitats, it is also important to recognize identified ecologically functional linkages that contribute to landscape connectivity. The assessment should have regard for PPS Policy 2.3.3 that the diversity of natural features in an area, and the natural connections between them should be maintained and improved where possible. Secondary information on ecosystem linkages (aquatic and terrestrial) will be reviewed and supplemented by other available sources (including contacts with specialists, field findings).

MNR NHIC CA SWHTG Provincial Policy Statement and associated MNR Natural Heritage


Plan 6. Minimize intrusion into

identified important wildlife areas such as deeryards, heronries, waterfowl areas, important bird areas (IBA). Other areas to be considered are any identified wildlife management, rehabilitation and research program sites.

Important habitat areas, that may not be associated with other features protected by other means (ANSIs, ESAs, PSWs), require consideration during the generation of route alternatives. These areas may be of local or regional significance to wildlife that is not necessarily at risk. Other areas may be identified as important habitat for wildlife species requiring larger habitat blocks or with specialized habitat requirements (for example Jefferson Salamander or Important Bird Areas). The assessment should have regard for PPS Policy 2.3.1(b). Development and site alteration may be permitted in significant wildlife habitat if it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or functions for which the area is identified.

Identified by municipality, CA, MNR, Interest Groups or other background sources Bird Studies Canada SWHTG Provincial Policy Statement and associated MNR Natural Heritage


Plan

7. Avoid encroachment on Provincially Significant Wetlands and avoid

PPS Policy 2.3.1 (a) prohibits development and site alteration in significant wetlands located south and east of the Canadian Shield. The assessment should have regard for this objective. Provincially significant wetlands are scattered throughout the study area along riparian systems, as isolated blocks or

MNR CA Transportation Needs Assessment NHIC

Page 38 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


OBJECTIVE RATIONALE DATA SOURCE impairment to wetland function.

8. Avoid all other evaluated and unevaluated wetlands to the extent possible.

as components of a wetland complex. Wetlands serve ecological functions to varying degrees including groundwater recharge/discharge, flood attenuation, wildlife movement corridors, habitat for flora and fauna and water filtration. The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation promotes the goal of no net loss of wetland function in areas

where wetland loss has reached critical levels.

1:10 000 MNR wetland mapping Provincial Policy Statement and associated MNR Natural Heritage


Plan

9. Avoid where possible or minimize encroachment on significant forest stands and woodlots.

10. Avoid where possible or minimize encroachment on existing mapped Carolinian Canada sites as well as elements of the Carolinian Canada “Big Picture” Natural Heritage System of core areas, other significant areas, and potential corridors.

The PPS Policy 2.3.1(b) permits development and site alteration in significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield if it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or the ecological functions for which the area is identified. The assessment should have regard for the PPS protection objectives. The percentage of woodlot coverage in the study area is approximately 14%, therefore woodlots greater than 4 ha are considered significant. Numerous “older growth forests” have been identified in the region with communities of 80-100 year old trees. They are typically associated with river systems; distinct landforms or other environmentally designated and protected areas. Smaller woodland blocks less than 4 ha in size may be significant in certain watersheds or because of specific recorded attributes. Each watershed will be assessed at the Route Location EA stage to determine woodland significance. Significance is based on several factors that could include size, shape, association to other features, linkages, diversity, management value etc. Nine environmental features within the study area have been identified as critical unprotected areas by

Carolinian Canada. These sites are typically associated with environmentally designated areas such as ANSIs, PSWs, or ESAs and will likely be core areas within a natural heritage-planning framework. The nine Carolinian Canada sites are spread throughout the study area.

Transportation Needs Assessment NHIC MNR Land Use Guidelines Conservation Authority Plans SWHTG Provincial Policy Statement and associated MNR Natural Heritage


Plan

11. Avoid where possible or minimize the encroachment onto known groundwater recharge and discharge areas; as well as identified wellhead and source protection areas and areas susceptible to groundwater contamination.

PPS Policy 2.4.1 identifies that the quality and quantity of groundwater and the function of sensitive groundwater recharge/discharge areas and aquifers will be protected or enhanced. The assessment should have regard for this objective. Transportation facilities have the potential to impact groundwater resources through removal of recharge areas, interference with discharge areas/shallow groundwater zones, and introduction of contaminated runoff. Consequently, areas identified as being susceptible to groundwater contamination and/or interference should be avoided wherever possible.

Ministry of the Environment mapping of susceptibility to groundwater contamination Transportation Needs Assessment Region of Halton Aquifer Management Plan Watershed and subwatershed studies Provincial Policy Statement and associated MNR Natural Heritage

Training Manual MOE well record data Other relevant sources in Section 2.1 of the Natural Environment Work

Plan

12. Avoid or minimize encroachment on environmentally significant features such as Significant Valleylands, Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs), Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) or other areas of provincial, regional or local significance.

13. Avoid impairment of function of these features to the extent possible.

There are more than 75 provincially or regionally significant ANSIs scattered throughout the study area. They are most prevalent along the escarpment and often associated with riparian systems. The most abundant type of ANSIs are small blocks of slough forest (wet forest/swamp) prevalent in the Haldimand Clay Plain south of the escarpment. The other major ANSI habitat types are forest, escarpment related, wetland, marsh, swamp and woodlot. ESAs are not explicitly included in the Provincial Policy Statement, but are often associated with other

features subject to the policy statement (e.g. PSWs, ANSIs, significant woodlands, valleylands, and wildlife habitat). They are also reflected in the MNR Land Use Guidelines, Conservation Authority Plans and municipal land use plans. The Regional Official Plans for Niagara, Hamilton and Halton also identify ESAs. ESAs are scattered throughout the study area. Significant Valleylands are associated with many watercourses in the study area and are identified in

agency/municipal documents and through consultation. Policy 2.3.1(b) permits development in significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest if it has been

demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or the ecological functions for which the area is identified. The assessment should have regard for the PPS protection objective.

Transportation Needs Assessment NHIC MNR Land Use Guidelines Conservation Authority Plans and Inventories Municipal Plans SWHTG Provincial Policy Statement and associated MNR Natural Heritage

Training Manual Niagara Escarpment Plan Watershed and subwatershed studies Other relevant sources in Section 2.1 of the Natural Environment Work

Plan

Page 39 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


OBJECTIVE RATIONALE DATA SOURCE 14. Avoid where possible or

minimize encroachment on special spaces including the Niagara Escarpment, Park Lands, Conservation Authority Lands, the Welland Canal and the Bruce Trail. Avoid impairment of function of these features.

There are several unique features within the study area that warrant special mention because of their environmental, cultural or historical importance. The Niagara Escarpment is a prominent feature in the study area and is classified as a UNESCO world Biosphere Reserve. The Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Niagara Escarpment Plan govern the management of the escarpment. The feature represents a major constraint to transportation because of the ecological significance of the natural areas and the linear corridor it provides, as well as the steep topographic relief along much of the length of the escarpment. The Niagara Escarpment plan does permit “essential transportation and utility facilities: within the Escarpment Natural Areas, the Escarpment Protection Area and the Escarpment Rural Area. However, to the extent possible, these areas should be avoided. The Wainfleet Marsh and Bog is the largest block of organic swamp in Niagara Region and contain numerous significant species and vegetation communities. The Welland Canal is of regional importance for its historical, cultural and economic value. Beverley Swamp is a large wetland and a Carolinian Canada site. Parks are generally lands in public ownership aimed at preserving significant and sometimes unique

components of the environment, and providing recreational opportunities. These areas should be avoided to the extent possible however, in some cases, transportation facilities can be placed within park boundaries without adversely affecting the park. Frequently, parts are isolated islands surrounded by development and as such they can function as wildlife refuge areas or may facilitate wildlife movement opportunities. Within the study area, parks and conservation authority lands are most abundant along the escarpment and associated with aquatic systems.

Niagara Escarpment Plan MNR Interest Groups Municipal plans Consultation with municipal and regional governments Transportation Needs Assessment Ontario Parks Conservation Authorities Other relevant sources in Section 2.1 of the Natural Environment Work

Plan

15. Maximize separation distance between the route alternative and sensitive receptor locations.

16. Minimize encroachment near existing and proposed urban and rural residential developments

17. Follow a direct route to minimize GHG emissions

Minimizing route locations through residential developments and in proximity to other sensitive receptors (i.e. recreational areas) will reduce the air quality impacts of the facility

Minimize vehicle distance traveled

1:50,000 or 1:25,000 topographic maps 1:10,000 Ontario Base Maps Aerial Photographs Municipal land use information Official regional land use plans Traffic data Public consultation Route alternative maps

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 18. Minimize the number of

developed properties affected by the right-of-way requirements by following existing lot lines and concession lines to the extent possible.

Minimizing the need for developed property and agricultural operations will reduce impacts on individuals and businesses as well as reducing the costs for the facility

1:50 000 topographic maps Information System (NRVIS) Municipal land use information MPAC records

19. Minimize disruption of access.

The construction of a new facility will create a barrier to movement that is much more significant in more settled areas as it impacts on the community fabric, having both social and economic impacts.

1:50 000 topographic maps Information System (NRVIS) Municipal land use information MPAC records School Boards Traffic counts Public consultation

20. Minimize potential impact of reduced access by avoiding urban areas, hamlets and rural clusters.

The construction of a new facility will create a barrier to movement that is much more significant in more settled areas as it impacts on the community fabric, having both social and economic impacts.

1:50 000 topographic maps Information System (NRVIS) Municipal land use information MPAC records School Boards Traffic counts Public consultation

21. Maximize the access provided to major generators of economic

The facility is intended to further the potential for economic development. 1:50 000 topographic maps Information System (NRVIS) Municipal land use information MPAC records

Page 40 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


OBJECTIVE RATIONALE DATA SOURCE activity. Municipal staff

Public consultation 22. Avoid where possible or

minimize encroachment on prime agricultural areas and agricultural infrastructure.

The Provincial Policy Statement requires highway projects to have regard for prime agricultural areas. Prime agricultural areas include specialty cropland and Class 1,2 and 3 soils in this order of priority. According to Regional Niagara’s Official Plan (1998), tender fruit and grape growing areas have high

priority for preservation and these areas should be avoided by transportation facilities where possible.

Official land use plans OMAFRA Regional and local agricultural federations Soil reports

23. Avoid where possible or minimize encroachment on mineral, petroleum and mineral aggregate resources.

The facility could remove mineral, petroleum and /or mineral aggregate resources from production. MNR resource maps Official land use plans

24. Minimize encroachment into urban areas.

25. In urban areas, avoid where possible or minimize encroachment into commercial/industrial areas.

It is inevitable that the MPH will encroach into urban areas such as the Hamilton, Burlington, Welland and Fort Erie areas. As a result there is the potential that some of the land may be contaminated due to the nature of existing and historical land use especially in older commercial/industrial areas and in areas with heavy industrial activity. To minimize the potential for property contamination issues, route selection in urban areas should stay clear of or at least minimize encroachment into these areas.

26. In rural areas, avoid retail/commercial areas such as service stations and isolated industrial areas such as manufacturing plants.

Sources of potential property contamination in rural areas are most commonly associated with service stations; isolated pockets of commercial/industrial areas; unknown fill areas; scrap yards and other high risk land uses. Since these areas are generally isolated and localized, route selection should stay clear of these areas.

27. Avoid operating and closed waste disposal sites.

Localized significant sources of property contamination can be operating and closed waste disposal sites, the latter being of more significance due to their difficulty in accurately locating them. Consideration should be given to avoiding the “area of influence” of waste disposal sites.

Field Reconnaissance Historical Plans MOE Waste Generator Database MOE PCB Storage Site Database MOE Waste Disposal Site Inventory Technical Standards & Safety Authority Aerial Photographs Municipal Directories Municipal Assessment Maps OBM and NTS Mapping Soils, Hydrogeological and Geological Maps Libraries Historical Archives Land Registry Offices Municipal Offices

28. Maximize separation distance between the route alternative and sensitive receptor locations. Minimize encroachment near existing and proposed urban and rural residential developments

Minimizing route locations through residential developments will reduce the operational noise, construction noise and vibration impacts and reduce the cost of the facility

1:50,000 or 1:25,000 topographic maps 1:10,000 Ontario Base Maps Aerial Photographs Municipal land use information Official regional land use plans Traffic data Public consultation

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 29. Avoid Archaeological Sites

of Extreme Significance Disturbance or destruction of certain archaeological sites of extreme local, provincial, or national interest

represents a significant cultural loss. Such sites, if any, should be avoided by all proposed route alternatives.

Data gathering exercise to identify any archaeological sites of extreme significance. Data sources: Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation (Ontario

Archaeological Sites Database) Archaeological/heritage studies and reports Historic mapping Other published and unpublished archaeological literature First Nation groups

30. Minimize the number of built heritage features displaced (loss or relocation) in the study area.

A loss of built heritage features may occur due to the construction of the proposed highway thus resulting in a depletion of the cultural heritage resources in the analysis area.

Historical mapping and aerial photographs, cemetery lists, municipal, provincial and federal inventories, listings, plaques, easements and designations of National Historic Sites and under the Ontario Heritage Act. Input from other factor areas Consultation with municipal and regional heritage planning staff or

designates, Local Architectural Advisory Committees (LACACS), historical societies and other heritage groups as necessary Consultation with Ministry of Culture, and the Niagara Escarpment

Page 41 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


OBJECTIVE RATIONALE DATA SOURCE planning staff Field survey Provincial Policy Statement

31. Minimize the number of built heritage features disrupted in the study area.

Disruption may result in change to the heritage character and setting of the built heritage feature Historical mapping and aerial photographs, cemetery lists, municipal, provincial and federal inventories, listings, plaques, easements and designations of National Historic Sitesand under the Ontario Heritage Act. Consultation with municipal and regional heritage planning staff or

designates, Local Architectural Advisory Committees (LACACS), historical societies and other heritage groups as necessary, Consultation with Ministry of Culture, and the Niagara Escarpment

planning staff Field survey, Provincial Policy Statement

32. Minimize the number of cultural landscape units displaced (loss or relocation) in the study area.

A loss of cultural landscape units may occur due to the construction of the proposed highway thus resulting in a depletion of the cultural heritage resources in the analysis area.

Historical mapping and aerial photographs, cemetery lists, municipal, provincial and federal inventories, listings, plaques, easements and designations of National Historic Sites and under the Ontario Heritage Act. Input from other factor areas. Consultation with municipal and regional heritage planning staff or

designates, Local Architectural Advisory Committees (LACACS), historical societies and other heritage groups as necessary. Consultation with Ministry of Culture, and the Niagara Escarpment

planning staff, Field survey. Provincial Policy Statement

33. Minimize the number of cultural landscape units disrupted in the study area.

Disruption may result in change to the heritage character and setting of cultural landscape unit. Historical mapping and aerial photographs, cemetery lists, municipal, provincial and federal inventories, listings, plaques, easements and designations of National Historic Sites and under the Ontario Heritage Act. Input from other factor areas. Consultation with municipal and regional heritage planning staff or

designates, Local Architectural Advisory Committees (LACACS), historical societies and other heritage groups as necessary Consultation with Ministry of Culture, and the Niagara Escarpment

planning staff Field survey Provincial Policy Statement

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 34. To generate route

alternatives that meets design requirements of “Draft Safety Standards Manual for New Rural Freeways.”

The Ministry has developed new freeway design standards to ensure that road safety objectives are reflected in all new infrastructure MTO standards are not subject to modification or compromised to avoid/reduce impacts, costs, etc.

Draft Safety Standards Manual for New Rural Freeways Ontario Geometric Design Standards Manual Base Mapping Field Reviews

35. To generate route alternatives that are efficient and direct.

Costs and impacts can be significantly reduced, and higher benefits realized if the route alternatives are designed to cross features such as roadways, railways, utilities, and watercourses, at minimum skew angle, and preferably 90 degrees. Alternatives should minimize the number and span of bridges by avoiding, for example a meandering stream that may need to be crossed several times in a short distance. Direct routing reduces travel time and emissions. Minimizing route length minimizes costs and impacts. Reducing travel time increases the transportation

service level, and is more economical.

Draft Safety Standards Manual for New Rural Freeways Ontario Geometric Design Standards Manual Base Mapping Field Reviews

Note: Route generation criteria listed in Table 5.1 represent the minimum objectives for generating route alternatives. These objectives are subject to refinement and modification during the Route Location EA based on study findings and input received from stakeholders.

Page 42 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


5.2 Evaluation of Route Alternatives

After the various route alternatives are generated based on the generation criteria and refined based on consultation, the evaluation of the various routes will commence. As noted previously, in the Niagara portion of the EA Study Area, various route alternatives will be generated which connect to the QEW to the north and south of the City of Welland. In the Hamilton / Halton section of the study area, various routes will be generated with connections to Highway 401, Highway 407 and the QEW via Highway 403 and Highway 6. Protection for both a new highway and transitway, possibly on separate routes, will be considered during the Route Location EA. The best route for each connection will be identified through the evaluation process described in Section 5.2 and compared to each other to identify a preferred alternative.

The evaluation of alternatives is a two-step process. The first step entails an assessment of the impacts of the various alternatives under consideration. At this stage, each environmental feature is examined to determine the extent of impact. Net impacts will be identified; these refer to the effects on the environment that remain after standard mitigation measures have been applied to reduce the extent of the impact. It is recognized that for some factor areas, impacts will occur outside of the Route Location EA Study Area.

The second stage is the evaluation itself. This stage builds upon the information obtained from the impacts assessment stage and involves a comparative analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives considered to select a preferred alternative. At this stage, the relative importance of the environmental features is determined. A “Do Nothing” scenario will be carried forward to represent a base case for comparison to the preferred alternative.

Throughout the study area, it is expected that during the generation and evaluation of alternatives, various routes will have common points where routes intersect. In such cases, an analysis will be undertaken to determine preferred routes for portions of the study area rather than comprehensively examining all combinations of routes for the entire corridor. For example, alternatives between common points “A” and “B” would be compared to select a preferred alternative route for that segment of the corridor prior to assessing alternatives beyond common point “B” (refer to Exhibit 5.2).

Exhibit 5.2 Common Point Analysis

LEGEND

Common Point

Alternative Route

A B

Page 43 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Evaluation Method The evaluation of alternatives is an integral component of the Route Location EA. A sound evaluation process is based on five key principles:

Comprehensive;

Understandable; Replicable; Traceable; and, Participatory.

The Ministry of Environment Interim Guidelines on Environmental Assessment Planning and Approvals (July, 1989) recommends that the evaluation approach should be clearly described and government ministries, agencies and the public should be asked for their comments early in the EA study. The method(s) used to predict net environmental effects and evaluate advantages and disadvantages must, according to the Guidelines, clearly identify the relative differences and key impact trade-offs. MTO is proposing two complementary evaluation approaches to assist in the selection of a preferred alternative for the proposed Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor. A Reasoned Argument (or Trade-off) method will be the primary tool used to identify a preferred route alternative. An Arithmetic (weighting-scoring) method will be the secondary tool and will be used to verify the results of the trade-off method. The Reasoned Argument (trade-off) evaluation component will provide a clear presentation to stakeholders of the key trade-offs between the various evaluation factors and the reasons why one route alternative is preferred over another. The Arithmetic evaluation provides a means to compare the route alternatives based on a numerical scaling with weights assigned by the ministry and other stakeholders as determined through the EA Study consultation. A numerical approach is a good sensitivity analysis tool to determine if the conclusions of the reasoned argument approach are valid and appropriate. During the EA study, the decision making process will be clearly documented in support of a traceable process and to ensure it is understandable to those who may be affected by the decisions. Details on the Reasoned Argument (trade-off) and Arithmetic evaluation methodologies are outlined as follows: Reasoned Argument (Trade-off) Method This method will be the primary evaluation method employed to select a preferred alternative. This method highlights the differences in net impacts associated with the various alternatives. Based on these differences, the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative are identified. The relative significance of the impacts are examined to provide a clear rationale for the selection of a preferred alternative. The rationale that favours the selection of one alternative over all others will be derived from the following sources:

Government legislation, policies and guidelines; Municipal policy (i.e., Official Plans); Issues and concerns identified during consultation with ministries and agencies, municipalities, ratepayer and interest groups and the general public; and, Project Team expertise.

Page 44 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Arithmetic Evaluation Component The Arithmetic Evaluation component will be the secondary method of evaluation and will incorporate both the level of importance of each environmental attribute (referred to as the weight) and the magnitude of the impact (or benefit) associated with an alternative (referred to as the score). Numerical values are derived for both the level of importance (weight), and the magnitude of the impact (score) associated with each alternative.

The weight is multiplied by the score to obtain a total. The totals for each alternative are compared to determine the preferred alternative. The Arithmetic Evaluation Method also allows for sensitivity testing as numerous weighting scenarios can be developed.

Scoring (impact) The score assigned to each environmental attribute is relative to the impact generated. Relative impacts can range from those that are positive (benefit the environment) to negative (detrimental to the environment).

The assessment of impacts will be derived from field measurements, results of prediction models, secondary data sources (as appropriate) and other means as described in the Environmental Work Plans (refer to Supporting Document B).

Weighting (level of importance) Generally, more weight is assigned to those features, which are felt to be more important in assessing impacts generated by alternatives, and less weight is given to those features, which are considered to be less important.

Weighting scenarios will be used for this evaluation component. One weighting scenario will be developed by the Project Team, other weighting scenarios will be developed by the general public. Additional weighting scenarios can be developed in consultation with regulatory agencies and municipalities. It should be noted that weighting scenarios may vary for different regions of the study area. In addition, numerous sensitivity tests can be run to reflect input from other stakeholders. Questionnaires focused on establishing the relative weights that participants feel should be given to each environmental attribute will be distributed at the second round of consultation activities. This will provide the Project Team with an understanding of community values with respect to the relative importance of each environmental feature.

The results of the weighting scenarios will be reviewed and compared to the results of the Net Impact Assessment component.

Implementation of Evaluation Approaches As previously noted, the Reasoned Argument (trade-off) method is the primary evaluation tool to select a preferred alternative with the Arithmetic approach used to substantiate the findings of the Reasoned Argument (trade-off) evaluation. The two evaluation approaches will be implemented concurrently. For example, the Project Team’s assumptions and rationale behind its assessment of the level of importance of

Page 45 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


environmental attributes will be documented along with the corresponding arithmetic value assigned to the impact. In addition, input from stakeholders and the public will be coordinated through public information centres and other public consultation activities (e.g. meetings, workshops) to ensure issues, concerns and the magnitude of potential impacts are properly identified and understood by the Project Team.

The results of the Reasoned Argument (trade-off) evaluation component will be compared to the results from the Arithmetic Evaluation component. If the two components result in the identification of different preferred alternatives, the differences between the two alternatives will be identified. The results of the Arithmetic Method will be analyzed to determine the key weight-score combinations in the Arithmetic Evaluation. Similarly, the rationale for each trade-off decision will be revisited, to determine if the Project Team decision was appropriate. If the rationale supporting the trade-off decisions is valid and appropriate, the preferred alternative identified by the Reasoned Argument (trade-off) method will stand. However, if the results of the Arithmetic Evaluation lead to modifications to the trade-off decision rationale, the Reasoned Argument (trade-off) method preferred alternative may be revised. The decision making process will be clearly documented and presented for stakeholder comment.

5.2.1 Factor Specific Environmental Inputs to the Evaluation of Alternatives

The data collected on the study area will assist in identifying the types of impacts each route alternative will result in, on each component of the environment. Environmental components include:

Natural Environment Socio-economic Environment Cultural Environment Technical Requirements / Considerations

Each of these components will be defined by a set of evaluation criteria, which group the environmental aspects considered in the analysis of impacts for this project. Impacts will be quantified according to the list of indicators shown in Table 5.2. The evaluation criteria listed represent the minimum requirements in the process of evaluating route alternatives. It is recognized that for some factor areas, impacts will occur outside of the Route Location EA Study Area. A description of the rationale, data source and specific evaluation measures associated with the evaluation criteria/indicators is outlined in Table 5.2. The evaluation factors, criteria and indicators are subject to refinement and modification during the Route Location EA based on study findings, provincial policy and input received from stakeholders. Additional details are included in Supporting Document B.

Page 46 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Table 5.2 Evaluation Factors, Criteria and Indicators CRITERION/INDICATORS BACKGROUND/RATIONALE DATA SOURCE MEASURES Natural Environment Groundwater 1. Effect on groundwater resource

areas 2. Effect on groundwater discharge 3. Municipal private water supply

wells within 150 m of the ROW

Policy 2.4.1 of the PPS. Groundwater recharge areas are often associated with sandy soils, wooded swamps, wetlands and wooded areas in association with streams, swales and ponds although most land area will recharge groundwater to some extent. Route location of transportation through known groundwater recharge areas may impede groundwater recharge or provide a pathway for contamination of groundwater and impact both quantity and quality of groundwater resources. It is assumed that each rural dwelling will have at least one well associated with it even if no well record exists. It is acknowledged that many farms, particularly those raising livestock probably have 2 or more wells and more detailed investigation will apply at the preferred alternative stage. Groundwater resource areas include areas of high water table (i.e. shallow groundwater), recharge areas, overburden aquifers, groundwater and wellhead protection areas.

Use existing information to determine areas of high water table, areas of groundwater discharge, areas of high groundwater overburden permeability and location and usage of private and municipal wells MOE well records Other relevant sources in Section 2.1 of the Natural Environment Work Plan

1. Measured by the length (m) of the facility crossing such areas, providing an indirect indication of potential effects on groundwater quality/quantity.

2. Measured by the number of locations where the facility crosses identified/mapped discharge zones and/or requires deep road cuts that could intercept/interfere with groundwater discharge.

3. Number and type of wells (such as Municipal, private, shallow [<15 m], deep) within 150 m of the ROW. This is based on MOE well records and any additional information on wells compiled during the study. In addition, the percentage of tallied wells that are shallow (<15 m) will be recorded as a measure of relative impact risk to water supply and quality.

Surface Water Quality and Quantity 4. Watercourse crossings 5. Floodplain crossed 6. Encroachment on sensitive

headwaters areas 7. Impacts to surface water quality 8. Channel alterations anticipated 9. Implications for watercourse

management programs

Policy 2.4.1 of the PPS. Transportation facilities should not be placed along watercourses or along valleylands. Where crossings cannot be avoided, floodplains should be crossed in narrow locations and with minimal reduction of hydraulic capacity.

1:50 000 topographic maps 1:10 000 base maps MOE, Conservation Authorities, interest groups, municipal government CA floodplain mapping RAPs and Management plans Watershed and Subwatershed studies Other relevant sources in Section 2.1 of the Natural Environment Work Plan

4. Total number of watercourse crossings (permanent and intermittent – see definitions under Fisheries and Aquatic habitat). 5. Measures the length (m) of floodplain crossed providing a measure of direct and potential indirect effects. 6. Measures the length (m) of the alignment crossing headwater areas as well as an identification of the number/name/of the

headwater areas affected. 7. Measure the potential impact to adjacent waterbodies based on the number, nature/sensitivity & proximity of waterbodies. 8. Measures the number of watercourses (permanent and intermittent) where channel alteration/realignment may be required

based on available engineering information. Watercourses will be identified by name, if available, and approximate lengths of potential alteration will be estimated based on available engineering information (including ROW width) and consideration of channel meander belt conditions.

9. Measures the number and nature (such as MOE, Conservation Authority, interest group, municipal) of watercourse management or other environmental resource programs identified and potentially affected by the alignment. Implications for the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement objectives for the study area are also reviewed.

Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat 10. Coldwater fishery crossings 11. Warm water fishery crossings 12. Riparian vegetation removal 13. Implication for identified rare or

VTE fish species 14. Areas of specialized, critical and /

or limiting fish habitat 15. Implications on habitat

rehabilitation programs

Policy 2.3.1(b) of the PPS. Construction of a water crossing structures may result in impacts to stream flow, morphological characteristics (substrate, habitat features such as pools, riffles, runs, backwater areas etc.) which may result in secondary impacts to fish by altering spawning, rearing, feeding habitat as well as contributing to sedimentation downstream. Vegetation may be lost along the stream edge and may change the character of the riparian zone, particularly where the valley is wooded. Habitats for species at risk may be limited and may experience a higher level of impact. Sensitive species or communities may be less tolerant to changes (permanent or temporary) to the environment and are more susceptible to impacts. Presence of groundwater inputs to the stream may serve a critical role in maintaining fish community or species assemblages. Some species rely on these inputs to directly support life functions such as spawning.

Existing information gathered during the Transportation Needs Assessment will be supplemented with information from MNR, Conservation Authorities, Interest Groups, public consultation, municipalities, Ontario Parks Existing fish community and habitat mapping will be of particular relevance 1:10 000 base mapping MNR (Natural Resource Values Inventory Systems (NRVIS)) mapping Air photos Reconnaissance data from needs assessment supplemented by site specific field reconnaissance NHIC Watershed and subwatershed studies Other relevant sources in Section 2.1 of the Natural Environment Work Plan

10. Measures the number of times the alignment crosses a coldwater or potential coldwater fisheries watercourse as defined by MNR, CA, and/or field observations. Wetlands identified by the agencies as providing or supporting such a fishery and crossed by the alignment will be included in the crossing totals. The number of areas where an alignment does not cross but is within 30 m of the watercourse will also be tallied as a measure of potential indirect impact.

11. Measures the number of times the alignment crosses a warmwater or potential warmwater fisheries watercourse as defined by MNR, CA, and/or field observations. Wetlands identified by the agencies as providing or supporting such a fishery and crossed by the alignment will be included in the crossing totals. The number of areas where an alignment does not cross but is within 30 m of the watercourse will also be tallied as a measure of potential indirect impact.

12. Measures the length (m) and nature of riparian vegetation affected by the ROW, where riparian vegetation is defined as part of or on the bank of the watercourse.

13. Qualitative assessment based on the number of watercourses crossed providing documented known habitat for rare, vulnerable, threatened or endangered (VTE) species as identified by MNR, CA, or other resource groups. Field observations of habitat conditions in identified areas will also be used to supplement this assessment where required.

14. Measures the number of specialized, critical and / or limiting fish habitat areas that are crossed by the alignment. 15. Measures the number and nature (such as MNR, CA, interest group, municipal) of watercourse fisheries rehabilitation programs

identified and potentially affected by the alignment.

Vegetation 16. Degree of encroachment on or

severance of woodlots/forest areas.

17. Significant flora/communities. 18. Implications on vegetation

management, rehabilitation and research programs.

Woodlots and forested areas have limited distribution in the study area and large unit may support significant or sensitive species. The study area is located within the Carolinian Zone and may have important representations of Carolinian species assemblages. These natural heritage areas require protection. Route location and construction of transportation facilities through woodlots and forested areas may result in the loss of important plant species and the loss of forest ecosystem function. Small degraded, isolated remnant woodlots and wetlands can have ecological value. Large natural and relatively undisturbed features have high ecological sensitivity and value.

Identify vegetation units through air photo interpretation 1:10 000 base mapping and topographic mapping Field assessment of habitat types and significance/quality in areas of particular interest or where data gaps exist Existing information from NHIC, naturalist clubs, public consultation, consultant reports OMAFRA RAPs and Management Plans Carolinian Canada Other relevant sources in Section 2.1 of the Natural Environment Work Plan

16. Measures the number and area of woodlots/forest habitat crossed by the ROW (excluding riparian areas). The relationship to riparian areas will be considered. Direct impact (edge or fragmentation) will be identified. Potential impacts where the alignment is within 50 m of the feature will also be identified. Significant forest areas (as determined through the EA review) as well as core areas and other significant areas mapped by Carolinian Canada (Big Picture) will be included in the impact evaluation.

17. Measures the potential effect on significant flora/communities based on the number of documented sites where there are direct impacts (edge or fragmentation) or where potential impacts may occur (alignment within 50 m of feature based on Natural Heritage Training Manual guidelines).

18. Measures the number and nature (such as MNR, Woodlot Improvement Act, plantation, research plots) of vegetation management, rehabilitation and/or research sites that have been identified and that are potentially affected by the alignment. Direct effects will be based on the number of identified sites where edge removal or fragmentation occurs. Potential impacts where the alignment is within 50 m of the feature will also be identified.

Wetlands 19. Loss of Provincially significant

wetland area and function. 20. Loss of Non-Provincially

significant wetland area and function.

Wetlands serve an important ecological function and must be considered during planning, in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act. Route location and subsequent construction of a transportation facility through a wetland may be difficult to mitigate. Small degraded, isolated remnant woodlots and wetlands can have ecological value. Large natural and relatively undisturbed features have high ecological sensitivity and value.

Use existing wetland mapping from the needs assessment Field assessment of habitat types and significance/quality Existing information residing with MNR, Conservation Authorities, NHIC, Bird Studies Canada, local field naturalists Other relevant sources in Section 2.1 of the Natural Environment Work Plan

19. Direct effects on PSWs will be measured in terms of area removal (ha) and nature of impact (such as edge intrusion, fragmentation). A second measurement category will be the length of the alignment within 30 m of a PSW where direct and/or indirect effects may also occur. A third measurement category will be the number of locations where an alignment is within 120 m of a PSW (secondary potential indirect impact zone). In site-specific areas where impact risk as determined during the EA may be identified within or beyond the 120 m zone, this will be identified in the evaluation.

20. Direct effects on locally significant wetlands (LSW) will be measured in terms of area removed and nature of impact (such edge intrusion, fragmentation). The number of locations where an alignment is within 30 m of an LSW and wetland complex will be counted as a measure of potential indirect effect.

Wildlife 21. Loss of wildlife habitat 22. Wildlife movement implications

(severance of linkages between natural heritage areas)

23. Encroachment on or severance of important wildlife habitat areas including wildlife management,

The location of the transportation facility may eliminate or sever terrestrial habitat within the study area. The result may a reduction in the total area of specific habitats, a reduction in core habitat and an increase in edge effects to wooded habitat. A new facility may also encroach on or sever wildlife travel corridors or ecologically functional areas that serve to connect habitats. Potentially significant impact to sensitive species or species at risk where

Air photos 1:10 000 base mapping MNR NRVIS mapping Field reconnaissance of habitat quality for species at risk Existing information from the Breeding Bird Atlas, NHIC Existing or on going research being conducted in the area (breeding bird surveys, herptiles)

21. Measures the area of wildlife habitat (to be defined during EA) removed by the alignment. 22. Encroachment on or severance of ecologically functional wildlife movement areas. These will be identified during the EA on

the basis of documented information, discussion with agency staff, Carolinian Canada Big Picture mapping, review of mapping and aerial photography, field reconnaissance (where appropriate) and professional judgment. An overall qualitative assessment of potential barrier/filter to wildlife movements is provided based on the following: High: The encroachment on, or severance of, movement areas is extensive, unavoidable, and mitigation (such as

through avoidance) is not feasible. Moderate: The encroachment on, or severance of, movement areas is less extensive, somewhat avoidable, and mitigation

Page 47 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


CRITERION/INDICATORS BACKGROUND/RATIONALE DATA SOURCE MEASURES rehabilitation and research programs.

24. Loss or encroachment on habitat of known rare or VTE species

habitat may be already limited. Any further loss of the habitat may result in significant impacts to populations. Important wildlife areas may include identified waterfowl areas, deer winter concentration areas, heronries, Important Bird Areas (Bird Studies Canada) or other areas with specific wildlife attributes identified by municipalities, agencies or local naturalist groups.

Public consultation, consultation with interest groups, Provincial Parks, Conservation Authorities Other relevant sources in Section 2.1 of the Natural Environment Work Plan

is more feasible. Low: The encroachment on, or severance of, movement areas is least extensive, more likely avoidable, and mitigation

is most feasible. The number of anticipated corridor crossings (and area) as well as the number of potentially affected corridor zones (influence zone to be determined in EA) will be incorporated in the assessment of the high, moderate and low categories.

23. Measure of the number of such areas either directly impacted (such as edge intrusion of fragmentation) or otherwise potentially impacted by the alignment as determined during the EA study. Comments are also provided on the type of area potentially affected.

24. Measures the number of habitat areas supporting documented presence of nationally, provincially or regionally rare or VTE wildlife species that are either directly impacted (such as edge intrusion or fragmentation) or otherwise potentially impacted by the alignment as determined during the EA study.

Environmentally Significant Features 25. Loss or encroachment on

identified ESAs, ANSIs and Significant Valleylands.

Areas that have been designated as Environmentally Significant Areas, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest or Significant Valleylands may have landforms or plant communities associated with the area that are designated locally, regionally or provincially significant, or provide important corridors.

Existing information ESA reports, ANSI reports, valleyland maps collected during needs assessment from MNR, Conservation Authorities, NHIC Field surveys to verify area boundaries Other relevant sources in Section 2.1 of the Natural Environment Work Plan

25. Measures the degree of encroachment on, or severance of identified Environmentally Sensitive/Significant Areas (ESAs), provincially significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) and Significant Valleylands. The number of directly or indirectly (within 50 m) affected sites is counted for each alignment. A qualitative assessment of the nature of effects, edge, severed, or proximate to, is also provided.

Special Spaces 26. Implications on the Niagara

Escarpment 27. Implications on special spaces.

The Niagara Escarpment is the most significant and prominent natural feature in the analysis area. There are many unique features within the study associated with local geology, climate, and development. Special regard needs to be paid to these features during the route location stage. Official plans will be considered in the EA.

Niagara Escarpment Plan and Amendments Official Plans Conservation Authorities Niagara Escarpment Commission Existing official plans, local or regional policy pertaining to development activities within the Niagara region. Consultation with municipal government and planning organizations and commissions. Other relevant sources in Section 2.1 of the Natural Environment Work Plan

26. Measures the degree of access to, encroachment on, or severance of the land use designations identified in the Niagara Escarpment Plan. The extent of each land use designation potentially affected will be quantified. A qualitative assessment of the nature of effects, edge, severance or proximity to, and potential nuisance effects (e.g. noise) and aesthetic effects will also be provided.

27. Measures the degree of access to, encroachment on, or severance of identified special spaces (such as Carolinian Canada Sites, Parks, Conservation Areas, Welland Canal). The number of directly or indirectly affected sites (within 50 m) is counted for each alignment. A qualitative assessment of the nature of effects, edge, severance or proximate to, and potential nuisance effects (i.e. noise) and aesthetic effects are also provided.

Air Quality (Sensitive Receptors) 28. Separation distance 29. GHG emissions

Smaller separation distance between the highway and sensitive receptors (i.e. hospitals, schools etc.) would result in higher impacts Route locations through or near urban developments increase the risk of exceeding MOE Ambient Air Quality Criteria limits Dust emissions from temporary material piles, heavy equipment and relocation of materials could cause temporary air quality issues GHG’s contribute to global warming

1:10 000 Ontario base maps Route location alternatives Aerial photographs Construction staging details Traffic data Climatic conditions MOBILE emissions model and other emission factors

28. Number of sensitive receptors within the predicted concentration separation distance. 29. Total GHG emissions

Socio-Economic Environment Noise 30. Potential increases in noise

detected at sensitive receptors.

Residents adjacent to the highway facility could potentially be affected by noise and vibration during the construction and/or operation of the highway facility.

Aerial Photographs Municipal land use information 1:50,000 or 1:25,000 topographic maps 1:10,000 Ontario Base Maps Traffic data Public consultation Municipal By-laws Engineering Track Drawings Field Monitoring / Measurements

30. Assessment/Analysis: Increase in noise detected at sensitive receptors based on: Qualitative to determine the study area Qualitative of the number of existing and proposed residential developments to determine noise sensitive areas Quantitative and qualitative to determine ambient sound levels Quantitative to determine future “no-build” and future “build” sound levels Quantitative to predict noise impacts between future “no-build” and future “build” Quantitative of noise mitigation requirements Quantitative of construction noise and vibration impacts

Community Fabric 31. Encroachment on or severance of

established and/or proposed settlement areas.

32. Support for planned community structure.

33. Delivery of community services (emergency, school bus).

34. Urban or rural barrier effects.

The Regional Official Plans in the Study Area have a series of policies designed to foster a preferred community structure. The Provincial Policy Statement requires that development patterns not hinder the efficient expansion of urban areas. Maintain levels of service delivery.

Existing land use mapping and Regional and Local Official Plans will be used as the source to determine where the route alternatives create these barriers. Regional and Local Official Plans and existing Land Use Maps (as compiled through windshield surveys and/or air photo interpretation).

31. Qualitative assessment based on the number of settlement areas encroached upon (overlapped), the extent to which the route encroaches upon the area, and whether or not the settlement area is existing (built) or proposed (not yet built, but designated in the Official Plan), will all be considered.

32. A qualitative assessment of the extent to which the facility would re-enforce and support, or be contrary to the approved urban structure, as set out in the local and Regional Official Plans and supplemented by interviews with Regional staff and a planning analysis.

33. Qualitative assessments based on the ability to efficiently and safely provide alternative routes for services, such as school buses, ambulances and fire trucks.

34. Qualitative assessment based on the extent to which route alternatives create barriers or physically and psychologically separate parts of communities from other parts of the same community, or from other communities.

Property Impacts 35. Residences displaced. 36. Residences with access affected. 37. Business / Recreational /

Institutional uses displaced. 38. Business / Recreational /

Institutional uses with access affected.

Property takings and the consequent displacement can have a significant impact on the owners and tenants as well as on the surrounding community and or customer/client base. Residents adjacent to the ROW may experience effects related to dust, noise, vibration, odor and changes to groundwater during construction and/or operation of the facility. Displacement or disruption of institutional, recreational and community features may adversely affect the users of the feature. Disruption of recreational facilities such as trails (Bruce Trail)

Site visits and interviews with residents potentially displaced. Land use surveys Windshield surveys Municipal mapping and regional land use plans Air photos MPAC files Conservation Authorities MNR Ministry of Tourism Bruce Trail Association

35. Quantitative assessment of the number of homes within the right-of-way based on land use and assessment information. 36. Qualitative assessment of homes with reduced access based on land use surveys, site visits and assessment information. 37. Quantitative assessment of institutional uses within the right-of-way based on land use and assessment information. 38. Qualitative assessment based on the removal of or loss of access to community facilities, such as parks, schools and

churches based on land use surveys, site visits and assessment information.

Visual Aesthetics/View from the Facility 39. Total aesthetic value of visibly

accessible landscape components. 40. Total scenic value based on

Visual impacts on adjacent users are particularly significant in rural settings. The visual impact on the motorist can enhance the user experience.

Windshield surveys Site visits Interviews with business owners/operators

39. A qualitative assessment based on the number of positive and negative aesthetic elements as well as the quantity and quality of natural and man-made features.

40. Qualitative assessment of variety, accessibility and composition of views/vistas from the road. 41. Quantitative assessment of number of dwellings affected by a negative visual impact

Page 48 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


CRITERION/INDICATORS BACKGROUND/RATIONALE DATA SOURCE MEASURES composition arrangement and sequence of landscape components.

41. Total potential visual impact on sensitive viewer groups based on sensitivity, proximity and frequency of viewer groups.

Provincial/Municipal/Private Land Use Development Strategies 42. Degree of compatibility with

municipal and Regional development goals and objectives.

43. Capability to provide transportation service/stimulate development of existing or potential major development initiatives (tourist facilities, employment areas).

44. Compatibility with Provincial/Federal planning goals/objectives/policies.

45. Effects on approved private development proposals.

The Provincial Policy Statement notes that a healthy economy is vital to the prosperity of the Province and that there are complex inter-relationships among environmental, economic and social factors in land use planning. As such the role of the facility in achieving economic objectives is important. There is a need to integrate the transportation facility site location with municipal land objectives as established through Official Plans, Secondary Plans and Zoning by-laws as these specify land uses supported by residents, municipalities and the province. Growth has potential cumulative environmental and socio-economic implications.

Provincial, municipal land use plans Federal/provincial land use goals, objectives, policies and Policy Statements Current land use proposals Public consultation Municipal zoning bylaws Land Use Management Plans Niagara Escarpment Plan Parkway Belt West Plan Agency consultation (MMAH, Ministry of Tourism, Transport Canada, Public Works and Government Service Canada)

42. Qualitative assessment of the degree of support for the intended urban structure based on approved land use policies and current proposals, interviews with key stakeholders and an applied planning analysis.

43. A qualitative assessment of the facility’s ability to provide transportation services and stimulate planned and projected growth based on approved land use policies and current proposals, interviews with key stakeholders and an applied planning analysis.

44. Qualitative assessment based on compatibility with other Provincial /Federal Planning goals/objectives/policies including those which have not been formally incorporated into the planning process as Policy Statements or other legislation.

45. A qualitative assessment of the potential effect of the facility on approved, but not constructed, private development proposals based on interviews with key stakeholders and an applied planning analysis.

Non-Farm Commercial Activities 46. Businesses displaced. 47. Businesses with access affected. 48. Employees displaced. 49. Changes (+/-) in business

exposure. 50. Construction impacts on

businesses

Property takings can have a significant impact on the owners and tenants as well as on the surrounding community and or customer/client base. The transportation corridor may require all or a portion of the site of an existing business. Businesses provide local and regional employment opportunities and generate personal income. The displacement or disruption of a business may reduce employment opportunities and levels of personal income. Business operations adjacent to the ROW may be disrupted during construction and operation of the highway. Businesses that have an outdoor component (fruit stand, greenhouse) and rely on environmental quality for their business success are likely to be sensitive to the construction and operation of the highway.

Public consultation Land use plans Interviews with business owners/operators Municipal mapping MPAC files

46. Quantitative assessment of number of businesses within the right-of-way displaced based on land use information. The analysis to include un-built approved facilities

47. Qualitative analysis of the impacts of changed accessibility to businesses, both positive and negative. The qualitative assessment of negative impacts will be based on loss of access to and within a property or changes necessary to retain access to a property. The analysis to include un-built approved facilities and to be based on land use information and interviews if needed.

48. Number of employees displaced. 49. Qualitative assessment based on improved/reduced visibility of a business due to its proximity to the new facility based on

interviews or information obtained from local sources. 50. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the number and types of businesses affected by construction in terms of access,

dust, noise and other similar activities based on interviews or information obtained from local sources.

Petroleum, Mineral and Mineral Aggregate Resources 51. Effect on licensed petroleum,

mineral and mineral aggregate resource operations.

52. Effect on petroleum, mineral and mineral aggregate resource areas.

Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement has the objective of protecting petroleum, mineral and mineral aggregate resources for the long term The Policy Statement requires protection of both existing operations and known deposits.

MNR mapping and data on current value of resource Official plans Provincial Policy Statement

51. Measures the degree of access to or encroachment on existing petroleum, mineral and mineral aggregate resource operations. The number of directly or indirectly (within 50m) affected sites is counted for each alignment.

52. Measures the degree of access to, encroachment on or severance of priority petroleum, mineral and mineral aggregate resource areas that have been identified and mapped by MNR. The number of directly or indirectly (within 50 m) affected sites is counted for each alignment.

Agriculture 53. Removal of tender fruit land 54. Removal of Class 1-3 agricultural

land 55. Specialty crops affected. 56. Vineyards affected. 57. Dairy/livestock operations

affected. 58. Field crop operations affected. 59. Farm properties greater than 20

ha affected. 60. Severed parcels greater than 20

ha affected. 61. Severed parcels less than 20 ha

affected. 62. High investment operations

affected. 63. Transportation routes affected. 64. Division of agricultural community

areas.

Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement has the objective of protecting prime agricultural areas. The policy represents a hierarchy of significance with specialty crop areas begin most significant followed by Class 1, 2 and 3 agricultural lands. A unique combination of sandy soils and favourable microclimate makes local condition suitable for growing grapes and tender fruits. According to Regional Niagara’s Official Plan (1998), tender fruit and grape growing areas have the highest priority for preservation and these areas should be avoided by transportation facilities.

Canada Land Inventory mapping (1:50 000) will be used to identify capability ratings of soils within the study area. Needs Assessment Study OMAFRA land use mapping Windshield surveys Public consultation Municipal mapping Individual Property Assessment Soils maps Provincial Policy Statement

53. Measures the area of affected tender fruit lands removed by the ROW. This may also include Class 4-5 lands that have been identified by OMAFRA as capable of supporting tender fruit production.

54. Measures the area of affected Class 1-3 land removed by the ROW. 55. Measures the number of specialty crop operations affected by each alternative. 56. Impact is defined as direct encroachment of actively farmed land (ha) and the number of operations affected. 57. Measured by the direct count of separate operations impacted by each alternative as well land potentially impacted or lost

from production. 58. This indicator is the number of individual field crop operations that will be impacted by each alternative as well as the areas

of land impacted or lost from farming production. 59. Measures the number of properties greater than 20 ha in the ROW. 60. Measures the number of parcels greater than 20 ha that are severed from farm property by the ROW. 61. Measures the number of parcels smaller than 20 ha that are severed from farm property by the ROW. 62. Measures the number of high capital investment operations crossed by the ROW. 63. Measures the number of disturbances to inter-property movements and property/market movements that may be

interrupted by the route alternatives. 64. Measured qualitatively as the impact of the alignment on agricultural communities.

Property Contamination 65. Encroachment on

commercial/industrial properties in urban areas.

66. Encroachment on isolated pockets of commercial/ industrial properties and service stations in rural areas.

Waste Management 67. Encroachment on operating and

It is inevitable that the MPTC will encroach into urban areas such as the Hamilton, Burlington, Welland and Fort Erie areas. As a result there is the potential that some of the land may be contaminated due to the nature of existing and historical land use especially in older commercial/industrial areas and in areas with heavy industrial activity. To minimize the potential for property contamination issues, route selection in urban areas should stay clear of or at least minimize encroachment into these areas. Sources of potential property contamination in rural areas are most commonly associated with service stations; isolated pockets of commercial/industrial areas; unknown fill areas; scrap yards and other high risk land uses. Since these areas are generally isolated and localized, route selection should stay clear of these areas.

Field Reconnaissance Historical Plans MOE Waste Generator Database MOE PCB Storage Site Database MOE Waste Disposal Site Inventory Technical Standards & Safety Authority Aerial Photographs Municipal Directories Municipal Assessment Maps OBM and NTS Mapping

Quantitative Assessment: 65. Urban areas - number of commercial/industrial areas and the number of properties in each area within study area. 66. Rural areas - number of isolated commercial/industrial and service station properties within study area. 67. Number of closed and operating waste disposal sites within study area. Qualitative Assessment: 68. Qualitative assessment of the significance of each of the properties with respect to potential site contamination (i.e. low,

moderate or high potential) based on current and historical land use; and visual evidence of potential site contamination such as surface staining, waste piles/debris and storage drums and tanks.

Page 49 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


CRITERION/INDICATORS BACKGROUND/RATIONALE DATA SOURCE MEASURES closed waste disposal sites. Localized significant sources of property contamination can be operating and

closed waste disposal sites, the latter being of more significance due to their difficulty in accurately locating them. Consideration should be given to avoiding the “area of influence” of waste disposal sites.

Soils, Hydrogeological and Geological Maps Libraries Historical Archives Land Registry Offices

Archaeological Features 68. Disturbance or destruction of

known significant archaeological sites

69. Disturbance of areas of archaeological potential

Disturbance or destruction of archaeological sites represents a significant local cultural loss. The archaeologically preferred route should avoid significant archaeological sites wherever possible, and minimize the number of significant archaeological sites impacted throughout. The archaeologically preferred route should minimize impact to areas that have potential for the identification of archaeological sites, in order to minimize deleterious cultural impact.

Identify known archaeological sites in close proximity to proposed route alternatives. Preliminarily identify areas of archaeological potential based on proximity of archaeological sites, historic land use, and physiographic indicators of archaeological potential.

Data Sources: Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation (Ontario Archaeological Sites Database) Archaeological/heritage studies and reports Historic mapping Other published and unpublished archaeological literature, as appropriate Topographic maps Field review as appropriate Local museums Other local informants as appropriate First Nation groups Provincial Policy Statement

69. Number of known sites in close proximity to route: a) Type of sites b) Significance of sites c) Proximity of known archaeological sites

70. Archaeological potential: a) Proximity of water sources b) Historic land use c) Other physiographic indicators of archaeological potential

Built Heritage Features 70. Displacement or disruption of built

heritage features 71. Significance of displaced or

disrupted built heritage features Cultural Landscape Units 72. Displacement or disruption of

cultural landscape features 73. Significance of displaced or

disrupted cultural landscape features

A built heritage feature is an individual part of a cultural landscape that may be focused upon as part of a broader scene or viewed independently. The intent is to minimize the loss of built heritage features by identifying the number of those features found within the study area of the route alternatives. It is assumed that there is value to the existence of any built heritage features regardless of its importance. Cultural landscape is the use and physical appearance of the land as we see it now as a result of man’s activities over time in modifying pristine landscapes for his/her own purposes. The intent is to minimize the loss of cultural landscape units by identifying the importance of those units found within the study area of the route alternatives.

Historical mapping, photographs, municipal, provincial and federal inventories, listings and plaques and/or heritage reports and designations of Act and National Historic Sites and under the Ontario Heritage. Windshield survey of the study area. Consultation with municipal and regional heritage planning staff or designates Local Architectural Advisory Committees (LACACS), historical societies and other heritage groups as necessary. Consultation with Ministry of Culture, and Niagara Escarpment planning staff. Historical mapping, photographs, municipal, provincial and federal inventories, listings and plaques and/or heritage reports and designations of Act and National Historic Sites and under the Ontario Heritage. Windshield survey of the study area. Consultation with municipal and regional heritage planning staff or designates, Local Architectural Advisory Committees (LACACS), historical societies and other heritage groups as necessary. Consultation with Ministry of Culture, and Niagara Escarpment planning staff. Provincial Policy Statement

71. a) Number of built heritage features displaced. b) Number of built heritage features disrupted.

72. a) Importance of built heritage features displaced. b) Importance of built heritage features disrupted.

73. a) Number of cultural landscapes displaced. b) Number of cultural landscapes disrupted.

74. a) Importance of cultural landscape displaced. b) Importance of cultural landscape disrupted.

Technical Considerations 74. Traffic Operations

Examines effectiveness of each alternative in terms of traffic level of service through the study area

Traffic model link volumes Highway plan, profile and cross section elements

75. a) Length of Highway with grades 2% - 3% b) Design hour volume (forecast) b) Energy usage/emission with alternative

75. Network Compatibility Examines how compatible each alternative is with the existing/proposed road network and the ability to upgrade each alternative to meet future needs

Municipal road volumes Municipal road improvement plans Existing operations on municipal roads

76. a) Effect on traffic volumes on parallel & crossing roads b) Effect on traffic operations on parallel/crossing roads c) Consistency of design/operation d) Length of construction period e) Ability to stage implementation of the undertaking f) Ability to upgrade undertaking as warranted by future needs

76. Cost Examines short and long term costs associated with each alternative Unit costs for construction Unit costs for operating Life-cycle maintenance costs Property costs estimates

77. a) Construction cost b) Operating cost c) Maintenance cost

77. Network Performance Examines network speeds and volume to capacity ratios for each network alternative

Traffic model network speeds Traffic model v/c ratios

78. a) Travel Speed (average vehicle speed) on the transportation network b) Reliability (Percent of road, by length, exceeding v/c of 1.0 by 2031) of the transportation network

78. Screenline Capacity Examines the ability of an alternative to meet screenline demand Traffic model screen line volumes Screen line capacity

79. Ability to address Study Area Screenline Deficiencies??

79. Critical Link Performance Examines expected levels of congestion (volume / capacity ratio) at select locations associated with each alternative

Traffic model link volumes Traffic model link capacity

80. Design (peak hour) v/c in 2031

80. Ability to support and/or interconnect with other modes of transportation

Examines how well an alternative supports or connects to other existing or proposed transit or other mode

Location of existing and proposed transit or other non-road based modes of transportation Connection feasibility or opportunity Effect on existing or proposed transit (or other mode) performance if connected to the alternative

81. a) Connectivity between highway system and other modes b) Transit expansion possibilities

Note: Table 5.2 represents the minimum requirements in the process of evaluating route alternatives. The evaluation factors, criteria and indicators are subject to refinement and modification during the Route Location EA based on study findings and input received from stakeholders.

Page 50 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


5.3 Concept Design Concept Design will be prepared for only the preferred route alternative that is recommended during the process of generating and evaluating route alternatives (described in Sections 5.1 and 5.2). Concept Design includes the consideration and development of specific engineering and environmental issues to further understand very particular implications of the preferred route. Concept Design is helpful during consultation and it supports discussions with Federal Agencies. The Concept Design plan will be undertaken to a level of engineering detail necessary to support:

The development of mitigation measures in consultation with the appropriate agencies;

A decision under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act by the lead Federal Agency on whether adverse environmental effects (after mitigation) are significant or not (refer to Section 7.1 regarding Federal / Provincial EA process coordination); and, EA approval under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.

This Concept Design process includes the consideration of concept design alternatives, assessment of the concept design alternatives and selection of the preferred concept design alternative. The third round of Public Information Centres will be the main forum for seeking stakeholder input to the Concept Design alternatives.

Concept Design alternatives are assessed based on consideration of natural, socio-economic and cultural impacts as well as technical considerations. Upon selection of the preferred Concept Design, mitigation measures will be developed to anticipate environmental effects.

5.3.1 Factor Specific Environmental Inputs to the Generation and Assessment of Concept Design Alternatives There are three underlying principles for generating concept design alternatives:

Take advantage of significant transportation engineering opportunities and minimize environmental impacts; Minimize design-related impacts caused where significant environmental constraints cannot be avoided; and, Provide sufficient design details to reach agreements with federal and provincial regulatory agencies and permit a CEAA screening if necessary during the route planning and concept design stage of the project.

5.3.2 Selection of the Preferred Concept Design Alternative

The selection process shall include but not be limited to:

Concept design alternatives that have significant environmental impacts (natural environment, socio-economic environment and cultural environment) but offer no significant transportation engineering advantages will be screened out first;

Page 51 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Remaining alternatives will be assessed to determine their ability to address the study transportation objectives and to identify their environmental impacts after application of reasonable mitigating measures; and,

The net environmental effects (i.e. after applying conceptual mitigation measures for significant effects) will be used as a basis to compare alternatives.

The Concept Design stage concludes with the selection of the technically preferred concept design alternative. This alternative represents an aggregate of all design alternatives that achieve the best overall balance of transportation engineering, individual factor area impacts and overall environmental impacts, including any input that has been received through consultation on those issues.

Concept Design plans will be prepared for the preferred concept alternative at an appropriate level of detail. Typical elements of Concept Design can be viewed in Supporting Document B – Technical Work Plan.

5.4 Activities Following Approval of the EA If the Route Location EA is approved, Preliminary Design and subsequently Detail Design studies will be undertaken for the preferred route alternative. These studies will be subject to the requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities. The Class EA outlines the process and the transportation, environmental and consultation principles to be followed. At the Preliminary Design Stage transportation engineering and environmental information will be assessed at a greater level of detail. The Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities document can be purchased (or viewed for free) at www.ronen.com.

It should also be noted that MTO is currently developing a comprehensive set of environmental standards for 400-series Highways in consultation with environmental agencies. These standards will be applied to preliminary and detail design activities.

Specific environmental protection measures for construction, operations, and maintenance will be further developed in consultation with potentially affected stakeholders. The preliminary design, potential environmental impacts and measures for reducing project impacts will be documented in the Transportation Environmental Study Reports (TESR) as required by the Class EA.

During detailed design, the preliminary design is further refined to develop detailed construction drawings and specifications. At this stage, the proponent generates, assesses, and evaluates detailed design alternatives and determines specifically how the highway project will look. This is where the details of specific environmental protection measures are put onto design drawings and into construction contract documents. The design and specifications / provisions included therein will reflect the environmental commitments and mitigation carried forward during preliminary design and finalized in the detail design stage. Additional environmental investigations and consultation will occur at during this detail design stage.

Page 52 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.

http://www.ronen.com/


A Design and Construction Report will be prepared during Detail Design to provide information for compliance and monitoring purposes and to document existing conditions, potential impacts and mitigation measures. A contract package to be used for construction (i.e. detailed drawings and contract specifications) will be prepared at the detail deign stage.

For some sections of the corridor, the content of the TESR and the Design and Construction Report may be combined in a Transportation Environmental Study Report prepared during Detail Design.

5.5 Monitoring During the Route Location EA, MTO will commit to developing a monitoring program for the implementation (construction) of the proposed design for the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor.

5.5.1 Project Technical Monitoring During the study a monitoring strategy will be developed to reflect how MTO proposes to ensure that the implementation of proposed mitigating measures and key design features are consistent with project commitments outlined in the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) (prepared during the Route Location EA) and any subsequent Transportation Environmental Study Reports (TESR) (prepared as part of the detail design process).

A monitoring program is necessary to identify potential non-conformance with environmental design, and environmental protection requirements and to initiate corrective action to bring the work into compliance with environmental requirements committed to in the EAR and any subsequent TESRs for this undertaking.

Monitoring and follow-up programs may continue beyond the end of the construction phase. The duration of the monitoring and follow-up programs will vary and will depend on the conditions of permits and approvals granted by regulatory agencies.

5.5.2 EA Process Monitoring During the planning and design processes, the proponent will ensure compliance with EA process commitments prior to project implementation. During construction, the proponent ensures that external notification and consultations are consistent with any commitments that may have been made earlier in the EAR, TESRs and Design and Construction Reports. For some sections of the corridor, the content of the TESR and the Design and Construction Report may be combined in a Transportation Environmental Study Report prepared during Detail Design. Following construction, monitoring will ensure that any follow-up information is provided to external agencies as per any outstanding environmental commitments.

Page 53 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.

Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference 6. Consultation

Consultation is an integral component of the Environmental Assessment (EA) process. Consultation provides opportunities for two-way communication with interested stakeholders. Consultation activities also enable the identification of potentially significant environmental issues early in the decision making process and ensure that they are given appropriate consideration.

The purpose of this chapter is to outline the consultation activities undertaken in preparation of the EA Terms of Reference and identify the key issues raised and to present the proposed plan for stakeholder consultation during the Route Location EA (refer to Supporting Document C for additional details).

6.1 Consultation in Preparation of the EA Terms of Reference The purpose of consultation activities conducted during the EA Terms of Reference was to present and address issues and concerns pertaining to the transportation problems and opportunities in the analysis area, the range and types of alternatives to be considered and to seek input in the development of EA process commitments.

The following outlines the methods employed to elicit input from the public and government agencies during the review of the Transportation Needs Assessment and regarding the preparation of the EA Terms of Reference. A summary of issues and concerns identified through consultation is outlined in Table 6.1. Further details regarding public concerns/issues and the project team responses can be seen in the thorough documentation of the Q & A sessions and the PIC Display Board packages – Supporting Document D. Detail regarding municipal/agency comments received during the consultation process (including comments on the draft EA ToR documents and during the pre-submission review) can be seen in Supporting Documents G and H.

6.1.1 Public Consultation During the EA Terms of Reference An extensive public consultation process was undertaken to review transportation needs and solutions, and to aid in the development of EA process commitments. The Public Consultation program included five rounds of Public Information Centres (PICs) with one meeting held in Niagara, Hamilton and Halton for each round (15 PICs in total). Each PIC included a “drop-in” opportunity for stakeholders to discuss the project one-on-one with members of the Project Team, followed by a formal presentation and a facilitated question and answer session. The PICs ran from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. To inform interested stakeholders of each round of PICs, notices were published in 21 local newspapers and letters were sent to those individuals on the project mailing list. This list was developed in consultation with local municipalities and originally included hundreds of names. It was further supplemented by individuals that attended previous PICs or contacted the Project Team by phone, mail or email. By the end of the study, the public mailing list included approximately 1,600 households.

In addition, two public meetings were held in the First Nations communities of Ohsweken and New Credit.

Page 54 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Table 6.1: Summary of Key Issues and Concerns Raised in Preparation of the EA Terms of Reference

Concern Stakeholder Comment Action / Response Need for the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor

Various There is no need for a Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor

The need for the transportation corridor is driven by population growth, employment growth, trade growth, tourism growth, land use policies, and growing congestion. A balanced multi-modal transportation strategy was identified to meet future travel demands, including recommendations to support transit and rail, manage travel demand, improve ferry service and provide additional highway capacity. Sensitivity tests have been undertaken assuming various levels of transit use. Even with ambitious increases to transit use, the extensive technical work shows the need for additional roadway capacity.

Concern with level of traffic diversion to the MPTC from the QEW

The technical work undertaken illustrates that traffic would be diverted from the QEW (and Highway 403), as well as regional roads, onto the MPTC and further that this network flexibility will encourage and enhance goods movement, economic prosperity and international trade.

MPTC will only create more traffic problems

The MPTC will add additional network flexibility and capacity that will improve transportation service through the study area.

Scope of Alternatives Proposed for the Route Location EA

Various MTO should not scope alternatives at the ToR stage.

A “full “ EA should undertaken

The Ministry of Transportation is preparing the Environmental Assessment (EA) Terms of Reference (ToR) in full compliance with the EA Act. The EA Act allows the proponent to prepare a comprehensive Terms of Reference that documents the Range and Types of alternatives to be considered during the EA. MTO stands behind the extensive technical work which identifies the need for additional highway capacity from the Niagara Peninsula through Hamilton to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). As part of the overall multi-nodal transportation strategy for the Niagara, Hamilton and Halton areas, improvements to other transportation modes will be pursued under separate studies. MTO’s decision to proceed with a ToR under Section 6(2)(c) of the Ontario EA Act is appropriate. Furthermore, this approach is consistent with the Class EA for Provincial Transportation Facilities and MOE’s Draft Guide to Preparing Terms of Reference.

Improvements to Other Transportation Modes and Roadways (other than the MPTC)

Interest Groups Members of the Public

Need to focus on transit improvements rather than new highways Improve transit system

in Niagara Region Provide GO service to

Niagara Region

The multi-modal strategy for transportation includes transit improvements, however, transit alone cannot address future capacity needs. A balanced transportation solution that provides flexibility and choice (not just highways, or just transit), is needed to address future travel demand. Goods movement, tourism, longer distance travel and a significant part of the commuter travel requires investment in highway and road infrastructure. MTO is working with the Smart Growth Panel to develop a land use and transportation vision for central Ontario. The Province’s Golden Horseshoe Transit Investment Partnerships (GTIP) provides funding for municipal transit initiatives. The municipality is required to submit proposals. Transit use within Halton (2%) Niagara (2%) and Hamilton (7%) and is quite low. Transit use between Hamilton and Halton is 2% and between Hamilton and Toronto is 26%. A stable market share for transit has been considered, where the transit use increases at the same pace

Page 55 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Concern Stakeholder Comment Action / Response as population growth and a high scenario was considered where the transit market share more than doubles from Hamilton to Halton (10%), to Toronto (50%) and the rest of the GTA (10%). Even under this high scenario, additional roadway capacity is required.

Improvements to Other Transportation Modes and Roadways (other than the MPTC) (con’t)


Need to consider freight rail as a solution to relieve truck congestion on provincial highways and local roads.

Rail currently accounts for 31% of total freight by value crossing the Niagara frontier. We have assumed that this market share will be maintained over the next 30 years. The rail industry has not indicated a higher market share for the future. With the anticipated growth in international trade and goods movement, rail freight may be expected to double along with truck traffic over the longer term with the same mode share.

The success of Ontario’s economy and Ontario’s ability to create jobs relies on the ability to move our goods to market in the U.S. and the rest of Canada.

40% of Ontario’s Gross Domestic Product relies on trade with the U.S. 65% of Canada’s products are consumed in the U.S.

In the context of a growing economy and population, Ontario sees the need for expansion not just to the highway network, but also to the rail network to accommodate future growth in goods movement.

The choice of truck versus rail mode is a business decision by each individual company, reflecting their commercial requirements. Rail is most effective for heavy, long hauls over 750 km. Many firms use both modes for different purposes.

The planning of new rail capacity is the responsibility of the federal government, which is constitutionally responsible for railways, and of the railway companies who own and operate the rail system.

Various Consideration of ferry service improvements

Ferry service was examined. Based on the volume of visitors and commuters, ferry service would not be an effective stand-alone solution to address the identified transportation problems. The Region of Niagara has indicated it would examine ferry services under separate study.

Consideration of a cross-lake bridge

A cross lake bridge was examined and was not carried forward as it did not effectively address the transportation problems in the analysis area. Specifically, a bridge from east of St. Catharines to Toronto would not alleviate commuter congestion from Hamilton into the GTA, would not provide good truck access to the western GTA and, as a raised structure, would present safety issues during poor weather. There are also significant technical and environmental issues associated with the proposed bridge crossing due to its length, lake depth and need for a raised structure to accommodate shipping.

Improvements to the QEW to address transportation needs

MTO is committed to complete the widening of the QEW to 6 lanes to address short-term transportation needs through St. Catharines. The Transportation Development Strategy outlined in the Transportation Needs Assessment recognises improvements to existing highways and that future strategic improvements to the QEW may be required. Other improvements outlined in the Transportation Development Strategy will be undertaken under separate initiatives.

Effects on the extension of Highway 406 associated

A four lane widening of Highway 406 to East Main Street in Welland is planned and MTO has Environmental Assessment approval for an extension of Highway 406 from East Main to

Page 56 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Concern Stakeholder Comment Action / Response with the MPTC Townline Road (Highway 58) south of Welland. Until a route is determined for the Mid-

Peninsula Transportation Corridor, the terminus point for the Highway 406 is uncertain, therefore, the extension cannot proceed until this is resolved through the EA Study.


“Need” should be addressed in the “formal EA process.

The needs assessment is a critical component of the EA Terms of Reference as it documents the problems, opportunities and the range and types of alternatives to be considered during the Route Location EA. As such, the recommendations of the needs assessment study are implicitly part of the formal EA process. These recommendations were carefully reexamined as part of the development of the Terms of Reference. Extensive stakeholder consultation was undertaken on these issues as part of the Terms of Reference process.

Study Process

Various Timing for initiating the Federal EA Process

The timing for initiating the Federal EA process is not known at this time and is a decision of the Federal Regulatory Authorities.

Need for Federal / provincial EA Coordination

The Ministry of Transportation is committed to a coordinated process that meets the needs of both the provincial EA Act and the federal EA Act. MTO is working with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and federal authorities regarding federal / provincial EA coordination issues. These discussions are ongoing. It should be noted that the Terms of Reference is a requirement of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, not the Canadian EA Act. The ToR will be enhanced to clarify how the two EA processes will be coordinated during the EA.

Various The project should be divided into two segments (Niagara and Hamilton/ Halton)

Environmental Assessment approval will be sought for the entire Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor during the Route Location EA stage of the project. EA studies for design and construction will be undertaken in several stages.

Consultation on the Transportation Needs Assessment

Various Extend review period for Needs Assessment issues

In response, the Ministry of Transportation extended the overall EA ToR schedule from fall, 2002 into spring, 2003 to permit additional consultation on problems, opportunities and alternatives. Over the course of this review, the ministry has consulted extensively on transportation problems and opportunities and the range and types of alternatives to address the identified problems. This consultation has included an independent Peer Review sponsored by the Cities of Hamilton and Burlington, working with Halton Region staff to confirm modelling results, and a total of 12 Public Information Centres and three workshops. The Ministry of Transportation will continue to consult and respond to comments on these issues throughout the EA Terms of Reference process. The Minister of the Environment will consider these comments when making a decision on whether MTO may proceed with the Route Planning EA.

Transportation Corridors

City of Burlington, Region of Halton, Interest Groups,

Need to examine additional transportation Corridors: connection to Highway

401, connection to Highway

403,

In response to consultation input a range of alternative transportation corridors were examined. Based on the assessment of these corridors, Alternative C/D2, F, and G have been carried forward and represent the basis for the proposed EA Route Location Study Area.

Page 57 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Concern Stakeholder Comment Action / Response Members of the Public

Connection to Highway 6.

Smart Growth Interest Groups Members of the Public

This project is not consistent with the principles of Smart Growth

There have been a number of questions regarding how the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor aligns with the principles of Smart Growth. Over the last year, MTO has been working with other ministries to support the Smart Growth Panel for Central Ontario. MTO has presented its transportation planning program to the Smart Growth Panel and to the Sub-Panel on Gridlock a number of times. The panel has recently released its final report (April, 2003) and the Province will be reviewing its recommendations. The Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor (MPTC) is part of the Panel’s recommended multi-modal transportation strategy in support of Smart Growth principles.

Ontario Government has recognized importance of transit through its 10-year, $9 billion plan announced in September 2001.

Government is committed to manage growth in a way that protects our natural features. The Oak Ridges Moraine legislation is an example of this government’s commitment to preserving our natural heritage for the future.

A strong economy and strong communities need to be fashioned for the future. Transportation infrastructure is one of the foundations for the economic and population growth, and we need to plan for the future.

The MPTC and Smart Growth are proceeding in an integrated and parallel fashion. Consultation with Stakeholders

Lack of early consultation with Halton Region and the City of Burlington during the Needs Assessment

Initially, the scope of the Transportation Needs Assessment was to examine needs and opportunities in Niagara Region and the City of Hamilton areas. Based on preliminary findings, the need to expand the analysis area into the Regional Municipality of Halton was identified. Consultation with Niagara, Hamilton and Halton staff was undertaken, but no consultation with local municipalities or the general public was undertaken during the needs assessment study.

City of Burlington, Region of Halton, Interest Groups, Members of the Public Members of the Public

The process is not straightforward and there is a lack of public consultation

The Project Team has endeavoured to present a large amount of information in a concise way. MTO is committed to an EA process that seeks out the input of all interested parties. An extensive consultation process for the review of the needs assessment and the development of an EA Terms of Reference including a total of 15 PICs and 3 workshops have been held across Halton, Hamilton and Niagara.

Members of the Public

Concern with process for recording and considering public input

Comments regarding this study were submitted by several means (comment sheets, website, PIC presentation Question and Answer sessions etc.). The Project Team reviews all written comments submitted and provides a written response to all comments received. A formal list of comments / responses for each round of PICs is posted on the website.

Members ofthe Public

The summer months is not an appropriate time for consultation activities Municipalities

Due to the level of interest in this project, early consultation including six PICs held over July and August 2002 to introduce this study and present problems, opportunities and alternatives. These PICs were well attended.

Page 58 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Concern Stakeholder Comment Action / Response

First Nations First Nation Issues MTO is committed to addressing First Nation issues throughout the project.


Need to contact local residents who could potentially be affected

The consultation program for this study was designed to elicit comments from stakeholders and the general public. All local residents were not directly contacted due to the vast size of the analysis area. Those individuals who requested to be put on the stakeholder mailing list, contacted the project team via the project website or signed in at the PICs directly receive notice of project activities. Notices advising of the PICs were placed in 21 local newspapers in the area. The total mailing list included 1,600 households.

Environmental Considerations

Various Air Quality Impacts Emissions resulting from transportation facilities are rising in response to growth in population and economic activity. Changing this trend is challenging and requires significant efforts of government and the public alike. The Ontario government is contributing to this effort by committing funds to expand and improve the public transportation system in the province. This investment will provide the service and infrastructure improvements needed to reduce the reliance on single-occupancy vehicles. The Ontario government also encourages the use of alternative fuels, which emit fewer pollutants, has implemented the Drive Clean program, and initiated studies for transit & high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in transportation corridors. Federal regulations are also being amended to improve emission levels. Air quality considerations will be examined during the Route Planning EA. An Air Quality Work Plans has been prepared to scope how air quality issues will be addressed.

AgriculturalGroups, Local Farmers, Members of the Public

Rationale for the protection of tender fruit lands / consideration of impacts to agricultural lands on the top of the escarpment

The protection of the Niagara’s tender fruit lands is a major policy directive of the Regional Municipality of Niagara. The recommendations of the Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment support Niagara’s regional development strategy. The Region of Niagara has stated that the MPTC will promote growth in existing urban areas in southern Niagara, which will assist in reducing development pressure along the QEW corridor (tender fruit lands). Impacts to agricultural lands and operations will be examined during the Route Location EA.

Various Impacts to the Niagara Escarpment

The Niagara Escarpment Plan allows for the construction of “Essential transportation and utility facilities”. Alternative corridors and routes with different escarpment crossings will be considered in the Route Location EA Escarpment impacts will be examined in detail during the subsequent Route Location EA. The process for addressing considerations to the Niagara Escarpment is included in the Natural Environment Work Plans.

Various Impacts to environment features

The proposed approach for addressing considerations to the natural environment, socio-economic environment and cultural environment in the generation, assessment and evaluation of route alternatives is outlined in the EA Terms of Reference.

Various Consideration of cumulative impacts

An assessment of cumulative effects is a requirement of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and will be addressed during the Route Location EA stage.

Page 59 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Concern Stakeholder Comment Action / Response Tolling Various The MPTC should not be a

tolled facility A strategy for funding or the implementation of the MPTC (if approved) has not been determined. The Province of Ontario has stated that in the planning of new highway facilities, a review of private / public partnerships must be undertaken. No decision has been made regarding ownership or whether the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor (if approved) would be a tolled highway. If the facility were to be privatized, the private company could be responsible for all or part of the construction, operation and maintenance/ improvements of that facility.


Concern with level of traffic diversion

The level of traffic diversion was examined for tolled and untolled scenarios, and while a tolled roadway will attract less traffic from the QEW than an untolled facility, there remains a need for the proposed transportation corridor.

Various Concern with connection to Highway 407 if the MPTC is not a Tolled Facility

The Ministry will examine design and operational considerations associated with toll and untolled scenarios.

Demand Forecasting

Various Concern with accuracy of data and assumptions utilized in the forecasting model

There are several factors which influence the need for transportation infrastructure / improvements including commuter traffic, population and employment, tourism growth, land use policies, international trade and growing traffic congestion. Demand forecasts incorporated in the Needs Assessment reflect these factors. Forecasts to 2021 were based on municipal Official Plan population and employment targets; 2031 forecasts are premised on population and employment projections of the Office of the Greater Toronto Area (OGTA). Sensitivity testing was undertaken to examine potential changes in population and employment on traffic forecasts. With respect to population growth, the GTA is expected to increase in population from 5 million to 7 ½ million largely due to immigration to Ontario. MTO has worked closely with the technical review team established by the City of Burlington and City of Hamilton. This review supports the validity of the model used in the Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment. MTO has also worked with Halton Region staff regarding the recommendations and conclusions of the needs assessment to ensure consistency in demand forecasting. MTO has undertaken additional technical work and sensitivity analysis. The Needs Assessment assumptions have been completely reviewed and numerous demand forecasting model runs have been undertaken to reaffirm the transportation recommendations.

Lack of Incentives for Transit and Rail


Policy incentives should be employed to influence modal choices / practices

The problems, opportunities and alternatives were examined based on the existing policy framework. MTO is limited in its ability to influence the practice of private corporations. MTO meets with the Ministry of Finance as part of the Superbuild initiative. Comments regarding the provision of financial incentives/policy to influence modal preferences will be forwarded to the Ministry of Finance. If new policies are enacted which could have a significant bearing on the work undertaken for this study, MTO would examine the potential effect of such policies.

Truck traffic on Provincial Highways


Need to restrict truck access on existing highways

MTO currently has no policy regarding restricting truck/commercial vehicle use on 400 series highways, but a Goods Movement Strategy Study has been initiated at the request of the Smart growth Panel to address a range of issues and options.

Page 60 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Concern Stakeholder Comment Action / Response Urban Sprawl / Land Use Planning


Concern with expansion of urban boundaries and potential development along the MPTC

The recommendations of the Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment support Niagara’s regional development strategy. The Region of Niagara has stated that the MPTC will promote growth in existing urban areas in southern Niagara (“grow south strategy”). Hamilton is looking at the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor as part of its Official Plan review. The City of Burlington is concerned that a new corridor into Halton could result in pressure to expand the city’s northern urban boundary. The Niagara Escarpment Commission is seeking an amendment encompassing lands in north Burlington that would effectively limit urban expansion in the area. The Niagara Escarpment plan permits transportation facilities. . Impacts to land use will be assessed during the Route Location EA.

InterestGroups

Need for a reduction in auto use through land use planning Members of

the Public

Land use planning is primarily a municipal responsibility. Higher density and mixed use development, transit friendly urban design are strategies municipalities can use to reduce auto dependence. The Smart Growth Panel for central Ontario is considering broader land use and transportation strategies. However, auto dependence is to a large extent a cultural preference that is difficult to change. MTO supports high occupancy vehicle usage and provides commuter parking facilities throughout the provincial highway network. A reserved transitway is protected in the Highway 407 ETR corridor from Burlington to Pickering. MTO has initiated a study examining transit opportunities in existing and proposed transportation corridors.

Future Highway Connections to the MPTC


Consideration of additional highway connections to the MPTC

No new north-south provincial facilities are proposed in Niagara, Hamilton or Halton. The Regional municipalities may examine north-south connections to the MPTC.

Various Width of the proposed highway right-of-way

An approximate right-of-way of 110 metres as well as a 30-60 metre reserve for a potential future transitway is proposed as a guideline for planning purposes and may vary to reflect changes in terrain.

Details of the Proposed Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor

A transitway should be constructed at the same time as the MPTC.

The MPTC includes protection for a reserved transitway. The timing for implementation of a transitway is not known at this time. The right-of-way for a dedicated transitway would be up 60 metres with additional property required for transit stations and parking lots.

The MPTC should use existing rail right-of-ways and incorporate rail service.

Existing rail right-of-way exists in parts of the corridor, but would not fully accommodate a transportation corridor. A surplus railway (CASO) running through Haldimand County exists, but this corridor does not serve the primary travel demand oriented to the GTA, Hamilton or Kitchener-Waterloo areas. The possibility for a joint use transportation corridor would be examined during the subsequent Route Location EA. The MPTC will accommodate all transit types (i.e. HOV lanes, dedicated bus lanes, etc)

What is the proposed cross-section for the MPTC?

The proposed Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor comprises a 4-lane (Niagara) or 6-lane (Hamilton-Halton) median divided freeway cross section with an approximate right-of-way of 110 metres as well as a 30-60 metre reserve for a potential future transitway. The right-of-way is a guideline for planning purposes and may vary to reflect changes in terrain.

Land Acquisition / Expropriation


Process for land acquisition Once a route has been determined and pending EA approval of the preferred route, MTO would initiate the property acquisition process. Where property is required, owners would be

Page 61 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Concern Stakeholder Comment Action / Response compensated at fair market value at the time of purchase. The market value assessment considers several factors such as comparable sales, location and attributes of the property. The Ministry aims to achieve an amicable (negotiated) agreement in the property acquisition process. If an agreement cannot be reached, the property will go though the Expropriation Act process. The expropriation process provides the opportunity for a hearing of necessity. In the hearing of necessity, the need for the property and timing for the acquisition of property are examined. The property acquisition process generally take 18 months to complete.

Specific Route Location Issues

Various Options for traversing the Welland Canal

During the course of the Route Planning EA, alternatives for crossing the Welland Canal will be examined (i.e. bridge and tunnel options).

Examining Routes versus Corridors in the EA

The EA Study Area represents the area within which route alternatives will be generated. As many stakeholders requested, MTO will consider the environmental impacts of a broad range of transportation corridor alternatives in the EA Study. The routes generated will not be restricted to the conceptual corridors proposed. Numerous routes will be examined within the identified study area with connections to Highway 401 (east of Highway 6), Highway 407 and the QEW via Highway 403 and Highway 6. Protection for both a new highway and transitway, possibly on separate routes will be considered. The best route for each connection will be identified through the evaluation process described in the ToR and then compared to each other to select a preferred alternative(s). This will involve full consultation with the municipalities, agencies and general public.

Governmental Coordination


Need for all governments including co-ordination with the U.S. regarding infrastructure improvements

The consultation program for this study involved municipal, provincial and federal agencies. The Project Team consulted with the Municipal Advisory Group comprised of local and regional municipalities, the Niagara Escarpment Commission and area Conservation Authorities. A Regulatory Agency Advisory Group comprised of provincial and federal agencies was also established. Federal government agencies are being consulted on the co-ordination of Federal and Provincial EA policy. A bi-national study is being undertaken to examine Canada / U.S. border issues. Meetings with First Nations were also conducted.

Notes: 1. Details of all comments raised during the pre-submission review of the draft Terms of Reference and the associated Project Team response are outlined in Supporting Document H.

2. Details of the comments received and the Project Team response during the review of the draft documents can be seen in Supporting Document G.

3. Further detail regarding public issues/concerns can be seen in the documentation of the PIC Q & A sessions and the PIC Display Board packages in Supporting Document D.

Page 62 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Project Web Site In addition to newspaper advertisements and notification letters, a project website was maintained for the duration of the study (please see www.midpeninsulahighway.on.ca). The website was used as a very effective tool for making available project information, study notices and all of the various draft and final reports and supporting documents for public/agency review. The website also provided an additional mechanism for interested stakeholders to provide comments regarding this study. The website was accessed by approximately 3,000 unique users and approximately 400 comments / inquiries / information requests were submitted via the website. A written response was issued (by email) to every comment received.

Comment Sheets Comment sheets were issued to all attendees at every Public Information Centre. The Project Team collected a total of 325 comments sheets during and after these public events. A written response was issued for every comment sheet received. In addition, a large number of letters were received by the Project Team and again, responses issued. These comment sheets, letters and responses have not been included in the supporting documentation for this EA ToR to protect the confidentiality of the public. However, documentation of the comments and issues raised, and the Project Team responses to these issues, can be seen in Supporting Document D and in Table 6.1.

The following summarizes the details and purpose of each of the five rounds of Public Information Centres held for the EA Terms of Reference (complete PIC Summary Reports can be seen in Supporting Document D):

First & Second Rounds of Public Information Centres The first and second rounds of Public Information Centres were held in July / August 2002. Each round entailed three PICs with a venue in each of Halton, Hamilton and Niagara (PIC #1 was held in Welland, Stoney Creek and Burlington, PIC#2 was held in Smithville, Milton and Ancaster). The purpose of these PICs was to introduce the study, present the overall study process and to provide an overview and seek input on transportation problems and opportunities in the analysis area, and solutions to address these problems (i.e. alternative modes of transportation) as outlined in the Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment. A total of 896 members of the public chose to sign the visitor’s register and seventy-eight comment sheets were submitted for the first round of PICs. For PIC#2, 527 members of the public chose to sign the visitor’s register and sixty-four comment sheets were received. Detailed written responses have been issued to every comment sheet/letter/email received.

Third Round of Public Information Centres The third round of Public Information Centres were held in September 2002. Public Information Centres were held in three locations within Halton, Hamilton and Niagara (Milton, Ancaster and Welland). The purpose of this round of PICs was to respond to comments raised at PIC#1 and PIC#2, present alternative transportation corridors,

Page 63 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


provide an overview of EA Study Area conditions and features, and introduce the draft Route Location Environmental Assessment framework for public review and comment. A total of 450 members of the public chose to sign the visitor’s register for the three Public Information Centres. Fifty-seven comment sheets were received and detailed written responses have been issued to every comment sheet/letter/email received.

Fourth Round of Public Information Centres The fourth round of Public Information Centres were held in November 2002. Public Information Centres were held in three locations in Halton, Hamilton and Niagara (Burlington, Rockton and Welland). The purpose of this round of PICs was to present the proposed Environmental Assessment Study Area and the contents of the EA Terms of Reference. A total of 650 members of the public chose to sign the visitor’s register for the three Public Information Centres. Seventy-seven comment sheets were received. Detailed written responses have been issued to every comment sheet/letter/email received.

Fifth Round of Public Information Centres The fifth round of Public Information Centres were held in February 2003. Public Information Centres were held in three locations in Halton, Hamilton and Niagara (Burlington, Rockton and Welland). The purpose of this round of PICs was to present the updated Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment (January 2003), the proposed Route Location EA Study Area, the proposed Route Location EA process and the draft EA Terms of Reference Submission, and to define the Review and Approval process. A total of 561 members of the public chose to sign the visitor’s register for the three Public Information Centres. Forty-nine comment sheets were received. Detailed written responses have been issued to every comment sheet/letter/email received.

6.1.2 Municipal / Agency, Ministry, and First Nation Consultation During the EA Terms of Reference

At the commencement of the EA Terms of Reference, municipal and government agency advisory groups were established to identify issues and concerns pertaining to the Niagara Peninsula Transportation Needs Assessment and to provide input to the development of the EA Terms of Reference.

Consultation with the Municipal Advisory Group The Municipal Advisory Group was comprised of staff representatives from sixteen local and regional municipalities as well as four Conservation Authorities and the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Representatives from Haldimand County and First Nations were also added later in the process upon their request. Meetings with the Municipal Advisory Group were held at key stages of the project, seven meetings were held in total (refer to Supporting Document F for Minutes of Meeting).

Additional consultation with the City of Hamilton, City of Burlington, the Region of Halton, Conservation Halton and the Niagara Escarpment Commission was undertaken to

Page 64 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


address specific concerns pertaining to transportation needs and solutions. The City of Hamilton and the City of Burlington sponsored a Technical Review of the Transportation Needs Assessment and Halton Region investigated consistency between the Halton and MTO traffic forecasting models. The Project Team worked closely with the municipal Technical Review consultant team to provide detailed information and consult on issues. In response to comments received, additional technical work and sensitivity analysis was undertaken by MTO. The Needs Assessment assumptions were completely reviewed and numerous additional demand-forecast model runs were undertaken to test sensitivity and reaffirm transportation recommendations.

MTO has also consulted with the Region of Waterloo, City of Guelph, Wellington County, Township of Puslinch, and City of Cambridge regarding the Mid-Peninsula Transportation corridor.

Correspondence and documentation of the issues/concerns raised by the MAG group and the Project Team responses can be seen in Supporting Documents G and H.

Consultation with the Regulatory Agency Advisory Group At the outset of this project, a Regulatory Agency Advisory Group comprised of provincial and federal agencies was established. Meetings with the Regulatory Agency Advisory Group were held at key stages of the project, (refer to Supporting Document F for Minutes of Meeting). Federal government agencies were consulted on the co-ordination of Federal and Provincial EA policy, additional meetings with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency were held to facilitate discussions on EA policy coordination.

First Nations First Nations were contacted regarding this study. Notices regarding study commencements, public information centres and notice of submission were sent to the Mississauga’s of the New Credit and the Six Nations. In response to requests for additional dialogue with First Nations, individual meetings were held with the Mississauga’s of the New Credit and the Six Nations Confederacy Council to introduce the study and identify any key issues and concerns which should be addressed in the Route Location EA. In addition, a public meeting was held in the Village of Ohsweken to introduce the study, present the need for the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor, present the proposed Route Location EA study area, present the Route Location EA process, and identify community issues and concerns regarding this study. Fifteen members of the public chose to sign the visitor’s register for the Ohsweken Public Information Centre. Four comment sheets were received (responses have been issued). A Public Meeting was also held in the Village of New Credit on February 24th, 2003 to provide an overview of the study. This meeting was not well attended and no issues or concerns were raised.

Page 65 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.

Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference 6.1.3 Workshop Sessions

A series of workshops were conducted for this study. The workshops entailed three half-day sessions held in early November 2002. Refer to Supporting Document E for the Workshop Summary Report.

Each workshop provided the opportunity for two-way communication on focused project issues with a diverse cross-section of stakeholders and interests. The workshops were well attended and included representatives from transportation providers, industries, municipalities, local politicians, chambers of commerce, environmental and community stakeholders, among others.

An independent facilitator, who focused the discussion and interaction among the participants, hosted the workshops. Representatives from the Project Team (MTO and consultant staff) participated by listening to the input and responding to questions.

The workshop discussion was structured to maximize discussion around the following:

Key facts and factors driving the need for transportation improvements

What needs to be achieved in the area to address these factors

Brainstorming on transportation ideas, solutions and options

Identification of possible outcomes, consequences and other factors to be considered

6.1.4 Pre-Submission Review of the EA Terms of Reference Prior to formal submission of the EA Terms of Reference to the Minister of the Environment (MOE) for approval, a 12-week pre-submission review of the EA Terms of Reference was conducted. The purpose of this review was to provide the opportunity for interested stakeholders to identify any issues or concerns with the EA Terms of Reference prior to submission to MOE. Copies of the EA Terms of Reference were distributed to the Municipal Advisory Group, the Regulatory Agency Advisory Group, First Nations and were made available for public review and comment via the project website, municipal and MTO government offices and select local libraries in the area.

The Project Team has considered every comment received during this pre-submission review and revised the documentation as required. Comments raised during the pre-submission review of the draft Terms of Reference and the Project Team’s action/response associated with each issue/concern are outlined in Supporting Document H. Stakeholders which provided comments on the draft Terms of Reference during the pre-submission review include:

Federal Agencies The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agencies (CEAA) provided consolidated comments, which included input from the following federal agencies:

CEAA

Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)

Page 66 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Transport Canada

Environment Canada Health Canada

Provincial Ministries and Agencies Ministry of the Environment (consolidated comments from various technical departments and regional offices) Ministry of Agriculture and Food Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry of Culture Ministry of Natural Resources Niagara Escarpment Commission Hamilton Conservation Authority Conservation Halton Grand River Conservation Authority Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority

Municipalities Regional Municipality of Niagara Regional Municipality of Halton City of Hamilton Region of Waterloo City of Burlington City of St. Catharines City of Guelph Haldimand County Township of Puslinch

Interest Groups and the General Public St. Catharines Chamber of Commerce Federation of Ontario Naturalists Citizens Opposed to Paving the Escarpment (COPE) Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment (CONE) Carolinian Canada Peninsula Field Naturalists Various members of the public.

Comments on the draft Terms of Reference document focused on the following key issues:

The need for a Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor; Concern that MTO is proceeding with a “scoped” environmental assessment and the rationale for eliminating alternatives; Concern that this study is not consistent with the principles of Smart Growth;

Page 67 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Need for a clear description of problem statement and clarity/additional information regarding the need for the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor;

Status of ongoing studies and how they will be considered in regards to the planning for the MPTC; Clarification on roadway alternatives carried forward; The environmental overview description and exhibit need to be enhanced; Clarity needed on the process to generate alternative routes; Numerous comments on the proposed objectives for generating route and evaluation criteria, approach for assessing impacts and collecting data; Additional detail need on the description of Federal / Provincial EA process coordination; Need for enhance public and municipal consultation during the EA; and A project schedule should not be included in the Terms of Reference.

Specific comments and the Project Team’s response are provided in Supporting Document H.

6.2 Consultation Plan for the Route Location Environmental Assessment

Consultation with affected parties is an essential part of the planning process and provides a mechanism for the proponent to define and respond to issues.

The following outlines a proposed plan for consulting with agencies, ministries and the public during the preparation of the Route Location EA. Further details on the Consultation Plan for the Route Location EA can be seen in Supporting Document C.

Consultation activities undertaken during the EA will focus on the following four stages of the planning process:

1. Generation of Alternatives External agencies and ministries, municipalities and the public will be asked to comment on the development of route alternatives.

2. Refinement and Assessment of Alternatives External agencies and ministries, municipalities and the public will have the opportunity to provide input on refining route alternatives to minimize environmental impacts and will also be asked to comment on criteria to evaluate and select a preferred alternative.

3. Evaluation and Selection of a Preferred Alternative The evaluation criteria will be applied to allow the selection of a preferred highway/transitway route alternative. External agencies and ministries, municipalities and the public will be asked to comment on the evaluation and the rationale for the selection of the preferred route alternative.

Page 68 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


4. Concept Design and Mitigation of the Preferred Alternative This final step will be to consider Concept Design details and refinements and address specific impacts of the preferred route that will require mitigation during design, construction and post construction. External agencies and ministries, municipalities and the public will be asked to comment on the evaluation and the rationale for the selection of the preferred Concept Design alternative.

6.2.1 Public Consultation During the Route Location EA

The public has a major role and responsibility in determining the success of a public consultation program. The extent to which the public participates, the issues they raise and how such issues are resolved all influence the effectiveness of the consultation process.

Within the Route Location EA, public consultation will involve reviewing, commenting and providing input to the technical and environmental work undertaken and to provide input to the public consultation process. The proposed consultation plan encourages proactive consultation, which will allow comments and views of the public to assist in influencing the study and recommendations thereof.

Public Information Centres and Follow-up Activities It is proposed that four rounds of Public Information Centres (PICs) and follow-up activities will be held during the Route Location EA to coincide with the above noted planning stages. Each round of PICs will include five individual meetings held throughout the Niagara, Hamilton, Halton and Wellington areas. The precise locations/venues of each PIC will be determined during the Route Location EA based on project needs/issues, input from municipalities and the availability of venues; however, it is expected that meetings will be held within the EA Study Area as follows: Burlington, Flamborough area, in the vicinity of the Hamilton Airport, Smithville area, and east Niagara Region (i.e. Welland area). The PICs will be arranged as drop-in centres (open house format) to allow the public to see results, exchange information, and ask one-on-one questions of the Project Team. The PICs also serve an important function in providing an opportunity for members of the project team to ask questions of the public to gain further understanding of specific conditions, issues and concerns regarding the study. The public will also have an opportunity to have questions answered.

Follow-up activities will be held as necessary throughout the project; however, it is expected these activities will be required as follows:

Following Public Information Centre 1 to resolve any outstanding concerns and issues regarding the generation of route alternatives; and

Following Public Information Centre 3 to identify issues regarding the selection of the preferred route alternative and possible refinements.

The first two rounds of PICs, as well as the first round of follow-up activities will focus on the development, refinement and evaluation of route alternatives. The third and fourth

Page 69 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


round of Public Information Centres as well as the second round of follow-up activities are intended to allow the public to comment on the selected preferred alternative, refinements, environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures

The focus of follow-up activities (held following PIC #1 and PIC #3) are to provide the opportunity to bring stakeholders together to develop an understanding of the potential impacts of the route alternatives to be considered. Follow-up activities will be arranged to address specific project issues and concerns as they arise. The format of these activities will be flexible to reflect the type of Project Team - stakeholder interaction required to address a particular issue(s) but could include workshops, kitchen table meetings, etc.

Public Notification The first component of the Public Consultation Plan will be to develop contact lists which will include ratepayer groups, recreational groups, agricultural groups, etc. located in the study area. The mailing list developed during the EA ToR will be the starting point for this stakeholder list. These groups will be notified of project activities including study start-up, Public Information Centres, and follow-up activities (as appropriate). Notification methods include newspaper advertisements (for study commencement, each round of PICs and Environmental Assessment report submission) in the same newspapers as used for the Terms of Reference, brochure distribution and mailing letters to those groups / individuals on the Project Team’s mailing list(s). In addition, a website will be maintained for this project. The website will host pertinent information regarding the project including notices of study commencement and project activities.

Once a preferred alternative has been identified, letters will be sent directly to all potentially affected landowners.

The draft EA Report will be made available for public review prior to submission to MOE (see Section 6.2.3).

6.2.2 Approach for Consulting External Agencies, Ministries and First Nations during the Route Location EA External agencies provide valuable support by identifying compliance issues (laws, regulations, policies and programs) and other areas of concern within their jurisdiction. These groups can offer valuable input and professional expertise and are often knowledgeable regarding local issues and can assist in the identification of local interest groups that should be consulted. The following section discusses consultation with Provincial Ministries / Agencies, Federal Agencies, Municipalities and First Nation Groups.

Provincial Ministries / Agencies A Regulatory Agency Advisory Group will be assembled which includes potentially affected provincial ministries, agencies and federal departments (in the same manner as established for the EA Terms of Reference). Notification letters distributed early on the EA study will canvass participation in the advisory group. Ministries and agencies will

Page 70 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


be kept apprised of project activities and be sent notices regarding all consultation activities.

Consultation with provincial ministries and agencies will involve reviewing, commenting and providing input to the environmental assessment studies, the technical analysis and the ongoing comment/input to the consultation process. Liaison with representatives of provincial ministries and agencies will be arranged to obtain information on study area features, exchange pertinent study information and obtain input on project issues pertaining to each agency’s mandate.

A minimum of five rounds of Regulatory Agency Advisory Group Meetings will be held. These meetings will be held to coincide with the following study phases:

1. Generation of Route Alternatives 2. Refinement and Assessment of Route Alternatives 3. Evaluation and Selection of a Preferred Route Alternative 4. Concept Design and Mitigation of the Preferred Route Alternative 5. EA Report Submission

The proposed meetings will provide the opportunity for two-way communication between the Project Team and government agencies to identify issues and gain a better understanding of environmental conditions that should be factored into the route generation process, gain input on the process and criteria (including their relative level of significance) to be used in the evaluation of alternatives, gain input on potential impacts associated with the preferred route and potential design refinements to minimize adverse environmental impacts, and receive direction on proposed mitigation measures. The purpose of the final agency advisory group meeting will be to present a draft EA Report for review prior to submission for formal review and approval. The purpose of the pre-submission review is to ensure accuracy of the report and to gain support for recommendations, mitigation and commitments.

It is recognized that certain agencies will have more interest in this project than others. These agencies primarily include OMAFRA, DFO, MOE, MNR, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, Conservation Authorities and Seaway Management agencies. Additional meetings will be held with these agencies as required to ensure the latest data is available and that the Project Team has a good understanding of potentially significant and sensitive issues early in the EA to resolve concerns and to develop appropriate mitigation measures. In addition, a meeting likely will be required prior to the EA Report submission to finalize conceptual fisheries compensation plans.

Federal Agencies The participation of federal agencies will be sought in the same manner as provincial ministries and agencies. These agencies will be included in the Regulatory Agency Advisory Group.

Involvement with federal agencies in this project is expected to occur early in the study process to coordinate Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) requirements (Scope of Project and Scope of Assessment) and address the requirements for

Page 71 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


approval/permits from Regulatory Agencies (such as the Canadian Coast Guard for Navigable Waters Protection Act approval and the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans for Fisheries Act approval). Federal agencies (specifically Transport Canada) will also be consulted to determine potential implications to federally owned lands.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Ontario Region will be contacted early in the study to assist in the coordination of federal and provincial EA approvals. The agency will be involved in all consultation activities involving federal agencies as appropriate.

Further detail regarding coordination with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency can be seen in Section 7.1.

Municipalities A Municipal Advisory Group will be assembled which includes staff from potentially affected municipalities within Niagara Region, the City of Hamilton, Wellington County and Halton Region. It is assumed that the representatives on the Municipal Advisory Group established for the EA Terms of Reference will continue their role during the EA study. As requested during the preparation of the Terms of Reference, staff from Haldimand County will also be consulted during the Route Location EA as appropriate.

During the Route Location EA, consultation with municipalities will involve reviewing, commenting and providing input to the environmental assessment studies, the technical analysis and the ongoing comment/input to the consultation process. Generally, consultation with municipal staff will be sought throughout the EA. Liaison with municipal staff will be arranged to obtain information on study area features, exchange pertinent study information and obtain input on project issues pertaining to each municipality. In addition, input from municipal staff will be sought as to the appropriate methods for consultation with their respective councils.

Multi-regional based Municipal Advisory Group meetings will be required at key stages of the EA Study and to address broader study area co-ordination issues. However, it is also proposed that separate regionally based (i.e. Niagara, Hamilton, Wellington, and Halton) municipal staff meetings be undertaken during the Route Location EA to effectively and specifically address regional issues. Additional individual meetings with municipal staff will be held as required.

Municipalities will be kept apprised of project activities and be sent notices regarding all public consultation activities. A minimum of five rounds of Municipal Advisory Group Meetings will be held. These meetings will be held to coincide with the following study phases:

1. Generation of Alternative Routes 2. Refinement and Assessment of Alternative Routes 3. Evaluation and Selection of a Preferred Route Alternative 4. Concept Design and Mitigation of the Preferred Route Alternative 5. EA Report Submission

Page 72 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


The composition of the Municipal Advisory Group (i.e. multi-regional or regionally based) for each round of meetings will be determined during the Route Location EA; however, it is expected that regionally based meeting will be required for the generation and refinement of route alternatives, evaluation of route alternatives and the development of concept design alternatives.

The proposed meetings will provide the opportunity for effective two-way communication between the Project Team and local/regional municipalities to identify issues and gain a better understanding of environmental conditions to factor into the route generation process, gain input on the process and criteria (including their relative level of significance) to be used in the evaluation of alternatives, gain input on potential impacts associated with the preferred route and potential design refinements to minimize adverse environmental impacts, and receive direction on proposed mitigation measures. The purpose of the final municipal advisory group meeting will be to present a draft EA Report for review prior to submission for formal review and approval. The purpose of the pre-submission review is to ensure accuracy of the report and to gain support for recommendations, mitigation and commitments.

Municipal Councils Municipal Councils are key stakeholders within the Environmental Assessment Process. Council presentations to upper tier municipalities (Region of Niagara, Region of Halton, Wellington County, and City of Hamilton) are proposed prior to each round of Public Information Centres. Council endorsement will be sought for the preferred route alternative prior to the fourth round of Public Information Centres.

First Nations It is recognized that there may be a range of First Nation issues associated with this project. As such, establishing and maintaining affective communications with First Nation groups will enable the identification and resolution of key issues. First Nations will be consulted throughout the Route Location EA as necessary / requested.

During discussions undertaken for the EA Terms of Reference, First Nations noted concerns regarding such issues as:

Effects on land used for traditional hunting or fishing

Impacts to areas used for the harvesting of country foods Impacts to locations of medicinal plants Impacts to sacred grounds Impacts to known burial sites Implications to Land Claim areas

It is recognized that the above noted issues are more suitably addressed at different stages of the Route Location EA process. As such, proactive communication with First Nations early in the EA Route Location process will be required to augment existing conditions information and to reflect First Nation interests. Meetings with First Nations will be held

Page 73 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


early in the study process to collect data. The input received regarding conditions within the study will assist in the process of generating alternative routes.

Effective two-way communication with First Nations will continue as the study proceeds into the Assessment and Evaluation stages to determine the relative significance of identified features and into the Concept Design process to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures (as necessary) are developed to appropriately address the environmental effects of the preferred alternative. Meetings will be held, if required, with Elected and Confederacy Councils prior to each round of Public Information Centres. First Nations will be provided the opportunity to review a draft EA Report prior to submission to the Minister of the Environment for formal review and approval. The purpose of the pre-submission review is to ensure accuracy of the report and to gain support for recommendations, mitigation and commitments.

6.2.3 Pre Submission Review of the draft Environmental Assessment Report

The draft Environmental Study Report will be available for a municipal / agency / public / First Nations review prior to formal submission to the Ministry of the Environment. The final municipal advisory group meeting and Regulatory Agency Advisory Group meetings will be used to present a draft EA Report for review prior to submission for formal review and approval. The purpose of the pre-submission review is to ensure accuracy of the report and to gain support for recommendations, mitigation and commitments. The documentation will be available at government offices, public libraries and on the project web site.

Page 74 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


7. Other Approvals Required It is recognized that a number of approvals may be required for this project. Consultation with approval agencies will continue during the Route Location EA to coordinate timing of approvals, approval requirements and to ensure that approvals are ultimately obtainable. Potential permits/approvals/authorizations and agreements required include but are not limited to the following:

Navigable Waters Protection Act Approval (Federal Government)

Fisheries Act Approval (Federal Government) Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Approval (Federal Government) (if not received during the provincial EA approval stage) Agreements with local utilities Railway Crossing Agreement Hydro Construction Agreements (Hydro One Networks) TransCanada Pipeline Crossing Permit Inter-Provincial Pipeline Crossing Permit Other agency approvals as required

7.1 Federal / Provincial EA Policy Coordination

7.1.1 Need for Federal/Provincial EA Coordination

All Ministry of Transportation (MTO) projects are subject to the requirements of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). Some, however, are subject to the requirements of both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and the EAA. MTO’s experience with the EAA spans over 25 years. Comparatively, the ministry’s experience with CEAA is more limited, as it did not become legally binding until 1995.

The requirements under CEAA are considerably different from the EAA. The Ontario EA process requires that public sector proponents conduct an EA process for a project, which must then be approved by the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE). CEAA applies to projects that involve a decision or planned action by a federal authority, which enables the project to proceed in whole or in part. Specifically, section 5(1) of CEAA, applies to projects where a federal authority:

is the proponent of the project; provides funding to the project; provides land for the project; or issues a permit, license or authorization as prescribed in the Law List Regulations.

These decisions or planned actions of federal authorities are commonly called “triggers”.

The Ontario EA process is typically initiated when a proponent wishes to address a problem or opportunity and uses the EA process to evaluate alternatives and select a preferred alternative to solve the problem or realize the opportunity.

Page 75 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


With respect to the federal EA process, federal authorities require certain information to determine if they have a trigger. Federal authorities often wish to know what funding or federal land is being sought and may need more information on the location and extent of the project in order to determine whether they need to issue any permit or authorization. For transportation projects, such information has generally not been available until the end of the provincial Route Location EA study or even into preliminary or detail design. This has resulted in proponents having to go through a second EA process to meet federal EA requirements, which has had program delivery implications (i.e. timing and cost) for MTO.

In the case of an Individual EA study, where an EA Terms of Reference (ToR) is required, the needs assessment work can provide sufficient information to support a decision to trigger the federal EA process. This has occurred in the case of the EA ToR for the Mid-Peninsula Transportation Corridor.

There remain, however, other differences and information requirements between the provincial and federal EA process:

Scope of project;

Timelines for submission, review and decision-making; Factors to be assessed; Documentation format; and Administrative contacts.

Scope of Project: Under CEAA, the responsible authority (RA) has the discretion on deciding what the scope of the project that is to be assessed. Depending on the type of trigger, the responsible authority’s scope of project could be different than the proponent’s scope of project. The scope of project has specific information needs that may or may not be available at the Terms of Reference stage pf a project.

Timelines: The Federal Co-ordination Regulations under CEAA put in place timelines that apply to the start-up phase of an EA, when it is not yet known which federal authorities have an interest in the project. Once this has been determined, there are no other regulated timelines. Under the Ontario EA Act, there are two key regulated timelines after the submission of a Terms of Reference. These are:

A 5-week review and comment period for government agencies and interested parties; followed by, A 7-week evaluation period to allow time for MOE staff to review the comments, and the Minister of the Environment to make a decision (i.e. approve, reject, approve with amendments, or refer to mediation).

Factors to be assessed Other factors to be assessed under CEAA include:

An analysis of environmental effects of the project;

Page 76 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


An analysis of effects of accidents and malfunctions;

An analysis of the effects of any project-related environmental change on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons; A determination of the need for and requirements of a follow-up program; An analysis of the significance of the environmental effects on the project; and, A cumulative effects assessment.

Compliance monitoring and effectiveness monitoring may be required under both the federal and provincial EA legislation.

Cumulative Effects Assessment will be undertaken for the preferred alternative to meet the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. An overview of the proposed cumulative effects assessment process is included in Supporting Document B. It should be noted that the cumulative effects assessment is not a requirement of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.

Documentation The federal documentation requirements include Screening Reports and Comprehensive Study Reports. Preparation of a Terms of Reference, EA and Concept Design Reports, Transportation Environmental Study Reports (TESRs) and Environmental Study Documents (ESDs) are required provincially under the EAA and MTO’s parent Class EA.

Contacts Many participants are involved in the federal process, including Responsible Authorities, Federal Departments and the CEA Agency. Only the Ministry of Environment (MOE) administers the provincial EAA.

7.1.2 Proposed Approach For Coordination Of New MTO Projects The development of a federal/provincial-coordinated process has been proposed as a result of the problems associated with two overlapping environmental assessment processes, and the relatively slow progress on the development of the proposed, umbrella Canada-Ontario Bilateral Agreement. In the past, this has lead to confusion with the public and stakeholders, greater EA costs and additional time requirements by both provincial and federal agencies.

Representatives from the CEA Agency, the Ontario Ministry of Environment and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation jointly prepared a draft process. It is intended to apply to new MTO projects that require an Individual EA under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act and a screening or a comprehensive study under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. A copy of the notes and flow chart for the coordinated process is provided in Supporting Document J.

A co-ordinated process would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of EAs requiring both provincial approval and federal clearances. The development of the coordinated process is guided by a number of principles and assumptions, including:

One project one assessment process;

Page 77 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


Early identification of CEAA triggers (i.e. process allows for earlier federal involvement on the basis that a “trigger” would be initiated in the future);

Early notification to allow for coordinated EAs; Defined roles and responsibilities; Integrated information requirements; and, Coordinated decision-making (i.e., each government reaches its own conclusions, but timing may be coordinated).

7.1.3 Application of the Coordinated Process to MPTC The MPTC is the first MTO projects to which a coordinated process is being applied. The same process will be used for other MTO EA projects. Federal agencies have been participating in the pre-submission stage of the EA ToR, by providing information to MTO on their respective EA interests under the CEAA. The federal EA requirements that can be identified at the early conceptual stage of the project have been consolidated by the CEA Agency in a 29-page document entitled “Advice to Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Proponent for the MPTC on Anticipated Federal Requirements under the CEA Act and Related Policy Interests” (July 2002). A copy is provided in Supporting Document J. This document reflects an intensive effort by various federal departments to provide MTO with federal EA requirements and guidelines for MTO’s consideration. It is recognized by both the CEA Agency and MTO that ongoing dialogue on the information requirements is required throughout the EA process as more is learned about the specifics of the project. The federal information requirements will be refined and further clarified as the EA process proceeds. In addition, the Environmental Work Plans in Supporting Document B have been modified in response to this input and will continue to be refined and further clarified in consultation with federal agencies as the EA process proceeds.

As noted above, the coordinated process cannot be formally initiated until CEAA is triggered. On March 12, 2003, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) notified the Ministry that they would be a Responsible Authority (RA) and has triggered CEAA. This decision to trigger was based on the fact that the MPTC will have to cross the Welland Canal resulting in the need for approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. DFO has not, however, made formal determinations on the scope of project and scope of assessment. It remains the goal of the CEA Agency, which is co-ordinating federal participation in the assessment, to obtain as much clarification as possible on the scope of the project as MTO proceeds with the EA ToR and EA Route Location process for the MPTC.

While federal authorities do not approve the final EA ToR; they will indicate whether or not all federal information requirements are included. Some federal authorities, such as Environment Canada may also comment on the ToR with respect to their interests outside of CEAA. When provincial approval of the ToR is granted, MTO will initiate a Route Location EA study to determine a preferred route for the MPTC. Input and advice from both the federal and provincial participants will be solicited and received as required. By addressing the CEAA information needs earlier in the EA process, federal authorities can be provided with sufficient information to allow them to reach a decision on the

Page 78 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.


significance of adverse environmental effects. This approach supports a coordinated EA approach that addresses the requirements of both the provincial and federal EA Acts and provides the basis for a more effective EA process for MTO projects.

Page 79 May 2003

Cop

y fo

r arc

hive

pur

pose

s. P

leas

e co

nsul

t orig

inal

pub

lishe

r for

cur

rent

ver

sion

. C

opie

à d

es fi

ns d

’arc

hiva

ge.

Veu

illez

con

sulte

r l’é

dite

ur o

rigin

al p

our l

a ve

rsio

n ac

tuel

le.

Date post:	20-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times