MOUNTAIN PARK AVENUE BRIDGE MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
November 2012
City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. STUDY INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background and Purpose ...... 1 1.2 Study Area ...... 2 1.3 Class EA Process ...... 3 2. PHASE 1, “PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY IDENTIFICATION” ...... 5 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 7 3.1 Existing Land Uses ...... 7 3.2 Transportation System ...... 8 3.3 Natural Environment ...... 9 3.4 Cultural Heritage ...... 12 3.5 Archaeology ...... 14 4. PHASE 2 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS ...... 14 4.1 Alternative Solutions ...... 14 4.2 Evaluation Criteria ...... 15 4.3 Recommended Alternative ...... 21 5. PUBLIC & AGENCY CONSULTATION ...... 21 5.1 Study Contact List ...... 21 5.2 Project Website ...... 22 5.3. Notice of Study Commencement ...... 22 5.4 Interim Report ...... 23 5.5 First Nations Engagement ...... 25 5.6 Notice of Completion...... 27 6. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 27 7. PROJECT SCHEDULE ...... 33
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page i City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Species Observed ...... 11 Table 2: Historic Species At Risk Occurrences ...... 12 Table 3: Classification of Heritage Bridges ...... 13 Table 4: Evaluation of Alternatives ...... 17 Table 5: Notice of Study Commencement Comments...... 22 Table 6: Summary of Interim Report Comments ...... 23 Table 7: Summary of First Nations Comments ...... 26 Table 8: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Study Area ...... 2 Figure 2: Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process ...... 4 Figure 3: Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Existing Condition ...... follows page 6 Figure 4: Vegetation Removal Area ...... follows page 32
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Public and Agency Consultation Appendix B: First Nations Consultation Appendix C: Natural Environment Existing Conditions Review Appendix D: Overview of Codes for the Conservation Status of Species Appendix E: Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page ii City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
1. STUDY INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Purpose
The Mountain Park Avenue Bridge is a single span girder structure which carries pedestrian and vehicular traffic over the Sherman Cut access road in the City of Hamilton (Figure 1). Mountain Park Avenue is classified as a local road roadway in the City of Hamilton Urban Official Plan (Approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on March 16, 2011). The plan is currently being appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.
The original bridge was built in 1930 and was called the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge over Mountain Boulevard. Multi-use pathways connect to the existing sidewalks on the structure from the adjacent Mountain Drive Park. The Juravinski Cancer Centre (Hamilton Health Sciences Centre) is adjacent to the west side of the structure and utilizes Mountain Park Avenue as an emergency service route for ambulance Looking south from the bridge, at the Sherman Cut exit.
Inspections of the bridge were completed in September 2011 and July 2012 and identified a number of deficiencies with the current structure. The 2012 Inspection Report, completed by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, recommends the bridge be replaced within five years. If it is not replaced, the report includes an extensive list of repairs required within five years. Additional details on the existing
Looking west at bridge from Mountain condition of the bridge are included in Section 2 Park Avenue of this report.
Based on the age of the structure and deficiencies observed in 2011 and 2012, the City of Hamilton retained Dillon Consulting Limited to complete a Schedule B Class
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 1 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Environmental Assessment (EA) to assess alternatives for the replacement of the existing structure. This Project File Report documents the Class Environmental Assessment process completed for this study.
Following detail design of the new bridge and the receipt of all required approvals, construction is currently scheduled for 2013.
1.2 Study Area
As shown on Figure 1, the Study Area for the Class EA is located in the City of Hamilton and bordered by the edge of the Niagara Escarpment on the north, Upper Sherman Avenue on the east, Concession Street to the South and the Juravinski Cancer Centre (Hamilton Health Sciences) to the west.
Figure 1: Study Area
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 2 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
1.3 Class EA Process
Municipal infrastructure projects must meet the requirements of the Ontario Environmental Assessment (EA) Act. The Municipal Class EA (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011) applies to a group or “class” of municipal water, wastewater and roads projects which occur frequently and have relatively minor and predictable impacts. These projects are approved under the EA Act, as long as they are planned, designed and constructed according to the requirements of the Class EA document.
The specific requirements of the Class EA for a particular project depend on the type of project, its complexity and the significance of environmental impacts. Three categories of projects are identified in the document, including Schedule A, B and C projects. The replacement of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge is classified as a Schedule B project.
Schedule B projects follow Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process (Figure 2): Phase 1 of the Class EA process consists of “Problem/Opportunity Identification” Phase 2 consists of the development and Looking west at existing bridge evaluation of “Alternative Solutions.” Phases 1 railing. and 2 of the project are documented in Sections 2 and 4 of this report. Phase 2 includes an impact assessment of the recommended design of the new bridge, including measures to avoid/mitigate any adverse impacts and documentation of the Class EA process in a Project File.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 3 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Figure 2: Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 4 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
2. PHASE 1, “PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY IDENTIFICATION”
The Mountain Park Avenue Structure was originally built in 1930. The structure has a total deck length of 19.05 m, a span of 18.10 m and an overall width of 13.14 m. It is supported by four I-beam/girders, concrete abutments and wingwalls. The bridge supports one lane of traffic in each direction and includes sidewalks on each side. The multi-use pathway on the north side of Mountain Park Avenue, along the top of the escarpment, is connected to the sidewalk on the structure.
Inspections of the bridge were completed in September 2011 and July 2012 to assess the existing condition of the bridge. The inspection found a number of deficiencies with the existing structure (Figure 3), including: Severely rusted and corroded girders in multiple locations Medium to severe deterioration of abutments (e.g., spalling, delamination, corrosion) Railings with medium to severe corrosion Evidence of settlement and cracking on approach roads.
Based on the information collected during the July 2012 inspection, numerous repairs were identified as being needed in a short timeframe including: Now (within 1 year) o Ongoing monitoring of the structure every three months o Installation of a rock protection system to prevent material falling to the Sherman Cut 1-5 Years (If structure not yet replaced) o Extensive rehabilitations to abutments and barrier walls o Reconstruction of existing roadway approaches o Replacement of steel girders o Replacement of railing 1-5 Years (Recommended) o Replacement of structure.
It should be noted that the requirement to replace the girders means that everything supported by the girders must be replaced as well. This includes the deck (top portion of bridge including the driving surface), sidewalks, railings and expansion joints (joints which connect the bridge to the roadway). Replacing the girders would provide an opportunity to replace abutments, which have a limited life span.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 5 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
This page is intentionally blank.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 6 FIGURE 3: MOUNTAIN PARK AVENUE BRIDGE - EXISTING CONDITION
Cracked with evidence of abrasion Rusting
Extensive settlement and light cracking
Severe scaling, delamination and cracking
Severely rusted and corroded
Rusted and corroded
Photos taken from July 2012 Inspection Report, AMEC Environmental & Infrastructure
City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
The following problem statement was identified for this study, based on the findings of the inspection report:
Identify the preferred alternative for improvements to the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge. Improvements are required to address the existing condition of the structure.
The preferred alternative should limit impacts to the adjacent Niagara Escarpment and surrounding ecosystem and should support the City of Hamilton’s Urban Official Plan by creating a link across the Sherman Cut access road that promotes connected communities, balanced transportation networks and a sustainable future for adjacent residents and institutions in the Hamilton Mountain community.
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following summarizes the existing conditions in the study area.
3.1 Existing Land Uses
The study area is within the Niagara Escarpment Looking east across bridge at existing and Greenbelt Plans and is designated as both apartment buildings in area escarpment natural area and protected countryside respectively. The City of Hamilton Urban Official Plan designates lands on both the northeast and northwest sides of the structure as Open Space which is currently utilized as a recreational neighbourhood park; Hamilton Drive Park to the east and Hamilton Brow West Park to the west. Immediately southeast of the study area are multi-story high density residential buildings. The Juravinski Cancer Centre (Hamilton Health Multi-use trail along escarpment Sciences Centre), a large institutional building, is located immediately southwest of the structure.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 7 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Schedule E-1 “Urban Land Use Designations,” to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (MMAH approved 2011) designates the study area as “Open Space.” The residential area to the west is designated “Neighbourhoods” and the Juravinski Cancer Centre is designated as “Institutional.” Uses permitted within the Open Space designation are limited to non-intensive uses, including parks, flood plain Juravinski Cancer Centre lands, natural hazard lands and environmental sensitive areas.
As outlined in Section 4.5.4 of the Official Plan, the City is permitted to conduct road construction in the Niagara Escarpment Natural Area if the infrastructure is an essential transportation route or if an existing route requires maintenance, major or minor upgrades or repairs. Further, the City is permitted to conduct the design and maintenance of roadways including the initiation of construction on Looking north on Upper Sherman the road network to improve safety and operations. Avenue The City must consider measures to avoid/minimize impacts on environmental features, where feasible.
3.2 Transportation System
The study area is located on Mountain Park Avenue and spans the Sherman Cut access road. Mountain Park Avenue and Upper Sherman Avenue intersect immediately east of the structure. There is a driveway, which is exclusively used by emergency vehicles exiting the Juravinski Cancer Centre immediately west of the structure.
Mountain Park Avenue and Upper Sherman Avenue are designated “local roads” on Schedule C, “Functional Road Classifications” in the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (MMAH approved 2011). The primary function of a local road is to provide land access while facilitating the movement of low traffic volumes to collector routes. The Sherman Cut access road, running below the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge, is designated as a “major arterial road” on Schedule C with a primary function of facilitating the movement of large traffic volumes of intra-city and inter-regional traffic.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 8 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
The Juravinski Cancer Centre emergency access driveway is designated “private” in the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.
The City of Hamilton Cycling Master Plan, “Switching Gears,” designates Mountain Park Avenue as an on-road signed bike route. Concession Street, south of the project study area and south of the Juravinski Cancer Center is a designated bike route that connects to the Mountain Park Avenue on-road bike route. Multi-use pathways running through the adjacent Mountain Drive Park and Mountain Brow West Park both utilize the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge as a Looking east at Mountain Park Avenue/Upper Sherman Avenue intersection crossing point for access across the Sherman Cut.
3.3 Natural Environment
The Mountain Park Avenue Bridge and surrounding area is located in a very urban part of the City of Hamilton which has very little remaining natural features. The bridge and adjacent lands are located in areas composed of high-density residential housing and parkland. Natural features (e.g., woodlands, wetlands, meadows) and vegetation communities were not observed within the vicinity of the bridge. The natural environment was assessed by Dillon on September 28, 2012 to gain an understanding of the terrestrial environment that would potentially be affected by the project. The assessment included: A tree inventory and health assessment of trees over 20 cm diameter at breast height (DBH) in the potential disturbance zone. A search for the presence of federally and provincially rare or endangered species An inventory of the number, location and species of bird nests on the existing bridge, adjacent trees and vegetated banks to assess the potential for disturbance of breeding birds during the nesting season. Due to the timing of the study, the nest search was completed outside of the core breeding bird season An analysis of the sensitivity of natural features and potential impacts.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 9 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Field studies were undertaken using accepted protocols in Ontario (e.g., Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario – Lee et al. 1998; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources’; (MNR’s) Wildlife Monitoring Programs and Inventory Techniques in Ontario Document – Konze and Mclaren, 1997). During the field inventory work, a photographic record of the terrestrial ecosystem was collected and is included in Appendix C.
All aspects of the bridge that were visible from Sherman Cut or Mountain Park Avenue were surveyed for nests. Nests were not observed on any of the girders or piers of the bridge. In addition, breeding bird nests were not observed on/in any of the exposed escarpment rock adjacent to the bridge or patches of vegetation.
No natural features (i.e., woodlands, wetlands and meadows) or natural vegetation communities were observed within the vicinity of the bridge. A tree inventory was not completed at this site because the tree species observed were between 5 cm and 10 cm DBH. While vegetation communities were not observed, vegetation patches were observed along the top of the exposed escarpment rock and along the base of the bridge. None of the species identified are considered to be rare or are designated Species at Risk under the Federal Species at Risk Act or the Provincial Endangered Species Act. A full list of species observed is included in Table 1 and photographs of the site are included in Appendix C.
Based on the field inventory completed, potential negative impacts to natural heritage features will be limited. It is anticipated the existing vegetation (shrubs and small trees) along the escarpment face may be contributing to the deterioration of the rockface along the Sherman Cut.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 10 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Table 1: Species Observed
Scientific Name Common Name Provincial Conservation Rank (SRank)1 Acer negundo Manitoba Maple S5 Daucus carota Wild Carrot SE5 Fraxinus americana White Ash S5 Linaria vulgaris Butter-and-eggs SE5 Prunus pensylvanica Pin Cherry S5 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak S5 Rhamnus cathartica Common Buckthorn SE5 Robinia pseudo-acacia Black Locust SE5 Solanum dulcamara Bittersweet Nightshade SE5 Solidago canadensis Canada Goldenrod S5 Typha latifolia Broad-leaved Cattail S5 1 – An overview of Codes for the Conservation Status of Species is included in Appendix D
Species at Risk The Federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) (2003) protects wildlife found in their critical habitat and the Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA) (2007) provides protection for provincially recognized endangered species and their habitat.
A search of MNR’s online mapping tool from the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) was accessed on September 27, 2012, to determine any known occurrences of species protected under both acts within approximately 1 km Looking west at Mountain Park Avenue and the of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge. The hospital emergency vehicle driveway results of the online search are included in Table 2.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 11 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Table 2: Historic Species At Risk Occurrences
Committee on the Status of Species Endangered at Risk in Provincial Common Scientific Last Wildlife in Ontario Rank Name Name Observed Canada (SARO) (SRANK) (COSEWIC) Status Status2 Woodland Microtus Special Concern SC S3? 1951 Vole pinetorum Northern Colinus S1 Endangered END 1904 Bobwhite virginianus Timber Crotalus SX Extirpated EXP 1950 Rattlesnake horridus American Castanea S2 Endangered END 1993 Chestnut dentata Spotted Chimaphila S1 Endangered END 1886 Wintergreen maculata Information source: Ministry of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Information Centre
2 An overview of Codes for the Conservation Status of Species is included in Appendix D
No Species at Risk or habitat potential was observed during the field review. The lack of suitable habitat is due to the absence of natural features and vegetation communities.
3.4 Cultural Heritage
A Cultural Heritage Assessment Report was completed for the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge in June 2012 by Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) in accordance with the City of Hamilton’s 2006 Heritage Bridge Guidelines and Heritage Bridge Conservation document (Appendix E).
The City’s Heritage Bridge Guidelines and Heritage Bridge Conservation document provides a methodology for the assessment of bridge heritage values and relies upon a scoring system to rank the heritage value of bridge structures. Criteria for the assessment include: Age of the structure. Points are assigned to the structure using the data recorded on the original survey. The point scale increases as the structure ages Construction materials. Concrete, steel, stone and timber are typical materials used for bridge construction. While concrete and steel are the most common
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 12 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
materials, stone and timber require more craftsmanship and are rarer in occurrence resulting in higher heritage score values Design. A rare or unusual design or a unique combination of construction materials to design the bridge are significant in a heritage context and earn higher point values Integrity. Structures showing no signs of adverse material modification earn higher points due to their lasting impression on the surrounding landscape Aesthetics and Environment. The importance of the structure appearance and presence within the surrounding community will earn higher heritage values Historical Association. People, events, themes or well-known builders define historical associations and earn heritage points based on links to historical memories Documentation and Public Interest. Structures which have been studied or documented in written record outside of the Public Works Department of the City will earn points.
A classification score, as outlined in Table 3, is given to a structure to determine its overall heritage value based on the Cultural Heritage Assessment methodology as outlined above.
Table 3: Classification of Heritage Bridges
Score Classification 70+ Class A: Exceptional Heritage Value 55-69 Class B: High Heritage Value 40-54 Class C: Moderate Heritage Value 39 or less Class D: Low Heritage Value
The Mountain Park Avenue structure received a score of 49; moderate heritage value. The assessment report completed by ASI in 2012 concludes that the structure has undergone limited modifications since its construction in 1930. The original bridge design remains apparent even though some of the original decorative elements have been removed including light posts and recessed rectangular panels in the fascia. The remaining character defining elements include: Proximity of the structure to the edge of the Niagara Escarpment Significant views from the structure
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 13 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Open-concept railing design Concrete end posts and wingwalls with recessed panels forming diamond and original triangular shapes Single span, beam design.
Ultimately, the bridge contributes to the scenic surroundings of the Sherman Cut and Mountain Park Avenue and functions as a landmark and gateway to the Hamilton Mountain Community. Constructed in 1930, the structure has played an important role in the development of the Mountain Community by providing a low-grade access up the Niagara Escarpment. The structure is visually and physically linked to Mountain Park Avenue which stretches along the edge of the Niagara Escarpment and provides views over Hamilton and Lake Ontario.
Opportunities to incorporate sympathetic heritage features into the design will be reviewed during detail design, with allowances for the use of new technologies and materials and where technically and economically feasible.
3.5 Archaeology
The area surrounding the bridge was extensively and intensively disturbed by the construction of the structure in 1930 on bedrock. As the area is entirely disturbed, it is unlikely it retains potential for the discovery of archaeological resources.
4. PHASE 2 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
4.1 Alternative Solutions
Due to the existing condition of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge, the following alternatives were considered as part of this environmental assessment.
Alternative 1 – Rehabilitate Existing Bridge The 2011 Inspection Report recommends extensive repairs/rehabilitations be completed by 2017, if the bridge is not replaced, as outlined in Section 2 of this report. This alternative includes completing all of the work recommended in the 2011 Inspection Report.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 14 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Alternative 2 – Remove and Do Not Replace This alternative involves removing the existing bridge and not replacing it with a new structure. Mountain Park Avenue would terminate at the existing crossing, with access to the hospital driveway and Upper Sherman Avenue maintained.
Alternative 3 – Replace Bridge with a Pedestrian Only Structure This alternative involves removing the existing bridge and replacing it with a pedestrian structure. Mountain Park Avenue would terminate at Poplar Street and Upper Sherman Avenue.
Alternative 4 – Replace Bridge This alternative assumes the existing bridge would be replaced with a new bridge that accommodates vehicles and pedestrians.
Alternative 5 – Do Nothing This alternative involves keeping the bridge in its existing condition and not completing any significant rehabilitation work beyond minor repairs. As outlined in the July 2012 Inspection Report, due to the condition of the bridge, extensive rehabilitation and/or replacement is required within the next five years.
4.2 Evaluation Criteria
The following criteria were used to evaluate the alternatives: Engineering and Traffic Considerations
o Impact on local traffic patterns and service levels. Alternatives which minimize long-term disruptions to local traffic patterns and current service levels are preferred
o Hospital Exit. Existing ambulance egress route is located immediately west of the bridge. Ambulances currently exit the hospital in both eastbound and westbound directions onto Mountain Park Avenue. The eastbound movements use the Mountain Park Avenue bridge. Access to the west will be maintained during construction. Hospital would prefer to maintain at least one access to the exit, and westbound direction is more likely to be possible to maintain
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 15 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Cultural Resources
o Built Heritage Considerations. Alternatives which allow for the consideration of sympathetic design elements are preferred, since the bridge was identified as having moderate heritage value Natural Environment
o Terrestrial Resources. Alternatives which minimize impacts to existing terrestrial resources are preferred Socio-Economic Environment
o Impacts to Existing Land Uses. Alternatives which minimize disruptions to existing land uses in the vicinity of the structure are preferred. Disruptions during and after construction are considered
o Impacts on Pedestrians and Cyclists. Alternatives which minimize disruptions to the existing multi-use trail are preferred
o Public Access to Hospital. Alternatives which minimize out-of-the-way travel to the hospital are preferred
o Conformity to City of Hamilton Urban Official Plan. Alternatives which are consistent with the City’s Official Plan are preferred
o Consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement. Alternatives which are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) are preferred Costs
o Relative Construction Cost. Alternatives which minimize the overall construction costs are preferred
o Maintenance costs. Alternatives which minimize ongoing maintenance costs are preferred.
The evaluation of alternatives is included in Table 4. Data was collected and potential impacts assessed for each alternative. The potential effects identified represent those effects anticipated assuming a standard level of mitigation is in place such as noise and dust control during construction, signed detour routes, etc. The impacts were described using qualitative data, based on experience on similar projects.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 16 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Table 4: Evaluation of Alternatives
Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 5 Evaluation Criteria Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Rehabilitate Existing Bridge Remove and Do Not Replace Do Nothing With Pedestrian Only Structure (Preferred Alternative) 1. Engineering and Traffic Considerations No immediate impacts, however the bridge has limited lifespan due to the deterioration of critical elements, that are recommended for immediate rehabilitation and/or Would force local vehicular traffic on Would force local vehicular traffic on replacement within 5 years. Mountain Park Avenue onto Mountain Park Avenue onto Impact on local Bridge will eventually be required to be Localized disruption during Concession Street Concession Street Localized disruption during traffic patterns and removed if it is not rehabilitated. rehabilitation as structure would rehabilitation as structure would be service levels be closed to through traffic Would interrupt continuity of Mountain Park pathway system closed to through traffic Would force local vehicular traffic on Mountain Park pathway system for maintained at crossing. Closures Mountain Park Avenue onto Concession pedestrians required during construction Street
Would interrupt continuity of Mountain Park pathway system for pedestrians Existing access maintained Existing access maintained following construction Permanently eliminates ability for Permanently eliminates ability for following construction Existing access maintained, however emergency vehicles to exit the emergency vehicles to exit the existing bridge has limited life-span if Temporary disruption during hospital eastbound on Mountain Park hospital eastbound on Mountain Park Hospital Exit Temporary disruption during required rehabilitations are not completed. construction as all emergency Avenue. This reduces redundancy Avenue. This reduces redundancy construction as all emergency Bridge will eventually be required to be vehicles exiting the hospital and potentially makes EMS travel and potentially makes EMS travel vehicles exiting the hospital will be removed if it is not rehabilitated would be required to exit time marginally longer. time marginally longer. required to exit westbound westbound Summary 2. Cultural Resources Rehabilitation of the structure allows for the greatest retention Opportunity to replace structure of heritage value, however Opportunity to replace structure with a with a bridge that includes No immediate impact, however existing rehabilitations required are bridge that includes sympathetic sympathetic heritage features bridge has limited life-span. Bridge will extensive (including railings and heritage features eventually be required to be removed if it is wingwalls) Removal of bridge eliminates Built Heritage Opportunities to incorporate not rehabilitated heritage feature, with no opportunity Opportunities to incorporate Considerations sympathetic heritage features into Opportunities to incorporate to replace crossing with a sympathetic heritage features into the the design, with allowances for the Future removal of bridge eliminates sympathetic heritage features sympathetically designed structure design, with allowances for the use of use of new technologies and heritage feature, with no opportunity to into the design, with allowances new technologies and materials and materials and where technically replace crossing with a sympathetically for the use of new technologies where technically and economically and economically feasible. designed structure and materials and where feasible.
technically and economically feasible. Summary
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 17 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 5 Evaluation Criteria Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Rehabilitate Existing Bridge Remove and Do Not Replace Do Nothing With Pedestrian Only Structure (Preferred Alternative) 3. Natural Features Minimal impact. Existing Minimal impact. Existing vegetation (shrubs and small Minimal impact. Existing vegetation Minimal impact. Existing vegetation vegetation (shrubs and small No immediate impacts, however existing trees) adjacent to the bridge (shrubs and small trees) adjacent to (shrubs and small trees) adjacent to trees) adjacent to the bridge would vegetation should be removed as it is Terrestrial Resources would be removed as it is the bridge would be removed as it is the bridge would be removed as it is be removed as it is currently currently damaging the escarpment face currently damaging the currently damaging the escarpment currently damaging the escarpment damaging the escarpment face and existing infrastructure escarpment face and existing face and existing infrastructure face and existing infrastructure and existing infrastructure infrastructure Summary 4. Socio-Economic Environment No immediate impacts, however existing Some disruption to Juravinski Some disruption to Juravinski bridge has a limited life-span. Bridge will Cancer Centre and existing Removing the bridge would not Removing the bridge would not Cancer Centre and existing eventually be required to be removed if it is Impacts to Existing apartment buildings during directly impact the existing land uses, directly impact the existing land uses, apartment buildings during not rehabilitated Land Uses construction. Disruption typical but would impact traffic patterns in but would impact traffic patterns in the construction. Disruption typical for for a roadway construction the area area a roadway construction project Removing the bridge would not directly project (noise, dust) (noise, dust) impact the existing land uses, but would impact traffic patterns in the area No immediate impacts, however existing Multi-use trail along Mountain Park bridge has a limited life-span. Bridge will Avenue/top of the escarpment eventually be required to be removed if it is Multi-use trail along Mountain Multi-use trail along Mountain Park closed at the crossing during not rehabilitated Park Avenue/top of the Avenue would not be continuous Multi-use trail along Mountain Park construction escarpment closed at the Avenue/top of the escarpment closed Multi-use trail along Mountain Park Avenue crossing during rehabilitation Pedestrian/cycling access across at the crossing during construction Pedestrian/cycling access across would not be continuous Impacts on Pedestrians Sherman Cut would require users Sherman Cut provided following and Cyclists On-road cycling can be follow Poplar Street, Concession Pedestrian/cycling access across construction Pedestrian/cycling access across Sherman accommodated following Street and Upper Sherman Avenue Sherman Cut provided following Cut would require users follow Poplar construction and separate construction Current status of Mountain Park Street, Concession Street and Upper cycling lanes will not be Not consistent with City’s Cycling Avenue as an on street signed Sherman Avenue provided Master Plan cycling route will be maintained post construction. Not consistent with City’s Cycling Master Plan Limited impact as access to Limited impact as access to hospital Limited impact as access to hospital Limited impact as access to No immediate impacts, however existing hospital and parking lot is and parking lot is primarily from and parking lot is primarily from hospital and parking lot is primarily bridge has a limited life-span. Bridge will primarily from Concession Concession Street Concession Street from Concession Street eventually be required to be removed if it is Street not rehabilitated Public Access to Existing 1 hour parking lot along Existing 1 hour parking lot along Existing 1 hour parking lot along Hospital Public can currently use 1 hour Mountain Park Avenue, east of Mountain Park Avenue, east of Mountain Park Avenue, east of Limited impact as access to hospital and parking, along Mountain Park crossing potentially used by public crossing potentially used by public for crossing potentially used by public parking lot is primarily from Concession Avenue, for various purposes. If for short-term hospital visits. Public short-term hospital visits. Public for short-term hospital visits. Street Mountain Park Avenue is would be required to access hospital would be required to access hospital Public would be required to access
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 18 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 5 Evaluation Criteria Replace Bridge Replace Bridge Rehabilitate Existing Bridge Remove and Do Not Replace Do Nothing With Pedestrian Only Structure (Preferred Alternative) blocked to public access during via Upper Sherman Avenue via Upper Sherman Avenue during hospital via Upper Sherman Existing 1 hour parking lot along Mountain construction, the hospital will construction Avenue during construction Park Avenue, east of crossing potentially continue to be accessible via used by public for short-term hospital visits. Concession Street Public would be required to access hospital via Upper Sherman Avenue if the bridge is ultimately closed and then removed
Conforms to Official Plan as the Conforms to Official Plan as the Conforms to Official Plan as the Conforms to Official Plan as the Conforms to Official Plan as the purpose of purpose of a local road is to purpose of a local road is to provide purpose of a local road is to provide purpose of a local road is to a local road is to provide direct land access provide direct land access and direct land access and to enable to direct land access and to enable to provide direct land access and to and to enable to movement of low volumes Conformity to City of to enable the movement of low movement of low volumes of traffic to movement of low volumes of traffic to enable the movement of low of traffic to collector roads. Access to Hamilton Official Plan volumes of traffic to collector collector roads. Access to collector roads. Access to volumes of traffic to collector Concession Street (a minor arterial) would roads. No change to road Concession Street (a minor arterial) Concession Street (a minor arterial) roads. No change to road be maintained via Poplar Street and Upper designation planned following would be maintained via Poplar would be maintained via Poplar Street designation planned following Sherman Avenue construction Street and Upper Sherman Avenue and Upper Sherman Avenue construction Consistent with policies for “Transportation Systems” and “Transportation and Not consistent with Policy 1.6.5.3 as Not consistent with Policy 1.6.5.3 as a Not consistent with Policy 1.6.5.3 as Consistency with Infrastructure Corridors”, removing the bridge limits the pedestrian only bridge limits the discontinuing maintenance will eventually Provincial Policy Consistent with Policy 1.6.5.3 Statement including maintaining or connectivity of the existing connectivity of the existing limit connectivity of the transportation improving connectivity within transportation system transportation system system and among transportation systems and modes (1.6.5.3) Summary 5. Costs High Cost, not cost effective High Cost, not cost effective due to the due to the added asset life that limited current asset life comparing to that Overall Long Term could be achieved. Bridge Economic Impact Low Cost Medium Cost Medium Cost which could be achieved. Bridge replacement eventually (relative cost) replacement eventually required, even if required, even if rehabilitations rehabilitations completed completed Capital Cost Less than $2.3 Million Less than $500,000 Less than $2.3 Million Less than $2.3 Million Greater than $2.3 Million Low – limited maintenance required Medium - ongoing maintenance Low – on-going maintenance required Low – on-going maintenance Maintenance Costs on Mountain Park Ave. at either end Medium - ongoing maintenance required required on new bridge required on new bridge of Sherman Cut Summary Overall Preferred Alternative Legend: - Relatively Positive, - Relatively Negative
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 19 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
This page is intentionally blank.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 20 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
The alternatives were assessed against the evaluation criteria as appropriate. The overall comparison of alternatives did not include the assignment of factor significance weightings, however cost and engineering considerations were considered to be the two most important criteria groupings.
The selection of the recommended alternative involved identifying and making trade-offs among the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives. The alternative that had the best overall balance of advantages and disadvantages was recommended as the preferred alternative.
4.3 Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative is Alternative 4, Replace Bridge with a structure that accommodates pedestrians and cyclists as well as vehicles. The structure will be a similar configuration to the existing. Sympathetic design elements to the existing bridge will be considered during the design phase, recognizing the bridge’s moderate heritage value. The new bridge will include historically sympathetic design qualities, with allowances for the use of new technologies and materials and where technically and economically feasible.
5. PUBLIC & AGENCY CONSULTATION
This section summarizes consultation completed throughout the study. The consultation completed follows the requirements on the Class EA process. Materials referred to in this section are included in Appendix A.
5.1 Study Contact List
The contact list includes approximately 115 individuals, including representatives of Federal agencies, Provincial ministries, local agencies, utilities, emergency service providers, First Nations and adjacent residents. The contact list was updated throughout the study based on feedback received. A copy of the updated list is included in Appendix A.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 21 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
5.2 Project Website
Information on the study, including notices and the Interim Report were available on the City of Hamilton’s website at www.hamilton.ca/MountainParkBridgeEA. The website was updated throughout the study.
5.3. Notice of Study Commencement
The Notice of Study Commencement was published in the Hamilton Spectator on September 21 and 28, 2012 and the Mountain News on September 20 and 27, 2012. A letter providing details on the project location and study process along with a comment form and a link to the study website was sent to all contacts on the project contact list on September 18, 2012. Three responses were received (included in Appendix A) to the notice. Table 5 summarizes the responses received and how they have been incorporated in the study. No significant concerns were expressed.
Table 5: Notice of Study Commencement Comments
Response/Consideration Agency Comments in Project Transport The project must comply with the There are no water courses Canada Navigable Water Protection Act. in study area. The study area is within the Niagara Niagara Escarpment Plan Area and proposed Comment noted. Further Escarpment works may require a Development consultation required during Commission Permit from the Niagara Escarpment Interim Report stage. Commission. Juravinski Hospital administration requested to be Consultation with the Cancer Centre, kept advised of the study progress, hospital will be ongoing Hamilton Health including potential impacts during throughout the design and Sciences Centre construction. construction phases. No Hydro One facilities will be impacted by project under current Hydro One Comment noted. No further scope. No further consultation is Networks Inc. consultation required. required providing scope of work does not change.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 22 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
5.4 Interim Report
An Interim Report was made available for public review from October 15 to 29, 2012. The report included information on the study background, Phase 1 problem and opportunity identification, existing conditions and Phase 2, evaluation of alternatives and identification of the recommended solution.
A notice outlining the public review process and locations where the document was available for review was sent to the agency contact list and area residents. The notice was published in the Mountain News on October 4 and 11, 2012 and in the Hamilton Spectator October 5 and 12, 2012.
The report was available at the Terryberry Branch Library, City of Hamilton Public Works Department, City Clerk’s Department and on the City’s webpage.
Four responses were received (included in Appendix A) from the public and agencies and are summarized in Table 6. No significant concerns were expressed.
Table 6: Summary of Interim Report Comments
Study Teams Response/ Contact Comments Consideration in Project Section 4.5.4 of the Interim Report NEC will be consulted during detail states the City of Hamilton’s Official design to determine if a plan allows construction within the development permit is required. Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) area for projects on existing The bridge design will consider infrastructure routes. The Niagara sympathetic design features where Niagara Escarpment Plan should supersede possible dependent on material, Escarpment the City’s Official Plan, however technology and cost. Commission construction is still permitted under (NEC) Section 2.3 of the NEP The bridge will not include a bump out/observation deck due to site NEC requests to be consulted constraints. There is a multi-use during detail design to determine if trail adjacent to the bridge with a development permit is required for open railings and a good view of the project. the lower City.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 23 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Study Teams Response/ Contact Comments Consideration in Project If replacement of the bridge is the The design will not include a preferred alternative, NEC would staircase to Sherman Cut below like to ensure the objectives of the due to site constraints and no NEP are achieved through the continuity of the pedestrian facility design of the new structure by below. preserving the cultural landscape, enhancing scenic quality and Replacement of the Bin Walls on providing adequate public access. Sherman Cut will be coordinated with the bridge replacement. NEC supports the requirement to Several options will be reviewed use sympathetic heritage design during detail design that will be features but notes that pedestrian both structurally feasible and observation decks should be minimize visual impacts. considered. A staircase for pedestrian access from the top of the escarpment to the Bruce Trail below should be considered. Options to explore minimizing the visual impacts of the bin walls should be considered. MTCS received the Heritage Impact Construction of the new bridge will Assessment report (October 2012) include historically sympathetic and has no issues with the technical design qualities to the heritage assessment and cultural heritage bridge with allowances for the use attributes identified. of new technologies and materials, Ministry of and where technically and Tourism, MTCS preferred Alternative 1, as economically feasible. Culture and this alternative has the fewest Sport impacts to the defined heritage (MTCS) attributes of the bridge.
Where cultural heritage resources are disrupted, buffering and other forms of mitigation should be adopted.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 24 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Study Teams Response/ Contact Comments Consideration in Project There is a blind spot for drivers north on Upper Sherman Avenue Comment noted. Will be Resident when making left hand turns onto considered during detail design. Mountain Park Avenue. Please send copy of Interim Report Interim report sent. Added to Resident and keep informed of project mailing list.
5.5 First Nations Engagement
The following First Nations were consulted throughout the study: Huron-Wendat First Nation Six Nations of the Grand River Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation Nipissing First Nation - Union of Ontario Indians.
A number of other First Nation groups and affiliated organizations were also sent copies of the notice, as outlined in Appendix B. The Notice of Study Commencement and Notice of Interim Report were sent to all of the contacts. In addition to the notices, follow-up phone calls were made in October to confirm the information was received and if there were any questions or concerns to address.
Four comments were received from First Nation groups (Appendix B). Table 7 summarizes the responses received.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 25 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Table 7: Summary of First Nations Comments
Study Teams Contact Summary of Comments Response/Consideration in Project Consultation should be Association of undertaken with directly affected Iroquois and Allied Removed from mailing list. First Nations. AIAI requested to Indians (AIAI) be removed from the contact list. Aboriginal Affairs and Provided contact information for Contact information for Northern aboriginal groups potentially aboriginal groups added to Development Canada interested in the project. project mailing list. (AANDC) Does not have authority to comment on lands issues on Assembly of First behalf of local First Nations Contacts added to project Nations groups. Provided contact mailing list. information for potentially interested First Nations. An email response was provided on November 8, 2012 stating it was determined the area has Requested to be kept informed been previously disturbed of the study. and there is no potential for If an archaeology assessment Six Nations Elected increased findings, has been completed for this Council therefore an archaeology study, requested a copy be assessment was not provided to Six Nations Elected completed. Council.
A copy of the draft Heritage Impact Assessment Report for the bridge was provided.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 26 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
5.6 Notice of Completion
This Project File Report will be available for the required minimum 30-day public and agency review period. The Class EA entitles any person who has significant concerns, which cannot be resolved with the proponent (City of Hamilton), to request the Minister of the Environment to change the status of the project from a Class EA to an individual EA by issuing a Part II Order under the EA Act.
If there are no Part II order requests, the proposed Mountain Park Avenue Bridge Replacement may proceed to Detail Design and construction.
6. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
As part of the screening process, an impact assessment of the recommended bridge replacement was completed and measures and provisions to avoid/mitigate adverse effects where possible are documented in Table 8. Table 8 outlines the commitments for design and construction that must be undertaken to comply with the Class EA and Environmental Assessment Act.
There are no design related approvals required prior to construction, unless the project extends into the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s permit area.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 27 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
This page is intentionally blank.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 28 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Table 8: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Feature Potential Impact Mitigation Measures Application When/Where Traffic Impacts Access across the Current road users (traffic, cyclists, When the bridge is closed, it is anticipated traffic may use Poplar Street and Concession Street as an alternative route. During site preparation and Sherman Cut at pedestrians) will be required to use an construction activities Mountain Park alternate route during construction. Mountain Park Avenue east of the bridge is a fairly low volume roadway which provides access to several residential Avenue will be apartment buildings. The Mountain Park Avenue/Concession Street intersection will remain open throughout closed during construction to provide access for area residents. construction. Residents will be notified in advance of the bridge closure. Intersection Closure Upper Sherman at Mountain Park Avenue As outlined above, area residents will be required to use alternative routes around the construction area. During construction will be closed during construction. The activities intersection closure is required to provide Access will be maintained via Concession Street. the required work area for the contractor to complete the work. Where access to driveways is impacted during construction, alternate arrangements for parking, including permitting overnight on-street parking will be made with affected residents. Emergency Medical Eastbound turning movements, from the EMS providers will be updated on the construction status and timing of construction activities. During site preparation and Services Juravinski Cancer Centre EMS access construction activities driveway to Mountain Park Avenue will be Hamilton Health Sciences Centre has advised the City the eastbound access restrictions will not have a significant restricted during construction. The impact on the existing operations. The majority of vehicles exiting the hospital onto Mountain Avenue exit in a westbound (left turns) will be maintained. westbound direction. The City will be in contact with the hospital throughout construction and will revise the signal to provide for both entry and exit at the EMS entrance at Concession Street, if required. Parking Parking lot on Mountain Park Avenue, east It is anticipated the parking area is primarily used by people accessing the trail along the escarpment and short-term During site preparation and of the bridge is anticipated to be closed trips to the hospital. Displacement of these parking spaces during construction is unavoidable, however is not construction activities during construction. The parking area anticipated to have a significant impact as there are several other parking options in the local area. provides space for 12 vehicles and is limited to 1 hour parking. Niagara Escarpment Slope stability and Possible slope failure and erosion from Contract will include measures to minimize erosion slope stability at the Sherman Cut. Consultation with the Niagara During site preparation and erosion control construction impacts as well as natural Escarpment Commission has been ongoing and the design will include construction methods appropriate to the construction activities measures causes along the Sherman Cut. existing geotechnical conditions.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 29 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Table 8: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Feature Potential Impact Mitigation Measures Application When/Where Impacts on Cultural Resources Built Heritage The existing bridge is designated as a Construction of the new bridge will include historically sympathetic design qualities to the heritage bridge with During detail design heritage structure. Removal or allowances for the use of new technologies and materials and where technically and economically feasible. modifications to the structure could result in a loss of heritage resources. Construction of a new bridge should include provisions for sympathetic design by including replicated character defining elements.
Development of a commemorative strategy, such as plaquing, may be appropriate. Archaeology Due to the previously disturbed nature of Should deeply buried archaeological materials be found on the property the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and During site preparation and the site and surrounding lands, as well as Sport (MTCS) should be notified immediately (416.314.7143). construction activities the presence of bedrock close to the surface, there is limited potential for the In the event human remains are encountered during construction, the contractor should immediately contact both discovery of archaeological artifacts during MTCS and the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Small Business and construction. Consumer Services (416.326.8392). Impacts to Natural Heritage Resources Vegetation growing within the study area is currently impacting the stability of the Niagara Escarpment in a negative During site preparation and Patches of vegetation (bushes and small manner and its removal will increase the stability of the shale bedrock found throughout the study area. construction activities tree saplings) along the top of the exposed Vegetation escarpment rock and along the base of the Vegetation removal should be completed outside of the breeding bird season, which is between May 1 and July 31. bridge will be removed as required during Vegetation removal during the restricted bird breeding period can occur if a qualified Avian Biologist conducts a nest construction. (Figure 4) search of the vegetated area prior to work commencing and it is determined that active nests are not present in proximity to the removal area. There is potential for existing landscape During site preparation and vegetation on the hospital property construction activities Existing Vegetation removed on private property will be reinstated following construction, where possible. Direct impacts to (immediately west of the bridge) to be Landscaping hospital lands will be reviewed with hospital staff in advance of construction. impacted to accommodate construction of the new bridge. No migratory or other protected birds have been identified in the study area, however to minimize potential impacts, During site preparation and Migratory and Other Potential destruction of nests, eggs and vegetation removal should not occur between April 15 and August 15. construction activities Protected Birds young prior to, and during, construction. Contractor must comply with the Migratory Bird Convention Act and not disturb, harm or harass actively breeding birds.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 30 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
Table 8: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Feature Potential Impact Mitigation Measures Application When/Where Based on the field review completed, there During site preparation and is limited potential for Species At Risk to be construction activities If Species at Risk are encountered, the contractor will advise the City of Hamilton and the Ministry of Natural Species at Risk within the project area. However, if Resources will be contacted to identify the appropriate procedures to implement. encountered, construction activities would disturb their habitat. Soils and other materials to be disposed of will be tested for contamination should there be visual evidence of the General construction Contaminated Potential to encounter contaminated same. Any contaminated soils or other materials encountered will be managed in a manner that is consistent with activities Sediments sediments during construction. provincial requirements. Socio-Economic Environment Contractor will be required to comply with the City of Hamilton Noise Control By-law and Ontario Provincial Standards During site preparation and (OPS) for dust suppression during construction (OPSS 506). construction activities Short Term Construction of the new bridge will result in (Construction) impacts typical of a construction area, Vehicles and machinery should be equipped with emission controls, as applicable, and operated within regulatory Noise and Air including noise from construction requirements. Quality Impacts equipment, reversing signals, dust, etc. Equipment should be maintained based on the manufacturer’s specifications in order to minimize emissions and be fitted with muffler/exhaust systems where appropriate. New bridge will alter the streetscape of Existing Design elements sympathetic to the existing bridge will be incorporated where possible into the design of the new Mountain Park Avenue and the gateway to Streetscape bridge, as recommended in the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report. the Hamilton Mountain community.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 31 City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
This page is intentionally blank.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 32 CIty of Hamilton Mountain Park Bridge (No. 87) Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Vegetation Removals Figure 4
Legend Vegetation Removals
SCALE 1:500 ² 0 3.5 7 14 21 28 Meters
MAP CREATED BY: BJF MAP CHECKED BY: SNS MAP PROJECTION: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
FILE LOCATION: \\DILLON.CA\DILLON_DFS\LONDON\LONDON CAD\GIS\ 126151\ELC MAPPING\Detour Route Map.MXD
PROJECT: 12-6835
STATUS: FINAL
Date: 11/2/2012
City of Hamilton Mountain Park Avenue Bridge – Class Environmental Assessment (Project File Report)
7. PROJECT SCHEDULE
Following the 30-day public and agency review period for this Project File Report the proposed project schedule is: Preparation of detail design drawings and Contract Documents for the construction of the new bridge The drawings and documents must incorporate all of the environmental and mitigation measures identified in this report (Table 8) to avoid/mitigate adverse impacts. During detail design, mitigation measures will be developed in more detail as required. The detail design phase will be completed in early 2013 Construction is currently scheduled for the 2013 construction season.
Dillon Consulting Limited – November 2012 – 12-6835 Page 33
APPENDIX A
Public and Agency Consultation
Mountain Park Avenue Bridge Replacement - Study Contact List Updated November 2012 Last Name First Name Title Job Title Organization Street Address City and Province Postal Contact Information Code
City of Hamilton Staff **TO BE SENT ELECTRONIC COPY OF MAILOUT*** Barnhart Steve Mr. Acting Manager, Public Works 77 James Street North, Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3 905-546-2424 x2347 Landscape Architectural Suite 400 Services Bradford Anna Ms. Director of Culture Community Services 77 James St. N., Suite Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3 905-546-2424 x3967 305A
Bratina Bob Mr. Mayor - City of Hamilton City of Hamilton 71 Main Street West, 2nd Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5 905-546-4200 Floor
Waugh Doug Mr. Acting Parametic Chief, Hamilton Emergency 55 King William Street Hamilton, ON L8R 1A2 905-546-2813 x7742 Operations Services (Medical)
Cunliffe Dave Mr. Director of Fire Hamilton Emergency 1227 Stone Church Road Hamilton, ON L8W 2C6 905-546-2424 x3340 Operations/Deputy Chief Services (Fire) East
Doyle Jim Mr. Assistant Deputy Chief Emergency Services 1227 Stone Church Road Hamilton, ON L8W 2C6 905-546-2424 x3377 (Fire) East
Grice Andrew Mr. Manager of Policy and Public Works 77 James St. N., Suite 400 Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3 905-546-2424 x1461 Programs
Duvall Scott Mr. Councillor, Ward 7 City of Hamilton 71 Main Street West, 2nd Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5 905-546-2706 Floor
Everson Neil Mr. Executive Director Economic Development 71 Main St W 7th flr Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5 905-546-2424 x2359 & Real Estate
Goodger Beth Ms. Senior Director, Waste Public Works 77 James St N, Suite 400 Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3 905-546-2424 x4409 Management
Hazell Marty Mr. Senior Director, Parking & Planning & Economic 77 James St. N., Suite 250 Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3 905-546-2424 x4588 By-Law Services Development
Hendry Gillian Ms. Director, Social Housing Community Services 55 Hess Street South, 23rd Hamilton, ON L8N 4E5 905-546-2424 x4818 and Homelessness Floor Mountain Park Avenue Bridge Replacement - Study Contact List Updated November 2012 Last Name First Name Title Job Title Organization Street Address City and Province Postal Contact Information Code
Homerski Philip Mr. Information and Business Operations & Waste 77 James St N, Suite 400 Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3 905-546-2424 x5620 Advisor Management Cell: 905-977-1494
Hull Don Mr. Director of Transit Public Works 2200 Upper James Street Mount Hope, ON L0R 1W0 905-546-2424 x1860
Jackson Tom Mr. Councillor, Ward 6 City of Hamilton 71 Main Street West, 2nd Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5 905-546-2707 Floor
Janssen Bill Mr. Director, Community Planning & Economic 71 Mains St W 4th Flr Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5 905-546-2424 x1261 Planning & Design Development
Skrypniak Lorissa Ms. Acting Manager, Public Works 77 James St. N., Suite 400 Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3 905-546-2424 x2732 Transportation Planning
Lee-Morrison Christine Ms. Manager, Mobility Public Works 77 James St. N., Suite 400 Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3 905-546-2424 x6390 Programs and Special Projects Mallard Paul Mr. Director of Planning Planning & Economic 71 Main St W 6th Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5 905-546-2424 x4281 Development
Maloney Eileen Ms. Co-Ordinator Business Planning & Economic 71 Main St W 7th flr Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5 905-546-2424 x2632 Improvement Areas Development
McKinnon Dan Mr. Director Water & Wastewater 77 James St. N., Suite 400 Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3 905.546.2424 x5941 Operations
Sergi Michelle Ms. Acting Cultural Heritage Planning & Economic 71 Main St W 6th flr Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5 905-546-2424 x1281 Planner Development
Murdoch Craig Mr. Director of Environmental Public Works 77 James St. N., Suite 400 Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3 905-546-2424 x4490 Services
Norman Robert Mr. Acting Director, Strategic Public Works 77 James St. N., Suite 400 Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3 905-546-2424 x2298 Planning Mountain Park Avenue Bridge Replacement - Study Contact List Updated November 2012 Last Name First Name Title Job Title Organization Street Address City and Province Postal Contact Information Code
Norton Glen Mr. Manager, Urban Renewal Planning & Economic Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5 905-546-2424 x 5780 71 Main Street West, 7th Development Floor Lukasik Laura Ms. Manager, Partnerships & Hamilton Public Library 55 York Boulevard Hamilton, ON L8N 4E4 905 546 3200 x7861 Outreach
Plosz Catherine Ms. Natural Heritage Planner Planning & Economic 71 Main St W 6 Flr Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5 905-546-2424 x1231 Development Prpic Emil Mr. Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3 905-546-2424 x4203 Manager, Recycling & 77 James Street North, Public Works Waste Disposal Suite 400 Sergi Michelle Ms. Manager, Community Planning & Economic 71 Main Street West, 6th Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5 905-546-2424 x 1281 Planning and Design Development Floor
Shynal Bryan Mr. Director of Operations Public Works 77 James St. N., Suite 400 Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3 905-546-2424 x4622
Storey Angela Ms. Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3 905-546-2424 x6483 Manager of Business and 77 James Street North, Public Works Support Services Suite 400
Tollis Tony Mr. City Treasurer Corporate Services 71 Main St W 1st Flr Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5 905-546-2424 x4549
Tomasik Helen Hale Ms. Executive Director Human City Managers Office 120 King St. W 9th Flr Hamilton, ON L8P 4V2 905-546-2424 x4155 Resources
Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y5 905-546-2424 x2739 Director, Financial Planning 71 Main Street West, 1st Zegarac Mike Mr. Corporate Services & Policy Floor Conservation Authority Peck Scott Mr. Manager of Watershed Hamilton Conservation Box 81067 Ancaster, ON L9G 4X1 905-525-2181 Planning Services Authority 838 Mineral Springs Rd. Fax 905-648-4622 Provinicial Authorities Dea Jeffrey Mr. Environmental Assessment Ministry of the 2 St. Clair Ave. W. 14th Toronto, ON M4V 1L5 416-314-7213 & Approvals Branch Environment Floor [email protected] Mountain Park Avenue Bridge Replacement - Study Contact List Updated November 2012 Last Name First Name Title Job Title Organization Street Address City and Province Postal Contact Information Code
Durst Joad Mr. Area Supervisor, Niagara Ministry of Natural 4890 Victoria Ave. N., P.O. Vineland, ON L0R 2E0 905-562-1175 Area Office Resources Box 5000 Fax 905-562-1154 Ferris Neal Mr. Regional Archaeologist, Ministry of Culture 900 Highbury Avenue London, ON N5Y 1A4 (519) 675-6898 Southwestern Fax (519) 675-7777 Archaeological Field Office [email protected]
Head - Highway Ministry of 1201 Wilson Ave., Bldg. Downsview, ON M4V 1L5 416-235-4540 Engineering - Transportation D., 3rd Floor Fax 416-235-3576 Hamilton & Niagara [email protected] Johnson Michael Mr. Manager, Heritage Ministry of Culture 400 University Ave., 4th Toronto, ON M7A 2R9 Operations Unit, Heritage & Floor Libraries Branch Johnson Ashley Ms. Policy Advisor - Minstry of Aboriginal 160 Bloor Street East, 9th Toronto, ON M7A 2E6 Tel: (416) 326-6313 Consultation Unit Affairs Floor Fax: (416) 325-1066 [email protected] O'Mara James Mr. Director, Environmental Ministry of the 2 St. Clair Ave. W. Toronto, ON M4V 1L5 416-314-7288 Assessment & Approvals Environment Fax 416-314-8452 Branch james.o'[email protected] Ruggero Sue Ms. OAIA 144 Marita Place Concord, ON L4K 3J9 Slattery Barbara Ms. Environmental Assessment Ministry of the 119 King St. W., 12th Floor Hamilton, ON L8P 4Y7 905-521-7864 & Planning Co-ordinator Environment Fax 905-521-7806 [email protected] Thornton Ian Mr. Information Management Ministry of Natural 1 Stone Rd. W. Guelph, ON N1G 4Y2 519-826-4928 Supervisor Resources [email protected] Van Room Pauline Ms. Highway Engineering Ministry of 1201 Wilson Ave; Bldg. D. Downsview, ON M4V 1L5 Hamilton Transportation 4th Floor Wheaton Pam Ms. Director, Policy and Ministry of Aboriginal 720 Bay St.4th Floor Toronto, ON M5G 2K1 Fax 416-326-4017 Relationships Branch Affairs [email protected] Whitebread Ken Mr. Manager Niagara Escarpment 232 A Guelph Street Georgetown, ON L7G 4B1 Commission Zirger Rosi A/Heritage Planner Ministry of Tourism & 401 Bay Street, 17th Floor Toronto, ON M7A 0A7 416-314-7159 Culture Fax 416-314-7175 [email protected] Federal Authorities Boswell Don Mr. Senior Claims Analyst, Department of Indian 10 Wellington St. Rm 1310 Gatineau, QC K1A 0H4 Fax 819-956-2258 Specific Claims Branch and Nothern Affairs [email protected] Mountain Park Avenue Bridge Replacement - Study Contact List Updated November 2012 Last Name First Name Title Job Title Organization Street Address City and Province Postal Contact Information Code
Darcy Sean Mr. Manager Ministry of Indian and 1310-10 Wellington St. Gatineau, QC K1A 0H4 819-997-8155 Northern Affairs Fax: 819-997-1366 [email protected] Environmental Sir/Mad E/A Project Co-ordination 2 St. Clair Ave. W. 14th Toronto, ON M4V 1L5 [email protected] Assessment & am Section Floor Approvals Branch Millaire Marc-André Mr. Litigation Team Leader for Aboriginal Affairs and 1310-10 Wellington St. Gatineau, QC K1A 0H4 819-994-1947 Ontario, Litigation Northern Development Fax: 819-953-1139 Management and Canada [email protected] Resolutions Branch Ministry of Public Sir/Mad 7 Queen's Park Crescent, Toronto, ON M7A 1Y7 416-325-0424 Infrastructure am 6th Floor, Frost Bldg. Fax 416-325-8851 South [email protected] National Heritage Sir/Mad 300 Water Street Peterborough, ON K9J 8M4 Information Centre am Pachoil Carol Ms. Retail Business Manager Canada Post 27 Legend Crt Ancaster, ON L9K 1J0 905-304-2225 Commercial Service Centre Roy Franklin Mr. Director, Litigation Department of Indian 10 Wellington St. Gatineau, QC K1A 0H4 Fax 819-997-1679 Management and and Nothern Affairs [email protected] Resolution Branch Townson Janet Ms. Claims Analyst, Ontario Ministry of Indian and 1310-10 Wellington St. Gatineau, QC K1A 0H4 819-953-4667 Team, Specific Claims Northern Affairs Fax: 819-997-9873 Branch [email protected] Trepanier Louise Ms. Director, Claims East of Department of Indian 1310-10 Wellington St. Gatineau, QC K1A 0H4 Fax: 819-953-3109 Manitoba, Comprehensive and Nothern Affairs [email protected] Claims Branch
Wright Mark Mr. Navigable Waterways Transport Canada 100 South Front Street Sarnia, ON N7T 2M4 Program Sir/Mad 15 Eddy Street Hull, QC K1A 0N9 1-888-222-2592 am Fax 819-953-8353 [email protected] BIAs Neighbourhood Groups - Mountain Park Avenue Bridge Replacement - Study Contact List Updated November 2012 Last Name First Name Title Job Title Organization Street Address City and Province Postal Contact Information Code
Lozinski Lorne Executive Director Concession Street BIA 10 Mariott Place Hamilton, ON L9C 2N6 905-745-9497 Fax 905-385-4441 [email protected] Utilities Ardelli Terri Ms. Land Analyst, Urban TransCanada Pipelines 450-1st Street S.W. Calgary, AB T2P 5H1 403-920-7370 Development Fax 403-920-2329 [email protected] Blakely John Mr. Senior Right-of-Way Agent Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 801 Upper Canada Drive Sarnia, ON N7W 1A3 (519)339-0507 P.O Box 128 Fax 905-547-5237 Greco Enzo Mr. Mapping Supervisor Union Gas Box 10, 360 Strathearne Hamilton, ON L8N 3A5 Ave. N. Harten Ron Mr. General Manager, Hamilton Utilities 79 Bay Street North Hamilton, ON L8R 3P8 Hamilton Community Corporation Energy Hayes Janice Ms. Cogeco Cable Inc. 695 Lawrence Road Hamilton, ON L8K 6P2 905-689-1233 Ierullo Tony Senior Network Hydro One 483 Bay Street (location Toronto, ON M5G 2P5 [email protected] Management TCT15) Engineer/Officer Lamoureux Dave Mr. Operations Manager Union Gas 360 Strathearne Ave. N. Hamilton, ON L8N 3A5 905-548-3441 Lane Paul Mr. Sun Canadian Pipeline 830 Highway 6 North P.O. Waterdown, ON L0R 2H0 905-689-6641 x136 Box 470 Fax 514-395-5613 plane@sun-canadian-com Milano Bruno Mr. Planner/Designer Source Cable 1090 Upper Wellington St Hamilton, ON L9A 3S6 Work # 905-318-4663 Cell # 905-971-2762 Mitchell Colleen Ms. Land Agent - Eastern Imperial Oil Products & 100 - 5th Concession Rd. Waterdown, ON L0R 2H1 1-888-242-6660 x242 Pipeline Operations Chemical Division E. [email protected] Newman Ann Ms. Crossings Co-ordinator, Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 801 Upper Canada Drive Sarnia, ON N7W 1A3 (519)339-0503 Eastern Region P.O Box 128 Ontario Power Sir/Madam 700 University Avenue Toronto, ON M5G 1X6 416-592-2555 Generation Roth Alf Mr. Union Gas Ltd. 360 Strathearne Ave. N. Hamilton, ON L8N 3A5 Strugar Steve Mr. Manager of Capital Horizon Utilities 55 John St. N., 6th Floor Hamilton, ON L8R 3M8 Projects Corporation Sutton Eleanor Ms. Bell Canada 20 Hunter St. W. Hamilton, ON L8N 3H2 (905) 577-6093
Walker Astle Mr. Cogeco Cable Inc - 950 P.O. Box 5076, Station Burlington, ON L7R 4S6 Syscon Road Main Mountain Park Avenue Bridge Replacement - Study Contact List Updated November 2012 Last Name First Name Title Job Title Organization Street Address City and Province Postal Contact Information Code
Hospitals Torbiak Roxanne Ms. Sr. Public Relations Juravinski Cancer Centre 699 Concession St. Hamilton, ON L8V 5C2 905-521-2100 Ex. 63015 (Kantzavelos) Specialist, JH & CC [email protected] Torbiak Roxanne Ms. Sr. Public Relations Juravinski Hospital 711 Concession St. Hamilton, ON L8V 1C3 905-521-2100 Ex. 63015 (Kantzavelos) Specialist, JH & CC [email protected] Ryder Marvin Mr. Chair, Board of Directors Hamilton Health P.O. Box 2000 Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5 [email protected] Sciences Schools Brennan Jessica Ms. Chair Hamilton-Wentworth 100 Main St. W. Hamilton, ON L8N 3L1 District School Board P.O. Box 2558 Daly Pat Hamilton District Catholic 90 Mulberry Street P.O. Box 2012 Hamilton, ON L8N 3R9 School Baord Kanaroglou Pavlos Mr. Professor/Acting Director - McMaster University - 1280 Main St. W. Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1 905.525.9140 x23525 Canada Research Chair Gen. Science Bldg. Rm [email protected] 207 Pace P. Hamilton District Catholic 90 Mulberry Street P.O. Box 2012 Hamilton, ON L8N 3R9 School Baord McKerrall Dan Mr. Accommodation & Hamilton-Wentworth 100 Main St. W. Hamilton, ON L8N 3L1 Planning District School Board P.O. Box 2558 Labrecque S. French Public School 116 Cornelius Parkway Toronto, ON M6L 2K5 Board Beaudin A. French Catholic School 110 Drewry Avenue North York, ON M2M 1c8 Board Other Hamilton Central Sir/Mad 661 Upper James Hamilton, ON L9C 7N7 Ambulance am P.O. Box 60527 Communication Centre Adames David Mr. Chief Executive Officer Hamilton Chamber of 555 Bay Street North Hamilton, ON L8L 1H1 (905) 522-1151 x229 Commerce Francey Dan Mr. Manager - Planning & Go Transit 20 Bay Street Suite 600 Toronto, ON M5J 2W3 416-869-3600 x5478 Development Fax 416-869-1563 [email protected] Gusen Andrea Ms. Stakeholder Relations Go Transit 20 Bay Street Suite 600 Toronto, ON M5J 2W3 416-869-3600 x5322
Mountain Park Ave. Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Notice of Study Commencement
THE STUDY The City of Hamilton needs to make improvements to the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge. The Mountain Park Bridge spans Hamilton’s Sherman Cut (please see the location map).
THE PROCESS The bridge improvements are being planned as a Schedule B Municipal Class EA under the auspices of the Municipal Engineers Association Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended 2007 and 2011). The EA will confirm the problem/opportunity; generate and assess alternative planning solutions, document the natural, historical, technical, socio- economic and cultural environments in the area, and identify the preliminary preferred alternative.
An information package on the alternatives being considered will be available for public review and comments and interested persons will be notified by direct mail. There is an
opportunity at any time during this process for interested persons to review issues and bring concerns to the attention of the Project Manager.
At the end of the study, a Project File Report, containing the process documentation and outcomes, will be presented for Council’s endorsement, and followed by the 30 day public review and comment period, with an opportunity for a Part II order (appeal).
PUBLIC COMMENTS INVITED Public consultation is a key component of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process. As noted above, information on the alternative solutions will be documented in a Technical Memorandum and will be available for review during the study. Information on the status of the project and the availability of the Technical Memorandum will be posted on the City’s project website www.hamilton.ca/MountainParkBridgeEA. If you would like to receive a copy of the Technical Memorandum, please contact the Project Manager noted below. If you have any questions or comments, any accessibility requirements in order to participate in this project, or wish to be added to the study mailing list, please contact:
Margaret Fazio, B. Sc., CCEP, MCIP, RPP Sabrina Stanlake, RPP Acting Senior Project Manager Planner Strategic Planning & Rapid Transit Dillon Consulting Limited Environment & Sustainable Infrastructure 130 Dufferin Avenue Suite 1400 Public Works Dept., City of Hamilton London, ON 400 - 77 James Street North N6A 5R2 Hamilton, ON, L8R 2K3 [email protected] [email protected] Phone: 519-438-1288 ext. 1235 Phone: 905 546 2424 ext. 2218 Fax: 519-630-3849 Fax: 905 546 4435
Information will be collected in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.
This Notice issued on Sept 20, 21, 27 & 28, 2012
Fwd:17/10/2012 CLASS EA Mountain Park Av enue Bridge, City of Hamilton NEATS 34620
Fox, Brandon
Fwd: CLASS EA Mountain Park Avenue Bridge, City of Hamilton NEATS 34620 1 message
Stanlake, Sabrina
Sabrina St anlake RPP, LEED AP As s ociate Dillon Consulting Limited 130 Dufferin A venue Suite 1400 London, Ontario, N6A 5 R2 T - 519.438.1288 ext. 1235 F - 519.672.8209 M - 519.630.3849 [email protected] www.dillon.ca Please consider the environment before printing this email
------Forwarded message ------From: EnviroOnt
Thank you for the information regarding the above referenced project. We have reviewed the information, and note the following:
Transport Canada is responsible for the administration of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), which prohibits the construction or placement of any “works” in navigable waters without first obtaining approval. If any of the related project undertakings cross or affect a potentially navigable waterway, the proponent should prepare and submit an application in accordance with the requirements as outlined in the attached Application Guide and Form. Any questions about the NWPA application process should be directed to the Navigable Waters Protection Program at (519) 383- 1863 or [email protected].
Please review the Minor Works and Waters (Navigable Waters Protection Act) Order, established to outline the specific standards and criteria under which Transport Canada considers a work as a minor and does not require an application under the NWPA. It is the responsibility of the applicant, prior to submitting an application to the Navigable Waters Protection Program for review, to assess whether their work meets the criteria, as described, and, therefore, falls within one of the excluded classes. An application will only be required if it is determined that the work cannot meet the criteria established for that particular “class” of excluded work. 1/3 17/10/2012
Transport Canada is also responsible for inspecting and auditing federally regulated railway companies that are subject to the Railway Safety Act. Transport Canada also regulates some provincial shortlines from the Province of Ontario that are part of an Agreement between the Federal Government and the Province of Ontario. The Railway Safety Act, with related regulations and rules, provides the legislative and regulatory framework for safe railway operations in Canada. The rail safety program develops, implements and promotes safety policy, regulations, standards and research, and in the case of railway grade crossings, subsidizes safety improvements. A list of all the Rail Safety legislations (the Act, Regulations, Rules, Guidelines, Policies and Standards) that applies to the federally regulated railways, can be found here:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/legislation.htm
The Act also addresses the construction and alteration of railway works, the operation and maintenance of railway equipment and certain non-railway operations that may affect the safety of federally regulated railways. If a proposed railway work is of a prescribed kind, pursuant to the Notice of Railway Works Regulations, the proponent shall not undertake the work unless it has first given notice of the work in accordance with the regulation. More information related to railway works is available at the following internet sites:
· Railway Safety Act: http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/acts/1985s4-32/menu.htm · Notice of Railway Works Regulations: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/SOR-91-103/ · Standards Respecting Pipeline Crossings Under Railways: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ railsafety/standards-tce10-236.htm · Guideline on Requesting Approval to Undertake Certain Railway Works: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/guideline-283.htm
General inquiries about the Rail Safety Program can be directed to [email protected] or by calling 613-998-2985.
Thank you,
Environmental Coordinator, Transport Canada - Ontario Region (PHE) 4900 Yonge Street, North York, ON M2N 6A5 [email protected]
2/3 Fwd:17/10/2012 CLASS EA Mountain Park Av enue Bridge, City of Hamilton NEATS 34620
2 attachments RDIMS-#6077714-v2-NWP_APP_GUIDE_EN.PDF 1713K RDIMS-#6077727-v2-FORM-_TC_APPLICATION_FORM.PDF 751K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3c05b73493&v iew=pt&search=inbox&th=13a1dcef 01f 45724 3/3
05/11/2012 Dillon Consulting Mail - Jurav inski Contact
Fox, Brandon
Juravinski Contact 1 message
Fox, Brandon
From: TOE, Assistant Environmental Planner
Sent: September 27, 2012 9:26 AM To: Ajayi, Omozokpia; Fazio, Margaret Subject: Juravinski Contact
Hello Margaret and Omo,
I finally got in contact with the Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre. The email below is to Ashley Nelson with whom I spoke with on the phone, she said that herself as well as Alan Buxton will be the main contacts from the hospital and Cancer Centre. Anything engineering related goes through Alan and anything HR or hospital related goes through Ashley. She also requested that she have your contact information, Margaret, which I have provided for her below.
If you need to call Ashley you may call her directly, however for Alan, it is best to call through his assistant Joanne Snelling at 905-521-2100 ext. 75379.
Here is their contact information:
Alan Buxton Ashley Nelson
Manager of Engineering JHCC Site Administrator Assistant
[email protected] 905-527-4322 ext 43531
Cheers,
Christina
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3c05b73493&v iew=pt&search=inbox&th=13ad117370f 237d4 1/6 05/11/2012 Dillon Consulting Mail - Jurav inski Contact ______Christina Wilkinson
Assistant Environmental Planner
Transportation Planning Section
Strategic Planning Group
Environment & Sustainable Infrastructure Division
Public Works Department, City of Hamilton
77 James Street North, Suite 400
Tel | 905-546-2424 ext. 6399
Fax | 905-546-4435
Email | [email protected]
-----Original Message----- From: TOE, Assistant Environmental Planner Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 9:17 AM To: 'Nelson Ashley'; Buxton Alan Subject: RE: Notice of Project Commencement
Hello Ashley,
As we discussed on the phone, please find attached the Notice of Project Commencement for the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge Project. We will be sure to keep yourself as well as Alan Buxton updated with the progress of the project as well as receive comments and concerns from the Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre throughout the duration of this project.
The Acting Senior Project Manager may be contacted through this address if you have any questions or concerns:
Margaret Fazio
400 - 77 James St. North, Suite 400
Hamilton, ON, L8R 2K3
Tel: 905 546 2424 ext. 2218
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3c05b73493&v iew=pt&search=inbox&th=13ad117370f 237d4 2/6 Dillon Consulting Mail - Jurav inski Contact Cheers,
Christina
______Christina Wilkinson
Assistant Environmental Planner
Transportation Planning Section
Strategic Planning Group
Environment & Sustainable Infrastructure Division
Public Works Department, City of Hamilton
77 James Street North, Suite 400
Tel | 905-546-2424 ext. 6399
Fax | 905-546-4435
Email | [email protected]
-----Original Message----- Fr om: Ne ls on Ashley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:37 PM To: Buxton Alan; TOE, Assistant Environmental Planner Subject: RE: Notice of Project Commencement
Hello,
My name is Ashley Nelson I am the Site Administrator Assistant at the JHCC, in follow up to your email below, are you able to provide us the scope of work being completed, dates and timelines?
Thank you,
Ashley
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3c05b73493&v iew=pt&search=inbox&th=13ad117370f 237d4 3/6 05/11/2012
Fr om: Lovett Cathy Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:01 PM To: Snoukphonh Vel Cc: Fortney Patricia; Buxton Alan Subject: RE: Notice of Project Commencement
Hi Vel,
I think this is Alan Buxton, Manager of engineering.
If we were in the middle of our own development ( like the past redevelopment that occupied that side of the campus)….I would say Capital would be the contact.
But this is really “business as usual” and Alan should be the site contact for this and then communicate as required to the reset of JHCC staff. Thanks, Cathy
Vel
From: TOE, Assistant Environmental Planner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:46 AM To: Snoukphonh Vel Subject: Notice of Project Commencement
Good Morning Vel Snoukphonh,
On behalf of the City of Hamilton Public Works Department, I am following up to a Notice of Project Commencement which should be received shortly in the mail. This project is located near the Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Center.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3c05b73493&v iew=pt&search=inbox&th=13ad117370f 237d4 4/6 05/11/2012 Dillon Consulting Mail - Jurav inski Contact
The City of Hamilton needs to make improvements to the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge, which runs over the Sherman Cut beside the Juravinski Hospital. Therefore, would you happen to know who should be notified from the Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Center of this project, as well as who should be our main contact through the duration of this project?
Thank you for your advice,
Christina
______
Christina Wilkinson
Assistant Environmental Planner
Transportation Planning Section
Strategic Planning Group
Environment & Sustainable Infrastructure Division
Public Works Department, City of Hamilton
77 James Street North, Suite 400
Tel | 905-546-2424 ext. 6399
Fax | 905-546-4435
Email | [email protected]
This information is directed in confidence solely to the person named above and may not otherwise be distributed, copied or disclosed. Therefore, this information should be considered strictly confidential. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via a return email for further direction. Thank you for your assistance.
-- Brandon Fox Dillon Consulting Limited 130 Dufferin Suite 1400 London, Ontario, N6A 5 R2 T - 519.438.1288 ext. 1307 [email protected] www.dillon.ca Pleas e consider the environment before printing this email
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3c05b73493&v iew=pt&search=inbox&th=13ad117370f 237d4 5/6 05/11/2012 Dillon Consulting Mail - Jurav inski Contact
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3c05b73493&v iew=pt&search=inbox&th=13ad117370f 237d4 6/6 Dillon Consulting Mail - Fwd: Mountain Park Av e. Bridge Class EA
Fox, Brandon
Fwd: Mountain Park Ave. Bridge Class EA 1 message
Fox, Brandon
From:
Dear Ms. Stanlake,
In our initial review, we can confirm that there are no Hydro One Transmission Facilities in the subject area.
Please be advised that this is only a preliminary assessment based on current information. No further consultation with Hydro One Networks Inc. is required if no changes are made to the current information.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Thanks
Jane Zhang
Transmission Lines Sustainment, System Investment
Asset Management, Hydro One Network s Inc.
483 Bay Street, 15th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2P5
Phone: 416-345-4251
1/2 05/11/2012Dillon Consulting Mail - Fwd: Mountain Park Av e. Bridge Class EA
-- Brandon Fox Dillon Consulting Limited 130 Dufferin Suite 1400 London, Ontario, N6A 5 R2 T - 519.438.1288 ext. 1307 [email protected] www.dillon.ca Pleas e consider the environment before printing this email
2/2
Mountain Park Ave. Bridge Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Notice of Interim Report
THE STUDY The City of Hamilton needs to make improvements to the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge. The Mountain Park Bridge spans Hamilton’s Sherman Cut (See Location Map).
THE PROCESS The bridge improvements are being planned as a Schedule B Project under the Municipal Engineers Association Class Environmental Assessment (EA), (October 2000, as amended 2007 and 2011). The EA will confirm the problem/opportunity; generate and assess alternative planning solutions; document the natural, historical, technical, socio- economic and cultural environments in the area; complete an impact assessment of all alternatives and identify the preliminary preferred alternative.
An information package on the alternatives being considered will be available for public review and comments. There is an opportunity at any time during this process for interested persons to review issues and bring concerns to the attention of the Project Manager.
At the end of the study, a Project File Report will be available for public review and comment, with an opportunity for Part II order (appeal). The report will document the results of the study.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION Please note that the City of Hamilton has chosen not to hold Public Information Centres for this process but has chosen, instead, to post the Reports online www.hamilton.ca/MountainParkBridgeEA, as well as place hard copies for review between October 15th to October 29th, 2012, at the following locations:
1. Terryberry Branch Library at 100 Mohawk Rd. W.; Tel: 905-546-3921 2. City Centre Public Works Dept. at 77 James St. N., Suite 400 Reception; Tel: 905-546-CITY 3. City Hall Clerk’s Dept. at 71 Main St. E.; Tel: 905-546-CITY
If anyone is interested in meeting with City staff to discuss any aspect of the project they are encouraged to do so at any time with the Project Manager, however to discuss the Report in question it would be appreciated if the meetings can be arranged for between October 15th to October 29th, 2012, if possible, due to the urgency of the project.
Prior to implementing the preferred alternative, a Notice of Completion will also be published, and a Project File Report will be placed on the public record for review and comment.
If you have any questions or comments or wish to be added to the study mailing list, please contact:
Margaret Fazio, B. Sc., CCEP, MCRP, RPP Sabrina Stanlake, RPP Acting Senior Project Manager Planner Strategic Planning & Rapid Transit Dillon Consulting Limited Environment & Sustainable Infrastructure 130 Dufferin Avenue Suite 1400 Public Works Dept., City of Hamilton London, ON 400 - 77 James Street North N6A 5R2 Hamilton, ON, L8R 2K3 [email protected] [email protected] Phone: 519-438-1288 ext. 1235 Phone: 905 546 2424 ext. 2218 Fax: 519-630-3849 Fax: 905 546 4435
If you have any accessibility requirements in order to be able to comment on the above Report, please contact the Project Manager as soon as possible.
Information will be collected in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.
This Notice issued on October 4th, 5th, 11th, & 12th, 2012
APPENDIX B
First Nations Consultation
Mountain Park Bridge Class Environmental Assessment
First Nations and Related Organizations Contacted Throughout Study
1 Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 2 Assembly of First Nations 3 Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians 4 Hamilton Executive Directors' Aboriginal Coalition Inc. (HEDAC) 5 Canadian Metis Council 6 Center for Topographical Information Canadian Geographical Names Database 7 Council of Ontario Chiefs 8 De dwa da dehs nye>s Aboriginal Health Centre 9 Hamilton Executive Directors' Aboriginal Coalition 10 Hamilton Regional Indian Centre 11 Hamilton/Wentworth Métis Council 12 Haudenosaunee Resource Centre 13 Huron-Wendat Nation Council 14 Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Environmental Unit 15 McMaster University - Indigenous Studies Program 16 Metis Nation of Ontario Training Initiative 17 Metis Women's Circle 18 Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation 19 Mohawk College - Aboriginal Student Services 20 Native Women's Centre 21 Niwasa Aboriginal Early Learning Programs 22 Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship 23 Sacajawea Non-Profit Housing Inc 24 Six Nations Eco-Centre 25 Six Nations of the Grand River 26 Social Planning Research Council 27 The Métis Nation of Ontario 28 Union of Ontario Indians - Hamilton Executive Directors Aboriginal Coalition 29 Union of Ontario Indians - Nipissing First Nation 30 Urban Native Homes Incorporated
!EP/25/2012/TUE 02'04 PM AIAI FAX No, 5196496000 P, 001
25 September 2012
Margaret Fazio, B. Sc., CCEP, MCIP, RPP Acting Senior Project Manager Strategic Planning & Rapid Transit Environment & Sustainable Infrastructure Public Works Dept., City of Hamilton HEAD OFFICE: 400 - 77 James Street North ONEIDA NATION OF THE THAMES Hamilton, ON, L8R 2K3
• " A . id e Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
We are in receipt of documentation outlining your project and activities as legally required by the Supreme Court that upholds the duty of the Crown to consult and accommodate the economic/land rights of Indigenous peoples. This letter is a response to your invitation/notice and shall not be construed an act of consultation,
LONDON OFFICE: The Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians (AIM) is mandated as a political 387 PRINCES5 AVENUE I, ONDON, ONTARIO territorial organization to defend and enhance the Indigenous and Treaty rights N6B 2A7 of its eight member First Nations. In doing this work, however, the Association PHQNE:(519) 434-2761 does not and cannot act as a proxy or agent for Indigenous people or their FAX:(519) 675-.10S3 communities. The ability to exercise inherent and constitutionally protected www, alaL on, ca Inherent Indigenous rights (such as consultation) lies solely with individual First Nation communities.
Therefore, consultation must occur directly with the potentially affected First Nation communities. In doing so, proponents and agents of the Crown are required to uphold the internationally recognized principles of free, prior and informed consent as outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of lndi#enous Peoples.
Please remove AIAI from your mailing list, and ensure that the contact information for our member First Nations is up to date (www.aiai.on.ca).
Botchewana Rrst Nation caldwell First Nation Delaware Notion Regards, Hiawatha Fimt Nafion M[sslssauga5 of New Credit Mohow/(s af ÿha Bay of Quince Oneida Nation of the Thames Wahtÿl Mohawks / Gordon Peters rand Chief
October 16, 2012
Margaret Fazio Acting Senior Project Manager Environment & Sustainable Infrastructure Public Works Department, City of Hamilton 400-77 James Street North Hamilton, Ontario L8R 2K3 [email protected]
Dear Ms. Fazio,
Thank you for your email of October 11, 2012 regarding your request for information held by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) on established or potential Aboriginal and treaty rights in the vicinity of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge project for the City of Hamilton, Ontario.
Consulting with Canadians on matters of interest or concern to them is an important part of good governance, sound policy development and decision-making. In addition to good governance objectives, there may be statutory or contractual reasons for consulting, as well as the common law duty to consult with First Nations, Métis and Inuit when conduct that might adversely impact Aboriginal or treaty rights (established or potential) is contemplated.
It is important to note that the information held by AANDC is provided as contextual information and may or may not pertain directly to Aboriginal or treaty rights. In most cases, the Aboriginal community remains best positioned to explain their traditional use of land, their practices or claims that may fall under section 35, including claims they may have put before the courts.
The Department has developed a new information system, the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System (ATRIS), which brings together information regarding Aboriginal groups such as their location, related treaty information, claims (specific, comprehensive and special) and litigation. Using ATRIS and a 100 km radius surrounding the project location, information regarding potentially affected Aboriginal communities is presented in the attached report in the following sections for each community:
Aboriginal Community Information includes key contact information and any other information such as Tribal Council affiliation.
Treaties, Claims and Negotiations includes Historic Treaties, Specific, Comprehensive and Special Claims. Self-Government may be part of Comprehensive claims or stand-alone negotiations.
Litigation usually refers to litigation between the Aboriginal Group and the Crown, often pertaining to section 35 rights assertions or consultation matters.
Also included, where available, is a section entitled Other Considerations. This may include information on Métis rights, consultation-related protocols or agreements and other relevant information.
1
NCR#4721930 - v1
Should you require further assistance regarding the information provided, or if you would prefer that a smaller or greater buffer be used to gather information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Allison Berman Regional Subject Expert for Ontario Consultation and Accommodation Unit Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 5H- 5th Floor, Gatineau, QC K1A 0H4 Tel: 819-934-5267
Disclaimer This information is provided as a public service by the Government of Canada. All of the information is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, including, without limitation, implied warranties as to the accuracy or reliability of any of the information provided, its fitness for a particular purpose or use, or non- infringement, which implied warranties are hereby expressly disclaimed. References to any website are provided for information only shall not be taken as endorsement of any kind. The Government of Canada is not responsible for the content or reliability of any referenced website and does not endorse the content, products, services or views expressed within them.
Limitation of Liabilities Under no circumstances will the Government of Canada be liable to any person or business entity for any reliance on the completeness or accuracy of this information or for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or other damages based on any use of this information including, without limitation, any lost profits, business interruption, or loss of programs or information, even if the Government of Canada has been specifically advised of the possibility of such damages.
2
NCR#4721930 - v1
Within a 100 km radius of your project there are 3 First Nation communities. The following information should assist you in planning any consultation that may be required.
In general, where historic treaties have been signed, the rights of signatory First Nation’s are defined by the terms of the Treaty. In many cases, however, there are divergent views between First Nations and the Crown as to what the treaty provisions imply or signify. For each First Nation below, the relevant treaty area is provided.
In areas where no historic treaty exists or where such treaties were limited in scope (i.e. where only certain rights were addressed by the treaty, such as the Peace and Friendship Treaties), there may be comprehensive claims that are asserted or being negotiated. Comprehensive claim negotiations are the means by which modern treaties are achieved.
Specific claims refer to claims made by a First Nation against the federal government related to outstanding lawful obligations, such as the administration of land and other First Nation assets, and to the fulfillment of Indian treaties, although the treaties themselves are not open to re- negotiation. The below response provides summaries of relevant claims that are current to the date of the response. As the claims progress regularly, it is recommended that the status of each claim be reviewed through the Reporting Centre on Specific Claims at: http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/SCBRI_E/Main/ReportingCentre/External/externalreporting.aspx Claims that have been settled or closed may also be included to give a sense of the First Nation’s claims history with the Crown.
Self-government agreements set out arrangements for Aboriginal groups to govern their internal affairs and assume greater responsibility and control over the decision making that affects their 3
NCR#4721930 - v1
communities. Many comprehensive claims settlements also include various self-government arrangements. Self-government agreements address: the structure and accountability of Aboriginal governments, their law-making powers, financial arrangements and their responsibilities for providing programs and services to their members. Self-government enables Aboriginal governments to work in partnership with other governments and the private sector to promote economic development and improve social conditions.
First Nation/Aboriginal Communities
Mississaugas of the Credit Chief M. Bryan Laforme (tenure expires December 15, 2013) 2789 Mississauga Road RR 6 Hagersville, Ontario, N0A 1H0 Phone: (905) 768-1133 Fax: (905) 768-1225 www.newcreditfirstnation.com
Treaty Area – Southern Ontario treaties for Settlement: 1783 -1815 For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.
Membership Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians Chiefs of Ontario See “Other Considerations” below for more information.
Specific Claims Name: 1923 Williams Treaties Status: active litigation Description: The United Indian Council alleged that the Williams Treaty was invalid. They state that compensation has been inadequate for land taken, along with a failure to provide reserves. The First Nations involved are: Alderville, Beausoleil, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Mnjikaning, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississauga’s of Scugog Island.
Name: Brant Tract Purchase Status: settled through negotiations Description: The First Nation alleged that the 1797 treaty for cession of lands at Burlington Bay was illegal, and that the Mississauga Nation retained rights and title to lakeshore at Burlington Bay and 200 acres at Burlington Heights. The other First Nations involved in this claim are: Curve Lake, New Credit, Alderville, Scugog and Hiawatha. Note: this claim was settled on October 29, 2010.
Name: Crawford Purchase Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The First Nation alleged that the purchase of 1783-1784 covering lands in Frontenac, Prince Edward, Hastings counties and United County of Lennox Addington was illegal.
Name: Damages to Wild Rice
4
NCR#4721930 - v1
Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The First Nation alleged that Mississauga title to wild rice, traditional economy, waters and lands beneath the waters. They claim that flooding by the Trent canal has destroyed the wild rice and hence their traditional economy.
Name: Gunshot Treaty Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The First Nation alleged that the Gunshot Treaty of 1788 covering lands in Prince Edward and Northumberland counties and regional municipality of Durham was illegal. The First Nations involved are: Curve Lake, New Credit, Alderville, Scugog and Hiawatha.
Name: Lake Ontario Lakeshore Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council alleged that part of the lakeshore in the townships of Oakville Burlington, Mississauga and Etobicoke were never ceded by treaty or otherwise. The First Nations involved are: Curve Lake, New Credit, Alderville, Scugog and Hiawatha.
Name: Navy Island Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council alleged that islands were never ceded in the Niagara treaty of 1781.
Name: Niagara Treaty Lands Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Mississauga Tribal Claims Council (MTCC) alleged that lands covered by the Niagara Treaty of 1781 (Regional municipality of Niagara) were never properly ceded and the Mississauga compensated. This claim was originally submitted in 1986 by the MTCC as a component of the Williams Treaty claim, however, in 1990, it became a separate claim.
Name: 200 Acre Status: settled through negotiations Description: The First Nation alleged that there was an invalid surrender in 1820, of 200 acres of land on the north shore of the Credit River.
Name: Railway Claim – Loss of Use Status: settled through negotiation Description: The First Nation alleged that there was an invalid expropriation of land for railway purposes in 1876, and failure to compensate for interest in lands taken.
Name: Toronto Purchase Status: settled through negotiation in 2010 Description: Non-fulfillment of the terms of the 1805 Surrender.
Litigation No relevant litigation.
5
NCR#4721930 - v1
Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Chief R. Donald Maracle 13 Old York Road, Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory RR1, Deseronto, Ontario, K0K 1X0 Phone: (613) 396-3424 Fax: (613) 396-3627 www.mbq-tmt.org
Treaty Area – Southern Ontario treaties for settlement: 1783 to 1815 For more information on the treaties, see “Other Considerations” below.
Membership Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians Chiefs of Ontario For more information, see “Other Considerations” below.
Specific Claims Name: Illegal Alienation – Culbertson Tract Status: active litigation Description: The First Nation claims the alienation of 827 acres of the Mohawk tract. The claim is located in the townships of Deseronto and Tyendinaga.
Litigation Name:, Wayne Maracle, Paul Smart, Alberta Smart, Pete Ladouceur, Nicole Storms, Mohawk Community of Tyendinaga v. Mohawk Council of Tyendinaga, Thomas Maracle, HMTQ in Right of Canada, Laurie Desautels, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Status: active Court File No.: T-195-92 Description: The plaintiffs allege the construction and operation of the quarry and asphalt plant by Mr. Maracle, C.P. holder of the subject property and a member of the Tyendinga First Nation, has negatively impacted the residents and environment of the Mohawk of Territory of Tyendinaga. The plaintiffs further allege the defendants breached their constitutional and common law duties to consult with the plaintiffs concerning the construction and operation of the facilities.
Name: Richard Brant et al v. Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Band Council, Attorney General of Canada Status: closed Court File No.: 1177⁄01 Description: Dispute over contamination of parcel of reserve lands formerly used for DND purposes. Plaintiffs claim Band Council or HMTQ should be required to clean up the land.
Name: Shawn Michael Brant, Ronald Leslie Brant v. Ohwista Capital Corporation, HMTQ in Right of Canada, Earl R. Hill, R. Donald Maracle personally and as representing the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Status: closed Court File No.: 008321⁄96 Description: The plaintiffs are alleging that the defendants (including the Crown) conspired or engaged in actions to interfere with the plaintiff's "lawful" possession of property, although it is
6
NCR#4721930 - v1
not clear on the face of the Statement of Claim whether the property in question is on or off reserve. In addition, the plaintiffs claim that the defendant corporation issued notice to the plaintiffs under the Trespass to Properties Act.
Six Nations of the Grand River Chief William (Bill) Kenneth Montour 1695 Chiefswood Road PO Box 5000 Ohsweken, Ontario, N0A 1M0 Phone: (519) 445-2201 Fax: (519) 445-4208 www.sixnations.ca
Land Grant Haldimand Proclamation of 1784 and Simcoe Patent of 1793 The Six Nations were native to an area that lies within present-day New York State and were allied with the British Crown during the American War of Independence. As compensation for lands lost as a result of the war, the Six Nations and their descendants were granted lands six miles deep on each side of the Grand River, from its mouth to its source. The granted lands were within a portion of territory that the Mississauga surrendered to the Crown in the Between The Lakes Treaty of 1784/1792 (the 1784 agreement contained a boundary description that was geographically impossible and this error was addressed and corrected in 1792).
The Simcoe Patent of 1793 confirmed the lands granted to the Six Nations by the Haldimand Proclamation; However, it included only lands within the corrected 1792 surrender and thus did not extend to the source so the Grand River. It specifies that the Six Nations can surrender and dispose of their land only to the Crown. Any other leases, sales or grants to people other than Six Nations shall be unlawful and such intruders evicted. A link to a map and additional information can be found at: http://www.aboriginalaffairs.gov.on.ca/english/negotiate/sixnations/sixnations.asp
Specific Claims Between 1980 and 1995, Six Nations submitted 28 specific claims to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada under its Specific Claims Policy. These claims focus on the government’s management of their lands and other assets from 1784 to the present. In March 1995, Six Nations filed a lawsuit against the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario, which also related to how Six Nations’ lands and monies were managed by the Crown (refer to Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians v. HMTQ in Right of Canada and HMTQ in Right of Ontario, Court file no. 406/95 in the litigation section below for additional information). As there was significant overlap between the 28 specific claims and the claims put forward in the litigation, work on the specific claims was suspended.
Other Claims In 1994, Six Nations submitted a claim to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada regarding their “right to hunt and fish,” which was premised in part on the Nanfan Treaty of 1701. This Treaty (also known as the Treaty of Albany) was related to the protection of hunting and fishing rights in and around Lakes Erie, Huron and Ontario, as well as a portion of the United States. The Treaty was between representatives of the Five Nations
7
NCR#4721930 - v1
(now the Six Nations) and John Nanfan, the acting colonial governor of New York. Six Nations were referred to the Province of Ontario for remedy, as the province has the primary responsibility for harvesting.
Litigation Name: Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians v. HMTQ in Right of Canada and HMTQ in Right of Ontario - Superior Court of Justice Status: active Court File No.: 406/95 Description: The Plaintiffs claim an accounting of all Six Nations' assets including money and real property held in trust by the Crown for the benefit of the Six Nations since 1784. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration by the Court that the Defendants are in breach of their fiduciary duties towards the Plaintiff, and are liable for replacing all assets or the value of all assets found to be missing, with compound interest. The allegation of repeated breaches of fiduciary duty is supported by examples of breaches, between 1784 and 1970, that can be separated into 14 discrete claims.
Name: Thahoketoteh of Kanekota v. HMTQ Status: active Court File No.: T-1396-12 Description: In this claim, the Plaintiff seeks, among other things, the removal of alleged non- native squatters from Lot 1 Concession 11, Clearview Township, Simcoe County. He alleges that the Crown has not respected the Royal Proclamation of 1784 and he also seeks compensation from other parties, such as the Canadian Hydro Developers, Inc. and Enbridge Gas, for their alleged illegal involvement in the area.
Name: Six Nations Elected Council on its own behalf and on behalf of the Six Nations of the Grand River v. The Corporation of the City of Brantford Status: active Court File No.: CV-08-361454 Description: The Plaintiffs seek various declarations pertaining to Ontario and/or the City of Brantford’s constitutional duty to consult with and accommodate the Six Nations of the Grand River before considering or undertaking any planning activities and disposition of lands which could potentially affect the interests of the Six Nations of the Grand River.
Name: Aaron Detlor; the Haudenosaunee Development Institute v. the Corporation of the City of Brantford – Superior Court of Justice Status: active Court File No.: CV-08-356782 Description: The Applicants Aaron Detlor and the Haudenosaunee Development Institute intend to question the constitutional validity and applicability of By-laws 63-2008 and 64-2008 of the City of Brantford Municipal Code, made under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25. The hearing is scheduled for November 2012.
Name: King Chief ah’she hodeeheehonto v. HMTQ in Right of Canada Status: active Court File No.: 10-20244 JR Description: This is a Notice of Constitutional Question which seems to involve an argument involving Six Nations that among other things relies on the Two Row Wampum Treaty and other Aboriginal and treaty rights, as protection from the jurisdictional obligation to follow Canada’s laws and other obligatory requirements. 8
NCR#4721930 - v1
Name: Regina v. Michael Monture Status: active Court File No.: not available Description: The defendant is a member of the Mohawk Nation from the Six Nations of the Grand River, and is seeking relief under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The defendant alleges that the sub-standard health facilities are infringing on and limiting his aboriginal rights, as well as preventing him from delivering contemporary health care.
Unitlateral Protocol The Six Nations of the Grand River published a unilateral consultation and accommodation policy in 2009. You may wish to review this protocol to better understand the First Nation’s perspective regarding consultation and accommodation. However, the federal government is not a party to this protocol and does not endorse its content. The link to the protocol is: http://www.sixnations.ca/admConsultationAccomodationPolicy.pdf
Other Considerations
Aboriginal Rights Assertions: the Métis The inclusion of the Métis in s.35 represents Canada’s commitment to recognize and value their distinctive cultures, which can only survive if they are protected along with other Aboriginal communities. In 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed Métis rights under s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, in the Sault St. Marie area, in the Powley decision. For more information on the Powley decision visit the following link: www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014419
The Office of the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians (OFI) is aware that the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO), its regional and community councils, have asserted a Métis right to harvest in a large section of the province.
The provincial government has accommodated Métis rights on a regional basis within Métis harvesting territories identified by the MNO. These accommodations are based on credible Métis rights assertions. An interim agreement (2004) between the MNO and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) recognizes the MNO’s Harvest Card system. This means that Harvester’s Certificate holders engage in traditional Métis harvest activities within identified Métis traditional territories across the province. For a map of Métis traditional harvesting territories visit the MNO website at: http://www.metisnation.org/harvesting/harvesting-map.aspx
The MNO maintains that Aboriginal ‘rights-holders’ are Métis communities which are collectively represented through the MNO and its community councils. In partnership with community councils, MNO has established a consultation process. The MNO has published regional consultation protocols on their website which offer pre-consultation stage instructions on engaging the Métis through their community councils (via the consultation committee made up of an MNO regional councilor, a community councilor representative and a Captain of the Hunt). Please note however, that this organization does not represent all Métis in Ontario.
Métis Nation of Ontario Métis Consultation Unit is located within the MNO head office. 500 Old St. Patrick Street, Unit 3 Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 9G4 Phone: (613) 798-1488 Fax: (613) 725-4225 9
NCR#4721930 - v1
www.metisnation.org/home.aspx
Métis National Council 4-340 MacLaren Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K2P 0M6 Phone: (613) 232-3216 Fax: (613) 232-4262 www.metisnation.ca
For an indication of the population in Ontario who self-identify as Métis, visit the Statistics Canada website. The Ontario map indicates populations as small as 250 up to over 2,000 within its borders. http://geodepot.statcan.gc.ca/2006/13011619/200805130120090313011619/16181522091403090112_13 011619/151401021518090709140112_201520011213052009190904161516_0503-eng.pdf
Métis Litigation in Ontario Name: HMTQ in Right of Canada, Laurie Desautels v. Henry Wetelainen Jr. Status: active Court File No.: CV-08-151 Description: The defendant, Henry Wetelainen Jr., intends to question the constitutional validity of sections 28, 31 and 40 of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (1994), S.O. 1994, c. 25 and Ontario Regulation 167/95, as amended, in relation to an act or omission of the government of Ontario. The defendant claims that he was exercising Aboriginal and treaty rights afforded by the Adhesion to Treaty 3, by harvesting wood within his traditional territory. He claims that he is a Métis/Non-Status Indian and that the imposition of payment for harvesting or use of the forest resource is an infringement and violates his constitutional rights.
Name: Ministry of Natural Resources v. Kenneth Sr. Paquette Status: active Court File No.: to be determined Description: This Notice of Constitutional Question relates to a provincial prosecution involving a charge pertaining to hunting moose. The Defendant intends to assert his s. 35 right as a Métis person to hunt moose, and he also intends to seek a Charter remedy under s. 15 of the Charter.
Court Decisions concerning Métis in Ontario R. v. Laurin, Lemieux, Lemieux - 2007 Court No.: ONCJ 265
Three Métis defendants were charged with fishing violations and claimed that the decision of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to prosecute them violated the terms of the Interim Agreement (2004) between the MNR and the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO). As the defendants were indeed Harvester Card holders authorized to fish in the Mattawa/Nipissing territory, therefore, they were entitled to the exemption in the agreement.
The Court concluded that laying of charges against any valid Harvester Card holder who is harvesting in the territory designated on the card within 2 years of the 2004 agreement was a breach. The Interim Agreement itself was silent as to any geographic limitations. There was no mention of the Agreement only applying north and east of Sudbury. Further, the reliance on Harvester Cards, which explicitly contained the territorial designation of the cardholder, signified that the MNR accepted such designations for the purpose of the agreement. The Court was clear to note that this case did not make any ruling regarding the merits of any claim that the Mattawa/Nipissing area contains section 35 rights bearing Métis communities. 10
NCR#4721930 - v1
Membership First Nations may or may not delegate certain authority and/or powers to tribal councils to administer programs, funding and/or services on their behalf. The best source of information with respect to consultation is though individual First Nations themselves.
Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians This is a political organization which advocates the interests of its eight members. Using political lines the members form a collective to protect their Aboriginal and treaty rights. 387 Princess Avenue London, Ontario, N6B 2A7 Phone: (519) 434-2761 www.aiai.on.ca
Chiefs of Ontario The Chiefs of Ontario is a coordinating body for 133 First Nation communities in Ontario. The main objective of this body is to facilitate the discussion, planning, implementation and evaluation of all local, regional and national matters affecting its members. www.chiefs-of-ontario.org
Administrative Office: Political Office: 111 Peter Street, Suite 804 Fort William First Nation Toronto, Ontario, M5V 2H1 RR 4, Suite 101, 9- Anemki Drive Phone: (416) 597-1266 Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7J 1A5 Fax: (416) 597-8365 Phone: (807) 626-9339 Fax: (807) 626-9404
Treaty Areas- Treaties of Southern Ontario- The Upper Canada Treaties There are several treaty making eras which impact the province of Ontario. These eras are known as the Upper Canada Land Surrenders from 1764 to 1862. These surrenders are seen as treaties which transfer all Aboriginal rights and title to the Crown in exchange for one-time payments. They tended to be made with individual First Nation groups for small tracts of land. In light of the evolution of Aboriginal law over the past twenty years, this position may not be as clear as believed. There may be residual rights remaining especially relating to hunting and fishing.
1764-1782 – Early Land Surrenders The Royal Proclamation of 1763 established the protection from encroachment of an Aboriginal territory outside of the colonial boundaries. Rules and protocols for the acquisition of Aboriginal lands by Crown officials were set out and became the basis for all future land treaties. In response to military and defensive needs around the Great Lakes, the Indian Department negotiated several land surrender treaties in the Niagara region.
11
NCR#4721930 - v1
*Atlas of Canada
1783-1815- Treaties for Settlement As part of the plan to resettle some 30,000 United Empire Loyalists who refused to accept American rule, and fled to Montreal, the Indian Department undertook a series of land surrenders west of the Ottawa River with the Mississauga and the Chippewa of the southern Great Lakes. These tended to be uncomplicated arrangements whereby for a particular Aboriginal group was paid a specific sum paid in trade goods, to surrender a stated amount of land.
1815-1862- Treaties to Open the Interior After the war of 1812, the colonial administration of Upper Canada focused on greater settlement of the colony. The Indian Department completed the last of the over 30 Upper Canada Land Surrenders around the Kawartha, Georgian Bay, and the Rideau and Ottawa Rivers. All of this land which today is known as Southern Ontario, was ceded to the Crown.
Self Government Agreement Negotiations Anishinabek Nation (Union of Ontario Indians) Final Agreement Negotiations on Governance and Education
In 1995, the Anishinabek Nation’s Grand Council authorized its secretariat arm, the Union of Ontario Indians (UOI), to begin self-government negotiations with Canada. Negotiations toward agreements in the areas of education and governance began in 1998.
An agreement-in-principle (AIP) on education was signed in November 2002. In February 2007, the parties signed the AIP with respect to governance. Final agreement negotiations are proceeding in parallel, and together these agreements would mark important steps toward the
12
NCR#4721930 - v1
Anishinabek Nation’s long-term objective of supporting participating First Nations to achieve greater autonomy.
The governance final agreement will provide the framework for the establishment of the Anishinabek Nation government and for the recognition of participating First nation lawmaking authority in four core governance areas: leadership selection, citizenship, culture and language, and management and operations of government.
The education final agreement (which is nearing conclusion) authorized the parties to negotiate a final agreement with respect to lawmaking authority for primary, elementary and secondary education for on-reserve members, and to administer AANDC’s post-secondary education assistance program. The Province of Ontario is not a party to these negotiations but is engaged in tripartite discussions on particular issues that would assist in the implementation of the final agreement.
A draft Anishinabek Nation Constitution (“Ngo Dwe Waangizid Anishinaabe”) is scheduled to go to a vote at the Grand Council Assembly in June of 2012. Individual First nation constitutions are also being developed. In order to prepare for self-government in member communities, the Union of Ontario Indians has undertaken a range of activities including a Community Engagement Strategy, the development of an appeal and redress process, as well as a number of capacity development activities.
Provincial guidelines Under its responsibility to promote stronger Aboriginal relationships, the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has produced Draft Guidelines on Consultation with Aboriginal Peoples Related to Aboriginal Rights and Treaty Rights. These guidelines are for use by ministries who seek input from key First Nations and Métis organizations, all Ontario First Nations and selected non-Aboriginal stakeholders. To review the guidelines, visit: http://www.aboriginalaffairs.gov.on.ca/english/policy/draftconsultjune2006.pdf
13
NCR#4721930 - v1 Dillon Consulting Mail - Fwd: 0F5W/1:1 A/2b0o1r2iginal consultation inf ormation - Mountain Park Av e. Bridge project
Fox, Brandon
Fwd: FW: Aboriginal consultation information - Mountain Park Ave. Bridge project 1 message
Fox, Brandon
From: Transportation Planning Sent: October 11, 2012 9:40 AM To: 'CAU-UCA' Cc: Fazio, Margaret Subject: RE: Aboriginal consultation information - Mountain Park Ave. Bridge project
Hi Allison,
I have re-attached the contact list and split up the worksheets based on project. There are just a few less contacts for the Mountain Park Ave. Bridge project than the Strathcona Transportation Management Plan. Hopefully this will help. :)
Let me know if I can do anything else. Cheers,
Christina
Christina Wilkinson Assistant Environmental Planner Transportation Planning Section Strategic Planning Group Environment & Sustainable Infrastructure Division Public Works Department, City of Hamilton 77 James Street North, Suite 400 Tel | 905-546-2424 ext. 6399 Fax | 905-546-4435 Email | [email protected]
-----Original Message----- From: CAU-UCA [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:44 AM To: Transportation Planning Subject: RE: Aboriginal consultation information - Mountain Park Ave. Bridge project
HI Christina,
Does the contact list you sent me apply to both projects? You should receive responses on these projects from me within the next two weeks.
regards,
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3c05b73493&v iew=pt&search=inbox&th=13ad11a046558ec5 1/3 Dillon Consulting Mail - Fwd: 0F5W/1:1 A/2b0o1r2iginal consultation inf ormation - Mountain Park Av e. Bridge project Allison
Regional Subject Expert Consultation Information Service (CIS) Consultation & Accommodation Unit Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada >>> "Transportation Planning"
Mr. Darcy has been removed from our mailing list as requested.
Please find attached our mailing list for First Nations and Aboriginal NGOs, as per our City’s standard practice. These contacts will be receiving a hard copy next week of our Notice of Interim Report for Mountain Park Ave. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, as well as a Notice of Public Information Centre (Phase 2) for the Strathcona Transportation Management Plan. These two notices are both attached to this email.
In the next couple of weeks I will also be calling the listed contact persons directly to engage them more personally and assess any interest in these two projects.
Please let us know if any litigation is taking place within these study areas, or that would apply to our study areas.
If anyone has any comments or questions they can contact the Acting Senior Project Manager, Margaret Fazio directly at [email protected] or by phone at 905-546-2424 ext. 2218.
Cheers,
Christina
Christina Wilkinson Assistant Environmental Planner Transportation Planning Section Strategic Planning Group Environment & Sustainable Infrastructure Division Public Works Department, City of Hamilton 77 James Street North, Suite 400 Tel | 905-546-2424 ext. 6399 Fax | 905-546-4435 Email | [email protected]
-----Original Message----- From: CAU-UCA [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 11:52 AM To: [email protected]; Transportation Planning Subject: Aboriginal consultation information - Mountain Park Ave. Bridge project
Hello Project Leadership,
I was forwarded the Notice of Study Commencement by Sean Darcy of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC).
I am writing on behalf of the Consultation and Accommodation Unit (CAU) of AANDC. The CAU’s Consultation Information Service (CIS) has been established to help co-
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3c05b73493&v iew=pt&search=inbox&th=13ad11a046558ec5 2/3 Dillon Consulting Mail - Fwd: 0F5W/1:1 A/2b0o1r2iginal consultation inf ormation - Mountain Park Av e. Bridge project ordinate departmental responses to consultation-related queries coming from federal departments and third parties. We provide information (generally within a 100 km radius of a project) related to Aboriginal groups and their asserted or established Aboriginal and/or treaty rights, to the extent that these are known by AANDC. If you are contacting AANDC as a request for Aboriginal consultation information, please reply and I will be happy to provide it.
Please note that future requests for Aboriginal consultation information from AANDC, can be submitted directly to the following mailbox: [email protected]. As the Regional Subject Expert for Ontario, I provide information on behalf of AANDC through a 'single window approach' via the Consultation and Accommodation Unit. To facilitate a more timely response, specify in your communication that you would like an ‘Aboriginal consultation information response’ from the CIS.
Please note that Mr. Darcy does not need to be notified of your project and requests that his name be removed from your mailing list.
Kind regards,
Allison Berman Regional Subject Expert for Ontario Consultation and Accommodation Unit Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 300 Sparks Street, Room 205, Ottawa, ON K1A 0H4 Tel: 613-943-5488
-- Brandon Fox Dillon Consulting Limited 1 3 0 Dufferin Suite 1 4 0 0 London, O ntario, N 6 A 5 R2 T - 5 1 9 .4 3 8 .1 2 8 8 ext. 1 3 0 7 [email protected] a www.dillon.c a P Pleas e cons ider the environment before printing this email
First Nations NGO Mailing List Strathcona and Mountain Park.xls 46K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3c05b73493&v iew=pt&search=inbox&th=13ad11a046558ec5 3/3 Assembly of First Nations Assemblde des Premieres Nations
473 Albert Street, 9th Floor 473, rue Albert, 9e etage Ottawa, Ontario K1 R 5B4 Ottawa (Ontario) K1 R 5B4 Telephone: 613-241-6789 Fax: 613-241-5808 Telephone: 613-241-6789 Telecopieur: 613-241-5808 www.afn.ca www.afn.ca
October 3, 2012 RECEIVED O .T f! g 2012 Margaret Fazio, B.Sc., C.C.E.P. Acting Senior Project Manager, Strategic Planning & Rapid Transit Environmental Sustainability & Infrastructure Division Public Works Department 400 - 77 James Street, N. Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3
Re: Mountain Park Avenue Bridge - Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Notice of Study Commencement
Dear Ms. Fazio:
The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is in receipt of your notice on September 25, 2012, regarding the Notice of Study Commencement to improvements to the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge.
The AFN is a national representative organization of over 630 First Nations communities in Canada, the organization is designed to present the views of various First Nations through their leaders in areas such as: Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, Economic Development, Education, Languages and Literacy, Health, Housing, Social Development, Justice, Taxation, Land Claims and Environment, as well as a whole array of issues that are of common concern that arise from time to time. The First Nations Leaders meet bi-annually to set national policy and direction through resolution. Please be advised that the AFN functions only as a representation organization. As such the organization cannot be construed as a government, agent, principal, administrator and/or contractor for any of the First Nations communities who are members of the AFN.
The AFN as an organization does not have any entitlement to the lands referenced in this notice and cannot speak on behalf of the First Nations communities in your area, nor are we in a position to provide any comments on the Notice of Study Commencement to improvements to the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge. I would recommend that you provide this information to the First Nations communities in the vicinity of the City of Hamilton area. It is these First Nations communities who may be impacted by the management plan or who may have outstanding claims within your area. Therefore, please find attached the contact information of the First Nations communities in your area for your reference.
.../2
Head Office/Siege Social Unit 5--167 Akwesasne International Rd., Akwesasne, ON K6H 5R7 Telephone: 613-932-0410 Fax: 613-932-0415 Suite no 5 --167, chemin Akwesasne International, Akwesasne (ON) K6H 5R7 Telephone: 613-932-0410 Tel6copieur: 613-932-0415 -2-
Please be advised that the Supreme Court of Canada has issued a number of judgments that provide clarity on the duty to consult and accommodate. In Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) and Weyerhaeuser the Supreme Court held that there is a duty to consult and accommodate where there is knowledge of the potential existence of an Aboriginal right to title and conduct that may adversely affect it. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia that where the potential for negative derivative impact on aboriginal claims is high, First Nations are entitled to something significantly deeper than minimal consultation and to a level of responsiveness that can be characterized as accommodation. It is in the nature of respect for the first peoples that consultation and accommodation should be pursued.
I commend the City of Hamilton and the Public Works Department for being proactive in informing us of your plans. However, I would recommend that you extend this courtesy to the First Nations communities in your area for this and any future projects your office undertakes that has the potential to involve local First Nations communities in your area.
In Friendship,
Sonia Isaac Mann, BSc, MSc Assistant Director, Health and Social Secretariat A/Director, Environmental Stewardship Unit Assembly of First Nations
cc: Chief Wit!Jam K. Montour Chief Bryan LaForme Sabrina Stanlake, Planner, Dillon Consulting Ltd.
Attachment
First Nation Communities in the Vicinity of the City of Hamilton
Chief William K. Montour And Public Works: Mike Montour Six Nations of the Grand River P.O. Box 5000 1695 Chiefswood Road Ohsweken, ON N0A 1M0 Phone: 519-445-2201
Chief Bryan LaForme And Public Works: Barbara Hill Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation R.R. #6 2789 Mississauga Road Hagersville, ON, N0A 1H0 Phone: 905-768-1133
APPENDIX C
Natural Environment Existing Conditions Review
Apppendix C Mountain Park Avenue Bridge Replacement, City of Hamilton Natural Environment Existing Conditions Review September 28, 2012
Photo 1: Looking westbound, toward hospital, across bridge
Photo 2: Standing on bridge, looking north across Hamilton
Apppendix C Mountain Park Avenue Bridge Replacement, City of Hamilton Natural Environment Existing Conditions Review September 28, 2012
Photo 3 and 4: Standing on bridge, looking at vegetation along east bin wall
Photo 5 and 6: Standing on bridge, looking at vegetation along west bin wall
Apppendix C Mountain Park Avenue Bridge Replacement, City of Hamilton Natural Environment Existing Conditions Review September 28, 2012
Photo 7: Standing on bridge, looking south along Shherman Cut Access Road
APPENDIX D
Overview of Codes for the Conservation Status of Species
Overview of Codes for the Conservation Status of Species
Federal Conservation Status Federal Status: Status assigned by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. (COSEWIC, 2007) and listed under the Species at Risk Act
EXP Extirpated. A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere. END Endangered. A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. SC Special Concern. A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.
Provincial Conservation Status Provincial Status: Status assigned by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR, 2006) under the Endangered Species Act, 2007
EXP Extirpated. A species that no longer exists in the wild in Ontario but still occurs elsewhere. END Endangered. A species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which is a candidate for regulation under Ontario’s ESA. SC Special Concern. A species with characteristics that make it sensitive to human activities or natural events.
Provincial (S) Rank Provincial (or Subnational) ranks are used by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (2007) to set protection priorities for rare species and natural communities. These ranks are not legal designations. Provincial ranks are assigned in a manner similar to that described for global ranks, but consider only those factors within the political boundaries of Ontario. By comparing the global and provincial ranks, the status, rarity, and the urgency of conservation needs can be ascertained. The NHIC evaluates provincial ranks on a continual basis and produces updated lists at least annually.
S1 Extremely rare in Ontario; usually 5 or fewer occurrences in the province or very few remaining individuals; often especially vulnerable to extirpation. S2 Very rare in Ontario; usually between 5 and 20 occurrences in the province or with many individuals in fewer occurrences; often susceptible to extirpation. S3 Rare to uncommon in Ontario; usually between 20 & 100 occurrences in the province; may have fewer occurrences, but with a large number of individuals in some populations; may be susceptible to large-scale disturbances. Most species with an S3 rank are assigned to the watch list, unless they have a relatively high global rank. S4 Common and apparently secure in Ontario; usually with more than 100 occurrences in the province. S5 Very common and demonstrably secure in Ontario. SX Apparently extirpated from Ontario, with little likelihood of rediscovery. Typically not seen in the province for many decades, despite searches at known historic sites. SE Exotic; not believed to be a native component of Ontario’s flora. S? Not Ranked Yet, or if following a ranking, Rank Uncertain (e.g. S3?). S? Species have not had a rank assigned.
APPENDIX E
Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report
Heritage Impact Assessment: Mountain Park Avenue Bridge
Mountain Park Avenue and Sherman Access City of Hamilton, Ontario
Bridge No. 087
Prepared for:
City of Hamilton, Public Works Department 320-77 James Street North Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3 Tel: (905) 546-2424 Fax: (905) 546-4435 Email: [email protected] Web: www.hamilton.ca
ASI File 12EA-118
June 2012 (Revised October 2012)
Heritage Impact Assessment: Mountain Park Avenue Bridge
Mountain Park Avenue and Sherman Access City of Hamilton, Ontario
Bridge No. 087
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) was contracted by the City of Hamilton to conduct a Cultural Heritage Evaluation of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge in order to establish the potential cultural heritage significance of the structure. This work was undertaken in June 2012 as a stand-alone study, to determine if a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge in the City of Hamilton, Ontario, was required. The report determined that the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge retained cultural heritage value and a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) was initiated.
As part of the EA, ASI was contracted to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge in order to assess impacts of the undertaking on the bridge in consideration of its determined cultural heritage value. The Mountain Park Avenue Bridge carries two lanes of Mountain Park Avenue vehicular traffic over the Sherman Avenue Cut. It was built in 1930 to the designs of the City of Hamilton engineering department.
Based on the results of archival research, an analysis of bridge design and construction in Ontario, field investigations and heritage evaluation, the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge was determined to retain cultural heritage value following application of Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Its heritage significance revolves around its significant design, historical and contextual value given its decorative detailing, location on the edge of the escarpment, its early construction date and associations with access roads to Hamilton Mountain and the corresponding growth and development of the Hamilton Mountain community. As such, the structure was found to meet at least one of the criteria of Regulation 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act and may therefore be considered for municipal designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Following the evaluation of potential impacts on the heritage resource (see Table 3), it was determined that Conservation Alternatives 1 – 3 are the preferred alternatives, given that no impacts are expected to the heritage resource and its identified heritage attributes, with Alternative 1 being the most preferred. The remaining conservation alternatives (4 – 9) have a range of impacts, with Alternatives 8 and 9 being the least preferred options given the level and nature of the impacts resulting from removal of the bridge.
Given the identified heritage value of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge, the following recommendations and mitigation measures should be considered and implemented:
1. Based on the results of heritage evaluation, Conservation Alternatives 1 -3 are the preferred alternatives, with Alternative 1 being the most preferred. As part of the selection of the preferred alternatives as part of the Environmental Assessment, a clear rationale for the proposed course of action should be documented.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page iii
2. This report should be filed with the heritage staff at the City of Hamilton, the Hamilton Heritage Advisory Committee, and other local heritage stakeholders that may have an interest in this project.
3. This report should be filed with the Ministry of Tourism and Culture for review and comment.
4. Should retention of the bridge be chosen as the preferred alternative (one of Conservation Alternatives 1 – 7), the character-defining elements identified in Section 8.1 should be retained and treated sympathetically.
5. Should replacement of the bridge be chosen as the preferred alternative (Conservation Alternative 8 or 9), two mitigation options should be considered:
a. Replacement/removal of existing bridge and construction of a new bridge with replication of the appearance of the heritage bridge in the new design, with allowances for the use of modern materials. The character-defining elements identified in Section 8.1 should be considered for replication.
b. Replacement/removal of existing bridge and construction of a new bridge with historically sympathetic design qualities to the heritage bridge, with allowances for the use of new technologies and materials.
c. In addition to (a) and (b), development of a commemorative strategy, such as plaquing, may be appropriate.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page iv
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. BUILT HERITAGE AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPE PLANNING DIVISION
PROJECT PERSONNEL
Project Director: Rebecca Sciarra, MA, CAHP Cultural Heritage Specialist Manager, Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Planning Division
Project Manager: Lindsay Popert, MA, CAHP Cultural Heritage Specialist
Cultural Heritage Specialist: Lindsay Popert
Archival Research Lindsay Popert
Project Coordinator: Sarah Jagelewski, Hon. BA Research Archaeologist
Project Administrator: Carol Bella, Hon. BA Research Archaeologist
Report Preparation: Lindsay Popert
Graphics Preparation: Lindsay Popert
Report Reviewer: Mary-Cate Garden, PhD Cultural Heritage Specialist
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ii PROJECT PERSONNEL...... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... v 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY...... 2 2.1 Municipal Context and Policies...... 2 2.2 Heritage Impact Assessment Report ...... 3 3.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND CONSTRUCTION ...... 4 3.1 Introduction ...... 4 3.2 Local History and Settlement...... 4 3.3 History of the Sherman Avenue Cut...... 5 3.4 Bridge Construction...... 8 3.4.1 Early Bridge Building in Ontario ...... 8 3.4.2 Construction of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge ...... 8 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND INTEGRITY ...... 9 4.1 Comparative Geographic and Historic Context of Girder Bridges ...... 10 4.2 Additional Cultural Heritage Resources...... 11 5.0 HERITAGE EVALUATION OF THE MOUNTAIN PARK AVENUE BRIDGE...... 11 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR HERITAGE BRIDGES AS PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...... 15 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OPTIONS...... 15 7.1 Evaluation of Impacts...... 15 8.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 18 8.1 Summary Statement of Cultural Heritage Value...... 18 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 19 10.0 REFERENCES ...... 20 APPENDIX A: ...... 22 APPENDIX B: ...... 35
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of the Study Area...... 1 Figure 2: The study area overlaid on 1875 historic mapping ...... 5 Figure 3: The study area overlaid on the 1919 Traffic Plan, Hamilton Mountain...... 6 Figure 4: The study area overlaid on 1930 mapping of Hamilton Mountain...... 6 Figure 5: The study area overlaid on the 1941 topographic map...... 7 Figure 6: View of the Sherman Access as it approaches the Sherman Cut (to the left), looking west, 1930...... 7 Figure 7: South elevation of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge over the Sherman Cut, c.1930...... 9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Evaluation of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge using Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 ...... 11 Table 2: Evaluation of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge using the City of Hamilton’s Heritage Criteria...... 13 Table 3: Evaluation of the Potential Impacts of Bridge Improvement Alternatives on the Cultural Heritage Resource and Identified Heritage Attributes...... 17
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) was contracted by the City of Hamilton to conduct a Cultural Heritage Evaluation of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge in order to establish the potential cultural heritage significance of the structure. This work was undertaken in June 2012 as a stand-alone study, to determine if a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge in the City of Hamilton, Ontario, was required (Figure 1). The report determined that the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge retained cultural heritage value and a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) was initiated.
Figure 1: Location of the Study Area. Base Map: NTS Sheet 30 M/04 (Hamilton-Grimsby), 1996
As part of the EA, ASI was contracted to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge in order to assess impacts of the undertaking on the bridge in consideration of its determined cultural heritage value. The Mountain Park Avenue Bridge carries two lanes of Mountain Park Avenue vehicular traffic over the Sherman Avenue Cut. It was built in 1930 to the designs of the City of Hamilton engineering department.
The following report is presented as part of an approved planning and design process subject to Environmental Assessment (EA) requirements. This portion of the EA study is intended to address the proposed replacement/rehabilitation of the subject structure. The principal aims of this report are to:
• Describe the methodology that was employed and the legislative and policy context that guides heritage evaluations of bridges over forty years old; • Provide an historical overview of the design and construction of the bridge within the broader context of the surrounding township and bridge construction generally; • Describe existing conditions and heritage integrity;
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 2
• Evaluate the bridge within Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act and draw conclusions about the heritage attributes of the structure; and • Assess impacts of the undertaking, ascertaining sensitivity to change in the context of identified heritage attributes and recommend appropriate mitigation measures.
2.0 CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY
Infrastructure projects have the potential to impact cultural heritage resources in a variety of ways. These include loss or displacement of resources through removal or demolition and the disruption of resources by introducing physical, visual, audible or atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with the resources and/or their setting.
When considering cultural heritage resources in the context of improvements to specified areas, a 40 year old threshold is used as a guiding principle when identifying cultural heritage resources. While identification of a resource that is 40 years old or older does not confer outright heritage significance, this threshold provides a means to collect information about resources that may retain heritage value. Similarly, if a resource is slightly younger than 40 years old, this does not preclude the resource from retaining heritage value.
The analysis used throughout the cultural heritage resource assessment process addresses cultural heritage resources under various pieces of legislation and their supporting guidelines:
• Environmental Assessment Act (R.S.O. 1990, Chapter E.18) o Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (MCC 1992) o Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments (MCR 1981)
• Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990, Chapter O.18) and a number of guidelines and reference documents prepared by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC): o Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (MCL 2006)
2.1 Municipal Context and Policies
The City of Hamilton has developed policies and procedures to evaluate the heritage value of bridges and associated structures which are over 40 years old. They have also compiled an inventory in 2002 of bridge structures over 35 years old. The results of these policies are contained within the City’s 2006 Heritage Bridge Guideline and Heritage Bridge Conservation document and are to be utilized to aid the implementation of environmental and municipal planning processes.
The City of Hamilton’s heritage assessment methodology, as applied to bridges over forty years old, was developed in order to soundly determine the heritage value of any given bridge. The Province of Ontario’s Ontario Heritage Bridge Guideline (1983, draft 2003) and methods employed for heritage bridge evaluation in the states of Virginia and Oregon were utilized to develop the City of Hamilton’s heritage bridge evaluation criteria. The City of Hamilton’s evaluation criteria are grouped into seven categories which include: age; materials; design; integrity; aesthetics and environment; historical associations and documentation/public interest. Each of these seven categories is weighted, and each
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 3 criterion contains sub-criteria which are assigned individual scores. During evaluation of a bridge over 40 years old, the cultural heritage specialist will assign a score to each of the seven category’s sub-criteria to determine an overall score for the structure. Once the evaluation is complete and the scoring has been totaled, the structure will be classified into one of four heritage value rankings:
• Class A: Exceptional Heritage Value (70+ Score) • Class B: High Heritage Value (55-69 Score) • Class C: Moderate Heritage Value (40-54) • Class D: Low Heritage Value (39 or less)
2.2 Heritage Impact Assessment Report
In early 2011, the Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) indicated that bridges owned by either upper or lower-tier municipalities should be evaluated against Ontario Regulation 9/06 and not the Ministry of Transportation’s Ontario Heritage Bridge Guidelines (Interim, 2008) or the Ontario Heritage Bridge Program (1991). With this in mind, the MTC recommends that a Heritage Impact Assessment is necessary for structures found to have potential heritage significance (MTC, February 2011).
The scope of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is provided by the MTC’s Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. An HIA is a useful tool to help identify cultural heritage value and provide guidance in supporting environmental assessment work. An HIA includes the following components:
• A general description of the history of the study area as well as a detailed historical summary of property ownership and structure development; • A description of the cultural heritage landscape and built heritage resources; • Representative photographs of the structure and character-defining architectural details; • A cultural heritage resource evaluation guided by the Ontario Heritage Act criteria; • A summary of heritage attributes; • Consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; • Historical mapping and photographs; and • A location plan.
Using background information and data collected during the site visit, the cultural heritage resource is evaluated using criteria contained within Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 provides a set of criteria, grouped into the following categories which determine the cultural heritage value or interest of a potential heritage resource in a municipality:
i) Design/Physical Value; ii) Historical/Associative Value; and iii) Contextual Value.
Should the potential heritage resource meet one or more of the above mentioned criteria, it may be considered for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 4
3.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND CONSTRUCTION
3.1 Introduction
The Mountain Park Avenue Bridge is a single span girder structure carrying vehicular, pedestrian and recreational traffic over the Sherman Avenue Cut in the City of Hamilton. The bridge was built in 1930 for the City of Hamilton. Historically, the study area is located on the road allowance between Lots 8 and 9, Concession III, in the former Township of Barton, County of Wentworth.
Cultural heritage resources are those buildings or structures that have one or more heritage attributes. Heritage attributes are constituted by and linked to historical associations, architectural or engineering qualities and contextual values. Inevitably many, if not all, heritage resources are inherently tied to “place”; geographical space, within which they are uniquely linked to local themes of historical activity and from which many of their heritage attributes are directly distinguished today. In certain cases, however, heritage features may also be viewed within a much broader context. Section 3 of this report details a brief historical background to the settlement of the surrounding area. A description is also provided of the construction of the bridge within its historical context.
3.2 Local History and Settlement
Wentworth County was once part of the Gore District that covered an area of over half a million acres in western Ontario. When the district was broken up into counties in 1850, Wentworth and Halton were united as a single municipality. This continued until 1854 when they were separated. Prior to the formation of the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth in 1974, Wentworth County was composed of the seven townships: Ancaster, Barton, Beverly, Binbrook, Flamborough East and Flamborough West, Glanford and Saltfleet. The City of Hamilton was the county seat.
Barton Township was first surveyed by Augustus Jones in 1791. The first settlers in the township were United Empire Loyalists and disbanded troops, mainly men who had served in Butler’s Rangers during the American Revolutionary War. The earliest families to settle within the township included those of Land, Ryckman, Horning, Rymal, Terryberry and Markle (Smith 1846:8; Mika 1977:143).
One writer described the ‘Head of the Lake’ and Burlington Bay in a geographical account of Upper Canada published in the early nineteenth century, but made no particular mention of Barton Township. Settlement was slow up until the time of the War of 1812, perhaps due to the early importance of the nearby town of Dundas. By 1815, it is said that Barton Township contained just 102 families. By 1823, however, the township contained three sawmills and a gristmill. By 1841, the township population had increased to 1,434, and it contained five sawmills and one grist mill. In 1846, the township was described as “well settled” and under cultivation (Boulton 1805:48-49; Smith 1846:8; Mika 1977:143).
City of Hamilton
Hamilton was surveyed and established by 1820 through the combined efforts of George Hamilton, James Durand and Nathaniel Hughson. The first courthouse and jail, a log-and-frame building, was constructed in 1817, which was replaced with a stone building in 1827/28. The settlement became a port in 1827, at which point Hamilton became the commercial centre of the District of Gore, in addition to serving as its administrative centre (Gentilcore 1987: 101-3). Hamilton was incorporated as a City in 1846.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 5
3.3 History of the Sherman Avenue Cut
In the nineteenth century, historic mapping shows that the top of the mountain was sparsely settled and consisted primarily of farmland (Figure 2). By the early twentieth century, however, settlement on the mountain intensified along the ridge and Concession Road. In 1917, the Mount Hamilton Hospital at Upper Sherman Avenue opened with a total of 100 beds, a maternity floor, operating room for minor surgery, and nurses’ residence (Campbell 1966:192). With the establishment of the hospital, and residential and commercial development in the general vicinity of the study area, the demand for a new access road to provide easier access to and from the hospital and surrounding community increased. In 1919, the Report on Mountain Highways of Hamilton, Ontario by N. Cauchon, included a plan of 3 % grade traffic roads leading up the mountain. The need for less steep roads up the mountain side was a result of the introduction of automobiles and increased traffic between the mountain and downtown Hamilton. Interestingly, the Sherman Access Road and Sherman Avenue Cut are both proposed on this 1919 plan, and the bridge carrying Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut was identified as a ‘Portal’ into Hamilton Mountain (Figure 3).
Figure 2: The study area overlaid on 1875 historic mapping Base Map: Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Wentworth, Ontario
The Sherman Access Road, originally known as Mountain Boulevard, and the Sherman Avenue Cut were built between 1929 and 1931 (Figures 4 – 6). The road was carried out as part of a Depression-era relief program run by the city, providing each worker with one to two days of work each week (The Hamilton Mountain Heritage Society 2000: 11).
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 6
Figure 3: The study area overlaid on the 1919 Traffic Plan, Hamilton Mountain Base Map: Cauchon 1919
Figure 4: The study area overlaid on 1930 mapping of Hamilton Mountain. Base Map: Map of the City of Hamilton, Ontario (Faul 1930)
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 7
Figure 5: The study area overlaid on the 1941 topographic map Base Map: Department of Militia and Defence, 1941
Figure 6: View of the Sherman Access as it approaches the Sherman Cut (to the left), looking west, 1930
Source: Shay McWhinnie Collection (The Hamilton Mountain Heritage Society 2000)
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 8
3.4 Bridge Construction
3.4.1 Early Bridge Building in Ontario
Up until the 1890s, timber truss bridges were the most common bridge type built in southern Ontario. Stone and wrought iron materials were also employed but due to their higher costs and a lack of skilled craftsman, these structures were generally restricted to market towns. By the 1890s, steel was becoming the material of choice when constructing bridges given that it was less expensive and more durable than its wood and wrought iron predecessors. Steel truss structures were very common by 1900, as were steel girder bridges. The use of concrete in constructing bridges was introduced at the beginning of the twentieth century, and by the 1930s, it was challenging steel as the primary bridge construction material in Ontario (Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Transportation […]:7-8).
3.4.2 Construction of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge
The Mountain Park Avenue Bridge is a single span, simply supported steel beam bridge carrying two lanes of Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut. The structure was completed in 1930 and was the first bridge to be built at this location (Figure 7). Bridge drawings for the subject structure (Plan No. M_151 – M_155), which date to May 1930, originally referred to it as the ‘Mountain Park Avenue Bridge over Mountain Boulevard’. These drawings were prepared by the City Engineer’s Department, and designed by A. R. Hannaford, an engineer at the City of Hamilton (Appendix B).
City Council Minutes (1930, Page 500, Item 14(1 and 2)) record that the Hamilton Bridge Company Limited was paid $8,653.00 for the fabrication, supply and erection of structural steel work for the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge over Mountain Boulevard, according to the plans and specifications of the City Engineer and which have been approved by the Board of Works. The Stanley Contracting Company Limited was hired for $ 11,444 for the complete construction of the bridge at Concession Street over the Sherman Cut as well as the bridge deck at the subject Mountain Park Avenue Bridge.
According to the available reference documents, the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge underwent significant repairs in the 1960s. In a circa 1970s planning document, it was indicated that the top three to nine inches of the deck had been removed and replaced, and the steel recoated in the fall of 1967 (p 140). It also records that the abutments were in good condition although the shale underlying the limestone supporting the abutments was eroding, thus undermining the bridge supports.
Archival research was undertaken at the Hamilton Public Library’s Local History and Archives Department, the Lloyds Reeds Map Collection at McMaster University, the Wentworth Land Registry Office, and the City of Hamilton. The Hamilton Mountain Heritage Society was also consulted for additional information.1
1 An email was sent to the Hamilton Mountain Heritage Society on June 22nd, 2012. No reply has been received to date.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 9
Figure 7: South elevation of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge over the Sherman Cut, c.1930. Source: Shay McWhinnie Collection (The Hamilton Mountain Heritage Society 2000)
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND INTEGRITY
A field review was undertaken by Lindsay Popert on June 13th, 2012, to conduct photographic documentation of the bridge crossing and to collect data relevant for completing a heritage evaluation of the structure. Results of the field review and bridge inspection reports received from the client were then utilized to describe the existing conditions of the bridge crossing. This section provides a general description of the bridge crossing and associated cultural heritage features. Photographic documentation of the bridge crossing is provided in Appendix A. The bridge is considered to be oriented in an east-west direction for ease of description.
The Mountain Park Avenue Bridge is located in the southern part of the City of Hamilton, formerly the Township of Barton. It was built to carry two lanes of Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut. The bridge crossing is bounded by parkland along the north side of Mountain Park Avenue to either side of the bridge, a residential apartment building and residential dwellings to the southwest of the bridge and the Juravinski Hospital to the southeast.
The Mountain Park Avenue Bridge is located in the City of Hamilton, formerly the Township of Barton. While listed as a structure of “moderate” heritage value in the municipal document entitled: City of Hamilton - Heritage Bridge Guideline and Heritage Bridge Conservation, it is not designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and it is not currently listed on the Ontario Heritage Bridge List.
The Mountain Park Avenue Bridge is a single span, steel plate girder bridge that was built in 1930. The bridge was built to the designs and specifications of A. R. Hannaford of the City of Hamilton’s Engineering Department. It is continues to be owned/maintained by the City of Hamilton. The structure
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 10 features a total deck length of 19.05 m, span length of 18.10 m, and overall structure width of 13.14 m (OBMS Bridge Inspection Form 2011). The existing bridge features a concrete deck supported by four I- Beam/Girders, concrete abutments and wingwalls. The asphalt-wearing surface of the bridge deck is bounded by concrete curbs, sidewalks, and open-concept steel railings. The railings are bounded by concrete endposts. There are recessed diamond shapes located on the interior elevations, facing towards the roadway. The other elevations are plain. The wingwalls also feature recessed triangular shapes located under the concrete endposts. The northeast side of the east approach to the bridge features wrought iron fencing, along the top of the ridge. The northwest side of the west approach to the bridge features steel fencing and an extended concrete wall with stone facing which connects to the northwest endpost of the bridge. The vertical rock embankments are retained by steel bin walls. It was not possible to view the bridge abutments, soffit, or south elevation in detail during fieldwork due to access constraints.
According to the City of Hamilton, the full maintenance and repair history is unknown. By comparing original drawings with the present appearance of the bridge it was determined that the present open- concept pedestrian railings may be an original feature. However, the concrete endposts appear to have been altered or replaced, given that the original endposts had square recessed decorative panels rather than the current diamond-shaped recessed panels, and were topped by period lighting standards. Additionally, the recessed rectangular panels located along the face of the bridge deck, under the pedestrian railing, have also been removed. This likely occurred during the 1967 rehabilitation. The triangular shapes on the wingwalls remain intact.
The OBMS – Bridge Inspection Form for the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge, completed in 2011, presented the following comments regarding the condition of the bridge:
• Abutments – spalls and rust stains, medium to severe scaling, severe scaling and delamination, cracks with efflorescence; • Ballast Walls – severe delamination with cracks, leaching, light honeycombing. Note that the east ballast wall was replaced when new deck was poured; • Wingwalls – very severe delamination with wide cracks; • Approaches – extensive settlement at west approach, light to very severe map/alligator cracking throughout; • Barriers – abrasion and cracks; • Girders (Riveted Plate, I Type) – severe rusting in sections, corrosion;
4.1 Comparative Geographic and Historic Context of Girder Bridges
The City of Hamilton - Heritage Bridge Guideline and Heritage Bridge Conservation (Ecoplans Ltd & UMA: 2006) was reviewed to determine the potential design significance of the subject bridge within the City of Hamilton. The report presents an inventory of heritage bridges within the greater Hamilton area, arranged first by former municipalities (i.e. Stoney Creek, Glanbrook, Flamborough, Ancaster, Dundas, Hamilton) and then by bridge type.
The subject bridge is one of twenty-four girder/beam bridges located within the Hamilton portion. These include bridges spanning waterways, railways, and roads. Of these, fifteen are within the 1900 – 1939 date range. The remaining structures were built after 1939.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 11
A comparison of the overall length, width and number of spans associated with all girder bridges within Hamilton was not possible given that an inventory of bridges containing this information was not available from the City of Hamilton.
4.2 Additional Cultural Heritage Resources
There are no previously identified cultural heritage resources located adjacent to the subject bridge.
5.0 HERITAGE EVALUATION OF THE MOUNTAIN PARK AVENUE BRIDGE
Table 1 contains the evaluation of Mountain Park Avenue Bridge against criteria as set out in Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06. Within the Municipal EA process, Regulation 9/06 is the prevailing evaluation tool when determining if a heritage resource, in this case a bridge, has cultural heritage value.
Table 1: Evaluation of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge using Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06
1. The property has design value or physical value because it :
Ontario Heritage Act Criteria Analysis i. is a rare, unique, The Mountain Park Avenue Bridge is a representative example of 1930s girder representative or early bridge construction. Given that this type of girder bridge was widely built example of a style, type, throughout the province, and many remain, it is considered to be common expression, material or from a functional design point of view and, therefore, of little value from a construction method; technical perspective. ii. displays a high degree of This bridge exhibits a moderate degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, as craftsmanship or artistic illustrated by the open-concept railing design; the diamond-shaped and merit, or; triangular-shaped recessed panels in the wingwalls and the interior face of the endposts. A review of the original bridge drawings indicates that the bridge deck fascia and original endposts originally had decorative rectangular recessed panels as well as period lighting standards at the four corners of the bridge. iii. demonstrates a high This bridge exhibits a moderate degree of technical achievement given its degree of technical or challenging location at the ridge of the mountain; its construction into the rock scientific achievement. of the escarpment and its site, high above a human-made cut into the mountain which allows for vehicular traffic up the escarpment.
2. The property has historical value or associative value because it:
Ontario Heritage Act Criteria Analysis i. has direct associations This bridge retains direct associations with: the City of Hamilton engineering with a theme, event, belief, department, responsible for the design of bridges throughout the person, activity, municipality; the Hamilton Bridge Company, a prolific and well-known bridge organization or institution contractor who have fabricated and erected bridges throughout the city and that is significant to a the province and the Sherman Access Road and Sherman Avenue Cut, built community; between 1929 and 1931, allowing greater and more direct access from downtown Hamilton to the community at the east end of Hamilton Mountain.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 12
Table 1: Evaluation of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge using Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 ii. yields, or has the This criterion is not satisfied given that the structure does not yield or have the potential to yield, potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a information that contributes community or culture. to an understanding of a community or culture, or; iii. demonstrates or reflects This bridge reflects the work of bridge engineer A. R. Hannaford, and bridge the work or ideas of an builder the Hamilton Bridge Company. While the Hamilton Bridge Company architect, artist, builder, was a prolific and well-known bridge contractor in this time period, Hannaford designer or theorist who is is not known to be a recognized leader in civil engineering or to have made significant to a community. significant contributions to the development of civil engineering in Hamilton or Ontario.
3. The property has contextual value because it:
Ontario Heritage Act Criteria Analysis i. is important in defining, The 1930 design and construction of the bridge maintains and supports the maintaining or supporting character of the area, which is a combination of institutional, commercial and the character of an area; residential development that was established in this part of Hamilton Mountain in the early twentieth century. With the implementation of the Sherman Access Road and Cut the area continued to grow and mature. The subject bridge thus reflects the materials and construction techniques of that time, and contributes to the character of the area by enabling the continued function of this crossing in a changing landscape. It also forms part of a group of bridges spanning the Sherman Avenue Cut,(including the Concession Road Bridge located south of the study area). Additionally, the open-concept steel railing system that bounds the bridge allows passing vehicles and pedestrians to view and experience the views from the escarpment to the rest of Hamilton and the lake beyond. ii. is physically, There were no previous bridge crossings at this location. It is, however, linked functionally, visually or to its surroundings in a number of ways. Historically and functionally it is historically linked to its associated with the early-twentieth century push for a new, lower-grade surroundings, or; access road up the mountain to the growing and spreading mountain-top community and recently established hospital/ It is also visually and physically linked to the scenic Mountain Park Avenue roadway which travels along the edge of the escarpment, providing significant views over Hamilton and Lake Ontario. iii. is a landmark. The bridge functions as a landmark and gateway structure marking the entrance from the Sherman Access Road which winds up from the base of the mountain to the Sherman Avenue Cut, linking the access road to the road network at the top of the mountain. Interestingly, on the 1919 Traffic Plan of Hamilton Mountain the subject bridge site was labeled ‘portal’.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 13
Table 2: Evaluation of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge using the City of Hamilton’s Heritage Criteria Criterion and Weighting Max. Score Evaluation Comments Score Achieved
Age (20%) 20 12 The Mountain Park Avenue Bridge was built in Pre-1867 20 1930. 1868-1900 16 1901-1939 12 1940-1955 8 1956-1967 4
Materials (20%) 20 8 Concrete and steel was commonly employed in Stone 20 the construction of bridges in the early twentieth Timber 15 century. Concrete 8 Steel 8
Design (15%) 15 0 The Mountain Park Avenue Bridge is a Unique 15 representative example of 1930 steel girder bridge Unusual 10 construction. Of the 24 girder bridges identified Rare as a survivor 10 within the Hamilton section of the Hamilton Bridges Master Plan, the bridge is one of 15 that date within the 1900-1939 construction date range and is therefore not considered to be rare as a survivor, unique or unusual.
Integrity (15%) 15 10 Knowledge of previous repairs and rehabilitation No known material modifications 15 work on the bridge since it was built in 1930 is Sympathetic modifications 10 limited. It is known that the bridge deck was replaced in 1967 (likely removing the original decorative deck fascia ornamentation with (?) recessed rectangular panels), the steel bin walls were added to the exterior of the vertical rock embankment in the later part of the twentieth century and the endposts were replaced with new materials and design, perhaps at the same time as the deck replacement. It appears that no major (or unsympathetic) modifications have been made to the bridge since its construction in 1930.
Aesthetics & Environment (10%) 10 7 This bridge exhibits decorative detailing Ornamentation/Decoration 3 3 illustrative of its construction period: open- Remnants of previous bridge site 3 concept hand railings; recessed diamond-shaped Landmark 2 2 panels on the endposts (n.b., originally these Gateway 2 2 were rectangles); triangles on the wingwalls and the associated wrought iron fence extending from the northeast endpost along the north side of the sidewalk on the edge of the escarpment.
The bridge serves as both a landmark and gateway structure given its prominent location at the edge of the escarpment, highlighting the final
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 14
Table 2: Evaluation of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge using the City of Hamilton’s Heritage Criteria Criterion and Weighting Max. Score Evaluation Comments Score Achieved incline of the Sherman Access Road up the mountain, through the Sherman Avenue Cut.
There were no previous bridge crossings at this location.
Historical Association (18%) 18 8 This bridge retains direct associations with: the Person/Group 5 City of Hamilton engineering department Event 5 responsible for the design of bridges throughout Theme 5 5 the municipality; the Hamilton Bridge Company a Known/Prolific Builder 3 3 prolific and well-known bridge contractor which fabricated and erected bridges throughout the city and the province and the Sherman Access Road/Cut, built between 1929 and 1931 which allowed greater and more direct access from downtown Hamilton to the community at the east end of Hamilton Mountain.
This bridge reflects the work of bridge engineer A. R. Hannaford, and bridge builder the Hamilton Bridge Company. While the Hamilton Bridge Company was a prolific and well-known bridge contractor in this time period, Hannaford is not known to be a recognized leader in civil engineering or to have made significant contributions to the development of civil engineering in Hamilton or Ontario.
Documentation/Public Interest 2 0 No known documentation/public interest/archival (2%) information filed on this bridge. Archived Information 2 TOTAL 100 45
The above evaluation confirms that this property meets at least one of the criteria contained in Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. In particular, it was determined to retain design, historical and contextual value given its decorative detailing, location on the edge of the escarpment, its early construction date and associations with access roads to Hamilton Mountain and the corresponding growth and development of the Hamilton Mountain community. Given that Mountain Park Avenue Bridge met at least one of the criteria contained in Regulation 9/06, this structure is considered to be a cultural heritage resource and is eligible for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.
In summary, character-defining elements associated with the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge include but are not limited to:
• Proximity of the bridge to the edge of the escarpment; • Significant views from and to the bridge;
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 15
• Open-concept railing design; • Concrete endposts and wingwalls with recessed panels forming diamond and original triangular shapes; and • Single span, beam design.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR HERITAGE BRIDGES AS PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Following the evaluation of the subject cultural heritage resource, the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge was determined to retain cultural heritage value. The following nine conservation options/alternatives are arranged according to the level or degree of intervention from minimum to maximum. The conservation options are based on the Ontario Heritage Bridge Program (1991), which is regarded as current best practices for conserving heritage bridges in Ontario and ensures that heritage concerns, and appropriate mitigation options, are considered.
1. Retention of existing bridge and restoration of missing or deteriorated elements where physical or documentary evidence (e.g. photographs or drawings) can be used for their design; 2. Retention of existing bridge with no major modifications undertaken; 3. Retention of existing bridge with sympathetic modification; 4. Retention of existing bridge with sympathetically designed new structure in proximity; 5. Retention of existing bridge no longer in use for vehicle purposes but adapted for pedestrian walkways, cycle paths, scenic viewing etc.; 6. Relocation of bridge to appropriate new site for continued use or adaptive re-use; 7. Retention of bridge as heritage monument for viewing purposes only; 8. Replacement/removal of existing bridge with salvage elements/members of heritage bridge for incorporation into new structure or for future conservation work or displays; 9. Replacement/removal of existing bridge with full recording and documentation of the heritage bridge.
Given that the bridge was evaluated to retain cultural heritage value under Regulation 9/06, all nine of these conservation options should be considered as part of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge Environmental Assessment.
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OPTIONS
Based on the age of the structure and deficiencies observed in 2011 and 2012, the City of Hamilton retained Dillon Consulting Limited to complete a Class Environmental Assessment to assess alternatives for replacing the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge. As part of the study, the nine conservation alternatives listed in Section 6.0 are under consideration as bridge improvement alternatives.
7.1 Evaluation of Impacts
To assess the potential impacts of the proposed alternatives, the cultural heritage resource and identified heritage attributes were considered against a range of possible impacts (Table 3) as outlined in the
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 16
Ministry of Tourism and Culture document entitled Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (September 2010), which include:
• Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attribute or feature (III.1). • Alteration which means a change in any manner and includes restoration, renovation, repair or disturbance (III.2). • Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the visibility of a natural feature of plantings, such as a garden (III.3). • Isolation of a heritage attribute from it surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship (III.4). • Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas from, within, or to a built and natural feature (III.5). • A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces (III.6). • Soil Disturbance such as a change in grade, or an alteration of the drainage pattern or excavation (III.7)
Page 17 Soil disturbance expected through the expected through new a construction of proximity. structure in No impact. are impacts Yes – through expected removing of process its the bridge from location. current No impact. expected through through expected removal of the existing the and bridge new a introduction of structure. expected through through expected removal of the existing the and bridge new a introduction of structure. es other than than es other A change in land use use in land A change No impact. cycle walkways, pedestrian cetera, viewing, et paths, scenic from change a in result would are impacts Yes – structure. of the use the original the of re-use adaptive the Yes – purpos for bridge vehicular purposes would result use the original from change in a bridge the of the structure. If no use, vehicular in remains expected. impact is a in result would only purposes of use original the from change the structure. No impact. are impacts Yes – No impact. are impacts Yes – Direct or indirect obstruction obstruction indirect Direct or views of significant given that views to and from from and to views given that the bridgewould be obscured, road the from particularly below. expected are impacts Yes – views to the bridge given that be will or south from the north altered. No significant impacts to the to the impacts No significant Mountain Park Avenue streetscape are expected bridge a new that provided incorporates a similar grade, railing system, open-concept and decorative concrete end walls. Mountain Park Avenue streetscape are expected bridge a new that provided incorporates a similar grade, railing system, open-concept and decorative concrete end walls. Isolation No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. expected are impacts Yes – No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. relocation Yes – No impact. resource of the will isolate it from its original and context No impact. to relationship the escarpment bridge for use of Yes – the and No impact. Sherman Avenue Cut. No impact. No impact. viewing for bridge use of Yes – No impact. No impact. No impact. to the impacts No significant
Shadows No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. d Heritage Attributes Attributes d Heritage Alteration purposes only would result in a a in result would only purposes of use original the from change is thus and the structure be an alteration. to considered Yes – alterations to the resource to the resource Yes – alterations relocation. through expected are result in alterations to the result resource. heritage that a new bridge in proximity to proximity in bridge new that a alter the will one the existing context of and setting immediate the bridge site. Yes – alterations to the resource to the resource Yes – alterations removal. through expected are would be sympathetic to heritage attributes. Yes – alterations to the resource to the resource Yes – alterations removal. through expected are
Hamilton, Ontario Hamilton, Ontario Destruction, removal or relocation No impact. viewing for bridge use of Yes – No impact. No impact. No impact. Yes – impacts to the heritage Yes – impacts resource are expected relocation. through No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. would use in change a Yes – No impact. given expected are impacts Yes – Yes - Impacts to the Yes - Impacts heritage resource are expected removal. through No impact. alterations that given No impact Yes - Impacts to the Yes - Impacts heritage resource are expected removal. through
Avenue Cut, City of Avenue Cut,
of heritage bridge for of heritage bridge idge and restoration of
idge (Bridge No. 087) No. (Bridge idge
Heritage Impact Assessment Heritage Impact Assessment MountainBr Park Avenue Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Identifie and Resource Heritage Cultural the on Alternatives Improvement of Bridge Impacts Potential the of 3: Evaluation Table Alternatives Improvement Nine Bridge of existing br 1) Retention missing or deteriorated elements where physical or or drawings) evidence (e.g. photographs documentary can be used for their design major with no of existing bridge 2) Retention undertaken modifications with sympathetic of existing bridge 3) Retention modification with sympathetically of existing bridge 4) Retention designed new structure in proximity in use for no longer of existing bridge 5) Retention vehicle purposes but adapted for pedestrian walkways, cycle paths, scenic viewing etc site for appropriate new to 6) Relocation of bridge use or adaptive re-use continued for monument of bridge as heritage 7) Retention viewing purposes only with of existing bridge 8) Replacement/removal salvage elements/members incorporation into new structure or for future conservation work or displays with full of existing bridge 9) Replacement/removal heritage bridge of the documentation recording and Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 18
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of archival research, an analysis of bridge design and construction in Ontario, field investigations and application of Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge was determined to retain heritage value. In particular, it was determined to retain design, historical and contextual value given its decorative detailing, location on the edge of the escarpment, its early construction date and associations with access roads to Hamilton Mountain and the corresponding growth and development of the Hamilton Mountain community. Given that Mountain Park Avenue Bridge met at least one of the criteria contained in Regulation 9/06, this structure is considered to be a cultural heritage resource and is eligible for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.
The evaluation of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge against the 2002 City of Hamilton’s criteria for the evaluation of heritage bridges resulted in a score of 45 out of 100 points, and is thus recognized as having moderate heritage value.
8.1 Summary Statement of Cultural Heritage Value
The Mountain Park Avenue Bridge is a single span, steel plate girder bridge that was designed and built in 1930. The structure was built to carry Mountain Park Avenue Bridge over the Sherman Avenue Cut in the City of Hamilton. The bridge has undergone limited modifications since its construction in 1930. No major alterations to its original form or design is apparent, although alterations to its visual appeal have occurred with the removal of some of the original decorative elements including the recessed rectangular panels on the bridge deck fascia.
Historically, the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge retains direct associations with: the City of Hamilton engineering department, responsible for the design of bridges throughout the municipality; the Hamilton Bridge Company, a prolific and well-known bridge contractor which has fabricated and erected bridges throughout the city and the province and the Sherman Access Road/Cut, built between 1929 and 1931, allowing greater and more direct access from downtown Hamilton to the community at the east end of Hamilton Mountain.
In terms of design value this bridge exhibits a moderate degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, as illustrated by the open-concept railing design and the diamond-shaped and triangular-shaped recessed panels in the wingwalls and interior face of the endposts. It also exhibits a moderate degree of technical achievement given the challenge of locating and constructing the bridge on the ridge of the mountain and into the rock of the escarpment.
Contextually, the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge contributes to the scenic character of the Sherman Access Road and Mountain Park Avenue and functions as a gateway and landmark structure at one of the entry points to the Hamilton Mountain community. Further, it is strongly linked to its surroundings in a number of ways. Historically and functionally it is associated with the early-twentieth century push for a new, lower-grade access road up the mountain which accompanied the growing and expanding mountain- top community and the recently established hospital. It is also visually and physically linked to the scenic Mountain Park Avenue roadway which travels along the edge of the escarpment, providing significant views over Hamilton and Lake Ontario.
In summary, character-defining elements associated with the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge include but are not limited to:
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 19
• Proximity of the bridge to the edge of the escarpment; • Significant views from and to the bridge; • Open-concept railing design; • Concrete endposts and wingwalls with recessed panels forming diamond and original triangular shapes; • Single span, beam design.
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of archival research, an analysis of bridge design and construction in Ontario, field investigations and heritage evaluation, the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge was determined to retain cultural heritage value following application of Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Its heritage significance revolves around its significant design, historical and contextual value given its decorative detailing, location on the edge of the escarpment, its early construction date and associations with access roads to Hamilton Mountain and the corresponding growth and development of the Hamilton Mountain community. As such, the structure was found to meet at least one of the criteria of Regulation 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act and may therefore be considered for municipal designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Following the evaluation of potential impacts on the heritage resource (see Table 3), it was determined that Conservation Alternatives 1 – 3 are the preferred alternatives, given that no impacts are expected to the heritage resource and its identified heritage attributes, with Alternative 1 being the most preferred. The remaining conservation alternatives (4 – 9) have a range of impacts, with Alternatives 8 and 9 being the least preferred options given the level and nature of the impacts resulting from removal of the bridge.
Given the identified heritage value of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge, the following recommendations and mitigation measures should be considered and implemented:
1. Based on the results of heritage evaluation, Conservation Alternatives 1 -3 are the preferred alternatives, with Alternative 1 being the most preferred. As part of the selection of the preferred alternatives as part of the Environmental Assessment, a clear rationale for the proposed course of action should be documented.
2. This report should be filed with the heritage staff at the City of Hamilton, the Hamilton Heritage Advisory Committee, and other local heritage stakeholders that may have an interest in this project.
3. This report should be filed with the Ministry of Tourism and Culture for review and comment.
4. Should retention of the bridge be chosen as the preferred alternative (one of Conservation Alternatives 1 – 7), the character-defining elements identified in Section 8.1 should be retained and treated sympathetically.
5. Should replacement of the bridge be chosen as the preferred alternative (Conservation Alternative 8 or 9), two mitigation options should be considered:
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 20
a. Replacement/removal of existing bridge and construction of a new bridge with replication of the appearance of the heritage bridge in the new design, with allowances for the use of modern materials. The character-defining elements identified in Section 8.1 should be considered for replication.
b. Replacement/removal of existing bridge and construction of a new bridge with historically sympathetic design qualities to the heritage bridge, with allowances for the use of new technologies and materials.
c. In addition to (a) and (b), development of a commemorative strategy, such as plaquing, may be appropriate.
10.0 REFERENCES
Armstrong, Frederick H. 1985 Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Dundurn Press, Toronto.
Boulton, D’Arcy. 1805 Sketch of His Majesty’s Province of Upper Canada. C. Rickaby (reprinted in Toronto by the Baxter Publishing Company, 1961), London.
Campbell, Marjorie Freeman 1966 A Mountain and a City: The Story of Hamilton. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Ltd.
Cauchon, N. 1919 Report on Mountain Highways of Hamilton, Ontario.
Crossby, P.A. 1873 Lovell’s Gazetteer of British North America. Montreal: John Lovell.
Department of Militia and Defence 1941 Hamilton-Grimsby Sheet .
Ecoplans Limited and Unterman McPhail Associates (UMA) 2006 City of Hamilton Heritage Bridge Guideline and Heritage Bridge Conservation. (On file with the author).
Gentilcore R.L. 1987 “The beginnings: Hamilton in the nineteenth century.” In Steel City: Hamilton and Region. M.S., Drake J.J., Reeds L.G., editors. pp 99-118. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Hamilton Mountain Heritage Society 2000 Mountain Memories: Pictorial History of Hamilton Mountain.
Ministry of Culture, Ontario (MCL) 2005 Ontario Heritage Act. 2006 Ontario Heritage Tool Kit
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 21
Ministry of Culture and Communications, Ontario 1992 Guidelines for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments.
Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Ontario (MCR) 1981 Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments.
Ministry of Environment, Ontario 2006 Environmental Assessment Act
Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Ontario 2010 Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes.
Ministry of Transportation (MTO) 2006 Environmental Reference for Highway Design 2006 Environmental Standards and Practices 2006 Cultural Heritage – Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Technical Requirements for Environmental Impact Study and Environmental Protection/Mitigation. 2007 Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
Ministry of Transportation and Ministry of Culture and Communications, Ontario 1991 Ontario Heritage Bridge Program, Information Package.
Page, H. R. 1875 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Wentworth.
Smith, W.H. 1846 Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer. Toronto: H. & W. Rowsell.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 22
APPENDIX A:
Photographic Plates
Plate 1: East approach to the bridge.
Plate 2: View of bridge from the northeast. Note the hospital located southwest of the bridge site.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 23
Plate 3: Oblique view of the north elevation, looking west.
Plate 4: Oblique view of the north elevation, looking east.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 24
Plate 5: West approach to the bridge.
Plate 6: Oblique view of the south elevation, looking east.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 25
Plate 7: Oblique view of the south elevation, looking west.
Plate 8: Detail bridge deck, looking southwest.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 26
Plate 9: Detail of north sidewalk, looking west.
Plate 10: Detail of pedestrian railing, looking north.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 27
Plate 11: Detail of northeast end post. Note recessed diamond detailing.
Plate 12: Post-and- fence line extending from northeast end post, looking west.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 28
Plate 13: View of stone- faced wall and pillar linking the concrete end post of bridge to steel railing that continues westerly along the top of the ridge.
Plate 14: View of southeast end post and south sidewalk, looking west.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 29
Plate 15: Detail of stone retaining wall located south of the west abutment.
Plate 16: Upper Sherman Avenue, looking north towards Mountain Park Avenue.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 30
Plate 17: View of Hamilton from the bridge, looking north.
Plate 18: View of the Sherman Avenue Cut, looking south from the bridge.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 31
Plate 19: View of the Concession Street Bridge from the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge.
Plate 20: South elevation of the Mountain Park Avenue Bridge, viewed from the Concession Street Bridge.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 32
Plate 21: North elevation.
Plate 22: Exterior view of pedestrian railings, end post, and abutments. Note the recessed triangular- shaped detailing under the concrete endpost.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 33
Plate 23: Detail of girders.
Plate 24: View of Sherman Avenue Cut and Sherman Avenue Access intersection, looking east.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 34
Plate 25: View of the Sherman Access, looking west from the Sherman Cut.
Plate 26: View of the Sherman Access, looking west.
Heritage Impact Assessment Mountain Park Avenue Bridge (Bridge No. 087) Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman Avenue Cut, City of Hamilton, Ontario Page 35
APPENDIX B:
Selected Original Drawings
Page 36
Hamilton, Ontario Hamilton, Ontario
Avenue Cut, City of Avenue Cut,
idge (Bridge No. 087) No. (Bridge idge
Heritage Impact Assessment Heritage Impact Assessment MountainBr Park Avenue Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman
Page 37
Hamilton, Ontario Hamilton, Ontario
Avenue Cut, City of Avenue Cut,
idge (Bridge No. 087) No. (Bridge idge
Heritage Impact Assessment Heritage Impact Assessment MountainBr Park Avenue Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman
Page 38
Hamilton, Ontario Hamilton, Ontario
Avenue Cut, City of Avenue Cut,
idge (Bridge No. 087) No. (Bridge idge
Heritage Impact Assessment Heritage Impact Assessment MountainBr Park Avenue Mountain Park Avenue over the Sherman