Appendix J Agency Comments

Summary of Agency Comments Stakeholder List Transmittals to Stakeholders Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Attorney General Conservation Halton (CH) Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Halton Region Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Transport Canada

Table 1 Summary of Agency Comments

Summary of Comments Response EA Report Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada E-mail A. Berman dated July 24, 2013 I have received your request for Aboriginal consultation information from Aboriginal Affairs and Noted. Northern Development Canada. In the past, the Consultation Information Service (CIS) has provided responses with a 100 km buffer around the specific site of activity. Our updated Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System (ATRIS) now triggers a wider range of First Nation communities via self-government agreements and treaty affiliation. Therefore, a 100 km buffer may provide you with a great deal more information that you would normally require. As you are best placed to determine what the overall "footprint" of the project is, and how that should be represented geographically, I request that you send me the size of buffer you would like around the site of activity. Once I have this information from you, I can begin a consultation information response.

Letter A. Berman dated August 1, 2013

Information for the following First Nations is provided in alphabetical order: Mississaugas of the Noted. Credit, Six Nations of the Grand River.

Other Considerations – Aboriginal Rights Assertions: the Métis

(AANDC provided information regarding key features of the project area, aboriginal community information, treaties, claims, legal proceedings, self-government agreements and other considerations. Please see letter for details.)

Ministry of the Attorney General

Letter C. Chan dated September 18, 2014

Inquiries and communications such as yours are handled by Aboriginal and Ministry Relationships Noted. Branch of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

Your letter has been forwarded to that Branch…direct further questions to that office.

Summary of Comments Response EA Report

Conservation Halton

Letter September 9, 2014 1. Natural Environment Assessment See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Items While staff appreciate that the study area has been historically culturally impacted, staff expected 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 that the terrestrial habitat assessment would have included a discussion of the role that the vegetation here play for the bird species. This location has been identified as an important Bird Area Section 3.5 Terrestrial Habitat and Section (IBA) by BirdLife International, which is supported by Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada. This 3.6 Aquatic Habitat have been revised specific location contains the “West End of Lake Ontario ON022”, which is defined by the annual congregation of waterfowl, primarily in late winter and early spring. Given the known importance of Lake Ontario shoreline for waterfowl and migratory birds and butterflies, it is concerning that no discussion regarding on this aspect is included in the report, rather Section 3.5 provides a discussion regarding the fish habitat present. Please revise this section to reflect the significance the current habitat plays for the wildlife in the area both during migration and for breeding.

Further, based on the discussion during the April 24, 2014 meeting with the town, their Consultants and Conservation Halton, it appears that the majority of the vegetation located along the shoreline will be removed. A tree inventory of the larger trees in this area has been completed, however a vegetation inventory of all levels of species is warranted to ensure that no rare species are present and so that a comprehensive understanding of the existing species. As per the discussions with the Towns Consultant at the April 24th meeting, the study should include a discussion of the vegetation communities present as per the Ecological Impact Study Guidelines, pleas provide all field data Sheets for the project. 2. Section 5: Summary of Alternative Design Options See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.4 Staff do not agree that removing 2-4 m of vegetation along the shoreline should be considered a small impact, given the limited amount of vegetation present currently and as a thorough assessment Section 3.5 Terrestrial Habitat was revised. of these species present has not occurred to date. We recommend that this impact be looked at in terms of the overall vegetation in the study area, any rare species present and the habitat that it provides. Please revise. 3. Draft ESR See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.5 Table 6.1 Alternatives for Reaches 1 and 2 Staff do not agree that creating additional manicured green space, i.e., grass should be considered a benefit to the terrestrial habitat as specified in the Table 6.1 includes both naturally vegetated proposed alternatives. Rather we would counter that creating habitat for Canada geese, which would and passive green space. Section 6.1.7 not be a benefit to the area. We recommend that consideration be given to creating less grassed and includes a mitigation measures under manicured areas, and that more naturalized areas be made. potential impacts to water quality to reduce lawn area to be less attractive to Canada geese. 4. Meeting Minutes See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.6 Item 3.2 indicates that Lesley Matich report that she recently saw a turtle swimming in 16 Mile Creek…” This should be revised to state a “northern map turtle, which is a Species at Special Section 3.7 Species At Risk notes the Concern in Ontario, swimming in 16 Mile Creek. observed northern map turtle. Summary of Comments Response EA Report 5. Summary See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.7 As staff do not have complete background data with respect to the natural environment on the site, we are unable to provide full comments on the alternatives presented. Once this information is Staff is provided a final draft of the ESR provided , staff will be in a much better position to assess the proposed alternatives report for review. 6. Section 1.0 Introduction See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.8 At our last meeting in April 2014, staff raised a concern regarding the status of the Master Plan. Staff was not involved in the review of the master plan. Teresa Labuda (CH staff) attend a site meeting Noted. once and was informed of the Master Plane was completed earlier inn 2008, and at that time Teresa advised that the town of Oakville submit the Master Plan to the Conservation Halton and DFO for review, however the document was never submitted. 7. Section 1.3 Class Environmental Assessment See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.9 It would be helpful reference for the reviewers to have Class EA Schedule “C” (MEA, 2011. Appendix I page 1-19) attached to this Environmental Study Report Appendix B includes Schedule “C”

8. Figure 1.2 See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.10 Site Plan is referred to as well as a bathymetry map. Conservation Halton requests digital copy of bathymetry survey Town will provide CH with digital bathymetry when the project is completed. 9. 2. Problem Statement See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.11 Staff feel that this is a very general statement lacking specifics e.g. what exactly is meant by “an overall enhancement of the environmental condition”. Is this listed in any specific order, for example of importance? 10. Section 3.4.4 Recession Rates See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.12 Referred to CSC 2002 is not accurate as that study area was very general and designed for a different purpose other than to establish the erosion rates. Furthermore, the Purpose of the Section 3.4.4 has been revised. Undertaking as indicated on Page 9 is to “stabilize and rehabilitate Tannery and Waterworks Parks shorelines to mitigate flooding during storm events at high lake levels and erosion of the land adjacent to Lake Ontario.” The statements shoe lake of consistency. Please clarify. 11. Section 4.0 Evaluation Criteria See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 3.13 The evaluation criteria are general and do not have a weighting or scoring system. The evaluation process is not well defined; Some impacts of the proposed alternatives are missing e.g. impact of See section 3.4.3. and Section 6.1.7. During wave refraction/diffraction and reflection on entrance to the harbour and within the harbour. The design, wave reflection will be considered. rationale relating to a preference appears to be subjective and does not justify how the preferred alternatives were chosen. CH staff would be available to discuss further the evaluation criteria. CH evaluated the alternatives and provided a follow-up letter on November 21, 2014.

Summary of Comments Response EA Report

Letter dated October 17, 2014. 1. Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 2.1 Contrary to Section 3.5 (Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat) pg.42, river mouth habitats are not generally well-understood and little research to date has specifically focused on Great Lakes river mouth ecosystems (Larson et al, 2013). Tarandus and Associates are correct in their estimation that data for this specific location do not exist, however data within Sixteen Mile Creek and for sites adjacent to this location are abundant. In addition, lack of fauna should not be inferred from lack of data. While staff can only speak for the sampling (or lack of) completed by our staff, it is the opinion of staff that this location has not been adequately sampled to accurately summarize that "no spawning habitat or other significant habitat for such fish exists at this location".

2. CH Staff are in favour of the goal of the Master Plan to provide a naturalized shoreline and agree See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 2.2 that the options of concrete walls and steel sheet pile walls will not help achieve this goal. However, our staff understands that use of armourstone is not necessarily 'naturalized' either and request consideration of more natural environmentally friendly and dynamic shoreline protection as opposed to heavily rigid structures.

3. Staff request more detail on the formal and informal green spaces proposed in the various See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 2.3 alternatives. In alternatives 1 a and b, this is described as green spaces, whereas alternative I c proposes "formal and informal manicured planting area". Alternative 3 describes the land use as More detail regarding the planting plan for 'formal and informal parkland area'. the study area will be provided by the Town at the detailed design stage. Refer to Section 6.1.6 4. Section 5 Alternative Solutions See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 2.4 The Town of Oakville Official Plan (OP) summarizes Waterfront Open Space as environmental protection, possible recreational opportunities (within public lands) and developable, in order to The Alternative Solutions section 5 was achieve "a continuous waterfront open space system". It is the opinion of staff that these functions as revised to reiterate existing conditions and set out in the OP has not been recognized by the alternative options indicated on page. 57 of the the need for shore protection along the Draft ESR. The first function, environmental protection, barely merited a mention in this document. shoreline. Further, staff are uncomfortable with the selected preferred alternative solution being presented as "protect the shoreline", when its need to be protected has not been adequately demonstrated.

5. It is staff's understanding that the Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process, the 'do See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 2.5 nothing' alternative is intended to provide a benchmark for the evaluation of alternatives and must be considered. Please expand on why this alternative was not evaluated for either Reaches 1 and 2 or 3 and 4.

Summary of Comments Response EA Report 6. Table 6.1 Alternatives for Reaches 1 and 2: Evaluation for Natural Environment (p.85) See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 2.6 a) Based on staffs understanding the proposed infill associated with the designs based on the text description, the order from most to least infill is as follows: Alternative 3, 2a, 2b, I am, I b and le. The distinction of 75.3 masl corresponding to the metric for fish habitat gain/loss needs additional discussion. This elevation is a general metric ascribed by DFO for the whole of Lake Ontario and staff believe that the extent of works proposed in this project warrant the development of a high water mark more customized to the specific conditions in this location. 6b) Also, if the various alternatives are to be compared based on existing versus proposed 75.3 masl See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 2.7 (or appropriate high-water mark for this site), it would be useful to see these values plotted on a separate figure. Figure 6.10 shows 75.3 m contour (high water mark) for the alternative design concepts.

6c) Habitat linkages are generally described as areas of habitat connecting wildlife populations See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 2.8 separated by human activities or structures (e.g. roads, development), allowing an exchange of and Item 1.4. individuals between populations. The idea is that these linkages may potentially moderate some of the worst effects of habitat fragmentation, wherein urbanization can split up habitat areas, causing Mitigation measures that encourage and animals to lose both their natural habitat and the ability to move between regions to use all of the support migrating birds and butterflies are resources they need to survive. None of the alternative designs presented meet the definition of provided in Section 6.1.7 Table 6.6 habitat linkage and thus, should not count as features of the design.

6f) Our Staff are of the opinion that not all the alternatives should score as 'equally preferred' See meeting minutes (Appendix J) item 2.8. because they result in "loss of existing shoreline vegetation". Evaluation tables 6.1 to 6.5 and 6.7 to 6.11 have been revised. The term “equally preferred” has been replaced with “equal”. 6g) Staff concurr that seepage of grit, fuels and other contaminants into the ground or into the lake See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 2.10 should be corrected in the park improvements. Please advise why storm water management design is not part of this project. In addition, as the Town owns all of the lands within the project footprint A storm water management plan will be and the degree of imperviousness is likely to remain low, this is an excellent opportunity for the developed as part of the detailed design of implementation of low-impact development measures. Oil-grit separators (OGS, such as the park. The mitigation measures, Section Stormceptor model) specifications indicated that these units “should not be viewed as a standalone 6.1.7 Table 6.10 includes a storm water storm water quality control device but rather as a pre-treatment device useful in a comprehensive management plan. storm water management trail” (Stormceptor, undated). Staff request that the implementation of LID measures (in addition to the OGS unit) be given additional consideration. If a LID monitoring and maintenance schedule consistent with both i) the manufacturers recommendations and ii) any real time adjustments required once units begin to operate. 6h) Staff request more information about the capital costing aspects of the various alternatives, as See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 2.11 outlined in iii) Economic Environment (p.80). A discussion on the cost aspects of the various alternatives will provide a better understand in terms a comparison between the cost versus which Appendix H has the preliminary construction alternative is most environmentally sustainable. cost estimates. Summary of Comments Response EA Report 6i) Staff request additional discussion around the Tannery Park West sanitary overflow discharge See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 2.12 options, location etc. Halton Region’s comments are included in this Table.

7. Excerpt of Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements – Summary of Alternative See meeting minutes(Appendix J) Item 2.14 Design Concepts (received April 2014) a) Please confirm that any vegetation removed will be appropriately replaced subject to Conservation Halton Landscaping and Tree Preservation Guidelines (April 20 I 0), which Can be found on our website at: http://www.conservationhalton.on.ca/plannin-pennits; Staff not that there are excellent opportunities for enhancements. In addition, the woodlot on site has been identified as significant by Halton Region in their Official Plan, thus any impact needs to be minimized.

8. Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements, Environmental Assessment Public See meeting minutes (Appendix J) Item 2.16 Information Center Presentation – November 27, 2014. a) Staff request that the summary slides for the Typical Shoreline Treatments be updated to reflect environmental factors, e.g. impacts of infilling lake environments and should consider the impacts the different types of shoreline structure have on the environment, specifically on coastal processes and fish habitat b) Staff note that the ‘Concept Statement provided in the presentation has not appeared prior to this instance. Staff recommend that the problem statement as outlined in the ESR and other EA documents be discussed in the context of the concept statement as described.

Letter dated November 21, 2014 Conservation Halton staff do understand that the Town of Oakville intends to formalize the existing Consideration of formalizing the parking lot parking lot as part of this project, however, staff are of the opinion that formalization of the parking lot within the existing landfill has been can be achieved without the need to infill into the lake. considered. The preferred alternative has the parking lot located within the existing parking lot foot print. During detailed design alternative parking lot layouts will be reviewed to maximize the efficiency and parking spaces within the parking lot.

See Sections 6.1.6 and 6.1.7 Summary of Comments Response EA Report

As staff have previously indicated in previous discussions with staff from the Town of Oakville, Consideration was given to a combined Conservation Halton staff are not supportive of infilling into the lake for the purpose of providing alternative which had alternative 1c for additional parking space. As such, staff are unable to support any one proposed alternative, as the reach 1 and alternative 2a for reach 2. most preferred alternative for the entire reaches 1 & 2. Please note however, that staff are supportive Modified alternative 2b was developed. See of what is proposed for Reach l, under alternative I c. Section 6.1.6

For reaches 3 and 4, Conservation Halton staff are supportive of alternative 1 and further See Section 6.2.5 recommend considerations to incorporate design options to improved access to the waterfront. Based on the above, staff are of the opinion that the recommended design concepts would represent a more environmentally sustainable approach and would be preferred by staff. Conservation Halton staff would appreciate it if the Town of Oakville staff would take into consideration the suggested concepts and incorporate them into final design.

Conservation Halton staff would also like to recommend that the Town of Oakville staff contact the MNR with regards to the purchase of a water lot. Based on staff experience with similar projects, any fill on Crown land would require to be purchased from MNR at market value.

Summary of Comments Response EA Report

Letter dated April 9, 2015

1. Conservation Halton staff appreciate that the Town of Oakville has considered revising the The Preferred Alternative parking lot has the Section 6.1.6 modified proposed alternatives for reach 1 and 2 based on the recommendation provided in our letter of same footprint (size and location) as shown third paragraph. November 21, 2014 to the Town of Oakville. However, staff notes that all the alternatives except for in Alternative 1c (see p. 93 of the ESR). In ‘Alternative 1c’ still propose to infill into the lake to facilitate extension of the existing parking area Reach 1, the infill proposed for the Preferred and staff have concerns with the proposed infill into the lake for the purpose of providing additional Alternative accommodates passive green parking. space and multi-use trail. The proposed infill accommodates a beach, multi-use trail and naturally vegetated buffer area between the trail and bank in Reach 2. No parking area is proposed on the new infill area.

The proposed infill is not “for the purpose of providing additional parking.” The parking area is an existing facility, that is inefficient and in need of improvement. It currently requires a high level of annual maintenance (grading, dust control) and has virtually no buffer to the lake. Improvements to the existing parking area would allow for a safe and efficient parking and storage facility that could be used year-round. The proposed infill area allows for continuous, accessible, pedestrian access along the waterfront (separate from cars) and allows for a natural, vegetated buffer. Summary of Comments Response EA Report

2. Staff would like to note that the approximately 100 m of proposed shoreline protection for Reach 1 The present shoreline along Reach 1 of the Table 6.6 Reaches 1 and – Preferred Alternative does not provide any aquatic or terrestrial habitat. The proposed revetment Preferred Alternative consists mainly of broken concrete rubble with sparse informal vegetation, 2 Mitigation Measures & does not offer any diversity, or access to the water. It’s also steeper than the existing shoreline 6.1.7 i) Natural protection and may increase wave reflection and consequently scouring of the lake bottom at the toe some of which is exotic and/or invasive. The proposed shoreline works in this reach include an Environment of the revetment. armour stone revetment which will provide significantly more in the way of niche spaces, cover, edge, shelter, and other structural habitat for aquatic biota, particularly fish. The armour stone surfaces will also be colonized by invertebrates and other fish-food items. The proposed shoreline treatment at this location also includes a vegetated area which will have a minimum width of 4 m and which will be planted with native species. It is our view that the quality of habitat along Reach 1 of the Preferred Alternative will be a significant improvement over that which exists there at present.

Access to the water is provided by the beach in Reach 2. The protection works in Reach 1 provide part of the “anchor system” for this beach in Reach 2.

Overall the existing concrete rubble slope is flatter than the proposed revetment. Photo 1 of the report shows a view of the shoreline. However, the slope is not flatter by design. The concrete rubble was likely dumped at an unstable steeper slope and wave action has moved and reshaped the slope. In our discussions with DFO, Andrea Doherty recommended considering random placement of armour stone as well. Detailed design will consider design features such as structure slope and type of armour stone placement to minimize wave reflection. These mitigation measures are included in Table 6.6 Physical Environment – Other Coastal Processes.

Armour stone revetments are routinely constructed along Oakville’s Lake Ontario shoreline. The design is well understood. It is our experience that along this shoreline providing a double row of toe stones and keying the structure into sound shale bedrock provides a stable structure with a long design life and scour is not a design concern. Summary of Comments Response EA Report

3. Staff recommend that the parking spaces along the shoreline be eliminated and turned into green The Town understands that CH does not space. Other locations for the parking spaces should be considered within the park as previously support a parking lot at this location. recommended by staff. However, it is a long established, important and needed use along Oakville’s Waterfront. The parking in, and around, Tannery Park provides a rare and limited opportunity for park users visiting our waterfront area, but also provides an essential space supporting the Town’s ongoing harbour operations. During the winter months, all of the parking areas are needed for boat storage. The Town has also reviewed its waterfront park inventory and note that the Tannery/Shipyard Park area provides one of the very few places for public (vehicular) access to the waterfront areas. Going west from Tannery, there is a small lot at Waterworks Park, and then nothing until you reach Coronation Park, some 4 km away. On the east side of Sixteen Mile Creek, there are no public parking areas* along the waterfront until you reach Gairloch Gardens, some 2.5 km away from the harbour. (*does not include on-street parking in residential neighbourhoods) Summary of Comments Response EA Report

4. Expansion of urban areas into lakes significantly affects the fish community and other nearshore We agree that expansion of urban areas into biota (Chu. et al. 2014) The Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements – Summary of lakes can affect the fish community and Alternative Design Concepts document received April 2014 noted that the purpose of this project is other near-shore biota, but we would also to provide shoreline improvements consistent with the Master Plan, including shoreline stability, add that the effects can be both positive and improved access to/along the shoreline and an overall enhancement of the environmental conditions. negative. We would offer the rowing-course Staff do not believe infilling of the lake is necessitated in order to achieve this goals. As mentioned in breakwater on the Toronto waterfront as an the September 2013 meeting, an infill of the lake may only be possible if it is adequately justified and example of a positive expansion. In staff do not believe this justification has been presented. discussions with TRCA, it has been reported that fish densities and diversity at that location increased significantly after construction of the breakwater. These increases are likely attributable to the significant increase in structural fish habitat associated with the breakwater as well as the relatively quiescent waters which are now behind the breakwater which provides shelter from the high-energy open coast environment. Although the Preferred Alternative is a different design than the Toronto rowing-course breakwater, the proposed works do include improvements to the quality, quantity, and diversity of near- shore structural habitat. The objective of providing public access along the waterfront can be achieved with some lake infilling or significant loss of terrestrial habitat in Reach 2 and loss of established park use in Reach 1. It is our view that some infilling is necessary to achieve a balance among the various Master Plan objectives, some of which are competing. It is also our view that the Preferred Alternative is a scenario that will provide the desired shore stability, improve access and park amenities, and enhance overall environmental conditions while keeping the area of infill as low as possible.

5. Staff provide the following recommendations for the detailed design phase of the project: Section 6.1.7 discusses the implementation See Table 6.6 Reaches • Stormwater management – Treatment should be Level 1/enhanced treatment perhaps with of the Preferred Alternative in Reaches 1 1 and 2 Mitigation the use of LID technologies. SWM should consider salting and snow clearing practices for the and 2 (p. 96). The Town will be developing a Measures purposed multiuse trail, as well as oil/grit/hydrocarbon contributions from and de-icing practices for storm water management plan and the proposed parking lot. landscape plan which will consider these • Buffer strip or similar – well vegetated shoreline are more stable and less attractive to recommendations. These comments will be Canada geese. These functions can be achieved while still maintaining viewscapes desired by the added to the Summary Comments in Master Plan. This is valid to the selected alternative design as the proposed green space will Appendix J. function to increase infiltration of runoff. Summary of Comments Response EA Report

6. Conservation Halton staff recommend consultation with MNRF and DFO as required by the Class A copy of the final draft ESR was provided to See Section 7.4 Agency EA process. Staff reiterate our previous recommendation to consult with the above agencies and MNRF and DFO. We were in contact with Meeting and Comments incorporate their comments into the evaluation criteria. MNRF during the preparation of the ESR. We understand that MNRF’s comments regarding the final draft ESR will be provided shortly. Their comments will be included in the ESR. We have also had discussions with DFO regarding the project. It is our understanding that DFO will be providing a letter advising the Town that the project will require Authorization under the Fisheries Act. An offsetting plan and letter of credit for the offsetting measures will be required. DFO recommends consulting with DFO while developing the offsetting plan. 1. Contrary to Section 3.5 (Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat) pg.42, river mouth habitats are not Section 3.5 was revised and separated into generally well-understood and little research to date has specifically focused on Great Lakes river Section 3.5 Terrestrial Habitat and Section mouth ecosystems (Larson et al, 2013). Tarandus and Associates are correct in their estimation that 3.6 Aquatic Habitat. A description of the data for this specific location do not exist, however data within Sixteen Mile Creek and for sites observations of the aquatic habitat adjacent to this location are abundant. In addition, lack of fauna should not be inferred from lack of characteristics in the waters adjacent to data. While staff can only speak for the sampling (or lack of) completed by our staff, it is the opinion Tannery and Waterworks Parks is provided of staff that this location has not been adequately sampled to accurately summarize that "no on page 43. It was also discussed in our spawning habitat or other significant habitat for such fish exists at this location". meeting with CH on October 21, 2014. The revision is noted in the Summary of Agency Comments provided in Appendix J which also includes the meeting minutes.

It is our understanding that DFO will require Fisheries Act authorization for this project. The offsetting measures to improve aquatic habitat will be developed in consultation with DFO. Summary of Comments Response EA Report 2. Staff note that the trail widths and buffer areas proposed in the text and I the figures are different The width of the trails was removed from the (e.g. Figure 6.3 shows the trail in Tannery Park West to be 4 m but text indicates 3.5 m). In addition, drawings. The text still refers to the width of staff understand that the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act has established a framework the trail in order to compare alternatives. for the development of province-wide mandatory standards on accessibility and that a minimum width for trails is 2.1 m. Staff request that consideration of narrowing trails, within the context of The Town has standards for the width of AODA, be considered to minimize impacts to the natural environment, specifically infilling the lake. trails that is wider than the AODA. The Town’s minimum width for a multi-use trail is 3.0 m and 2.4 m for a recreational trail. The wider widths not only allow for better two- way flow of pedestrians, cyclists, and assistive devices, but it also allows for maintenance vehicles to get to and through our open space areas as required. The trail will also provide access to and along the shore protection structure for future maintenance which is required under Halton Region Conservation Authority’s regulations.

The ESR (Section 6.1.7 ii) Socio-cultural Environment p.99) includes consideration of accessible design during detailed design 3. Staff request more detail on the formal and informal green space proposed in various alternatives. The final draft ESR refers to the green space In alternatives 1a and b, this is described as green spaces, whereas alternative 1c proposes “formal as “passive green space” or “naturally and informal manicured planting area”. Alternative 3 describes the land use as “formal and informal vegetated areas”. Passive green space parkland area”. means land that is used for relaxation such as sitting or strolling. As outlined in Section 6.1.7, as landscape plan will be developed during detailed design which will provide a more detailed description of the passive green spaces or naturally vegetated areas. 4. The Town of Oakville Official Plan (OP) summarizes Waterfront Open Space as environmental In our view the objectives of the Master Plan protection, possible recreation opportunities (within public lands) and developable, in order to and this Class EA are consistent with the achieve “a continuous waterfront open space system”. It is the opinion of staff that these functions as OP. Section 5 Alternative Solutions in the set out in the OP have not been recognized by the alternative options indicated on p. 57 of the Draft final draft ESR was revised to describe the ESR. The first function, environmental protection, barely merited mention in this document. Further, existing conditions and the need for shore staff are uncomfortable with the selected preferred alternative solution being presented as “protect protection along the shoreline and protection the shoreline”, when its need to be protected has not been adequately demonstrated. of the public access structures which are proposed in the Master Plan. Summary of Comments Response EA Report 5. Table 6.1: Alternatives for Reaches 1 and 2: Evaluation for Natural Environment (p.85) Section 3.5 was revised and separated into a) As staff understand the proposed infill associated with the designs, the order from most to least Section 3.5 Terrestrial Habitat and Section infill is as follows: 3, 2a, 2b, 1a, 1b, 1c. 3.6 Aquatic Habitat. It was also discussed in our meeting with CH on October 21, 2014. This is a new comment. The order from most to least infill is: 2a, 3, 2b, modified 2b (Preferred The revision is noted in the Summary of Alternative), 1a, 1b, 1c. Agency Comments provided in Appendix J which also includes the meeting minutes b) Habitat linkages are generally described as areas of habitat connecting wildlife populations (Item 2.8). Habitat linkages at the existing separated by human activities or structures (e.g. roads, development), allowing an exchange of site are poor depending on the type of individuals between populations. The idea it that these linkages may potentially moderate some of linkage. Aquatic habitat linkages will be the worst effects of habitat fragmentation, wherein urbanization can split up habitat areas, causing improved between the study area and the animals to lose both their natural habitat and ability to move between regions to use all of the adjacent river. Terrestrial habitat linkages resources they need to survive. None of the alternative designs presented meet the definition of improvement is limited along the shoreline. habitat linkage and thus should not count as features of the design. There will be improvements by providing areas of natural vegetation. Section 6.1.5 i) Natural Environment (p.79) includes a comparison of the different alternatives with respect to habitat linkages. c) Staff disagrees that all alternatives should score as “equally preferred” because they result in a In the tables showing the evaluation of the loss of existing shoreline vegetation” alternatives included in the final draft ESR, the term “equally preferred” was replaced with “equal” The table, Summary of Comments, included in Appendix J notes this change. 6. Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements, Environmental Assessment Public This comment was noted in the table, Information Centre Presentation – November 17, 2013. Summary of Comments, included in • Staff request that summary slides for the ‘Typical Shoreline Treatments’ be updated to Appendix J. This comment was received reflect environmental factors, e.g. impacts of infilling lake environments, why revetments are after the first PIC. CH staff is always preferred over vertical walls. welcome to attend the PICs. As part of a • Staff note that the ‘Concept Statement’ provided in the presentation has not appeared prior Class EA, regulating agencies are consulted to this instance. Staff recommend that the problem statement as outlined in the ESR and other EA with throughout the EA process and we will documents be discussed in the context of the concept statement as described. continue to consult with the regulating agencies during the project.

Summary of Comments Response EA Report

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Email K. Buck dated February 26, 2015

Please submit a Request for Review if you have not yet done so. Request for Review submitted via e-mail to K. Buck on March 10 2015.

Email S. Eddy dated March 23, 2015

The following project has been sent to the regulatory review unit in Burlington for site specific Noted. review.

DFO File Title: Shoreline Protection, Lake Ontario, Tannery and Waterworks Parks, Town of Oakville DFO File #: 15-HCAA-00284

A biologist will be contacting you shortly.

Email H. Surette dated May 26, 2015

Unfortunately I will not be able to provide any comments at this time. When I have had an Noted. opportunity to review the file, I will provide specific details at that time.

As Andrea had previously indicated an Authorization is likely going to be required; however, this recommendation has not been approved.

Summary of Comments Response EA Report Halton Region

Email N. Ribic dated October 9, 2013 & November 17, 2014 We do have a couple of concerns with the proposed works. As you are aware the Region has a During design details will be developed that Sanitary Pump Station right in the study area. Looking at the proposed options / drawings, it looks meet the design criteria put forth by Halton like the walkway, the patio and the shoreline work will affect the Outfall from the pump station. Here Region. The detailed design drawings will be are a list of our concerns: submitted to Halton Region for review.

There are potential Health issues if an overflow should occur at the station. Raw sewage would be See Section 6.1.7 coming out of the outfall directly onto the walking path, patio etc..(if we are looking at the drawings correctly). We must ensure public health at all times.

If an overflow were to occur in this new proposed public area, our procedure and regulatory responsibility would be to notify the Ministry of the Environment as well as the Ministry of Health and we would have to close the walkway to contain the area. Before we would be able to reopen the area to the public, the area would have to be washed and cleaned.

We require 24 hour access to the outflow at all times. The Promenade can’t cover the outfall or impede our access to it in any way.

Emails T. Parr dated September 05, 2013 & December 17, 2013.

We are expecting the project to be completed in the Fall of 2014. During the summer of 2014, we will Noted be doing some landscaping in the park near Wilson and Walker Street. This will mainly involve adding more native shrubs along the fence line between the plant and the park, to help screen the view of the plant.

There are three watermains running through Waterworks park just south of the main Plant building. I have recently learned that the two smaller mains are slated to be rehabilitated or replaced in 2020. Depending on how the work is done, this could be potentially disruptive to any plantings in that area of the park.

There is an EA that will be starting soon to extend the intake pipe for the plant. We expect that most of that work would be off shore; however, without having started the EA, I do not have any details on what the potential shoreline impacts may be.

Please keep in the loop regarding any plans for Water Works Park and let me know if you have any more questions about work at the plant.

Summary of Comments Response EA Report

Emails T. Parr dated December 17, 2013.

Just as an update to my email regarding the three watermains in the park south of the plant running Noted towards the corner of Walker and Wilson - our System Operations group is currently making a system modification that eliminates the need for the two smaller mains (the large main is already decommissioned). This means there will no longer be a need to dig up the mains in 2020 to rehabilitate them, so the park planting that we will do as part of the water plant upgrade will not be disturbed.

Letter dated October 14, 2014. 1. Proposed shoreline improvements design drawings be submitted to the Region for review and The detailed design drawings will be coordination to avoid potential conflict with existing and future planned Oakville Water Purification submitted to Halton Region OWPP for Plant (OWPP) infrastructure; review.

See Section 6.2.7 2. Proposed shoreline improvements do not restrict or impair Region’s ability to carry out ongoing See Section 6.2.7 operation and maintenance provisions of the OWPP or its water intake pipes/structure; 3. Proposed shoreline improvements do not restrict or impair Region’s ability to upgrade OWPP site See Section 6.2.7 fencing and on-site security provisions; 4. Disclose to the Region any proposed changes to the current preferred alternative shoreline Preferred alternative is located landward of improvements solution which may impact or alter the 16 Mile Creek plume that affects the OWPP the Oakville Harbour west pier. There may intake water quality. be a change to local water circulation patterns due to the change in shoreline protection. These changes will be localized or adjacent to the shore protection only.

See Section 6.1.

Summary of Comments Response EA Report

Letter D. Simpson dated March 26, 2015

The Region is currently undertaking a review to confirm the requirement to either modify or construct Noted. See Section 7.4 Agency a new intake to the Oakville Water Purification Plant (OWPP). This review is anticipated to be Meeting and Comments completed by the end of this year. The proposed shoreline improvements appear to have significant impacts should the Region proceed with modification or construction of a new intake to the OWPP specifically:

- Preferred alternative for Reaches 3 and 4 (Figure ES 3): Placement of the boulder berm and boulders may impact construction sequencing. If the boulder berm and boulders are in place prior to construction, the boulders will need to be moved. If the Region proceeds with construction of a new intake, the berm in the affected area should be completed post-intake construction.

- Oakville Harbour West Shore Master Plan (Figure 1.3): The area between the OWPP and waterfront would be temporarily impacted by construction should the Region require to construct the new intake in that area or extent the existing intake. It is anticipated that the construction footprint will be considerable regardless of using open cut or trenchless methods.

Region would request that the timing and details associated with the proposed shoreline improvement be coordinated with the Region to avoid potential conflict with future infrastructure requirements planned at OWPP.

Summary of Comments Response EA Report E-mail L. Kalika dated March 27 2015 Section 1.1 Text updated. Description of the Study Area In the second paragraph it states “Oakville Water Purification Plan” should read “Purification Plant”

Figure 1.2 – it says “Plan” and should read “Plant” Figure updated.

Section 3.1.4 Reach 4 – Waterworks Park In the second paragraph it says “The Town of Oakville’s water intake” – this sounds incorrect Text updated. as the water intake belongs to the Region of Halton which feeds Oakville, Milton and sometimes Burlington. Saying the Region of Halton’s water intake or the Oakville Water Purification Plant’s water intake (OWPPs water intake) would be more accurate.

Figure 3.5 “Pump House” should be labelled “Gate House” - the Gate House is actually the west water Figure updated. intake access. There is also an east water intake access chamber evidenced by a manhole cover southeast of the west intake.

There is also a tag on this Figure “Water Treatment Plant Yard” with an arrow pointing to the Figure updated. parking lot. I am unclear as to which body owns this lot but it would be good to know. In any case, the tag is incorrect in that it is a ‘parking lot’ not a ‘yard’.

Section 3.6 Aquatic Habitat Text updated. In the second paragraph there is a blank line after the second printed line.

Page 44 “Oakville Burloak and Burlington intakes” – there should be comma between Oakville and Text updated. Burloak.

Figure 3.15 Insert illustration OWPP intake.png

Page 55 “Oakville’s water intake” should read OWPPs water intake to be more accurate. Text updated.

Page 57 Paragraph beginning “The “Do Nothing” alternative….” The third line says “the bank has Text updated. areas of exposes soil” should read ‘areas of exposed soil’.

Page 82 The last paragraph says “Oakville water intake” – consider changing to OWPP or Region of Text updated. Halton.

Summary of Comments Response EA Report Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs Letter H. Levecque dated October 3, 2013 With respect to your project, and based on the brief materials you have provided, we can advise that Removed from contact list. the project appears to be located in an area where First Nations may have existing or asserted rights or claims in Ontario’s land claims process or litigation, that could be impacted by your project. Contact information for the Six Nations of the Grand River Territory, Haudenosaunee Confederacy, and Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation given.

Additional details about your project or changes to it that suggest impacts beyond what you have provided to date may necessitate further consideration of which Aboriginal communities may be affected by or interested in your undertaking. If you think that further consideration may be required, please bring your inquiry to whatever government body oversees the regulatory process for your project. MAA does not wish to be kept informed of the progress of the project; please be sure to remove MAA from the mailing list. Ministry of Natural Resources

Email M. Bates dated July 24, 2013 The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has received the Notice of Study Commencement for the Noted. subject EA. We note that the study area is directly adjacent to Sixteen Mile Creek. We recommend that you consult the Halton Region Conservation Authority regarding your project and that you implement sediment and erosion controls during the duration of the works until the site has been stabilized. Please note that our records indicate the presence of species at risk within the study area. Please fill Done – see letter below. out the attached Information Request Form and sent the completed form to our Species at Risk staff at [email protected] for further direction. The associated guide has been attached to assist you.

Letter D. Deynes October 2, 2013 There are no species at risk recorded for your study area. Noted.

There are no natural heritage features recorded for your area.

Absence of information provided by MNR for a given geographic area, or lack of current information for a given area or element, does not categorically mean the absence of sensitive species or features. Many areas in Ontario have never been surveyed and new plant and animal species records are still being discovered for many localities. For these reasons, the NHIC/MNR cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence, absence, or condition of biological elements in any part of Ontario.

As you complete your fieldwork in these areas, please report all information related to any species at risk to the NHIC and to our office. This will assist with updating our database. Summary of Comments Response EA Report Email M Eplett dated May 26 2015 MNRF has no concerns related to natural heritage features and species at risk. Noted.

From review of works proposed, a work permit under the Public Lands Act will be required in order to place fill within Crown Land. Once placing fill has been completed, there will be a requirement to purchase filled land from the Crown.

Summary of Comments Response EA Report

Transport Canada

E-mail dated May 5, 2015

Please note that under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, Transport Canada is Noted. required to determine the likelihood of significant adverse environmental effects of projects that will occur on federal lands prior to exercising a power, performing a function or duty in relation to that project. To determine if the aforementioned applies, project proponents are encouraged to: 1. Review the Directory of Federal Real Property (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dfrp-rbif/) to determine if the project will potentially interact with any federal property; and 2. Review the list of Acts that Transport Canada administers and assists in administering that may apply to the project, available at: https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulations/acts.htm. In particular, proponents should consider whether the project requires review and approval under the following Acts: Navigation Protection Act (NPA) The NPA applies primarily to works constructed or placed in, on, over, under, through, or across scheduled navigable waters set out under the Act. The Navigation Protection Program administers the NPA through the review and authorization of works affecting scheduled navigable waters. Information about the Program, NPA and approval process is available at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs-621.html. Enquiries can be directed to NPPONTPPNONT@ tc.gc.ca or (519) 383-1863. Railway Safety Act (RSA) The RSA provides the regulatory framework for railway safety, security, and some of the environmental impacts of railway operations in Canada. The Rail Safety Program develops and enforces regulations, rules, standards and procedures governing safe railway operations. Additional information about the Rail Safety Program is available at: https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/menu.htm. Enquiries can be directed to [email protected] or (613) 998-2985. Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act (TDGA) The transportation of dangerous goods by air, marine, rail and road is regulated under the TDGA. Transport Canada, based on risks, develops safety standards and regulations, provides oversight and gives expert advice on dangerous goods to promote public safety. Additional information about the transportation of dangerous goods is available at: https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/tdg/safety-menu.htm. Enquiries can be directed to TDGTMDOntario@ tc.gc.ca or (416) 973-1868. Aeronautics Act Transport Canada has sole jurisdiction over aeronautics, which includes aerodromes and all related buildings or services used for aviation purposes. Aviation safety in Canada is regulated under this Act and the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs). Elevated Structures, such as wind turbines and communication towers, would be examples of projects that must be assessed for lighting and marking requirements in accordance with the CARs. Transport Canada also has an interest in projects that have the potential to cause interference between wildlife and aviation activities. One example would be waste facilities, which may attract birds into commercial and recreational flight paths. Enquires can be directed to [email protected] or 1 (800) 305-2059 / (416) 952-0230. Please advise if additional information is required. If none of the aforementioned information applies to the project, please ensure we are removed from the distribution list.

S:\Shoreplan Project Files\Files 1900-1999\File 1918 Tannery & Waterworks Parks, Oakville\Report\Appendices & Figures June 2015\Final Stakeholder Contact List Formatted for Appendix J r0a.xlsx 2 10-06-15

Tannery and Waterworks Park Shoreline Improvement s – Stakeholder Contact List Notice of PIC Notice of Category Commencement PIC #1 #2 Completion Title First Name Last Name Position Department Organization Address City Province Postal Code Telephone Fax Email Comments 1 Aboriginal X (General) X (S1) X (S) Sir: Gary Lipinski President Metis Nations of Ontario 500 Old St Patrick St., Unit 3 Ottawa ON K1N 9G4 613-798-1488 613-722-4225 [email protected] 2 Aboriginal X (Aboriginal) X (S1) X (S) Environmental Unit, Environment and Natural Aboriginal Affairs and Northern 8th Floor-25 St. Clair Avenue East Toronto ON M4T 1M2 [email protected] Resources, Lands and Trusts Services Development Canada 3 Aboriginal X (Aboriginal) X (S1) X (S) Sir: Bryan O’Meara Litigation Case Manager Litigation Management and Resolution Branch Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Room 1430-25 Eddy Street Gatineau QC K1A 0H4 Tel: 819-994-8647 819-953-6143 [email protected] Development Canada 4 Aboriginal X (Aboriginal) X (S1) X (S) Sir: Jeffrey Betker Senior Policy Analyst Office of the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and non- Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Room 1218-66 Slater Street Ottawa ON K1A 0H4 613-992-7037 613-996-1737 [email protected] status Indians Development Canada 5 Aboriginal X (Aboriginal) Consultation Unit Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs 160 Bloor Street East, 4th floor Toronto ON M7A 2E6 [email protected] Removed from contact list. Oct 03, 2013 letter noted that MAA does not wish to be kept informed of the progress of the project and would like to be removed from the mailing list. 6 Aboriginal X (Aboriginal) X (S1) X (S) Aboriginal Affairs and Northern 10 Wellington Street , 5H- 5th Floor Gatineau QC K1A 0H4 [email protected] Development Canada 7 Aboriginal X (General) X (S1) Madam: Alice Longboat Chiefs of Ontario Office 111 Peter Street Suite 806 Toronto ON M5V 2H1 PIC #1 Notice was returned to sender 8 Aboriginal X (General) X (S1) X (S) Sirs: Union of Ontario Indians PO Box 711 North Bay ON P1B 8J8 9 Aboriginal X (Aboriginal) X (S1) X (S) Sir / Madam Director, Policy and Relationship Ontario Secretariat for Aboriginal 720 Bay Street, 4th Floor Toronto ON M5G 2K1 Branch Affairs 10 Aboriginal X (Aboriginal) X (S1) X (S) Sir: Director - Negotiations, Negotiations Ontario Secretariat for Aboriginal 720 Bay Street, 4th Floor Toronto ON M5G 2K1 Branch Affairs 11 Aboriginal X (Aboriginal) X (S1) X (S) Sir / Madam Aboriginal Legal Issues Office Crown Ministry of the Attorney General 720 Bay Street, 8th Floor Toronto ON M5G 2K1 Law Office-Civil, 12 Aboriginal X (Aboriginal) X (S) Sir / Madam Director, Land Claims Research Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs 160 Bloor St E., 4th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2E6 Removed from contact list. Oct 03, 2013 letter noted that MAA does not wish to be kept informed of the progress of the project and would like to be removed from the mailing list. 13 Aboriginal X (Aboriginal) X (S) Sir / Madam Policy Advisor, Land Claims Research Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs 160 Bloor St E., 4th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2E6 Removed from contact list. Oct 03, 2013 letter noted that MAA does not wish to be kept informed of the progress of the project and would like to be removed from the mailing list. 14 Aboriginal X (General Aug 1) X (S1) X (S) Chief Bryan Laforme Mississaugas of the Credit 2789 Mississauga Road, RR#6 Hagersville ON N0A 1H0 905-768-1133 905-769-1225 Contacted in reponse to August 1, 2013 letter from Allison Berman AANDC 15 Aboriginal X (General Aug 1) X (S1) X (S) Chief William Kenneth Montour Six Nations of the Grand River 1695 Chiefswood Road, PO Box 5000 Ohsweken ON N0A 1M0 519-445-2201 519-445-4208 16 Aboriginal X (General Aug 1) X (S1) X (S) Intergovernmental Affairs – Policy & Association of Iroquois and Allied 387 Princess Avenue London ON N6B 2A7 519-434-2761 519-675-1053 Government Relations Indians 17 Aboriginal X (General Aug 1) X (S1) X (S) President Metis National Council 4-340 MacLaren Street Ottawa ON K2P OM6 613-232-3216 613-232-4262 18 Aboriginal X (Oct 17) X (?) X (S) Hohahes Leroy Hill Secretary Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Chiefs 2634 6th Line Road, RR#2 Oksweken ON N0A 1M0 Contacted in response to Oct 3, 2013 letter received from MAA Council 19 Regional X (General) X (S1) X Ms. Natalie Ribic Supervisor of Infrastructure Public Works Halton Region 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1 905-825-6000 ext 7642 [email protected] Added based on Tanya Parr's recommendations Management, Wastewater Services 20 Regional X (General) X (S1) X Mr. Nitti Subramaniam Manager of Water Design & Public Works Halton Region 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1 905-825-6000 ext. 7285 [email protected] Added based on Tanya Parr's recommendations Construction 21 Regional X (General) X (S1) X Ms. Alex Pallo Project Manager, Water Services Public Works Halton Region 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1 905-825-6000 ext. 7427 [email protected] Added based on Tanya Parr's recommendations 22 Regional X Laura Kalika Halton Region 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1 [email protected] Added based on email from Alex Pallo on Oct 30, 2013, L. Kalika should also be included on any correspondences regarding summary report 23 Regional X (General) X (S1) X Sir: Mark Meneray Commissioner of Legislative & Legislative & Planning Services Halton Region 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1 905-825-6000 ext. 6010 [email protected] Planning Services 24 Regional X (General) X (S1) X Sir: Commissioner of Public Works Public Works Halton Region 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1 905-825-6000 ext. 7699 [email protected] 25 Regional X (General) X (S1) X Madam: Jane MacCaskill Chief Administrative Officer CAO's Office Halton Region 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1 905-825-6000 [email protected] 26 Regional X (General) X (S1) X Sir: David Simpson Manager of Water Planning Services Public Works Halton Region 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1 905-825-6000 [email protected] 27 Regional X (General) X (S1) X Sir: John Duong Manager Wastewater Planning Public Works Halton Region 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1 905-825-6000 [email protected] 28 Regional X (General) X (S1) X Madam: Tanya Parr Project Manager Public Works Halton Region 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1 905-825-6000 ext 7546 [email protected] 29 Regional X (General) X (S1) X George Trencs Supervisor Oakville Water Purification Plant Halton Region 21 Kerr Street Oakville ON L6K 3Y9 905-825-6000 ext 7776 30 Regional X (General) X (S1) X Sir: Richard Clark Senior Planner - Environmental Halton Ecological and Environmental Advisory Halton Region 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6K 3L1 905-825-6000 Ext. 7214 [email protected] Committee (EEAC) 31 Regional X Anne Gariscsak Planner, Community Planning Legislative & Planning Services Halton Region 1152 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6K 3L1 905-825-6000 ext 7109 [email protected] Emailed on July 29, 2013, was sent commencement notice, suggested that Richard Clark be forwarded correspondence from now on regarding this project based on telephone conversation 32 Provincial X (Agency) X (S1) X (S) Sir: Dan Panko Supervisor Air, Pesticides and Environmental Planning Ministry of the Environment 5775 Yonge Street, 9th Floor Toronto ON M2M 4J1 416-326-3477 [email protected] 33 Provincial X (Agency) X (S1) X Manager, Community Planning and Central Municipal Services Office Ministry of Municipal Affairs and 777 Bay Street, 2nd Floor Toronto ON M5G 2E5 416-585-6564 416-585-6882 [email protected] Development Housing 34 Provincial X (Agency) X (S1) X (S) Madam: Penny Young Heritage Planner Cultural Services Unit, Program and Services Branch Ministry of Tourism, Culture and 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 Toronto ON M7A OA7 416-212-4019 [email protected] Sport 35 Provincial X (Agency) X (S1) X (S) Chris Hislop Water Resources Coordinator Aurora District Office Ministry of Natural Resources 50 Bloomington Road West Aurora ON L4G 0L8 905-713-7386 905-713-7361 [email protected] 36 Provincial X (Agency) X (S1) X (S) Jackie Burkart District Planner Aurora District Office Ministry of Natural Resources 50 Bloomington Road West Aurora ON L4G 0L8 905-713-7368 [email protected] Dale Lipnicky (Town) received a voicemail from MNR Sept 2013 saying that only Jackie Burkart needs to be contacted from the MNR 37 Federal X (Agency) X (S1) X (S) Madam: Suzanne Shea Protection Officer Navigable Waters Transport Canada 100 Front Street South Sarnia ON N7T 2M4 519-383-1866 [email protected] 38 Federal X (Agency) X (S1) X (S) Sir: Brent Valere Senior Habitat Biologist Southern Ontario District - Burlington Office Fisheries and Oceans Canada 304-3027 Harvester Road, P.O. Box 85060 Burlington ON L7R 4K3 905-639-6398 [email protected]

39 Other X (General) X (E) X (E) Madam: Karen Brock Oakvillegreen Conservation ON 289-813-1568 [email protected] Emailed notices Association Inc. (OCA) 40 Other X (General) X (S1) X (S) Sir: John Sawyer President Oakville Chamber of Commerce 700 Kerr Street Suite 200 Oakville ON L6K 3W5 905-845-6613 [email protected] 41 Municipal X (General) X (S1) X Sir: Ray Green CAO Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville ON L6H 0H3 905-338-4252 905-815-2001 [email protected] 42 Municipal X (General) X (S1) X Sir: Dan Cozzi Director Engineering & Construction Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville ON L6H 0H3 905-845-6601 905-815-2001 [email protected]

S:\Shoreplan Project Files\Files 1900-1999\File 1918 Tannery & Waterworks Parks, Oakville\Report\Appendices & Figures June 2015\Final Stakeholder Contact List Formatted for Appendix J r0a.xlsx S:\Shoreplan Project Files\Files 1900-1999\File 1918 Tannery & Waterworks Parks, Oakville\Report\Appendices & Figures June 2015\Final Stakeholder Contact List Formatted for Appendix J r0a.xlsx 2 10-06-15

Tannery and Waterworks Park Shoreline Improvement s – Stakeholder Contact List Notice of PIC Notice of Category Commencement PIC #1 #2 Completion Title First Name Last Name Position Department Organization Address City Province Postal Code Telephone Fax Email Comments 43 Municipal X (General) X (S1) X Sir: Paul Allen Manager Design & Construction Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville ON L6H 0H3 905-338-4424 905-338-4159 [email protected] 44 Municipal X (General) X (S1) X Sir: Chris Mark Director Parks and Open Space Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville ON L6H 0H3 905-845-6601 ext 3111 905-338-4188 [email protected] 45 Municipal X (General) X (S1) X Sir: Enrico Scalera Director Road and Works Operations Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville ON L6H 0H3 905-845-6601 ext 3315 905-338-4227 [email protected] 46 Municipal X (General) X (S1) X Madam: Dana Anderson Director Planning Services Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville ON L6H 0H3 905-845-6020 905-338-4414 [email protected] 47 Municipal X (General) X (S1) X Sir: Darnell Lambert Director Development Engineering Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville ON L6H 0H3 905-845-6020 ext 3320 905-338-4414 [email protected] 48 Municipal X (General) X (S1) X Madam: Jane Courtemanche Director Strategy, Policy and Communication Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville ON L6H 0H3 905-845-6020 ext 3038 905-338-4259 [email protected] 49 Municipal X (General) X (S1) X Madam: Nina de Vaal Director Recreation and Culture Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville ON L6H 0H3 905-845-6020 ext 3112 905-338-4188 [email protected] 50 Utilities X (General) X (S1) X Sir: Dan Steele Director Oakville Hydro Corporation 861 Redwood Square, P.O. Box 1900 Oakville ON L6J 5E3 51 Provincial X (General) X (S1) X (S) Madam: Teresa Labuda Coordinator Coastal Program & Watershed Capital Projects Conservation Halton 2596 Britannia Road West RR # 2 Burlington ON L7P 0G3 905-336-1158 ext 234 905-336-7014 [email protected] 52 Provincial X (S1) Madam: Jane DeVito Coordinator Environmental Planning Conservation Halton 2596 Britannia Road West RR # 2 Burlington ON L7P 0G3 [email protected] Added based on initial meeting with CH and Shoreplan 53 Provincial X (S1) X (S) Madam: Leah Chishimba Coordinator Conservation Halton 2596 Britannia Road West RR # 2 Burlington ON L7P 0G3 Added Leah Chishimba has taken over for Jane Devito 54 Municipal X (General) X (S1) X Councilor Pam Damoff Ward 2 Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville ON L6H 0H3 905-582-4237 [email protected] 55 Municipal X (General) X (S1) X Councilor Dave Gittings Ward 3 Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville ON L6H 0H3 905-844-5513 [email protected] 56 Municipal X (S1) X Councilor Cathy Duddeck Ward 2 Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville ON L6H 0H3 905-582-4237 Added for PIC #1 Notice 57 Municipal X (S1) X Councilor Keith Bird Ward 3 Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville ON L6H 0H3 905-844-5513 Added for PIC #1 Notice 58 Municipal X (General) X (S1) X Sir: Rakesh Mistry Landscape Architect Parks and Open Space Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville ON L6H 0H3 905-845-6601 ext 3664 905-338-4188 [email protected] 59 Municipal X (General) X (S1) X Madam: Janis Olbina Manager Parks and Open Space Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville ON L6H 0H3 905-845-6601 ext 3148 905-338-4188 [email protected] 60 Other X (General) X (S1) X (S) Madam: Jana Joyce Landscape Architect Consultant MBTW Group 255 Wicksteed, Unit 1A Toronto ON M4H 1G8 416-449-7767 [email protected] 61 Other X (General) X (S1) X (S) Sir: Executive Director Kerr Village BIA 323 Kerr Street, Suite 201 Oakville ON L6K 3B6 905-849-8865 905-849-1399 [email protected] 62 Other X (General) X (S1) X (S) Madam: Executive Director Downtown Oakville BIA 146 Lakeshore Road East, 2nd Floor West Oakville ON L6J 1H4 905-844-4520 905-844-1154 [email protected] Office 63 Other X (General) X (S1) X (S) Madam: Executive Director Waterfront Regeneration Trust 372 Richmond Street West Suite 308 Toronto ON M5V 1X6 416-943-8080 416-943-8068 [email protected] 64 Other X (General) X (S1) X (S) Sir: Oakville Power Boat Club 150 Water St. Oakville ON L6J7R4 905-844-3607 65 Other X (General) X (S1) X (S) Sir: The Oakville Yacht Squadron PO Box 144 Lakeshore West Postal Station, Oakville ON L6K 0A3 905-338-9379 [email protected] 146 Lakeshore Road West 66 Other X (General) X (S1) X (S) Sir: General Manager The Oakville Club 56 Water Street Oakville ON L6J 2Y3 905-845-0231 ext 201 [email protected] 67 Other X (General) X (S1) X (S) Oakville Museum 8 Navy Street Oakville ON L6J 2Y5 905-338-4400 [email protected] 68 Other X (General) X (S1) X (S, Madam: West Harbour Residents Association 130 Burnet St Oakville ON L6K 1C2 [email protected] ; Would also like to have notices emailed as well E) [email protected] 69 Other X (General) X (E) X (E) Sir: President Oakville Lakeside Residents ON [email protected] emailed notices Association 70 Other X (General) X (S1) X (S) Sir: President Oakville Historical Society P.O. Box 69501, 109 Thomas Street Oakville ON L6J 7R4 905-844-2695 905-844-7380 [email protected] 71 Other X (General) X (S1) X (S) Mr. Senior Planner Regional Waterfront Parks Advisory Committee Halton Region 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1 905-825-6000 ext 7186 [email protected] 72 Public X (S1) X Dr Stefan Wille 2267 Daffodil Court Oakville ON L6J 5Y2 905-849-4408 [email protected] Added based on email received July 17, 2013 73 Public X (E) X (E) Amanda Dam [email protected] [email protected] Added based on email received July 25, 2013, emailed notice 74 Other X (S1) X Town of Oakville Water-Air Rescue 2 Navy Street, P.O. Box 1073, Lakeshore West Oakville ON L6K OB2 Added for PIC #1 Notice Force 75 Other Secretary-Treasurer Town of Oakville Water-Air Rescue 2 Navy Street, P.O. Box 1073, Lakeshore West Oakville ON L6K OB2 [email protected] Added after comment sheet received during PIC #1, TOWARF already on mailing list Force 76 Other X (E) X (E) Wai Nui O Kanaka Canoe Club [email protected] Added for PIC #1 Notice, emailed notice 77 Public X (?) X Ken Butterworth 122 Cross Ave, Oakville Oakville ON L6L 2W8 Added based on telephone conversation 78 Other X (E) X (E) Hart Jansson West Harbour Residents Association [email protected] Added based on meeting held with Park Dept, Hart Jansson etc. [email protected] Email Notice of Completion Note: Notice of Commencenet sent on July 17, 2013 unless otherwise noted S1 - Stakeholder Letter notifying of PIC #1 - Nov 13 2014 S2 -Stakeholder Letter notifying of PIC #2 - Sept 12 2014 E - email PIC #2 - "X" denotes general notice (same as sent to residents)

S:\Shoreplan Project Files\Files 1900-1999\File 1918 Tannery & Waterworks Parks, Oakville\Report\Appendices & Figures June 2015\Final Stakeholder Contact List Formatted for Appendix J r0a.xlsx

Transmittals to Stakeholders

Notice of Commencement (example) Notice of Public Information Centre # 1 (example) Notice of Natural Environment Assessment report (example) Notice of Public Information Centre # 2 (example) Notice of draft Environmental Study Report (example) Notice of final draft Environmental Study Report (example)

July 17, 2013

Chris Hislop Water Resources Coordinator Aurora District Office Ministry of Natural Resources 50 Bloomington Road West Aurora, ON L4G 0L8

RE: Notice of Study Commencement Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements

Dear Mr. Hislop:

The shoreline along Tannery and Waterworks Parks, between 16 Mile Creek and Kerr Street south of Walker Street, is in poor condition. The Town of Oakville is considering improvements to the shoreline as identified in the 2007 Oakville Harbour West Shore Master Plan. The purpose of this project is to provide shoreline improvements consistent with the master plan, including shore stability, improved access to shoreline and an overall enhancement of the environmental conditions. The Town of Oakville is therefore considering ways and means of achieving this goal and has initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA).

The study is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of a Schedule C project as outlined in the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Municipal Class EA document (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011), which is an approved process under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. The EA process includes public and agency consultation, an evaluation of alternative solutions, an assessment of the potential environmental effects of the alternative solutions, selection of the preferred solution and identification of reasonable measures to mitigate any adverse impacts. The approximate study area is shown in the map below.

A key component of the study will involve consultation with interested stakeholders, the public and regulatory agencies. Your ministry or department is encouraged to provide your comments so that they may be incorporated into the planning of this project.

Should you decide that this study does not impact your ministry or department and you do not want to receive any further notifications regarding this study, please advise the undersigned in writing or by email.

Town of Oakville | 1225 Trafalgar Road, Oakville, Ontario L6H 0H3 | 905-845-6601 | www.oakville.ca

If you would like to obtain further information on the project, or if you have any questions or comments, please contact one of the following project representatives.

Kasia Piskorz Jane Graham Town of Oakville Shoreplan Engineering Limited 1225 Trafalgar Road 55 Eglinton Ave., E., Suite 800 Oakville, Ontario L6H 0H3 Toronto, Ontario M4P 1G8 Phone : 905.845.6601 Ext. 3533 Phone : 416.487.4756 Fax : 905.338.4159 Fax : 416.487.5129 Email : [email protected] Email : [email protected]

Information related to the study and consultation process will also be posted on the Town of Oakville’s website at www.oakville.ca/environment/tannery-park-shoreline- rehabilitation.html

Yours truly,

Kasia Piskorz, P. Eng. Project Leader – Capital Projects Engineering and Construction

cc: Jane Graham, Shoreplan Engineering Limited

Town of Oakville | 1225 Trafalgar Road, Oakville, Ontario L6H 0H3 | 905-845-6601 | www.oakville.ca

November 13, 2013

Chris Hislop, Water Resources Coordinator Aurora District Office Ministry of Natural Resources 50 Bloomington Road West Aurora, ON L4G 0L8

RE: Notice of Public Information Centre # 1 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements

Dear Mr. Hislop:

The Town of Oakville has initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for the shoreline improvements at Tannery and Waterworks Parks. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the first of two Public Information Centres (PICs) planned for this study has been scheduled.

Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 Time: 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Location: Oakville Arena – Kinsmen Pine Room 133 Rebecca Street Oakville, ON L6K 1J4

At the PIC you will have an opportunity to review the study background information, problems being addressed, and provide your input on the alternatives being considered. Representatives of the Town of Oakville and its consultant will be available to answer questions and discuss the study. You are encouraged to provide your comments so that they may be incorporated into the plan and design of this project. Anyone with an interest in this study is invited to attend and participate.

The format of the PIC will be an informal drop-in centre.

The objective of the study is to implement shoreline improvements consistent with the 2007 Oakville Harbour West Shore Master Plan, including shore stability, improved access to shoreline and an overall enhancement of the environmental conditions. The study is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of a Schedule C project as outlined in the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Municipal Class EA document (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011), which is an approved process under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.

Town of Oakville | 1225 Trafalgar Road, Oakville, Ontario L6H 0H3 | 905-845-6601 | www.oakville.ca

If you have any questions or would like to provide comments but cannot attend the PIC, please contact one of our project representatives by Friday, December 15, 2013.

Kasia Piskorz Jane Graham Town of Oakville, Shoreplan Engineering Limited 1225 Trafalgar Road 55 Eglinton Ave., E., Suite 800 Oakville, Ontario L6H 0H3 Toronto, Ontario M4P 1G8 905-845-6601 Ext. 3533 416-487-4756 Ext. 223 [email protected] [email protected]

For more information on this study, please visit oakville.ca and search for Tannery Shoreline.

Yours truly,

Kasia Piskorz, P. Eng. Project Leader – Capital Projects Engineering and Construction

cc: Jane Graham, Shoreplan Engineering Limited

Town of Oakville | 1225 Trafalgar Road, Oakville, Ontario L6H 0H3 | 905-845-6601 | www.oakville.ca

November 22, 2013

RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements

Dear Stakeholders,

The Town of Oakville is currently undertaking the above noted study in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Natural Environmental Assessment report for this study has been completed and to request your feedback on the report. We would very much appreciate your comments on the draft report. Our goal is to engage Conservation Halton, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Environment, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Halton Region early in and throughout the study to ensure effective consultation and better decision making.

The draft report can be downloaded at the following link:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/95843082/Natural%20Environment%20Assessment %20Report%20_draft%202011%2011%2021.pdf

If possible please provide your feedback by Friday, December 13, 2013. Once your comments are received we can arrange a meeting with your agency to discuss the next phases of the study.

To view the display boards to be presented at the first public information centre for this study, please visit oakville.ca and search for Tannery Shoreline.

Yours truly,

Kasia Piskorz, P. Eng. Project Leader – Capital Projects Engineering and Construction

cc: Jane DeVito, Conservation Halton Teresa Labuda, Conservation Halton Chris Hislop, Ministry of Natural Resources Jackie Burkart, Ministry of Natural Resources Brent Valere, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Dan Panko, Ministry of Environment Natalie Ribic, Halton Region Richard Clark, Halton Region George Trencs, Halton Region Tanya Parr, Halton Region Nitti Subramaniam, Halton Region Alex Pallo, Halton Region

Town of Oakville | 1225 Trafalgar Road, Oakville, Ontario L6H 0H3 | 905-845-6601 | www.oakville.ca

September 12, 2014

Chris Hislop, Water Resources Coordinator Ministry of Natural Resources 50 Bloomington Road West Aurora, ON L4G 0L8

RE: Notice of Public Information Centre #2 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements

Dear Mr. Hislop:

In 2013, a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) was initiated for the shoreline improvements at Tannery and Waterworks Parks.

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the second Public Information Centre (PIC) planned for this study has been scheduled. The Town of Oakville appreciates your feedback and we encourage you to get involved.

Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 Time: 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Location: Oakville Arena – Kinsmen Pine Room 133 Rebecca Street, Oakville, ON L6K 1J4

The first PIC, which presented background information, problems being addressed, and typical shoreline treatment alternatives, was held in November 2013. The second PIC will review the alternative design concepts being considered, the evaluation criteria and proposed evaluation process. At this PIC you will also have an opportunity to provide your input on the preferred alternative design concept. Representatives from the Town of Oakville and its consultant will be available to provide information and answer questions.

The format of the PIC will be an informal drop-in centre.

If you have any questions or cannot attend but would like to provide comments, please contact one of our project representatives. Input and comments received by Friday, October 17, 2014 will be incorporated into the study.

The study objective is to implement shoreline improvements consistent with the 2007 Oakville Harbour West Shore Master Plan, including shore stability, improved access to the shoreline and an overall enhancement of the environmental conditions. The study is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of a Schedule C project as outlined in the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Municipal Class EA document (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011), which is an approved process under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. Town of Oakville | 1225 Trafalgar Road, Oakville, Ontario L6H 0H3 | 905-845-6601 | www.oakville.ca

If you have any accessibility needs, please let us know as soon as possible by contacting one of the project representatives below or by filling out the accessible online feedback form on oakville.ca.

Kasia Piskorz Jane Graham Town of Oakville, Shoreplan Engineering Limited 1225 Trafalgar Road 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Oakville, Ontario L6H 0H3 Toronto, Ontario M4S 3B1 905-845-6601 Ext. 3533 416-487-4756 Ext. 223 [email protected] [email protected]

For more information on this study, please visit oakville.ca and search for Tannery and Waterworks Parks Class EA.

Yours truly,

Kasia Piskorz, P. Eng., Project Leader – Capital Projects, Engineering and Construction

cc: Jane Graham, Shoreplan Engineering Limited Town of Oakville | 1225 Trafalgar Road, Oakville, Ontario L6H 0H3 | 905-845-6601 | www.oakville.ca

September 16, 2014

RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements

Dear Stakeholders,

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the draft Environmental Study Report – Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements, July 2014 has been updated to include the alternative design concepts, the evaluation criteria and proposed evaluation process for the shoreline improvements being considered at Tannery and Waterworks Parks.

We would very much appreciate your feedback so that your comments can be incorporated into our study. If possible please provide your comments by Friday, October 17, 2014.

Instructions on how to access the report have been sent to you by email.

The study information will be presented to the public at a public information centre (PIC) scheduled for Tuesday, September 30, 2014. At this PIC interested individuals will have an opportunity to provide their input on the alternative design concepts, the evaluation criteria and process, and the preferred alternative design concept. The PIC notice has been mailed out as a separate notification.

Please note that this draft report has already been circulated to Conservation Halton for their review.

Yours truly,

Kasia Piskorz, P. Eng. Project Leader – Capital Projects Engineering and Construction

cc: Chris Hislop, Ministry of Natural Resources Jackie Burkart, Ministry of Natural Resources Brent Valere, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Natalie Ribic, Halton Region Richard Clark, Halton Region George Trencs, Halton Region Tanya Parr, Halton Region Nitti Subramaniam, Halton Region Alex Pallo, Halton Region

Town of Oakville | 1225 Trafalgar Road, Oakville, Ontario L6H 0H3 | 905-845-6601 | www.oakville.ca

Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, ON Canada M4S 3B1 T) 416.487.4756 F) 416.487.5129 E) [email protected]

February 24, 2015

Ministry of Natural Resources Aurora District 50 Bloomington Road West R.R. 2 Aurora, Ontario L4G 0L8

Attention: Mr. Chris Hislop

Dear Mr. Hislop

RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Class Environmental Assessment – Draft Environmental Study Report Our file: 13-1918

We are requesting that you review the Draft Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Environmental Study Report (ESR) - February 2015

We request that you provide your feedback by Friday, March 27, 2015

The material is available electronically by accessing the following site https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsN OTRa?dl=0

Yours truly,

Shoreplan Engineering Limited

Jane Graham, P.Eng.

Cc Kasia Piskorz, Town of Oakville

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada

From: Jane Graham To: Sarah Piasetzki Subject: FW: request for Aboriginal consultation information- Tannery and Waterworks Parks shoreline improvement project Date: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 4:54:48 PM

From: Allison Berman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 8:54 AM To: Kasia Piskorz Subject: request for Aboriginal consultation information- Tannery and Waterworks Parks shoreline improvement project

Hello Kasia,

I have received your request for Aboriginal consultation information from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. In the past, the Consultation Information Service (CIS) has provided responses with a 100 km buffer around the specific site of activity. Our updated Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System (ATRIS) now triggers a wider range of First Nation communities via self-government agreements and treaty affiliation. Therefore, a 100 km buffer may provide you with a great deal more information that you would normally require. As you are best placed to determine what the overall "footprint" of the project is, and how that should be represented geographically, I request that you send me the size of buffer you would like around the site of activity. Once I have this information from you, I can begin a consultation information response. regards,

Allison Berman Regional Subject Expert for the Prairie Provinces and Ontario Consultation and Accommodation Unit Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 5H- 5th Floor, 10 Wellington Gatineau, QC K1A 0H4 Tel: 819-934-1873 From: Jane Graham To: Sarah Piasetzki Subject: FW: Request for consultation information - Tannery & Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements project- Oakville, ON Date: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 4:55:38 PM Attachments: NCR-#5515361-v1-CIS-ON-TOWN OF OAKVILLE-TANNERY & WATERWORKS PARKS SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS.pdf

AANDC

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 416-487-4756 x223

From: CAU-UCA [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 8:38 AM To: [email protected]; Jane Graham Cc: Allison Berman; Diane Bain Subject: Request for consultation information - Tannery & Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements project- Oakville, ON

Hello Kasia,

On behalf of the Consultation and Accommodation Unit (CAU) of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC), I am attaching a response to your request for information concerning consultation with Aboriginal groups and First Nation communities in the vicinity of the Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements project, in Oakville, Ontario.

If you have any concerns, feel free to contact me.

Regards,

Allison Berman Regional Subject Expert for the Prairie Provinces and Ontario Consultation and Accommodation Unit Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 5H- 5th Floor, 10 Wellington Gatineau, QC K1A 0H4 Tel: 819-934-1873

August 1, 2013

Kasia Piskorz Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville, ON L6H 0H3 [email protected]

Dear Ms. Piskorz,

Thank you for your letter of July 17, 2013 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 Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements project, in Oakville, 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 rights Aboriginal or treaty rights (established or potential) is contemplated.

It is important to note that much of the information provided in this response is contextual and may or may not pertain directly to Aboriginal or treaty rights. In most cases, the Aboriginal communities identified are best placed to explain their traditional use of land, their practices or their claims that may fall under section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

The Consultation Information Service response

The Consultation Information Service (CIS) of the Consultation and Accommodation Unit responds to requests for information on established or potential Aboriginal and treaty rights known to AANDC. In preparing its responses, the CIS relies on AANDC’s 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 on the support of AANDC sectors and regions. The attached report consists of the following categories of information:

1. Key Features of the Project Area provides a synopsis of the key section 35 considerations that characterize the location in question and, where appropriate, CIS’s methodology in identifying the information provided.

2. Aboriginal Community Information includes key contact information and any other information such as Tribal Council affiliation.

3. Treaties includes information on historic and modern treaties, which define established rights of the signatory Aboriginal groups. 1

NCR#5515361 - v1

4. Claims includes comprehensive, specific and special claims:

a) Comprehensive claims are those which, when accepted for negotiation, address broad assertions of Aboriginal rights and title and are intended to result in a modern treaty or agreement that defines and clarifies s. 35 rights within the treaty area.

b) Specific claims are 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. Claims that are closed, settled or not land-related to lands or treaty obligations have been excluded from this 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

c) Special claims, or claims of a third kind, are those that do not meet the definition of comprehensive or specific claims but deal with some form of historic obligations.

5. Legal Proceedings usually refer to litigation between the Aboriginal Group and the Crown, often pertaining to section 35 rights assertions or consultation matters. The groups in question may have various other matters being litigated, however, only those that are related to land or s.35 rights are included herein.

6. Self-Government Agreements may be part of comprehensive claims or stand-alone negotiations and may or may not be protected under section 35. Unless they form part of a treaty, they are not geographically defined and address such areas of responsibility as internal governance, education, culture and justice.

7. Other Considerations may also be included to make you aware of groups, rights assertions or consultation-related matters that may also be relevant.

Should you require further assistance regarding the information provided, or if you have any questions and/or comments about the enclosed response, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Allison Berman Regional Subject Expert for Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario Consultation and Accommodation Unit Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 5H- 5th Floor, 10 Wellington Gatineau, QC K1A 0H4 Tel: 819-934-1873

2

NCR#5515361 - v1

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.

3

NCR#5515361 - v1

Consultation Information Service Response – August 2013 Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements project: Oakville, ON

On the map below, a 50 km radius around the project (red circle) is provided to reflect the proximity of other First Nation communities nearby. Darker red shapes on the map below indicate reserve lands surrounding the project site. For further information on localized hunting, fishing, trapping activities which may be occurring contact the Ministry of Natural Resources.

4

NCR#5515361 - v1

Information for the following First Nations is provided in alphabetical order: Mississaugas of the Credit Six Nations of the Grand River

Please contact the CIS if information is required for First Nations who are more distant to the project. Information on other Aboriginal groups and/or the Métis is provided in the section “Other Considerations”.

Important Contextual Information Related to Section 35 Rights

Treaty Area 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.

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 or annuities. They tended to be made with individual First Nation groups for tracts of land.

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.

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 in trade goods, to surrender a stated amount of land.

5

NCR#5515361 - v1

*Atlas of Canada 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.

Treaty Land Entitlement (TLE) This term is used to describe treaty rights to reserve lands in the Prairie Provinces, northern Ontario and northern British Columbia which flow from Treaties 1 to 11, negotiated and confirmed between various First Nations and the Crown in right of Canada. It is a “subset of specific claims.

Treaty Land Entitlement claims are intended to settle the land debt owed to those First Nations who did not receive all the land they were entitled to under historical treaties signed by the Crown and First Nations. Settlement agreements are negotiated among First Nations, the Government of Canada and provincial/territorial governments. According to the terms of the agreement, a specified amount of Crown lands is identified and/or a cash settlement is provided so that a First Nation may purchase federal, provincial/territorial, or private land to settle the land debt. Once selected or purchased, this land can be added to the First Nations' reserve under the Additions to Reserve process.

All selections and acquisitions are proceeding through the TLE and Additions to Reserves processes and are at various stages ranging from initial acquisition/selection to the Federal Order that would set the lands apart as reserve. For more information on Treaty Land Entitlement, please consult the AANDC website. www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/enr/lds/tle-eng.asp

6

NCR#5515361 - v1

First Nation/Aboriginal Community Information

Mississaugas of the Credit Chief 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

Associate Organizations: Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians Chiefs of Ontario

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.

Legal Proceedings: Name: Mississaugas of the New Credit – Toronto Purchase v. Status: inactive Court File No.: not available Description: This concerns an 1805 surrender of land presumably by the Mississaugas of the New Credit. Documentation concerns discussions for a letter accepting settlement of the issue.

Name: Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation v. Attorney General of Canada, Maurice Bryan Laforme, Kerri Louise King, Attorney General of Ontario Status: active Court File No.: CV-12-373 Description: In this matter, the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation seeks a declaration of fee simple interest to a parcel of land in Hagersville which lies adjacent to the Applicant’s Reserve. The Applicant also seeks a declaration that the reservation of mines and minerals as set out in the original Crown Patent issued February 18, 1884 is null and void. The Applicant asserts that this property was originally part of a larger tract of land to which the Applicant had aboriginal rights, and that this larger tract of land was sold by the Applicant to the Crown in the 18th century. The Applicant claims that in 1999, the Applicant entered into a Land Claim Settlement Agreement whereby Canada agreed that it would recommend an addition

7

NCR#5515361 - v1

to the Applicant’s reserve. The Applicant claims that following their application to the Crown to have the property added to its reserve, the Crown had concerns which prevented the completion of the Addition to Reserve process. The Crown’s concerns were regarding the capacity of a First Nation to hold title to lands in fee simple, and also about a reservation clause found in the original Crown Patent whereby the rights to all mines and minerals were reserved to the Government of Ontario.

Six Nations of the Grand River Chief William (Bill) Kenneth Montour (tenure expires December 6, 2013) 1695 Chiefswood Road PO Box 5000 Ohsweken, Ontario, N0A 1M0 Phone: (519) 445-2201 Fax: (519) 445-4208 www.sixnations.ca

Recognized Leadership and Consultation: The Federal Government recognizes the elected Chief and Council (who are elected under the Indian Act) as the official Canadian leadership of Six Nations. For consultation purposes, the Federal Government recommends that the elected Chief and Council of Six Nations be engaged.

Associate Organizations: Chiefs of Ontario

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 8

NCR#5515361 - v1

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 (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.

Legal Proceedings: 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: Thahoketoteh of Kanekota v. HMTQ Status: active (November 2012) Court File No.: T-2007-12

9

NCR#5515361 - v1

Description: In this action, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Canada has allowed federal and provincial law to apply to a tract of land described in the Haldimand Proclamation of 1784 in violation of an alleged British Order in Council dating from 1704, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, ss. 90, 91(24) and 109 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and an alleged Canadian Order in Council relating to disallowance, dating from 1875. The Plaintiff particularly alleges that Canada has violated its duty in allowing the Indian Act, the Supreme Court Act and the Ontario Public Lands Act to apply to the Haldimand Tract. The Plaintiff seeks as relief a declaration that Canada has the duty not to allow the application of federal or provincial law to the Haldimand Tract except by a treaty in compliance with the Royal Proclamation of 1763 with any dispute resolved by a Standing Royal Committee constituted under the alleged Order In Council of 1704. The Plaintiff seeks to have the declaration described above determined under Rule 220(1)(a) of the Federal Courts Rules, and in writing under Rule 369

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.

Name: Regina v. Michael Clarence 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.

Out-of-Court settlement discussions: 10

NCR#5515361 - v1

Since 1999, the Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario and Six Nations have made several attempts to resolve the historical grievances raised in Six Nations’ 1995 lawsuit (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 above for additional information) through out-of-court settlement negotiations. Information on these discussions, including the negotiation process that commenced after the occupation of the Douglas Creek Estates site in Caledonia, Ontario, can be found on the AANDC website at: http://www.aadnc- aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100016334/1100100016335.

Unilateral 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 the 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 11

NCR#5515361 - v1

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 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_13011619 /151401021518090709140112_201520011213052009190904161516_0503-eng.pdf

Legal Proceedings concerning the Métis in Ontario Name: HMTQ in Right of Canada v. Michel Blais Status: active Court File No.: 08-213 Description: The Applicant is charged with unlawfully harvesting forest resources in a Crown forest without a license contrary to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994. The Applicant, a Métis, asserts that he is an Aboriginal person within the meaning of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and that the alleged harvesting occurred in lands set apart for the Batchewana Band pursuant to the Robinson Treaty of 1850. He claims that the Batchewana First Nation may permit Métis persons to exercise the same Aboriginal and treaty rights as its members pursuant to this treaty.

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.

12

NCR#5515361 - v1

Court Decisions concerning the Métis in Ontario R. v. Laurin, Lemieux, Lemieux (2007) 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.

Harry Daniels (2013) The Plaintiffs sought judicial declarations that: Métis and non-Status Indians are “Indians” under section 91(24); that the Crown owes a fiduciary duty to Métis and non-Status Indians as Aboriginal peoples; and, Métis and non-Status Indians have the right to be consulted and negotiated with in good faith by the government of Canada, on a collective basis through representatives of their choice. On January 8, 2013, the Federal Court ruled in favour of Harry Daniels et al and declared Métis and non-status Indians as “Indians” under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Canada appealed this decision on February 6, 2013.

First Nation Associate Organizations 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.

Claims submitted to the Specific Claims Tribunal The Tribunal is an independent adjudicative body comprised of up to six full time Federal judges appointed from Provincial Superior Courts across the country. The objective and purpose of the Tribunal is to ensure impartiality and fairness in the process of claims resolution. It makes binding decisions where claims have been rejected by the Government of Canada, or, where negotiations have failed to achieve a settlement. For more information, go to: www.sct- trp.ca/hom/index_e.htm

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#5515361 - v1

Attorney General

Conservation Halton

Shoreplan Engineering Limited 55 Eglinton Avenue E., Suite 800 Toronto, ON Canada M4P 1G8 T) 416.487.4756 F) 416.487.5129 E) [email protected]

Meeting Minutes

Tannery and Waterworks Parks EA

Date: Monday September 23 2013

Time: 1:30pm to 2:30pm

Place: CH Offices, 2596 Britannia Road West, Burlington

Present: Jane De Vito, CH Teresa Labuda, CH Samantha Mason, CH Lesley Matich, CH Paul Allen, Town of Oakville Kasia Piskorz, Town of Oakville Janis Olbina, Town of Oakville Rakesh Mistry, Town of Oakville Milo Sturm, Shoreplan Engineering Limited Jane Graham, Shoreplan Engineering Limited

Project History  The history of the project was presented by Town of Oakville staff. The town commissioned a waterfront master plan by John George Associates in 2008. The master plan identified Tannery Park of one of the important locations along the waterfront. Tannery Park is considered the “jewel” in the necklace. It also identified the need for improved shoreline protection and waterfront pedestrian connection between Tannery and Waterworks Parks.  To implement the goals of the master plan, the Town is proceeding with this environmental assessment of the shoreline improvements at Tannery and Waterworks Parks.  The Town is also moving forward with relocation of the Log Cabin, and improvements to the existing trails as outlined in the Master Plan. In support of this work shoreline improvements along Oyster Bay have been designed. Application for approval of these works has been submitted to the CA. This work in not included in this class EA. Shore protection improvements along Oyster Bay are a pre-approved project under the Municipal Class EA process.

 The master plan concept will be one of the alternatives to be considered in the class EA. Other alternatives will be developed and evaluated.

Minutes prepared by J.Graham Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan immediately. File13-1918, 2013-09-24 page 1 of 3

Parking  Existing parking conditions at the site were presented by the Town staff and discussed. Parking lot at Tannery Park is well used. It is a major node for the park system. Parking needs to be accommodated here.  Alternative locations for parking were discussed. Tannery and Waterworks Parks have limited flat open space. The parks also have high banks to negotiate in order to access the water’s edge. The flat area west of the intersection of Chisholm and Walker Streets is used for the pumping station and is at the top of the bank. Waterworks Park has grassed flat area at the bottom of the park pathway off of Wilson Street. The existing parking at Tannery Park is at the bottom of the bank and provides views of the lake and harbour.

Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat  CH has two recent fish surveys in the area. In October 2011 they found brown trout and Chinooks in 16 Mile Creek. In April 2012, they found Alewife in 16 Mile Creek. Alewife is a forage species for salmon. CH is preparing to do another survey this fall. Focus has been on coldwater species. Survey information is available.  Changes to the Fisheries Act are expected. Until the changes are made DFO and CH will review project as was done in the past.  A number of conservation authorities have joined a Recreational Fisheries Conservation Plan. Plan includes identifying recreational fishing areas for anglers. Park should consider signage for anglers.  The Site has a number of large mature trees and wood lot. CH would like these trees to remain. CH also recommends planting evergreens.  Town supports the retaining the trees as much as possible and new planting with native species.

Shore protection  Existing shore protection is mix of armour stone and concrete rubble structures along the shore of Tannery Park.  Waterworks Park has armour stone revetment at the east end and scattered armour stone, concrete rubble and debris at the west end.  CH would like environmental approach to shore protection including islands, beaches and an overall diversified shoreline treatments.  Alternative solutions will need to address the outfall at Waterworks Park and tie into high armour stone wall along west side of site.  It is anticipated that improving the existing shore protection while providing improved public access along the waterfront will require some lake infilling.  Master Plan concept requires infilling.

Infilling

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately File13-1918,2013-09-24 page 2 of 3

 CH confirmed that infilling may require acquisition of the land under the Public Lands Act depending on ownership. It will require authorization under the Fisheries Act.  Infilling may be possible if it is to the public benefit and justified. It will require compensation under Fisheries Act. Onsite compensation is preferred.

Lookout feature  The Master Plan included a lookout feature. The conceptual feature was a deck supported on piles out over the water.  CH supported the concept of a lookout feature. It would provide a shade feature for fish.

Environmental Assessment  The Town is anticipating having the first PIC in November. It will include background information and preliminary concepts.  CH would like to review the evaluation criteria. The evaluation would be for the second PIC.  CH to provide an EA check list.

Other Business

 CH noted that consideration should be give to relocating the boating clubs to an outer marina. The relocation of the boating clubs out of 16 Mile Creek could compensate for the infilling required for an outer marina.

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately File13-1918,2013-09-24 page 3 of 3

Shoreplan Engineering Limited 55 Eglinton Avenue E., Suite 800 Toronto, ON Canada M4P 1G8 T) 416.487.4756 F) 416.487.5129 E) [email protected]

Meeting Minutes

Tannery and Waterworks Parks EA

Date: Thursday April 24 2014

Time: 1:30pm to 3:00pm

Place: CH Offices, 2596 Britannia Road West, Burlington

Present: Brenda Axton, Conservation Halton (CH) Jane De Vito, Conservation Halton Leah Chrishimba, Conservation Halton Teresa Labuda, Conservation Halton Samantha Mason, Conservation Halton Lesley Matich, Conservation Halton Paul Allen, Town of Oakville Kasia Piskorz, Town of Oakville Janis Olbina, Town of Oakville Rakesh Mistry, Town of Oakville Don Speller, Tarandus Associates Limited Milo Sturm, Shoreplan Engineering Limited Jane Graham, Shoreplan Engineering Limited Claire Murray, Shoreplan Engineering Limited

Item Action

1. Previous Meeting Minutes (September 23, 2013)

1.1 Town reviewed minutes to last meeting. CH noted that CH was not consulted during the preparation of the Master Plan. Teresa Labuda attended a meeting with Barry Wilson on site during the preparation of the Master Plan only once. The document was not provided to CH.

1.2 CH does not support prime waterfront land being used as a parking lot. CH noted a preference for more green space and less parking.

1.3 CH would like to discuss/review the performance SP to indicators. provide additional information

Minutes prepared by J.Graham Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan immediately. File13-1918, 2013-09-24 page 1 of 3

1.4 CH noted that DFO’s new legislation was enacted in November. DFO has provided online a list of projects that do not require their review. If the project is not included on the DFO list, the proponent must submit a request for DFO review. DFO’s Triage group reviews the project to determine if it requires a letter of advice or authorization under the Fisheries Act.

1.5 CH is working to coordinate a recreational sport Town fisheries plan with other conservation authorities (TRCA and CVC). The plan has not advanced. CH has been unable to meet with Town of Oakville and Burlington. The Town will follow up with CH.

1.6 CH requested additional terrestrial information Tarandus regarding the understory vegetation. The draft report contains a detailed tree inventory but does not provide detailed information on the other vegetation in the study area. Tarandus will provide additional terrestrial information.

1.7 After the last meeting, CH was to provide EA check list to Town. CH advised that there is no EA check list and the EA process is to be followed.

2. Review of PIC

Kasia Piskorz described the Public Information Centre held on November 27, 2013. It was a open house that presented the background information. Public comments included:  Tannery Parking Lot  Improvements required in the way of pavement and drainage for Tannery Park parking lot  Parking lot needs work;  Accessibility  Make accessible to all residents  Trail along shoreline should link parks  Extending the trail is an advantage  Enhance existing beaches and make accessible  Other  Area needs attention  “Must Do” for the Town  Clean / remove debris  Need to consider implications of increased traffic, need to consider implications in terms of traffic flow and parking (Resident referring to Bath St)

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately. Minutes considered final 2 weeks after issue. File13-1918 page 2 of 3

 Barrier needed to deter access to private property at Waterworks Park

3. Draft Natural Environment Assessment Report

3.1 The draft report was made available online on CH November 22, 2013. Hard copies of the draft report were later provided to CH on February 24, 2014. Leslie Matich has reviewed the report. CH indicated that they had not reviewed the document to date and are not able to provide comments at this time.

3.2 CH indicated that the natural heritage section states Tarandus that there are no species at risk (SAR) in the area. Leslie Matich (CH) reported that she recently saw a turtle swimming in 16 Mile Creek near the Oakville Yacht Squadron. Tarandus responded that they requested SAR information from MNR and obtained written response that their records show no SAR in the study area. Leslie Matich has now notified MNR of the turtle and that the information may not be included in the database yet. Tarandus will include this information in the report.

CH indicated that additional fisheries information is Tarandus/ available which should be included in the report. CH Tarandus noted that they contacted both Samantha Mason and Andrea Dunn of CH during the data collection phase. Andrea Dunn confirmed by email that there was no fisheries information was available from CH. CH will provide available information to Tarandus to add to the report.

CH recommended contacting MNR, DFO and L. Tarandus Ontario FAU regarding fisheries information in the area. CH understands that DFO did a fall survey nearby. Tarandus stated that they had contacted these agencies during the preparation of the draft report and provided information is included in the report. Tarandus will contact them again.

CH found the document to provide minimal Tarandus information on the natural environment. Tarandus confirmed that all agencies were contacted and information obtained was provided in the report. Tarandus agreed to contact the agencies again.

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately. Minutes considered final 2 weeks after issue. File13-1918 page 3 of 3

CH suggested undertaking a benthic invertebrate Tarandus survey before and after project implementation. Tarandus will follow up with CH after discussion with Town of Oakville.

CH suggested a multi-season fish surveys be Tarandus undertaken. Tarandus responded that the fish communities in the vicinity of the project are well known and doubts the utility of additional pre- construction fish surveys. Tarandus will follow up after discussion with Town of Oakville.

CH requested an expanded discussion of mammals Tarandus be added to the report. Tarandus will expand on the mammals in the study area.

4. Evaluation Criteria

4.1 Shoreplan presented a table summarizing the Shoreplan evaluation criteria developed for the EA. CH requested an expanded description of the evaluation criteria. Shoreplan agreed to provide it.

4.2 CH suggested expanding on fish community, benthic Shoreplan/ community, mammal community, bird migration and Tarandus butterflies in the natural environment criteria. Shoreplan agreed to ensure that all aspects of aquatic and terrestrial habitat will be included with these criteria.

4.3 CH suggested referring to the Provincial Policy Shoreplan Statement in the planning strategies. Shoreplan will review and follow up.

4.4 CH questioned if the Public Access to the Waterfront Shoreplan criteria included parking. Shoreplan explained that in the preliminary evaluation, parking was assessed under the Planning and Strategy Initiatives and Existing Park Facilities criteria. Shoreplan will review the public access criteria.

4.5 CH asked what the Water Quality criteria included. Shoreplan/ Shoreplan explained that it currently refers to Tarandus impacts on the Town’s water intake (IPZ-1 zone). CH suggested that water quality impacts on fish and mammals should also be included. CH requested a discussion of water quality with respect to fish and mammals be added to the draft report. Tarandus will include a discussion of water quality in the report.

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately. Minutes considered final 2 weeks after issue. File13-1918 page 4 of 3

4.6 CH asked about criteria ratings. Shoreplan indicated that no rating (weighting) of criteria is included.

4.7 CH indicated that the criteria should tie back to the Shoreplan problem statement. Shoreplan to review the problem statement and criteria.

5. Alternative Design Solutions

5.1 Shoreplan presented design solutions for Reach 1 and 2. Two alternatives for shoreline protection where considered, armour stone revetments and armour stone groynes with cobble beaches. Three layouts were developed for the revetment option and two for the beach option.

5.2 CH noted that they do not support infill at Tannery Park for a larger parking lot and alternative parking should be considered elsewhere. CH suggested the Town consider increasing the size of the parking lot at Waterworks Park or alternative locations in Tannery Park. Shoreplan explained that alternative locations for parking in Tannery Park are limited because of the grades in the park. There is a steep hill within the park. Parking at the top of the hill is limited. Alternative parking would include street parking or expansion of Waterworks Park parking lot. Town indicated that street parking and expansion of the Waterworks Park parking lot would not be supported by the local residents and do not provide water views.

5.3 Town explained that a traffic study was carried out Shoreplan over two weeks in the fall of 2013. The data showed that the parking lot was well used. CH questioned whether the study accurately measured people who entered the parking lot and left without parking. Shoreplan will include a description of the study and the results in the report.

5.4 The Town stated that historically the parking lot has been also used for winter boat storage. Cranes are used to lift the boats out of the water at the north end of the parking lot. Large boats are stored along the shore of 16 Mile Creek. Winter storage of large boats can only be accommodated at this location.

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately. Minutes considered final 2 weeks after issue. File13-1918 page 5 of 3

5.5 The Town explained that the parking lot is an informal/ unpaved parking lot that is inefficiently laid out because spaces are not lined. A more formal approach to parking may minimize the total area required. The number of parking spaces could decrease if the parking area is brought to standard for emergency vehicle access.

5.6 The Town stated that it wants to promote the park as an alternative venue for Town events, e.g. midnight madness, and market. The parking lot will accommodate visitors from other municipalities.

5.7 CH explained that they support providing a waterfront trail and encourage physical activity (walking). CH believes providing additional parking at Tannery Park does not promote a healthy active living. The Town stated that the improvements to the Tannery Park parking lot will provide accessible access to the waterfront trails while maintaining traditional activity for all.

5.8 CH explained that there are setback requirements Shoreplan/ for cold water and warm water fish habitat which Tarandus may impact the location of the parking lot. Shoreplan and Tarandus will review setback requirements with CH.

5.9 CH requested that a third option for the headland Shoreplan beach alternatives be considered. The option would have two beaches one near the west pier and a second as shown in option 2b. This option would not include infilling except for the beach and headlands. Shoreplan agreed to look at a concept design of a third option for the shore protection in Tannery Park.

5.10 CH recommended looking at the cumulative impacts Shoreplan of the shoreline work of the project. Shoreplan stated that the evaluation of the alternatives presented in the EA report will include a discussion of the cumulative impacts.

5.11 Shoreplan presented options for Reaches 3 and 4. These options included an armour stone wall, boulder berm and combination of armour stone wall with boulder groynes and cobble beach.

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately. Minutes considered final 2 weeks after issue. File13-1918 page 6 of 3

5.12 CH suggested that the Town consider providing a Shoreplan ramp for canoe access to the water. The Town indicated that there are launch ramps upstream in 16 Mile Creek, but that they would consider locating a ramp in either Waterworks or Walker Street Promenade. Shoreplan will review locations for a ramp in the design of the shore protection in these reaches.

6. Preliminary Evaluation of Alternative Designs

6.1 No discussion of the evaluation of the alternative designs due to time restrictions.

7. Other

7.1 Shoreplan indicated that the Town is planning to have the next open house in June. Town requested CH’s comments on the draft report and evaluation in May. CH indicated that they require 4 weeks to review the information provided.

7.2 The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 pm

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately. Minutes considered final 2 weeks after issue. File13-1918 page 7 of 3

July 25, 2014

RE: Tannery and Waterworks Park Class EA

Dear Ms. Chishimba,

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Environment Assessment Report – Tannery and Waterworks Park Shoreline Improvements has been updated to include a detailed evaluation to compare the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative for Tannery Park and Waterwork Park. Evaluation criteria were developed to compare the alternatives. The evaluation criteria groups include natural, socio-cultural, economic, physical and technical and engineering environments.

We would very much appreciate your feedback on the evaluation criteria and comparison of the alternatives.

Please provide your feedback by Friday, August 22, 2014. Once your comments are received we will finalize the preferred alternative and hold a second public information centre.

Yours truly,

Kasia Piskorz, P. Eng. Project Leader – Capital Projects Engineering and Construction

cc: Jane Graham, Shoreplan Engineering

Encl – Five (5) hard copies of Environment Assessment Report – Tannery and Waterworks Park Shoreline Improvements.

Town of Oakville | 1225 Trafalgar Road, Oakville, Ontario L6H 0H3 | 905-845-6601 | www.oakville.ca

Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, ON Canada M4S 3B1 T) 416.487.4756 F) 416.487.5129 E) [email protected]

Meeting Minutes

Tannery and Waterworks Parks EA

Date: Tuesday October 21, 2014

Time: 1:30pm to 3:00pm

Place: CH Offices, 2596 Britannia Road West, Burlington

Present: Leah Chrishimba, Conservation Halton Teresa Labuda, Conservation Halton Lesley Matich, Conservation Halton Sarah Machett, Conservation Halton Kasia Piskorz, Town of Oakville Janis Olbina, Town of Oakville Rakesh Mistry, Town of Oakville Don Speller, Tarandus Associates Limited Milo Sturm, Shoreplan Engineering Limited Jane Graham, Shoreplan Engineering Limited

Item Action

1. General

1.1 This is the third meeting with CH to discuss the Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Draft ESR.

Meeting was called to review the comments provided by CH on September 9 and October 17, 2014 including the evaluation critria.

1.2 General discussion about the screening criteria. CH Shoreplan recommended that screening criteria be included in the alternative design concepts. CH recommended looking at the Burloak EA.

Shoreplan explained that the Burloak EA was prepared as a Conservation Authority Class EA not a Municipal Class EA. The approach of this EA is consistent with a Municipal Class EA. This approach is different from the methodology of the

Minutes prepared by J.Graham Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan immediately. File13-1918, 2013-09-24 page 1 of 3

Conservation Authority Class EA.

Shoreplan explained that only alternatives that protected the shoreline and meet the objectives of the Master Plan were considered. Shoreplan further explained that the evaluation criteria are provided at the beginning of the section describing the design concepts and the discussion of each alternative design considered. The report will be reviewed.

1.3 General discussion of the term “equally preferred”. Shoreplan CH would recommend that the word “preferred” removed because all the options could be equal but not preferred. Shoreplan will review term.

1.4 General discussion on habitat linkages. CH discussed the different habitat linkages that exist at the site, including aquatic and terrestrial. Currently the park is not a good terrestrial habitat linkage. CH would like to see plantings to encourage and support migrating birds, nectar bearing species to support butterflies. The ESR will include a description of these measures as mitigation measures in the document.

The Town is currently preparing the landscape plan for Tannery Hill which is the hill at the east side of the Park. They envision planting the area with native species. Currently grass cutting is an issue for park staff because of the steep slope.

1.5 Currently CH does not have guidelines for density of vegetation along the shoreline for development. They may use the standard adjacent to natural area.

2. CH Letter October 17, 2014

2.1 Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat 1) “Contrary to Section 3.5 (Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat) pg.42, rivermouth habitats are not generally well-understood and little research to date has specifically focused on Great Lakes rivermouth ecosystems (Larson et al, 2013). Tarandus and Associates are correct in their estimation that data for this specific location do not exist, however data within Sixteen Mile Creek and for sites adjacent to this location are abundant. In addition, lack of fauna should not be inferred from lack of data. While staff can only speak for the sampling (or lack of)

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately. Minutes considered final 2 weeks after issue. File13-1918 page 2 of 12

completed by our staff, it is the opinion of staff that this location has not been adequately sampled to accurately summarize that "no spawning habitat or other significant habitat for such fish exists at this location".

Tarandus agreed that rivermouth ecosystems are not generally well understood and that lack of fauna should not be inferred from lack of data. Tarandus believes that observations of habitat characteristics in the study area are sufficient.

The area provides spawning and nursery habitat for some cyprinids and benthic fish such as sculpins. Tarandus clarified that the quote in the letter is taken out of context. The EA says that there is no spawning habitat in the shore protection study area for larger sport fish. Large sport fish would probably use the area to forage from time to time.

2.2 2)”CH Staff are in favour of the goal of the Master Plan to provide a naturalized shoreline and agree that the options of concrete walls and steel sheet pile walls will not help achieve this goal. However, staff understand that use of armourstone is not necessarily 'naturalized' either and request consideration of more natural environmentally friendly and dynamic shoreline protection as opposed to heavily rigid structures”

Shoreplan explained that the shoreline is exposed to open Lake Ontario. Only those structures that can withstand those conditions were considered. The alternatives included beach shore protection which is considered dynamic shore protection. However, the beaches require “anchor” points.

2.3 3) “Staff request more detail on the formal and Town informal green spaces proposed in the various alternatives. In alternatives 1a and b, this is described as green spaces, whereas alternative I c proposes "formal and informal manicured planting area". Alternative 3 describes the land use as 'formal and informal parkland area'

Shoreplan and Town explained that the green space areas provided in the report were broken down into formal/informal green space and natural vegetation in the report. The green space area in reach 1

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately. Minutes considered final 2 weeks after issue. File13-1918 page 3 of 12

would be considered to be formal/informal green space. In reach 2, the area between the trail and the bank would be a natural vegetation area. The Town added that they will be developing landscape plans for the preferred alternative during detailed design. They see native species in the naturalize trees and shrubs in the natural vegetation area. More detail regarding the planting and landscape plan for the study area will be provided by the Town at detailed design stage.

2.4 Section 5: Alternative Solutions Shoreplan 4) ”The Town of Oakville Official Plan (OP) summarizes Waterfront Open Space as environmental protection, possible recreational opportunities (within public lands) and developable, in order to achieve "a continuous waterfront open space system". It is the opinion of staff that these functions as set out in the OP has not been recognized by the alternative options indicated on page. 57 of the Draft ESR. The first function, environmental protection, barely merited a mention in this document. Further, staff are uncomfortable with the selected preferred alternative solution being presented as "protect the shoreline", when its need to be protected has not been adequately demonstrated.”

Discussed need for shore protection. The existing conditions section of the report describes the condition of the shore protection along these reaches. The shoreline along reach 1 showing signs of being overtopped and is in poor condition. The shoreline along reach 2 has some scattered armour stone along the water line which is a distance away from the toe of bank. The bank appears stable now. However, protection is required to stabilize the bank at the 100 year water level.

CH suggested putting trail landward of the location shown on the options along the existing bank. Shoreplan explained that this would require shore protection as well and benching the existing bank to accommodate the trail. Benching the bank will disturb more of the bank and remove trees.

The Alternative Solutions section of the report will be revised to reiterate existing conditions and the need for shore protection along the shoreline. Shoreplan believes that the plans proposed support the Town’s OP.

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately. Minutes considered final 2 weeks after issue. File13-1918 page 4 of 12

2.5 5) “It is staff's understanding that the Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process, the 'do nothing' alternative is intended to provide a benchmark for the evaluation of alternatives and must be considered. Please expand on why this alternative was not evaluated for either Reaches 1 and 2 or 3 and 4”

The alternative solutions considered three options, do nothing, provide an alternative site and provide shore protection. The preferred solution was to provide shore protection.

Alternative design concepts were developed to protect the shoreline. The “do nothing” alternative was considered/ evaluated but not ranked in the table (green/yellow/red). It provides baseline of the current conditions used to compare with the proposed alternative concept designs.

2.6 6a) “Based on staffs understanding the proposed infill associated with the designs based on the text description, the order from most to least infill is as follows: Alternative 3, 2a, 2b, I a, I b and le. The distinction of 75.3 masl corresponding to the metric for fish habitat gain/loss needs additional discussion. This elevation is a general metric ascribed by DFO for the whole of Lake Ontario and staff believe that the extent of works proposed in this project warrant the development of a high water mark more customized to the specific conditions in this location.”

Tarandus discussed that a highwater mark elevation of 75.3 m masl is used by DFO and it is expected during DFO’s review this will be the elevation used in DFO’s assessment of potential effects on fish habitat. This elevation is commonly used to review effects on fish habitat. Tarandus agreed that other elevations may be more representative but the relative comparison would not be changed by using a different elevation.

CH staff discussed using a lower elevation for the fish habitat elevation such as the minimum monthly water level. Shoreplan and Tarandus noted that this would result in a reduced infill area.

2.7 6b)” Also, if the various alternatives are to be Shoreplan compared based on existing versus proposed 75.3

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately. Minutes considered final 2 weeks after issue. File13-1918 page 5 of 12

masl (or appropriate high-water mark for this site), it would be useful to see these values plotted on a separate figure.”

The infill areas are provided in the evaluation tables. The figures in the report also show the existing and proposed 75.3 m contour.

A figure showing a comparison of the infill areas will be provided in the revised report.

2.8 6c) “Habitat linkages are generally described as Tarandus/ areas of habitat connecting wildlife populations Shoreplan separated by human activities or structures (e.g. roads, development), allowing an exchange of individuals between populations. The idea is that these linkages may potentially moderate some of the worst effects of habitat fragmentation, wherein urbanization can split up habitat areas, causing animals to lose both their natural habitat and the ability to move between regions to use all of the resources they need to survive. None of the alternative designs presented meet the definition of habitat linkage and thus, should not count as features of the design.”

See discussion in 1.4. We agree with the definition/function noted by CH for “habitat linkages”. Habitat linkages at the existing site are poor depending on the type of linkage. There are different types of habitat linkages aquatic, terrestrial. Aquatic habitat linkages will be improved between the study area and the adjacent river. Terrestrial habitat linkages improvements are limited along the shoreline. There will be improvements by providing areas of natural vegetation.

2.9 6f)”Staff are of the opinion that not all alternatives Shoreplan should score “equally preferred” because they result in “loss of existing shoreline vegetation.”

The terminology “Equally preferred” will be reviewed in the tables.

2.10 6g) “..please advise why stormwater management Shoreplan design is not part of this project.”

The stormwater management plan will be developed as part of the detail design of the park. This project is for the shoreline protection. A stormwater

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately. Minutes considered final 2 weeks after issue. File13-1918 page 6 of 12

management plan will included as a mitigation measure and as part of CH’s comments. It was agreed that the stormwater management plan would be for the parking lot only and should consider the whole parking lot.

2.11 6h) “Staff request more information about capital Shoreplan costing aspects of the various alternatives, as outlined in iii) Economic Environment (p.80). A discussion on the cost aspects of the various alternatives will provide a better understanding in terms a comparison between the cost versus which alterative is most environmentally sustainable.”

CH clarified that they wished to see the costs of the maintenance for each alternative. The report will be reviewed.

2.12 6i) “Staff requests additional information on the Shoreplan/ sanitary overflow – discharge options, locations etc.”. Town

Halton Region is reviewing the draft document. They will be providing their comments with respect to the overflow. Their comments will be provided in the ESR. The Town met with the Halton Region and discussed the overflow and the need to keep it accessible to maintenance crews.

2.13 Discussed need for 5 m access along the shoreline Shoreplan to maintain shore protection structures. CH asked how this would be achieved in reach 2. Shoreplan explained that the trail is 4 m wide in that area and there is an area between the trail and bank that could accommodate construction equipment.

Provision of access to and along the shore protection will be included in the mitigation measures.

2.14 7) Please confirm that any vegetation will be Shoreplan appropriately replaced subject to Conservation Halton Landscaping and Tree Preservation Guidelines…”

The Town confirmed that it is their intention that vegetation will be appropriately replaced subject to CH guidelines. There is no change anticipated for the wood lot.

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately. Minutes considered final 2 weeks after issue. File13-1918 page 7 of 12

This comment will be included with agency comments and in the mitigation measures.

2.16 8) Comments on the PIC – November 27, 2013.

CH’s comments a) and b) are noted.

CH asked if there were any more PIC’s. Town explained that two PICs have been held. The comments from the public have been positive. In general the public are in support of the preferred alternatives 2b for reaches 1 and 2 and alternative 2 for reaches 3 and 4. 35 people signed into the second PIC. 14 people provided comments. All the information from the PIC will be included in the report. The meeting was attended by local residents and boaters/park users from Oakville Harbour.

3.0 CH Letter September 9, 2014

3.1 1) Natural Environment Assessment Tarandus

While staff appreciate that the study area has been historically culturally impacted, staff expected that the Terrestrial Habitat assessment would have included a discussion on the wildlife using this area as habitat, specifically the role that the vegetation here plays for bird species. This location has been identified as an Important Bird Area (IBA) by BirdLife International, which is supported by Bird Studies Canada and Nature Canada. This specific location contains the "West End of Lake Ontario ON022", which is defined by the annual congregation of waterfowl, primarily in late winter and early spring.Given the known importance of Lake Ontario shoreline for waterfowl and migratory brids and butterflies, it is concerning that no discussion on this aspect is included in the report, rather section 3.5 provides a discussion regarding fish habitat present. Please revise this section to reflect the significance the current habitat plays for wildlife in the area both during migration and for breeding.”

Tarandus discussed this comment with CH prior to the meeting. CH is correct in noting that most of the discussion in the EA was directed at the aquatic environment where most of the potential effects of the proposed works are anticipated. The importance of this area in general and of vegetation in particular

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately. Minutes considered final 2 weeks after issue. File13-1918 page 8 of 12

with respect to birds is acknowledged, and the EA document will be revised.

3.2 “Further, based on the discussions during the April Tarandus 24th, 2014 meeting with the Town, their Consultants and Conservation Halton, it appears that the majority of vegetation located along the shoreline will be removed. A tree inventory of the larger trees in this area has been completed, however a vegetation inventory of all levels of species coverage is warranted to ensure that no rare species are present and so that a comprehensive understanding of the existing vegetation is achieved so that restoration activities can be directed by the suitable existing species…”

Tarandus discussed this comment with CH prior to the meeting. In reach 2, the area impacted by the proposed work is the area below the 78 contour line. This vegetation in this footprint has been reviewed again, and species in the shrub and ground layer have been listed. This information will be added to the ESR. Tarandus reported that no vegetative species at risk were found. Vegetation outside of this footprint has not been further evaluated because it will not be disturbed by the project.

3.3 “As per the discussions with the Town's Consultant at the April 24111 meeting, the study should include a discussion of the vegetation communities present as per the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario. As per Conservation Halton's Environmental Impact Study Guidelines, please provide all field data sheets for the project.

Tarandus discussed this comment with CH prior to the meeting. ELC protocol is not typically applied to vegetation communities less than 0.5 ha in size, and none of the vegetation units in the study area are anywhere near that minimum size.

Tarandus indicated that although ELC classification was not appropriate for use in this situation, a broader characterization of the study area at the ELC eco-site level may be used in the EA documentation. Tarandus also confirmed that there were no vegetation communities classified as significant wildlife habitat under MNR's DRAFT guidelines

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately. Minutes considered final 2 weeks after issue. File13-1918 page 9 of 12

3.4 2. Section 5: Summary of Alternative Design Options

“Staff do not agree that removing 2-4m of vegetation along the shoreline should be considered a small impact, given the limited amount of vegetation present currently and as a thorough assessment of the species present has not occurred to date..We recommend that this impact be looked at in terms of the overall vegetation in the study area, any rare species present and the habitat it provides. Please revise”

Vegetation that would be impacted by the proposed work is located below the 78 m contour. Currently, that area would be impacted by wave action during the design storm events at the design high water level. No rare species were identified in this area.

See item 3.2. Tarandus discussed with CH prior to the meeting. Approximately 2 to 4 m of existing vegetation along the shoreline will be removed as a result of the proposed works. This vegetation in this footprint has been reviewed again and will be added to the ESR.

3.5 Table 6.1 Alternative for Reaches 1 and 2: Staff do Shoreplan not agree that creating additional manicured green space...should be considered a benefit...”

The table will be revised to refer to formal and informal green space as discussed in item 2.3. The table will be revised.

3.6 “4. Meeting Minutes Item 3.2 indicates that Leslie Matich reported that she saw a turtle...”

Noted. The draft ESR report correctly identifies the turtle as a Northern map turtle, a species of special concern in Ontario.

3.7 “5. Summary As staff do not have complete background data with respect to the natural environment we are unable to provide full comments on the alternatives presented. Once this information is provided, staff will be in a much better position to assess the proposed alternatives.”

CH will be provided a final draft report for their

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately. Minutes considered final 2 weeks after issue. File13-1918 page 10 of 12

review in November.

3.8 6. Section 1.0 Introduction ...Staff was not involved in the review of the Master Plan...”

Noted previously.

3.9 7. Section 1.3 Class Environmental Assessment It would be helpful reference for reviewers to have Class EA Schedule “C” (MEA, 2011, Appendix I, page 1-19) attached to this Environmental Study Report”

Schedule “C” Appendix I p1-19 will be appended to the final draft ESR.

3.10 “8. Figure 1.3 Shoreplan Site Plan is referred to as well as bathymetry map. Conservation Halton requests the digital copy of the bathymetry survey”

The Town of Oakville has advised Shoreplan that a digital copy of the bathymetry will be provided to CH when the project is complete.

3.11 “2. Problem Statement Shoreplan Staff feel that this is a very general statement lacking specifics, e.g. what is exactly meant by “an overall enhancement of the environment conditions”. Is this listed in any specific order, for example of importance?”

Noted

3.12 10. Recession Rates Shoreplan Reference to CSC 2002 is not accurate as that study was very general...the Purpose of the Undertaking as indicated on Page 9 is “to stabilize an rehabilitate Tannery and Waterworks Parks shoreline to mitigate flooding during storm events at high lake levels and erosion of the land adjacent to Lake Ontario...” The statements show low of consistency. Please clarify.

The report provides the available background information. Three sources were provided. The report states that CH uses a recession rate of 0.3 m per year for the recession rate along the Lake Ontario shoreline in Oakville. It is generally accepted that the shoreline along Lake Ontario in Oakville is eroding. The discussion of the erosion rates of the

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately. Minutes considered final 2 weeks after issue. File13-1918 page 11 of 12

shoreline in the ESR will be reviewed.

3.13 “11. Section 4.0 Evaluation Criteria CH The evaluation criteria are general and do not have a weighting or scoring system. The evaluation process is not well defined....CH staff would be available to discuss further the evaluation criteria.”

Shoreplan explained that the evaluation criteria were weighted equal and that each criteria were selected so that they were not repetitive. CH stated that they think that that the evaluation criteria should be weighted. CH will meet internally and evaluate the alternatives.

4.0 Other

4.1 CH remarked that public lands do not require “100 year” protection.

4.2 CH requested that the objectives of the Master Plan Shoreplan be provided.

4.3 CH requested that a more detailed cost break down Shoreplan of the alternatives be provided. Shoreplan agreed to provide.

4.4 CH asked that the Town request the cost of purchasing crown land from MNR. Shoreplan explained that the MNR does not have a standardized purchase price for obtaining crown land. The cost of the land is site specific and is determined after the project is complete.

4.5 The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 am

Minutes prepared by J.Graham. Report any omissions or inaccuracies to Shoreplan Engineering immediately. Minutes considered final 2 weeks after issue. File13-1918 page 12 of 12

73.00

71.50

72.50

73.00

3

72.00

73.50

74.00

73.00 1

Reaches 1 & 2: Preferred Alternative

73.50 74.00

71.50 72.50

72.00 Figure ES 2 85 84 83 82 VEGETATED MULTI-USE VEGETATED 81 PARKING WIDTH VARIES ARMOUR STONE, PRIMARY AREA TRAIL AREA 80 LAYER 79 77.5-78.5 ARMOUR STONE, SECONDARY LAYER 78 77.0-77.5 77 RIP RAP 76 WL 75 m (IGLD, 1985) m (IGLD, 2 74 1 73 EXISTING CLEAN FILL GEOTEXTILE 72 CONCRETE RUBBLE 71 EXISTING PROFILE CLEAR STONE FILL 70 Scale 1:250 ARMOUR STONE GROYNE SECTION 1

85 84 83 82 MIN. 3m OFFSET MULTI-USE 81 FROM BANK TRAIL ARMOUR STONE 80 NATURAL VEGETATION 79 “ COBBLE BEACH MATERIAL 78 “ 77 “ 1 76 WL “ 75 1 m (IGLD, 1985) m (IGLD, 74 73 CLEAN FILL GEOTEXTILE 72 EXISTING PROFILE RIP RAP 71 70 Scale 1:250 ARMOUR STONE WALL WITH COBBLE BEACH SECTION 3

Figure 6.6 Typical Cross Sections Reaches 1 & 2: Alternative 2 Armour Stone Groynes with Cobble Beach

73.00

73.00 73.50

74.00

R E A C H 4

120m

R E A C H 3

30m Reaches 3 & 4: Preferred Alternative

72.50

R E A C H 3 H C A E R 74.00 120m 72.00

73.50 MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING ARMOUR STONE STRUCTURE 10

73.00 0m 10 Figure 6.18 20 30 85 84 83 82 EXISTING 81 ARMOUR STONE REVETMENT 80 79 COBBLE BEACH 78 MATERIAL “ 77 m (IGLD, 1985) 76 WL 75 74 73 72 71 Scale 1:250 EXISTING REVETMENT SECTION 5 82 81 80 79 BOULDER GROYNE 78 77 “ 76 “ “ 1 1 WL 75 m (IGLD, 1985) 74 73 72 71 70 Scale 1:250 BOULDER GROYNE SECTION 6 82 81 80 ARMOUR STONE 79 COBBLE BEACH MATERIAL 78 BOULDERS 77 “ 76 WL 75 m (IGLD, 1985) 74 73 GEOTEXTILE EXISTING PROFILE 72 RIP RAP 71 70 Scale 1:250 ARMOUR STONE WALL SECTION 7 82 81 80 ARMOUR STONE 79 EXISTING PROFILE 78 BOULDERS 77 “ 76 WL 75 m (IGLD, 1985) 74 73 GEOTEXTILE 72 RIP RAP 71 70 Scale 1:250 ARMOUR STONE WALL SECTION 8 Figure 6.17 Typical Cross Sections Reaches 3 & 4: Alternative 3

From: Jane Graham To: "[email protected]" Cc: "Kasia Piskorz" Subject: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 4:19:19 PM Attachments: CH_letter_24022015.pdf

Hi Leah,

We have prepared a draft of the Environmental Study Report for Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Project for the Town of Oakville. Four hardcopies of the draft ESR will be couriered to CH. Below is a link to the document

We are requesting CH’s review of the ESR. We would appreciate it if CH’s comments could be provided by March 27, 2015.

Link to document: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsNOTRa?dl=0

Regards,

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, Ontairo M4S 3B1 416 487-4756 ext 223

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email reply.

Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, ON Canada M4S 3B1 T) 416.487.4756 F) 416.487.5129 E) [email protected]

February 24, 2015

Conservation Halton 2596 Britannia Road West Burlington Ontario L7P 0G3

Attention: Leah Chishimba

Dear Ms. Chishimba,

RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Class Environmental Assessment – Draft Environmental Study Report Our file: 13-1918

We are requesting that you review the Draft Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Environmental Study Report (ESR) - February 2015. Please find enclosed four (4) hard copies of the ESR document.

We request that you provide your feedback by Friday, March 27, 2015

The material is available electronically by accessing the following site https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsN OTRa?dl=0

Yours truly,

Shoreplan Engineering Limited

Jane Graham, P. Eng.

Enclosures: Draft Environmental Study Report, February 2014

cc Kasia Piskorz, Town of Oakville

Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, ON Canada M4S 3B1 T) 416.487.4756 F) 416.487.5129 E) [email protected]

May 11, 2015

Conservation Halton 2596 Britannia Road West Burlington Ontario L7P 0G3

Attention: Leah Chishimba

Dear Leah:

RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Final Draft ESR CH File: MPR 641 Our file: 12-1918

Thank you for your comments of April 9, 2015 the Final Draft Environmental Study Report (ESR) prepared for Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements dated February 2015.

The following is our response to your comments. A copy of your letter with the comments is enclosed. We have used the same numbering system provided in your letter.

New Comments (revised Environmental Study Report):

1. Conservation Halton staff appreciate that the Town of Oakville has considered revising the proposed alternatives for reach 1 and 2 based on the recommendation provided in our letter of November 21, 2014 to the Town of Oakville. However, staff notes that all the alternatives except for ‘Alternative 1c’ still propose to infill into the lake to facilitate extension of the existing parking area and staff have concerns with the proposed infill into the lake for the purpose of providing additional parking.

The Preferred Alternative parking lot has the same footprint (size and location) as shown in Alternative 1c (see p. 93 of the ESR). In Reach 1, the infill proposed for the Preferred Alternative accommodates passive green space and multi-use trail. The proposed infill accommodates a beach, multi-use trail and naturally vegetated buffer area between the trail and bank in Reach 2. No parking area is proposed on the new infill area.

The proposed infill is not “for the purpose of providing additional parking.” The parking area is an existing facility, that is inefficient and in need of improvement. It currently requires a high level of annual maintenance

(grading, dust control) and has virtually no buffer to the lake. Improvements to the existing parking area would allow for a safe and efficient parking and storage facility that could be used year-round. The proposed infill area allows for continuous, accessible, pedestrian access along the waterfront (separate from cars) and allows for a natural, vegetated buffer.

2. Staff would like to note that the approximately 100 m of proposed shoreline protection for Reach 1 – Preferred Alternative does not provide any aquatic or terrestrial habitat. The proposed revetment does not offer any diversity, or access to the water. It’s also steeper than the existing shoreline protection and may increase wave reflection and consequently scouring of the lake bottom at the toe of the revetment.

The present shoreline along Reach 1 of the Preferred Alternative consists mainly of broken concrete rubble with sparse informal vegetation, some of which is exotic and/or invasive. The proposed shoreline works in this reach include an armour stone revetment which will provide significantly more in the way of niche spaces, cover, edge, shelter, and other structural habitat for aquatic biota, particularly fish. The armour stone surfaces will also be colonized by invertebrates and other fish-food items. The proposed shoreline treatment at this location also includes a vegetated area which will have a minimum width of 4 m and which will be planted with native species. It is our view that the quality of habitat along Reach 1 of the Preferred Alternative will be a significant improvement over that which exists there at present.

Access to the water is provided by the beach in Reach 2. The protection works in Reach 1 provide part of the “anchor system” for this beach in Reach 2.

Overall the existing concrete rubble slope is flatter than the proposed revetment. Photo 1 of the report shows a view of the shoreline. However, the slope is not flatter by design. The concrete rubble was likely dumped at an unstable steeper slope and wave action has moved and reshaped the slope. In our discussions with DFO, Andrea Doherty recommended considering random placement of armour stone as well. Detailed design will consider design features such as structure slope and type of armour stone placement to minimize wave reflection. These mitigation measures are included in Table 6.6 Physical Environment – Other Coastal Processes.

Armour stone revetments are routinely constructed along Oakville’s Lake Ontario shoreline. The design is well understood. It is our experience that along this shoreline providing a double row of toe stones and keying the structure into sound shale bedrock provides a stable structure with a long design life and scour is not a design concern.

3. Staff recommend that the parking spaces along the shoreline be eliminated and turned into green space. Other locations for the parking

2

spaces should be considered within the park as previously recommended by staff.

The Town understands that CH does not support a parking lot at this location. However, it is a long established, important and needed use along Oakville’s Waterfront. The parking in, and around, Tannery Park provides a rare and limited opportunity for park users visiting our waterfront area, but also provides an essential space supporting the Town’s ongoing harbour operations. During the winter months, all of the parking areas are needed for boat storage. The Town has also reviewed its waterfront park inventory and note that the Tannery/Shipyard Park area provides one of the very few places for public (vehicular) access to the waterfront areas. Going west from Tannery, there is a small lot at Waterworks Park, and then nothing until you reach Coronation Park, some 4 km away. On the east side of Sixteen Mile Creek, there are no public parking areas* along the waterfront until you reach Gairloch Gardens, some 2.5 km away from the harbour. (*does not include on- street parking in residential neighbourhoods)

4. Expansion of urban areas into lakes significantly affects the fish community and other nearshore biota (Chu. et al. 2014) The Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements – Summary of Alternative Design Concepts document received April 2014 noted that the purpose of this project is to provide shoreline improvements consistent with the Master Plan, including shoreline stability, improved access to/along the shoreline and an overall enhancement of the environmental conditions. Staff do not believe infilling of the lake is necessitated in order to achieve this goals. As mentioned in the September 2013 meeting, an infill of the lake may only be possible if it is adequately justified and staff do not believe this justification has been presented.

We agree that expansion of urban areas into lakes can affect the fish community and other near-shore biota, but we would also add that the effects can be both positive and negative. We would offer the rowing- course breakwater on the Toronto waterfront as an example of a positive expansion. In discussions with TRCA, it has been reported that fish densities and diversity at that location increased significantly after construction of the breakwater. These increases are likely attributable to the significant increase in structural fish habitat associated with the breakwater as well as the relatively quiescent waters which are now behind the breakwater which provides shelter from the high-energy open coast environment. Although the Preferred Alternative is a different design than the Toronto rowing-course breakwater, the proposed works do include improvements to the quality, quantity, and diversity of near- shore structural habitat.

The objective of providing public access along the waterfront can be achieved with some lake infilling or significant loss of terrestrial habitat in Reach 2 and loss of established park use in Reach 1. It is our view that some infilling is necessary to achieve a balance among the various

3

Master Plan objectives, some of which are competing. It is also our view that the Preferred Alternative is a scenario that will provide the desired shore stability, improve access and park amenities, and enhance overall environmental conditions while keeping the area of infill as low as possible.

5. Staff provide the following recommendations for the detailed design phase of the project:  Stormwater management – Treatment should be Level 1/enhanced treatment perhaps with the use of LID technologies. SWM should consider salting and snow clearing practices for the purposed multiuse trail, as well as oil/grit/hydrocarbon contributions from and de-icing practices for the proposed parking lot.  Buffer strip or similar – well vegetated shoreline are more stable and less attractive to Canada geese. These functions can be achieved while still maintaining viewscapes desired by the Master Plan. This is valid to the selected alternative design as the proposed green space will function to increase infiltration of runoff.

Section 6.1.7 discusses the implementation of the Preferred Alternative in Reaches 1 and 2 (p. 96). The Town will be developing a storm water management plan and landscape plan which will consider these recommendations. These comments will be added to the Summary Comments in Appendix J.

6. Conservation Halton staff recommend consultation with MNRF and DFO as required by the Class EA process. Staff reiterate our previous recommendation to consult with the above agencies and incorporate their comments into the evaluation criteria.

A copy of the final draft ESR was provided to MNRF and DFO. We were in contact with MNRF during the preparation of the ESR. We understand that MNRF’s comments regarding the final draft ESR will be provided shortly. Their comments will be included in the ESR.

We have also had discussions with DFO regarding the project. It is our understanding that DFO will be providing a letter advising the Town that the project will require Authorization under the Fisheries Act. An offsetting plan and letter of credit for the offsetting measures will be required. DFO recommends consulting with DFO while developing the offsetting plan.

Previous Comments on the Environmental Study Report not addressed

1) Contrary to Section 3.5 (Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat), river mouth habitats are not generally well understood and little research to date has specifically focused on the Great Lakes rivermouth ecosystems (Larson

4

et al 2003). Tarandus and Associates are correct in their estimation that data for this specifc location does not exist, however lack of fauna should not be inferred from lack of data. While we can only speak for the sampling (or lack of) complete by our staff, it is the opinion of Conservation Halton staff that this location has not been adequately sampled to accurately summarize that “no spawning habitat or other significant habitat for such fish exists at this location” (p.42).

Section 3.5 was revised and separated into Section 3.5 Terrestrial Habitat and Section 3.6 Aquatic Habitat. A description of the observations of the aquatic habitat characteristics in the waters adjacent to Tannery and Waterworks Parks is provided on page 43. It was also discussed in our meeting with CH on October 21, 2014. The revision is noted in the Summary of Agency Comments provided in Appendix J which also includes the meeting minutes.

It is our understanding that DFO will require Fisheries Act authorization for this project. The offsetting measures to improve aquatic habitat will be developed in consultation with DFO.

2) Staff note that the trail widths and buffer areas proposed in the text and I the figures are different (e.g. Figure 6.3 shows the trail in Tannery Park West to be 4 m but text indicates 3.5 m). In addition, staff understand that the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act has established a framework for the development of province-wide mandatory standards on accessibility and that a minimum width for trails is 2.1 m. Staff request that consideration of narrowing trails, within the context of AODA, be considered to minimize impacts to the natural environment, specifically infilling the lake.

The width of the trails was removed from the drawings. The text still refers to the width of the trail in order to compare alternatives.

The Town has standards for the width of trails that is wider than the AODA. The Town’s minimum width for a multi-use trail is 3.0 m and 2.4 m for a recreational trail. The wider widths not only allow for better two-way flow of pedestrians, cyclists, and assistive devices, but it also allows for maintenance vehicles to get to and through our open space areas as required. The trail will also provide access to and along the shore protection structure for future maintenance which is required under Halton Region Conservation Authority’s regulations.

The ESR (Section 6.1.7 ii) Socio-cultural Environment p.99) includes consideration of accessible design during detailed design.

3) Staff request more detail on the formal and informal green space proposed in various alternatives. In alternatives 1a and b, this is described as green spaces, whereas alternative 1c proposes “formal and informal manicured planting area”. Alternative 3 describes the land use as “formal and informal parkland area”.

5

The final draft ESR refers to the green space as “passive green space” or “naturally vegetated areas”. Passive green space means land that is used for relaxation such as sitting or strolling. As outlined in Section 6.1.7, as landscape plan will be developed during detailed design which will provide a more detailed description of the passive green spaces or naturally vegetated areas.

4) The Town of Oakville Official Plan (OP) summarizes Waterfront Open Space as environmental protection, possible recreation opportunities (within public lands) and developable, in order to achieve “a continuous waterfront open space system”. It is the opinion of staff that these functions as set out in the OP have not been recognized by the alternative options indicated on p. 57 of the Draft ESR. The first function, environmental protection, barely merited mention in this document. Further, staff are uncomfortable with the selected preferred alternative solution being presented as “protect the shoreline”, when its need to be protected has not been adequately demonstrated.

In our view the objectives of the Master Plan and this Class EA are consistent with the OP. Section 5 Alternative Solutions in the final draft ESR was revised to describe the existing conditions and the need for shore protection along the shoreline and protection of the public access structures which are proposed in the Master Plan.

5) Table 6.1: Alternatives for Reaches 1 and 2: Evaluation for Natural Environment (p.85) a) As staff understand the proposed infill associated with the designs, the order from most to least infill is as follows: 3, 2a, 2b, 1a, 1b, 1c.

This is a new comment. The order from most to least infill is: 2a, 3, 2b, modified 2b (Preferred Alternative), 1a, 1b, 1c.

b) Habitat linkages are generally described as areas of habitat connecting wildlife populations separated by human activities or structures (e.g. roads, development), allowing an exchange of individuals between populations. The idea it that these linkages may potentially moderate some of the worst effects of habitat fragmentation, wherein urbanization can split up habitat areas, causing animals to lose both their natural habitat and ability to move between regions to use all of the resources they need to survive. None of the alternative designs presented meet the definition of habitat linkage and thus should not count as features of the design.

Section 3.5 was revised and separated into Section 3.5 Terrestrial Habitat and Section 3.6 Aquatic Habitat. It was also discussed in our meeting with CH on October 21, 2014. The revision is noted in the Summary of Agency Comments provided in Appendix J which also includes the meeting minutes (Item 2.8). Habitat linkages at the existing site are poor

6

depending on the type of linkage. Aquatic habitat linkages will be improved between the study area and the adjacent river. Terrestrial habitat linkages improvement is limited along the shoreline. There will be improvements by providing areas of natural vegetation. Section 6.1.5 i) Natural Environment (p.79) includes a comparison of the different alternatives with respect to habitat linkages.

c) Staff disagrees that all alternatives should score as “equally preferred” because they result in a loss of existing shoreline vegetation”

In the tables showing the evaluation of the alternatives included in the final draft ESR, the term “equally preferred” was replaced with “equal” The table, Summary of Comments, included in Appendix J notes this change.

6) Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements, Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre Presentation – November 17, 2013.  Staff request that summary slides for the ‘Typical Shoreline Treatments’ be updated to reflect environmental factors, e.g. impacts of infilling lake environments, why revetments are preferred over vertical walls.  Staff note that the ‘Concept Statement’ provided in the presentation has not appeared prior to this instance. Staff recommend that the problem statement as outlined in the ESR and other EA documents be discussed in the context of the concept statement as described.

This comment was noted in the table, Summary of Comments, included in Appendix J. This comment was received after the first PIC. CH staff is always welcome to attend the PICs. As part of a Class EA, regulating agencies are consulted with throughout the EA process and we will continue to consult with the regulating agencies during the project.

If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned.

Yours truly Shoreplan Engineering Limited

J. Graham P. Eng. cc Ms Kasia Piskorz, Town of Oakville Encl.

7

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

From: Jane Graham To: Sarah Piasetzki Subject: FW: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Protection Class EA Date: Thursday, May 28, 2015 2:14:23 PM Attachments: Request-for-Review-eng.pdf

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 416-487-4756 x223

From: Fisheries Protection [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:09 AM To: Jane Graham Subject: RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Protection Class EA

Hi Jane,

Brent Valere forwarded your message to us. I was just wondering if you have submitted a Request for Review to us for review? If not, we ask that you complete the attached request for review form (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/reviews-revues/Request-for-Review-eng.pdf).

To be in compliance with the Fisheries Act, it is recommended that you follow our guidance tools which can be found at the following website (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/index-eng.html). It remains your responsibility to meet the other requirements of federal, provincial and municipal agencies. If you are able to avoid serious harm to fish, a further review of your proposal will not be necessary.

Along with the Request for Review you can send any other supporting documents. The draft of the environmental study report will suffice. Digital copies of the report are fine and encouraged. They can be sent to [email protected].

Cheers,

Kathleen Buck Fisheries Protection Program | Programme de Protection des Pêches Fisheries and Oceans Canada | Pêches et Océans Canada 867 Lakeshore Road | 867 Chemin Lakeshore Burlington, ON, L7S 1A1 Tel | Tél: 905-336-4893 [email protected] Web site | site Web: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/index-eng.html Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada

From: Valere, Brent Sent: February 25, 2015 6:28 PM To: Fisheries Protection Subject: FW: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Protection Class EA

Brent Valere A/Senior Fisheries Protection Program Biologist - Marine and Coastal Development Fisheries & Oceans Canada / Pêches et Océans Canada Central and Arctic Region / Région du Centre et de l’Arctique Fisheries Protection Program tel. / tél.: (905) 336-4914 cell: (905) 979-2463 e-mail: [email protected]

867 Lakeshore Rd / 867 ch, Lakeshore Burlington, ON L7S 1A1

NEW FPP web site / site web : www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat RFCPP web site / site web : http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/rfcpp-ppcpr/index-eng.asp General inquiries: 1 855 852-8320 Project Referrals: [email protected]

From: Jane Graham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: February 23, 2015 3:09 PM To: Valere, Brent Subject: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Protection Class EA

Hi Brent,

The Town of Oakville is to looking at shoreline protection alternatives for Tannery and Waterworks Parks. Tannery and Waterworks Parks are on the west side of 16 Mile Creek (west of Oakville Harbour) on Lake Ontario. The Town has planned this project under Schedule C of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Act. We have just finished a draft of the environmental study report (ESR). Should we be sending you a copy of the draft ESR report or should we submit only the final report? If you would like the draft report, would a digital copy suffice or would you prefer a hardcopy?

Thanks, Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, Ontairo M4S 3B1 416 487-4756 ext 223

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email reply.

From: Jane Graham To: "Fisheries Protection" Cc: "Kasia Piskorz" Subject: RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Protection Class EA Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:38:07 PM Attachments: DFO_letter_email_10032015.pdf Tannery DFO Request-for-Review-eng (2015 03 10).pdf

Hi Kathleen,

We have prepared a draft of the Environmental Study Report for Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Project for the Town of Oakville. Below is a link to the document. A letter with our request for review, figures and a copy of the Request for Review form are attached.

We are requesting DFO’s review of the draft ESR. We would appreciate it if your comments could be provided by March 27, 2015.

Link to document: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsNOTRa?dl=0

Regards,

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited

416-487-4756 x223

From: Fisheries Protection [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:09 AM To: Jane Graham Subject: RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Protection Class EA

Hi Jane,

Brent Valere forwarded your message to us. I was just wondering if you have submitted a Request for Review to us for review? If not, we ask that you complete the attached request for review form (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/reviews-revues/Request-for-Review-eng.pdf).

To be in compliance with the Fisheries Act, it is recommended that you follow our guidance tools which can be found at the following website (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/index-eng.html). It remains your responsibility to meet the other requirements of federal, provincial and municipal agencies. If you are able to avoid serious harm to fish, a further review of your proposal will not be necessary.

Along with the Request for Review you can send any other supporting documents. The draft of the environmental study report will suffice. Digital copies of the report are fine and encouraged. They can be sent to [email protected].

Cheers, Kathleen Buck Fisheries Protection Program | Programme de Protection des Pêches Fisheries and Oceans Canada | Pêches et Océans Canada 867 Lakeshore Road | 867 Chemin Lakeshore Burlington, ON, L7S 1A1 Tel | Tél: 905-336-4893 [email protected] Web site | site Web: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/index-eng.html Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada

From: Valere, Brent Sent: February 25, 2015 6:28 PM To: Fisheries Protection Subject: FW: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Protection Class EA

Brent Valere A/Senior Fisheries Protection Program Biologist - Marine and Coastal Development Fisheries & Oceans Canada / Pêches et Océans Canada Central and Arctic Region / Région du Centre et de l’Arctique Fisheries Protection Program tel. / tél.: (905) 336-4914 cell: (905) 979-2463 e-mail: [email protected]

867 Lakeshore Rd / 867 ch, Lakeshore Burlington, ON L7S 1A1

NEW FPP web site / site web : www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat RFCPP web site / site web : http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/rfcpp-ppcpr/index-eng.asp General inquiries: 1 855 852-8320 Project Referrals: [email protected]

From: Jane Graham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: February 23, 2015 3:09 PM To: Valere, Brent Subject: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Protection Class EA

Hi Brent,

The Town of Oakville is to looking at shoreline protection alternatives for Tannery and Waterworks Parks. Tannery and Waterworks Parks are on the west side of 16 Mile Creek (west of Oakville Harbour) on Lake Ontario. The Town has planned this project under Schedule C of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Act. We have just finished a draft of the environmental study report (ESR). Should we be sending you a copy of the draft ESR report or should we submit only the final report? If you would like the draft report, would a digital copy suffice or would you prefer a hardcopy?

Thanks,

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, Ontairo M4S 3B1 416 487-4756 ext 223

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email reply.

Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, ON Canada M4S 3B1 T) 416.487.4756 F) 416.487.5129 E) [email protected]

March 10, 2015

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington Ontario L4G 0L8

Attention: Ms. Kathleen Buck

Dear Ms. Buck

RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Class Environmental Assessment – Draft Environmental Study Report Our file: 13-1918

We are requesting that you review the Draft Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Environmental Study Report (ESR) - February 2015. A request for review application is enclosed as well as figures showing the preferred alternative shore protection for Tannery and Waterworks Parks which are included in the ESR.

We request that you provide your feedback by Friday, March 27, 2015.

The material is available electronically by accessing the following site https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsN OTRa?dl=0

Yours truly,

Shoreplan Engineering Limited

Jane Graham, P.Eng.

Cc Kasia Piskorz, Town of Oakville From: Jane Graham To: Sarah Piasetzki Subject: FW: 15-HCAA-00284 Shoreline Protection, Lake Ontario, Tannery and Waterworks Parks, Town of Oakville Date: Thursday, May 28, 2015 2:14:33 PM

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 416-487-4756 x223

From: Fisheries Protection [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 2:39 PM To: Jane Graham Cc: Kasia Piskorz Subject: 15-HCAA-00284 Shoreline Protection, Lake Ontario, Tannery and Waterworks Parks, Town of Oakville

Dear Ms. Graham,

The following project has been sent to the regulatory review unit in Burlington for site specific review.

DFO File Title: Shoreline Protection, Lake Ontario, Tannery and Waterworks Parks, Town of Oakville DFO File #: 15-HCAA-00284

A biologist will be contacting you shortly.

Supervisor: Sara Eddy [email protected]

(905) 336-4535

Yours sincerely,

Jennifer Thomas A/ Team Leader, Triage and Planning Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has changed the way new project proposals (referrals), reports of potential Fisheries Act violations (occurrences) and information requests are managed in Central and Arctic Region (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories). Please be advised that general information regarding the management of impacts to fish and fish habitat and self-assessment tools (e.g. Measures to Avoid Harm) that enable you to determine Fisheries Act requirements are available at DFO’s “Projects Near Water” website at www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/index-eng.html. For all occurrence reports, or project proposals where you have determined, following self-assessment, that you cannot avoid impacts to fish and fish habitat, please submit to fisheriesprotection@dfo- mpo.gc.ca. For general inquiries call 1 855 852-8320.

From: Jane Graham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: March 10, 2015 4:38 PM To: Fisheries Protection Cc: Kasia Piskorz Subject: RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Protection Class EA

Hi Kathleen,

We have prepared a draft of the Environmental Study Report for Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Project for the Town of Oakville. Below is a link to the document. A letter with our request for review, figures and a copy of the Request for Review form are attached.

We are requesting DFO’s review of the draft ESR. We would appreciate it if your comments could be provided by March 27, 2015.

Link to document: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsNOTRa?dl=0

Regards,

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited

416-487-4756 x223

From: Fisheries Protection [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:09 AM To: Jane Graham Subject: RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Protection Class EA

Hi Jane, Brent Valere forwarded your message to us. I was just wondering if you have submitted a Request for Review to us for review? If not, we ask that you complete the attached request for review form (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/reviews-revues/Request-for-Review-eng.pdf).

To be in compliance with the Fisheries Act, it is recommended that you follow our guidance tools which can be found at the following website (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/index-eng.html). It remains your responsibility to meet the other requirements of federal, provincial and municipal agencies. If you are able to avoid serious harm to fish, a further review of your proposal will not be necessary.

Along with the Request for Review you can send any other supporting documents. The draft of the environmental study report will suffice. Digital copies of the report are fine and encouraged. They can be sent to [email protected].

Cheers,

Kathleen Buck Fisheries Protection Program | Programme de Protection des Pêches Fisheries and Oceans Canada | Pêches et Océans Canada 867 Lakeshore Road | 867 Chemin Lakeshore Burlington, ON, L7S 1A1 Tel | Tél: 905-336-4893 [email protected] Web site | site Web: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/index-eng.html Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada

From: Valere, Brent Sent: February 25, 2015 6:28 PM To: Fisheries Protection Subject: FW: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Protection Class EA

Brent Valere A/Senior Fisheries Protection Program Biologist - Marine and Coastal Development Fisheries & Oceans Canada / Pêches et Océans Canada Central and Arctic Region / Région du Centre et de l’Arctique Fisheries Protection Program tel. / tél.: (905) 336-4914 cell: (905) 979-2463 e-mail: [email protected]

867 Lakeshore Rd / 867 ch, Lakeshore Burlington, ON L7S 1A1

NEW FPP web site / site web : www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat RFCPP web site / site web : http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/rfcpp-ppcpr/index-eng.asp General inquiries: 1 855 852-8320 Project Referrals: [email protected]

From: Jane Graham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: February 23, 2015 3:09 PM To: Valere, Brent Subject: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Protection Class EA

Hi Brent,

The Town of Oakville is to looking at shoreline protection alternatives for Tannery and Waterworks Parks. Tannery and Waterworks Parks are on the west side of 16 Mile Creek (west of Oakville Harbour) on Lake Ontario. The Town has planned this project under Schedule C of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Act. We have just finished a draft of the environmental study report (ESR). Should we be sending you a copy of the draft ESR report or should we submit only the final report? If you would like the draft report, would a digital copy suffice or would you prefer a hardcopy?

Thanks,

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, Ontairo M4S 3B1 416 487-4756 ext 223

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email reply.

From: Jane Graham To: Sarah Piasetzki Subject: FW: 15-HCAA-00284 Shoreline Protection, Lake Ontario, Tannery and Waterworks Parks, Town of Oakville Date: Thursday, May 28, 2015 2:09:19 PM

Agency Comment

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 416-487-4756 x223

From: Surette, Heather [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 11:32 AM To: Jane Graham Cc: Doherty, Andrea Subject: RE: 15-HCAA-00284 Shoreline Protection, Lake Ontario, Tannery and Waterworks Parks, Town of Oakville

Hi Jane,

Unfortunately I will not be able to provide any comments at this time. When I have had an opportunity to review the file, I will provide specific details at that time.

As Andrea had previously indicated an Authorization is likely going to be required; however, this recommendation has not been approved.

Kindest regards,

Heather

Heather Surette Fisheries Protection Biologist/ Biologiste, Protection des Pêches

Ph/tel: (905) 315-5226, Fax/fac: (905) 336-6285 E-mail: [email protected]

From: Jane Graham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 2015–May-26 10:11 AM To: Surette, Heather Cc: Doherty, Andrea Subject: RE: 15-HCAA-00284 Shoreline Protection, Lake Ontario, Tannery and Waterworks Parks, Town of Oakville

Hi Heather,

I understand you are working on our project now. I’m trying to finalize the ESR report this week and include DFO’s comments. Would it be possible to get your comment this week? If you have any questions I would be happy to discuss the project with you.

Thanks,

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 416-487-4756 x223

From: Doherty, Andrea [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 12:24 PM To: Jane Graham Cc: Surette, Heather Subject: FW: 15-HCAA-00284 Shoreline Protection, Lake Ontario, Tannery and Waterworks Parks, Town of Oakville

Hi Jane

I have taken on a new position within DFO and am transferring this file to Heather Surette. I’ve briefed her on our discussions and she is currently working on getting a response from DFO indicating that the project is likely to require an authorization. You can contact Heather directly for further status updates.

Sincerely,

Andrea Doherty Fisheries Protection Biologist/Biologiste, protection des pêches ph: (905) 336-6274 fax/téléc: 905-336-6285

From: Jane Graham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: April 15, 2015 5:51 PM To: Eddy, Sara Subject: RE: 15-HCAA-00284 Shoreline Protection, Lake Ontario, Tannery and Waterworks Parks, Town of Oakville

Hi Sara,

I haven’t heard from anyone. We were hoping to get comments back as soon as possible. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this project. Thanks,

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited

416-487-4756 x223

From: Fisheries Protection [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 2:39 PM To: Jane Graham Cc: Kasia Piskorz Subject: 15-HCAA-00284 Shoreline Protection, Lake Ontario, Tannery and Waterworks Parks, Town of Oakville

Dear Ms. Graham,

The following project has been sent to the regulatory review unit in Burlington for site specific review.

DFO File Title: Shoreline Protection, Lake Ontario, Tannery and Waterworks Parks, Town of Oakville DFO File #: 15-HCAA-00284

A biologist will be contacting you shortly.

Supervisor: Sara Eddy [email protected]

(905) 336-4535

Yours sincerely,

Jennifer Thomas A/ Team Leader, Triage and Planning Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has changed the way new project proposals (referrals), reports of potential Fisheries Act violations (occurrences) and information requests are managed in Central and Arctic Region (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories). Please be advised that general information regarding the management of impacts to fish and fish habitat and self-assessment tools (e.g. Measures to Avoid Harm) that enable you to determine Fisheries Act requirements are available at DFO’s “Projects Near Water” website at www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/index-eng.html. For all occurrence reports, or project proposals where you have determined, following self-assessment, that you cannot avoid impacts to fish and fish habitat, please submit to fisheriesprotection@dfo- mpo.gc.ca. For general inquiries call 1 855 852-8320.

From: Jane Graham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: March 10, 2015 4:38 PM To: Fisheries Protection Cc: Kasia Piskorz Subject: RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Protection Class EA

Hi Kathleen,

We have prepared a draft of the Environmental Study Report for Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Project for the Town of Oakville. Below is a link to the document. A letter with our request for review, figures and a copy of the Request for Review form are attached.

We are requesting DFO’s review of the draft ESR. We would appreciate it if your comments could be provided by March 27, 2015.

Link to document: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsNOTRa?dl=0

Regards,

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited

416-487-4756 x223

From: Fisheries Protection [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:09 AM To: Jane Graham Subject: RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Protection Class EA

Hi Jane,

Brent Valere forwarded your message to us. I was just wondering if you have submitted a Request for Review to us for review? If not, we ask that you complete the attached request for review form (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/reviews-revues/Request-for-Review-eng.pdf).

To be in compliance with the Fisheries Act, it is recommended that you follow our guidance tools which can be found at the following website (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/index-eng.html). It remains your responsibility to meet the other requirements of federal, provincial and municipal agencies. If you are able to avoid serious harm to fish, a further review of your proposal will not be necessary.

Along with the Request for Review you can send any other supporting documents. The draft of the environmental study report will suffice. Digital copies of the report are fine and encouraged. They can be sent to [email protected].

Cheers,

Kathleen Buck Fisheries Protection Program | Programme de Protection des Pêches Fisheries and Oceans Canada | Pêches et Océans Canada 867 Lakeshore Road | 867 Chemin Lakeshore Burlington, ON, L7S 1A1 Tel | Tél: 905-336-4893 [email protected] Web site | site Web: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/index-eng.html Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada

From: Jane Graham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: February 23, 2015 3:09 PM To: Valere, Brent Subject: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Protection Class EA

Hi Brent,

The Town of Oakville is to looking at shoreline protection alternatives for Tannery and Waterworks Parks. Tannery and Waterworks Parks are on the west side of 16 Mile Creek (west of Oakville Harbour) on Lake Ontario. The Town has planned this project under Schedule C of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Act. We have just finished a draft of the environmental study report (ESR). Should we be sending you a copy of the draft ESR report or should we submit only the final report? If you would like the draft report, would a digital copy suffice or would you prefer a hardcopy?

Thanks,

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, Ontairo M4S 3B1 416 487-4756 ext 223

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email reply.

Halton Region

From: Jane Graham To: Sarah Piasetzki Subject: FW: Tannery/Waterworks Park Date: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 9:45:50 AM

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 416-487-4756 x223

From: Kasia Piskorz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 9:34 AM To: Jane Graham Subject: FW: Tannery/Waterworks Park

Hi Jane, Noted below are the Region’s concerns regarding the sanitary outfall.

Kasia Piskorz Project Leader - Capital Projects Engineering and Construction Town of Oakville | 905-845-6601 ext.3533 | f: 905-338-4159 | www.oakville.ca

Vision: To be the most livable town in Canada ü Please consider the environment before printing this email. http://www.oakville.ca/privacy.html

From: Ribic, Natalie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 9:05 AM To: Kasia Piskorz Cc: Dean, Jerry; Duong, John Subject: RE: Tannery/Waterworks Park

Hi Kasia,

Thank You for the attached drawing, it was very helpful. We’ve had a chance to review the EA for the Tannery / Waterworks Park.

We do have a couple of concerns with the proposed works. As you are aware the Region has a Sanitary Pump Station right in the study area. Looking at the proposed options / drawings, it looks like the walkway, the patio and the shoreline work will affect the Outfall from the pump station. Here are a list of our concerns:

· There are potential Health issues if an overflow should occur at the station. Raw sewage would be coming out of the outfall directly onto the walking path, patio etc..(if we are looking at the drawings correctly). We must ensure public health at all times.

· If an overflow were to occur in this new proposed public area, our procedure and regulatory responsibility would be to notify the Ministry of the Environment as well as the Ministry of Health and we would have to close the walkway to contain the area. Before we would be able to reopen the area to the public, the area would have to be washed and cleaned.

· We require 24 hour access to the outflow at all times. The Promenade can’t cover the outfall or impede our access to it in any way.

Please keep us informed and involved during the EA process. We are very interested in this project due to the potential impact it may have on our pump station infrastructure and operation.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thank You,

Natalie Ribic Supervisor, Infrastructure Management Wastewater Planning REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON (Tel) 905-825-6000 x7642 (Tel) 1-866-442-5866 x7642 (Fax)905-825-0267 [email protected]

From: Kasia Piskorz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 5:05 PM To: Ribic, Natalie Subject: RE: Tannery/Waterworks Park

Hi Natalie, Since we have just initiated the Class EA I do not have any specific details of the proposed works. Attached is the drawing from the master plan document, Section BB shows some detail of the concept for the area near the outlet.

It is unlikely that any construction will commence next year, so we are looking at construction in 2015 or later. We are meeting with Conservation Halton at the end of this month and hopefully after that meeting we will have a better idea of the project direction.

Regards,

Kasia Piskorz Project Leader - Capital Projects Engineering and Construction Town of Oakville | 905-845-6601 ext.3533 | f: 905-338-4159 | www.oakville.ca

Vision: To be the most livable town in Canada ü Please consider the environment before printing this email. http://www.oakville.ca/privacy.html

From: Ribic, Natalie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 4:07 PM To: Kasia Piskorz Subject: RE: Tannery/Waterworks Park

Hi Kasia,

John has asked me to look into this. I have a couple of questions I was hoping you could answer for me. I’ve looked at the drawings and scanned the Master Plan document but I’m still a little unclear.

· What exactly is the extent of work that is proposed to be done in and around our outlet pipe? Do you have specific pictures or drawings of what is purposed around the outlet? I’m trying to see how much of the outlet will be affected if The Town decides to go with the walkway and see if we will be ok with it.

· When is this work to be done?

That outlet is fairly new pipe (1999) and we have an easement that runs from the pump station to the lake for the outlet.

Any information you can provide, would be wonderful.

Thanks!

Natalie Ribic Supervisor, Infrastructure Management Wastewater Planning REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON (Tel) 905-825-6000 x7642 (Tel) 1-866-442-5866 x7642 (Fax)905-825-0267 [email protected]

From: Duong, John Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 6:49 PM To: Ribic, Natalie Subject: Fw: Tannery/Waterworks Park

FYI

From: Kasia Piskorz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 05:11 PM To: Duong, John Subject: RE: Tannery/Waterworks Park

Hi John, Attached is the notice of commencement that was sent out a few weeks ago, it shows the approximate study area and provides some project details.

The purpose of this project is to provide shoreline improvements, consistent with the Oakville Harbour West Shore Master Plan, including shore stability, improved access to shoreline and an overall enhancement of the environmental conditions in Tannery and Waterworks Parks. The master plan concept is shown in the attached figure and further details on the concepts are provided in the final report (page 30 – 46) which can be found on our website here.

The outlet in question is located between the Walker Street Promenade and Tannery Park (near concept node #16 on the attached figure). The master plan proposes a walkway in this area to connect Walker Street Promenade and Tannery Park, this will likely have an impact on the outlet. Other proposed work includes infilling into the lake to create more and better public access (Tannery Park). Since we have just commenced the EA process I cannot provide you with any further details at this time.

There is a meeting with Conservation Halton scheduled later this month and we should have a better idea of the direction of this study at that time.

Thanks,

Kasia Piskorz Project Leader - Capital Projects Engineering and Construction Town of Oakville | 905-845-6601 ext.3533 | f: 905-338-4159 | www.oakville.ca

Vision: To be the most livable town in Canada ü Please consider the environment before printing this email. http://www.oakville.ca/privacy.html

From: Duong, John [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 11:18 AM To: Kasia Piskorz Subject: RE: Tannery/Waterworks Park

Hi Kasia,

Could you direct me to the scope of the Tannery/Waterworks Park project?

Thanks,

John Duong, M.Eng., P.Eng. Manager Wastewater Planning Public Works Tel 905-825-6000 ext7961

From: Kasia Piskorz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 10:52 AM To: Duong, John Subject: Tannery/Waterworks Park

Hi John, Attached are the drawings that I received from the Region. I also attached a photo of the outlet which is located close to the shoreline just off the existing path.

Regards,

Kasia Piskorz Project Leader - Capital Projects Engineering and Construction Town of Oakville | 905-845-6601 ext.3533 | f: 905-338-4159 | www.oakville.ca

Vision: To be the most livable town in Canada ü Please consider the environment before printing this email. http://www.oakville.ca/privacy.html From: Jane Graham To: Daniel Valleau Subject: FW: Tannery/Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Date: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 4:06:27 PM

Halton Region Comments

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 416-487-4756 x223 From: Kasia Piskorz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:47 AM To: Parr, Tanya Cc: Jane Graham Subject: RE: Tannery/Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements

Thanks Tanya.

Kasia Piskorz Project Leader - Capital Projects Engineering and Construction Town of Oakville | 905-845-6601 ext.3533 | f: 905-338-4159 | www.oakville.ca

Vision: To be the most livable town in Canada ü Please consider the environment before printing this email. http://www.oakville.ca/privacy.html

From: Parr, Tanya [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:27 PM To: Kasia Piskorz Cc: Jane Graham ([email protected]) Subject: RE: Tannery/Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements

Hi Kasia, Just as an update to my email below regarding the three watermains in the park south of the plant running towards the corner of Walker and Wilson - our System Operations group is currently making a system modification that eliminates the need for the two smaller mains (the large main is already decommissioned). This means there will no longer be a need to dig up the mains in 2020 to rehabilitate them, so the park planting that we will do as part of the water plant upgrade will not be disturbed.

Tanya Parr, CET, PMP Project Manager Public Works Water Design and Construction Division Halton Region 905 825-6000 x7546

From: Kasia Piskorz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 3:03 PM To: Parr, Tanya Cc: Jane Graham ([email protected]) Subject: RE: Tannery/Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements

Hi Tanya, Thanks for your email. Can you tell me who the contact at the Region would be regarding the 2020 watermain rehabilitation/replacement work? And also the contact for the intake extension EA.

I don’t have any further details on the shoreline work at this time because we have just initiated the EA, you are on our contact list and will be invited to future meetings. We will have a better idea of what is required once we meet with Conservation Halton later this month. Right now we anticipate that the first PIC will be held at the end of the year.

Thanks,

Kasia Piskorz Project Leader - Capital Projects Engineering and Construction Town of Oakville | 905-845-6601 ext.3533 | f: 905-338-4159 | www.oakville.ca

Vision: To be the most livable town in Canada ü Please consider the environment before printing this email. http://www.oakville.ca/privacy.html

From: Parr, Tanya [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 5:26 PM To: Kasia Piskorz Subject: RE: Tannery/Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements

Hi Kasia,

We are expecting the project to be completed in the Fall of 2014. During the summer of 2014, we will be doing some landscaping in the park near Wilson and Walker Street. This will mainly involve adding more native shrubs along the fence line between the plant and the park, to help screen the view of the plant.

There are three watermains running through Waterworks park just south of the main Plant building. I have recently learned that the two smaller mains are slated to be rehabilitated or replaced in 2020. Depending on how the work is done, this could be potentially disruptive to any plantings in that area of the park.

There is an EA that will be starting soon to extend the intake pipe for the plant. We expect that most of that work would be off shore; however, without having started the EA, I do not have any details on what the potential shoreline impacts may be.

Please keep in the loop regarding any plans for Water Works Park and let me know if you have any more questions about work at the plant.

Tanya Parr, CET, PMP Project Manager Public Works Water Design and Construction Division Halton Region 905 825-6000 x7546

From: Kasia Piskorz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 4:20 PM To: Parr, Tanya Subject: Tannery/Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements

Hi Tanya, A few weeks ago you should have received a notice of study commencement for the Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Class EA. I wanted to follow up with you and get some further information about the project at the Oakville WPP which is located adjacent to the parks. Can you tell me when the work at the Oakville WPP will be completed?

Also, I wanted to find out if the Region plans on doing any work at the intake located in Waterworks Park. Any work at the shoreline by the Region could potentially impact the Town’s shoreline improvements project.

Regards,

Kasia Piskorz Project Leader - Capital Projects Engineering and Construction Town of Oakville | 905-845-6601 ext.3533 | f: 905-338-4159 | www.oakville.ca

Vision: To be the most livable town in Canada ü Please consider the environment before printing this email. http://www.oakville.ca/privacy.html

September 18, 2014

Laura Kalika Water Services Halton Region 1151 Bronte Road Oakville, ON L6M 3L1

RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Class Environmental Assessment

Dear Ms. Kalika,

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the draft Environmental Study Report – Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements, July 2014 has been updated to include the alternative design concepts, the evaluation criteria and proposed evaluation process for the shoreline improvements being considered at Tannery and Waterworks Parks.

We would very much appreciate your feedback so that your comments can be incorporated into our study. If possible please provide your comments by Friday, October 17, 2014.

Instructions on how to access the report have been sent to you by email.

The study information will be presented to the public at a public information centre (PIC) scheduled for Tuesday, September 30, 2014. At this PIC interested individuals will have an opportunity to provide their input on the alternative design concepts, the evaluation criteria and process, and the preferred alternative design concept. The PIC notice has been mailed out as a separate notification.

Please note that this draft report has already been circulated to Conservation Halton for their review.

Yours truly,

Kasia Piskorz, P. Eng. Project Leader – Capital Projects Engineering and Construction

Town of Oakville | 1225 Trafalgar Road, Oakville, Ontario L6H 0H3 | 905-845-6601 | www.oakville.ca

Public Works Water Services October 14, 2014 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1 Kasia Piskorz, P.Eng. Capital Projects, Engineering and Construction Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville, ON L6H 0H3

Dear Ms. Piskorz:

RE: Tannery and Waterworks Park Shoreline Improvements Class Environmental Assessment Study

Regional staff has reviewed the Tannery and Waterworks Park Shoreline Improvements Class Environmental Assessment Study, and all related documents, regarding the proposed rehabilitation of these sites.

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this process. The following comments represent the collective Regional position on this Class Environmental Assessment Study project.

Regional Requirements - Design & Construction Commitments

Upon appropriate determination of a preferred alternative and prior to the undertaking of any capital works following the study, the Region would request that the following requirements be met by the proponent:

1. Proposed shoreline improvement design drawings be submitted to the Region for review and coordination to avoid potential conflict with existing and future planned Oakville Water Purification Plant (OWPP) infrastructure; 2. Proposed shoreline improvements do not restrict or impair Region’s ability to carry out ongoing operation and maintenance provisions of the OWPP or its water intake pipes/structure; 3. Proposed shoreline improvements do not restrict or impair Region’s ability to upgrade OWPP site fencing and on-site security provisions; and 4. Disclose to the Region any proposed changes to the current preferred alternative shoreline improvement solution which may impact or alter the 16 Mile Creek plume that affects the OWPP intake water quality.

We appreciate the continued opportunity to participate in this process and trust that our requests will be considered and accommodated. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

David Simpson, P. Eng., Manager of Water Planning

cc: Kiyoshi Oka, Director, Water Services, Region of Halton George Trencs, Supervisor, Oakville Water Purification Plant, Region of Halton Teodor Kochmar, OWPP Project Manager, Water Design & Construction, Region of Halton

From: Ribic, Natalie To: Kasia Piskorz Cc: Duong, John; Dean, Jerry; Andrews, Dave; Rewa, Nicolas Subject: Tannary Park Oakville - Region Comments Date: Monday, November 17, 2014 10:01:57 AM

Hi Kasia,

As per our phone conversation a couple of weeks ago. Since the Town hasn’t modified the proposed options for the Tannary Park improvements, the Region’s comments still stand:

We’ve had a chance to review the EA for the Tannery / Waterworks Park.

We do have a couple of concerns with the proposed works. As you are aware the Region has a Sanitary Pump Station right in the study area. Looking at the proposed options / drawings, it looks like the walkway, the patio and the shoreline work will affect the Outfall from the pump station. Here are a list of our concerns:

•There are potential Health issues if an overflow should occur at the station. Raw sewage would be coming out of the outfall directly onto the walking path, patio etc..(if we are looking at the drawings correctly). We must ensure public health at all times. •If an overflow were to occur in this new proposed public area, our procedure and regulatory responsibility would be to notify the Ministry of the Environment as well as the Ministry of Health and we would have to close the walkway to contain the area. Before we would be able to reopen the area to the public, the area would have to be washed and cleaned. •We require 24 hour access to the outflow at all times. The Promenade can’t cover the outfall or impede our access to it in any way.

Please keep us informed and involved during the EA process. We are very interested in this project due to the potential impact it may have on our pump station infrastructure and operation.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thanks!

Natalie Ribic Supervisor, Infrastructure Management Wastewater Planning REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON (Tel) 905-825-6000 x7642 (Tel) 1-866-442-5866 x7642 (Fax)905-825-0267 [email protected]

From: Jane Graham To: "[email protected]" Cc: "Kasia Piskorz" Subject: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:36:52 PM Attachments: HR_letter_Simpson_email_24022015.pdf

Hi David

We have prepared a draft of the Environmental Study Report for Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Project for the Town of Oakville. Below is a link to the document

We are requesting Halton Region’s review of the ESR. We would appreciate it if your comments could be provided by March 27, 2015.

Link to document: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsNOTRa?dl=0

Regards,

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, Ontairo M4S 3B1 416 487-4756 ext 223

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email reply.

Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, ON Canada M4S 3B1 T) 416.487.4756 F) 416.487.5129 E) [email protected]

February 24, 2015

Halton Region 1151 Bronte Road Oakville, Ontario L6M 3L1

Attention: David Simpson

Dear Mr. Simpson

RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Class Environmental Assessment – Draft Environmental Study Report Our file: 13-1918

We are requesting that you review the Draft Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Environmental Study Report (ESR) - February 2015.

We request that you provide your feedback by Friday, March 27, 2015

The material is available electronically by accessing the following site https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsN OTRa?dl=0

Yours truly,

Shoreplan Engineering Limited

Jane Graham, P. Eng.

Cc Kasia Piskorz, Town of Oakville

From: Jane Graham To: "[email protected]" Cc: "Kasia Piskorz" Subject: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:36:41 PM Attachments: HR_letter_Ribic_Hardcopy_24022015.pdf

Hi Natalie,

We have prepared a draft of the Environmental Study Report for Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Project for the Town of Oakville. We will be sending you a hardcopy of the report. Below is a link to the document

We are requesting Halton Region’s review of the ESR. We would appreciate it if your comments could be provided by March 27, 2015.

Link to document: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsNOTRa?dl=0

Regards,

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, Ontairo M4S 3B1 416 487-4756 ext 223

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email reply.

Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, ON Canada M4S 3B1 T) 416.487.4756 F) 416.487.5129 E) [email protected]

February 24, 2015

Halton Region 1151 Bronte Road Oakville, Ontario L6M 3L1

Attention: Natalie Ribic

Dear Ms. Ribic

RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Class Environmental Assessment – Draft Environmental Study Report Our file: 13-1918

We are requesting that you review the Draft Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Environmental Study Report (ESR) - February 2015. Please find enclosed one (1) hard copy of the ESR document.

We request that you provide your feedback by Friday, March 27, 2015

The material is available electronically by accessing the following site https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsN OTRa?dl=0

Yours truly,

Shoreplan Engineering Limited

Jane Graham, P. Eng.

Encl. Draft Environmental Study Report, February 2014

Cc Kasia Piskorz, Town of Oakville From: Jane Graham To: "[email protected]" Cc: "Kasia Piskorz" Subject: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:37:02 PM Attachments: HR_letter_Kalika_email_24022015.pdf

Hi Laura,

We have prepared a draft of the Environmental Study Report for Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Project for the Town of Oakville. Below is a link to the document

We are requesting Halton Region’s review of the ESR. We would appreciate it if your comments could be provided by March 27, 2015.

Link to document: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsNOTRa?dl=0

Regards,

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, Ontairo M4S 3B1 416 487-4756 ext 223

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email reply.

Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, ON Canada M4S 3B1 T) 416.487.4756 F) 416.487.5129 E) [email protected]

February 24, 2015

Halton Region 1151 Bronte Road Oakville, Ontario L6M 3L1

Attention: Laura Kalika

Dear Ms. Kalika

RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Class Environmental Assessment – Draft Environmental Study Report Our file: 13-1918

We are requesting that you review the Draft Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Environmental Study Report (ESR) - February 2015.

We request that you provide your feedback by Friday, March 27, 2015

The material is available electronically by accessing the following site https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsN OTRa?dl=0

Yours truly,

Shoreplan Engineering Limited

Jane Graham, P.Eng. cc Kasia Piskorz, Town of Oakville

From: Jane Graham To: Sarah Piasetzki Subject: FW: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report Date: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 4:50:46 PM Attachments: Tannery Waterworks Park Improvements Class EA Response Letter_March 26 2015.pdf

From: Simpson, David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 6:19 PM To: Jane Graham Cc: Kasia Piskorz; Kochmar, Teodor; Ohashi, David; Trencs, George; Devine, Gord; Bielawski, Magda Subject: RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report

Hi Jane,

Please our comments regarding the Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR.

We appreciate the opportunity to review and provide comments.

Thanks, David

David Simpson, P.Eng. | 905.825.6000 x 7601 Manager, Infrastructure Planning | Infrastructure Planning and Policy Services

From: Jane Graham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:37 PM To: Simpson, David Cc: Kasia Piskorz Subject: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report

Hi David

We have prepared a draft of the Environmental Study Report for Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Project for the Town of Oakville. Below is a link to the document

We are requesting Halton Region’s review of the ESR. We would appreciate it if your comments could be provided by March 27, 2015.

Link to document: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsNOTRa?dl=0

Regards, Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, Ontairo M4S 3B1 416 487-4756 ext 223

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email reply.

______

This message, including any attachments, is privileged and intended only for the person(s) named above. This material may contain confidential or personal information which may be subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act. Any other distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, fax or e-mail and permanently delete the original transmission from us, including any attachments, without making a copy.

Thank you

Public Works Water Services March 26, 2015 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1 Kasia Piskorz, P.Eng. Capital Projects, Engineering and Construction Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road Oakville, ON L6H 0H3

Dear Ms. Piskorz:

RE: Tannery and Waterworks Park Shoreline Improvements Class Environmental Assessment Study – Draft Environmental Study Report

We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft Tannery and Waterworks Park Shoreline Improvements Class Environmental Study Report. The following comments represent the collective Regional position on this Class Environmental Assessment Study project.

The Region is currently undertaking a review to confirm the requirement to either modify or construct a new intake to the Oakville Water Purification Plant (OWPP). This review is anticipated to be completed by the end of this year. The proposed shoreline improvements appear to have significant impacts should the Region proceed with modification or construction of a new intake to the OWPP specifically:

- Preferred alternative for Reaches 3 and 4 (Figure ES 3): Placement of the boulder berm and boulders may impact construction sequencing. If the boulder berm and boulders are in place prior to construction, the boulders will need to be moved. If the Region proceeds with construction of a new intake, the berm in the affected area should be completed post-intake construction.

- Oakville Harbour West Shore Master Plan (Figure 1.3): The area between the OWPP and waterfront would be temporarily impacted by construction should the Region require to construct the new intake in that area or extent the existing intake. It is anticipated that the construction footprint will be considerable regardless of using open cut or trenchless methods.

Region would request that the timing and details associated with the proposed shoreline improvement be coordinated with the Region to avoid potential conflict with future infrastructure requirements planned at OWPP.

We appreciate the continued opportunity to participate in this process and trust that our concerns be considered and accommodated. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

David Simpson, P. Eng., Manager of Infrastructure Planning

cc: George Trencs, Supervisor, Oakville Water Purification Plant, Region of Halton Teodor Kochmar, OWPP Project Manager, Water Design & Construction, Region of Halton

From: Jane Graham To: Sarah Piasetzki Subject: FW: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report Date: Thursday, May 28, 2015 2:11:44 PM Attachments: OWPP intake.png

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 416-487-4756 x223

From: L:aura Kalika [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 1:23 PM To: Jane Graham Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: FW: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report

Hi Jane I have reviewed the draft of the Environmental Study Report for Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Project and, in addition to an illustration enclosure, the following are my comments: Section 1.1 Description of the Study Area In the second paragraph it states “Oakville Water Purification Plan” should read “Purification Plant”

Figure 1.2 – it says “Plan” and should read “Plant”

Section 3.1.4 Reach 4 – Waterworks Park In the second paragraph it says “The Town of Oakville’s water intake” – this sounds incorrect as the water intake belongs to the Region of Halton which feeds Oakville, Milton and sometimes Burlington. Saying the Region of Halton’s water intake or the Oakville Water Purification Plant’s water intake (OWPPs water intake) would be more accurate.

Figure 3.5 “Pump House” should be labelled “Gate House” - the Gate House is actually the west water intake access. There is also an east water intake access chamber evidenced by a manhole cover southeast of the west intake. There is also a tag on this Figure “Water Treatment Plant Yard” with an arrow pointing to the parking lot. I am unclear as to which body owns this lot but it would be good to know. In any case, the tag is incorrect in that it is a ‘parking lot’ not a ‘yard’.

Section 3.6 Aquatic Habitat In the second paragraph there is a blank line after the second printed line.

Page 44 “Oakville Burloak and Burlington intakes” – there should be comma between Oakville and Burloak.

Figure 3.15 See Attached

Page 55 “Oakville’s water intake” should read OWPPs water intake to be more accurate.

NOTE: I was not able to review the document completely as, for some reason, I was not able to open it again.

Thank you for the opportunity to forward my observations. If any of these comments are unclear please let me know and I will explain further.

Regards, Laura Kalika Oakville Water Purification Plant Regional Municipality of Halton 905 334-6505

From: Jane Graham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:37 PM To: Kalika, Laura Cc: Kasia Piskorz Subject: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report

Hi Laura, We have prepared a draft of the Environmental Study Report for Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Project for the Town of Oakville. Below is a link to the document We are requesting Halton Region’s review of the ESR. We would appreciate it if your comments could be provided by March 27, 2015. Link to document: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsNOTRa?dl=0 Regards, Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, Ontairo M4S 3B1 416 487-4756 ext 223

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email reply.

______

This message, including any attachments, is privileged and intended only for the person(s) named above. This material may contain confidential or personal information which may be subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act. Any other distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, fax or e-mail and permanently delete the original transmission from us, including any attachments, without making a copy.

Thank you

From: Jane Graham To: Sarah Piasetzki Subject: FW: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report Date: Thursday, May 28, 2015 2:12:14 PM

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 416-487-4756 x223

From: L:aura Kalika [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:53 PM To: Jane Graham Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report

Thank you for that Jane. Only a couple more comments: Page 57 Paragraph beginning “The “Do Nothing” alternative….” The third line says “the bank has areas of exposes soil” should read ‘areas of exposed soil’.

Page 82 The last paragraph says “Oakville water intake” – consider changing to OWPP or Region of Halton. Thanks again Jane. Regards, Laura

From: Jane Graham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: March 27, 2015 2:16 PM To: L:aura Kalika Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report

Hi Laura, The document has been uploaded again. The link is below. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/tkhdkk3t65pfz5s/AAC16l1hwDNHdZlh_UmaxLLWa?dl=0 Regards, Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 416-487-4756 x223 From: L:aura Kalika [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:04 PM To: Jane Graham Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report

Hi Jane, Can you try to forward the document as an attachment again directly to this email address. Not sure why I was able to open it a few times, then not. Thanks Jane, Laura

From: Jane Graham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: March 27, 2015 1:53 PM To: L:aura Kalika Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report

Thanks Laura. We appreciate your comments. It is very strange that you could not open the document again. Would you like us to forward you a hard copy or DVD with the document? Regards,

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 416-487-4756 x223 From: L:aura Kalika [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 1:23 PM To: Jane Graham Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: FW: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report

Hi Jane I have reviewed the draft of the Environmental Study Report for Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Project and, in addition to an illustration enclosure, the following are my comments: Section 1.1 Description of the Study Area In the second paragraph it states “Oakville Water Purification Plan” should read “Purification Plant”

Figure 1.2 – it says “Plan” and should read “Plant”

Section 3.1.4 Reach 4 – Waterworks Park In the second paragraph it says “The Town of Oakville’s water intake” – this sounds incorrect as the water intake belongs to the Region of Halton which feeds Oakville, Milton and sometimes Burlington. Saying the Region of Halton’s water intake or the Oakville Water Purification Plant’s water intake (OWPPs water intake) would be more accurate.

Figure 3.5 “Pump House” should be labelled “Gate House” - the Gate House is actually the west water intake access. There is also an east water intake access chamber evidenced by a manhole cover southeast of the west intake. There is also a tag on this Figure “Water Treatment Plant Yard” with an arrow pointing to the parking lot. I am unclear as to which body owns this lot but it would be good to know. In any case, the tag is incorrect in that it is a ‘parking lot’ not a ‘yard’.

Section 3.6 Aquatic Habitat In the second paragraph there is a blank line after the second printed line.

Page 44 “Oakville Burloak and Burlington intakes” – there should be comma between Oakville and Burloak.

Figure 3.15 See Attached

Page 55 “Oakville’s water intake” should read OWPPs water intake to be more accurate.

NOTE: I was not able to review the document completely as, for some reason, I was not able to open it again.

Thank you for the opportunity to forward my observations. If any of these comments are unclear please let me know and I will explain further.

Regards, Laura Kalika Oakville Water Purification Plant Regional Municipality of Halton 905 334-6505

From: Jane Graham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6:37 PM To: Kalika, Laura Cc: Kasia Piskorz Subject: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report

Hi Laura, We have prepared a draft of the Environmental Study Report for Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Project for the Town of Oakville. Below is a link to the document We are requesting Halton Region’s review of the ESR. We would appreciate it if your comments could be provided by March 27, 2015. Link to document: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsNOTRa?dl=0 Regards, Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, Ontairo M4S 3B1 416 487-4756 ext 223

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email reply.

______

This message, including any attachments, is privileged and intended only for the person(s) named above. This material may contain confidential or personal information which may be subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act. Any other distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, fax or e-mail and permanently delete the original transmission from us, including any attachments, without making a copy.

Thank you

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

From: Jane Graham To: Daniel Valleau Subject: FW: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements EA (H-13-007-O) Date: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 4:21:22 PM Attachments: Information_Request_Guidelines.pdf Information_Request_Form.pdf

MNR

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 416-487-4756 x223 From: Bates, Michelle (MNR) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 12:25 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Jane Graham; ESA Aurora (MNR); Devlin, Jane (MNR); Burkart, Jackie (MNR) Subject: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements EA (H-13-007-O)

Good afternoon,

The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has received the Notice of Study Commencement for the subject EA. We note that the study area is directly adjacent to Sixteen Mile Creek. We recommend that you consult the Halton Region Conservation Authority regarding your project and that you implement sediment and erosion controls during the duration of the works until the site has been stabilized.

Please note that our records indicate the presence of species at risk within the study area. Please fill out the attached Information Request Form and sent the completed form to our Species at Risk staff at [email protected] for further direction. The associated guide has been attached to assist you.

Kind Regards,

Michelle Bates Planning Assistant Aurora District Ministry of Natural Resources 50 Bloomington Road Aurora, ON L4G 0L8 Telephone: (905) 713-7448

Ministry of Ministère des Natural Resources Richesses naturelles Aurora District Office 50 Bloomington Road Telephone: (905) 713-7400 Aurora, Ontario L4G 0L8 Facsimile: (905) 713-7361

October 2, 2013

Donald Speller Tarandus Associates Limited 18 Regan Road, Unit 24 Brampton, ON L7A 1C2 Tel: (905) 840-6563 Fax: (905) 840-6128 [email protected]

Re: Tannery and Waterworks Park Shoreline Improvements Town of Oakville, Regional Municipality of Halton

Dear Mr. Speller,

In your email dated September 10, 2013 you requested information on natural heritage features and element occurrences occurring on or adjacent to the above mentioned location.

There are no species at risk recorded for your study area.

There are no natural heritage features recorded for your area.

Absence of information provided by MNR for a given geographic area, or lack of current information for a given area or element, does not categorically mean the absence of sensitive species or features. Many areas in Ontario have never been surveyed and new plant and animal species records are still being discovered for many localities. For these reasons, the NHIC/MNR cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence, absence, or condition of biological elements in any part of Ontario.

This species at risk information is highly sensitive and is not intended for any person or project unrelated to this undertaking. Please do not include any specific information in reports that will be available for public record. As you complete your fieldwork in these areas, please report all information related to any species at risk to the NHIC and to our office. This will assist with updating our database.

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 905-713-7344 or [email protected] (Attn: David Denyes).

Sincerely,

David Denyes Assistant Species at Risk Biologist Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora District From: Jane Graham To: "Hislop, Chris (MNRF)" Cc: "Kasia Piskorz" Subject: Tannery and Waterworks Parks ESR - Draft Report Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 4:19:22 PM Attachments: MNR_letter_Hislop_email_24022015.pdf

Hi Chris,

We have prepared a draft of the Environmental Study Report for Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Project for the Town of Oakville. Below is a link to the document.

We are requesting your review of the ESR. We would appreciate it if MNR’s comments could be provided by March 27, 2015. If you require hard copies of the document, please do not hesitate to email.

Link to document: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsNOTRa?dl=0

Regards,

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, Ontairo M4S 3B1 416 487-4756 ext 223

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email reply.

Shoreplan Engineering Limited 20 Holly Street, Suite 202 Toronto, ON Canada M4S 3B1 T) 416.487.4756 F) 416.487.5129 E) [email protected]

February 24, 2015

Ministry of Natural Resources Aurora District 50 Bloomington Road West R.R. 2 Aurora, Ontario L4G 0L8

Attention: Mr. Chris Hislop

Dear Mr. Hislop

RE: Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Class Environmental Assessment – Draft Environmental Study Report Our file: 13-1918

We are requesting that you review the Draft Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements Environmental Study Report (ESR) - February 2015

We request that you provide your feedback by Friday, March 27, 2015

The material is available electronically by accessing the following site https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nndx9tv2iaeot5b/AAA7QhNOsG2CcuBLLmUsN OTRa?dl=0

Yours truly,

Shoreplan Engineering Limited

Jane Graham, P.Eng.

Cc Kasia Piskorz, Town of Oakville From: Jane Graham To: Sarah Piasetzki Subject: FW: Tannery / Waterworks Park EA Date: Thursday, May 28, 2015 2:09:36 PM

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 416-487-4756 x223

From: Eplett, Megan (MNRF) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 10:35 AM To: [email protected]; Jane Graham Cc: Kowalyk, Bohdan (MNRF); Hislop, Chris (MNRF); Burkart, Jackie (MNRF) Subject: RE: Tannery / Waterworks Park EA

Hello,

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has reviewed the information provided related to the Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline EA. MNRF has no concerns related to natural heritage features and species at risk.

From review of works proposed, a work permit under the Public Lands Act will be required in order to place fill within Crown Land. Once placing fill has been completed, there will be a requirement to purchase filled land from the Crown. Please contact Bohdan Kowalyk (cc’d on this email) for further information related to approvals under the Public Lands Act.

Thank you,

Megan ______Megan Eplett | A/ Management Biologist | Aurora District | Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry ( (905) 713-7369 | 8 [email protected]

From: Burkart, Jackie (MNRF) Sent: May-19-15 9:23 AM To: Eplett, Megan (MNRF) Cc: Hislop, Chris (MNRF); Almond, John (MNRF); Kowalyk, Bohdan (MNRF) Subject: FW: Tannery / Waterworks Park EA

From: Hislop, Chris (MNRF) Sent: May 15, 2015 10:22 AM To: Burkart, Jackie (MNRF) Cc: Almond, John (MNRF); Kowalyk, Bohdan (MNRF) Subject: Tannery / Waterworks Park EA

Hi Jackie,

Have you seen the Municipal EA for the Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline Improvements. I have saved the files X:\LAND_MGMT\LandTenure\Halton\Tannery - Waterworks Park Bronte Harbour.

I only received these files today and they are looking for our comments asap. They were to be sent in February but it appears due to a firewall issue the files were never received, and no hardcopies sent. This seems to have slipped through the cracks, I was aware in general of the proposal, but had not seen any of the documents. All of the proposed alternatives have lake fill up to 1 hectare including groynes and cobble beaches.

Regards,

Chris Hislop A/ Partnership Specialist | Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry | Aurora District Office 50 Bloomington Road, Aurora, Ontario, L4G 0L8 | Phone: 905-713-7386 | Fax: 905.713.7361 | Email: [email protected]

Transport Canada

From: Jane Graham To: Sarah Piasetzki Subject: FW: Notice of Study Commencement: Improvements to Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline (NEATS 39637) Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 11:09:13 AM

Agency

Jane Graham, P. Eng. Shoreplan Engineering Limited 416-487-4756 x223

From: Kasia Piskorz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 1:51 PM To: Jane Graham Subject: FW: Notice of Study Commencement: Improvements to Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline (NEATS 39637)

Kasia Piskorz, P.Eng Project Leader - Capital Projects Engineering and Construction Town of Oakville | 905-845-6601 ext.3533 | f: 905-338-4159 | www.oakville.ca

Vision: To be the most livable town in Canada ü Please consider the environment before printing this email. http://www.oakville.ca/privacy.html

Kasia Piskorz Project Leader - Capital Projects Engineering and Construction Town of Oakville | 905-845-6601, ext.3533 | f: 905-338-4159 | www.oakville.ca

Vision: To be the most livable town in Canada Please consider the environment before printing this email. http://www.oakville.ca/privacy.html

From: EnviroOnt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 1:34 PM To: Kasia Piskorz Subject: Notice of Study Commencement: Improvements to Tannery and Waterworks Parks Shoreline (NEATS 39637)

You have reached Transport Canada’s Environmental Assessment program in Ontario.

Please update your distribution list; all future correspondence on this project or any potential project should only be forwarded electronically to Environmental Assessment Coordinator at: [email protected].

Please note that under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, Transport Canada is required to determine the likelihood of significant adverse environmental effects of projects that will occur on federal lands prior to exercising a power, performing a function or duty in relation to that project. To determine if the aforementioned applies, project proponents are encouraged to:

1. Review the Directory of Federal Real Property (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dfrp-rbif/) to determine if the project will potentially interact with any federal property; and

2. Review the list of Acts that Transport Canada administers and assists in administering that may apply to the project, available at: https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulations/acts.htm. In particular, proponents should consider whether the project requires review and approval under the following Acts:

Navigation Protection Act (NPA)

The NPA applies primarily to works constructed or placed in, on, over, under, through, or across scheduled navigable waters set out under the Act. The Navigation Protection Program administers the NPA through the review and authorization of works affecting scheduled navigable waters. Information about the Program, NPA and approval process is available at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs-621.html. Enquiries can be directed to NPPONT- [email protected] or (519) 383-1863.

Railway Safety Act (RSA)

The RSA provides the regulatory framework for railway safety, security, and some of the environmental impacts of railway operations in Canada. The Rail Safety Program develops and enforces regulations, rules, standards and procedures governing safe railway operations. Additional information about the Rail Safety Program is available at: https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/menu.htm. Enquiries can be directed to [email protected] or (613) 998-2985.

Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act (TDGA)

The transportation of dangerous goods by air, marine, rail and road is regulated under the TDGA. Transport Canada, based on risks, develops safety standards and regulations, provides oversight and gives expert advice on dangerous goods to promote public safety. Additional information about the transportation of dangerous goods is available at: https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/tdg/safety-menu.htm. Enquiries can be directed to TDG- [email protected] or (416) 973-1868.

Aeronautics Act

Transport Canada has sole jurisdiction over aeronautics, which includes aerodromes and all related buildings or services used for aviation purposes. Aviation safety in Canada is regulated under this Act and the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs). Elevated Structures, such as wind turbines and communication towers, would be examples of projects that must be assessed for lighting and marking requirements in accordance with the CARs.

Transport Canada also has an interest in projects that have the potential to cause interference between wildlife and aviation activities. One example would be waste facilities, which may attract birds into commercial and recreational flight paths.

Enquires can be directed to [email protected] or 1 (800) 305-2059 / (416) 952-0230.

Please advise if additional information is required.

If none of the aforementioned information applies to the project, please ensure we are removed from the distribution list.

Thank you,

Environmental Assessment Coordinator | Coordinatrice d'évaluation environnementale Transport Canada, Ontario Region | Transports Canada, Région de l'Ontario 4900 Yonge St., Toronto, ON M2N 6A5 | 4900, rue Yonge, Toronto, ON, M2N 6A5 Email | Courriel: [email protected] Facsimile | télécopieur: (416) 952-0514 Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada