Appendix E Relevant Agency Correspondence

APPENDIX E

RELEVANT AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

May 4, 2004, 2004 Our Ref.: 33015275

Business Management Operations CN Rail P.O. Box 1000 Concorde, ON L4K 1B9

Attention: Alan MacDougall, P.Eng. District Superintendent

Dear Alan:

Re: Highway 404 Extension crossing the CN Bala Subdivision, East of Pefferlaw

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) received approval under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (OEAA) on August 28, 2002 for the Extension of Highway 404. The EA consists of 45 kilometres of new four-lane freeway from Davis Drive in Newmarket to Highway 48 east of Pefferlaw, as well as the twinning to four lanes of nine kilometres of the existing Highway 48 to Highway 12 / 48. Two kilometers of Highway 404, from Davis Drive to Green Lane, was opened to traffic in 2002, based on an approval obtained by York Region. In March 2004 MTO retained URS Canada Limited (URS) / McCormick Rankin Corporation (MRC) / Ecoplans Limited (consultant team) to undertake further engineering and environmental work on the Environmental Assessment approved alignment to obtain a decision under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and clearance under OEAA. The MTO contact for this project is John Klowak, P. Eng, who can be reached at (416) 235-5533. I will act as the consultant contact for technical issues. The EA proposes a grade separation over the CN Rail line west of Durham Road 23. During the EA process CN was contacted and advised of the study and to provide the study team with the long term plans for the rail corridor. This resulted in the conceptual plan shown in the EA. A copy of this plan is attached for your reference. However, during the EA study, no formal agreement between MTO and CN was taken. Therefore, we now would like to work towards an agreement. As this study progresses, we will provide additional detail on the proposed structure, as required, in support of the agreement. In principle, we acknowledge the grade separation, as proposed in the EA, is part of the Highway 404 extension project, and therefore will be funded entirely by the project. The structure will span the single set of tracks, as shown on the attached plan. We are developing the structural general arrangement drawings for this rail structure. We are

URS Canada Inc. 75 Commerce Valley Drive East Markham, ON Canada L3T 7N9 Tel: 905.882.4401

Fax: 905.882.4399 www.urs.ca

requesting your concurrence that providing the Highway 404 Extension over a single set of tracks is acceptable, in principle, to CN Rail, and that you have no objections to this proposed structural arrangement.

Yours very truly, URS Canada Inc.

Steve Jacobs, P.Eng. Senior Project Manager

SJ/aif

Attachment

Cc: J. Klowak, MTO P. Reynolds, MTO

N:\Planning\33015275 Highway 404 Extension\Reports\TESRs\TESR #2 - Green Lane to Mount Albert\Appendices\Alan MacDougall CN 2004-04-28 (Revision).doc - 2 -

Page 1 of 1

From: Borwick, Jason (MNR) [[email protected]] Sent: November 22, 2006 10:48 AM To: Bricks, Mike Cc: Klowak, John (MTO); Reynolds, Pat (MTO); [email protected]; Gartshore, Geoffrey; Bright, Katie; Borwick, Jason (MNR) Subject: RE: Hwy 404 - Response to MNR Terrestrial Comments - Mount Albert to Woodbine Ave

Hi Mike,

I apologize for the delay but I am finally getting around to reviewing your responses. We are satisfied with your responses to our comments and look forward to working through the detailed design phases of this project.

Jason Borwick, M.Sc.

Management Biologist, Aurora District Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 50 Bloomington Rd. W. Aurora, ON L4G 3G8 Tel: 905-713-7404 Fax: 905-713-7361

E-mail: [email protected]

From: Bricks, Mike [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 8:25 AM To: Borwick, Jason (MNR) Cc: Klowak, John (MTO); Reynolds, Pat (MTO); [email protected]; Gartshore, Geoffrey; Bright, Katie Subject: Hwy 404 - Response to MNR Terrestrial Comments - Mount Albert to Woodbine Ave

Jason:

Attached is our response to your letter dated September 28, 2006. We hope that our responses address MNR's comments. Feel free to contact either Geoff or I if you wish to discuss.

Thanks for all of your assistance to date.

Mike

29/03/2007 Ministry of Ministère des Natural Resources Richesses naturelles

50 Bloomington Road W Our File: Y/D-04-EG/G/B-030 Aurora, ON L4G 3G8

November 27, 2006

Mike Bricks Senior Environmental Planner Ecoplans Limited 2655 North Sheridan Way Mississauga, ON. L5K 2P8

Dear Mr. Bricks:

RE: Highway 404 Extension – Fisheries Component – Letter of Advice

Staff of this office in consultation with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have reviewed the technical memorandum entitled “Fish Habitat Impact Assessment Summary, Highway 404 Green Lane to Woodbine Ave/Ravenshoe Road” dated November 3rd 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Memorandum) outlining the existing conditions, proposed works, summary of impacts and mitigation measures for the Mount Albert and Maskinonge River crossings of the 404 extension. We provide the following two comments:

x Little detail was provided in the Memorandum outlining the “proper design” proposed to convey flow from diffuse or undefined channels as they approach all of the proposed ConSpan structures. Please provide us with additional detail outlining the proposed design to convey flow at the inlet of these culverts.

x It is stated that construction-related mitigation measure #7 is “…part of the restoration plan”. Please confirm that these plantings are in addition to the 10.1 acres of proposed plantings detailed in section 4.4 of the Memorandum.

Pending your response to the above comments, the proposed works are adequate to protect fish and fish habitat provided that they are implemented as outlined in the Memorandum. Given the use of ConSpan structures, the low relative sensitivity of the impacted systems, and the proposed mitigation measures as detailed in the Memorandum, the Ministry of Natural Resources agrees that the works as proposed will not result in a harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat. Please note that any change to the proposed works as described in the Memorandum or failure to properly implement the proposed mitigation measures may result in a HADD. This Letter of Advice does not permit the deposit of deleterious substance (section 36 of the Fisheries Act) into waters frequented by fish nor does it release you from the responsibility of obtaining any other federal, provincial or municipal approvals that may apply.

Should you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at 905-713-7404.

Sincerely,

Jason Borwick Management Biologist Aurora District

Regional Engineering Engineering Services

Canadian National Railway 1 Administration Road P.O. Box 1000 Concord, Ontario L4K 1B9 Tel.: 905-669-3155 Fax: 905-760-3406

November 28, 2006

Email: [email protected] Mr. Steve Jacobs, P.Eng., URS Canada Inc. 75 Commerce Valley Drive, East Markham, Ontario L3T 7N9

Dear Mr. Jacobs:

Re: Highway 404 Extension – Green Lane to North of Mount Albert Road Filing of Transportation Environmental Study Report, Class EA

Thank you for your letter dated November 20, 2006, informing us that the Transportation Environmental Study Report is available for review, for the extension of Highway 404 from Green Lane to north of Mount Albert Road project.

CN Rail has no concerns or comments, as it appears that this portion of the project will have no impact on CN Rail. Please remove CN from your project mailing list. (Please remove all CN contacts from the project mailing list including Mr. John MacTaggart and Mr. Alan MacDougall).

Sincerely,

Darylann Perry for John F. MacTaggart, P.Eng. Senior Engineering Services Officer

December 21, 2006

Ministry of Natural Resources Aurora District 50 Bloomington Road West Aurora, Ontario, L4G 3G8

Attention: Mr. Jason Borwick, M.Sc., Management Biologist

Dear Jason:

RE: Highway 404 Extension – Fisheries Component – Letter of Advice (Your File: Y/D-04-EG/G/B-030)

Thank you for your Letter of Advice pertaining to the Highway 404 extension from Green Lane to Woodbine Ave/Ravenshoe Road specifically in relation to the intermittent crossings of the Mt. Albert Creek and the Maskinonge River tributaries (dated November 27th, 2006). Please find below our responses to your two comments on the technical memorandum entitled “Fish Habitat Impact Assessment Summary, Highway 404 Green Lane to Woodbine Ave/Ravenshoe Road” dated November 3rd 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Memorandum):

The design details for the up and downstream low flow channel transitions with the channels through the new structures will be developed during the Detail Design stage of the project, as more detailed survey information and plans are required to define existing site specific profile and cross sectional conditions. Regardless, the structures have been aligned with the inflowing flow path, and even where the flow path is diffuse, the structures are wide enough that they should encompass any areas of more diffuse flow where they may coincide with inlet and/or outlet zones. Based on the detailed survey information, the transition zones will be designed using standard naturalization practices to transition smoothly and match these conditions up and downstream of ConSpan structures.

x It is stated that construction-related mitigation measure #7 is “Riparian vegetation cleared for access will be replaced as part of the restoration plan”. Please confirm that these plantings are in addition to the 10.1 acres of proposed plantings detailed in section 4.4 of the Memorandum.

Any vegetated areas temporarily disturbed for construction access will be rehabilitated and replanted with native tree and shrub species compatible with the disturbed habitat. This would be in addition to the 10.1 acres of proposed plantings detailed in section 4.4 of the Memorandum. In the Mount Albert Creek area, which is the only area where potential removal of some woody riparian vegetation may be required (pockets Hwy 404 Extension- Fisheries Component – Letter of Advice 2 Your File: Y/D-04-EG/G/B-030 of thicket swamp), these plantings will be integrated with the edge/buffer management plantings proposed between the highway and the wetland area associated with the stream.

We trust the above responses address your concerns.

We understand that subject to your review of our responses to the above comments, the Ministry of Natural Resources agrees that the works as proposed and implemented, as outlined in the Memorandum, will not result in a harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat. The Ministry of Transportation understands that any change to the proposed works as described in the Memorandum or failure to properly implement the proposed mitigation measures may result in a HADD. The consultation process will continue with MNR and DFO during the Detail Design stage of the project, as the design details and the supporting drawings and mitigation measures are detailed and finalized.

Thank you for all of your review input into this project, and we look forward to your final Letter of Advice and project closure. If you have any questions or wish to discuss our responses, please contact me at (905) 829-6262, or Anne MacMillan at (519) 741-8850.

Yours very truly,

ECOPLANS LTD.

Mike Bricks, MCIP, RPP Senior Environmental Planner

Copied: J. Klowak – MTO P. Reynolds – MTO P. Puccini – URS A. MacMillan - Ecoplans CEAR - Environmental Assessment Home Page Page 1 of 1

CEAR Home » Basic Search » 05-01-14490 Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry PROPOSED 404 EXTENSION, MOUNT ALBERT ROAD TO WOODBINE AVENUE (Document List)

Notice of Cancellation

January 16, 2007 -- Fisheries and Oceans Canada has cancelled this environmental assessment on January 3, 2007 because the scope of the project has changed and no longer triggers the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

For more information, please contact:

DFO - CEA Registry Office -Central & Arctic Region - Ontario Area P.O. Box 5050 867 LAKESHORE ROAD Burlington ON L7R 4A6 Telephone: (905) 336-4508 Email: [email protected]

and refer to CEAR reference number 05-01-14490

Document List

[Sep 15, 2005] Notice of Commencement

Updated:2007-01-16 Important Notices

http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/Viewer_e.cfm?SrchPg=1&CEAR_ID=14490 1/23/2007

Environmental Planners & Consulting Ecologists

June 6, 2007 Our Ref.: 33015275

Fisheries and Oceans Canada Ontario – Great Lakes Area – Peterborough District Unit 102, 501 Towerhill Road Peterborough, Ontario, K9H 7S3

Ministry of Natural Resources Aurora District 50 Bloomington Road West Aurora, Ontario, L4G 3G8

Attention: Ms. Jane Tymoshuk, Fish Habitat Biologist and Mr. Jason Borwick, M.Sc., Management Biologist

Dear Jane and Jason:

Re: Highway 404 Extension, Green Lane to Woodbine Avenue / Ravenshoe Road – Proposed Culvert at Queensville Sideroad Crossing of Maskinonge River

This letter provides additional information regarding the use of a pre-cast open footing culvert structure to convey the Maskinonge River under the Queensville Sideroad crossing (Station 10+075) just downstream of the proposed Highway 404 Extension crossing (Station 32+885).

In a letter dated October 12, 2006 from John Klowak (MTO) to Jane Tymoshuk (Fisheries and Oceans Canada), the Ministry committed to using pre-cast open footing ConSpan culverts at the Mount Albert Creek, Maskinonge River and Maskinonge River tributary crossings. In particular, the Ministry committed to providing four pre-cast ConSpan culverts in the vicinity of the proposed Queensville Sideroad interchange, to convey the Maskinonge River through the interchange.

On November 3, 2006, Ecoplans Ltd. submitted a memorandum entitled “Fish Habitat Impact Assessment Summary, Highway 404 Green Lane to Woodbine Ave/Ravenshoe Road (November 2006)” to MNR. This memorandum had previously been supplied to Fisheries and Oceans Canada to facilitate their review of the project. This memorandum summarized the Project Team’s commitments with regard to mitigation of fisheries impacts, and included plans, profiles and cross-sections of the proposed pre-cast ConSpan structures at the Mount Albert Creek, Maskinonge River and Maskinonge River tributary crossings.

In a letter dated November 6, 2006, Jane Tymoshuk confirmed that Fisheries and Oceans Canada in conjunction with MNR, Aurora District, have determined that if pre-cast ConSpan culverts are used for the crossings at the Mount Albert Creek, Maskinonge River and Maskinonge River tributary, a HADD is not likely, a Fisheries Act authorization would therefore not be required, and the CEAA Environmental Assessment underway would be cancelled. This letter also indicated that MNR would issue a Letter of Advice as part of their responsibilities under the 1993 MTO/MNR protocol.

72 Victoria Street South, Suite 100, Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4Y9• (519) 741-8850 • (519) 741-8884 www.ecoplans.com • email: [email protected] - 2 -

In a “Letter of Advice” dated November 27, 2006, MNR confirmed that a HADD was not likely, based on MNR's and Fisheries and Oceans Canada's review of the November 3, 2006 technical memorandum and subject to the Project Team’s response to the comments provided in the letter. These comments related to channel design at the invert of each of the pre-cast ConSpan culverts, as well as proposed mitigation measures where clearing was required to provide access to the construction area.

In a letter dated December 21, 2006 from Mike Bricks to Jason Borwick, the comments provided in MNR’s November 27, 2006 letter were addressed.

On January 3, 2007, Fisheries and Oceans Canada cancelled the CEAA EA, on the basis that the scope of the project had changed, and no longer triggers the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Please note that at the crossing of Queensville Sideroad over the Maskinonge River (Station 10+075), the use of a pre-cast open footing culvert is now a concern based on the significant height of fill (approximately 12 m) above the proposed culvert at this location. Based on structural capacity considerations, it has been determined that it would not be possible to provide a pre-cast culvert structure at this location.

As such, the Project Team is now recommending the construction of a cast-in-place open footing culvert at this location in lieu of the pre-cast culvert. Pre-cast open footing culverts are still proposed at all of the other locations previously recommended. At Mount Albert Creek (Station 30+400) and the Maskinonge River Tributary crossing (Station 34+000), and at each of the other three Maskinonge River crossing locations (Stations 10+114, 10+328 and 32+885) associated with the Queensville Sideroad interchange, the height of fill is such that a pre-cast open footing culvert can be constructed.

The proposed cast-in-place open footing culvert under Queensville Sideroad will be designed with the same cross-section that was previously recommended for the pre-cast culvert to reduce overall impacts to natural environmental features. Specifically, the cast-in-place open footing culvert will be constructed with a span equal to or greater than the pre-cast open footing culvert recommended previously, minimizing the potential for alteration of the Maskinonge River in the vicinity of the culvert. Similarly, the height of the cast-in-place open footing culvert will be equal or greater than that proposed previously, in order to facilitate the movement of wildlife under Queensville Sideroad. The footings will be constructed below invert of the stream and will not interfere with the proposed provision of a stable low flow/bankfull channel through the culvert. In addition, the proposed cast-in-place open footing culvert is not anticipated to affect previous commitments with regard to the provision of plantings within the Queensville Sideroad interchange area.

The major difference resulting from the use of a cast-in-place open footing culvert is the additional length of time that will be required for the on-site construction of the culvert. However, the cast-in-place open footing culvert can still be constructed “in the dry” to avoid impacts to the Maskinonge River during construction. This could be accomplished by first constructing the vertical walls of the culvert outside of the river, and then using temporary shoring between the walls to support the formwork for the top slab of the culvert above the river.

The Project Team environmental specialists have reviewed the proposed modification in culvert construction technique and have concluded that the original levels of environmental protection and mitigation related to environmental sensitivities and commitments have been maintained. - 3 -

The Ministry of Transportation understands that any change to the proposed works as described in the technical memorandum entitled “Fish Habitat Impact Assessment Summary, Highway 404 Green Lane to Woodbine Ave/Ravenshoe Road (November 2006)” may result in a HADD. As such, we request that you review the above information and confirm in writing at your earliest convenience whether you have any concerns with the proposed modification to the design of the culvert under Queensville Sideroad, as discussed in this letter.

If MNR and Fisheries and Oceans Canada approve of this modification, the technical memorandum will be updated and this information will be incorporated into the Transportation Environmental Study Report that is being prepared for the section of the Highway 404 Extension north of Mount Albert Road to Woodbine Avenue / Ravenshoe Road.

MTO will continue to consult with MNR and Fisheries and Oceans Canada during the Detail Design stage of the project as the design details and mitigation measures are further developed and finalized. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you require any additional information in order to complete your review of this issue.

Yours very truly,

ECOPLANS LTD.

M. Anne MacMillan cc. Tom Hogenbirk, LSRCA John Klowak, MTO Pat Reynolds, MTO Patrick Puccini, URS Mike Bricks, Ecoplans AGENCY MEETING MINUTES 2655 North Sheridan Way Mississauga, Ontario, L5K 2P8 Tel: (905) 823-4988 Fax: (905) 823-2669

NOTES OF MEETING

PROJECT: Highway 404 Extension

FILE NO.: 04-2814

DATE: April 23, 2004 TIME: 10:00 am – 1:00 pm.

PLACE: Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Peterborough, Ontario

PRESENT: Bill Aird Canadian Transportation Agency Ed Debruyn Department of Fisheries and Oceans Gareth Goodchild Department of Fisheries and Oceans Chris Strand Department of Fisheries and Oceans Ken Chang-Kue Department of Fisheries and Oceans Mike Shaw Environment Canada – via Teleconference Margaret Bakelaar Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Paul Schafer Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency John Klowak Ministry of Transportation Patrick Reynolds Ministry of Transportation Darlene Proudfoot Ministry of Transportation Steve Jacobs URS Mike Bricks Ecoplans Anne MacMillan Ecoplans Stephen Carmichael Ecoplans

PURPOSE: Meeting to discuss CEAA requirements and coordination

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: 1. Project Background and History The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) carried out a provincial route planning and environmental assessment study for the extension of Highway 404 between 1993 and 1997. A subsequent Route Planning Study and Environmental Assessment Report was prepared and submitted for formal review and approval to the Ministry of the Environment in 1997. Following a formal public and agency review process, MTO received approval from the Ontario Minister of the Environment subject to a number of conditions on August 28, 2002 for 45 kilometres of new four-lane freeway from Davis Drive in Newmarket to Highway 48 east of Pefferlaw, as well as the twinning from two to four lanes of nine kilometres of the existing Highway 48 to Highway 12 / 48. Hwy 404 Extension CEAA Requirements and Coordination April 23, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY:

MTO prepared a Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) Project Description Report and circulated this report to the CEA Agency and other potentially interested federal authorities in January 2003. A meeting between federal authorities including Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), Environment Canada (EC), Health Canada (HC), and MTO was held in April 2003 to introduce the project, discuss possible triggers and discuss possible approaches. The CEA Agency provided a follow-up letter and comments from the federal agencies in June 2003, requesting more detailed information with respect to potential Fisheries Act authorizations.

In March 2004 MTO retained URS and Ecoplans to undertake further engineering and environmental work on the OEAA approved alignment. Although the OEAA alignment extended from Davis Drive in Newmarket to Highway 12 / 48, the Davis Drive to Green Lane section has already been constructed. As such the length of the Highway is now 43 kilometres of new four-lane freeway as well as the twinning to four lanes of nine kilometres of the existing Highway 48.

It was noted that the Province is under some pressure from local municipalities to begin construction of Highway 404 to Ravenshoe Road to address local development issues. Therefore, preliminary design will be expedited for Green Lane / Herald Road to Mount Albert Road (approximately 2 kilometres). Preliminary design will also be completed for Mount Albert Road to Woodbine Avenue. Each section will be documented in a separate Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR) in accordance with the MTO Class EA process.

There are no federal triggers in the stretch of Highway 404 undergoing advanced preliminary design from Green Lane / Herald Road to Mount Albert Road as there is no harmful alternation or destruction of fish habitat, no navigable waterways, no railways, and no federal funding. MTO suggested that since there are no federal approvals required for the construction from Green Lane to Mount Albert Road, it can also be CEA Agency, concluded that CEAA will not be triggered. The rationale for this appears TC, Canada consistent with CEA Agency comments in their letter dated June 9, 2003. Coast Guard, The Federal Agencies noted that this would have to be confirmed once all and DFO triggers were identified and the scope of project was established.

MTO would also like to obtain a federal environmental assessment decision in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) for the whole alignment. The process for obtaining federal approvals for the Highway 404 Extension project will be coordinated with the Bradford Bypass project (16 kilometres of new route from the Highway 404 Extension westerly to existing Highway 400).

Given that the current consultant assignment is "Total Project Management" and therefore the consultants are the primary contact for external agencies

Page 2 Hwy 404 Extension CEAA Requirements and Coordination April 23, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: during the course of the study, DFO asked whether or not MTO as a Ministry would remain responsible at later phases (detail design and construction) for ensuring that commitments made and agreed to as part of this assignment were carried out. MTO acknowledged that would be the case.

2. Project Schedule There is political pressure (provincial and municipal) to start development of the Highway 404 Extension by 2006. Therefore, it is the objective of this study to obtain a decision from the Responsible Authorities and Federal Authorities under CEAA as soon as possible. Key dates include: • Fall 2004 – Submit TESR (Green Lane / Herald Road to Mount Albert Road) for public review • Fall 2005 – Submit TESR (Mount Albert Road to Woodbine Avenue) for public review • Fall 2005 – Obtain CEAA decision for Mount Albert Road northerly to Highway 12 / 48 • Fall 2006 – Begin construction of Green Lane / Herald Road to Mount Albert Road

3. Review of Additional Information Requested in June 2003

A meeting was held with Federal Authorities in April 2003 to discuss potential triggers and Responsible Authorities. A follow-up letter was provided to MTO on June 2003 requesting more detailed information with respect to potential Fisheries Act Authorizations.

Ecoplans provided more detailed information on the manner by which the Highway 404 alignment will cross watercourses containing fish and fish habitat, potential impacts that the crossings will have on fish and fish habitat, and the potential operations to mitigate the effects or impacts. It was noted that of the original 75 sites assessed in the GLL and Portt fisheries report, 39 support fish habitat or potential fish habitat. The other sites were road drainage ditches, field swales or isolated dug pond features with no viable connection to a watercourse, which both GLL and Portt did not consider to provide fish habitat. Of the 39 fish habitat or potential fish habitat sites: • 2 are not crossed and mitigation is adequate to protect the adjacent channel; • 10 are likely HADDs based on GLL’s determination including: confirmed fish habitat crossed with culverts (7), local channel re- alignments (2), or realigned and / or culverted through interchange; • 16 require further review with DFO / MNR. GLL determination was that there was no HADD and / or no compensation required, however Ecoplans, DFO, and MNR need to review whether or not they may support indirect contribution to fish habitat and whether indirect contribution sufficient to be considered HADD (e.g. in most cases “no

Page 3 Hwy 404 Extension CEAA Requirements and Coordination April 23, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: direct fish use” [in some cases small number of stickleback caught]); • 4 are proposed to be crossed with structures. It should be possible to design to fully span river and floodplain and therefore avoid a HADD, with the possible exception of Pefferlaw Brook; • 5 are ‘ponds’ with very weak or unconfirmed connections to watercourses, 4 of which GLL indicate compensation is not required and the fifth (quarry pond) may require compensation depending on potential seasonal connection; and • 2 require further field review to confirm habitat potential and / or assessment in relation to potential of highway to impact site.

After brief discussion and review of the additional information, DFO noted that it would most likely be an Responsible Authority. A technical meeting DFO, MNR, MTO and will be scheduled between DFO, MNR, MTO, and Ecoplans to further discuss the detailed information on crossings and to determine triggers Ecoplans (HADD) under the Fisheries Act.

4. Discussion on Federal Triggers

CEAA applies to projects that involve some action to be taken by a Federal Authority, which enables the project to be carried out, in whole or in part. Specifically, CEAA applies to projects where a Federal Authority: • Is the proponent of the project; • Provides funding to the project for the purpose of the project to be carried out; • Leases, sells or disposes of land to enable a project to be carried out; and/or • Exercises a regulatory duty (i.e., issues a permit or licence, grants an approval or takes any other action for the purpose of enabling the project to be carried out.

The potential triggers and Responsible Authorities (RAs) identified for this project include: • Transport Canada (TC) – Navigable Water Crossings; • Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) – Rail Crossings; and • Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) – HADD Impacts to Fish and Fish Habitat.

Navigable Water Crossings: During the preparation of the Ontario Environmental Assessment the Canada Coast Guard determined that the Black River and the Pefferlaw Brook are the only navigable waterways affected by the undertaking. Therefore, these crossings will require authorizations from TC under the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). The following summarize the minimum clearance requirements identified by the Canadian Coast Guard during the preparation of the Ontario Environmental Assessment:

Page 4 Hwy 404 Extension CEAA Requirements and Coordination April 23, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: Black River (Station 129+100) Vertical Clearance: 2 m above normal high watermark Horizontal Clearance: 6 m – centred on the deep-water portion of the river bed

Pefferlaw Brook (Station 141+400) Vertical Clearance: 3.66 to 4.57 m above normal summer high watermark Horizontal Clearance: 15 m – centred on the deep-water portion of the water course

DFO noted that TC now administers the role of navigability. Therefore CEA Agency, these bridge crossings must be discussed with TC. However, DFO noted (as TC, Canada the previous authorization body) that these bridge crossings would likely Coast Guard, require authorization under the NWPA and therefore TC will most likely be DFO, and a Responsible Authority. A teleconference will be arranged by the CEA Ecoplans Agency between TC, Canada Coast Guard, DFO and Ecoplans to discuss possible NWPA trigger and project scope.

Canadian Transportation Agency: One rail crossing (Canadian National Railway) is required, just east of Pefferlaw. It is anticipated that this crossing will overpass the existing railway line. Historically, MTO and affected rail companies have been able to reach an agreement with respect to the design, construction, and operation of rail crossings, and therefore the Canadian Transportation Act authorization was not required. However, if an agreement cannot be reached with the rail company, a permit under the Canadian Transportation Act would be required. The CTA noted that a signed agreement is required between both parties.

URS will begin preliminary design for the rail crossing and meet with Canadian National Railway to discuss the crossing and possible agreement. Any agreement will be forwarded to CTA for their information. Regardless URS of an agreement, the CTA will be kept advised of the project such that they are fully aware of the project details as the EA is undertaken.

Fisheries Act Authorization: After brief discussion and review of the additional information presented by Ecoplans, DFO noted that it would most likely be an Responsible Authority. A technical meeting will be scheduled between DFO, MNR, Ecoplans, MTO, and Ecoplans to further discuss the detailed information on crossings DFO, MNR and to determine triggers (HADD) under the Fisheries Act. It may be and MTO necessary to conduct a site visit to determine the existence of fish habitat. The proposed changes in the fisheries protocol does not affect this project. MNR still has to be contacted to determine HADDs.

Federal Authority Meeting: It was noted that a meeting between the interested Federal Authorities would be scheduled following the technical fisheries meeting to discuss DFO, TC, possible triggers for this project, scope of this project, roles, CTA and EC

Page 5 Hwy 404 Extension CEAA Requirements and Coordination April 23, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: responsibilities, and the EA process

5. Preliminary Discussion on Approach Options for Project Scope and Scope of Assessment

The scope of project and scope of assessment is determined by the Responsible Authorities, in consultation with the expert Federal Authorities. The scope of project defines the components of the proposal that will be considered part of the project for the purposes of the assessment (i.e., physical works and activities, programs, etc.). The scope of assessment includes a determination of the environmental effects to be addressed, the scope of the environmental effects to be assessed, and the effects to be considered in making decisions regarding the project.

It was noted that there are two possible scoping approaches for this project. The first approach scopes the project as a Highway and the second approach scopes the project as a series of water crossings.

DFO noted that they do not approve highways, they approve water crossings. Similarly, TC (Canada Coast Guard) would most likely only approve water crossings. Based on this information, the project would likely be scoped as a series of water crossings. The CTA indicated that they could potentially scope the project as either a highway or a rail crossing.

It was noted that for projects such as the Highway 404 Extension, it is possible that the Responsible Authorities agree on a broader scope (i.e. highway), but work within their own interests (i.e. rail crossings or fish habitat).

It was noted that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is not an approval, it is a gateway towards an approval. Authorization / approvals are conducted under the Responsible Authorities legislation. For this project, the authorizations and approvals will be conducted under the Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, and possibly the Canadian Transportation Act. It was recognized that specific permits would not be obtained at this stage. However, TC should still comment on this issue.

Comprehensive Study vs. Screening It was noted by the CEA Agency that a Comprehensive Study is conducted when a highway is 50 kilometres or more of new pavement. This project consists of 43 kilometres of new pavement and 9 kilometres of highway widening and therefore is unlikely to undergo a Comprehensive Study.

6. Other Issues

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) reviewed the CEAA Project Description in April of 2003 and indicated that they had no concerns and had no interests as either a Federal Authority or a Responsible Authority.

Page 6 Hwy 404 Extension CEAA Requirements and Coordination April 23, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: However, INAC did recommend contacting the local First Nations throughout the study area to determine their concerns.

DFO also indicated that they will consult with all local First Nations as a Responsible Authority for the project. DFO typically undertakes the following process: • Identifies the agencies (bands) • Speaks to Chief in Council to identify their interests, after examining HADD water crossings • Speaks to Chief in Council to identify any concerns (i.e. navigability, resources, significance) • Documents any concerns

The CEA Agency will talk to INAC regarding local First Nations interests. CEA Agency

URS and Ecoplans will identify all local First Nations (bands) that may URS and have an interest in the study area or are affected by the project (i.e. use the Ecoplans area for traditional purposes and have any issues / concerns) related particularly to fish and navigation.

Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator The CEA Agency will act as Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator (FEAC) for preliminary discussions. The CEA Agency usually acts as the FEAC for multi-jurisdictional projects. Multi-jurisdictional projects include projects with provincial and federal interests. It is questionable whether this project will be multi-jurisdictional (unknown whether there will be any federal approvals within the section undergoing preliminary design under the OEAA). The role of FEAC will be discussed at later meetings.

7. Summary of Tasks

Technical Meeting: Hold a technical meeting with DFO, MNR and Ecoplans. DFO, MNR, Confirm DFO information needs to determine CEAA trigger and scope of and Ecoplans project. This meeting will be held the week of April 26th, 2004.

MNR Information: Confirm with MNR the determination of HADD noted in the Provincial DFO, MNR, Individual Assessment. and Ecoplans At technical meeting – week of April 26th, 2004.

NWPA Trigger: Discuss NWPA trigger and project scope with Transport Canada, Canada CEA Agency Coast Guard and DFO. This meeting will be held prior to Federal Authority meeting.

Page 7 Hwy 404 Extension CEAA Requirements and Coordination April 23, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: Federal Authority Meeting: Hold a meeting of interested federal authorities. CEA Agency, Discuss scope of project, roles and responsibilities, and EA process. DFO, TC, This meeting will be held after the technical meeting. CTA, and EC

CTA Trigger: URS to work towards getting an agreement with CNR on railway crossing. URS, CNR, Agreement is needed by CTA to determine trigger. and CTA This work will be performed as soon as possible.

First Nations Involvement: Check INAC response from federal project description circulation on local CEA Agency First Nation interests in the project. Forward this information to URS / Ecoplans.

First Nations Consultation: Need to confirm what local First Nation Bands are affected, if they use the URS and areas for traditional purposes and if they have any issues / concerns. Ecoplans Relates particularly to fish and navigation.

FEAC: Determine who will take on the role of Federal Environmental Assessment CEA Agency, Coordinator (FEAC). DFO, and TC Discussions to take place with CEA Agency and potential Responsible Authorities. The role of FEAC will be resolved by official trigger or soon after.

The forgoing represents the writer’s understanding of the major items of discussion and the decisions reached and / or future actions required. If the above does not accurately represent the understanding of all parties attending, please notify the undersigned immediately upon receiving these minutes (905-823- 4988)

Minutes Prepared by:

Ecoplans Limited

Stephen Carmichael - Environmental Planner cc: Attendees Martin Scott - MRC

Page 8 2655 North Sheridan Way Mississauga, Ontario, L5K 2P8 Tel: (905) 823-4988 Fax: (905) 823-2669

NOTES OF MEETING

PROJECT: Highway 404 Extension

FILE NO.: 04-2814

DATE: April 27, 2004 TIME: 1:00 pm – 4:30 p.m.

PLACE: MNR Offices – Aurora PRESENT: Patrick Reynolds Ministry of Transportation (first part) Chris Strand Department of Fisheries and Oceans Melanie Boivin Department of Fisheries and Oceans Jane Tymoshuk Department of Fisheries and Oceans Stefan Romberg MNR Anne MacMillan Ecoplans PURPOSE: Follow-up technical meeting to CEAA process meeting (April 23) to review watercourse / waterbody crossings in relation to potential for HADD and related CEAA trigger.

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: 1. Process Issues Chris Strand of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) noted that they have had some further internal discussion regarding the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) screening aspects. He indicated that they are not comfortable trying to provide CEAA clearance for the portion of the project that will not be undergoing preliminary design. They are comfortable confirming that they do not see any serious / significant issues with respect to fish and fish habitat with this part of the project, however they would prefer to address the CEAA clearance as part of the preliminary design phase for each subsequent portion of the project.

DFO indicated that part of their concern relates to the time lag between the CEAA clearance and construction. They are specifically concerned that mitigation and design approaches may change in they future, and they do not want to ‘grandfather’ a clearance now and then not be able to incorporate enhanced/state-of-the-art mitigation and construction techniques in the future. Ecoplans and MTO assured DFO that this would not be the case. The design and supporting mitigation plans would be developed in support of the application for authorization or other permits during the design stage and using current state-of-the-art techniques. Specifically, Ecoplans and MTO indicated the mitigation commitments Hwy 404 Extension Follow-Up Technical Meeting April 27, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: developed as part of the current process would be worded in a manner that would ensure future improvements in mitigation and design techniques and standards would be incorporated. Furthermore, the mitigation commitments made at this stage are subject to specific detailing in the future as part of the detail design, so that, for example, the details of the commitment to a sediment and erosion control plan mitigation would be developed as part of the future detail design based on standards current at that time.

MTO and Ecoplans emphasized that they felt that there was benefit to DFO undertaking the screening under CEAA for all triggers on the entire Highway 12/48 project to reduce future uncertainty. It is MTO’s objective to obtain clearance under CEAA for the whole project, in order that the Preliminary Design projects for each subsequent portion can then focus on developing the details of the design and mitigation plans as part of the process to obtain the authorizations under the Fisheries Act.

MTO and Ecoplans also noted that while DFO’s CEAA review is typically expeditious as part of the Fisheries Act Authorization process, other federal issues can tend to bog down the CEAA process considerably. Ecoplans inquired if DFO could still identify ‘Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction (HADD) triggers’ and related projects scopes for the entire length of Highway 404, so federal comment could be requested. DFO reiterated their basic position with respect to conducting a CEAA screening for triggers on the portion of the project that was not scheduled for preliminary design.

As far as stream-lining the other federal comments regardless of when the CEAA review is undertaken DFO reiterated that they would scope their review to the individual watercourses where a HADD would require authorization under the Fisheries Act.

In response to MTO’s inquiry as to the specific scope at any particular watercourse trigger, DFO indicated the area of review would encompass the approaches and immediate drainage area potentially disturbed by the project, and / or where stormwater management facilities might be accommodated. They would request federal input specifically in relation to this defined scope of project (e.g. request a clear statement as to whether or not there will be any significant effects on their area(s) of jurisdiction as a result of the watercourse crossings, and if so can they be mitigated). If a federal authority provided comments that were broader than the DFO scope, the federal authority would be asked to provide rationale for how their comments related to DFO’s project as scoped. DFO emphasized that they would keep the other federal agencies focused on the project scope as defined. DFO DFO noted that they would review the CEAA aspects further and provide their comments in a letter. Ed DeBruyn of DFO will ultimately make the final decision.

Page 2 Hwy 404 Extension Follow-Up Technical Meeting April 27, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: 2. Technical Issues MTO indicated the objective of the meeting was to identify the DFO Fisheries Act Authorization triggers, i.e. the HADDs. The determination of what would constitute a HADD was discussed. DFO indicated that “pretty much everything is considered fish habitat”. The key issue as to whether there is a HADD is whether or not the potential impacts of the work / project can be mitigated.

DFO noted that MNR was still responsible for determining whether or not the project works would result in a HADD. However, it was agreed that preliminary HADD decisions would be made through this meeting forum, based on how the watercourse would be crossed and whether or not the impacts of the crossing could be mitigated.

3. Watercourse Definitions / Categories

The watercourse / waterbody crossings were divided generally into a number of categories. In many cases, the initial categorization is somewhat fluid in that depending on the crossing (culvert) design, a number of crossings may not be considered a HADD.

NOT FISH HABITAT - Waterbodies that do not appear to be fish habitat (isolated ponds with no watercourse connections, road drainage that did not connect to watercourse). Most of these waterbodies had not been carried forward to the second table, however, a number were discussed in going through the crossings sequentially on the plates. DFO noted that it was important particularly in some cases to document the rationale for why these crossings were not considered fish habitat. Note that mitigation to protect any downstream functions may still be relevant in some cases.

NO HADD WITH MITIGATION - (Fish habitat but easily mitigated) - Waterbodies that are not considered to directly support fish use or supported negligible direct productivity but are still considered fish habitat based on indirect habitat contributions. These crossings can be mitigated by maintaining flow conveyance and related basic functions, and in some cases providing for potential fish movement. In general, these watercourses are intermittent and construction can be undertaken when there is no flow or at least no direct fish use (i.e. no loss of a season’s productivity as a result of construction), and there should be no major interference with ‘natural functions’.

DFO noted it would be helpful to state the relative size of the upstream drainage area (i.e. less that 5 square kilometres) and nature of soils / geology, etc. (in relation to potential for groundwater / more perennial flow) in support of ‘no HADD / mitigatable-related’ decisions.

Bottom line in making HADD call is having good handle when fish may be using the channel (i.e. in relation to whether or not construction can occur

Page 3 Hwy 404 Extension Follow-Up Technical Meeting April 27, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: when fish not using channel so season’s productivity not lost)

NO HADD WITH BRIDGE - Waterbodies that provide direct fish habitat but the crossing can be mitigated through the use of a bridge (with the proviso that there were no additional construction requirements as ultimately detailed that would result in a HADD).

NO HADD WITH MITIGATION - ADJACENT - Reach not crossed / directly affected and potential indirect effects can be mitigated.

HADD WITH CULVERT / POTENTIAL TO DESIGN TO NO HADD - Waterbodies that provide direct fish habitat where the proposed crossing is a culvert; using a ‘conservative’ approach would be considered a HADD, however based on the ultimate design of the culvert, it may be possible to avoid the HADD. Specifically, the culvert design approaches being developed by the culvert working group will be reviewed and implemented Ecoplans and as appropriate to potentially avoid a HADD. In some cases, the importance URS of maintaining fish passage was specified. Mitigation in these cases includes reviewing opportunities to shorten the culvert and provide a median opening to reduce length of enclosure and encourage passage. Ultimately need to review in relation to culvert design and clearly identify where HADD cannot be mitigated.

HADD WITH RE-ALIGNMENT - Waterbodies where re-alignment of a reach of watercourse is required, resulting in a HADD. It was generally agreed that a properly designed channel that would maintain and enhance productivity of the existing reach would provide compensation for itself.

REQUIRE FURTHER REVIEW - Waterbodies where additional field review (NOW) is required to confirm whether or not there was a seasonal Ecoplans connection between an isolated or seasonal waterbody and a fishery, and therefore fish habitat. (Still likely no HADD with mitigation).

4. Compensation Options Compensation options were briefly discussed. There was general agreement to combine ‘bang for buck’ at one high potential site rather than creating small bits of compensation at each individual highway site.

MNR noted an opportunity of removing Pefferlaw dam (significant barrier to migratory populations), as well as two dams on Black River. DFO noted an opportunity to remove a concrete farm ford on MR5 (not crossed / adjacent reach), and either replacing this with a culvert or removing it altogether since the ford will be of no use after highway is built. MNR noted that, in general, there are lots of compensation opportunities available along the Maskinonge, in particular. (Note- such options subject to obtaining access to private property).

DFO noted that with respect to the process of developing compensation Ecoplans and

Page 4 Hwy 404 Extension Follow-Up Technical Meeting April 27, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: strategies, the consultant is to work with MNR. MNR

5. MNR Review of Previous Fishery Reports DFO asked if MNR had commented on the fish reports. Ecoplans noted they had at least commented on the Gartner Lee Limited work (see Project Description document appendix). MNR provided a number of helpful comments in relation to fish habitat throughout the meeting, based on their familiarity with the area watercourses.

MNR will go through their files in more detail to determine if they had any MNR other comments on the fish reports. DFO requested that MNR add a column DFO and to the table and provide any other comments they may have. Ecoplans

6. Other Issues MNR noted that they conducted additional wetland evaluations last fall. There is a new Maskinonge River Provincially Significant Wetland, which encompasses the Sod Swamp and Vachelle wetland, and wetland areas along the length of the river system. MNR also did some deer wintering area surveys last winter and identified some new wintering areas (e.g. within the Vachelle wetland).

MNR requested a digital copy of the alignment. Ecoplans will provide a Ecoplans digital copy and a set of plates to MNR.

DFO cautioned about specifying that the main Maskinonge crossings were absolutely not navigable, despite Coast Guard’s non-navigable classification, since other groups might still consider navigable (e.g. public, First Nations).

7. Summary of HADD Decisions

MA1 HADD - Culvert

MR14 HADD – Culvert(s) and re-alignment. Note- Recommended use of URS individual culverts with localized re-alignment through interchange rather than single long culvert. Review opportunities to re-align around interchange.

MR13 HADD - Re-alignment (MNR confirmed reach requiring re- URS/MRC alignment previously channelized by farmer.) Ecoplans noted interchange configuration may expand. Potential impacts require further review if interchange configuration changes. Agreed properly designed naturalized channel should provide built-in compensation.

MR15 No HADD – Adjacent

DFO noted that based on the above, there are three HADDs in the Preliminary Design section up to Woodbine.

Page 5 Hwy 404 Extension Follow-Up Technical Meeting April 27, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: MR12 No HADD with mitigation. Note: MNR observed pike spawning this spring in Maskinonge on downstream side of Ravenshoe Road. Confirm culvert or review opportunity of re-aligning channel along east side of URS ROW.

MR11 HADD with realignment and removal of potential pike spawning habitat. MNR confirmed pike spawning potential throughout this area. Sedge and cattail marsh (See wetland evaluation). URS to provide rational URS as to why road alignment cannot be shifted further to west to avoid this area.

MR7 to MR10. No HADD with mitigation. MNR confirmed that although all four are short dredged channels constructed to drain marsh, pike can probably access from river seasonally. Agreed that it may not be URS w.r.t. appropriate to provide culverts at all four channels, since at least MR7 and whether are MR8 end at the edge of the right of way. However, if culverts are not providing provided and ends of channel are cut off, this would be considered a culverts at all HADD. MNR confirmed that although these are dug channels, pike likely 4 channels. access these channels from the river seasonally. Review in context of overall compensation with MR11.

MR6 No HADD with Bridge. Note: caution is advised with respect to URS to navigability even though DFO signed off (i.e. if any potential for public of confirm pier First Nations to use). locations not in water/bankfull channel MR5 No HADD with Mitigation – Adjacent

MR6 No HADD with Bridge (See above) URS to confirm no piers in water/bankfull channel (agreed MR17, MR1, 2, 3, RD 8, MR18, BR3 not fish habitat)

SS1 No HADD with mitigation

BR4 No HADD with mitigation

BR2 Requires further review - Review if there is a seasonal connection Ecoplans from quarry pond to Black River tributary to determine whether or not some compensation is required for the loss of the pond.

BR1 No HADD with bridge

Page 6 Hwy 404 Extension Follow-Up Technical Meeting April 27, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: LS14 may be No HADD with mitigation, however DFO and MNR to DFO and review further in relation to active enforcement file (at LS 13). MNR

LS13 HADD - Culvert (part of DFO / MNR enforcement file). DFO / MNR DFO and to review Highway 404 crossing in relation to landowners commitment to MNR re-instate channel. Historically pike moved as far upstream as Park Road. Note: is on-line pond downstream at Highway 48 downstream of 404 alignment that is barrier to fish movement upstream from lake (opportunity for removal). (NOTE CONFIRM WITH MNR WHETHER POND IS HERE OR ON LS9)

LS12 ADD back to table? No HADD with mitigation

LS9 HADD – Culvert with fish passage concern. Review opportunity to break culvert in median. MNR noted pike can get as far upstream as Highway 48.

MC4 HADD- Culvert with fish passage concern. Review opportunity to break culvert in median. Pike can go at least as far upstream as Hwy 48

MC1 & MC2 No HADD / not fish habitat. Could delete from table but keep rationale as to why not habitat i.e. Weirs Road barrier / no culvert.

LS8 No HADD with mitigation. Note downstream pike spawning habitat.

LS7 No HADD with mitigation. Note downstream pike spawning habitat.

LS6 No HADD with mitigation. Note downstream pike spawning habitat. Provide for potential future passage?

PB3 No HADD with bridge URS to confirm no piers in water/bankfull channel

PB2 HADD presuming have to re-align near outfall to PB3. Review URS opportunity to encompass outfall zone under Pefferlaw Brook structure to avoid need to re-align.

LS5 HADD – Culvert with passage requirement

LS3 Requires further review. May be no HADD with mitigation; re-assess Ecoplans flow connection with LS5.

LS2 Requires further review. May be No HADD with mitigation; re-assess Ecoplans seasonal flow connection to LS5.

LS1 Not fish habitat (isolated pond)

Page 7 Hwy 404 Extension Follow-Up Technical Meeting April 27, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY:

LS17 May be HADD with very localized re-alignment if angled bend encroaches into ROW (no additional compensation other than re-alignment of dredged channel).

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1 No HADD with mitigation (DFO confirmed these channels were basically flow equalizers and did not flow anywhere).

GH5 & GH2 No HADD with mitigation (may not be fish habitat)

Minutes Prepared by:

Ecoplans Limited

Anne MacMillan – Senior Aquatic Biologist cc: Attendees John Klowak – MTO Steve Jacobs – URS Mike Bricks – Ecoplans Margaret Bakelaar – CEA Agency Edwin DeBruyn - DFO

Page 8 2655 North Sheridan Way Mississauga, Ontario, L5K 2P8 Tel: (905) 823-4988 Fax: (905) 823-2669

NOTES OF TELECONFERNCE

PROJECT: Highway 404 Extension

FILE NO.: 04-2814 DATE: May 6, 2004 TIME: 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm. PLACE: Teleconference PRESENT: Barry Putt Transport Canada – NWPA Jennifer Hughes Transport Canada Monique Mousseau Transport Canada Ed DeBruyn Department of Fisheries and Oceans Gareth Goodchild Department of Fisheries and Oceans Ken Chang-Kue Department of Fisheries and Oceans Margaret Bakelaar Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Mike Bricks Ecoplans PURPOSE: Meeting to bring Transport Canada up to speed on the Highway 404 project and agree on the next steps.

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: 1. Project Background and History Both Margaret Bakelaar and Mike Bricks provided an overview of the project background and previous discussions. The following summarize this overview. Certain information not discussed on the teleconference has been added to these notes to provide a more complete overview of the project background and previous discussions (i.e., previous circulation and comments on Project Description Report, scope and role of URS/Ecoplans).

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) carried out a provincial route planning and environmental assessment study for the extension of Highway 404 between 1993 and 1997. A subsequent Route Planning Study and Environmental Assessment Report was prepared and submitted for formal review and approval to the Ministry of the Environment in 1997. Following a formal public and agency review process, MTO received approval from the Ontario Minister of the Environment subject to a number of conditions on August 28, 2002 for 45 kilometres of new four-lane freeway from Davis Drive in Newmarket to Highway 48 east of Pefferlaw, as well as the twinning from two to four lanes of nine kilometres of the existing Highway 48 to Highway 12 / 48.

MTO prepared a Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) Project Description Report and circulated this report to the CEA Agency and other Hwy 404 Extension Potential NWPA Triggers May 6, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: potentially interested federal authorities in January 2003. A meeting between federal authorities including Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA), Environment Canada (EC), Health Canada (HC), and MTO was held in April 2003 to introduce the project, discuss possible triggers and discuss possible approaches. The CEA Agency provided a follow-up letter and comments from the federal agencies in June 2003, requesting more detailed information with respect to potential Fisheries Act authorizations.

It was noted that the Province is under some pressure from local municipalities to begin construction of Highway 404 to Ravenshoe Road to address local development issues. Therefore, advanced preliminary design is proposed to be completed for Green Lane / Herald Road to Mount Albert Road (approximately 2km). Preliminary design will also be completed for Mount Albert Road to Woodbine Avenue. Each section will be documented in a separate Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR) and Design and Construction Report (DCR) in accordance with the MTO Class EA process.

There are no known federal triggers in the stretch of Highway 404 undergoing advanced preliminary design from Green Lane / Herald Road to Mount Albert Road. M. Bricks suggested that since there are no known federal approvals required for the construction from Green Lane to Mount Albert Road, it can also be concluded that CEAA may not be triggered. The rationale for this appears consistent with CEA Agency comments in their letter dated June 9, 2003. As noted at the April 23, 2004 meeting, this would have to be confirmed once all triggers were identified and the scope of project was established.

2. Discussion of NWPA Triggers

During the preparation of the Ontario Environmental Assessment the Canadian Coast Guard determined that the Black River and the Pefferlaw Brook are the only navigable waterways affected by the undertaking.

Page 2 Hwy 404 Extension Potential NWPA Triggers May 6, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: Therefore, these crossings will require authorizations from TC under the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). The following summarize the minimum clearance requirements identified by the Canadian Coast Guard during the preparation of the Ontario Environmental Assessment:

Black River (Station 129+100) Vertical Clearance: 2 m above normal high watermark Horizontal Clearance: 6 m – centred on the deep-water portion of the river bed

Pefferlaw Brook (Station 141+400) Vertical Clearance: 3.66 to 4.57 m above normal summer high watermark Horizontal Clearance: 15 m – centred on the deep-water portion of the water course

Barry Putt confirmed that these were the only two water crossings that would require approval under the NWPA. He noted some information needs that would be required to formally process the NWPA permit including: drawings of the crossings (GA), height of high water mark, if any habitat compensation is being considered. Barry provided an overview of the process (i.e., filing drawings and newspaper advertisements) to obtain a permit under the NWPA and noted that it often takes approximately 6 months to process an application. Barry indicated that a NWPA permit is normally valid for 3 from the date of issue. If construction is not complete within that time period, the proponent would have to apply for an extension. It was noted that the intent of this assignment is to obtain a CEAA decision; specific permits will be obtained in advance of construction.

There was some discussion on the timing of the construction. It was noted that actual construction has note been scheduled. The actual implementation is dependent on political will and adequate funding. It was noted that there is a strong desire of the local municipalities to begin construction up to Keswick (Woodbine Avenue) in the short term. It is difficult to provide an accurate prediction as to when construction on all sections would commence. Some concern was noted with regards to making decisions for a project where certain components may not be built in the immediate time horizon. Mike Bricks noted that it was MTO’s intent to obtain a CEAA decision early in the process since an alignment has already been designated under the Ontario Process. Specific permits will be obtained in advance of construction.

3. Role of Transport Canada in Scoping

Transport Canada stated that they would like to be involved in the scoping decisions even though they will not be responsible for CEAA requirements under the NWPA until October 1, 2004. Transport Canada asked to be copied any material being sent to Barry.

Page 3 Hwy 404 Extension Potential NWPA Triggers May 6, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: 4. Future Action

Federal Authority Meeting: CEA Agency will hold a meeting of interested federal authorities to discuss CEA Agency scope of project, roles and responsibilities, and EA process. This meeting and Other FAs will be held late May/early June.

Minutes Prepared by:

Ecoplans Limited

Mike Bricks – Senior Environmental Planner cc: Attendees J. Klowak – MTO P. Reynolds – MTO S. Jacobs – URS

Page 4 72 Victoria Street South, Suite 100 Kitchener, Ontario L5K 2P8 Tel: (519) 741-8850 Fax: (519) 741-8884

NOTES OF MEETING

PROJECT: Highway 404 Extension

FILE NO.: 04-2814

DATE: May 21, 2004 TIME: 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

PLACE: MNR Offices – Aurora

PRESENT: Stefan Romberg MNR Emma Followes MNR Steve Varga MNR (brief update on wetland evaluations) Geoff Gartshore Ecoplans Limited Erin Blenkhorn Ecoplans Limited

PURPOSE: Discuss the Highway 404 Project with a focus on wildlife and wetland resources

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY:

1. Scope of Project

Ecoplans Limited provided an overview of the Highway 404 Extension project. The Highway 404 extension from Green Lane (current terminus) to Highway 12 received approval under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act in August 2002 subject to a number of conditions

The Project Team is undertaking additional engineering and environmental work along the full length of the Highway 404 Extension to address some of the MOE Conditions of Approval as well as federal requirements. As part of this assignment, MTO wishes to obtain a decision under the Canadian environmental Assessment Act (CEAA).

In addition, a TESR and preliminary design will be prepared for the south portion of the approved route extending from Green Lane north to Woodbine Avenue. Ecoplans Limited is currently collecting background natural environment information for the project area. Field work has also commenced with the onset of roadside amphibian calling surveys (April and May), roadside playing of Red-shouldered hawk tapes (May 2004), aquatic habitat surveys (April 2004) and an aerial reconnaissance of the

entire route on May 12, 2004. Hwy 404 Extension MNR Aurora Technical Meeting May 21, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY:

MNR NRVIS data layers have been received and plotted on aerial mosaic and OBM mapping. These maps, as well as oblique aerial photos taken during the May 12, 2004 aerial survey, were reviewed during the meeting.

2. Natural Heritage Information

Birds

MNR noted that there is a small Great Blue Heron heronry in the Maskinonge wetland north of Ravenshoe Road and west of Warden Avenue. Gartner Lee Limited has been monitoring the landfill since 1993/94. More information on the heronry and other features may be found in their monitoring reports. A waste transfer station continues to operate but the landfill is closed. Ecoplans Limited confirmed the presence of the heronry during 2004 field reconnaissance work.

Turkey Vultures roost across from the landfill in the spring, on the east side of Warden Avenue. MNR have noted 50-60 Vultures roosting in the area during the spring.

There is a heronry and ospreys nesting in Morning Glory Swamp, north of Highway 48. The heronry has been there for many years. MNR noted that Trumpeter Swans may be nesting along the north shoreline of the wetland, based on landowner input.

Ospreys nest on platforms within the Holland Marsh (documented by MNR in 2004). Ecoplans Limited noted Osprey nesting on hydro towers near Durham Road and Highway 48 in April 2004.

MNR noted that Theo Hoffman of the Breeding Bird Atlas has lots of Ecoplans information on breeding birds within York Region. Mr. Hoffman may be able to offer assistance with Red-Shouldered Hawk data.

Wetlands

Ecoplans indicated that they received early 2004 NRVIS GIS layers including wetland boundaries for the study area. MNR noted that there are a number of wetlands that have recently been re-evaluated. These include the Maskinonge River and the Vachelle Wetland Complexes. MNR confirmed that the new wetland boundaries for these complexes are included in the NRVIS mapping Ecoplans has obtained.

The new wetland evaluations have not yet been released to municipalities. The updated Maskinonge and Vachelle wetland evaluations will be available in PDF format once clearance is provided (hopefully in the near future). The updated evaluations include a detailed natural resource report

Page 2 Hwy 404 Extension MNR Aurora Technical Meeting May 21, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: as well as wetland mapping and community codes. All new wetland evaluations will also follow a revised presentation format. Current mapping for the new evaluated wetlands is in a “quick & dirty” digital format. Presentation format will come later. MNR indicated they will forward the MNR PDF wetland reports and mapping to Ecoplans Limited as soon as available.

Port Bolster, Willow Swamp, Gibson Hill/Cedar Valley wetlands will be re- evaluated shortly (some this upcoming summer). Older wetland records including the Zepher Swamp and Morning Glory Wetland Complexes will not be put into the new presentation format until they are re-evaluated.

Deer Wintering Areas

MNR has completed aerial winter deer survey work throughout most of the study setting in 2001. Winter concentration areas were identified and mapped incorporating the aerial transect data (tracks, deer numbers, etc.). This work was undertaken by John Almond (Fish and Wildlife Technical Specialist-MNR). The mapping has been provided to Ecoplans Limited as part of the NRVIS data. MNR staff also noted that a deer roadkill database was also compiled as part of the aerial review and is in a spreadsheet format. Further details of the survey work, methods, and findings can be obtained from John Almond (Ecoplans Limited to follow up).

MNR noted that winter deer survey work has not yet covered the northern Ecoplans Brock district, which includes the northeast end of the project study area. MNR hopes to complete the additional winter survey work in the winter of 2005, if funds permit. Ecoplans indicated we will assume this work will be completed by MNR. MNR indicated they will keep Ecoplans Limited posted on the status of the 2005 winter work. MNR inquired if the Project MNR Team might be in a position to do the winter work if MNR funding was not available. Ecoplans Limited responded that this might be possible. It was agreed that if additional flights are required, it would only be for the missing northeast section associated with the Gibson Hill swamp, not the entire northern Brock District.

Rare Species

MNR noted that it would be advantageous to contact Paul Harpley, President of the South Lake Simcoe Naturalists, for information on Red- Shouldered Hawks as well as Theo Hoffman for breeding bird records. Bird Studies Canada has information on Red-Shouldered Hawk routes. Ecoplans will follow up on these contacts.

MNR suggested that Ecoplans contact the Natural Heritage Information Ecoplans Centre (NHIC) for potential rare species records that are backlogged, and therefore would not appear on the website. The contact at NHIC is Pete

Page 3 Hwy 404 Extension MNR Aurora Technical Meeting May 21, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: Sorrill. Ecoplans

MNR also noted that there are locally rare species documented within the wetland evaluations for wetlands in the study area.

Functional Landscape Assessment (FLA)

The FLA was requested by MNR as a condition of approval of the provincial EA. Ecoplans Limited indicated the approach for the FLA was to collect and layer all relevant wildlife information, including the winter deer work and roadkill database, as well as other background information and field observations. This would be supplemented by further discussions with MNR (John Almond). Existing environmental wildlife highway design work being undertaken by Ecoplans Limited as part of the MTO Environmental Standards Project would be utilized in the wildlife crossing mitigation and design review component of the FLA.

It was agreed that the winter flights requested by MNR as part of the Conditions of Approval were no longer required as this work has been completed by MNR in 2001 for the majority of the study setting (see comments above regarding the Gibson Swamp area that was not assessed by MNR during the winter 2001 aerial work).

MNR agreed with this approach and offered to continue to provide input and advice as needed during the study.

3. Documentation

MNR identified some Areas of Concern during the provincial EA review. Documentation will focus on these Areas, addressing features, functions, dependences, impacts, mitigation and residual effects, building on the work completed in the provincial EA. Cumulative effects will be addressed following federal requirements, and will follow a landscape or

subwatershed scale. MNR noted that relevant subwatershed studies could be accessed on the Internet. The Black River Subwatershed study was completed on desktop with some field verification. MNR also noted that the Maskinonge and the East Holland Subwatershed Studies could be accessed online. Ecoplans Limited will follow up in this regard. Ecoplans

The meeting was concluded at 12 noon. Ecoplans Limited subsequently obtained copies of some of the existing wetland evaluations from MNR (note – awaiting receipt of updated PDF wetland evaluations) as well as the Town of Georgina Landfill Monitoring Report (2001).

Page 4 Hwy 404 Extension MNR Aurora Technical Meeting May 21, 2004

Minutes Prepared by:

Ecoplans Limited

Erin Blenkhorn- Junior Biologist

cc: Attendees Geoff Gartshore- Ecoplans Mike Bricks - Ecoplans Stefan Romberg- MNR Emma Followes-MNR

Page 5 2655 North Sheridan Way Mississauga, Ontario, L5K 2P8 Tel: (905) 823-4988 Fax: (905) 823-2669

DRAFT NOTES OF MEETING

PROJECTS: Highway 404 Extension, Bradford Bypass

FILE NO.: 04-2814, 04-2837

DATE: November 15, 2004 TIME: 2:30 pm – 5:00 pm.

PLACE: Transport Canada’s Offices, 4900 Yonge Street, Canadian Room, 4th Floor

PRESENT: Jennifer Hughes TC Melanie Boirin DFO Gareth Goodchild DFO Chris Strand DFO Jane Tymoshuck DFO Bill Aird CTA – via Teleconference Diane McClymont-Peace HC – via Teleconference Mike Shaw EC – via Teleconference Margaret Bakelaar CEA Agency John Klowak MTO Patrick Reynolds MTO Darlene Proudfoot MTO Terry Hilditch MTO Diane Damman D.C. Damman and Associates Martin Scott McCormick Rankin Steve Jacobs URS Tim Sorochinsky URS Mike Bricks Ecoplans Anne MacMillan Ecoplans Katie Bright Ecoplans

PURPOSE: Meeting to discuss CEAA requirements and coordination for Highway 404 and Introduction to Bradford Bypass Hwy 404 Extension and Bradford Bypass CEAA Requirements and Coordination November 15, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: Highway 404 Extension

1. Provincial Growth Plan The provincial government has prepared a Draft Growth Plan, which outlines how growth will occur within the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Draft Growth Plan indicates that the extension of Highway 404 is a long- term initiative. The Draft Growth Plan has undergone public consultation. The final plan is anticipated by the end of 2004. MTO has delayed formal public consultation on both Highway 404 and Bradford Bypass until the Growth Plan has been finalized.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has recently unveiled its Draft Greenbelt Plan. The Greenbelt Plan identifies a broad band of permanently protected countryside. The Draft Greenbelt Plan also identifies areas of growth within the Highway 404 Extension study area including Newmarket, Sharon, Queensville and Holland Landing. All of Georgina is within the greenbelt. Within Georgina it is anticipated that development will be focused in the existing urban boundaries of Keswick, Sutton and Pefferlaw.

Although MTO has delayed formal public consultation, engineering and environmental planning has continued to allow for as much continued progress as possible under the current public consultation hiatus.

It was noted that, because the official trigger of CEAA would require a public registry posting, MTO would like to delay official CEAA triggering until the provincial government has finalized the Growth Plan, anticipated by the end of 2004. 2. Summary of Previous Discussions An overview of previous discussions noted that the project was initiated and introduced to the federal agencies during a meeting on April 23, 2004. Following the project initiation meeting the DFO, MNR, Ecoplans and MTO held a technical meeting to further discuss detailed information on water crossing and to determine the specific potential triggers (HADD) under the Fisheries Act.

A conference call with DFO, TC, CEAA and Ecoplans was held in May 2004 to update TC on the project and to discuss Navigable Waters Protection Act approvals.

Discussions have been ongoing between CN Rail and URS. Based on these discussions, the Project Team does not anticipate a dispute between MTO and CN Rail regarding the details of the crossing or the need for a CTA Board Order. Should a formal agreement be reached, CTA will not be an RA under CEAA. Bill Aird clarified that CEAA would not be triggered if MTO applied to the CTA for a cost apportionment order. Only a CTA Board Order for construction would trigger CEAA.

Page 2 Hwy 404 Extension and Bradford Bypass CEAA Requirements and Coordination November 15, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY:

Based on these previous discussions, MTO has been able to better identify potential CEAA triggers. A map outlining the potential triggers in the 3 Priority Sections was distributed (attached to these minutes). The sections are prioritized based on the anticipated order in which these sections will advance to preliminary and detail design.

Priority Section I (Green Lane to Mount Albert Road) no CEAA triggers.

Priority Section II (Mount Albert Road to Woodbine Avenue) includes 3 potential HADDs.

Priority Section III (Woodbine Avenue to Highway 12/48) includes 12 potential HADDs and 2 NWPA permits. In addition a crossing of the CN Rail Bala Subdivision is located in this section.

Although potential HADDs have been identified it is possible that the number of actual HADDs could be reduced through the design process. 3. Update on Federal Agencies’ Deliberations Regarding CEAA Requirements for Highway 404 The federal agencies held a meeting on June 3, 2004 to begin discussing the best approach for this project. During that meeting it was determined that the Responsible Authorities (RAs) and Expert Federal Authorities (FAs) will be as follows: Responsible Authorities: 1. Department of Fisheries and Oceans - Fisheries 2. Transport Canada - NWPA 3. Canadian Transportation Agency (likely) Expert Federal Authorities: 1. Environment Canada 2. Health Canada

CTA will only become an RA if they are formally triggered by the request for a Board Order for construction. A cost apportionment application would not trigger CEAA. The implications of this were discussed. It was concluded that if CTA had a trigger at some point in the future, they would have to complete a screening under CEAA. The scope of project and scope of assessment would be determined at that point in the future based on existing conditions at that time. It was noted that this would be the same for any other future triggers not identified at this time (i.e. if MTO applied for federal funding at some point in the future or if a change was made that resulted in an additional HADD additional review under CEAA would be required).

The CEA Agency will be the Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator (FEAC) for the Highway 404 Extension project.

The responsibility of determining the scope of the Environmental Assessment rests with the RAs. The RAs have the option to “scope

Page 3 Hwy 404 Extension and Bradford Bypass CEAA Requirements and Coordination November 15, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: broadly” which would be the entire undertaking and linked projects or to “scope narrowly”. That is, scope narrowly to their regulatory trigger. Both DFO and TC have noted that they tend to scope to their regulatory trigger. To allow the scoping exercise to move forward the federal agencies require MTO to reconfirm the extent of the 404 Extension for which it wishes to address CEAA review requirements. MTO has the option of requesting the federal agencies to undergo a CEAA review for both Priority Section II and Priority Section III, or to elect to only cover one of the sections Should the CEAA Screening only occur for Priority Section II, DFO would be the only RA. However, cumulative effects analysis may have to be undertaken beyond the priority section under study. 4. MTO Understanding of Hwy 404 CEAA Requirements

MTO noted that the following was their understanding of the CEAA requirements for the Highway 404 Extension.

Priority Section I (Green Lane to Mount Albert Road) does not require a CEAA Screening as there are no anticipated CEAA triggers.

Priority Section II (Mount Albert Road to Woodbine Avenue) will require a CEAA Screening due to CEAA triggers including 3 potential HADDs.

Priority Section III (Woodbine Avenue to Highway 12/48) will require a CEAA Screening due to CEAA triggers including 12 potential HADDs and 2 NWPA permits. A CTA Board Order for construction would also be a trigger if an agreement between MTO and CN Rail is not executed.

MTO noted that Section II is a priority and would not want to have Section III delay approval of Section II. MTO would like to work with the Federal Authorities when developing the scoping document to address this issue.

An anticipated schedule was distributed (attached to these minutes) by MTO and discussed. 5. Future Action Prior to Release of Final Growth Plan and Triggering of CEAA The following steps were agreed to:

1. The MTO will send a letter to CEA Agency to reconfirm the extent MTO of the 404 Extension for which it wishes to address CEAA review requirements;

2. CEA Agency will arrange for the RAs to draft a scoping document Federal based on the clarification provided by MTO; and Agencies

3. MTO will be given the opportunity to comment on the scoping document.

4. Once the scoping document is finalized, the CEAA Screening Federal commencement will be posted on the Canadian Environmental Agencies

Page 4 Hwy 404 Extension and Bradford Bypass CEAA Requirements and Coordination November 15, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: Assessment Registry.

It is hoped that the formal federal assessment can commence in late January or early February.

The Highway 69 scoping document may be used by the RAs as a general guideline for scoping by regulatory triggers. However, it was agreed that MTO MTO Central Region should review that draft and advise if it had any concerns with respect to its applicability to the Hwy 404 Extension project.

It was agreed that federal participants when preparing the scoping document should use copies of the CEAA Project Description draft, prepared by MTO and forwarded to the CEA Agency in December 2002, as a reference. This draft includes tables identifying the comments made by CEA Agency federal agencies and other stakeholders during the formal review of the Mike Bricks Provincial EA. The CEA Agency agreed to determine how many copies, additional to those previously provided will be needed and advise Mike Bricks.

For the Bradford Bypass, the federal agency meeting (RAs & FAs) will be arranged by the CEA Agency after the release of the final Growth Plan, expected by the end of 2004. Bradford Bypass Introduction

1. Introduction of Project Team

For the Bradford Bypass project, McCormick Rankin is the Prime Consultant and Ecoplans is a major Subconsultant.

The Highway 404 Extension project includes the engineering and environmental work for the Bradford Bypass interchange at the Highway 404 Extension. However, this freeway-to-freeway interchange will be part of the Bradford Bypass project, as opposed to the Highway 404 Extension assignment.

As with the Highway 404 Extension, Mike Bricks (Ecoplans) will be the primary contact for CEAA and the RAs for this project. 2. Project Background, History and Issues

The Bradford Bypass received approval under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act in August 2002. Extensive public consultation was incorporated in the selection of the approved corridor, route and interchanges. An extensive route planning exercise that examined corridors from Highway 89 southerly to Highway 407 was undertaken as part of the Ontario Environmental Assessment.

The Bradford Bypass is 16 km of new freeway linking the Highway 404 Extension to existing Highway 400. It includes crossings of the east and west branches of the Holland River and a rail corridor. This rail corridor

Page 5 Hwy 404 Extension and Bradford Bypass CEAA Requirements and Coordination November 15, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: was abandoned by CN Rail and is currently owned by Allandale Community Development Corporation. Discussions are currently ongoing with the Province to extend GO Transit service to Barrie along this rail corridor. 3. Review of Additional Information Requested in June 2003 In June 2003, the CEA Agency requested that MTO provide additional information of potential CEAA triggers. A meeting was held in July 2004 with DFO, MNR, Ecoplans and MTO to review water crossing details and to determine the location of potential HADDs. 4. Discussion of Federal Triggers

Similar to the Highway 404 Extension project, there are 3 likely RAs due to one rail crossing (CTA), 8 potential HADDs (DFO) and 2 NWPA permits (TC).

CEA Agency will review the comments received from the distribution of the project description report in January 2003 to determine which agencies CEA Agency had an interest in providing expert advice. Mike Bricks will be contacted to provide any additional information if required. It was noted that CEA Agency will only be the FEAC for this project if there is a Provincial EA requirement or if the RAs request them to act in this capacity.

MTO noted that additional archaeological investigations were undertaken at a site on the east side of the east branch of the Holland River, south of the Silver Lakes Golf Club. Some concern was raised during the Ontario Environmental Assessment study that this could be the location of the Lower Landing Site (European Trading Post and Fort). The additional field work (Stage 3 archaeological dig) has concluded that this is not the Lower Landing Site, but is a camp site. Appropriate mitigation will be developed in consultation with the Ontario Ministry of Culture. Parks Canada may be interested in this issue given their mandate on heritage. 5. Preliminary Discussion on Approach Options for Scope of Project and Scope of Assessment

Discussion regarding scope of project and scope of assessment will be delayed until after the Growth Plan has been finalized. It is anticipated that a similar approach used for the Highway 404 Extension will be used for this assignment.

The following questions were asked:

Is the freeway-to-freeway interchange with the Highway 404 Extension part of the Bradford Bypass assignment or part of the Highway 404 Extension assignment? It was noted that the engineering and environmental work for the Bradford Bypass interchange at the Highway 404 Extension is part of the Highway 404 Extension assignment. However, this interchange will be part of the Bradford Bypass assignment, as opposed to the Highway 404 Extension

Page 6 Hwy 404 Extension and Bradford Bypass CEAA Requirements and Coordination November 15, 2004

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: assignment. Therefore, from a CEAA perspective, it makes more sense to deal with the interchange as part of the Bradford Bypass project.

Are the Highway 404 Extension and Bradford Bypass two separate projects? Yes.

Is there an Ontario Environmental Assessment being undertaken as part of the Bradford Bypass? An Individual Environmental Assessment has already been completed and approved in August 2002. In the future a Class EA will be undertaken to document preliminary design.

Heath Canada inquired about the nature of the agricultural uses impacted in the Holland Marsh area? The agricultural land is primarily used for sod operations and crops such as corn and soy beans. It is not the vegetable and speciality crop operations that are located adjacent to Highway 400 north of Highway 9.

Were some of Environmental Canada’s issues raised during the review of Ontario Environmental Assessment either not accurately summarized or Ecoplans adequately addressed? Ecoplans will review the previous correspondence. It is anticipated that these issues will be discussed during the scoping exercise for this assignment.

6. Other Issues

No additional issues were addressed.

Minutes Prepared by:

Ecoplans Limited

Mike Bricks cc: Attendees

Page 7 9LFWRULD6WUHHW6RXWK6XLWH .LWFKHQHU2QWDULR/.3 7HO )D[

127(62)0((7,1* 352-(&7 +LJKZD$[WHQVLRQ ),/(12 '$7( )HEUXDU\ 7,0( DP±SP 0LQXWHV,VVXHG0DUFK 3/$&( 0152IILFHV±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x 7KH5RXWH3ODQQLQJ6WXG\($ZDVXQGHUWDNHQEHWZHHQDQG DQG LGHQWLILHG D SUHIHUUHG DOLJQPHQW IRU WKH H[WHQVLRQ RI +LJKZD\IURP'DYLV'ULYHQRUWKWR+LJKZD\ x 7KH5RXWH3ODQQLQJ6WXG\DQG(QYLURQPHQWDO$VVHVVPHQW5HSRUW ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH 2QWDULR 0LQLVWU\ RI (QYLURQPHQW LQ 'HFHPEHU DQG DSSURYHG LQ $XJXVW ZLWK FRQGLWLRQV UHJDUGLQJPLWLJDWLRQUHILQHPHQWVDQGDOOIXWXUHZRUNWREHVXEMHFW WRWKH&ODVV($SURFHVV +Z\([WHQVLRQ 015$XURUD)HE7HFKQLFDO0HHWLQJ 0DUFK ,7(0 352&((',1*6 $&7,21%< x ,Q 0DUFK 072 UHWDLQHG 856 DQG (FRSODQV /LPLWHG WR XQGHUWDNH IXUWKHU HQJLQHHULQJ DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO ZRUN RQ WKH 2($$ DSSURYHG DOLJQPHQW $OWKRXJK WKH 2($$ DOLJQPHQW H[WHQGHGIURP'DYLV'ULYHLQ1HZPDUNHWWR+LJKZD\WKH 'DYLV'ULYHWR*UHHQ/DQHVHFWLRQKDVDOUHDG\EHHQFRQVWUXFWHG x 7KHSUHVHQW VWXG\ LQYROYHV WZRSDUWV WKH ILUVWEHLQJSUHOLPLQDU\ GHVLJQ IRU WKH VRXWKHUQ VHFWLRQ IURP *UHHQ /DQH WR *OHQZRRGV 5RDGWKHVHFRQGLQYROYHVREWDLQLQJ&($$GHFLVLRQIRUWKHHQWLUH DOLJQPHQW IURP*UHHQ/DQHWR+LJKZD\ x ,QLWLDO ILVKHULHV DQG WHUUHVWULDO PHHWLQJV ZLWK DJHQFLHV KDYH EHHQ KHOGLQ$SULODQG0D\UHVSHFWLYHO\ x 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKH SUHVHQW PHHWLQJ LV WR UHYLHZ WKH WHUUHVWULDO ELRORJ\ ZRUN WKDW KDVEHHQ FRPSOHWHG WR GDWH DQG WR UHYLHZ WKH )XQFWLRQDO /DQGVFDSH $VVHVVPHQW DQG DVVRFLDWHG PLWLJDWLRQ VWUDWHJ\ WK x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x 015159,6GDWD ZHWODQGV$16,V(6$GHHU\DUGVHWF x 072DQG

+HDWKHU3DWWHUVRQ FF $WWHQGHHV

3DJH 9LFWRULD6WUHHW6RXWK6XLWH .LWFKHQHU2QWDULR/.3 7HO )D[

127(62)0((7,1* 352-(&7 +LJKZD\([WHQVLRQ ),/(12 '$7( 0DUFK 7,0( DP±SP 3/$&( 0152IILFHV±$XURUD 35(6(17 3HWHU:DULQJ 015$XURUD (PPD)ROORZHV 015$XURUD 7HUUL)DQF\ 015$XURUD -DVRQ%RUZLFN 015$XURUD -RKQ$OPRQG 015$XURUD 3DW5H\QROGV 072'RZQVYLHZ *HRII*DUWVKRUH (FRSODQV/LPLWHG $QQH0DF0LOODQ (FRSODQV/LPLWHG 385326( 'LVFXVVWKH+LJKZD\3URMHFWZLWKDIRFXVRQWKH3UHOLPLQDU\'HVLJQ *UHHQ ODQHWR*OHQZRRG$YH DQG7HUUHVWULDO0LWLJDWLRQ,VVXHV ,7(0 352&((',1*6 $&7,21%< 3URMHFW2YHULYHZ )ROORZLQJ LQWURGXFWLRQV 0LNH %ULFNV SURYLGHG WKH IROORZLQJ SURMHFW RYHUYLHZ 7KH 0LQLVWU\ RI 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 072 FDUULHG RXW D SURYLQFLDO URXWH SODQQLQJDQGHQYLURQPHQWDODVVHVVPHQWVWXG\EHWZHHQDQGIRU WKHH[WHQVLRQRI+LJKZD\$5RXWH3ODQQLQJ6WXG\DQG(QYLURQPHQWDO $VVHVVPHQW5HSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGDQGVXEPLWWHGWRWKH2QWDULR0LQLVWU\RI WKH(QYLURQPHQWLQIRUIRUPDOUHYLHZDQGDSSURYDO )ROORZLQJ D IRUPDO SXEOLF DQG DJHQF\ UHYLHZ SURFHVV 072 UHFHLYHG DSSURYDO IURP WKH 2QWDULR 0LQLVWHU RI WKH (QYLURQPHQW VXEMHFW WR D QXPEHURIFRQGLWLRQV RQ$XJXVW7KHDSSURYDOZDVIRUNPRI QHZIRXUODQHIUHHZD\IURP'DYLV'ULYHLQ1HZPDUNHWWR+LJKZD\HDVW RI3HIIHUODZDVZHOODVWKHWZLQQLQJIURPWZRWRIRXUODQHVRIQLQHNPRI WKHH[LVWLQJ+LJKZD\WR+LJKZD\

+Z\([WHQVLRQ 015$XURUD7HFKQLFDO0HHWLQJ 0DUFK ,7(0 352&((',1*6 $&7,21%< ,Q 0DUFK 072 UHWDLQHG 856 DQG (FRSODQV /LPLWHG WR XQGHUWDNH IXUWKHU HQJLQHHULQJ DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO ZRUN RQ WKH 2($$ DSSURYHG DOLJQPHQW $OWKRXJK WKH 2($$ DOLJQPHQW H[WHQGHGIURP 'DYLV 'ULYH LQ 1HZPDUNHWWR+LJKZD\WKH'DYLV'ULYHWR*UHHQ/DQHVHFWLRQKDV DOUHDG\EHHQFRQVWUXFWHG7KHRYHUDOOVFRSHRIZRUNIRUWKLVDVVLJQPHQWLV WR REWDLQ D &($$ 'HFLVLRQ IRU WKH +LJKZD\ ([WHQVLRQ IURP *UHHQ /DQH WR +LJKZD\ DQG WR FRPSOHWH 3UHOLPLQDU\ 'HVLJQ IURP *UHHQ /DQHWRWKH:RRGELQH$YHQXH,QWHUFKDQJH $V DUHVXOW RI WKHUHOHDVHRIWKHGUDIW *URZWK 3ODQ072 KDV GHFLGHGWR IRFXVRQWKH3UHOLPLQDU\'HVLJQ6HFWLRQ *UHHQ/DQHWRWKH:RRGELQH $YHQXH ,QWHUFKDQJH DV D ILUVW SULRULW\ 7KH SULPDU\ SXUSRVH RI WKLV PHHWLQJLVWRUHYLHZWKHLPSDFWVDQGSURSRVHGPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVLQWKH 3UHOLPLQDU\'HVLJQ6HFWLRQ ,W ZDV QRWHG WKDW DV SDUW RI 3UHOLPLQDU\ 'HVLJQ D QXPEHU RI GHVLJQ DOWHUQDWLYHV KDYH EHHQ H[DPLQHG 7KHVH DOWHUQDWLYHV ZHUH UHILQHPHQWV PLQRU VKLIWV RI WKH PDLQOLQH LH P HWF WR WKH ($ $SSURYHG DOLJQPHQWDQGZHUHJHQHUDWHGWRLPSURYHVDIHW\DQGRSHUDWLRQVRUPLQLPL]H HQYLURQPHQWDOHIIHFWV 7KH PRVW VLJQLILFDQW SURSRVHG FKDQJH LV DW WKH %UDGIRUG %\SDVV ,QWHUFKDQJH $ PDMRU FKDQJH WR WKLV LQWHUFKDQJH LV SURSRVHG DVWKH($ $SSURYHG DOWHUQDWLYH ZRXOG QRW RSHUDWH VDIHO\ DQG HIILFLHQWO\ JLYHQ WKH WUDIILFYROXPHV$QRWKHUPDMRUFKDQJHLVWKHQHHGWRSURYLGHVL[ODQHVLQ IURP*UHHQ/DQHWRWKH%UDGIRUG%\SDVV,QWHUFKDQJH ,Q JHQHUDO WKH SURSRVHG PRGLILFDWLRQV WR WKH ($ $SSURYHG DOLJQPHQW UHGXFH QDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW LPSDFWV 7KH VSHFLILFV RI WKHVH DOWHUQDWLYHV ZHUH UHYLHZHG ODWHU LQ WKH PHHWLQJ GXULQJ WKH GHWDLOHG UHYLHZ RI WKH WHFKQLFDOO\SUHIHUUHGDOWHUQDWLYH ,WZDVQRWHGWKDWWKH3UHOLPLQDU\'HVLJQLVEHLQJXQGHUWDNHQLQDFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH &ODVV (QYLURQPHQWDO $VVHVVPHQW IRU 3URYLQFLDO 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ )DFLOLWLHV7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ(QYLURQPHQWDO6WXG\5HSRUWV 7(65V ZRXOGEH SUHSDUHGWRGRFXPHQWWKHSURSRVHGFKDQJHVWRWKH($$SSURYHGDOLJQPHQW LGHQWLI\WKHLPSDFWVRIWKH3UHOLPLQDU\'HVLJQIXUWKHUGHYHORSWKH SURSRVHGPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVDQGDGGUHVVDVPDQ\RIWKH02(FRQGLWLRQV RI DSSURYDO DV SRVVLEOH DW WKH 3UHOLPLQDU\ 'HVLJQ 6WDJH 6LQFH072 DOUHDG\KDVDSSURYDOIRUWKH($$SSURYHGDOLJQPHQWWKHRQO\LVVXHVWKDW ZRXOG EH HOLJLEOH IRU ³EXPSXS´ ZRXOG EH WKH UHFRPPHQGHG FKDQJHV DQGRUSURSRVHGPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHV 7ZR7(65VZLOOEHSUHSDUHGIRUWKH3UHOLPLQDU\'HVLJQ6HFWLRQ7KHILUVW ZLOOFRYHUWKHDUHDIURP*UHHQ/DQHWR)DUU$YHQXH7KLVZLOOIDFLOLWDWHDQ DGYDQFHFRQVWUXFWLRQFRQWUDFWIRUWKHJUDGHVHSDUDWLRQDW0W$OEHUW5RDG 7KHVHFRQGZLOOFRYHUWKHDUHDIURP)DUU$YHQXHWRWKH:RRGELQH$YHQXH ,QWHUFKDQJH 3DJH +Z\([WHQVLRQ 015$XURUD7HFKQLFDO0HHWLQJ 0DUFK ,7(0 352&((',1*6 $&7,21%< )XQFWLRQDO/DQGVFDSH$VVHVVPHQW

$)XQFWLRQDO/DQGVFDSH$VVHVVPHQW )/$ KDVEHHQSUHSDUHGE\(FRSODQV /LPLWHGWRDGGUHVVRQHRIWKH($DSSURYDOFRQGLWLRQVUHTXHVWHGE\015 *HRII*DUWVKRUHSURYLGHGDQRYHUYLHZRIWKH)/$WR015VWDII 7KH)/$LVD³ELJSLFWXUH´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± WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ PLWLJDWLRQ SUHSDUHG E\ (FRSODQV /LPLWHG DV SDUW RI WKH RQJRLQJ072 (QYLURQPHQWDO6WDQGDUGVSURMHFW 7KHRXWFRPHRIWKLVZRUNKDVEHHQWKH GHYHORSPHQWRIDZLOGOLIHPLWLJDWLRQVWUDWHJ\ WKDWLQFOXGHVYDULRXVW\SHVRI ZLOGOLIHFURVVLQJVWUXFWXUHVVWUXFWXUHVSDFLQJGHWHUUHQWIHQFLQJ WR UHIOHFW WKH )/$ DQG SURIHVVLRQDO MXGJPHQW 7KH REMHFWLYH LV WR PD[LPL]H WKH SHUPHDELOLW\ RIWKH KLJKZD\ WR ZLOGOLIH SDUWLFXODUO\ ZKHUH FURVVLQJ ³KRW VSRWV´DUHLQGLFDWHG (FRSODQV /LPLWHGSURYLGHG 015 VWDII ZLWK VFDOH )/$ PDSSLQJ *,6 DHULDO SKRWR PRVDLF DQG GLJLWDO WHUUDLQ PDSSLQJ RYHUOD\V 7KH PDSSLQJ VXPPDUL]HV DQG SUHVHQWV WKH LQWHJUDWHG LQIRUPDWLRQ KLJKOLJKWHG DERYHLQFOXGLQJZLOGOLIHPRYHPHQWRSSRUWXQLWLHV5HFRPPHQGHG]RQHV ZKHUH YDULRXV ZLOGOLIH VWUXFWXUHV DUH SURSRVHG DUH DOVR VKRZQ RQ WKH PDSSLQJ ,Q DGGLWLRQ (FRSODQV /LPLWHG SURYLGHG FRSLHV RI WKH )/$ EULHILQJGRFXPHQWWKDWDFFRPSDQLHVWKHPDSSLQJ 7HUUL)DQF\DVNHGLIWKH072(QYLURQPHQWDO6WDQGDUGVPDWHULDOZDVEHLQJ LQWHJUDWHG LQ WKLV UHYLHZ *HRII *DUWVKRUH LQGLFDWHG \HV ± WKH GHWDLOHG OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ DQG SULQFLSOHV GHYHORSHG LQ WKH 072 (QYLURQPHQWDO 6WDQGDUGV :LOGOLIH DQG 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 5HIHUHQFH *XLGH ZHUH JXLGLQJ WKH +LJKZD\ZLOGOLIHPLWLJDWLRQVWUDWHJ\DQGZRXOGFRQWLQXHWRJXLGHWKH FRQFHSWGHVLJQ 3HWHU:DULQJQRWHGWKDWWKHUHLVDWXUWOHFURVVLQJ³KRWVSRW´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±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x 3URYLVLRQ RI /HYHO (QKDQFHG TXDOLW\ VWRUPZDWHU PDQDJHPHQW WUHDWPHQWRIKLJKZD\UXQRIIWKURXJKDQXPEHURIVWUDWHJLFDOO\ORFDWHG 6:0IDFLOLWLHV x ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI VHGLPHQW DQG HURVLRQ FRQWUROV SULRU WR DQG WKURXJKRXWFRQVWUXFWLRQ x ,QVWDOODWLRQ RI WHPSRUDU\ YHJHWDWLRQ SURWHFWLRQ IHQFLQJ IRU WKH SURWHFWLRQRIUHVLGXDOIRUHVW]RQHVGXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ (GJHPDQDJHPHQWDORQJQHZO\FUHDWHGIRUHVWHGJHVWRSURWHFWWKHQHZ x HGJHV VWLPXODWH UHJHQHUDWLRQ UHGXFH VHFRQGDU\ GDPDJH IURP EORZGRZQDQGSURYLGHLQILOOSODQWLQJVZKHUHZDUUDQWHG x %XIIHUSODQWLQJVDORQJH[SRVHGZHWODQGDUHDVWRKHOSVKLHOGH[SRVHG DUHDVIURPVDOWDQGRWKHUFRQWDPLQDQWV x 5HVWRUDWLRQRIDUHDVGLVWXUEHGDWWKH0DVNLQRQJH5LYHUYDOOH\FURVVLQJ QRUWKHQGRIWKH3'VHFWLRQ x %XWWHUQXWVHHGVDOYDJH 8QLW LQFRQVXOWDWLRQZLWK015 x 3URYLVLRQ RI GUDLQDJH DQG ZLOGOLIH VWUXFWXUHV DW NH\ ORFDWLRQV ZKHUH PDLQWHQDQFHRIFURVVPRYHPHQWVLVFRQVLGHUHGZDUUDQWHGEDVHGRQWKH )/$UHYLHZ 1RWHZLOGOLIHVWUXFWXUHVLGHQWLILHGIRUWKH3'VHFWLRQDUH DVPDOOVXEVHWRIWKHWRWDOSDFNDJHRIZLOGOLIHVWUXFWXUHVEHLQJSURSRVHG IRUWKHWRWDO($DSSURYHGKLJKZD\VHFWLRQEDVHGRQWKH)/$ZRUN x ,GHQWLILFDWLRQRIVHHGDQGYHJHWDWLRQVDOYDJHRSSRUWXQLWLHVLQIRUHVWHG DUHDVDORQJWKHDOLJQPHQWLQFRQVXOWDWLRQZLWK

FF $WWHQGHHV *HRII*DUWVKRUH(FRSODQV 0LNH%ULFNV±(FRSODQV $QQH0DF0LOODQ(FRSODQV 3DW5H\QROGV±072 -RKQ.ORZDN072 0157HUUHVWULDO0DUFK0HHWLQJ0LQXWHV)LOH)LQDO0DUGRF

3DJH 2655 North Sheridan Way Mississauga, Ontario, L5K 2P8 Tel: (905) 823-4988 Fax: (905) 823-2669

NOTES OF MEETING

PROJECTS: Highway 404 Extension

FILE NO.: 04-2814

DATE: May 11, 2005 TIME: 10:00am – 12:30 pm.

PLACE: CEA Agency Offices - Toronto PRESENT: Chris Strand DFO – via Teleconference Jane Tymoshuck DFO – via Teleconference Darla Cameron CEA Agency Paul Schafer CEA Agency John Klowak MTO Alice Wong MTO Patrick Reynolds MTO – via Teleconference Mike Bricks Ecoplans PURPOSE: Meeting to discuss CEAA requirements and coordination for Highway 404

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: 1. Purpose of Meeting The purpose of the meeting was to introduce Darla to the project and provide her with an overview of the project history and issues. As DFO was available for the meeting, it was expanded to include the following:  Summary of potential CEAA triggers;  Status of CEAA scoping document; and,  Next steps. 2. Overview of Project History and Issues Mike Bricks provided an overview of the history of the project and past consultation with federal agencies. The following is a summary of this:

 1993-1997 – Route Planning Study and OEAA Individual EA for extension of Highway 404 from Davis Drive to the south junction of Hwys 48 and 12  December 1997 – OEAA EA Report submitted to OMOE for formal review and approval under the requirements of the OEAA.  1998-2002 – Government Review of OEAA EA Report (included comments from federal agencies) Hwy 404 Extension CEAA Requirements and Coordination May 11, 2005

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY:  August 2002 – OMOE Approval subject to a number of conditions. One condition stated that the subsequent design activities to finalize the alignment, property requirements and mitigation measures would be subject to the MTO Class EA Process.  Jan 2003 – MTO prepares draft CEAA Project Description and meets with federal agencies to discuss CEAA requirements and coordination.  April 24, 2003 – First federal meeting to discuss CEAA requirements of the project.  June 2003 – CEA Agency provides letter outlining possible approaches for addressing CEAA requirements and requests additional information on potential federal triggers.  March 2004 – MTO retains URS/Ecoplans to undertake additional engineering and environmental work to obtain a CEAA Decision for Highway 404 from Green Lane to Highway 12/48 and conduct Preliminary Design and address MTO Class EA requirements for Highway 404 from Green Lane to Woodbine Avenue.  April 23, 2004 – Second federal meeting to discuss the project and options for addressing CEAA requirements. MTO Project Team presents draft discussion paper to outline CEAA Triggers and possible approaches. Federal Agencies identify the need to provide additional information on potential DFO Triggers. Agree that a technical Fisheries Meeting is required.  April 27, 2004 – Fisheries Meeting with DFO, MNR, MTO and Ecoplans. The purpose of this meeting was to review watercrossing and make preliminary HADD recommendations.  May 6, 2004 – Teleconference with CEA Agency, TC, Navigable Waters and Ecoplans. The purpose of this meeting was to bring TC up to speed with the project and confirm the navigable waters information and clearance requirements provided during the route planning study.  July 2004 – MPIR release Discussion Paper regarding Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe area. Highway 404 Extension and Bradford Bypass are described as long-term initiatives.  November 15, 2004 – Third federal meeting to discuss CEAA scoping document and project triggers. MTO requests the federal agencies to review opportunities to give priority to sections that will be constructed in the more immediate future based on their interpretation of the “Places to Grow” discussion paper (i.e. Priority Sections 1, 2, and 3). Federal Agencies request clarification on the scope of the MTO project. CEA Agency suggests that MTO provide comments on a draft Highway 69 scoping document to assist in their preparation of a draft scoping document for this

Page 2 Hwy 404 Extension CEAA Requirements and Coordination May 11, 2005

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: project.  December 3, 2004 – MTO letter confirming that they are seeking a CEAA Decision on Highway 404 from Mt. Albert Road to Highway 12/48, but would like to investigate if it is possible establish procedures in the scoping document to ensure that the CEAA projects north of Woodbine Avenue do not delay addressing CEAA requirements south of Woodbine Avenue.  December 14, 2004 – Ecoplans letter providing consultant and Ministry comments on Highway 69 draft scoping document.  January 12, 2005 – Ecoplans letter and charts providing an update on potential DFO triggers in Priority Section 2 and 3.  February 2005 – Provincial Government (MPIR) releases draft Growth Plan. This plan is intended to provide a “vision” for growth and development of the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the next 30 years. The plan includes policies and schedules outlining objectives for moving goods and people. Highway 404 extension was only identified as a project to Keswick at the Woodbine Avenue interchange (i.e. priority Sections 1 and 2). Based on this, MTO has determined that it is only appropriate to obtain a CEAA Decision to Woodbine Avenue..  March 10, 2005 – MTO letter redefining the scope of the MTO project to be consistent with the draft Growth Plan, Mt. Albert Road to Woodbine Avenue Interchange.  March 29/30, 2005 – Public Information Centre #1

3. Summary of Potential CEAA Triggers Priority Section I from Green Lane to Mt. Albert is a separate preliminary design study with a separate Provincial TESR being prepared. CEAA is not triggered by this project.

Based on the redefined scope of MTO project (Mt. Albert to Woodbine Avenue Interchange), it was determined that DFO is the only RA. The TC triggers (NWPA at Black River and Pefferlaw Creek) and potential CTA trigger (rail crossing east of Pefferlaw) are no longer applicable.

Mike Bricks reviewed Table 2 – Summary of Potential HADDs provided with the January 12, 2005 letter. It was noted that there are only 3 potential DFO triggers (MA1, MR14 and MR13/16) as the other potential triggers are north of the Woodbine Avenue Interchange or associated with the Bradford Bypass Interchange (see attached map).

Chris Strand noted that a meeting with MNR (Jason Borwick) was required Ecoplans to finalize HADD determinations and to bring him up to speed with fisheries issues. This meeting would likely occur in June due to MNR’s availability. Anne MacMillan will arrange this meeting and ensure MTO

Page 3 Hwy 404 Extension CEAA Requirements and Coordination May 11, 2005

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: (April Martin) is able to attend.

4. Update of CEAA Scoping Document and Class EA Process

Chris Stand noted that a draft scoping document was being reviewed DFO internally by DFO. It is anticipated that a draft document will be circulated concurrently to MTO and FAs in June.

DFO and CEA Agency will have discussion on which FA’s should be DFO/CEA provided the draft based on the revised MTO project. Agency

Pat Reynolds advised that for MTO to proceed with the study the Scoping Report must include Scope of Assessment including specific direction regarding procedures, technical assessment methodologies and standards DFO associated with each requirement identified by a federal agency. Chris Strand agreed to request FA’s to provide this information.

John Klowak asked if DFO felt that the scoping document would identify any work that would likely require additional field work. Chris noted that a Fish Habitat Compensation Strategy would have to be developed as part of the CEAA Screening Report. It was agreed that Ecoplans, MNR and DFO should already have enough information to determine appropriate DFO/MNR/M compensation options. It was agreed that a detailed compensation plan TO/Ecoplans would not be prepared until detail design. MTO (April Martin) will be involved in the development of the compensation strategy to ensure it is consistent with MTO Policy.

Chris Strand also noted that Health Canada would likely provide direction on Noise Assessment based on recent draft Guidelines. Darla Cameron CEA Agency agreed to provide a copy to MTO/Ecoplans for advance review.

Paul Schafer inquired as to whether there was benefit of preparing one document to address CEAA requirements and MTO Class EA Requirements. Pat Reynolds suggested that this may not be practical given that sometimes Federal Review Agencies have different policies, standards and guidelines than their Provincial counterparts and the public may find this confusing. Chris Stand noted that DFO typically prepares their own scoping documents internally based on information provided by the proponent and requirements specified by federal agencies.

Chris Strand noted that he would like to have a discussion on the public consultation that has occurred on this project to determine if CEAA Ecoplans/DFO consultation, in accordance with section 18.3, was warranted. It was agreed that Mike Bricks would have an offline discussion with Chris on this issue.

John Klowak inquired as to what public consultation is required for CEAA. Chris Strand noted that typically they place a notice on the CEAA Registry when the Scoping Report is finalized and a second notice when the Screening Report is finalized.

Page 4 Hwy 404 Extension CEAA Requirements and Coordination May 11, 2005

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY:

The Class EA delivery schedule was discussed during the meeting for the section of Highway 404 between Mount Albert and Woodbine Avenue. The following represents the tentative schedule discussed during the meeting:  Finalize design, impact assessment and mitigation May – Sept 2005  Public Information Centre # 2 – September 2005  File TESR – October/November 2005  Class EA Clearance November/December 2005

All agreed that DFO should be working to coordinate the timing of a CEAA Decision with the timing of Class EA Clearance. 5. Next Steps

The following summarize next steps: 1. DFO to finalize draft Scoping Document and distribute to FAs and MTO for comment (anticipated June 2005). DFO would request DFO comments to provide specific direction regarding procedures, technical assessment methodologies and standards associated with each requirement identified by a federal agency; 2. DFO and CEA Agency to discuss which FA’s to be involved in DFO/CEA review; Agency 3. Ecoplans to arrange meeting with DFO and MNR to finalize HADD determinations and discuss compensation strategy; Ecoplans 4. CEA Agency to provide MTO with Health Canada’s draft Noise Guidelines CEA Agency 5. Chris Strand and Mike Bricks to discuss past consultation; CS/MB The forgoing represents the writer’s understanding of the major items of discussion and the decisions reached and / or future actions required. If the above does not accurately represent the understanding of all parties attending, please notify the undersigned immediately upon receiving these minutes (905-823- 4988)

Minutes Prepared by: Ecoplans Limited

Mike Bricks

cc: Attendees Anne MacMillian - Ecoplans April Martin – MTO Steve Jacobs - URS

Page 5 2655 North Sheridan Way Mississauga, Ontario, L5K 2P8 Tel: (905) 823-4988 Fax: (905) 823-2669

NOTES OF MEETING

PROJECT: Highway 404 Extension

FILE NO.: 04-2814

DATE: June 9, 2005 TIME: 11:00 am – 1:00 p.m.

PLACE: MNR Offices – Aurora PRESENT: Patrick Reynolds Ministry of Transportation April Marton Ministry of Transportation Chris Strand Department of Fisheries and Oceans Jane Tymoshuk Department of Fisheries and Oceans Jason Borwick Ministry of Natural Resources Darla Cameron CEA Agency (via teleconference) Mike Bricks Ecoplans Anne MacMillan Ecoplans

PURPOSE: Finalize HADD determinations and discuss potential compensation strategies

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: 1. Process Issues – Scope of the MTO Project Mike Bricks provided a brief overview of the changes to the project as a result of the draft Growth Plan.

In February 2005 the Provincial Government (MPIR) released a draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. This plan is intended to provide a “vision” for growth and development of the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the next 30 years. The plan includes policies and schedules outlining objectives for moving goods and people. Highway 404 extension was only identified as a project to Keswick/Woodbine Avenue (i.e. priority section 2). Based on this, MTO has determined that it is only appropriate to obtain a CEAA Decision to Woodbine Avenue as that is all the Province intends to construction in a reasonable planning horizon based on current government policy.

On March 10, 2005 MTO provided a letter redefining the scope of the MTO project to be consistent with the draft Growth Plan. A subsequent letter was sent on May 27, 2005 to further clarify the northern limit of the MTO project. Hwy 404 Extension MNR/DFO Meeting June 9, 2005

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: 2. HADD Determinations and Discussion of Potential Compensation Strategy The attendees reviewed Table 2 – Summary of Potential HADDs provided on January 12, 2005 as well as Table 1 summarizing the characteristics of all of the drainage crossings, plans and air photos along the preferred alignment.

It was agreed by MNR and DFO that there were no fisheries issues is Priority Section 1 (north of Mt. Albert Road) and therefore no CEAA requirements. Specifically, MNR confirmed that they no longer had any concern with the tributary of the Holland River since the alignment does not cross it. This was confirmed in an email to Anne Macmillan on April 28, 2005. Ecoplans confirmed that if there is any drainage toward the tributary, a culvert would be provided and appropriate mitigation measures (e.g. sediment and erosion control) implemented.

In Priority Section 2, two HADDs were confirmed.

The first HADD is located at MA1. This is a mainline crossing of the upstream reach Mt. Albert Creek, which will be conveyed under the highway in a culvert.

The second HADD is MR 14. This is the headwater reach of the Maskinonge River that drains through the Queensville Interchange. This will require a series of culverts through the interchange. A plan of the proposed culvert locations, prepared by URS, was reviewed, including the two alternatives through the main highway/Queensville Road crossing component of the interchange (i.e. a single, longangled culvert versus two shorter culverts crossing the highway to the southeast quadrant and then Queenville Road to the northeast quadrant. It was agreed that the two shorter culverts provided the best option. Although there does not appear to be much if any direct use of the habitat south of Queensville Road due to the poorly defined channel and dense vegetation growth, the two shorter culverts maintain the opportunity for potential movement upstream from the online pond.

The option of realigning the channel around the interchange was also discussed, and some suggestions were provided by MNR/DFO. However, given the topography/surrounding hills, it was agreed that there did not JB/AM/AM seem to be any reasonable alternatives that would not result in a deep confined drain profile for the channel, which was not desirable.

The crossing of MR 16 was identified as potential HADD. Ecoplans explained that it was agreed previously with MNR and DFO that this crossing was not a HADD, given the character of the channel and absence of potential for any fish use. It is a dry cattail vegetated swale through a corn field, and the steep gradient to the river and absence of a defined channel at the river limits and seasonal movement into the swale. Although it was agreed that this crossing would likely not be a HADD,

Page 2 Hwy 404 Extension MNR/DFO Meeting June 9, 2005

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: MNR wanted to review the details of the crossing before making a final determination. It was agreed that Jason Borwick would follow-up with Anne MacMillan and April Marton.

In general, MNR noted that ground water functions in relation to the wetlands needed to be understood and protected. Ecoplans indicated that the majority of the wetlands in this section of the project were surface water supported and not groundwater supported. Regardless, water related functions would be protected.

The general design elements of the culverts were discussed. Ecoplans confirmed that the culverts would convey the 100 year storm and therefore provide for a bankfull channel section, and would be embedded to provide for substrate placement within the culvert. MNR/DFO raised the opportunity for using multiple culverts to maintain the low flow channel (with the flood flow culvert at a higher elevation), and Ecoplans indicated they could review this option with URS subject to grading aspects.

The potential compensation strategy was discussed in general terms. Chris Strand indicated that all DFO needed in order to sign off on the CEAA screening is that 1. the HADDS are acceptable 2. they can be mitigated 3. general goals/objectives/concept of proposed compensation.

It was agreed that the most likely strategy would be off site compensation to support LSRCA’s Rehabilitation Plan for the Maskinonge River Watershed. MNR expressed particular interest in some sort of JB/AM/AM compensation that would contribute to water quality enhancement, since this is such a fundamental problem in the river and contributor to downstream deterioration in Lake Simcoe. DFO was not clear initially how this might be accommodated w.r.t. specific fish habitat objectives, but agreed that riparian plantings and possibly definable water quality improvement opportunities would probably be acceptable. DFO also noted that they understood that MTO did not want to spend a lot of money on compensation for HADDS that were considered to be marginal habitat.

It was agreed that Jason Borwick would provide Anne MacMillan and April Marton with the Rehabilitation Objectives for review. Anne MacMillan would quantify the specifics of the HADDs. Once this is complete, a meeting would be arranged with Jason, Anne, April and LSRCA to discuss the compensation strategy in more detail.

Anne MacMillan confirmed that she had sufficient details to develop mitigation measures for all crossings based on previous discussions.

DFO indicated that the only operational aspect they were looking at is stormwater management. From a project perspective, construction is still a big issue; it is critical to ensure the Contractor does what he is supposed to

Page 3 Hwy 404 Extension MNR/DFO Meeting June 9, 2005

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: do. DFO noted they can now issue inspection directives relatively easily, giving the Contractor 2 days to respond. MTO supported this initiative whole-heartedly.

3. Stormwater Management It was noted that MTO has agreed to provide level 1 protection for all new pavement and that potential stormwater management pond locations have been generated. MNR and DFO were satisfied that the level of protection was appropriate and noted that details of the Stormwater Management Plan would have to be included in the CEAA Scoping Report.

MNR and DFO noted that they would require some additional detail on the outflow details of the ponds so that they could better identify mitigation measures required. In addition they identified some concerns with three pond locations.

Two of these concerns related to proximity to existing watercourses (ponds 3 and 4 in Priority Section 2 – Sta 32+500 and Sta 34+000). They noted that they preferred “offline ponds” (i.e. not direct connections to direct watercourses) because of the potential for erosion. Ecoplans indicated that the pond outfalls would be designed to manage potential for erosion. The Project Team should review the location of these ponds and opportunities to move them further away from the watercourses, or a rationale if they cannot be moved farther from the watercourses and/or how potential for erosion will be managed through the design of the outfall.

The third pond they had a concern with was at the Woodbine Avenue Interchange. This pond is located within the edge of the PSW and is GG therefore not desirable. It was noted that Geoff Gartshore was going out in the field to confirm the PSW boundaries and provide Jason Borwick with the results of his field review.

It was agreed that, URS will review the SWM comments and follow up URS with MNR to get clear guidance on their concerns, objectives and preferences. URS will then reexamine the SWM ponds of concern and make changes if feasible. If changes are not possible a rationale for why they can not be made will be provided.

Chris Strand indicated that the project team should also expect comments regarding water quality from Environment Canada.

4. Next Steps

The following summarizes the next steps:

1. Draft CEAA Scoping Document is anticipated to be circulated in 2- CS 3 weeks. MTO will be provided the draft.

Page 4 Hwy 404 Extension MNR/DFO Meeting June 9, 2005

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: 2. MNR will make a final HADD determination for MR16. Jason JB/AM/AM Borwick would follow-up with Anne MacMillan and April Marton before making a final determination.

3. Jason Borwick will provide Anne MacMillan and April Marton JB/AM/AM with the Rehabilitation Objectives for review. Anne MacMillan will quantify the specifics of the HADDs. Once this is complete, a meeting would be arranged with Jason, Anne, April and LSRCA to discuss the compensation strategy in more detail. 4. Geoff Gartshore was will provide Jason Borwick with the results of GG his field review to confirm the PSW boundaries near MR16 and swm pond near Woodbine Avenue. 5. It was agreed that, URS will review the SWM comments and URS follow up with MNR to get clear guidance on their concerns, objectives and preferences. URS will then reexamine the SWM ponds of concern and make changes if feasible. If changes are not possible a rationale for why they can not be made will be provided. 6. Mike Bricks will provide Chris Strand with a plan of the preferred MB alignment for Priority Section 2 (a copy was provided to Jason Borwick at the meeting.

Minutes Prepared by:

Ecoplans Limited

Anne MacMillan – Senior Aquatic Biologist cc: Attendees John Klowak – MTO Steve Jacobs – URS Tim Sorochinsky – URS Geoff Gartshore - Ecoplans

Page 5 72 Victoria Street S. Suite 100 Kitchener, ON N2G 4Y8 Tel: (519) 741-8850 Fax: (519) 741-8884

NOTES OF MEETING

PROJECT: Highway 404 Extension

FILE NO.: 04-2814

DATE: November 1, 2005 TIME: 10:00 am – 12:30 p.m.

PLACE: MNR Offices – Aurora PRESENT: April Martin (AM) Ministry of Transportation Jason Borwick (JB) Ministry of Natural Resources Jeff Anderson (JA) Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Anne MacMillan (AMac) Ecoplans

PURPOSE: To discuss compensation objectives and review compensation options for the HADDs at Mount Albert Creek and Maskinonge River MR14.

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: 1. General Compensation Options Based on MRRS

JB indicated that he and JA had discussed the project in relation to the objectives of the Maskinonge River Remedial Strategy (MRRS). JB also talked to Chris Strand at DFO in relation to the ‘type’ of compensation that would beacceptable, and confirmed that riparian improvements and plantings, etc. promoted in the MRRS were fine. He clarified that suitability of riparian plantings is appropriate in this case, based on the specific nature of the watercourse..

Enhancements of water quality and water quantity/flow are key objectives of the MRRS, with an emphasis on recharge areas.

The MRRS specifies the objectives in more detail on a subwatershed basis. AM/AMac indicated that they had not reviewed the MRRS, due to confusion regarding the original email and MRRS attachment from JB. The appropriate web link and a hard copy were provided.

JA indicated that the MRRS encourages planting generally in recharge areas, and particularly planting in riparian areas, where vegetation cover tends to be even further limited. The figure that maps recharge areas in the MRRS was reviewed; the entire Queensville interchange area is located Hwy 404 Extension MNR/LSRCA Meeting November 1, 2005

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: within a recharge area. It was agreed that plantings in this area would be beneficial. However, JB emphasized that the plantings had to be ‘strategic’.

Wetland creation is also encouraged, although JB and AM expressed concern regarding the success of wetland creation. JA and AMac indicated that successful wetland creation was possible, provided an appropriate hydrologic regime is present.

JA emphasized the huge flow problems that are occurring on the Maskinonge River generally. Therefore, any opportunities to improve/enhance flow conditions, including pond removal, plantings/shading etc. would be very beneficial.

2. Enhancement/Compensation Objectives/Principles

It was agreed that the key compensation objectives were to enhance water quantity/flow and improve water quality.

Although there does not appear to be direct fish movement upstream through the interchange reaches presently, JB confirmed that the design had to provide for potential for fish passage. JB expressed particular concern regarding avoiding perching of culverts over time. AMac indicated that the proposed embedded culvert design would address this concern.

JB emphasized that if plantings were used as compensation, they had to be ‘planted and tended’; i.e. the compensation plan cannot just include planting, but must include maintenance as well. AMac noted that this is reflected in the monitoring conditions of DFO FAAs (i.e. most include two years of spring and fall monitoring of survival of plantings). As well, MTO Landscape contractors are subject to a one year warranty on survival.

It was agreed that the compensation should be focused on the Maskinonge River, since it is in such severe trouble. That is, the compensation for Mount Albert Creek can be ‘lumped’/combined into the plan at the Maskinonge crossing.

JB noted that this ‘lumping’ assumed that the Mount Albert crossing was ‘self-mitigating’. In other words, a level of mitigation that replaced the existing habitat functions that were harmfully altered within the culverts had to be incorporated.

3. Mitigation versus Compensation

A discussion ensued regarding mitigation versus compensation. JB indicated that riparian plantings along reaches enclosed within the proposed culverts, as well as any of the intervening reaches that were disturbed/re- graded, would be considered mitigation and not compensation. AM and

Page 2 Hwy 404 Extension MNR/LSRCA Meeting November 1, 2005

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: AMac questioned this based on the absence of woody riparian vegetation presently. JB indicated that the biological/water quality filtration of the riparian marsh vegetation was lost. AMac noted the swm plan would address this function at least to some extent. JB agreed that the compensatory aspect of planting depended in part on what was there presently, but the marsh functions had to be considered. However, he agreed that if the reaches between the culverts were not disturbed/re-graded, any planting along them would be considered compensation.

The degree of incremental compensation that was appropriate based on the habitat character and absence of direct fish use along most of the affected reaches was discussed. AMac indicated that the only reach where direct use was confirmed was downstream of and up to the culvert inlet pool at Queensville Sideroad, where fish could move upstream from the on-line pond. However, even this use is very seasonal, and further limited by the farm lane crossing and character of the ‘channel’. Further upstream within the interchange, the dense cattail/reed canary grass chokes the channel and restricts potential for direct use.

Therefore, the ‘marginal’ character of the habitat and lack of direct fish use along most of the affected reaches should be considered in relation to the amount of compensation required. Regardless, JA emphasized that indirect habitat functions had to be addressed in the compensation plan.

Both AM and AMac then explained that the currently proposed design of the culverts through the interchange (and at the various crossings along the alignment generally) was ‘enhanced’ significantly over and above what would be required to simply convey flow, with the intention of addressing DFO’s Stream Simulation Design (SSD) objectives of maintaining bankfull channel functions. That is, the culverts were proposed to be sized to convey flow from a 100 year storm, and would be embedded and backfilled with substrate.

This proposed culvert design mitigation approach was based on discussions with DFO’s Derrick Beach. AM explained that the Highway 404 project had been put forward some time ago as a ‘pilot’ to test DFO’s working principle that designing culverts to maintain bankfull channel functions would avoid HADD. This culvert design was also part of the mitigation that was discussed with DFO and Stefan Romberg during the series of meetings held to determine the HADDs along the highway. Therefore, the enhanced culvert design that was built into the mitigation measures to reduce if not eliminate the residual impacts of the culvert enclosure should also be given some consideration w.r.t. the amount of incremental compensation that was required.

JB indicated he was not aware of DFO’s SSD initiative, or the specific culvert design mitigation that had been incorporated on this project, however he would go back over the old meeting notes in Stefan’s file.

Page 3 Hwy 404 Extension MNR/LSRCA Meeting November 1, 2005

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: JB also indicated that further documentation of the compensation rationale, and a preliminary plan would be helpful in assessing all of the information. AM indicated that Mark Heaton of the Aurora MNR office sits on a committee that is working in partnership with DFO on this new initiative,

4. Potential Site Specific Options Ecoplans to ‘Spring-fed’ pond assess AMac indicated that the small off-line pond in the southwest quadrant may spring/groundw be spring fed (according to the landowner, and its apparent permanence). ater connection One option to enhance flow might be to convey flow from the pond to the further based adjacent reach of the stream. All agreed that this would be a good option. on available information. It was also agreed that this flow should be taken to the creek ‘subsurface’ to maximize the flow benefit, rather than as a surface connection. It was also agreed that some further work was required to confirm that the pond was spring-fed.

Plantings The option of planting additional areas throughout the interchange should provide some general benefit since this area is within a recharge area. However, after long discussion, there was no final agreement as to the appropriate area of incremental planting over and above what JB considered appropriate for mitigation.

There was some agreement that planting of the reach through and upstream of the southwest quadrant had value, however the upstream portion is on private land.

There was some agreement that it was logical to plant up the area around the off-line, ‘spring- fed’ pond. AMac to Downstream Pond confirm correct It was agreed that the possibility of removing the remnant barrier at the ROW limit downstream on-line pond had significant merit w.r.t. enhancing flow, with however this pond is on private land. There is some uncertainty regarding URS/MRC the ROW area in this quadrant.

5. Off-site Options

JB asked about other areas that could be planted, and specifically, the possibility of the Maskinonge reaches at the MR16 tributary crossing to the north. Similar ROW restrictions would be present based on the current plans.

It was agreed that there were specific challenges associated with longer term protection of plantings off-site, since it was difficult to keep

Page 4 Hwy 404 Extension MNR/LSRCA Meeting November 1, 2005

ITEM PROCEEDINGS: ACTION BY: landowners from removing them.

JA and JB could not identify any other off-site opportunities, and referred AM and AMac to the MRRS.

6. Next Steps

1. AM and AMac to review compensation options further internally. AM to discuss indirect compensation approach as well as past culvert mitigation design agreement with Cindy Mitton-Wilkie (Senior Fisheries Biologist at MTO) 2. JB to review mitigation incorporated in proposed culvert design in relation to degree of additional compensation required. 3. AMac to confirm ROW footprint. 4. AMac and AM to develop preliminary compensation strategy and rationale for further discussion. 5. AMac and AM to obtain info. on SSD.

Minutes Prepared by:

Ecoplans Limited

Anne MacMillan – Senior Aquatic Biologist

c. Attendees, plus: Chris Strand - DFO Jane Tymoshuk - DFO Melanie Boivin - DFO John Klowak - MTO Patrick Reynolds - MTO Steve Jacobs - URS Tim Sorochinsky - URS Mike Bricks - Ecoplans Katie Bright- Ecoplans

Page 5 9LFWRULD6WUHHW6RXWK6XLWH .LWFKHQHU2QWDULR/.3 7HO )D[

127(62)0((7,1* 352-(&7 +LJKZD\([WHQVLRQ ),/(12 '$7( $XJXVW 7,0( DP±SP 3/$&( 0152IILFHV±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³ELJ SLFWXUH´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±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x 52: LQFUHDVHG IURP P WR P WR DFFRPPRGDWH SURSRVHG 0LQLVWU\ VDIHW\ VWDQGDUGV 7KLV 52: ZLOO DOVR SURYLGH LQFUHDVHG IOH[LELOLW\IRU+29LQLWLDWLYHV +29ODQHV x &RPPXWHUSDUNLQJORWVKDYHEHHQDGGHGDWNH\ORFDWLRQV *UHHQ/DQH 4XHHQVYLOOH 6LGHURDG DQG :RRGELQH $YHQXH WR FRPSOHPHQW WKH +29LQLWLDWLYHV x 7KH6:0SRQGQHDU:RRGELQH$YHKDVEHHQUHORFDWHGWRWKHZHVW VLGH RI :RRGELQH $YH IURP LWV SUHYLRXV ORFDWLRQLQ WKH 36: WR WKH HDVW DSUHYLRXVFRQFHUQRI015 -RKQ.ORZDNQRWHGWKDWWKHFRPPXWHUSDUNLQJORWVDUHLQWHJUDOWRSURYLGLQJ DPXOWLXVHIUHHZD\IDFLOLW\WKDWHQFRXUDJHVPXOWLSDVVHQJHUWUDYHO7KH3' GHVLJQDOORZVIRU+29SURYLVLRQVRQ+LJKZD\LIWKH3URYLQFHZLVKHV WRLPSOHPHQWWKHPZKLFKLVFRPSDWLEOHZLWKWKH*URZWK3ODQREMHFWLYHV

3DJH +Z\([WHQVLRQ 015$XURUD7HUUHVWULDO3'0HHWLQJ$XJXVW 'LVFXVVLRQ0DWWHUV

015VWDIIDVNHGLIWKHUHZDVDQ\³ZLJJOHURRP´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¶VJHRPHWULFGHVLJQVWDQGDUGV:LWK UHJDUGWRSXOOLQJWKHDOLJQPHQWRI+LJKZD\IXUWKHUDZD\IURP8QLW LWZDVQRWHGWKDWWKHDOLJQPHQWKDVEHHQRSWLPL]HGLQWKLVDUHD WR UHGXFH LPSDFWVWR8QLWWRWKHH[WHQWSRVVLEOH,WZRXOGQRWEHSRVVLEOHWRSXOO WKH DOLJQPHQW IXUWKHU RXW RI WKH XQLW ZLWKRXW VLJQLILFDQW PRGLILFDWLRQV WR ODUJH VHFWLRQV RI WKH DOLJQPHQW ERWK WR WKH QRUWK DQG VRXWK LQFXUULQJ DGGLWLRQDOQDWXUDODQGVRFLRHFRQRPLFHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVLQWKHVHDUHDV ,WZDVIXUWKHUQRWHGWKDWDOLJQPHQWDOWHUQDWLYHLVVXHVZHUHH[DPLQHGDVSDUW RIWKH5RXWH3ODQQLQJDQG(QYLURQPHQWDO$VVHVVPHQWVWXG\OHDGLQJWRWKH ($DSSURYHGDOLJQPHQW -RKQ.ORZDNHPSKDVL]HGWKDWZHDUHQHDULQJWKHHQGRIWKH&ODVV($DQG 3UHOLPLQDU\'HVLJQVWXG\7KHUHKDYHEHHQURXQGVRI3XEOLF,QIRUPDWLRQ &HQWUHV UHYLHZLQJ WKH 3' DOLJQPHQW DQG FRQVLGHUDEOH DJHQF\ DQG SXEOLF OLDLVRQWKURXJKRXW,QJHQHUDOWKHUHLVJRRGSXEOLFDQGPXQLFLSDOVXSSRUW IRUWKLV3'VHFWLRQWR5DYHQVKRH5RDG (PPD )ROORZHV QRWHG WKDW (FRWHFK KDV UHFHQWO\ FRQWDFWHG 015 IRU LQIRUPDWLRQRQ%XWWHUQXWDQGRWKHU6$57KHUHZDVVRPHFRQIXVLRQDPRQJ 015VWDIIFRQFHUQLQJWKHUHDVRQIRUWKHFRQWDFWDQGDQ\RYHUODSZLWKWKH SUHVHQW3'ZRUN 0LNH%ULFNVH[SODLQHGWKDWWKH(FRWHFKFDOOVUHODWHWRWKHDGYDQFHFRQWUDFW IRUWKH0W$OEHUWVWUXFWXUH GHWDLOHGGHVLJQ WKDWLVQRZXQGHUZD\E\80$ (QJLQHHULQJ7KLVZRUNDIIHFWV8QLWZKLFKFRQWDLQVVRPH%XWWHUQXW0W $OEHUW5RDGZLOOEHUHFRQVWUXFWHGDQGWKHJUDGHORZHUHGVR+LJKZD\ FDQ SDVV RYHU LW 2XU 7(65 IRU WKH 0W $OEHUW VHFWLRQ LV QHDULQJ FRPSOHWLRQ 7KH 7(65 LGHQWLILHV WKH UHTXLUHPHQW WR FRQWDFW 015WR UHYLHZ %XWWHUQXW PDQDJHPHQW DW DIIHFWHG ($ XQLWV GXULQJ GHWDLO GHVLJQ 7KDWLVWKHUHDVRQIRUWKHFRQWDFWE\(FRWHFKDWWKLVWLPH 3DJH +Z\([WHQVLRQ 015$XURUD7HUUHVWULDO3'0HHWLQJ$XJXVW *HRII*DUWVKRUHSURYLGHGDGHWDLOHGRYHUYLHZRIWKH3'VHFWLRQDVZHOODV PLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVIRUWKHYDULRXV($XQLWV7KHNH\PLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHV DUHDVIROORZV x &RQWDFWWREHPDGHZLWK

FF 015VWDII -RKQ.ORZDN072 3DW5H\QROGV072 0LNH%ULFNV±(FRSODQV 3DWULFN3XFFLQL±856 *?3URMHFWV?3URMHFWV ?+LJKZD\?7HUUHVWULDO$JHQF\&RUUHVSDQG0HHWLQJ0LQXWHV?015$XJXVW 0HHWLQJ?)LQDO0LQXWHV?+LJKZD\015$XJ0HHWLQJ)LQDO0LQXWHV6HSGRF

3DJH