transportation environmental study report report (3mb).pdf · transportation environmental study...

Transportation Environmental Study Report

Rehabilitation of the Highway 49 Bay of

Quinte Skyway Bridge

Preliminary / Detail Design and Class

Environmental Assessment

WP 4063-10-01

August 2017

TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY

REPORT

Preliminary Design / Detail Design and Class Environmental

Assessment Study – Rehabilitation of the Highway 49 Bay of

Quinte Skyway Bridge

MTO Project Number: G.P. 4063-10-01

August 2017

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

Mike Bricks, MCIP, RPP

MH Senior Environmental Planner

Joe Ostrowski, P.Eng

MH Consultant Project Manager

Transportation Environmental Study Report Preliminary/Detail Design and Class Environmental Assessment

Bay of Quinte Skyway Bridge W.P. 4063-10-01

THE PUBLIC RECORD

A copy of this document has been sent to the following office of the Ministry of the Environment

and Climate Change for reference purposes:

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Eastern Region Office

Unit 3, 1259 Gardiners Rd

Kingston, ON K7P 3J6

Copies of the TESR are also available for public review at the following locations:

Ministry of Transportation

Eastern Region

1355 John Counter Blvd.

Kingston, ON K7L 5A3

Prince Edward County Municipal

Office

332 Main Street

Picton, ON K0K 2T0

Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte

24 Meadow Drive

Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory, ON

K0K 1X0

Deseronto Municipal Office

331 Main Street

Deseronto, ON K0K 1X0

Picton Public Library

208 Main Street W

Picton, ON K0K 2T0

The study website

http://www.hwy49quinteskyway.ca/

Document hautement spécialisé n’est disponsible qu’en anglais en virtue du réglement 411/97,

qui en exampte l’application de la Loi sur les services en francais. Pour de l’aide en français,

veuillez communiquer avec le ministére des Transports, Bureau des services en français au: 905-

704- 2045 ou 905-704-2046.



Executive Summary

This report documents the Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) study undertaken to

identify a preferred alternative for rehabilitating the Highway 49 Bay of Quinte Skyway Bridge.

Project Overview (Section 1)

The project is located in Prince Edward County, the County of Hastings, and the Tyendinaga

Mohawk Territory. Recent examinations of the structure determined it was in need of

rehabilitation. The purpose of this study was to recommend a preferred alternative to rehabilitate

the bridge. Construction / traffic staging alternatives considered included:

Full closure of both lanes of the bridge.

Partial closure (closure of one lane during construction with single direction traffic).

Single lane closure with bi-directional traffic on the bridge.

A new structure was considered but it was determined that the impacts and costs were not

warranted given that the piers of the current structure are in good condition.

The Environmental Assessment Process (Section 2)

This study followed the approved planning process for a Group “B” project under the MTO Class

EA. Group “B” projects are those which are consist of major improvements to existing facilities,

such as rehabilitating an existing bridge. Upon completion of the Class EA, environmental

clearance can be issued allowing the project to proceed to future stages, such as detail design and

eventually to construction.

Consultation (Section 3)

A consultation plan was developed early in the study to outline the process for consulting with

external agencies (including provincial and federal governments and conservation authorities),

municipalities, First Nations, and the public (including nearby land owners, interest groups, local

businesses, and the general public).

Under MTO’s Class EA, consultation is considered a key component to the success of a project as

it provides an opportunity to achieve the following goals:

Identify public concerns and values.

Identify agency mandates and concerns.

Involve all interested parties in the development of solutions to complex environmental

issues.

Provide information about potential decisions and related effects.

Provide information about the Class EA process and opportunities for formal challenges.



Opportunities were provided throughout the process to interact with the Project Team. These

opportunities included two rounds of Public Information Centres, stakeholder meetings,

newspaper advertisements, brochure distribution, direct mail letters, and a project website

(http://www.hwy49quinteskyway.ca/). Comments were received from a variety of interested

parties including First Nations, municipalities, emergency services, and the general public.

Comments received, and how they were responded to, are provided in the consultation section of

this report.

Existing Conditions (Section 4)

To assist with the evaluation of alternatives, existing conditions were identified for a variety of

factors including terrestrial ecosystems, fish and fish habitat, cultural heritage, land use, traffic,

and utilities. These baseline conditions provided details that allow for an analysis of the potential

impacts or benefits an alternative may have on existing conditions. Information was collected

through desktop reviews of secondary sources and field investigations. The Mohawks of the Bay

of Quinte also participated in the data collection process through the sharing of traditional

knowledge.

Problems and Opportunities (Section 5)

The Highway 49 Bay of Quinte Skyway Bridge was constructed in 1967, and has been rehabilitated

several times since. After a thorough review of the condition of the structure in 2011, the Ministry

determined it was necessary to replace the entire superstructure (deck) and rehabilitate portions of

the substructure. The piers (substructure) were determined to be in good condition and are expected

to last for the remainder of the lifetime of the bridge once rehabilitated.

Generation and Evaluation of Alternatives (Section 6)

The generation of alternatives began during a 2015 feasibility study which examined 45

alternatives grouped into five categories:

1. Full closure (2 lanes) of the bridge with detours.

2. Partial closure (1 lane) during construction with single-lane, single-direction (one-way)

traffic.

3. Partial closure (1 lane) during construction with single lane, bi-directional (two-way)

traffic.

4. Maintain 2 lanes of traffic on the bridge during construction.

5. Full reconstruction (new bridge) on an adjacent new alignment.

Alternatives from categories 4 and 5 were eliminated primarily due to technical and economic

feasibility and environmental effects. A total of five alternatives were carried forward to the

preliminary design and environmental assessment stage. These five alternatives were evaluated

based on the impacts and benefits to the environment (socio-economic, natural, cultural)

transportation operations, constructability and costs. The five alternatives that were evaluated




included a full closure option, northbound lane closure and three alternatives using single-lane bi-

directional traffic staging.

Although Alternative 3c was more expensive to construct, it minimizes impacts and provides

significantly better traffic operations. Therefore, Alternative 3c was preferred overall.

Recommendation of a Preferred Design Alternative (Section 7)

As a result of the assessment and evaluation, Alternative 3c was selected as the technically

preferred alternative. Alternative 3c involves the replacement of the bridge superstructure in

approximately 1/5 length of the bridge at the existing expansion joints locations. Single lane bi-

directional traffic with temporary traffic signals is required for the traffic control during the

construction. Construction will primarily be undertaken with cranes from a barge for

superstructure replacement (see figure below) in an effort to minimize day-to-day traffic

disruptions, and significantly reduce the number of full bridge closures (estimate 100+ fewer

closures required with this approach).

The existing concrete piers are capable of supporting the new superstructure to a maximum width

of 11.55m. This new cross section will accommodate two 3.75 m wide traffic lanes and two 1.5 m

wide side clearances. The new cross section of the bridge is illustrated below in figure below.



Potential Environmental Effects, Proposed Mitigation and Commitments to Future Work

(Section 8)

Upon recommendation of a preferred alternative, the potential environmental effects and proposed

mitigation measures were identified. Throughout all factors (terrestrial ecosystems, fish and fish

habitat, land use, etc.) no significant impacts are expected as a result of the project. Minor impacts

could occur if not prevented through the use of standard mitigation measures which are detailed in

this report.

Approvals and Permits (Section 9)

Several approvals and permits will be required prior to construction, including: Barn Swallow

registration under the Endangered Species Act, Noise by-law exemptions for night work and

submission of a Notice of Works under the Navigation Protection Act. Permits and approvals will

be sought prior to issuance of environmental clearance and construction.

Next Steps (Section 10)

Upon completion of the 30-day public review period and pending no bump-up requests, the project

will be eligible for environmental clearance and to proceed to construction once the detail design

is completed.



1 August 2017

1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 5

1.1 LOCATION AND STUDY AREA .................................................................................. 5

1.2 STUDY PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ........................................................ 5

2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS .............................................................. 7

2.1 CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT .................................................. 7

2.2 ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT .................................................... 7

2.3 PROJECT SPECIFIC CLASS EA PROCESS .............................................................. 7

2.4 PURPOSE OF A TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT ............ 8

3 CONSULTATION ............................................................................................................ 9

3.1 GENERAL PUBLIC ...................................................................................................... 9

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION ....................................................................................... 9

STUDY WEBSITE ...............................................................................................10

PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRES ....................................................................11

3.2 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES .......................................................................................21

3.3 PROVINICIAL / FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS / CONSERVATION AUTHORITY .........21

3.4 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS ....................................................................................21

MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ................................................................22

3.5 CONSULTATION WITH FIRST NATIONS / INDENGIOUS GROUPS ........................24

PROJECT NOTIFICATION ..................................................................................24

SITE VISIT ...........................................................................................................24

MEETINGS ..........................................................................................................24

PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRES ....................................................................25

4 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................26

4.1 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS ..................................................................................26

BEDROCK AND SOILS .......................................................................................26

WETLANDS .........................................................................................................26

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES............................................................................27

RARE VEGETATION ...........................................................................................27

WILDLIFE HABITAT ............................................................................................27

SPECIES AT RISK ..............................................................................................31

DESIGNATED NATURAL AREAS .......................................................................34

Table of Contents



2 August 2017

4.2 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS ..........................................................................................35

4.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................36

GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT ..............................................................................36

LAND USE ...........................................................................................................37

4.4 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................37

ARCHAEOLOGY .................................................................................................37

BUILT HERITAGE ...............................................................................................38

4.5 TRAFFIC ....................................................................................................................38

4.6 UTILITIES ...................................................................................................................38

5 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES .............................................................................39

6 GENERATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ..............................................41

6.1 GENERATION AND EVALUATION OF PLANNING ALTERNATIVES ........................41

6.2 GENERATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ............................................................42

Alternative 1. Full closure (2 lanes) of the bridge .................................................42

Alternative 2. Partial closure (single-lane, single-direction traffic) .........................43

Alternatives 3 a, b, and c – Single-lane, bi-directional (SLBD) traffic ....................43

CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN TO REFINE THE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ..44

6.3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ................................................................................45

6.4 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES .................................46

SUMMARY OF EVLAUATION RESULTS ............................................................47

CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN TO EVALUATION AND FINALIZE

PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE ...............................................................48

7 PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE .........................................................................57

7.1 RECOMMENDATION FOR BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT ............57

7.2 HIGHWAY/BRIDGE ENGINEERING ELEMENTS ......................................................58

HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT ................................................................................58

VERTICAL ALIGNMENT .....................................................................................58

CROSS-SECTION ...............................................................................................58

7.3 FOUNDATIONS ENGINEERING ................................................................................58

7.4 UTILITIES ...................................................................................................................58

7.5 ILLUMINATION ...........................................................................................................59

7.6 PROPERTY ................................................................................................................59



3 August 2017

7.7 ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION YEAR ..........................................................................60

7.8 CONSTRUCTION STAGING AND BARGE ACCESS .................................................60

8 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, PROPOSED MITIGATION AND

COMMITMENTS TO FUTURE WORK ..................................................................................61

8.1 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS ..................................................................................61

8.2 SPECIES AT RISK .....................................................................................................61

8.3 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS ..........................................................................................62

MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................................................................63

FISHING RIGHTS ................................................................................................66

8.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC & CULTURAL ............................................................................67

LAND USE ...........................................................................................................67

ARCHAEOLOGY .................................................................................................67

BUILT HERITAGE ...............................................................................................68

NOISE .................................................................................................................68

NAVIGABILITY UNDER THE STRUCTURE ........................................................68

EMERGENCY SERVICES ...................................................................................69

FULL CLOSURES ...............................................................................................69

TRAFFIC IMPACTS .............................................................................................69

PROPERTY .........................................................................................................69

8.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION, AND COMMITMENTS TO

FUTURE WORK ............................................................................................................70

9 APPROVALS AND PERMITS ........................................................................................75

9.1 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) ........................................................................75

9.2 MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT (MBCA) ....................................................75

9.3 NAVIGATION PROTECTION ACT .............................................................................75

9.4 NOISE BYLAW ...........................................................................................................75

10 NEXT STEPS .................................................................................................................76



4 August 2017

Appendices

APPENDIX A: Notification Material and Agency Correspondence Summary

APPENDIX B: PIC Summary Reports

APPENDIX C: Meeting Minutes and Presentations

List of Figures

Figure 1: Study area map ........................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2: Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Communities ....................................................28

Figure 3: Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Communities ....................................................29

Figure 4: Deterioration to the superstructure .............................................................................39

Figure 5: Feasibility and Current Study Alternatives Screening .................................................41

Figure 6: Impact Assessment/Evaluation Flowchart ..................................................................47

Figure 7: Construction staging using cranes on barges .............................................................57

Figure 8: Proposed Cross Section.............................................................................................59

Figure 9: Proposed area for temporary property acquisition ......................................................60

List of Tables

Table 1: Comments Received During PIC 1 ..............................................................................13

Table 2: Comments Received During PIC 2 ..............................................................................19

Table 3: Assessment of Environmental Factors for Alternatives 3 a, b, c ..................................49

Table 4: Evaluation of Alternatives 3 a, b, c ..............................................................................51

Table 5: Assessment of Environmental Factors for Alternatives 1, 2, 3c ...................................53

Table 6: Evaluation of Alternatives 1, 2, 3c ...............................................................................55



5 August 2017

1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

1.1 LOCATION AND STUDY AREA

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) retained Morrison Hershfield Limited to conduct a

Preliminary/Detail Design and Class Environmental Assessment Study for the Highway 49 Bay

of Quinte Skyway Bridge Rehabilitation. The project is located in Prince Edward County, the

County of Hastings, and the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. The purpose of the study was to

recommend a preferred alternative for rehabilitating the Highway 49 Quinte Skyway Bridge.

The study area, as shown in Figure 1, covers lands within Prince Edward County, the County of

Hastings, and the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory.

1.2 STUDY PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

The purpose of this study was to recommend a preferred alternative to rehabilitate the Highway

49 Quinte Skyway Bridge. An inspection of the structure revealed deficiencies such as: substantial

deterioration to the bridge deck, steel girders and, to a lesser extent, deterioration of the piers. After

thorough review of the condition of the structure, the Ministry determined it was prudent to replace

the entire superstructure. The piers (substructure) were determined to need only minor

rehabilitation. Construction/ traffic staging alternatives considered included:

Full closure of both lanes of the bridge.

Partial closure (closure of one lane during construction with single direction traffic).

Single lane closure with bi-directional traffic on the bridge.

Figure 1: Study area map



6 August 2017

A new structure was considered but it was determined that the impacts and costs were not

warranted given that the piers of the current structure are in good condition. The results of this are

further discussed in Section 6.



7 August 2017

2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

2.1 CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT

Under the “Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012” (CEAA) only certain designated

projects, as listed in the Regulations Designating Physical Activities, require a federal

environmental assessment. The rehabilitation work of the Quinte Skyway Bridge is not a regulated

activity, therefore, CEAA was not triggered.

Non-designated projects may still require review under Section 67 of the Act if the project is on

federal lands. A Section 67 review was not required for this project.

2.2 ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT

The “Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities” (the MTO Class

EA) is an approved planning process that MTO must follow to satisfy the requirements of the

Ontario “Environmental Assessment Act” (EAA). This process ensures that the intent of the EAA

is met by requiring that project alternatives be assessed, environmental concerns be identified,

mitigation and protection measures be considered, and that the public, government agencies, First

Nations and interest groups be given an opportunity to comment throughout the project. Subject

to the approved process being followed, no further approval is required under the EAA.

2.3 PROJECT SPECIFIC CLASS EA PROCESS

The MTO Class EA is an approved planning document that defines groups of studies and activities,

and the EA process that the proponent commits to following for each of these undertakings. Study

groupings within the MTO Class EA were established for the purposes of consultation,

documentation and formal EA challenge (bump-up or Part II order request).

Under the MTO Class EA, this study followed the approved planning process for a Group “B”

project. Group “B” projects are those which consist of major improvements to existing facilities,

such as rehabilitating an existing bridge.

The Class EA process includes several key components which are documented within this report,

including:

Consultation (Section 3).

Identification of Problems & Opportunities (Section 5).

Planning Alternatives (Section 6.1).

Design Alternatives (Section 6.4).



8 August 2017

2.4 PURPOSE OF A TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY

REPORT

This Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR) documents the planning process

followed to fulfill the requirements of the MTO Class EA. It contains pertinent information

regarding the following:

Study objectives.

Existing conditions of the study area.

Generation and evaluation of alternatives.

Consultation.

Changes to design alternatives as a result of consultation.

Potential impacts and mitigation measures.

The recommended plan.



9 August 2017

3 CONSULTATION

One of the intentions of the EA Act is to ensure that, from the earliest stages of planning, decisions

are made after careful consideration of environmental benefits and impacts and that stakeholder

input is considered in the decision-making process. Consultation with interested and/or affected

parties is an essential part of this planning process and provides a mechanism for the proponent to

identify and respond to issues before decisions are made and documentation is filed with the

Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC).

The purpose of consultation activities conducted during this study was to present and address

issues and concerns pertaining to the range and types of alternatives considered, obtain input to

assist in the impact assessment and evaluation process, and to seek input in the development of

mitigation measures and EA process commitments. Consultation activities included providing

opportunities for interested parties to comment. Such parties included: the general public,

government agencies, municipal governments and First Nations. The following sections outline

the consultation undertaken to engage these parties.

3.1 GENERAL PUBLIC

The public has a major role and responsibility in determining the success of a public consultation

program. The extent to which the public participates, the issues they raise and how such issues are

resolved all influence the effectiveness of the consultation process. Consequently, nearby residents

were an important component to the consultation process. The following summarizes opportunity

for involvements. Sections of this report outline the consultation activities undertaken at each stage

and how comments were addressed. These sections include Section 6.2.4 and Section 6.4.2.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

3.1.1.1 Notice of Study Commencement and Public Information Centre #1

A Notice of Study Commencement and Public Information Centre #1 was published in the

Belleville Intelligencer, Picton County Weekly, and Picton Gazette on August 4th, 2016. Letters to

appropriate agencies, First Nations, municipalities, emergency services, and interest groups were

distributed by email and mail during the week of August 1st, 2016. As well approximately 700

brochures were distributed using the Canada Post Admail service to distribute to targeted postal

codes covering portions of Prince Edward County.

A separate notice was published in the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte monthly newsletter to

advertise the PIC held at the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte community centre.

Copies of the notification materials are provided in Appendix A.



10 August 2017

3.1.1.2 Notice of Public Information Centre #2

A Notice of Public Information Centre #2 was published in the Belleville Intelligencer, Picton

County Weekly, and Picton Gazette on March 30th, 2017. Letters to appropriate agencies, First

Nations, municipalities, emergency services, interest groups and individuals who requested to be

added to the project mailing list were distributed by mail during the week of March 27th, 2017. As

well approximately 700 brochures were distributed using the Canada Post Admail service to

distribute to targeted postal codes covering portions of Prince Edward County.




3.1.1.3 Notice of Transportation Environmental Study Report Submission

A Notice of Transportation Environmental Study Report Submission was published in the

Belleville Intelligencer, Picton County Weekly, and Picton Gazette on August 10, 2017. Letters to

appropriate agencies, First Nations, municipalities, emergency services, interest groups and

individuals who requested to be added to the project mailing list were distributed by mail during

the week of August 7, 2017. As well approximately 700 brochures were distributed using the

Canada Post Admail service to distribute to targeted postal codes covering portions of Prince

Edward County.




STUDY WEBSITE

A study website (http://www.hwy49quinteskyway.ca/) was set up to provide information to

interested parties and to provide a means to directly contact the Project Team via email at any time

during the study.

The website hosted all pertinent study information such as notices, displays from public meetings,

final reports, CAG meeting minutes, etc. The website also included a “Contact Us” feature to allow

the public to submit comments and questions.

Between the launch on June 6th, 2016 and the end of July, 2017 the website received a total of

3,900 visits from unique IP addresses. The “Contact Us” feature was used by 15 people to submit

comments and questions or request addition to the mailing list.




11 August 2017

The contents of the website included:

Study Overview.

Class EA Process.

Schedule.

Consultation.

Photo Gallery.

Links to related websites.

Contact Us.

FAQs.

In addition to the content, a variety of documents were also placed on the website which included:

Notice of Study Commencement and Public Information Centre #1.

Brochure 1: Study Commencement and Public Information Centre #1.

Public Information Centre #1 Display Material.

Notice of Public Information Centre #2.

Brochure 2: Public Information Centre #2.

Public Information Centre #2 Display Material.

Notice of TESR Review Period.

Brochure 3: Notice of TESR Review Period.

Transportation Environmental Study Report.

PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRES (PIC)

3.1.3.1 PIC #1

The first round of PICs was held as follows:

Picton August 17th, 2016

5:00-8:00 p.m. Prince Edward County Community

Centre 375 Main Street

Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory August 18th, 2016

5:00-8:00 p.m. Mohawk Community Centre

Upstairs Room 1807 York Road

The purpose of the first round of PICs was to present:

An overview of environmental conditions and constraints.

Study background (including an overview of previous work done to date) and

problem statement for the study.

Coarse screening of the 45 alternatives from the feasibility study.

Alternatives to be considered.



12 August 2017

Proposed process to evaluate and select preferred alternative, including evaluation

criteria.

Opportunity for public to review, discuss and provide input on the study with

members of the Project Team.

Prior to the PIC the following measures were carried out to disseminate the details of the PIC to

study area residents, agencies, municipalities, and other interested members of the public.

An Ontario Government Notice (Notice of Study Commencement and Public

Information Centre #1) was placed in the following newspapers on August 4th, 2016:

Picton County Weekly News.

The Picton Gazette.

Belleville Intelligencer.

Letters were mailed or emailed to individuals on the Study’s mailing list, including

agencies, municipalities, First Nations, interests groups and members of the public.

Letters were mailed on August 2, 2016 and emails sent on August 4th, 2016.

Approximately 700 brochures were delivered via Canada Post’s unaddressed admail

service to postal routes on the south side of the structure.

Over 100 brochures were distributed by MTO Project Manager Glenn Higgins to area

residents on the south side of the structure within Prince Edward County.

A notice for the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory PIC was published in August in the

Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte monthly community newsletter. It was also posted on

their website.

A copy of the notice, letter, email, and brochure are included in Appendix A.

The Picton session was held at the Prince Edward County Community Centre from 5:00 p.m. –

8:00 p.m. Agencies and Municipal officials were invited to attend at 4:30 p.m.

A total of 70 people signed the sign-in sheet and 35 comment sheets were placed in the comment

box. Two media outlets attended (Quinte News and InQuinte) and interviewed the MTO Project

Manager (Glenn Higgins).

The Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory session was held at the Mohawk Community Centre from

5:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Chief, Councillors, and staff were invited

to attend at 4:30 p.m. Two Councillors and the CAO attended during this time. Chief Maracle and

several staff also attended during the public session.


box. No media attended.

Table 1 summarizes the comments provided on the comment sheets, along with the Project Team’s

resolution. Refer to Appendix B for the PIC #1 Summary Report.



13 August 2017

Table 1: Comments Received During PIC 1

Major Topics of

Comments

Frequency of

Comment Sample of Comments Received Resolution

Do Not Support Full

Closure

25 comments Totally against complete shutdown of the bridge.

Absolutely no closing both lanes.

Do not close the bridge.

Full closure is not a viable solution.

Should the bridge be closed completely, gas and shopping

will be a major inconvenience as access to Tyendinaga will

be cut off.

Important to keep at least a shared lane open at all times.

A total closure will negatively affect my family.

The impact of full closure was considered during

the evaluation of the alternatives and factored into

the socioeconomic impacts. This alternative was

not recommended.

Alternative

Preference

13 comments

supported a

combination of

Alternatives 3 A,

B, and/or C.

Agree with 3B.

3A is the lesser of three evils.

3B is the best choice.

3A or 3B make the most sense given the detour distance

avoided.

3A looks the best given the lowest cost and similar closure

times to others. A $5 million difference is a lot for a

marginally longer wait time.

Supports alternatives which allow for 1-way traffic.

Supports design alternative 3A. The cost savings over other

alternatives is substantial.

Support noted.

Commuter Impacts 12 comments Commute every day to Napanee.

Prince Edward County citizens need the bridge to get to

work every day.

Closure will be a hardship to commuters who use the bridge

daily.

Drive from Picton to Napanee daily for work. Google maps

indicates an additional 60 minutes each way if forced

through Belleville.

The impact to commuting time was considered

during the evaluation of the alternatives and

factored into the socioeconomic impacts.



14 August 2017

Major Topics of

Comments

Frequency of


Economic Impacts 12 comments Fuel consumption would increase impacting personal

finance.

Business who rely on the bridge for delivery of goods will

be impacted.

Business owners in Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory will be

impacted by a decrease in traffic caused by full closure.

Business may no longer be viable if the bridge is closed.

Alternatives 1 & 2 are not plausible for local business

owners.

Full closure would not allow for the convenience of

shopping in Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory.

Increased fuel costs of the Belleville detour.

How are you assessing socio-economic impact for residents

& businesses?

As part of the assessment business impacts were

considered by looking at how the alternatives

could change traffic volumes, traffic patterns and

cause delays during construction. If no significant

changes to volumes and patterns are anticipated

there will likely be low impacts to local

businesses.

MTO has a process for dealing with business loss,

which includes consultation with potentially

affected owners prior to, during and after

construction. MTO Property staff and consultant

business valuators will work with local businesses

to mitigate potential losses prior to construction

and address claims if they arise. MTO is

proactively engaging outside expertise to

determine potential business loss before

construction begins. All business loss claims will

be evaluated on a case by case basis. If it is

determined that there is a valid claim for business

loss, MTO will assign the claim to the consulting

business evaluator.

Access to Medical

Centres (i.e.

hospitals/doctors)

9 comments Emergency services (i.e. ambulances) must have access

over the bridge during construction.

Impact to emergency access would be very significant

during full closure.

Doctors are in Belleville/Deseronto. Worried about how

emergency services will access Kingston General Hospital.

Emergency services will require Alternatives 3A-C.

Impacts to Emergency Services were included as

an evaluation criteria. Additionally, Hastings

County EMS participated in the March 20th, 2017

MAC meeting and the Project Team discussed the

potential impacts and mitigation to decrease the

impacts. Mitigation measures will be included in

the contract package requiring notice of closures

to emergency services and municipalities



15 August 2017

Major Topics of

Comments

Frequency of


Concerned about access to medical services in Belleville

and Kingston.

Tourism Impacts 4 comments Tourist may avoid the County all together if delays are

caused by Alternatives 3A-C.

If access to the County is limited the County will lose a

significant number of tourism visitors.

Alternatives 1 and 2 will have detrimental impact to

tourism.

As part of the assessment tourism impacts were

examined by looking at how the alternatives could

change traffic volumes, traffic patterns and cause

delays during construction. Given that no

significant changes to volumes and patterns are

anticipated there will likely be low impacts to

tourism.

Intersection

(Highway 49 /

Airport Road)

3 comments Trucks drive too fast down the bridge, traffic lights at the

north base of the bridge.

Concern with traffic congestion that would be created at

Highway 49/Airport Road. People may try to bypass if a

queue is created to turn onto these Airport Road.

Traffic lights will need to be installed at Airport

Road/Highway 49.

Comments noted.

Tolls 3 comments Toll the bridge/road.

How about a toll road?

Adding a toll is something that should be considered to

offset the costs.

Tolling was not considered as part of the project.

New Bridge on

adjacent alignment

4 comments Preference would to build a bridge next to the existing

bridge to build for future capacity.

Strongly urge that a new bridge be built adjacent to the

existing bridge.

Do a completely new bridge.

A new bridge was considered but screened out

primarily due to cost, property requirements and

environmental impacts. This alternative would

have cost approximately twice as much as

rehabilitation options and would have also

resulted in higher environmental and property

impacts. Given that the existing bridge piers are

still in good condition, and do not require

replacement, the additional costs and impacts of a

new bridge were not considered reasonable.

Additionally, over the remaining lifetime of the



16 August 2017

Major Topics of

Comments

Frequency of


structure the forecasted traffic growth will not

warrant any additional lanes.

Other Comments/

Suggestions

Project needs to be completed on time and on budget.

A ferry services should be another alternative.

The possibility of only 1 lane during the winter is not

significant given the lower traffic volumes.

Like the idea of two lanes open during the winter.

Another alternative would be to provide timeframes for

directional traffic. North-bound for 2 hours, then switch to

south-bound for 2 hours.

Smart engineering could improve time, prefabricate as

much as possible.

If signals are used intelligent traffic monitoring should be

built in and should be demand based not time based.

If an overpass can be replaced in a weekend, could each

span be replaced in a weekend?

New bridge should be built on adjacent alignment.

Delays estimates may not be accurate. Likely need to

consider timing for northbound/southbound based on which

direction people are heading (i.e. north in the morning and

south in the evening).

Bridge is too tall, profile should be lowered as lake ships no

longer pass under it.

The Glenora ferry should run 24/7 with both ferries

operating during peak volume times to alleviate bridge

traffic.

The $5M difference between 3b and 3c is significant given

the difference in wait time is minimal.

A tunnel should be considered.

Comments noted.



17 August 2017

Major Topics of

Comments

Frequency of


Perhaps installing signage on the 401 indicating local traffic

only would discourage tourist traffic.

Consideration should be given to rerouting commercial

traffic during construction.

Concerned that people will not abide by the traffic signals

as this has been observed during previous repairs.



18 August 2017

3.1.3.2 PIC #2

The second round of PICs was held as follows:

Picton April 11, 2017 5:00-8:00 p.m.

Prince Edward County Community Centre

375 Main Street

Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory April 12, 2017 5:00-8:00 p.m.

Mohawk Community Centre Upstairs Room 1807 York Road

The purpose of the second round of PICs was to present:

An overview of environmental conditions and constraints.

Study background (including an overview of previous work done to date) and problem

statement for the study.

Background of the study and the study process.

Results of the first Public Information Centres

Evaluation of alternatives and the preferred alternative.

Prior to the PIC the following measures were carried out to disseminate the details of the PIC to

study area residents, agencies, municipalities, and other interested members of the public.

An Ontario Government Notice (Notice of Public Information Centre #2) was placed

in the following newspapers on March 30, 2017:

Picton County Weekly News.

The Picton Gazette.

Belleville Intelligencer.

Letters were mailed or emailed to individuals on the Study’s mailing list, including

agencies, municipalities, First Nations, interests groups and members of the public.

Letters were mailed on March 27, 2017.

Approximately 700 brochures were delivered via Canada Post’s unaddressed admail

service to postal routes on the south side of the structure.

A notice for the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory PIC was published in April in the

Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte monthly community newsletter. It was also posted on

their website.

Copies of the Ontario Government Notice, MBQ newsletter notice, letters, emails, and brochures

are included in Appendix A.

The Picton session was held at the Prince Edward County Community Centre from 5:00 p.m. –

8:00 p.m. Agencies and Municipal officials were invited to attend at 4:30 p.m.



19 August 2017


box. Two councillors from Prince Edward County attended and one staff member from the City

of Belleville. One media outlet attended (Quinte News) and interviewed Glenn Higgins, MTO

Project Manager. The morning following the Picton PIC, Glenn Higgins was called and

interviewed by another media outlet (CBJQ-Belleville).

The Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory session was held at the Mohawk Community Centre from

5:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Chief, Councillors, and staff were invited

to attend at 4:30 p.m. Chief Maracle, a councillor and several staff also attended during the public

session.

A total of 32 people signed the sign-in sheet but no comment sheets were placed in the comment

box. No media attended.

Table 2 summarized the comments provided on the comment sheets, along with the Project Team’s

resolution. Refer to Appendix B for the PIC #2 Summary Report.

Table 2: Comments Received During PIC 2

Comment Resolution

Commute from Prince Edward County to

Belleville and Napanee for work. Do not want a

complete closure of the bridge as this would be

costly and inconvenient for commuting to

Napanee. Supportive of any of the Alternative 3

options and can plan accordingly for additional

wait times during construction.

Inconvenience to commuters was considered

during the evaluation of the alternatives and

factored into the socioeconomic impacts. Full

closure was not recommended.

Would prefer short-term, more disruptive

construction rather than a 5-year construction

period. But do not support full closure with a

Belleville detour. Lives next to the bridge and

have to turn left from County Road 49 onto

County Road 15 when travelling from Picton.

Currently there is no left turn lane which will

require them to wait in the stopped bridge traffic

until they reach the intersection and all traffic

behind will have to wait until southbound is clear

and they can turn onto County Road 15.

It is recognized that the preferred alternative

does have the longest construction duration

however the impacts on traffic and the travelling

public is anticipated to be relatively minor.

During construction, traffic is not anticipated to

divert significantly as the potential delay would

likely be less than the out-of-way travel time and

traffic is not expected to queue into the County

Road 49/County Road 15 intersection. If traffic

is not queued into the intersection, vehicles

turning northbound from County Road 15 will

not be impacted nor will be northbound County

Road 49 traffic making left turns onto County

Road 15. Additionally, traffic queuing will be



20 August 2017

Comment Resolution

monitored throughout construction to ensure

efficient operations at all intersections and within

the construction zone, and adjustments made

where possible.

Supportive of Alternative 3c and the 1/5

construction over 5 years.

Support noted.

Wondering why a new bridge is not being

considered.

A new bridge was considered but screened out

primarily due to cost, property requirements and

environmental impacts. This alternative would

have cost approximately twice as much as

rehabilitation options and would have also

resulted in higher environmental and property

impacts. Given that the existing bridge piers are

still in good condition, and do not require

replacement, the additional costs and impacts of

a new bridge were not considered reasonable.

Pedestrian/Cyclist safety is a concern given the

close proximity to live lanes of traffic which

carry heavy vehicles and tandem transports.

Would like a pedestrian/cyclist path to be

attached to the side of the bridge so that they are

protected.

The technically preferred alternative does not

include dedicated pedestrian or cyclist facilities

as there are no warrants. Specifically, there are

no pedestrian or cyclist facilities (i.e. sidewalks

or bike paths) leading to the bridge. Municipal

and provincial documents were reviewed and

none identify the corridor as a current or future

cycling route nor does the bridge hold a formal

trail designation. Requests were made to both

MBQ and Prince Edward County for information

regarding pedestrian/cyclist use of the bridge,

neither were able to supply any data which

supported the need for such a walkway.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe a

separated walkway is warranted on this bridge.

Bridge sway is already a concern at the top of the

bridge and will increase with the addition of the

new seismic systems.

All structures move or deflect under load. The

bridge design must and will satisfy all the latest

Bridge Code requirements, including strength

(the ability to withstand all design load

combinations) and serviceability (which includes

deflections). While the movements may be

pronounced on a high, long span structure, they

are well within safe limits.

Requested addition to the mailing list. Added.



21 August 2017

3.2 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Consultation with government agencies involve reviewing, commenting and providing input to the

study, the technical analysis and the ongoing comment/input to the consultation process. Liaising

with representatives of provincial ministries and agencies assist the Project Team in obtaining

information on study area features, and allow for the exchange of pertinent study information.

3.3 PROVINICIAL / FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS / CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Provincial and Federal governments agencies as well as the local Conservation Authority (Quinte

Conservation) were contacted throughout all stages of the study and invited to attend pre-PIC

meetings. No issues/concerns were identified by government agencies or Quinte Conservation.

3.4 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS

Municipal elected officials and staff were sent project notifications via direct mail letters or emails.

In addition, presentations were made to municipal councils upon request. Presentations included:

Prince Edward County – July 26, 2016.

Prince Edward County – March 30, 2017.

No major issues or concerns were raised by Prince Edward County at either meeting. Questions

and comments received from council during these meetings and the resolution to these issues are

included in the table below. In addition to the comments received, a resolution from Council was

forward to the Study Team on November 11, 2016 indicating Council’s request that the Ministry

reconsider the full replacement of the structure on a different alignment to avoid any closures.

Table 3: Comments Received from Prince Edward County

Comment Resolution

Detour notices on the 401

for closures will deter

people from coming into

the County.

Detour notices on Highway 401 would only be for the few over-night closures that

will occur periodically throughout construction. There would not be a detour any other

times.

Is the information being

communicated with the

Chief and Council of the

Mohawks of the Bay of

Quinte?

A separate meeting was held with Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte staff in advance of

PIC #1. Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte staff attended the MAC 2 meeting with

municipal staff and an identical presentation was given to Chief Maracle and Council

on March 27, 2017.

Parks Canada’s Brighton

Swing Bridge/ Norris

According to media reports, Parks Canada’s Brighton Swing bridge is due to be

closed during replacement of the bridge for roughly 30 weeks beginning in fall 2017.

This is a Parks Canada project and MTO is not involved, however, we are maintaining



22 August 2017

Comment Resolution

Whitney Bridge and

construction timing.

contact with the agency. During the summer of 2017, minor rehabilitation of the

Norris Whitney Bridge in Belleville will be undertaken. The rehab work will be

completed at night and will involve some full closures. A construction contract for

work at the Norris Whitney Bridge is schedule to be completed prior to the

superstructure removal and replacement at Quinte Skyway. Advance work will be

carried out in year 1 to expedite the replacement. Some single lane closures will be

required in year 1, but they will not be for lengthy durations.

Can the Glenora ferry

provide additional detour

capacity to lessen delays

on the bridge?

MTO will continue to review alternatives to alleviate traffic though it should be noted

that the Glenora ferry only has a 21-car capacity and runs on a 15 or 30 minute service

depending on the season. It also has a load restriction. Given the schedule and load

restriction it is not a viable detour for the majority of traffic.

Impacts to EMS. Impacts to Emergency Services were included as an evaluation criteria. Additionally,

Hastings County EMS participated in the March 20th, 2017 MAC meeting and the

Project Team discussed the potential impacts and mitigation to decrease the impacts.

Mitigation measures will be included in the contract package requiring notice of

closures to emergency services and municipalities.

Consideration of the full

replacement option.

A new bridge was considered but screened out primarily due to cost, property

requirements and environmental impacts. This alternative would have cost

approximately twice as much as rehabilitation options and would have also resulted in

higher environmental and property impacts. Given that the existing bridge piers are

still in good condition, and do not require replacement, the additional costs and

impacts of a new bridge were not considered reasonable.

Refer to Appendix A for copies of letters sent to municipal staff and council and a summary of

correspondence, and Appendix C for copies of the presentations and meeting minutes.

MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

A Municipal Advisory Committee (MAC) was established and included membership from the

Project Team, Prince Edward County, City of Belleville, Town of Deseronto and the County of

Hastings. The purpose of the MAC was to provide municipal technical staff an opportunity to

provide comment and local technical information to the Project Team.

3.4.1.1 MAC MEETING #1

On June 14, 2016 the first meeting between the Project Team and the MAC was held. Only staff

from Prince Edward County attended. A brief presentation was given by the Project Team followed

by a question and answer period. Meeting minutes are provided in Appendix C. Questions and

comments from MAC participants included:



23 August 2017

Table 4: Comments Received at MAC #1

Comment Resolution






Study/Construction timing Detail Design work is to be completed in 2017 with commencement of construction

anticipated in 2018.

Meetings with Prince

Edward County Council

Meetings with council can be held at the request of County staff or Council. [A

subsequent council meeting was attended by the Project Team on July 26, 2016 as

discussed in Section 3.4.]

3.4.1.2 MAC MEETING #2

On March 20, 2017 the second meeting with the MAC was held in Picton. Municipal staff from

the City of Belleville and Prince Edward County attended along with staff from Mohawks of the

Bay of Quinte. A presentation was given by the Project Team and followed with a question and

answer period. Meeting minutes are provided in Appendix C. Questions and comments from

MAC participants included:

Table 5: Comments Received at MAC #2

Comment Resolution






New bridge cross-section

(additional lanes, bike

lanes).

From below and the surrounding area the bridge will look the same, the profile will

not change. The cross section will change slightly to provide a 3.75 m driving lane in

each direction and a 1.5m shoulder on each side. Additional traffic lanes are not

warranted, nor are the needed for the foreseeable future. With regards to cyclist or

pedestrian use, municipal data has been requested but is not available, however there

are no existing or planned pedestrian and cycling facilities north or south of the bridge

and it is not identified as an active transportation corridor in any municipal or

provincial planning documents. As such, cycling or pedestrian facilities will be

accommodated with a 1.5m shoulder on each side and MTO is providing an even

taller barrier wall.

Traffic signalling options. All options are being considered and traffic operations will be reviewed during

construction and changed as required.



24 August 2017

Comment Resolution

Construction timing with

the Norris Whitney

Bridge.

These are the two main ways into the County and both bridges will not be under

construction at the same time. Some work will occur on the Norris Whitney Bridge in

2017 to hold the structure until after the Quinte Skyway rehabilitation is completed.

3.5 CONSULTATION WITH FIRST NATIONS / INDENGIOUS GROUPS

Consultation with First Nations and Metis Communities was undertaken in accordance with the

Ministry of Transportation’s “Consultation with Aboriginal Peoples – Interim Directive.”

The northern terminus of the Bay of Quinte Skyway sits within the territory of the Mohawks of

the Bay of Quinte (MBQ). Extensive involvement and engagement with the Council and staff of

MBQ occurred throughout the study. Activities with MBQ are outlined below and include notices,

site visits, meetings, and PICs.

PROJECT NOTIFICATION

All project notifications were sent to the Chief of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. Additionally,

those on the project study list who live in the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory also received project

notices.

SITE VISIT

A site visit was held with the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte’s Environmental Services Officer

and Morrison Hershfield’s Lead Ecologist on August 30, 2016. The purpose of this site visit was

to engage with MBQ to discuss community impacts and obtain information on local and traditional

knowledge.

MEETINGS

Meetings with MBQ staff were held on May 24, 2016 and December 8, 2016. The purpose of the

May 24th meeting was to introduce the study, present the design alternatives and answer any

questions. The December 8th meeting was held to provide an update on the project and was part of

larger discussions between MTO and MBQ on infrastructure improvements within the Territory.

MBQ staff also attended the March 20th, 2017 meeting of the Municipal Advisory Committee.

Details on the MAC meetings can be found in Section 3.4.1.2.

A presentation to Chief Maracle and MBQ Council was given during the March 27, 2017 Council

meeting. The presentation outlined the evaluation and selection of the preferred alternative and

information to be presented at Public Information Centre #2. A copy of the presentation can be



25 August 2017

found in Appendix C. Questions and comments raised during the meeting and the resolution

included:

Table 6: Comments Received from MBQ

Comment Resolution





closures to emergency services.

Required night work. The specifics of construction will be determined during Detail Design and based on

the proposed methodology by the Contractor.

Additional traffic signals

for Airport Road at

Highway 49.

MTO is reviewing the need for traffic signals at this intersection.

Business economic losses

during construction.

The assessment of the alternatives included an evaluation of the impacts to traffic

volumes (which could cause business losses) that each alternative would have.

Alternatives that had less impact on traffic volumes were determined to be preferable

to those with high impacts. MTO is also proactively engaging outside expertise to

determine potential business loss before construction begins. All business loss claims

will be evaluated on a case by case basis. If it is determined that there is a valid claim

for business loss, MTO will assign the claim to the consulting business evaluator.

Construction staging

areas.

MTO is reviewing several potential sites that may be used for staging areas and to

support any barge construction activities, if required.

Fishing rights and vessel

access under the structure

during construction.

Some restrictions will occur each year around the active work-zone. At no point

during construction will the entire width of the Bay of Quinte be obstructed, and

fishing/passage under the structure will be permitted outside of the active work zone.

PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRES

A Public Information Centre (PIC) was held at the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory Community

Centre during each round of PICs. These sessions were not broadly advertised to the general public

off the Territory and were intended for MBQ residents, staff and Council. Notification of this PIC

was included in the monthly MBQ newsletter for August 2016 and April 2017. Copies of the ads

placed in the newsletters can be found in Appendix A.

During PIC 1 roughly 20 people attended including Chief Maracle, some councillors, MBQ staff

and area residents. Comments received during the PIC are outlined in Section 3.1.3.1.

During PIC 2 roughly 30 people attended including Chief Maracle, some councillors, MBQ staff

and area residents. Comments received during the PIC are outlined in Section 3.1.3.2.



26 August 2017

4 EXISTING CONDITIONS

4.1 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS

Background information regarding the study area was collected and synthesized from a variety of

information sources including: Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), and Quinte Conservation Authority, among others.

Field studies were conducted during an appropriate season and were consistent with methodologies

outlined in the Environmental Reference for Highway Design. Field surveys were completed on

July 11, 2011, June 18, 2012, August 30, 2016, and June 20, 2017.

In addition to background information and field surveys, the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte were

consulted in order to obtain traditional knowledge on the ecological function and traditional values

provided by the study area. Traditional knowledge is discussed throughout the following sections

as it pertains to the appropriate environmental features.

BEDROCK AND SOILS

The soils found at the Bay of Quinte Skyway consist primarily of Otonabee loam, found in the

Tyendinaga Township (Hastings County) and Farmington loam, found in Prince Edward County.

Otonabee soils are well drained and consist of a loam textured glacial till containing a moderate

amount of stones. It is calcareous since it is derived principally from limestone and shows

characteristics of both the Brown Forest Great Soil Group and the Grey-Brown Podzolic soils.

Farmington loam occurs on limestone bedrock and as broad level tablelands, broken by the

occasional escarpment and rock ledge. They are shallow soils, derived from a thin layer of drift

and some limestone weather in situ. In general, there are no significant geotechnical issues that

could impact bridge rehabilitation.

WETLANDS

Data on existing evaluated wetland communities (provincial and local significance) and

unevaluated wetlands were obtained from the MNRF, Land Information Ontario (LIO) and NHIC,

and were confirmed during field investigations.

There are three small pockets of unevaluated wetlands within the study area: a small portion of a

Shallow Marsh and two small portions of Mixed Swamp.

There is one Provincially Significant Wetland adjacent to the study area: Airport Creek Marsh

Provincially Significant Wetland. This 32-hectare wetland complex contains 35% swamp and 65%

marsh. It provides significant wildlife habitat features by providing colonial nesting bird habitat,



27 August 2017

waterfowl breeding and staging habitat, migratory passerine/shorebird/raptor stopover area, fish

spawning and nursery habitat and fish migration and staging habitat.

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

The terrestrial vegetation communities surrounding the project area were identified and mapped,

according to the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario, as illustrated in

Figure 2 and Figure 3. The study area contains five vegetation communities: Cultural Woodland,

Cultural Meadow, Mixed Forest, Mixed Swamp and Shallow Marsh.

RARE VEGETATION

The Natural Heritage Information Centre has historical records for ten species of rare vegetation

within 1km of the study area: Juniper Hairstreak (Callophrys gryneus), Side-oats Grama

(Bouteloua curtipendula), Field Sedge (Carex conoidea), Eastern Few-fruited Sedge (Carex

oligocarpa), White-haried Panicgrass (Dichanthelium ovale ssp. praecocius), Green Arrow-arum

(Peltandra virginica), Prairie Dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis), Ogden’s Pondweed

(Potamogeton ogdenii) and Lieberg’s Panicgrass (Dichanthelium leibergii).

No rare vegetation was identified during field investigations.

WILDLIFE HABITAT

Data on wildlife habitat was obtained from the MNRF Peterborough District Office, LIO and

NHIC. Wildlife habitat and observations were based on visual confirmation, auditory confirmation

or by way of indicators during field investigations.

4.1.5.1 BIRDS

MNRF has records of six Species at Risk bird species: Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), Bobolink

(Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna), Black Tern (Chlidonias niger),

Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) and Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica).

The Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (2005) has records of five Species at Risk birds within 10km of

the study area: Least Bittern, Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia), Barn Swallow, Bobolink, and

Eastern Meadowlark.

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte are aware of several bird species within the study area,

including two Species at Risk: Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Peregrine Falcon (Falco

peregrinus), Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), Mallard Duck (Anas

platyrhynchos), and Swan species (Cygnus sp.). Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon are both listed

as Special Concern in Ontario.



28 August 2017

Figure 2: Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Communities

Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Skyway Bridge

(Hwy 49), Bay of Quinte, ON



29 August 2017

Figure 3: Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Communities

Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Skyway Bridge

(Hwy 49), Bay of Quinte, ON



30 August 2017

A Breeding Bird Survey was conducted on June 18, 2012 and a bird nesting inventory was

conducted on August 30, 2016. The breeding bird study was conducted using Ontario Breeding

Bird Atlas Survey protocols and consisted of point counts conducted at the bridges or sites adjacent

to the bridges, which have potential habitat function. Any breeding evidence was identified,

including nest with young, adult carrying food, recently fledged young, used nest or egg shell,

agitated behaviour, or anxiety calls.

A total of sixteen bird species were observed during field investigations, including one Species at

Risk: Barn Swallow. Three Barn Swallow bird nests and five nests of migratory birds (American

Robin and Cliff Swallow) were observed during 2012 field investigations. These nests were not

observed during 2016 field investigations, although it was noted that the bridge provides suitable

conditions for nesting habitat. An additional site visit on June 20, 2017 resulted in the observation

of five (5) adult Barn Swallows entering and exiting the underside of the bridge and foraging in

the area. One (1) was observed carrying food, confirmation of having nesting young in the area.

Based on these observations, we have determined that there are three (3) Barn Swallow nests on

the underside of the bridge.

4.1.5.2 HERPETOFAUNA

The MNRF has records of four herpetofauna species at risk within the study area: Blanding’s

Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina), Gray Ratsnake- Frontenac

Axis population (Pantherophis spiloides) and Northern Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica). It

is noted that the MNRF list included Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum) but this species has

been down-listed and is no longer considered a Species at Risk in Ontario.

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte are aware of four herpetofauna species within the study area,

including one Species at Risk: Eastern Ribbonsnake (Thamnophis sauritus), Milksnake, Northern

Watersnake (Nerodia sipedon), and Eastern Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis). Eastern

Ribbonsnake is listed as Special Concern in Ontario.

Herpetofauna observed during field investigations included: Eastern Garter Snake and Painted

Turtle (Chrysemys picta).

4.1.5.3 MAMMALS

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte are aware of several mammal species within the study area,

including: Beaver (Castor canadensis), Fisher (Martes pennanti), Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), Wolf

species (Canis sp.), Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Coyote (Canis latrans), and White-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus). None of these are listed as Species at Risk.

No mammals were directly observed during field investigations.



31 August 2017

4.1.5.4 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT

Significant wildlife habitat (SWH) overlaps with other environmental characteristics, such as rare

plant and animal habitat, and rare species or species at risk. To ensure that no aspect of the natural

environment is overlooked, this category is examined separately. The four principal components

of Significant Wildlife Habitat include:

1. Seasonal Concentration Areas.

2. Rare Vegetation Communities or Specialized Habitats.

3. Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern.

4. Animal Movement and Corridors.

There is no significant wildlife habitat within the study area. Airport Creek Marsh Provincially

Significant Wetland, adjacent to the study area, provides significant wildlife habitat by providing

colonial waterbird nesting habitat, waterfowl staging area, waterfowl breeding habitat and

migratory passerine, shorebird or raptor stopover area.

SPECIES AT RISK

Species at Risk information collected from background sources includes:

Barn Swallow (MNRF, OBBA)

Least Bittern (MNRF, OBBA)

Bobolink (MNRF, OBBA)

Eastern Meadowlark (MNRF, OBBA)

Bank Swallow (OBBA)

Black Tern (MNRF)

Yellow Rail (MNRF)

Bald Eagle (Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte)

Peregrine Falcon (Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte)

Blanding’s Turtle (MNRF)

Snapping Turtle (MNRF)

Northern Map Turtle (MNRF)

Gray Ratsnake- Frontenac Axis population (MNRF)

Eastern Ribbonsnake (Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte)

There is habitat for seven Species at Risk within the study area. Three of these species are protected

by the provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA): Barn Swallow, Least Bittern, and Blanding’s

Turtle.

Barn Swallows prefer farmlands or rural areas, cliffs, caves, rock niches, and are found in open

forest for feeding. They are prefer buildings or other man-made structures for their nests. Barn



32 August 2017

Swallows are listed as Threatened by Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

(COSEWIC), but are not yet protected under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). They are listed and

protected as Threatened under the ESA. There is suitable habitat for barn swallows on the Bay of

Quinte Skyway Bridge. Three Barn Swallow nests were observed on the bridge during 2012 field

investigations.

Least Bittern breed strictly in marshes dominated by emergent vegetation surrounded by areas of

open water. These marshes are dominated by cattails but breeding also occurs in areas with other

robust emergent plants and in shrubby swamps. Dense vegetation is essential for nesting because

the nests of Least Bittern sit on platforms of stiff stems. The nests are almost always within 10 m

of open water (Environment Canada, 2010). The Least Bittern is protected under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA) and Species at Risk Act (SARA). There is suitable habitat for the Least Bittern

in the Shallow Marsh (MAS) community within the study area.

Bobolink historically lived in North American tallgrass prairie and other open meadows. Since the

clearing of native prairies in Ontario, Bobolinks moved to living in hayfields. They live in large,

open expansive grasslands with dense ground cover, hayfield, meadows or fallow fields or

marshes. They require large tracks of grassland. They often build their nests on the ground in

dense grasses where both parents usually tend to their young. Bobolink is protected under the ESA

and SARA. While there is suitable Bobolink habitat in the study area within the Cultural Meadow

(CUM) communities, none were observed during the Breeding Bird survey and it is unlikely that

the study area provides habitat.

The Eastern Meadowlark prefers open, grassy meadows, farmland, pastures, hayfield or grasslands

with elevated singing perches. They are also found in cultivated land and weedy areas with trees

or old orchards with adjacent, open grassy areas greater than 10 ha in size. They are protected

under the ESA. While there is suitable Eastern Meadowlark habitat for in the study area within the

Cultural Meadow (CUM) communities, none were observed during the Breeding Bird survey and

it is unlikely that the study area provides habitat.

Bank Swallows nest in a variety of natural and man-made sites with vertical banks, including

riverbanks, lake bluffs, aggregate pits and stock piles. Breeding sites are often situated near open

habitat used, including meadows and agricultural fields for foraging. The birds breed in colonies

ranging from several to a few thousand pairs. They are protected under the ESA. There is no

suitable habitat for Bank Swallows in the study area.

Black Terns prefer wetlands, coastal or inland marshes, such as large cattail marshes, marshy edges

or rivers, lakes or ponds, wet open fens and wet meadows. They return to the same area to nest

each year in loose colonies and must have shallow (0.5-1m deep) water and areas of open water

near nests. They require marshes greater than 20 ha in size and feed over adjacent grasslands for

insects. Black Terns are listed as Special Concern provincially and are not offered formal



33 August 2017

protection provincially or federally. There is no suitable habitat for Black Terns within the study

area.

Yellow Rails typically nest in marshes dominated by sedges, true grasses, and rushes, with little

or no standing water (0-12 cm water depth), and where the substrate remains saturated throughout

the summer. Yellow Rails are listed as Special Concern provincially and are not offered protection

by the ESA. They are listed on Schedule 1 of the federal SARA and are protected on federal lands.

There is no suitable habitat for Yellow Rails within the study area.

Bald Eagles nest in a variety of habitats and forest types, almost always near a major lake or river.

They usually nest in large trees such as pine and poplar. Bald Eagles are listed as Special Concern

provincially and are not offered formal protection provincially or federally. There is suitable

habitat for Bald Eagles in the Mixed Forest (FOM) communities adjacent to the lake within the

study area.

Peregrine Falcons usually nest on tall, steep cliff ledges close to large bodies of water. Peregrine

Falcons are listed as Special Concern provincially and are not offered protection by the ESA. They

are listed on Schedule 1 of the federal SARA and are protected on federal lands. No suitable habitat

for Peregrine Falcon occurs within the study area.

Blanding’s Turtles prefer shallow water marshes, bogs or swamps or coves in larger lakes with

soft muddy bottoms and aquatic vegetation. They bask on logs, stumps, or banks and their

surrounding natural habitat is important in summer as they frequently move from aquatic habitat

to terrestrial habitats. They hibernate in bogs and are not readily observed. Blanding’s Turtle are

protected under the ESA and SARA. There is suitable habitat for Blanding’s Turtle within the

study area in the Shallow Marsh (MAS) community and along the shores of the bay.

Snapping Turtles are found in permanent, semi-permanent fresh water or in marshes, swamps or

bogs. They prefer rivers and streams with soft muddy banks or bottoms and often use soft soil or

clean dry sand on south-facing slopes for nest sites. They may nest at some distance from water

and often hibernate together in groups in mud under water. Snapping Turtles are listed as Special

Concern provincially and are not offered protection by the ESA. There is suitable habitat for

Snapping Turtle within the study area in the Shallow Marsh (MAS) community and along the

shores of the bay.

Northern Map Turtle prefer large bodies of water (rivers and lakes) with soft bottoms, and aquatic

vegetation. They bask on logs, rocks or beaches and grassy edges in groups. They use soft soil or

clean dry sand for nest sites and may nest at some distance from the water. Northern Map Turtles

are listed as Special Concern provincially and are not offered protection by the ESA. There is

suitable habitat for Northern Map Turtle in the study area along the shores of the bay.

Grey Ratsnakes- Frontenac Axis population require a mosaic of deciduous forest and open habitat,

including fields and bedrock outcrops. Females nest inside snags, stumps, logs, or compost piles,



34 August 2017

where the conditions are humid and the temperature is in the 30ºC range. In winter, they hibernate

underground in communal hibernation sites, or hibernacula, which provide protection against

freezing and dehydration. They are listed as Endangered and offered protection under both the

ESA and SARA. There is no suitable habitat for Grey Ratsnakes in the study area.

The Eastern Ribbonsnake is semi-aquatic and is almost always found close to water, in wetlands,

lakeshores and river banks. These wetland and shoreline habitats are generally near forests, as this

species relies on forested areas for overwintering and birthing sites. Eastern Ribbonsnakes are

listed as Special Concern provincially and are not offered protection by the ESA. There is suitable

habitat for Eastern Ribbonsnakes in the Mixed Forest (FOM) communities adjacent to the lake

within the study area.

DESIGNATED NATURAL AREAS

Designated Natural Areas are defined by resource agencies, municipalities, the government and/or

public, through legislation, policies, or approved management plans, to have special or unique

value.

There are no designated natural areas within the study area but there are three Designated Natural

Areas adjacent to the study area: Airport Creek Marsh Provincially Significant Wetland, Deseronto

Alvars Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest and Napanee Plain Limestone Important Bird Area.

4.1.7.1 PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS

There are no Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW) within the study area. There is one PSW

adjacent to the study area: Airport Creek Marsh Provincially Significant Wetland. This 32 hectare

coastal wetland provides a variety of specialized habitat: colonial nesting bird habitat, waterfowl

staging and breeding habitat, migratory passerine, shorebird and raptor stopover area, fish

migration and staging habitat and fish spawning and nursery habitat.

4.1.7.2 AREAS OF NATURAL AND SIGNIFICANT INTEREST

There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) within the study area. There is one

ANSI adjacent to the study area: Deseronto Alvars Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest. This

39 hectare area is a flat limestone plain with remnants of open alvar grassland and Bur Oak-Red

Cedar savannah.

4.1.7.3 IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS

There are no Important Bird Areas (IBA) within the study area. There is one IBA adjacent to the

study area: Napanee Plain Limestone Important Bird Area. This 115,000 hectare area includes a

mosaic of habitats including savannah grasslands, alvar, coniferous forest, deciduous forest, and

mixed woods that provide habitat for several grassland birds, including two Species at Risk:

Henslow’s Sparrow and Eastern Meadowlark.



35 August 2017

4.2 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

The Bay of Quinte is a z-shaped inlet of the north-eastern shore of Lake Ontario and situated

between the mainland and the peninsula of Prince Edward County. The bay is approximately 100

km in length from Quinte West at the farthest west point of the bay to Amherst Island in the east.

The width of the watercourse at the study area is approximately 600 m and depths reach

approximately 8.5 m at the deepest point. The Bay of Quinte supports a complex food web that

includes recreational, commercial and aboriginal fisheries, as well as fish that support these

fisheries. The MNRF has indicated that lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) migrate through

the area in early fall and could potentially spawn on either shoreline within the study area. The

timing window of July 1st to September 15th, where in-water work is allowed applies to the study

area.

Field investigations were completed in the spring on the north side of the bridge but could not be

completed during the summer months due to site access restrictions. The north shoreline exhibits

a gradual depth change as it extends southwards into the main channel area. Substrate observed

along the north shoreline included boulders, cobble, gravel, and some detritus. Residential

properties are located approximately 45 m to the west of the bridge and approximately 40 m to the

east. The riparian area along the shoreline includes mixed grasses (Poaceae sp.) and willows (Salix

sp.). Evidence of emergent vegetation such as cattails (Typha latifolia) was observed in the spring

throughout the shoreline. Fish habitat observed along the north shoreline included boulders, cobble

and submerged woody debris. During the time of the spring investigation the air temperature was

8 °C, water temperature was 9.2°C, pH was 8.73 and the conductivity was 251µS/cm.

Field investigations were completed in the spring and summer on the south side of the bridge. The

south shoreline is much steeper than the north and reaches depths of approximately 3.6 m within

close proximity to shore. Substrates observed along the shoreline included boulders, cobble, gravel

and some detritus. A residential property is located approximately 60 m to the west and a private

boat launch is located approximately 25 m to the east. The riparian area along the shoreline

includes mixed grasses (Poaceae sp.) and willows (Salix sp.) which provide both overhanging

cover and in-water large woody debris, particularly to the west where several trees have collapsed

or grown out into the watercourse providing exceptional warmwater fish habitat. During the time

of the summer investigation the air temperature was 31.3°C, water temperature was 26.5°C, pH

was 9.03 and the conductivity was 232µS/cm.

Although no other vegetation was observed during field visits, the nearshore habitats throughout

the Bay of Quinte are known to support a variety of aquatic plants that include cattails (Typha

latifolia), arrowheads (Alismataceae sp.), and water lilies (Nymphaeaceae sp.) in the nearshore

shallow areas and pond weeds (Potamogetonaceae sp.) in the mid-depth areas. This shallow and

mid depth vegetation provides important rearing habitat and feeding opportunities for a variety of

species. These nearshore habitats also likely provide spawning opportunities to a variety of



36 August 2017

warmwater species. Lake whitefish spawning typically occurs in water less than 8 m deep over

rocky substrate which is available throughout both shorelines within the study area.

During the August 30, 2016 site visit with the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ), it was

indicated that the space between piers 13 and 15 is used as a traditional fishing location. MBQ

requested that, if feasible, this space be made accessible each year during July and August for

fishing.

4.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT

The northern terminus of the bridge sits within the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory of the Mohawks

of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ). The southern terminus sits within the Municipality of Prince Edward

County.

The Bay of Quinte Skyway Bridge connects Highway 49 in the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory

and County Road 49 in Prince Edward County. Highway 49/County Rd 49 is one of the main

routes for accessing Prince Edward County from Highway 401 – specifically for visitors coming

from the east (visitors from the west tend to use other accesses).

The Quinte Skyway Bridge is one of only 4 fixed-link accesses into the County which includes the

Norris Whitney Bridge in Bellville, and two Parks Canada-owned swing bridges crossing the

Murray Canal in the western portion of the County. The County is also accessible via MTO’s

Glenora Ferry on the eastern side of the County. The ferry only provides 30-minute service most

of the year and 15-minute service during peak summer times and is limited to its 21-car capacity.

Roughly 2,200 people reside within the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory1, a 71 square kilometer

area. Prince Edward County has roughly 25,0002 residents in its 1,000 square kilometer area.

Prince Edward County is also a tourist destination. Though precise numbers of tourists are

unavailable, a key metric is the admission numbers for Sandbanks Provincial Park which is located

in the south-west portion of the County. In 2010 attendance at Sandbanks Provincial Park was

counted at just over 600,0003. Highway 49 is one of the main entrances to this area from Highway

401, as a result, many tourist and service based businesses line Highway 49 and County Rd 49

from Highway 401 to Picton.

1 http://www.mbq-tmt.org/ 2 http://www.thecounty.ca/ 3 https://www.ontarioparks.com/pdf/statistics/2010_park_statistics.pdf



37 August 2017

LAND USE

No Official Plan exists for the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. Based on aerial photography and

site visits, the lands surrounding the northern terminus of the bridge, particularly the shoreline of

the Bay of Quinte, are primarily residential land uses. Several commercial properties sit north of

the bridge, along Highway 49.

Prince Edward County’s current and draft Official Plans indicate the area around the southern

terminus of the bridge as “Shore Lands” land use areas. The objectives of land use in these areas

are to improve public access to the water’s edge, retain balance between utilizing recreational

resource and natural features, enhance quality of the natural environment, and support the

expansion of the second home sector (i.e. cottages/investment properties) and commercial tourism

sector.

There are no pedestrian or cyclist facilities (i.e. sidewalks or bike paths) leading to the bridge, nor

are there any municipal or provincial documents identifying the corridor as part of a current or

future cycling route.

4.4 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

ARCHAEOLOGY

In 2014, MTO undertook Stage 1 and Stage 2 archaeological assessments to determine the extent

of the archaeological potential along Highway 49 from Highway 401 to the south terminus of the

Bay of Quinte Skyway Bridge. The work was completed by Central Archaeology Group under

license P248 using the “Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists” and in

accordance with applicable legislation. Upon completion of the Stage 2 assessment it was

determined that there were no significant archaeological findings associated with the Highway 49

right-of-way and that the area was clear of archaeological concerns.

In 2014, Union Gas also completed Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessments as part of their work

to install an underground horizontal pipeline under the Bay of Quinte and decommission the

pipeline attached to the structure. The assessment, completed by Archaeological Research

Associates under license P007, covered areas on the west side of the structure on both the north

and south shores. Upon completion of the Stage 2 assessment it was determined that there were no

significant archaeological findings and that the area was clear of archaeological concerns.

During the design work for the rehabilitation of the Quinte Skyway Bridge, it was determined that

temporary limited interests would be required on both sides of the structure on the south shoreline

to the southern terminus to facilitate the rehabilitation work. Additional Stage 1 and Stage 2

archaeological assessments will be undertaken to obtain archaeological clearance from the Ontario

Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport. An MBQ monitor will assist the MTO Archeologist in

this work.



38 August 2017

BUILT HERITAGE

In 2012 Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) undertook a cultural heritage evaluation for the Quinte

Skyway Bridge. Documented in the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) it was

determined that the bridge did retain some cultural heritage value given the design, contextual and

historical values of the bridge, but was not eligible for inclusion on the Ontario Heritage Bridge

List.

The CHER recommended that the CHER document itself be submitted to the Ontario Ministry of

Tourism, Cultural and Sport and the Archives of Ontario and that, should the bridge eventually be

replaced, the original structural drawing should be placed in the Archives of Ontario.

4.5 TRAFFIC

As per a traffic study completed in 2017, the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) was 5,000

vehicles per day while the Summer Average Daily Traffic (SADT) was 6,000 vehicles per day.

The mix of commercial vehicles with the passenger vehicle traffic was estimated to be 12% in the

northbound direction and 9% in the southbound traffic. The peak period traffic in both direction

was measured to be 435 vehicles per hour in summers.

The forecasted traffic growth will not warrant any additional lanes over the remaining lifetime of

the structure.

4.6 UTILITIES

There are aerial hydro lines along the west side of Highway 49, north of the bridge; the aerial lines

begin approximately 60 m south of the Airport Road intersection and run north along Highway 49.

The NPS 6 Picton lateral is currently the only Union Gas line that feeds into Prince Edward County

(Picton, ON). In anticipation of the rehabilitation of the Quinte Skyway Bridge, and at the written

request of the Ministry of Transportation, Union Gas relocated approximately 1350m of NPS 8

steel pipeline by horizontal direction drill method through limestone beneath the Bay of Quinte in

2015.

The remainder of their now-abandoned pipeline will be removed from the Bridge in the fall of

2017 to avoid any construction conflict.



39 August 2017

5 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

The construction of the Highway 49 Bay of Quinte Skyway Bridge was completed in 1967 and

was subsequently rehabilitated in 1982 (under Contract 82-545), when the structural steel girders

were recoated. In 1990 (under Contract 90-12) the concrete deck, curb and parapets were repaired,

new waterproofing and asphalt were

installed and finger type expansion

joints were replaced with strip-seal

type joints. In 1992 (under Contract

92-94) the dual columns of piers 5, 8

and 11 were removed and replaced

with single pier shafts.

During the 1992 pier rehabilitation a

large crack was discovered on the east side of one of the outer girders of span 7 between piers 6 &

7. The crack was assumed to have been caused by fatigue. A detailed inspection of the structure

days after the crack was discovered revealed that the welding throughout the structure was

inconsistent. The cracked girder was repaired by adding a bolted splice plate.

In 2005 and 2008, several fatigue details on the structure were repaired by weld peening and weld

removal.

In 2011, Morrison Hershfield (MH) was retained by MTO to develop detail designs for the

rehabilitation of 29 bridge structures throughout MTO Eastern Region, including the Bay of Quinte

Skyway Bridge.

An inspection of the structure carried out by MH (see Figure 4) revealed deficiencies such as:

substantial deterioration to the bridge deck, steel girders and, to a lesser extent, deterioration of the

piers. A structural steel fatigue inspection of the bridge was carried out by Domson Engineering

& Inspection Ltd. The inspection revealed a few cracks at weld connections between girders and

stiffeners.

The existing bridge geometry does not meet the requirements of the current Geometric Design

Standards for Ontario Highways (GDSOH). Non compliances include:

Lane widths are less than the current design requirement for the posted speed and traffic

volume

Side clearances (shoulder width) are less than the current design requirement.

Vertical profile at the crest does not meet current geometric standards the stopping sight

distance is less than the current design requirement for the posted speed.

Figure 4: Deterioration to the superstructure



40 August 2017

After thorough review of the condition of the structure, the Ministry determined it was prudent to

replace the entire superstructure. The piers (substructure) were determined to need only minor

rehabilitation.

Given the extensive disruption associated with replacing the entire superstructure, a feasibility

study was undertaken to examine traffic staging options to accommodate proposed work.

This study provided the opportunity to explore rehabilitation alternatives that minimize natural,

socio-economic and cultural impacts. Through the rehabilitation, the service life of the bridge will

be extended and the need for future maintenance will be reduced.



41 August 2017

6 GENERATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

6.1 GENERATION AND EVALUATION OF PLANNING ALTERNATIVES

As depicted in Figure 5, a total of 45 planning alternatives were generated which fell into the

following five categories:

1. Full closure (2 lanes) of the bridge with detours.

2. Partial closure (1 lane) during construction with single-lane, single-direction (one-way)

traffic.

3. Partial closure (1 lane) during construction with single lane, bi-directional (two-way)

traffic.

4. Maintain 2 lanes of traffic on the bridge during construction.

5. Full reconstruction (new bridge) on an adjacent new alignment.

Figure 5: Feasibility and Current Study Alternatives Screening



42 August 2017

A screening process, based primarily on technical and economic feasibility, was completed to

determine which alternatives were reasonable to be carried forward for public input and further

analysis.

Five alternatives under Options 1-3 were recommended to be carried forward for further analysis

and no alternatives for Options 4 and 5 were recommended to be carried forward.

Option 4 Alternatives (maintain 2 lanes of traffic on bridge) were eliminated based on three main

factors: Significantly higher costs (35-50% more expensive), complex construction and

environmental/property impact. These alternatives required very complex construction with a high

degree of risk that could result in increased costs, delays which could increase construction

duration and greater environmental impacts.

Option 5 Alternatives (Full reconstruction on adjacent new alignment) were also eliminated

primarily due to cost, property requirements and significant environmental impacts. These

alternatives would have cost approximately twice as much as rehabilitation options and would

have also resulted in higher environmental and property impacts. Given that the existing bridge

piers and bridge foundations are still in good condition, and do not require replacement, the

additional costs and impacts of a new bridge were not considered reasonable.

6.2 GENERATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

A total of five design alternatives were carried forward for detailed examination and are outlined

in the sections below.

Alternative 1. Full closure (2 lanes) of the bridge

New Superstructure with four girders

at existing locations.

Full width– span-by-span

replacement using cranes from a

barge for span removal and

construction.

Both lanes on the bridge closed for

the duration of construction.

Full detour via Norris Whitney

Bridge (Belleville) for both

directions of traffic for the duration

of construction.



43 August 2017

Alternative 2. Partial closure (single-lane, single-direction traffic)



Staged half-and-half construction -

span-by-span replacement using

cranes from a barge for span removal

and construction.

Partial closure of the bridge for the

duration of construction.

Bridge will remain open for

southbound (one-way) traffic only.

Northbound traffic would be

detoured via Norris Whitney Bridge (Belleville) for the duration of construction.

Alternatives 3 a, b, and c – Single-lane, bi-directional (SLBD) traffic

Three alternatives were carried forward under the single-lane bi-directional (SLBD) traffic

alternative as they have different traffic staging, costs, and construction complexity. The three

alternatives are discussed below.

Same for 3a, b, and c



Staged half-and-half construction

span-by-span replacement using

cranes from a barge for span removal

and construction.

No permanent detours required.



44 August 2017

Alternative 3a - SLBD full length closure

Full-length closure of alternating lanes with SLBD (two-way) traffic for the full length of

the bridge.

SLBD traffic managed by traffic signals and queuing at either end of the structure.

Alternative 3b - SLBD 1/3 length closure

Partial length closure of bridge with alternating SLBD traffic in multiple stages for 1/3

lengths of the bridge.

SLBD traffic managed by traffic signals at shorter work zones on the bridge

(approximately 1/3 length of the bridge).

Alternative 3c - SLBD 1/5 length closure

Partial length closure of bridge with alternating SLBD traffic in multiple stages for 1/5

lengths of the bridge.

SLBD traffic managed by traffic signals at shorter work zones on the bridge

(approximately 1/5 length of the bridge).

CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN TO REFINE THE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

Meetings were held with both the Municipal Advisory Committee (MAC) and Mohawks of the

Bay of Quinte in advance of PIC #1 to present and discuss the five alternatives to be evaluated.

Both groups were generally supportive of alternatives that allow for bi-directional traffic (i.e.

Alternatives 3 a, b & c). For further discussion on MAC and First Nation meetings see Section 3.



45 August 2017

6.2.4.1 Public Information Centre (PIC) #1

The five recommended alternatives were presented at PIC #1, details of which can be found in

Section 3.1.3.1.

Comments from the public were generally supportive as the public was understanding that the

bridge is in need of repair. Most were supportive of the alternatives 3b and 3c (single lane bi-

directional traffic) and the study’s progress so far. Many comments were received that did not

support Alternative 1 (full closure).

A concern of several attendees at PIC #1 was impacts to businesses along the Highway 49 corridor

as a result of closures and construction. As part of the assessment business impacts were considered

by looking at how the alternatives could change traffic volumes, traffic patterns and cause delays

during construction. If no significant changes to volumes and patterns are anticipated there will

likely be low impacts to local businesses. MTO has a process for dealing with business loss, which

includes consultation with potentially affected owners prior to, during and after construction. MTO

Property staff and consultant business valuators will work with local businesses to mitigate

potential losses prior to construction and address claims if they arise. MTO is also proactively

engaging outside expertise to determine potential business loss before work begins.

Prince Edward County residents were also concerned with the impact that closures and delays

would have on their commutes to and from work. The impact to commuting time was considered

during the evaluation of the alternatives and factored into the socioeconomic impacts.

Some attendees also requested that a new bridge on an adjacent alignment should be considered.

A new bridge was considered but eliminated primarily due to cost, property requirements and

environmental impacts. This alternative would have cost approximately twice as much as

rehabilitation options and would have also resulted in higher environmental and property impacts.

Given that the existing bridge piers are still in good condition, and do not require replacement, the

additional costs and impacts of a new bridge were not considered reasonable.

6.3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Evaluation criteria were developed to assess the impacts of the alternatives based on technical

considerations and the various components of the environment. The criteria were grouped by the

following factors:

Environment.

Transportation.

Cost.

The Environment factor was subdivided into three sub-factors: natural, socio-economic and

cultural. The Transportation factor was sub-divided into two sub-factors: transportation operations

and constructability. Evaluation criteria were then developed for each sub-factor and an



46 August 2017

appropriate unit of measure was identified. The factors, sub-factors, criteria and unit of measure

are all displayed in the assessment/evaluation tables below.

Evaluation is a two-step process (impact assessment and evaluation).

The first step (impact assessment) entailed the identification of advantages and disadvantages of

the five alternatives under consideration. At this stage, each environmental feature was examined

to determine the extent of impact. Net impacts were then identified; these refer to the effects on

the environment that remain after standard mitigation measures have been applied.

The second step (evaluation) built upon the information obtained from the impact assessment stage

and involved a comparative analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives

considered to select a preferred alternative. At this stage, the relative importance of the

environmental features was determined.

A “Reasoned Argument” method was used to complete the evaluation and to select the Technically

Preferred Alternative. This method highlights the differences in net effects associated with the

various alternatives and explores the relative significance of the various potential impacts to assist

in making decisions. Based on these differences, the advantages and disadvantages of each

alternative were identified. The relative significance of the impacts were examined to provide a

clear rationale for the selection of the Technically Preferred Alternative. The rationale to select

one alternative over all others was derived from the following sources:

Government legislation, policies and guidelines.

Municipal policy (i.e. Official Plans).

Issues and concerns identified during consultation with ministries and agencies,

municipalities, First Nations, interest groups and the general public.

Project Team expertise.

The Reasoned Argument evaluation component provides a clear presentation to stakeholders of

key differences between the various alternatives and the reasons why one alternative is preferred

over another.

6.4 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

The impact assessment/evaluation process was completed in two rounds as depicted in Figure 6.

In the first round an impact assessment (Table 7) and evaluation (Table 8) was completed for

Alternatives 3 a, b, & c. This allowed for the determination of the best single-lane bi-directional

alternative for comparison against Alternatives 1 and 2. The second round carried forward the

impact assessment of the best Alternative 3 and completed the impact assessments for Alternatives

1 and 2 (Table 9). The evaluation of Alternatives 1, 2 and the best Alternative 3, resulted in the

selection of the preferred alternative (Table 10).



47 August 2017

Figure 6: Impact Assessment/Evaluation Flowchart

During the assessment, criteria were identified which resulted in the same or very similar impacts,

and therefore did not assist in evaluating the alternatives. Criteria identified as non-decision

relevant are indicated in the assessment tables below and are not carried forward into the evaluation

tables.

SUMMARY OF EVLAUATION RESULTS

In Round 1, the assessment and evaluation of Alternatives 3 a, b and c showed that Alternative 3c:

Minimized delays and traffic queues.

Ability for 2 lane winter operations.

Reduced risk of schedule delay.

Reduced safety and operational risks due to less complex construction.

Reduced chance of safety conflicts between construction workers and travelling public.

Therefore, as outlined in the following analysis tables (Table 7, and Table 8), Alternative 3c was

preferred overall and was carried forward to Round 2.

In Round 2, Alternative 3c was carried forward to be assessed and evaluated against Alternatives

1 and 2. The analysis indicated that Alternative 3c resulted in:

Shortest traffic delay and no out of way travel.

Lowest impact to Emergency Services.

The lowest impacts on local residents and businesses.

No improvements to existing infrastructure.



48 August 2017

Although Alternative 3c is more expensive to construct, from a socioeconomic perspective it

minimizes impacts and provides significantly better traffic operations. Therefore, as outlined in

the following analysis tables (Table 9, and Table 10) Alternative 3c is preferred overall.

CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN TO EVALUATION AND FINALIZE

PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE

Meetings were held with both the MAC and Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte as well as presentations

given to Prince Edward County and Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Councils in advance of PIC

#2. All groups were generally supportive of the technically preferred alternative. For further

discussion on MAC and First Nation meetings see Section 3.

6.4.2.1 Public Information Centre (PIC) #2

The technically preferred alternative was presented at PIC #2. Details of the PIC can be found in

Section 3.1.3.2.

Comments from the public were generally supportive as the public was understanding that the

bridge is in need of repairs. Most were supportive of the technically preferred alternative

(alternative 3c - single lane bi-directional traffic in 1/5 length sections) and the study’s progress

so far.

A concern of several attendees at PIC #2 was the implementation of a pedestrian/cyclist protected

sidewalk and the desire of a new structure instead of rehabilitation.

The technically preferred alternative does not include dedicated pedestrian or cyclist facilities as

there are no warrants. Specifically, there are no pedestrian or cyclist facilities (i.e. sidewalks or

bike paths) leading to the bridge, nor any municipal or provincial documents identifying the bridge

as a current or future cycling route. Cycling and pedestrian data was requested from both Prince

Edward County and Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, neither of which had such information.

Observations suggest that the facility is not a significant active transportation route and that current

users are able to cross the existing bridge if they choose to do so. Therefore a separated walkway

is not warranted on this bridge.

A new bridge was considered but screened out primarily due to cost, property requirements and

environmental impacts. This alternative would have cost approximately twice as much as

rehabilitation options and would have also resulted in higher environmental and property impacts.

Given that the existing bridge piers and foundations are still in good condition, and do not require

replacement, the additional costs and impacts of a new bridge were not considered reasonable.



49 August 2017

Table 7: Assessment of Environmental Factors for Alternatives 3 a, b, c

Factor Sub-Factor Criteria Unit of Measure Alt 3a – Single Lane Bi-Directional

Full Length

Alt 3b – Single Lane Bi-Directional

1/3 Length

Alt 3c – Single Lane Bi-Directional

1/5 length

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

SOCIOECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENT

Changes in traffic patterns and traffic

delays which result in potential impacts

to the local community and businesses

Range of Delay, Extent of

Queues, and Potential for

changes to Traffic Volumes

Moderate to high delays

300-800 m queue length

Traffic volumes are unlikely to change as

drivers are not likely to forego their trips for

minimal delays

Minimal delays




minimal delays

Minimal delays




minimal delays

Duration of construction # of years 3 years 4 years 5 years

Impacts to Businesses # of Businesses Properties

Directly Affected

None

As the bridge is to be rehabilitated on its existing alignment, no additional property is required

Impacts to Private Residences # of Private Residences

Properties Directly Affected

None


Impacts to Emergency Services High/Medium/Low

Changes in Access for

Emergency Services

Low - Emergency Services will be able to

cross the bridge in both directions

Low- Medium - Emergency Services will be

able to cross the bridge in both directions but

could be slowed down by cars on the bridge

Low- Medium - Emergency Services will be

able to cross the bridge in both directions but

could be slowed down by cars on the bridge

NATURAL

ENVIRONMENT

Impacts to Designated Natural Areas

(Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest,

Provincially Significant Wetlands,

Significant Woodlands)

Low, Moderate, High

Based on a review of area

impacted, quality of habitat and

type of impact

Low

As the bridge is to be rehabilitated on its existing alignment, no area is to be impacted outside of existing right of way

Impacts to Significant Wildlife or Wildlife

Habitat (e.g. wetlands), Including

Species at Risk and Migratory Birds

Low, Moderate, High



type of impact

Low


Impacts to Vegetation Communities Low, Moderate, High



type of impact

Low


Impacts to Aquatic Habitat Low, Moderate, High



type of impact

Low


CULTURAL

ENVIRONMENT

Displacement or Disruption of Built

Heritage Resources

# of Affected Heritage

Resources None None None

Displacement or Disruption to Known

Archaeological Sites # of Archaeological Sites None None None

Impacts to Lands with Identified

Archaeological Potential. ha

Potential impacts associated with the use of

property for a Construction Staging area.

However, risk is small, and any property will

be cleared prior to construction.









Results in the same or very similar impacts and therefore does not assist in selecting among alternatives



50 August 2017

Factor Sub-Factor Criteria Unit of Measure Alt 3a – Single Lane Bi-Directional

Full Length

Alt 3b – Single Lane Bi-Directional

1/3 Length

Alt 3c – Single Lane Bi-Directional

1/5 length

TR

AN

SP

OR

TA

TIO

N

TRANSPORTATION

OPERATIONS Traffic Impact on adjacent road network during construction

Physical Improvement to existing transportation infrastructure required

(Yes/No) and/or Level of Service.

No

No

No

Traffic Queuing on Bridge Approaches during Construction, and traffic Impact on Nearby Intersections. Applies to Alternatives 3 (a, b, and c).

Metres, Yes/No 800 m long SB queue. Operations at Airport Road intersection will be severely impacted.

300 m long NB queue contributes to significant delays at CR15 intersection.

260 m long SB queue. Operations at Airport Road intersection will be moderately impacted.

125 m long NB queue contributes to some delays at CR15 intersection.

155 m long SB queue. Operations at Airport Road intersection will not be impacted.

70 m long NB queue. No delays at CR15 intersection.

Temporary Traffic Signals Required during Construction

Yes/No Yes Yes Yes

Ability for drivers to be able to see both sets of temporary traffic signals during Construction

Yes/No/NA No No No

Winter-over Condition on the Bridge during Construction

1 lane on Bridge open to traffic during winter

2 lanes on Bridge open to traffic during winter

1 lane 1 lane, maybe 2 lanes 2 lanes

Ability to meet current Geometric Design Highway Standards

Yes/No Yes, with minor exceptions Yes, with minor exceptions Yes, with minor exceptions

CONSTRUCTABILITY Complexity of Construction. No traffic on Bridge during Construction-less

complex/costly construction;

Traffic on Bridge during Construction-More

complex/costly construction

Moderate complexity Highest complexity Moderate complexity

COST COST Cost Dollars (estimated) $64M $63M $76M




51 August 2017

Table 8: Evaluation of Alternatives 3 a, b, c

Factor Sub-Factor Criteria Unit of Measure Alt 3a – Single Lane Bi-

Directional Full Length

Alt 3b – Single Lane Bi-

Directional 1/3 Length

Alt 3c – Single Lane Bi-


EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

SOCIOECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENT Changes in traffic patterns and traffic delays which result in potential impacts to the local community and businesses Range of Delay, Extent of Queues,

and Potential for changes to Traffic Volumes

Moderate Impact

Moderate to high delays


Traffic volumes are unlikely to change as drivers are not likely to forego their trips for

minimal delays

Low Impact

Minimal delays



minimal delays

Low Impact

Minimal delays



minimal delays


Impacts to Emergency Services High/Medium/Low Low Low - Medium Low - Medium

Summary of Socioeconomic Environment 3rd 1st 2nd

Alternative 3a is significantly less preferred than Alternatives 3b and 3c as, even though it requires a shorter construction duration, it results in significantly longer delay times and queue lengths that would result in more inconvenience to local residents and businesses.

Alternatives 3b and 3c result in very similar construction delays and queue lengths that would result in lower impacts on local residents and businesses. In addition both alternatives result in potential impacts to emergency services as they could be slowed down by cars on the bridge however the potential delay is relatively short given the overall trip. Alternative 3b has a shorter construction duration and is therefore slightly preferred over Alternative 3c from a socio-economic perspective.

NATURAL Summary of Natural Environment All Alternatives result in the same low impact to the natural environment and therefore this factor does not assist in selecting among alternatives

CULTURAL Summary of Cultural Environment All Alternatives result in the same low impact to the cultural environment and therefore this factor does not assist in selecting among alternatives

TR

AN

SP

OR

TA

TIO

N

TRANSPORTATION

OPERATIONS Traffic Queuing on Bridge Approaches during Construction, and traffic Impact on Nearby Intersections.

Metres, Yes/No Yes

Impacts both Airport Road and Country Road 15

Yes

Impacts Airport Road and some delays at Country Road 15

No

Does not impact Airport Road or County Road 15


1 lane or 2 lanes on Bridge open to traffic during winter

1 lane 1 lane, maybe 2 lanes 2 lanes

Summary of Transportation Operations 3rd 2nd 1st

Alternative 3a is significantly less preferred than Alternatives 3b and 3c as it results in long traffic queues that will impact traffic operations on adjacent roads and a 1-lane operation over winter which could impact safety and operations.

Alternative 3b is less preferred than Alternative 3c as it results in slightly longer queues that could impact traffic operation on adjacent

roads and may result in a 1-lane operation over winter which could impact safety and operations. Therefore Alternative 3c is preferred from a traffic operation perspective.

CONSTRUCTABILITY Complexity of Construction. No traffic on Bridge during Construction-less complex/costly

construction;

Traffic on Bridge during Construction-More complex/costly

construction

Moderate complexity Highest complexity Moderate complexity

Summary of Constructability 1st 2nd 1st



52 August 2017

Factor Sub-Factor Criteria Unit of Measure Alt 3a – Single Lane Bi-

Directional Full Length

Alt 3b – Single Lane Bi-


Alt 3c – Single Lane Bi-


Alternative 3b is significantly less preferred than Alternatives 3a or 3b as it is the most complex to construct. This could result in schedule delays, additional costs and safety and operation impacts. Therefore Alternatives 3a and 3c are equally preferred in terms of their constructability.

COST

Cost Dollars (estimated) $64M $63M $76M

Summary of Cost 1st 1st 2nd

Alternative 3c results in the highest cost and is less preferred. Alternatives 3a and 3b have similar costs. Therefore Alternatives 3a and 3b are equally preferred from the perspective of cost alone.

OVERALL EVALUATION Summary of Overall Evaluation 3rd 2nd 1st

Alternative 3a results in significantly higher socioeconomic and traffic operation impacts when compared to Alternatives 3b to 3a and is therefore not preferred.

When comparing Alternative 3b to 3c, it is recognized that although Alternative 3b is slightly preferred over 3c from a socioeconomic perspective it does not result in significant socioeconomic impacts. In addition, Alternative 3c provides significantly better day-to-day traffic operations and reduces the risk of schedule delays, and safety and operational impacts due to less complex construction

requirements. Therefore, taking all evaluation factors into consideration, Alternative 3c is preferred overall.



53 August 2017

Table 9: Assessment of Environmental Factors for Alternatives 1, 2, 3c

Factor Sub-Factor Criteria Unit of Measure Alt 1 – Full closure Alt 2 – Partial Closure Alt 3c – Single Lane Bi-Directional 1/5

length

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L

SOCIOECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENT Changes in traffic patterns and traffic delays which result in potential impacts to the local community and businesses

Range of Delay, Extent of Queues, and Potential for changes to Traffic

Volumes

85km out of way travel (80-100 min) each way (170km/180mins for a return trip)

Highway 49 traffic volumes will be substantially reduced due to long delays

along detour route

85km out of way travel (80min)

Highway 49 traffic volumes will be reduced as northbound trips not permitted

Minimal delays


Traffic volumes are unlikely to change


Impacts to Businesses # of Businesses Properties Directly Affected

None


Impacts to Private Residences # of Private Residences Properties Directly Affected

None As the bridge is to be rehabilitated on its existing alignment, no additional property is required


Changes in Access for Emergency Services

High - Emergency Services will not be able to cross the bridge (deemed unacceptable by the general public and elected Councils).

Medium - Emergency Services will require special provisions to ensure crossing in both

directions (i.e. 24/7 onsite staffing, coordination with 9-1-1 dispatch and

communication with hospitals)

Low- Medium - Emergency Services will be able to cross the bridge in both directions but could

be slowed down by cars on the bridge

NATURAL

ENVIRONMENT Impacts to Designated Natural Areas (Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, Provincially Significant Wetlands, Significant Woodlands)

Low, Moderate, High

Based on a review of area impacted, quality of habitat and type of impact

Low


Impacts to Significant Wildlife or Wildlife Habitat (e.g. wetlands), Including Species at Risk and Migratory Birds

Low, Moderate, High


Low


Impacts to Vegetation Communities

Low, Moderate, High


Low


Impacts to Aquatic Habitat Low, Moderate, High


Low


CULTURAL

ENVIRONMENT Displacement or Disruption of Built Heritage Resources

# of Affected Heritage Resources None None None

Displacement or Disruption to Known Archaeological Sites

# of Archaeological Sites None None None

Impacts to Lands with Identified Archaeological Potential.

ha

Potential impacts associated with the use of property for a Construction Staging area. However, risk is small. Any property will be cleared prior to construction.






54 August 2017

Factor Sub-Factor Criteria Unit of Measure Alt 1 – Full closure Alt 2 – Partial Closure Alt 3c – Single Lane Bi-Directional 1/5

length

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

TRANSPORTATION

OPERATIONS Traffic Impact on the road network during construction



Yes. Dundas Street and Bay Bridge Road intersection will require physical improvement

(i.e. an additional WB left turn lane).

Level of Service will significantly deteriorate at Bay Bridge Road, Front St. and Pinnacle St.

intersections in the City of Belleville.

No

Level of Service will significantly deteriorate at Front St. and Pinnacle St. intersections.

No


Metres, Yes/No No No 155 m long SB queue. Operations at Airport Road intersection will not be impacted.

70 m long NB queue. No delays at CR15 intersection.


Yes/No No No Yes


Yes/No/NA NA NA No




NA 1 2

Ability to meet current Geometric Design Highway Standards

Yes/No Yes, with minor exceptions Yes, with minor exceptions Yes, with minor exceptions

CONSTRUCTABILITY Complexity of Construction. No traffic on Bridge during Construction-less

complex/costly construction;

Traffic on Bridge during Construction-More

complex/costly construction

Least complexity Moderate complexity Moderate complexity

COST COST Cost Dollars (estimated) $52M $56M $76M




55 August 2017

Table 10: Evaluation of Alternatives 1, 2, 3c

Factor Sub-Factor Criteria Unit of Measure Alt 1 – Full closure Alt 2 – Partial Closure Alt 3c

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L

SOCIOECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENT Changes in traffic patterns and traffic delays which result in potential impacts to the local community and businesses

Range of Delay, Extent of Queues, and Potential for changes to Traffic Volumes

High Impact

85km out of way travel (80-100 min) each way (170km/180mins for a return trip)

Highway 49 traffic volumes will be substantially reduced due to long delays

along detour route

High-Moderate Impact

85km out of way travel (80min)

Highway 49 traffic volumes will be reduced as northbound trips not permitted

Low Impact

Minimal delays



drivers are not likely to forego their trips for minimal delays



High Medium Low-Medium

Summary of Socioeconomic Environment 3rd 2nd 1st

Alternatives 1 and 2 result in significant socioeconomic effects because they result in long out-of-way travel, significant reductions to traffic volumes and medium to high changes in access to Emergency Services. These changes will result in high impacts to the local community and businesses.

Although Alternatives 3c takes longer to construct, the delays are relatively short and would have the lowest impact on local residents and

businesses. Therefore, Alternative 3c is significantly preferred from a socioeconomic perspective.

NATURAL Summary of Natural Environment All Alternatives result in the same low impact to the natural environment and therefore does not assist in selecting among alternatives

CULTURAL Summary of Cultural Environment All Alternatives result in the same low impact to the cultural environment and therefore does not assist in selecting among alternatives

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

TRANSPORTATION

OPERATIONS Traffic Impact on adjacent road network during construction



High Impact

Improvements required at Dundas Street and Bay Bridge Road intersection

Level of Service will significantly deteriorate at Bay Bridge Road, Front St. and Pinnacle

St. intersections in the City of Belleville.

Moderate Impact

No physical improvements but Level of Service will significantly deteriorate at Front

St. and Pinnacle St. intersections.

No Impact


Metres, Yes/No No No No

Does not impact Airport Road or County Road 15


Yes/No No No Yes


Yes/No/NA NA NA No




NA 1 2



56 August 2017

Factor Sub-Factor Criteria Unit of Measure Alt 1 – Full closure Alt 2 – Partial Closure Alt 3c

Summary of Transportation Operations 3rd 2nd 1st

Alternative 1 has the highest traffic impact on the adjacent road network and is therefore significantly less preferred than Alternatives 2 or 3c.

When comparing Alternatives 2 to 3c, for both summer and winter operations, both alternatives result in acceptable over-winter conditions although Alternative 2 is slightly preferred during the summer as it does not require signals or stop conditions on the bridge. However, Alternative 2 also results in higher operational impacts to the road network when compared to Alternative 3c as it impacts the

road network in Belleville (as opposed to minor queuing that does not impact the adjacent roads). Therefore Alternative 3c is preferred from a transportation operations perspective.

CONSTRUCTABILITY Complexity of Construction. No traffic on Bridge during Construction-less complex/costly construction;

Traffic on Bridge during Construction-More complex/costly construction

Least complexity Moderate complexity Moderate complexity

Summary of Constructability 1st 2nd 2nd

Alternatives 2 and 3c are slightly less preferred than Alternatives 1. Although these alternatives are slightly less preferred than Alternative

1 they are not anticipant to result in significant risk of schedule delays, additional costs, or safety and operation impacts. Therefore Alternatives 1 is slightly preferred in terms of constructability.

COST Cost Dollars (estimated) $52M $56M $76M

Summary of Cost 1st 1st 2nd

Alternatives 1 and 2 are equally preferred and are slightly preferred over Alternative 3 as they are 10-15% less expensive to construct.

Therefore Alternatives 1 and 2 are slightly preferred over Alternative 3c in terms of cost.

OVERALL EVALUATION Summary of Overall Evaluation 3rd 2nd 1st

Although Alternative 1 is the least expensive and the least complex to construction, it results in high impacts the local community and businesses and has the highest impact on the transportation network. Therefore it is not preferred.

When comparing Alternatives 3c to Alternative 2, Alternative 3c is preferred in every category except for cost. Although Alternative 3c is more expensive to construct, from a socioeconomic perspective it minimizes socioeconomic impacts and provides significantly better

traffic operations. Therefore, considering all the relevant evaluation factors available, Alternative 3c is preferred overall.



57 August 2017

7 PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE

7.1 RECOMMENDATION FOR BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT

As a result of the assessment and evaluation, Alternative 3c was selected as the technically

preferred alternative. Alternative 3c involves the replacement of the bridge superstructure in

approximately 1/5 length of the bridge at the existing expansion joints locations. Single lane bi-

directional traffic with temporary traffic signals is required for the traffic control during the

construction. Construction will primarily be undertaken with cranes from a barge for

superstructure replacement (see Figure 7) in an effort to minimize day-to-day traffic disruptions,

and significantly reduce the number of short term closures (estimate 100+ fewer closures required

with this approach). Further discussions on short term can be found in Section 8.4.7.

The recommended superstructure will consist of a 225 mm thick reinforced concrete deck on 4

new steel girders approximately 2 m deep. The new deck will be overlaid with 90 mm of asphalt

and a waterproofing system and the total width of the new superstructure will be 11.55 m. This

will accommodate two 3.75 m wide traffic lanes and two 1.5 m wide side clearances.

Additional rehabilitation work to be undertaken includes:

Replacement of bearings (help support movement of the bridge and provide seismic

protection).

Pier rehabilitation.

Figure 7: Construction staging using cranes on barges



58 August 2017

Repair the footing of northwest corner of Pier 13 (requires a rock berm in the water,

necessitating in water works and impacts to fish/fish habitat).

Construction of new approach slabs.

Rehabilitation of abutments and wingwalls.

Reconstruction of highway approaches to the bridge.

7.2 HIGHWAY/BRIDGE ENGINEERING ELEMENTS

HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT

The horizontal alignment of Highway 49 through the project limit is a tangent. No realignment of

Highway 49 will take place.

VERTICAL ALIGNMENT

The existing bridge is on a vertical crest curve with the following controls:

LVC = 305.00 m K =30.5 G1 = -5% G2 = 5%

As discussed in Section 5, the existing vertical crest curve geometry (originally built to 1967

standards) does not meet current GDSOH requirements.

Changing the road profile would complicate construction and create ‘worse’ profiles during the

construction period. After reviewing the increased safety risks to traffic during construction, and

the low collision history on the existing bridge, the decision was made to not change the road

profile.

CROSS-SECTION

The existing concrete piers are capable of supporting the new superstructure to a maximum width

of 11.55m. This new cross section will accommodate two 3.75 m wide traffic lanes and two 1.5 m

wide side clearances. The new cross section of the bridge is illustrated below in Figure 8.

7.3 FOUNDATIONS ENGINEERING

A foundation investigation is being undertaken by Golder Associates Ltd. for the design of new

abutments at the ends of the bridge. The existing piers are founded on bedrock and are considered

to be sound.

7.4 UTILITIES

A 150 mm diameter gas main which was mounted from the west exterior girders and run along the

length of the bridge was rerouted underground in 2016. Two utility ducts identified in the existing

parapet walls are unoccupied. New lighting ducts will be incorporated into the new barrier walls

and connected with new pole bases.



59 August 2017

7.5 ILLUMINATION

Although lighting was originally provided on this structure when it was built in 1967 there is

currently no illumination on the bridge. As part of this project new illumination to current 2017

standards will be provided on the rehabilitated bridge and the need for temporary illumination

during staged construction will be determined during detailed design.

7.6 PROPERTY

Temporary property acquisition will be required on either side of the bridge from the Bay of

Quinte’s south shoreline to the southern terminus of the bridge (as illustrated in Figure 9). This

area will facilitate the use cranes and other construction equipment for constructing the southern

portion of the bridge from pier 13 to the southern abutment.

Figure 8: Proposed Cross Section



60 August 2017

Figure 9: Proposed area for temporary property acquisition

7.7 ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION YEAR

In order to ensure that construction is less disruptive to the travelling public construction activities

will begin in the year ahead of full construction and will allow it to proceed smoothly and minimize

the risk to construction delays. The advance year (Year 1) will provide the contractor an

opportunity to prepare the site, order materials and completed any work that will have minimal

disruptions to traffic (i.e. work underneath the superstructure). Long-term single lane operations

will begin in Year 2 when replacement of the superstructure begins. Short-term single-lane

operations may occur during Year 1 but closures will be limited in number and short in duration.

7.8 CONSTRUCTION STAGING AND BARGE ACCESS

MTO recognizes that the contractor will need water access to facilitate barge operations and it is

assumed that the contractor will use an existing facility for this access. If the contractor decides

to build a new facility, they will be responsible for any necessary approvals and/or mitigation.

MTO is also working with local municipalities and the MBQ to identify a suitable construction

staging area and will continue to consult and undertake any necessary investigation or approvals

on the preferred site.



61 August 2017

8 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, PROPOSED

MITIGATION AND COMMITMENTS TO FUTURE WORK

8.1 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS

Vegetation clearing is required within the proposed construction limits, which will impact the

following vegetation communities: Cultural Meadow (1.2 hectares), Cultural Woodland (0.29

hectares), Mixed Forest (0.24 hectares) and Lawn (0.20 hectares). These communities do not

contain significant vegetation, however the trees may provide habitat for migratory birds. The

removal of these trees must be done outside of the breeding season (March 31 to August 27) to

comply with the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

The bridge does provide nesting habitat for two species of migratory bird (American Robin and

Cliff Swallow). The removal of these nests must be done outside of the breeding season (March

31 to August 27) to comply with the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Recommended mitigation measures to protect terrestrial habitat include the following:

Use best management practices (BMP).

Minimize vegetation removals.

The contractor will not destroy nests and eggs of protected migratory birds during

migratory bird breeding season (March 31 to August 27).

In the event that vegetation removals or clearing of nests from the bridge must occur within

the breeding bird timing window, the Contractor should retain a qualified Avian Specialist

prior to clearing, to screen for breeding migratory birds.

8.2 SPECIES AT RISK

There is habitat for seven Species at Risk within the study area. Three of these species are protected

by the provincial Endangered Species Act: Barn Swallow, Least Bittern, and Blanding’s Turtle.

Habitat for these species is largely within the Shallow Marsh (MAS) and Mixed Forest (FOM)

communities, which will not be impacted by the project. There is also Species at Risk habitat along

the shorelines and on the bridge itself. This habitat can be protected through mitigation measures

and no permit will be required.

Recommended mitigation measures to protect these species include:

Advise workers not to harm or harass any wildlife.

Exclusionary fencing will be installed around all construction areas near the water to

prevent turtles from entering.

Advise workers to perform a visual survey of machinery and work area prior to

commencing work, as wildlife may be found hiding on, in, or under equipment, rocks,

debris piles etc.



62 August 2017

All workers should be provided with awareness training that addresses the potential

existence of Species at Risk on site, identification of those species, and proper actions when

an individual is encountered.

Advise workers to stop work and inform the Contract Administrator if any Species at Risk

are encountered and report all Species at Risk sightings and encounters to the MNRF within

two business days.

Barn Swallows are regulated under Ontario Regulation 176/13, which provides a mitigation and

monitoring strategy as an alternative to an Endangered Species Act permit. A permit is not required

for projects affecting Barn Swallow habitat, provided:

The project is registered with the MNRF’s registry called “Notice of Activity and Other

Notices under the ESA.”

A mitigation and restoration record is prepared.

Habitat creation or enhancement is completed within 12 months of the beginning of

construction (i.e. Barn Swallow kiosk).

Three Barn Swallow nests were observed on the bridge during 2012 field investigations and during

2017 investigations, the bridge was documented to still be an active nesting area, so a kiosk with

three nest cups is required for this project. The kiosk will need to be installed within 1 kilometer

of the bridge and will need to be maintained and monitored for 3 years.

8.3 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

The project has the potential to impact fish and fish habitat if the appropriate mitigation is not

adhered to. The study area contains both warmwater and coldwater sport and bait/forage fish

species which are part of and support fish that are part of CRA (Commercial, recreational, or

aboriginal) fishery, as defined under the Fisheries Act.

Since this bridge location has been documented to support a CRA fishery, appropriate fisheries

mitigation must be implemented prior to and during construction. Based on the MTO Best

Management Practice (BMP) screening assessment, it has been determined that the project does

not meet the requirements of an MTO BMP as per the MTO Best Management Practises for

Fisheries (June 2016). Therefore a detailed fisheries assessment was completed to determine if the

proposed works result in serious harm to fish.

Through this assessment it has been determined that all construction activities related to the Bay

of Quinte Skyway Bridge Rehabilitation can be mitigated. It is anticipated that the work related to

the rehabilitation of the undermined footing (Pier 13) on the south shore of the Bay of Quinte may

result in some permanent residual effects that will persist following construction. Residual impacts

are mainly related to the placement of materials required for the concrete surrounding the footing

of Pier 13. There will be a permanent removal/infill of fish habitat related to these activities.

However, the habitat that will be impacted by the placement of material is not considered important



63 August 2017

or exceptional habitat and is only seasonally inundated with water. The excavation and placement

of material (concrete) will extend 1.5 m lake ward from the existing footing into shallow water

that is comprised of large rock and cobble. The typical high water line at Pier 13 is 75.59 m and

based on this water level the total estimated work area that would be in the water is approximately

8 m². Typical summer conditions (when the work would take place) the high water line is

anticipated to be significantly lower and there is a potential that the work could be completed in

the dry. Based on the potential to complete the work in the dry and the low quality habitat that

would be impacted, it has been determined that serious harm to fish will not occur.

The proposed work at the Bay of Quinte Skyway Bridge and specifically the proposed work for

the rehabilitation of the footing at Pier 13 will result in both land-based and in-water disturbances

to the natural environment. The following land-based activities have been identified to potentially

occur during construction, including: Vegetation Clearing, Grading, Excavation, Riparian

Planting, and Use of Industrial Equipment; and the following in-water activities have also been

identified, including: Placement of Material or Structures in Water, Excavation of loose material

(Dredging), Organic Debris management, Addition or Removal of Aquatic Vegetation, and

Wastewater Management. Potential stressors were identified as a result of the land-based and in-

water activities including, but not limited to: alteration to native vegetation, change in habitat

structure and cover, change in sediment and contaminant concentrations, lubricant and fuel leaks

from equipment, bank instability, and exposed soils and re-suspension and entrainment of

sediment.

Although some residual effect due to the placement of material and an increased footprint will

persist following construction it has been determined that the effects are minimal and will not

result in serious harm to fish. All other effects as identified can be fully mitigated using the

methods outlined in the following sections.

In addition to the provisions outlined within any future permit requirements, mitigation measures

outlined within this report and all relevant Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications (OPSS)

should be adhered to during construction. The OPSS set out standards for construction which are

used to mitigate impacts during construction, these and other mitigation requirements can be found

below.

MITIGATION MEASURES

8.3.1.1 FISH AND FISH HABITAT

In order to protect the fish and fish habitat, the Contractor’s operations shall be controlled to

prevent the entry and re-suspension of deleterious materials while carrying out the bridge

rehabilitation.



64 August 2017

Works in and around water along the banks of all fish bearing watercourses within the Bay of

Quinte study area will be minimized where possible and comply with operational constraints that

may be specified elsewhere in the Contract.

Additional mitigation measures to protect fish and fish habitat within the study area shall include

the following:

Due to the presence of warm and cold water fish species within the Bay of Quinte, any

required in-water works will only be permitted between July 1 and September 15.

Schedule work to avoid wet, windy and rainy periods that may increase erosion and

sedimentation.

The majority of work will be completed from a floating barge that is anchored using

spuds to hold the barge in place. Containment systems will be utilized on the barge to

prevent material from entering the water. Equipment used on the barge will be

maintained and remain free of leaks.

Containment systems and working platforms will be utilized while working underneath

the bridge to prevent material and debris from entering the water.

Retain a qualified environmental professional to ensure applicable permits for relocating

fish are obtained and to capture any fish trapped within an isolated/enclosed area at the

work site and safely relocate them to an appropriate location in the same waters. Fish

may need to be relocated again, should flooding occur on the site.

Screen any water intakes or outlet pipes to prevent entrainment or impingement of fish.

Screens should be located in areas and depths of water with low concentrations of fish

throughout the year. The screen face should be oriented in the same direction as the flow

and ensure openings in the guides and seals are less than the opening criteria to make

“fish tight”. Screens should be located a minimum of 300 mm (12 in.) above the bottom

of the watercourse to prevent entrainment of sediment and aquatic organisms associated

with the bottom area.

Minimize duration of in-water work whenever possible and ensure in-water work areas are

appropriately isolated using turbidity curtains or similar techniques.

8.3.1.2 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

Every effort should be made to contain sediments within the work area to avoid re-suspension and

potential downstream or lake-ward impacts. The disturbance and release of sediments may have

direct negative effects such as respiratory stress, reduced feeding efficiency and loss of

nursery/rearing habitat in downstream or lake-ward areas. Sediment impacts associated with the

bridge rehabilitation which are not properly contained may affect local fish populations as well as

habitats within the Bay of Quinte.

In addition to the timing restrictions set out by the MNRF or any future DFO permit requirements,

the following erosion and sediment control measures shall also be implemented:



65 August 2017

Installation of effective erosion and sediment control measures before starting work to

prevent sediment from entering the water body.

Schedule in-water work to occur during low water levels in an effort to work in the dry.

Erosion and sediment control measures shall be maintained until all disturbed ground has

been permanently stabilized, suspended sediment has resettled to the bed of the

waterbody or settling basin and runoff water is clear.

Measures for managing water flowing onto the site, as well as water being

pumped/diverted from the site such that sediment is filtered out prior to the water

entering a waterbody. For example, pumping/diversion of water to a vegetated area,

construction of a settling basin or other filtration system.

Measures for containing and stabilizing waste material (e.g. dredging spoils, construction

waste and materials, commercial logging waste, uprooted or cut aquatic plants,

accumulated debris) above the high water mark of nearby waterbodies to prevent re-

entry.

Regular inspection and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures and

structures during the course of construction.

Repairs to erosion and sediment control measures and structures if damage occurs.

Removal of non-biodegradable erosion and sediment control materials once site is

stabilized.

Applicable provisions for Dewatering, Erosion and Sediment Control, and Use of Pumps will be

included in the contract (i.e. OPSS 182, OPSS 185, OPSS 518, and OPSS 805).

8.3.1.3 BANK RE-VEGETATION AND STABILIZATION

Clearing of riparian vegetation should be kept to a minimum whenever possible and use of existing

trails, roads or cut lines to avoid disturbance to the riparian vegetation and prevent soil compaction

is recommended. Additional measures to avoid impacts to bank vegetation and stability include:

When practicable, prune or top the vegetation instead of grubbing/uprooting.

Minimize the removal of natural woody debris, rocks, sand or other materials from the

banks, the shoreline or the bed of the waterbody below the ordinary high water mark. If

material is removed from the waterbody, set it aside and return it to the original location

once construction activities are completed.

Immediately stabilize shoreline or banks disturbed by any activity associated with the

project to prevent erosion and/or sedimentation through re-vegetation with native species

(seed) suitable for the site.

Restore bed and banks of the waterbody to their original contour and gradient; if the

original gradient cannot be restored due to instability, a stable gradient that does not

obstruct fish passage must be restored.



66 August 2017

If replacement rock reinforcement/armouring is required to stabilize eroding or exposed

areas, ensure that appropriately-sized, clean rock is used; and that rock is installed at a

similar slope to maintain a uniform bank/shoreline and natural stream/shoreline

alignment.

Applicable OPSS for Preservation of Riparian Vegetation and Restoration of Disturbed areas

include OPSS 182 and OPSS 804.

8.3.1.4 OPERATION OF MACHINERY

The Contractor must ensure that machinery arrives on site in a clean condition and is maintained

free of fluid leaks, invasive species and noxious weeds for the duration of construction. The

Contractor must also ensure that:

Whenever possible, operate machinery on land above the high water mark in a manner

that minimizes disturbance to the banks and bed of the waterbody.

Wash, refuel and service machinery and store fuel and other materials for the machinery

a minimum of 30 m from any surface water features to prevent any deleterious substances

from entering the water.

Applicable OPSS for Equipment Use includes OPSS 182.

8.3.1.5 CONTAINMENT AND EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE

For the proposed works within the Bay of Quinte Skyway Bridge study area, the Contractor must

develop a response plan that is to be implemented immediately in the event of a sediment release

or spill of a deleterious substance as well as keep emergency spill kits on site (and in heavy

machinery) in case of emergency.

The Contractor must also ensure that:

Materials such as paint, primers, rust solvents, degreasers, grout, poured concrete or other

chemicals do not enter the water.

Ensure that building material used in the water has been handled and treated in a manner

to prevent the release or leaching of substances into the water that may be deleterious to

fish.

All spills shall be reported to the Ministry of Environment (MOE) Spills Action Centre (1-800-

268-6060). The Contract Administrator or Contractor will contact DFO and/or MNRF

Peterborough District if there is likelihood for impacts to fisheries or wildlife resources within the

Bay of Quinte.

FISHING RIGHTS

Although the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte have requested access to the area between piers 13

and 15 for July and August of each year for traditional fishing, some restrictions will occur each



67 August 2017

year around/under the active work-zone. However, this area will only be impacted during one year.

At no point during construction will the entire width of the Bay of Quinte be obstructed, and

fishing/passage under the structure will be permitted outside of the active work zone.

8.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC & CULTURAL

LAND USE

As the project will be completed wholly within the existing right-of-way, there will be no changes

or permanent impacts to land use or property.

Business impacts were considered by looking at how the various alternatives could change traffic

volumes, traffic patterns and cause delays during construction. Given that the preferred alternative

will not result in significant delays or changes in traffic volumes, impacts to local business will be

minor. Additionally, the use of this corridor by tourists accessing Prince Edward County is not

likely to be affected as the resulting delays from construction will not add significant travel times

for travellers with origins from the eastern portion of the province and beyond. Traveller

information will be updated as required through the advance use of roadside signs, and local media

where appropriate.

If an individual business owners feels that they have been negatively impacted by construction,

MTO has a process for dealing with proven business loss. This includes consultation with

potentially affected owners prior to, during and after construction. As part of our analysis of

potential environmental and socio-economic impacts related to the 5-6 year construction period on

the Quinte Skyway Bridge, MTO has retained Business Evaluators, Cohen, Hamilton, Steger &

Company, to determine the financial loss, if any, to various businesses due to changes in traffic

patterns. All business loss claims will be evaluated on a case by case basis. If it is determined that

there is a valid claim for business loss, MTO will assign the claim to the consulting business

evaluator.

ARCHAEOLOGY

As noted in Section 7.6 temporary limited interests are required on both sides of the bridge from

the southern shoreline to the southern terminus of the bridge to facilitate construction on this

portion of the structure. The property required lays outside MTO’s right-of-way and has not

previously been cleared of archaeological potential. A Stage 1 and Stage 2 archaeological

assessment of the area will be completed prior to construction to clear the area.

In the event that archaeological material is discovered during construction, the following

mitigation measures will apply:

If potential archaeological material is encountered, work is stopped and the Mohawks of

the Bay of Quinte must be notified.



68 August 2017

If human remains are encountered work is stopped and the Police, the Coroner, the

Registrar of Cemeteries (Ministry of Consumer Services), the Culture Programs Unit

(Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport) and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte must be

notified immediately.

BUILT HERITAGE

As the bridge was not deemed eligible for inclusion on the Ontario Heritage Bridge List and it is

being rehabilitated and not removed, no impacts to built heritage are expected.

NOISE

As no additional capacity is being provided, no noise impacts will be associated with the

rehabilitated bridge.

Construction will generally be limited to weekdays, however, there will be certain situations where

it will be necessary to complete work at night to avoid disrupting traffic and to efficiently complete

the project on schedule. Such night work will occur under full closure of the bridge as discussed

in Section 8.4.7. The work to be completed will include the running of diesel engines.

Noisier activities will be scheduled to avoid early mornings and late evenings as much as possible.

Such work will be carried out in compliance with local noise by-laws and any exemptions that

may be required.

Additionally, all equipment will be properly maintained to limit noise emissions. As such, all

construction equipment will be operated with effective muffling devices that are in good working

order.

NAVIGABILITY UNDER THE STRUCTURE

Navigability under the structure will be impacted during construction. Barges, that will be used to

lift material into place, will block portions of the Bay of Quinte and prevent navigation under the

active work zone. Navigation will be permitted outside the active work zone, however, during

construction of the superstructure between piers 6 and 11, the main navigational opening will be

closed to marine traffic. It should be noted that the main navigable opening will only be impacted

during one construction year. During that year, navigation will be re-routed to between Piers 6

and 7. This opening provides sufficient clearance to allow recreational boats to pass through.

A Notice of Work under the Navigation Protection Act will be submitted prior to construction to

determine the associated mitigation required to limit the impacts.



69 August 2017

EMERGENCY SERVICES

The preferred alternative will not result in significant impacts to emergency services. Emergency

services will be able to cross the bridge in both directions but response times could be delayed by

cars on the bridge.

Emergency services will be provided advance notice of any short-term full closures that will

prevent them from crossing the bridge. Additionally, the contractor will be instructed to work with

emergency service dispatch to stop all traffic crossing the bridge to allow unimpeded crossing by

emergency services during an emergency.

SHORT-TERM CLOSURES DURING CONSTRUCTION

Short-term full closures will be required during construction. Closures will be overnight when

feasible or short enough in duration to lessen traffic impacts.

There are expected to be less than 25 nights of full closures (for the installation of modular

expansion joints and for concrete pumping). There will be other short-term full closures but these

are not anticipated to impact traffic given their duration.

Emergency services, the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) and local municipalities will be

given 5 days’ notice of upcoming closures. Advanced signage will be placed at the bridge, in

Picton and on Highway 401 notifying of upcoming closures.

TRAFFIC IMPACTS

During construction, the implementation of a single-lane bi-directional construction zone will

result in minimal impacts to local traffic. Queue length for northbound traffic (at the south end of

the bridge) is expected to extend 70 m from the south temporary traffic signal. County Road 15

intersection operations will not be impacted by the northbound queue. Southbound queue lengths

(at the north end of the bridge) could extend 155 m from the north temporary traffic signals but

will not impact operations at the Airport Road intersection. As a result of minimal expected traffic

impacts (queues and delays) the origin-destination traffic patterns are not anticipated to change.

Once construction has been completed on the rehabilitated bridge, traffic operations will return to

normal (two-way traffic) conditions. Both traffic lanes will be open during winter shut-downs and

operations will return to normal (two-way traffic).

PROPERTY

Temporary property acquisition will be required on either side of the bridge from the Bay of

Quinte’s south shoreline to the southern terminus of the bridge (as illustrated in Figure 9). This

area will facilitate the use of land-based cranes and other construction equipment for constructing

the southern portion of the bridge from pier 13 to the southern abutment. Affected property owners

are being consulted.



70 August 2017

8.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION, AND COMMITMENTS TO FUTURE WORK

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE / CONCERN CONCERNED AGENCIES

PROPOSED MITIGATION / COMMITMENTS TO FUTURE WORK

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Terrestrial Ecosystems and Species at Risk

Loss of/damage to vegetation

Disturbance to nests of migratory birds on the bridge. MTO

MOECC MNRF

Quinte Conservation MBQ

Use best management practices (BMP).

Minimize vegetation removals.

The contractor shall not destroy nests and eggs of protected migratory birds during migratory bird breeding season

(March 31 to August 27).

Removal of these trees must be done outside of the breeding season (March 31 to August 27) to comply with the

Migratory Birds Convention Act.

In the event that vegetation removals or clearing of nests from the bridge must occur within the breeding season timing

window (March 31 to August 27), the Contractor will retain a qualified Avian Specialist prior to clearing, to screen for

breeding migratory birds.

Impacts to Species at Risk MTO MOECC MNRF MBQ

Advise workers not to harm or harass any wildlife.

Exclusionary fencing should be installed around all construction areas near the water to prevent turtles from entering.

Advise workers to perform a visual survey of machinery and work area prior to commencing work, as wildlife may be

found hiding on, in, or under equipment, rocks, debris piles etc.

All workers should be provided with awareness training that addresses the potential existence of Species at Risk on site,

identification of those species, and proper actions when an individual is encountered.

Advise workers to stop work and inform the Contract Administrator if any Species at Risk are encountered and report all

Species at Risk sightings and encounters to the MNRF within two business days.

The project will be registered with the MNRF’s registry called “Notice of Activity and Other Notices under the ESA.”

A mitigation and restoration record will be prepared.

Habitat creation or enhancement is completed within 12 months of the beginning of construction (i.e. Barn Swallow

kiosk).

A Barn Swallow kiosk with three nest cups is required for this project. The kiosk will need to be installed in the first

year of construction within 1 kilometer of the bridge and will need to be maintained and monitored for 3 years after

construction is complete.



71 August 2017



Aquatic Ecosystems

Fish and Fish Habitat

Potential direct and indirect impacts to fisheries and/or aquatic habitat

MTO MOECC MNRF

Quinte Conservation MBQ DFO

Due to the presence of warm and cold water fish species within the Bay of Quinte, any required in-water works will

only be permitted between July 1 and September 15.

Schedule work to avoid wet, windy and rainy periods that may increase erosion and sedimentation.

The majority of work will be completed from a floating barge that is anchored using spuds to hold the barge in place.

Containment systems should be utilized on the barge to prevent material from entering the water. Equipment used on

the barge should be maintained and remain free of leaks.

Containment systems and working platforms will be utilized while working underneath the bridge to prevent material

and debris from entering the water.

A qualified environmental professional will be retained to ensure applicable permits for relocating fish are obtained

and to capture any fish trapped within an isolated/enclosed area at the work site and safely relocate them to an

appropriate location in the same waters. Fish may need to be relocated again, should flooding occur on the site.

Screen any water intakes or outlet pipes to prevent entrainment or impingement of fish. Screens should be located in

areas and depths of water with low concentrations of fish throughout the year. The screen face should be oriented in

the same direction as the flow and ensure openings in the guides and seals are less than the opening criteria to make

“fish tight”. Screens should be located a minimum of 300 mm (12 in.) above the bottom of the watercourse to prevent

entrainment of sediment and aquatic organisms associated with the bottom area.

Minimize duration of in-water work whenever possible and ensure in-water work areas are appropriately isolated

using turbidity curtains or similar techniques.

Erosion and Sediment Control

Disturbance and release of sediments may have direct negative

effects such as respiratory stress, reduced feeding efficiency and loss

of nursery/rearing habitat in downstream or lakeward areas.

Sediment impacts associated with the bridge rehabilitation which are

not properly contained may affect local fish populations as well as

habitats within the Bay of Quinte.

MTO MNRF

Quinte Conservation Prince Edward County

MBQ

Timing restrictions as set by MNRF (July 1 and September 15)

Effective erosion and sediment control measures will be installed before starting work to prevent sediment from

entering the water body.

Erosion and sediment control measures will be maintained until all disturbed ground has been permanently stabilized,

suspended sediment has resettled to the bed of the waterbody or settling basin and runoff water is clear.

Measures for managing water flowing onto the site, as well as water being pumped/diverted from the site will be

installed such that sediment is filtered out prior to the water entering a waterbody. For example, pumping/diversion of

water to a vegetated area, construction of a settling basin or other filtration system.

Measures for containing and stabilizing waste material (e.g., dredging spoils, construction waste and materials,

commercial logging waste, uprooted or cut aquatic plants, accumulated debris) above the high water mark of nearby

waterbodies to prevent re-entry.

Regular inspection and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures and structures during the course of

construction.

Erosion and sediment control measures and structures will be repaired if damage occurs.

Non-biodegradable erosion and sediment control materials will be removed once site is stabilized.

Applicable provisions for Dewatering, Erosion and Sediment Control, and Use of Pumps will be included in the

contract (i.e. OPSS 182, OPSS 185, OPSS 518, and OPSS 805).



72 August 2017



Clearing of riparian vegetation MTO MNRF


Clearing of riparian vegetation should be kept to a minimum whenever possible and use of existing trails, roads or cut

lines to avoid disturbance to the riparian vegetation and prevent soil compaction is recommended.

When practicable, prune or top the vegetation instead of grubbing/uprooting.

Minimize the removal of natural woody debris, rocks, sand or other materials from the banks, the shoreline or the bed

of the waterbody below the ordinary high water mark. If material is removed from the waterbody, set it aside and

return it to the original location once construction activities are completed.

Shoreline or banks disturbed by any activity associated with the project will be stabilized with 30-days through re-

vegetation with native species (seed) suitable for the site to prevent erosion and/or sedimentation.

Restore bed and banks of the waterbody to their original contour and gradient; if the original gradient cannot be

restored due to instability, a stable gradient that does not obstruct fish passage must be restored.

If replacement rock reinforcement/armouring is required to stabilize eroding or exposed areas, ensure that

appropriately-sized, clean rock is used; and that rock is installed at a similar slope to maintain a uniform

bank/shoreline and natural stream/shoreline alignment.

Applicable OPSS for Preservation of Riparian Vegetation and Restoration of Disturbed areas will be included in the

contract (i.e. OPSS 182 and OPSS 804).

Operation of Machinery

MTO MBQ

Whenever possible, operate machinery on land above the high water mark in a manner that minimizes disturbance to

the banks and bed of the waterbody.

Wash, refuel and service machinery and store fuel and other materials for the machinery a minimum of 30 m from

any surface water features to prevent any deleterious substances from entering the water.

Applicable OPSS for Equipment Use will be included in the contract (i.e. OPSS 182).

Containment and Emergency Spills MTO MNRF


Prince Edward County

The Contractor must develop a response plan that is to be implemented immediately in the event of a sediment

release or spill of a deleterious substance as well as keep emergency spill kits on site (and in heavy machinery) in

case of emergency.

Materials such as paint, primers, rust solvents, degreasers, grout, poured concrete or other chemicals do not enter the

water.

Ensure that building material used in the water has been handled and treated in a manner to prevent the release or

leaching of substances into the water that may be deleterious to fish.

All spills shall be reported to the Ministry of Environment (MOE) Spills Action Centre (1-800-268-6060). The

Contract Administrator or Contractor will contact DFO and/or MNRF Peterborough District if there is likelihood for

impacts to fisheries or wildlife resources within the Bay of Quinte.

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Noise

Construction Noise

Under Prince Edward County by-law 900-2002 “no person shall

cause or permit noise arising out of or created by construction or

construction equipment before 7:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m.”

MTO MBQ

Area Residents

All equipment will be properly maintained to limit noise emissions. As such, all construction equipment will be

operated with effective muffling devices that are in good working order.

Acquire Noise bylaw exemptions, as required.



73 August 2017



Navigability

Navigability under the structure MTO MBQ

Area Residents Transport Canada

Any conditions set out by Transport Canada will be implemented to be in compliant with the approval under the

Navigation Protection Act.

Emergency Services

Prevent impacts to emergency services’ ability to cross the bridge MTO MBQ

Area Residents Prince Edward County

Emergency Services

Emergency services, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) and municipalities to be given 5 days’ notice of any

short-term full closures of the bridge.

Short Term Closures

Short-term full closures will be required during construction.

Closures will be overnight when feasible or short enough in duration

to lessen traffic impacts

MTO MBQ

Area Residents Prince Edward County

Emergency Services

Emergency services, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) and municipalities to be given 5 days’ notice.

Advanced signage will be placed at the bridge, in Picton and on Highway 401 notifying of upcoming closures.

Business Losses

Business losses as a result of a change in traffic patterns Area Residents MTO has a process for dealing with business loss, which includes consultation with potentially affected owners prior

to, during and after construction. MTO Property staff and consultant business valuators will work with local

businesses to mitigate potential losses prior to construction and address claims if they arise. MTO is proactively

engaging outside expertise to determine potential business loss before construction begins. All business loss claims

will be evaluated on a case by case basis. If it is determined that there is a valid claim for business loss, MTO will

assign the claim to the consulting business evaluator.

Property

Property may be required to facilitate components of construction. MTO MBQ

Prince Edward County Area Residents

MTO recognizes that the contractor will need water access to facilitate barge operations and it is assumed that the

contractor will use an existing facility for this access. If the contractor decides to build a new facility, they will be

responsible for any necessary approvals and/or mitigation.

MTO is also working with local municipalities and the MBQ to identify a suitable construction staging area and will

continue to consult and undertake any necessary investigation or approvals on the preferred site.

Temporary property acquisition will be required on either side of the bridge from the Bay of Quinte’s south shoreline

to the southern terminus of the bridge Affected property owners are being consulted.



74 August 2017



CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

Archaeology

Discovery of Archaeological Material MTO MBQ MTCS

Area Residents

If potential archaeological material is encountered, work is stopped and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte must be

notified.

If human remains are encountered work is stopped and the Police, the Coroner, the Registrar of Cemeteries (Ministry

of Consumer Services), the Culture Programs Unit (Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport) and the Mohawks of the

Bay of Quinte must be notified immediately.



75 August 2017

9 APPROVALS AND PERMITS

9.1 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA)

The provincial Endangered Species Act prohibits willful harm or harassment of extirpated,

threatened, or endangered species that are listed in regulations under the Act. The ESA There is

habitat for three Species at Risk protected under this legislation within the study area: Barn

Swallow, Least Bittern, and Blanding’s Turtle. The Least Bittern and Blanding’s Turtle habitat

can be protected through mitigation measures and no permit will be required. Permits are not

required for projects affecting Barn Swallow habitat provided a Mitigation and Restoration Record

is prepared and artificial habitat is installed within 12 months of the beginning of construction.

9.2 MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT (MBCA)

Under the MBCA, no person shall disturb or destroy, or take a nest, egg, or nest shelter of a

migratory bird within the migratory bird nesting season (March 31 to August 27). Where tree

removals or nest clearing on the bridge must occur within the breeding bird timing window, the

Contractor should retain a qualified Avian Specialist prior to clearing, to screen for breeding

migratory birds.

9.3 NAVIGATION PROTECTION ACT

A Notice of Works will be submitted to Transport Canada to assess the impacts to navigability of

the project. Conditions may be applied to the project should Transport Canada deem them

necessary. Any conditions as set out by Transport Canada will be implemented by the contractor.

9.4 NOISE BYLAW

Under Prince Edward County by-law 900-2002 “no person shall cause or permit noise arising out

of or created by construction or construction equipment before 7:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m.”

Should work be required outside of this time, an exemption to this by-law will be sought.



76 August 2017

10 NEXT STEPS

The Transportation Environmental Study Report has been filed with the Ministry of Environment

and Climate Change and is available for a 30-day public review period. Review locations have

been published in local newspapers and the report is available on the project website.

Interested persons are encouraged to review this document and provide comments. Should you

have serious, unresolved concerns after providing your comments to the Ministry of Transportation

and their consultant staff, you have the right to submit in writing a Part II Order (“bump-up”

request) to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change (Floor 11, 77 Wellesley St. W,

Toronto, ON M7A 2T5). The request should be forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation

Project Manager Glenn Higgins (1355 John Counter Blvd., Kingston, ON K7L 5A3).

Following the filing of the TESR and issuance of Environmental Clearance – Construction Start,

MTO may proceed to construction upon completion of the detail design.

transportation environmental study report report (3mb).pdf · transportation environmental study...

Documents