Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2022-392 - Class Environmental Assessment for Upper HIdden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain - UpdateStaff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Special Council DATE OF MEETING: August 22, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Hans Gross, Director Engineering, 519-741-2200 ext. 7410 PREPARED BY: Katie Wood, Project Manager, 519-741-2200 ext. 7135 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 3 DATE OF REPORT: July 4, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-392 SUBJECT: CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) FOR UPPER HIDDEN VALLEY PUMPING STATION AND FORCEMAIN - UPDATE RECOMMENDATION: For Information REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to address the concerns Pearl Valley Development Corporation (Pearl Valley) had with the recommendation to Council on June 20, 2022 regarding the Class EA for the Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station & Forcemain. This report identifies the changes made based on the collaborative discussions with Pearl Valley, including: o an update to Appendix E of the Environmental Study Report (ESR) with a flow range based on possible densities discussed with Pearl Valley. o an adjustment to the ESR to remove reference of private servicing to the 213 lands (identified in blue in Figure 1) from the body of the report. The financial implications are that the project is funded through development charges, as follows: Environmental Assessment Process in 2020; Design in 2023; Construction in 2024. Stakeholder engagement included a virtual meeting between the City and Pearl Valley on July 12, 2022, to further discuss the concerns that were brought up during Council meeting on June 20, 2022. A follow-up meeting with both the City's and Pearl Valley's consultants took place on July 20, 2022, to discuss the densities in the Hidden Valley area and the appropriate flow range necessary to design the pumping station and forcemain. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: Report DSD -2022-258 was brought to Council on June 20, 2022 and included the following staff recommendations: *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 295 of 917 • That the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Study Report (ESR) prepared by MTE Consultants, dated May 25, 2022, which recommends Alternative 2a as the preferred sanitary pumping station, be received; and further, • That the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Study Report (ESR) be filed with the Ministry of the Environment for the mandatory thirty (30) days review period as required by the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act. At the June Council meeting, Peter Benninger and Hanna Domagala of Pearl Valley requested that Council defer consideration of the recommendation outlined in report DSD - 2022 -258, expressing concerns with the proposed forcemain location and the future capacity of the pumping station. In response, Council deferred the application. As a result, the following resolution was passed by Council, "That the following motion be deferred to the August 22, 2022 Council meeting to allow staff the opportunity to further address the concerns raised this date related to concerns with the proposed forcemain location and the future capacity of the pumping station." REPORT: Following the Council deferral on June 20, 2022, staff have addressed Pearl Valley's concerns related to the proposed pumping station location and the future capacity of the pumping station and forcemain. The City and the City's consultants met with Pearl Valley's consultants on July 20th, 2022 to discuss the densities in the Hidden Valley area and the appropriate flow range necessary to design the pumping station and forcemain. Pearl Valley's main concerns were ensuring the pumping station and forcemain were adequately sized to accommodate any future densities used for the 2B lands. The City agreed that a density range (between 36-196 people per hectare) for the Northeast lands (213) would be a reasonable assumption to ensure the pumping station and forcemain are sized to accommodate a range of proposed flows. As such, flexibility to explore a range of density options through the secondary plan would be maintained for the 2B lands and will not have been pre -determined by the EA. Another concern Pearl Valley had was how the 2B lands will be serviced in the future. Upon completion of the Pearl Valley Species At Risk studies for the 2B lands, which will further define the Species At Risk habitat boundary, the City will undertake an addendum to the current EA to determine the servicing methodology for this parcel. This may run concurrently with the Secondary Plan however the addendum cannot begin until the Species At Risk studies are completed and approved by the MECP and any other necessary agencies. The Environmental Study Report (ESR) is based on developed solutions with known documentation. The Municipal Class EA process allows for undertaking revisions or an addendum to the EA, as identified in the Municipal Class EA document once new information is acquired. The ESR will be adjusted to remove reference of private servicing to the 2B lands from the body of the report to maintain flexibility for servicing options for the 2B lands. Page 296 of 917 �f '' Eklt•� RC �[ _tip'• ti>.�i - - 11 GrrN D _ •: ROPO ED SPS s, �r .:DCATON /1, fit APPROX AREA WRVI(- 9• PItOPOSEP SPS GRAM Tr FED TO MAOMAK1 1RUN14 SEW _ FUTURE SEROCINiG UY y ` NWER &IRC" SPS 9�y fUTURE S Ma%C 8} - LOCATOON A SPS 1f~ PROP06i SARI SFA �f}4'6 PRt7Pp$Ll FOWIMAN RADS KA - $iL4iY LIAfTS TRAO(S f AD CRAMn SAWTAR,� dr q13 _- Q• .E' 7r y AREAS SU86ECT TO ruRTHO ' �, • ": - - -, ..-, 110V LASELLED AS PER i1CWRE - _ANT} USE VASTER PLAY Figure 1 — Preferred Pumping Station Location and Forcemain Alignment To date, no new information was received that would result in a different outcome or significant changes to the ESR. Based on the maximum assumed densities, the proposed City Pumping Station would be sized to accommodate 91 L/s which would include any future flows from the Area 2B Lands and other estate lots located on the East -side of Hidden Valley. Impacts to Timing of River Road Extension Any further deferral of the Environmental Assessment will result in the delay to River Road Contract #2 (Wabanaki Drive location). STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Funds are currently available from the Development Charges. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council meeting. CONSULT —A meeting took place with the City and Pearl Valley on July 12, 2022 to further discuss the concerns that were brought up during Council meeting on June 20, 2022. A Page 297 of 917 follow-up meeting took place on July 20, 2022 between the City's and Pearl Valley's consultants to discuss detailed densities and flow ranges that would provide enough assurance that whatever developments are proposed in the future will be accommodated in the sizing of the forcemain and pumping station. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain, Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment (EA), MTE Consultants Inc, May 25, 2022 • Hidden Valley Sanitary Servicing Functional Assessment, Associated Engineering (AE), September • Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan, Planning Division, Approved by Council June 2019 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Figure 1 — Preferred Pumping Station Location and Forcemain Alignment Page 298 of 917 owz�g Up- MTE Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Project Location: Upper Hidden Valley Kitchener, ON Prepared for: City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON Prepared by: MTE Consultants Inc. 520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 May 25, 2022 MTE File No.: 48301-10( Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. 0-11'LlMTE Contents 1.0 Introduction and Background.......................................................................................1 1.1 Project Initiation...........................................................................................................1 1.2 Class Environmental Assessment................................................................................1 1.3 Study Organization......................................................................................................1 1.4 Indigenous and Agency Consultation...........................................................................2 1.5 Description of Study Area............................................................................................3 2.0 Objective of the Study and Problem Statement..........................................................3 2.1 Objective......................................................................................................................3 2.2 Problem Statement......................................................................................................4 3.0 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................4 3.1 Physical Environment...................................................................................................4 3.1.1 Surface Water Features and Topography................................................................4 3.1.2 Geotechnical Conditions..........................................................................................4 3.2 Municipal Infrastructure................................................................................................4 3.2.1 Municipal Infrastructure............................................................................................4 3.2.2 River Birch Pumping Station Condition Assessment................................................5 3.2.3 Design Flow.............................................................................................................5 3.3 Natural Environment....................................................................................................5 3.3.1 Designated Natural Areas........................................................................................6 3.3.2 Terrestrial Environment............................................................................................6 3.3.3 Aquatic Environment................................................................................................7 3.3.4 Wildlife.....................................................................................................................7 3.4 Cultural Environment....................................................................................................8 3.4.1 Archaeological Environment....................................................................................8 3.4.2 Built Heritage Environment......................................................................................9 4.0 Alternative Solutions...................................................................................................10 4.1 Development of Alternatives......................................................................................10 5.0 Stakeholder Involvement............................................................................................10 5.1 Notice of Project Commencement..............................................................................10 5.2 Public Information Centre #1......................................................................................11 5.3 Public Information Centre#2......................................................................................11 5.4 Agency Correspondence............................................................................................11 5.5 Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC)............................................11 5.6 Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA).............................................................12 Page 300 of 917 5.7 Region of Waterloo....................................................................................................12 Appendix B 5.8 City of Kitchener Planning Division.............................................................................12 Agency Correspondence 5.9 City of Kitchener Committee and Council...................................................................12 Appendix E 6.0 Evaluation of Alternatives and Preferred Alternative................................................12 Public Consultation 7.0 Next Steps....................................................................................................................13 7.1 Notice of Study Completion........................................................................................13 8.0 Additional Work and Monitoring................................................................................14 8.1 Geotechnical Investigation.........................................................................................14 8.2 Hydrogeological Study...............................................................................................14 8.3 Topographical Survey................................................................................................14 8.4 Preliminary Design.....................................................................................................14 Table 4.1: Catchment Parameters...............................................................................................5 Figurer Figure 1 Class EA Planning Process Figure 2 City of Kitchener Hidden Valley Master Plan Use Plan Showing Class EA Area Figure 3a Sewer Routes Option 2 Figure 3b Sewer Routes Option 2a Figure 3c Sewer Routes Option 3 Figure 3d Sewer Routes Option 3a Figure 3e Sewer Routes Option 4 Appendix A Terms of Reference Appendix B Team Meeting Minutes Appendix C Agency Correspondence Appendix D Environmental Studies Appendix E Technical Memos Appendix F Public Consultation Appendix G Proposed Alternatives Evaluation MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley Class EA I May 25, 2022 Page 301 of 917 0-11'LlMTE E.0 Executive Summary and Recommendations -1.f Executive Summary In January 2021, the City of Kitchener initiated a Schedule "B" Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study to identify the preferred alternative and preliminary design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain. The Study was identified as a requirement to support development in the Hidden Valley Area, as outlined in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan (June 2019). The Study will identify a location for a sanitary servicing pumping station and forcemain route. The Study Area is bounded by Highway 8, the Grand River, the CN railway, and Wabanaki Dr. The currently developed portions of the Study Area consist of mostly residential lots to the south and some industrial and utility properties to the north. The majority of the lands in the Study Area are vacant, forests, wetlands, or agricultural fields. The scope of this Study included the collection and identification of the constraints and opportunities within the Study Area for evaluation by the project team. Utilizing this information, the project team developed options for the servicing of these lands. The options were then evaluated in a manner consistent with the Class Environmental Assessment process for Schedule "B" projects, with the primary objective to identify a "Preferred Alternative" for the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain. The problem statement developed for this study is as follows: "The purpose of the current study is to define a sanitary servicing solution that will support responsible development in the Hidden Valley area, as outlined in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan (June 2019). The servicing solution will include identifying a sanitary pumping station location and forcemain alignment. " To guide the decision making process for this Class EA Study, a Project Team was assembled consisting of representatives of various City of Kitchener departments (including Development Engineering, Operations, Planning, Environment, Cultural Heritage Planning and Parks), the Grand River Conservation Authority, Region of Waterloo, and a consultant team led by MTE Consultants Inc. Formal Project Team meetings were held throughout the duration of the study. A formal "Notice of Study Commencement" was published in The Record on January 9, 2021 to invite the Public to review and comment on the identification of a sanitary sewage servicing solution. Presentation, discussion and input on the identified alternatives were presented at the Virtual Public Information Centre #1 held via Zoom on November 4, 2021. A "Notice of Public Information Centre #1" was advertised in The Record on October 15, 2021. A recording of the PIC was also posted on the City's website. Page 302 of 917 A second "Notice of Public Information Centre #2 — "Preferred Alternative" was advertised January 28, 2022 in the same newspaper to invite public review and comment on the "Preferred Alternative". The "Preferred Alternative" was Option 2a; constructing a new sanitary pumping station at Location A in the north part of the study with part of the Service Area to drain by gravity. The Information Centre was held on February 17, 2022, again via the Zoom platform due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on an evaluation of natural and social environment concerns, operational and economic analysis, as well as public health and safety concerns, it was confirmed that the final "Preferred Alternative" as shown in Figure 3b was approved by the Project Team. All correspondence and subsequent responses have been documented in this final Class EA Schedule "B" Project File. The EA Study has been completed in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act. This Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Schedule "B" Municipal Class Environmental Study project file report was presented to the City of Kitchener Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee on Monday, June 13th, 2022 and brought forth for approval by City Council on Monday, June 20, 2022. Pending Council approval, the "Notice of Study Completion" will be advertised and this report will be made available for public viewing at the Kitchener City Hall Service Centre, 200 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario as well as the front desk at the Kitchener Public Library, 85 Queen St N, Kitchener, Ontario and on the City of Kitchener website for the 30 day mandatory period. Preliminary Design will be completed in 2022 subsequent to City Council approval of the project file. MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley Class EA I May 25, 2022 Page 303 of 917 E2.0 Recommendation Based on the results of this Class EA Study, the following are recommended: A Sanitary Pumping Station (SPS) be constructed in the north part of the Study Area, south of River Road extension and ION tracks; The Forcemain from the SPS discharge to the trunk sewer at Wabanaki Rd and Hidden Valley Road; The SPS will service the developable area in the north and northwest part of the Study Area with the available capacity to service additional lands to the east in the future; The developable areas in the western part of the Study Area will drain by gravity to the trunk sewer or to the River Birch Pumping Station; An Environmental Impact Study of the Preferred Alternative be undertaken in order to identify environmental impacts and mitigation measures; A preliminary design of the Preferred Alternative be completed, taking into account the foregoing recommendations; and The City of Kitchener solicit a consulting engineering firm to develop the detailed design of the Preferred Alternative. MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley Class EA I May 25, 2022 Page 304 of 917 1.0 Introduction and Background Project Initiation In December 2020, the City of Kitchener initiated a Schedule "B" Class Environmental Assessment Study to select the optimum location for a Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain to service the Upper Hidden Valley area. Terms of Reference for this project (Appendix A) were developed and MTE Consultants Inc. was engaged by the City of Kitchener to complete this assignment. „lass environmental Assessment The Class EA has been planned as a Schedule "B" undertaking in accordance with Part C of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Document published by the Municipal Engineer's Association. For Schedule "B" projects, the proponent shall apprise specific agencies and potentially affected members of the public of the situation and proposed solution with two mandatory points of contact. This project conforms to the Class EA planning process (Refer to Figure 1) and is described under Section 3 of the Class EA Document as a new pumping station to accommodate future growth and development. The study process consists of three of the five Phases of Planning and Design Process. Phases 1, 2 and 3 will be covered in this document with the Preliminary Design being completed separate from this document. The purpose of this Class EA is to summarize all information collected and alternatives developed and evaluated (including the "do nothing" alternative), in a manner consistent with the Class Environmental Assessment process for Schedule "B" projects. The primary objective is to identify the "Preferred Solution" for the location of the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain based on an evaluation of natural and social environmental concerns, operational, constructability and economic analysis, as well as public health and safety concerns. If the project is approved, it will then proceed to preliminary design, final design and construction. study Organization A Project Team was assembled comprising various stakeholders and review agencies as follows: Project Team Members Name Company Katie Wood City of Kitchener Linda Cooper City of Kitchener Barbara Steiner Richard Kelly-Ruetz Chris Spere Andrew Pinnell City of Kitchener City of Kitchener City of Kitchener City of Kitchener MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley EA I May 25, 2022 Page 305 of 917 Name C. Foster Pengelly Jason Lane Dave Wilhelm Gemma Charlebois Samir Dhanvantari Company Grand River Conservation Authority Region of Waterloo MTE Consultants Inc. MTE Consultants Inc. MTE Consultants Inc. Formal Project Team meetings were held throughout the duration of the study to assess pertinent data, to develop alternative concepts, to solicit public/agency input, and to prepare for the two Public Information Centres. Minutes of meetings and relevant Project Team correspondence have been included in Appendix B of this report. A number of sub -consultants were contracted by MTE to conduct various studies within the Upper Hidden Valley Service Area and provide input on the proposed alternatives: Sub -consultants Name of Company Work Provided Archaeological Research Associates Ltd Archaeological and Built Heritage LGL Limited Environmental 1 A Inrlinann is and Agenru rnncilitatlon Full communication and participation by the review agencies (both directly and indirectly involved) in the Study was encouraged from the outset of the project. Each of the following review agencies received notification directly by email prior to the first of two Public Information Centres as well as the Notice of Commencement confirming that a Schedule "B" Class EA was being conducted and requesting their comment and input to the Study (refer to Appendix F for list of contacts and communications log): Region of Waterloo; Grand River Transit; Canadian Pacific Railway; Environment Canada; Grand River Conservation Authority; Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks; and Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry The following indigenous communities were also notified directly by email: Six Nations of the Grand River; Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation; and Haudenosaunee Development Institute. MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley EA I May 25, 2022 Page 306 of 917 Appendix C contains municipal and agency correspondence. Section 5 of this report discusses stakeholder involvement in further detail. 1.5 Description of Study Area The Study Area consists primarily of the undeveloped portions of the Upper Hidden Valley area of south-east Kitchener. The Study Area is shown on Figure 2. Upper Hidden Valley is generally bounded by Highway 8 to the north-west, the Grand River to the east and south, Wabanaki Drive to the west and Fairway Road to the north-west. The Study Area is primarily undeveloped and includes Regionally Significant Core Environmental Features. The vacant areas consist of agricultural fields, wetlands and forests. The developed areas to the south consist of residential lots with a mix of fully serviced lots and large estate lots on private servicing. The northern portion of the Study Area features industrial lots, Kitchener —Wilmot Hydro Transformer Station #7 and a few residential lots. In the near future, two significant municipal infrastructure projects are planned for the Study Area: Phase 2 of the Region of Waterloo's Light Rapid Transit will extend along the north and east limits of the Study Area; River Road will be extended through the Study Area and an overpass and interchange will be constructed at Highway 8. The sanitary outlet for the area is the existing trunk sewer located on Wabanaki Drive at Hidden Valley Road. 2.0 Objective of the Study and Problem Statement Objective In 2019 the City of Kitchener adopted a Land Use Master Plan for Upper Hidden Valley. The Master Plan was developed subject to the Official Plan and Zoning By -Law. It provides a thorough definition of the approved land uses in the area. The Master Land Use Plan is shown on Figure 2. The objective of this study is to determine the location of a municipal sanitary pumping station and associated forcemain route. The pumping station is required to provide sanitary servicing to the undeveloped portions of the Study Area that have been identified as developable lands in the Master Land Use Plan. Given the undulating topography of the Study Area, there is no single low point that can be used to provide servicing to the entire area. As such, the area was carefully studied to identify the optimum location for the pumping station. The primary objective of this Class EA Study was to identify the "Preferred Alternative" for the pumping station location. The selection of the "Preferred Alternative" was based on the evaluation of opportunities and constraints as they relate to the natural, economic, operational, constructability, technical and social implications of each alternative. MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley EA I May 25, 2022 Page 307 of 917 Problem Statemei This Municipal Class EA addresses the following Problem Statement: "The purpose of the current study is to define a sanitary servicing solution that will support responsible development in the Hidden Valley area, as outlined in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan (June 2019). The servicing solution will include identifying a sanitary pumping station location and forcemain alignment." 3.0 Existing Conditions Below is a brief description of the existing conditions within the Study Area, which provides the context within which solutions for the project were considered. Further detail of the existing conditions is contained in the various studies which were undertaken as part of this Environmental Assessment (Appendix D). Physical Environmen 3.1.1 Surface Water Features and Topography The area is bisected by Hofstetter Creek and Hidden Valley Creek which both flow independently to the Grand River. Hidden Valley Creek has three distinct reaches (North, West and East) that further bisect the Study Area. The Upper Hidden Valley Area features undulating topography that has a total relief exceeding 40 m from the high point to lowest point on Hidden Valley Road which lies at approximately 290 mAMSL. 3.1.2 Geotechnical Conditions The area is immediately adjacent to the Grand River valley and was formed by the most recent glacial activity. The upper soil deposits consist predominantly of kame gravel and outwash gravel formations. The soils can be characterized as porous sand and gravel layers overlying clay and silt till deposits. The local, shallow hydrogeology is influenced by the two creeks as well as the Grand River. Geotechnical boreholes in the vicinity indicate that the local groundwater can be less than 1.5 m below ground surface. Municipal Infrastructure 3.2.1 Municipal, Infrastructure There is limited municipal servicing infrastructure currently within the Upper Hidden Valley Study Area. The River Birch Subdivision on the south side of Hidden Valley Road is serviced by 200mm sanitary sewers that outlet to the River Birch Sanitary Pumping Station. The following streets are serviced: River Valley Dr, River Birch Ct. and River Birch St. The sanitary servicing terminates on River Birch St. just before Hidden Valley Crescent. The sanitary pumping station discharges through a 150mm forcemain that runs from the SPS along River Birch St. and terminates in a manhole located on Wabanaki Drive. All other residential properties in the Study Area are serviced with on-site private wastewater systems. All of the streets have municipal water services. MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley EA I May 25, 2022 Page 308 of 917 Twin 400mm forcemains from Freeport Pumping station run through the Study Area. These forcemains cross beneath Highway 8 from Cameo Dr. then follow Hidden Valley Road to the northwest and running south along Wabanaki Drive where they discharge into a manhole south of the Hidden Valley and Wabanaki intersection. On Hidden Valley Rd. in the south east section of the Study Area, there is a Region of Waterloo raw water reservoir which is supplied by the low lift pump station at the Grand River. The reservoir in turn supplies the Hidden Valley Pumping Station which pumps the raw water to the Mannheim Water Treatment Plant. The raw water is conveyed via 1200mm water main which runs along Hidden Valley Road towards Wabanaki Drive. River Bircn Purnping Station ,ondition Assessment River Birch Sewage Pumping Station is an existing pumping station within the Study Area. This existing pumping station was designed for a peak flow of 17.3 L/s and consists of a 2.4 m diameter wet well equipped with two submersible pumps, one for duty and one for standby. The wet well is complete with ultrasonic level transmitter with back-up float switches connected to City of Kitchener's Central monitoring system. There is an emergency storage manhole which is 3.6 m in diameter and is connected to via overflow piping. In December of 2021, R.J. Burnside conducted a condition assessment of the existing River Birch Sewage Pumping Station key conclusions of the Condition Assessment are that: The station is in good to acceptable condition, future repairs listed below: Generator Load Testing should take place in the short term (0-2 Years) Installation of air conditioning unit (2-5 Years) Installation of grinder on incoming sewer (2-5 Years) Replacement of Level Transducers (2023) 3.2.3 Design Flow Based on the Region of Waterloo and Area Municipal Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services (DGSSMS), the Design Flow for the Upper Hidden Valley SPS has been assessed. This assessment should be considered preliminary and must be confirmed during the preliminary and detailed design stages for the pumping station. Similarly, the receiving capacity of the receiving sewer on Wabanaki Dr. must be confirmed during the preliminary design stage. Refer to Appendix E for Upper Hidden Valley SPS Flow Analysis. Refer to Figure 2 for a map of the Service Area. The Design Flow is based on full buildout of the Service Area according to the land uses identified in the City's 2019 Land Use Master Plan. The Design Flow for the Upper Hidden Valley SPS is 91 L/s. Natural Environment LGL Limited (LGL) conducted natural environment field studies between April and October 2021. The following provides a brief description of LGL's findings; further detail can be found in LGL's Natural Sciences Report, included in Appendix D. MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley EA I May 25, 2022 Page 309 of 917 3.3.1 Designated Natural Areas The following designated natural areas were identified within the Study Area: Provincially significant wetlands, Significant wildlife habitat, Regulated Habitat for Species at Risk, Significant woodlands, Upland forest area, Watercourses (Grand River) 3.3.2 Terrestrial Environment The natural vegetation communities include remnant woodlots near Highway 8, the Hidden Valley core, and vegetation associated with the Grand River corridor. A total of 54 Ecological Land Classification (ELC) vegetation communities have been identified in the Study Area. A summary is discussed in the table below. Table 1. Vegetation Communities Identified within the Study Area (LGL 2022) ELC Code ELC Description Community Description Forest Dry -Fresh Sugar Maple Within Hidden Valley area, a mixture of Deciduous, Mix Forest, Dry -Fresh upland and wetland communities. This FOD5, FOM, Deciduous, Dry -Fresh Polar includes isolated groves of mixed and FOD4, FOD3, Deciduous, Fresh -Moist White coniferous forests. Forested FOC3, FOD -7, Cedar Coniferous, Fresh -Moist communities also located along fringe of FOD8 Lowland Willow Deciduous, and wooded areas and along bank of the Fresh -Moist Poplar Deciduous Grand River Marsh and Swamp The large Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh is located at the base of the esker slope in the central portion of the Study Area. Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh, The Mixed and Deciduous swamps are MAS2-1, SWM, Mixed Swamp, Deciduous to the north and southwest along the SWD, MAM2-5, Swamp, Narrow -leaved Sedge creek, respectively. MAM2-10 Mineral Meadow Marsh, and A second wetland area is adjacent to Meadow Marsh Hidden Valley Road at the northeast corner. There are also wetland communities along the bank and tributary of the Grand River Cultural Communities CUM1-1, CUT1, Dry -Moist Old Field Meadows, Located in areas around the periphery CUW1, CUS1, Mineral Cultural Thickets, Mineral of woodlands and natural areas. CUP1, and Cultural Woodlands, Mineral Dominant in the southern portion of the CUP3 Cultural Savannah, Deciduous Study Area. and Coniferous Plantations. MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley EA I May 25, 2022 Page 310 of 917 A total of 410 vascular plant taxa have been recorded within the Study Area. No new locally or provincially significant species were noted in the 2021 field investigation. The following are the Plant Species at Risk (SAR), Provincially Rare (PR), and Regionally Rare (RR) that were previously documented to inhabit the Study Area: Butternut (SAR): 18 are recorded in the Study Area James' sedge, Purple joe-pye weed (PR): located in deciduous forests, south -centrally in Study Area Wood's sedge, richweed, fringed gentian, bristle -stalked sedge, sand dropseed: rare in Region of Waterloo, located in forested and woodland areas in south-central and northeastern portions of Study Area, respectively Ginseng: single plant reported in 1979. None observed between 2004-2021 I Aquatic Environmen The subject area consists of the Hidden Valley Creek System, which includes West Creek, North Creek, and East Creek. Other watercourses include Hofstetter Creek, Hidden Valley Pond, Hidden Valley Marsh, Frog Pond, and the Grand River. No presence of fish previously observed in West Creek, North Creek, East Creek, and Hofstetter Creek. North Creek contributes indirectly to known fish habitat located downstream in the Grand River. Hidden Valley Marsh is designated as a Provincially Significant Wetland. It is also known as the Central Wetland Area. It consists of a shallow marsh. Since 2008 investigations, this area is flooded due to beaver activity and is an open water feature. No fish were observed or captured in previous investigations. Frog Pond is a depressional area adjacent to a residence and Hidden Valley Road. It is perched and not connected with groundwater levels. The pond is well utilized by breeding amphibians. Not evidence of fish has been noted in previous investigations. The following Aquatic Species at Risk are identified in the Study Area: Silver shiner: listed as Schedule 1 species (Species At Risk Act (SARA)), found within Hidden Valley Creek System and Grand River; Black Redhorse: listed as Schedule 1 species (SARA), found within Grand River; Wavy Rayed Lampmussel, found within Grand River; and Rainbow Mussel, listed as Schedule 1 species (SARA), found within Grand River. 3.3.4 Wildlife A total of 47 wildlife species were documented during the 2021 field investigations, including one amphibian species, 40 bird species, 5 mammal species, and one reptile species. MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley EA I May 25, 2022 Page 311 of 917 3.3.4.1 Birds Since 1979, 112 bird species have been recorded in the Study Area. Forty-one of these are considered Regionally significant to Waterloo Region. Of the bird species observed in 2021, 30 are regulated under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA), and the following bird species are protected under the Fish and Wildlife Conventions Act (FWCA): Belted kingfisher Blue jay Red-tailed hawk Turkey vulture Species at risk (SAR) include the Barn Swallow and Easter Wood -pewee. The Barn Swallow is regulated as Threatened under Ontario's Endangered Species Act, and the Eastern Wood - pewee is listed as Special Concern provincially and federally. q � 11 n 1k Twenty-three mammal species have been previously documented in the Study Area. Of the 5 mammal species observed in 2021, all are regulated under the FWCA: Eastern chipmunk (protected) Eastern cottontail (game) Eastern gray squirrel (game) White-tailed deer (game) Muskrat (furbearing) None of the mammal species are SAR. 6.3.4.:3 AmpnOan and Keratlle The Green frog and Midland Painted Turtle were the amphibian and reptile species, respectively, observed during the 2021 investigations. The Midland Painted Turtle is designated as Special Concern by SARA. In previous investigations, 13 amphibian and 6 reptile species have been documented. Previous investigations by LGL in 2007/08 have confirmed the presence of Jefferson Salamander — designated as endangered by SARA. A 2018 ESA Regulated Habitat for Jefferson Salamander was provided by the City of Kitchener, on record from the MRNF. Cultural Environment 3.4.1 Archaeological Environment Archaeological Research Associates (ARA) carried out a Stage 1 archaeological assessment of the entire Study Area. Assessments included background research, and fieldwork. A report summarizing the archaeological assessment can be found in Appendix D. The Stage 1 assessment determined that the Study Area contained areas of archaeological potential, no archaeological potential, and previously assessed lands of no further concern. It is MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley EA I May 25, 2022 Page 312 of 917 recommended that all identified areas of archaeological potential be subject to a Stage 2 property assessment, should the area be intended for development. The Archaeological report was entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports in December 2021. x.4.2 Built Heritage Environment Archaeological Research Associates (ARA) carried out a Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment of structures and landscapes with the potential to be impacted by the proposed alternatives. The report summarizing the assessment in included in Appendix D. The assessment included: Background research concerning the project context, natural context and historical context of the Study Area; Consultation with Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport (MTCS), Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) and Parks Canada databases; Consultation with City of Kitchener and Region of Waterloo Cultural Heritage Planners; Identification of any designated or recognized properties with potential Built Heritage Resources (BHR) and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHL) within the Study Area; A description of the location and nature of potential cultural heritage resources; Evaluation of each potential cultural heritage resource against the criteria set out in O.Reg. 9/06 and 10/06 where applicable for determining cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI); Evaluation of potential project impacts for each proposed alternative; and Provision of suggested strategies for the future conservation of identified cultural heritage resources. A total of 2 BHR's were identified as having potential CHVI: 602 Hidden Valley Road (BHR-1) and 691 Hidden Valley Road (BHR-2). Three potential CHLs were identified within the Study Area: Hidden Valley Road (CHL -1), Hidden Valley Road — Heritage Corridor (CHL -2), and the Grand River Corridor (CHL -3). ARA recommended that the BHRs and CHLs be taken into account in the final design of the "Preferred Alternative" in order to mitigate direct or indirect impacts. All identified BHRs and CHLs are within the Study Area and have the potential to be impacted. MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley EA I May 25, 2022 Page 313 of 917 4.0 Alternative Solutions Development of Alternatives A range of options were developed to address the problem statement. A total of Six (6) Alternatives were considered for the pumping station location as follows: ✓ Option 1 Do Nothing; ✓ Option 2 Install sanitary pumping station in Location A (in future residential subdivision); ✓ Option 2a Install sanitary pumping station in Location A (in future residential subdivision) with part of Service Area to drain by gravity; ✓ Option 3 Install sanitary pumping station in Location B(on Hidden Valley Rd. adjacent to Highway 8); ✓ Option 3a Install sanitary pumping station in Location B (on Hidden Valley Rd. adjacent to Highway 8) with part of Service Area to drain by gravity; ✓ Option 4 Install sanitary pumping station in Location C (in future commercial area near Wabanaki / Hidden Valley intersection). A virtual presentation complete with maps illustrating these six Options as they were presented at Public Information Centre # 1 are included in Appendix F. Note that Options 2 and 3 were both presented with a sub -option (# 2a and 3a respectively). This was done to assess the cost and implications of servicing the developable lands in the NE corner of the Wabanaki / Hidden Valley intersection. One of the main considerations was the requirement to cross the Hidden Valley West Creek with both a trunk sewer draining to the north and the forcemains discharging to the south. Initially it was determined that only a portion of the commercial lands would be serviceable by gravity to the Wabanaki trunk. 5.0 Stakeholder Involvement 5.1 Notice of Project Commencement From the outset of this project, public involvement was recognized as being important to the overall success of the project. A formal "Notice of Study Commencement" was published in the Waterloo Region Record newspaper (The Record) on January 9, 2021 to advise the Public of the Class EA process and provide notification that the EA study for the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain was to proceed. In addition to the newspaper advertisement, notices of commencement were delivered to residences within the Upper Hidden Valley Study Area and notices were also mailed to non-resident property owners. Copies of all notice(s) as they appeared in the newspapers or as they were delivered / posted are included in Appendix F. MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley EA I May 25, 2022 Page 314 of 917 3ublic Information Centre #1 A formal "Notice of Public Information Centre" was published in The Record on October 15, 2021 to invite public comment on the identification of a sanitary sewage servicing solution for the study area (refer to Appendix F for copies of all notices). In addition to the newspaper advertisement, notices of commencement were delivered to residences within the Upper Hidden Valley area; notices were also mailed to non-resident property owners and stakeholder agencies. The intent of the Public Information Centre (PIC) #1 was to present to the Public the alternative solutions under consideration by the Project Team. PIC #1 was held virtually on November 4, 2021 between 6:00 pm and 8:00 pm. The project was presented in a powerpoint slide presentation to pre -registered attendees. A question and answer period followed. The PIC presentation materials are provided in Appendix F. ,3 Public Information Centre #2 The formal "Notice of Public Information Centre #2 — "Preferred Alternative" was published in the Record on January 28, 2022. As with PIC #1, notices and information packages were also delivered to residents within the Study Area and mailed to non-resident property owners and stakeholder agencies (refer to Appendix F for copies of all notices). Public Information Centre #2 was held virtually on February 17, 2022. The intent of the second PIC was to summarize the information presented at PIC #1, respond to comments received at PIC #1, review the evaluation process and results and present the "Preferred Alternative" to the Public. Approximately 6 individuals attended PIC #2 and provided feedbacks to the Project Team (refer to Appendix F for a copy of the powerpoint presentation). Comments from PIC #2 were most concerned with the servicing potential of various lands by the preferred alternative. These comments have been addressed in this study report. Appendix F contains documentation from Public Information Centre #2 including the following: ✓ Powerpoint Presentation, as presented at PIC #2; ✓ Emails from residents regarding PIC #2 and response letters; ;agency Gorrespondenc Appendix C includes a log of all communications conducted with various agencies for this project, as well as copies of communications (emails, letters, etc.). Some key contact with agencies is as follows: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) The new mandatory notification procedures dated October 14, 2021 was provided by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks. Subsequent to receipt of the new notification procedures, the Ministry was provided with the notices of both PICs. MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley EA I May 25, 2022 Page 315 of 917 Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) The GRCA was involved throughout the project as part of the Project Team and helped to develop evaluation criteria and evaluate the proposed options. Regia- of Waterloi The Region of Waterloo is responsible for the construction of the River Road extension and construction of the ION from Fairway Rd Station through the Upper Hidden Valley area. The Region was a stakeholder in the project and part of the project team that helped to develop evaluation criteria and evaluate the proposed options. ..i.t viiy iA fiui %,iit ii kri Ciaiiiiiii% iJ1Y1SIVL Concurrent to this Class EA, the City of Kitchener is undertaking an update to their Secondary Land Use Plan. This Plan is intended to address the zoning and development potential for areas within the Upper Hidden Valley area that were previously undesignated in the Land Use Master Plan. Discussions with Planning staff were held and their input requested to address questions from residents and stakeholders on development and servicing potential for various lands within the Upper Hidden Valley area. ,01ty ui . ommittee and Council This Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Schedule "B" Municipal Class Environmental Study project file report was presented to the City of Kitchener Community and Infrastructure Services Committee on Monday, June 13th, 2022 and brought forth for approval by City Council on Friday, June 20, 2022. 6.0 Evaluation of Alternatives and Preferred Alternative After the alternatives for the various components of the project were presented at Public Information Centre No. 1, they were evaluated by the project team considering input from the stakeholder agencies and the general public. An evaluation matrix (Appendix G) was developed to evaluate and score each option according to the following criteria; Natural Environment; Social Environment; Heritage/Cultural Impacts; City Operations; Technical; Servicing Potential; and Cost. Six alternative solutions were evaluated: Option 1 - Do Nothing Option 2 - Install SPS at Location A Option 2a - Install SPS at Location A with part of Service Area to drain by gravity Option 3 - Install SPS at Location B Option 3a - Install SPS at Location B with part of Service Area to drain by gravity Option 4 - Install SPS at Location C MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley EA I May 25, 2022 Page 316 of 917 The alternatives were given a score between 0 and 4 for each of these criteria and then the scores were totaled to determine the "Preferred Alternative" (i.e. the alternative receiving the highest score out of 28). The scores from each of the seven criteria had the same weight. Option 1 — Do Nothing was not considered a viable option since it did not fulfill the Problem Statement. It was not evaluated with the remaining Options. Late in the Study period, it was determined that virtually all of the commercial lands in the NE corner of the Wabanaki / Hidden Valley intersection could be serviced by gravity directly to the trunk sewer on Wabanaki. As such, Options 2, 3 and 4 all became redundant since technically they were not viable options. A new pumping station was not required in order to service any of the commercial lands in the NE corner of the Wabanaki / Hidden Valley intersection. As such, from a technical and cost perspective, the only viable options were Option 2a and Option 3a. During the evaluation of alternatives, Option 3a had a lower score for a number of reasons It would have a higher impact on sensitive environmental lands; and It had higher capital cost. The development potential for the Area 2B lands will be determined through additional studies completed by the owner of that parcel of land. Additional studies will also be done by the City of Kitchener through the development process under the Planning Act to the satisfaction of the City, Region of Waterloo, MECP, MNRF and GRCA. A servicing solution for these lands will be determined following the outcome of these studies. The "Preferred Alternative" was determined to be Option 2a: constructing a new sanitary pumping station at Location A with part of the Service Area to drain by gravity. Refer to Figure 3b for a depiction of the preferred alternative. The forcemain for this alternative will be routed through the future residential subdivision and southerly along River Road discharging into the trunk sewer at the Wabanaki / Hidden Valley intersection. Refer to the Tech Memo in Appendix E for the Conceptual Design of the Upper Hidden Valley SPS. 7.0 Next Steps Notice of Study Completion Upon Council approval, a Notice of Study Completion will be advertised and filed with the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. The Notice of Study Completion will also be emailed to the Stakeholders. This Project File Report will be available for public viewing for a period of 30 days. MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley EA I May 25, 2022 Page 317 of 917 8.0 Additional Work and Monitoring Geotechnical Investigation A geotechnical investigation will be undertaken to identify ground conditions on the proposed site of the new Upper Hidden Valley SPS site. The geotechnical investigation and subsequent report will provide information to guide the preliminary design of the SPS. yvdroaeoloaical Studv MTE will prepare a Hydrogeological Study (EIS) in conjunction with the geotechnical investigation. Based on the preliminary pumping station design, the hydrogeological study will identify potential dewatering requirements and design parameters for the pumping station. Permit to Take Water requirements will be assessed. Topographical Survey MTE will conduct a topographical survey in the vicinity of the pumping station to assist with the design and to record the locations of the geotechnical and hydrogeological wells. '3rP1imin.qry Ilpcin« Barring any Part II Orders, MTE will complete a preliminary design brief for the Preferred Alternative — Option 2a. The preliminary design brief will: • Provide key design criteria, including required emergency storage volume and pumping rates; • Provide further details of the proposed pumping station site layout and space requirements; • Provide recommendations for odour control and noise suppression; • Identify required approvals; • Identify future study requirements (if any) related to hydrogeology, environmental, archeological, etc. All of which is respectfully submitted, MTE Consultants Inc. Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng. Director, Water/Wastewater 519-743-6500 ext. 1225 dwilhelm(a)mte85.com DJW:zeg QQpFESSIp�� 2 j G.CHRRtEG01S �� 1601266T/ 2022 -Os -26 O e� `INCE OF OSA Gemma Charlebois, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Technical Manager, Water/Wastewater 519-743-6500 ext. 1227 gcharleboisa-mte85.com Cc: Katie Wood, City of Kitchener MA48301\100\06 Reports\ESR Report\ESR Report _2022-05-25\ESR Report - May 25_2022.docx MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley EA I May 25, 2022 14 Page 318 of 917 0,10" MT E FIGURES Page 319 of 917 N N U O n C ^(Q n LU U I N LL 0 a N + v ¢ G Z 4 l W z`e� v3 Wru cow Z 4 ++�� Ouyp �FH Rei u] �f w0 wU� G=Dm �y -.0 °Li N O a INR 'w a. 44 a x ¢ y moz Wa 64 1 T Z 74-- zu 1 now 0 °gym paCC E, zIo0 0 m isV IT V W OLL�,�x�Wp� ¢�� 4�= VO¢�p aam w.[ wE ay mp¢j ¢ Uw U0 N 5.aQ w mm.dao o ° w z Mz u¢Fa S P W x i w p O X` LL Z p n p u J W i7 KwW aum -moo H"'2 �.: ti� SUZ f1�L �tln6 �aa� Z. 0- A wi alWi 2 awu 4zuz, z d�j0 QO dam-• j�yVj V� n �Lx1 Wti ---------------------------------------- - - ----- i� E�-n W woe [� ® I O Ax I n--� - wW R�awpp�rr�� z�¢ ;�° g5 ¢J * CO �i w 2 Qr� 2x-� ¢ gg K w D 2W' �vvi wa ix z i a��i w Foa8w `�� z- oa ZW a W s e 1Q it I R --c{--- _Q a ad° + `'ad I W da azp a q�b I I Ob no a O4 1�O F I I I _________________ ------------------ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ 9"— A TIVA N30 v J 0 3 0 0 < = = S3 V0 a i > Of H a m _ _PR _ K x O z 4 v a t•: W F oz n< ¢ =_ ¢ z ¢¢ o r z 1 a < LL l 0 o -w mw 030. U 0 a i ¢ Z O O < 4 3 N U U O w Y ¢ =pV H r>> ¢ — W ¢ w in o VI N \ Oj 3 rr R s W ¢ w ¢ E w = cn z U O O O m NO o cn w y p w 3 m to ti ¢ • d W _ w ? ¢ ¢ z¢ O Z Q Q r � = , O ¢ O O r U N U w Z o � a ¢ ¢ azo w o Z o — Z O O ¢ o 0 w z E r = c�7 m z z r r , � 0 D ¢ w F O Z F w U W w U a s z in a = 0 m � z¢ ~ O <n Z a o o Y O ¢ o p vwi 1 z D w a� r 1 1 r I z z (A [ z a W z o va¢ z� zo0<m I o o• �, 1 1 W x p m z o a �oN�woa J opQAi�oQo ❑L■■❑E❑❑❑❑ = a 0 U 1 U) N M Ire 9"— -14 Z Qrs ZA} a ¢�. W z WW m w' zoo N Yg ®�0 Z w J rn USS a jA w O �w 10 - V 1- Z V 1 0 Z O<(w7 = >N ZOr= 00Owy¢z�oo w Y O w: p 0K w Z rr�oC)>ac�cnu �Wwwzwo03w F W W= W N U m< H Orr W w Z ¢ YO¢Y Z UK O: �mN�m O �= I U z m� a0 0 Do a5Ro xW m L) r mzoyi gi�tn>� rx r - A TIVA N30 v J 0 3 0 0 < = = S3 V0 a i O p Of o a m _ _PR CNANOA RIApL x Wz>- smof z 4 v a t•: 0w5 o w _ 1 10 N0 0 VA < z o l 0 OZ 030. t� a 6 0 a i z ¢ 0 0 zwN F wzm 3 N =pV O ;p� >L aam \ Oj rr \C HIDDEN VALLEY E NORTH CREEK � �a� Emm • r���K O QQ U n QLi 7J Q NZ44 azo \ -14 Z Qrs ZA} a ¢�. W z WW m w' zoo N Yg ®�0 Z w J rn USS a jA w O �w 10 - V 1- Z V 1 0 Z O<(w7 = >N ZOr= 00Owy¢z�oo w Y O w: p 0K w Z rr�oC)>ac�cnu �Wwwzwo03w F W W= W N U m< H Orr W w Z ¢ YO¢Y Z UK O: �mN�m O �= I U z m� a0 0 Do a5Ro xW m L) r mzoyi gi�tn>� rx r - A J 0 � 1:;� a o a m _ E CNANOA RIApL x Wz>- smof zy0 mK- 4 v a t•: 0w5 wmo. z ::1 < l 0 OZ 030. t� a 6 0 a i z ¢ 0 0 zwN F wzm 3 N =pV m V) ;p� >L aam hi :" rr E w� �a� Emm n QLi Q 7 azo \ ;� w tan HIDDEN VALLEY NORTH CREEK of 0O Ua <pz 7V U O \NN O� } Q LLJ N (n LL C�j 4 r) r) D Q QQ 2 �Q a JW W W �o� baa O Z LLJ m V1 Q z O�> Xao w N H O LLJ m U U Q"'a cZOU' W}a E ()f 0LLJ moo oN =w0 J N w v 0 i a cn �Jco aw win wQ >cn Ld C) ¢� HiQLd Qo�N CU M �Z� OWM W W cn � W c cn U� W Q Q W n'U1 OW (nr Y a V1 W� W W� z WU cn U JQ m.cn ¢O m.W ¢O LLJ < HZ �¢ 0�' �O Q� -H ¢� a W Q U ll� WCL d W W n a- U n Z 0 3 cn L, �� V OF- x� O� xa_ O�oo� �� 1 a� 0 a_>- a->- W ¢ W 1 W m J Q m Q m cn J a 1 � 1 • ' \ I \ 1 HIDDEN VALLEY NORTH CREEK of 0O Ua <pz 7V U O \NN O� 2J3AI8 GNV�JO Ill (2J0412j2i00 012JOiSIH) 0�1 �,TnVA N30411-1 l,7 a N \N P, P yJ`� pR O } Q LLJ N (n LL C�j 4 O � D Q QQ 2 �Q a JW Q ZZ �o� baa O Z LLJ m V1 Q z O�> Xao w N H O LLJ m o ma Q"'a cZOU' W}a E ()f 0LLJ moo oN =w0 J N w v 0 i a WQ� �Jco aw 0 � >cn HiQLd Qo�N CU M �Z� OWM Z W c N a z, �Wm �Q ww O oil a ZCZDU 0� w V=3: m w a i LLJ < w co a W Q U ll� WCL d a i z Q d d M 3 2J3AI8 GNV�JO Ill (2J0412j2i00 012JOiSIH) 0�1 �,TnVA N30411-1 l,7 a N \N P, P yJ`� pR O �Q C�j 4 o � D Q QQ 2 Q a �o� baa O Z z O�> O ~�Q (n0��� E cZOU' W0 E ()f 0LLJ Q o �dH(n m � E � N N N O 0 � �co ZAli 'lx MS >- p p ZO � o o < Jaz LU W o C/') 0:� O� O Z N O Lu IL W Z U U = 0c J W i c wVJ w Q H N w Y9� > >> ILZ� QWO cl) zcn oo � Z m N oil C pLLJ Q oz Lu w LLJ cn d �� � p N � Q Q W J J Q 3 V) n U W p W W W W (!) Ei W W F m Q Wp Q Wp Z �'� �WCCZ �W ZO OW WU (n} cnp Y U mcn< QZ ai m W Qcf)O � W QO Z H Z L,c¢n H O H L,cWn�O O¢ a_L, J Q J } o oN p W 0 uc~n �� azo W QH L� V)O p H Xm O� Xm O�� 1 > J cn �c �� � - pw 1 � I O U W d � Z> w a�O a_} a- }W ¢W 1 N M W m J Q m Q m V) J m 1 1 pz 1E a LLJ • 1 ; w< W Q [Z m' W J Z Q d d �co ZAli 'lx MS >- Y \ °- ZO � o o < Jaz LU W o U � O� O Z N O Lu IL W Z Z j(6 = 0c J v i c wVJ w o a 0 Y9� i ILZ� QWO cl) Z m N oil C 3 a a Lu w WW a. co a a. M 3 2J3AI8 GNV�JO k ❑ `b (2jooj2pj00 0I2i01SIH) cn Ca 021 �,TnVA N300I1-1 HIDDEN VALLEY NORTH CREEK O � o 0 a�g � o D � Z} Q� QQ 3 0 2 \O�Q a �ocn O Z ui 5 c Z a W � of0ui Q �acn O of T —I d ° Y \ O ZO � Ua < 7V U � O� O \NN w s O � o 0 a�g � o D � Z} Q� QQ 3 0 2 \O�Q a �ocn O Z ui 5 c Z a W � of0ui Q �acn O of T —I d ° Un ll� Q F 0 0 r - o cl) M w w X<O QQ W m V) r QDn � °a U_ U_ o Z ma cn = J 00 c > � cn >> �Q w N a s cn Lda_ V1 � fY 3: n w< Q� w J c/) Q Q n LLJ o w w wtn m g Ow cnr cn Y C) LLJ U a_ cn w� w z Z D m U (n n U JQ w mcn QO m� QO 0 HZ DQ O� �O Q� JH Q� o ��Q o O fl fi w U1 w (n [l w U (/1 [If F- (n 0 OF- X O� X Ohm 1 W ou a_ a�� o5 1 0!� O a_>- w>- w Q w W a- --j Qm Qm(n Ja 1 � 1 \ 1 Un ll� Q F } r - o cl) M J:2Q ww X<O QQ W m V) r QDn � °a W (p — Z}a m o Z ma N = J 00 c a wQ� J Jin N a s Y>? �Iw Z [If N (n w< (y) 0 LL, E o C) LLJ U LNLI c 'm a cn o I LA__ W (� _ �joil w a a LLJQ w z 0 w W N m o ��Q LL a a Q a_ a_ M a 2J3AI8 GNV�JO (2J0412j2i00 012JOiSIH) :� 0�1 �,TnVA N30411-1 l,7 Ill d ❑ 116 �- � Q 0 HIDDEN VALLEY Q NORTH CREEK t= z Qo Un U z D z 3 U) z > B z in o �U �U Z� Un Un p z - U) �p� w oV)Q E co ww Of of 0 LLJ 4� v Z o a 0 I � � E 1 � � o ,hKyf� 0 ME p p a CV) ~M o O oo ao ZZ a O 0l� aN ZNO W LLJ u u LLJQ °m = Q H J CO Nuj a Y>� >� [IfQUO � c LLJ Qcn w oZ a U = Woil w w OZ M � a IL M c NLLJ a_ 0 0 LLJ w LLJp Q w� w w Q U1 Q Q p w �cn w O. o. m'Z O W 0>- Y cn mfr ai 0- � w0 w0 z Dw p0 a-0 0n O QDp J °' o p �w QO �w QO D w z Dc¢ H OF- Dcw/1�0 Ow �0 ¢D -j J¢ �� 3:z oN Z wz O a- a_ n wQ cn O OX O 0 O[ 1 w J Q W 0u a_ ��� p; 1 cn m'0 m CL I � w Qw mNc1 W m J Q m Q m V 1 J m 1 w Q W 1 1 1 1 z C3 cn U)<w D 1 O 0 OLJ Q �— LLJ -j LL Qdd 0 ME a3ni8 GNVd JO °r a CV) ~M o O oo ao ZZ a W aN ZNO W Z co z° °m = Q H J CO a Y>� s LLzM O LLJ Q c i a U = Woil w w m a W d CO a IL M a3ni8 GNVd JO a �'I+r' � w r• 7 2J3AI8 GNV�JO (2Jool2Pjoo o12i01C 0�1 �,TnVA NIGGIH l,7 Ill 0 y C�j 4 Q r HIDDEN VALLEY Q NORTH CREEK t= z .� Qo �� (nU in o ���wLn� 1a� Qo 7 =w Q LL �aCJ �U C-)>LLJ- cnv� _p z >- - <N w o�Q E ww co ON F -0 -OW Q 4� v Z a I 0 a \ 0 N U I B PN PK1 pR � o �I WP o O Ld O w O 0:� Q Ld F >-r- //��/ U > O N uj oz LV O u`o c O m� F w w< J Q < �� Z Z b v mo N w ww Q cng cn ww ao Wfii W ° o .. cn � ¢ L,J� QmLLJ� w>-� p Z z �c Ow D -U (nD U J¢ mcn _j ui a — Z a WWo m Z o z ma IN o N Q [if Q �z D Q Om � O ¢� J H Q o� Z o. = J co v Z LLJ Z N Li cn d L U cn 0_ H W (n Q (� J N w o S U10 OF- XO O� XLLJ> OUH w> LLI Y>H m a i LJJ o Q ou ��>> o a- ow I ae I o cn Z o m [):e 0 LJ 0_ z> I cn [If N(n N lizp W 0_ J Q m - Q V 1 C D QLiJ J m I w Q ('7 0W 0 E N o p CLLJ -j Z 0'U LUoil • 1 \ i ��—W O w 'n3:W U V m L a / n o wQ iL Z �wJ LL IL a Q d a_ 3 a �'I+r' � w r• 7 2J3AI8 GNV�JO (2Jool2Pjoo o12i01C 0�1 �,TnVA NIGGIH l,7 Ill 0 y C�j 4 Q r HIDDEN VALLEY Q NORTH CREEK t= z .� Qo �� (nU in o ���wLn� 1a� Qo 7 =w Q LL �aCJ �U C-)>LLJ- cnv� _p z >- - <N w o�Q E ww co ON F -0 -OW Q 4� v Z a I 0 a \ 0 N U I B PN PK1 pR � o �I WP o 0.14o MT E Appendix A Terms of Reference Page 328 of 917 1 K iTcHiE R THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL P20-094 Professional Services - Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain July 7, 2020 The City is seeking Engineering and Environmental consulting services to explore alternatives and generate a preliminary design which addresses sanitary servicing needs in the Upper Hidden Valley community, consistent with the Environmental Assessment Act. This assignment is to identify and define a suitable sanitary sewer servicing solution to support the development in the Hidden Valley community using the current Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan, June 2019. Within the purpose of this study, the following objectives must be achieved: a) Protection of the environment, as defined in the Environmental Assessment Act, through the wise management of resources. This goal will be met through monitoring, mitigation, and extensive consultation with all affected and interested parties. b) Minimal disruption to existing residents and travelers during construction. c) Participation of a broad range of stakeholders in the study process to allow for sharing of ideas, education, testing of creative solutions, and development of alternatives. d) Documentation of the study process in compliance with all phases of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Schedule "B" process. A 30% design must be completed in accordance with the Region of Waterloo's Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services (DGSSMS) — most recent version, and the City of Kitchener Development Manual, along with any other relevant City and industry standards (CKSS, OPS etc.), and community plans. A Review Committee will review the Proposals received and proceed with the selection process. Your response MUST include the following: • A list of all personnel to be assigned to the project team together with a personal resume for each individual to be associated with the project. * ONLY ELECTRONIC BID SUBMISSIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR THIS PROPOSAL * Page 329 of 917 A description of previous projects of a similar nature performed by your firm, including a complete description of the work completed by your firm, the names of your staff and their assignments in the project, the names of your clients and the name and phone number of an individual that may be contacted for reference purposes. • Detailed costing will not be required at the time of submission of your Proposal, but will be required at the time of the shortlisting. Responses that do not include all requested information will NOT be considered. SUBMISSION NO LATER THAN: Thursday July 23, 2020 —1:00 p.m. Local Time Questions, clarifications or interpretations regarding this Request for Proposal shall be submitted through the City's bidding system "Submit a Question" feature. The designated official for this Request for Proposal is: Polina Semenov, Procurement Specialist. * ONLY ELECTRONIC BID SUBMISSIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR THIS PROPOSAL * Page 330 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 TERMS OF REFERENCE P20-094 Professional Services Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain (See Figure 1 for Project Location Plan) Contents 1. PURPOSE.......................................................................................................................................... 1 2. BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................................1 3. PROJECT SCOPE................................................................................................................................3 3.1 PART 1— MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.......................................................... 3 3.1.1 SUMMARY OF TASKS................................................................................................................ 3 3.1.2 TASKS OUTLINE........................................................................................................................ 5 3.1.3 TASK 1— BACKGROUND REVIEW.............................................................................................. 5 3.1.4 TASK 2 — SITE I NVENTORY........................................................................................................ 6 3.1.5 TASK 3 — DEFINITION OF OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ............................................... 6 3.1.6 TASK 4 — IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERATIVE SOLUTIONS........................................................... 7 3.1.7 TASK 5 — EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES................................................................................ 7 3.1.8 TASK 6 — SELECTION AND DETAILED ANALYSIS OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ........................ 8 3.1.9 TASK 7 — FUNCTIONAL DESIGN................................................................................................ 9 3.1.10 TASK 8 — FINAL REPORT.......................................................................................................... 9 3.2 PART 2 — PRELIMINARY DESIGN.................................................................................................... 10 3.2.1 SUMMARY OF TASKS.............................................................................................................. 10 3.2.2 DELIVERABLES............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.3 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND EDUCATION.............................................................................. 14 3.2.4 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE............................................................................................... 17 3.2.5 REPORTING.............................................................................................................................18 4. DELIVERABLES............................................................................................................................... 18 5. PROJECT SCHEDULE...................................................................................................................... 19 6. PROJECT DIRECTION....................................................................................................................... 20 7. AVAILABLE DOCUMENTATION....................................................................................................... 21 8. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS.................................................................................... 21 8.1 FEES AND PRESENTATION REQUIREMENTS.....................................................................................21 Page 331 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 9. PROPONENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION................................................................................. 23 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1— Project Location Plan............................................................................................... 25 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Listing of Potentially Relevant Community Plans Appendix B City of Kitchener Standard for Survey Appendix C Public Information Centre Checklist Appendix D Project Mailing Requirements Appendix E Typical Tree Management Plan Details Appendix F Form 1 Appendix G Proponent/ Contractor Evaluation Forms Appendix H Evaluation Criteria Appendix I Comment Tracking Form Page 332 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 TERMS OF REFERENCE P20-094 - Proponent Services Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain 1. PURPOSE The City is seeking Engineering and Environmental consulting services to explore alternatives and generate a preliminary design which addresses sanitary servicing needs in the Upper Hidden Valley community, consistent with the Environmental Assessment Act. This assignment is to identify and define a suitable sanitary sewer servicing solution to support the development in the Hidden Valley community using the current Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan, June 2019. Within the purpose of this study, the following objectives must be achieved: a) Protection of the environment, as defined in the Environmental Assessment Act, through the wise management of resources. This goal will be met through monitoring, mitigation, and extensive consultation with all affected and interested parties. b) Minimal disruption to existing residents and travelers during construction. c) Participation of a broad range of stakeholders in the study process to allow for sharing of ideas, education, testing of creative solutions, and development of alternatives. d) Documentation of the study process in compliance with all phases of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Schedule "B" process. A 30% design must be completed in accordance with the Region of Waterloo's Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services (DGSSMS) — most recent version, and the City of Kitchener Development Manual, along with any other relevant City and industry standards (CKSS, OPS etc.), and community plans which are outlined in Appendix A. 2. BACKGROUND The Hidden Valley Community is located in the south east portion of the municipality. This area comprises approximately 183 hectares of land bounded by the Grand River, July 2020 1 Page 333 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 Highway 8, Wabanaki Drive and the rail corridor near Fairway Road. The area is within the East Side Watershed however there is currently a Hidden Valley Sub -Watershed that is being reviewed and revised through the Land Use Planning project that is more specific to this area. The Hidden Valley neighbourhood has varying land uses and zoning. The lands immediately south of Hidden Valley Road (east of its intersection with Goodrich Drive), and east of Hidden Valley Road along the Grand River are mainly estate / large lot residential (30T-04201 and 30T-88045) with some open spaces. The Hidden Valley High Lift Reservoir and Pump Station (River Birch Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station) is a Regional raw water supply facility located at the northwest corner of the east intersection of Hidden Valley Road and Hidden Valley Crescent. The area between Fairway Road, Highway 8, and Hidden Valley Road is a mixture of residential, industrial and utility land uses, including Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Transformer Substation#7. The remainder of the lands within the study area are currently vacant, existing as either agricultural fields, wetlands / woodlot areas or vacant commercial / industrial lots. The natural environmental features in this area have been identified in the Regional Official Plan as "Regionally Significant Core Environmental Features". Some of the land designations above are subject to change through the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan, June 2019. The City is responsible for operating and maintaining the sanitary sewer networks and pumping stations within its boundaries while the Region of Waterloo is responsible for operating and maintaining the wastewater treatment plants within the City of Kitchener's boundaries. In accordance with the 2019 Development Charge Background Studies, the 2019 Land Use Master Plan and the 2019-2021 Kitchener Growth Master Plan the City has identified the need to design and construct a new pumping station and forcemain connection to provide sanitary servicing for the Hidden Valley Lands. (Figure 1, Project Location Map) With the exception of the land that can utilize the existing sanitary pumping station (which is at -capacity or slightly undersized) on River Birch Street, the remainder of the area requires a wastewater servicing solution that is informed by the Land Use Master Plan. A preliminary servicing assessment was completed to determine that the Hidden Valley catchment could be serviced. The Proponent is to assume at this time that the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment component will begin in fall 2020, utilizing one consultant tender and submit their Request for Proposal accordingly. Budgets are subject to Council approval each year for each following calendar year, therefore timing cannot be guaranteed. July 2020 2 Page 334 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER 3. PROJECT SCOPE P20-094 The project goal is to determine a preferred option and preliminary design for the Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, by generating and evaluating various alternatives while considering environmental effects. The project will be addressed in two parts. • "Part 1" will consist of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the pumping station and forcemain. • "Part 2" of the project includes the preliminary (30%) design of the proposed the pumping station and forcemain. Consultants will be expected to identify, schedule and perform all tasks necessary to complete the study in accordance with the purpose of the project. 3.1 PART 1— MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT To complete a Schedule "B" Class Environmental Assessment in accordance with the requirements as detailed in the Municipal Engineers Association document "Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, October 2000, as amended in 2007, 2011 & 2015." The work shall include, but not be limited to, the following items: 3.1.1 SUMMARY OF TASKS a) Complete the Schedule "B" Class Environmental Assessment in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Engineers Association document "Municipal Class Environmental Assessment", October 2000, as amended in 2007, 2011 & 2015. b) Review previous studies, existing legislative documents, Provincial, Regional, and Municipal standards, By-laws, Official Plans, Secondary Plans, and other related documents. c) Establish the Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station drainage catchment area. d) Evaluate the capacity of the existing sanitary network system for the study catchment area and establish the need and justification for this project. e) Audit all existing sanitary services within the catchment area to determine their capacities and potential impacts with the proposed infrastructure and change in land use. f) Audit all existing utilities, establish any conflicts/relocations, and obtain approvals for relocation/protection plans. July 2020 3 Page 335 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 g) Analysis of all the servicing options for surrounding lands. h) Establish pumping capacity, forcemain capacity, and downstream gravity sewer capacity. i) Develop alternative pumping station sites and forcemain alignments to service the study area. The alternative alignments should be identified with respect to the positioning of the pump station. j) Develop an evaluation criteria based on the environmental factors such as: Land - use Planning Objectives, Natural Environmental/Heritage Features, Social Environment, Cultural Environment Heritage, First Nations/Aboriginal Peoples, Economic Environment, Preliminary cost estimates, and other identified issues. k) Evaluate alternative pumping station sites, and forcemain alignments with respect to the positioning of the pumping station, based on evaluation criteria developed by the project team. 1) Identify all environmental features that maybe impacted. m) Assess the need for advanced odor control technologies, noise suppression, insulation equipment and architectural discharge stacks for diesel fired standby power equipment and present accordingly at Public Information Centers. n) Evaluate the alignment of the existing River Birch Sanitary Pumping Station and sanitary forcemain and the sewage flows, with recommendation for any required relocation due to the proposed works. Evaluation to include if the existing River Birch Sanitary Pumping Station should discharge to the proposed pumping station, and if the forcemains should be combined. o) Identify property requirements including temporary and permanent easements. p) Develop a Communication Plan and data base including project contact list, and a detailed Project Schedule/Work Plan. q) Prepare all graphics and handouts for presentations, as directed by the City. The Consultant must submit copies of handouts and display boards to the City for review one week prior to a public meeting. r) Undertake a comprehensive Public Consultation Program and facilitate at least two (2) Public Information Centers, recommending preferred infrastructure location. s) Identify and document the permit requirements of review agencies. t) Recommend the adoption of mitigating measures during and after construction of the pumping station and forcemain to avoid or minimize negative environmental impacts. u) Describe monitoring requirements during and after construction to ensure that environmental impacts are as predicted. v) Prepare a final report to be filed with the Ministry of Environment and placed on the public record. July 2020 4 Page 336 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 w) Address any questions or concerns during the 30 -day review period. x) During the filing of the Final EA Report if there is any bump up request, comments, or questions, the consultant shall address. This must be included in the fees. y) Prepare functional design and drawings. 3.1.2 TASKS OUTLINE The scope of work for this project will include, but not necessarily be limited to the following tasks: • Task 1— Background Review • Task 2 — Site Inventory • Task 3 — Definition of Opportunities and Constraints • Task 4 — Identification of Alternative Solutions/Designs • Task 5 — Evaluation of Alternatives • Task 6 — Selection and Detailed Analysis of Preferred Alternative • Task 7 — Functional Design • Task 8 — Final Report The tasks identified are grouped into eight main headings each representing decision points or areas of similar types of tasks. The study process has been structured to achieve compliance with the process outlined in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, October 2000, as amended in 2007, 2011 & 2015. Read these tasks in conjunction with the Scope of Work. 3.1.3 TASK 1— BACKGROUND REVIEW Collect, review and summarize, from available sources, existing background data including, but not restricted to, the following: a) Topographic and aerial mapping b) Inventory of public and private land c) Parcel fabric d) Previous relevant drainage studies and functional sanitary assessments e) Floodplain mapping f) Relevant planning documents and environmental studies g) Inventory of vegetation, in areas of potential impact h) Wetland evaluations, in areas of potential impact i) Aquatic features July 2020 5 Page 337 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER j) Historical and existing land use k) Future land use 1) Existing corridors and easements m) Previously documented issues/concerns n) Examples of similar projects undertaken in other municipalities 3.1.4 TASK 2 — SITE INVENTORY P20-094 Conduct onsite investigations to complement background information, identify constraints and opportunities. At a minimum, the investigations will include: a) Identification of existing/potential flooding and erosion locations b) Inventory vegetation communities, wildlife, in areas of potential impact c) Existing infrastructure and utilities 3.1.5 TASK 3 — DEFINITION OF OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS As a key part of assessing the viability of the proposed alternatives, the study will identify a series of criteria by which to evaluate each alternative. These criteria will include, but not be limited to, the following: a) Social Environment i. Land use ii. Agricultural impacts iii. Community cohesiveness iv. Noise V. Vibration vi. Construction impacts vii. Heritage viii. Archaeology ix. Quality of life (health and safety) X. Aesthetics xi. Property requirement impacts xii. Emergency access xiii. Impacts on water wells b) Natural Environment i. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) ii. Areas of Natural or Scientific Interest (ANSIs) iii. Woodlots iv. Creeks V. Wetlands July 2020 6 Page 338 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER vi. Wildlife and habitat vii. Vegetation viii. Air quality ix. Species at Risk c) Technical i.Capacity requirements ii.Servicing feasibility iii.Pumping capacity requirements iv. Identification of drainage zones v.Structural vi.Utilities conflicts d) Cost i. Capital ii. Operating iii. Maintenance P20-094 e) Institutional i.Policies and objective of the City of Kitchener, RMOW, GRCA, MOECP, MNR, DRO, Transport Canada, MTO 3.1.6 TASK 4 — IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERATIVE SOLUTIONS Based on Tasks 1 through 4, the consultant will identify alternative solutions/designs. The Consultant will identify alternative forcemain alignments and/or pumping station sites including combinations of alternative solutions, which address the above -noted objectives. The Project Team will review the alternative solutions. Only reasonable alternative solutions and combinations of alternative solutions, which meet the study objectives, will be carried forwa rd. 3.1.7 TASK 5 — EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES The alternative solutions will be evaluated based on the EA process and the following criteria: 1) Effectiveness • Reliability that the objectives will be achieved in both the short and long term 2) Ability to Implement July 2020 Page 339 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 • Time required to implement • Compatibility with existing policy and legislative requirements 3) Ability to Maintain • Ability to implement a maintenance program, taking into account existing maintenance activities and potential improvements to the program • Sufficient flexibility to institute changes if targets are changed or if improvements are required 4) Cost • Capital costs • Operational and maintenance costs 5) Environmental Benefits/Enhancements 6) Policies and Land Use The study shall include evaluation and discussion of the following, but not limited to: • Existing and future land uses throughout the study area. • Review previous studies, existing legislative documents, Provincial, Regional, and Municipal standards, By -Laws, Official Plans, Secondary Plans, and other related documents including recommendations. • Future land development and road links. Based on the study area, the Project Team will assess the potential impacts of each alternative forcemain alignment and pumping station site. This evaluation will be an iterative process including refinement of alternatives, new options and combinations as they arise. A matrix evaluation method may be employed to ensure that each alternative solution is assessed against the same criteria. The Project Team will complete the net effects evaluation of the alternative solutions and identify the recommended alternative alignment or combination of alternative solutions. Mitigations methods for the alternative designs are to be presented in sufficient detail for preferred alternative selection. 3.1.8 TASK 6 — SELECTION AND DETAILED ANALYSIS OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE This stage involves the analysis of the components which best achieve the goals of the study objectives and will include: July 2020 s Page 340 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 a) Select the most effective combination of alternatives based on environmental considerations, technical, economic, aesthetic, public and institutional feasibility as required by the Class EA process b) Quantify all benefits, capital, monitoring, operation, maintenance costs that can be quantified in present value dollar terms c) Describe qualitatively all other benefits, costs and liabilities d) Combine these factors in a benefit cost matrix to compare and justify alternative components The consultant will recommend the preferred alternative. This alternative will be to the satisfaction of the City of Kitchener, in consultation (as required) with: RMOW, GRCA, MECP, MNR, DFO and Environment Canada. The study will summarize in detail the selection process used for the following components: 1) Recommended Works • Servicing Area • Pumping station site • Forcemain alignment • Sewer Upgrades 2) Implementation Plan • Project phasing, costs, prioritization and schedules 3) Mitigation Measures • Recommend the mitigating measures to be used during and after construction to avoid or minimize negative environmental impacts. • Describe monitoring requirements during and after construction to ensure that the project is built and operated in accordance with the approved design and that environmental impacts are as predicted 3.1.9 TASK 7 — FUNCTIONAL DESIGN The consultant will prepare a functional design of the preferred alternative for all project components. The functional design will include cross-sections, profiles and details including enough figures and supporting calculations to provide realistic cost estimates for the work. 3.1.10 TASK 8 — FINAL REPORT July 2020 9 Page 341 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 The consultant will prepare a comprehensive technical report with appendices for review that addresses the Class EA process from Phase 1 to Phase 2. The report should be submitted in draft form at which time, comments will be solicited from the study team, review agencies and the public. Draft reports shall be submitted (six copies) as required through the course of the study. The consultant will finalize the Final EA Report and provide six (6) copies to the City. The final report will: • Present the findings of the study complete with conclusions and recommendations • Be supported by technical appendices giving all the details required to make the report a complete document for future reference • Contain functional design for all aspects of the project (Pumping Station and Forcemain) 3.2 PART 2 — PRELIMINARY (30%) DESIGN The consultant shall prepare the preliminary (30%) design drawings and Design Report for the recommended alternative. All reports, plans or other deliverables shall be prepared using the latest version of AutoCAD and Word and provided to the City electronically on USB in original application and PDF formats. The preliminary (30%) design shall be prepared in accordance with City of Kitchener's Standards, City of Kitchener Design Standards and Procedures Manual - Wastewater Pumping Facilities, MECP Guidelines, Ontario Building Code, and Ontario Provincial Standards (OPS). 3.2.1 SUMMARY OF TASKS The work shall include, but not be limited to, the following items. a) Conduct all surveys as required for the pumping station and forcemain required as part of this project, as per City Standards. b) Illustrate property requirements. c) Assessment on impact to utilities and relocation requirements. d) Undertake a geotechnical investigation and provide a report with recommendations for the suitability of the soil and related construction activities, with detailed recommendations for groundwater in the design and construction of the proposed works. The geotechnical field investigation should include at least six (6) boreholes on the preferred pumping station site, to a depth of at least 4m below the wet well elevation. Geotechnical information is also required for the forcemain alignments to July 2020 10 Page 342 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 a level of detail enough for the detailed design. e) Undertake a hydrogeological investigation and provide a report containing recommendation for design and other infrastructures on the pumping station and emergency storage tank. f) Undertake Archaeological Assessment Stage 1 & Stage 2 where required. g) Provide environmental considerations recommendations, including proposed mitigation measures. h) Preliminary plan and profile drawings for the selected alignment and profile. i) Contact and discuss preliminary design with all appropriate authorities and incorporate all relevant comments. j) Prepare design criteria of the recommended works for City review and approval. k) Preliminary Design Report, plans/drawings (including cross-section, plan and profile), quantities, specifications and documentation. 1) Design calculation sheets for all services and estimates shall be submitted to the City for consideration and approval. m) Finalize the preliminary design and submit to the relevant authorities for approval. n) Provide breakdown of detailed design data and criteria necessary to obtain approval in principle from all interested agencies and authorities. o) Pumping station design to address use of: advanced odor control technologies, noise suppression, insulation equipment and architectural discharge stacks for diesel fired standby power equipment as identified warranted through the Class EA process. p) Address aesthetic considerations and community land usage criteria which will be developed during the EA. The station shall be designed to be as unobtrusive and architecturally pleasant as possible. q) The preliminary pumping station design will address power supply requirements including provisions for standby power, provisions for emergency overflow and SCADA requirements. r) The pumping station preliminary design shall be in accordance with the City of Kitchener Site Plan standards. s) Detailed cost estimates, including cost of construction using preliminary quantities and current unit prices within 20% accuracy and cost of engineering. t) Assessment of Noise. u) Rehabilitation/reconstruction of any structures. v) Recommendations for staging and preferable contract packages, if applicable. w) Identify need for, and probable duration of, any road closure during the forcemain July 2020 11 Page 343 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 construction. x) Identification of permits required by review agencies. y) Identification of all pre -engineering outstanding tasks, or additional studies required to complete final design. z) Prepare implementation plan. Preliminary (30%) design concept to be prepared and presented at the project team meeting shall include: i. Preliminary design criteria, ii. Analysis of existing services, iii. Preliminary site plan arrangements for the pumping station and including outlet and inlet pipes, iv. Preliminary plan and profile drawings including proper pipe width for the true impact of forcemain during construction (drawings should identify temporary working easements required during construction), V. Major conflicts and/or issues, vi. Property requirements, and vii. Cost estimates. 3.2.2 DELIVERABLES Parts of the preliminary (30%) design may form part of the EA process and report and will need to be included as part of the preliminary (30%) design report. The successful consulting firm will be expected to provide the preliminary design to the City of Kitchener six (6) weeks after the completion of the Class Environmental Assessment, including the following: a) Preliminary Design Report with Drawings (six (6) copies one (1) electronic copy). b) Geotechnical Report (two (2) copies one (1) electronic copy). c) Hydrogeological Investigation Report (two (2) copies one (1) electronic copy). d) Archaeological Assessment. e) Topographic Survey (plus any additional control established beyond what was provided by the City). f) Utility Relocation Analysis. g) Detailed Cost Estimate and Cost Analysis for the recommended alternative. The above shall include but not be limited to: a) Preliminary (30%) Design Report with Drawings When the preferred/recommended alternative is defined and selected, the consultant shall complete and prepare the preliminary (30%) design submission in July 2020 12 Page 344 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 accordance with the Standards of the City of Kitchener and Region of Waterloo, Ontario Building Code (OBC), Ontario Provincial Standards (OPS), and all relevant ministry guidelines. All the base plans are to be prepared as per the City of Kitchener standards, and submitted on USB with each submission. The preliminary (30%) design drawings shall include but not be limited to the following aspects: i.Preliminary design of the structures i.e. Site Plan (grading, SWM), building, wet - well, reservoir, etc., ii.Preliminary design of the forcemain alignment with plan/profiles and cross- sections, iii.Construction staging drawings, iv.Location and description of utility requirements (i.e. relocation impacts), v.Location and description of environmental mitigation measures (e.g. plantings etc.), vi.Tree inventory assessment where necessary, vii.Grading/Easement requirements including cut/fill lines extending outside R.O.W. or property line, viii.Traffic control device requirements, ix.Details of any construction / rehabilitation of structures, x.General grading/drainage requirements and drainage area plans, including stormwater management plans and reports, along with storm sewer layout, xi.Erosion and sediment control plans xii.Design brief, quantities, documentations, design criteria or references. b) Geotechnical Report • Undertake a detailed geotechnical investigation and provide report. The Geotechnical report must include enough details to complete the Detailed Design. As part of the geotechnical report, conduct information search for site contamination or conduct site investigation for contamination. • Geotechnical investigations and recommendations shall also include full foundation investigations, design and disposal of surplus materials in conformance to the MECP Clean-up guidelines for this project where required. c) Hydrogeological Report • Hydrogeological Investigation and provide report • Determine any water well/aquifers impacts. • Detailed Recommendations for construction of the pumping station and emergency storage tank. d) Archeological Assessment • Assess archeological reports already complete for project lands to ensure sufficient Ministry clearance is in place. Prepare Archeological Assessment Report Stage 1 July 2020 13 Page 345 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 and Stage 2 (if required) and submit to Ministry for approval. e) Topographic Survey The Consultant shall as part ofthe deliverables submit any additional project control plus the detailed topographic survey. • Vertical Surveys The Consultant shall use only City of Kitchener Vertical Control Network benchmarks for establishing elevations throughout the project. • Horizontal Surveys Project control information will be provided by the City of Kitchener for the topographic survey and shall be used throughout to collect the field data. Refer to attached Appendix B, Guidelines for Total Station Engineering/Topographical Surveys. f) Utility Relocations Analysis • Audit all utilities and establish any utility conflicts and obtain approvals for relocation or protection plans. • Coordinate with all utility companies during the EA process to identify property or easements requirements for relocation of utilities including guy wire easements during proposed improvements. • Obligate utility companies to provide relocation timings and incorporate this in project schedule. • Identify proposed location of utilities and secure consent from utility companies in writing. The proposed location of utilities to be identified through offsets from curbs and the reasons for selecting offsets should be explained in final report under utility section. • Consult with the Region of Waterloo regarding preferred forcemain alignment for future right-of-way use and watermain configurations. 3.2.3 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND EDUCATION a. Agency Consultation The City will arrange the Municipal Coordination Meeting and the Consultant will arrange Agency Coordination Meeting to solicit comments and suggestions on the following: a) finalize the purpose of the EA study determined in Phase 1 b) evaluate Phase 1 of the study including problem definition c) evaluation of alternative solutions and combinations of alternative solutions d) criteria by which the alternative forcemain alignments and pumping station sites have been evaluated July 2020 14 Page 346 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER b. Additional Meetings P20-094 The public consultation process is flexible and can represent an enhancement of the requirements for compliance with the Class EA. Additional opportunities for the general public to learn about the study could be provided through other appropriate means, such as newsletters, web site, community TV announcements, etc. As a part of this Terms of Reference the consultant will be required to attend any additional meetings required to provide more detailed consultation during the study with special interest groups or directly affected agencies. Therefore, in addition to the Project Team meetings, Municipal, Agency, Utility Co-ordination meetings, and public consultation process, the consultant should include at least five (5) such meetings into the consultant's budget for this study. The project schedule should show these meetings on a separate line item. The City and consultant together will conduct the following tasks: facilitate public forums, maintain mailing lists, prepare advertisements, and respond to enquiries. The consultant will be responsible for the taking and distribution of minutes, preparation of agendas, technical summaries and drafting comments to public comments/concerns, creating display materials and providing professional staff to assist at public forums. All display boards (including roadway drawings) must be produced in PDF format for posting on the City's project website at least one (1) week in advance of each PIC. The City will pay and arrange the newspaper advertisement for the Public notices and Public meeting facilities. Also, the City will provide the list of names and mailing addresses of the property owners. In addition to public consultation, other groups will be contacted directly including residents and businesses which are directly affected. C. Communication Plan & Meetings The following shall be considered to develop a Communication Plan and submit to the City of Kitchener for approval: a) Provide for a Project Initiation Meeting. b) Provide for Municipal Coordination Meeting. c) Provide for an Agency and Utility Coordination Meeting. d) Undertake a comprehensive Public Consultation program and facilitate at least two Public Information Centers. e) Brief Mayor, Councilors and Senior Management prior to selecting dates for Public Meetings. July 2020 15 Page 347 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 f) Contact and meet with appropriate agencies and interested and affected parties, and document issues and mitigation measures. g) Develop and maintain a comprehensive mailing list of all agencies, study area property owners, and other stakeholders. h) Prepare all notices and mail out to the public, agencies, and stakeholders. i) Prepare correspondence in response to public, agency, and stakeholder comments and questions related to the study. j) Contact and meet with appropriate agencies, interested and affected parties, and document issues and mitigation measures. A partial contact list is as follows: o City of Kitchener staff including ■ Operations ■ Planning ■ Other departments as needed o Region of Waterloo o Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) o Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) o Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs o Waterloo Regional Police Services o Waterloo District School Board o Waterloo Catholic District School Board o Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) o Major utility companies o Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) k) Assist with responses to public inquiries regarding the Study. 1) Regular Project Team meetings and monthly status reports. The consultant is required to provide an agenda one (1) week prior to the meeting and written minutes of these meetings to all parties within one (1) week and shall address all issues based on action, information, or when a resolution is required. The Consultant will carry out the work under day-to-day direction of the City of Kitchener. The Consultant will report to the Project Manager. Quality assurance will ultimately rest with the consultant. A study team will be established at the commencement of the study comprising of appropriate City staff and affected agency representatives. d. Study Team Meetings The consultant will be expected to meet with the study team on six (6) occasions. These meetings will be used to report on findings, progress, budget and deliverables. e. Public Information Centers and Presentations July 2020 16 Page 348 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 It is expected that at least two (2) Public Information Center will be required for this study and will be hosted by the consultant. The consultant should be aware that if found to be necessary or beneficial to the project consultation process, additional Public Information Centre may be required. The City of Kitchener will provide the facilities for the Public Information Centers. The consultant will also be required to present the final recommendations to Committee of Council and to the Environmental Advisory Committee. 3.2.4 PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE Before the Public Information Centre, meet with Grand River Conservation Authority, Region of Waterloo and Utility companies to discuss the proposed pumping station location, forcemain alignment and obtain comments. The Consultant will prepare a draft copy of the Commencement of the Environmental Assessment Notice. The City shall then finalize and post in the local newspapers. This advertisement will advise of public participation opportunities to be held at key points in the study process. The initial mail out by the City will be sent to all impacted property owners and individuals that have previously enquired about the study. • The Project Team will hold the public meeting to solicit public comments and suggestions on the following: a) the purpose of the study, b) a profile of the study area, c) issues and concerns within the study area, d) alternative alignments and pumping station sites, e) criteria by which alternative alignment and pumping station sites are evaluated, and f) the next steps in the study process. • The Project Team will hold the public meeting to present information, including the recommended design concept to solicit public comments and suggestions on the following: a) recommended design concept or combinations of concepts, • Documentation on the preferred alternative design should include, but is not limited to, the following information: a) recommended plan and profile, horizontal (1:1000) and vertical (1:100), b) recommended typical cross-section of the forcemain including road right-of- way width/easement and all the surrounding features, July 2020 17 Page 349 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 c) provide detailed cross-sections at critical locations, d) location and description of utility requirements (e.g., relocation impacts), e) location and description of environmental mitigation measures (e.g., plantings, etc.), f) tree inventory assessment where necessary, g) details of any rehabilitation/reconstruction of structures, h) preliminary property requirements for both acquisition and easements. 3.2.5 REPORTING After each group of tasks is completed, the consultant will be required to prepare a Progress Report outlining the progress made to date, a summary of the data collected, and any input or comments received. The progress report must be in the format of the draft report. If applicable, the Progress Reports will provide the Project Team with responses to comments made and any revisions to the process required in response to comments made. The Project Team will use these reports primarily to monitor the study progress. The format should be reflective of the final content of the relevant sections of the Environmental Assessment Report with references to other study documents as needed. These progress reports, taken together, will form the basis of the draft report. These progress reports should be in a form suitable for reproduction, in whole or in part, by the City and for use in a public forum. Draft reports shall be prepared as required, in sufficient quantities, by the consultant through the course of the study to facilitate review by members of the Project Team, review agencies or specific stakeholders. Six (6) copies of the Draft Final Reports shall be prepared for review by the Project Team prior to the presentation to Council. Six (6) copies of the Final Report shall be prepared and available to City staff prior to the advertising of the Notice of Completion. This does not include reports required for agency review. All reports, supporting documentation, drawings, presentations, etc. shall also be provided to the City of Kitchener in a digital format. 4. DELIVERABLES To facilitate the City's compliance with 0. Reg. 191/11 Integrated Accessibility Standards under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 11., the Consultant shall provide any final report and any other document identified by the Project Manager/City Representative as intended City website content in an accessible format that complies with the World Wide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility July 2020 18 Page 350 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 Guidelines 2.0 AA [other than success criteria 1.2.4. Captions (Live) and success criteria 1.2.5 Audio Descriptions (Pre -Recorded)]. However, this requirement shall not apply to drawings, photos, maps, site plans, or other documents that the Project Manager/City Representative agrees cannot practicably be converted to an accessible format. S. PROJECT SCHEDULE Part 1— Municipal Class Environmental Assessment needs to be completed within eight (8) months from the commencement of the study. Part 2 - Preliminary Design needs to be complete within six (6) weeks after the completion of Part 1— Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. The selected consultant is to submit a GANTT chart schedule showing the start and finish dates for the various tasks incorporated in the Work Plan (prepared in accordance with the Terms of Reference) and the dates of all proposed meetings. The schedule should be broken down into weekly increments. Also, indicate requirements for client -supplied information/decisions that are required to maintain the proposed schedule. The selected consultant shall maintain the Project Schedule and submit updated copies to the City on a monthly basis. Updates shall include current activities and identification of actual completion/delivery dates for the key activities. The consultant shall refine the project schedule/work plan for the Environmental Assessment study in consultation with City staff (this project schedule/work plan will be reviewed and updated in each Progress Report). The Consultant shall: • Submit a final project schedule for approval by the Study Team within one (1) week of award of the project • Ensure that the project schedule fits within the best time frames for public consultation and meetings of Committees and Committee of Council As part of the RFP the consultant shall include a detailed schedule including the anticipated start and completion for each task and all meeting dates. The Consultant must note that the City has the right to cancel the project at any time and the Consultant will be paid only up to that stage. If any delays occur during the project due to any reason the Consultant will not be compensated for the stand by time. The City of Kitchener reserves the right to revise the dates in this Request for Proposal or to cancel this Request for Proposal without penalty or cost to the City of Kitchener. July 2020 19 Page 351 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 The City reserves the right to modify specified target dates and to reject any or all submissions or to cancel or withdraw the Request for Proposal for any reason without incurring any cost or liability for costs and damages incurred by any Consultant, including, without limitations, any expenses incurred in the preparation of the submission. The Proponent shall: Submit a final project schedule for approval by the Project Team at the project initiation meeting. Ensure that the project schedule fits within the best time frames for public consultation and meetings of Committees and Committee of Council. A list of project action items and milestone dates is provided below. MILESTONE DATES REVIEW PERIOD/TIMING REQUIREMENTS ACTION ITEM August 3, 2020 Request for Proposal (RFP) Closes Week of August 17, 2020 Shortlist Interviews September 14, 2020 Council Award Week of September 21, 2020 1 week after award of the project Submit the Final Schedule September 28, 2020 8 months Kick -Off Meeting (start the EA — Part 1)) February 2021 Identify all of the options Tentative PIC April 2021 Identify the preferred design Tentative PIC May 28, 2020 Completion of Part 1 (Class EA) July 9, 2021 6 weeks after completion of the Class EA 30% Design (Preliminary Design — Part 2) TBD Council Specific milestone dates will be determined in consultation with the selected proponent following award of the project. For projects of this nature it is common for Proponent work to pause as a result of City or Approval, Agency review or for other unforeseen circumstances. No additional fees will be paid for perceived inefficiencies due to these pauses and restarts. 6. PROJECT DIRECTION The hiring of Proponent Services is to be considered as an extension of City Staff and as such Proponent Staff are expected to conduct themselves as representatives of the City. City Staff will be part of the Project Team to provide support and guidance to the Proponent as required. The Proponent will report to the City Project Manager and quality assurance will ultimately rest with the consultant. July 2020 20 Page 352 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 A Project Team will be established at the commencement of the assignment comprising of appropriate City staff and affected agency representatives. The selected proponent will enter into the M.E.A. / C.E.O. 1989 - City of Kitchener Modified 2006 Standard Engineering Agreement. ��e\�/e�I�e1=I�'��Z•Z�li ►l �i1�►�lie�L•P►1 To assist in undertaking and completing the project, the City of Kitchener offers the following data and graphics at no cost for sole use by the Proponent on this project only. Receipt of any or all of this data should not be considered a substitute for field surveys and measurements to confirm all existing surface and underground site conditions. Details of each item below can be confirmed with Engineering Staff. • Digital IIMS mapping including: - sanitary manholes, pipe runs, - storm manholes, catchbasins, pipe runs, - parcel fabric (not to be taken as OLS survey data) • As -built Drawings of the project area and cross streets where available in hard copy format or digital • Watermain/Gas "detail sheets" and service plans • Limited tree inventory and assessment is available as a part of the Land Use Planning Study • Consolidated plan of survey by OLS in hard copy and digital format where available • Mailing addresses of property owners and hand delivery addresses for all occupants • Digital samples outlining format and content for all documents noted in Appendix C • CCTV reports for sanitary sewers (where available) • Work management history • Additional community reports as per Appendix A • Detailed Field Survey if previously completed (detailed review and possible additional survey pick up required) • Available studies and designs • Limited geotechnical investigation report may be available • Concrete road base map • Coal tar street index 8. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS The selection of the successful proponent will be based on a shortlisting of Request for Proposal which may be followed by an interview (where costs will be provided). The fee July 2020 21 Page 353 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 structure and detailed work plan will be requested for shortlisted proponents only. Clarification may be required during this process to ensure a fair comparison. The first stage comprises of submitting a Request for Proposal with a maximum length of seven (7) pages (excluding CV's and other supporting materials). The RFP shall include the following elements: • Project Team members experience and qualifications, including field staff and sub -consultants • Recent and related projects including value of work • Understanding and Approach • Work Program • Schedule • Knowledge of the area - insights into the project, experience in past or current projects in proximity, knowledge of City processes and standards and demonstrated knowledge of the site • Declaration of Conflict of Interest • Reference to Comprehensive General Liability Insurance (value of no less than $2,000,000.00) and Professional Liability Insurance (value of no less than $2,000,000.00); • Reference intent to enter into the M.E.A. / C.E.O. 1989 - City of Kitchener Modified 2006 Standard Engineering Agreement (available for review at City Hall) • Signed by Person Authorized to Bind the Company • Fee Table — Form 1 (required only if shortlisted) • Copy of corporate Quality Assurance / Quality Control policies and practices Request for Proposal will be evaluated based on the criteria shown in Appendix H. 8.1 FEES AND PRESENTATION REQUIRMENTS Presentation of fees shall include detailed costs for each major task identified in the consultant's work program including total cost (including HST). These costs should be subdivided in terms of fees and expenses. In addition, the approximate per diem rates for each individual who would be involved in the project should be included. Additional items the proponent feels to be necessary for completion of the project should be listed and priced separately. Fees related to Resident Inspection must be calculated based on a ten 10 hour working day (7:00am to 6:00pm with a 1 -hour lunch break) at five 5 days per week. The consultant's detailed engineering fee should be no longer than five (5) pages in total. July 2020 22 Page 354 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 The presentation should also have regard for the details of the work program and schedule as well as any other pertinent information that may be of assistance to the Selection Committee in selecting the successful consultant. Outline in detail your firm's procedures for ensuring the Quality and Cost Control for the project. Detailed costing will not be required at this time but will be required at the shortlisting or interview stage. Candidates selected for an interview will be required to provide detailed costs for each major task identified in the consultant's work program including total cost (including HST). These costs should be subdivided in terms of fees and expenses (use FORM 1 — CONSULTANT FEE SUMMARY as a template in Appendix F). In addition, the approximate per diem rates for each individual who would be involved in the project should be included. Where fees include overtime, the dollar value of regular time must be differentiated from overtime. Additional items the consultant feels to be necessary for completion of the project should be costed separately. The City of Kitchener reserves the right to refuse any or all submissions and is not obliged to accept the lowest priced Request for Proposal. It should also be noted that the City of Kitchener will view the submitted Request for Proposal as a commitment by the respondent with respect to personal dedication, work schedule, and fees. At their discretion, the City may elect to interview any number of the submitting candidates. Candidates will be contacted in this event, and a mutually agreeable interview time will be established. Consultants' submissions will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria shown in Appendix H. City of Kitchener Policy 1-305 prohibits the acceptance of any tender from "any person or corporation who, or which, has a claim or has instituted a legal proceeding against the City or against whom the City has a claim or has instituted a legal proceeding with respect to any previous contract, without the prior approval of Council." Note that the details of these Terms of Reference will be incorporated into the Standard Engineering Agreement between the Proponent and the City. 9. PROPONENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Please be advised that the City of Kitchener will be undertaking a formal proponent performance evaluation for this project. A blank copy of this form is included with this Terms of Reference document in Appendix G. July 2020 23 Page 355 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 This form will be filled out by the City of Kitchener. This process has been implemented in order to record an assessment of the consultant's performance during this assignment. It is intended to reveal the consultant's strengths and areas for improvement as a basis for future dialogue at the end of the project. The proponent will be given a copy of the completed evaluation form for review, comment and sign off. The proponent will be given the opportunity to discuss the results of this evaluation with the City of Kitchener. The evaluation will be used to supplement information on Proponent past performance for future assignments. July 2020 24 Page 356 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER Figure 1 Project Location Plan for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station P20-094 July 2020 25 Page 357 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER rAV Listing of Potentially Relevant Community Plans P20-094 Page 358 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER Council and Community Plans Influencing Design P20-094 The following is a list of various Community plans and reports which may influence designs for various projects: • City of Kitchener Official Plan • Region of Waterloo Official Plan • Development Charge Studies, 2019-2021 • City of Kitchener Design Standards and Procedures Manual Wastewater Pumping Facilities • City of Kitchener Engineering Standards and Specifications • City of Kitchener Guidelines for Total Station Engineering/Topographical Surveys • City of Kitchener Infrastructure Plan and Profile Drawing Standard • City of Kitchener Report DTS-04-164 Design -based approach to City Building: Kitchener by Design • City of Kitchener Culture Plan I & II • City of Kitchener Urban Design Standards and Policies • City of Kitchener Pedestrian Charter • City of Kitchener Development Manual • Regional Municipality of Waterloo DGSSMS • Regional Municipality of Waterloo Growth Management Strategy • Regional Municipality of Waterloo Rapid/Light Rail Transit Study (Class EA) • Ontario Provincial Standards and Specifications/Drawings (OPSS/OPSD) • Ontario Building Code (OBC) and National Building Code of Canada (NBC) • Municipal Class Environmental Assessment — Municipal Engineers Association • The Municipal Act and Planning Act — Government of Canada • City of Kitchener Cycling Master Plan • Regional Municipality of Waterloo Cycling Master Plan • City of Kitchener Sidewalk Infill Policy • City of Kitchener Integrated Stormwater Management Master Plan (ISWM-MP) • City of Kitchener City-wide Sanitary System Capacity Study • Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan, June 2019 • Hidden Valley Sanitary Servicing Functional Assessment, September 2018 Page 359 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER APPENDIX B City of Kitchener Standard for Survey P20-094 Page 360 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER l KtTcHE- NER P20-094 Guidelines For Total Station Engineering/Topographical Surveys Page 361 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 1. City Right -of -Way Property Line to Property Line City of Kitchener standard codes shall be used. - curbs to be delineated by showing back of curb location and edge of pavement location @ 15 -meter intervals. - edge of pavement to be picked up independently in absence of curb/gutter. - shoulder (if any) to be picked up - ditch (if any) to be picked up - road material changes (if any) to be illustrated (i.e. pavement to gravel) - centreline elevations to be picked up at approx. 15m intervals starting approx. at STA. =1+000. back of curb and shots to be taken at approx. parallel positions to centreline shot locations. Stationing to progress upchainage south to north and east to west. - all driveway ramps to be shown (old style "concrete & curb", and new style "drop curb and asphalt") - bus stop pads, etc. (note material) - all vegetation other than ground cover (note hedge & bush size) - all trees and stumps (city and private) that shows the centre of trunk and includes a measurement of the tree's diameter at 1.3 m above ground level. - all sign posts, guardrails, handrails, footbridges, bollards, barricades, parking meters, fences, etc. - retaining walls, etc. (note: material type and width) - footsteps, footbridges - utility poles, light poles, signal light poles, etc. - any bridge structures crossing overhead are to show columns & abutments - if road is passing on a bridge, show expansion joints, edge of bridge and side barriers - all permanent or semi-permanent garbage receptacles, planters, bench seats, etc. - monuments, statues, plaques, etc. - survey bars, benchmark plates, cut crosses, etc. - significant berms or swales - boulders & cobbles & rip -rap, and other erosion control devices - Creeks and Ponds - edge of water - berms - retaining walls - rip -rap and other gabions - conc. — lined channels - dams - current velocity reducer dams Will mainly be - fish ladders on City lands - headwalls, pipe outlets but applies to - pipe inlets Guidelines For Total Station Engineering/TopologicalSurveys page -1 Page 362 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 creeks on PVT - intentionally placed cobbles property also - boulders - note obvious wildlife habitats e.g. swan's nest - any other erosion — control equipment - bush lines of forests (edge of bush or edge of canopy) (both when requested) - ALL - sidewalks (note material if other than concrete) - access roads (note if other than asphalt) - parking areas (note if other than asphalt, show curbs if any) label as such - aprons (note material) label as such - graveled or stone dust areas - any permanent or semi-permanent structures e.g. bus stop shelters, playground equipment, pumphouses, etc. note description - railroad tracks, track bed (if any), and signals with gate (if any) 2. Required Level of Detail Pick-up to Front of Building/House Private Property (Residential) - all structures permanent and semi-permanent. Note municipal address number and description if other than single family residence (building name, company name, apartments, garage, shed, etc.) if plaza or mall — note mall's name) - all vegetation other than ground cover (note hedge and bush size) - all sidewalks (note if other than concrete) - all driveways (note if other than asphalt) - parking areas (note if other than asphalt) show curbs if existing — label as such - aprons (note material) label as such - graveled or stone dust areas - signs - gates or other restricted admission devices - fences, handrails, guardrails, bollards, barricades, footbridges, porches, etc. - all steps - retaining walls (note: material type and width) - any poles of any kind (poles that are permanent or semi-permanent) - any permanent or semi-permanent garbage receptacles, planters, bench seats, etc. - electrical outlets - monuments, statues, fountains, plaques, etc. - significant berms or swales, ditches etc. - boulders - gas pumps and islands, etc. - bush line of forests - pressurized storage vessels - hazardous material storage vessels - rip -rap and other erosion control devices Guidelines For Total Station Engineering/TopologicalSurveys page - 2 Page 363 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 - private in -ground lawn sprinkler equipment 3. Utilities Based in Ground — Everywhere within survey limits (unless noted) - all catchbasins and drains - all manholes — note if other than sewer - all telecommunications and hydro structures above ground - all telecommunications and hydro structures below ground. Show structure perimeter and access hatches and cooling grates - all sewer catchbasin and manholes inverts - if CCTV is required contact: The Engineering Rehabilitation Section for assistance with obtaining information. - if catchbasins or manholes are blocked due to water or debris, note as such, and contact The Engineering Rehabilitation Section to coordinate Operation's Staff assistance as required. - all water/gas valves (including all water service curb stops) provide "dip" measurement to top nut of valve or extension. - all culverts (on City property) - all drainage inlets/outlets, headwalls, etc. - on cross streets or side easements with sewers that feed in to sewer system being surveyed — show location and inverts of the next manhole or catchbasin beyond drawing limits. (same for water valve info if possible) - if manhole or catchbasin is larger than normal size — document dimensions in field book. - gasmain and watermain vent devices - hydrants - utility meters on City property - handwells (note: size, use, including gas meters at side and front of structures) Guidelines For Total Station Engineering/TopologicalSurveys page - 3 Page 364 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER APPENDIX C Public Information Centre Checklist P20-094 Page 365 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER Public Information Session 1 Checklist P20-094 The following information boards should be developed for PIC #1: Note that all boards should be in full colour. • Signage into the building with arrows directing to the appropriate room • Standard Welcome board • Existing and proposed condition drawings (Plan only) • Photograph of each property placed in vicinity of correct property on Plan • Board with project highlights • Coal tar/environmental information board (if applicable) The following information should be included in the information package: • List of contacts — City (PM and Traffic) and Consultant • Anticipated construction timing (anticipated start date and duration) • Summary of works • Project highlights summary sheet (identify elements such as road widening, sidewalk widening, changes to intersections, streetscape issues, etc.) • General information on garbage collection, parking, etc. • Coal tar/environmental information handout if applicable Public Information Session 2 Checklist The following information boards should be developed for PIC #2 • Signage into the building with arrows directing to the appropriate room • Standard Welcome board • Existing and proposed condition drawings • Staging Plan • Detour info and alternative parking locations • Board with project highlights • Coal tar/environmental information board (if applicable) The following information should be included in the information package: • List of contacts — City (PM and Traffic), Consultant, Contractor • Staging Plan (as a graphic) • Anticipated construction timing (start dates, end dates, times of the day) • Project highlights summary sheet (identify elements such as road widening, sidewalk widening, changes to intersections, streetscape issues, etc.) • Detour routes and alternate parking locations if available • Information on garbage collection • Coal tar/environmental information handout if applicable Page 366 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER APPENDIX D Project Mailing Requirements P20-094 Page 367 of 917 E \ � d / 'o CL $ \ CL _ t .\ g � � E 2 e \ U - t : \ � � 2 2 cr £ / E \ / (U 3 Lel � 0') 0 m S m ¢ 2 n 0- /\ 0--o §\r oo\ 2\% � 1) t) \ \ Cl) 2 2 o a = n f&0 / a o // \ o U) § \\2 \ \ \2 . / w / � \ � \\2 \ \ \2 � / § * 0 � \\\ \ \ \2 \ ± \ .\C k ƒ 2\\ 22E 0 �� n= 7n= LE0 .\ \a\k\3\�\ Q \ 7o * &2 && 7o 2# ° \E5 §j = % .o >- o_e- o. Co =e \ { CO /.2 $ / / % » / § ± \ r 8 7 2§@# .k 2 8 E f// » � > \ / Ti- CN » \ \ \ ) n n \/ § \ \ q y c7 \ \�2 0 0 \ / C-) g/± 2 2 o 0 o M 0 c 2 E= q q » e2« § u \ \\ \ ' ~ / E \ � d / 'o CL $ \ CL _ t .\ g � � E 2 e \ U - t : \ � � 2 2 cr £ / E \ / (U 3 Lel � 0') 0 m S m ¢ 2 n 0- CITY OF KITCHENER APPENDIX E Typical Tree Management Plan Details P20-094 Page 369 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER Typical Tree Management Plan Details P20-094 The City of Kitchener's Tree Bylaw (Chapter 690.3.1—Trees and Construction Projects) clearly identifies the need to protect city trees during construction projects and follow any direction by Operations — Environmental Services. The City also has a strong interest in ensuring that private trees worthy of preservation are also protected. The Proponent will be responsible for the following: o pick up all City and private trees during the total station survey o ensure that the conservation of existing trees and the planting of new trees is considered and addressed through all stages of design and construction o consult with Operations — Environmental Services throughout the design\construction process whenever any proposed work (e.g. new sidewalks, road widening, sewers, etc.) may have a negative effect on the existing or future tree resource o follow any direction by CSD, in consultation with Engineering Services, regarding the existing or future tree resource o include CSD in all design and tender review stages o provide CSD with a full set of existing condition drawings in a pdf format immediately upon their completion o provide CSD with a full set of AutoCAD drawings of the proposed conditions at 90% completion immediately upon completion o provide CSD with a full set of AutoCAD drawings of the final proposed conditions at least two weeks prior to the final drawings being submitted to Supply Services Division. o insert the CSD Tree Management Plan & Planting Plan Drawings into the final drawing set, and all required cost items within the tender documents Operations — Environmental Services will be responsible for the following: o a pre -assessment of the tree resource, and preparation of the draft and final tree management plan o approval of all city tree removals o attending and providing all required information panels regarding trees at all public meetings, and committees (e.g. Heritage Committee) o provide pdf copies of the final tree management and planting plan to be included in the contract drawing Page 370 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER Form 1— Consultant Fee Summary P20-094 Page 371 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER Form 1 — Consultant Fee Summary Form P20-094 Class EA & Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain P2O-094 The following table is to be prepared for comparison of Consultant Fee Estimates. It is not intended to represent a detailed description of the full range of services to be provided. The Consultant is to ascertain the degree of detail to be summarized under each category and shall provide the summary for review at the Consultant Interview along with any other related information for consideration. The Consultant's summary must include each of the major categories (Highlighted in Bold Text) for the Fee estimate to be considered for this project. The sub -tasks (italic text) are only samples and do not necessarily represent a complete list. Task Description/Activity Cost PART 1 — MUNICIPAL CLASS EA Advertise Notice of Commencement: $6000 Schedule: Background Review: Site Inventory: Definition of Opportunities & Constraints: Identification of Alternative Solutions/Designs: Evaluation of Alternatives: Public Information Centre: Public Information Centre #2 Selection and Detailed Analysis of Preferred Alternative: Functional Design: Page 372 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER Consultants must bid on all Parts. Partial bids will not be accepted. P20-094 The City intends to award all Parts to one Consultant however; the City reserves the right to award each Part separately at the sole discretion of the City. The City reserves the right to award this Request For Proposal in whole or in part and reserves the right to add or delete from the award, if so desired. The lowest or any Request For Proposal will not necessarily be accepted and the City reserves the right to award any portion thereof. Page 373 of 917 Final Report: Disbursements: (List) Meetings: (List) Presentation to Council: Advertising Notice of Completion: $6000 PART 2 — PRELIMINARY DESIGN Preliminary Design Report: Geotechnical Report: Hydrogeological Investigation Report: Archaeological Assessment: Topographic Survey: Utility Relocation Analysis: Detailed Cost Estimate: Administration Sub -total $0 Contingency (10%) $0 HST 13% $0 Total $0 Consultants must bid on all Parts. Partial bids will not be accepted. P20-094 The City intends to award all Parts to one Consultant however; the City reserves the right to award each Part separately at the sole discretion of the City. The City reserves the right to award this Request For Proposal in whole or in part and reserves the right to add or delete from the award, if so desired. The lowest or any Request For Proposal will not necessarily be accepted and the City reserves the right to award any portion thereof. Page 373 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER APPENDIX G Proponent/ Consultant Evaluation Forms P20-094 Page 374 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 SECTION I - CONSULTANT DATA SECTION II - PROJECT DATA Report Type ❑ Interim ❑ Final Consultant's Name Project Name/Number Address Phone # Contract Working Days Actual Working Days Project Manager Contract Inspector Construction Start Date Substantial Completion Date Council Project Award Date Original Design PO Amount Final Design PO Amount Original Contract Admin PO Amount Final Contract Admin PO Amount Tender Advertisement Date Original Construction PO Amount Final Construction PO Amount Brief Description of Work SECTION 111 - NUMERICAL RATING: 1 -Unacceptable 2- Below Avera a 3- Acce table & Expected 4 -Above Avera a 5- Exce tional A Design Phase Rating 1-5 1. Supervision and decision making 2. Coordination and communication with City Staff and sub -consultants 3. Submission of documents and reports 4. Adequacy and timeliness of progress schedules 5. Responsiveness to City Staff requests and direction 6. Compliance with laws, ordinances and regulations 7. Solidity of design principles and elements (is it practical and cost effective?) 8. Relations with general public, other agencies & adjacent Consultants 10 TOTAL 140 x 100 B Quality of Work 1. Adherence to proposal terms of reference and fee management (staying on budget) 2. Standards of workmanship and integrity 3. Completeness of final design work tender documents and approval processes 11 TOTAL 115 x 100 C Construction Phase 1. Cost mana ement/estimatin , adherence to project scope AND BUDGET 2. Consultants handling of chane orders and credits. 3. Consultant relations and communications 4. Communications with City Staff during construction 5. Overall project management including attention to WSIB and MOL regulations. 6. Site Supervision 7. Handling of deficiencies and project wrap-up. 12 TOTAL / 30 / 100 GRAND TOTAL (A+B+C) OVERALL AVERAGE RATING (A+B+C) 13 Page 375 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 `An explanation must be provided for any Inadequate, Below Standard and Superior rating in Narrative Section (IV) (page 2) DISTRIBUTION: Original: Financial Planning and Supply Services Division, Copy: Departmental Project File, Copy: Consultant Page 376 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER Contract Number: GENERAL COMMENTS: P20-094 I certify that I have objectively prepared this evaluation basing it upon data contained in available project records and discussed the evaluation with the Managers of: Engineering Design & Approvals, Construction and/or the Chief Purchasing Officer. Comments: Page 377 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 Development Engineering Date Construction Project Manager Date Project Manager City of Kitchener City of Kitchener I have reviewed this evaluation for objectivity and accuracy. I have forwarded a copy of this evaluation to the rated Consultant and I have advised the Consultant that any appeal must be made in writing to the Chief Purchasing Officer within 20 calendar days. Comments: Manager, Development Engineering Date Manager, Engineering Construction Date City of Kitchener City of Kitchener I have reviewed this Consultant Performance Evaluation and make the following comments, recommendations and changes as cited herein or on attached sheets- Comments- Project heets.Comments:Project Manager- Consultant Date I have reviewed this Consultant Performance Evaluation, including comments by the Consultant and make the following comments: Comments: Director, Engineering Services Date Development Services Department City of Kitchener Page 378 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER P20-094 Page 379 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER APPENDIX H Evaluation Criteria • Proposal Evaluation P20-094 (for general information only — criteria and weighting subject to change) Page 380 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER INITIAL PROPOSAL RATING SHEET Number Criteria 1. Evaluation of Proposed Proj ect Manager 2. Completeness of the Proposal 3. Qualifications/Expertise 4. Variety & Quality of Disciplines In House/In Consortium 5. Past Performance 6. Knowledge of the City (re: this area) II TOTAL MAX POINTS 20 25 25 10 10 10 100 P20-094 Shortlisted firms will be contacted for detailed work plans and pricing. The City may elect to conduct interviews with all that are shortlisted. INTERVIEW RATING SHEET (IF APPLICABLE) Number Criteria L Initial Proposal Score — Carried Over 2. Effect of Interview 4. - Project Manager - Project Team - Understanding of project/site - Overall presentation 3. Cost of Consultant's Fees 4. Work Plan TOTAL MAY. POINTS 50 20 20 10 100 NO INTERVIEW RATING SHEET (IF APPLICABLE) Number Criteria 1. Initial Proposal Score — Carried Over 3. Cost of Consultant's Fees 4. Work Plan TOTAL MAY, POINTS 50 40 10 100 Page 381 of 917 CITY OF KITCHENER APPENDIX I Comment Tracking Form P20-094 Page 382 of 917 C? 0 N d u m V 0 0 d -L d -L 4 C b R C o- C P , , C Y E 0 of Z `P d c as � ua Li U ti rn 4- 0 (Y) co (Y) a� LL 'Lo C ;'S 3 R a a .O d R y J C E � i� �E E m ti rn 4- 0 (Y) co (Y) a� LL J KiTc�,�R P20-094 - Professional Services Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Addendum #1 July 10, 2020 This Addendum is issued for the purpose of clarifying, amending or revising information contained in the Contract Documents. Question 1: Please provide clarification on the closing date for the submission. The bid submission deadline on Pg. 20 of the RFP document indicates a closing date of August 3rd, 2020 whereas the Bids and Tenders advertisement page indicates July 23, 2020. Answer 1: We got the RFP document out earlier than expected and therefore the closing date will be July 23, 2020. Question 2: August 3rd, 2020 is Civic holiday. Would the City consider extending the closing date as to not fall on the holiday? Answer 2: As noted above the closing date is now July 23, 2020 and will not fall on a holiday. Page 384 of 917 Question 3: How is "5) Past Performance" within the proposal evaluation criteria table scored? Is it based on previous projects as verified by reference checks? Or is it strictly based on past performance on City of Kitchener assignments? Answer 3: Experience is a cross of past performance on City projects as well as us calling references from past jobs not within the City of Kitchener. Half of the marks will be for our experience and half will be for reference checks. Question 4: How is "4) Variety & Quality of Disciplines in house/In Consortium" within the proposal evaluation criteria table scored? Will proponents that have multiple disciplines in-house be favoured over proponents carrying appropriate sub -consultants? Answer 4: In consortium would include subs as a well inhouse consultant teams. Proponents shall acknowledge receipt of all addenda through the City's bidding system prior to submitting their proposal. Page 385 of 917 J KiTc�,�R P20-094 - Professional Services Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Addendum #2 July 14, 2020 This Addendum is issued for the purpose of clarifying, amending or revising information contained in the Contract Documents. Question 1: What level of detail will be required for the SCADA requirements in the preliminary design? Answer 1: The general SCADA requirements will based on the updated City standards to be provided to the successful bidder. Question 2: What are the requirements of the Assessment of Noise? Answer 2: The noise assessment requirements will be based on the Ministry's NPC -300 guidelines and the Regional Noise Implementation Guidelines. Question 3: What will be the subject of the rehabilitation of structures? Page 386 of 917 Answer 3: The rehabilitation will be required based on the existing infrastructure and upgrades that may be identified through the preliminary design. Proponents shall acknowledge receipt of all addenda through the City's bidding system prior to submitting their Proposal. Page 387 of 917 J KiTc�,�R P20-094 - Professional Services Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Addendum #3 July 17, 2020 This Addendum is issued for the purpose of clarifying, amending or revising information contained in the Contract Documents. Question 1: Would the City please consider granting a one week extension to the closing date for the proposal? Answer 1: The City is not considering extension at this time. Proponents shall acknowledge receipt of all addenda through the City's bidding system prior to submitting their Proposal. Page 388 of 917 01"MTE Appendix B Team Meeting Minutes Page 389 of 917 OD'MTE Project Name: Purpose: Time: Attendees: Katie Wood Linda Cooper Barbara Steiner Richard Kelly-Ruetz Dave Wilhelm Gemma Charlebois Samir Dhanvantari Z�4 Initials Ia41'� EM Representation City of Kitchener City of Kitchener City of Kitchener City of Kitchener MTE Consultants Inc. MTE Consultants Inc. MTE Consultants Inc. Distribution: All Attendees; Andrew Pinnell, Chris Spere — City of Kitchener C. Foster Pengelly — Grand River Conservation Authority Item Discussion Action No. 1.0 Status Updates 1.1 Feedback to Date o Mailout of notices to all stakeholders including residents and three First Nations. o Received comments from a few residents expressing interest and request to be notified of PIC. Two residents expressed interest in DW —MTE municipal servicing. DW to send names/contact info to City. o MTE expressed difficulty in obtaining environmental reports from Pearl Development. o BS notes that they have not had impression that Pearl Development is withholding data. Y 1.2 Potential SPS locations and forcemain routing o BS: Area 4 has draft approval status for development however is part of core environmental features. Not likely for development. o BS: Area 3 is a regulated area. It is not feasible for residential development unless the Region makes an exception to the "no septic systems" rule as municipal servicing in this area is difficult. Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 390 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley SPS MTE File No.: C48301-100 Class EA Potential SPS Locations �. Meting Date: August 4, 2021 r (D 1:00 pm Meeting Location: Remote via Webex N Initials Ia41'� EM Representation City of Kitchener City of Kitchener City of Kitchener City of Kitchener MTE Consultants Inc. MTE Consultants Inc. MTE Consultants Inc. Distribution: All Attendees; Andrew Pinnell, Chris Spere — City of Kitchener C. Foster Pengelly — Grand River Conservation Authority Item Discussion Action No. 1.0 Status Updates 1.1 Feedback to Date o Mailout of notices to all stakeholders including residents and three First Nations. o Received comments from a few residents expressing interest and request to be notified of PIC. Two residents expressed interest in DW —MTE municipal servicing. DW to send names/contact info to City. o MTE expressed difficulty in obtaining environmental reports from Pearl Development. o BS notes that they have not had impression that Pearl Development is withholding data. Y 1.2 Potential SPS locations and forcemain routing o BS: Area 4 has draft approval status for development however is part of core environmental features. Not likely for development. o BS: Area 3 is a regulated area. It is not feasible for residential development unless the Region makes an exception to the "no septic systems" rule as municipal servicing in this area is difficult. Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 390 of 917 OD'MTE Item Discussion No. 1.3 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Results 1.4 Preliminary Natural Heritage Results 1.5 Presentation of Evaluation Criteria o BS: include induced impacts to Natural Environment criteria. Induced impacts = how presence/construction of SPS in location affects other areas. e.g. risk to adjacent natural features due to SPS failure or emergency overflow o KW open to any scoring system for evaluation matrix o BS prefer more pictorial representation for scoring to avoid impression that numbers represent quantitative values. o KW to review criteria with Operations Staff. Action 2.0 Next Steps and Schedule 2.1 PIC o Set PIC for early October in digital/virtual format 2.2 Evaluation of Options 2.3 Next meeting o Next meeting set for September 8 or 9, 2021. Meeting will include City, GRCA, MTE, LGL, and ARA to discuss PIC presentation material. Material to be prepared in advance of meeting. KW - City Minutes completed by: Gemma Charlebois — please report any errors or omissions. Thank you. MA48301\100\01 Meetings\Meeting Minutes_2021-08-04.docx Z�4 QQ (D N Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 391 of 917= OD'MTE Project Name: Purpose: Time: Attendees: Katie Wood Barbara Steiner Linda Cooper Andrew Pennell Chris Foster Pengally Allison Featherstone Monica Maika Victoria Cafik Amy Barnes Dave Wilhelm Gemma Charlebois Samir Dhanvantari Upper Hidden Valley SPS Class EA PIC Preparations with City 1:00 pm Distribution: All Attendees; Item Discussion No. 1.0 Proiect Status MTE File No.: C48301-100 Date: September 8, 2021 Meeting Location: Remote via Webex Initials I Representation KW I City of Kitchener BS City of Kitchener City of Kitchener City of Kitchener GRCA LGL Limited ARA Heritage LC AP CFP AF MM VC ARA Heritage AB ARA Heritage DW MTE Consultants Inc. GC MTE Consultants Inc. SD MTE Consultants Inc. Discussion of project to -date and next steps following PIC o Team meeting following PIC o Evaluation sub -committee or all to provide individual input. Katie to confirm and address. o Each city department namely engineering, environmental, planning and GRCA to comment. o Evaluations will take place prior to the meeting then discussed in the meeting. 2.0 Presentation of Field Investigations Archaeological Findings o Test pit or pedestrian or combination survey for stage 2. Marine survey for Grand River (if required) Cultural Heritage Findings o Grand River and Heritage road corridor has three built heritage structures Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Action KW Z�4 Q fD N Page 392 of 917' OD'MTE Item Discussion No. o Indigenous engagement— three First Nations —no response to heritage report; all respond to archaeological report Environmental findings o Vegetation limits, wetlands, nesting and wintering grounds o Permits and approvals required for all. 3.0 Presentation of Draft PIC [01 Use label in land use master plan for `white' areas o Technically feasible to service o Developable determination according to other criteria o Gray shading —not 100 percent may necessarily be technically feasible servicing Action 4.0 1 PIC Particulars o There is a specific EA comment link section on the city's web page, KW Katie to provide link. o The City prefers using existing template. o How to capture scale of SPS? o Proposed Bullet points on dimensions of typical station. o Include couple photographs, include address and name o Nearby rather than typical o Highlight exact location of each location as presenter is speaking o Shrinking line type possible? o Send over clarifications for environmental features and standard features. AF o Live comment acceptance period of 2 weeks to be sufficient. o Preferred date for the PIC October 2021, avoid Mondays and Fridays o LC prefers `live' and not pre-recorded o AP state that there needs to be live Question and Answer session o AP suggested to video record entire presentation and ask for comments up to 10 days afterwards 5.0 Other Business Z�4 Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 393 of 917= NIT E Minutes completed by: Gemma Charlebois — please report any errors or omissions. Thank you. �. r -r (D MA48301\100\01 Meetings\PIC Meeting with City Minutes_2021-09-08.docx (n Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 394 of 917' OD'MTE Project Name: Upper Hidden Valley SPS Class EA Purpose: Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Time: 10:00 pm Meeting Location: Webex MTE File No.: C48301-100 D CQ Date: January 17, 2022 Q I) Invitees Katie Wood Chris Spere Linda Cooper Initials Representation City of Kitchener _ City of Kitchener City of Kitchener City of Kitchener KW CS LC Barbara Steiner BS Andrew Pinnell AP City of Kitchener Richard Kelly-Ruetz Victoria Grohn C. Foster Pengelly RR City of Kitchener City of Kitchener Grand River Conservation Authority VG CFP Jason Lane JL Region of Waterloo Dave Wilhelm DW MTE Consultants Inc. Gemma Charlebois GC MTE Consultants Inc. Allison Featherstone AF LGL Environmental Item Discussion Action No. 1.0 Project Status 1.1 Recap of status of project to -date; review of PIC #1 DW 1.2 Recap of correspondence from PIC #1: 1.2.1 Pearl Developments GC 1.2.2 Annemarie Hall GC 1.3 Future events and dates 1.3.1 PIC #2 KW 1.3.2 Coordination with River Road and LRT projects DW 2.0 1 Presentation of Evaluation Matrix 2.1 Description and Presentation of Evaluation categories 2.1.1 Natural Environment AF 2.1.2 Social Environment GC 2.1.3 Heritage/Cultural Impacts GC 2.1.4 City Operations DW 2.1.5 Technical, including plan and profiles of sewers and forcemain DW GC 2.1.6 Servicing Potential Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 395 of 917' MT E Item Discussion Action D No. 2.1.7 Costs GC (D M Q 3.0 Evaluation of Alternatives 3.1 Assessment of each option presented for each category of criteria 3.2 Overall scoring of each option 4.0 1 Other Business Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 396 of 917 (D OD'MTE (D Project Name: Upper Hidden Valley SPS MTE File No.: C48301-100 Class EA Evaluation of Alternative �. Purpose: Solutions Date: January 18, 2022 r_ Time: 10:00 am Meeting Location: Remote via Webex (D N Invitees Katie Wood Chris Spere Linda Cooper Initials Representation City of Kitchener City of Kitchener City of Kitchener KW CS LC Barbara Steiner Andrew Pinnell Richard Kelly-Ruetz BS City of Kitchener City of Kitchener f City of Kitchener AP RR Victoria Grohn VG City of Kitchener C. Foster Pengelly CFP Grand River Conservation Authority Jason Lane JL Region of Waterloo Dave Wilhelm DW MTE Consultants Inc. Gemma Charlebois GC MTE Consultants Inc. Allison Featherstone AF LGL Environmental Distribution: All Attendees; Item Discussion No. 1.0 1 Project Status 1.1 Reviewed project status to -date with brief re -cap of PIC #1 and a refresher of the various options (DW). 1.2 Correspondence from Pearl Developments and Annemarie Hall has been received since PIC #1. It expressed development interest in the area and provided input into the Class E (GC) 1.3 PIC No. 2 Scheduled for Thursday, February 17, 2022, 6:00 to 8:00pm. Presentation will include the preferred option ■ Regional Council debate in December requested coordination from Kitchener Mayor with Region of Waterloo and Developers (JL) ■ City's timing of funding may have to be advanced to coordinate Sanitary Sewer installation with River Road Extension project (JL) ■ City to confirm sizing and alignment of trunk sewers to service development after the Class EA (KW) ■ River Road construction is scheduled and Region and City agree that servicing should be completed at time of road construction (JL) Action Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 397 of 917' OD'MTE Item Discussion No. ■ The Alternate Location B is between MTO HWY 8 and LRT tracks and given required setbacks the available space is constrained (JL) ■ Between Hidden Valley Road and River Road there is an extensive grade separation. Access to the pump station site will be challenging. It is also in close proximity to the intersection (JL) ■ Regarding Location B - 10m off Woodlot would trigger full assessment of species at risk — 6months to 1 year for permit. (AF) 2.0 Presentation of Evaluation Matrix 2.1 Detailed discussion of the options was held. For each evaluation criteria, the individual options were discussed and evaluated. The following is the evaluation committee's discussion. Each member submitted their individual scores post meeting (LGL excepted). Natural Environmental GRCA, KW, DW o Location B — less desirable o Location A — more desirable than Location B o Location C — Most desirable AF, BS Evaluation based on proximity to SAR limit and provincially significant wetlands Alt Location B — less desirable; located in natural heritage conservation area, environmental setbacks o Location A - more desirable o Location C - most desirable Social Environment o Construction impacts will be all similar (RR) o Location A in middle of residential not ideal for SPS (RKR & AP) o Location B and C more desirable due to commercial and traffic (RKR & AP) o Location B more desirable (AP) o Location B more roads to construct; more impact during construction o Aesthetic considerations would be important for location A (RKR) o Propose the SPS closer to arterial road if possible to reduce impacts to community Heritage/Cultural Impacts Most significant impact is to heritage corridor of Hidden Valley Road. Each location requires archeological assessment including pedestrian surveys, test pit surveys or both o Location B — future induced impacts to heritage corridor if lands serviced in that area (KW). Action no Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 398 of 917 OD'MTE Item Discussion No. o Test pits have environmental impact (BS) o concerns regarding the depth of sewer in heritage corridor (BS) o Location A and C - more desirable o Location B — less desirable, impacts to road corridor City Operations o All options have similar ratings (DW). o Location B — Access considerations due to River Road configuration. Restricted access for sewage hauling. o Location A and C — more desirable o Location B — less desirable Technical Consider length of infrastructure, number of creek crossing, depth of sewers, constructability o Option 2, 3, 3a - less desirable o Option 2a - most desirable o Option 4 — least desirable Servicing Potential Team commented that servicing potential could be part of Technical criteria It was agreed that, generally, the more lands serviced by gravity to the SPS, the higher the score o Option 2, 3a - less desirable o Option 3 - most desirable o Option 2a, 4 - least desirable Cost estimates for each option to be sent to evaluation committee — MTE to follow up with costing information. Weighting on Evaluation matrix will be assessed, summarized and finalized based on individual scores of committee members. Action Minutes completed by: Gemma Charlebois — please report any errors or omissions. Thank you. M:\48301\100\01 Meetings\Evaluation Meeting Minutes_January 18, 2022.docx no i N Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 399 of 917 OD'MTE Project Name: Upper Hidden Valley SPS Class EA Purpose: Evaluation Follow Up Meeting Time: 10:00am Meeting Location: Remote via Microsoft Teams Invitees Linda Cooper Dave Wilhelm Item Discussion No. MTE File No.: C48301-100 Date: January 20, 2022 Initials I Representation City of Kitchener MTE Consultants Inc. • Jason Lane and Barbara Steiner would like Natural Environment to be weighed more and Technical, Operations, and Servicing should be combined if Natural Environment not weighted. Richard Kelly-Ruetz to follow-up on feasibility of Area 2B being developed - Environmental and SWM work. City to initiate studies and meeting to include Planners regarding septic application for Area 2B. Pearl Valley did not initiate conversation to expand River Birch Sanitary Pump Station. Decision is not to weight criteria. Show all options of one figure (For PIC) to be sent to all Fillable spreadsheet with criteria to be sent to all. Advertisement for the newspaper must be ready two weeks prior to the PIC — January 26. Notes taken my Gemma Charlebois. Please report any errors or omissions. M:\48301\100\01 Meetings\Evaluation Follow-up meeting with Katie and Linda_January 20, 2022.docx Action Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 400 of 917' ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES January 20, 2022 CITY OF KITCHENER The Environmental Committee met this date commencing at 4:04 p.m. Present: Messrs. G. Johns — Chair Pro Tem. S. Fulop, T. Belanger, D. Bailey, Cllr. Debbie Chapman Regrets: R. Fyck, J. Duchesne, Dr. J. Gaudon — Chair, M. Jennings, J. Sherwood, Cllr. Bil loannidis Staff: K. Wood, Project Manager Development Engineering C. Musselman, Senior Environmental Planner B. Steiner, Senior Environmental Planner S. Lodenquai, Committee Administrator In the absence of both Chair and Vice -Chair, Mr. Grant Johns was elected as Chair Pro Tem for the January 20, 2022 meeting. 1. Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station Class EA — Katie Wood, Project Manager City of Kitchener The committee was in receipt this date of an Internal Memo and presentation on the matter of the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station Class EA. Katie Wood provided a project summary explaining that to support development in the Hidden Valley area, the study will identify a sanitary servicing solution through location selection and a preliminary design of a sanitary pumping station and forcemain. The preferred solution will be determined by maintaining the objectives of protection of the environment, minimal disruption to residents and surrounding areas, engaging a broad range of stakeholders, and documenting the study process in compliance with the Municipal Class EA Schedule B process. Following the project summary, K. Wood outlined the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process which was accompanied by an exhibit illustrating the Class EA process in phases. Reviewed was a map depicting the Upper Hidden Valley Pump Station and Forcemain EA Study Area, excerpted from the City's Land Use Master Plan. K. Wood then summarized the Sanitary Pumping Station Location Options • Option 1: Do Nothing • Option 2: Install Sanitary Pumping Station at Location A o Feasible to service but under study to determine land use • Option 2a: Install Sanitary pumping station at Location A c Drain by gravity to existing trunk sanitary on Wabanaki Drive with potential for smaller pumping station and forcemain • Option 3: Install Sanitary Pumping Station at Location B o Area subject to study for land use • Option 3a: Install Sanitary Pumping Station at Location B c areas would drain by gravity to the trunk station on Wabanaki (similar to Option 2a) • Option 4: Install Sanitary Pumping Station at Location C K. Wood explained the Stage 1 key archeological findings, key cultural heritage findings, and the key environmental features of the study. An overview of the proposed alternative evaluation matrix and preliminary evaluation was provided which uses the following criteria: -natural environment -social environment — how this location will affect the local community -impacts to cultural and heritage aspects -city operations -technical feasibility -servicing potential -cost Page 401 of 917 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MINUTES January 20, 2022 CITY OF KITCHENER The following next steps were outlined: Assessing the locations against the matrix and determining the preferred location for the pumping station and forcemain alignment and once the project team has come to a decision on recommending the preferred option Katie Wood will return to this committee to present the solution. In response to the presentation, it was questioned if evaluation criteria are weighed equally or if some are weighted more than others. K. Wood advised all criteria is weighted the same way to remain fair. It was asked if there are more details to the main concerns raised by residents on this study. K. Wood advised the first PIC was run in November 2021 and residential concerns received to date were surrounding development and if certain areas can be developed. From landowners that have large plots of land who are looking for development solutions, the zoning the land use plan has provided as well as if this project will provide a servicing solution for them. It was asked what the white zones depicted in the Upper Hidden Valley Study Area were designated as. B. Steiner advised the white areas are within a regulated area or polygon for the at -risk Jefferson Salamanders species. Regulated habitat in an area does not preclude development rather studies have to be completed and a permit must be issued by the province. ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 4:31 p.m. Shannon Lodenquai Committee Administrator Page 402 of 917 OD'MTE Project Name: Upper Hidden Valley SPS Class EA Purpose: Preferred Alternative Discussion Time: 11:00 Meeting Location: Webex MTE File No.: C48301-100 Date: February 7, 2022 Invitees Katie Wood Chris Spere Linda Cooper Initials Representation City of Kitchener _ City of Kitchener City of Kitchener City of Kitchener KW CS LC Barbara Steiner BS Andrew Pinnell AP City of Kitchener Richard Kelly-Ruetz Chris Spere C. Foster Pengelly RR City of Kitchener City of Kitchener Grand River Conservation Authority CS CFP Jason Lane JL Region of Waterloo Dave Wilhelm DW MTE Consultants Inc. Gemma Charlebois GC MTE Consultants Inc. Item Discussion No. 1.0 Update on Alternative Location B 1.1 Information from Region of Waterloo LRT and River Road alignment confirms that there is insufficient space for an SPS in the Alternative Location B. This is not a valid alternative. 2.0 Cost Estimates for each Option The following cost estimates were provided and has been used for ranking: Option 2 (location A): $20.0 M Option 2a (location A, gravity service at Wabanaki/Hidden Valley): $17.5 M Option 3 (location B): $24.0 M Option 3a (location B, gravity service at Wabanaki/Hidden Valley): $21.4 M Option 4 (location C): $18.5 M 3.0 Location C Considerations 3.1 The area south of Hidden Valley Road and east of Wabanaki Dr. is included in the sanitary drainage area for River Birch SPS Action DW DW/GC 3.2 According to the condition assessment by Burnside in December 2021, and confirmed by City Operations personnel, there is significant remaining capacity at the River Birch SPS 9 Q Z O CD N Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 403 of 917 O-D-'-MTE Item Discussion No. 9 Q Z O N Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 404 of 917= 01"MTE Appendix C Agency Correspondence Page 405 of 917 Hydro One Networks Inc hyd ro( _�'�,�__ 483 Bay St one Toronto, ON November 11, 2021 Re: Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Attention: Katie Wood, C.E.T. Project Manager Development Engineering City of Kitchener Thank you for sending us notification regarding (Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain). In our preliminary assessment, we have confirmed that Hydro One has existing high voltage Transmission facilities within your study area. At this time we do not have sufficient information to comment on the potential resulting impacts that your project may have on our infrastructure. As such, we must stay informed as more information becomes available so that we can advise if any of the alternative solutions present actual conflicts with our assets, and if so; what resulting measures and costs could be incurred by the proponent. Note that this response does not constitute approval for your plans and is being sent to you as a courtesy to inform you that we must continue to be consulted on your project. In addition to the existing infrastructure mentioned above, the applicable transmission corridor may have provisions for future lines or already contain secondary land uses (e.g., pipelines, watermains, parking). Please take this into consideration in your planning. Also, we would like to bring to your attention that should (Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain) result in a Hydro One station expansion or transmission line replacement and/or relocation, an Environmental Assessment (EA) will be required as described under the Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities (Hydro One, 2016). This EA process would require a minimum of 6 months for a Class EA Screening Process (or up to 18 months if a Full Class EA were to be required) to be completed. Associated costs will be allocated and recovered from proponents in accordance with the Transmission System Code. If triggered, Hydro One will rely on studies completed as part of the EA you are current undertaking. Consulting with Hydro One on such matters during your project's EA process is critical to avoiding conflicts where possible or, where not possible, to streamlining processes (e.g., ensuring study coverage of expansion/relocation areas within the current EA). Once in receipt of more specific project information regarding the potential for conflicts (e.g., siting, routing), Hydro One will be in a better position to communicate objections or not objections to alternatives proposed. If possible at this stage, please formally confirm that Hydro One infrastructure and associated rights-of- way will be completely avoided, or if not possible, allocate appropriate lead-time in your project schedule to collaboratively work through potential conflicts with Hydro One, which ultimately could result in timelines identified above. Page 406 of 917 In planning, note that developments should not reduce line clearances or limit access to our infrastructure at any time. Any construction activities must maintain the electrical clearance from the transmission line conductors as specified in the Ontario Health and Safety Act for the respective line voltage. Be advised that any changes to lot grading or drainage within, or in proximity to Hydro One transmission corridor lands must be controlled and directed away from the transmission corridor. Please note that the proponent will be held responsible for all costs associated with modifications or relocations of Hydro One infrastructure that result from your project, as well as any added costs that may be incurred due to increased efforts to maintain said infrastructure. We reiterate that this message does not constitute any form of approval for your project. Hydro One must be consulted during all stages of your project. Please ensure that all future communications about this and future project(s) are sent to us electronically to secondarylanduse@hydroone.com Sent on behalf of, Secondary Land Use Asset Optimization Strategy & Integrated Planning Hydro One Networks Inc. Page 407 of 917 SMTE MTE Consultants 520 Bingemans Centre Drive. Kitchener, Ontario N2113 3X9 November 16, 2021 MTE File No.: C48301-100 Secondary Land Use Asset Optimization Strategy and Integrated Planning Hydro One Networks Inc. 483 Bay Street Toronto ON Email: secondarylanduse(o)-hydroone.com RE: Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain MTE received your letter of November 11, 2021 regarding the presence of Hydro One transmission facilities in the Upper Hidden Valley study area. We will keep you informed of developments in our Environmental Assessment. We can confirm that the design of the pumping station, sewer, and forcemain will aim to avoid Hydro One infrastructure. If we identify areas where Hydro One infrastructure cannot be avoided, we will advise you of the specific location and our intended solution to minimize conflicts. Yours truly, MTE Consultants Inc. Gemma Charlebois, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Design Engineer 519-743-6500 ext. 1227 GCharlebois(C)mte85.com GSC:zeg cc: Katie Wood, City of Kitchener M:\48301\100\00 Correspondence\PIC\Hydro One\Response letter to Hydro One_2021-11-16.docx Engineers, .Scientists, Surveyors. Page 408 of 917 Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries Archaeology Program Unit Programs and Services Branch Heritage, Tourism and Culture Division 5th Floor, 400 University Ave. Toronto ON M7A2R9 Tel.: (437) 339-9231 Email: Teresa.Tremblay@ontario.ca Dec 13, 2021 Ministere des Industries du patrimoine, du sport, du tourisme et de la culture Unite des programme d'archeologie Direction des programmes et des services Division du patrimoine, du tourisme et de la culture 5e etage, 400 ave. University Toronto ON M7A2R9 Tel.: (437) 339-9231 Email: Teresa.Tremblay@ontario.ca Page 1 of Ontario Q Monica Maika (P1021) Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. 632 Waterloo Cambridge ON N3H 1 P5 RE: Review and Entry into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports: Archaeological Assessment Report Entitled, "Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Part of Lots 51 and 53, German Company Tract & Bechtel's Tract, Geographic Township of Waterloo, Former Waterloo County, Ontario", Dated Oct 13, 2021, Filed with MHSTCI Toronto Office on Oct 20, 2021, MHSTCI Project Information Form Number P1021-0004-2021, MHSTCI File Number 0013805 Dear Ms. Maika: This office has reviewed the above-mentioned report, which has been submitted to this ministry as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18.1 This review has been carried out in order to determine whether the licensed professional consultant archaeologist has met the terms and conditions of their licence, that the licensee assessed the property and documented archaeological resources using a process that accords with the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists set by the ministry, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations are consistent with the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. The report documents the assessment of the study area as depicted in Map 9: Potential Modelling and Recommendations of the above titled report and recommends the following: The Stage 1 assessment determined that the study area comprises a mixture of areas of archaeological potential, areas of no archaeological potential and previously assessed lands of no further concern. It is recommended that all identified areas of archaeological potential be subject to a Stage 2 property assessment in accordance with Section 2.1 of the 2011 S&Gs Although the study area was defined to include part of the Grand River, it is ARA'S understanding that the City has no intention to conduct any works within the river. If any such works are contemplated, a marine assessment would be required prior to any river impacts. The agricultural fields must be assessed using the pedestrian survey method at an interval of 5 m. All ground surfaces must be recently ploughed (typically within the month prior to assessment), weathered by one heavy rainfall or several light rains, and provide at least 80% visibility. If archaeological materials are Page 409 of 917 PAI Page 2 of 2 encountered, the transect interval must be decreased to at least 1 m and a close inspection of the ground must be conducted over a minimum of a 20 m radius around the find. This interval must be continued until the full extent of the scatter has been defined. The wooded areas, overgrown areas and lawns must be assessed using the test pit survey method. A survey interval of 5 m will be required due to the proximity of the lands to the identified features of archaeological potential. Given the likelihood that several parts of the study area were impacted by past construction activities, a combination of visual inspection and test pit survey should be utilized to confirm the extent of disturbance in accordance with Section 2.1.8 of the 2011 S&Gs This will allow for the empirical evaluation of the integrity of the soils and the depth of any impacts. If disturbance cannot be confirmed, then a test pit survey interval of 5 m must be maintained. Each test pit must be excavated into at least the first 5 cm of subsoil, and the resultant pits must be examined for stratigraphy, potential features and/or evidence of fill. The soil from each test pit must be screened through mesh with an aperture of no greater than 6 mm and examined for archaeological materials. If archaeological materials are encountered, all positive test pits must be documented and intensification may be required. One area along the northern edge of the study area appears to be either sloped >20 degrees or permanently wet, but this locality could not be inspected due to a lack of permission to enter the property and its distance from accessible public areas. This area must be subject to a visual inspection to confirm that it has no archaeological potential. If archaeological potential is identified, these lands must be assessed using the test pit survey method outlined above. The identified areas of no archaeological potential and previously assessed lands of no further concern do not require any additional assessment. Given that there are still outstanding archaeological concerns within the project lands, no ground alterations or development of any kind may occur until the Stage 2 assessment is complete, a recommendation that the lands require no further archaeological assessment is made, and the associated report is entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports. Based on the information contained in the report, the ministry is satisfied that the fieldwork and reporting for the archaeological assessment are consistent with the ministry's 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists and the terms and conditions for archaeological licences. This report has been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports. Please note that the ministry makes no representation or warranty as to the completeness, accuracy or quality of reports in the register. Should you require any further information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Teresa Tremblay Archaeology Review Officer cc. Archaeology Licensing Officer Gemma Charlebois,MTE Consultants Inc. Dave Wilhelm,MTE Consultants Inc Andrew Pinnell,City of Kitchener 1 I no way will the ministry be liable for any harm, damages, costs, expenses, losses, claims or actions that may result: (a) if the Report(s) or its recommendations are discovered to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent, or (b) from the issuance of this letter. Further measures may need to be taken in the event that additional artifacts or archaeological sites are identified or the Report(s) is otherwise found to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent. Page 410 of 917 SMTE MTE Consultants 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N2113 3X9 October 18, 2021 MTE File No.: C48301-100 Archaeology Program Unit Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries Culture Division, Programs and Services Branch 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 Toronto, ON M7A OA7 Fax: (416) 212-1802 Dear Archaeology Team, RE: Request for Expedited Review of Report Entitled "Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Part of Lots 51 and 53, German Company Tract & Bechtel's Tract, Geographic Township of Waterloo, Former Waterloo County, Ontario" We are requesting that the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) expedite the review of the Stage 1 archaeology report for the Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain in the City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario. This letter and the Expedited Review request are being submitted by Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) as part of the digital report package. An Expedited Review is required as the report's acceptance into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports is a condition of the approvals process, and a timely turnaround is needed to maintain the project schedule. Specifically, the City of Kitchener would like to proceed with selection of a pumping station location to facilitate development as identified in its Master Plan. In order to meet the established timeline, we kindly request a review date of November 19, 2021 or earlier. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, MTE Consultants Inc. Gemma Charlebois, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Design Engineer 519-743-6500 ext. 1227 GCharleboisCa)mte85.com GXC:zeg MA48301\100\00 Correspondence\Expedited Review Request - Hidden Valley Sewer and Forcemain_2021-10-18_docx.docx Engineers, .Scientists, Surveyors. Page 411 of 917 From: Gemma Charlebois Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 12:22 PM To: Zenova E. Gentles Subject: FW: Upper Hidden Valley Evaluation Meeting Attachments: Upper_Hidden_Valley_SPS_and_Forcemain_Alternatives_grca_comments_20220131.pdf Client First Right Solution Work Together Gemma Charlebois, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Technical Manager, Water/Wastewater Kitchener x1227 From: Chris Foster -Pengelly <cfosterpengelly@grandriver. ca> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 12:19 PM To: Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca> Cc: Gemma Charlebois <GCharlebois@mte85.com>; Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com> Subject: RE: Upper Hidden Valley Evaluation Meeting Hi Katie, My apologies for the delayed response. We understand that based on your email you may have moved forward, but would like to provide them for consideration. Thank you, Chris Chris Foster -Pengelly, M.Sc., Office: 519-621-2763 ext. 2319 Toll-free: 1-866-900-4722 www.grandriver.ca I Connect with us on social media From: Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 11:28 AM To: Barbara Steiner <Barbara.Steiner@kitchener.ca>; Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell@kitchener.ca>; Chris Spere <Chris.Spere@kitchener.ca>; Chris Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengelly@grandriver. ca>; 'Jason Lane' <JLane@regionofwaterloo.ca> Cc:'Gemma Charlebois' <GCharlebois@mte85.com>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: Upper Hidden Valley Evaluation Meeting Importance: High Hello Everyone, To move forward with the project and to prepare for our PIC#2 on Feb. 17 we really need these evaluations submitted to Gemma right away. If we don't hear back from you by 10am tomorrow (Friday, Jan 28t") we will be forced to not include your evaluation in the decision made. Sincerely, Page 412 of 917 Project Manager) Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7135 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.wood @ kitchen er.ca ■Yap 10- From: Gemma Charlebois <GCharlebois@mte85.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 1:39 PM To: Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca>; Victoria Grohn <Victoria.Grohn@kitchener.ca>; Barbara Steiner <Barbara.Steiner@kitchener.ca>; Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca>; Richard Kelly-Ruetz <Richard.Kelly- Ruetz@kitchener.ca>; Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Chris Spere <Chris.Spere@kitchener.ca>; 'Chris Foster-Pengelly'<cfosterpengelly@grandriver.ca>; 'Jason Lane' <JLane@regionofwaterloo.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Upper Hidden Valley Evaluation Meeting To -date I have only received 3 evaluations. If you have not yet provided your evaluation, please do so today so we can complete the scoring. Thanks, Gemma Gemma Charlebois, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Technical Manager, WaterMastewater MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x1227 GCharleboisa-mte85.com 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N213 3X9 www.mte85.com Twitter Linkedln Instagram Facebook COVID-19 Update: We remain operational and are currently available by email and phone, however, our offices are closed. Staff that are required to visit job sites or perform field work are required to follow MTE health and safety policies and procedures, as well as additional COVID-19 protocols, which can be viewed here. Notice: The electronic information provided is confidential and privileged, and may not be used for purposes other than work related to the subject project. Redistribution or copies to others made without written permission from MTE Consultants Inc. is strictly prohibited. MTE assumes no liability or responsibility, and makes no guarantee or warranty with respect to the data contained, either expressed or implied. From: Gemma Charlebois <GCharlebois@mte85.com> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 4:14 PM To:'Katie Wood' <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca>; Victoria Grohn <Victoria.Grohn@kitchener.ca>; Barbara Steiner <Barbara.Steiner@kitchener.ca>; Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca>; Richard Kelly-Ruetz <Richard.Kelly- Ruetz@kitchener.ca>; Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Chris Spere <Chris.Spere@kitchener.ca>; 'Chris Foster-Pengelly'<cfosterpengelly@grandriver. ca>; 'Jason Lane' <JLane@region ofwaterloo.ca> Subject: RE: Upper Hidden Valley Evaluation Meeting Please find attached a figure showing all locations and corresponding options for ease of assessing the evaluation criteria for each option. A spreadsheet is also attached to provide a numerical scoring for each criteria. As I will be compiling each person's scores, a numerical score would be appreciated. Page 413 of 917 All categories are equally weighted. Please provide your completed spreadsheet by end of day Tuesday January 25, 2022. Thanks. Gemma Client First I Right Solution' Work Together Gemma Charlebois, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Technical Manager, Water/Wastewater Kitchener x1227 -----Original Appointment ----- From: Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 202112:10 PM To: Katie Wood; Victoria Grohn; Gemma Charlebois; Barbara Steiner; Andrew Pinnell; Richard Kelly-Ruetz; Dave Wilhelm; Linda Cooper; Chris Spere; 'Chris Foster -Pengelly'; 'Jason Lane' Subject: Upper Hidden Valley Evaluation Meeting When: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 10:00 AM -11:30 AM (UTC -05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting Hello, We wanted to set up the Hidden Valley Evaluation Meeting now knowing that January will become quite busy. We intend to send out the evaluation criteria January 4t" to give you enough time to go over everything and complete the evaluation. At the meeting we will discuss every ones scores and come to a final decision regarding what option will be chosen. If you cannot make this meeting perhaps you can send someone in your place. Alternately, please send me your evaluation form ahead of the meeting. Katie Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer or mobile app Click here to loin the meeting Learn More I Meeting options Page 414 of 917 atrd Rp,@� Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 n w Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca 0 tion January January 31, 2022 Katie Wood City of Kitchener Via email: katie.wood(ukitchener.ca Re: Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, City of Kitchener Dear Ms. Wood, Thank you for the opportunity to provide input onto the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Municipal Schedule Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) process. Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff reviewed the five (5) alternative options presented at the November 4, 2021 Public Information Centre#1 and the seven (7) alternative options subsequently discussed at the January 18, 2022 meeting to review the proposed alternative evaluation matrix and preliminary evaluation. We have reviewed the following project materials: • Location Options Figures, dated January 4, 2022 • Location Options Figure, dated January 22, 2022 • Letter dated January 6, 2021 with the Notice of Study Commencement • Public Information Centre notice and boards As there are no technical reports available for review at this time, GRCA's comments are provided only in context to the general location of the proposed infrastructure to features regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. Based on our review of the materials identified above and information currently available at this office, the GRCA has the following comments on each Option: Option 1: Do Nothing The GRCA understands that Option 1 is not being carried forward for consideration. The GRCA would have had no concerns related to option 1. Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Page 415 of 917 Option 2: Location A Location A is located within an area regulated by the GRCA. Based on information available at our office, the following features regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06 are in the vicinity of Location A: - The Provincially Significant Hidden Valley Wetland - Hidden Valley North Creek and its associated floodplain - Valley slope hazards - Regulated allowances associated with these features It is GRCAs understanding that there are two options associated with Location A. i) Option 2 would include an installation of the Proposed SPS at location A, as well as the construction of the proposed forecemain which would cross Hidden Valley West Creek, extending south to Hidden Valley Road. ii) Option 2a would include in installation of the Proposed SPS at location A, as well as the construction of the proposed forecemain which would terminate prior the crossing of Hidden Valley West Creek. Option 2 requires a crossing for the gravity sewer and forcemain near the headwater of Hidden Valley West Creek. Depending on construction methodology, this may increase the risk of sediment in the wetland and watercourse, and is therefore considered a greater risk to features regulated by the GRCA and less desirable than Option 2a. Option 3: Location B - West of Hoffstetter Creek Location B, as presented at PIC#1, is located within an area regulated by the GRCA. Based on information available at our office, the following features regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06 are in the vicinity near Location B: - The Provincially Significant Hidden Valley Wetland - Hofstetter Creek and its associated floodplain - Regulated allowances associated with these features It is GRCA's understanding that there are two options associated with Location B (west of Hoffstetter Creek). i) Option 3 would include in installation of the Proposed SPS at location B, as well as the construction of the proposed forecemain which would cross Hidden Valley West Creek, extending south to Hidden Valley Road. ii) Option 3a would include in installation of the Proposed SPS at location B, as well as the construction of the proposed forecemain which would terminate prior the crossing of Hidden Valley West Creek. Page 416 of 917 It appears that pump station is located in or very close to the wetland and Hofstetter Creek. Development within the wetland would not be supported by the GRCA. Construction of the pump station infrastructure, as well as sanitary sewer and forcemain crossings at Hidden Valley North Creek and near the headwater of Hidden Valley West Creek increases risk of impacts to wetlands and watercourses. Location B west of Hoffstetter Creek, Options 3 and 3a, are considered to have the greatest risk to features regulated by the GRCA and therefore would be the least preferred Options, respectively. Option 3: Location B Alternative Location - East of Hoffstetter Creek Location B, Alternative location, as identified during the January 18, 2022 meeting and shown on the Location Options Drawing, dated January 22, 2022, is located within an area regulated by the GRCA. Based on information available at our office, the following features regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06 are in the vicinity near Location B: - The regulated allowance associated with the Provincially Significant Hidden Valley Wetland. It is noted that the boundaries of the Provincially Significant Hidden Valley Wetland Complex have not been verified in the field by the GRCA and the boundaries as shown on GRCA's online mapping tool should be revised based on site specific wetland delineation. It is GRCAs understanding that there are two options associated with Location B — alternative location. i) Option 3 would include in installation of the Proposed SPS at location B, as well as the construction of the proposed forecemain which would cross wetlands, Hoffstetter Creek, and Hidden Valley West Creek, extending south to Hidden Valley Road. ii) Option 3a would include in installation of the Proposed SPS at location B, as well as the construction of the proposed forecemain which would cross wetlands and Hoffstetter Creek, terminating prior the crossing of Hidden Valley West Creek. Option 3, alternative location, requires a crossing for the gravity sewer and forcemain near the headwater of Hidden Valley West Creek. Depending on construction methodology, this may increase the risk of sediment in the wetland and watercourse, and is therefore considered a greater risk to features regulated by the GRCA than Option 3a, alternative location. Page 417 of 917 Option 4: Location C The area identified for Location C is not within an area regulated by the GRCA. However, the parcel in which Location C is located may contain valley slope hazards and their regulated allowances, which are regulated by the GRCA. The location of the pump station results in gravity sewer crossing near the headwater of Hidden Valley West Creek. Depending on construction methodology, this may increase the risk of sediment in the wetland and watercourse Option 5: Location D The GRCA understands that Location D is not being carried forward for consideration. Location D was not within an area regulated by the GRCA. The GRCA would have had no concerns related to Location D. General Comments: As there is regulated area within the proposed areas, GRCA has an interest in the proposed work and would like to review and comment on the preferred alternative when available. Based on our review of the initial options, we can provide the following general comments for consideration: 1. The EA should examine impacts to the natural heritage and hazard lands and incorporate impacts into the decision-making process. 2. As part of the EA process, an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) should be completed to characterize the natural heritage features, potential impacts, and mitigation measures. A Terms of Reference for the EIS should be completed and provided to GRCA for review. 3. Option A should consider the requirement to develop access into the area, including the extent of grading required and potential impacts to slope hazards. 4. Location B (west of Hoffstetter Creek) appears to be the least preferred option based on the provided information. 5. Location B (east of Hoffstetter Creek) appears to be the second least preferred option based on the provided information. 6. Location C may increase the risk of sediment in the wetland and watercourse, however, it appears to have lower overall impact compared to Locations A and B. 7. For all of the options, the overflow should be confirmed and evaluated with the alternatives and it should be clarified if emergency overflow from the proposed pump stations are expected to discharge into the tributaries or if an alternative overflow route/chamber will be provided. It is noted that the Mannheim intake is immediately downstream of where the tributaries enter the Grand River. S Page 418 of 917 8. Depending on the extent of the proposed development, slopes should be considered, a geotechnical assessment may be required, and appropriate measures taken to avoid aggravating the existing slopes. 9. GRCA would be interested in knowing the extent of proposed development, including any grading required. 10. Under the Natural Environment category of the evaluation criteria, the evaluation should assess impacts on GRCA regulated features, including wetlands, watercourses and slope hazards. 11. Depending on the preferred option and timing of construction in relation to other development in the area, the GRCA can provide feedback on design criteria, studies and reports required. Please note that any development proposed within the GRCA regulated area will require prior permission from the GRCA in the form of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06. The requirements for the GRCA permit will be dependent on the alternative chosen and can be discussed further during the planning process. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 519-621-2763 ext. 2319 or cfosterpengelly@g rand river. ca. Sincerely, P Chris Foster -Pengelly, M.Sc. Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority C.C. Dave Wilhelm, MTE Consultants Inc. (via email) Gemma Charlebois, MTE Consultants Inc. (via email) Page 419 of 917 For Your Information — Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Notification Procedure The MECP becomes aware of streamlined environmental assessments (e.g., class environmental assessment projects, electricity projects and waste management projects) through notifications by project owners. Notifying the ministry is an important step in the streamlined environmental assessment processes. As part of the ministry's ongoing efforts to improve processes and ensure the ministry has an opportunity to provide input on projects undergoing streamlined environmental assessments, the ministry has established dedicated email accounts in each regional office. These accounts will be used as a one -window approach to receive notices as required in your class environmental assessment process along with a new "Project Information Form". As of May 1, 2018, proponents must use this process. 4 Step Process for Submitting Notices of Commencement for Streamlined EAs To submit your notice you need to do the following: 1. Download and complete the Project Information Form. (The Form can be found here Ontario.ca under "Streamlined EAs". It is an excel spreadsheet with columns that need to be filled out by the proponent. The form has been developed for ease of use (i.e. drop down pick list for most fields). Instructions on filling out the form are contained in 2 tabs within the form itself). 2. Create an email. The subject line of your email should include this order: project location, type of streamlined EA and project name • For example: York Region, MEA Class EA, Elgin Mills Rd East (Bayview to Woodbine) Durham Region, Electricity Screening Process, New Cogeneration Station City of Ottawa, Waste Management Screening Process, Landfill Expansion 3. Attach the completed Project Information Form (in excel format) and a copy of your project notice (in PDF format) to the email. 4. Send by email to the appropriate ministry regional office Central Region — eanotification.cregion@ontario.ca Eastern Region — eanotification.eregion@ontario.ca Northern Region — eanotification.nregion@ontario.ca South West Region — eanotification.swregion@ontario.ca West Central Region — eanotification.wcregion@ontario.ca Page 420 of 917 3 Step Process for Submitting Notices of Completion/Notices of Filing of Addendum/Revised Notice of Completion/Statement of Completion for Streamlined EA To submit your notice you need to do the following: 1. Create an email. The subject line of your email should include this order: project location, type of streamlined EA and project name. 2. Attach a copy of your project notice (in PDF format) to the email. 3. Send by email to the appropriate ministry regional office: Central Region — eanotification.cregion@ontario.ca Eastern Region — eanotification.eregion@ontario.ca Northern Region — eanotification. nregion@ontario.ca South West Region — eanotification.swregion@ontario.ca West Central Region — eanotification.wcregion@ontario.ca Notes: • The hyperlink to the District Officer Locator website can be used to assist with determining what ministry region your project is located. • If your project is located in more than one ministry region, you need to submit your notices to all appropriate regions. • You must still fulfil all other mandatory notification requirements outlined in the applicable environmental assessment process. • Other notices besides the ones mentioned above (such as Notices of Open House for example) may be sent to the regional email address for consistency purposes but are not required to be. However, the MECP Regional Environmental Assessment Coordinator is required to be notified in all cases, and therefore other notices must be sent either directly to the appropriate Regional Environmental Assessment Coordinator or to the regional email address. Page 421 of 917 Hydro One Networks Inc hyd ro( _�'�,�__ 483 Bay St one Toronto, ON March 08, 2022 Re: Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Attention: Katie Wood, C.E.T. Project Manager Development Engineering City of Kitchener Thank you for sending us notification regarding (Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain). In our preliminary assessment, we have confirmed that Hydro One has existing high voltage Transmission facilities within your study area. At this time we do not have sufficient information to comment on the potential resulting impacts that your project may have on our infrastructure. As such, we must stay informed as more information becomes available so that we can advise if any of the alternative solutions present actual conflicts with our assets, and if so; what resulting measures and costs could be incurred by the proponent. Note that this response does not constitute approval for your plans and is being sent to you as a courtesy to inform you that we must continue to be consulted on your project. In addition to the existing infrastructure mentioned above, the applicable transmission corridor may have provisions for future lines or already contain secondary land uses (e.g., pipelines, watermains, parking). Please take this into consideration in your planning. Also, we would like to bring to your attention that should (Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain) result in a Hydro One station expansion or transmission line replacement and/or relocation, an Environmental Assessment (EA) will be required as described under the Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities (Hydro One, 2016). This EA process would require a minimum of 6 months for a Class EA Screening Process (or up to 18 months if a Full Class EA were to be required) to be completed. Associated costs will be allocated and recovered from proponents in accordance with the Transmission System Code. If triggered, Hydro One will rely on studies completed as part of the EA you are current undertaking. Consulting with Hydro One on such matters during your project's EA process is critical to avoiding conflicts where possible or, where not possible, to streamlining processes (e.g., ensuring study coverage of expansion/relocation areas within the current EA). Once in receipt of more specific project information regarding the potential for conflicts (e.g., siting, routing), Hydro One will be in a better position to communicate objections or not objections to alternatives proposed. If possible at this stage, please formally confirm that Hydro One infrastructure and associated rights-of- way will be completely avoided, or if not possible, allocate appropriate lead-time in your project schedule to collaboratively work through potential conflicts with Hydro One, which ultimately could result in timelines identified above. Page 422 of 917 In planning, note that developments should not reduce line clearances or limit access to our infrastructure at anytime. Any construction activities must maintain the electrical clearance from the transmission line conductors as specified in the Ontario Health and Safety Act for the respective line voltage. Be advised that any changes to lot grading or drainage within, or in proximity to Hydro One transmission corridor lands must be controlled and directed away from the transmission corridor. Please note that the proponent will be held responsible for all costs associated with modifications or relocations of Hydro One infrastructure that result from your project, as well as any added costs that may be incurred due to increased efforts to maintain said infrastructure. We reiterate that this message does not constitute any form of approval for your project. Please note that your project may require you to submit a Property Management Proposal (PMP) for Hydro One to fully assess the impact to our assets. To learn more about this process please visit Secondary Land Uses (hydroone.com) Sent on behalf of, Secondary Land Use Asset Optimization Strategy & Integrated Planning Hydro One Networks Inc. Page 423 of 917 From: EA Notices to SWRegion (MECP) <eanotification.swregion@ontario.ca> Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 9:32 AM To: Zenova E. Gentles Subject: RE: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Zenova, can you please update your mailing list for MECP. This notice should have gone only to the email for WCR and not SWR as Waterloo Region is in WCR of the MECP. Also, please remove Crystal Lafrance from your mailing list. Crystal is on a secondment to OMAFRA and EA has been taken out of the Regional Offices due to a reorganization that occurred in April of 2020. Thankyou Barb Slattery, EA/Planning Coordinator Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Project Review Unit, Environmental Assessment Branch (365) 366-8185 We want to hear from you. How was my service? You can provide feedback at 1-888-745-8888. From: Zenova E. Gentles Sent: January 06, 20214:52 PM To: 'cfosterpengelly@grandriver.ca' ; 'Planning@Grandriver.ca' ; 'Mark. La Forme@mncfn.ca' ; 'Fawn.Sault@mncfn.ca' ; 'Megan.DeVries@mncfn.ca' ; 'tanyahill-montour@sixnations.ca' ; 'dlaforme@sixnations.ca' ; 'Ion nybomberry@sixnations.ca' ; 'tworowarchaeology@gmail.com' ; 'williams.todde@gmail.com' ; 'maxime.picard@cnhw.qc.ca' ; 'Rob.Dobos@ec.gc.ca' ; Species at Risk (MECP) ; Shaw, Amy (MECP) ; Species at Risk (MECP) ; Orphan, Lee (MECP) ; 'Crystal. Lafrance@ontario.ca' ; EA Notices to SWRegion (MECP) ; Verhaeghe, Tammy (MNRF) ; Thornton, Ian (MNRF) ; Harvard, Jennifer (MNRF) ; MNRF Ayl Planners (MNRF) ; 'katie.wood@kitchener.ca' ; 'Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca' ; 'Lau ra.anderson@kitchener.ca' ; 'Admin@kitchener.ca' ; 'john.gazzola@kitchener.ca' ; 'shevaughne.wynter@hydroone.com' ; 'moneil@regionofwaterloo.ca' ; 'mkroker@regionofwaterloo.ca' ; 'Jlane@regionofwaterloo.ca' ; 'Jennifer_Benedict@cpr.ca' ; 'jack_carello@cpr.ca' Cc: Gemma Charlebois ; Dave Wilhelm ; 'katie.wood@kitchener.ca' Subject: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. Good afternoon: Please find attached a digital copy of Notice of Commencement informing you of the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Class EA. This study is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, as a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. All notices related to this project can be found on the City of Kitchener's website at the following link: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/city-services/environmental-assessments.aspx Page 424 of 917 The purpose of the current study is to define a sanitary servicing solution that will support responsible development in the Hidden Valley area, as outlined in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan (June 2019). The servicing solution will include identifying a sanitary pumping station location and forcemain alignment. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this study should you wish to do so. Please feel free to call or email me using the contact details below should you require additional information. We look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Zenova Gentles, B.Sc I Administrative Assistant MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x1359 I ZGentlesgmte85.com 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N213 3X9 www.mte85.com I Twitter I LinkedIn I Instagram I Facebook COVID-19 Update: We remain operational and are currently available by email and phone, however, our offices are closed. Staff that are required to visit job sites or perform field work are required to follow MTE health and safety policies and procedures, as well as additional COVID-19 protocols, which can be viewed here. Notice: The electronic information provided is confidential and privileged, and may not be used for purposes other than work related to the subject project. Redistribution or copies to others made without written permission from MTE Consultants Inc. is strictly prohibited. MTE assumes no liability or responsibility, and makes no guarantee or warranty with respect to the data contained, either expressed or implied. Page 425 of 917 From: MNRF Ayl Planners (MNRF) <MNRF.Ayl.Planners@ontario.ca> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 10:32 AM To: Dave Wilhelm; katie.wood@kitchener.ca Cc: Zenova E. Gentles Subject: RE: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Attachments: image001.wmz; Notice of Study Commencement - Upper Hidden Valley.pdf; N HGu ide_M N RF_2019-04-01.pdf Ministry of Natural Ministere des Richesses Resources and Forestry naturelles et des Forets Ontario 0 January 15, 2021 Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng Manager, Water/Wastewater MTE Consultants Inc. 520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N213 3X9 Phone : (519) 743-6500 ext. 1225 Cell Phone :(519) 651-7903 Email: dwilhelm@mte85.com Katie Wood, C.E.T. Project Manager Development Engineering City of Kitchener 200 King St. W Kitchener, ON N2G 4V6 Phone: (519) 741-2200 ext. 7135 Email: katie.wood@kitchener.ca Subject: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) received the attached notice for the proposed Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain project. Thank you for circulating this information to our office, however, please note that we have not completed a screening of natural heritage or other resource values for the project at this time. Please also note that it is your responsibility to be aware of and comply with all relevant federal or provincial legislation, municipal by-laws or other agency approvals. This response provides information to guide you in identifying and assessing natural features and resources as required by applicable policies and legislation, and engaging with the MNRF for advice as needed. Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Act In order to provide the most efficient service possible, the attached Natural Heritage Information Request Guide has been developed to assist you with accessing natural heritage data and values from convenient online sources. It remains the proponent's responsibility to complete a preliminary screening for each project, to obtain available information from multiple sources, to conduct any necessary field studies, and to consider any potential environmental impacts that may result from an activity. We wish to emphasize the need for the proponents of development activities to complete screenings prior to contacting the Ministry or other agencies for more detailed technical information and advice. The Ministry continues to work on updating data housed by Land Information Ontario and the Natural Heritage Information Centre, and ensuring this information is accessible through online resources. Species at risk data is regularly Page 426 of 917 being updated. To ensure access to reliable and up to date information, please contact the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks at Petroleum Wells & Oil, Gas and Salt Resource Act There may be petroleum wells within the proposed project area. Please consult the Ontario Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library website (www.ogsrlibrary.com) for the best known data on any wells recorded by MNRF. Please reference the 'Definitions and Terminology Guide' listed in the publications on the Library website in order to better understand the well information available. Any oil and gas wells in your project area are regulated by the Oil, Gas and Salt Resource Act, and the supporting regulations and operating standards. If any unanticipated wells are encountered during development of the project, or if the proponent has questions regarding petroleum operations, the proponent should contact the Petroleum Operations Section at POSRecords@ontario.ca or 519-873-4634. Public Lands Act & Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act Some projects may be subject to the provisions of the Public Lands Act or the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. Please review the information on MNRF's web pages provided below regarding when an approval is required or not. Please note that many of the authorizations issued under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act are administered by the local Conservation Authority. • For more information about the Public Lands Act: https://www.ontario.ca/page/crown-land-work-permits • For more information about the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act: https://www.ontario.ca/document/lakes-and- rivers-improvement-act-administrative-guide The MNRF would appreciate the opportunity to review any draft reporting completed in support of this project when it becomes available. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Karina Karina Cerniayskaja, District Planner Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Email: MNRF.Ayl.Plan ners@ontario.ca Ontario a As part of providing accessible customer service, please let me know if you have any accommodation needs or requirr, communication supports or alternate formats. From: Zenova E. Gentles Sent: January -06-21 4:52 PM To: 'cfosterpengelly@grandriver.ca' ; 'Planning@Grandriver.ca' ; 'Mark. La Forme@mncfn.ca' ; 'Fawn.Sault@mncfn.ca' ; 'Megan.DeVries@mncfn.ca' ; 'tanyahill-montour@sixnations.ca' ; 'dlaforme@sixnations.ca' ; 'Ion nybomberry@sixnations.ca' ; 'tworowarchaeology@gmail.com' ; 'williams.todde@gmail.com' ; 'maxime.picard@cnhw.qc.ca' ; 'Rob.Dobos@ec.gc.ca' ; Species at Risk (MECP) ; Shaw, Amy (MECP) ; Species at Risk (MECP) ; Orphan, Lee (MECP) ; 'Crystal.Lafrance@ontario.ca' ; EA Notices to SWRegion (MECP) ; Verhaeghe, Tammy (MNRF) ; Thornton, Ian (MNRF) ; Harvard, Jennifer (MNRF) ; MNRF Ayl Planners (MNRF) ; 'katie.wood@kitchener.ca' ; 'Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca' ; 'Lau ra.anderson@kitchener.ca' ; 'Admin@kitchener.ca' ; 'john.gazzola@kitchener.ca' ; 'shevaughne.wynter@hydroone.com' ; 'moneil@regionofwaterloo.ca' ; 'mkroker@regionofwaterloo.ca' ; 'Jlane@regionofwaterloo.ca' ; 'Jennifer_ Benedict@cpr.ca' ; 'jack_carello@cpr.ca' Cc: Gemma Charlebois ; Dave Wilhelm ; 'katie.wood@kitchener.ca' Subject: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. Good afternoon: Please find attached a digital copy of Notice of Commencement informing you of the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Class EA. This study is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, as a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. All notices related to this project can be found on the City of Kitchener's website at the following link: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/city-services/environmental-assessments.aspx 2 Page 427 of 917 The purpose of the current study is to define a sanitary servicing solution that will support responsible development in the Hidden Valley area, as outlined in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan (June 2019). The servicing solution will include identifying a sanitary pumping station location and forcemain alignment. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this study should you wish to do so. Please feel free to call or email me using the contact details below should you require additional information. We look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Zenova Gentles, B.Sc I Administrative Assistant MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x1359 I ZGentlesgmte85.com 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N213 3X9 www.mte85.com I Twitter I LinkedIn I Instagram I Facebook COVID-19 Update: We remain operational and are currently available by email and phone, however, our offices are closed. Staff that are required to visit job sites or perform field work are required to follow MTE health and safety policies and procedures, as well as additional COVID-19 protocols, which can be viewed here. Notice: The electronic information provided is confidential and privileged, and may not be used for purposes other than work related to the subject project. Redistribution or copies to others made without written permission from MTE Consultants Inc. is strictly prohibited. MTE assumes no liability or responsibility, and makes no guarantee or warranty with respect to the data contained, either expressed or implied. Page 428 of 917 01"MTE Appendix D Environmental Studies Page 429 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report 0.14o MT E Page 430 of 917 1§ AMARA ARCHAEOLOGY I HERITAGE I OUTREACH I EDUCATION DRAFT Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain City of Kitchener Regional Municipality of Waterloo Lots 51 and 53, German Company Tract & Bechtels Tract Geographic Township of Waterloo Former Waterloo County Prepared for MTE Consultants Inc. 520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 Phone: (519) 743-6500 By Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. 219-900 Guelph Street Kitchener, ON N2H 5Z6 Tel: (519) 804-2291 Fax: (519) 286-0493 www.arch-research.com HR -210-2020 ARA File 9 2020-0287 Original 10/05/2021 Revised 09/05/2022 Page 431 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Under a contract awarded in December 2020, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. carried out a Cultural Heritage Assessment Report, for the Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain in the City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario. The Upper Hidden Valley sanitary pumping station and forcemain improvements are intended to support development in the Hidden Valley area as outlined by the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan. This assessment was carried out as part of a Schedule B' Municipal Class Environmental Assessment in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act. The purpose of this assessment is to identify and evaluate the cultural heritage resources within and adjacent to the study area that may be impacted by the sanitary pumping station and forcemain project. This assessment was conducted in accordance with the aims of the Environmental Assessment Act, R. S. 0. 1990, Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0. 18, Region of Waterloo Oficial Plan (2015), City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014), and the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan (2019). The study area consists of an irregularly shaped parcel of land with a total area of ±183 acres. This study area is bounded by Highway 8 to the north, the Grand River to the east and south, and Wabanaki Drive to the west. In legal terms, the project falls on part of Lots 51 and 53, German Company Tract & Bechtels Tract, Geographic Township of Waterloo, Former Waterloo County. The Cultural Heritage Assessment Report approach included: • Background research concerning the project and historical context of the study area; • Consultation with City of Kitchener staff regarding heritage matters in the study area; • Identification of any designated or recognized properties within and adjacent to the study area; • On-site inspection and creation of an inventory of all properties with potential Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes within and adjacent to the study area; • A description of the location and nature of potential cultural heritage resources; • Evaluation of each potential cultural heritage resource against the criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06 for determining cultural heritage value or interest; • Evaluation of potential project impacts; and • Provision of suggested strategies for the future conservation of identified cultural heritage resources. As a result of consultation and field surveys the following Built Heritage Resources were identified within and adjacent to the study area: 602 Hidden Valley Road (BHR-1), 691 Hidden Valley Road (BHR-2). The property at 681 Hidden Valley Road was identified in the preliminary review, however, as a direct result of information provided by the owner through the consultation process, it was removed. As a result of consultation and the field survey the following Cultural Heritage May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -210-2020 ARA File # 2020-0287 Page 432 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener ii Landscapes were identified within the study area: Hidden Valley Road (CHL -1), Hidden Valley Road- Heritage Corridor (CHL -2), and Grand River Corridor (CHL -3). Detailed designs or plans for the sanitary pumping station and forcemain were not available at the time this report was written, however there is the potential that the identified Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes may be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed project. All identified Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes fall within the study area. Depending on the nature and extent of the proposed project and project location, the Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes have the potential for direct and indirect impacts. As a result of this Cultural Heritage Assessment Report, the following mitigation strategies are recommended: • That any construction and staging areas should avoid the use of land which are part of BHR-1 at 602 Hidden Valley Road, and BHR-2 at 691 Hidden Valley, as well as, Hidden Valley Road (CHL -1), Hidden Valley Road- Heritage Corridor (CHL -2), and Grand River Corridor (CHL -3); • That should project -related activities be expected to impact the property associated with BHR-1 BHR-2, CHL -1, CHL -2 or CHL -3, a qualified heritage consultant should be contracted to complete property specific or Cultural Heritage Landscape specific Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments and provide detailed mitigation options to address the proposed design on the resources; • That design alternatives (i.e., sanitary pumping station location and design as well as forcemain location) should consider the heritage attributes of CHL -1 and CHL -2. Specifically, the narrow two-lane alignment without shoulders, the scenic views to surrounding agricultural fields and the Grand River, the diverse roadside vegetation that abuts the road and provides a defined edge as well as the corresponding and undulating topography which is part of the original historic alignment; this may be achieved through appropriate setbacks. • That design alternatives should consider the heritage attributes of CHL -3, specifically the well-defined river valley with alternating steep and shallow banks, and the meandering river with significant vegetation communities and associated wildlife habitat. Design alternatives should avoid impacts to the well-defined river valley and the vegetation associated with the steep and shallow banks. This may be achieved by avoiding this area entirely. Should a design alternative (i.e. sanitary pumping station location) be considered within the river valley, it is recommended that a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment be done to ensure that the proposed design considers height, massing, architectural style elements, etc., to minimize any impacts and ensure it is sympathetic to the surrounding character of the Grand River. • That the physical design of any proposed structures should not detract from the character of the area. Any new structure for the sanitary pumping station should be sympathetic to the surrounding area and minimize impacts through appropriate height, massing and architecture style; • That public consultation may result in additional potential cultural heritage resources being identified. These potential cultural heritage resources should be reviewed by a qualified May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 433 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener iii heritage consultant to: 1) determine their cultural heritage value or interest, 2) evaluate potential project impacts, and 3) suggest strategies for future conservation of any identified cultural heritage resources; • That should the proposed project or the proposed study area expand beyond the scope examined in this report, a qualified heritage consultant should be retained to determine the potential impacts and suggest mitigation measures; • That should the proposed project create publicly accessible areas, this may provide an opportunity to interpret some of the identified cultural heritage resources associated with the Cultural Heritage Landscapes (i.e., with plaques, public art); • That this Cultural Heritage Assessment Report should be provided to staff/planners at the City of Kitchener; • That a Stage 1 archaeological assessment is currently being undertaken to address the identified archaeological potential associated with the study area and no soil disturbing activities should take place until all archaeological concerns are mitigated and all reports are accepted by the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries. May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 434 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT..................................................................................................... 1 2.0 LEGISLATION AND POLICY REVIEW..................................................................... 3 2.1 Federal Guidelines.......................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Provincial Policies and Guidelines................................................................................. 3 2.2.1 Environmental Assessment Act and Guideline........................................................... 3 2.2.2 Planning Act................................................................................................................ 3 2.2.3 The Provincial Policy Statement (2020)..................................................................... 3 2.2.4 Ontario Heritage Act................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Municipal Policies.......................................................................................................... 5 2.3.1 Region of Waterloo Official Plan................................................................................ 5 2.3.2 City of Kitchener Official Plan................................................................................... 6 2.3.3 Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan......................................................................... 7 3.0 KEY CONCEPTS............................................................................................................. 8 4.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT.............................................................................................11 4.1 Settlement History........................................................................................................ 12 4. 1.1 Pre-Contact............................................................................................................... 12 4.1.2 Post-Contact..............................................................................................................13 4.1.3 German Mills............................................................................................................ 14 4.2 Study Area History........................................................................................................ 14 4.2.1 Mapping and Imagery Analysis................................................................................ 14 5.0 CONSULTATION...........................................................................................................21 5.1 Cultural Heritage Landscape Study.............................................................................. 22 6.0 INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY CONSULTATION..................................................... 23 7.0 FIELD SURVEY............................................................................................................. 23 8.0 HERITAGE ASSESSMENT..........................................................................................24 9.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN............................................................................................... 29 10.0 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS..................................................................... 30 11.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 31 12.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES..............................................................................33 LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Study Area in the City of Kitchener 2 Map 2: G.R. and G.M. Tremaine's Tremaine 's Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada West (186 1) 16 Map 3: Parsell and Co,'s Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo, Ontario (1881) 17 May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 435 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener v Map 4: Topographic Maps from 1916, 1923, 1929 and 1936 18 Map 5: Aerial Image (1955) 19 Map 6: Aerial Image (1963) 20 Map 7: Built Heritage Resource Assessment Results Map 26 Map 8: Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment Results Map 27 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Pre -Contact Settlement History 12 Table 2: Post -Contact Settlement History 13 Table 3: Potential Cultural Heritage Resources Examined 24 Table 4: BHRs and CHLs with CHVI 28 Table 5: BHR and CHL Value Statements and Heritage Attributes 28 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes 37 Appendix B: Team Member Curriculum Vitae 62 GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ARA — Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. BHR — Built Heritage Resource CHAR — Cultural Heritage Assessment Report CHL — Cultural Heritage Landscape CHVI — Cultural Heritage Value or Interest EA — Environmental Assessment GRCA- Grand River Conservation Authority CHIA — Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment HSMBC — Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada MCEA — Municipal Class Environmental Assessment MHSTCI — Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries OHA — Ontario Heritage Act OHT — Ontario Heritage Trust OP — Official Plan O. Reg. — Ontario Regulation PIC — Public Information Centre PPS — Provincial Policy Statement ROP— Regional Official Plan May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 436 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener vi PERSONNEL Principal: P.J. Racher, MA, CARP Heritage Operations Manager: K. Jonas Galvin, MA, RPP, MCIP, CARP Project Manager: A. Barnes MA, CARP Field Survey: A. Barnes Historical Research: S. Clarke, BA Photography: A. Barnes Cartographer: A. Bailey (GIS), K. Brightwell (GIS), Technical Writers: A. Barnes, K. Jonas Galvin, P. Young, MA, CARP Editors: A. Bousfield-Bastedo, BA, Dip. Heritage Conservation, V Cafik, BA, CAHP Two-page Curriculum Vitae (CV) for key team members that demonstrate the qualifications and expertise necessary to perform cultural heritage work in Ontario are provide in Appendix B. May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 437 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 1 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT Under a contract awarded in December 2020, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) carried out a Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR), for the Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain (henceforth proposed project) in the City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario. The proposed project is intended to support development in the Hidden Valley area as outlined by the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan (City of Kitchener 2019). This assessment was carried out as part of a Schedule B' Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act. The study area consists of an irregularly shaped parcel of land with a total area of ±183 acres (see Map 1). This study area is bounded by Highway 8 to the north, the Grand River to the east and south, and Wabanaki Drive to the west. In legal terms, the study area falls on part of Lots 51 and 53, German Company Tract & Bechtels Tract, Geographic Township of Waterloo, Former Waterloo County. The study area is characterized by rolling topography, agricultural fields, low rise large lot residential dwelling and estates and other infill lots, roadways, and steep slopes and grade changes surrounding the valley. Hidden Valley Road, starting and ending at Wabanaki Drive, is located within the study area and has a narrow two-lane alignment without shoulders. Roadside vegetation provides definition to the road edge. The study area includes a significant natural environmental system as several branches of the creek flow in and out the project area in the valley and are connected to the Grand River. The purpose of this assessment is to identify and evaluate the cultural heritage resources within and adjacent to the study area that may be impacted by the proposed project. This assessment was conducted in accordance with the aims of the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and the Ontario Heritage Act, R. S. 0. 1990, c. 0. 18, Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (MHSTCI 1992), Ontario Heritage Tool Kit series (MHSTCI 2006a), the Region of Waterloo Official Plan (2015) and City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014), and the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan (2019). May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 438 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 2 May 2021 HR -210-2020 Map 1: Study Area in the City of Kitchener (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS®R software by Esri, (V Esri) Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 439 of 917 I J 0 2.5 5 km ss 4� Study Area A%6.rARA 1:25,000 0.5 1 km B— Map 8 E— HERE. G— h, Ink.- Increment F C.m ,FdNaree SU N Gy. ESr Japan, METI. Esil C hi(Han 9 Kang) (t) �P-- I—, — ffie . Is u . . Community May 2021 HR -210-2020 Map 1: Study Area in the City of Kitchener (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS®R software by Esri, (V Esri) Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 439 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 3 2.0 LEGISLATION AND POLICY REVIEW The framework for this assessment report is provided by federal guidelines, provincial environmental and planning legislation, and policies as well as regional and local municipal Official Plans and guidelines. 2.1 Federal Guidelines At the national level, The Standards and Guidelines for Conservation ofHistoric Places in Canada (Parks Canada 2010) provides guidance for the preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration of historic places, including cultural heritage landscapes (CHLs) and built heritage resources (BHRs). Such guidance includes the planning and implementation of heritage conservation activities. 2.2 Provincial Policies and Guidelines 2.2.1 Environmental Assessment Act and Guideline Within the Environmental Assessment Act, the environment includes "any building, structure, machine or other device or thing made by humans." An Environmental Assessment (EA) is a study that evaluates both the potential positive and/or negative effects of a project on the environment. This study is conducted as part of a streamlined EA process known as a Municipal Class EA (MCEA), which applies to routine projects grouped into classes that range from A (minor undertakings) to C (new construction of large facilities). The MCEA applies to municipal infrastructure undertakings including roads, water, and wastewater projects. The Upper Hidden Valley proposed project constitutes a Schedule "B" undertaking. The Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments indicates a need to describe the "affected environment" that is "a spatially defined area within which land will be altered as a result of the proponent's development" (MHSTCI 1992:3). As such, ARA completes in-depth research and evaluation of any potential cultural heritage resource within the study area. ARA's business practice also considers the study area and any adjacent properties. This ensures that every BHR and CHL that may be subject to potential indirect project impacts is identified. 2.2.2 Planning Act Section 2 of the Ontario Planning Act indicates that a council of a Municipality have regard for matters of provincial interest such as:"(d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest" (Government of Ontario 2018). Section 3 of the Planning Act directs a municipal Council's decisions to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020). 2.2.3 The Provincial Policy Statement (2020) The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020) contains a combined statement of the Province's land use planning policies. It provides the provincial government's policies on a range of land use planning issues including cultural heritage outlined. As outlined in Section 2.0 on Wise Use of and Management of Resources: "Ontario's long-term prosperity, environmental health, and social well - May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 440 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 4 being depend on conserving biodiversity, protecting the health of the Great Lakes, and protecting natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral and cultural heritage and archaeological resources for their economic, environmental and social benefits" (MMAH 2020:24). The PPS 2020 promotes the conservation of cultural heritage resources through detailed polices in Section 2.6, such as "2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved" and "2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved." (MMAH 2020:31). 2.2.4 Ontario Heritage Act The Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), R. S.O. 1990, c.018 is the guiding piece of provincial legislation for the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources in Ontario. The OHA gives provincial and municipalities governments the authority and power to conserve Ontario's heritage. The OHA has policies which address individual properties (Part IV), heritage districts (Part IV), and allows municipalities to create a register of non -designated properties which may have cultural heritage value or interest (Section 27). In order to objectively identify cultural heritage resources, O. Reg. 9/06 made under the OHA sets out three principal criteria with nine sub -criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) (MHSTCI 2006b:20-27). The criteria set out in the regulation were developed to identify and evaluate properties for designation under the OHA. Best practices in evaluating properties that are not yet protected employ O. Reg. 9/06 to determine if they have CHVI. In the absence of specific CHL evaluation criteria, potential CHLs O. Reg 9/06 is also applied to consider the built and natural features and the property as a whole. The O. Reg. 9/06 criteria include: design or physical value, historical or associative value and contextual value. 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or in. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or in. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or in. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2). May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 441 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener The OHA provides three key tools for the conservation of built heritage resources (BHRs) and cultural heritage landscapes (CHLs). It allows for protection as: L A single property (i.e., farmstead, park, garden, estate, cemetery), a municipality can designate BHRs and CHLs as individual properties under Part IV of the OHA. 2. Multiple properties or a specific grouping of properties may be considered a CHL, as such, a municipality can designate the area as a Heritage Conservation District (HCD) under Part V of the OHA. 3. Lastly, a municipality has the authority to add an individual or grouping of non-OHA designated property(ies) (often called "listed" properties) of heritage value or interest on their Municipal Heritage Register. An OHA designation provides the strongest heritage protection available for conserving cultural heritage resources. It allows a municipality to deny demolition permits, to guide change through development review of protected property(ies) and adjacent protected property(ies) and to control property alterations through a heritage permit system. 2.2.5 Summary of Provincial Policies The PPS addresses cultural heritage resources, including cultural heritage landscapes. The PPS notes that significant heritage resources "shall be conserved". This cultural heritage assessment will evaluate the potential cultural heritage resources located within the area to be affected by the Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain. 2.3 Municipal Policies 2.3.1 Region of* Waterloo Official Plan The Region of Waterloo Regional Official Plan 2031 (ROP) Chapter 3 focuses on "Liveability in Waterloo." Section 3.G contains policies related specifically to cultural heritage in Waterloo Region. Policy 3.G.1 indicates that: "The Region and Area Municipalities will ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved using the provisions of the Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act..." (2015:48). This policy is relevant for the current project. Building on Policy 3.G.1, Policy 3.G.3 states: Area Municipalities will identify cultural heritage resources by establishing and maintaining a register of properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest. Area Municipalities will include on their register properties designated under Part IV, V or VI of the Heritage Act, and will consider including, but not be limited to, the following additional cultural heritage resources of cultural heritage value or interest: (a) properties that have heritage conservation easements or covenants registered against title; (b) cultural heritage resources of Regional interest; and (c) cultural heritage resources identified by the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Federal or Provincial governments (Region of Waterloo 2015:48-49). May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 442 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 6 In Policy 3.G.4 the Region indicates it will also coordinate and maintain a "region -wide inventory of cultural heritage resources" which will include the resources noted above as well as resources identified by "postsecondary institutions or local historical societies" (Region of Waterloo 2014:49). There are policies that are for the identification and protection of Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources. The policy information below is also outlined in the Regional Implementation Guideline for Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources (RSCHR) (2018:9). 3.G.2 The Region will prepare and update a Regional Implementation Guideline for Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources. In accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, this guideline will outline the criteria and processes the Region will follow to identify and conserve cultural heritage resources of Regional interest including regional roads that have cultural heritage value or interest. Specifically, cultural heritage landscapes are to be conserved through the preparation and updating of a "Regional Implementation Guideline for Cultural Heritage Conservation" which will provide an identification and implementation framework and will allow for the highlighting of CHLs of Regional interest (Policy 3.G.5 Region of Waterloo 2014:49). This guide addresses the above as well as provides detailed guidance on CHL conservation and relates it to the Environmental Assessment Act process (Region of Waterloo 2013:1). Policy 3.G.6 further states: "Area Municipalities will designate Cultural Heritage Landscapes in their official plans and establish associated policies to conserve these areas. The purpose of this designation is to conserve groupings of cultural heritage resources..." (Region of Waterloo 2014:50). 2.3.2 City of Kitchener Official Plan The City of Kitchener Official Plan outlines goals of the OP which includes providing: ... a framework for the creation and maintenance of a safe and healthy urban environment within which opportunities are provided for people to satisfy their social, economic, cultural and physical needs and for maintaining and conserving the integrity of the natural and cultural heritage (City of Kitchener 2014:2-4). Section 12 of City of Kitchener Official Plan contains policies addressing cultural heritage resources. Within this section there are objectives for the conservation of cultural heritage resources including: 12.0.1.1. To conserve the city's cultural heritage resources through their identification, protection, use and/or management in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. 12. C.1.2. To ensure that all development or redevelopment and site alteration is sensitive to and respects cultural heritage resources and that cultural heritage resources are conserved. (2014:12-1). May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 443 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 7 Similar to the Region, the City of Kitchener will use legislation to conserve cultural heritage resources which will include the Environmental Assessment Act, legislation which this project falls under (Policy 12.C.1.1 City of Kitchener 2014:2-1). Cultural heritage resources to be included in a list maintained by the City include: a) properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; b) properties designated under Part IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act; c) cultural heritage landscapes; and, d) heritage corridors (Policy 12.C.1.3. City of Kitchener 2014:12-2). The City also acknowledges that all cultural heritage resources have not been identified and as such, Policy 12.C.1.4. provides for properties that are not "listed or designated to be considered as having cultural heritage value or interest" (2014:12-2). The protection of CHLs is outlined in policies 12.C.1.8. — 12.C.1.12. which provide for inventorying and listing of CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, their mapping and their conservation through legislation and along the Grand River (2014:12-2 - 12-3). Beyond these policies the OP contains cultural heritage policies within Section 12 that address Heritage Conservation Districts; archaeology; conservation measures for cultural heritage resources; Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans; Heritage Permit application process; the demolition/damage of cultural heritage resources; public infrastructure; incentives; the role and resources of Kitchener including leading by example with the care and management of City -owned cultural heritage resources; and the design and integration of cultural heritage resources in the City. Section 13 of the OP entitled "Integrated Transportation System" focusses on the creation of "An integrated transportation system [which] is an essential part of the city's urban structure and a key element in shaping the form and character of growth in the city" (City of Kitchener 2014:13-1). A component of the integrated transportation system is the conservation of cultural heritage resources. Specifically, there are policies focussing on "Heritage Corridors" which are identified as a cultural heritage resource, mapped in the Official Plan and there are policies for their management and conservation (City of Kitchener 2014:13-13 — 13-16). Policy 13.C.4.18 lists seven streets that have been identified as having "potential cultural heritage value or interest to be considered a potential cultural heritage resource" and Hidden Valley Road is included in this list (2014:13-16). 2.3.3 Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan The Hidden Valley area is approximately 183 acres of land and it has been characterized as "primarily... rolling topography, including several agricultural fields, with large lot estate residential dwellings towards the river" (City of Kitchener 2019:2). As noted in the Master Plan's discussion of Issues and Opportunities, "Hidden Valley is a special character area with some unique attributes" (City of Kitchener 2019:4). The Master Plan identifies certain considerations from a land use policy perspective and one of these considerations is: May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 444 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 8 Hidden Valley Road is a significant `Cultural Heritage Landscape' and under consideration as a `Heritage Corridor' (City of Kitchener 2019:4). There are several key policy directions for Hidden Valley area, as identified in the Master Plan report, including a subsection on Cultural Heritage (2019:6) which states: 1. The portion of Hidden Valley Road from approximately just south of Hidden Valley Creek to the location of the start of the new access arrangement to River Road extension near Highway 8 is the only portion of the road that would be the significant Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). 2. Find opportunities to acknowledge and celebrate the Grand River, Indigenous Culture and the historical context of the area. This could be connected with future park and open space features, wayfinding, interpretive panels, views and vistas or other opportunities (2019:6) The portion of Hidden Valley Road that is to be considered as a heritage corridor is from approximately just south of Hidden Valley Creek to just south of Highway 8. As part of the implementation of the Master Plan one of the Official Plan implications is to prepare a draft amendment to "Integrated Transportation System" Map 11 with the illustration of this portion of Hidden Valley Road as a heritage corridor (City of Kitchener 2019:10). Another OP implementation implication is: "As part of the Corridor Enhancement Plan, prepare a cross section(s) and guidelines for Hidden Valley Road from the creek to Highway 8 that respects and enhances the character and significance of the significant Cultural Heritage Landscape/Heritage Corridor" (2019:11). 2.3.4 Summary of Municipal Policies The Official Plan policies in the ROP and the City of Kitchener's OP call for the conservation of cultural heritage resources, the maintaining and promotion of heritage registers and provide policies related to potential development impacts to cultural heritage resources. Therefore, this CHAR will address these cultural heritage policies as it analyzes the Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain. 3.0 KEY CONCEPTS The following concepts require clear definition in advance of the methodological overview and proper understanding is fundamental for any discussion pertaining to cultural heritage resources: • Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI), also referred to as Heritage Value, is identified if a property meets one of the criteria outlined in O. Reg. 9/06 namely historic or associate value, design or physical value and/or contextual value. Provincial significance is defined under Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) O. Reg. 10/06. • Built Heritage Resource (BHR) can be defined in the PPS as: "a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property's cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that has been May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 445 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 9 designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial and/or federal and/or international registers" (MMAH 2020:41). • Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) is defined in the PPS as: "a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Aboriginal community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance; and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities (e.g., a National Historic Site or District designation, or a UNESCO World Heritage Site)" (MMAH 2020:42). • Conserved means "the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by relevant planning authority and/or decision -makers. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments" (MMAH 2020:41). • Heritage Attributes are defined as: "the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property's cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property's built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property)." (MMAH 2020:44-45). • Protected heritage property is defined as "property designated under Parts IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites" (MMAH 2020:49). • Significant in reference to cultural heritage is defined as: "resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act" (MMAH 2020:51). Key heritage definitions from the Region of Waterloo Official Plan are as follows: • Built heritage resources are defined as "one or more significant buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military history and identified as being important to the community. These resources may be identified through designation or heritage conservation easement under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed by local, regional, provincial or federal jurisdictions" (2015:G-4). May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 446 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 10 • Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment is detailed as "a study to determine if cultural heritage resources will be negatively impacted by a proposed development or site alteration. It can also demonstrate how the cultural heritage resource will be conserved in the context of redevelopment or site alteration. Mitigative or avoidance measures or alternative development approaches may also be recommended" (2015:G-5). • Cultural heritage landscape is "a defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. It involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts" (2015:G-5). • Cultural heritage resources are "the physical remains and the intangible cultural traditions of past human activities. These include, but are not limited to: ■ buildings (residential, commercial, institutional, industrial and agricultural); ■ cultural heritage landscapes (designed, organic/evolved); ■ structures (water tower; bridge, fence and dam); ■ monuments (cenotaph, statue and cairn); ■ archaeological resources; ■ cemeteries; ■ scenic roads; ■ vistas/viewsheds; ■ culturally significant natural features (tree and landform); ■ movable objects (archival records and artifacts); and ■ cultural traditions (language, stories, music, dance, food, celebrations, art and crafts") (2015:G-6). Key heritage definitions from the City of Kitchener Oficial Plan are as follows: • Adaptive Re -use "the recycling of a building and/or structure usually for a new function, such as the use of a former industrial building for residential purposes." (2014:A-1) • Cultural Heritage Resources "includes buildings, structures and properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, properties on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement." (2014:A-5). • Cultural Heritage Landscapes "a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance; and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities (2014:A-5). It is recognized that the heritage value of a CHL is often derived from its association with historical themes that characterize the development of human settlement in an area (see Scheinman 2006 for discussion of typical themes). May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 447 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 11 The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places define a CHL as "any geographical area that has been modified, influenced or given special cultural meaning by people, and that has been formally recognized for its heritage value" (Parks Canada 2010:113). It identifies the three categories of cultural landscapes which are also contained within the UNESCO (2019) Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention: designed; organically evolved (vernacular); and associative. The Standards and Guidelines further outlines specific guidelines for cultural heritage landscapes, including 11 subsections on: "evidence of land use; evidence of traditional practices; land patterns; spatial organization; visual relationships; circulation; ecological features; vegetation; landforms; water features; and built features" (Parks Canada 2010:50). The Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) Information Sheet #2 Cultural Heritage Landscapes (2006c:1-2) continues these definitions: • Designed Cultural Landscapes — These are areas that are clearly defined and created intentionally by human design. They may include garden and parkland landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons and may be associated with religious or monumental buildings. • Evolved Cultural Landscapes — This type of landscape is often the result of a social, economic, administrative and/or religious motivation that has continued to develop into its present form due to associations with, or in response to, its natural environment. There are two sub -categories of this CHL type: • Relic Landscape — One in which an evolutionary process came to an end but its significant distinguishing features are still visible. • Continuing Landscape — One that retains associations with traditional practices but which retains an active social role in the current community while continuing to evolve and exhibit material evidence of this ongoing evolution. • Associative Cultural Landscapes — These landscapes have religious, artistic, or cultural associations with nature rather than with material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or absent. 4.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT The site history of study area was constructed using background information obtained from aerial photographs, historical maps (i.e., illustrated atlases) and published secondary sources (online and print). Given the limited time frame for the production of this report, and closures due to the current pandemic, there is always the possibility that additional historical information exists but may not have been identified or accessible for review. The City of Kitchener and Waterloo County have a long history of settlement including pre -contact and post -contact Indigenous campsites and villages due to its productive riverside lands, as well as favourable farmland. The study area has strong associations with Indigenous communities, and the heritage resources considered in this report can be associated with both Pre -Contact and Post - Contact cultural developments. Accordingly, this historical context section spans the Pre -Contact May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 448 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 12 Indigenous occupation history through Euro -Canadian settlement history to present. The early history of the study area can be effectively discussed in terms of major historical events. 4.1 Settlement History 4.1.1 Pre -Contact The Pre -Contact history of the region is lengthy and rich, and a variety of Indigenous groups inhabited the landscape. Archaeologists generally divide this vibrant history into three main periods: Palaeo, Archaic, and Woodland. Each of these periods comprise a range of discrete sub- periods characterized by identifiable trends in material culture and settlement patterns, which are used to interpret past lifeways. The principal characteristics of these sub -periods are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Pre -Contact Settlement History (Wright 1972: Ellis and Ferris 1990: Warrick 2000: Munson and Jamieson 2013) Sub -Period Timeframe Characteristics Early Palaeo-Indian 9000-8400 Gainey, Barnes and Crowfield traditions, Small bands; Mobile hunters and BCgatherers-, Utilization of seasonal resources and large territories; Fluted projectiles Late Palaeo-Indian 8400-7500 Holcombe, Hi -Lo and Lanceolate biface traditions; Continuing mobility, BC Campsite/Way- Station sites; Smaller territories are utilized, Non -fluted projectiles 7500-6000 Side -notched, Corner -notched (Nettling, Thebes) and Bifurcate traditions, Growing Early Archaic BC diversity of stone tool types; Heavy woodworking tools appear (i.e., ground stone axes and chisels 6000-2500 Stemmed (Kirk, Stanly/Neville), Brewerton side- and corner -notched traditions, Middle Archaic BC Reliance on local resources; Populations increasing; More ritual activities, Fully round and polished tools; Net -sinkers common, Earliest copper tools 2500-900 Narrow Point (Lamoka), Broad Point (Genesee) and Small Point (Crawford Knoll) Late Archaic BC traditions; Less mobility, Use of fish -weirs; True cemeteries appear; Stone pipes emerge-, Long-distance trade marine shells andgalena) Early Woodland 900-400 BC Meadowood tradition; Crude cord -roughened ceramics emerge, Meadowood cache blades and side-notchedpoints-, Bands of up to 35 people 400 BC—AD Saugeen tradition; Stamped ceramics appear; Saugeen projectile points; Cobble Middle Woodland 600 spall scrapers; Seasonal settlements and resource utilization; Post holes, hearths, middens, cemeteries and rectangular structures identified Middle/Late Gradual transition between Saugeen and Algonkian lifeways-, Princess Point Woodland Transition AD 600-900 tradition emerges elsewhere (i.e., within the drainages around the western end of Lake Ontario, Grand River and the north shore of Lake Erie Late Woodland (Early AD 900— Glen Meyer tradition; Settled village -life based on agriculture; Small villages Iroquoian) 1300 0.4 ha with 75-200 people and 4-5 lon houses; Semi-permanent settlements Late Woodland AD 1300— Uren and Middleport traditions; Classic longhouses emerge; Larger villages (1.2 ha) fiddle Iroquoian) 1400 with up to 600 people, More permanent settlements 30 ears Late Woodland AD 1400— Pre -Contact Neutral tradition; Larger villages (1.7 ha), Examples up to 5 ha with (Late Iroquoian) 1600 2,500 people, Extensive croplands; also hamlets, cabins, camps and cemeteries; Potential tribal units; Fur trade begins circal580; European trade goods appear Although Iroquoian -speaking populations tended to leave a much more obvious mark on the archaeological record and are therefore emphasized in the Late Woodland entries above, it must be understood that Algonquian -speaking populations also represented a significant presence in southern Ontario. Due to the sustainability of their lifeways, archaeological evidence directly associated with the Anishinaabeg remains elusive, particularly when compared to sites associated with the more sedentary agriculturalists. Many artifact scatters in southern Ontario were likely May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 449 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 13 camps, chipping stations or processing areas associated with the more mobile Anishinaabeg, utilized during their travels along the local drainage basins while making use of seasonal resources. It must be recognized that this part of southern Ontario represents the ancestral territory of various Indigenous groups, each with their own land use and settlement pattern tendencies. 4.1.2 Post -Contact The arrival of European explorers and traders at the beginning of the 17th century triggered widespread shifts in Indigenous lifeways and set the stage for the ensuing Euro -Canadian settlement process. Documentation for this period is abundant, ranging from the first sketches of Upper Canada and the written accounts of early explorers to detailed township maps and lengthy histories. The Post -Contact period can be effectively discussed in terms of major historical events, and the principal characteristics associated with these events are summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Post -Contact Settlement History (Smith 1846; Coyne 1895; Lajeunesse 1960; Cumming 1972, Ellis and Ferris 1990; Surtees 1994; Bloomfield 2006; Hayes 1997) Historical Event Timeframe Characteristics Bru16 explores the area in 1610; Champlain visits in 1613 and 1615/1616, Early Contact Early 17t' Iroquoian -speakers (Huron, Petun and Neutral) and Algonkian-speakers century (Anishinabeg) encountered; European goods begin to replace traditional tools. Haudenosaunee (Five Nations) invade circa 1650; Neutral, Huron and Petun Five Nations Invasion Mid -17a' Nations are defeated/removed-, vast Iroquoian hunting territory established century in the second half of the 171 century; Explorers continue to document the area. Late 17a' Ojibway, Odawa and Potawatomi expand into Haudenosaunee lands m the Anishinabeg Influx and early late 17th century; Nanfan Treaty between Haudenosaunee and British in 18a' century 1701; Anishinabeg occupy the area and trade directly with the French and English. Early and Growth and spread of the fur trade; Peace between the French and English Fur Trade mid 18th with the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713; Ethnogenesis of the M6tis; Hostilities Development century between French and British lead to the Seven Years' War in 1754, French surrender in 1760. Mid -18l' Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognizes the title of the First Nations to the British Control century land, Numerous treaties arranged by the Crown; First acquisition is the Seneca surrender of the west side of the Niagara River in August 1764. United Empire Loyalist influx after the American Revolutionary War (1775 - Late 18th 1783); British develop interior communication routes and acquire additional Loyalist Influx century lands; Between the Lakes Purchase' orchestrated by Haldimand in 1784 to obtain lands for Six Nations; Constitutional Act of 1791 creates Upper and Lower Canada. Became part of York County's `West Riding' in 1792; Additional lands Late 18th and acquired in the second Between the Lakes Purchase' in 1792; Brant County Development early 19' surrenders Blocks 1-6 of the Haldimand'Iract to the Crown in 1798, century Became part of Gore District and Halton County in 1816; Wellington District and Waterloo County created in 1840; Waterloo County independent after the abolition of the districts stem in 1849. Waterloo was originally Block 2 of the Haldimand Tract; Block 2 sold to Early 19th United Empire Loyalist Richard Beasley and his partners in 1798, Nearly Township Formation century 5,750 ha sold to Pennsylvania Mennonites and non -Mennonites in 1800, German Company formed to facilitate the bulk sale of 24,281 ha in 1805, re resented by Daniel Erb and Samuel Bricker, Lots drawn b shareholders May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 450 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 14 Historical Event Timeframe Characteristics in Pennsylvania; Steady and rapid stream of settlers ensued, disrupted only by the Napoleonic Wars and War of 1812 Twenty saw mills and eight grist mills in operation by 1846; Population was Mid -19a' and 4,424 at that time, the arrival of the Grand Trunk Railway, the Galt & Township ear' Guelph Railway and the Preston & Berlin Railway in the 1850s ushered in a Development golden era, Prominent communities existed at Berlin, Breslau, Shantz, Williamsburg, New Aberdeen, Strasburg, German Mills, Freeport, Oregon (Upper Doon , Doon, Blair, Preston and Hes eler in 1881. 4.1.3 German Mills Historical maps show that the community of German Mills was located within and adjacent to the northwest section of the study area. German Mills, also known as Parkway, Jewsburg, Edenburg, Hopewell Mills and Bleams Mills, seems to have originated when Philip Bliehm built a sawmill on Schneider Creek in 1812. The mill, which was serviced by one dam, was purchased by Samuel Liebschuetz in 1835 (Janusas 1988:169). During Liebscheutz's period of mill ownership (1835- 1851) he laid plans for the village of Jewsburg, a name reflecting his religion (Benjamin and Berge 2012:56). The southern part of the Township of Waterloo owed much of its early development to the establishment of major thoroughfares in the first quarter of the 19th century. The earliest of these was Bleams Road, built by Philip Bliehm in the 1820s to link the Township of Wilmot and the western part of the Township of Waterloo to his businesses at German Mills (Bloomfield 2006:73-76). The flour mills were the epicentre of the small community, with related businesses that included a stave mill, cooperage and general store. Today, the last vestiges of the settlement are Cress Lane and Webster Road as they are currently aligned (Benjamin and Berge 2012:54). 4.2 Study Area History 4.2.1 Mapping and Imagery Analysis In order to gain a general understanding of the study area, two historic settlement maps, four topographic maps and two aerial images were examined during the research component of the study. Specifically, the following resources were consulted: • G.R. and G.M. Tremaine's Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada West (186 1) (OCHMP 2015); • Waterloo Township from H. Parsell & Co.'s Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo, Ontario (188 1) (McGill University 2001); • Topographic maps from 1916, 1923, 1929 and 1936 (OCUL 2019); and • Aerial images from 1955 and 1963 (UW 2021). The limits of the study area are shown on georeferenced versions of the consulted historical resources in Map 2—Map 6. Tremaines' Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada West (1861) indicates that the study area comprises part of Bechtel's Tract and Beasley's Old Survey. Henry C. Wismer, David [Surarus], A.C. Weber, Andrew [Surarus], Amos Weaver and Jonas Wilfong are indicated as owners of parcels within the study area and Becthel's Tract, while Henry Strickler owned part of Lot 53, German Company Tract (see Map 2). Structures are depicted on the May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 451 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 15 properties of Henry C. Wismer (just west of the study area) and Amos Weaver (within the study area). Many of the families that owned property in the study area were some of the earliest settlers to the area. Hidden Valley Road bisects the study area east—west and appears to have crossed the Grand River before continuing east to Freeport. The Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo, Ontario (188 1) is not as detailed as the 1861 map, however it indicates that Hidden Valley Road continued to cross the Grand River at this time. Moses Wismer is the owner of the former Henry C. Wismer property and a residence is shown on the property just west of the study area (see Map 3). While some lot divisions are depicted on the map, no additional owners nor buildings are shown. The proximity of the study area to nearby Freeport to the east, German Mills to the west and Centreville to the north, coupled with the proximity to the Grand River likely made the study area ideal for settlement. Topographic maps from 1916, 1923 and 1929 indicate that there were no apparent changes to the landscape (see Map 4). Frame structures are depicted along Hidden Valley Road, a bridge crossed the tributary of the Grand River at the east part of the study area and a ford existed at the crossing of Hidden Valley Road and the Grand River. The ford at Hidden Valley Road was a shallow place in the Grand River that allowed for easy crossing. By 1936 the ford at Hidden Valley Road and the Grand River had been removed. Hidden Valley Road was realigned at the east part of the study area and a Bell Telephone Line crossed southwest—northeast. The bridge at the tributary of the Grand River remained along Hidden Valley Road at this time (Map 4). An aerial image from 1955 demonstrates that the study area remained settled similarly as it was in 1936 (see Map 5). Properties situated along Hidden Valley Road west of the Grand River have long driveways extending from the former alignment to the new alignment of the road. The former alignment of Hidden Valley Road leading to the former fording location remains visible on the landscape within the study area. The road trace of the continuation of Hidden Valley Road can also be seen east of the Grand River. By 1963, Highway 8 had been laid north of the study area and Wabanaki Drive was laid north— south at the western edge of the study area. The road trace for the former alignment of Hidden Valley Road at the eastern part of the study area is barely visible on the landscape by this time (see Map 6). May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 452 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 16 Map 2: G.R. and G.M. Tremaine's Tremaine's Map of'the County of'Waterloo, Canada West (1861) (Produced under licence using ArcGISU software by Esri, (0 Esri; OHCMP 2021) May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 453 of 917 ■■■ 1'4 � Il� �tkjvL b Ole F� f'.'r� r� p. �P S ► �q'3ir r , .�1 yRT t O tz jo �t 7. 1 ty 1F— , Study Area AWI§6h.:�ARA N 1:17,000 0 350 700m se Map Source. Geo. R d G.M. Trema'ine Tremaine's MaD el tM1e Ccuni; i �a�a�anoo, caaaaa wear haei� Map 2: G.R. and G.M. Tremaine's Tremaine's Map of'the County of'Waterloo, Canada West (1861) (Produced under licence using ArcGISU software by Esri, (0 Esri; OHCMP 2021) May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 453 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 17 Map 3: Parsell and Co,'s Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo, Ontario (1881) (Produced under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, (0 Esri; McGill University 2001) May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 454 of 917 ,r> }. g t63 CE 11 or V 10 Ion 197 « Nr Study Area HI'(H 1,17,000N 0 350 700 m ae Map so�ae_ uam of waieaoo row�sn'w'rvgm n.aa�en a co. s nmso-tea n�.mFl�ainna• m m�cA��n arevateaoo neeal Map 3: Parsell and Co,'s Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo, Ontario (1881) (Produced under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, (0 Esri; McGill University 2001) May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 454 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 18 -TREV R ,L F. a. 4 ZL FOR i Ott Base ,Map .Source: Gait, Ontario. [040P08) (1916) , 91 ontano Are REFERENCE _FRE E 12 01 0 R GE, gal CL GAIP ontano Study Area Are REFERENCE _FRE E 12 01 0 R GE, . . .. . ............ . . ..... . .. ......... mnr . ... . ..... ............. . . C__ V JI -8 QL ue Base Map,Source: Gait, Ontario. 1040P08I (1 23) Study Area REFERENCE . . .. . ............ . . ..... . .. ......... mnr . ... . ..... ............. . . C__ ue May 2021 HR -210-2020 W Q4- q M%aA" N 1:20,000 0 400 BOOM Map 4: Topographic Maps from 1916, 1923,1929 and 1936 (Produced under licence using ArcGIS* software by Esri, (0 Esri, OCUL 2020) Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 455 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 19 Study Area �A" N 1:9,278 /IAS 0 200 400 m / V inPomiffiIm icenaed undarthe Open Gay D,qt l licanu, i Saumn. .131 -Waterloo Air PM1otaa❑iyti—) P�olncf d, <319_226,d319_22], 1119_165, <326 991(1955� Map 5: Aerial Image (1955) (Produced under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, (0 Esri; University of Waterloo 2021) May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 456 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 20 Study Area �A" N 1:9,278 /IAS 0 200 400 m / V sa�Ra. um.ere+a orwalanaa m� Pnmoa oiga:aoa� P�oia�i 59 6.,1963 6359_69, 1963 6]59 d9, 196] 6]91 6., 11 _d9, iflfi3 6391 49, —3 6391 50, EBfi3_dd2B 32, !B 33](1963) Map 6: Aerial Image (1963) (Produced under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, (0 Esri; University of Waterloo 2021) May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 457 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 21 5.0 CONSULTATION BHRs and CHLs are broadly referred to as cultural heritage resources. A variety of types of recognition exist to commemorate and/or protect cultural heritage resources in Ontario. The Minister of Canadian Heritage, on the advice of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC), makes recommendations to declare a site, event or person of national significance. The National Historic Sites program commemorates important sites that had a nationally significant effect on, or illustrates a nationally important aspect of, the history of Canada. A National Historic Event is a recognized event that evokes a moment, episode, movement or experience in the history of Canada. National Historic People are people who are recognized as those who through their words or actions, have made a unique and enduring contribution to the history of Canada. There exists Parks Canada's online Directory of Federal Heritage Designations which captures these national commemorations. This directory also lists Heritage Railway Stations, Federal Heritage Buildings and Heritage Lighthouses. The Federal Canadian Heritage Database was searched, and no plaques or properties were noted within or adjacent to the study area (Parks Canada 2021). It is important to note that these federal commemoration programs do not offer protection from alteration or destruction. The Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) operates the Provincial Plaque Program that has over 1,250 provincial plaques recognizing key people, places and events that shaped the province. Additionally, properties owned by the province may be recognized as a "provincial heritage property" (MHSTCI 2010). The OHT plaque database were searched and none of the properties within or adjacent to the study area are commemorated with an OHT plaque (OHT 2021). The Grand River is within and adjacent to the study area and is commemorated with plaques by the Grand River Conservation Authority as a Canadian Heritage River. There are five plaques at various points along the Grand River at associated tributaries which include: Grand River: Cambridge (Galt); Conestogo River: St. Jacobs; Nith River: New Hamburg; Speed River: Guelph; Eramosa River: Halton Hills (GRCA 2021). No plaques relating to the Grand River are located within the study area. MHSTCI's current list of Heritage Conservation Districts was consulted. No designated districts were identified in or adjacent to the study area (MHSTCI 2019). The list of properties designated by the MHSTCI under Section 34.5 of the ORA was consulted. No properties in or adjacent to the study area are listed. Many municipal heritage committees and historical societies provide plaques for local places of interest. "One role of municipal heritage groups (i.e., municipal heritage committees, historical societies) is to educate and inform the community on local heritage and several ways this could occur could include: producing descriptive guides and newsletters or by installing commemorative plaques" (MHSTCI 2007:8). At project commencement, ARA contacts the City of Kitchener Planning staff to inquire about: 1) protected properties within or adjacent to the study area, 2) properties with other types of recognition in or adjacent to the study area, 3) previous studies relevant to the current study, and 4) other heritage concerns regarding the study area. May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 458 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 22 ARA staff contacted the City of Kitchener staff via email on December 15, 2020 and followed up with a meeting on December 18, 2020. City of Kitchener staff identified several heritage related items to be considered as part of this report. It was noted that Hidden Valley Road has been identified in the 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape Study as a CHL (L -RD -4), and that the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan was approved by Council in June 2019. Staff identified that the Official Plan recognizes Hidden Valley Road as having potential cultural heritage value or interest. Lastly, it was noted that there are no listed or designated properties which fall within the study area. There are four properties which were re-evaluated as part of the City of Kitchener's four step listing process, however all the evaluations resulted in `no further action'. The properties include: • 602 Hidden Valley Road • 691 Hidden Valley Road • 1070 Hidden Valley Road • 2107 Hidden Valley Crescent It is worthwhile to note that access to inspect 602 Hidden Valley Road was not granted during the City's re-evaluation process and the City of Kitchener considers the property still under review. 5.1 Cultural Heritage Landscape Study 5.1.1 Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (2014) The City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (2014) is a planning tool which provides a legislative framework and planning tools to guide and manage change within identified CHLs. The purpose of the CHL Study to build upon the existing database and consider "large scale areas that express both the historical process of development and the physical outcomes of that process" (2014: 5). The CHL study considered numerous factors which influence the formation of a CHL. This includes: • Natural Features (Rivers, Water Bodies, and Drainage Patterns); • Settlement Patterns (Original Surveys); and • Historical Themes The Study resulted in the identification of 55 CHLs with the City of Kitchener. The CHLs are categorized within one of the following nine categories: • Residential Neighbourhoods • Parks, Natural Areas and other Public/Private Open Spaces • Transportation Corridors and Streetscapes • Institutional Landscapes • Commercial Industrial and Retail Landscapes. • Agricultural Landscapes • Large Lot Residential/Estate Landscapes • Cemeteries May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 459 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 23 • Grand River Valley Landscapes The CHL Study resulted in a comprehensive data sheet for each CHL which included the following information: • Location • Historic Theme • Landscape Type • Archaeological Potential • Identification of any properties recognized under the Ontario Heritage Act or Municipal Register • A Description • An evaluation against the criteria for significance (Historical Integrity, Cultural Value and Community value) • Character defining elements • Photographs and map The CHL Study, and applicable datasheets, have been considered as part of this report. 6.0 INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY CONSULTATION Following the initial project introduction, ARA contacted The Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (MCFN) via the Department of Consultation & Accommodation (DOCA) and The Six Nations of the Grand River (SNGR) represented by The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) via the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI); and The Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council (SNGREC) via the Six Nations Lands & Resources Office (SNLR) to inquire about any Traditional or Ecological Knowledge the groups may have to share about the study area. No responses were received. Information regarding pre -contact history has been generated by ARA and is found in Section 4. 1.1 of this report. Furthermore, it has also been incorporated into the understanding of Grand River Corridor Landscape (CHL -3). 7.0 FIELD SURVEY The field survey component of an assessment involves the collection of primary data through systematic photographic documentation of all potential cultural heritage resources within the study area, as identified through historical research and consultation. Generally, potential cultural heritage resources are identified by applying a 40 -year rolling timeline. This timeline is considered an industry best practice (i.e., MTO 2008). A date of 40 years does not automatically attribute CHVI to a resource; rather, that it should be flagged as a potential resource and evaluated for CHVI. Additional cultural heritage resources may also be identified during the survey itself. Photographs capturing all properties with potential BHRs and CHLs are taken, as are general views of the surrounding landscape. The field survey also assists in confirming the location of each potential cultural heritage resource and helps to determine the relationship between resources. Given that such surveys are limited to areas of public access (i.e., roadways, intersections, non -private lands, May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 460 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 24 etc.), there is always the possibility that obscured cultural heritage resources may be missed or that heritage attributes may be refined upon closer inspection. Afield survey was conducted on March 30, 2021, April 6, 2021 and April 22, 2021 to photograph and document the study area. The field survey enables the team to record any local features that could enhance ARA's understanding of their setting in the landscape and contribute to the cultural heritage evaluation process. The field survey was conducted from publicly accessible, non -private lands. 8.0 HERITAGE ASSESSMENT As a result of consultation with City of Kitchener staff, existing heritage considerations, and the field survey, the following BHRs and CHLs were considered, and their potential heritage status is summarized in Table 3 Table 3: Potential Cultural Heritage Resources Examined Address/Name Type C �I Discussion The field survey suggests that the property located at 602 Hidden 602 Hidden Valley Road BHR Yes Valley Road has the potential to meet the criteria for cultural heritage value or interest. See Table 4 and Table 5 for assessment summary and Appendix A BHR-1 for an information sheet. The Central Ontario Barn present on 691 Hidden Valley Road 691 Hidden Valley Road BHR Yes has the potential to meet the criteria for cultural heritage value or interest. See Table 4 and Table 5 for assessment summary and Appendix A BHR-2 for an information sheet. The property was originally flagged as it was thought to be the two-storey vernacular farmhouse originally associated with 691 Hidden Valley and therefore having the potential to meet the 681 Hidden Valley Road BHR No criteria for cultural heritage value or interest . During the consultation process, the owners of the property provided commentary that the house was not historically associated with 691 Hidden Valley Road. Given that this was the preliminary basis for its consideration as a BHR, it was removed. The property known as 772 Hidden Valley Road was designated in 1991 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (By -Law 91- 98). The reason for designation was listed as being of historical and architectural value. The Statement of Significance describes the property as: "one of the finest examples of early pioneer homesteads being a well-preserved example of a method of construction rarely used 772 Hidden Valley Road BHR No today. The strategic positioning of the building; consisting of a log cabin, built in the late 1700s or early 1800s and the 1 storey addition, c. 1860 representing the early farmhouse Gothic style, high on the west bank of the Grand River, boastpanoramic views. The early period of construction strongly suggest that this is one of the first homesteads on the west side of the Grand River with further rural community development happening either side of the homestead. " (By -Law 91-98). May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 461 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 25 Address/Name Type � Discussion The designation included the following attributes, "all elevations and all rooflines of the original log cabin and I '/Z storey addition, including the bell tower. The specific features of the designation include: the 42" thick foundation walls of the log cabin, the Gothic windows and 2 dormers on the second storey, the front porch with ornate trim, the keystone on the corners, the stone cornice window heads and the 2 over 2 double hung windows of the 1 '/z storey addition ". In 1998, the designation was repealed through City of Kitchener By -Law 98-5. It is unclear if the homestead is still extant or has been integrated into 2107 Hidden Valley Crescent. 2107 Hidden Valley Crescent contains a large brick dwelling and aerial images show a small dwelling at the rear. It is possible that the homestead has been retained and converted into a pool house, however this can not be confirmed without an onsite inspection. Given that the City of Kitchener has deemed `no further action' and the property is surrounded by residential development no further heritage considerations are warranted. 1070 Hidden Valley Road was evaluated as part of the City of Kitchener's Four -step listing process on July 18, 1995. The evaluation report noted that the property contained a 1 '/2 storey Georgian Vernacular dwelling even though "major/unsympathetic alterations have rendered these characteristics almost undistinguishable" noting that the "rear 1070 Hidden Valley portion of the home retains more of the original design features Road BHR No (including some windows)" (Evaluation Form, 1995). The evaluation suggested that the property warranted placement on the City of Kitchener Municipal Inventory as a listed property and that further historical research be conducted. The field survey confirmed the dwelling at 1070 Hidden Valley Road is not longer extant. No further heritage considerations are warranted. Hidden Valley Road is recognized as a CHL in the City of Hidden Valley Road CHL Yes Kitchener CHL Study (2014). See Table 4 and Table 5 for assessment summary and Appendix A CHL -1 for an information sheet. A section of Hidden Valley Road is recognized in the Hidden Hidden Valley Road- CHL Yes Valley Land Use Master Plan as a `Heritage Corridor' (City of Heritage Corridor Kitchener 2019). See Table 4 and Table 5 for assessment summary and Appendix A CHL -2 for an information sheet. The Grand River is recognized as a CHL in the City of Kitchener Grand River Corridor CHL Yes CHL Study (2014). See Table 4 and Table 5 for assessment summary and Appendix A CHL -3 for an information sheet. A summary of the results of the evaluation of remaining BHRs and CHLs against the criteria set out in O. Reg. 9/06 can be found in Table 4 and Table 5 and the information sheets with background information, and the evaluations of each heritage resource can be found in Appendix A. Heritage attributes may include, but are not limited to, those listed in this table. The assessment determined that two BHRs and three CHLs met, or have the potential to meet one or more, O. Reg. 9/06 criteria. May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 462 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 26 Map 7: Built Heritage Resource Assessment Results Map (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, (0 Esri) May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 463 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 27 Study Area U CHL 1 - Hidden Valley Road - CHL 2 - Hidden Valley Road - Heritage Corridor - CHL 3 - Grand River Corridor Land Parcel MAswa N 1.11.000 /IAt1 0 250 500M V pnlalna InNnnatlm -n— under Na Open Gwemmen(�cence -Ontario e uap source. airy or tcaenaner (2—) Map 8: Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment Results Map (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, (0 Esri) May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 464 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 28 Table 4: BHRs and CHLs with CHVI Type and Address/Name Adjacent/ CHVI Criteria Met Number Participating /N conducted the following heritage BHR-1 602 Hidden Valley Potential Design and Physical BHR-1 602 Hidden Valley Road Participating Y Value, Historical and/or Associative all natural and built elements. Value, Potential Contextual Value BHR-2 691 Hidden Valley Road Participating Y Design and Physical Value, representative example of a Central • The visibility of the barn from Contextual Value CHL -1 Hidden Valley Road Participating Y Historical Value, Contextual Value CHL -2 Hidden Valley Road - Participating Y Historical Value, Contextual Value Road Herita e Corridor construction and stone CHL -3 Grand River Corridor Participating Y Historical Value and Contextual . The visibility and views from and Ad'acent and from the Grand River Trail. The Value. Table 5: BHR and CHL Value Statements and Heritage Attributes Type and Number Address/Name Value Statement(s) Heritage Attributes Until further assessment is conducted the following heritage BHR-1 602 Hidden Valley Unknown without site access. attributes should be considered: Road . The entire property including all natural and built elements. The property contains a representative example of a Central • The visibility of the barn from Ontario Barn, also referred to as a Hidden Valley Road. "bank barn'. The two-storey barn . The two storey, L shaped bank 691 Hidden Valley includes a gambrel roof and timber barn with gambrel roof, timber BHR-2 Road construction. The barn rests on a construction and stone stone foundation. The barn is highly foundation. visible from Hidden Valley Road . The visibility and views from and from the Grand River Trail. The the Grand River Trail south of barn reinforces the rural character the Grand River. of the surrounding area. Hidden Valley Road is the remnant of a road that ran from Freeport to the settlement of German Hills with an alignment shown in the 1881 • The narrow two-lane alignment Atlas of Waterloo Township. Hidden without shoulders; Valley Drive is of local historical • The scenic views to surrounding and contextual value given that the agricultural fields and the road was built as part of initial Grand River Valley; CHL -1 Hidden Valley Road settlement activities in the southern . The diverse roadside vegetation part of the Township of Waterloo, that abuts the roadside provides forming part of Beasley's Old a defined edge to the road; and Survey; relates to the development of . The correspondence to the the Township of Waterloo and undulating topography which German Hills for agricultural is part of the original historic purposes in the 19th Century; is alignment. partially bound by cultivated fields and a rural landscape, and forms art of the local road network. May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 465 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 29 Type and Number Address/Name Value Statement(s) Heritage Attributes Hidden Valley Road is the remnant of a road that ran from Freeport to the settlement of German Mills with an alignment shown in the 1881 • The narrow two-lane alignment Atlas of Waterloo Township. Hidden without shoulders; Valley Road is oflocal historical and • The scenic views to surrounding contextual value given that the road agricultural fields and the Hidden Valley was built as part of initial settlement Grand River Valley; CHL -2 Road- Heritage activities in the southern part of the . The diverse roadside vegetation Corridor Township of Waterloo, forming part that abuts the roadside provides of Beasley's Old Survey; relates to a defined edge to the road; and the development of the Township of . The correspondence to the Waterloo and German Mills for undulating topography which is agricultural purposes in the 19th part of the original historic Century; is partially bound by alignment. cultivated fields and a rural landscape, and forms part of the local road network. The Grand River was the main feature that attracted the first pioneer Mennonite settlers from Pennsylvania to the Kitchener area. . Well-defined river valley with Has been the ancestral home of alternating steep and shallow First Nations peoples for 10,000 banks. CHL -3 Grand River year. The Grand River Corridor is Wonderful meandering river Corridor one of the best-known watersheds with significant vegetation in southwestern Ontario and is communities and associated nationally designated as a wildlife habitat. Canadian Heritage River. It provides large natural areas and scenic views and is of outstanding recreational and educational value. * The value statement and heritage attributes which have been taken directly from CHL Datasheets or existing plans are noted in italics. 9.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Region of Waterloo is responsible for maintaining and operating wastewater treatment plants within the City of Kitchener while the City of Kitchener is responsible for maintaining and operating the sanitary sewer system and associated pumping stations within its geographical boundaries. It is understood that the existing sanitary pumping station on River Birth Street is at capacity or slightly undersized, and a preliminary servicing assessment determined that the Hidden Valley catchment could be used for services. The CHAR will aid in the determination of a preferred option and preliminary design. There are currently no detailed designs available for review. According to the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Notice of Study Commencement: This project is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and it is being planned under Schedule B of the May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 466 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 30 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA). The project scope involves an evaluation of alternatives, selection of preferred alternative and evaluation of environmental impacts and their mitigation measures. This study will complete a Municipal Class EA for the construction of a sanitary pump station and forcemain and prepare the preliminary design. The study will follow guidance outlined in the Municipal Class EA document (as amended in 2007, 2011, and 2015). Upon completion of this study, an Environmental Study Report (ESR) documenting the process will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP) and will be available for public review for a period of 30 calendar days. Before any decisions are made on the recommendation, or acceptance of the preferred solution, all interested parties will have an opportunity to attend a Public Information Centre (PIC) meeting. Notification of the PIC will be provided at the appropriate time by means of a similar advertisement in this newspaper (MTE and City of Kitchener 2021). This CHAR is being completed as part of a larger EA study to aid in the process of generating alternatives and generating a preliminary design with a goal to addresses sanitary servicing needs in the Upper Hidden Valley community. 10.0 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS The construction of a sanitary pump station and forcemain have the potential to affect cultural heritage resources. MHSTCI InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MHSTCI 2006d:3) provides a list of potential negative impacts (for evaluating against any proposed development impacts) which can be classified as either direct or indirect. Direct impacts (those that physically affect the heritage resources themselves) include, but are not limited to: initial project staging, excavation/levelling operations, construction of access roads and renovations or repairs over the life of the project. These direct impacts may destroy some or all significant heritage attributes or may alter soils and drainage patterns and adversely impact unknown archaeological resources. Indirect impacts include but are not limited to: alterations that are not compatible with the historic fabric and appearance of the area, the creation of shadows that alter the appearance of an identified heritage attribute, the isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, the obstruction of significant views and vistas, change in land use such as rezoning allowing for a reduction in open spaces and other less -tangible impacts. There may be positive environmental and cultural effects as a result of an EA undertaking. An EA project has the potential for creating the above negative impacts. However, there may be positive effects as well. For example, more recent infrastructure may be removed to restore the original views to cultural heritage resources or streetscape improvements might be made. This project entails the construction of a sanitary pump station and forcemain. There are currently no designs available that would aid in the identification of proj ect impacts. Therefore, the potential impacts and mitigation options related to the project will be discussed at a high level. May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 467 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 31 The heritage value, and potential heritage value, associated with BHR-1 and BHR-2 may be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed project. Specifically, the Ontario Central Barn (BHR-1) and the unknown heritage potential associated with the property known as 602 Hidden Valley Road (BHR-2) may be impacted if the sanitary pump station and forcemain are located on these properties. The heritage value associated with the CHLs may be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed project, specifically the narrow two-lane alignment without shoulders, the scenic views to surrounding agricultural field and the Grand River, the diverse roadside vegetation that abuts the road and provides a defined edge and the corresponding and undulating topography which is part of the original historic alignment may be impacted if the sanitary pump station and forcemain route are located within the boundaries of the CHLs. Furthermore, depending on the nature and location of the proposed sanitary pump and forcemain, the defined Grand River valley edge with alternating steep and shallow banks and the meandering river with associated wildlife and significant vegetation, may be directly or indirectly impacted. Any impacts to potential, and known, archaeological sites are being addressed through the archaeological assessment process. 11.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS The study area consists of an irregularly-shaped parcel of land with a total area of ±183 acres. The study area is bounded by Highway 8 to the north, the Grand River to the east and south, and Wabanaki Drive to the west. As a result of consultation and field survey the following BHRs and CHLs were identified within and adjacent to the study area: 602 Hidden Valley Road (BHR-1) and 691 Hidden Valley Road (BHR-2). As a result of consultation and the field survey the following CHLs were identified within the study area: Hidden Valley Road (CHL -1), Hidden Valley Road- Heritage Corridor (CHL -2), and Grand River Corridor (CHL -3). Detailed designs or plans for the construction of a sanitary pump station and forcemain were not available at the time this report was written, however there is potential that the identified BHRs and CHLs may be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed project. All identified BHRs and CHLs fall within the study area. Depending on the nature and extent of the proposed project and study area, the BHRs and CHLs have potential for direct and indirect impacts. Given that potential impacts have been identified, mitigation measures must be recommended. The MHSTCI InfoSheet #S: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (2006c:3) lists specific methods to minimize any potential negative impacts. As a result of this CHAR, the following mitigation strategies are recommended: That any construction and staging areas should avoid the use of land which are part of BHR-1 at 602 Hidden Valley Road, and BHR-2 at 691 Hidden Valley Road. as well as, May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 468 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 32 Hidden Valley Road (CHL -1), Hidden Valley Road- Heritage Corridor (CHL -2), and Grand River Corridor (CHL -3); • That should project -related activities be expected to impact the property associated with BHR-1 BHR-2, CHL -1, CHL -2 or CHL -3, a qualified heritage consultant should be contracted to complete property specific or Cultural Heritage Landscape specific Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments and provide detailed mitigation options to address the proposed design on the resources; • That design alternatives (i.e., sanitary pumping station location and design as well as forcemain location) should consider the heritage attributes of CHL -1 and CHL -2. Specifically, the narrow two-lane alignment without shoulders, the scenic views to surrounding agricultural fields and the Grand River, the diverse roadside vegetation that abuts the road and provides a defined edge as well as the corresponding and undulating topography which is part of the original historic alignment; this may be achieved through appropriate setbacks; • That design alternatives should consider the heritage attributes of CHL -3, specifically the well-defined river valley with alternating steep and shallow banks, and the meandering river with significant vegetation communities and associated wildlife habitat. Design alternatives should avoid impacts to the well-defined river valley and the vegetation associated with the steep and shallow banks. This may be achieved by avoiding this area entirely. Should a design alternative (i.e. sanitary pumping station location) be considered within the river valley, it is recommended that a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment be done to ensure that the proposed design considers height, massing, architectural style elements, etc., to minimize any impacts and ensure it is sympathetic to the surrounding character of the Grand River; • That the physical design of any proposed structures should not detract from the character of the area. Any new structure for the sanitary pumping station should be sympathetic to the surrounding area and minimize impacts through appropriate height, massing and architecture style; • That public consultation may result in additional potential cultural heritage resources being identified. These potential cultural heritage resources should be reviewed by a qualified heritage consultant to: 1) determine their cultural heritage value or interest, 2) evaluate potential project impacts, and 3) suggest strategies for future conservation of any identified cultural heritage resources; • That should the proposed project or the proposed study area expand beyond the scope examined in this report, a qualified heritage consultant should be retained to determine the potential impacts and suggest mitigation measures; • That should the proposed project create publicly accessible areas, this may provide an opportunity to interpret some of the identified cultural heritage resources associated with the Cultural Heritage Landscapes (i.e., with plaques, public art); • That this CHAR should be provided to staff/planners at the City of Kitchener; and • That a Stage 1 archaeological assessment is currently being undertaken to address the identified archaeological potential associated with the study area and no soil disturbing activities should take place until all archaeological concerns are mitigated and all reports are accepted by the MHSTCI. May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 469 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 33 12.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES Benjamin, L. and J. Berge 2012 Journey Through German Mills in Waterloo Historical Society Annual Volume. Bloomfield, E. 2006 Waterloo Township Through Two Centuries. Kitchener: Waterloo Historical Society. City of Kitchener 1995 Kitchener Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee Built Heritage Form - 2.0: 691 Hidden Valley Road. 1995 Kitchener Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee Built Heritage Form - 2.0: 1070 Hidden Valley Road 1991 By -Law Number 91-98 designatingpart of 772 Hidden Valley Road in the City of Kitchener as being of Historic and architectural value. 1998 By -Law Number 98-5 being a by-law to repeal by -Law 91-98 a Designation By -Law under the Ontario Heritage Act- 772 Hidden Valley Road. 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape Study. Accessed online at: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN _CHL _Study Re op pdf — 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape Data Sheets. Accessed online at: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_ PLAN_ CHL_ Study_Ap pendix_6 CHL_ Data_Sheets.pdf 2014 Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form: 691 Hidden Valley Road. 2019 Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan. Accessed online at: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_ PLAN_ Hidden_ Valley_ Land Use Master Plan.pdf Coyne, J. H. 1895 The Country of the Neutrals (As Far as Comprised in the County of Elgin): From Champlain to Talbot. St. Thomas: Times Print. Cumming, R. (ed.) 1972 Historical Atlas of the County of Wellington, Ontario. Reprint of 1906 Edition. Toronto: Historical Atlas Publishing Co. Ellis, C.J. and N. Ferris (eds.) 1990 The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5. London: Ontario Archaeological Society Inc. Government of Ontario 2006 Ontario Regulation 9/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act. Accessed online at: www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/reps/english/elaws_regs 060009 e.htm. 2009 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18. Accessed online at: www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ html/statutes/english/elaws statutes 90o18 e.htm. 2010 Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 16. Sched 7, s.1. Accessed online at: www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws statutes 90e18 e.htm. May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 470 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 34 2021 Parks Canada Directory of Federal Heritage Designations. Accessed online at: https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/results- resultats eng.aspx?p=1&m=10&q=&desCheck=NHS&desCheck=EVENT&desCheck=P ERSON&desCheck=HRS&desCheck=FHBRO&desCheck=HL&c=Brampton&ct100%2 4Main%24PageSearch l%24ddlProvince=&dey=&ct100%24Main%24PageSearch 1 %24d dlCustodian= Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) 2021 Heritage River Plaques. Accessed online at: https://www.grandriver.ca/en/our- watershed/Heritage-River-Pl aques. aspx. Hayes, G. 1997 Waterloo County: An Illustrated History. Kitchener: Waterloo Historical Society. Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC) H. Parsell & Co. 1881 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Waterloo County. Toronto: H. Parsell & Co. Janusas, S. 1988 Archaeological Perspective of a Historic Overview of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Regional Municipality of Waterloo Planning and Development Department, Waterloo. Lajeunesse, E.J. 1960 The Windsor Border Region: Canada's Southernmost Frontier. Toronto: The Champlain Society. McGill University 2001 The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project. Accessed online at: http://digital.librM.mcgill.ca/counlyatlas/default.htm. Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) 1992 Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments. 2006a Ontario Heritage Toolkit Series. Toronto: Ministry of Culture. 2006b Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit Series. Toronto: Ministry of Culture. 2006c InfoSheet 92: Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Ontario Heritage Toolkit Series. Toronto: Ministry of Culture. 2006d InfoSheet 45: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit Series. Toronto: Ministry of Culture.. 2010 Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. 2019 List of Heritage Conservation Districts. Accessed online at: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/ heritage/heritage conserving list.shtml. May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 471 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) 2020 Provincial Policy Statement. Toronto: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 35 Munson, M.K. and S.M. Jamieson (eds.) 2013 Before Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province. Kingston: McGill -Queen's University Press. Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) 2020 Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project. Access online at: https:Hocul. on. ca/topomaps/. Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) 2021 Ontario Heritage Plaque Guide. Accessed online at: www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/ index.php /online -plaque -guide. Ontario Historical County Maps Project (OHCMP) 2019 Ontario Historical County Maps Project. Accessed online at httD:HmaDS.librarv.utoronto.ca/hais/countvmaDs/maDs.html. Parks Canada 2021 Directory ofFederal Heritage Designations. Accessed online at: https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/search-recherche eng.aspx. 2010 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 2nd Edition. Accessed online at: www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf. Region of Waterloo 2013 Regional Implementation Guideline for Cultural Heritage Conservation. Accessed online: https://www. regionofwaterloo. ca/en/exploring-the- retion/resources/Documents/Final Implementation Guideline_for_CHL_Conservati on- access.pdf 2015 Official Plan. Accessed online at: www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/regionalGovemment/ PreviousROP.asp. 2018 Regional Implementation Guideline for Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources. Accessed online at: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/exploring- the- region/resources/Documents/Implementation_Guideline_ for Conserving RSCHR.pdf Smith, W.H. 1846 Smith's Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting all Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West. Toronto: H. & W. Rowsell. Surtees, R.J. 1994 Land Cessions, 1763-1830. In Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations, edited by E.S. Rogers and D.B. Smith, pp. 92-121. Toronto: Dundurn Press. May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 472 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 36 University of Waterloo (UW) 2021 Geospatial Centre Accessed online at: https://uwaterloo.ca/library/geospatial/collections/aerial-photographs-satellite-and- orthoimagery Warrick, G. 2000 The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):415-456. Wright, J. V 1972 Ontario Prehistory: An Eleven -Thousand -Year Archaeological Outline. Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 473 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 37 Appendix A: Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE NO. 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address 602 Hidden Valley Road Name n/a Recognition Considered `Under review'- City of Kitchener Location City of Kitchener Type of Residential Property Date(s) Unknown There is limited information available regarding the cultural heritage value or interest associated with 602 Hidden Valley Road. The City of Kitchener requested access to the property as part of the City of Kitchener four step listing process. The request was denied, and no further action was undertaken by the City of Kitchener. The field survey provided patrial views of the property which suggest that the property has the potential to meet one or more of O. Reg 9/06 criteria. The main building on the property has Description the potential to be a representative example of a Tudor architectural style, Regency architectural style or a Vernacular architectural style influenced by Tudor or Regency architectural style. The two-storey structure has a hipped roof with multiple large dormers. The structure has a large set back and is not visible from Hidden Valley Road. The structure is set close the rear of the property (east) with uninterrupted views to the Grand River Corridor. There is a second building on site, which was not visible during the field survey, but present on aerial imagery. The property has the potential to meet for design or physical value. - �t _ e } k Photographs= May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 474 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 38 May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 475 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 39 EVALUATION OF PROPERTY Criteria Description ✓ Value Statement(s) With the property. As a cautionary approach, the following heritage attribute should be Heritage Attributes The property has the potential to be a Is a rare, unique, representative or early representative example of a Tudor example of a style, type, expression, ✓ architectural style, Regency architectural style Design or material or construction method or a Vernacular architectural style influenced by Tudor or Regency architectural style. A full Physical onsite survey is required to confirm. Value Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic value Unknown at this time. Displays a high degree of technical or Unknown at this time. scientific achievement Has direct associations with a theme, event, The historic or associative value is unknown. belief, person, activity, organization or ✓ The property appears to be represented on the institution that is significant to a Topographical map as early as 1916. Further Historical community research is required. or Yields or has the potential to yield Unknown at this time. Further research is Associative information that contributes to the required. Value understandingof a communi or culture Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas Unknown at this time. Further research is of an architect, builder, artist, designer or required. theorist who is significant to a community The property is heavily wooded and reinforces the rural and natural character of the Is important in defining, maintaining or ✓ surrounding area. The property has a long supporting the character of an area gravel driveway which is lined with mature Contextual trees. The main structure has a large set back Value and is not visible from the Hidden Valley Road. Is physically, functionally, visually or Unknown at this time. Further research is historically linked to its surroundings required. Is a landmark Theproperty is not a landmark. RESULTS OF HERITAGE ASSESSMENT CHVI Evaluation Has the potential to possess CHVI. Additional research is required. Additional research is required to determine the specific heritage attributes associated With the property. As a cautionary approach, the following heritage attribute should be Heritage Attributes considered: • The entire property including all natural and built elements. May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 476 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 40 BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE NO. 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address 691 Hidden Valley Road Name n/a Recognition No further action, however, the bank barn was noted by City of Kitchener as still having some interest. Location City of Kitchener Type of Property Residential Dates Central Ontario Barn circa 1890s May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 477 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 41 May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 478 of 917 The property was evaluated from the streetscape as part of the City of Kitchener's Four -step listing process on November 14, 2014. Using the criteria laid out in the Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form, it was noted that the property meets three of the criteria. This includes: • Continuity: Does this structure contribute to the continuity or character of the street, neighbourhood, or area? • Site: Does the structure occupy its original site? Note: if relocated, i.e,. relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. • Condition: Is this building in good condition? Due to the absence of interior access at the time of the evaluation, the following criteria is listed as unknown: • Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship, and/or detail noteworthy The Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form does not recommend any further action and/or did not result in the property being added to the Municipal Heritage Register. The City of Kitchener noted that the bank barn on the property was still of some interest. Description The field survey confirmed the property contains an L-shaped Central Ontario Barns are also referred to as "bank barns" as they were often built into the side of a hill, or bank, allowing both the upper and lower floors to be accessed from ground level, with one access at the top of the hill and the other at the bottom. Often the ground floor in abank barn is used as stables for cattle, horses and other livestock. One side of the barn is then "banked" so that there is a ramp for wagons or tractors to drive up to the mow (Kyles 2016a). The Central Ontario barn has a gambrel metal roof. It appears that the barn rests on a rubblestone foundation while the other section appears to rest on concrete foundation. The wood barn has various shaped windows and doorways and is appears to be a timber frame construction. When examined against the typical characteristics of the Central Ontario Barn styles as outlined by Shannon Kyles on Ontario Architecture (2016a) and Peter Ennals' discussion of the Central Ontario Barn type (1972), the barn meets many of the characteristics of the style and can be considered a representative example. The field study confirmed the Central Ontario Barn is highly visible from the Hidden Valley Road, and visible from the Grant River Trail on the south side of the Grand River. Characteristics (adapted Ennals 1972; 691 Hidden Valley Road Characteristics Kyles 2016a Large, two stores Yes Two mows at right angles Unknown May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 478 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 42 Wooden structure on stone foundation Yes Gable or gambrel roof Yes — Gambrel roof Ramp leading to large door on long side Yes Set into a slope (bank barn) with large door on longside Yes Timber or Lumber frame construction Unknown Photograph 1 May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 479 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 43 a. Date of Photo March 30, 2021; April 6, 2021 May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 480 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 44 EVALUATION OF PROPERTY Criteria Description ✓ Value Statement(s) Is a rare, unique, representative or early Heritage Attributes The property contains a representative example of a style, type, expression, ✓ example of a Central Ontario Barn. Design or material or construction method Physical Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or Unknown at this time. Value artistic value Displays a high degree of technical or Unknown at this time. scientific achievement Has direct associations with a theme, event, The property does not appear to have a direct belief, person, activity, organization or association with a theme, event, belief, person, institution that is significant to a activity which is significant to the community. Historical community or Yields or has the potential to yield The property does appear to have the potential Associative information that contributes to the to yield information that contributes to the Value understanding of a community or culture understanding of the community or culture. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, builder, artist, designer or The builder is unknown. theorist who is significant to a community The Central Ontario Barn reinforces the rural Is important in defining, maintaining or character of the surrounding area. The barn is supporting the character of an area ✓ visible from Hidden Valley Road and from the Grand River Trail south of the Grand River. Contextual Value The bank barn does not appear to be used Is physically, functionally, visually or directly with any agricultural pursuits although historically linked to its surroundings this could not be confirmed without additional consultation. Is a landmark The property is not a landmark. RESULTS OF HERITAGE ASSESSMENT CHVI Evaluation Has CHVI • The visibility of the barn from Hidden Valley Road • The two storey, L shaped Central Ontario Barn with gambrel roof and stone Heritage Attributes foundation. • The visibility to the Grand River and view from the Grand River Trail south of the Grand River to the Central Ontario Barn. May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 481 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 45 CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE RESOURCE NO. 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Boundary Hidden Valley Road starting and ending at Wabanaki Drive Name Hidden Valley Road Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (L -RD -4) Recognition City of Kitchener Official Plan (Section 13.C.4.18 ) identifies Hidden Valley Road as a potential cultural heritage resource. Location City of Kitchener As per the Cultural Heritage Landscape Datasheet, Hidden Valley Road is identified as a Type of Landscape as Transportation Corridor (L -RD -4) Associated Historic Themes: Pioneer Settlement, Transportation, Agriculture, Grand River Section 13.C.4.18 of the City of Kitchener Official Plan reads: Streets identified as having potential cultural heritage value or interest to be considered a potential cultural heritage resource include: B) Hidden Valley Road Section 15.D.12 Area Specific/Site Specific Policy Area include Section 15.D.12.2 Hidden Valley and reads: Natural Heritage Conservation/Open Space b) All lands in the Hidden Valley Community and along the Grand River which are designated Natural Heritage Conservation or Open Space lands will be dedicated to and/or acquired by the City for conservation, recreation and trail purposes. In 2014, the City of Kitchener completed a Cultural Heritage Landscape Study. Within the study, Hidden Valley Road was identified as a Cultural Heritage Landscape (L -RD -4). The Cultural Heritage Landscape Data Sheet (2019) provided additional information about the cultural heritage value or interest of the road. The datasheet identified the following associated historic themes with Hidden Valley Road: Description • Pioneer Settlement, • Transportation, • Agriculture, • Grand River ". The datasheet provides the following description of Hidden Valley Road. Hidden Valley Road is the remnant of a road that ran from Freeport to the settlement of German Mills. The alignment is shown in the 1881 Atlas of Waterloo Township. Travellers forded the river just west of the current Highway 8 bridge. The road climbed the steep bank on the west side of the river and followed a random alignment to just south of German Mills where itjoined Mill Park road and the combination of roads that lead south to Blair and north to Berlin. The road falls within the Beasley's Old Survey. The road follows an undulating topography that gently slopes up and down with the small creek valleys and swales that run at right angles to the river. The road has scattered trees in its right-of-way and is bound by agricultural fields, small, wooded areas associate with the top of bank of the Grand River and small natural drainage areas. The road alignment has no shoulders and sections of the road open up to clear views across adjacent cultivated fields. Like many roads in the Township of Waterloo, it was not formally laid out in a geometric concession and side road grid during a township survey as in other parts of County of Waterloo and Upper Canada. Instead, it is part of an irregular network o roads developed to meet the May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 482 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 46 Photographs May 2021 HR -210-2020 needs of early local settlers as they cleared their lots, and to meet their requirements for access to villages, settlements, other farms, markets and in particular the mills at German Mills. The surrounding area remained agricultural landscape until recently when new contemporary residential developments have taken advantage of wonderful locations along the top of bank of the Grand River. These new plans of subdivision appear to incorporate most of Hidden Valley's alignment into the network of new subdivision roads and open space. It remains part of the local road network. Hidden Valley Drive is considered to be of local historical and contextual value given that the road was built as part of initial settlement activities in the southern part of the Township of Waterloo, forming part of Beasley's Old Survey; relates to the development of the Township of Waterloo and German Mills for agricultural purposes in the 19th Century; is partially bound by cultivated fields and a rural landscape, and forms part of the local road network. The following attributes are evocative of the road's historic and scenic character: the narrow two-lane alignment without shoulders; the scenic views to surrounding agricultural fields and the Grand River Valley; the diverse roadside vegetation that abuts the roadside provides a defined edge to the road; and follows the undulating topography and is part of the original historic alignment. The Datasheet includes an assessment of Hidden Valley Road which considered Historical Integrity, Cultural Value, and Community Value. The following outline where criteria was met along with additional information: Historical Integrity: • Land Use- Continuity of Use Hidden Valley Road is the remnant of a road that ran from Freeport to the settlement of German Mills with an alignment shown in the 1881 Atlas of Waterloo Township. Cultural Value • Historic Value- Historic Understanding ofArea • Contextual Value- Historically, Physically, Functionally, or Usually linked to surrounding. Hidden Valley Drive is considered to be of local historical and contextual value given that the road was built as part of initial settlement activities in the southern part of the Township of Waterloo, forming part of Beasley's Old Survey; relates to the development of the Township of Waterloo and German Mills for agricultural purposes in the 19th Century; is partially bound by cultivated fields and a rural landscape, and forms part of the local road network. Community Value The road remains a part of the local road network but has an overlay of the history of the development of the community. Lastly, the CHL Datasheet notes the following Character Defining Elements (also known as heritage attributes) of Hidden Valley Road as: • the narrow two-lane alignment without shoulders; • the scenic views to surrounding agricultural fields and the Grand River Valley; • the diverse roadside vegetation that abuts the roadside provides a defined edge to the road; and • the correspondence to the undulating topography which is part of the original historic alignment. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 483 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 47 May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 484 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 48 EVALUATION OF PROPERTY Criteria Description ✓ Value Statement(s)* Design or Is a rare, unique, representative or early Hidden Valley Road does not illustrate or Physical example of a style, type, expression, exemplify a style, type, expression, material Value material or construction method or construction method. May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 485 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 49 May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 486 of 917 The present physical conditions of Hidden Valley Road, including two lanes of traffic, gravel shoulder, and ditching, are typical of other rural roads in the City of Kitchener and Regi n of Waterloo. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or Hidden Valley Road does not display a high artistic value degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. Displays a high degree of technical or Hidden Valley Road does not display a high scientific achievement de ree of technical or scientific achievement. Hidden Valley Road is historically associated with the theme of pioneer settlement, transportation, agriculture and the Grand River. Hidden Valley Road is the remnant of a road Has direct associations with a theme, that ran from Freeport to the settlement of event, belief, person, activity, organization German Mills. The alignment is shown in the or institution that is significant to a V1881 Atlas of Waterloo Township. Travellers community forded the river just west of the current Highway 8 bridge. The road climbed the steep Historical or bank on the west side of the river and followed Associative a random alignment to just south of German Mills where it joined Mill Park road and the Value combination of roads that lead south to Blair and north to Berlin. The road falls within the Beasle 's Old Survey, The CHL datasheet notes the property has Yields or has the potential to yield archaeological potential. The property has the information that contributes to the ✓ potential to yield information contributing to understanding of a community or culture the understanding of Indigenous history in the area. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas Hidden Vallery Road has evolved over time of an architect, builder, artist, designer or and does not reflect the work or idea of an theorist who is significant to a community architect, builder, artist, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. Hidden Valley Road is important in maintaining and supporting the character of the surrounding landscape through its scenic views Is important in defining, maintaining or ✓ to surrounding agricultural fields and the supporting the character of an area Grand River, the diverse roadside vegetation that abuts the roadside and provides a defined edge to the road. And the topography which is Part of the historic alignment. Contextual Hidden Valley Road is considered to be of local Value historical and contextual value given that the road was built as part of initial settlement activities in the southern part of the Township Is physically, functionally, visually or of Waterloo, forming part of Beasley's Old historically linked to its surroundings ✓ Survey; relates to the development of the Township of Waterloo and German Mills for agricultural purposes in the 19th Century; is partially bound by cultivated fields and a rural landscape, and forms part of the local road network. May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 486 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 50 * The value statement which have been taken directly from CHL Datasheet are noted in italics. RESULTS OF HERITAGE ASSESSMENT Is a landmark Has CHVI Hidden Valley Road is not considered a The heritage attributes, as identified by the CHL Study include: • the narrow two-lane alignment without shoulders; landmark recognized by the community. * The value statement which have been taken directly from CHL Datasheet are noted in italics. RESULTS OF HERITAGE ASSESSMENT CHVI Evaluation Has CHVI The heritage attributes, as identified by the CHL Study include: • the narrow two-lane alignment without shoulders; Heritage • the scenic views to surrounding agricultural fields and the Grand River Valley; Attributes* • the diverse roadside vegetation that abuts the roadside provides a defined edge to the road; • and follows the undulating topography and is part of the original historic alignment. May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 487 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 51 CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE RESOURCE NO. 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Hidden Valley Road -Heritage Corridor (approximately just south of Hidden Valley Creek Boundary to the location of the start of the new access arrangement to River Road extension near Highway 8 Name Hidden Valle Road- Heritage Corridor Recognition The Hidden Valley Road Master Plan identifies a specific section of Hidden Valley Road "and 'Heritage as a significant CHL under consideration as a Corridor' (2019:4). The `Heritage Corridor' is `approximately just south of Hidden Valley Creek to the Location location of the start of the new access arrangement to River Road extension near Highway 8'. Type of Landscape Streets and Roads The Hidden Valley Road Master Plan states: The portion of Hidden Valley Road from approximately just south of Hidden Valley Creek to the location of the start of the new access arrangement to River Road extension near Highway 8 is the only portion of the road that would be the significant Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). The `heritage corridor' is set along a narrow two- land road with no sidewalks or curbs along a portion of Hidden Valley Road. The section of Hidden Valley Road contains a wide range of building sizes and architectural styles with varying setbacks. A handful of highly visible, large, newer, homes are set closer to the road. Natural vegetation and a mature tree canopy dominant the entire corridor. The `heritage corridor' has direct views to the Grand River to the east, and smaller sections of the road provide views to the agricultural fields to the west. The heritage attributes associated with the `heritage corridor' are consistent with those identified in the Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (2019). This includes: Description • the narrow two-lane alignment without shoulders; • the scenic views to surrounding agricultural fields and the Grand River Valley; • the diverse roadside vegetation that abuts the roadside provides a defined edge to the road; and • the correspondence to the undulating topography which is part of the original historic alignment. Photographs May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 488 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 52 May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 489 of 917 srl kM"� eras � 1 —014A f. a ➢.`P� 4wiiA , !y� 1- t d -z 99MAID - .ti T ��� � � � �.,'�g — -- a >�• . � ro oiS. Lin 7r .a 7 '�.ds s^ , y'+" �' ,d ystlb�j'; ��-��P�3di� FF �MK,y��'� � $�' si 1ll�•3 '�E a'.�yj@C''�. is n��4+!� I�[PP yj�{p1 2�1 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 54 * The value statement and heritage attributes which have been taken directly from CHL Datasheet are noted in italics. May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 491 of 917 The present physical conditions of Hidden Valley Road- Heritage Corridor, including the narrow two-lane alignment, gravel shoulder, and ditching, are typical of other rural roads in the City of Kitchener and Region of Waterloo. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or Hidden Valley Road- Heritage Corridor does artistic value not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. Displays a high degree of technical or Hidden Valley Road- Heritage Corridor does scientific achievement not display a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Has direct associations with a theme, As noted in the CHL Study, this section of event, belief, person, activity, organization Hidden Valley Road noted as a heritage or institution that is significant to a ✓ corridor is historically associated with the theme of pioneer settlement, transportation, community agriculture and the Grand River. The CHL Study notes the property has Historical or Yields or has the potential to yield archaeological potential. The property has the Associative information that contributes to the ✓ potential to yield information contributing to Value understanding of a community or culture the understanding of Indigenous history in the area. Hidden Valley Road -Heritage Corridor has Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas evolved over time and does not reflect the of an architect, builder, artist, designer or work or idea of an architect, builder, artist, theorist who is significant to a community designer or theorist who is significant to a community. Hidden Valley Road- Heritage Corridor is important in maintaining and supporting the character of the surrounding landscape through Is important in defining, maintaining or its scenic views to surrounding agricultural supporting the character of an area fields and the Grand River, the diverse roadside vegetation that abuts the roadside and provides a defined edge to the road. And the topography which is part of the historic ali nment. Hidden Valley Road is considered to be of Contextual local historical and contextual value given that Value the road was built as part of initial settlement activities in the southern part of the Township Is physically, functionally, visually or of Waterloo, forming part of Beasley's Old historically linked to its surroundings Survey; relates to the development of the Township of Waterloo and German Mills for agricultural purposes in the 19th Century; is partially bound by cultivated fields and a rural landscape, and forms part of the local road network. Is a landmark Hidden Valley Road is not considered a landmark recognized by the community. * The value statement and heritage attributes which have been taken directly from CHL Datasheet are noted in italics. May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 491 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 55 RESULTS OF HERITAGE ASSESSMENT CHVI Evaluation Has CHVI The heritage attributes, as identified in the Cultural Heritage Landscape Study and Data Sheet for Hidden Valley Road, apply to the Hidden Valley Road- Heritage Corridor. This includes: Heritage Attributes • the narrow two-lane alignment without shoulders; • the scenic views to surrounding agricultural fields and the Grand River Valley; • the diverse roadside vegetation that abuts the roadside provides a defined edge to the road; and • the correspondence to the undulating topography which is part of the original historic alignment May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 492 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 56 CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE RESOURCE NO.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Boundary Grand River Corridor Name The Grand River Canadian Heritage River (1994) Recognition Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (L-GRC-1) Official Plan Section 12.C.1.12 The City of Kitchener CHL Datasheet notes `The Grand River Corridor, in large part, defines Location the east limit of the City. It is continuous from the northern limit where Kitchener meets Waterloo at Kiwanis Park south to the meander bend just north of Bloomingdale Road'. Type of Open Spaces (L-GRC-1) Landscape Associated Historic Themes: Prehistoric Habitation, Grand River, First Exploration, Pioneer Settlement, Mennonite. The Grand River Corridor has been identified within several OP policies. With respect to cultural heritage value as a Canadian Heritage River, Section 12.C.1.12 reads: The City recognizes the Grand River as a Canadian Heritage River and will co- operate with the Region and the Grand River Conservation Authority in efforts t conserve, manage and enhance, where practical, the river's natural, cultural, recreational, scenic and ecological features. Within the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study, the Grand River Corridor is identified as a Cultural Heritage Landscape (L-GRC-1). The Cultural Heritage Landscape Data Sheet provided additional information about the cultural heritage value or interest. . The datasheet identified the following associated historic themes with Hidden Valley Road: • Prehistoric Habitation • Grand River • First Exploration • Pioneer Settlement • Mennonite. The datasheet provides the following description of the Grand River Corridor CHL: Description Few rivers in Canada have seen as much of the flow ofhistory as the Grand River. First Nations have flourished in the watershed for more than 10, 000 years. The last three centuries have brought an influx of European, American and other settlers, initially seeking agricultural land, but eventually diversifying into centres of industry with the arrival of the railway. Although the River provided sustenance to the early pioneers of the Kitchener area, it did not play the same role it did in other watershed communities where waterpower was the genesis of founding industries. Instead, the River was probably perceived as more of an obstacle, restricting the flow ofgoods and services eastward and requiring substantial investment to connect Kitchener to its eastern and southern markets. The Grand and its tributaries drain approximately 6735 square kilometres (2600 square miles) and the combined watershed is the largest catchment basin in Southwestern Ontario. The Kitchener reaches of the Grand create the eastern boundary of the City. Along the eastern edge of Kitchener, the Grand cuts its way through an ancient glacial spillway and has alternating banks that range in height from a few metres to over 30 metres. The alluvial plains in which the River runs vary in width, from less than a kilometre to more than 2 kilometres and have been a source of an abundant supply of sands and gravels for many decades. The Grand River Forest, with its rare Carolinian species south of Kitchener, lines much of the shore in the southernmost reaches. This Forest changes to a mixed deciduous hardwood forest with black willow communities lining the banks through the Kitchener reaches. The River is subject to occasional extreme flows and flooding. In 1954, Hurricane Hazel caused flows of more than 10 times normal levels. This resulted in significant changes to the landscape in the Bridgeport reach due to the construction of dikes and other May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 493 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 57 May 2021 HR -210-2020 flood control measures. The Kitchener reaches have been the location of a variety of settlements and other historical activities since the arrival of pioneer settlers beginning around 1800. The highlights of these activities include the following. In 1829, Jacob Shoemaker established Glasgow Mills at the mouth of Laurel Creek on the west bank of the River. At about the same time John Tyson settled on the east bank and called the settlement Bridgeport. The Bridgeport Bridge was built on Bridge Street in 1934, eight years after its sister bridge was constructed at Freeport. The bridge is a five -span reinforced concrete bowstring and is 126 metres long. Shoemaker's Ford & Wooden Bridge is located south of the current Bridgeport Bridge. It was used to connect the two sides of the early settlement of Bridgeport. The first wooden bridge at Shoemaker's Ford was constructed in 1847. The Grand Trunk Railway Bridge (at Breslau) embankments were started in 1854 and constructed over a period of 2 years. The abutments are made of limestone block. Two concrete piers in the river complete the span. The original bridge spans were constructed of wrought iron imported from England. The iron tube structure was replaced by steel girders in 1905. Other early fords along the Kitchener reaches included the Breslau Ford, the Zeller's Ford, and the Sam Bricker's Ford. Livergood's Ford was first called Reichert's Ford and later the Livergood's Ford, after Christian Reichert and George Livergood early local settlers. After the firstpermanentmajor bridge in Waterloo Township was erected here in 1820, the area became known as Toll Bridge (and later Bridgeville). Tolls came to an end in 1857 and the area was renamed Freeport in 1865. In 1880, the first iron bridge in Waterloo County was erected here. The existing Freeport Bridge is a seven span, six pier, concrete bowstring arch. There was a lane or road from the Dundas Road in Preston to Freeport and beyond. This road was extended to the Grand River in the vicinity of the Pioneer Memorial Tower. Soon after 1800, Bechtel's Ford and later a wooden bridge were established from this road westward across the Grand River. On the western side, the bank was quite steep (over 30 metres in height), but the pioneers built the incline of the road from south to north up the steep bank and gradually emerged on the Huron Road. About 1836, a wooden bridge was built across the Grand River at the Bechtel's Ford location and lasted until about 1857, when it was removed by an early spring flood. In 1994, the Grand River and its major tributaries, the Nith, Conestogo, Speed and Eramosa rivers, were designated as Canadian Heritage Rivers. It was the 15th Canadian Heritage River to be designated in Canada. Although the river has been much altered by its people, it still provides large natural areas and scenic views and is of outstanding recreational and educational value. Many decades of careful management have maintained these values even as the urban nature of the watershed grew. While use of the river has changed, the major recreational role it plays, and the well-preserved evidence of the cultures that were drawn to its banks, makes it worthy of its status as a Canadian Heritage River. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 494 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 58 Photographs May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 495 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 59 May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 496 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 60 EVALUATION OF PROPERTY Criteria Description ✓ Value Statement(s)* Is a rare, unique, representative or early The Grand River Corridor is does not contain example of a style, type, expression, a rare, unique, representative or early example material or construction method of a style, type, expression, material or Design or construction method. Physical Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or The Grand River Corridor does not display a Value artistic value high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. Displays a high degree of technical or The Grand River Corridor does not display a scientific achievement high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Has direct associations with a theme, The Grand River Corridor was the main event, belief, person, activity, organization .feature that attracted the first pioneer or institution that is significant to a ✓ Mennonite settlers from Pennsylvania to the Kitchener area. Has been the ancestral home community o First Nations peoples.for 10, 000 years. The CHL datasheet notes the property has Historical or yields or has the potential to yield archaeological potential. The property has the Associative information that contributes to the ✓ potential to yield information contributing to Value understanding of a community or culture the understanding of Indigenous history in the area, however, this is address in a separate rocess. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas The Grand River Corridor does not reflect the of an architect, builder, artist, designer or work or idea of an architect, builder, artist, theorist who is significant to a community designer or theorist who is significant to a community. Contextual Is important in defining, maintaining or The Grand River Corridor is important in Value supporting the character of an area ✓ defining, maintaining and supporting the character of the surrounding landscape. The May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 497 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 61 * The value statement which have been taken directly from CHL Datasheet are noted in italics. RESULTS OF HERITAGE ASSESSMENT CHVI Evaluation Has CHVI Grand River Corridor has influenced settlement and the surrounding development. The character defining elements (also known as heritage attributes), as identified by the CHL Study include: The Grand River Corridor is physically, • Well-defined river valley with alternating steep and shallow banks. Is physically, functionally, visually or • Wonderful meandering river with significant vegetation communities and functionally, visually, and historically linked to associated wildlife habitat. ✓ its surroundings. It was a principle factor that historically linked to its surroundings influence Pre -Contact lifeways and historic settlement patterns. Is a landmark ✓ The Grand River Corridor is considered a landmark recognized by the community. * The value statement which have been taken directly from CHL Datasheet are noted in italics. RESULTS OF HERITAGE ASSESSMENT CHVI Evaluation Has CHVI The character defining elements (also known as heritage attributes), as identified by the CHL Study include: Heritage Attributes • Well-defined river valley with alternating steep and shallow banks. • Wonderful meandering river with significant vegetation communities and associated wildlife habitat. May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 498 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 62 Appendix B: Team Member Curriculum Vitae Kayla Jonas Galvin, MA, RPP, MCIP, CAHP Heritage Operations Manager ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES LTD. 1 King Street West, Stoney Creek, L8G 1G7 Phone: (519) 804-2291 x120 Fax: (519) 286-0493 Email: kayla.jonasgalvin@araheritage.caWeb: www.arch-research.com Biography Kayla Jonas Galvin, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.'s Heritage Operations Manager, has extensive experience evaluating cultural heritage resources and landscapes for private and public - sector clients to fulfil the requirements of provincial and municipal legislation such as the Environmental Assessment Act, the Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties and municipal Official Plans. She served as Team Lead on the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Historic Places Initiative, which drafted over 850 Statements of Significance and for Heritage Districts Work!, a study of 64 heritage conservation districts in Ontario. Kayla was an editor of Arch, Truss and Beam: The Grand River Watershed Heritage Bridge Inventory and has worked on Municipal Heritage Registers in several municipalities. Kayla has drafted over 150 designation reports and by-laws for the City of Kingston, the City of Burlington, the Town of Newmarket, Municipality of Chatham -Kent, City of Brampton and the Township of Whitchurch-Stouffville. Kayla is the Heritage Team Lead for ARA's roster assignments for Infrastructure Ontario and oversees evaluation of properties according to Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Kayla is a Registered Professional Planner (RPP), a Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP), is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and sits on the board of the Ontario Association of Heritage Professionals. Education 2016 MA in Planning, University of Waterloo. Thesis Topic: Goderich A Case Study of Conserving Cultural Heritage Resources in a Disaster 2003-2008 Honours BES University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario Joint Major: Environment and Resource Studies and Anthropology Professional Memberships and Accreditations Current Registered Professional Planner (RPP) Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP) Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) Board Member, Ontario Association of Heritage Professionals Work Experience Current Heritage Operations Manager, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Oversees business development for the Heritage Department, coordinates completion of designation by-laws, Heritage Impact Assessments, Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessments, and Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluations. May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 499 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 63 2009-2013 Heritage Planner, Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo Coordinated the completion of various contracts associated with built heritage including responding to grants, RFPs and initiating service proposals. 2008-2009, Project Coordinator—Heritage Conservation District Study, ACO 2012 Coordinated the field research and authored reports for the study of 32 Heritage Conservation Districts in Ontario. Managed the efforts of over 84 volunteers, four staff and municipal planners from 23 communities. 2007-2008 Team Lead, Historic Place Initiative, Ministry of Culture Liaised with Ministry of Culture Staff, Centre's Director and municipal heritage staff to draft over 850 Statements of Significance for properties to be nominated to the Canadian Register of Historic Places. Managed a team of four people. Selected Professional Development 2019 OPPI and WeirFoulds Client Seminar: Bill 108 — More Homes, More Choice, 2019 2019 Annual attendance at Ontario Heritage Conference, Goderich, ON (Two -days) 2019 Information Session: Proposed Amendments to the ORA, by Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport 2018 Indigenous Canada Course, University of Alberta 2018 Volunteer Dig, Mohawk Institute 2018 Indigenizing Planning, three webinar series, Canadian Institute of Planners 2018 Cultural Heritage, Archaeology and Planning Symposium 2018 Transforming Public Apathy to Revitalize Engagement, Webinar, MetorQuest 2018 How to Plan for Communities: Listen to the Them, Webinar, CIP 2017 Empowering Indigenous Voices in Impact Assessments, Webinar, International Association for Impact Assessments 2017 Cultural Heritage, Archaeology and Planning Symposium 2017 Capitalizing on Heritage, National Trust Conference, Ottawa, ON. 2016 Cultural Heritage, Archaeology and Planning Symposium 2016 Heritage Rising, National Trust Conference, Hamilton 2016 Ontario Heritage Conference St. Marys and Stratford, ON. 2016 Heritage Inventories Workshop, City of Hamilton & ERA Architects 2015 Cultural Heritage, Archaeology and Planning Symposium 2015 City of Hamilton: Review of Existing Heritage Permit and Heritage Designation Process Workshop. 2015 Leadership Training for Managers Course, Dale Carnegie Training Selected Publications 2018 "Conserving Cultural Heritage Landscapes in Waterloo: An Innovative Approach." Ontario Association of Heritage Professionals Newsletter, Winter 2018. 2018 "Restoring Pioneer Cemeteries" Ontario Association of Heritage Professionals Newsletter. Spring 2018. In print. 2015 "Written in Stone: Cemeteries as Heritage Resources." Municipal World, Sept. 2015. 2015 `Bringing History to Life." Municipal World, February 2015, pages 11-12. 2014 "Inventorying our History." Ontario Planning Journal, January/February 2015. 2014 "Assessing the success of Heritage Conservation Districts: Insights from Ontario Canada." with R. Shipley and J. Kovacs. Cities. May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 500 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 64 Amy Barnes, M.A., CARP Heritage Project Manager ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES LTD. 1 King Street West, Stoney Creek, ON L8G 1G7 Phone: (226) 338-2339 x122 Fax: (519) 286-0493 Email: amy.barnes(a�araheritage.ca Web: www.arch-research.ca Biography Amy Barnes, a Project Manager with the Heritage Team, has over ten years of experience evaluating cultural heritage resources and leading community engagement. Amy has extensive experience working with provincial and municipal legislation and guidelines, including the Ontario Heritage Act, Official Plans, the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places, and the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Ms. Barnes has completed over fifty heritage related projects including 150+ cultural assessments and has been qualified as an expert witness at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Amy has worked in the public and private sector where her duties included project management, public consultation, facilitator, research, database and records management, and report author. Amy has worked with the Town of Oakville, City of Cambridge, City of Kitchener, Niagara -on -the -Lake, City of London, and the City of Kingston on projects which range in size, scale and complexity. Amy Barnes holds an M.A. in Heritage Conservation from the School of Canadian Studies at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario. Amy has successfully completed the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Foundations in Public Participation, the IAP2 Planning and Techniques for Effective Public Participation, and Indigenous Awareness Training through Indigenous Awareness Canada. Amy is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and currently serves as the Vice -Chair of the Cambridge Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee. Education 2009 MA in Heritage Conservation, School of Canadian Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario. 2006 Honours BA, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario Canadian Studies (Major) and Psychology (Minor). Professional Memberships and Accreditations Current Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) Member, International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture & Urbanism, Guelph Chapter. Work Experience Current Heritage Project Manager, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Coordinates the completion of designation by-laws, Heritage Impact Assessments, Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessments, and Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluations. 2020 Principal Heritage Consultant, Amy Barnes Consulting. 2012-2015 Coordinated the completion of various contracts associated with built heritage, cultural heritage landscapes, including Heritage Impact Assessments, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Designation Reports and professional consultation. May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 501 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 65 2019-2020 Manager of Operations- Outreach and Engagement, Yorklands Green Hub. Coordinated the development of a feasibility study and strategic planning initiatives for the anticipated purchase of a Provincial Property of Provincial Heritage Significance. Coordination of workshops and community events, external outreach and communications and implementing strategic planning initiatives. Liaison with Infrastructure Ontario, Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Cultural Industries, non -profits, charities, school boards and community members. 2015-2019 Project Manager and Senior Cultural Heritage Specialist — Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. Coordinated and authored various heritage related contracts. Duties included historic research, heritage impact assessments, cultural heritage assessments and evaluations, and public engagement activities. Served as the firm's Public Engagement Specialist. 2011-2012 Creative Content Developer, Virtual Museums Canada. Worked as part of an interdisciplinary team to help create an online virtual exhibit for Virtual Museums Canada. Responsible for historical research, record management, creative design, narrative and content development and internal coordination for the Archives and Research Team. 2010 Junior Heritage Planner, Municipality of North Grenville. Responsible for historic research, public consultation and engagement and community development for heritage related projects. Worked with local heritage committees, Council and planning staff in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, Official Plans and other guiding policies. 2009 Heritage Planner Intern, City of Kingston. Aided in heritage related projects and worked closely with heritage committees, Council, and planning staff. Selected Professional Development 2020 Indigenous Awareness Training and Certification, Indigenous Awareness Canada. — Indigenous Awareness Certification — Indigenous Peoples and Cultures — Indigenous Communication & Consultation — Indigenous Employment Outreach, Recruit, and Retain 2019 Enviroseries "Creating a Heritage Landmark Park For Guelph at The Former Ontario Reformatory". Yorklands Green Hub.. 2017 International Association of Public Participation Certification - Foundations in Public Participation - Planning and Techniques for Effective Public Participation. Publications 2013 "Landmark Series." Cambridge Times. Selected Issues. "Alice King Sculthorpe." Acorn Magazine, 2013. May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 502 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 66 Penny M. Young, MA, CAHP (#P092) Heritage Project Manager ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES LTD. 1 King Street West, Stoney Creek, L8G 1G7 Phone: (519) 804-2291 x121 Email: penny.youn e,araheritage.ca Web: www.arch-research.com Biography Penny Young has 27 years of cultural heritage management experience, 21 years working in government, as a Heritage Planner, Heritage Coordinator, Regional Archaeologist and Archaeological Database Coordinator where she managed and coordinated the impacts to cultural heritage resources including built heritage, archaeological sites and cultural heritage landscapes for compliance with municipal, provincial and federal legislation and policy. She has conducted results -driven and collaborative management of complex cultural heritage resource projects within the public sector involving developing project terms of reference, defining scope of work, preparation of budgets and conducting sites visits to monitor and provide heritage/archaeological and environmental advice and direction. At the Ministry of Transportation Penny revised, updated and developed policy, as part of a team, for the Ontario Heritage Bridge Guidelines for Provincially Owned Bridge Guidelines for Provincially Owned Bridges. She received the MTO Central Region Employee Recognition Award in 2001 and 2002. While at MTO she provided technical advice and input into the development of the MTO Environmental Reference for Highway Design - Section 3.7 Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes and the MTO Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes. She is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Planners (CAHP) and holds Professional License 9P092 from MTCS. She also holds memberships in the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) and the Ontario Archaeological Society (OAS). Education 1990-1993 Master of Arts, Department of Anthropology McMaster University, Hamilton Ontario. Specializing in Mesoamerican and Ontario archaeology. 1983-1987 Honours Bachelor of Arts (English and Anthropology), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. Professional Memberships and Accreditations Current Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) Member of Ontario Archaeological Society Pre -Candidate Member, Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) Ministry of Tourism Culture & Sport Professional Licence (#P092) Work Experience Current Project Manager - Heritage, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Coordinates ARA project teams and conducts heritage assessment projects including Heritage Impact Assessments, Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessments, and Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluations. Additional responsibilities include the completion of designation by-laws and heritage May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 503 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 67 inventories. Liaises with municipal staff, provincial ministries and Indigenous communities to solicit relevant project information and to build relationships. 2008-2016 Heritage Planner, Culture Services Unit, Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport (MTCS) Responsible for advising and providing technical review for management of cultural heritage resources in environmental assessment undertakings and planning projects affecting provincial ministries, municipalities, private sector proponents and Indigenous communities. Advised on municipalities' Official Plan (OP) policies cultural heritage conservation policies. Provided guidance on compliance with the Public Work Class EA, other Class EA legislation and 2010 Standards and Guidelines for Provincial Heritage Properties. 2014 Senior Heritage Planner, Planning and Building Department, City of Burlington (temporary assignment) Project manager of the study for a potential Heritage Conservation District. Provided guidance to a multiple company consultant team and reported to municipal staff and the public. Liaised with Municipal Heritage Committee and municipal heritage property owners approved heritage permits and provided direction on Indigenous engagement, archaeological site assessments and proposed development projects. 2011 Heritage Coordinator, Building, Planning and Design Department, City of Brampton (temporary assignment) Project lead for new Heritage Conservation District Study. The assignment included directing consultants, managing budgets, organizing a Public Information Session, and reporting to Senior Management and Council. Reviewed development/planning documents for impacts to heritage including OP policies, OP Amendments, Plans of subdivision and Committee of Adjustment applications and Municipal Class EA undertakings. 2010-2011 Senior Heritage Coordinator, Culture Division, City of Mississauga (temporary assignment) Provided advice to Senior Management and Municipal Council on heritage conservation of built heritage, archaeological sites and cultural heritage landscapes. Liaised with multiple municipal staff including the Clerks' office, Parks and development planners and the public. Supervised and directed project work for junior heritage planner. 1999-2008 Regional Archaeologist, Planning and Environmental Section, Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Responsibilities included: project management and coordination of MTO archaeology and heritage program, managed multiple consultants, conducted and coordinated field assessments, surveys and excavations, liaised with First Nations' communities and Band Councils, estimated budgets including $200,000 retainer contracts. May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 504 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 68 Sarah Clarke, BA Research Manager ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES LTD. 1 King Street West, Stoney Creek, L8G 1G7 Phone: (519) 755-9983 Email: sarah.clarkegaraheritage.ca Web: www.arch-research.com Biography Sarah Clarke is Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.'s Heritage Research Manager. Sarah has over 12 years of experience in Ontario archaeology and 10 years of experience with background research. Her experience includes conducting archival research (both local and remote), artifact cataloguing and processing, and fieldwork at various stages in both the consulting and research - based realms. As Team Lead of Research, Sarah is responsible for conducting archival research in advance of ARNs archaeological and heritage assessments. In this capacity, she performs Stage 1 archaeological assessment field surveys, conducts preliminary built heritage and cultural heritage landscape investigations and liaises with heritage resource offices and local community resources in order to obtain and process data. Sarah has in-depth experience in conducting historic research following the Ontario Heritage Toolkit series, and the Standards and Guidelines for Provincial Heritage Properties. Sarah holds an Honours B.A. in North American Archaeology, with a Historical/Industrial Option from Wilfrid Laurier University and is currently enrolled in Western University's Intensive Applied Archaeology MA program. She is a member of the Ontario Archaeological Society (OAS), the Society for Industrial Archaeology, the Ontario Genealogical Society (OGS), the Canadian Archaeological Association, and is a Council -appointed citizen volunteer on the Brantford Municipal Heritage Committee. Sarah holds an R -level archaeological license with the MTCS (#R446). Education Current MA Intensive Applied Archaeology, Western University, London, ON. Proposed thesis topic: Archaeological Management at the Mohawk Village. 1999-2010 Honours BA, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario Major: North American Archaeology, Historical/Industrial Option Professional Memberships and Accreditations Current Member of the Ontario Archaeological Society Current Member of the Society for Industrial Archaeology Current Member of the Brant Historical Society Current Member of the Ontario Genealogical Society Current Member of the Canadian Archaeological Association Current Member of the Archives Association of Ontario Work Experience Current Team Lead — Research; Team Lead — Archaeology, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Manage and plan the research needs for archaeological and heritage projects. Research at offsite locations including land registry offices, local libraries and local May 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd HR -210-2020 ARA File #2020-0287 Page 505 of 917 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 69 and provincial archives. Historic analysis for archaeological and heritage projects. Field Director conducting Stage 1 assessments. 2013-2015 Heritage Research Manager; Archaeological Monitoring Coordinator, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Stage 1 archaeological field assessments, research at local and distant archives at both the municipal and provincial levels, coordination of construction monitors for archaeological project locations. 2010-2013 Historic Researcher, Timmins Martelle Heritage Consultants Inc. Report preparation, local and offsite research (libraries, archives); correspondence with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport; report submission to the MTCS and clients; and administrative duties (PIF and Borden form completion and submission, data requests). 2008-2009 Field Technician, Archaeological Assessments Ltd. Participated in field excavation and artifact processing. 2008-2009 Teaching Assistant, Wilfrid Laurier University. Responsible for teaching and evaluating first year student lab work. 2007-2008 Field and Lab Technician, Historic Horizons. Participated in excavations at Dundurn Castle and Auchmar in Hamilton, Ontario. Catalogued artifacts from excavations at Auchmar. 2006-2010 Archaeological Field Technician/Supervisor, Wilfrid Laurier University. Field school student in 2006, returned as a field school teaching assistant in 2008 and 2010. Professional Development 2019 Annual attendance at Ontario Heritage Conference, Goderich, ON 2018 Cultural Heritage, Archaeology and Planning Symposium 2018 Grand River Watershed 21 s'Annual Heritage Day Workshop & Celebration 2018 Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation Historical Gathering and Conference 2017 Ontario Genealogical Society Conference 2016 Ontario Archaeological Society Symposium 2015 Introduction to Blacksmithing Workshop, Milton Historical Society 2015 Applied Research License Workshop, MTCS 2014 Applied Research License Workshop, MTCS 2014 Heritage Preservation and Structural Recording in Historical and Industrial Archaeology. Four-month course taken at Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON. Professor: Meagan Brooks. Presentations 2018 The Early Black History of Brantford. Brant Historical Society, City of Brantford. 2017 Mush Hole Archaeology. Ontario Archaeological Society Symposium, Brantford. 2017 Urban Historical Archaeology: Exploring the Black Community in St. Catharines, Ontario. Canadian Archaeological Association Conference, Gatineau, QC. Volunteer Experience Current Council -appointed citizen volunteer for the Brantford Municipal Heritage Committee. May 2021 HR -210-2020 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd ARA File #2020-0287 Page 506 of 917 0.14o MT E Natural Sciences Report Page 507 of 917 LCEL .-FG N- LIMITED YEARS envUanmsntal research sse -tes UPPER HIDDEN VALLEY PUMPING STATION AND FORCEMAIN SCHEDULE B CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for: MTE CONSULTANTS On Behalf of: The City of Kitchener by: LGL Limited environmental research associates MAY 2022 LGL FILE NO. TA9080 1 fly prepared by: Digital signature Julia Shonfield, PhD, P.Biol. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGIST jital signature Jennifer Noel, M.Sc. SENIOR BOTANIST, ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST Digital signature Erin Blenkhorn, B.Sc. AQUATIC BIOLOGIST/ECOLOGIST ital signature Karen Chung, B.Sc., GIS Cert. GIS ANALYST, BIOLOGIST Digital signature Allison Featherstone, Hons. B.Sc. VICE-PRESIDENT, SENIOR PLANNING ECOLGIST LGL Limited environmental research associates 445 Thompson Drive, Unit 2 Cambridge, Ontario WT 2K7 Tel: 519-622-3300 Fax: 519-622-3310 Email: cambridge@lgl.com URL: www.igi.com Version History: Date: January 14, 2022 Version: Draft May 16, 2022 Draft, updated with recommended alternative LGL FILE NO. TA9080 Page 509 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................................1 2.1 DESKTOP REVIEW..............................................................................................................................................3 2.2 FIELD SURVEYS.................................................................................................................................................3 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS..............................................................................................................................4 3.1 DESIGNATION NATURAL AREAS............................................................................................................................4 3.1.1 Data Sources............................................................................................................................................4 3.1.2 Findings....................................................................................................................................................4 3.1.2.1 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest(ANSIs)..............................................................................................4 3.1.2.2 Significant Wetlands.......................................................................................................................................5 3.1.2.3Significant Wildlife Habitat......................................................................................................................................5 3.1.24 Regulated Habitat for Species at Risk............................................................................................................. 6 3.1.25 Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas(ESPAs)..............................................................................................6 3.1.26 Region of Waterloo Official Plan.....................................................................................................................7 3.1.2.7 City of Kitchener Official Plan.......................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.2.8 Grand River Conservation Authority Regulated Area.....................................................................................7 3.2 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS..................................................................................................................................7 3.3 AQUATIC HABITAT.............................................................................................................................................9 3.3.1 Hidden Valley Creek System.....................................................................................................................9 3.3.1.1 West Creek...................................................................................................................................................... 9 3.3.1.2 North Creek...................................................................................................................................................10 3.3.1.3 East Creek.....................................................................................................................................................11 3.3.2 Hofstetter Creek.....................................................................................................................................12 3.3.3 Hidden Valley Pond................................................................................................................................14 3.3.4 Hidden Valley Marsh..............................................................................................................................14 3.3.5 Frog Pond...............................................................................................................................................14 3.3.6 Aquatic Species at Risk...........................................................................................................................15 3.4 VEGETATION AND VEGETATION COMMUNITIES.....................................................................................................15 3.4.1 Vegetation Communities.......................................................................................................................18 3.4.1.1 Flora..............................................................................................................................................................19 3.4.2 Plant Species at Risk, Provincially Rate, and Regionally Rare................................................................19 3.4.2.1 Plants............................................................................................................................................................19 3.4.2.2 SAR Plants..................................................................................................................................................... 20 3.4.2.3 Communities.................................................................................................................................................21 3.5 WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT......................................................................................................................21 3.5.1 Breeding Birds........................................................................................................................................22 3.5.1.1 Background Information............................................................................................................................... 22 3.5.1.2 Findings.........................................................................................................................................................22 3.5.2 Mammals...............................................................................................................................................26 3.5.3 Reptiles and Amphibians........................................................................................................................28 3.5.3.1 Background Information............................................................................................................................... 28 3.5.3.2 Findings.........................................................................................................................................................29 3.5.4 Wildlife Species at Risk...........................................................................................................................30 3.5.4.1 Jefferson Salamander Regulated Habitat...................................................................................................... 32 LGL Limited environmental research associates Page i Page 510 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 3.5.4.2 Other SAR...................................................................................................................................................... 32 3.5.5 Wildlife Habitat Summary......................................................................................................................32 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................33 4.1 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE.................................................................................................................................35 5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION..................................................................................................40 5.1 GENERAL MITIGATION.....................................................................................................................................40 5.2 VEGETATION AND VEGETATION COMMUNITIES.....................................................................................................41 5.2.1 Species at Risk........................................................................................................................................42 5.3 WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT......................................................................................................................42 5.3.1 Species at Risk........................................................................................................................................43 5.4 AQUATIC HABITAT AND COMMUNITIES...............................................................................................................43 5.4.1 Species at Risk........................................................................................................................................44 6.0 SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS...................................................................................................................45 7.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................46 LGL Limited environmental research associates Page ii Page 511 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1— SUMMARY OF FIELD VISITS IN 2021.......................................................................................................3 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF LOCAL STATUS PLANTS OBSERVED IN STUDY AREA.......................................................19 TABLE 3 — RESULTS OF BREEDING BIRD SURVEYS CONDUCTED IN THE STUDY AREA IN 2021 ............................... 25 TABLE 4 — MAMMAL SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN THE STUDY AREA....................................................................... 28 TABLE 5 — AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN THE STUDY AREA ............................................... 29 TABLE 6 — WILDLIFE SPECIES AT RISK DOCUMENTED IN THE STUDY AREA........................................................... 31 TABLE 7: EVALUATION MATRIX FOR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT CRITERIA............................................................36 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE1— STUDY AREA........................................................................................................................................ 2 FIGURE 2 -NATURAL HERITAGE............................................................................................................................8 FIGURE3 —AQUATICS ......................................................................................................................................13 FIGURE 4 —VEGETATION COMMUNITIES...........................................................................................................17 FIGURE 5 —WILDLIFE HABITAT.......................................................................................................................24 FIGURE 6: ION FOOTPRINT (APPROXIMATE, "4 BLUE) IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED LOCATION B AND FORCE MAI N/SANITARY SEWER...........................................................................................................................34 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A — SUMMARY OF ELC VEGETATION COMMUNITIES IN THE HIDDEN VALLEY STUDY AREA APPENDIX B -RUNNING WILDLIFE LIST APPENDIX C —VASCULAR PLANT LIST APPENDIX D — SPECIES AT RISK SCREENING LGL Limited environmental research associates Page iii Page 512 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION May 2022 File No. TA9080 To support development in the Hidden Valley area, as outlined in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan, a study was initiated to identify a sanitary servicing solution. The City of Kitchener has retained MTE Consultants to initiate a study to identify and evaluate alternative solutions, and to select the preferred solution. MTE Consultants has retained LGL Limited (LGL) to provide natural sciences support for the project as part of their technical team. This project is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and it is being planned under Schedule B of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA). The project scope involves an evaluation of alternatives, selection of preferred alternative and evaluation of environmental impacts and their mitigation measures. The preferred solution will be determined by maintaining the objectives of protection of the environment, minimal disruption to residents and surrounding areas, engaging a broad range of stakeholders, and documenting the study process in compliance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Schedule `B" process. This report represents a combination of desktop assessment and background information, and results of the field surveys conducted in 2021 on April 27, May 10, June 1, June 17, and October 13. The information collected to describe existing conditions was used to identify potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife habitat, document the presence of species at risk (SAR) and their habitat; and to provide recommendations for additional studies, where warranted, at detailed design. The City of Kitchener completed the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan (approved by Council in June of 2019). The Master Plan indicated that wastewater servicing solutions are to be explored and analysed through a Municipal Class EA informed by the Land Use Master Plan. Three potential pumping station locations have been identified (Sites A through C; Figure 1). The limits of the study area include lands bordered by Wabanaki Drive and Hidden Valley Road, located west of the Grand River and southeast of Fairway Road in Kitchener, Ontario. Option A is located south of Hidden Valley Rd in the northeast section of the study area. Option B is located south of Hidden Valley Rd where it parallels Highway 8, and to the east of North Creek. Option C is located in the northeast corner of the intersection between Hidden Valley Rd and Wabanaki Dr. 2.0 BACKGROUND The intent of this Natural Sciences Report (NSR) is to describe existing natural heritage conditions within the study area through a combination of desktop review of background information and site investigations. For the purpose of the natural sciences investigation, the study area was reviewed in the context of the following: • designated natural areas; • physiography and soils; • aquatic habitat; • vegetation and vegetation communities; and, • wildlife and wildlife habitat. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 1 Page 513 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report 2.1 DESKTOP REVIEW May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL has been involved in several studies in the Hidden Valley area in the past on behalf of the Region of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener (2003-2021), and the information collected in these past studies was incorporated into this Natural Sciences Report, in addition to other available background sources of information to include: • River Road Extension Schedule `C' Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. Environmental Study Report. (IBI Group 2014); • River Road Extension Natural Heritage Study Existing Conditions (LGL 2014); • Stage 2 Ion: Light Rail Transit from Kitchener to Cambridge. Environmental Project Report. (WSP 2021); • Stage 2 Ion LRT from Kitchener to Cambridge Transit Project Assessment Process Natural Heritage Report (LGL 2020); • Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan (City of Kitchener 2019); • Hidden Valley Inventory of Environmental Features and Functions (Ecologistics 1979); • Biodiversity Explorer (maintained by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks); • E -bird, 1 -Naturalist databases; • Natural Heritage Information Center database; and, • Ontario Breeding Bird, Mammal, and Reptile Atlases. At the time of this report, available information from consultants conducting field work on behalf of landowners in the study area, including the landowner of the central Hidden Valley natural area, was not available to incorporate into existing conditions. The MECP was contacted to confirm the limit and extent of available Species at Risk (SAR) information (including regulated habitat for SAR) for the project area. No additional information on SAR was provided. 2.2 FIELD SURVEYS Focused field surveys were done in 2021 to update information on natural heritage in the study area, in particular in areas where infrastructure was feasible and likely for alternative solutions. Table 1 provides a summary of the field work conducted within the study area in 2021, which includes a review of vegetation and vegetation communities, wildlife habitat and aquatic habitat. Table 1— Summary of field visits in 2021 Date Details of field visit Apri127, 2021 Vegetation inventory and community characterization; incidental wildlife observations May 10, 2021 Aquatic habitat characterization; incidental wildlife observations June 1, 2021 Breeding bird surveys first visit; incidental wildlife observations June 17, 2021 Breeding bird surveys second visit; incidental wildlife observations October 13, 2021 Vegetation inventory and community characterization; incidental wildlife observations LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 3 Page 515 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS May 2022 File No. TA9080 The Hidden Valley study area includes the natural environment features of the esker ridge, Provincially Significant Wetlands, significant woodlands and upland forest area, significant wildlife habitat and watercourses include the Grand River and its associated valley and steep slopes. The study area's natural heritage features were further characterized near potential pumping station locations through field investigations that were conducted between April 27 and October 13, 2021 (Table 1), and also through a review of the available body of technical work prepared through extensive public processes of environmental assessments in the study area. Information was compiled and analysed to develop a description of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, vegetation and wildlife within the study area and to support a screening for Species at Risk (SAR) or SAR habitat. SAR background review and site investigation findings are documented in their respective guilds in the following subsections specific to aquatic, vegetation or wildlife species at risk and habitat. Records review mapping for natural heritage is shown on Figure 2. 3.1 DESIGNATION NATURAL AREAS The study area was screened for any designated natural heritage features and functions within various local, regional and provincial policies, the results of which are noted in the following sections. 3.1.1 Data Sources Key data sources for review of designated natural areas included: • Region of Waterloo Official Plan (2015); • City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014); • City of Kitchener Natural Heritage; • MNRF Biodiversity Explorer; and, • Lands Information Ontario (LIO) data layers (MNRF 2021b). 3.1.2 Findings A summary of background review for designated natural areas is provided in the following sections. 3.1.2.1 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANS1s) Provincial Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) are determined by the MNRF. The agency defines ANSIs as "areas of land and water containing natural landscapes or features that have been identified as having life science or earth science values related to protection, scientific study or education" (MNRF 2005). ANSI's can be significant provincially, regionally, or locally and typically represent areas with high biodiversity or support earth science features or processes. No ANSI's are identified in the study LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 4 Page 516 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report area based on a review of LIO data (MNRF 2021b). May 2022 File No. TA9080 Southwest of the study area is the closest ANSI, known as Homer Watson Park, it's considered a Provincially Significant ANSI of Earth Science type. The site is a geological exposure created by the eroding banks of the Grand River (Karrow 2011). 3.1.2.2 Significant Wetlands The presence of wetland features was screened through a review of available GIS data layers provided by MNRF and through a review of Grand River Conservation Authority mapping tool. Three types of wetland features are identified in the data layers: • Provincially significant wetlands (PSWs); • Unevaluated wetlands; and, • other wetlands. The status of wetlands is determined through an evaluation according to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES). PSWs are those for which an OWES evaluation has resulted in a score sufficient to qualify as a provincially significant feature. Unevaluated wetlands are wetland features that have not undergone an OWES evaluation; while those presented as evaluated or as `other' wetlands are features where an OWES evaluation has been completed and the resulting score was insufficient to qualify as a provincially significant feature. Evaluated/other wetlands may also be considered locally significant wetlands. Hidden Valley Wetland has been designated as a PSW by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) (Figure 2). Additional wetland units are identified as unevaluated along the Grand River corridor in the southwestern end of the study area. Situated just outside the study area are the Lower Freeport Creek Wetland Complex (`other' wetland, indicated as evaluated but did not score as PSW) and the Grandview Wetland PSW (Figure 2). 3.1.2.3Significant Wildlife Habitat Wildlife habitat features identified through background review included areas identified as Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH)- Deer Wintering Area (Stratum 2) (Figure 5). This type of habitat is identified and managed by the MNRF. This area encompasses most of the central Hidden Valley area. These are areas of concentration by White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virgintanus), where deer are able to withstand winter conditions. These areas are small, at 10-15% of their summer range (MNRF 2000), often used year after year, and sensitive to development. If development is proposed within the Stratum 2 yarding area, movement corridors will also require assessment. The deer yards are mapped in Kitchener's Natural Heritage System as Deer Wintering Area SWH. Areas within the Grand River corridor itself in the southern end of the study area identified as Waterfowl Concentration Areas by the MNRF. This reflects areas of open water in the Grand River corridor that may have bird congregations as open water decreased during winter. This area is not included in the City of Kitchener's Natural Heritage System SWH mapping. Lastly, an Osprey (Pandion hahaetus) nesting area is identified to the northeast outside the study area limits. This occurs on manmade infrastructure and is not considered sensitive habitat. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 5 Page 517 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report 3.1.24 Regulated Habitat for Species at Risk May 2022 File No. TA9080 Protection for SAR in Ontario is provided through the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). That protection is afforded to species that have been listed as Endangered (END) or Threatened (THR) on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list, as designated by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). Species listed as Special Concern (SC) are not afforded protection on the ESA but are considered to be at risk to become endangered if there is further decline of the species. The federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) generally applies on federal land, for federal projects or on projects where Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) is of the opinion that protection has not been sufficiently provided by the province for a particular species. When the responsibility for SAR was transitioned from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), there was a change in direction for information and permitting requests and the process is still being resolved. Current direction is to rely on available online resources for screening purposes and to contact the MECP later in the project design process when potential impacts to SAR are better known. Therefore, an information request was submitted to the MECP for this project to confirm the current habitat mapping for species at risk in the project area. At this time, the MECP has advised that clients should undertake their own mapping based on features in the project area and LGL has referenced a 2018 version of regulation mapping authored by the MECP and available through the City of Kitchener background records for the study area to assess alternative solutions for the pumping station and forcemain. No additional mapping or staking of habitat has been undertaken. 3.1.25 Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas (ESPAs) Under prior planning in the Region, designated natural areas were identified as Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas or ESPAs. There are 4 ESPA's that are within or close to the study area. One Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area (ESPA) is identified by the Region of Waterloo and is located within the study area - ESPA 4 27 Hidden Valley. The Hidden Valley ESPA, known locally as Hidden Valley Woods, consists of a high-quality mature sugar maple -beech upland woodlot bordered by successional conifer and sumac thickets and cedar swamps. Some areas of this woodlot contain trails that are used by hikers/runners, dog -walkers, mountain bikers, equestrian riders (less so in recent years), ATV's and off-road vehicles (more prevalent in recent years). This Hidden Valley ESPA currently remains under private ownership. The inner portions of this natural area contain a mosaic of forest, agricultural lands, creeks, and wetland pockets containing an assortment of unusual flora, as well as a diversity of wildlife habitat. The various natural heritage attributes of Hidden Valley Woods meet the criteria for ESPAs (as defined by Policy 4.3.2. of the Regional Official Policy Plan). Portions of the ESPA have also been designated as a PSW. Other ESPA's include ESPA 28 Petrifying Spring located to the southwest of the study area; ESPA 73 Grandview Woods located south of Highway 8 and east of the Grand River, and ESPA 31 Homer Watson Park located contiguous to ESPA 28 but outside the study area. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 6 Page 518 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report 3.1.26 Region of Waterloo Official Plan May 2022 File No. TA9080 A review of the Region of Waterloo Official Plan (2015) indicates that the Grand River and its major tributaries (including the Speed River) form a component of the Greenlands Network of the Region of Waterloo, along with significant valleys, wetlands and forests which contribute to the environmental health of the Grand River Watershed. 3.1.2.7 City of Kitchener Official Plan The City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) indicates that significant woodlands, wetlands and valleys of the Grand River and its tributaries form the Natural Heritage System of the City of Kitchener. The Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan by the City of Kitchener Planning Division (2019) includes residential, mixed use and commercial development land use for parts of the study area adjacent to Wabanaki Drive and Hidden Valley Road, as well as Natural Heritage Conservation land use for the central area of Hidden Valley. 3.1.2.8 Grand River Conservation Authority Regulated Area Watercourses, wetlands and hazard lands (and the greatest extent of the combined hazard plus a prescribed allowance) in the study area regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) (Figure 2a), under Ontario Regulation 150/06 Grand River Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alternations to Shorelines and Watercourses. The Conservation Authority can "prohibit or regulate development in river or stream valleys, wetlands, shorelines and hazardous lands". 3.2 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS Hidden Valley ESPA or ESPA 27 is situated near the Grand River and is comprised of a distinct bowl feature, with the Hidden Valley PSW at the central area, and an esker ridge rising in the south (Figure 2a). The ESPA overlies a mixture of sandy silty tills, silty clays, fine sands, peat and marl (within the wetland components) and fluvial glacial sands (esker) (Ecologistics 1979). The most significant landform feature is the Freeport Esker which runs from Highway 401 and the Grand River to near Highway 8 and the Grand River, with an interruption of the Grand River Valley totalling over 4 miles (6.4 kilometres) in length (Ecologistics 1979). Slopes of up to 60% are present, with the main esker ridge up to 18 meters in height, and smaller sections of 6 meters in the Hidden Valley area. Portions of the esker have been quarried historically in the south west corner of Hidden Valley. While the esker landform may not be unique within the context of the Waterloo Region, it provides a diversity of microhabitats and microclimates within Hidden Valley ESPA. The west portion of the study area consists of relatively flat topography. The surrounding industrial lands have been modified through the remainder of the study area by previous disturbances, grading, and parking lot creation associated with existing commercial properties. Additional information on the study area physiography and soils can be found in a draft report prepared for the South Kitchener Transportation Corridor Study entitled "Preliminary Geotechnical Inventory" (Naylor Engineering Associates Ltd., July 2004). LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 7 Page 519 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report 3.3 AQUATIc HABITAT May 2022 File No. TA9080 Regulated watercourses and potential drainage features were assessed through a combination of visual reconnaissance and compilation of background information. Fish sampling was not part of field surveys as sufficient fisheries community information is available to characterize the Hidden Valley creeks and Grand River. Background information on the extent of aquatic habitat and associated fish and wildlife communities of watercourses and water bodies within the study area is from targeted aquatic habitat investigations on May 25, 2004, electrofishing surveys on June 10, 2004, and minnow traps set on April 15, 2004. Subsequent aquatic habitat surveys were conducted on May 29, June 6 and June 11, 2013 and May 10, 2021. These investigations included the Hidden Valley PSW complex and tributaries of the Grand River known as West, East, and North Creek. The locations of the Hidden Valley watercourses are shown in Figure 3. A detailed wildlife investigation for the presence/absence of salamanders occurred in 2007 and 2008 by LGL. In 2007, all areas of standing water were trapped, and in 2008 the main salamander breeding pond was trapped for many consecutive nights. No fish were captured at any time during the 2007 and 2008 surveys. Fish habitat was characterized, and physical habitat features were surveyed in sufficient detail to enable mapping and identification of key habitat types. The physical habitat attributes assessed include: • Water quality, temperature and water colour • In -stream cover • Bank stability • Substrate characteristics • Stream dimensions and flow • Barriers • Stream morphology • Terrain characteristics • Stream canopy cover • Stream gradient • Aquatic vegetation • Groundwater seepage areas • General comments The following discussion summarizes the aquatic habitats and features within the study area. 3.3.1 Hidden Valley Creek System 3.3.1.1 West Creek The West Creek flow originates from stormwater drainage in the Fairview Park Mall area and discharges into the central wetland area. Discharge (via pipe) from a stormwater pond facility located immediately east of Wabanaki Drive, also appears to contribute flow to this system. The stormwater outfall channel has been reconstructed with armour stone banks and bed, with portions of bed comprised of cemented rip rap substrates. Armour stone blocks are present instream, presumably for flood control. The stream flows in between these blocks and over a one meter high elevation drop (cemented rip rap) within approximately 15 in downstream of the channel origin (see barrier location on Figure 3). Approximately 25 in downstream LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 9 Page 521 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 of the outlet, a natural channel begins, meandering along the edge of a wooded area. This channel eventually flows through cattail marsh, where it becomes increasingly indistinct and where it eventually widens into a series of open water ponds. A smaller minor branch of this creek also meanders in a northward direction within the cattail marsh, but the channel at this location is also indistinct. In 2021, the 165 in reach upstream of the wetland reach was investigated. Between the outfall channel section and the wetland, the bankfull channel measures 2.3 — 3.5 in wide and up to 0.6 in deep. At the time of the 2013 survey, the wetted channel measured between 0.95 - 2.3 in wide and between 6-10 cm deep (with deeper areas noted amongst woody debris jams). On May 10, 2021, wetted depths ranged between 7 cm deep (in riffles) and up to 40 cm deep in pools. And wetted channel width appears similar to 2004 surveys. The channel morphology appears to be dominated by flats (70%), with some riffles (30%) and substrates are variable, comprised of 10% boulders, 40% rubble, 10% gravel, 20% sand/silt and 20% clay. Channel dimensions and morphology appear to differ between 2004 and 2021 surveys. The 2004 surveys documented a 1.0 - 1.5 in wide bankfull channel and 70% riffles, 20% pools, and 10% flats at this location. It appears that the presence of debris jams and all -terrain vehicles (ATVs) crossing the channel in the reach has resulted in channel widening and erosion. A backwater area/overflow channel was observed near a bend in the creek located approximately 100m downstream of the creek origin. Cover within the channel consists of 30% undercut banks, 10% boulders and 10% woody debris. Some Reed Canary Grass grows instream, some of which has originated from banks via slumping. Bank slumping and erosion is prevalent along both banks (noted historically and in 2021); likely due to the fluctuating nature of the stormwater flows and ATV disturbance. This is prevalent in the reach immediately upstream from the wetland. Some iron staining is present in the channel, which may reflect some groundwater input. Riparian cover is fairly open, with scattered trees/shrubs including willow, poplar trees within the vicinity of the stormwater outfall. Planted trees (White Pine (Pinus strobus), maple, cherry) are present further back from the bank within this area. Unfortunately, the tree stakes have been left on these trees, therefore many of them are now becoming girdled and in fair condition as a result. Red -osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo), ash (Fraxinus spp.) and White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis) provide approximately 30-60% cover further downstream along the natural reach. Intensive electrofishing and reconnaissance investigations of the West Creek in 2004 did not reveal the presence of fish, despite the presence of sufficient water flows along this reach. This creek would be considered indirect fish habitat, as it contributes allochthonous materials, nutrients and flow to fish habitat within the receiving watercourse (Grand River). 3.3.1.2 North Creek The North Creek drains an area across Highway 8 including residential and industrial areas in the King Street area. The channel appears to originate within the vicinity of the Heffner Toyota Dealership via a drainage channel/SWM pond. The channel flows in a south-easterly direction under Highway 8 and eventually discharges to the central wetland area within ESPA 27. The creek flows through a high gradient section via 2 CSPs under a trail/access upstream of Highway 8 and flows through a perched 1.2 in x 1.2 in box culvert under Highway 8. Downstream of the highway, the channel is defined but becomes braided further downstream within marsh/swamp habitat, as outlined on Figure 3. The creek eventually outlets to Hidden Valley Marsh, within approximately 400 in downstream of Hidden Valley Road. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 10 Page 522 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 Downstream of the Hidden Valley Road, the channel wetted width averaged 1.4 - 1.75 in wide with average depths of 0.04 - 0.37 in deep on May 29, 2013. Bankfull width measured a maximum of 2.6 in (average of 1.7 m), with bankfull depths measuring 0.4 in deep on May 29/2013. Dimensions are slightly larger than what was previously documented in 2004, likely due to some beaver influence in the reach (2 small dams noted). At the culvert outlet, a large plunge pool measuring approximately 4 in wide x 5 in long and 1 in deep exists, with eroding, steep (2 in high) banks. The culvert was perched approximately 90 cm above the water at the time of the May 29, 2013 survey, similar to May 10, 2021 conditions. Generally, morphology is dominated by 85% flats, 10% pools and 5% riffles (compared to 30% riffles, 20% runs, 30% pools and 20% flats documented in 2004 field work). Creek substrate is dominated by sand and gravel, with some scattered boulders and cobble. Boulders have been placed along the banks and instream a short distance downstream of the culvert, likely to provide bank stabilization. A debris jam was present instream backing up some flow a short distance downstream of the culvert outlet in May 2021. Within the wetland downstream, the channel contains low flow conditions (flats dominant) and the channel braids approximately 65 in downstream of Hidden Valley Road. Riparian habitat consists of cultural thicket, including Staghorn Sumac (Rhus typhina), Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), Crack Willow (Salix fragilis), Alternate -leaved Dogwood (Cornus alternifolia) and juniper (Juniperus spp.), growing along the banks. Within approximately 40 in downstream of the road, overhead cover decreases, as the creek flows through marsh habitat comprised of mainly Reed Canary Grass and cattail. Further downstream, the creek flows along the wooded edge of upland habitat for a portion of its length, with Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Eastern White Cedar and Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum ssp. Saccharum), providing cover. The channel flows through a short moderate - high gradient section in this reach. As noted further above, the main channel diffuses into the wetland. A portion of this wetland was previously considered to be coniferous swamp, however, a large beaver dam located downstream (Figure 3) has flooded the swamp, and its presence appears to be converting the swamp to a marsh, with dead standing trees present. These dams were confirmed to be present in May 2015. Electrofishing efforts and reconnaissance investigations did not reveal the presence of fish in this tributary during the 2004 survey and further during a 2015 survey completed as part of the Waterloo Ion LRT project (LGL 2020). As this creek originates a short distance upstream of Highway 8 from industrial lands; fish colonization opportunities are limited. In addition, several beaver dams, and barriers are known downstream. This creek contributes indirectly to known fish habitat located downstream in the Grand River. 3.3.1.3 East Creek East Creek is the main drainage stream for the central basin and flows south-easterly and into the Grand River. Erosion has been documented during peak flows (Planck 1979). The corrugated steel pipe culvert at Hidden Valley Road is significantly perched, and along with steep gradients provides a significant barrier to fish movement. This watercourse was only investigated at the Hidden Valley Road crossing in 2021. Descriptions and mapping details (see Figure 3 notes) from reaches upstream are taken from the results of previous LGL investigations. East Creek arises from the convergence of North and West Creeks and contains moderate gradients. Portions of this watercourse were investigated in 2013. In 2013, the average wetted channel width ranged from 1.5 to 1.7 in; with a mean depth of 0.15 in (bankfull width is 3.2 in and bankfull depths are 0.4 m). The creek channel morphology consisted of riffles along 75% of its reach, with pools and flats comprising LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 11 Page 523 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 the remaining 25% of its reaches. The creek was shaded for about 60% of its reach through ESPA 27 and is comprised of 85% rubble, 10% gravel, and 5% sand substrates. Instream cover is dominated by boulders and undercut banks. Creek banks are generally stable throughout the ESPA 27. At Hidden Valley Road, the creek forms a large meander upstream of the road. Toe rock has been placed along the outer bank of this bend. Riffle morphology is dominant, measuring 2.5-3 in wide (bankfull) and water depth measuring 10-15 cm deep at the time of the May 10, 2021 survey. Seepage is abundant here, entering the channel by travelling down the road embankment. The seepage appears to originate from the private property located to the west, originating from an underground pipe. The culvert under Hidden Valley Road is a 90 cm CSP that is encased in concrete. The crossing is comprised of two outlets (one overflow) and is steeply sloped. Armourstone lines the culvert inlet/outlet and a portion of the banks upstream and downstream of the road. Downstream of the road, large boulders have been placed perpendicular to the flow, creating a riffle pool morphology. No fish were observed in May 2021 survey and no fish were captured in East Creek during electrofishing efforts in 2004. East Creek and its riparian vegetation provide the most direct vegetation connection to the main Grand River corridor from the central Hidden Valley area. The presence of a perched culvert at Hidden Valley Road prevents the colonization by fish within this creek. This creek provides indirect contributions (i.e., allochthonous materials, nutrients and flow) to the Grand River. 3.3.2 Hofstetter Creek Hofstetter Creek drains an area that has been referred to as the Hofstetter Basin, which includes a portion of the woodlot adjacent to Highway 8 and flows from the wetland area at the northeast section of Hidden Valley underneath Highway 8. The creek empties into the Grand River on the north side of Highway 8. A spring was located at the edge of the adjacent hardwood forest that contributes flow to Hofstetter Creek and was noted to have water quality characteristics typical of groundwater in the area (Planck 1979). Hofstetter Creek lost about one third of its contributing area when Highway 8 was constructed, and River Road was re-routed (Limnoterra 1980) as cited in the River Road Extension Class EA Natural Heritage Features Report (LGL 2014). As noted, the creek originates from a wetland pocket located on the south side of Hidden Valley Road (shallow marsh/ mixed swamp). In 2004 and 2021 survey, groundwater seeps were noted in the wetland. One defined channel is present within approximately 20 in upstream of the Hidden Valley Road culvert, with braided channels present upstream of this point. The culvert measures 1.5 in wide (open footed) and extends under both Hidden Valley Road and Highway 8. Wetted channel widths range from 0.3 — 1 in, and channel depths of 0.05 — 0.08 in, with a substrate mix of 100% silt/organics near the wetland, with coarser substrates present within approximately 10 in of the culvert (sand 70%; cobble 20%; gravel 10%). Water conditions were clear, and water was slow flowing on all visits. Vegetation adjacent to the stream is dominated by ash and poplar, with skunk cabbage and water speedwell near the culvert and cattail dominant further upstream within the marsh. Phragmites dominates the wetland further west. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 12 Page 524 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 Downstream of Highway 8, the channel is ditched, with placed riprap along the banks within approximately 8 in downstream of the culvert, as recorded in previous LGL studies (LGL 2004). This channel widens into a 20 in wide cattail wetland pocket, and drainage flows through another culvert under a private driveway, and into a deciduous forest on the north side of the laneway. As this is private property, the channel could not be followed after this point, but flow is eventually directed through a 75 cm diameter plastic culvert and drains down a high gradient boulder channel (with steps) located within approximately 17 in upstream of the Highway 8 bridge at the Grand River. No fish were observed within Hofstetter Creek during aquatic habitat surveys conducted in 2004 and no fish were captured (LGL 2014). The gradient of the slope along the Grand River is considered a barrier to upstream fish and mussel movement. DFO and MNRF databases do not identify any species at risk in Hofstetter Creek. 3.3.3 Hidden Valley Pond The Hidden Valley Pond is situated at the north base of the Esker Ridge and adjacent to the marsh in the southern portion of Hidden Valley as shown on Figure 3. It is located at the base of one of the steepest sloping areas of the esker and within the edge of Beech -Maple Forest with forest on three sides, and the side that is open provides a surface water connection to the remaining marsh, although a large amount of woody debris/beaver dam acts effectively to close in the pond. The pond is approximately 100 in in length and 40 in wide, with a depth ranging from 1.0 in at a distance of 0.3 in from the shore to unknown depths in the middle, as identified in 2013 investigations. 3.3.4 Hidden Valley Marsh The Hidden Valley Marsh is designated as a Provincially Significant Wetland, with limits as shown in Figure 3. The marsh was known in previous studies as the "Central Wetland Area' because of its location within the central portion of Hidden Valley ESPA. The marsh consists of a shallow marsh with an open water component, notably along the southern edges of the marsh, as well as in the form of wetland channels through cattail -dominant vegetation. North of this community, an equally large adjacent coniferous swamp is present. Subsequent visits in 2012 and 2013 indicate the coniferous swamp has become flooded out presumably due to beaver activity, and most of the trees are now dead as the area has also converted, or is in the process of converting, to marsh. There also exists coniferous and deciduous swamp in the south easterly area of Hidden Valley in the vicinity of East Creek. Since 2004-2008 field investigations, this area is also flooded out presumably due to beaver activity and is now a large open water feature (Stantec 2013). This marsh was not visited in 2021; however, air photo interpretation continues to show shallow water habitat. No fish were observed or captured in the main marsh during prior electrofishing or during salamander/minnow trapping from 2004 to 2008. Previous reports indicated that fish habitat within this unit was limited by the high summer temperatures and low dissolved oxygen levels associated with poor water quality of the shallow marsh, as well as limited opportunity to gain access to this area through the receiving and discharging watercourses (Ecologistics 1979). 3.3.5 Frog Pond The `frog pond' is situated east of the main area of Hidden Valley and is a depressional area adjacent to a residence and Hidden Valley Road. The pond is comprised of swamp thicket with dense shrubs within the wetted basin area. Edges consist of scattered trees and shrubs with pioneering vegetation beneath. No inflow LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 14 Page 526 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 or outflow channel is noted for this feature. Stantec (2013) indicates that surface water at this location is perched and not connected with groundwater levels in the shallow aquifer, that water in the pond is sourced from local runoff The pond is well utilized by breeding amphibians as documented through anuran calling. No evidence of fish use has been noted by LGL through trapping in 2007 and 2008, and Stantec (2013) did indicate the pond dries up completely at times. Stantec (2013) indicated that in 2012 monitoring, the pond contained water from April until late June, but was dry on July 4, 2012, as confirmed through direct observation. 3.3.6 Aquatic Species at Risk Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Aquatic Species at Risk mapping identifies the following Species at Risk found or potentially found within the Hidden Valley Creek System: • Silver Shiner (Notropis photogenic), designated as Threatened COSSARO and COSEWIC and listed as a Schedule 1 species (under SARA). Within the Grand River (reach adjacent to Hidden Valley), the following is identified: • Black Redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei), designated as Threatened by COSSARO and COSEWIC and listed on Schedule 1 (under SARA), Critical Habitat identified • Silver Shiner, Critical Habitat identified • Wavy Rayed Lampmussel (Lampsilis fasiola), designated as Threatened by COSSARO and Special Concern by COSEWIC • Rainbow Mussel (Villosa iris), designated as Special Concern by COSSARO and COSEWIC, Schedule 1 (under SARA) Given the barriers present within the Hidden Valley system upstream of the Grand River confluence as well as the lack of direct evidence of fish use, Silver Shiner presence within these reaches is unlikely. In addition, this species is typically found in large streams (30-100 in wide), supporting deep pool habitats and swift currents; habitat which is not present within this system. The Grand River has high potential to support all species listed above, and critical habitat for Silver Shiner and Black Redhorse have been identified. Critical habitat is identified as the species' crucial habitat in the recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species. Wavy Rayed and Rainbow mussel federal designations have been downgraded within the last five years; however, Wavy Rayed Lampmussel remains protected under the Endangered Species Act, as a Threatened species. 3.4 VEGETATION AND VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Vegetation communities were identified through air photo interpretation, compiling data from background studies in Hidden Valley, and field investigations done on April 27 and October 13 of 2021 to update existing information on vegetation communities and address data gaps within the study area, with a focus on potential pumping station locations. Air photos were interpreted to determine the limits and general characteristics of vegetation communities. Field investigations of natural/semi-natural vegetation as part of studies in the past were conducted within the study area in 2004 on April 29 and 30, May 20, June 30, July 9 and 29, September 15 and September 24 to map and describe vegetation communities and to conduct a botanical survey. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 15 Page 527 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 Vegetation communities were classified according to the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application (Lee et al. 1998). Communities were sampled using a plotless method for the purpose of determining general composition and structure of the vegetation. Vascular plant nomenclature follows Newmaster and Ragupathy (2008) with a few exceptions. Plant species status was reviewed for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (2009) and Ontario (Oldham and Brinker 2009). The ELC classification for the study area is provided on Figure 4. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 16 Page 528 of 917 man's S fLL u v a ✓z - � °o F ce.:dr o S � ►E *� o rr U4�U o�LL 0O LL of jP $ C hY u C U � 000 0 c w N -O N E O m -O 'co co � JAN m = O Ld m� o U Q (6 v 0) m z LU � (A WWoaom��������ooLLLLLLLL000000000000LLLL�LLLL���� �o����m�m�o � � m � 2E C7LU J NEI 21,110111,11*11 N man's S fLL u v a ✓z - � °o F ce.:dr o S � ►E *� o rr U4�U o�LL 0O LL of jP $ C hY u C U � 000 0 c w N -O N E O m -O 'co co � JAN m �.o U Q (6 0 � (A WWoaom��������ooLLLLLLLL000000000000LLLL�LLLL���� �o����m�m�o � � m � 2E man's S fLL u v a ✓z - � °o F ce.:dr o S � ►E *� o rr U4�U o�LL 0O LL of jP $ C hY u C U � 000 0 c w N -O N E O m -O 'co co �C: N N w N -O N E O m -O 'co co Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report 3.4.1 Vegetation Communities May 2022 File No. TA9080 Land use within the study area comprises residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial developments. Natural vegetation communities include remnant woodlots near Highway 8, the Hidden Valley core, and the vegetation associated with the Grand River corridor. Anthropogenic vegetation communities such as ornamental plantings, agricultural fields, hedgerows and old fields surround these natural vegetation communities. To date, a total of 54 Ecological Land Classification (ELC) vegetation communities have been identified in the study area. The composition of these vegetation communities outlined in Appendix A. Within the Hidden Valley area, a mixture of upland and wetland communities is present. Dry -Fresh Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest (FOD5) is the dominant community type in upland locations. In these communities, Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum saccharum) grows in pure stands or in association with American beech (Fagus grandifolia), basswood (Tilia americana) and white ash (Fraxinus americana). In 2012, a severe storm toppled the trees and opened a portion of the canopy near Highway 8 and in 2021 forest management further opened the canopy of these communities. Isolated groves of mixed and coniferous forests exist within the forested units, including a Fresh -Moist Hemlock Coniferous Forest (FOC3-1), a Fresh -Moist Sugar Maple -Hemlock Mixed Forest (FOM6-1), both dominated by eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and a Fresh -Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forests (FOC4-1), dominated by eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis). Forested communities located along the fringe of these extensively wooded areas include Fresh -Moist White Cedar -Hardwood Mixed Forests (FOM7), Dry -Fresh Polar Deciduous Forests (FOD3-1), Dry -Fresh White Ash Deciduous Forests (FOD4-2) and Fresh -Moist Poplar Deciduous Forests (FOD8-1). These communities are typically comprised of younger stands of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), large - tooth aspen (P. grandidentata), white ash, basswood, yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) and white birch (B. papyrifera). Forested communities located along the bank of the Grand River include Dry -Fresh Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest (FOD5), Mix Forest (FOM), Dry -Fresh Deciduous Forest (FOD4), Fresh -Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest (FOC3), and Fresh -Moist Lowland Willow Deciduous Forest (FOD7). These communities have varying degrees of disturbance due to the steep slope and influence from the adjacent residential community. A large Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh (MAS2-1) dominated by common cattail (Typha latifolia) is situated at the base of the esker slope in the central portion of the study area. An extensive Mixed Swamp (SWM) dominated by yellow birch, black ash (Fraxinus nigra), eastern white cedar, tamarack (Larix laricina) lies to the north and a Deciduous Swamp (SWD) extends along the creek to the southwest of the MAS2-1 community. Wetland boundaries and community dominance has changed since 2005. The tamarack coniferous swamp (SWC3-2) along the creek had transitioned into a cattail dominated community, noted during the 2012 field investigation. Dead standing conifers remain in this swamp community in 2021. A second wetland area directly adjacent to Hidden Valley Road at the northeast corner of the study area is dominated by a Narrow -leaved Sedge Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAM2-5) and a White Cedar -Hardwood Mineral Mixed Swamp (SWM 1-1). Additionally, wetland communities occur along the bank and an outfall to the Grand River in the southern portion of the study area, Willow and Manitoba Maple Deciduous Swamp (SWD4 and SWD4-1) are found throughout. Small pockets of Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh (MAS2-1) and Meadow Marsh (MAM2-10) communities line the bank of the river. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 18 Page 530 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 Cultural communities persist in areas around the periphery of the woodlands, natural areas and dominate the southern portion of the study area. Cultural community types include Dry -Moist Old Field Meadows (CUM1-1), Mineral Cultural Thickets (CUT1), Mineral Cultural Woodlands (CUW1), Mineral Cultural Savannah (CUS1) and Deciduous (CUP1) and Coniferous Plantations (CUP3). These communities are under various stages of maturity and contribute to the diversity of habitat within the intact natural vegetation communities. Vegetation communities south of Hidden Valley Road and River Birch Street consist of cultural communities that have established following agricultural land use. These communities consist of Dry - Moist Old Field Meadows (CUM1-1), Willow Mineral Deciduous Swamp (SWD4-1), Dry -Fresh Poplar Deciduous Forest (FOD3), White Pine Cultural Plantation (CUP3-2), Cultural Thicket (CUT1), Reed - canary Grass Mineral Meadow (MAM2-2), and Common Reed Mineral Meadow (MAM2). This area contains three storm water management ponds. 3.4.1.1 Flora To date, a total of 410 vascular plant taxa have been recorded within the study area. One hundred and fourteen (114) taxa, (28 % of the recorded flora) are considered introduced and non-native to Ontario. Southern species include James' Sedge (Carex jamesii), purple Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium purpureum), richweed (Collinsonia canadensis) and spicebush (Lindera benzoin) which were observed during initial surveys (2004, 2012 and 2013). A master list of all flora recorded from background data, prior field investigations by LGL and 2021 investigations in support of this study is attached in Appendix A. 3.4.2 Plant Species at Risk, Provincially Rate, and Regionally Rare 3.4.2.1 Plants No new locally or provincially significant species were noted during the 2021 field investigation, except for Common Juniper (Juniperus communis). All other species listed below were identified during the previous field investigations for the South Kitchener River Road Extension (2013). An extensive search for these species was not completed during the updated survey as many of these species were outside of the proposed pumping station and forcemain alternatives. The following description describes in further detail the species and where they were previously found. It's possible some of these species have been extirpated, such as fringed gentian (Gentianopsis crinita). Mapping of known records for rare or SAR plants is shown on Figure 4, where this information is available, and summarized on Table 2. Table 2: Summary of Local Status Plants Observed in Study Area Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Local Status Waterloo white spruce G5 S5 x common juniper G5 S5 x common hackberry G5 S4 x black walnut G5 S4 x fringed gentian S5 x LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 19 Page 531 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 stoneroot G5 S4 x white wild licorice G5 S5 x purple joe-pye-weed G5T? S3 x James' sedge G5 S3 x bristle -stalked sedge G5T? S5 x burreed sedge G5 S5 x wood's sedge G4Q S4 x sand dropseed S4 x wild leek G4G5 S1? x James' sedge, Purple joe-pye weed — Two species considered provincially rare was noted during prior field investigations (2004, 2012 and 2013). James' sedge (Carex jamesii), which is both provincially rare (SRank: S3) and rare in the Region of Waterloo, is located on steeper slopes in the Dry -Fresh Sugar Maple - Basswood Deciduous Forest (FOD5-6)/Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple -White Ash Deciduous Forest (FOD5-8) located south -centrally in the Hidden Valley ESPA area. Purple Joe-pye weed (Eupatorium purpureum), which is both provincially rare (SRank: S3) and rare in the Region of Waterloo, occurs in the same general location, but it is restricted to the upper slope. These species were not reconfirmed in 2021. Wood's sedge, richweed, fringed gentian, bristle -stalked sedge, sand drop sedge — Over the course of botanical inventories since 1979, several species considered rare in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo were noted, including Wood's sedge (Carex woodii), richweed (Collinsonia canadensis), fringed gentian and bristle -stalked sedge (Carex leptalea). Wood's sedge and richweed were found mainly on the steeper slopes in the Dry -Fresh Sugar Maple -Basswood Deciduous Forest (FOD5-6)/Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple - White Ash Deciduous Forest (FOD5-8) located south -centrally in the study area. A population of fringed gentian was located in the Mineral Cultural Thicket (CUT1)/Mineral Cultural Woodland (CUW1) community located in the northeastern portion of the study area (but has not been reconfirmed since the early 2000's). Bristle -stalked sedge occurs widely in wetlands in the study area. Sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus) was documented in the old quarry at the north east corner of Wabanaki Road and Hidden Valley Road. White spruce, black walnut, common juniper, common hackberry (not mapped)— these species are throughout the study area, often associated with former homesteads. White Wild Licorice, Burreed Sedge, Stoneroot and Wild Leek (not mapped) — Over the course of the botanical inventories since 1979, these species, considered rare in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, were noted within the Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest (FOD5) of the study area. This includes White Wild Licorice (Galium circaezans), Burreed Sedge (Carex sparganioides), Wild Leek (Allium burickii) and Stoneroot (Collinsonia canadensis). The latter species was also observed with the Birch -Conifer Organic Swamp which is a community in the larger wetland in the centre of the study area. 3.4.2.2 SAR Plants Ginseng - Ecologistics Limited (1979) reported `a single plant' of ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) occurring in the south-central portion of the study area (Ecologistics Limited 1979). Ginseng is endangered in Canada and Ontario (SRank: S3). No ginseng was observed during the 2004- 2021 field work, despite extensive LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 20 Page 532 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 searches based on Ecologistics' (1979) mapping. It is possible it is extirpated from the study area as it has not been reconfirmed since the 1979 reporting. No location is shown on mapping for this record. Black Ash (not mapped) - LGL notes that black ash is recorded in the study area within the swamps (SWD 2-2, SWM 1-1, SWD 2-2, SWM 6-1, FOC 2-1, FOC 3-1, FOC 4-2 and SWM 6-1). This species was added to the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list on January 26, 2022 as Endangered, and is listed a Threatened under COSEWIC. However, the MECP has temporarily suspected protections for black ash, for a period of two years from the date it was added to the SARO list (O.Reg. 23/22). Proponents will not need to seek authorizations for black ash during that time. Given the timeframe of projects occurring in the study area, considering for this species and its habitat may need to be considered at future stages. Butternut —Butternut (Juglans cinerea) were documented in the study area in 2007, 2012 and 2013 during prior site investigations by LGL. Additionally, one Butternut was observed in 2021, located outside of the proposed pumping station and forcemain alternatives. No additional details were provided by the MECP at this time. Eighteen (18) Butternut are recorded in the project summary database by LGL for this study area, but no health status updates were completed in 2021. No additional details were provided by the MECP at this time. 3.4.2.3 Communities Vegetation community status was reviewed for Ontario (OMNR 2021a). All but one of the vegetation communities identified within the study area are considered widespread and common in Ontario and secure globally (OMNR 2021). The one community with status is the Open Tallgrass Prairie (TPO1) habitat noted along the roadsides and berms surrounding the newer housing developments south of Hidden Valley Road. This is likely as a result of applied seed mix, as opposed to establishing from native seed bank at site given the extent of site alteration during development. This community type is ranked S 1 provincially. 3.5 WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Wildlife habitat in the study area was characterized to inform the EA through background information and field work in 2021 which included updated breeding bird surveys. Wildlife habitat and incidental wildlife was documented through evidence of presence (scat, tracks, dens, etc.) during all site visits. Screening for suitable SAR habitat and the potential for SAR was also conducted. Wildlife habitat in the study area is generally comprised of a mix of wetland, forest, riparian and field habitat bordered by the Grand River corridor to the south and east of the study area, and by the urban landscape to the north and west. Highway 8 runs parallel to Hidden Valley to the northeast of the study area, and there are small remnant woodlots on either side of highway. Prior to the construction of the highway, these woodlots would have been contiguous with the woodlots at the Hidden Valley area. In Hidden Valley, specialized wildlife habitat has been noted in previous studies (Ecologistics 1979, LGL 2014, LGL 2020). The open water, vernal pools and pond features of the southern woodlot are known amphibian breeding ponds for Species at Risk. Hidden Valley is known locally for its richness particularly in numbers of bird species, as noted by local naturalists, and previous works. Hence, it has been referred to as `Bird Ridge" in past studies (Ecologistics 1979). It continues to be a popular birding site for residents, visitors and clubs, including the former Kitchener Waterloo Field Naturalists. Forest interior habitat is present in the deciduous forests, supporting LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 21 Page 533 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 both interior species (Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla) and area sensitive species (Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)). In addition, the Hidden Valley PSW is documented as supporting Sora (Porzana carohna) and Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola). A total of 47 wildlife species were documented during 2021 field investigations, including one amphibian species, 40 bird species, 6 mammal species and one reptile species (Appendix B). The following subsections summarize the wildlife habitat and features within the study area. 3.5.1 Breeding Birds To document the bird species of the project area, a review of background information and breeding bird surveys were conducted as part of field investigations in 2021. Background information included data from field investigations completed by LGL in 2004, 2012, 2013, and 2020 for other projects in the Hidden Valley area. Breeding bird surveys in the study area were completed in June 2021 (Figure 5). 3.5.1.1 Background Information Background information included data from field investigations completed by LGL in 2004, 2012, 2013, and 2020 for other projects in the Hidden Valley area. In 2004, breeding bird surveys were conducted using 5 -minute point counts in selected habitats representative of the study area, as well as owl surveys; snag, stick nest and tree cavity searches; and incidental observations. In 2012 focused area searches were completed adjacent to road right of ways and agricultural fields in Hidden Valley to target potential habitat use by Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), species at risk under the ESA. In 2013, point counts for breeding birds and area searches (to document all species seen and heard) were completed in Hidden Valley, with a focus in areas where road alignments were likely and feasible as part of the River Road Extension Project. In 2020, breeding bird point counts were conducted within the Hidden Valley Road right-of-way where it parallels Highway 8 as part of wildlife investigations for the Waterloo Ion LRT alignment. 3.5.1.2 Findings Breeding bird surveys using 10 -minute point counts were completed in the study area on June 1 and 17, 2021. Weather conditions were optimal on both days, with low wind, 60% cloud cover and a temperature of 15°C on June 1; and no wind, clear skies and a temperature of 9°C on June 17. In addition to the bird survey, incidental wildlife observations were completed through visual and auditory observations as well as indirect incidental observations (i.e. tracks, scat, and scents). A list of all wildlife species documented by LGL within the study area is provided in Appendix B. Breeding bird survey locations in 2021 were focused on the short list of pumping station location alternatives as provided to LGL by MTE (Figure 5). A total of 112 bird species have been recorded for the Hidden Valley area from records dating back to 1979 up to, and including, 2021 breeding bird surveys by LGL. Of these records, 24 species are considered area sensitive when reviewed against criteria outlined in the MNR (1998) Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide, and 15 are considered interior forest species. Of the species recorded, 41 species are considered Regionally Significant in the Region of Waterloo. A detailed running list of species documented in the project area is provided in Appendix B. There are five bird species that were documented in 1979 and have not been documented since, these include Blue -winged Teal, Bobolink, Eastern Towhee, Ruffed Grouse and Veery. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 22 Page 534 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 A total of 40 bird species were observed during 2021 breeding bird surveys, 30 of the bird species observed are regulated under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) (Table 3). Four of the bird species, Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) are protected under the Fish and Wildlife Conventions Act (FWCA) and Wild Turkey (Mleagris gallopavo) is a game species under FWCA. Some of the observed species are not under any legislative protection and these include: American Crow (Corvus brachyhrynchos), Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), and Red -winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 23 Page 535 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 Species at risk (SAR) encountered during the 2021 field surveys include Barn Swallows (Hirundo rustica) seen foraging over point count location BBS6 on June 1, 2021. The Barn Swallow is regulated as `Threatened' under the Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA) and offered habitat protection and is also listed as `Threatened' on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA). The other SAR bird encountered during field surveys was Eastern Wood -pewee (Contopus virens), heard singing at point count locations BBS 1 and BBSS on June 1, 2021. Eastern Wood -pewee is listed as Special Concern provincially and federally. The breeding bird surveys found breeding bird evidence (BBE) for 38 species of birds (Table 3). Breeding evidence was confirmed for four species, determined as probable for 16 species, and possible for 18 species (Table 3). Note that species tallied under confirmed were excluded from probable and possible tallies, and species tallied under probable were excluded from possible tallies as only the highest degree of breeding evidence was considered for each species. Confirmed BBE was demonstrated by a nest containing eggs for Killdeer, and by fledged or downy young for American Goose, Downy Woodpecker, and Mallard. Species classified as probable breeders were recorded through evidence such as a permanent breeding territory, and a pair observed in their breeding season in suitable nesting habitat. Species classified as possible breeders were recorded through evidence such as observations of a male singing or an individual recorded in suitable breeding habitat. Table 3 — Results of breeding bird surveys conducted in the study area in 2021 Common Name Scientific Name SARA/ ESA Legal Status BBE American Crow Corvus brach hr nchos - Possible (H) American Goldfinch Sinus tristis MBCA Probable P American Robin Turdus mi ratorius MBCA Probable P Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula FWCA(P) Probable T Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica THR MBCA Possible (H) Belted Kingfisher Me acer le alc on FWCA(P) Possible (H) Black -capped Chickadee Poecile atrica illus MBCA Probable T Blue Jay C anocitta cristata FWCA(P) Probable T Canada Goose Branta canadensis MBCA Confirmed F Chipping Sparrow S izella passerina MBCA Possible (S) Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula - Possible (H) Common Merganser Mer us merganser MBCA Possible H Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas MBCA Probable T Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens MBCA Confirmed (FY) Eastern Kingbird T rannus tvrannus MBCA Possible (H) Eastern Wood -Pewee Conto us vixens SC MBCA Possible (S) European Starling Sturnus vulgaris - Possible H Field Sparrow S izella pusilla MBCA Possible S Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis MBCA Probable (P) Great Crested Flycatcher M iarchus crinitus MBCA Possible (H) Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus MBCA Possible S House Sparrow Passer domesticus - Possible H House Wren Troglodytes aedon MBCA Probable T Indigo Bunting Passerina c anea MBCA Possible (S) LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 25 Page 537 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 Common Name Scientific Name SARA/ Legal ESA Status BBE Killdeer Charadrius voci ecus MBCA Confirmed NE Mallard Anas platyrhynchos MBCA Confirmed (FY) Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura MBCA Possible (H) Northern Cardinal Cardinalis MBCA Probable T Northern Flicker Cola tes auratus MBCA Possible S Northern Rough -winged Swallow Stel ido ter x serri ennis MBCA Probable (T) Pied -billed Grebe Podil mbus podiceps MBCA Possible (H) Red -eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus MBCA Probable (T) Red-tailed Hawk Buteo Jamaicensis FWCA P Probable T Red -winged Blackbird A elaius phoeniceus - Probable T Ring -billed Gull Larus delawarensis MBCA Observed (X) Song Sparrow Melos iza melodia MBCA Probable (T) Tree Swallow Tach cineta bicolor MBCA Possible H Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura FWCA P Observed X Wild Turkey Melea ris gallopavo FWCA(G) Probable P Yellow Warbler Seto ha a petechia MBCA Probable (T) Legend: Abbreviation Description SARA/ESA THR Designated Threatened under Ontario Endangered Species Act and Canada Species at Risk Act SC Designated Special Concern under Ontario Endangered Species Act and Canada Species at Risk Act Legal Status: - Not protected MBCA Migratory Bird Convention Act FWCA(P) Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act Protected Species FWCA(G) Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act Game Species BBE: Breeding Bird Evidence Observed: X Species observed in its breeding season (no evidence of breeding). Possible Breeding: H Species observed in its breeding season in suitable nesting habitat. S Singing male present in its breeding season in suitable nesting habitat. Probable Breeding: T Permanent territory presumed through registration of territorial song on at least two days, a week apart, at the same place. P Pair observed in their breeding season in suitable nesting habitat. Confirmed Breeding: FY Fledged young or downy young, including young incapable of sustained flight. CE Nest containing eggs. 3.5.2 Mammals Mammals can be difficult to sample, as they are secretive by nature and mainly nocturnal or crepuscular. For the purposes of this study, mammal surveys were limited to incidental observations and background review from previous studies. A total of 23 mammal species have been documented in the study area during LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 26 Page 538 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 previous studies done prior to 2021, and five of these species were documented in 2021 (Table 3). Many of the mammal species documented are protected under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA), as protected, game or furbearing species (Table 3). The six mammal species documented in the study area as incidental observations during site investigations in 2021 are regulated under the FWCA: eastern chipmunk is a protected species; eastern cottontail, eastern gray squirrel, and white-tailed deer are game species; muskrat and mink are considered furbearing species. None of the mammal species documented in the study area are species at risk. Hidden Valley provides habitat for a variety of mammal species. The majority of the species documented are tolerant of human activities such as coyotes, raccoons, eastern cottontail, and skunks are commonly observed throughout this area. The most prominent mammal species in Hidden Valley is white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), where a herd of 10 individuals was noted in March 2004. In addition, 3 fawns were observed in the summer of 2004. This agrees with incidental observations of past and present residents who report that the deer herd seems to reach its peak at approximately 13 to 15 individuals (W. Tschirhart pers. comm.). Both fawning and wintering areas were noted within Hidden Valley area bounded by Hidden Valley Road, with numerous trails through the interior. Agricultural areas in the northwestern portion and browse are significant food sources for the herd. A minor corridor of travel was noted in the vicinity of the southeast corner, where the deer herd was noted several times, which would be a short route to the ESPAs associated with the Grand River corridor, most notably ESPA 28 Petrifying Spring and ESPA 31 Homer Watson Park. The East Creek is the most prominent corridor connecting the Hidden Valley interior to the Grand River, and one deer carcass was found in this area during earlier aquatic investigations (prior to 2021). Bat surveys were not conducted during 2021 field investigations and were not done during previous studies in Hidden Valley by LGL. There are currently four bat species listed as Endangered in Ontario and afforded protection under the provincial Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA 2007): Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus); Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis); Eastern Small -footed Bat (Myotis leibii); and, Tri- colored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus). The ESA 2007 affords protection for individuals of these species (subsection 9(1)) and their habitat (subsection 10(1)). Given that species-specific habitat regulations have not yet been developed for SAR bats, habitat is protected according to the general definition provided in the Act. Specifically, according to section 2(1), the Act protects "an area on which the species depends, directly or indirectly, to carry on its life processes, including processes such as reproduction, rearing, hibernation, migration or feeding". Of the SAR bats listed above, Little Brown Myotis tends to be the most commonly encountered in treed communities because its population is larger than those of other SAR in the province (MNRF 2017). In the case of some SAR bats, maternal roost habitat can include buildings/bridges, rock crevices, caves and other features. Three of the four bat SAR in Ontario use trees with openings, cavities or peeling/sloughing bark in various stages of decay (commonly referred to as snag trees). The Tri -coloured Bat relies on tree foliage to establish roosts and in particular, clusters of dead or dying leaves mainly in mature oak trees and sometimes in maple trees (MNRF 2017). At the time of this report, we are not aware of any bat studies that may have been undertaken in the Hidden Valley area, and as such, LGL would recommend that treed habitat is treated as candidate SAR habitat for bats. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 27 Page 539 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report Table 4 — Mammal species documented in the study area May 2022 File No. TA9080 Common Name Scientific Name FWCA Documented during surveys prior to 2021 Documented during 2021 surveys American Mink Mustela vison F X X Beaver Castor canadensis F X Coyote Canis latrans F X Deer Mouse Perom scus maniculatus - X Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus P X X Eastern Cottontail S lvila us oridanus G X X Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis G X X Ermine Mustela ermina - X European Hare Le us euro aeus G X Groundhog Marmota monax - X Least Weasel Mustela rixosa (nivalis) F X Long-tailed Weasel Mustela enata F X Meadow Jumping Mouse Za us hudsonius - X Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus - X Muskrat Ondatra zibethica F X X Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucom s sabrinus P X Northern Raccoon Procyon lotor F X Northern Short -tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda P X Red Fox Vul es vul es F X Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus F X Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis F X White-footed Mouse Perom scus leuco us - X White-tailed Deer Odocoileus vir inianus G X X Legend: Abbreviation Description FWCA: Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act - Not protected F Furbearing Species P Protected Species G Game Species 3.5.3 Reptiles and Amphibians 3.5.3.1 Background Information Previous work by Ecologistics (1979) documented an extensive list of herpetofauna species, including Jefferson salamander complex (Ambystoma jeffersonianum and associated jeffersomanium-laterale polyploids), Five -lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) and American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) in addition to other common amphibian species. Five -lined skink and American bullfrog have not been confirmed for the project area by LGL. Field efforts in 2004 were directed towards determining the presence/absence and extent of habitat use by reptile and amphibian species in Hidden Valley. Spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum) were noted in the main pond at the base of the esker ridge and were the only species of mole salamander noted during night time surveys in 2004. Subsequently, additional intensive sampling completed in 2007 and 2008 confirmed the presence of Jefferson salamander and Jefferson dominated polyploids. The information on LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 28 Page 540 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 the detailed investigations was provided to the MNR, who then determined the extent of habitat regulations in Hidden Valley. Since that time, the 2018 habitat regulations obtained through City records indicate an update the regulated habitat for the species in the study area, and are the most current lines under consideration. During 2021 field investigations, drift fences and closed pitfall traps were noted in locations in the study area, indicating that ongoing surveys for salamanders are being conducted by consultants for the landowner, but those results were not available to the us for this report. Targeted skink surveys (area searches) were conducted within the forested areas with a focus on the esker ridge in 2004. No five -lined skinks were observed during these efforts, or in any of the other field work conducted in the project area between 2004 and 2013. Surveys in spring 2013 specifically targeted reptile (basking) and amphibians, and observations were also completed as part of observations during bird and aquatic habitat work. Snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentine) was a new addition in 2013 to the list of reptile species. This species is listed as Special Concern both provincially and federally. There were two separate observations of Snapping turtle, including one female actively laying eggs within an agricultural field. The second observation was of one individual Snapping turtle basking in the pond that is about 100 in southeast of the agricultural fields that border residential properties along Hidden Valley Road. 3.5.3.2 Findings One amphibian and one reptile species were observed in the study area during daytime site investigations in 2021 as incidental observations: Green Frog (Lithobates clamitans) and Midland Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta marginata). Painted turtles have previously been seen within the majority of ponds and marsh areas of Hidden Valley, including within the storm water management pond along Wabanaki Drive. A complete summary of species documented in the study area is provided in the running wildlife list in Appendix B. To date, a total of 13 amphibian and 6 reptile species have been documented through a review of background resources and field investigations by LGL (Table 5). Table 5 — Amphibian and reptile species documented in the study area Common Name Scientific Name Documented SARA/ during ESA surveys prior to 2021 Documented during 2021 surveys American Bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus X* American Toad Anaxyrus americanus X Blue -spotted Salamander Amb stoma laterale X Eastern (Red -spotted) Newt Noto hthalmus viridescens X Eastern Red -backed Salamander Plethodon cinereus X Gray Treefrog Hyla versicolor X Green Frog Lithobates clamitans X X Jefferson Salamander Ambystomajeffersonianum END X Jefferson Salamander x Blue- spotted Salamander, Jefferson genome dominates Ambystoma hybrid pop. I X Northern Leopard Frog Lithobates pipiens X Spotted Salamander Amb stoma maculatum X Spring Peeper Pseudacris crucifer X Wood Frog Lithobates s lvatica X Deka 's Brown Snake Storeria deka i X LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 29 Page 541 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 Legend: Abbreviation Documented SARA/ESA END Designated Endangered under Ontario Endangered Species Act and Canada Species at Documented SC Designated Special Concern under Ontario Endangered Species Act and Canada Species SARA/ during Common Name Scientific Name during 2021 ESA surveys prior to 2021 surveys Eastern Gartersnake Thamno his sirtalis sirtalis X Five -lined Skink Plestiodon fasciatus SC X* (Gr.Lakes/St.Lawr. o 'n) Milksnake Lam ro eltis triangulum SC/- X Midland Painted Turtle Chr sem s picta mar inata SC/- X X Snapping Turtle Chel dra ser entina SC X Legend: Abbreviation Description SARA/ESA END Designated Endangered under Ontario Endangered Species Act and Canada Species at Risk Act SC Designated Special Concern under Ontario Endangered Species Act and Canada Species at Risk Act Species only documented during 1979 surveys 3.5.4 Wildlife Species at Risk Species at risk (SAR) birds encountered during the 2021 field surveys include Barn Swallow, listed as `Threatened', and Eastern Wood -pewee, listed as `Special Concern' both provincially and federally (Table 6). Prior to 2021, several additional bird species at risk were documented during previous studies in the study area: Bank Swallow, Bobolink, Chimney Swift, Eastern Meadowlark, and Wood Thrush (Hylochila mustelina) (Table 6). Bank Swallow is listed as Threatened both provincially and federally and was seen foraging over the Grand River west of Highway 8 during surveys done in 2020 for the LRT Ion project. Bobolink is listed as Threatened both provincially and federally, they were reported in 1979 but were not detected in 2004, 2012, 2013 or 2021; currently the habitat patches are too small to support this species. Chimney Swift are listed as Threatened by ESA and SARA, and were recorded in the project area in 2004 and 2013 by LGL foraging near hedgerows in the northwest corner of the Hidden Valley area. Eastern Meadowlark is listed as Threatened both provincially and federally, they were detected by LGL in 2004, but were not detected in 2012, 2013 or 2021; suitable habitat is not present as fields are planted with corn and the small remnant cultural meadow is too small to support this species. Wood Thrush is listed as Threatened federally, and as Special Concern provincially; this species was reported in 1979 by Ecologistics. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 30 Page 542 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report Table 6 — Wildlife Species at Risk documented in the study area May 2022 File No. TA9080 Common Name Scientific Name SARA/ ESA Documented during surveys prior to 2021 Documented during 2021 surveys Jefferson Salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum THR/END X Bank Swallow Riparia riparia THR X Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica THR X X Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus THR X* Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica THR X Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna THR X Eastern Wood -Pewee Contopus vixens SC X X Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina THR/SC X Five -lined Skink (Gr.Lakes/St.Lawr. o 'n) Plethodon fasciatus SC X* Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum SC/- X Midland Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta marginata SC/- X X Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina SC X Legend: Abbreviation Description SARA/ESA END Designated Endangered under Ontario Endangered Species Act and/or Canada Species at Risk Act THR Designated Threatened under Ontario Endangered Species Act and/or Canada Species at Risk Act SC Designated Special Concern under Ontario Endangered Species Act and/or Canada Species atRisk Act Species only documented during 1979 surveys A reported occurrence of overwintering or winter habitat use by Short -eared owl (Asio flammeus) is provided by a local naturalist (pers. comm. to the project team). This species is Special Concern under the ESA. Winter habitat use studies were not completed for the project area and this habitat use is unverified by LGL. The NHIC database lists four additional bird species at risk in the study area, with records from 1935 to 1974: Louisiana Waterthrush (Parkesia motacilla), recorded in 1953; Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), recorded in 1974; Henslow's Sparrow (Centronyx henslowii), recorded in 1948; and Loggerhead Shrike (Lanus ludovicianus), recorded in 1935. There are no confirmed records of these species in more recent times, and records are considered historical. No mammal species at risk have been confirmed for the project area. There are four herpetofauna species at risk documented within the Hidden Valley study area from previous studies (Table 6). Midland painted turtle, a species listed as Special Concern by SARA, was observed in 2021. Five -lined skink has not been reconfirmed for the project area since the 1979 Ecologistics report, and has not been confirmed by LGL. Studies by LGL in 2007 and 2008 confirmed the presence of Jefferson salamander and Jefferson dominated polyploids in Hidden Valley. Habitat regulations for Jefferson salamander have been developed for the project area (see section 4.5.4.1). A single Milksnake was LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 31 Page 543 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 documented due to a road kill on Hidden Valley Road in 2004; given the habitat in the project area, it is possible this species is still present, although cryptic and rarely encountered. Milksnake is no longer considered at risk. Field investigations in 2013 confirmed the presence of Snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentine), a species of Special Concern. It was recorded laying eggs in agricultural fields adjacent to the PSW. 3.5.4.1 Jefferson Salamander Regulated Habitat Work by LGL in 2004-2008 confirmed the presence of Jefferson salamander and Jefferson dominated polyploids in Hidden Valley. Habitat regulations have been developed for the study area. A 2018 map of ESA Regulated Habitat for Jefferson Salamander was provided by the City of Kitchener on record from the MRNF to document the extent of regulated habitat in the study area. Regulated habitat for this SAR includes most of the forested and wetland habitat types located in the centre of the Hidden Valley study area. Without explicit permission to do so from the MECP and given the sensitivity of SAR habitat, LGL has not mapped or shown the extent of regulated habitat on the figures for this project. However, project solutions will be evaluated against this habitat during the evaluation of alternatives. 3.5.4.2 Other SAR A table of potential SAR species (see Appendix D) has been compiled using information from various sources such as NHIC, OBBA, eBird, Ontario Nature, DFO Aquatic SAR Mapping as well as LGL's surveys. Further mitigation, where warranted, and further planning considerations for SAR wildlife are provided in the mitigation recommendations in the following sections under the relevant sub -sections. 3.5.5 Wildlife Habitat Summary The central portion of Hidden Valley bounded by Hidden Valley Road comprises the largest contiguous block of wildlife habitat in the study area. Interior forest habitat is present in this area, and a great diversity of microhabitats results in a diverse wildlife community. The outlying fragments of natural vegetation communities and woodlots across Highway 8 contain fewer observations of wildlife as the highway itself poses a significant barrier to animal movement. The smaller woodlot blocks containing intact vegetation tend to support wildlife tolerant of human disturbance, and may provide limited forage opportunities to resident species within the study area. Animal movement corridors exist within the aquatic corridors within Hidden Valley where East Creek connects the larger contiguous habitat block in the centre to the Grand River Corridor. White tailed deer were also noted to use the agricultural and old fields southwest of Hidden Valley (next to the CNR Tracks) as a corridor to access the ESPAs (ESPA 28 Petrifying Spring and ESPA 31 Homer Watson Park) associated with the Grand River corridor. Bat maternity colonies are considered to be significant wildlife habitat if they meet certain criteria (MNRF 2015). The guide for determining significant wildlife habitat (MNR 2015) outlines that forest or swamp communities that are larger than 10 hectares and have mature trees may be significant. As previously mentioned, bat surveys were not conducted during 2021 field investigations and were not done during previous studies in Hidden Valley, however, there is high potential for SAR bat habitat to be present in the study area. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 32 Page 544 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION May 2022 File No. TA9080 The Project Team has provided three alternative locations for the pumping station and the associated forcemain and/or sanitary sewer routing, as shown on Figure 1. Locations A and C are outside the limits of the Natural Heritage Conservation (City), Core Environmental Feature (Region) and Endangered Species habitat. Location A is within a GRCA regulated area. Location B is within an area with multiple designations: as Core Environmental Feature, Natural Heritage Conservation lands, Provincially Significant Wetland, Significant Woodland, GRCA regulated area, regulated habitat for Endangered Species, and adjacent to the Hofstetter Creek watercourse. A preliminary evaluation of the alternatives has been undertaken to determine potential natural heritage impacts for each option. Table 7 is a summary of the natural heritage features evaluation against the alternatives. Option 1 Do nothing — while this alternative does not address the study problem statement, it avoids any impacts to natural heritage features. Option 2 and 2a — Options 2 and 2a involve a pumping station located at Location A and related sanitary and forcemains. This alternative pumping location is situated in an open agricultural area under active cultivation. It is low lying in the area, and setbacks to wetlands, woodlands, Core Environmental Features, ESPA, wooded areas should be employed to ensure to no impacts to the features or functions. There is potential for indirect impacts to natural heritage features if unmitigated, such as disturbance, or alternation of water balance or risk of deleterious substances entering into wetlands or watercourses. The pumping station is: • Within GRCA regulation limits; • Approximately 25m from the regulated Jefferson Salamander habitat (within open agricultural field); • Sanitary sewer and forcemains are approximately 25m from Butternut locations; • Approximately 40m from PSW; • Pumping station approximately 70m from North Creek; and, • Forcemain/sanitary sewer alignments would avoid creek crossings as it is likely the alignment would occur within the road right away and upstream of the outlet of West Creek. Option 3 and 3a- Options 3 and 3a involve the pumping station location at Location B. While Location B is intended to coincide with planned infrastructure (the ION and River Road Extension), it will require a footprint at surface that will occur outside of the transportation corridor footprint and presents an increase of encroachment or intrusion into the natural heritage features outlined in this area. In addition, a section of the future sanitary sewer for this section is identified within the future River Road extension crossing to the southeast. Figure 6 below approximates the footprint of the ION corridor in relation to location B for the pumping station. LGL was not able to access the most current design footprint for this infrastructure, and we have assumed that pumping station will extend outside the transportation corridor at least in part. It is assumed that the forcemain and sanitary sewer will be placed in the future road right of way. In summary, the pumping station and forcemain/sanitary sewer in relation to identified natural heritage features is: LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 33 Page 545 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 • Within GRCA regulation limits; • Approximately 5m from the regulated Jefferson Salamander habitat (alignment outside the habitat regulation limits, but within the FOD5-7/FOD5-8 Deciduous Forest and areas where individuals of the species have been recorded); • Forcemain and sanitary sewer are in close proximity to Butternut (approximately less than 10m); • Within habitat that has high potential to support SAR bats; • Within habitat that is identified as Significant Wildlife Habitat (deer wintering) by the MNRF; • Within ESPA; • Within Core Environmental Feature; • Approximately 20m from PSW; • Approximately 20m from Hofstetter Creek; and • Forcemain/sanitary sewer alignments would require a crossing of North Creek, however in areas within the future alignment of the revised River Road and ION right of ways. Figure 6: Ion footprint (approximate, in blue) in relation to the Proposed Location B and forcemain/sanitary sewer. Option 4 — Option 4 includes the pumping station at Location C. The pumping station is: • Outside GRCA regulation limits; • Approximately 80m from the regulated Jefferson Salamander regulated habitat (within CUT1/CUM1-1 communities); • Over 120m from PSW; • Over 120m from West Creek; • Does not appear to be in conflict with rare or uncommon plant species; and • Does not cross any creeks with associated forcemain/sanitary sewer alignment. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 34 Page 546 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report 4.1 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE May 2022 File No. TA9080 The overall outcome of the EA evaluation recommended Location A as the preferred alternative for the pumping station (and associated sewer/forcemain) location when assessed against all evaluation factors. The details of the overall evaluation are not included herein. LGL has screened the preferred location to provide mitigation recommendations, as well as potential next steps to be undertaken through detailed design. The following outlines the impact assessment for the preferred alternative. However, as the exact footprint and construction limits are not yet defined, further mitigation may be required or warranted at later stages of the design as project details become available. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 35 Page 547 of 917 W ti rn 4- 0 �CO M � N LO (6 = ii V N O CAN ° '0 O s. �; U 9rW- =cl +cj (41by U cl s 0 to U) cl m M m +C� xcl O cl O •° "O U O O cl cl cl ; to O O U U '+ c j Ncl4 clCl �. 4- s. V] O +� W M O cd � N V CL v to U O O c� U cZCli Cj cl M U ��� N bA id O id O —¢ O O +� 'C O O? u cd U bUA V U p U O sU. Z CJ O(41 U O ° O O U C'j cl 'C bq cli bA clN 'C O a o +�(41 0cl *' MCA N m bUA O -C U O a U w Z cjci Z UU) �. c � o � z o Qz 0 cl cl Q cn j � v 'C H n .� U O —Cli-0 b 2 -1u � o v o �. W ti rn 4- 0 �CO M � N LO (6 W 7 0 x 41 U -- N U cl U bA O O id U O a O cli U U O cdcj 7t v � N �. � ° U O � • � U O � rn 4-i O O cd CA cd O N 4a 3 O U N � � U � U O ct x O rn U 'C cl 0 N �. V 0 N U x N O N "C V �" N N N .� Cj o o o CJ O ocl o-0 +� CIJ 5 —Cli z z cl �5. O • U U o a? U cd +� O cd �� E U N 0 `-' O cl N ibq N N . U � it clo o ' o +� � 4 0 ¢ +; W O N U O cl cl -0to ��" �. 'C s.• ��V � U � •" � .O U cl � O � U U cl n U � +, � .O U p -O 'C N �o to b cl O cl U"+0 � U n OU U 0 U Ucd N rn 'C + cd cd ° w° o 0 U U U ,si „3 N ,si � .�.:' • � +�-� � cl � � �, � • � U sem., o U O +' 0 �. rn O C� 0 C�v' N C Q U n p 'C +U 'C �" O +' o U cl *U' O a O U 3 U U p Q �" o 'C o w cl° U P.. d�° s w° p t 0 cl o O °? C cli cj o � ° "C V] p cl C41 o PO -'C cl C'j 20 w Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report 5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION May 2022 File No. TA9080 A review of the preferred alternative has been undertaken to evaluate the potential impacts to natural heritage features and functions. Wherever feasible, avoidance of features is preferred, and other general mitigation measures may be implemented to mitigate either direct or indirect impacts from the proposed pumping station and sanitary sewer/forcemain. After application of the general mitigation measures, which are assumed to adopt best management practices, specific mitigation measures are provided in subsequent sections. 5.1 GENERAL MITIGATION • Methods to isolate the construction area; • Effective Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) measures shall be installed before starting work to prevent the entry of sediment into the watercourse or adjacent areas. Inspect regularly during the course of construction and conduct regular maintenance and repairs as necessary; • A plan to dispose of any water accumulated onsite from dewatering or pooled stormwater; • Minimize vegetation and tree removals through facil design; • Minimize construction area to the extent possible; • Use appropriate tree protection measures for any work around tree resources within the project area to help protect trees identified to be retained; • Use previously disturbed a as fo N, n.,. tion laydown and staging to the extent possible; • Clearly identify stockpiling and staging areas; • No vegetation removal should occur between April 1 and August 30 of any given year in order to protect birds afforded protection under the Migratory Birds and Convention Act; • Locate site maintenance; vehicle washing and refuelling stations where contaminants are handled of site, and outside of the wellhead protection area and greater than 30m from wetlands or watercourses; and, • Ensure that a Spills Management Plan (including materials, instructions regarding their use, education of contract personnel, emergency contact numbers) is on-site at all times for implementation in event of an accidental spill during construction. An emergency spill kit shall be kept on site. A response plan shall also be developed that is to be implemented immediately in the event of a sediment release. • Ensure that a qualified Environmental Monitor is available to ensure the efficacy of the mitigation measures, has the authority to increase mitigation measures where warranted, and is available on - LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 40 Page 552 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 call in the event of any emergency (which may include wildlife conflict). 5.2 VEGETATION AND VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Vegetation community impacts for the pumping station are assumed to be largely avoidable, pending final design of the pumping station footprint. But the general location of the preferred alternative Location A avoids the features identified as the central contiguous block of wetland and forest mosaic that comprise the ESPA and Core Environmental Features. The forcemain/sanitary sewer alignment does cross a section of vegetation that is considered `wooded area' under the LIO layers, with communities described as cultural woodland (CUT) and hedgerow (H). Although the preferred alternative utilizes open agricultural lands, there is some potential for vegetation impacts, and potential SAR vegetation impacts if unmitigated. Direct Impacts The forcemain and sanitary sewer conceptual location may directly impact: • A hedgerow that is generally characterized as cultural thicket/coniferous forest CUT1/FOC4-1; • Cultural meadow/deciduous forest CUM 1-1/FOD3-1 at road edge; and, • A Hedgerow (H) that is oriented north south on the former laneway to the homestead in this area. This hedgerow was identified as containing Butternut. None of these communities are identified as sensitive or at risk, but include SAR trees. Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts to vegetation communities include: • The potential for silt or sedimination; • Introduction of invasive or non-native plant species; • Alteration of water in quantity or quality; Mitigation measures recommended, in addition to the General Mitigation outlined prior, include: • Impacts such a silt or sedimentation entering adjacent vegetation communities should be addressed through a robust ESC plan. • Project activities should ensure water balance is maintained to the adjacent wetlands. • Where impacts are unavoidable, restoration is recommended. Restoration should consider avoidance of non-native and invasive species, and consider the existing assemblage of species present in the area and avoid adding or introducing species not already present in the natural area. • Ensure that temporarily disturbed areas are adequately restored with native, non-invasive vegetation post -construction, and monitor the effectiveness of restoration making adjustments as necessary, which may include management of nuisance and invasive species. Restoration and edge management planning will be undertaken and implemented to mitigate impacts related to vegetation removals and/or impacts near existing edges of natural areas. Restoration and edge management planning shall be undertaken by experienced, qualified professionals. Maintenance and warranty should be in place for any restoration works undertaken. Where impacts to locally rare species are identified during detail design, these are recommended for transplanting and/or replacement as part of the restoration/ compensation plan. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 41 Page 553 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report 5.2.1 Species at Risk May 2022 File No. TA9080 There are potential for SAR impacts related to the Butternut presence identified in the hedgerow. Where project works are proposed within 50m of Butternut, next steps may include: • Designing the alignments to avoid the habitat for Butternut; • Completion of a Butternut Health Assessment; • Genetic sampling (where warranted); • Consultation with the MECP; and, • Potential for following Exemption Regulations of the ESA. Black ash is also identified in the study area as a Species at Risk. This species was recently uplisted under the Species at Risk in Ontario list, but is exempt from permitting until 2024. Known polygons of vegetation that contain black ash are well outside the project footprint at Location A (over 100m). It does highlight the presence of two SAR tree species and potential tree impacts must ensure compliance with the ESA, and in the future may need to consider protection of black ash. 5.3 WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT The preferred alternative at Location A avoids the core central area of Hidden Valley, and much of the identified wildlife habitat that supports deer wintering, Jefferson Salamander, area sensitive bird species and known amphibian breeding habitat. Direct Impacts Direct vegetation removals will impact non -sensitive wildlife habitat and areas likely to support birds regulated under the MBCA. Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts may include: • Disturbance (as work will occur within 30m of SWH Deer Wintering habitat for example); • Alteration of water balance; • Incidental take or harm to wildlife (note that individual salamanders may wander or move outside the regulated habitat limits, but both individuals AND their habitat are protected under the ESA); • Removal or reduction of available wildlife habitat, although not identified as sensitive, habitat would be considered supporting to the central features (such as through forage opportunities). Mitigation recommendations specific to wildlife include those outlined under General Mitigation and also the following measures: • Ensure design includes measures to exclude wildlife from the proposed infrastructure footprint to avoid animal/human conflict to the extent possible. This may include the use of retaining walls or exclusionary fencing around the perimeter of the pumping station, and at minimum during construction. However operational impacts should consider measures to exclude wildlife to avoid conflicts. • Consider signage to indicate the sensitive adjacent habitat to be protected and to watch for wildlife. • For maintenance roads and access routes, consider the implementation of slow travel speeds and training for SAR and wildlife awareness to operators. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 42 Page 554 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 • Ensure the pumping station is secure to avoid the potential for animals being trapped in any wells or underground structures (salamanders are known to find their way into pool pumps, wells, etc.). • Construction timing should ensure no disturbance effects to the wintering habitat for deer identified as SWH. Although avoided, proximity to the habitat and its function may warrant the application of timing windows, which should be confirmed with the MNRF. • All vegetation clearing must comply with the MBCA. • Consider restoration options that enhance wildlife habitat to the extent possible, such as including forage species for Monarch or other pollinators. 5.3.1 Species at Risk Given that the study area includes regulated habitat for Jefferson Salamander, projects works are advised to be screened with the MECP, such as through an Information Gathering Form (IGF) submission. In particular, the proposed project activities may trigger a permit under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 if direct or indirect impacts are not well mitigated. Given the proximity of the pumping station to known regulated habitat for Jefferson Salamander, and the potential for indirect impacts through silt or sedimentation or water balance effects, an Information Gathering Form should be submitted to the MECP so the MECP can determine if additional permitting steps are required. All stages of the project must adhere to the ESA, and where tree removals may be required potential SAR bat habitat may require further screening in field and with the MECP. Suitable trees should be considered as potential SAR bat habitat. Chimney Swift, Bank Swallow and Barn Swallow habitat are not considered impacted by the project. Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark are not considered impacted by the project. There is no intrusion into the larger forested habitat proposed, and therefore impacts to Eastern Wood -Pewee or Wood Thrush are not anticipated as direct impacts, but indirect impacts must be considered given the proximity to the available suitable habitat. There is potential for removal of milkweed or the host plant for Monarch. Although not specifically mapped, avoidance of milkweed removal during the growing season is recommended. And restoration should consider opportunities to include milkweed and foraging plants for pollinators. There is potential for Snapping Turtle to occur in the study area, and they can wander overland seeking suitable nesting sites. Exclusionary fencing should keep species out of the construction working area. Avoid using substrates in the building design or stock piling areas that may attract nesting turtles and increase the potential for conflict. 5.4 AQUATIC HABITAT AND COMMUNITIES Alternative A will require the installation of a forcemain in the vicinity of the West Creek at Wabanaki Drive. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 43 Page 555 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA May 2022 Natural Sciences Report File No. TA9080 Direct Direct impacts are anticipated to be avoided. The proposed forcemain alignment will occur above the outfall/outlet to West Creek at about 15m or more above the outlet. No in -water works are proposed. It is anticipated that timing windows won't be applicable to this construction. Indirect Indirect impacts may include the potential for silt, sediment or other deleterious substances entering into the watercourse or waterbodies; and the potential for alteration of flows or water balance. No fish habitat is anticipated to be impacted by these works, assuming best management practices for ESC measures and to protect from deleterious substances entering into the watercourse. Mitigation Mitigation measures are as outlined under General Mitigation. Further mitigation measures should include: • Ensuring the maintenance of water balance to the wetland and the watercourses in the study area; • Dewatering needs are not well known at this time. Should dewatering be required then a dewatering plan should be developed in accordance with MECP guidance to include the following: o Ensure dewatering activities are addressed in site specific Environmental Management Plans to address alterations to baseflow and discharge of water back to surface features (from both a quantity and quality aspect); o Direct any dewatering discharge to a sediment containment/filtration system or settling basin prior to release to a watercourse; o Maintain existing flow patterns to avoid changing character of vegetation communities and habitat functions; o Release treated water into naturally vegetated, flat areas at least 30 in from a watercourse streambank and, o Filter groundwater discharge prior to it entering a waterbody using treatment train approach (e.g., via tanks, dewatering pads and filter bags) prior to being released. 5.4.1 Species at Risk The central wetland area where West Creek drains into is sensitive aquatic habitat for Jefferson Salamander with a direct surface water connection to breeding habitat. As such, the potential for impacts through the aquatic pathways should also be screened with the MECP for potential effects to regulated habitat. Other aquatic SAR (fish or mussels specifically) are considered likely to occur in the receiving waterbody of the Grand River. No direct impacts to SAR aquatic habitat is anticipated to the Grand River. A robust ESC Plan and Spills Prevention Plan is recommended given the site drains to the Grand River from the study area. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 44 Page 556 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report 6.0 SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS May 2022 File No. TA9080 This natural sciences report provides a characterization of the study area for the Hidden Valley Pumping Station, Forcemain and Sanitary Sewer. A total of four alternatives locations for the pumping station were evaluated (including a `do nothing' solution). The outcome of the EA evaluation for all factors identified Location A for the pumping station as the preferred solution. Mitigation recommendations are provided for this location and associated forcemain/sanitary sewer, to avoid and/or minimize impacts to natural heritage features in the Hidden Valley study area. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 45 Page 557 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report 7.0 REFERENCES May 2022 File No. TA9080 Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.). 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii + 706 PP Chapman. L.J. and D.F. Putnam. 1984. The Physiography ofSouthern Ontario, 3d Edition. Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 2. City of Kitchener. 2014. City of Kitchener Official Plan. A Complete and Healthy Kitchener. City of Kitchener Planning Division. 2019. Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Aquatic Species at Risk Mapping. Accessed November 2021. Ecologistics Limited. 1979. Hidden Valley Inventory of Environmental Features and Functions. Prepared for Major Holdings & Developments Limited. Karrow, P.F. 2011. Homer Watson Park Geology. Kitchener: The Homer Watson Park Section. What on Earth: Volume 7, accessed online at: https://uwaterloo.ca/wat-on-earth/news/homer-watson-park geology Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Department and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG -02 North Bay, Ontario. 225 pp. LGL Limited. 2020. Stage 2 ION LRT From Kitchener to Cambridge Transit Project Assessment Process. Natural Heritage Report. Prepared for WSP. LGL Limited. 2014. River Road Extension Class Environmental Assessment, Natural Heritage Study Existing Conditions Update. Produced for the Region of Waterloo. Limnoterra. 1980. Hidden Valley Community Environmental Impact Statement. Produced by Limnoterra Limited, Waterloo, Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2013. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System Southern Manuary 3rd Edistion, Version 3.2 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2015. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules For Ecoregion 6E. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2017. Survey Protocol for Species at Risk Bats within Treed Habitats. Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis and Tri -Coloured Bat. Guelph District. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2021a. Natural Heritage Information Centre information Data available through Make a Natural Heritage Map. Website available online. https://www.gisapplication.Irc.gov.on.ca/mamnh/Index.html?site=MMR NHLUPS NaturalHerita ge&viewer=NaturalHeritag_ e&locale=en-US Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Lands Information Ontario. Accessed November 2021b. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2021c. Natural Heritage Information Centre Make -a -Map: Natural Heritage Areas. https://www.lioapplications.Irc.gov.on.ca/ Naylor Engineering. 2004. Draft. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Transportation Study South Kitchener Transportation Corridor. Kitchener Ontario. For IBI Group. Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company. Toronto, Ontario. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 46 Page 558 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 Newmaster, S.G. and S. Ragupathy. 2005. Flora Ontario Integrated Botanical Information System (FOIBIS) 2007 species scientific names obtained March 2007 from the University of Guelph. Newmaster, S.G., A. Lehela, P.W.C. Uhlig, S. McMurray and M.J. Oldham. 1998. Ontario Plant List. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Forest Research Information Paper No. 123, 550 pp. + appendices. Oldham, M.J. and S.R. Brinker. 2009. Rare Vascular Plants of Ontario. Fourth Edition. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 188 PP Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Wildlife Section, Peterborough. Region of Waterloo. 2009. Rare Species List. Region of Waterloo. 2015. Regional Official Plan 2031. Stantec. 2013. Stage 1 Hydrogeology Study River Road Extension — King Street to Manitou Drive Kitchener, Ontario. Prepared for: Regional Municipality of Waterloo. LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 47 Page 559 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 Appendix A — Summary of ELC Vegetation Communities in the Hidden Valley Study Area LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 560 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 ELC Code Vegetation Type Species Association Comments Terrestrial — Natural/Semi-natural TPO OPEN TALLGRASS PRAIRIE Canopy Cover: less than 25 Ground Cover: Indian Grass percent TPO1 Dry Tallgrass (Sorghastrum nutans), Little Bluestein Stand Age: Young Prairie (Schizachyrium scoparium), Switch Level of Disturbance: Low Grass (Panicum virgatum), due to it being a restored berm FOC CONIFEROUS FOREST Canopy Cover: 80 to 100 percent Dry -Fresh White Overstorey: Eastern white cedar Stand Age: Young to FOC2 Cedar Coniferous dominant Mature Forest Type Level of Disturbance: Low, along bank of the Grand River Overstorey: Eastern white cedar Canopy Cover: 80 to 100 Dry -Fresh White dominant percent FOC2-2 Cedar Coniferous Understorey: common buckthorn Stand Age: Young to Forest Type (Rhamnus cathartica) Mature Ground Cover: wild strawberry (Fra aria vir iniana) Canopy Cover: 80 to 100 percent Fresh -Moist Overstorey: Easter White Cedar Young to FOC3 Coniferous Forest (Thuja occidentalis) MatureAge: Level of Disturbance: Low to moderate, along bank of the Grand River Overstorey: Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) dominant with eastern white cedar (Thuja Canopy Cover: 80 to 100 occidentalis), yellow birch (Betula percent alleghaniensis) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum saccharum) Fresh -Moist Hemlock Understorey: Choke cherry FOC3-1 Coniferous Forest (Prunus virginiana virgintana), Type common buckthorn (Rhamnus Stand Age: Mature cathartica) Ground Cover: Side -flowering Level of Disturbance: Low aster (Aster laterijlorus), white to moderate due to snakeroot (Eupatorium rugosum) proximity of pedestrian trail long -stalked sedge (Carex LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 561 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 562 of 917 pedunculata), spinulose wood fern (Drypoteris carthusiana Overstorey: Eastern white cedar Canopy Cover: 80 to 100 dominant percent Fresh -Moist White Understorey: Low shrub cover Stand Age: Young to FOC4-1 Cedar Coniferous mature Forest Type Ground Cover: Sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), marsh fern Level of Disturbance: Low (Thelyptris palustris), spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens ca ensis Overstorey: Eastern white cedar dominant with eastern hemlock, Canopy Cover: 80 to 100 white pine (Pinus strobus) and percent Fresh -Moist White sugar maple FOC4-2 Cedar -Hemlock Understorey: Eastern white cedar, Stand Age: Young to Coniferous Forest sugar maple, common buckthorn mature Ground Cover: Spinulose wood fern, bulblet fern (Cystopertis Level of Disturbance: Low bulbi era FOM MIXED FOREST Overstorey: Eastern hemlock with sugar maple, beech (Fagus Canopy Cover: 80 to 100 grandifolia), white ash (Fraxinus percent americana) and yellow birch FOM6- Fresh -Moist Sugar Understorey: Sugar maple, white Stand Age: Mature I Maple -Hemlock ash Mixed Forest Type Ground Cover: Wood ferns, wild ginger (Asarum canadense), Jack- in-the-pulpit (Arisaemea triphyllum Level of Disturbance: Low triphyllum), lady fern (Athrium alix- emina Overstorey: Eastern white cedar with yellow birch, white ash Canopy Cover: 60 to 100 (Fraxinus americana) and sugar percent maple FOM7- Fresh -Moist White Understorey: White ash, sugar Stand Age: Young to mid - I Cedar -Hardwood maple, choke cherry, common aged Mixed Forest Ecosite buckthorn Ground Cover: Lance -leaved Level of Disturbance: aster (Aster lanceolatus Moderate due to proximity lanceolatus), spinulose wood fern of cultural communities and pedestrian trails FOD DECIDUOUS FOREST Canopy Cover: 60 to 100 Dry -Fresh Cotton Overstorey: Eastern Cottonwood percent FOD3 wood Deciduous (Populus deltoides) dominant Stand Age: Pioneer Forest Type Level of Disturbance: Low to Moderate due to LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 562 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 563 of 917 proximity to top of bank of the Grand River Overstorey: Trembling aspen Canopy Cover: 60 to 100 (Populus tremuloides) dominant percent Dry -Fresh Poplar Understorey: Trembling aspen Stand Age: Pioneer FOD3- Deciduous Forest Ground Cover: Kentucky Level of Disturbance: 1 Type bluegrass (Poa pratensis Moderate due to proximity pratensis), Canada bluegrass (P. to road and agricultural compressa), quack grass (Elymus fields re ens) Overstorey: Black walnut (Juglans nigra), white ash, Canopy Cover: 60 to 100 basswood (Tilia americana), percent trembling aspen, Understorey: common buckthorn, Stand Age: Young to Dry -Fresh Deciduous staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina), mature FOD4 Forest Type riverbank grape (Vitis riparia) Ground Cover: Garlic mustard (Allaria petiolata), motherwort Level of Disturbance: Low (Leonurus cardiaca cardiaca), to moderate due to Kentucky bluegrass, Canada proximity to pedestrian trail bluegrass, wild strawberry and end of Cameo Drive (Fra aria vir iniana) Overstorey: White ash, basswood Canopy Cover: 60 to 100 (Tilia americana), trembling aspen percent Understorey: Eastern white cedar, common buckthorn, staghorn Stand Age: Young to Dry -Fresh White Ash sumac (Rhus typhina), riverbank mature FOD4- Deciduous Forest grape (Vitis riparia) 2 Type Ground Cover: Garlic mustard (Allaria petiolata), motherwort Level of Disturbance: Low (Leonurus cardiaca cardiaca) to moderate due to Kentucky bluegrass, Canada proximity to pedestrian trails bluegrass, wild strawberry (Fra aria vir iniana) Canopy Cover: 80 to 100 Dry -Fresh Sugar percent FOD5 Maple Deciduous Overstorey: Sugar Maple mixed Stand Age: Mature Forest Type forest dominant Level of Disturbance: Low to moderate due to adjacent residential properties Overstorey: Sugar maple Canopy Cover: 80 to 100 dominant percent Dry -Fresh Sugar Understorey: Low shrub cover Stand Age: Mature FOD5- Maple Deciduous Ground Cover: white trillium Level of Disturbance: 1 Forest Type (Trillium grandiflorum), yellow Moderate due to recent trout lily (Erythronium clearing of common americanum americanum), wild buckthorn and proximity to sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), roads and highway LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 563 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 564 of 917 blue cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides Overstorey: Sugar maple Canopy Cover: 80 to 100 dominant with American beech (Fagus grandifolia) percent Understorey: Alternate -leaved Dry -Fresh Sugar dogwood (Cornus alternifolia), Stand Age: Mature FOD5- Maple -Beech common buckthorn, red -berried 2 Deciduous Forest elder (Sambucus racemosa pubens) Type Ground Cover: white trillium (Trillium grandiflorum), yellow Level of Disturbance: Low trout lily (Erythronium to moderate due to americanum americanum) proximity of pedestrian trail Pennsylvania sedge (Carex ens lvanica) Overstorey: Sugar maple Canopy Cover: 80 to 100 dominant with red oak (Quercus percent rubra) Dry -Fresh Sugar Understorey: Alternate -leaved Stand Age: Mature FOD5- Maple -Oak Deciduous dogwood, red -berried elder 3 Forest Type Ground Cover: white trillium Level of Disturbance: Low yellow trout lily, wild sarsaparilla, to moderate due to usage by blue cohosh, jack-in-the-pulpit campers/inhabitants (Arisaema triphyllum triphyllum) Overstorey: Sugar maple Canopy Cover: 80 to 100 dominant with basswood percent Dry -Fresh Sugar Understorey: Alternate -leaved FOD5- Maple -Basswood dogwood, red -berried elder, Stand Age: Mature 6 Deciduous Forest common buckthorn Type Ground Cover: white trillium, Level of Disturbance: Low yellow trout lily, wild sarsaparilla, to moderate due to presence blue cohosh, jack-in-the-pulpit of pedestrian trails Overstorey: Sugar maple Canopy Cover: 80 to 100 dominant with black cherry percent Dry -Fresh Sugar Understorey: Alternate -leaved FOD5- Maple -Black Cherry dogwood, red -berried elder, Stand Age: Mature 7 Deciduous Forest common buckthorn Type Ground Cover: white trillium, Level of Disturbance: Low yellow trout lily, wild sarsaparilla, to moderate due to presence blue cohosh, jack-in-the-pulpit of pedestrian trails Overstorey: Sugar maple Canopy Cover: 80 to 100 dominant with white ash percent Dry -Fresh Sugar Understorey: Alternate -leaved FOD5- Maple -White Ash dogwood, red -berried elder, Stand Age: Mature 8 Deciduous Forest common buckthorn Type Ground Cover: white trillium, Level of Disturbance: Low yellow trout lily, wild sarsaparilla, to moderate due to presence blue cohosh, jack-in-the-pulpit of pedestrian trails LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 564 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 565 of 917 Fresh -Moist Manitoba Overstorey: Manitoba Maple Canopy Cover: 60 to 80 FOD7 Maple Lowland (Acer negundo) and Hybrid Crack percent Stand Age: Mid -aged Deciduous Forest Willow (Salix X rubens) Overstorey: Hybrid crack willow (Salix X rubens), Manitoba maple Canopy Cover: 60 to 80 (Acer negundo) and black walnut percent (Juglans nigra) FOD7- Fresh -Moist Willow Understorey: Manitoba maple, 3 Lowland Deciduous common buckthorn, staghorn Stand Age: Mid -aged Forest Type sumac Ground Cover: Garlic mustard, Level of Disturbance: tall goldenrod, dame's rocket, Moderate due to proximity motherwort, Canada bluegrass, of pedestrian trails and local Kentucky bluegrass businesses Overstorey: Trembling aspen, large -tooth aspen (Populus Canopy Cover: 60 to 100 grandidentata) and balsam poplar percent (P. balsamifera) dominant FOD8- Fresh -Moist Poplar Understorey: Common buckthorn, Stand Age: Young I Deciduous Forest choke cherry, red -berried elder Type Ground Cover: Sensitive fern, bittersweet nightshade (Solanum Level of Disturbance: dulcamara), poison ivy (Rhus Moderate due to proximity radicans rhydbergii), spinulose to roads and highway wood fern Terrestrial — Cultural CUP CULTURAL PLANTATION Canopy Cover: 60 to 90 percent Deciduous Plantation Overstorey: Black walnut Stand Age: Mature CUP1 Type (Juglans nigra) dominant Level of Disturbance: Low to moderate due to proximity to agricultural fields Overstorey: Black walnut Canopy Cover: 60 to 90 (Juglans nigra) dominant percent Understorey: Common buckthorn, glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus Black Walnut frangula), riverbank grape, thicket Stand Age: Mature CUP 1-3 Deciduous Plantation creeper (Parthenocissus inserta), Type wild red raspberry Ground Cover: Garlic mustard, Level of Disturbance: Low dame's rocket, motherwort, to moderate due to bittersweet nightshade, poison ivy proximity to agricultural fields CUP2 Mixed Plantation Overstorey: Black walnut and red Canopy Cover: 80 to 100 pine (Pinus resinosa) percent LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 565 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 566 of 917 Understorey: Common buckthorn, glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus Stand Age: Mid -aged to frangula), riverbank grape, thicket Mature creeper (Parthenocissus inserta), wild red raspberry Ground Cover: Garlic mustard, Level of Disturbance: Low dame's rocket, motherwort, to moderate due to bittersweet nightshade, poison ivy Proximity to agricultural fields Overstorey: Eastern white cedar, Canopy Cover: 100 percent red pine (Pinus resinosa) CUP3 Coniferous Plantation Understorey: Eastern white cedar Stand Age: Young to Mid - aged Ground Cover: Little evident Level of Disturbance: Low Overstorey: Red pine, eastern Canopy Cover: 100 percent white cedar Understorey: Red pine Stand Age: Young to Mid- CUP3-1 Red Pine Coniferous aged Plantation Type Level of Disturbance: Low Ground Cover: Little evident to moderate due to proximity of road and pedestrian trails Overstorey: Scotch pine (Pinus Canopy Cover: 100 percent sylvestris), eastern white cedar Understorey: Scotch pine Stand Age: Young to Mid- CUP3-3 Scotch Pine aged Coniferous Plantation Level of Disturbance: Low Ground Cover: Little evident to moderate due to proximity of road and pedestrian trails CUM CULTURAL MEADOW Ground Cover: Tall goldenrod, Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), Canada thistle Level of Disturbance: CUM 1- Dry -Moist Old Field (Cirsium canadense), common Moderate to high due to 1 Meadow Type milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), presence of pedestrian trails bittersweet nightshade, Kentucky and proximity to agricultural bluegrass, Canada bluegrass, quack fields grass (Elymus repens), orchard grass (Dacrylis lomerata) CUT CULTURAL THICKET Overstorey: Common buckthorn, staghorn sumac, hawthorn (Cratageus Level of Disturbance: sp.), apple (Malus sp.) Moderate to high due to CUT1 Mineral Cultural Ground Cover: Tall goldenrod, Canada presence of pedestrian trails Thicket Ecosite goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), Canada and proximity to agricultural thistle (Cirsium canadense), common fields milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), bittersweet nightshade, Kentucky bluegrass, Canada LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 566 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 567 of 917 bluegrass, quack grass (Elymus repens), orchard grass (Dacrylis lomerata Overstorey: Staghorn sumac, hawthorn (Cratageus sp.), riverbank grape, common buckthorn, white ash Ground Cover: Tall goldenrod, Canada Level of Disturbance: CUT1- Sumac Cultural goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), Canada Moderate to high due to 1 Thicket Ecosite thistle (Cirsium canadense), common being within Highway 8 and milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), bittersweet Hydro right-of-way nightshade, Kentucky bluegrass, Canada bluegrass, quack grass (Elymus repens), orchard grass (Dacrylis lomerata) CUW CULTURAL WOODLAND Overstorey: Green ash (Fraxinus Canopy Cover: 35 to 60 pennsylvanica), Manitoba maple (Acer negundo) percent Understorey: Crab apple (Malus Stand Age: Young to Mineral Cultural Pumila), riverbank grape mature CUW 1 Woodland Ground Cover: Tall goldenrod, Canada Level of Disturbance: Ecosite goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), Canada Moderate to high due to thistle (Cirsium canadense), common presence of pedestrian trails, milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), bittersweet Proximity to agricultural nightshade, Kentucky bluegrass, Canada fields and usage by bluegrass, quack grass (Elymus repens), campers/inhabitants orchard grass (Dac lis lomerata) Overstorey: Black Cherry (Prunus Canopy Cover: 25 to 35 nigra), Sugar Maple (Acer saccharinum), percent CUS 1 Mineral Cultural Pear (Pyrus communis), Eastern Red Stand Age: Young to Savannah Cedar (Juniperus virginiana), White Mature Cedar (Thuja occidentalis), Black Walnut Disturbance: High, and Scott's Pine (Pinus sylvestris) selectively cut Wetland SWC CONIFEROUS SWAMP Overstorey: Eastern white cedar, Canopy Cover: 80 to 100 tamarack (Larix laricina), white pine, yellow birch percent Understorey: Eastern white cedar, Stand Age: Young White Cedar- tamarack, white pine SWC3- Conifer Organic Ground Cover: Reed -canary grass 2 Coniferous (Phalaris arundinacea), swamp aster Swamp Type (Aster puniceus), swamp goldenrod (Solidago patula), sensitive fern Level of Disturbance: Low creeping bent grass (Agrostis stolonifera), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), spotted touch-me-not, marsh fern, fowl manna grass Gl ceria striata SWM MIXED SWAMP LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 567 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 568 of 917 Overstorey: Eastern white cedar dominant with white birch, yellow birch, green ash, black ash Canopy Cover: 100 percent (Fraxinus nigra), trembling aspen, White Cedar- balsam fir (Abies balsamea), SWM1- Hardwood Mineral balsam poplar and white elm I Mixed Swamp Type Understorey: Eastern white cedar Stand Age: Young Ground Cover: Sensitive fern (Onoclea sensiblis), marsh marigold (Caltha palustris), Level of Disturbance: Low spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens ca ensis), creeping bent grass Overstorey: Yellow birch, Canopy Cover: 60 to 80 trembling aspen, tamarack percent Understorey: Eastern white cedar, white elm, yellow birch, tamarack, red -osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), red -berried elder, Stand Age: Young to mid- highbush cranberry (Viburnum aged SWM6- Birch -Conifer Organic trilobum), Tartarian honeysuckle I Mixed Swamp Type (Lonicera tatarica), common buckthorn, glossy buckthorn Ground Cover: Swamp aster, swamp goldenrod, common cattail (Typha latifolia), sensitive fern Level of Disturbance: Low creeping bent grass, purple loosestrife, spotted touch-me-not, marsh fern, fowl manna grass SWD DECIDUOUS SWAMP Overstorey: Green ash, trembling Canopy Cover: 40 to 100 aspen, yellow birch percent Understorey: Eastern white cedar, Stand Age: Young to Green Ash common buckthornblue beech Mature Mineral (Ostrya virginiana) SWD2-2 Deciduous Level of Disturbance: Swamp Type Ground Cover: Sensitive fern Moderate to high due to spotted touch-me-not, creeping proximity to pedestrian trails bent grass and flooding by beavers in portions of this community type Manitoba Canopy Cover: 40 to 60 SWD4 Maple Mineral Overstorey: Manitoba Maple percent Stand Age: Young Deciduous (Acer negundo) Swamp Type Willow Canopy Cover: 40 to 60 SWD4-I Mineral Overstorey: Hybrid Crack Willow percent Deciduous (Salix x rubens) Stand Age: Young Swamp Type LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 568 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 569 of 917 Overstorey: Black ash, white elm, Canopy Cover: 40 to 60 tamarack, red maple percent Understorey: Common buckthorn, Black Ash glossy buckthorn, red -osier Stand Age: Young Organic dogwood SWD5-1 Deciduous Ground Cover: Sensitive fern, Swamp Type Purple loosestrife, swamp aster, Level of Disturbance: Low fowl manna grass, swamp to moderate due to goldenrod, narrow -leaved cattail proximity of pedestrian (Typha angustifolia), creeping bent trails grass SWT THICKET SWAMP Overstorey: Red -osier dogwood, Red -osier winterberry (Ilex verticillata), common buckthorn, glossy SWT2-5 Mineral 'Thicket buckthorn Level of Disturbance: Low Swamp Type Ground Cover: Sensitive fern, spotted touch-me-not, marsh fern, creeping bent grass MA MEADOW MARSH Common Ground Cover: Common reed Reed Mineral (Phragmites australis), Reed- Level of Disturbance: Low MAM2 Meadow canary grass (Phalaris to moderate due to Marsh Type arundinacea), common cattail, proximity to pedestrian trail narrow -leaved cattail, Reed -canary Ground Cover: Reed -canary grass Level of Disturbance: Low MAM2-2 Grass Mineral (Phalaris arundinacea) common to moderate due to Meadow cattail, narrow -leaved cattail Proximity to road Marsh Type swamp aster, creeping bent grass Narrow- Ground Cover: Yellow Sedge leaved Sedge (Carex flava), Inland Sedge (Carex Level of Disturbance: Low MAM2-5 Mineral interior), creeping bent grass, to moderate due to Meadow rough -leaved goldenrod (Solidago proximity to road Marsh Type atula), reed -canary grass Forb Mineral Ground Cover: Spotted touch -me- Level of Disturbance: Low MAM2-10 Meadow not, swamp aster, common cattail, to moderate due to Marsh Type narrow -leaved cattail, reed -canary proximity to agricultural grass, fowl manna grass, fields MAS SHALLOW MARSH Cattail Ground Cover: Common cattail Level of Disturbance: Low MAS2-1 Mineral narrow -leaved cattail reed -canary to moderate due to Shallow grass, creeping bent grass proximity to road and Marsh Type pedestrian trails Cattail Ground Cover: Common cattail, MAS3-1 Organic Shallow narrow -leaved cattail, reed -canary Level of Disturbance: Low Marsh Type grass, creeping bent grass OAO OPEN N/A AQUATIC LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A Page 569 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report Appendix B -Running Wildlife List May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix 8 Page 570 of 917 ti rn 4- 0 ti O W A a w W W Ex Ex Ex H H H H C 0 U cn u rl O N � N cn a N N L d •L O R O W N .a U' .a c a >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C 0 u W ti a' o� ti o �z� 0. C7 v U v v a"i a un U C7 0. W W C7 C7 ti ff v o Z C � suetq?gdwV � H spzig ti rn 4- 0 N ti LO N o o W W � U �� � Ql � U �" '� � � � �� � � � � U ✓� � Q � �� W W � W � � � � U W � `l" N U � U U � O N ct o m p w w p o x 3 c c o o c� UUUUUUU UU U�1�1�1ww wwwwwwwc7c7c7c7c7xxxxxa�.a ZZZ spzig ti rn 4- 0 N ti LO N o ow o N l ° ti In In � K v o tiO � o O v o In Iz L aIn IzIn y O a t� N titi IZ Iz .ti v y o. OU 00 I O by to yy Y to U b�cd4 I >, U t 04 oC,on °° w 0 0 0> o o, 0 o a 3 3 ZZZO Oaa a arx rxrxrxrx�rxrxrxrx v� 0 v�v�v�v� �nHHHH ti rn 4- 0 (Y) ti LO (1) c� a ti rn 4- 0 rl— LO � � U o � � � � O O M III III III I I I I a www aC7C7 C7 w w w awawww c7 aaac7 u u u u x u u u >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C >C o o >C >C o >C >C >C >C >C >C o Q 341 45 � N N U 'O , N O t O V] Q F 3 3 3 3°° o o o 0 o w v 3 ani ani ani � :P P U w4w4 w4 7 .a .a ZZZwwv Caw w a sjeuzuzrw sajudON ti rn 4- 0 rl— LO Legend G -Rank Global Rank Global ranks are assigned by a consensus of the network of Conservation Data Centres, scientific experts, and the Nature Conservatory to designate a rarity rank based on the range -wide status of a species, subspecies or variety. G1= Extremely rare; usually 5 or fewer occurrences in the overall range or very few remaining individuals; or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction. G2 = Very rare; usually between 5 and 20 occurrences in the overall range or with many individuals in fewer occurrences; or because of some factor(s) making it vulnerable to extinction. G3 Rare to uncommon; usually between 20 and 100 occurrences; may have fewer occurrences, but with a = large number of individuals in some populations; may be susceptible to large-scale disturbances. G4 = Common; usually more than 100 occurrences; usually not susceptible to immediate threats. G5 = Very common; demonstrably secure under present conditions. GH = Historic, no records in the past 20 years. GU= Status uncertain, often because of low search effort or cryptic nature of the species; more data needed. GX = Globally extinct. No recent records despite specific searches. ? = Denotes inexact numeric rank (i.e. G4?). G„ „ _ A "G" (or "T") followed by a blank space means that the NHIC has not yet obtained the Global Rank from The Nature Conservancy. G? = Unranked, or, if following a ranking, rank tentatively assigned (e.g. G3?). Q = Denotes that the taxonomic status of the species, subspecies, or variety is questionable. T = Denotes that the rank applies to a subspecies or variety. S -Rank Provincial Rank S1= Critically imperiled in Ontario because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor (s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation. S2 = Imperiled in Ontario because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer occurrences) steep declines or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation. S3 = Vulnerable in Ontario due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. Page 575 of 917 S4 = Apparently secure - uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. S5 = Secure - common, widespread, and abundant in Ontario. SX = Presumed Extirpated - specie or community is believed to be extirpated from Ontario. SNR = Unranked - conservation status in Ontario not yet assessed SU Unrankable - currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting = information about status or trends. SNA = Not applicable - a conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities. S#S# = Range rank - a numeric range rank (e.g. S2S3) is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank (e.g. SU is used rather that S1S4). COSEWIC Committee On The Status Of Endangered Wildlife in Canada The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses the national status of wild species that are considered to be at risk in Canada. Extinct (X) A wildlife species that no longer exists. Extirpated (XT) A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere. Endangered (E) A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. Threatened (T) A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. Special Concern (SC) A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Not at Risk (NAR) A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances. Special Concern (SC) A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a Data Deficient (DD) wildlife species' eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the wildlife Data Deficient (DD) species' risk of extinction. COSSARO/OMNR Committee On The Status Of Species At Risk In Ontario/Ontario Ministry Of Natural Resources The Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO)/Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) assess the provincial status of wild species that are considered to be at risk in Ontario. Extinct (EXT) A species that no longer exists anywhere. Extirpated (EXP) A species that no longer exist in the wild in Ontario but still occurs elsewhere. Endangered (Regulated) (END- A species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which has been regulated R) under Ontario's Endangered Species Act. Endangered (END) A species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which is a candidate for regulation under Ontario's Endangered Species Act. Threatened (THR) A species that is at risk of becoming endangered in Ontario if limiting factors are not reversed. Special Concern (SC) A species with characteristics that make it sensitive to human activities or natural events. Not at Risk (NAR) A species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk. Data Deficient (DD) A species for which there is insufficient information for a provincial status recommendati SWH-TG Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. (MNRF 2000) Page 576 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report Appendix C — Vascular Plant List May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 577 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 578 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 SELAGINELLA SELAGINELLACEAE FAMILY meadow spike- Selaginella eclipes G4 S4 x moss HORSETAIL EQUISETACEAE FAMILY Equisetum arvense field horsetail G5 S5 x Equisetum hyemale scouring -rush G5T5 S5 x var. affine Equisetum wood horsetail G5 S5 x sylvaticum ROYAL FERN OSMUNDACEAE FAMILY Osmunda cinnamon fern G5 S5 x cinnamomea MAIDENHAIR PTERIDACEAE x FERN FAMILY northern Adiantum pedatum maidenhair G5 S5 x fern BRACKEN FERN DENNSTAEDTIACEAE FAMILY Pteridium aquilinum eastern var. latiusculum bracken -fern GST S5 x THELYPTERIDACEAE MARSH FERN Thelypteris palustris marsh fern G5T? S5 x var. pubescens WOOD FERN DRYOPTERIDACEAE FAMILY Athyrium filix femina northern lady var. angustum fern G5T5 S5 x bulblet bladder Cystopteris bulbifera G5 S5 x fern Dryopteris spinulose wood carthusiana fern G5 S5 x Dryopteris Clinton's wood clintoniana fern G5 S4 x crested wood Dryopteris cristata G5 S5 x fern Dryopteris evergreen G5 S5 x intermedia wood fern LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 578 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 579 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 Dryopteris marginal wood marginalis fern G5 S5 x Matteuccia struthiopteris var. ostrich fern G5 S5 x pensylvanica Onoclea sensibilis sensitive fern G5 S5 x Polystichum Christmas fern G5 S5 x acrostichoides PINACEAE PINE FAMILY Larix decidua European larch G? SE2 x x Larix laricina tamarack G5 S5 x x Picea abies Norway spruce G? SE3 x x Picea glauca white spruce G5 S5 x x x Colorado Picea pungens G5 SEI x spruce Pinus mugo mugo pine G? SEI x Pinus nigra Austrian pine G? SE2 x Pinus resinosa red pine G5 S5 x x eastern white Pinus strobus G5 S5 x x pine Pinus sylvestris scotch pine G? SE5 x x Tsuga canadensis eastern G5 S5 x x hemlock CUPRESSACEAE CEDAR FAMILY x Chamaecyparis false cypress S? x nootkatensis Juniperus communis common G5 S5 x x juniper eastern red Juniperus virginiana G5 S5 x x cedar eastern white Thuja occidentalis G5 S5 x x cedar TAXACEAE YEW FAMILY x Taxus cuspidata Japanese Yew x MAGNOLIA MAGNOLIACEAE x FAMILY Magnolia saucer soulangeana magnolia X LAUREL LAURACEAE x FAMILY Lindera benzoin spicebush G5 S5 x x LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 579 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 580 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 DUCHMAN'S- ARI STOLOCH IACEAE PIPE FAMILY x Asarum canadense wild ginger G5 S5 x x BUTTERCUP RANUNCULACEAE x FAMILY white Actaea pachypoda G5 S5 x baneberry x Actaea rubra red baneberry G5 S5 x x sharp -lobed Anemone acutiloba G5 S5 x x hepatica Anemone virginiana var. alba G5T SU x x Aquilegia canadensis wild columbine G5 S5 x x Caltha palustris marsh -marigold G5 S5 x x Ranunculus kidney -leaf abortivus buttercup G5 S5 x x Ranunculus acris tall buttercup G5 SE5 x x Ranunculus hooked recurvatus var. buttercup G5 S5 x recurvatus x early meadow- Thalictrum dioicum G5 S5 x rue x Thalictrum tall meadow- pubescens rue G5 S5 x x BARBERRY BERBERIDACEAE x FAMILY x Berberis vulgaris commonbarberry G? SES x x Caulophyllum blue cohosh G S5 x x thalictroides Podophyllum may -apple G5 S5 x x peltatum PAPAVERACEAE POPPY FAMILY x x Chelidonium majus celandine G? SE5 x x Sanguinaria bloodroot G5 S5 x x canadensis ULMACEAE ELM FAMILY x x Celtis occidentalis common G5 S4 x x x hackberry Ulmus americana white elm G5? S5 x x Ulmus pumila Siberian elm G? SE3 x x MULBERRY MORACEAE x x FAMILY LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 580 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 581 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 Morus alba white mulberry G? SE5 x x URTICACEAE NETTLE FAMILY x x Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle G5 S5 x x Laportea canadensis wood nettle G5 S5 x x dwarf Pilea pumila G5 S5 x x Urtica dioica ssp. European dioica stinging nettle GST. SE2 x x WALNUT JUGLANDACEAE x FAMILY x bitternut Carya cordiformis G5 S5 x x hickory Carya ovata var. shagbark ovata hickory G5 S5 x x luglans cinerea butternut G3G4 S3? END END x x luglans nigra black walnut G5 S4 x x x FAGACEAE BEECH FAMILY x x Fagus grandifolia American G5 S5 x x beech Quercus alba white oak G5 S5 x x Quercus macrocarpa bur oak G5 S5 x x Quercus robur English oak G? SEI x x Quercus rubra red oak G5 S5 x x BETULACEAE BIRCH FAMILY x x Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch G5 S5 x x Betula papyrifera white birch G5 S5 x x Betula pendula European G? SE4 x weeping birch x Carpinus caroliniana blue beech G5T S5 x ssp. virginiana x Ostrya virginiana ironwood G5 S5 x x PURSLANE PORTULACACEAE x x FAMILY Virginia spring Claytonia virginica G5 S5 x x beauty CARYOPHYLLACEAE PINK FAMILY x x Dianthus armeria deptford pink G? SE5 x x Saponaria officinalis bouncing -bet G? SE5 x x Silene vulgaris catchfly G? SE5 x x SMARTWEED POLYGONACEAE x FAMILY x LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 581 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 582 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 Polygonum Japanese cuspidatum knotweed G. SE4 X x Polygonum green lapathifolium smartweed SEU x x Polygonum lady's -thumb G? SE5 x persicaria x Rumex crispus curly -leaf dock G? SE5 x x Rumex orbiculatus great water G5 S4S5 x dock x ST. JOHN'S- GUTTIFERAE x WORT FAMILY x Hypericum common St. perforatum John's -wort G? SE5 x x LINDEN TILIACEAE x x FAMILY Tilia americana basswood G5 S5 x x MALLOW MALVACEAE x x FAMILY Malva neglecta cheeses G? SE5 x x VIOLACEAE VIOLET FAMILY x x Viola canadensis Canada violet G5 S5 x x marsh blue Viola cucullata G4G5 S5 x violet x downy yel low Viola pubescens G5 S5 x violet x woollyblue Viola sororia G5 S5 x violetx WILLOW SALICACEAE x FAMILY x Populus balsamifera balsam poplar G5T? S5 x x ssp. balsamifera Populus deltoides cottonwood G5T? S5 x x Populus large -tooth grandidentata aspen G5 S5 x x trembling Populus tremuloides G5 S5 x aspen x Salix eriocephala Missouri willow G5 S5 x x Salix petiolaris slender willow G4 S5 x x Salix Xrubens reddish willow HYB SE4 x x SalixXsepulcralis hybrid willow HYB SE2 x x MUSTARD BRASSICACEAE x x FAMILY Alliaria petiolata garlic mustard G5 SE5 x x LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 582 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 583 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 Barbarea vulgaris yellow rocket G? SE5 x x Cardamine cut -leaved concatenate toothwort G5 S5 x x two -leaved Cardamine diphylla G5 S5 x toothwort x Cardamine Pennsylvania pensylvanica bitter -cress G5 S5 x x Hesperis matronalis dame's rocket G4G5 SE5 x x small -leaved Rorippa microphylla G? SE5 x water -cress x Rorippa nasturtium- a puaticum water -cress G? SE? x x PRIMROSE PRIMULACEAE x FAMILY x fringedG5 Lysimachia ciliate S5 x loosestrife x Lysimachia nummularia moneywort G? SES x x Lysimachia tufted thyrsiflora loosestrife G5 S5 x x GOOSEBERRY GROSSULARIACEAE x FAMILY x wild black Ribes americanum G5 S5 x currant x prickly Ribes cynosbati G5 S5 x gooseberry x wild red Ribes triste G5 S5 x currant x SAXIFRAGE SAXIFRAGACEAE x FAMILY x two -leaved Mitella diphylla G5 S5 x bishop's cap x Tiarella cordifolia false mitrewort G5 S5 x x ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY x x Agrimonia tall hairy gryposepala agrimony G5 S5 x x Argentic anserina silverweed S5 x x large -fruited Crataegus punctata G5 S5 x thorn x Fragaria vescassp. woodland americana strawberry GST. S5 x x Fragaria virginiana scarlet ssp. glauca strawberry x X LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 583 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 584 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 Fragaria virginiana scarlet ssp. virginiana strawberry G5T? SU x x Geum aleppicum yellow avens G5 S5 x x Geum canadense white avens G5 S5 x x narrow -leaved Malus coronaria G5 S4 x crabapple pple x Malus pumila common apple G5 SE5 x x Potentilla norvegica cinquefoil G5T? SU x ssp. norvegica x rough -fruited Potentilla recta G? SE5 x cinquefoil x Prunus avium sweet cherry G? SE4 x x Prunus serotina black cherry G5 S5 x x Prunus virginiana choke cherry G5T? S5 x x var. virginiana Pyrus communis common pear G5 SE4 x x Rosa blanda smooth rose G5 S5 x x Rosa multiflora multiflora rose G? SE4 x x alleghany Rubus allegheniensis G5 S5 x blackberry x Rubus idaeus ssp. wild red strigosus raspberry G5T S5 x x Rubus occidentalis thimble -berry G5 S5 x x Pennsylvania Rubus pensilvanicus G5 SU x raspberry x dwarf Rubus pubescens G5 S5 x raspberry x Sanguisorba minor salad burnet G5 SE4 x x Waldsteinia barren fragarioides strawberry G5 S5 x x FABACEAE PEA FAMILY x x Amphicarpaea hog peanut G5 S5 x bracteata x variable crown- Coronilla varia G? SE5 x x vetch Gleditsia triacanthos 'shade master' var. inermis honey locust SE. X x bird's -foot Lotus corniculatus G? SE5 x x trefoil Medicago lupulina black medick G? SE5 x x Medicago sativa ssp. alfalfa G?T? SE5 x sativa x LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 584 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 585 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 white sweet- Melilotus alba G? SE5 x x clover Robinia pseudo- black locust G5 SE5 x acacia x Trifolium pratense red clover G? SE5 x x Vicia cracca tufted vetch G? SE5 x x OLEASTER ELAEAGNACEAE x FAMILY x Elaeagnus Russian olive G? SE3 x x angustifolia LOOSESTRIFE LYTHRACEAE x x FAMILY purple Lythrum salicaria G5 SE5 x x loosestrife MEZEREUM THYMELAEACEAE x x FAMILY Dirca palustris leatherwood G4 S4? x x EVENING- ONAGRACEAE PRIMROSE x x FAMILY yellowish Circaea lutetiana enchanter's G5T5 S5 x ssp. canadensis nightshade x great hairy Epilobium hirsutum G? SES x willow -herb x Epilobium sparse - flowered G? SE4 x parviflorum willow -herb x Ludwigia palustris marsh purslane G5 S5 x x Oenothera fruticosa common ssp. glauca sundrops G5T5 SX x x DOGWOOD CORNACEAE x FAMILY x alternate - Cornus alternifolia leaved G5 S5 x x dogwood Cornus amomum silky dogwood G5T? S5 x x regwoodled Cornus racemosa G5? S5 x x round -leaved Cornus rugosa G5 S5 x dog wood x Cornus sericea ssp. red -osier sericea dogwood G5 S5 x x LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 585 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 586 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 STAFF -TREE CELASTRACEAE x x FAMILY climbing Celastrus scandens G5 S5 x bittersweet x running Euonymus obovata strawberry- G5 S5 x bush x Euonymus sp. euonymus x x AQUIFOLIACEAE HOLLY FAMILY x x Ilex verticillate winterberry G5 S5 x x SPURGE EUPHORBIACEAE x FAMILY x Acalypha three -seeded rhomboidea mercury G5T5 S5 x x BUCKTHORN RHAMNACEAE x FAMILY x glossy Frangula alnus G? SE5 x buckthorn x alder -leaved Rhamnus alnifolia G5 S5 x buckthorn x Rhamnus cathartica common G? SE5 x x buckthorn VITACEAE GRAPE FAMILY x x inserted Parthenocissus Virginia- G5 S5 x vitacea creeper x Vitis riparia riverbank grape G5 S5 x x ACERACEAE MAPLE FAMILY x x Acer ginnala amur maple G? SEI x x Manitoba Acer negundo G5 S5 x x maple Japanese Acer palmatum x maple x Acer platanoides Norway maple G? SE5 x x Acer rubrum red maple G5 S5 x x Acersaccharinum silver maple G5 S5 x x Acer saccharum var. sugar maple G5T? S5 x x saccharum freeman's Acer X freemanii x maple p x SUMAC ANACARDIACEAE x FAMILY x Cotinus coggygria smoke -tree G? SE1 x x LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 586 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 587 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 Rhus hirta staghorn sumac G5 S5 x x Toxicodendron western G5T S5 x rydbergii poison -ivy x WOOD SORREL OXALIDACEAE x FAMILY x upright yellow Oxalis stricta G5 S5 x wood -sorrel x GERANIUM GERANIACEAE x FAMILY x Geranium herb-robert G5 SE5 x x robertianum TOUCH -ME- BALSAMINACEAE x x NOT FAMILY spotted touch- Impatiens capensis G5 S5 x x me -not GINSENG ARALIACEAE x x FAMILY wildG5 Aralia nudicaulis S5 x sarsaparilla x PARSLEY APIACEAE x FAMILY x spotted dk water- Cicuta maculata G5 S5 xhemloc x Cryptotaenia honewort G5 S5 x canadensis x Daucus carota wild carrot G? SE5 x x American Hydrocotyle marsh- G5 S5 x americana pe n nywo rt x Sanicula marilandica black snakeroot G5 S5 x x hemlock water- Sium suave G5 S5 x parsnip x GENTIAN GENTIANACEAE x FAMILY x Gentianopsis crinita fringed gentian S5 x x x DOGBANE APOCYNACEAE x FAMILY x Apocynum androsaemifolium spreading G5T? S5 x ssp. dogbane androsaemifolium x Vinca minor periwinkle G? SES x x LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 587 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 588 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 MILKWEED ASCLEPIADACEAE x FAMILY x Asclepias exaltata poke milkweed G5 S4 x x Asclepias incarnate swamp G5T5 S5 x ssp. incarnate milkweed x Asclepias syriaca common G5 S5 x milkweed x POTATO SOLANACEAE x FAMILY x clammy Physalis heterophylla G5 S4 x ground -cherry x btter Solanum dulcamara G? SE5 x nightshade x MORNING- CONVOLVULACEAE x GLORY FAMILY x Gronovius'dodder Cuscuta gronovii G5 S5 x x POLEMONIACEAE PHLOX FAMILY x x Phlox divaricata wild blue phlox G5 54 x x WATER -LEAF HYDROPHYLLACEAE x FAMILY x Hydrophyllum broad-leaved canadense water -leaf G5 S4 x x Hydrophyllum Virginia water- virginianum leaf G5 S5 x x BORAGE BORAGINACEAE x FAMILY x Echium vulgare blueweed G? SE5 x x smaller forget- Myosotis laxa G5 S5 x me -not x VERVAIN VERBENACEAE x FAMILY x Verbena hastata blue vervain G5 S5 x x Verbena urticifolia white vervain G5 S5 x x LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY x x Clinopodium vulgare wild basil G? S5 x x Collinsonia stoneroot G5 S4 x x canadensis x Glechoma hederacea creeping G? SE5 x x Charlie Leonurus cardiaca common G?T? SE5 ssp. cardiaca motherwort x x LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 588 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 589 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 cut -leaved Lycopus americanus water- G5 S5 x horehound x northern Lycopus uniflorus water- G5 S5 x horehound x American wild Mentha arvensis G5T5 S5 x mint x Monarda fistulosa wild bergamot G5 S5 x x Nepeta cataria catnip G? SE5 x x Prunella vulgaris ssp. common heal- G5T? SE3 x vulgaris all x mad -dog Scutellaria lateriflora G5 S5 x skullcap x PLANTAIN PLANTAGINACEAE x FAMILY x Plantago lanceolata ribgrass G5 SE5 x x Plantago major common G5 SE5 x x plantain OLEACEAE OLIVE FAMILY x x Fraxinus americana white ash G5 S5 x x Fraxinus excelsior European ash G? SE2 x x Fraxinus nigra black ash G5 S5 x x Fraxinus red ash G5 S5 x x pennsylvanica Ligustrum vulgare common privet G? SE5 x x Syringa vulgaris common lilac G? SE5 x x FIGWORT SCROPHULARIACEAE x x FAMILY Chelone glabra turtlehead G5 S5 x x butter -and- Linaria vulgaris G? SE5 x eggs x Pedicularis Canada wood- canadensis betony G5 S5 x x Verbascum thapsus m me G? SE5 x on x Veronica officinalis common G5 SES x speedwellx TRUMPET- BIGNONIACEAE CREEPER x FAMILY x norte Catalpa speciosa GU SEI x ern catahp x LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 589 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 590 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 BLUEBELL CAMPANULACEAE x FAMILY x Lobelia inflata Indian tobacco G5 S5 x x MADDER RUBIACEAE x FAMILY x Galium asprellum rough bedstraw G5 S5 x x white wildlicorice Galium circaezans G5 55 x x x Galium mollugo white bedstraw G? SE5 x x marsh Galium palustre G5 S5 x bedstraw x Galium trifidum ssp. small bedstraw G5T? S5 x trifidum x yellow Galium verum G? SE5 x bedstraw x HONEYSUCKLE CAPRIFOLIACEAE x FAMILY x bush Diervilla lonicera G5 S5 x honeysuckle x Linnaea borealis ssp. twinflower GST? S5 x longiflora x douglas Lonicera dioica x honeysuckle x tartarian Lonicera tatarica G? SE5 x x honeysuckle Sambucus nigra ssp. common canadensis elderberry G5 S5 x x Sambucus racemosa red -berried var. racemosa elderberry G5T4T5 S5 x x Triosteum wild coffee G5 S5 x aurantiacum x Viburnum opulus guelder rose G5 SE4 x x VALERIAN VALERIANACEAE x FAMILY x Valeriana officinalis commonG? SE3 x valerian x DIPSACACEAE TEASEL FAMILY x x Dipsacus fullonum wild teasel G?T? SE5 x x ssp. sylvestris ASTERACEAE ASTER FAMILY x x Achillea millefolium common G5T? SE? var.mil/efo/ium yarrow x x LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 590 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 591 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 Ageratina altissima white var. altissima snakeroot G5 S5 x x Ambrosia common G5 S5 x x artemisiifolia ragweed Ambrosia trifida giant ragweed G5 S5 x x Anaphalis pearly margaritacea everlasting G5 S5 x x Antennaria neglecta field pussytoes G5 S5 x x Arctium minus commonburdock G?T? SE5 x x biennial lx Artemisia biennis G5 SE5 x wormwood Aster ericoides var. white heath ericoides aster G5T? S5 x x Aster laevis var. smooth blue laevis aster G5T? S5 x x Aster lanceolatus tall white aster G5T? S5 x x ssp. lanceolatus Aster lateriflorus var. calico aster G5T5 S5 x lateriflorus x Aster pilosus var. hairy aster G5T? S5 x pilosus x Bidens cernua stick -tight G5 S5 x x devil's beggar- Bidens frondosa G5 S5 x x ticks Bidens tripartite European G5 S5 x beggar -ticks x Bidens vulgate tall beggar -ticks G5 S5 x x brown Centaureajacea G? SE5 x knap x Centaurea bighead macrocephaly knapweed G. SE1 X x Centaurea panicled paniculata knapweed G. SEI x x Cichorium intybus chicory G? SE5 x x Cirsium arvense Canada thistle G? SE5 x x Cirsium vulgare bull thistle G5 SE5 x x Conyza canadensis horseweed G5 S5 x x lance -leaved Coreopsis lanceolate G5 S4? x tickseed I Ix Erigeron annuus daisy fleabane I G5 S5 I x x LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 591 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 592 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 Erigeron Philadelphia philadelphicus var. G5T? S5 x fleabane philadelphicus x Erigeron strigosus daisy fleabane G5 S5 x x Eupatorium spotted joe- maculatum var. G5T5 S5 x x pYe-weed maculatum Eupatorium perfoliate perfoliatum thoroughwort G5 S5 x x Eupatorium purple joe-pye- purpureum var. weed G5T? S3 x x purpureum x large -leaved Eurybia macrophylla G5 S5 x aster x flat-topped Euthamia graminifolia bushy G5 S5 x goldenrod x Hieracium devil's aurantiacum paintbrush G7 . SES x x Hieracium field hawkweed SES x caespitosum x Hieracium glaucous king piloselloides devil G2 . SE5 x x Leucanthemum ox -eye daisy G? SE5 x x vulgare white Prenanthes alba rattlesnake- G5 S5 x root x tall white Prenanthes altissima rattlesnake- G5? S5 x root x black-eyed Rudbeckia hirta G5 S5 xSusa x brown -eyed Rudbeckia triloba G4 SE4 x coneflower x Solidago caesia G5 S5 x goldenrod x canada Solidago canadensis G5 S5 x x goldenrod Solidago canadensis tall goldenrod G5 S5 x var. scabra x Solidago flexicaulis G5 S5 x goldenrod x Solidago gigantea giant goldenrod G5 S5 x x LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 592 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 593 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 Solidago juncea early goldenrod G5 S5 x x Solidago nemoralis gray goldenrod G5T? S5 x var. nemoralis x rough -leaved Solidago patula G5 S5 x goldenrod x Solidago rugosa ssp. rough rugosa goldenrod GST. S5 x x Sonchus arvensis ssp. field sow- arvensis thistle G.T. SE5 X x Symphyotrichum heart -leaved cordifolium aster G5 S5 x x Symphyotrichum white heath ericoides var. G5T? S1 x aster pansum x Symphyotrichum New England novae-angliae aster G5 S5 x x Symphyotrichum puniceum var. shining aster G5T?Q SU x puniceum x Symphyotrichum arrow -leaved urophyllum aster G4 S4 x x Tanacetum vulgare common tansy G? SE5 x x Taraxacum officinale common G5 SE5 x x dandelion doubtful goat's- Tragopogon dubius G? SE5 x beard x Tussilago farfara coltsfoot G? SE5 x x WATER- ALISMATACEAE PLANTAIN x x FAMILY Alisma plantago- common G5 S5 aquatica water -plantain x x broad-leaved Sagittaria latifolia G5 S5 x arrowhead x ARACEAE ARUM FAMILY x x Arisaema triphyllum small jack -in- ssp. triphyllum the -pulpit G5T5 S5 x x DUCKWEED LEMNACEAE x FAMILY x lesserG5 Lemna minor S5 x duckweed x JUNCACEAE RUSH FAMILY x x Juncus arcticus arctic rush G5 S2S3 x x LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 593 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 594 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 Juncus bufonius toad rush G5 S5 x x Juncus dudleyi Dudley's rush G5 S5 x x Juncus effusus ssp. solutus soft rush G5T? S5 x x Juncus nodosus knotted rush G5 S5 x x Juncus tenuis path rush G5 S5 x x Luzula acuminate hairy woodrush G5 S5 x x Luzula multiflora ssp. many -flowered frigida woodrush GST. 5455 x x CYPERACEAE SEDGE FAMILY x x white bear Carex albursina G5 S5 x sedge x drooping wood Carex arctata G5? S5 x sedge xing Carex bebbii Bebb's sedge G5 S5 x x woodland Carex blanda G5? S5 xsedg x Carex bromoides bsedge elike G5 S5 x x Carex cephaloidea thin -leaved G5 S5 x sedge x fibrous rooted Carex communis G5 S5 x sedge xs Carex comosa bristly sedge G5 S5 x x Carex deweyana Dewey's sedge G5 S5 x x Carex flava yellow sedge G5 S5 x x Carex gracillima graceful sedge G5 S5 x x Carex granularis meadow sedge G5 S5 x x Hitchcock's it cock's Carex hitchcockiana G5 S5 x sedge Carex hystericina porcupine G5 S5 x sedgex Carex interior inland sedge G5 S5 x x Carex jamesii James' sedge G5 S3 x x x loose -flowered Carex laxiflora G5 S5 x sedge x Carex leptalea ssp. bristle -stalked leptalea sedge GST. S5 x x x long -stalked Carex pedunculate G5 S5 x sedge x Carex pellita woolly sedge G5 S5 x x LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 594 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 595 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 Pennsylvania Carex pensylvanica G5 S5 x x sedge plantain -leaved Carex plan taginea G5 S5 x sedge x Carex radiata radiate sedge G4 S5 x x Carex retrorsa retrorse sedge G5 S5 x x Carex rosea stellate sedge G5 S5 x x Carex sparganioides burreed sedge G5 S5 x x x awl -fruited Carex stipata sedge G5 S5 x x Carex stricta tussock sedge G5 S5 x x Carex tonsa var. red -seeded rugosperma sedge G5T5 S5 x x Carex vulpinoidea fox sedge G5 55 x x Carex woodii wood's sedge G4Q S4 x x x Schoenoplectus American great tabernaemontani bulrush G2 . S5 x x Scirpus atrovirens dark -green G5? S5 x bulrush x Scirpus cyperinus wool -grass G5 S5 x x POACEAE GRASS FAMILY x x Agrostis gigantea red -top G4G5 SE5 x x Agrostis stolonifera redtop G5 S5 x x Bromus ciliatus fringed brome G5 S5 x x Bromus inermis ssp. awnless brome G4G5T? SE5 x x inermis Dactylis glomerata orchard grass G? SE5 x x Danthonia spicata poverty oat G5 S5 x grass x Dichanthelium acuminate acuminatum var. G5T S5 x acuminatum panic grass x Echinochloa crusgalli common G? SE5 x x barnyard grass bottle -brush Elymus hystrix G5 S5 x grass x Elymus repens quack grass G? SE5 x x Elymus virginicus Virginia wild G5T? S5 x var. virginicus rye x Festuca rubra ssp. red fescue G5T4 S5 x rubra x LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 595 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 596 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 Festuca nodding fescue G5 S4 x subverticillata x tall manna Glyceria grandis G5 S4S5 x grass x fowl manna Glyceria striata G5 S5 x grass x Leersia oryzoides rice cut grass G5 S5 x x Lolium pratense meadow fescue G5 SE5 x x Miscanthus amur silver sacchariflorus grass G. SE3 x x white -grained Oryzopsis asperifolia G5 S5 x mountain -rice x Panicum capillare witch grass G5 S5 x x reed canary Phalaris arundinacea G5 S5 x x grass Phleum pratense timothy G? SE5 x x Phragmites australis common reed G5 S5 x x Canada blue Poo compressa G? S5 x grass x Poo pratensis ssp. Kentucky pratensis bluegrass G5T S5 x x Schizachne false melic purpurascens ssp. GST? S5 x grass purpurascens x Setaria sp. foxtail x x Sphenopholis slender wedge intermedia grass G5 S4S5 x x Sporobolus sand dropseed S4 x cryptandrus x x overlooked Sporobolus neglectus G5 S4 x dropseed x CATTAIL TYPHACEAE x FAMILY x narrow -leaved Typha angustifolia G5 S5 x x cattail broad-leaved Typha latifolia G5 S5 x cattail x LILIACEAE LILY FAMILY x x Allium burdickii wild leek G4G5 Si? x x x Allium tricoccum wild leek G5 S5 x x garden Asparagus officinalis G5? SE5 x asparagus x LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 596 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 597 of 917 Local Previous Field Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank MNR COSEWIC Status Field Visit Waterloo Surveys 2021 lily -of -the- Convallaria majalis G5 SE5 x valley x Erythronium Yellow dog's- americanum ssp. tooth violet G5T5 S5 x x americanum Hemerocallis fulva orange day -lily G? SE5 x x Hosta plantaginea hosta G? SE? x x Lilium michiganense Michigan lily G5 S5 x x Maianthemum wild lily -of -the- canadense valley G5 S5 x x Maianthemum false Solomon's racemosum ssp. seal GST S5 x racemosum x Maianthemum star -flowered stellatum Solomon's seal G5 S5 x x Polygonatum hairy pubescens Solomon's seal G5 S5 x x Streptopus rose twisted- lanceolatus var. G5 S5 x stalk roseus x Trillium erectum purple trillium G5 S5 x x Trillium grandiflorum white trillium G5 S5 x x large -flowered Uvularia grandiflora G5 S5 x bellwort multi -coloured Iris versicolor G5 S5 x blue -flag CATBRIER SMILACACEAE x FAMILY herbaceous Smilax herbacea G5 S4 x carrion flower ORCHID ORCHIDACEAE x FAMILY Epipactis helleborine common G? SE5 x helleborine Liparis loeselii fen twayblade G5 S4S5 x LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix C Page 597 of 917 Legend 1) G -Rank Global Rank Global ranks are assigned by a consensus of the network of Conservation Data Centres, scientific experts, and the Nature Conservatory to designate a rarity rank based on the range -wide status of a species, subspecies or variety. The most important factors considered in assigning global ranks are the total number of known, extant sites world-wide, and the degree to which they are potentially or actively threatened with destruction. Other criteria the number of known populations considered to be securely protected, the size of the various populations, and the ability of the taxon to persist at its known sites. The taxonomic distinctness of each taxon has also been considered. Hybrids, introduced species, and taxonomically dubious species, subspecies and varieties have not been included. G1= Extremely rare; usually 5 or fewer occurrences in the overall range or very few remaining individuals; or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction. G2 = Very rare; usually between 5 and 20 occurrences in the overall range or with many individuals in fewer occurrences; or because of some factor(s) making it vulnerable to extinction. Rare to uncommon; usually between 20 and 100 occurrences; may have fewer occurrences, G3= but with a large number of individuals in some populations; may be susceptible to large- scale disturbances. G4 = Common; usually more than 100 occurrences; usually not susceptible to immediate threats. G5= Very common; demonstrably secure under present conditions. GH = Historic, no records in the past 20 years. GU= Status uncertain, often because of low search effort or cryptic nature of the species; more data needed. GX = Globally extinct. No recent records despite specific searcl ? = Denotes inexact numeric rank (i.e. G4?). G„ „ = A "G" (or "T") followed by a blank space means that the NHIC has not yet obtained the Global Rank from The Nature Conservancy. G? = Unranked, or, if following a ranking, rank tentatively assigned (e.g. G3 Q = Denotes that the taxonomic status of the species, subspecies, or variety is questionable. T = Denotes that the rank applies to a subspecies or variety. 2) S -Rank Provincial Rank Provincial (or Sub -national) ranks are used by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) to set protection priorities for rare species and natural communities. These ranks are not legal designations. Provincial ranks are assigned in a manner similar to that described for the global ranks, but consider only those factors within the political boundaries of Ontario. By comparing the global and provincial ranks, the status, rarity, and the urgency of conservation needs can be ascertained. The NHIC evaluates provincial ranks on a continual basis and produces updated list at least annually. S1 = Critically imperiled in Ontario because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor (s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation. S2 = Imperiled in Ontario because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer occurrences) steep declines or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation. S3 = Vulnerable in Ontario due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. Page 598 of 917 S4 = Apparently secure - uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. S5 = Secure - common, widespread, and abundant in Ontario. SX = Presumed Extirpated - specie or community is believed to be extirpated from Ont, SNR = Unranked - conservation status in Ontario not yet assesse SU = Unrankable - currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. SNA = Not applicable - a conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities. S#S# = Range rank - a numeric range rank (e.g. S2S3) is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank (e.g. SU is used rather that S1 S4). 3) COSEWIC Committee On The Status Of Endangered Wildlife in Canada The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses the national status of wild species that are considered to be at risk in Canada. Extinct (X) A wildlife species that no longer exists. Extirpated (XT) A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewher Endangered (E) A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. Threatened (T) A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. Special Concern (SC) A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Not at Risk (NAR) A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances. A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to Data Deficient (DD) resolve a wildlife species' eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the wildlife species' risk of extinction. 4) COSSARO/OMNR Committee On The Status Of Species At Risk In Ontario/Ontario Ministry Of Natural Resources The Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO)/Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) assess the provincial status of wild species that are considered to be at risk in Ontario. Extinct (EXT) A species that no longer exists anywhere. Extirpated (EXP) A species that no longer exist in the wild in Ontario but still occurs elsewhere. Endangered A species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which has been (Regulated) (END -R) regulated under Ontario's Endangered Species Act. Endangered (END) A species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which is a candidate for regulation under Ontario's Endangered Species Act. Threatened (THR) A species that is at risk of becoming endangered in Ontario if limiting factors are not reversed. Special Concern (SC) A species with characteristics that make it sensitive to human activities or natural Not at Risk (NAR) A species that has been evaluated and found to be not at Data Deficient (DD) A species for which there is insufficient information for a provincial status recomrr 5) Local Status -Waterloo Region x Species status within the Waterloo Region was used to determine local vascular plant status for the study area. Page 599 of 917 Upper Hidden Valley Pumping Station and Forcemain EA Natural Sciences Report Appendix D — Species at Risk Screening May 2022 File No. TA9080 LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix D Page 600 of 917 J ❑O❑ U U r}y'j, = O � = U? O 4-. .Y J ft O om x �ow�� www �,w!"� J 'O i G O � Z ¢ W oa3te o a d o � � J U b 3 Nbo J J G U � W U cl -0 V J V J bA '3 O O bA M (0011a)eAX IOJ IsPD ituluaal3S (IZOZ .iagmanON) p.Iig (SOOZ-IOOZ) vag self uelgigdmV pun allldag olaelu snllV ,fllaaling olaelu (IZOZ uep) itulddBIV HHS O,d (I ZOZ .iaq manON) JIHN (IZOZ-b00Z) sfan.mS ZO ((L([) s3Rs0OI03 Y � N U � O O O d F N W J N W J N W J a r.. p YJ J ,S � o bo 45 ri o �b o J J w � A r m J J J J J �T N U N C p is YO 'O M i J J 21 O �� J bu Q O r� r� r� �S _ 5 5 5 5 � O bA O O O O lUU lUU lUU lUU a r.. v w 'o o a � w _ d U J o � U �y J J 45 _ Y F O J J O W O N N A J bp Q J° O O , 'O v N 'O 'U �' O ti' ti N ° '� •� W .0 U .Si p21 N ti U yN, w° W aV5 U L'i a Lyi O� J J J O O O O ' W p Gm J �+ 4-. .� R bA v W •O R J i i a+ J Q iC co, O U bo W 4:i` bD N A U Ni tC p U O W U 'O 'O O ti b0 W Q W co O O U U U U U U U U U U 5 12 C � � � � J � O❑ � C p� a r.. v 0 m m m a U o U U O U � ..w a U 5 r a r a r a r a r a r a r a r a r a r a r S-0 ° on .r r'� 12 ° o ° a a�.° cin ° Eb O p12, p ❑ yN, �" .Y' 6L o v� N Q w �C ' O W O ,S'f' % N ti >� p U N F. > C. .-. U O bA r Q w° ° :� "°' _ a . '° .�' ai ° 'j N � � � � � 'm 'O O � � Q � � .� � � �= %i � � „>,i � M ❑O tC � Yf,'i y� ° � � � N p4 p � `r' N N C7 w° a v ° C7 0 3 C7 o o C7 w° 3 C7 3 o C7 ou. C7 o U q w C7 °o. r r .r H CL Vi CL Vi Q Q O. Vi Q O. Vi CL Vi CL Vi CL Vi 0.l 0.l 0.l 0.l 0.l 0.l 0.l 0.l 0.l 0.l 0.l 0.l a r.. v 0 m m m a a r.. LO 0 0 N N a o r p t W'o "Y' �p "Y' t �p o o o o °� ° o °� ° a s. o r x 0 o a a 4.1 a a °q pm. on Y o m Q P 'O M r G 'O 'i. Q N Q .�`'• stC, 'O Q •r' Y .� p Q r°C � -�j G i O ,� ,� A N A N Vl Q N p P N o o 3 0 ons o4�5 a> vO° v'�" v`° '�''�o vp �rvo��'a�ibgia'���"�.� oo > C. m C....� bu 7s .+ O p O m m 0 0 0 .� U U N N N N W bA W W W Q N � N � U O. Q O. Q Q Q .IZ ✓� .'r., 0.l '� V] x !. '� C4 a � 0.' d `�' .-I '� Z 5 C4 .� r3 '� N p N p N p ti ti w w 4� 4� a r.. LO 0 0 N N a a r.. r r r r z z z z z O O O O o w w w w w J J J J J N N O z N N O z N N O z N N O z N N O z pp gyp' W sem., o W v N) Wp °' p yv, sNi ° G O °� O �, +4 W w°• 'O U Q sem, �C 0 U .� O O T .yam' v. N Q N '� �v. �C TU.' TY.' M �I'r p � ^ U N M G � � � � � .Y' W G U .Y' O -, 'O � Gv � � L. � ^'O O ° °� C+, . ^•-•��O iC Cc, T Y A pU O s. N � N U FHi fy O fy Q r� x v m x x x x x �b 1 V ❑ TY.' A 21 C-1 o � ° � U > � � O ° ° o 0 15 N W �C N ay 'O v � pp N N tC�C'C U �i O U � U bA Q U bA Q CL Q Q � N � y ' U U A � � G Stage 1 Archaeological Report 0.14o MT E Page 608 of 917 F�\MN.i mlaki� ARCHAEOLOGY I HERITAGE I OUTREACH I EDUCATION Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain City of Kitchener Regional Municipality of Waterloo Part of Lots 51 and 53, German Company Tract & Bechtel's Tract Geographic Township of Waterloo Former Waterloo County, Ontario Prepared for MTE Consultants Inc. 520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 Tel: (519) 743-6500 Licensed under M. Maika MHSTCI Licence 4P1021 PIF 4P 1021-0004-2021 ARA File 42020-0220 13/10/2021 Original Report Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Under a contract awarded in October 2020, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) carried out a Stage 1 assessment for the Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain in the City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario. The Upper Hidden Valley sanitary pumping station and forcemain improvements are intended to support development in the Hidden Valley area as outlined by the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan. The assessment was carried out as part of a Schedule `B' Municipal Class Environmental Assessment in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act. This report documents the background research and potential modelling involved in the investigation, and presents conclusions and recommendations pertaining to archaeological concerns. The Stage 1 assessment was conducted in April 2021 under Project Information Form #P1021- 0004-2021. The investigation encompassed the entirety of the project lands. Field observations were made from accessible public areas where no permissions were required for property access and an area where legal permission to enter and conduct all necessary fieldwork activities within the assessed lands was granted by the property owner. At the time of assessment, the study area comprised the roadway platforms, shoulders, ditches, culverts and sidewalks associated with Wabanaki Drive, Hidden Valley Road and Hidden Valley Crescent, various driveways and developed properties, as well as agricultural fields, wooded areas and overgrown areas. The Stage 1 assessment determined that the study area comprises a mixture of areas of archaeological potential, areas of no archaeological potential and previously assessed lands of no further concern. It is recommended that all identified areas of archaeological potential be subject to a Stage 2 property assessment in accordance with Section 2.1 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Although the study area was defined to include part of the Grand River, it is ARA's understanding that the City has no intention to conduct any works within the river. If any such works are contemplated, a marine assessment would be required prior to any river impacts. The identified areas of no archaeological potential and previously assessed lands of no further concern do not require any additional assessment. Given that there are still outstanding archaeological concerns within the project lands, no ground alterations or development of any kind may occur until the Stage 2 assessment is complete, a recommendation that the lands require no further archaeological assessment is made, and the associated report is entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports. October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-� Wid of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener H TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I ABBREVIATIONS IV PERSONNEL IV ENGAGED GROUPS V 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT 1 1.1 Development Context 1 1.2 Historical Context 2 1.2.1 Settlement History 2 1.2.1.1 Pre -Contact 2 1.2.1.2 Post -Contact 3 1.2.2 Past and Present Land Use 4 1.2.2.1 Overview 4 1.2.2.2 German Mills 4 1.2.2.3 Mapping and Imagery Analysis 5 1.3 Archaeological Context 6 1.3.1 Condition of the Property 6 1.3.2 Registered or Known Archaeological Sites 7 1.3.3 Previous Archaeological Work 9 1.3.3.1 Jacob Furtney Homestead (Stage 4) 9 1.3.3.2 Wabanaki Road Extension (Stage 1-2) 9 1.3.3.3 602 Hidden Valley Road (Stage 1-2) 9 1.3.3.4 572 Hidden Valley Road (Stage 1-2) 9 1.3.3.5 1038 Hidden Valley Road (Stage 1-2) 10 1.3.3.6 Highway 8 and Fairway Road Interchange Improvements (Stage 1) 10 1.3.3.7 Highway 8 Reconstruction and Widening (Stage 1-2) 10 1.3.3.8 Wabanaki Drive Extension Class EA (Stage 1-2) 10 1.3.3.9 Hidden Valley Road Development (Stage 1-2) 11 1.3.3.10 River Road Phase 1 (Stage 1-2) 11 2.0 STAGE 1 BACKGROUND STUDY 12 2.1 Background 12 2.2 Field Methods (Property Inspection) 12 2.3 Analysis and Conclusions 13 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 15 4.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION 16 5.0 IMAGES 17 6.0 MAPS 22 October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V 820_ W j� of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener iii 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES 31 LIST OF IMAGES Image 1: Disturbed Lands 17 Image 2: Disturbed Lands 17 Image 3: Disturbed Lands 17 Image 4: Disturbed Lands 17 Image 5: Disturbed Lands 18 Image 6: Disturbed Lands 18 Image 7: Previously Assessed Lands 18 Image 8: Previously Assessed Lands 18 Image 9: Sloped Lands 18 Image 10: Sloped Lands 18 Image 11: Sloped Lands 19 Image 12: Sloped Lands 19 Image 13: Permanently Wet Lands 19 Image 14: Permanently Wet Lands 19 Image 15: Permanently Wet Lands 19 Image 16: Area of Potential 19 Image 17: Area of Potential 20 Image 18: Area of Potential 20 Image 19: Area of Potential 20 Image 20: Area of Potential 20 Image 21: Area of Potential 20 Image 22: Area of Potential 20 Image 23: Area of Potential 21 Image 24: Area of Potential 21 LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Location of the Study Area 22 Map 2: Tremaine'sMap of the County of Waterloo, Canada West (186 1) 23 Map 3: The Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo, Ont. (188 1) 24 Map 4: Topographic Maps (1916-1936) 25 Map 5: Aerial Image (1955) 26 Map 6: Aerial Image (1963) 27 Map 7: Previous Assessments (Stage 1-2) 28 Map 8: Features of Potential 29 Map 9: Potential Modelling and Recommendations 30 October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-� W j� of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Pre -Contact Settlement History 2 Table 2: Post -Contact Settlement History 3 Table 3: Soil Types 7 Table 4: Registered or Known Archaeological Sites 8 ABBREVIATIONS ARA — Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. CIF — Contract Information Form EA — Environmental Assessment MHSTCI — Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries PIF — Project Information Form ROW — Right -of -Way S&Gs — Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists PERSONNEL Project Director: P.J. Racher (#P007) Operations Manager: C.E. Gohm (#R187) Project Manager: M. Maika (#P 102 1) Field Director: S. Bolstridge (#R471) Assistant Field Director: K. Kenel Cartographers: A. Bailey (#R1069), K. Brightwell (#R341) Report Writer: D. Worby (#P1190) Editor: C.J. Gohm October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-� Wig of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener v ENGAGED GROUPS Department of Consultation & Accommodation Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation Contacts: M. DeVries, E. Johannsen Field Representative: None Haudenosaunee Development Institute Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council Contact: W. Hill Field Representative: None Six Nations Lands & Resources Office Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council Contacts: T. Hill -Montour, D. LaForme Field Representative: None October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File W82_� W j� of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 1 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT 1.1 Development Context Under a contract awarded in October 2020, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) carried out a Stage I assessment for the Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain in the City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario. The Upper Hidden Valley sanitary pumping station and forcemain improvements are intended to support development in the Hidden Valley area as outlined by the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan. The assessment was carried out as part of a Schedule B' Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act. This report documents the background research and potential modelling involved in the investigation, and presents conclusions and recommendations pertaining to archaeological concerns. The project lands (`study area') consist of an irregularly-shaped parcel of land with a total area of 213.6 ha (Map 1). This parcel is generally bounded by Highway 8 to the north, the Grand River to the east and south, and Wabanaki Drive to the west. In legal terms, the study area falls on part of Lots 51 and 53, German Company Tract and part of Bechtel's Tract in the Geographic Township of Waterloo, former Waterloo County. The Crown obtained these lands from the Mississaugas as part of a much larger purchase in 1784, but there were uncertainties relating to the area involved. The extent of the cession was clarified during the Between the Lakes Purchase (Treaty 3) of 1792. The Haldimand Proclamation of 1784 granted a tract of land along the Grand River to Six Nations, and the clarifying Simcoe Patent (Treaty 4) was issued in 1793. The Stage 1 assessment was conducted in April 2021 under Project Information Form (PIF) 9P1021-0004-2021. The investigation encompassed the entirety of the project lands. Field observations were made from accessible public areas where no permissions were required for property access and an area where legal permission to enter and conduct all necessary fieldwork activities within the assessed lands was granted by the property owner. In compliance with the objectives set out in Section 1.0 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (S&Gs) this investigation was carried out in order to: • Provide information concerning the geography, history and current land condition of the study area; • Determine the presence of known archaeological sites in the study area; • Present strategies to mitigate project impacts to such sites, if they are located; • Evaluate in detail the archaeological potential of the study area; and • Recommend appropriate strategies for Stage 2 archaeological assessment, if some or all of the study area has archaeological potential. The Ministry of Heritage, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) is asked to review the results and recommendations presented herein and enter the report into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports. A Record of Indigenous Engagement is included in the project report package in accordance with the requirements set out in Section 7.6.2 of the 2011 S& Gs. October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-� Wig of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 1.2 Historical Context After a century of archaeological work in southern Ontario, scholarly understanding of the historical usage of the area has become very well-developed. With occupation beginning in the Palaeo period approximately 11,000 years ago, the greater vicinity of the study area comprises a complex chronology of Indigenous and Euro -Canadian histories. Section 1.2.1 summarizes the region's settlement history, whereas Section 1.2.2 documents the study area's past and present land uses. Multiple previous archaeological reports containing relevant background information were obtained during the research component of the study. These reports are summarized in Section 1.3.3, and the references (including title, author and PIF number) appear in Section 7.0. 1.2.1 Settlement History 1.2.1.1 Pre -Contact The Pre -Contact history of the region is lengthy and rich, and a variety of Indigenous groups inhabited the landscape. Archaeologists generally divide this vibrant history into three main periods: Palaeo, Archaic and Woodland. Each of these periods comprise a range of discrete sub- periods characterized by identifiable trends in material culture and settlement patterns, which are used to interpret past lifeways. The principal characteristics of these sub -periods are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Pre -Contact Settlement History (Wright 1972; Ellis and Ferris 1990; Warrick 2000; Munson and Jamieson 2013) Sub -Period Timeframe Characteristics Gainey, Barnes and Crowfield traditions; Small bands; Mobile hunters and Early Palaeo 9000-8400 BC gatherers; Utilization of seasonal resources and large territories; Fluted projectiles Holcombe, Hi -Lo and Lanceolate biface traditions; Continuing mobility; Late Palaeo 8400-7500 BC Campsite/Way-Station sites; Smaller territories are utilized; Non -fluted projectiles Side -notched, Corner -notched (Nettling, Thebes) and Bifurcate traditions; Early Archaic 7500-6000 BC Growing diversity of stone tool types; Heavy woodworking tools appear (e.g., ground stone axes and chisels Stemmed (Kirk, Stanly/Neville), Brewerton side- and corner -notched traditions; Middle Archaic 6000-2500 BC Reliance on local resources; Populations increasing; More ritual activities; Fully round and polished tools; Net -sinkers common; Earliest copper tools Narrow Point (Lamoka), Broad Point (Genesee) and Small Point Late Archaic 2500-900 BC (Crawford Knoll) traditions; Less mobility; Use of fish -weirs; True cemeteries appear; Stone pipes emerge; Long-distance trade marine shells andgalena) Early Woodland 900-400 BC Meadowood tradition; Crude cord -roughened ceramics emerge; Meadowood cache blades and side-notchedpoints; Bands of up to 35 people Saugeen tradition; Stamped ceramics appear; Saugeen projectile points; Cobble Middle Woodland 400 BC—AD 600 spall scrapers; Seasonal settlements and resource utilization; Post holes, hearths, middens, cemeteries and rectangular structures identified Middle/Late Princess Point tradition; Cord roughening, impressed lines and punctate designs Woodland Transition AD 600-900 on pottery; Adoption of maize horticulture at the western end of Lake Ontario; Oval houses and 'incipient' lon houses; Firstpalisades; Villages with 75 people Late Woodland AD 900-1300 Glen Meyer tradition; Settled village -life based on agriculture; Small villages arl 0.4 ha with 75-200 people and 4-5 lon houses; Semi-permanent settlements Late Woodland AD 1300-1400 Uren and Middleport traditions; Classic longhouses emerge; Larger villages fiddle 1.2 ha) with up to 600 people; More permanent settlements 30 ears October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82_� W J6 of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener Sub -Period Timeframe Characteristics Pre -Contact Neutral tradition; Larger villages (1.7 ha); Examples up to 5 ha with Late Woodland AD 1400-1600 2,500 people; Extensive croplands; Also, hamlets, cabins, camps and cemeteries; (Late) Potential tribal units; Fur trade begins ca. 1580; European trade goods appear Although Iroquoian -speaking populations tended to leave a much more obvious mark on the archaeological record and are therefore emphasized in the Late Woodland entries above, it must be understood that Algonquian -speaking populations also represented a significant presence in southern Ontario. Due to the sustainability of their lifeways, archaeological evidence directly associated with the Anishinaabeg remains elusive, particularly when compared to sites associated with the more sedentary agriculturalists. Many artifact scatters in southern Ontario were likely camps, chipping stations or processing areas associated with the more mobile Anishinaabeg, utilized during their travels along the local drainage basins while making use of seasonal resources. This part of southern Ontario represents the ancestral territory of various Indigenous groups, each with their own land use and settlement pattern tendencies. 1.2.1.2 Post -Contact The arrival of European explorers and traders at the beginning of the 17th century triggered widespread shifts in Indigenous lifeways and set the stage for the ensuing Euro -Canadian settlement process. Documentation for this period is abundant, ranging from the first sketches of Upper Canada and the written accounts of early explorers to detailed township maps and lengthy histories. The Post -Contact period can be effectively discussed in terms of major historical events, and the principal characteristics associated with these events are summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Post -Contact Settlement History (Smith 1846; Sutherland 1864; Coyne 1895; Lajeunesse 1960; Cumming 1972; Janusas 1988; Ellis and Ferris 1990; Surtees 1994; Hayes 1997; Bloomfield 2006; AO 2015) Historical Event Timeframe Characteristics Brule explores southern Ontario in 1610/11; Champlain travels through in 1613 Early Exploration Early 17t1' century and 1615/1616, making contact with a number of Indigenous groups (including the Algonquin, Huron-Wendat and other First Nations); European trade goods become increasingly common and begin to put pressure on traditional industries Conflicts between various First Nations during the Beaver Wars result in Increased Contact Mid- to late numerous population shifts; European explorers continue to document the area, and Conflict 17a' centuryand many Indigenous groups trade directly with the French and English; `The Great Peace of Montreal' treaty established between roughly 39 different First Nations and New France in 1701 Growth and spread of the fur trade; Peace between the French and English with Fur Trade Early to mid- the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713; Etbnogenesis of the Metis; Hostilities between Development 18a' century French and British lead to the Seven Years' War in 1754; French surrender in 1760 Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognizes the title of the First Nations to the land; British Control Mid- to late Numerous treaties subsequently arranged by the Crown; First land cession under 18a' century the new protocols is the Seneca surrender of the west side of the Niagara River in 1764; The Niagara Purchase(Treaty 381 in 1781 included this area October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82_� W Jy of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 4 Historical Event Timeframe Characteristics United Empire Loyalist influx after the American Revolutionary War (1775- 1783); British develop interior communication routes and acquire additional Loyalist Influx Late 18'b century lands; Between the Lakes Purchase completed with the Mississaugas in 1784 and confirmed in 1792 (Treaty 3); Haldimand Proclamation of 1784 grants land to Six Nations (the Haldimand Tract), clarified by the Simcoe Patent (Treaty 4) in 1793; Constitutional Act of 1791 creates Upper and Lower Canada Became part of York County's `West Riding' in 1792; Brant surrenders Late 1811, to early Blocks 1-6 of the Haldimand Tract to the Crown in 1798; Became part of the County DevelopmentGore 19 District and Halton County in 1816; Wellington District and century Waterloo County created in 1840; Waterloo County independent after the abolition of the districts stem in 1849 Waterloo initially comprised Block 2 of the Haldimand Tract; Purchased by United Empire Loyalist R. Beasley and his partners in 1798; Deeds could not be issued until full payment was made to Six Nations; Nearly 5,750 ha sold to Township Formation Early 1911' century Pennsylvania Mennonites and non -Mennonites in 1800; German Company formed to facilitate a bulk sale of land to Pennsylvania Mennonites, represented by D. Erb and S. Bricker; Remaining 24,281 ha purchased in 1805 with clear title; Lots drawn by shareholders in Pennsylvania; Steady and rapid stream of settlers ensued, disrupted only by the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812 Population reached 4,424 by 1841 (mostly Pennsylvania Dutch and German); 33,518 ha taken up by 1846, with 12,151 ha under cultivation; 20 saw mills and 8 grist mills in operation at that time; Traversed by the Grand Trunk Railway Township Mid- 19t'to early (1856), Galt & Guelph Railway (1855/57), Preston & Berlin Railway Development 20th century (1857/1873) and Waterloo Junction Railway (1889/91); Principal settlements at Berlin, Hespeler, Preston and Waterloo, Other communities at Blair, Bloomingdale, Breslau, Bridgeport, Doon, Freeport, Freiburg, German Mills, New Aberdeen, Oregon(Upper Doon , Shantz, Strasburg and Williamsburg 1.2.2 Past and Present Land Use 1.2.2.1 Overview During Pre -Contact and Early Contact times, the vicinity of the study area would have comprised a mixture of coniferous trees, deciduous trees and open areas. Indigenous communities would have managed the landscape to some degree, particularly during the Late Woodland period when clearings were made for agriculture. During the early 19th century, Pennsylvania Mennonites and later Euro -Canadian settlers arrived in the area and continued to clear the forests for agricultural and settlement purposes. The study area was located east of the historical community of German Mills. The land use at the time of assessment can be classified as transportation (the roadways and associated infrastructure), residential (developed properties), agricultural (fields) and natural lands (the undeveloped areas). 1.2.2.2 German Mills German Mills, also known as Parkway, Jewsburg, Edenburg, Hopewell Mills and Bleams Mills, seems to have originated when Philip Bliehm built a sawmill on Schneider Creek in 1812. The mill, which was serviced by one dam, was purchased by Samuel Liebschuetz in 1835 (Janusas 1988:169). During Liebscheutz's period of mill ownership (1835-1851), he laid plans for the village of Jewsburg, a name reflecting his religion (Benjamin and Berge 2012:56). The southern part of the Township of Waterloo owed much of its early development to the establishment of major thoroughfares in the first quarter of the 19th century. The earliest of these was Bleams Road, October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-� Wig of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener built by Philip Bliehm in the 1820s to link the Township of Wilmot and the western part of the Township of Waterloo to his businesses at German Mills (Bloomfield 2006:73-76). The flour mills were the epicentre of the small community, with related businesses that included a stave mill, cooperage and general store. Today, the last vestiges of the settlement are Cress Lane and Webster Road as they are currently aligned (Benjamin and Berge 2012:54). 1.2.2.3 Mapping and Imagery Analysis In order to gain a general understanding of the study area's past land uses, two historical settlement maps, four topographic maps and two aerial images were examined during the research component of the study. Specifically, the following resources were consulted: • Tremaine'sMap of the County of Waterloo, Canada West (186 1) (OHCMP 2019); • The Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo, Ont. (188 1) (McGill University 2001); • Topographic maps from 1916, 1923, 1929 and 1936 (OCUL 2021); and • Aerial images from 1955 and 1963 (University of Waterloo 2021). The limits of the study area are shown on georeferenced versions of the consulted historical resources in Map 2—Map 6. Tremaines'Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada West (186 1) indicates that Henry C. Wismer, David Surarus, A.C. Weber, Andrew Surarus, Amos Weaver and Jonas Wilfong occupied the subject parts of Bechtel's Tract, while Elias Snider and Henry Strickler occupied the subject parts of Lots 51 and 53, German Company Tract, respectively (Map 2). Structures are depicted on the properties of Henry C. Wismer (just west of the study area) and Amos Weaver (within the study area). Many of the families that owned property in the study area were some of the earliest settlers to the area. Hidden Valley Road bisects the study area east—west and appears to have crossed the Grand River before continuing east to Freeport. The Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo, Ontario (188 1) provides fewer details regarding properties and occupants compared to the 1861 map, but some additional information is provided. Moses Wismer is listed as the occupant of the former Henry C. Wismer property, for example, and a residence is shown on the property just west of the study area (Map 3). No additional residents are identified within the study area, but this lack of data should not be taken as evidence that the properties were unimproved, as typically only subscribers would have their names and farmsteads included in the published content. The proximity of the study area to nearby Freeport to the east, German Mills to the west and Centreville to the north, coupled with the proximity to the Grand River, would have made the study area ideal for settlement. Topographic maps from 1916, 1923 and 1929 indicate that six frame structures once stood within the study area, the majority of which were located along Hidden Valley Road. A bridge crossed a tributary of the Grand River in the eastern part of the study area, and a ford existed at the crossing of Hidden Valley Road and the Grand River (Map 4). The ford at Hidden Valley Road was a shallow place in the Grand River that allowed for easy crossing. Several changes are apparent in October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-� W J6 of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener the 1936 topographic map, including the removal of the ford, the realignment of the eastern part of Hidden Valley Road and the establishment of a Bell Telephone Line. The aerial image from 1955 demonstrates that settlement within the study area changed little, save for some driveway modifications associated with the realignment of Hidden Valley Road (Map 5). By 1963, Highway 8 had been built north of the study area and Wabanaki Drive had been established along the west (Map 6). No new structures or features appear within the study area. 1.3 Archaeological Context The Stage 1 assessment (property inspection) was conducted on April 27, 2021 under PIF 4P1021- 0004-2021. The limits of the study area were confirmed using georeferenced aerial imagery showing artificial and natural formations in relation to the subject lands. The archaeological context of any given study area must be informed by 1) the condition of the property as found (Section 1.3.1), 2) a summary of registered or known archaeological sites located within a minimum 1 km radius (Section 1.3.2) and 3) descriptions of previous archaeological fieldwork carried out within the limits of, or immediately adjacent to the property (Section 1.3.3). 1.3.1 Condition of the Property The study area lies within the Great Lakes—St. Lawrence forest region, which is a transitional zone between the southern deciduous forest and the northern boreal forest. This forest extends along the St. Lawrence River across central Ontario to Lake Huron and west of Lake Superior along the border with Minnesota, and its southern portion extends into the more populated areas of Ontario. This forest is dominated by hardwoods, featuring species such as maple, oak, yellow birch, white and red pine. Coniferous trees such as white pine, red pine, hemlock and white cedar commonly mix with deciduous broad-leaved species, such as yellow birch, sugar and red maples, basswood and red oak (MNRF 2021). In terms of local physiography, the majority of the subject lands fall within the Waterloo Hills. This region consists mainly of sandy hills, including ridges of sandy till (unsorted glacial sediment), kames and kame moraines (large deposits of till, sand and gravel left after melting). Outwash sands occupy the hollows between the hills. An extensive area of alluvial terraces adjoins the hilly region, which are associated with the Grand River spillway system (Chapman and Putnam 1984:136-137). The southeastern portion of the study area falls within the Guelph Drumlin Field. This region is located northwest of the Paris Moraine and includes roughly 300 broad oval drumlins of various sizes. The drumlins themselves consist largely of loamy and calcareous till, and analyses have placed the average grain sizes in the neighbourhood of 50% sand, 35% silt and 15% clay. These drumlins are not closely grouped, and the intervening low ground supports mainly fluvial materials created by river action (Chapman and Putnam 1984:137-138). According to the Ontario Soil Survey, a variety of soil types occur within the study area. In terms of distribution, most of the study area was classified as a grouping of Burford gravelly loam, Burford cobbly loam and St. Jacobs loam (Bg>Bu--Sj), with a large north -central area consisting of a grouping of Waterloo Pine sandy loam, Colwood loam and organic soil (Wa>Cd=Mc). In the southern portion of the study area along the Grand River, the soils are classified as a grouping of October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-� Wi8 of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 7 Hespler sandy loam, Martin sand and gravel and Donald loam (Hr=Mn=Dn). The northwest corner of the study area was classified as Kitchener and Waterloo Urban Land due to past development impacts. A small area adjacent to the Grand River in the southwestern portion of the study area was classified as scarp and gravel pit soils which have been subject to erosion and gravel extraction. The soils along the narrow band of Highway 8 are considered disturbed soils as they have impacted to significant degree by infrastructure construction. A small grouping of Camilla sandy loam, Caledon sandy loam and Burford gravelly loam was found along the southwestern edge (Cm=Ca>Bg). The specific characteristics of these soil types are summarized in Table 3 (Presant and Wicklund 1971; Cressman 1996: Sheet 3). Table 3: Soil Tvnes Soil Code Soil Type Parent Material Topography Drainage Bg Burford gravelly loam Loam or sandy loam overlying Gently sloping Good gravelly soil materials Bu Burford cobbly loam Loam or sandy loam overlying Gently sloping Good gravelly soil materials Outwash sand and gravel deposits Ca Caledon sandy loam (sandy loam sediments overlying Nearly level Good ravel Cd Colwood loam Loam and silt loam Level Poor Outwash gravel deposits Cm Camilla sandy loam (sandy loam sediments overlying Level Imperfect ravel Dn Donald loam Loam and sandy loam sediments Level Imperfect overlying ravel Hr Hespler sandy loam Sandy loam Level Poor Mc Organic soil Coarse textured soil materials Level Very poor Mn Martin sand and gravel Sand and gravel deposits Level Variable Si St. Jacobs loam Well -drained loam and silt loam Very gently sloping Good over gravel deposits Wa Waterloo fine sandy loam Fine sandy loam lacustrined Gently sloping Good osits The subject lands fall within the Middle Grand drainage basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA 2021). Specifically, the study area is traversed by the Grand River and several of its tributaries as well as a handful of associated wetlands. At the time of assessment, the study area comprised the roadway platforms, shoulders, ditches, culverts and sidewalks associated with Wabanaki Drive, Hidden Valley Road and Hidden Valley Crescent, various driveways and developed properties, as well as agricultural fields, wooded areas and overgrown areas. Soil conditions were ideal for the activities conducted. No unusual physical features were encountered that affected the results of the Stage 1 assessment. 1.3.2 Registered or Known Archaeological Sites The Ontario Archaeological Sites Database and the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports were consulted to determine whether any registered or known archaeological resources occur within a 1 km radius of the study area. The available search facility returned a total of 23 October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V 820_' of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener registered sites located within at least a 1 km radius (the facility returns sites in a rectangular area, rather than a radius, potentially resulting in returns beyond the specified distance). In terms of other known resources (e.g., Isolated Non -Diagnostic Find Spots, Leads or unreported deposits), six unregistered sites were identified within a 1 km radius. The sites are summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Registered or Known Archaeological Sites Borden No. / ID No. Site Name / Identifier Time Period Affmio, Site Type Distance from Study Area AiHc-12 Dalgleish Woodland Indigenous Camp/Campsite > 1 km AiHc-58 Displaced Post -Contact Unspecified Dump > 1 km AiHc-83 Jacob Furtney Homestead Post -Contact Euro -Canadian Homestead Within AiHc-89 George Israel Post -Contact Euro -Canadian Homestead, house, outbuilding > I km AiHc-91 Breslau Farms IV Unknown Unspecified Unspecified > 1 km AiHc-93 - Pre -Contact Indigenous Camp/Campsite > 1 km AiHc-96 Old Chicapee II Early Woodland Indigenous Findspot > 1 km AiHc-123 Gateway 1 Early Archaic Indigenous Findspot > 1 km AiHc-124 Gateway 2 Late Archaic, Middle Woodland Indigenous Findspot > 1 km AiHc-125 Woolner Middle Archaic Indigenous Findspot > 1 km AiHc-194 Deer Ridge Pre -Contact Indigenous Unspecified 300 m-1 km AiHc-205 Shupe Post -Contact Euro -Canadian Building, homestead > 1 km AiHc-241 - Pre -Contact Indigenous Unspecified > lkm AiHc-258 - Pre -Contact Indigenous Small scatter, campsite > I km AiHc-439 - Pre -Contact Indigenous Findspot > 1 km AiHc-440 - Pre -Contact Indigenous Findspot > 1 km AiHc-441 - Pre -Contact Indigenous Findspot > 1 km AiHc-443 Robson Post -Contact Euro -Canadian Midden > 1 km AiHc-473 E. Snider Post -Contact Euro -Canadian Homestead > 1 km AiHc-490 _ Pre -Contact, Post -Contact Indigenous, Euro -Canadian Burial, other refuse > 1 km AiHc-492 - Middle Archaic Indigenous Short-term campsite > 1 km AiHc-505 - Pre -Contact Indigenous Scatter > 1 km AiHc-508 Riverbank Woodland Indigenous Hunting loss > 1 km Unregistered Location 1 (Detritus 2015 Post -Contact Euro -Canadian Findspot Within Unregistered Location 2 (Detritus 2015 Post -Contact Euro -Canadian Findspot Within Unregistered Location 1 Unknown Unspecified Unspecified 300 m-1 km Unregistered I Location 2 1 Unknown Unspecified Unspecified 300 m-1 km Unregistered Location 3 Unknown Unspecified Unspecified 300 m-1 km Unregistered Location 5 Unknown Unspecified Unspecified 300 m-1 km The Jacob Furtney Homestead (AiHc-83), Location 1 and Location 2 are located within the study area. As relevant archaeological resources that could impact fieldwork strategy decisions and recommendations, these sites are fully discussed in Section 1.3.3. The remaining sites are located over 300 m away and represent distant archaeological resources. October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82_� Wj� of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 9 1.3.3 Previous Archaeological Work Reports documenting assessments conducted within the subject lands and assessments that resulted in the discovery of sites within adjacent lands were sought during the research component of the study. In order to ensure that all relevant past work was identified, an investigation was launched to identify reports involving assessments within 50 m of the study area. The investigation determined that there are 10 available reports documenting previous archaeological fieldwork within the specified distance (Map 7; SD Map 1). The relevant results and recommendations are summarized below as required by Section 7.5.8 Standards 4-5 of the 2011 S& Gs. 1.3.3.1 Jacob Furtney Homestead (Stage 4) Although the early assessments of the Jacob Furtney Homestead were conducted in the 1980s and were not available at the time of writing, a Stage 4 excavation was conducted in May 1996 under Licence 496-015 (MHC 1996). The excavated area falls on part of Lot 8, Registered Plan 1741 within the residential development in the southeast portion of the study area. The investigation resulted in the discovery of only a few artifacts, and no cultural features were encountered. The site was fully mitigated and was not recommended for further assessment (MHC 1996:10). The overlapping area of previous assessment is therefore of no further archaeological concern. 1.3.3.2 Wabanaki Road Extension (Stage 12) Between October and November 2001, Stage 1 and 2 assessments were conducted for the proposed Wabanaki Road extension from Goodrich Drive to Fairway Road under CIF 92001-007-010 (PAC 2001). The assessed area traverses the western portion of the study area. The Stage 1 assessment identified multiple areas of archaeological potential, and the Stage 2 assessment did not result in the discovery of any archaeological materials. The property was not recommended for further assessment (PAC 2001:6). The overlapping area of previous assessment is therefore of no further archaeological concern. 1.3.3.3 602 Hidden Valley Road (Stage 12) Between October and November 2002, Stage 1 and 2 assessments were conducted in support of an application of severance for a property located at 602 Hidden Valley Road under CIF 92002- 047-018 (Detritus 2002). The assessed area overlaps the northeastern portion of the study area near the bridge over the Grand River. The Stage 1 assessment identified minimal archaeological potential, and the Stage 2 assessment did not result in the discovery of any archaeological materials. The property was not recommended for further assessment (Detritus 2002:8). The overlapping area of previous assessment is therefore of no further archaeological concern. 1.3.3.4 572 Hidden Valley Road (Stage 12) Between March and April 2003, Stage 1 and 2 assessments were conducted in support of an application of severance for a property located at 572 Hidden Valley Road under CIF 92002-047- 022 (Detritus 2003). The assessed area traverses the northeastern portion of the study area south of the Highway 8 right-of-way (ROW). The Stage 1 assessment identified minimal archaeological potential, and the Stage 2 assessment did not result in the discovery of any archaeological October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-� Wig of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 10 materials. The property was not recommended for further assessment (Detritus 2003:8). The overlapping area of previous assessment is therefore of no further archaeological concern. 1.3.3.5 1038 Hidden Valley Road (Stage 12) In July 2003, Stage 1 and 2 assessments were conducted in support of a draft plan of subdivision for lands located on Lot 8, Registrars Compiled Plan 1519 and Block 30, Registered Plan 1740 under CIF #2003-53-053 (Archaeologix 2003). The assessed area encompasses the extant subdivision within the southwestern part of the study area. The Stage 1 assessment identified areas of archaeological potential and an area of no archaeological potential resulting from deep disturbances caused by gravel extraction activities. The Stage 2 assessment of the identified areas of archaeological potential did not result in the identification of any archaeological materials. The property was not recommended for further assessment (Archaeologix 2003:10). The overlapping area of previous assessment is therefore of no further archaeological concern. 1.3.3.6 Highway 8 and Fairway Road Interchange Improvements (Stage]) In August 2003, a Stage 1 assessment was conducted for the proposed reconstruction and widening of a 2.0 km section of Highway 8 from 0.5 km north of the Grand River Bridge northerly to Fergus Avenue as well as improvements to Fairway Boulevard under CIF 9050-013 (ASI 2003). The assessed area overlaps the northern portion of the study area between Highway 8 and the Fairway Road interchange. The Stage 1 assessment identified archaeological potential beyond the ROWs and it was recommended that a Stage 2 archaeological assessment be conducted prior to development (ASI 2003:6). 1.3.3.7 Highway 8 Reconstruction and Widening (Stage 12) In June 2006, Stage 1 and 2 assessments were conducted for the proposed reconstruction and widening of Highway 8 from 1 km north of the Grand River to Sportsworld Drive under CIF #P035-026-2006 (AMAA 2007). The assessed area abuts the northeastern edge of the study area. The Stage 1 assessment identified archaeological potential, and the Stage 2 assessment did not result in the discovery of any archaeological materials. The assessed area was not recommended for further assessment (AMAA 2007:10). 1.3.3.8 Wabanaki Drive Extension Class EA (Stage 12) In November 2008, Stage 1 and 2 assessments were conducted for the proposed extension of Wabanaki Drive from Wilson Avenue to Goodrich Drive under PIF #P223-011-2008 (ASI 2009). The assessed area traverses the southwestern portion of the study area. The Stage 1 assessment identified multiple areas of archaeological potential, and the Stage 2 assessment of the identified areas of potential did not result in the discovery of any archaeological materials. The assessed area was not recommended for further assessment (ASI 2009:7). The overlapping area of previous assessment is therefore of no further archaeological concern. October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-� &� of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 11 1.3.3.9 Hidden Valley Road Development (Stage 12) In August 2011, Stage 1 and 2 assessments were conducted for lands on the south side of Hidden Valley Road under PIF 9P017-197-2011 (Detritus 2015). The assessed area overlaps the southwestern portion of the study area. The Stage 1 assessment determined that the majority of the property had archaeological potential. The Stage 2 assessment resulted in the discovery of two isolated Euro -Canadian findspots (Locations 1-2). These sites were found to be of no further cultural heritage value or interest, and the assessed area was not recommended for further assessment (Detritus 2015:11). The overlapping area of previous assessment is therefore of no further archaeological concern. 1.3.3.10 River Road Phase I (Stage 12) Between May 2018 and November 2019, Stage 1 and 2 assessments were conducted for the proposed extension of Regional Road No. 56 (River Road) between Wabanaki Drive and Manitou Drive under PIF 9P089-0092-2018 (ARA 2020). The assessed area traverses the western portion of the study area. The Stage 1 assessment identified a mixture of areas of archaeological potential, areas of no archaeological potential and previously assessed lands of no further concern. The Stage 2 assessment did not result in the identification of any archaeological materials. The assessed area was not recommended for further assessment (ARA 2020:18). The overlapping area of previous assessment is therefore of no further archaeological concern. October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File W82-� Wig of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 12 2.0 STAGE 1 BACKGROUND STUDY 2.1 Background The Stage 1 assessment involved background research to document the geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork and current land condition of the study area. This desktop examination included research from archival sources, archaeological publications and online databases. It also included the analysis of a variety of historical maps and aerial imagery. The results of the research conducted for the background study are summarized below. With occupation beginning approximately 11,000 years ago, the greater vicinity of the study area comprises a complex chronology of Pre -Contact and Post -Contact histories (Section 1.2). Artifacts associated with Palaeo, Archaic, Woodland and Early Contact traditions are well -attested in the City of Kitchener, and Euro -Canadian archaeological sites dating to pre -1900 and post -1900 contexts are likewise common. The presence of 29 previously identified sites in the surrounding area demonstrates the desirability of this locality for early settlement (Section 1.3.2). The investigation confirmed that three of these sites fall within the subject lands. Background research identified multiple areas of previous assessment within the study area (Section 1.3.3). The natural environment of the study area would have been attractive to both Indigenous and Euro - Canadian populations as a result of proximity to the Grand River, its tributaries and associated wetlands. The majority of the soils would have been ideal for agriculture, and the diverse local vegetation would also have encouraged settlement throughout Ontario's lengthy history. Euro - Canadian populations would have been particularly drawn to Hidden Valley Road, Goodrich Drive and Cameo Drive, all of which were historically -surveyed thoroughfares. In summary, the background study included an up-to-date listing of sites from the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (within at least a 1 km radius), the consideration of previous local archaeological fieldwork (within at least a 50 m radius), the analysis of historical maps (at the most detailed scale available) and the study of aerial imagery. ARA therefore confirms that the standards for background research set out in Section 1.1 of the 2011 S& Gs were met. 2.2 Field Methods (Property Inspection) In order to gain first-hand knowledge of the geography, topography and current condition of the study area, a property inspection was conducted on April 27, 2021. Environmental conditions were ideal during the inspection, with partly cloudy skies, bright lighting and a temperature of 10 °C. ARA therefore confirms that fieldwork was carried out under weather and lighting conditions that met the requirements set out in Section 1.2 Standard 2 of the 2011 S& Gs. The study area was subjected to random spot-checking in accordance with the requirements set out in Section 1.2 of the 2011 S&Gs. The inspection confirmed that all surficial features of archaeological potential were present where they were previously identified and did not result in the identification of any additional features of archaeological potential not visible on mapping (e.g., relic water channels, patches of well -drained soils, etc.). October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82_� WJ6 of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 13 The inspection determined that parts of the study area were disturbed by past roadworks, residential development and associated infrastructure. Permanently wet areas and sloped lands were also encountered. No other natural features (e.g., overgrown vegetation, heavier soils than expected, etc.) that would affect assessment strategies were identified. Three built heritage resources (602, 681 and 691 Hidden Valley Road) and three cultural heritage landscapes (Hidden Valley Road, Hidden Valley Road - Heritage Corridor and the Grand River Corridor) were documented during ARA's concurrent heritage assessment (ARA 2021). No other significant built features (e.g., plaques, monuments, cemeteries, etc.) were identified. 2.3 Analysis and Conclusions In addition to relevant historical sources and the results of past archaeological assessments, the archaeological potential of a property can be assessed using its soils, hydrology and landforms as considerations. Section 1.3.1 of the 2011 S&Gs recognizes the following features or characteristics as indicators of archaeological potential: previously identified sites, water sources (past and present), elevated topography, pockets of well -drained sandy soil, distinctive land formations, resource areas, areas of Euro -Canadian settlement, early transportation routes, listed or designated properties, historic landmarks or sites, and areas that local histories or informants have identified with possible sites, events, activities or occupations. The Stage 1 assessment resulted in the identification of several features of archaeological potential in the vicinity of the study area (Map 8; SD Map 2). The closest and most relevant indicators of archaeological potential (i.e., those that would directly affect survey interval requirements) include 3 previously identified sites (AiHc-83, Location 1 and Location 2), 4 primary water sources (the Grand River and three of its tributaries), 10 secondary water sources (parts of the Grandview Provincial Wetland, Hidden Valley Wetland Provincial Swamp, Lower Freeport Creek Wetland Complex and 4 unnamed wetlands), 2 physiographic landforms (an eroded scarp and an esker), 8 historical transportation routes (a ford across the Grand River, Cameo Drive, Goodrich Drive, 2 iterations of Hidden Valley Road and 3 unnamed roads) and multiple historical structure localities (19th and early 20th -century structures). Background research did not identify any features indicating that the study area has potential for deeply buried archaeological resources. Although proximity to a feature of archaeological potential is a significant factor in the potential modelling process, current land conditions must also be considered. Section 1.3.2 of the 2011 S&Gs emphasizes that 1) quarrying, 2) major landscaping involving grading below topsoil, 3) building footprints and 4) sewage/infrastructure development can result in the removal of archaeological potential, and Section 2.1 states that 1) permanently wet areas, 2) exposed bedrock and 3) steep slopes (> 20°) can also be considered as having no archaeological potential. Areas previously assessed and not recommended for further work also require no further assessment. Three locations of archaeological materials were identified within the study area: the Jacob Furtney Homestead (AiHc-83), Location 1 and Location 2. None of these sites were recommended for further assessment. Multiple previously assessed areas of no further concern were also identified within the subject lands, none of which warrant additional assessment. October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File W82_� WJY of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 14 ARA's visual inspection, coupled with the analysis of historical sources and digital environmental data, resulted in the identification of multiple areas of no archaeological potential within the remaining lands. Specifically, deep land alterations have resulted in the removal of archaeological potential from multiple roadway platforms, shoulders and ditches as well as residential developments and related infrastructure (Image 1—Image 6). These areas had clearly been impacted by past earth-moving/construction activities, resulting in the disturbance of the original soils to a significant depth and severe damage to the integrity of any archaeological resources. Several areas of previously assessed lands were photo -documented during the property inspection (Image 7—Image 8), and a variety of natural areas of no archaeological potential were identified. Lands sloped > 20° were encountered in the central, eastern and southwestern portions of the study area (Image 9—Image 12), and a large permanently wet area was found in the north -centre. Various smaller permanently wet areas were also documented in the east and south (Image 13—Image 15). The remainder of the study area has potential for Indigenous and Euro -Canadian archaeological materials, requires test pit survey to confirm the presence/extent of any subsurface disturbances or must be subject to a visual inspection to clarify potential. The areas of archaeological potential include agricultural fields, wooded areas, overgrown areas and lawns (Image 16—Image 24). In summary, the Stage 1 assessment determined that the study area comprises a mixture of areas of archaeological potential, areas of no archaeological potential and previously assessed lands of no further concern. The potential modelling results are presented in Map 9. The project lands (`study area') are depicted as a layer in this map. October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-� Wig of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 15 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The Stage 1 assessment determined that the study area comprises a mixture of areas of archaeological potential, areas of no archaeological potential and previously assessed lands of no further concern. It is recommended that all identified areas of archaeological potential be subject to a Stage 2 property assessment in accordance with Section 2.1 of the 2011 S&Gs. Although the study area was defined to include part of the Grand River, it is ARA's understanding that the City has no intention to conduct any works within the river. If any such works are contemplated, a marine assessment would be required prior to any river impacts. The agricultural fields must be assessed using the pedestrian survey method at an interval of 5 m. All ground surfaces must be recently ploughed (typically within the month prior to assessment), weathered by one heavy rainfall or several light rains, and provide at least 80% visibility. If archaeological materials are encountered, the transect interval must be decreased to at least 1 m and a close inspection of the ground must be conducted over a minimum of a 20 m radius around the find. This interval must be continued until the full extent of the scatter has been defined. The wooded areas, overgrown areas and lawns must be assessed using the test pit survey method. A survey interval of 5 m will be required due to the proximity of the lands to the identified features of archaeological potential. Given the likelihood that several parts of the study area were impacted by past construction activities, a combination of visual inspection and test pit survey should be utilized to confirm the extent of disturbance in accordance with Section 2.1.8 of the 2011 S&Gs. This will allow for the empirical evaluation of the integrity of the soils and the depth of any impacts. If disturbance cannot be confirmed, then a test pit survey interval of 5 m must be maintained. Each test pit must be excavated into at least the first 5 cm of subsoil, and the resultant pits must be examined for stratigraphy, potential features and/or evidence of fill. The soil from each test pit must be screened through mesh with an aperture of no greater than 6 mm and examined for archaeological materials. If archaeological materials are encountered, all positive test pits must be documented and intensification may be required. One area along the northern edge of the study area appears to be either sloped > 200 or permanently wet, but this locality could not be inspected due to a lack of permission to enter the property and its distance from accessible public areas. This area must be subject to a visual inspection to confirm that it has no archaeological potential. If archaeological potential is identified, these lands must be assessed using the test pit survey method outlined above. The identified areas of no archaeological potential and previously assessed lands of no further concern do not require any additional assessment. Given that there are still outstanding archaeological concerns within the project lands, no ground alterations or development of any kind may occur until the Stage 2 assessment is complete, a recommendation that the lands require no further archaeological assessment is made, and the associated report is entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports. October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-� WJ6 of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 16 4.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION Section 7.5.9 of the 2011 S& Gs requires that the following information be provided for the benefit of the proponent and approval authority in the land use planning and development process: This report is submitted to the Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18. The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and guidelines that are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the MHSTCI, a letter will be issued by the ministry stating that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed development. It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other than a licensed archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or to remove any artifact or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from the site, until such time as a licensed archaeologist has completed archaeological fieldwork on the site, submitted a report to the Minister stating that the site has no further cultural heritage value or interest, and the report has been filed in the Ontario Public Register of Archaeology Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may be a new archaeological site and therefore subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proponent or person discovering the archaeological resources must cease alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed consultant archaeologist to carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 requires that any person discovering human remains must notify the police or coroner and the Registrar at the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services. October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-� Wi8 of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 17 5.0 IMAGES Image 1: Disturbed Lands (April 27, 2021; Facing Southwest) Image 3: Disturbed Lands (April 27, 2021; Facing South) Image 2: Disturbed Lands (April 27, 2021; Facing South) Image 4: Disturbed Lands (April 27, 2021; Facing Southwest) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File W 821-'� of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 18 Image 5: Disturbed Lands (April 27, 2021; Facing Southwest) Image 7: Previously Assessed Lands (April 27, 2021; Facing South) Image 9: Sloped Lands (April 27, 2021; Facing Southeast) Image 6: Disturbed Lands (April 27, 2021; Facing North) Image 8: Previously Assessed Lands (April 27, 2021; Facing Southeast) Image 10: Sloped Lands (April 27, 2021; Facing North) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File W82-� �� of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 19 Image 11: Sloped Lands (April 27, 2021; Facing South) Image 13: Permanently Wet Lands (April 27, 2021; Facing North) Image 15: Permanently Wet Lands (April 27, 2021; Facing South) Image 12: Sloped Lands (April 27, 2021; Facing West) Image 14: Permanently Wet Lands (April 27, 2021; Facing West) Image 16: Area of Potential (April 27, 2021; Facing East) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-� Wig of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 20 Image 17: Area of Potential (April 27,2021; Facing West) Image 19: Area of Potential (April 27, 2021; Facing Northeast) Image 21: Area of Potential (April 27, 2021; Facing East) Image 18: Area of Potential (April 27, 2021; Facing Southwest) Image 20: Area of Potential (April 27, 2021; Facing North) Image 22: Area of Potential (April 27, 2021; Facing North) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-� W M of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 21 Image 23: Area of Potential (April 27, 2021; Facing South) Image 24: Area of Potential (April 27, 2021; Facing Southeast) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File W82-� Wig of 917 Stage I Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 22 6.0 MAPS Map 1: Location of the Study Area (Produced under licence using AreGISO software by Esri, © Esri) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-0--WJ6 ge of 917 0 2.5 5 km JW, Study Area AA �6. AM N 1:25,000 A 0.5 1 k --p ...- E,HERE G.-, —, .--.tF—, 5 -C.U535 FAO NPS, N—,G-- GN K.—INL Drdn ante Survey, Esri .­,M=I,—Ghi..(H-gKon pen5heetMap non[rihutore, and the GIS User Community Map 1: Location of the Study Area (Produced under licence using AreGISO software by Esri, © Esri) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-0--WJ6 ge of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 23 Map 2: Tremaine's Map of*the County of • Waterloo, Canada West (1861) (Produced under licence using ArcGISO software by Esri, (D Esri; OHCMP 2019) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V86Wjy of 917 �. '—k • L aRM M r � Ilia 3 ' . �• +"fit � �P j r + �`' It r 1 ILAo •' 4' 4 Vim !� !4 Af y PF y Y L Jaw .�4,. moi' aY OV) At '1 Study Area N 1:17,000 0 350 700m A ee Map Source: Geo. R & G M. Tremaine'Tmmaina's Map of Ne County 1 WMadoo. Canada We51' (1681( Map 2: Tremaine's Map of*the County of • Waterloo, Canada West (1861) (Produced under licence using ArcGISO software by Esri, (D Esri; OHCMP 2019) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V86Wjy of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 24 Map 3: The Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo, Ont. (188 1) (Produced under licence using ArcGISO software by Esri, (0 Esri; McGill University 2001) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V86Wig of 917 f $ 14 E •'. r 10 r !'o 4 s Study Area A%SFARA N 1:17,fl00 0 350 700 m se Map Souece_'M1tap of Wale Aoo --p hum H. P-11 8 Co's Ilus4atetl Hieloncal Atlas of Ifi a County of 4Va[etloo' {1881 � Map 3: The Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo, Ont. (188 1) (Produced under licence using ArcGISO software by Esri, (0 Esri; McGill University 2001) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V86Wig of 917 Stage I Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 25 CC F E ■A�0 FOR 44- rL & (10 Bass Map .Source: Galt, Ontario. [040P08] (1916) .1 qrce: Galt, Ontario. WAR iTEzW -Z FRRI E F OR DGE 2 - CL r- aL 4L FOR IL S Vuf All OL Bae Ma Source: Galt, Ontario. [040POB] (1923) .3 Study Area REFERENCE ff . . . ... . ...... -ret fn gv J L --.-,-.-!'--,11',;,'.'d t.W ....... ......... . ....... ...... . OM-Mlff-F . . ...... . a x. %� ARA N 1:20,000 0 400 BOOM Map 4: Topographic Maps (1916-1936) (Produced under licence using ArcGIS0 software by Esri, (0 Esri, OCUL 2021) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-0--WJ6 ge of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 26 Study Area Awbsuwm 1:s,z7a N 0 200 400M m�¢ .:U9ceaxetl antler V1Q Open G¢vemmi onncejeol o 94310¢:2, 43r 17227.4319_61P 320_9QWS 1 (195 ) P1¢J¢cl 9, d318 229, 4818 22].43A9 155, n92� 98](19551 Map 5: Aerial Image (1955) (Produced under licence using ArcGISO software by Esri, (D Esri; University of Waterloo 2021) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-� W�d of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener E - Study Area s:. 7., AaCT MIKWING STREET 27 N ,:s,27a � 0 200 400M Ease Mapn5lo906n9a&: U n4cenaetl fWeaM1e open 9Go s Digig i lOn PrOjell 193435947,16_4359_48,1903_-9_49,92L4947, o 1983 1801 48, 1963 4891 49, 1003 0391 60,1083 4428 32, 1983 0028 33j11983j — — — — — Map 6: Aerial Image (1963) (Produced under licence using ArcGISO software by Esri, (D Esri; University of Waterloo 2021) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V 820- W�� of 917 Stage I Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 28 Study Area CIF #2003-53-053 (Stage 1-2) Previously Assessed ® CIF #P035-026-2006 (Stage 1-2) CIF #P050-013 (Stage 1) PIF #P017-197-2011 (Stage 1-2) CIF 92001-007-010 (Stage 1-2) PIF #P089-0092-2018 (Stage 1-2) CIF #2002-047-018 (Stage 1-2) PIF #P223-011-2008 (Stage 1-2) CIF #2002-047-022 (Stage 1-2) AWI§B.=ARA N 1:9,271 0 200 400m s nSau—eliV OKI antleri(2 Gpan Govamment Licence-dntario Map 5¢ufe¢'. ClFj al KlMflan¢t{2018) Map 7: Previous Assessments (Stage 1-2) (Produced under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, (C Esri) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #PI021-0004-2021 ARA File W92goe-- W of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 29 ' ; Study Area Features of Potential Historic Structure Historic Transportation Route Physiographic Landform Q Waterbody Wetland A%sa ARA N 1:11,000 D 235 470 rn s ntortn . lice— —erh..pen Gove.— licence -O.— Map Saunee'. CIV al Kifth—r(2018) Map 8: Features of Potential (Produced under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, (C Esri) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File W 82- W�g of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 30 W Image i� —Study Area Potential Modelling (Recommended Survey Method) - Archaeological Potential (Pedestrian Survey at an Interval of 5 m) - Archaeological Potential (Test Pit Survey at an Interval of 5 m) Archaeological Potential (Combination Survey to Confirm Disturbance) Disturbed Permanently Wet Slope > 20° Alsks.: ARA N 1:8,817 ,h1 0 190 380m _.gamsmr¢0U— 1V QfKtlhQn0T(2 eaa�co�¢mm��u���e-a,renm as¢Map Sou1c¢'. Clry or Klkflen¢r{2018) Map 9: Potential Modelling and Recommendations (Produced under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File W82 -0--W4 of 917 Archaeological Potential (Visual Inspection) - Archaeological Potential (Marine Assessment) - No Archaeological Potential (No Further Work) No Archaeological Potential (No Further Work) No Archaeclogica[ Potential (No Further Work) Previously Assessed (No Further Work) Disturbed Permanently Wet Slope > 20° Alsks.: ARA N 1:8,817 ,h1 0 190 380m _.gamsmr¢0U— 1V QfKtlhQn0T(2 eaa�co�¢mm��u���e-a,renm as¢Map Sou1c¢'. Clry or Klkflen¢r{2018) Map 9: Potential Modelling and Recommendations (Produced under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File W82 -0--W4 of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 31 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES A.M. Archaeological Associates (AMAA) 2007 Stage I and 2 Archaeological Assessment of Highway 8 Reconstruction and Widening, Grand River to Sportsworld Drive, Kitchener, (G. W.P. 9277-97-00). CIF #P035-026-2006. AMAA. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) 2020 Stage I and 2 Archaeological Assessments, Regional Road No. 56 (River Road) Extension, Phase I Wabanaki Drive to Manitou Drive, Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study, City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Part of Bechtel's Tract, Geographic Township of Waterloo, Waterloo County, Ontario. PIF 9P089-0092-2018. ARA. 2021 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report, Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Lots 51 and 53, German Company Tract & Bechtels Tract, Geographic Township of Waterloo, Former Waterloo County. ARA. Archaeological Service Inc. (ASI) 2003 Stage I Archaeological Assessment, Detail Design, Reconstruction and Widening of 2.0 km of Highway 8, Kitchener from 0.5 km North of the Grand River Bridge Northerly to Fergus Avenue, Including Fairway Road Interchange Improvements, City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario. GWP 276-97-00. CIF #P50-013. ASI. 2009 Stage 12 Archaeological Assessment, Wabanaki Drive Extension, Class Environmental Assessment, City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario. PIF #P223- 011-2008. ASI. Archaeologix Inc. (Archaeologix) 2003 Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1& 2), Draft Plan of Subdivision, 1038 Hidden Valley Road, Part of Lot 8, Registrars Compiled Plan, 1519 & Block 30 Registered Plan 1740, Geographic Township of Waterloo, City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario. CIF 92003-53-053. Archaeologix. Archives of Ontario (AO) 2015 Archives of Ontario: Accessing our Collections. Accessed online at: http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/access/our collection.aspx. Benjamin, L. and J. Berge 2012 Journey Through German Mills in Waterloo Historical Society Annual Volume. Bloomfield, E. 2006 Waterloo Township Through Two Centuries. Kitchener: Waterloo Historical Society. Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam 1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario, 3rd Edition. Toronto: Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-� W�8 of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 32 Coyne, J. H. 1895 The Country of the Neutrals (As Far as Comprised in the County of Elgin): From Champlain to Talbot. St. Thomas: Times Print. Cressman, D. 1996 Research Sub -Program State of the Resources: Improving the Land Resource Data Base The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Soil Information Upgrade. London: Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri -Food Canada. Cumming, R. (ed.) 1972 Illustrated Atlas of the County of Waterloo (H Parsell & Co. Toronto, 1881); County of Waterloo Directory (Armstrong & Co. Toronto, 1878); Illustrated Atlas of the County of Wellington (Walker & Miles Toronto, 1877). Reprint Edition. Port Elgin: Ross Cumming. Detritus Consulting (Detritus) 2002 Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1, 2), Schneider Property, Lot 12, R.P. 1523, Beasely's Old Survey, 602 Hidden Valley Road. City of Kitchener, R.M. of Waterloo. Severance Application File #B2002-027, Company Project #2002-034. CIF 92002-047-018. CIF 92002-047-018. Detritus. 2003 Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1, 2), Shouftas Property, Part Lot 11, R.P. 1523, Beasely's Old Survey, 572 Hidden Valley Road. City of Kitchener, R.M. of Waterloo. Severance Application File #B2003-001, B2003-002, Company Project 92003-008. CIF 92002-047-022. CIF #2002-047-022. Detritus. 2015 Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1, 2), Shouftas Property, 1054, 1070 Hidden Valley Road, City of Kitchener, R.M. of Waterloo, Company Project 92011-020, PIF #P017-197- 2011, Municipal File Number: (None Assigned Yet), Revised Report. PIF #P017-197-2011. Detritus. Ellis, C.J. and N. Ferris (eds.) 1990 The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5. London: Ontario Archaeological Society Inc. Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) 2021 Grand River Information Network (GRIN). Accessed online at: http://maps.grandriver.ca/. Hayes, G. 1997 Waterloo County: An Illustrated History. Kitchener: Waterloo Historical Society. Janusas, S. 1988 An Archaeological Perspective of an Historical Overview of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Kitchener: Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Lajeunesse, E.J. 1960 The Windsor Border Region: Canada's Southernmost Frontier. Toronto: The Champlain Society. October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82_� W�6 of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 33 McGill University 2001 The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project. Accessed online at: hLtp://digital.libra!y.mcgill.ca/couniyatlas/default.htm. Mayer Heritage Consultants Inc. (MHC) 1996 Archaeological Mitigative Excavation (Stage 4), Jacob Furtney Homestead (AiHc-83), Part ofLot 8, Registered Plan 1741, City of Kitchener, R.M. of Waterloo, Ontario. Licence #96-015. MHC. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) 2021 Forest Regions. Accessed online at: hLtps://www.ontario.cq/ ons. Munson, M.K. and S.M. Jamieson (eds.) 2013 Before Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province. Kingston: McGill -Queen's University Press. Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) 2021 Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project. Access online at: https://ocul.on.ca/topomUs/. Ontario Historical County Maps Project (OHCMP) 2019 Ontario Historical County Maps Project. Accessed online at: http://maps.library.utoronto.ca/hgis/counlymaps/maps.html. Parker Archaeological Consulting (PAC) 2001 Archaeological Assessment: Proposed Wabanaki Road Extension, Goodrich Drive to Fairway Road, City ofKitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo. CIF #2001-007-010. PAC. Presant, E.W. and R.E. Wicklund 1971 The Soils of Waterloo County. Report No. 44 of the Ontario Soil Survey. Ottawa: Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture. Smith, W.H. 1846 Smith's Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting all Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West. Toronto: H. & W. Rowsell. Surtees, R.J. 1994 Land Cessions, 1763-1830. In Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations, edited by E. S. Rogers and D. B. Smith, pp. 92-121. Toronto: Dundurn Press. Sutherland, J. 1864 County of Waterloo Gazetteer and General Business Directory for 1864. Toronto: Mitchell & Co. October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82_� W�y of 917 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 34 University of Waterloo (UW) 2021 Geospatial Centre Accessed online at: https://uwaterloo.ca/library/geospatial/collections/aerial-photographs-satellite-and- orthoimagery Warrick, G. 2000 The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):415-456. Wright, J.V. 1972 Ontario Prehistory: An Eleven -Thousand -Year Archaeological Outline. Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File V82-� W�g of 917 F�\MN.i mlaki� ARCHAEOLOGY I HERITAGE I OUTREACH I EDUCATION Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain City of Kitchener Regional Municipality of Waterloo Part of Lots 51 and 53, German Company Tract & Bechtel's Tract Geographic Township of Waterloo Former Waterloo County, Ontario Prepared for MTE Consultants Inc. 520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 Tel: (519) 743-6500 Licensed under M. Maika MHSTCI Licence 4P1021 PIF 4P 1021-0004-2021 ARA File 42020-0220 13/10/2021 Supplementary Documentation Stage I Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTATION 1 1.1 Detailed Site Location Information 1 2.0 SD MAPS 2 LIST OF SD MAPS SD Map 1: Previous Assessments (Stage 1-4) 2 SD Map 2: Features of Potential with Site Information 3 October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File W82-� W�d of 917 Stage I Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 1.0 SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTATION 1.1 Detailed Site Location Information 1 In keeping with Section 7.6.1 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, detailed site location information was not included within the project report. The previous assessments located within 50 m of the study area appear in SD Map 1, and the previously identified archaeological sites falling within 300 m are shown in SD Map 2. October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File W 821- WEA of 917 Stage I Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener 2.0 SD MAPS Study Area CIF #2002-047-022 (Stage 1-2) Previously Assessed CIF #2003-53-053 (Stage 1-2) Licence #96-015 (Stage 4) CIF #P035-026-2006 (Stage 1-2) CIF #P050-013 (Stage 1) PIF #P017-197-2011 (Stage 1-2) CIF #2001-007-010 (Stage 1-2) PIF #P089-0092-2018 (Stage 1-2) CIF #2002-047-018 (Stage 1-2) PIF #P223-011-2008 (Stage 1-2) /�\� HKW N 1:9,271 0 200 400 m >� en.p so.R.. cry .r rcoi�n...r �zo�s� SD Map 1: Previous Assessments (Stage 1-4) (Produced under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri) October 2021 PIF #P1021-0004-2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. ARA File W82 -0--W!0 W!0 of 917 Stage I Archaeological Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain, City of Kitchener Study area Features of Potential Archaeological Site Historic Structure Historic Transportation Route Physiographic Landform QWaterbody Wetland A%6.:�AM N 1a1,000 D 235 470 rn s ntortn .lice—ad-h..pan Govemmeni licence-Onfanol Map Sounee'. CIV al Kifth—t(2018) SD Map 2: Features of Potential with Site Information (Produced under licence using ArcGISO software by Esri, (() Esri) October 2021 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. PIF #P1021-0004-2021 ARA File W 82- WE g of 917 01"MTE Appendix E Technical Memos Page 654 of 917 OD'MTE Project Name: Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station — Class EA To: Katie Wood, City of Kitchener MTE File No.: C48301-100 Date: May 18, 2022 cc: Gemma Charlebois — MTE Consultants Inc. From: Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng. Samir Dhanvantari — MTE Consultants Inc. RE: Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station, Conceptual Design The conceptual design for the Upper Hidden Valley sanitary pumping station is described in the following sections. Design Flow: MTE has prepared a separate Tech Memo that identifies the sanitary flows for the subject lands within the Study Area. The flows were developed in accordance with the DGSSMS. The pumping station will have a firm capacity of 48 L/s. This capacity includes receiving flows from Area 2B as identified in the City's Land Use Master Plan. Design Basis: The pumping station design will be based on the City of Kitchener pumping station Design Guidelines and the MECP 2008 Design Guidelines. The structures will be designed to meet the Ontario Building Code. Sanitary Pumping Station Conceptual Design: City of Kitchener design guidelines and current practices require the following pumping station configuration: Wet Well / Dry Well arrangement; Multiple pumps located in the Dry Well A divided Dry Well with Inlet structure such that either side of the Wet Well can be isolated for inspection / cleaning / maintenance Channel grinder at the station inlet Magnetic flow meter on the pump discharge Standby generator (typically diesel) Odour control unit Control building complete with bathroom, generator, electrical equipment and station controls/alarms Pump and personnel extraction systems Emergency Storage Tank (EST) sized for one hour of storage at peak flow Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. (D (D B O Q a Page 655 of 917 Construction cost estimates will be prepared during the preliminary and detailed design stages Approvals Requirements: The following is a listing of the major approvals that will be required: Site Plan Approval; Building Permit; Environmental Compliance Approval; and Grand River Conservation Authority approval. Further Investigation: To assist the preliminary design of the pumping station, MTE intends to complete the following investigations: Geotechnical report; and Hydrogeological assessment of the site. The conceptual design presented herein is subject to review and confirmation during the preliminary and detailed design stages of the project. M:\48301\100\06 Reports\Conceptual Design\Conceptual Design Tech Memo_May 18, 2022.docx Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 656 of 917 'go CD 0 -. NITS Specifically, for the UHV SPS, it is anticipated that the forcemain will be 200 mm dia. There will be two pumps required. The EST will have a capacity of approximately 173 cubic meters. CD B The forcemain and gravity inlet sewer are conceptually shown on the attached plan / profile drawings O (PP1.1 to PP1.6). The Conceptual Site Layout for the SPS is shown on the attached Figure 1A. Q Construction Costs: Construction cost estimates will be prepared during the preliminary and detailed design stages Approvals Requirements: The following is a listing of the major approvals that will be required: Site Plan Approval; Building Permit; Environmental Compliance Approval; and Grand River Conservation Authority approval. Further Investigation: To assist the preliminary design of the pumping station, MTE intends to complete the following investigations: Geotechnical report; and Hydrogeological assessment of the site. The conceptual design presented herein is subject to review and confirmation during the preliminary and detailed design stages of the project. M:\48301\100\06 Reports\Conceptual Design\Conceptual Design Tech Memo_May 18, 2022.docx Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 656 of 917 rn 4- OO N O N N O �^ Q O W 0� N V �� Q U) zm � `>> r O Y w O ELW Q Zw O (D m 01 W iL 3 } M ~ M 0 J � W> {H S 0 J WZZD U w m GVO0 l �Vd INnW i�inln-i DO N o� r, N E�LLLU Ln N M -t N M rl) N N N K7 M N M O OT Nrz M m - U OS6+I 'VIS = w o £ � In i �a I ' I I ISI - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r I I I e1 I 2 Ji R I 1 _U u°UY o i SII � i 3 I � I y I gF, t � LCL i O I Q � I s� e_ \ U IC 3 ¢ LL sa a" �G'3 �s N w W >a >u L It 0 K 2 II DO N o� r, N Co N M Ln N M -t N M rl) N N N K7 M N M O OT Nrz M m - OS6+I 'VIS = 3NIl HD1VW n l II I e I I I ' I I I ' I I ISI - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r I I I e1 I Ji I 1 i SII � i 3 I � I I gF, t � LCL i O I Q � I Q II QQd ® awa —ole — — ii �Ijl } no E i o� GOOD HpRIVE� � I p A /y RO o I� 3V II s 17 1 N N M N M N N N N N ♦I Woz €Ili i 3 oLL V wa \ Z xo � I h` III ' as IIS _ W. W o N£ _§ oUH 8G35 s§z ado yc L w Oil a ao 4 'S Z _ -0 ♦I €Ili i 3 \ III 3 � I h` III ' IIS owns N MN N N [�0 ON I� O r U oLLW w sa xo ozaW W rn rn uUH yc o �� ♦♦ p Lu gs 3 o sa �� I ozo 2 i N MN N N [�0 ON I� O r bxL I i / I / / SII SII -oz� / I I E I I / I 1 I 1 1 l a i"'993 orl l =QA' w LU 1 1 III I 1 1 1 I I Q 1 1 I Y 1 1 IIII , I Q 1 1 I Z - 1 - c \ \ IIS I m I I Q 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 _IIII F I I I \ 1 I " 4 1 1 1 1 1 I III III I o?k I 1 1 1 �I I I IIII I I a� III III IIII ` � J I � = 3NIl HOIVW OZ£+1'ylS 00 r N - N N N N N N N N OL WVIS=3NIlH3iVW oLLW •i £ I as oz oz Lu r w w e Q s a N o - Lu y N -§ LU p e J uUH w - Z 0 0 (D is Id fIt I ' > 117o in Q cc i i s s i o �cso w �g X \ T e 00 r N - N N N N N N N N OL WVIS=3NIlH3iVW I Q LU p e J w Z 0 0 Id fIt I ' > 117o Q i i s s i o �cso w �g X \ T e OSb+I'VIS = 3NIl HOIVW i 00 I� N CO N N M N M N N N rcD N M M LL LLJ oz LU Q) Lu o q. - - - - - - - mjg bl, F- Nis 0 > 0 w q L) 0 ms2. t s Z bl, q LU W LU L OWWVIS = 3NII HOIVW 1-3 o-) oc) r- co Lc) -d - c -j 6l OJ 93= oc WO LL Lu TOZ U g NX (Lu Lu 0 is /)}` j�5 U) _ -z) Lu L4�� 0 _ - 10) r— :° 2 � _ ! \ � , .\ , \ �\\ ` « ^ No AYS ZL ti OD'MTE Project Name: Upper Hidden Valley Class EA To: Katie Wood, City of Kitchener cc MTE File No.: C48301-100 Date: July 21, 2022 From: Gemma Charlebois / Dave Wilhelm Design Flow, Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station (SPS) The Design Flow for the Upper Hidden Valley SPS has been assessed based on the Region of Waterloo and Area Municipal Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services (DGSSMS) and City of Kitchener Design Guidelines. This assessment should be considered preliminary and must be confirmed during the preliminary and detailed design stages for the pumping station. Similarly, the receiving capacity of the receiving sewer on Wabanaki Dr. must be confirmed during the preliminary design stage of the project. This memo summarizes the design flow for the Preferred Alternative along with the attached flow calculation spreadsheet. This preliminary assessment of the design flow for Upper Hidden Valley SPS was completed using the City of Kitchener's "Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan" (Approved by council, June 24, 2019). This land use plan describes current and future land for the lands within the Study Area for the Upper Hidden Valley Class EA. The City of Kitchener's Sewer Design spreadsheet was the source of unit flow rates and constants associated with design flow calculations. A unit flow of 305 L/cap/d was used along with a commercial unit flow rate (peak) of 2.375 L/s/ha. Residential densities were based on projected zoning. Proposed catchment areas were created based on the Land Use Master Plan and location options for construction of the Upper Hidden Valley SPS. Catchments areas were numbered 1-5 and are shown in MTE Figure 1: City of Kitchener Upper Hidden Valley Class EA Catchment Areas. The size of the catchment areas was sourced from page nine of the City of Kitchener's "Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan" report. Existinq and Proposed Land Uses Within the Study Area there is a blend of land uses which are listed below: Zoning Designation People/hectare (p/ha) Natural Heritage Conservation N/A Low Rise Residential- Estate 36 Low Rise Residential- Large Lot 36 Medium Rise Residential 387 High Rise Residential 775 Mixed Use 387 Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. (D Z (D B O Q a Page 664 of 917 OD'MTE Zoning Designation People/hectare (p/ha) Commercial 0.95 L/s/ha; peak factor — 2.5 Business Park Development (some Neighbourhood Commercial uses Allowed) 0.95 L/s/ha; peak factor — 2.5 Unknown Use (Land Subject to Further Study, see Figure 1) 36 — 196 (to be determined) Design Flows Servicing Areae The preferred alternative identified during the Environmental Assessment (EA) was Option 2A. The option includes construction of the SPS in Area 1 (see Figure 1). Area 1 will be serviced by the SPS. Areas 2, 4, and 5 will drain by gravity to the trunk sewer on Wabanaki Rd or be directed to the River Birch SPS. Area 3 flows will be accommodated by the SPS located in Area 1, however the servicing solution for Area 3 will be determined upon completion and approval of the necessary environmental studies. Area 3's zoning designation is currently under review as part of the Secondary Land Use planning process and for the purposes of estimating flows, a range between 36-196 people per hectare (RES -1 to RES -5 zoning) is assumed. Proj�,,tea —and U .._ This assessment is based on interpretations of the anticipated zoning as outlined in the Land Use Master Plan. The final zoning and land use for the Study Area will be established based on ongoing and future planning approvals. As such, the interpretations utilized herein should not be interpreted as final planning approval for lands within the Study Area. Design Flow from Unknown Land Use As the zoning for Area 3 is subject to further study and has not been determined to -date, two spreadsheets were generated to account for the largest possible range of flows. The first spreadsheet includes Area 1, Area 3 as zoned for 196 p/ha (RES -5), and the surrounding large estate lands (RES -1) to be serviced by the SPS. The second spreadsheet includes Area 1 only as serviced by the SPS since Area 3 is zoned as RES -1 (36 p/ha) — the same as the surrounding large estate lands. Under this zoning scenario, Area 3 and the surrounding large estate lands would not have municipal servicing. inriow anti intii ra ion (iii) To calculate the infiltration contribution to the flow rate the serviced area was taken and compared against an infiltration rate of 0.15 litres per second per hectare. Total Contributing Wastewater Flow Total flow to the proposed pumping station was calculated in accordance with the two attached spreadsheets. The spreadsheet that reflects low density development assumes that Area 3 is zoned for Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. (D (D B O CL r_ Page 665 of 917 END OF MEMO M:\48301\100\06 Reports\Design Flow Memo\Design Flow Tech Memo for UHV 20220720.docx Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 666 of 917 CD NIT E large estate lots, similar to the surrounding lands and is not serviced by the SPS. Under this scenario, the design flow is 69 L/s. In the spreadsheet that reflects medium density development of Area 3 (RES - 5), the SPS services Area 3 and the surrounding large estate lots (RES -1). The resulting design flow is CD 91 L/s. Additional study and planning approvals will finalize the zoning and corresponding design flow. B The preferred option uses proposed location under Option 2A and provides capacity to service O development Areas 1 and 3. The Upper Hidden Valley SPS should be designed based on the final 2) zoning. Further future studies and review of the northeast corner of the study area will be undertaken C prior to detailed design of the SPS, which will be based on final zoning. It is recommended that, at this time, the Preliminary Design of the Upper Hidden Valley SPS be based on a Firm Capacity of 91 L/s. END OF MEMO M:\48301\100\06 Reports\Design Flow Memo\Design Flow Tech Memo for UHV 20220720.docx Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 666 of 917 W W 0o jNN LL ¢ O r o W O N I� K � J U a d LL Z a N N m V (O V LL O J O OIL j � O O E E y w r 0 O w Y 10w0 E m F o j Q So Sol. o O O o LL _ 2 ¢ N g w s m C O .. - N - o .2_ _ z ❑ U ¢ N N z N ¢ O Q �O� o. noo W O o�w t0 00 to cG LLO � d't U a a O z �/1 a W rn o N N r U W m Y 3 ¢ v Q=aa-,j O 00o 0 30 �z � a _ -6_� ��W o 00 0 D m - E Z — w O o Q U = a a � N � ya Ow M M ^ M M W W Y Z LL Q Vr U a oa J LU m LU O LL �� 8 o 1. CL v c iv o o a v o LU ❑ Q N LU a W .- W Z w E N o in _ J m w M m rn z O QW W w v n Z ❑ ¢ F LL ZZ W W O Q a w w .1pc N � 0 � a W � N � c 2 w � W a w Q O w vNC7 ❑ � 2 O F U O J w � E m Z a m 2 W v o ~ EP Y LL m U N U a`oo Uii Q¢ ¢a a O LL) � � \! , ®5Soo o. � 0000oo j} )) : § 22 ! \}, /{{}a �f{)§ .o ( _ 0000 000 _ °00 k / � S ! 1 a�§))) §( \\\\\ ci /\ \ \\ \ ) k = o y §oo , , �� , § 0 CO k ) .. . _ a ] : w 2 ] f § E § z K § \ �~ ° § Q . ! ! : ] \ 1. EP - b o: b - LQ . { L £]!)Z §/ /` z o 0.14o MT E Appendix F Public Consultation Page 670 of 917 I Ki�rci�R January 6, 2021 MTE File No.: C48301-100 Resident/Owner RE: City of Kitchener — Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Please find attached a Notice of Study Commencement for the above noted project. This study is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, as a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. All notices related to this project can be found on the City of Kitchener's website at the following link: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/city-services/environmental- assessments.aspx The purpose of the current study is to define a sanitary servicing solution that will support responsible development in the Hidden Valley area, as outlined in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan (June 2019). The servicing solution will include identifying a sanitary pumping station location and forcemain alignment. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this study should you wish to do so. Please feel free to call or email me using the contact details below should you require additional information. We look forward to hearing from you. Yours truly, MTE Consultants Inc. Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng. Manager, Water/Wastewater 519-743-6500 ext. 1225 DWilhelm@mte85.com DJW:zeg Encl.: Notice of Study Commencement cc: Katie Wood, Project Manager, Development Engineering, City of Kitchener Page 671 of 917 41 �. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Notice of Study Commencement To support development in the Hidden Valley area, as outlined in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan, this study will identify a sanitary servicing solution. The City of Kitchener has requested MTE Consultants to initiate a study to identify and evaluate alternative solutions, and to select the preferred solution. This project is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and it is being planned under Schedule B of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA). The project scope involves an evaluation of alternatives, selection of preferred alternative and evaluation of environmental impacts and their mitigation measures. Figure 1. Upper Hidden Valley Study Area Page 672 of 917 l KiTcHE R This study will complete a Municipal Class EA for the construction of a sanitary pump station and forcemain and prepare the preliminary design. The study will follow guidance outlined in the Municipal Class EA document (as amended in 2007, 2011, and 2015). Upon completion of this study, an Environmental Study Report (ESR) documenting the process will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP) and will be available for public review for a period of 30 calendar days. Before any decisions are made on the recommendation, or acceptance of the preferred solution, all interested parties will have an opportunity to attend a Public Information Centre (PIC) meeting. Notification of the PIC will be provided at the appropriate time by means of a similar advertisement in this newspaper. Public, Indigenous, and agency consultation is a key component of the Class EA process, and we value your input during the planning process. If you wish to be placed on the mailing list to receive notices and information, or, if you wish to provide comments at any time during the Class EA process, you can do so by contacting: Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng Manager, Water/Wastewater MTE Consultants Inc. 520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 Phone : (519) 743-6500 ext. 1225 Cell Phone: (519) 651-7903 Email: dwilhelmamte85.com Katie Wood, C.E.T. Project Manager Development Engineering City of Kitchener 200 King St. W Kitchener, ON N2G 4V6 Phone: (519) 741-2200 ext. 7135 Email: katie.wood(a)kitchener.ca Please note that comments will be maintained for reference throughout the project and will become part of the public record. Under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, any personal information such as name, address, and telephone number included in a submission will become part of the public record unless the comments specifically request that such personal details not be included in the public record. Project information will be made available on the City's Website: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/city-services/environmental-assessments.aspx This Notice was issued on January 6, 2021. Page 673 of 917 -7r�1 .. Ki-rc�i�vE,R Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Notice of Public Information Centre To support development in the Hidden Valley area, as outlined in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan, this study will identify a sanitary servicing solution. The City of Kitchener has requested MTE Consultants to initiate a study to identify and evaluate alternative solutions, and to select the preferred solution. This study will complete a Municipal Class EA for the construction of a sanitary pump station and forcemain and prepare the preliminary design. The study will follow guidance outlined in the Municipal Class EA document (as amended in 2007, 2011, and 2015). At this stage of the project, and in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, archaeological and heritage, environmental, and technical investigations have been conducted. MTE has identified alternative sanitary servicing solutions. Presentation, discussion, and input on the identified alternatives will be conducted at the Public Information Centre (PIC). MTE Consultants and the City of Kitchener invite all interested parties to attend a PIC meeting on NOVEMBER 4, 2021 AT 6PM. Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, the PIC meeting will be held virtually via the Zoom meeting platform. Registration is required to attend the PIC. Register in advance for this meeting: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_tz39pnLnTh2SNrL-smgzJg After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the PIC 24 hours before the meeting begins. Notification of this PIC will also be provided via advertisement in The Waterloo Region Record. Please note that comments will be maintained for reference throughout the project and will become part of the public record. Under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, any personal information such as name, address, and telephone number included in a submission will become part of the public record unless the comments specifically request that such personal details not be included in the public record. Project information will be made available on the City's Website: www.kitchener.ca/en/development-and-construction/infrastructure-projects.aspx This Notice was issued on October 7, 2021. Page 674 of 917 I tc- KiTCI-E-,Ni-; R October 7, 2021 MTE File No.: C48301-100 Resident/Owner RE: City of Kitchener — Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Please find attached a Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC) for the above noted project. This study is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, as a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. All notices related to this project can be found on the City of Kitchener's website at the following link: www.kitchener.ca/en/development-and-construction/infrastructure — projects. The purpose of the PIC is to present, discuss, and receive your input on the alternative sanitary servicing solutions developed. The preferred servicing solution will include identifying a sanitary pumping station location and forcemain alignment. We look forward to the opportunity to meet with you at the PIC. Please feel free to call or email me using the contact details below should you require additional information. Yours truly, MTE Consultants Inc. Gemma Charlebois, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. MTE Consultants Inc. Engineer, Water/Wastewater 519-743-6500 ext. 1227 gcharlebois@mte85.com Encl.: Notice of Public Information Centre Katie Wood, C.E.T. City of Kitchener Project Manager — Development Engineering 519-741-2200 ext 7135 katie.wood .kitchener.ca Page 675 of 917 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Notice of Public Information Centre To support development in the Hidden Valley area, as outlined in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan, this study will identify a sanitary servicing solution. The City of Kitchener has requested MTE Consultants to initiate a study to identify and evaluate alternative solutions, and to select the preferred solution. This study will complete a Municipal Class EA for the construction of a sanitary pump station and forcemain and prepare the preliminary design. The study will follow guidance outlined in the Municipal Class EA document (as amended in 2007, 2011, and 2015). At this stage of the project, and in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, archaeological and heritage, environmental, and technical investigations have been conducted. MTE has identified alternative sanitary servicing solutions. Figure 1. Upper Hidden Valley Study Area Page 676 of 917 Presentation, discussion, and input on the identified alternatives will be conducted at the Public Information Centre (PIC). MTE Consultants and the City of Kitchener invite all interested parties to attend a PIC meeting on NOVEMBER 4, 2021 AT 6PM. Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, the PIC meeting will be held virtually via the Zoom meeting platform. Registration is required to attend the PIC. Register in advance for this meeting: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_tz39pnLnTh2SNrL-smgzJg After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the PIC 24 hours before the meeting begins. Notification of this PIC will also be provided via advertisement in The Waterloo Region Record. Please note that comments will be maintained for reference throughout the project and will become part of the public record. Under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, any personal information such as name, address, and telephone number included in a submission will become part of the public record unless the comments specifically request that such personal details not be included in the public record. Project information will be made available on the City's Website: www.kitchener.ca/en/development-and-construction/infrastructure-projects.aspx This Notice was issued on October 7, 2021. Page 677 of 917 LM L (1) CL Q. CL a CIJ a w N C N c O 4— m m E O P4 r 55 L E 2 voV MENEM U W 1=0 rn 0 ,qq% a� co d u ■ENEM i Q X i N V i � i N M � N � � O CL rn 0 ,qq% a� co d u ■ENEM rn 0 0 co a� co 0- Cl) L W 5 cn p N > 7 U O C) � O 0 0-(]) cu N Y� 00) >,.S �: O 0 (0Uo "= U E co cv cn 0 0 Q c-) O a N .V C: iz (D L 70 5 L O D y"/ .V Z, N L NOMEU .0)o (D m �/n LL (D -0 cu N cu Lcu W 0 y 0) m L N _ � cu Ni 'U� (n cu Q N �70 o 0- 0(D o-0 E a�0 Y �� 2 oo E L (n ' 70 ■ � 42 0- O L UpU o �� O O O 'ACV LO -0 m 3 N CL N 42 -0o) (D N —_ E C L _ 0) C70 �Q �U N c C o 70 C 70 L LULEE O E O 0 E (D c 0 0 (D -► yE Q L >% ' (n N -07O a) C) 0 O O co Q o -0 >,C N pa ��0 c+U 0 ��j co �� O co �E o aQm cm � 0 0 U .V O N cts U 'c > E Q >' a W O-0 cn O — N �_ H CA L C O HU H� H cu Up rn 0 0 co a� co 0- Cl) L W 5 rn 0 co a� co d O C6 � C N (� >, 7C3 Z3 7C3 i Q � C O Z34te-+ _ i U) O U) fA (n N > Z3 = U (6 C U 70 } ' O L 70 M M O N� m p N N Z 0)� 0� 70 U A N N m-0- E N C6 — >, p_0(n m W L C6 p U 0 U)> � O U) Q 7o C C6 1 U 70 .-: C6 C = O O O � N N U Z3 —_ _ 0 C M O N 4- M- O O U C 0 0 C6 > 4— U) U L U) N N m 7 O LO O C3)0 ■ O Q U) Z O N (n � 70 O 0 Q to m N U a cn C O C6 O— +� N a--• O N O J� U Q m Q rn 0 co a� co d m E a O uu 0 0) a' Co � � U O .� � L U C L Q U N 0� O U - . O >, N 0- (D CU N O N -0 0) L — > (a 5 � O � cu L W -"' in L N U O °cnaL a r Q O 0 .� U N N U) L CU in U (D c� > p E (D O O co (u (u � N .� NWS rn 0 (N co N co d i X (D 0) O O (D O (D ca U) D U) CU (1) S-- 0 Z, i 40 4-- 0 (L).� — O O p (D =3 E Q (D 0 CU E70 U -,C3 U) N O ON N }' ES cu N .0 N 0 N y O L (B _ cu (u U Q N " •(D N -r- .cn N 0) 0 NO O fa O M Q N U0 O N U) N .L m U) U) N O U) L N OQ cnCD o U o �U � 0 v O Q f� > C -0 C U Q W p � OU (D cn 0 L 0) CU Z �� U) .O cn N > O .� 0 E p Q LL CU 0 ( U) CUC:• O O n (D M cn n cn ON N U)a p U cn (D N cu U) O (U o ( U 0- 0O N O E o .6 E 0 N 0) _rU U (B .� O � N >, O O> N L U a Z W cn E N �4)c00 cn N O 'N UOU) ~ ?> >+ U 0- 0- U) (D �cuaE(Dc�a O U ++ QW U1' V =3 U OL 0) +— N •� :3 cl) O p Q Q U) > HDU oW.s 0 0) a' Co � � U O .� � L U C L Q U N 0� O U - . O >, N 0- (D CU N O N -0 0) L — > (a 5 � O � cu L W -"' in L N U O °cnaL a r Q O 0 .� U N N U) L CU in U (D c� > p E (D O O co (u (u � N .� NWS rn 0 (N co N co d i X (D 0) O O (D O (D ca U) D S-- 0 40 _ — (D — 4-- p D (n -,C3 U) N Q 0 0 Q a• -a .0 U) 0 N (B p N > (u U) H N 0) 0 fa U0 L N U) N .L � Q U) N }' OQ Q f� > C -0 C -0 -0 .� (B (U Z > N E (B Q LL CU 0 ( Q I..1_ ON N N (n N C U W (a 0O N O c 0 c: 0E E O N UN _rU U p O > N Q p 'F N L U a U)-rQ--0 �4)c00 L O U N CU 0- O O U OM (D p U) Q 0 Q N Y iii o N +- U (B O U > 4- 'N cu N D MC O N 4- U c N N m +- a 0 -a 0 U 4- ca }. 0 0) a' Co � � U O .� � L U C L Q U N 0� O U - . O >, N 0- (D CU N O N -0 0) L — > (a 5 � O � cu L W -"' in L N U O °cnaL a r Q O 0 .� U N N U) L CU in U (D c� > p E (D O O co (u (u � N .� NWS rn 0 (N co N co d i X (D 0) O O (D O (D ca U) D m m m U v Q ,u rn 0 M co N 0) co 0- 0 r -I N L O ro N C) •�co H _ CL z N O N V a) E 0 z r -I N 4- O O N V O z c O a-+ m E O N E Q) N E E O U a) E O U rn 0 co a� co d WW - r1 LTJ m A-0 M ■� i CL.2 c L •E N a W i S � i V �a cn m cn LO � tMfl i M U- m W z (D L L OE (n 70 O N O _ = O �.N LO (B0 r, -N , `^ C L vJ L 0) O O L N O O (a 0 70 O - O U 1O c I- 0 � ^ 1 73 1 Em 1 9 • 0 rn 0 (0 co (0 a) 0) co d M 0) C 0 C N =5 (n 0 (n E OL 2 w o) i O) � O C:0- Q C) to = 0-0 =5Lo U') O c N CO LL =5 to i m i rn O co co a� co 0- r. r. O L ANNA IM.O i w ._ .� m �c E a Ea' 4- O Fa A 70 1 C N ' E =5 - 00)0-- OL Q " � 0-0 =5 O U- to i . m i rn 0 rn co a� co d Z (1) L- U) U) Q Q O � C) �N Z m m Q O � O U N N O O -0 Q to (a 0 M O n Z (1) L- U) U) Q Q O � C) �N Z o rn 0 0 rn a� co 0- i i O t+ m V O J 4-0m r_ O ca U) E m a ca ca cn N r. O Q ru i i O 0 O J m a O L cn m if C O V O J 4-0m C O m cn E a. m m cn m N M O A LAA L� U J J N Z 3 Y foi9 D W N2 a2UYiY vas 3�3e F USA 03 gv04( �02t�7i dC7 8Y17�x V1 t]FwF� 3� wIlaa{{p���� [=i Ure77 �p�w �Fp wp '!rl aJ [a [4 Q41h [1Z za.S 2dR2 za. - ix VLj MAN ONY89 v o � (2) OL W J Q LLI Z0 WOL DO 4�aU ��w t] C5w cl �0 ria a Q OLu°s��r��LL OL riu w I 7 L C 2 co L. O *k a— c6CL N � E � O p v 'O C Oo 70 c 4- O }. co 70 U N c a a) L E Q LL N i CU a) c CL _0 C6 V 3 v > c N •�N,� m U0 Qr� DC t v 2 C>6 70 U) O U >+ U 70 c6 4 C W cn (1) !E U � U LI) o }' O v) oco Q CDL O U L c6 U 0•L I— � Q w 4- a–O 0 4- 4- U) _0 U _0 co c �,•=XNO U N D M L C M — �■ O w v O a.� *= C) LO OM �O E � C � +J a)w DMS L p 0 O a) U)m L OU > C O m L oULO w a a--• c C6 U C/) U O O U 4-0 U O O L O w O )a) (1) co V a) o N O (o 70 a) a) c Q > O C/) a) �}, ° U U)L 0� ° �o L ti a) c6 C/) dwY�L co a) L LLJ 7 L C 2 co L. O *k a— c6CL N � E � O p v 'O C Oo 70 c 4- O }. co 70 U N c a a) L E Q LL N i CU a) c CL _0 C6 V 3 v > c N •�N,� m U0 Qr� DC t v 2 C>6 70 U) O U >+ U 70 c6 4 C W cn (1) !E U � U LI) o }' O v) oco Q CDL O U L c6 U 0•L I— � Q w J January 25, 2022 MTE File No.: C48301-100 Resident/Owner RE: City of Kitchener — Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Please find attached a Notice of Public Information Centre #2 (PIC#2) for the above noted project. This study is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, as a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. All notices related to this project can be found on the City of Kitchener's website at the following link: www.kitchener.ca/en/development-and- construction/infrastructure — projects. The purpose of the PIC is to present the selected preferred sanitary servicing solution, including sanitary pump station location and forcemain alignment. The PIC is also an opportunity to provide your input and ask any questions about the preferred solution. We look forward to the opportunity to meet with you at the PIC. Please feel free to call or email me using the contact details below should you require additional information. Yours truly, MTE Consultants Inc. 4 Gemma Charlebois, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. MTE Consultants Inc. Engineer, Water/Wastewater 519-743-6500 ext. 1227 g,-1Inl1,F, nlleabl.colo.' Encl.: Notice of Public Information Centre Katie Wood, C.E.T. City of Kitchener Project Manager — Development Engineering 519-741-2200 ext 7135 katie.wood ,.kitchener.ca Page 700 of 917 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Notice of Public Information Centre #2 To support development in the Hidden Valley area, as outlined in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan, this study will identify a sanitary servicing solution. The City of Kitchener has requested MTE Consultants to initiate a study to identify and evaluate alternative solutions, and to select the preferred solution. This study will complete a Municipal Class EA for the construction of a sanitary pump station and forcemain and prepare the preliminary design. The study will follow guidance outlined in the Municipal Class EA document (as amended in 2007, 2011, and 2015). After a thorough review, MTE along with the project team have selected a preferred sanitary servicing solution and will present this recommendation at the PIC. Figure 1. Upper Hidden Valley Study Area Page 701 of 917 Presentation, discussion, and input on the preferred solution will be conducted at the Public Information Centre (PIC). MTE Consultants and the City of Kitchener invite all interested parties to attend this PIC#2 meeting on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2022 AT 6PM. Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, the PIC meeting will be held virtually via the Zoom meeting platform. Registration is required to attend the PIC. Register in advance for this meeting: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN 4kH3A615RR-gxzpRDasQFQ After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the PIC 24 hours before the meeting begins. Notification of this PIC#2 will also be provided via advertisement in The Waterloo Region Record. Please note that comments will be maintained for reference throughout the project and will become part of the public record. Under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, any personal information such as name, address, and telephone number included in a submission will become part of the public record unless the comments specifically request that such personal details not be included in the public record. Project information will be made available on the City's Website: Infrastructure projects - City of Kitchener This Notice was issued on January 25, 2022. Page 702 of 917 ■tw, � 6, 1 . Ak A A 1 KITCI-�R Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Notice of Public Information Centre #2 To support development in the Hidden Valley area, as outlined in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan, this study will identify a sanitary servicing solution. The City of Kitchener has requested MTE Consultants to initiate a study to identify and evaluate alternative solutions, and to select the preferred solution. This study will complete a Municipal Class EA for the construction of a sanitary pump station and forcemain and prepare the preliminary design. The study will follow guidance outlined in the Municipal Class EA document (as amended in 2007, 2011, and 2015). After a thorough review, MTE along with the project team have selected a preferred sanitary servicing solution and will present this recommendation at the PIC. Presentation, discussion, and input on the preferred solution will be conducted at the Public Information Centre (PIC). MTE Consultants and the City of Kitchener invite all interested parties to attend this PIC#2 meeting on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2022 AT 6PM. Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, the PIC meeting will be held virtually via the Zoom meeting platform. Registration is required to attend the PIC. Register in advance for this meeting: d ti -$ CLASS EA TUUY ax AREA LIMIT i 1 ti Figure 1. Upper Hidden Valley Study Area https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN 4kH3A615RR-gxzpRDasQFQ After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the PIC 24 hours before the meeting begins. Notification of this PIC#2 will also be provided via advertisement in The Waterloo Region Record. Please note that comments will be maintained for reference throughout the project and will become part of the public record. Under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, any personal information such as name, address, and telephone number included in a submission will become part of the public record unless the comments specifically request that such personal details not be included in the public record. Project information will be made available on the City's Website: In1lastructurexwiacts - f itchener This Notice was issued on January 25, 2022. LM L (1) CL Q. CL a N N L U 0 E L P4 r 55 rn 0 0 a� co 0 - E 2 voV MENEM U W 1=0 rn 0 I- 0 I- (2) 0) co d u ■ENEM i Q X i N V i � i N M � N � � O .p N N rn 0 I- 0 I- (2) 0) co d u ■ENEM rn 0 m 0 a� co 0 - W 5 Cl) cn p N > 7 U O C) � OO 0-(]) cu N Y� 00) >,.S �: O 0 (0Uo "= U E co cv cn 0 0 Q c-) O a N .V C: (D L 70 5 L O D y"/ .V Z, N L NOMEU .0)o (D m �/n LL (D -0 cu N cu Lcu W 0 y 0) m L N � _ cu Ni •U� (n cu Q N U� �-0 O 0- U L o-0 E a�0 Y �� 2 oo E L (n ' -0 70 ■� 42 0- O L 0p (UOQ ai = aD O m U),— D ao o� 70 �U o)—E o cN �Q L 4 =o LEE �w N c �� - c�N 0 E N c co N O 0- 0 (n to (n 4— c N (II 42 Q _0 N � U 0 O O co Q o -0 >,C pa ��0 c+U 0 �j co N �� O �co �E o aQm cm � 0 0 U .V O N c� U > E Q >'W a O-0 cn O — N �_ L C O HU H� H cu Up rn 0 m 0 a� co 0 - W 5 O C6 � C N (� >, 7C3 Z3 7C3 i Q � C O Z3ate-+ _ i U O U) N > Z3 = U (6 C U 70 } ' O L 70 M M O N� m p N N Z -0 O 0)� 0� 70 U A N N m-0- E N C6 — >, = L p_0(n m W N L c6 O (n c6 �-0 - U c6U)> 0 � O U) Q 7o C C6 1 U 70 .-: C6 C = O O O � N N U � C Z3 4-1 1.-10 N 4- M- O O O U C cn p C6 > 4— U) U L U) N N m 7 O LO O C3)0 ■ O Q U) Z O N (n � 70 O p Q to m N U a cn C O C65 +� — N a--• O N O -j (/) U Q m Q m m m U v Q 'u rn 0 co 0 I- (2) 0) co 0- W N N O N O M co G N O N i aJ E O O z t, t, 4-1 c v " E O O aJ U U C: O E Z E O U rn 0 rn 0 a� co 0- rn 0 N N co d 4b roti HIDDEN VALLEY NORTH CREEK I r 1 MAIN CWHO taaa�aa� �wolswH) � Ekl ATM oaam � f� r la y�� DR 0 Q4 � �4� yS y 7 cWnr dpyry as Y � � 2 a" 0 �2� :J Lo �3e� i � Ft LLJ oo �y �a�O Ocn �� i � a"a .amo �>b,i i 1 W �2 cm"tl�c { a LA -C 4b roti HIDDEN VALLEY NORTH CREEK I r 1 MAIN CWHO taaa�aa� �wolswH) � Ekl ATM oaam � f� r la y�� DR ISO rn 0 a� co d m M N O CL w u r. O m m m W rn 0 a O m LU r_J GJ A& J W rn 0 a� co 0- O Q O O — 4— L) U U c c O L U N c6 L O c6 OY� DUB 75 O c O 111 UCDQ� W rn 0 a� co 0- • • • 9 ISO rn 0 rn a� co d m M N O CL rn 0 N N co d n Ld cz m m ce ~m xv_x# a�'�0 , o;j o in �crIL IL �' rc Int`�n lal 6¢ OV in Lr1 �-C fQ S �[C tri 1 w m no am53 �4 mLjD J 2 1 Qil1� n rn 0 N N N co 0- 4-- 0 O L 4- U) U C � O � r W1-1 C O_ O O Q ry N 01-1 4-- O N 4- O ~ CL N (D 4— OM O }i C O N Cl)c cn U AW O L > N �/ co O) /� W LU Q N N O ca Q Zp N 70 O 70 70 o 'U) p 0 U Co U) +-+ L .L L �O/ 'i LL Co Q Z3 c � U �ry o CD 7C, (o o o o 70 p N N i Cn Cn c6 Z Co— a' �' p O (B OL (j Q Q U C: O U 0 A A A A A rn 0 N N N co 0- rn 0 M N N co d rn 0 N N co 0- 4- a--+ 7 Q c a) a--+ 4+ co 76 O) 70 L. p O it 70 X U7 co L N c6 co }' > rn LO O E N U N OU 0 M N L6 -0 C 00 a� a� L O MLO Co 70L V CD O 0 LL cc _ L N co O i I` O N c6 c °' 0 >, co a� >+ C D a--+ O p m � .� o -, O M oCj � N N L) p QNB 4- co U i p 'Z'-3, _� coco CD t v 2 L > L c p 0 70 co U) 70 O 4—cj U) N 4 U 4L) a� U' p U) Z N O O O }i U co LL,Co > O �O �_ 1) V N4— j70 L > O Q O Lp v) L~ co �--+ - co U h"'1 Y N O) L U U) to a- Y L L) L ti Valley DL-vekqmv?nt Corp. Ms. Katie Wood Project Manager, Development Engineering City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 November 25, 2021 508 Riverbend Drive Kitchener, Ontario, N2K 3S2 (519) 743-5211 Ext. 3000 RE: Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Assessment — Alternative Solutions Dear Ms. Wood, This letter is in response to the information presented at the Public Information Centre held on November 4t", 2021. On behalf of Pearl Valley Development Corp., a landowner in Hidden Valley, I would like to offer the following comments related foremostly to the planning approach and some technical aspects as presented on November 4t", 2021, during the Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Assessment (the "EA") Public Information Centre ("PIC"). In April of this year, I wrote to you about the Terms of Reference for this environmental assessment, and the likelihood of exclusion of some of our developable areas from this study as per information and maps included in the EA's terms of reference. The recently presented alternative options and their mapping demonstrate such a fragmented approach. In particular, areas identified as A and B on the map in Appendix A herewith, should be included in all servicing options. It appears that Options 2, 2A and 4 do not include these areas and as such cannot be supported by PVDC. PVDC views this EA as a tool for the City to realize the full development potential of these lands through the preparation of a complete servicing analysis. One that, with provincial policies in mind, focuses on servicing all available lands, as designated in the Official Plan, for a maximum population. Only this methodology will adequately integrate good planning principles with technical considerations. An EA must be based on planning policies in force. The land use master plan ("LUMP") included in the PIC materials does not reflect all lands currently designated for development in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan and the Regional Official Plan. Just as the presented Option A - the "do nothing" alternative - was discounted as not supporting development at all, other alternatives not addressing serviceability of all sections within Hidden Valley as well as existing homes on private services, ought also not be considered. Options that entail the servicing of all lands designated for development should be deliberated when developing pumping station alternatives and provided for in selecting a preferred alternative to ensure the EA does not prejudice the development potential of any lands. The EA should thus evaluate and conclude with respect to the feasibility of providing sanitary services for all lands designated Low Rise Residential on Map 3 of the city's official plan. This is required by the area specific policies that are now in place in the OP. Page 1 of 4 Page 725 of 917 Planning for partial services within the Urban Area (i.e. municipal water and septic tanks) is not consistent with the land use policy framework that currently is in place. The EA should consider these policies and ensure all lands designated for development are accommodated by the alternatives. It should also make provisions (to the extent possible) for eliminating and/or phasing out existing septic tanks in the area. This presents an environmentally responsible approach. To fully analyze and comment on the presented alternatives more information is needed than was presented at the PIC. The information shown is not sufficient and does not reflect all aspects requiring consideration as part of an EA. The presentation focused on locating the forcemain and pumping station only. The design capacity of the pumping station, one that accommodates the maximum anticipated population within the study area, and the available capacity within the downstream sanitary sewer are equally important and necessary for analysis. Servicing and land use planning for the area should utilize available capacity. Please confirm the available capacity at the connection point with existing services. Of concern is also the information incorporated into the archeological and natural environment slides. The purpose of the archaeological information should be limited to the evaluation of the pumping station alternatives and not give direction to future planning applications. Similarly, the purpose of the natural heritage information should be limited to the evaluation of the pumping station alternatives. It is also critical to acknowledge and present to all stakeholders and the public the fact that other infrastructure planning processes have already begun within Hidden Valley. Processes that will significantly impact this area, even more than the pumping station itself. For example, the natural heritage evaluation must consider and account for impacts associated with new road construction (River Road Extension), the realignment of Hidden Valley Road and future rapid transit in this area. In other words, natural features will be impacted by infrastructure planning that has already occurred. As such, certain pumping station locations will have limited impacts on these features. This must be reflected in the evaluation and clearly presented to adequately illustrate the scale of impacts. Specifically, pumping station location B is shown adjacent to future River Road Extension and rapid transit, and therefore would likely have minimal impacts on natural features. Below are additional technical comments to the alternative servicing options presented at the PIC: 1. Servicing of the pocket of lands between the central wetland and Hidden Valley Road near the Grand River has been included in Option 3 and 3a through a sanitary sewer located within the realigned Hidden Valley Road where it connects with the new River Road Extension. An alternative route for a local gravity sewer to service these lands is shown in Appendix A. This alignment considers local topography and takes advantage of more natural draining patterns. 2. Please ensure that services are planned within public right-of-ways along River Road Extension as the presented options show some services through private properties at the north end. 3. The presented mapping shows incorrect shading on slide 21, around pumping station location B, which is important to note from the natural heritage analysis perspective. The PSW here is shown as being a deer wintering and wooded area, which it is neither. Also, the extent of the deer wintering area to the south of this PSW is not fully correct as it actually does not cover the entire area between the wetland and the field designated for residential uses to the south of it. 4. Sanitary servicing for developable sections between the eskars and Hidden Valley Road south (shaded green in Appendix A) can drain by gravity regardless of the pumping station alternatives. These lands should be identified and servicing plans for lands to the south of these sections should be required to provide for and accommodate the servicing of all lands in this area. I would also like to provide additional information regarding the planning processes PVDC has been involved in with the City over the last 20 years. Realizing the significant staff changes at the City over Page 2 of 4 Page 726 of 917 the last months, including the change of Project Manager for Hidden Valley, we believe some context to this EA and other technical studies needed for the Hidden Valley Secondary Plan, is of value. The Hidden Valley area has been enveloped by the City's built environment for decades now. Already in the late 1970s and early 1980s there were attempts to develop it. Several employment and residential plans of subdivisions were proposed. Current land uses still reflect former plans for a business park to be located in the northwest section of PVDC lands and residential in remaining areas. For many years the non-residential sections have been protected for employment uses. However, with the changing planning environment over the last 2 decades - focused on sustainability through the protection of the countryside and reurbanization and the introduction of rapid transit and its intensification -supportive measures - more balanced visions have been developed for Hidden Valley. Already the City's 2010 Comprehensive Review of Employment Lands Study identified lands within Hidden Valley as ones to be further studied to determine if there are a better uses for it - based on then new Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan directives. The following decade addressed ambitious plans of light rail transit development for which station area planning was key. The northwest sections of Hidden Valley lands were identified as being within 800m of the Fairway terminus pointing towards transit -oriented planning. While station area planning for this location has not come to fruition to this day, it has always provided context for more recent planning. Together with Hidden Valley's exquisite location and surrounding amenities within an already built-up area, it has been discussed with City staff over the last few years as a site for a stunning mixed-use neighbourhood. This has been somewhat reflected in the 2019 Land Use Master Plan for which PVDC provided sound argumentation for even higher densities. While City's Planning Staff was not opposed to more densities than proposed in the LUMP, they indicated that a detailed servicing analysis is needed to ensure capacities are reflected in the final plan. Between the above background information and formal planning directives in place, the EA ought to include all developable parcels with their maximum build out potential in any presented and selected alternatives. Only this approach will maximize opportunities for fulfilling the City's strategic goals and sustainable growth while not prejudicing development potential and built out over time. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to review our comments and how they will be addressed. Sincerely, wl�_ Hanna Domagala Senior Project Manager Cc: 1. Richard Kelly-Ruetz, Planner, City of Kitchener Attachment: 1. Appendix A - map Page 3 of 4 Page 727 of 917 Q K ti rn 4- 0 co N ti N ORR MT E MTE Consultants �0— i e Drive, h 520 B ngemans Centr Dr e, Kite ener, Ontario N213 3X9 January 6, 2022 MTE File No.: C48301-100 Hanna Domagala Senior Project manager Pearl Valley Development Corp 508 Riverbend Drive Kitchener, ON N2K 3S2 Email: hannaa-pbenninger.com Dear Hanna: RE: Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station Class Environmental Assessment (EA) — Response to Comments We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 25th November 2021, providing comments and alternative solutions in relation to captioned project. For clarity, we have included your comment/solutions, followed by our response in Italics. Following this letter, the following document is included: Comments from PVDC Re: HV SPSF Alternative Solutions, November 25, 2021 In April of this year, I wrote to you about the Terms of Reference for this environmental assessment and the likelihood of exclusion of some of our developable areas from this study as per information and maps included in the EA's terms of reference. The recently presented alternative options and their mapping demonstrate such a fragmented approach. In particular, areas identified as A and B on the map in Appendix A herewith, should be included in all servicing options. It appears that Options 2, 2A and 4 do not include these areas and as such cannot be supported by PVDC. PVDC views this EA as a tool for the City to realize the full development potential of these lands through the preparation of a complete servicing analysis. One that, with provincial policies in mind, focuses on servicing all available lands, as designated in the Official Plan, for a maximum population. Only this methodology will adequately integrate good planning principles with technical considerations. MTE Response: The three (3) pump station locations were chosen based on providing servicing to the greatest developable area (km2) while balancing off other evaluation criteria (cost, technical feasibility, environmental impact, etc.). The three (3) locations (5 options in total) in the Public Information Centre (PIC) presentation have the potential to provide sanitary servicing to much of the developable lands while meeting many of the other criteria. The lands that can not be serviced by a location is due to the existing topography of the area relative to that of the pump station location. Providing servicing for those areas would result in very deep sanitary sewers and a very deep pump station. This would incur a high cost and has a low technical feasibility. Servicing for some of those areas may be available via sewer extensions from existing serviced areas. Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 729 of 917 Hanna Domagala, Senior Project Manager January 6, 2022 MTE notes that PVDC does not support Options 2, 2a, and 4 2. An EA must be based on planning policies in force. The land use master plan ("LUMP") included in the PIC materials does not reflect all lands currently designated for development in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan and the Regional Official Plan. Just as the presented Option A — the "do nothing" alternative - was discounted as not supporting development at all, other alternatives not addressing serviceability of all sections within Hidden Valley as well as existing homes on private services, ought also not be considered. MTE Response: The scope of the Class EA is to identify the optimum pumping station location and forcemain route to service developable lands in accordance with the City of Kitchener's Land Use Master Plan. The preferred solution will be based on factors such as serviceability of the greatest developable area, cost, technical feasibility, social, and environmental factors, among others. With respect to land uses, the scope of the Class EA is to consider those endorsed by Council in the 2019 Land Use Master Plan as these will ultimately be implemented through Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments via the Secondary Plan work. It is well-established that certain lands within the study area may not be able to be municipally serviced. The question of future development on lots with private services will be further explored through the Secondary Plan. 3. Options that entail the servicing of all lands designated for development should be deliberated when developing pumping station alternatives and provided for in selecting a preferred alternative to ensure the EA does not prejudice the development potential of any lands. The EA should thus evaluate and conclude with respect to the feasibility of providing sanitary services for all lands designated Low Rise Residential on Map 3 of the city's official plan. This is required by the area specific policies that are now in place in the OP. MTE Response: Due to topography, sanitary servicing of much of the Low Rise Residential area is not technically feasible by any of the 3 location options presented. In order for the area to have sanitary servicing by a pump station at, for example, Location Option B, the sanitary sewer and pump station would need to be nearly 20m deeper. At this depth, the cost of pump station and sewers is very high and the technical feasibility is low. The Low Rise Residential area between River Valley Dr. and Hidden Valley Cr. along Hidden Valley Road could be serviced by the City's existing River Birch Pumping Station. A dedicated pump station would be required in order to provide sanitary servicing to the areas designated as Low Rise Residential. Additionally, it would not be technically feasible for the other developable lands within the Upper Hidden Valley area to be serviced by this pump station, due to topography. Thus, a future development in the Low Rise Residential lands could install a private pump station to connect to municipal services. 4. Planning for partial services within the Urban Area (i.e., municipal water and septic tanks) is not consistent with the land use policy framework that currently is in place. The EA should consider these policies and ensure all lands designated for development are accommodated by the alternatives. It should also make provisions (to the extent possible) MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Page 730 of 917 Hanna Domagala, Senior Project Manager January 6, 2022 for eliminating and/or phasing out existing septic tanks in the area. This presents an environmentally responsible approach. MTE Response: The scope of this Class EA is to identify municipal sanitary servicing in accordance with the City's Land Use Master Plan. Other sanitary servicing options, such as septic, are outside of the scope of this EA. Development on septic systems requires consideration and approval by the Region of Waterloo, not the City of Kitchener. If the Region is supportive of septic, approvals are still required from the City's Building Division, Engineering Division, and Planning Division. The City did not indicate that it would support development on septic in this area during the presentation. The question of future development on lots on private services will be further explored through the Hidden Valley Secondary Plan work 5. To fully analyze and comment on the presented alternatives more information is needed than was presented at the PIC. The information shown is not sufficient and does not reflect all aspects requiring consideration as part of an EA. The presentation focused on locating the forcemain and pumping station only. The design capacity of the pumping station, one that accommodates the maximum anticipated population within the study area, and the available capacity within the downstream sanitary sewer are equally important and necessary for analysis. Servicing and land use planning for the area should utilize available capacity. Please confirm the available capacity at the connection point with existing services. MTE Response At this stage of the Class EA process, we have identified several servicing options with corresponding pump station locations and forcemain routes. The selection of the preferred option will be based on the analysis and investigations completed to -date, including assessing available capacity based on the City of Kitchener's development manual guidelines. Since capacity of the receiving sewer will not affect the selection of the Preferred Option, the City will confirm the available capacity and mitigating actions, if required, as part of the Preliminary Design upon completion of the Class EA. 6. Of concern is also the information incorporated into the archeological and natural environment slides. The purpose of the archaeological information should be limited to the evaluation of the pumping station alternatives and not give direction to future planning applications. Similarly, the purpose of the natural heritage information should be limited to the evaluation of the pumping station alternatives. MTE Response: The archeological, cultural heritage, and natural heritage investigations' scope of study for this Class EA was to evaluate the Upper Hidden Valley study area and provide information and assessment of the considerations necessary for the construction of a pumping station, forcemain, and sanitary sewers. Each investigation's findings and conclusions were based on this scope of work. MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Page 731 of 917 Hanna Domagala, Senior Project Manager January 6, 2022 7. It is also critical to acknowledge and present to all stakeholders and the public the fact that other infrastructure planning processes have already begun within Hidden Valley. Processes that will significantly impact this area, even more than the pumping station itself. For example, the natural heritage evaluation must consider and account for impacts associated with new road construction (River Road Extension), the realignment of Hidden Valley Road and future rapid transit in this area. In other words, natural features will be impacted by infrastructure planning that has already occurred. As such, certain pumping station locations will have limited impacts on these features. This must be reflected in the evaluation and clearly presented to adequately illustrate the scale of impacts. Specifically, pumping station location B is shown adjacent to future River Road Extension and rapid transit, and therefore would likely have minimal impacts on natural features. MTE Response: The City is aware, acknowledges, and will utilize the information gathered from other planned infrastructure projects to inform the evaluation of the proposed pump station location and forcemain routes. Additional Technical Comments to the alternative servicing Options presented at PIC: Servicing of the pocket of lands between the central wetland and Hidden Valley Road near the Grand River has been included in Option 3 and 3a through a sanitary sewer located within the realigned Hidden Valley Road where it connects with the new River Road Extension. An alternative route for a local gravity sewer to service these lands is shown in Appendix A. This alignment considers local topography and takes advantage of more natural draining patterns. MTE Response The alternative route presented does not follow existing or proposed roadways. The alternative route would extend the sanitary sewer through non -developable lands. We do not consider this to be a viable option in accordance with the City of Kitchener's Land Use Master Plan. 2. Please ensure that services are planned within public right-of-ways along River Road Extension as the presented options show some services through private properties at the north end. MTE Response: The trunk sewer and forcemain are intended to be within existing or proposed road right- of-ways. The PIC mapping was intended to only show a general indication of the infrastructure locations. Specific design details will be addressed during the preliminary and detailed design phases. 3. The presented mapping shows incorrect shading on slide 21, around pumping station location B, which is important to note from the natural heritage analysis perspective. The PSW here is shown as being a deer wintering and wooded area, which it is neither. Also, the extent of the deer wintering area to the south of this PSW is not fully correct as it actually does not cover the entire area between the wetland and the field designated for residential uses to the south of it. MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Page 732 of 917 Hanna Domagala, Senior Project Manager January 6, 2022 MTE Response: The mapping delineation was based on data from the Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources, and Forestry (MNRF) and Land Information Ontario, as provided through the Ontario Geohub site. Should PVDC have additional information that they would like considered it can be provided. 4. Sanitary servicing for developable sections between the eskars and Hidden Valley Road south (shaded green in Appendix A) can drain by gravity regardless of the pumping station alternatives. These lands should be identified and servicing plans for lands to the south of these sections should be required to provide for and accommodate the servicing of all lands in this area. MTE Response We acknowledge that the areas shaded in green in Appendix A of your letter have the technical potential to drain by gravity to the River Birch Pumping Station however they were not included in the drainage area for the River Birch PS design. Options 2a and 3a presented in the PIC show the areas that have the potential to drain by gravity to the trunk sewer on Wabanaki Rd. and Goodrich Dr., which is the drainage location for the proposed pump station and forcemain. A condition assessment completed of the River Birch PS suggests that the pumps are functioning at -capacity. Any additional land that was not originally part of the designed River Birch PS drainage area would require supplementary studies and potentially upgrades to the pumping station and associated forcemain at the developers cost. Yours truly, MTE Consultants Inc. e Gemma Charlebois, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Design Engineer 519-743-6500 ext. 1227 GCharlebois(a)mte85.com GSC:sgd Encl. cc: Katie Wood, City of Kitchener Dave Wilhelm, MTE Consultants Inc. MA48301\100\00 Correspond ence\PIC\Comments and Responses from PIC\Pearl Valley\Response Letter to Pearl Val ley_2022-01-06.docx MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Page 733 of 917 Valley DL-vekqmv?nt Corp. Ms. Katie Wood Project Manager, Development Engineering City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 November 25, 2021 508 Riverbend Drive Kitchener, Ontario, N2K 3S2 (519) 743-5211 Ext. 3000 RE: Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Assessment — Alternative Solutions Dear Ms. Wood, This letter is in response to the information presented at the Public Information Centre held on November 4t", 2021. On behalf of Pearl Valley Development Corp., a landowner in Hidden Valley, I would like to offer the following comments related foremostly to the planning approach and some technical aspects as presented on November 4t", 2021, during the Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Assessment (the "EA") Public Information Centre ("PIC"). In April of this year, I wrote to you about the Terms of Reference for this environmental assessment, and the likelihood of exclusion of some of our developable areas from this study as per information and maps included in the EA's terms of reference. The recently presented alternative options and their mapping demonstrate such a fragmented approach. In particular, areas identified as A and B on the map in Appendix A herewith, should be included in all servicing options. It appears that Options 2, 2A and 4 do not include these areas and as such cannot be supported by PVDC. PVDC views this EA as a tool for the City to realize the full development potential of these lands through the preparation of a complete servicing analysis. One that, with provincial policies in mind, focuses on servicing all available lands, as designated in the Official Plan, for a maximum population. Only this methodology will adequately integrate good planning principles with technical considerations. An EA must be based on planning policies in force. The land use master plan ("LUMP") included in the PIC materials does not reflect all lands currently designated for development in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan and the Regional Official Plan. Just as the presented Option A - the "do nothing" alternative - was discounted as not supporting development at all, other alternatives not addressing serviceability of all sections within Hidden Valley as well as existing homes on private services, ought also not be considered. Options that entail the servicing of all lands designated for development should be deliberated when developing pumping station alternatives and provided for in selecting a preferred alternative to ensure the EA does not prejudice the development potential of any lands. The EA should thus evaluate and conclude with respect to the feasibility of providing sanitary services for all lands designated Low Rise Residential on Map 3 of the city's official plan. This is required by the area specific policies that are now in place in the OP. Page 1 of 4 Page 734 of 917 Planning for partial services within the Urban Area (i.e. municipal water and septic tanks) is not consistent with the land use policy framework that currently is in place. The EA should consider these policies and ensure all lands designated for development are accommodated by the alternatives. It should also make provisions (to the extent possible) for eliminating and/or phasing out existing septic tanks in the area. This presents an environmentally responsible approach. To fully analyze and comment on the presented alternatives more information is needed than was presented at the PIC. The information shown is not sufficient and does not reflect all aspects requiring consideration as part of an EA. The presentation focused on locating the forcemain and pumping station only. The design capacity of the pumping station, one that accommodates the maximum anticipated population within the study area, and the available capacity within the downstream sanitary sewer are equally important and necessary for analysis. Servicing and land use planning for the area should utilize available capacity. Please confirm the available capacity at the connection point with existing services. Of concern is also the information incorporated into the archeological and natural environment slides. The purpose of the archaeological information should be limited to the evaluation of the pumping station alternatives and not give direction to future planning applications. Similarly, the purpose of the natural heritage information should be limited to the evaluation of the pumping station alternatives. It is also critical to acknowledge and present to all stakeholders and the public the fact that other infrastructure planning processes have already begun within Hidden Valley. Processes that will significantly impact this area, even more than the pumping station itself. For example, the natural heritage evaluation must consider and account for impacts associated with new road construction (River Road Extension), the realignment of Hidden Valley Road and future rapid transit in this area. In other words, natural features will be impacted by infrastructure planning that has already occurred. As such, certain pumping station locations will have limited impacts on these features. This must be reflected in the evaluation and clearly presented to adequately illustrate the scale of impacts. Specifically, pumping station location B is shown adjacent to future River Road Extension and rapid transit, and therefore would likely have minimal impacts on natural features. Below are additional technical comments to the alternative servicing options presented at the PIC: 1. Servicing of the pocket of lands between the central wetland and Hidden Valley Road near the Grand River has been included in Option 3 and 3a through a sanitary sewer located within the realigned Hidden Valley Road where it connects with the new River Road Extension. An alternative route for a local gravity sewer to service these lands is shown in Appendix A. This alignment considers local topography and takes advantage of more natural draining patterns. 2. Please ensure that services are planned within public right-of-ways along River Road Extension as the presented options show some services through private properties at the north end. 3. The presented mapping shows incorrect shading on slide 21, around pumping station location B, which is important to note from the natural heritage analysis perspective. The PSW here is shown as being a deer wintering and wooded area, which it is neither. Also, the extent of the deer wintering area to the south of this PSW is not fully correct as it actually does not cover the entire area between the wetland and the field designated for residential uses to the south of it. 4. Sanitary servicing for developable sections between the eskars and Hidden Valley Road south (shaded green in Appendix A) can drain by gravity regardless of the pumping station alternatives. These lands should be identified and servicing plans for lands to the south of these sections should be required to provide for and accommodate the servicing of all lands in this area. I would also like to provide additional information regarding the planning processes PVDC has been involved in with the City over the last 20 years. Realizing the significant staff changes at the City over Page 2 of 4 Page 735 of 917 the last months, including the change of Project Manager for Hidden Valley, we believe some context to this EA and other technical studies needed for the Hidden Valley Secondary Plan, is of value. The Hidden Valley area has been enveloped by the City's built environment for decades now. Already in the late 1970s and early 1980s there were attempts to develop it. Several employment and residential plans of subdivisions were proposed. Current land uses still reflect former plans for a business park to be located in the northwest section of PVDC lands and residential in remaining areas. For many years the non-residential sections have been protected for employment uses. However, with the changing planning environment over the last 2 decades - focused on sustainability through the protection of the countryside and reurbanization and the introduction of rapid transit and its intensification -supportive measures - more balanced visions have been developed for Hidden Valley. Already the City's 2010 Comprehensive Review of Employment Lands Study identified lands within Hidden Valley as ones to be further studied to determine if there are a better uses for it - based on then new Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan directives. The following decade addressed ambitious plans of light rail transit development for which station area planning was key. The northwest sections of Hidden Valley lands were identified as being within 800m of the Fairway terminus pointing towards transit -oriented planning. While station area planning for this location has not come to fruition to this day, it has always provided context for more recent planning. Together with Hidden Valley's exquisite location and surrounding amenities within an already built-up area, it has been discussed with City staff over the last few years as a site for a stunning mixed-use neighbourhood. This has been somewhat reflected in the 2019 Land Use Master Plan for which PVDC provided sound argumentation for even higher densities. While City's Planning Staff was not opposed to more densities than proposed in the LUMP, they indicated that a detailed servicing analysis is needed to ensure capacities are reflected in the final plan. Between the above background information and formal planning directives in place, the EA ought to include all developable parcels with their maximum build out potential in any presented and selected alternatives. Only this approach will maximize opportunities for fulfilling the City's strategic goals and sustainable growth while not prejudicing development potential and built out over time. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to review our comments and how they will be addressed. Sincerely, wl�_ Hanna Domagala Senior Project Manager Cc: 1. Richard Kelly-Ruetz, Planner, City of Kitchener Attachment: 1. Appendix A - map Page 3 of 4 Page 736 of 917 Q x 681 Hidden Valley Road Kitchener, ON N2C 2S4 November 18, 2021 Katie Wood Project Manager, Development Engineering City of Kitchener Dave Wilhelm Consultant Project Engineer, Water/Wastewater MTE Consultants Dear Katie and Dave, I am writing on behalf of myself, the owner of 681 Hidden Valley Road, and Peter Kaune, the owner of 691 Hidden Valley Road. We appreciate the City's Forcemain Study Presentation and the opportunity to provide some comments and input that will be considered by the participating agencies. We recognize the opportunities and constraints of the area and understand the effort that was undertaken to arrive at the Forcemain options. Our goal as longstanding property owners who have seen the area change and grow over the last 20-30 years is to protect our property value and its future development potential. We are looking for some clarification on various items to ensure that we have the same potential for development as has already been afforded to other parcels in our neighbourhood. We offer to you the following questions and comments: 1. We are requesting that the City clarify what the `Built Heritage' overlay means on the Key Cultural Findings Map at 681 Hidden Valley Road. The small home on that parcel is not a heritage or significant structure as it was built in the late 1950's or early 1960's by our family. It is not an original farmhouse or original Hidden Valley Road home. In addition, the structure on 691 Hidden Valley Road is not listed on the City's Municipal Page 738 of 917 F0% Heritage Register. We request that you please remove these overlays from the diagram. 2. The City presentation does not offer an option to bring a forcemain/sanitary sewer or water to the Eastern side of Hidden Valley Road. This area includes at least five parcels that are larger than the minimum Low Rise Residential - Estate Residential lot size of 0.4ha identified in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan. As such, these properties have the potential for future development as outlined in the City's Master Plan. By not providing this area with services, how does the City plan to allow these land owners/residents to afford the same future development potential that the other landowners had for the southern portion of Hidden Valley Road? We have been working with the City since 2018 to clarify this issue and now the forcemain plan does not address this area in terms of formal servicing options. This may impact the value and development potential for this entire stretch of Hidden Valley Road. The EA should evaluate the feasibility of providing services for all lands within the Hidden Valley Area, designated Low Rise Residential by the Official Plan or describe options for alternatives such as septic. 3. If the City is not providing an alternative to bring City sewer or water to the Eastern side of Hidden Valley in the 'Heritage Corridor', how will the City assist us in securing severances/subdivision plans and/or support development in these areas? During the forcemain presentation, the City indicated that it would support development in this area using septic systems. Will the City provide a written document so that the Eastern Corridor landowners can provide this document to the Region/GRCA at the time of Planning Act applications to permit development? Will the City also support the use of wells in these areas as no plans presented identify the extension of City water along these zones? 4. There are currently several conceptual neighbourhood plans for 681 and 691 that have been presented to the City. Meetings and correspondence have taken place between the City and our representatives to identify the development potential and intent for the 681 and 691 parcels. How can we work together to move these concepts forward in a timely manner and determine a positive outcome for us as owners? We are concerned our options have been limited by the City's lack of an option that provides services to our parcels and the proposed designation of a 'heritage corridor' for our area. Our goal is to secure some assurance in the near future from the City in Page 739 of 917 K, writing that septic systems and wells are still appropriate for future development and new lots within the Eastern corridor of the Hidden Valley Area. Alternatively, and approvable by the City and other Agencies including the Region and GRCA. 5. If the Heritage Corridor is to remain as identified on the Land Use Master Plan December 2020 slide, will the City provide an allowance for any new development in the larger parcels along this boundary to be developed with the same 'heritage' character - i.e. narrower streets, no sidewalks, no streetlights, no formal street trees, and an allowance for both wells and septic? Will City Planning commit to coordinating these `heritage character' items with the City Engineering so that a new estate residential neighbourhood can be built without the typical City Engineering street profiles including curb/gutter, storm drain, etc.? Will the City support an alternative septic and storm drain solution similar to that developed by the Bridlepath Estates neighborhood and other single family custom newly built homes along the Eastern Corridor? 6. If the City is not planning to bring forcemain/water into the Eastern Corridor, will the City consider returning the widened right of way along 681 and 691 Hidden Valley Road back to those properties? Lands along the frontage of these properties were dedicated to the City in the 1970's and we were required to pay a substantial amount to the City to "allow the City to create a ROW for future City services". Brandon Sloan - a former planner at the City suggested that the City was considering returning these parcels to the original lots. 7. If the City is not bringing sanitary services to the Eastern Corridor and the Region is currently discouraging the digging of new wells, will the City consider bringing City water across Hidden Valley Creek East from Bridlepath Estates and work with the Landowners to garner support from GRCA for this waterline extension? This creek is already an issue during storm events and floods the road and neighboring properties. 8. MHBC has presented some options for the development of 681 and 691 Hidden Valley Road to the City planners over the last four years. The City Planners have in general appeared to support the development and provided lists of documents and studies needed for the subdivision development. Will the City continue to support this development provided that the proper studies are executed? 9. The taxable value of these parcels is determined by the mapping on the Secondary Plan. The City is currently taxing the parcels as estate residential and this has an impact Page 740 of 917 on original owners who do not have "estate" homes on the parcels and have seen a huge increase in taxes over the last 10 years, while rental increases have been restricted and do not keep up with tax increases. The sale of these parcels is also compromised by the City's DRAFT Secondary Plan 'heritage corridor' classification, and the lack of coordination between the Region and the City as to how to provide for development along this corridor. 10. There is some concern that the ' heritage/historic' classification is driven by the City's lack of commitment to bring services to this area. The narrow road is currently subject to flooding with no curb and gutter system or storm drain, and the area is currently subject to security issues such as break-ins, theft, and a continued introduction of vagrancy. The 'heritage corridor' seems to make this area more 'remote' and subject to the sense of decreased security so close to the urban core of Kitchener. Thank you both for your time on this matter, and I look forward to continued coordination in the future. I would be pleased to discuss my concerns in greater detail at your convenience. Sincerely, 4 Page 741 of 917 ORR MT E MTE Consultants �0_ i e Drive, h 520 B ngemans Centr Dr e, Kite ener, Ontario N213 3X9 January 5, 2022 MTE File No.: C48301-100 Annemarie Hall 681 Hidden Valley Road Kitchener, ON NC2 2S4 Email: annemariehalldesign@gmail.com Dear RE: Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station Class Environmental Assessment (EA) We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 18th November 2021, providing comments and questions in relation to captioned project. For clarity, we have included your comment/question first, followed by our response in Italics. Following this response letter, the following documents are included: Comment Letter from I, November 18, 2021 City of Kitchener Procedure for Offsite Works by Private Contractor, March 2021 We are requesting that the City clarify what the `Built Heritage' overlay means on the Key Cultural Findings Map at 681 Hidden Valley Road. The small home on that parcel is not a heritage or significant structure as it was built in the late 1950's or early 1960's by our family. It is not an original farmhouse or original Hidden Valley Road home. In addition, the structure of 691 Hidden Valley Road is not listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. We request that you please remove these overlays from the diagram. MTE Response: A Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) is undertaken to flag any known or potential cultural heritage resources during the early stages of an EA project. A CHAR includes a high-level examination of any property which is identified through existing recognition (listed or designated through the Ontario Heritage Act) and/or any property which appears to have potential cultural heritage value, is over 40 years old or has been noted through consultation with the City. The resulting list helps inform the "built heritage layer" that was presented through the Environmental Assessment (EA) mapping. Essentially the CHAR notes the properties identified on the `Built Heritage Layer' should be considered during the design phase. It does not imply that they warrant any additional protection. Regarding 691 Hidden Valley Road (the barn specifically), the property was included on the list as it was identified by the City of Kitchener. Our evaluation showed that it meets one of more criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06. This property should continue to be considered a cultural heritage resource within the CHAR and as part of the EA, despite not being currently listed on the Register. Regarding 681 Hidden Valley Road, the property was included on the list because it is over 40 years old and its location aligned with the location of the farmhouse on historic map prior to the severance. Since a CHAR Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 742 of 917 January 5, 2022 does not include in depth research and analysis, this was the preliminary assessment. The CHAR does note that more information may arise through public consultation and adjustments may be needed. We will add the above commentary within the CHAR and suggest further research on the property in subsequent design phases if there are any potential impacts to the property. A CHAR does not suggest that a cultural heritage resource should be added to the Heritage Register or be designated. That is a separate process undertaken by the City, typically in tandem or consultation with the property owner. A CHAR provides mitigation measures to consider during design phase. For this project, and these properties specifically, the mitigation measures are to avoid the areas if possible. It is worth noting that these properties do not currently have status as listed or designated properties under the Ontario Heritage Act. The identification and evaluation of these properties was to assist with determining an appropriate location for the sanitary pump and forcemain route. 2. The City presentation does not offer an option to bring a forcemain/sanitary sewer or water to the Eastern side of Hidden Valley Road. This area includes at least five parcels that are larger than the minimum Low Rise Residential — Estate Residential lot size of 0.4ha identified in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan. As such, these properties have the potential for future development as outlined in the City's Master Plan. By not providing this area with services, how does the City plan to allow these land owners/residents to afford the same future development potential that the other landowners had for the southern portion of Hidden Valley Road? We have been working with the City since 2018 to clarify this issue and now the forcemain plan does not address this area in terms of formal servicing options. This may impact the value and development potential for this entire stretch of Hidden Valley Road. The EA should evaluate the feasibility of providing services for all lands within the Hidden Valley Area, designated Low Rise Residential by the Official Plan or describe options for alternatives such as septic. MTE Response: The scope of the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station (SPS) and Forcemain EA is to propose a SPS location and forcemain route to provide sanitary servicing to developable lands as defined in the City's Land Use Master Plan. We investigated locations in the Upper Hidden Valley area that would be able to provide servicing to the greatest developable area (km2). The three (3) location options in the Public Information Centre (PIC) presentation have the potential to provide sanitary servicing to much of the developable lands. Due to topography, sanitary servicing of 681 and 691 Hidden Valley Road is not technically feasible by any of the 3 location options presented. In order for the area to have sanitary servicing by a pump station at, for example, Location Option B, the sanitary sewer and pump station would have to be approximately 10m deeper. At this depth, the cost of pump stations and sewers is very high and the technical feasibility is low. A pump station dedicated to the area near 681 and 691 Hidden Valley Road would be required in order to provide sanitary servicing to this part of the Upper Hidden Valley area. Additionally, it would not be technically feasible for the other developable lands MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Page 743 of 917 January 5, 2022 within the Upper Hidden Valley area to be serviced by this pump station, due to topography. Other sanitary servicing options, such as septic, are outside of the scope of this EA. 3. If the City is not providing an alternative to bring City sewer or water to the Eastern side of Hidden Valley in the `Heritage Corridor', how will the City assist us in securing severances/subdivision plans and/or support development in these areas? During the forcemain presentation, the City indicated that it would support development in this area using septic systems. Will the City provide a written document so that the Eastern Corridor landowners can provide this document to the Region/GRCA at the time of Planning Act applications to permit development? Will the City also support the use of wells in these areas as no plans presented identify the extension of City water along these zones? MTE Response: Development on septic systems requires consideration and approval by the Region of Waterloo, not the City of Kitchener. If the Region is supportive of septic, approvals are still required from the City's Building Division, Engineering Division, and Planning Division. The City did not indicate that it would support development on septic in this area during the presentation. The question of future development on lots on private services will be further explored through the Hidden Valley Secondary Plan work. See further commentary below. 4. There are currently several conceptual neighbourhood plans for 681 and 691 that have been presented to the City. Meetings and correspondence have taken place between the City and our representatives to identify the development potential and intent for the 681 and 691 parcels. How can we work together to move these concepts forward in a timely manner and determine a positive outcome for us as owners? We are concerned our options have been limited by the City's lack of an option that provides services to our parcels and the proposed designation of a `heritage corridor' for our area. Our goal is to secure some assurance in the near future from the City in writing that septic systems and wells are still appropriate for future development and new lots within the Eastern corridor of the Hidden Valley area. Alternatively, and approvable by the City and other Agencies including the Region and GRCA. MTE Response: It would be premature to make any commitments until the matter can be comprehensively evaluated. The question of future development on lots on private services will be further explored through the Hidden Valley Secondary Plan work. The Secondary Plan work is expected to continue over the next couple of years. 5. If the Heritage Corridor is to remain as identified on the Land Use Master Plan December 2020 slide, will the City provide an allowance for any new development in the larger parcels along this boundary to be developed with the same `heritage' character — i.e. narrower streets, no sidewalks, no streetlights, no formal street trees, and an allowance for both wells and septic? Will City Planning commit to coordinating these `heritage character' items with the City Engineering so that a new estate residential neighbourhood can be built without the typical City Engineering Street profiles including curb/gutter, storm drain, etc.? Will the City support an alternative septic and storm drain MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Page 744 of 917 January 5, 2022 solution similar to that developed by the Bridlepath Estates neighbourhood and other single family custom newly built homes along the Eastern Corridor? MTE Response: The current and future profile of the portion of Hidden Valley road recognized as a Heritage Corridor will be further examined through the Hidden Valley Secondary Plan project, which implements the 2019 Land Use Master Plan endorsed at Kitchener City Council. Heritage work as part of the Secondary Plan work is expected to recommend measures to be implemented to mitigate negative impacts and to conserve, enhance and maintain the scenic heritage attributes which contribute to defining any portion of Hidden Valley Road as a Heritage Corridor. Any more specifics will be determined through the Secondary Plan work. 6. If the City is not planning to bring forcemain/water into the Eastern Corridor, will the City consider returning the widened right of way along 681 and 691 Hidden Valley Road back to those properties? Lands along the frontage of these properties were dedicated to the City in the 1970's and we were required to pay a substantial amount to the City to "allow the City to create a ROW for future City services". Brandon Sloan — a former planner at the City suggested that the City was considering returning these parcels to the original lots. MTE Response This is not in scope of the ongoing EA. Feel free to forward any previous correspondence with City Planning staff to the current Project Manager for the Hidden Valley Secondary Plan, Richard Kelly-Ruetz (Richard. kelly-ruetz(a)-kitchener.ca), where it can be considered, where relevant, as part of the upcoming Hidden Valley Secondary Plan work. 7. If the City is not bringing sanitary services to the Eastern Corridor and the Region is currently discouraging the digging of new wells, will the City consider bringing City water across Hidden Valley Creek East from Bridlepath Estates and work with the Landowners to garner support from GRCA for this waterline extension? This creek is already an issue during storm events and floods the road and neighbouring properties. MTE Response At this time, the City has no current plans to extend the watermain across Hidden Valley Creek East. This decision would be made by Kitchener Utilities if it becomes a part of a City project in the future. If a private developer wishes to extend the watermain to service their lot, it would be completely at the applicant's expense. If you would like to explore this option, you would first need to contact a Civil Engineering Consultant to help you complete a design and go through the Off -Site Works Process (attached). 8. MHBC has presented some options for the development of 681 and 691 Hidden Valley Road to the City Planners over the last four years. The City Planners have in general appeared to support the development and provided lists of documents and studies needed for the subdivision development. Will the City continue to support this development provided that the proper studies are executed? MTE Response: The merits of a private development application are out of scope of the ongoing EA and the upcoming Hidden Valley Secondary Plan work. However, the issue of exploring MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Page 745 of 917 January 5, 2022 whether development can be supported on private services is within scope of the Secondary Plan and will impact any development on your property. Public consultation is part of the Secondary Plan process. Timing of public consultation has not yet been confirmed. 9. The taxable value of these parcels is determined by the mapping of the Secondary Plan. The City is currently taxing the parcels as estate residential and this had an impact on original owners who do not have "estate" homes on the parcels and have seen a huge increase in taxes over the last 10 years, while rental increases have been restricted and do not keep up with tax increases. The sale of these parcels is also compromised by the City's DRAFT Secondary Plan `heritage corridor' classification, and the lack of coordination between the Region and the City as to how to provide for development along this corridor. MTE Response The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPA C) assesses the value of properties, not the City. The assessed value is based on as many as 200 different factors. Five major factors usually account for 85% of a property's value including location, lot size/dimensions, living area, age of the house and, quality of construction. More information on MPAC's property assessment valuation process can be obtained by visiting: httas://www. moac. ca/ProoertvOwners/MPACsRole/Residentia/ProaertvAssessment Property taxes are not calculated based on the market value but rather the assessed value of the property. The market value of a property depends on a host of factors including the state of the economy and the individual purchaser's preferences. 10. There is some concern that the `heritage/historic' classification is driven by the City's lack of commitment to bring services to this area. The narrow road is currently subject to flooding with no curb and gutter system or storm drain, and the area is currently subject to security issues such as break-ins, theft, and a continued introduction of vagrancy. The `heritage corridor' seems to make this area more `remote' and subject to the sense of decreased security so close to the urban core of Kitchener. MTE Response: A pump station dedicated to the area near 681 and 691 Hidden Valley Road would be required to provide sanitary servicing to this part of the Upper Hidden Valley area. Due to the remote nature of this area, a pump station, sanitary sewers and watermain is not proposed at this time. This area of Hidden Valley Road is not in the 5 -year capital forecast for reconstruction. MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Page 746 of 917 January 5, 2022 Yours truly, MTE Consultants Inc. Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng. Project Manager 519-743-6500 ext. 1225 DWilhelm(c)-mte85.com DJW:sgd Encl. cc: Katie Wood, City of Kitchener Gemma Charlebois, MTE Consultants Inc. M:\48301\100\00 Correspond ence\PIC\Comments and Responses from PIC\Annemarie Hall\Response Letter to Annemarie Hall_2022-01-05.docx MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Page 747 of 917 681 Hidden Valley Road Kitchener, ON N2C 2S4 November 18, 2021 Katie Wood Project Manager, Development Engineering City of Kitchener Dave Wilhelm Consultant Project Engineer, Water/Wastewater MTE Consultants Dear Katie and Dave, I am writing on behalf of myself, the owner of 681 Hidden Valley Road, and the owner of 691 Hidden Valley Road. We appreciate the City's Forcemain Study Presentation and the opportunity to provide some comments and input that will be considered by the participating agencies. We recognize the opportunities and constraints of the area and understand the effort that was undertaken to arrive at the Forcemain options. Our goal as longstanding property owners who have seen the area change and grow over the last 20-30 years is to protect our property value and its future development potential. We are looking for some clarification on various items to ensure that we have the same potential for development as has already been afforded to other parcels in our neighbourhood. We offer to you the following questions and comments: 1. We are requesting that the City clarify what the `Built Heritage' overlay means on the Key Cultural Findings Map at 681 Hidden Valley Road. The small home on that parcel is not a heritage or significant structure as it was built in the late 1950's or early 1960's by our family. It is not an original farmhouse or original Hidden Valley Road home. In addition, the structure on 691 Hidden Valley Road is not listed on the City's Municipal Page 748 of 917 F0% Heritage Register. We request that you please remove these overlays from the diagram. 2. The City presentation does not offer an option to bring a forcemain/sanitary sewer or water to the Eastern side of Hidden Valley Road. This area includes at least five parcels that are larger than the minimum Low Rise Residential - Estate Residential lot size of 0.4ha identified in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan. As such, these properties have the potential for future development as outlined in the City's Master Plan. By not providing this area with services, how does the City plan to allow these land owners/residents to afford the same future development potential that the other landowners had for the southern portion of Hidden Valley Road? We have been working with the City since 2018 to clarify this issue and now the forcemain plan does not address this area in terms of formal servicing options. This may impact the value and development potential for this entire stretch of Hidden Valley Road. The EA should evaluate the feasibility of providing services for all lands within the Hidden Valley Area, designated Low Rise Residential by the Official Plan or describe options for alternatives such as septic. 3. If the City is not providing an alternative to bring City sewer or water to the Eastern side of Hidden Valley in the 'Heritage Corridor', how will the City assist us in securing severances/subdivision plans and/or support development in these areas? During the forcemain presentation, the City indicated that it would support development in this area using septic systems. Will the City provide a written document so that the Eastern Corridor landowners can provide this document to the Region/GRCA at the time of Planning Act applications to permit development? Will the City also support the use of wells in these areas as no plans presented identify the extension of City water along these zones? 4. There are currently several conceptual neighbourhood plans for 681 and 691 that have been presented to the City. Meetings and correspondence have taken place between the City and our representatives to identify the development potential and intent for the 681 and 691 parcels. How can we work together to move these concepts forward in a timely manner and determine a positive outcome for us as owners? We are concerned our options have been limited by the City's lack of an option that provides services to our parcels and the proposed designation of a 'heritage corridor' for our area. Our goal is to secure some assurance in the near future from the City in Page 749 of 917 K, writing that septic systems and wells are still appropriate for future development and new lots within the Eastern corridor of the Hidden Valley Area. Alternatively, and approvable by the City and other Agencies including the Region and GRCA. 5. If the Heritage Corridor is to remain as identified on the Land Use Master Plan December 2020 slide, will the City provide an allowance for any new development in the larger parcels along this boundary to be developed with the same 'heritage' character - i.e. narrower streets, no sidewalks, no streetlights, no formal street trees, and an allowance for both wells and septic? Will City Planning commit to coordinating these `heritage character' items with the City Engineering so that a new estate residential neighbourhood can be built without the typical City Engineering street profiles including curb/gutter, storm drain, etc.? Will the City support an alternative septic and storm drain solution similar to that developed by the Bridlepath Estates neighborhood and other single family custom newly built homes along the Eastern Corridor? 6. If the City is not planning to bring forcemain/water into the Eastern Corridor, will the City consider returning the widened right of way along 681 and 691 Hidden Valley Road back to those properties? Lands along the frontage of these properties were dedicated to the City in the 1970's and we were required to pay a substantial amount to the City to "allow the City to create a ROW for future City services". Brandon Sloan - a former planner at the City suggested that the City was considering returning these parcels to the original lots. 7. If the City is not bringing sanitary services to the Eastern Corridor and the Region is currently discouraging the digging of new wells, will the City consider bringing City water across Hidden Valley Creek East from Bridlepath Estates and work with the Landowners to garner support from GRCA for this waterline extension? This creek is already an issue during storm events and floods the road and neighboring properties. 8. MHBC has presented some options for the development of 681 and 691 Hidden Valley Road to the City planners over the last four years. The City Planners have in general appeared to support the development and provided lists of documents and studies needed for the subdivision development. Will the City continue to support this development provided that the proper studies are executed? 9. The taxable value of these parcels is determined by the mapping on the Secondary Plan. The City is currently taxing the parcels as estate residential and this has an impact Page 750 of 917 on original owners who do not have "estate" homes on the parcels and have seen a huge increase in taxes over the last 10 years, while rental increases have been restricted and do not keep up with tax increases. The sale of these parcels is also compromised by the City's DRAFT Secondary Plan 'heritage corridor' classification, and the lack of coordination between the Region and the City as to how to provide for development along this corridor. 10. There is some concern that the ' heritage/historic' classification is driven by the City's lack of commitment to bring services to this area. The narrow road is currently subject to flooding with no curb and gutter system or storm drain, and the area is currently subject to security issues such as break-ins, theft, and a continued introduction of vagrancy. The 'heritage corridor' seems to make this area more 'remote' and subject to the sense of decreased security so close to the urban core of Kitchener. Thank you both for your time on this matter, and I look forward to continued coordination in the future. I would be pleased to discuss my concerns in greater detail at your convenience. Sincerely, cc. Peter Kaune 4 Page 751 of 917 PROCEDURE FOR OFF-SITE WORKS BY PRIVATE CONTRACTORS K. L'CI l i , "R A Developer may retain a private Contractor to complete work (servicing, asphalt, concrete) within the City of Kitchener or Regional right-of-way, by following the steps and procedures provided below: 1. Development Engineering will receive a service connection request through the site development application process from the Applicant. In order for a service request to be considered, Development Engineering needs to receive a site grading and servicing plan stamped by a Professional Engineer showing the proposed and existing conditions for the site works including all existing and proposed landscaping and vegetation. Further, Engineering will require the PSAB (Public Sector Accounting Board) information for all proposed assets for which the City will take ownership. The information for PSAB submission and requirements can be found at http://www.kitchener.ca/en/businessinkitchener/Development manual.asp. Development Engineering will review/approve the plans and PSAB information to ensure they meet City standards. a. Please note that if Development Engineering decides that Kitchener Utilities will complete the water servicing connection or decommissioning within the right-of-way, then the process as in (Attachment 1) is to be followed. 2. After the plans are approved, one quote for all proposed works within the right-of-way including full restoration shall be submitted to Development Engineering. The quote shall be prepared on The City of Kitchener's Off -Site Works Cost Estimate Template (Attachment 2) for review and approval by Development Engineering. The quote will be prepared using the City of Kitchener's standard fee schedule as approved by Council. For a list of all fees please refer to the current City of Kitchener Fee Schedule on the City's website, www.kitchener.ca. This quote will be used to determine the amount required for the Engineering Guarantee and Fees. The quote may be prepared by the Engineering Consultant or the Developer. Both the Engineering Consultant and the Developer need to sign off on the quote for accuracy. Once the quote has been approved by Development Engineering, notification of acceptance for the guarantee and fee will be sent via email to the Consultant and the Developer along with payment instruction as administration, inspection and utility fees will not be refunded. Also included in the email will be the Construction and Inspection Agreement that is to be reviewed and signed by both the Consultant and the Developer. A copy of the Off -Site Works Construction and Inspection Agreement is included in (Attachment 3). 3. The Engineering Guarantee for the Off -Site Works will be deposited and held in the form of a letter of credit or certified cheque through Development Engineering (this is separate from the Site Development Letter of Credit which is held by the Planning Department for On -Site works). If the Developer is posting a letter of credit they should call the Legal Department (519-741-2200 ext. 7858) in advance to verify that the financial institution providing the letter of credit is acceptable to The City of Kitchener. The City of Kitchener shall accept only the following approved securities: (i) Letter of Credit (in prescribed form acceptable to the City Solicitor) issued by a Schedule I bank, Schedule 11 bank, Schedule III bank or Trust Company with a DBRS rating of R-1 (middle or high) or AAA , AA(low, middle or high) (or its equivalent if unavailable). Off Site Works Process -Updated March 2021 Page 752 9f §9 � (ii) Letter of Credit (in prescribed form acceptable to the City Solicitor) issued by a Credit Union provided that: 1. The Credit Union is verified as a member of the Central 1 Credit Union 2. The Central 1 Credit Union (rated R-1 (middle)) maintains or improves on their rating 3. The Credit Union has its Head Office in Ontario 4. The cumulative Letters of Credit do not exceed 1 % of the Credit Union's Tier 1 Capital as per the Credit Union's most recent audited financial statements. If a Letter of Credit was previously accepted in accordance with the above, and the institution has since been downgraded and no longer meets the minimum requirements, the City may request a new acceptable Letter of Credit. Other forms of performance security, acceptable to the City Treasurer and City Solicitor, may be substituted (e.g. cash or a certified cheque made out to the City of Kitchener). The developer should contact in advance of obtaining their Letter of Credit, in order to have the DBRS rating checked and pre -cleared. The Engineering Guarantee will be 60% of the approved Quote. The Letter of Credit/certified cheque will be deposited and held for a minimum of two years from Initial Maintenance Acceptance, until the final inspections are complete and are satisfactory to the City of Kitchener, at which time the letter of credit will be released as the City will take ownership of the infrastructure. The Letter of Credit may be reduced to 30% of the approved Quote after the servicing/asphalt/concrete are placed on maintenance. 4. The Developer must come to The City of Kitchener's Engineering Division (9t" Floor) to fill out the Off -Site Works Application Form (Attachment 4). At that time Engineering will collect the Guarantee and Fee either by certified cheque or by Letter of Credit. Further, the original copy of the Off -Site Works Construction and Inspection Agreement signed by both the Consultant and the Developer shall be submitted at this time. A copy of the agreement form will not be accepted. 5. The Developer is responsible for employing the Engineering Consultant to have a qualified inspector on site at all times during construction. The inspector's current contact information is required on the Off -Site Works Application form as the main point of contact in case any problems arise during construction. Further, the Professional Engineer will be required to certify the site after the installation and restoration has been completed. 6. Once the Application Form is completed to the City's satisfaction, Development Engineering staff will sign the Off -Site Works Engineering Agreement and sign off any conditions in regards to the site plan process if applicable. After the Off Site Works Engineering Agreement has been executed, Development Engineering will then complete a pre -construction inspection and note any existing deficiencies. 7. The Contractor is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits including a Road Occupancy Permit from City of Kitchener Transportation Division (contact Lou Slijepcevic at 519-741-2200 ext. 7153) or if working in a Regional right-of-way, a Regional Work Permit from the Region of Waterloo Corridor Management prior to any work commencing. The Road Occupancy Permit requires both Off Site Works Process -Updated March 2021 Page 753 9f 9l � WSIB information and insurance which must be approved by the Risk Management Division prior to issuing a permit. Please be aware that Transportation Division requires a minimum of five (5) days to process a Road Occupancy Permit. A checklist has been created by the City's Transportation Division highlighting all the required information and is attached to the Off -Site Works permit. A sample copy of this checklist is included in (Attachment 5). Both the City's Transportation Division and the Region's Corridor Management require that the Off -Site Works Permit number be referenced when applying for a Road Occupancy Permit (City) or a Work Permit (Region). 8. For all watermain connections, Kitchener Utilities will complete the tapping of the water line at the watermain. The contractor must submit a commissioning plan prior to requesting a tap for all services 1 00m and larger and submit to angela.mick(o-)kitchener.ca. The contractor is responsible to arrange and pay for all water sampling costs/lab fees. The contractor must not clean the pipe in the area or install the saddle/valve until Kitchener Utilities staff are present. Torqueing is to be done to manufacturer's specifications. The Contractor is responsible to supply all approved material as per the DGSSMS. The contractor is required to have chlorine on site. If a shut -down is required, the Contractor is responsible to provide hand-written notification at least 48 working hours in advance of the operation. To request a tap or inspection, obtain a Contractor Inspection Request Form from INS-Utilities-Dispatchers(a)kitchener.ca and submit a completed form to the same address. with at least 48 hours notice, on a first come, first served basis. A form will be provided as part of the acceptance of the commissioning plan (send commissioning plan to angela.mick(a)kitchener.ca). Kitchener Utilities will only enter safe trenches with trench numbers. 9. The Contractor is responsible to remove any existing water services at the main, which are not being used. Kitchener Utilities shall be contacted to inspect the work. If a shut -down is required, the Contractor is responsible to provide hand-written notification at least 48 working hours in advance of the operation. To request an inspection, provide the Contractor Inspection Request Form to INS- Utilities-Dispatchers(a�kitchener.ca with at least 48 hours notice, on a first come, first served basis. A form can be provided by emailing INS-Utilities-Dispatchers(a�kitchener.ca.. 10. Gas services must be coordinated with Kitchener Utilities. Please contact KU-sups@kitchener.ca 11. Engineering is to be contacted at 519-741-2406 at the commencement of construction and again following restoration. 12. Restoration of the road (asphalt) is required within 72 hours of the installation/abandonment of services. During restoration of the right of way, cold patch may be used for a maximum of 24 hours at which time hot mix asphalt will be required for full restoration of the base and surface asphalt. Surface asphalt must be placed within 24 hours after the base asphalt has been placed. Gravel sidewalks are not permitted at any time if open to the public. Asphalt sidewalks are acceptable for a temporary condition but must be concrete for all works to be put onto initial maintenance. If at any time during construction the work zone is deemed unsafe, The City of Kitchener will immediately take the appropriate actions to rectify the situation and charge the Developer for the same. 13. Once the work within the right-of-way is complete and restored, the Developer/Consultant is required to send a letter to Development Engineering requesting that the new works be put on maintenance and reduce the Engineering Guarantee. Included in the request must be the City of Kitchener's Maintenance Package Checklist for Initial Acceptance (Attachment 6) stamped by a Professional Engineer that can certify the installation process. Along with the maintenance package all documents, pictures and test results must be submitted for review and approval. Test results to be submitted include: compaction testing results per trench (granulars, asphalt base and surface), Off Site Works Process -Updated March 2021 Page 754 9f §9 Y Marshall test, photo log of installation being completed, slump and air test results for concrete and confirmation from Kitchener Utilities that tapping and inspection was completed. 14. Development Engineering staff will complete an inspection and require any deficiencies to be rectified and re -inspected prior to Initial Acceptance and the commencement of the two (2) year maintenance period. If additional inspections are required due to deficiencies, then additional inspection fees will be charged by the City of Kitchener's Engineering Department. The developer will receive a letter from the City of Kitchener confirming that the infrastructure has been put on maintenance at which time the Development Engineering staff will reduce the Engineering Guarantee to 30%. 15. Prior to initial acceptance and during the two (2) year maintenance period, any problems arising from the construction and service installation will be the Developer's responsibility and the associated costs incurred by the City will be taken from the Engineering Guarantee at the City's discretion. 16. Upon completion of the two (2) year maintenance period, the Developer is required to send in a request for Final Acceptance of the works and release of the Engineering Guarantee. The developer must include CCTV video and report for the service laterals in the right-of-way which will be reviewed and signed off by the Engineering Division. Please be that the CCTV submission shall be in accordance with Off -Site Works CCTV Requirements Checklist for Sanitary and Storm Services (Attachment 7). Both Kitchener Utilities and Development Engineering will complete a final inspection. Any deficiencies noted, shall be rectified prior to re -inspection. If additional inspections are required due to deficiencies then additional inspection fees will be charged. Once the works are accepted, maintenance of the infrastructure will be assumed by The City of Kitchener. The developer will receive a letter from The City of Kitchener stating the infrastructure has been accepted and the release of the remaining Engineering Guarantee will be processed. Off Site Works Process -Updated March 2021 Page 755 9f §9 � Attachment 1 — Procedure for Servicing by Kitchener Utilities Development Engineering will receive a service connection request via phone, public inquiry or mainly through site development applications. In order for a service request to be considered, Development Engineering needs to receive a site grading and servicing plan stamped by a Professional Engineer showing the proposed and existing conditions for the site works including all existing and proposed landscaping and vegetation. Further, Engineering will require the PSAB (Public Sector Accounting Board) information for all proposed assets which the City will take ownership for. The information for PSAB submission and requirements can be found at http://www.kitchener.ca/en/businessinkitchener/Development manual.asp. Development Engineering will review/approve the plans and PSAB information to ensure it meets City standards. 2. After the plans are deemed acceptable, Engineering will prepare a quote for the proposed works in the right-of-way including all restoration costs. The quote will be prepared using the City of Kitchener's standard fee schedule as approved by council. For a list of all fees please refer to the current City of Kitchener Fee Schedule on our website at www.kitchener.ca. Engineering will send notification via email to the Consultant and the Developer stating the amount required for the proposed work. 3. The developer must fill out the Off -Site Works Permit Application Form (Attachment 4) in person at the 9t" floor Engineering Desk (City Hall) and submit payment via certified cheque for the proposed work. 4. Once payment has been received, Engineering will sign off on the applicable site plan conditions for issuance of the Building Permit. 5. Engineering will then deposit the certified cheque and create a work order to ensure Kitchener Utilities schedules the work as soon as they can. If the Developer wishes to follow upon estimated timing for the connection he/she should contact Page 756 of 917 Project: Attachment 2 — City of Kitchener Off -Site Works Cost Estimate Template ENGINEERING DIVISION - ESTIMATE SHEET 2019 Date: Estimate By: Description -JY I Unit Price I Total Price Admin Fee TOTAL Charge Sewer Service Fees: ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1$ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ $ -1 11$ 2 Lane Rd - Fully Serviced (66' ROW) Choose: 0 2 Lane Rd - No curb, gutter or sidewalk Choose: 0 �$7,39�0.00$ 4 Lane Rd - Fully Serviced (86 ROW) Choose: 0 0 $ 2,600.00 4 Lane Rd - No Curb, gutter or sidewalk Choose: 0 O $ 10,000.00 2 Lane Rd - Fully Serviced (66 ROW) Choose: 0 O $ 10,000.00 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Lane Rd - No curb, gutter or sidewalk Choose: 0 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ $ 5,410.00 4 Lane Rd - Fully Serviced (86 ROW) Choose: 0 0 $ 10,400.00 4 Lane Rd - No Curb, gutter or sidewalk Choose: O 0 $ 12,555.00 LEE Sanitary or Storm connection along LRT route I Choose: O _$_555 00 0 $ 2,595.00 Add Structure: Sanitary 0 $ 3,350.00 $ - $ - $ Storm 0 $ 3,350.00 $ - $ - $ Catchbasin 0 $ 2,015.00 $ - $ - $ .............. ........... ..... ....................... ........ ..... .......................................:.. Engineering Inspections: $ $ $ Sanitary/StormyWater/Concrete - work by others to City pipes (Engineering Inspection) O Concrete Work Sidewalk - 200mm thick per metre 0 $ 1 12.00 $ - $ - $ - Sidewalk or concrete boulevard- 125mm thick per metre 0 $ 102.00 $ - $ - $ - Curb and Gutter/m hand placed 0 $ 97.00 $ - $ - $ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._..................................................................................... Concrete driveway apron - 200mm thick per metre' 0 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... $ 112.00 $ - $ - $ Asphalt driveway apron - 40mm HL3 and 60mm HL4 per mietrel 0 $ 150.00 Future SW - 200mm thick per metre z 0 $" 125.00 $ - $ - $ - Future SW - 125mm thick (per metre z O $ 112.00 $ $ $ Future Multi -Use Trail Der mietrel 0 $ 48.00 $ - $ 200mm or 8 inch 300mm or 12 inch Water connection ter Service Abandonment 125mm to 100mm or 1 to" 4 inch Kitchener Utilities) 150mm and 200mm or 6 and 8 inch ter Servim ce Abando nt 25mto 100m M or 1 to 4 inch Private Contractor) 150mm and 200mm or 6 and 8 inch Hydrants: noval of Hydrant (no new hydrant required) by Kitchener Utilities allation of new Hydrant by Kitchener U ilities allation of new Hydrant by Private C0 tractor front Relocation <3m with no restores. nand re -use of hydrant by Kitchener Utilities )rant Relocation >3m and/or restorpfFion required and re -use of hydrant by Kitchener )rant Relocation>3m and/or restoration required and a new hydrant by Kitchener Kitchener Utilities Inspections: Watermain Tapping/I nspection/Testing - by Kitchener Utilities - 25mm H-) -75r Watermain Tapping/I nspection by Kitchener Utilities - 100mm (4') and above Waterm in connection/abandonment by others (Utilities Inspection) Waternx in inspection daily rate (work by others, inspection by City, final cot Other (ie. Drop structure, conc. Encasement, pipe insulation) Other (ie. Drop structure, conc. Encasement, pipe insulation) Other (ie. Drop structure, conc. Encasement, pipe insulation) Consultant's Signature Developers Signature 0 1$ 5,380.00 $ -1 11$ to] �$7,39�0.00$ 0 $ 2,600.00 O $ 10,000.00 O $ 10,000.00 O $ 5,410.00 0 $ 10,400.00 0 $ 12,555.00 O _$_555 00 0 $ 2,595.00 O $ 540.00 O $ $ $ Page 757 of 917 Attachment 3 — Off -Site Works Construction and Inspection Agreement AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made as of the day of 20 BETWEEN: (hereinafter collectively called the "Developer") OF THE FIRST PART; - and — (hereinafter collectively called the "Consultant") OF THE SECOND PART -and THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (hereinafter called "the City") OF THE THIRD PART; WHEREAS the Developer proposes to construct the off-site works for the property, commonly referred to as and reference by that number by the City of Kitchener (as hereinafter defined as "the works"), as shown on the attached Schedule'A". NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH that in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. The Developer agrees to construct the works in accordance with the City of Kitchener Development Manual and all other applicable Provincial and Regional Standards set out in the Development Manual, as amended from time to time, hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Design Standards",; a copy of which can be found on the City's website at www.kitchener.ca. The Developer agrees to comply with the Design Standards. 2. The Developer agrees to construct the works in accordance with the approved construction drawings and the Plan must be stamped by the consultant professional engineer and approved by the City. 3. The Developer hereby acknowledges that it has retained the services of the Consultant for the provision of engineering services for the development of the works and as par E4ba_1_%tffiiSdr7, the Developer requires the Consultant to monitor and inspect the works undertaken and provide to the City the required certifications, identified in the Design Standards all at the expense of the Developer. All invoicing and payment for the Consultant services shall be undertaken directly between the Developer and the Consultant. 4. The Consultant acknowledges that the Works must be constructed in accordance with the Design Standards; a copy of which can be found on the City's website at www.kitchener.ca and that the Consultant will take into account the Design Standards., as amended form time to time, when certifying any component of the development of the Works. 5. The Consultant agrees to administer, observe and certify that the construction is in accordance with the approved construction drawings and the Plan must be stamped by the consultant professional engineer or another professional engineer and approved by the City. 6. The Consultant agrees that it shall skilfully and competently perform its services in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles when it is monitoring and inspecting the work undertaken by the Developer, for which it will provide certification in accordance with the Design Standards. 7. The Developer and the Consultant shall notify the City immediately in the event the retainer between the Developer and Consultant for the Works is terminated or suspended for any reason. The Developer agrees to stop all work immediately until such time as a new Consultant is appointed to the City's satisfaction. The Developer agrees to hire a replacement Consultant within 2 weeks of said termination; the Developer acknowledges that failure to do so will result in the City calling upon the Letter of Credit to complete any work related to public safety. 8. The Consultant shall insure its undertaking, business and equipment so as to protect and indemnify and save harmless the City from any and all costs, claims, demands, damages, fines, suits, actions, and judgments made, brought or recovered against the City, for any bodily injury, death or property damage caused by or resulting from the operation and business carried on by the Consultant under this Agreement. 9. The Consultant shall maintain liability insurance acceptable to the City throughout the term of this Agreement. Coverage shall consist of a comprehensive policy of public liability and property damage insurance in an amount of not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall name The Corporation of the City of Kitchener as an additional insured thereunder and shall be endorsed to include a Cross -Liability Endorsement with a Severability of Interests Clause and Blanket Contractual Liability. 10. The Consultant shall take out and keep in force until three (3) years after this Agreement is no longer in effect, Professional Liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 providing coverage for acts, errors and omissions arising from their professional services performed under this Agreement. 11. The Developer shall insure its undertaking, business and equipment so as to protect and indemnify and save harmless the City from any and all costs, claims, demands, damages, fines, suits, actions, and judgments made, brought or recovered against the City, for any bodily injury, death or property damage caused by or resulting from the operation and business carried on by the Developer under this Agreement. 12. The Developer shall maintain liability insurance acceptable to the City throughout the term of this Agreement. Coverage shall consist of a comprehensive policy of public liability and property damage insurance in an amount of not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance Page 759 of 917 shall name The Corporation of the City of Kitchener as an additional insured thereunder and shall be endorsed to include a Cross -Liability Endorsement with a Severability of Interests Clause and Blanket Contractual Liability. 13. The Consultant and the Developer shall forward Certificates of Insurance on either the City's Forms (STANDARD CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE and CERTIFICATE OF PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE located on the internet at http://www.kitchener.ca/tender.asp) or produce their own form evidencing this insurance with the executed Agreement. These Certificates shall state that coverage will not be suspended, voided, cancelled, reduced in coverage or in limits except afterthirty (30) days priorwritten notice by certified mail to the City. It is also understood and agreed that in the event of a claim any deductible or self-insured retention under this policy of insurance shall be the sole responsibility of the Consultant and the Developer and that this coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City shall be considered excess of the Consultant's and Developer's insurance and shall not contribute with it. The City reserves the right to modify the insurance requirements as deemed suitable. 14. Neither the Consultant or any person, firm or corporation associated or affiliated with or subsidiary to the Consultant shall tender for the construction of the Works, or have an interest either directly or indirectly in the construction of the Works. 15. Neither the Developer or the Consultant shall assign this Agreement in whole, or in part, without the prior written consent of the City, which consent may not be withheld without reason but the City may impose terms and conditions. 16. The Developer and the Consultant permit the City, its employees or persons authorized by the City, to inspect, at all reasonable times or otherwise review the services performed, or being performed, by the Developer and the Consultant, their contractor, sub -contractor, officers, directors, employees, sub- consultants and agents in regards to the Works and the premises where they are being performed. 17. Any dispute, difference or disagreement between the parties hereto in relation to the Agreement may, with the consent of all three parties, be referred to arbitration. No person shall be appointed to act as arbitrator who is in any way interested, financially or otherwise, in the conduct of the work on the Works or in the business or other affairs of either the Developer or the Consultant. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties. The provisions of The Arbitrations Act, S.O., 1991, as amended shall apply. 18. The Consultant is and will at all times remain an independent contractor, retained by the Developer and the Consultant is not and shall not represent itself to be the agent or employee of the City. 19. This Agreement supersedes all previous agreements, arrangements or understandings between the three parties whether written or oral in connection with or incidental to the Works. 20. Prior to work commencing on site the Developer must obtain a road permit from Transportation Services at The City of Kitchener. Further all works must be performed in conformance with Ontario Manual Book 7 Temporary Conditions. 21. The Developer accepts all roads being accessed under this agreement in "as is" condition and The City of Kitchener is not obligated to undertake any action or remediation on any road to accommodate or as a result of the Developers work. The Developer acknowledges that certain risks which may include, but are not limited to, motor vehicle traffic, ground water and soil contamination exist when entering onto or beneath the road allowance pursuant to the Work and Page 760 of 917 as such the Developer agrees to release and forever discharge The City of Kitchener, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, contractors, successors and assigns ("the Releasees") from any and all claims that the Developer or Consultant may have or may have in the future against the Releasees and to release the Releasees from any and all liability for any loss, damage, expense or injury the Developer or Consultant may suffer as a result of the Works and entrance upon or beneath the road allowance, due to any cause whatsoever, including negligence, breach of contract, or breach of any statutory or other duty of care, including any duty of care owned under the Occupiers' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.2, as amended, on the part of the Releasees. 22. The Developer and the Consultant and their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns will indemnify and save harmless the City of Kitchener from any and all claims, damages, suits, actions and judgments made, brought or recovered against the City of Kitchener and from all loss, costs, damages, charges or expenses that may be incurred, sustained or paid by the City of Kitchener by reason of the granting of the Works, including any loss resulting from any violation under the Occupational Health and Safety Ace, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.1, together with defence costs, fines and penalties. The Developer shall be considered the "constructor" for the purposes of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The indemnity provisions of this Agreement shall survive the termination of the Agreement. IN WITNESS THEREOF the parties hereto have caused to be executed those presents by their officers properly authorized in that behalf on the day and year first above written. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED DEVELOPER (DEVELOPER NAME) per: (Signing Authority with Title/Position) I have the authority to bind the Corporation Type Name: Title: per: (Signing Authority with Title/Position) I have the authority to bind the Corporation Type Name: Title: CONSULTANT (CONSULTANT NAME) per: (Signing Authority with Title/Position in Firm) I have the authority to bind the Corporation Page 761 of 917 Type Name: Title: per: (Signing Authority with Title/Position in Firm) I have the authority to bind the Corporation Type Name Title: (Consultant Name) (Street Address) (City, Province) (Postal Code) THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER Per: (Signature) Name: Justin Readman Title: General Manager, DSD Page 762 of 917 Attachment 4 — off-site Works Permit Application Form OFF-SITE WORKS APPLICATION FORM Name of Owner No. & Street Address of Owner City & Postal Code of Owner Location of Site: Date Telephone Number Contact Person Name: Phone: All conditions below must be fulfilled prior to sign off on the process and applicable site plan conditions: Li The Fee and Guarantee for off-site works was paid by certified cheque or Letter of Credit in full in the amount of $ Payment Received Date Payment Received By Li The City of Kitchener has approved the Grading, Servicing plan and PSAB information. Li The Developer has submitted the signed Off -Site Works Construction and Inspection Agreement. Li The owner has read and agrees to the most recent version of the `Procedure for offsite works by private contractor' Li `Form 1' approved by Kitchener Utilities (if required) Li The City of Kitchener has received all important inspector information. 0 0 0 0 0 Engineering Firm:_ Address: Main contact person: Phone number: E-mail address: Page 763 of 917 NOTE: 1. The Applicant must obtain Engineering approval prior to work being completed on the site or within the right-of-way. 2. Gas services must be coordinated with Kitchener Utilities (Sylvie Eastman (519) 741-2600 ext. 4178). 3. This Off -Site Works Permit is not the approval needed from Transportation Services; please contact Lou Slijepcevic 519-741-2200 ext. 7153 or 519-741-2379 for any and all work in the right of way and proper permits must be in place prior to any work commencing. Please note a Road Occupancy Permit takes a minimum of five (5) business days to process. 4. All work within the right-of-way must be Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 7 compliant. 5. Please note that proper communication with Transportation Services for Road Occupancy Permits and timing is required to complete your work. Short notice will not be accommodated and processing times must be adhered to. 6. The Traffic Control Plan (TCP) must be submitted for approval with your Road Occupancy Permit. 7. Full restoration and asphalt is required upon completion. All cost/fees related to the road closure (if road closure is required) is the responsibility of the owner. If the municipal right-of-way is not restored or maintained to City Standards by the Developer during construction and the maintenance period and City Forces are called out to do the repair, the full cost for the repair will be taken from the Developers Guarantee held by The City of Kitchener. 8. 519-741-2345 must be called to reopen the road upon work completion (if road closure is required). 9. Prior to the initial maintenance inspection, Engineering must receive all the necessary construction test results as listed below: a. Compaction test results per trench (granular sub base, asphalt base and surface) b. Marshall test c. Photo log of installation be completed d. Slump and air test result for concrete e. Confirmation from Kitchener Utilities that tapping and inspection was completed 10. If no deficiencies are noted, 50% of the Guarantee will be refunded while the remaining 50% will be held for the 2 year maintenance period. 11. The Developer/Owner is responsible for the completed works within the municipal right-of-way for the 2 year maintenance period. 12. Prior to final acceptance and release of the remaining guarantee, CCTV videos and corresponding reports for all new sanitary and storm laterals or mains must be submitted and approved by Engineering. All works must be up to City standards and inspected and accepted by The City of Kitchener. Services to be completed within the Municipal Right -of -Way Sanitary Service Sidewalk Storm Service Curb & Gutter Water Service Inspection Signature of Applicant Application Accepted By Acceptance Date 4 of 917 Attachment 5 — City of Kitchener's Road Occupancy Permit Checklist ROAD OCCUPANCY PERMIT APPLICATION FOR OFF-SITE WORKS i�iT ;HE 'E Contractors, property owners and others who are planning any activity (such as, but not limited to construction, landscaping etc) that may cause a public road to be blocked in any way, including restricting access, disrupting vehicular/pedestrian traffic flow, must obtain a Road Occupancy Permit before starting any work. Any work occurring in the public road allowance (property that is under the jurisdiction of the City of Kitchener, including the roadway, boulevard, sidewalk and in most cases a landscaped portion adjacent to each property) will require a Road Occupancy Permit. In order to obtain a Road Occupancy Permit for off-site works, an approved Off -Site Permit from Engineering is required, certificate of insurances from both the property owner and contractor along with all of the information requested below. Note that a minimum of 5 days' notice is required to process a road occupancy permit, provided all the information is provided and accurate. APPLICATION INFORMATION DETAILS PROPERTY OWNER CONTRACTOR NAME/COMPANY ADDRESS NO: STREET NAME: ADDRESS TO INTERSECTION: Page 765 of 91 OFFICE PHONE NO. CELL PHONE NO. EMAIL PROJECT INFORMATION START DATE: COMPLETION DATE: TYPE OF WORK: WORK DESCRIPTION: ADDRESS NO: STREET NAME: FROM INTERSECTION: TO INTERSECTION: Page 765 of 91 ROAD OCCUPANCY PERMIT CHECKLIST ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED: Certificate of Insurance: Property Owner❑ Contractor❑ Traffic Control Plan (if applicable): ❑ Work Zone Plan (if applicable)❑ Work Plan/Schedule❑ Supplemental Sketch ❑ Resident Notification Letter❑ Off -Site Permit ❑ 1) Type of closure requested. Check all that apply: Full ❑ Half ❑ Lane ❑ Sidewalk ❑ None ❑ 2) Description and reason for road closure: 3) Is the roadway being open cut? YES ❑ NO ❑ a. When is full restoration occurring? 4) Is the curb being cut/removed? YES ❑ a. When is full restoration occurring? 5) Is the sidewalk being cut/removed? YES❑ a. When is restoration occurring? b. Restoration material being used? Asphalt❑ c. If asphalt, when will concrete be reinstated? 6) Is the boulevard being affected? YES ❑ a. When is restoration occurri 7) What day is garbage day? NO ❑ NO ❑ Concrete ❑ NO ❑ Page 766 of 917 a. Has Waste Management been contacted (contact information attached)? YES ❑ NO ❑ 8) When will resident notification occur? 9) Is there a school close to work area? YES ❑ NO ❑ 10)ls the road a GRT bus route? YES ❑ NO ❑ 11)Will residents be displaced from their driveways? YES ❑ Duration NO❑ Page 767 of 917 ROAD OCCUPANCY PERMIT NOTES • The applicant must have a valid and approved off-site work permit from Engineering prior to submitting for a road occupancy permit. • A minimum of 5 days' notice is required to process a road occupancy permit, provided all the information noted previously is submitted and accurate. • It is the responsibility of the property owner/contractor to ensure garbage/recycling is able to be collected during the proposed work. Region of Waterloo Waste Management can be reached 24 hours a day at 519-575-4400 or on the web at: http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/aboutTheEnvironment/Curbside Collection.asp? mid =175 64 • Certificate of Insurances (COI) are required from both the property owner and the contractor. Before a road occupancy permit can be issued, the COI must be vetted through risk management. The Corporation of The City of Kitchener must be listed as an additional insured, along with a minimum of $2 million general liability. • A letter of notification for residents/businesses of off-site works is required to be sent by the contractor. A copy is to be included with the road occupancy permit application, in order for staff to review. • The City of Kitchener has a noise by-law which permits work only between 7 am - 7 pm, 7 days of the week. If work is being requested outside of these hours, a noise exemption will be required, which must be justified before consideration is given to the request. Noise exemptions require Council approval and must be done through a staff report. Further information will be required if a noise exemption is requested. • A work plan and/or schedule are to be included with the application. The schedule will need to include restoration dates for the road, sidewalk and boulevard, if applicable. • Sidewalks can be restored with asphalt on a temporary base, in lieu of concrete. However concrete must be reinstated upon completion of the development. • All fees/costs associated with a road closure, will be the responsibility of the property owner. This could/may include installing advanced notification signs of impending road closure. All work zones will be the responsibility of the contractor. In these cases, a traffic control plan is required along with the application. • Restoration of the roadway/sidewalk must be identified/included in the original work proposal. If restoration of the roadway and/or sidewalk cannot be accommodated within 72 hours of work being completed, a road occupancy permit will not be issued. If the municipal ripht- fAgyo' not restored or maintained to City Standards by the Developer during construction and the maintenance period and City Forces are called out to do the repair, the full cost for the repair will be taken from the Developers Guarantee held by The City of Kitchener. • All work within the right-of-way must be Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 7 compliant. • 519-741-2345 must be called to arrange to reopen the road up work completion (if road closure is required). Page 769 of 917 Attachment 6 — City of Kitchener's Maintenance Package Checklist for Initial Acceptance Off -Site Works Maintenance Package Checklist for Initial Acceptance` ` Request Form ' Developer: Date: Address: Consultant: No. Item Description cli `s Y 1.0 Letters 1.1 Engineer's Letter of Certificp" 2.0 Inspection Reports 3.0 Sewers 3.1 Sanity B% 3.1.1 3.1.2 Q 4.0 (Vater 4.1 Water Services Backfill Material/Pipe Bedding 4.1.1 Compaction Testing 4.1.2 Tracer Wire - Conductivity Test Photo log of installation (see note 4.1.3 1) 4.2 Watermain Backfill Material/Pipe Bedding 4.2.1 Compaction Testing 4.2.2 Tracer Wire - Conductivity Test Photo log of installation (see note 4.2.3 1) Paqe 77E) oll RUN ,edding ,Lallation 3., 3.2.t. A testing PVC 4.0 (Vater 4.1 Water Services Backfill Material/Pipe Bedding 4.1.1 Compaction Testing 4.1.2 Tracer Wire - Conductivity Test Photo log of installation (see note 4.1.3 1) 4.2 Watermain Backfill Material/Pipe Bedding 4.2.1 Compaction Testing 4.2.2 Tracer Wire - Conductivity Test Photo log of installation (see note 4.2.3 1) Paqe 77E) oll RUN 5.0 Roads 5.1 Sub-arade. Granular "A" and Granular "B" Material 5.2 Asnhalt 5.2.1 Sub Grade - Geotechnical 5.1.1 Certification 5.2.3 Granular "B" Material Compaction 5.1.2 Testing Granular "A" Material Compaction 5.1.3 Testing 5.2 Asnhalt 5.2.1 Mix Designs base and surface 5.2.2 Asphalt tickets (surface asphalt must be virgin) 5.2.3 Full Marshall Test Results (>75 tonnes 5.2.4 Compaction Testing 5.3 Concrete — Curbing and Sidewalk 5.3.1 Concrete tickets 5.3.2 Mix Designs see note 2 Air/Slump/Strength Testing (see 5.3.3 note 2 Notes: 1. Representative digital photographs of the water connections, including services to document that wrapping as per Corrosion Protection in the DGSSMS has been completed. 2. Mix designs and testing for curb/sidewalk required for lengths greater than 50 linear metres. 3. Shaded cells indicate required items for initial acceptance. Page 771 of 917 Attachment 7 - Off -Site Works CCN Requirements Checklist for Sanitary and Storm Services ❑ The owner understands that failure to submit this cover checklist filled out will result in an incomplete submission and a resubmission will be required. ❑ Included in this submission package is a PACP certification document from the pipeline inspector who is capable of accurate observation and reporting of all conditions found. ❑ All storm and sanitary services have been flushed and cleaned prior to starting the CCTV inspection. During cleaning operations, satisfactory precautions shall be taken to ensure that the water flow volumes and pressures created do not damage or cause flooding of any public or private property, while still ensuring satisfactory cleansing of the interior of the pipe for inspection. When possible, the flow of sewage in the sewer shall be utilized to aid in the cleaning process. A maximum pressure of 1800psi shall be used in all locations to prevent damage to the sewer lines or flooding into private structures. It shall be at the Contractor's discretion and judgment that flow volumes and cleaning pressures are adjusted appropriately for the age, condition, and circumstances of the inspection site. If in the Contractor's opinion "normal" cleaning procedures cannot be undertaken, or satisfactory results cannot be achieved in any section of sewer, the CCTV contractor must report the findings to City's staff. ❑ All new storm and sanitary services from the main to the property line have been videoed and the CCTV inspections and corresponding reports have been submitted in this package electronically. All new storm and sanitary mains that were completed as part of the Off -Site Works process have been submitted with the same criteria given to the services if applicable. ❑ A digital CCTV inspection report has been included with this submission. The City is currently accepting submissions in USB or CD format, as well as on-line submissions via fileshare or an ftp site. This CCTV inspection report includes: ❑ a general service plan which highlights the inspected sanitary and storm sewer. Elan English, computer-generated, typed -format, with a presenting cover page. ❑a cover page with the following information on it: ■ 1 st Line City of Kitchener ■ 2nd Line Developer's Name ■ 3rd Line Sewer Type (Sanitary or Storm Video Inspection) ■ 4th Line Report Number # ■ 5th Line Date of Report DD/MM/YYYY ❑ A digital CCTV video had been included with this submission. The City is currently accepting submissions in USB or CD format, as well as on-line submissions via fileshare or an ftp site. ❑ While the camera is stationary, at the beginning of the section, the following appears on the video screen: ■ 1 st Line Sanitary/Storm ■ 2nd Line From (starting location or MH#) to (ending location or MH#) ■ 3rd Line Address ■ 4th Line Flow Direction - North, South, East, West Page 772 of 917 ■ 5th Line Size of pipe, type of pipe ■ 6th Line Date of inspection (MM/DD/YY) ❑ While the camera is travelling the following information appears at the bottom left hand of the video screen: ■ 1st Line From (starting location or MH#) to (ending location or MH#) ■ 2nd Line Address ■ 3rd Line Distance from center of manhole base in meters ■ 4th Line Flow Direction — North, South, East, West ❑ The internal pipe inspection has been completed using specifically designed cameras, video recording equipment and synchronized computer data recording. A continuous visual record of the internal condition of the piping system is provided digitally, with a playback visual resolution equivalent to the camera's recording resolution. Camera equipment shall consist of a self-contained, closed-circuit pan and tilt video camera and monitoring unit per the latest OPSS revision. The unit shall have an adjustable lighting system capable of providing a clear monitor picture and a minimum illumination level of 100- foot candles. The camera travel speed shall be as per the latest OPSS revision. CCTV videos not meeting the camera speed will be rejected. ❑ The CCTV Inspection Report and Video have been reviewed and submitted to the City free of deficiencies such as debris, cracks, backups, poor workmanship... etc. Owner's Name: Owner's Signature: Address of the Development: CCTV Submission Number: Date Page 773 of 917 681 Hidden Valley Road Kitchener, ON N2C 2S4 February 15, 2022 Katie Wood Project Manager, Development Engineering City of Kitchener Dave Wilhelm Consultant Project Engineer, Water/Wastewater MTE Consultants Dear Katie and Dave, We received your response letter to our comments and questions regarding the EA study for the Hidden Valley Forcemain and servicing study, as well as the invitation to the second EA presentation scheduled for tomorrow. As a 'Heritage' family on Hidden Valley Road, we have significant concerns with the response presented to us by the City and MTE in the letter we received mid-January. We are discouraged by the process and lack of consideration for the Eastern Hidden Valley Area as part of the EA and the City's change in direction with regards to supporting the continued creation of special neighbourhoods within Hidden Valley Road. This shift has occurred recently with the departure of Brandon Sloan who gave us positive communication that our parcel would be considered for development and City servicing similar to the Hidden Valley Estates to the South. The speed with which the City has set up this second EA presentation has not afforded us enough time to respond to the MTE letter, secure Engineering consultants to review the City's statements, propose options, or properly respond to the letter, other than to say that the work completed to is not acceptable, and using the Secondary Plan status or `Heritage Corridor' overlay as a reason to not consider servicing this area as unacceptable. Page 774 of 917 We will be attending the EA meeting and will be pushing the City to stop moving forward without considering all of Hidden Valley Road as part of the EA and servicing study. We will be working with our consultants to bring our interests and concerns more strongly to your attention. RIA Page 775 of 917 681 Hidden Valley Road Kitchener Ontario 21 February 2022 Katie Wood Project Manager City of Kitchener Dave Wilhelm Project Manager MTE Consultants Dear Katie and Dave, We appreciate the work that you have done on the Hidden Valley Road EA #2 Presentation last week. We were happy to see Richard Kelly-Reutz in attendance representing the City Planning Department as this is a Planning, as well as, an Engineering project. We would like to set up a Zoom meeting with you and Richard at your earliest convenience to discuss your thoughts on the EA and the direction for servicing and development for the eastern side of Hidden Valley Road, and the draft Secondary Plan designations. As I mentioned in my last letter to you, our family has owned 681 and 691 Hidden Valley Road for several generations. In the last 4-6 years, we have been working on conceptual neighborhood plans with MHBC and have recently been looking to sell the property to a local developer with the intent on keeping one acre lots with the existing homes for our family. Our goal is to offer the opportunity to develop the remaining severed parcel to a local developer in accordance with the City's Official Plan. The uncertainty on the servicing status and heritage corridor discussions have been concerning for all parties. A large sum of money has already been spent by our family to explore the potential for creating one -acre lots on our parcels and we are concerned that this was money not well spent given the current direction of the EA. Page 776 of 917 MHBC had been working with Brandon Sloan and more recently with Brian Bateman, to determine the potential for 5-8 lots on our combined parcels. Brandon gave us positive feedback that the City would support thoughtful development and that we would have access to City servicing for water (at our cost for connecting), and the allowance for private servicing (septic) or a connection to future City installed sewer infrastructure. Brandon Sloan also gave us the impression that the potential heritage status would be a positive element to maintain the Estate character of our neighbourhood but it has in effect created another burden and potential road block to careful and thoughtful development in our area of Hidden Valley. More recently, Brian Bateman gave us a list of required studies we needed to prepare for a simple severance plan in order for us to deliver a parcel for sale that made sense for a small neighborhood development, and we began some of this work after a Preliminary Meeting with the City. However, comments from the Region regarding servicing to our parcel placed a hold on these studies and the City and Region indicated that any severance processing would have to wait until we received direction from the City on the servicing status. We are now three years later at this point and still have no opportunity for servicing for our parcel in sight and no coordination between the Region, City and GRCA on how to provide for this. We are disappointed that Richard in the City Planning Department may not have been aware of these conversations. The comment last week that the City was not aware of the desire for other property owners on the 'eastside' to have the ability to subdivide their parcels - as allowed for in the Official Plan and the draft Secondary Plan - is discouraging to say the least. We were never asked or consulted. The City's Official Plan does not designate our area as a heritage corridor and just the potential designation of a 'Heritage Corridor' in the draft Secondary Plan should not be what drives the lack of servicing to our area. The City should not assume that Landowners with smaller parcels do not want to have the opportunity to subdivide and service their parcels like those owners on the North or South side. The City should anticipate that all landowners in Hidden Valley would want to have the opportunity to follow the guidelines in the Official Plan especially given that the EA encompasses our properties. KA Page 777 of 917 The current direction of the EA has been especially discouraging as it appears to close the door on any future sewer servicing to our parcels as well as to that of our `eastside' neighbours to the north and northeast of our parcels, some of whom own larger parcels than we do. We feel that the Estate Residential zoning fits the Hidden Valley character but the City is not providing the ability to achieve this type of development as allowed for in the Official Plan or the draft Secondary Plan. As the current EA encompasses the entire Hidden Valley area, it should include a provision to allow for alternative servicing to areas that are not accessible by your four options. This might include private individual septic systems or grouped septic systems like Bridlepath Estates, and these should be studied and coordinated with the GRCA and the Region as part of this EA study and not pushed to the future. The City has the resources and connections with these other agencies and can negotiate and coordinate alternative servicing options especially if the current forcemain options cannot reach our area. The City and Region need to coordinate an option as part of this EA study to provide an allowance for alternative servicing. We were hopeful that the City was doing this during the last `study' period after one of the City planners stated in the first EA Zoom presentation that they City would support private septic for our area, but then redacted this comment in the response letter sent to us mid-January. The speed with which this next phase is moving makes us feel that our comments were not considered and we - as Landowners - haven't had sufficient time to respond or allow enough time for the City to look at alternatives. We, as a heritage family of Hidden Valley Road, are feeling ignored. Increasing costs from the Estate Residential Tax base, removal of agricultural tax base on our property, potential heritage designations, and the potential financial burden to maintain these `heritage' structures is an immense burden on our family. In addition, expensive environmental, archeological and geological studies the City is requiring just to move or adjust a lot line, and the apparent lack of will by the City to allow landowners the ability to develop per the Official Plan or Secondary Plan - because servicing our area is too expensive - is unacceptable. We trust that there is still an opportunity to work together to create favorable options for all parties. K, Page 778 of 917 We look forward to meeting with you via Zoom to discuss the path forward. Please provide us with some available dates for a meeting where may further discuss these concerns and opportunities. Many thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, CC: John Gazzolla, Councillor - Ward 3 4 Page 779 of 917 SMTE MTEConsultants 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N213 3X9 February 2, 2021 MTE File No.: C48301-100 Megan DeVries, MA Archaeological Operations Manager Department of Consultation and Accommodation (DOCA) Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (MCFN) 4065 Highway 6 North Hagersville, On NOA 1 HO Email: Megan. DeVries(a-)-mncfn.ca Dear Megan: RE: Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Pump Station and Forcemain DOCA Project Response Letter — Archaeological Review We acknowledge receipt of your email dated January 19, 2021 with attachment pertaining to DOCA Project Response Letter re: Archaeological Review. We have taken note of the contents of this document and wish to respond as follows with our response in italics: Outline of MCFN Rights and Territory MTE's response: Noted ii. MCFN Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology MTE's Response: Noted iii. MCFN Expectations Regarding Ancestors' Remains MTE's Response: Noted iv. Technical Review MTE's Response: Noted V. Request for Missing Information a. Is an Archaeological assessment required for this project? If no, why not. MTE response: Yes, an archaeological assessment is required as part of the environment assessment study b. Have any archaeological assessments already been completed for this project and/or its study area? If yes, please provide all documentation including reports, supplementary documentation etc. Engineers, .Scientists, Surveyors. Page 780 of 917 Megan DeVries February 2, 2021 MTE's Response: Yes. ARA, the archeological and cultural heritage consultant for this project, has confirmed that a number of assessments have been completed within the study area for previous assessments including: 1) DETRITUS CONSULTING: Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1, 2) Shouftas Property, 1054, 1070 Hidden Valley Road, City of Kitchener, R.M. of Waterloo Company Project #2011-020, PIF# P017-197-2011 Municipal File Number: (None assigned yet) Revised Report 2) Archaeological Research Associates Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments Regional Road No. 56 (River Road) Extension Phase 1 — Wabanaki Drive to Manitou Drive Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo Part of Bechtel's Tract, Geographic Township of Waterloo Waterloo County, Ontario PIF #P089-0092-2018, ARA File #2016-2039 3) L.R. Bud Parker Archaeological Assessment Proposed Wabanaki Road Extension Goodrich Drive to Fairway Road City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo CIF No. 2001-007-010 4) Archaeological Services Inc. Wabanaki Drive Extension Class Environmental Assessment City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario PIF P223-011-2008 ARA has requested 9 further reports from the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) to confirm that they overlap with the study area. These reports include the following: • ASI 1998 Jacob Furtney Homestead • Licence #96-015 (Stage 4) • Licence #001-053 (Stage 1-2) • CIF #2002-047-018 (Stage 1-2) • CIF #2002-047-022 (Stage 1-2) • PIF #P049-379-2009 (Stage 1-2) • Licence #P050-013 (Stage 1) • Licence #92-090 (Stage 1-3) • PIF #P013-486-2009 (Stage 1-2) MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley SPS Class EA Page 781 of 917 Megan DeVries February 2, 2021 c. Has the MHSTCI issued a letter of entry into register for some or all of the study area? If yes, please provide all documentation, including letter, communications to and from MHSTCI, etc. MTE's Response: Yes, portions of the study area have received letter of entry into the register. ARA does not have access to the letter of entries from other companies. d. If the answer to #4 is yes, please provide the following: i. A description of the outstanding archaeological activity/activities. MTE's Response: Until all of the requested reports have been received from the MHSTCI we are unable to provide mapping and/or description of the outstanding areas required. ii. Anticipated date of the activity/activities MTE's Response: Spring 2021 iii. The appropriate contact person overseeing the archaeological activity/activities MTE's Response: Victoria Cafik, Victoria. cafikaaraheritape.ca, 519-212-5172 We trust the above adequately provides the information needed. Please feel free to contact the undersigned if you have any further questions or concerns. Yours truly, MTE Consultants Inc. 0 '�f Asma Naseem, P.Eng. Project Manager 519-743-6500 ext. 1362 ANaseem(o-)-mte85.com AXN:zeg Encl. cc: Katie Wood, City of Kitchener Fawn Sault/Mark LaForme, MCFN Gemma Charlebois/Dave Wilhelm, MTE Consultants Inc. M:\48301\100\00 Correspondence\Notice of Study Commencement\Comments Received from Notice of Commencement\Indigenous\MTE Letter to Megan DeVries, MNCFN_RE DOCA Response Archaeological Rev iew_2020-01-2 1.docx MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley SPS Class EA Page 782 of 917 Valley DL-vekqmv?nt Corp. Ms. Katie Wood Project Manager, Development Engineering City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 February 15, 2022 508 Riverbend Drive Kitchener, Ontario, N2K 3S2 (519) 743-5211 Ext. 3052 RE: Consultant's response to PVDC letter re Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Assessment — Alternative Solutions Dear Ms. Wood, I am writing in relation to the letter received from Gemma Charlebois' dated January 6, 2022, which was a response to our written submission commenting on the Hidden Valley pumping station alternatives presented at your November 2021 Public Information Centre for this project. Please note that we have significant concerns with the response presented to us and the City's underlaying approach to this Environmental Assessment. Our position is rooted in a vision for PVDC's lands in Hidden Valley that strives to create an extraordinary new neighbourhood for Kitchener — one that implements planning policies currently in place at all levels of government but also responds to today's urban and social challenges. As such, we put forward the following points as our further response: Current provincial policies direct land use planning to be coordinated with planning for infrastructure. This has not occurred in this EA process. Instead, a sequential process is unfolding whereby a community plan, which was prepared with limited technical support, is being relied upon as the basis for the EA. Looking ahead, and in consideration of the land use policies that are in effect, the EA will be used as the rationale to identify lands that should be un -designated as residential lands because they can't be serviced. This process is not acceptable and appears to be based on a predetermined outcome. The Community plan was adopted by council resolution, and as such has no legal foundation and should not be used to undermine or otherwise over -ride land use designations in the approved City Official Plan. There is a formal process to amend the official plan and it is recommended that the EA be coordinated with this process. A coordinated approach is encouraged by the MCEA and provincial policy framework. 2. The Consultant's response we received seems to suggest the areas shown in white in the LUMP, including the large eastern agricultural field, are not designated for development and as a result, servicing of the lands is not necessary. This assumption has no foundation given the residential designation in the approved City's Official Plan. As noted, a council resolution cannot amend an official plan or take away a land use designation. Failure to plan for adequate services through this EA process that is unfolding undermines the approved land use designation and effectively sterilizes lands designated for development. Page 1 of 2 Page 783 of 917 3. The suggestion that development on private services will be explored in the future, and following approval of the EA, is not acceptable as it fails to coordinate land use with infrastructure. This approach does not consider the approved planning framework which clearly does not permit private services in Hidden Valley. This limitation is made in Policy 5.B.6 of the Regional Official Plan which prohibits the use of individual wastewater treatment systems in the Urban Area designation within the Region. We take no comfort from the empty gesture of future consideration of septic tanks given this option is not permitted by policies that are now in effect. Moreover, private services within the Urban Area ought not be considered from an environmental/ sustainability perspective. 4. Most of the alternatives presented at the first PIC do not provide services for all lands that are designated for development in the Official Plan. This is a contravention of existing policies as failure to plan full municipal services for all lands designated for development does not conform with provincial and regional planning policies. 5. The EA work presented thus far also falls short in that it has not considered the complete range of servicing options possible to service all lands. Alternatives 1, 2, 2a and 4 can't be supported for this reason. 6. The range of options that are being considered suggest a built-in bias against developing all lands that are designated for development. 7. It is crucial to note that Hidden Valley Road is NOT designated a Heritage Corridor in the Official Plan. A "potential designation" of parts of Hidden Valley Road is an absolutely insufficient rationale for not servicing the eastern agricultural field. Even if its east section was to be designated, services would be underground, any construction disruption would be temporary, and the visual character of the road could be restored. In fact, the City has been developing infrastructure through already designated heritage areas regularly. Dodge Drive in Kitchener is an example where a trunk sewer has been constructed by the City within an already designated Heritage Corridor. Similarly, Pioneer Tower Road is another example where this occurred. It is also understood the Region's approved East Side servicing scheme contemplates a trunk sewer to be built within such corridor and an above grade crossing of the Grand River is planned. A road/servicing system must be planned to replace Hidden Valley Road in advance of any consideration for designating this road as a heritage corridor in the official plan. Alternatively, the EA must make clear provisions for services within and access to Hidden Valley Road. Again, the need for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to land use and infrastructure planning cannot be overstated. We also ask for your detailed evaluation criteria and scoring methodology for all of the alternatives. Please provide as soon as possible. We look forward to the 2nd Public Information Centre on February 17th, 2022 and further discussions to achieve the best outcome to this EA focusing on serviceability of the entire Hidden Valley area. Sincerely, wyi_ Hanna Domagala Senior Project Manager Page 2 of 2 Page 784 of 917 ORR MT E MTE Consultants �0_ i e Drive, h 520 B ngemans Centr Dr e, Kite ener, Ontario N213 3X9 May 6, 2022 MTE File No.: C48301-100 Ms. Hanna Domagala Senior Project Manager Pearl Valley Development Corp 508 Riverbend Drive Kitchener ON N2K 3S2 Email: hanna(o-)-pbenninger.com Dear Ms.Domagala: RE: Response to: Consultant's response to PVDC Letter re Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Assessment — Alternative Solutions Further to your correspondence dated February 15, 2022, as it relates to the above-mentioned project, we offer the following response. For ease of reference, PVDC's comments have been incorporated within this letter and MTE's corresponding responses in italics thereafter. Current provincial policies direct land use planning to be coordinated with planning for infrastructure. This has not occurred in this EA process. Instead, a sequential process is unfolding whereby a community plan, which was prepared with limited technical support, is being relied upon as the basis for the EA. Looking ahead, and in consideration of the land use policies that are in effect, the EA will be used as the rationale to identify lands that should be un -designated as residential lands because they can't be serviced. This process is not acceptable and appears to be based on a predetermined outcome. The Community plan was adopted by council resolution, and as such has no legal foundation and should not be used to undermine or otherwise over -ride land use designations in the approved City Official Plan. There is a formal process to amend the official plan and it is recommended that the EA be coordinated with this process. A coordinated approach is encouraged by the MCEA and provincial policy framework. Response: The Engineering EA is intended to identify and define a suitable sanitary sewer servicing solution to support development in the Hidden Valley community by generating and evaluating various alternatives while considering environmental effects using the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan endorsed by Council in June 2019. The Engineering EA is not being used to identify lands as undevelopable based on servicing constraints. Further, the forthcoming Secondary Plan will not remove potential development permissions for lands within the Hidden Valley area on the sole basis that they are not municipally serviced; a multitude of factors (environment, compatibility, traffic, etc.) will be considered when implementing updated development permissions through the Secondary Plan. The evaluation of the alternative pumping station locations through the EA took into consideration all lands in the Hidden Valley area. We note that the preferred pumping Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 785 of 917 Ms. Hanna Domagala May 6, 2022 station location will be sized accordingly to accommodate additional lands from the east side of the Hidden Valley area when they are ready to develop. 2. The Consultant's response we received seems to suggest the areas shown in white in the LUMP, including the large eastern agricultural field, are not designated for development and as a result, servicing of the lands is not necessary. This assumption has no foundation given the residential designation in the approved City's Official Plan. As noted, a council resolution cannot amend an official plan or take away a land use designation. Failure to plan for adequate services through this EA process that is unfolding undermines the approved land use designation and effectively sterilizes lands designated for development. Response: The lands shown on white in the Land Use Master Plan (LUMP) were considered developable for the purposes of the EA. Developable area serviced by each of the options in the EA was one of several considerations in the evaluation. 3. The suggestion that development on private services will be explored in the future, and following approval of the EA, is not acceptable as it fails to coordinate land use with infrastructure. This approach does not consider the approved planning framework which clearly does not permit private services in Hidden Valley. This limitation is made in Policy 5.13.6 of the Regional Official Plan which prohibits the use of individual wastewater treatment systems in the Urban Area designation within the Region. We take no comfort from the empty gesture of future consideration of septic tanks given this option is not permitted by policies that are now in effect. Moreover, private services within the Urban Area ought not be considered from an environmental/sustainability perspective. Response: The approved planning framework — notably Policy 15. D. 12.1 a) of the City's Official Plan — recognizes that portions of the Hidden Valley community designated Low Rise Residential "have limited access to municipal sanitary services and contain estate residential lots". Subsection i) further recognizes the possibility of new development where "individual septic systems are the only feasible servicing option". As a result of these servicing policies in the City's Official Plan which are unique to the Hidden Valley Area, the Region of Waterloo has indicated to the City that they would generally support of septic system as a sanitary solution if. - o The lands are not able to be serviced by the proposed pumping station through the Hidden Valley PS EA, and o The necessary supporting documents, including a scoped Hydro G, is submitted to the Region for review and approval. The hydrogeological study will look at levels of nitrate produced and the negative impacts it may have on the ground water and wells in the area. If this is approved by the Region and the development is supported by the current City's Official Plan, the Region would approve a septic solution. The City cannot add the "septic option" into the EA because the documents required are not yet completed or approved however, based on the above information it is a viable solution. MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley Class EA Page 786 of 917 Ms. Hanna Domagala May 6, 2022 4. Most of the alternatives presented at the first PIC do not provide services for all lands that are designated for development in the Official Plan. This is a contravention of existing policies as failure to plan full municipal services for all lands designated for development does not conform with provincial and regional planning policies. Response: The mandate of the Class EA is to select a sanitary pump station location and forcemain route to service lands identified for development while balancing environmental and other impacts. We do not agree with the interpretation of the planning policies that all lands designated for development must be serviced through the preferred alternative identified in this Class EA. See response 5 for more details. 5. The EA work presented thus far also falls short in that it has not considered the complete range of servicing options possible to service all lands. Alternatives 1, 2, 2a and 4 can't be supported for this reason. Response: A complete range of servicing options for the Hidden Valley Area has been provided. Option 3 and 3a has the most servicing area potential compared to Options 1, 2, and Options 2a and 4 having lesser servicing area potential. Servicing potential was just one set of criteria identified in our evaluation. Each option was evaluated for each of the seven criteria (Natural Environment, Social Environment, Heritage/Cultural Impacts, City Operations, Technical, Servicing Potential, Cost), utilizing a scale of least to most desirable. Each criterion was weighted equally, and the evaluation is the average of all the criteria for each option. Scores were averaged from across the project team which consisted of MTE Consultants, The City of Kitchener, The GRCA, and the Region of Waterloo. Option 2a was ranked most desirable of the options, followed by options 2 and 4, and lastly options 3 and 3a. Options 3 and 3a, received the lowest scores. While this location could service the largest area by gravity directly to the proposed new pump station, it is a location that is adjacent to the species at risk habitat and a Provincially significant wetland. Additionally, due to the planned construction of River Rd extension and the LRT tracks this area will be constrained by transit infrastructure. This location is also furthest from the discharge location, and it also requires several creek crossings. 6. The range of options that are being considered suggest a built-in bias against developing all lands that are designated for development. Response: We acknowledge that the preferred location does not municipally service as many hectares of land as some of the other alternatives considered. As noted in response 5, "servicing potential" was one of seven criteria evaluated to select the preferred location. For example, location 3 and 3a — which were not selected as the preferred location but would service Pearl Valley's eastern agricultural field — scored highest for "servicing potential" but had lower scores for other equally weighted criteria. MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley Class EA Page 787 of 917 Ms. Hanna Domagala May 6, 2022 7. It is crucial to note that Hidden Valley Road is NOT designated a Heritage Corridor in the Official Plan. A "potential designation" of parts of Hidden Valley Road is an absolutely insufficient rationale for not servicing the eastern agricultural field. Even if its east section was to be designated, services would be underground, any construction disruption would be temporary, and the visual character of the road could be restored. In fact, the City has been developing infrastructure through already designated heritage areas regularly. Dodge Drive in Kitchener is an example where a trunk sewer has been constructed by the City within an already designated Heritage Corridor. Similarly, Pioneer Tower Road is another example where this occurred. It is also understood the Region's approved East Side servicing scheme contemplates a trunk sewer to be built within such corridor and an above grade crossing of the Grand River is planned. A road/servicing system must be planned to replace Hidden Valley Road in advance of any consideration for designating this road as a heritage corridor in the official plan. Alternatively, the EA must make clear provisions for services within and access to Hidden Valley Road. Again, the need for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to land use and infrastructure planning cannot be overstated. Response: Heritage was one of seven criteria used to evaluate the alternate options. The preferred option scored marginally higher in the heritage score than the other options. This alone did not significantly impact the rankings. We recognize that the Hidden Valley Road is not designated as a Heritage Corridor, and we are changing the wording to "Potential Heritage Corridor". We can confirm that designated Heritage Corridors within the City of Kitchener have been developed with servicing and other infrastructure. To develop within these rights-of-way several studies and reports must be completed to determine and minimize the impact to the Heritage infrastructure. Yours truly, MTE Consultants Inc. Gemma Charlebois, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Technical Manager, Water/Wastewater 519-743-6500 ext. 1227 GCCharlebois_ mte85;com GSC:zeg Cc: Katie Wood, City of Kitchener Dave Wilhelm, MTE Consultants Inc. M:\48301\100\00 Correspond ence\PIC\Comments and Responses from PIC\Pearl Valley\Response letter to Pearl Valley Response Draft (Apr 28 2022).docx MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley Class EA Page 788 of 917 cGAS OF RST NA,�p11 DEPARTMENT OF CONSULTATION AND ACCOMMODATION January 18,2021 1T11_\ 4 Ji I_1I I Katie Wood, C.E.T. Project Manager, Development Engineering City of Kitchener katie.wood @kitchener. ca Dear Katie, RE: MCFN Resnonse to Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Confirmation of Receipt I am writing on behalf of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation ("MCFN") to acknowledge that we have received your above named communication, dated January 7,2021 Outline of MCFN Rights and Territory In 1792 , the Crown and MCFN entered into Between the Lakes, No. 3 (1792) regarding the lands in which your project is situated. The Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation are the descendants of the "River Credit" Mississaugas. The undisputed Territory of the MCFN is defined as a Territory commencing at Long Point on Lake Erie thence eastward along the shore of the Lake to the Niagara River. Then down the River to Lake Ontario, northward along the shore of the Lake to the River Rouge east of Toronto then up that river to the dividing ridges to the head waters of the River Thames then southward to Long Point, the place of the beginning. Our Territory encompasses the lands and waters that were used and occupied by our Ancestors. Territories are usually large tracts of land that reflect the breadth required for seasonal activities and habitation and changes in those movement patterns through time. Through Treaties with the Crown, MCFN agreed to share our Territory with newcomers. However, not all of MCFN's Territory has been dealt with through a Treaty. ODEPARTMENT OF CONSULTATION AND ACCOMMODATION • Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 4065 Hwy #6, Hagersville, Ontario NOA 1HO ® Phone: (905) 768-4260 With the exception of a small part of the Credit River, our Treaties with the Crown did not deal with the water parts of our Territory. We have not agreed to share any part of our waters with settlers. We formally gave notice to the Crown of this claim in 2016. We note that any lands that have been artificially created on our waters have also not been dealt with by any Treaty. Like our ancestors before us, we continue to use the lands, waters, and watershed ecosystems within our Territory for a variety of livelihood, harvesting, ceremonial and spiritual purposes. We have always exercised governance functions and stewardship in order to protect our Territory, conserve the fish and wildlife that depend upon it, and ensure its ongoing ability to sustain our people. We assert that our Aboriginal and treaty rights fundamentally entitle us to continue to act as stewards of our Territory, to be involved in decisions that affect it, and to participate in the ongoing, responsible management of the resources it provides. Duty to Consult and Accommodate As you will know, the Crown has a constitutional duty to consult and accommodate MCFN in respect of any decisions that might affect its asserted or proven Aboriginal and/or Treaty Rights. We expect that, consistent with the Crown's constitutional duty, no approval should be issued to this project until MCFN has been sufficiently consulted and accommodated. Nothing in this letter shall be construed as to affect our Aboriginal and/or Treaty Rights and hence shall not limit any consultation and accommodation owed to MCFN by the Crown or any proponent, as recognized by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. MCFN has the right to free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project or any planning decision adversely impacting its Territory and to benefit economically from resource development within its Territory. MCFN has formed the Department of Consultation and Accommodation ("DOCK) to represent its interests in consultation and accommodation matters. It is DOCA's mandate to ensure that we are directly involved in all planning and development that impacts the integrity of our Territory. In this regard, DOCA will assess and help alleviate impacts on our rights, land claims, and ways of life by building relationships with governments and private sector proponents. We share a mutual interest in ensuring that projects in the Territory are planned, reviewed, and developed in a manner which ensures healthy communities, ecological protection, and sustainable development for present and future generations in the Territory. DEPARTMENT OF CONSULTATION AND ACCOMMODATION OMississaugas of the Credit First Nation is Phone: (905) 768-4260 4065 Hwy #6, Hagersville, Ontario NOA 1HO MCFN is not opposed to development, but MCFN must to be involved in development decision making. MCFN has a deep connection to its Territory and we have a stewardship responsibility for our land. By engaging with us, a project proponent can learn our perspective on how to care for this land and we can work together to shape the project to mitigate damaging effects to our land and perhaps even work to improve our environment. MCFN is the only party who shall determine whether there are impacts to our Aboriginal and treaty rights. One of the ways we require proponents to engage with us is in providing transparency during the environmental survey and archaeological assessment process. The best way to accomplish this is by having Field Liaison Representatives ("FLRs") on location while fieldwork is occurring, who can ensure that the Nation's special interests and concerns are respected and considered during fieldwork. The cultural and natural resources in question are part of MCFN's territory and heritage and it is our responsibility to ensure their protection, on behalf of the Nation. MCFN's stewardship of its territory extends through the life of any development project and beyond. DOCA Project Registration DOCA has completed an initial intake review of the project communication you have provided. This file has been assigned DOCA Project 2021-0011 ;please use this number in all future communications. We respectfully ask you to immediately notify us if there are any changes to the project. Referral to DOCA Units Following DOCA's initial intake review of the project communication, the file has been referred to the following DOCA Units for additional follow-up. Unit Identification Primary Contact Email Address Archaeology Megan DeVries me an.devries mncfn.ca Cultural/Historical Darin W ben a darin. ben a mncfn.ca Environment Fawn Sault Tem fawn. sault mncfn.ca FLR Participation Megan DeVries me an.devries mncfn.ca Governance Mark LaForme mark. laforme mncfn.ca Economic Development Director I SED.Director mncfn.ca If you have not been contacted by the indicated DOCA Units within fourteen days following receipt of this letter, please let me know. DEPARTMENT OF CONSULTATION AND ACCOMMODATION OMississaugas of the Credit First Nation ® Phone: (905) 768-4260 4065 Hwy #6, Hagersville, Ontario NOA 1H0 Request for Missing Information In order to proceed with our follow-up review, we ask you to ensure that all available information relating to the project has been transmitted to us. We have identified the following general information as missing from your initial project communication: Closing We ask that you respond with the above requested information within fourteen days following receipt of this letter. We thank you in advance for your attention to our requirements and we look forward to working with you further to shape the planning for development in our Territory. Sincerely, 4 S4� Fawn Sault Consultation Coordinator ODEPARTMENT OF CONSULTATION AND ACCOMMODATION • Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 4065 Hwy #6, Hagersville, Ontario NOA 1H0 ® Phone: (905) 768-4260 a Outstanding Project Information Name of person or body undertaking the action or decision. Contact information for the person or body undertaking the action or decision. List of documents pertaining to the proposed action/decision that are available for MCFN to review. Description of what other information is expected to become available before the proposed action/decision is undertaken. Deadlines or filing dates pertaining to the action/decision. The Crown or Municipal review/ approval that is required for the project. How the proposed action or decision may affect and/or benefit MCFN, its rights and territory. Closing We ask that you respond with the above requested information within fourteen days following receipt of this letter. We thank you in advance for your attention to our requirements and we look forward to working with you further to shape the planning for development in our Territory. Sincerely, 4 S4� Fawn Sault Consultation Coordinator ODEPARTMENT OF CONSULTATION AND ACCOMMODATION • Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 4065 Hwy #6, Hagersville, Ontario NOA 1H0 ® Phone: (905) 768-4260 a SMTE MTJE Consultants 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N213 3X9 February 2, 2021 MTE File No.: C48301-100 DOCA Project: 2021-0011 Fawn Sault Consultant Coordinator Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (MCFN) 4065 Highway 6 North Hagersville, On NOA 1 HO Email: Fawn.Sault(aD-mncfn.ca Dear Fawn: Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Upper Hidden Valley Pump Station and Forcemain MCFN Response to COK Municipalities Class EA We acknowledge receipt of your email and attachment for 2021-011 MCFN Response to COK Municipalities Class EA in relation to the captioned project. We have taken note of the contents of this document, and wish to respond as follows with our response in italics: Outline of MCFN Rights and Territory MTE's response: Noted ii. Duty to Consult and Accommodate MTE's Response: Noted iii. DOCA Project Registration MTE's Response: Noted iv. Referral to DOCA Units MTE's Response: Noted V. Request for Missing Information a. Name of person or body undertaking the action or decision. MTE's Response: Archaeological Research Associates (ARA) Ltd., Victoria Cafik, Victoria. cafikaaraheritage. ca, 519-212-5172 b. Contact information for the person or body undertaking the action or decision. MTE's Response: Archaeological Research Associates (ARA) Ltd., Victoria Cafik, Victoria. cafik(a)araheritage. ca, 519-212-5172 Engineers, .Scientists, Surveyors. Page 793 of 917 Fawn Sault February 2, 2021 c. List of documents pertaining to the proposed action/decision that are available for MCFN to review. MTE's Response: There are no documents available at this time for MCFN to review Description of what other information is expected to become available before the proposed action/decision is undertaken. MTE's Response: The following studies will be conducted: Geotechnical In vestigaton Hydrological Investigation Topographic Survey Environmental Assessment Archeological Survey e. Deadlines or filing dates pertaining to the action/decision. MTE's Response: This has not been decided. MCFN and DOCA will be notified in advance before any studies are conducted. f. The Crown or Municipal review/approval that is required for the project. MTE's Response: A Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, Environmental Study Report will be filed with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks. g. How the proposed action or decision may affect and/or benefit MCFN, its rights and territory? MTE's Response: We are still in preliminary stages of the Class EA and no proposed decisions have been made at this time. We trust the above adequately provides the information needed. Please feel free to contact the undersigned if you have any further questions or concerns. Yours truly, MTE Consultants Inc. Asma Naseem, P.Eng. Project Engineer 519-743-6500 ext. 1326 ANaseem(o)mte85.com AXN:zeg Encl. cc: Katie Wood, City of Kitchener Megan DeVries/Mark LaForme, MCFN Gemma Charlebois/Dave Wilhelm, MTE Consultants Inc. MA48301\100\00 Correspondence\Notice of Study Commencement\Comments Received from Notice of Commencement\Indigenous\MTE Response Letter to Fawn Sault MNCFN_Re Response to COK Municipalities_2020-02-02.docx MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station Page 794 of 917 01hMTEMTE Consultants 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N213 3X9 May 4, 2022 MTE File No.: C48301-100 681 and 691 Hidden Valley Road Kitchener, ON Email: Dear RE: Upper Hidden Valley Class EA Property at 681 and 691 Hidden Valley Road Thank you for your email of March 10, 2022 wherein you requested clarification on a few items pertaining to your property and the Upper Hidden Valley Class EA project. The City of Kitchener and MTE's response is noted in bold italics below your comment/question: We understand that the City doesn't want to include the provision for the 'septic option' in the EA, but we continue to feel strongly that since the EA report is focused on the forecmain location to service the most parcels for the least cost, that it should provide for an alternative for the remaining parcels out of the EA budget and include work with City Planning the Region & GRCA. We don't feel comfortable with the City suggesting that we just shift the servicing options for areas that won't be serviced 'at this time' to a future unknown date. The Regional Policy 5.13.6 makes us uncomfortable not having the current EA address all servicing options for all parcels. If this is an issue throughout Kitchener, we expect our elected officials and City staff to tackle this now, to provide some level of certainty to Kitchener residents and taxpayers. This study should include the un -zoned parcel to the north as it has potential for Estate Residential as well as our parcel and those larger than 2 acres in Hidden Valley Road. Response: As a result of servicing policies in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan unique to the Hidden Valley Area, the Region of Waterloo has indicated to the City that they would generally support a septic system as a sanitary solution if: • The lands are not able to be serviced by the proposed pumping station through the Hidden Valley PS EA, and • The necessary supporting documents, including a scoped hydrogeological report, is submitted to the Region for review and approval. The hydrogeological study will look at levels of nitrate produced and the negative impacts it may have on the ground water and wells in the area. If this is approved by the Region and the development is supported by the current City's Official Plan, the Region would approve a septic solution. Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 795 of 917 May 4, 2022 The City cannot add the "septic option" into the EA because the documents required are not yet completed or approved however, based on the above information it is a viable solution. 2. As mentioned in the meeting, we have been waiting since 1970's for City services, the 1980s for the River Road Extension, and watched every remaining urban or rural parcel in Kitchener be entitled and developed. Over the years, the GRCA, the Region, Heritage, and Engineering continue to make more significant overlays onto our property, and make it difficult to process simple severances, even between family members. This has made us question how and why we should remain on the property that we have owned for 4 generations. Our great grand -uncle owned all of Hidden Valley in the 1950s', and we have the last remaining family parcel. We have always anticipated that in the future, we would build a few new homes on this land for our family and friends, or work with a local builder/developer to provide thoughtful development for a new estate neighborhood. This is becoming more and more challenging to pursue. Response: We appreciate your family history on the property. As noted in response #1, private servicing (septic solution) remains an option for you. Recognizing there are other land owners in the Hidden Valley area that will likely remain without a municipal sanitary solution, the City has taken steps to advance those servicing discussions with the Region of Waterloo. 3. The City identified in a previous letter that on the Cultural Overlay Plan, the reason our house on 681 was identified was that it was over 40 years old and possibly connected to the 691 parcel. We would like to have this overlay removed as the house is not connected to the other parcel historically. If the City chooses to keep this house on the overlay, then they must also place this overlay on all the other homes on Hidden Valley Road that are over 40 years old, so those homeowners are made aware of this overlay and any restrictions this might have on their parcels in the future. Response: The Cultural Heritage report will be updated to explain that due to additional information received during the study, the overlay does not apply. The overlay will be removed in the final report. 4. On the one slide in the EA presentation 'Stage 1 Key Archeological Findings', the label of `Historic Road' covers our parcel and we can't see how our parcel is mapped. What is a 'Combination survey vs Test Pit'? The EA also lists our zone as a "Historic Road' and `Heritage Corridor' but this is not a formal designation and should be removed or listed as `possible heritage' as the map gives the public and government agencies the impression that this is already heritage designation and somehow exempt from future development or servicing. Response: A test pit survey is an archeological survey that involves a below -grade investigation of land by digging pits to assess for the presence of objects of archeological significance. A pedestrian survey is conducted at grade and does not alter the land. A combination survey is a combination of pedestrian and test pit MTE Consultants 148301-100 I Upper Hidden Valley Class EA Page 796 of 917 May 4, 2022 surveys. These investigations would be conducted in the location of the preferred alternative, as identified in the PIC. The EA identified Hidden Valley Road as a Potential Heritage Corridor as part of the Cultural Heritage investigation; as required for all Class EAs. This identification does not preclude construction in the area. It identifies it as a consideration for any planned construction activities. 5. The rest of the Hidden Valley Road has already been developed to current City standards even though it was a 'historic road'. It is frustrating that the rest of the road has been updated to current Engineering standards but the City has determined that our section cannot - there are currently issues with water run-off, vehicle speeds, sight lines, and vagrancy on our 'historic section' that should be addressed before the City decides not to provide for upgrades to our section of roadway, especially given that we have an easement on our parcel for road widening and services. If the City does not plan to update our section of roadway due to 'heritage considerations', then the City Engineering department needs to provide for an allowance for parcels with potential for Estate Residential as defined in the Secondary Plan, to have smaller street sections, the same 'heritage' road widths, lack of street lights and street trees that of the 'historic section' has. This could provide for a more 'heritage' feel for any new small developments like the one we are proposing to developers on our parcel. This should be part of the Secondary Plan development standards. Response: When Hidden Valley Road is reconstructed it will be designed using the City's Complete Streets design standards. Timing for reconstruction is determined by The City's Engineering and Asset Management teams. While Hidden Valley is not scheduled for reconstruction in the current 5 -year capital plan, this plan is reviewed and updated on an annual basis. Kitchener Utilities has confirmed that there are no current plans to bring water to this section of Hidden Valley. If road upgrades or service extensions are required by a developer, it would be the developer's responsibility to go through the Local Improvement process or through a subdivision process. This would likely include several studies and would be paid for by all the parties participating in the Local Improvement. The City is currently working on a watershed study to help with the issues with water run-off as each development moves forward. This should be completed by as part of the Secondary Plan work. The City of Kitchener has three streams of traffic calming — Formal Traffic Calming, Seasonal Traffic Calming, and Resident -led Traffic Calming. In addition, because speeding and street safety are some of the top concerns we hear about from residents throughout the City, we are undertaking a number of other initiatives including lowering the speed limits in residential neighborhoods to 40 km/h and implementing a Vision Zero strategy to improve road safety throughout the City. Residents are encouraged to email Transportation Planning at MTE Consultants 148301-100 I Upper Hidden Valley Class EA Page 797 of 917 May 4, 2022 TransortationPlanning(a)kitchener.ca to learn more and discuss specific locations and issues. You should contact the police for any vagrancy issues. An easement indicates that you still own the land and you have allowed another party to access it via a legal easement. This is not the case. Through a past severance the strip along the frontage of the lot was taken into City ownership. This is done on all new development property where a widening is indicated in the Official Plan. If the street width is deficient at the time of a planned development, the City would extend the widening until the road is at its designated width. This road widening was initiated by Transportation Planning. As we understand your question, you are wondering about having reduced widths for internal private roads for a future development on your property. The specifics of development standards on private property such as internal road width would be determined through the standard development review process with input from the Fire Department & Transportation Division (among others). 5. If the City is not planning on widening our section of roadway in the Easement, can the City return the easement to our property, as Brandon Sloan suggested was possible in 2019? Response: Road widenings are required to ensure there is enough space for all required infrastructure both below ground and above ground. The right-of-way space is used to accommodate hydro poles, street lights, telecommunications, stormwater management, utilities etc. Road widenings at this location are not expected to be reversed. 6. We are encouraged that Katie is reaching out to the Region and Kitchener Utilities for information on alternative serving for sewer and water and water and hope that Richard will also work with the agencies to include options for servicing options in the Secondary Plan for Hidden Valley Road. The conversation should also extend to the GRCA and any other agencies that might have issue with a private septic system on our parcel. Response: We can confirm that discussions will continue to occur for sanitary servicing solutions for lots within Hidden Valley which are not municipally serviced. The Secondary Plan will address feasibility of development on private services. The GRCA would need to be involved in the development of the lands through the site plan or subdivision process. They would need to confirm the location of the septic systems and make sure that they are above the flood line. 7. We are asking the City and Engineering continue to study Options 3 and 3a, as these appear to have the potential to provide services to the most parcels for present and potential future development. The cost of Option 3 & 3a, based on our conversations MTE Consultants 148301-100 I Upper Hidden Valley Class EA Page 798 of 917 May 4, 2022 with our neighbors, also seem to be similar to those of Option 2, the currently proposed `preferred' option. Response: The City has not received any new documentation that would warrant a re- evaluation. The City would advise that any additional specific development concerns be taken up with the Planning Department regarding any proposals you make in the future. We trust that the above responses were satisfactory. Please feel free to reach out to the undersigned if you require further clarifications. Yours truly, MTE Consultants Inc. per Gemma Charlebois, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Technical Manager, Water/Wastewater 519-743-6500 ext. 1227 GCharlebois@mte85.com GSC:zeg cc: Katie Wood / Richard Kelly-Ruetz, City of Kitchener Dave Wilhelm, MTE Consultants Inc. Dave Aston / Emily Elliott — MHBC M:\48301\100\OOCorrespondence\PIC\Comments and Responses from PIC\Annemarie Hall\Response letter to Kuane and Hall Family May 4, 2022.docx MTE Consultants 1 48301-100 1 Upper Hidden Valley Class EA Page 799 of 917 a r.. 0 0 00 m m a E 3 v E E - .3 3 0 '3 mw m- a _ w o Elo - o o- '3 IW 3 E v s 3 w, E r w w w -'o 3 - 'EE'w m `m p lo - E w 3 s ww o E - m - - - E E v E_ 3" o r .: o's o Q o 0 a z ti IN 16 16 a z E E E � a a mw w3 `o 0 - - y _ - - 3 3 E w - m- .Fo Is ml _ 3 3 E E 3 -o lo� >' lo v Y 3- 3 r E o m 3m - m E E E ol E _ W w t m- n _ .E a _ v o v o Y< 3 - - _ 's- _ E u3 r 3 0 - E - E _ 0 3 3 3 - .E -oo w- - E E _ .. E - p o E v- _ E _ o _ - - - - _ E - - Q -o E Y E - __ o 3 E Im 3 E Im 33 Y° s¢ r E- o E E 2 E o E E E E E E E rlo lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - -z - - - - - - - - - mw E E SIm o 3 0 a r.. 0 0 00 m m a ) 2 o : ___ )}[ _o - _- - })\ �// - _- - ci )( __ a �\ : \\\ \\� - - - - o \\\\\\\\>\\} \\\w \ � \ ) o o o \\ \\\\ \\\ \\\\\\\\}\\\\\\\\\\ o w o o IN o o o o o o o o o \\\r \ \\\ \ \\ \ \ \ \\\\\\\ \\\1 //}f \7 /};/ /Z#j\ § § § )()\\\: })/} )!E _ um �� o ) ) ) ) E. ) ) ) a r.. N O 00 N m (6 a eq — E w - - _ E y - - v U ` - - w v E. 2 0 K y y` _- _ _- _ oEo �. 3 r 3 r _ _ _ _ o y -- - - - - - - 3 v 0 _ w - - - _ _ - U a E E c E c .° w - 3 - 3 E m m v G a¢ - a b p v 3E -w o 0 o E a 3 E U o -P c _ o 0 0 gu0 -W 3 E Om `m oa �' m oU N - xv v 0 0 - o u - o u w u v r o m c c 3 ova -Y v v > _Y v v > - 0 m w c q �` E v >, c 3 0¢ c 3 V¢ N _ N o c m__ ` E E .°� ti m U o f �' a ¢ V w - o oo 3C F w r F d F w r F d - 0. S° N � O D D D D D 0 um H Q O m Q w ,. v E¢ v M _10 - w — - E 3 ° 3 ° ¢" E ° °'Er 3 w '3 _m _ — — W 'o 00 Im E3 0 x b 3 -- — E E>, = o0 - E - = E b - - m w o U O E - - a v- E a E �`o (U) a T a mid o p 3 ., o f m 3 mw E 'a� .d ,C J ,C v ., o in - u - - ° o> 3M1 E'mm-0u vG_mvG� Z _ 0 _ _ w Is3 E .p o - r - - a ° 3 r o E _ E E E E E E E E o > WE — E o 0 0 0 0 - ° o E - 0 ¢' G 0 G 0 � r ) 2 \\\\\ \\\\\(\\ \ \\\\\ \ \\ \\�\\ t} \\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \ \ \\\\\ \\\\ \\\ \\\\\ ) :\ \\�\E \\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \ \ \\\�\ » \\/\\\ :\\\ / \\\\\ \\\\\\\\\ \\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\ _ f§&{)o\ \:� _ �_----\i{ : _\ \\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\ \\\ \\\\\\\j\\\\\j}}}\\\\ \}\\\\ 10 It 4t Ew \\ \wow \\\ \\\\\ § -o,\\\\\\\ wo \ \\ \w\\\\\\\\\\ \\\ \\\\\ o \\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\ \\\\\\ )! �3 ) ) ) ) ) ol « /I /{ >/ 2 12 � r / 2 ) \ \�\ \ \ \ \ \o m Eo \ �o \ \\o \ \ \ o o lw VW }� \ o o _ o o o IN IN IN \ } } } } _ o -_- _ _ _ - t - _-� - - { ) l:e,§ -uo - _`_- ° - \ \ \� ^ ��\\\ \ Ew : -^- _ - - - -_ §2\«=, - %� })»` _ - )) © _ \)©f\% / _ - - -_ - - _ ) l:sll.i - E - - - -�))\ : /g2jj) f - - - - _ - [ - _o -°(){ © o _ -_- - ; -, - \\}}\ \ - :- -�-® _\ {f°!\\ �_ - _ _ - - - __ _� - - - _ _ - _® (%{)}\\Y: :;J.(!.=; ) \(( - )(EE((; _ _{\i\ }{)«\\; : \§)% \: ~ - {) 3})\[]t «\/2)«;); 2za!!: §}§ \ o k) 2 �k \ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) \\ \ \ \ \} \ \\ \ Ll j � } ) \ \ \ \ a r.. LO 0 00 m m a v o w 0 e 0 0 a E� oo 3 v° 3 a 3 m ` — - - E° E o = E — v m- w --- F y - o o f 3 -w v E E v cm o v 3 m 3 — — 3 o E ¢ - o E So — o_ a - E � E E E r E o c� - - r 0 0 NN S OF P TM U �RsT NAS°� DEPARTMENT OF CONSULTATTON AND ACCOMMODATION January 19,2021 1T11_\ 4 Ji I_1I I Katie Wood, C.E.T. Project Manager, Development Engineering City of Kitchener Dear Katie Wood, RE: MCFN Archaeological Review for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Confirmation of Receipt I am writing in follow up to the letter of response dated January 18,2021 by Fawn Sault, Consultation Coordinator , from the Department of Consultation and Accommodation ("DOCA") on behalf of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation ("MCFN") to acknowledge that we have received your above named communication , dated January 7,2021 . Outline of MCFN Rights and Territory In 1792 , the Crown and MCFN entered into Between the Lakes, No. 3 (1792) regarding the lands in which your project is situated. MCFN has formed the Department of Consultation and Accommodation ("DOCA") to represent its interests in consultation and accommodation matters. In this regard, it is DOCA's mandate to ensure that we are directly involved in all planning and development that impacts the integrity of our Territory. DOCA will assess and help alleviate impacts on our rights, land claims, and ways of life by building relationships with governments and private sector proponents. We share a mutual interest in ensuring that projects in the Territory are planned, reviewed, and developed in a manner which ensures healthy communities, ecological protection, and sustainable development for present and future generations in the Territory. MCFN has a stewardship responsibility over its Territory and asserts that our Aboriginal and treaty rights fundamentally entitle us to preserve our culture and heritage, including DEPARTMENT OF CONSULTATION AND ACCOMMODATION OMississaugas of the Credit First Nation ® Phone: (905) 768-4260 4065 Hwy #6, Hagersville, Ontario NOA 1HO archaeological materials and human burials. Our Territory is the source of our identity as a First Nation and the basis for many cultural activities and spiritual ceremonies. It is home to sacred sites, burial grounds, traditional teachings and meeting places, and sites of profound archaeological and historical significance. We assert that our Aboriginal and treaty rights fundamentally entitle us to preserve our cultural and heritage. Too much of our cultural objects and the remains of our ancestors have been lost already through development of the most intensely urbanized lands in Canada and we have a strong interest in ensuring that no more of it becomes bulldozed and desecrated. MCFN Standards and Guidelines for Archaeolog In April 2018, MCFN Chief and Council adopted the MCFN Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology, a document aimed to provide guidance to consultant archaeologists, proponents, governments, etc. who are conducting archaeological assessment activities within MCFN's Territory. It sets out, in MCFN's own words, what engagement with our Nation should entail for archaeology as well as technical expectations for fieldwork, in relation to the provincial regulations which were created without our input and feedback. It is important to note that MCFN holds all archaeological resources present within its Territory as of interest to the Nation as part of their cultural patrimony. Resources, regardless of size, frequency, condition, etc., should not be interpreted by non-MCFN representatives in such a way as to remove the requirement for engagement with our Nation. We are attaching a copy for your reference. We expect compliance with these Standards and Guidelines as any fieldwork you will be conducting will have the potential of disturbing MCFN's cultural artifacts or its ancestors' remains. MCFN Expectations Regarding Ancestors' Remains MCFN has obligations under Anishinaabe law to protect burials within its Territory and MCFN maintains its right to do so. Our ancestors buried their loved ones in our Territory with the understanding that they would not be disturbed. We would also like to draw your attention to our expectation that at any time that ancestral remains are encountered during fieldwork, we expect all activities on site to stop and that MCFN be contacted immediately to determine a proper course of action. Technical Review In the exercise of its stewardship responsibility, DOCA seeks to work together with project proponents and their archaeological consultants to ensure that archaeological work is done properly and respectfully. DOCA has retained technical advisers with expertise in the field of archaeology. These experts will review the technical aspects and cultural appropriateness of the archaeological assessments and strategies associated with your project. Upon completion of these reviews, MCFN will identify, if ODEPARTMENT OF CONSULTATION AND ACCOMMODATION • Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 4065 Hwy #6, Hagersville, Ontario NOA 1HO is Phone: (905) 768-4260 r y necessary, mitigation measures to address any project impacts upon MCFN rights. For cultural materials and human remains, DOCA may advise that this includes ceremonies required by Anishinaabe law, as well as request adjustments to the proposed fieldwork strategy. The proponent is expected to pay the costs for MCFN to engage in a technical review of the project. DOCA anticipates at this time that all archaeological review will be undertaken by in-house technical experts, but will advise the proponent if an outside peer -review is required. Please find attached the agreement that covers MCFN's in- house technical review of the archaeological assessments and strategies associated with your project. Please fill in the additional required information, highlighted in yellow, and return to us a signed copy. Please note that capacity at DOCA is limited. We maintain the right to review all material that comes to our office as part of our consultation process. If you have specific filing deadlines, please advise us as soon as possible. However, it is MCFN's assertion that part of the process of meaningful engagement is allowing our Nation a reasonable amount of time to review, reflect upon, and respond to reports and recommendations. On average, this process can be accomplished in 4-6 weeks. It is our position that no archaeological assessment — but especially Stage 4 mitigation — should begin until DOCA has completed our review and is in agreement that with the proposed strategy for fieldwork. Request for Missing Information In order to complete our project record, we ask that you provide the following information: 1. Is an archaeological assessment required for this project? If no, why not? 2. Have any archaeological assessments already been completed for this project and/or its study area? If yes, please provide all documentation including reports, supplementary documentation, etc. 3. Has the MHSTCI issued a letter of entry into register for some or all of the study area? If yes, please provide all documentation, including letter, communications to and from MHSTCI, etc. 4. Is there any archaeological activity (e.g. assessment, excavation, monitoring) that has not yet been completed for the project? 5. If the answer to 44 is yes, please provide the following: a. A description of the outstanding archaeological activity/activities. b. Anticipated date of the activity/activities. c. The appropriate contact person overseeing the archaeological activity/activities. ODEPARTMENT OF CONSULTATION AND ACCOMMODATION • Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 4065 Hwy #6, Hagersville, Ontario NOA 1H0 is Phone: (905) 768-4260 Closing The review of project -related archaeological assessments is only one part of the consultation process that may be required for your development. Please contact DOCA's Consultation Coordinator, Fawn Sault, if you have any questions about the process. We ask that you respond with the above requested information and executed agreement within fourteen days following receipt of this letter. We thank you in advance for your attention to our requirements and we look forward to working with you further to shape the planning for development in our Territory. Sincerely, Megan DeVries Archaeological Operations Supervisor Attachment(s) MCFN Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology [2018] DOCA Archaeological Review Agreement [2020] ODEPARTMENT OF CONSULTATION AND ACCOMMODATION • Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 4065 Hwy #6, Hagersville, Ontario NOA 1HO ® Phone: (905) 768-4260 r rm_i "01K.1 ARCHAEOLOGY I HERITAGE I OUTREACH I EDUCATION February 23, 2021 Six Nations of the Grand River 2498 Chiefswood Road, P.O Box 5000 Ohsweken, ON NOA 1M0 Tel: (519) 753-0665 Fax: (519) 743-3449 RE: Request for Participation in the Stage I Archaeological Assessment and Cultural Heritage Assessment Report for the Upper Hidden Valley Sewer and Forcemain Project in Kitchener, Ontario. Dear Ms. Hill -Montour and Ms. Vanstone, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) has been contracted by MTE Consultants Inc. (MTE) to undertake the Stage 1 archaeological assessment and the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) required for the preliminary design for the sanitary servicing needs in the Upper Hidden Valley community (see Map 1). The project lands are approximately 183 ha (452 ac) in size and are located on part of Lots 51 and 53, German Company Tract & Bechtels Tract in the Geographic Township of Waterloo in the Former Waterloo County. MTE has asked us to take this time to invite your community to participate in the Stage 1 archaeological assessment and the CHAR. 1.0 Archaeological Assessments The Stage 1 assessment will consist of comprehensive background research into the study area. This is accomplished through an examination of the archaeology, history, geography, and current land conditions in the vicinity of the project lands. This stage also generates an inventory of known archaeological sites within 1 km and previous archaeological fieldwork results within 50 m of the study area, which are used to assist in predicting zones of archaeological potential. Sources utilized during a background study include archival sources (e.g., historical publications and records), current academic and archaeological publications (e.g., archaeological studies, reports and management plans), modern topographic maps, recent satellite imagery, historical maps/atlases, and the MHSTCI's Ontario Archaeological Sites Database. A property inspection (site visit) will be conducted by an MHSTCI-licenced Field Director to gain first-hand knowledge of geography, topography and current land conditions. This inspection will identify areas of archaeological potential for Pre -Contact and Euro -Canadian sites and conclusively map areas of no archaeological potential (i.e., lands disturbed by deep land alterations, steeply sloped areas, permanently wet areas, etc.) within the study area. Page 810 of 917 The results of ARA's background research and property inspection as well as the analysis and evaluation of the study area's archaeological potential will form appropriate recommendations (i.e., no further work in areas of no archaeological potential and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment for all areas of archaeological potential). As part of this project we would like to incorporate your input. Participation could include providing ARA with community specific Traditional and Ecological Knowledge, participating in Stage 1 site visit and/or reviewing the draft report and providing comments. Background research or oral knowledge could include providing (at your discretion) information regarding sacred or spiritual sites, undocumented archaeological sites, sites of value to the community, historical background information or any other traditional and ecological knowledge relevant to the study area. If provided, this information will be included in the Stage 1 report and considered when evaluating archaeological potential. 2.0 Heritage Assessment The most recent Provincial Policy statement (PPS) 2020 includes the definitions of Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHLs) that were revised in PPS 2014 to include reference to value by Indigenous communities and it is to be implemented manner that is consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights. Long before these inclusions, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMB) drafted An Approach to Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Landscapes (1999). This document defines an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Landscape as "a place valued by an Aboriginal group (or groups) because of their long and complex relationship with that land. It expresses their unity with the natural and spiritual environment. It embodies their traditional knowledge of spirits, places, land uses, and ecology". Given the documented ties of the study area to local Indigenous communities, ARA's proposed workplan includes exploring the incorporation of Indigenous Traditional or Ecological Knowledge (TEK) into the heritage report. ARA has composed several questions for review and would very much appreciate your feedback. 1. Has the location of the Upper Hidden Valley Sewer and Forcemain Project area been of interest in the past? For ecological reasons? Or for its use historically? 2. Are you aware of any traditional uses of the Upper Hidden Valley Sewer and Forcemain Project area? 3. Does your community have an oral history or stories of the use of these lands? 4. What do you see as valuable or important to your community within this area? 5. Do you use these lands for anything today? 6. Do you know of any locales/locations in the area that have cultural or spiritual significance? If so, are you willing to share some information about them with us? 7. Is there any other information about the area that you would like to share with us that has not been covered in the previous questions? We are interested in talking to a community member regarding these questions to gather information about the area. This could be done via zoom meetings (due to Covid-19 we are not Page 811 of 917 currently conducting any in-person meetings), phone interviews, written responses to the questions sent via email or in another manner that meets the needs of the contributor. In order to incorporate Traditional Knowledge into the report, we would appreciate your feedback no later than April 1, 2021. Please contact Victoria Cafik at victoria.cafik(aaraheritage.ca or at 519-212-5172 if you would like to provide a monitor to be present during the Stage 1 archaeological assessment. In order to begin the deployment process, we would like to confirm your interest in participating by March 15th, 2021. We welcome your community's contribution to the project and are always happy to address any concerns that may arise. Best, Paul Racher, MA, CAHP, RPA Principal - Management and Senior Review 219-900 Guelph Street, Kitchener, ON, N2H 5Z6 P 519.804.2291 x100 I M 519.835.4427 1 F 519.286.0493 E paul.racher@araheritage.ca Page 812 of 917 ti rn 4- 0 (Y) co a� c� a x V '27 n Y C E Or O (Q W w w N -moo A E N E O =-m�m0 m 0Ei w Cc Co 0 ti Q w �t�amUiO �h _ O w moa3 GOZCo< �-0 Sa o 0�v� i ao OC1" C p m > 00), Bio° U^PE E ^2 F" ca - C C '6 2 �Q Y m w Orn .N t = co E2 cLE� >'EDu y o �¢(D E S V— rL N .. w' N O O "1"�d(�ULI'fT] JC'1 W U?N ❑W Z t � N _ Ow Loa a , c' � = wpm y Unca it a00 C zu Ul Z O Z � O t 83 ✓ Z u =a -6 f C5C � LL 7 U F� -1 Y. s z G,NS OF 14V 7M �RsT NAS°� DEPARTMENT OF CONSULTATTON AND ACCOMMODATION January 19,2021 1T11_\ 4 Ji I_1I I Katie Wood, C.E.T. Project Manager, Development Engineering City of Kitchener Dear Katie Wood, RE: MCFN FLR Participation for Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station and Forcemain Confirmation of Receipt I am writing in follow up to the letter of response dated January 18,2021 sent by Fawn Sault, Consultation Coordinator, from the Department of Consultation and Accommodation ("DOCA") on behalf of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation ("MCFN") to acknowledge that we have received your above named communication, dated January 7,2021 . Outline of MCFN Rights and Territory In 1792 , the Crown and MCFN entered into Between the Lakes, No. 3 (1792) regarding the lands in which your project is situated. MCFN has formed the Department of Consultation and Accommodation ("DOCA") to represent its interests in consultation and accommodation matters. In this regard, it is DOCA's mandate to ensure that we are directly involved in all planning and development that impacts the integrity of our Territory. DOCA will assess and help alleviate impacts on our rights, land claims, and ways of life by building relationships with governments and private sector proponents. We share a mutual interest in ensuring that projects in the Territory are planned, reviewed, and developed in a manner which ensures healthy communities, ecological protection, and sustainable development for present and future generations in the Territory. One of the ways we require proponents to engage with us is in providing transparency during the environmental survey and archaeological assessment process. The best way DEPARTMENT OF CONSULTATION AND ACCOMMODATION OMississaugas of the Credit First Nation ® Phone: (905) 768-4260 4065 Hwy #6, Hagersville, Ontario NOA 1HO to accomplish this is by having Field Liaison Representatives ("FLRs") on location while fieldwork is occurring, who can ensure that the Nation's special interests and concerns are respected and considered during fieldwork. The cultural and natural resources in question are part of MCFN's territory and heritage and it is our responsibility to ensure their protection, on behalf of the Nation. MCFN's stewardship of its territory extends through the life of any development project and beyond. It is our expectation that no project -related fieldwork will take place without the participation of our FLRs. MCFN considers it disrespectful of our rights as Indigenous peoples if our natural and cultural heritage is interfered with without our involvement. FLR Participation DOCA deploys FLRs to be boots on the ground so that fieldwork by a proponent and their consultants/contractors is carried out with appropriate care, thoroughness, and respect. In the context of MCFN's Territory, where so much natural and cultural heritage has already been lost or destroyed, MCFN's monitoring of fieldwork is of utmost importance to ensure that the trail of desecration stops. FLRs are deployed to observe fieldwork, provide cultural advice, act as a direct link back to DOCA and MCFN, and assist with compliance. FLRs are MCFN band members who have received training in environmental and archaeological assessments, traditional medicine identification and use, Anishinaabe burial practices, and more throughout their employment with DOCA. DOCA requires, at minimum, FLR participation during the following project -related studies and/or activities: - ecological and natural heritage technical studies - archaeological assessments (Stages 2 through 4) and site visits - monitoring of activities within 50m of areas of special concern (e.g. waterways and wetlands, archaeological sites, species at risk) - post -construction remediation activities and follow-up impact monitoring Agreement for FLR Participation The cost for the participation of our FLRs is covered by the proponent, not the consultant, whom we view as having the ultimate responsibility to consult with, and accommodate, the Nation. Therefore, please find attached the agreement that covers MCFN's participation in the upcoming fieldwork. The costs associated with this involvement reflect a number of expenses not visible at first glance: payment for the FLRs themselves, operational costs for DOCA, and efforts to engage the community to garner feedback on development projects. If you could please fill in the additional required information, highlighted in yellow, and return to us a signed copy so that we may arrange for FLR participation on your project, that would be greatly appreciated. DEPARTMENT OF CONSULTATION AND ACCOMMODATION OMississaugas of the Credit First Nation ® Phone: (905) 768-4260 4065 Hwy #6, Hagersville, Ontario NOA 1HO " �9 M�11 Once a signed agreement is in place, DOCA generally arranges scheduling and other related matters directly with the consultant conducting the fieldwork, unless you prefer otherwise. Please note that MCFN requires two of its FLRs to be on location whenever fieldwork is taking place within its territory. The reason for this is so that FLRs can provide support and security for each other in the field. This has become a requirement in light of uncommon, but unfortunate, occurrences when FLRs have felt pressured or intimidated from external persons while at work locations. We ask that you would respect this request. Request for Missing Information In order to complete our project record, we ask that you provide the following information: 1. Please provide a list of all completed technical studies for the project, their date of completion, and the contact information of the consultant who completed each study. 2. Please provide a list of all incomplete and/or upcoming technical studies for the project, the anticipated date of fieldwork for each, and the contact information for the consultant who will complete them. 3. Are there any short-term and/or long-term avoidance and protection strategies currently in place for the natural and/or cultural resources in the study area for this project? If yes, what are they? Closing The participation of FLRs in project fieldwork is only one part of the consultation process that may be required for your development. Please contact DOCA's Consultation Coordinator, Fawn Sault, if you have any questions about the process. We ask that you respond with the above requested information and executed agreement within fourteen days following receipt of this letter. We thank you in advance for your attention to our requirements and we look forward to working with you further to shape the planning for development in our Territory. Sincerely, Megan DeVries Archaeological Operations Supervisor i`1i e 4a i.0eiirie5(tX✓f itiU 11-C a ODEPARTMENT OF CONSULTATION AND ACCOMMODATION • Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 4065 Hwy #6, Hagersville, Ontario NOA 1H0 ® Phone: (905) 768-4260 r Attachment(s) MCFN Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology [2018] FLR Participation Agreement [2020] ODEPARTMENT OF CONSULTATION AND ACCOMMODATION • Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation 4065 Hwy #6, Hagersville, Ontario NOA 1HO ® Phone: (905) 768-4260 Field Liaison Representative Participation Agreement between: The Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation and MTE Consultants Inc. A - Background 1. The purpose of this agreement is to provide the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (hereinafter, "MCFN") with capacity assistance to its Field Liaison Representatives (hereinafter, "FLRs") in connection with all environmental and/or archaeological assessments required for the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the Upper Hidden Valley (hereinafter, "the Project") located at [ the study area bounded by Highway 8, the Grand River, the CN railway, and Wabanaki Dr], in [Kitchener], Ontario, owned by [various stakeholders including the City of Kitchener, Region of Waterloo, residents in the area, and Pearl Development], (hereinafter, "the Proponent"). 2. The Proponent understands that MCFN wishes to send its FLRs to participate in and monitor the assessments associated with the Project, and that the FLRs' mandate will be to ensure that MCFN's perspectives and priorities are considered and to enable MCFN to provide timely and meaningful comment on the Project. All archaeological work in connection with any Project in the Territory will be carried out in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act and its Regulations. The archaeological work will meet or exceed the Ontario Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries (hereinafter, "MHSTCI") standards and guidelines for consultant archaeologists as amended, including the Terms and Conditions for Archaeological Licences, Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011) and the Draft Engaging Aboriginal Communities in Archaeology Technical Bulletin (2011), (hereinafter collectively, "MHSTCI Standards 2011"). 4. The Proponent agrees that all archaeological work conducted for the Project will comply with the MCFN Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology (published April 2, 2018), (hereinafter, "MCFN Standards") as long as the MCFN Standards do not fall below MHSTCI Standards 2011. The MHSTCI Standards 2011 will be paramount in the event of a direct conflict between MCFN Standards and the MHSTCI Standards 2011. Page 818 of 917 5. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted or implemented so as to derogate or abrogate from any MCFN Aboriginal or Treaty right or claim, or to indicate consent to the Project. B — Fees and Cost Structure 6. The Proponent will provide capacity funding for each FLR in the amount of $85.00 per hour for all activities relating to the Project. Activities relating to the Project include, but are not limited to: a. Time spent on site monitoring assessment or predetermined construction -related activities; b. Time spent completing data or artifact processing, identification, analysis, and interpretation activities alongside their consultant(s); c. Actual travel time at the beginning of, during, and/or end of each day; d. Time completing daily notes relating to the Project; e. Time spent on standby at the request of the Proponent or their consultant(s); and f. Time completing mandatory training at the request of the Proponent or their consultant(s). 7. The Proponent will pay a supervisory fee of 3.5%, based on the number of hours charged to the Proponent, to provide MCFN with the capacity to facilitate in -field technical support for the FLRs via the Field Archaeologist. 8. The Proponent will reimburse the FLRs for reasonable mileage and meals in accordance with current Federal Canada Treasury Board guidelines, over and above the hourly rate [see Schedule B]. Mileage rates are determined using the MCFN Department of Consultation and Accommodation as the place of departure. 9. The Proponent will provide capacity funding for each FLR in the amount of $125.00 per hour for any work exceeding eight hours per day and/or forty hours per week. The above noted mileage and meal allowance remains in effect. 10. The Proponent will provide capacity funding for each FLR in the amount of $125.00 per hour for any work occurring on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Family Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day, Indigenous Solidarity Day (June 21), Canada Day, Civic Holiday, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day, Christmas Day, and Boxing Day. The above noted mileage and meal allowance rates remain in effect. Page 819 of 917 11. The Proponent agrees that the FLRs will be paid for a minimum of three hours, plus actual travel time, mileage, and meal allowance rates as noted above, on any day when work is cancelled by the Proponent or their consultant(s) while FLRs are en route to the work site or after the FLRs have already arrived. 12. If its use is deemed necessary by both Parties, the Proponent agrees to reimburse the FLRs for their use of the 407ETR upon receipt of a copy of the bill. This agreement will be provided in writing to MCFN's Field Coordinator. 13. If deemed reasonable by both Parties, the Proponent agrees to cover the cost of overnight accommodation for FLRs participating in environmental and/or archaeological fieldwork at locations which would otherwise require more than 90 minutes of travel time at both the beginning and end of the work day, as determined using the MCFN Department of Consultation and Accommodation as the place of departure. An additional Incidental Allowance fee is required for any work which requires overnight accommodations, as set out in Schedule B. This agreement will be provided in writing to MCFN's Field Coordinator. C — Additional Conditions 14. The parties acknowledge that the Project, in whole or in part, takes place within MCFN Territory and agree that the Proponent shall provide capacity funding for FLR participation on the Project for the duration of the Project. 15. The Proponent agrees that two FLRs shall be on location whenever Project -related activities are taking place within its Territory, as set out in Schedule A. 16. Furthermore, additional FLRs are required if the number of field personnel utilized by the consultant exceeds fourteen (14) individuals and the Proponent agrees to provide capacity funding for additional FLRs as required. MCFN requires one additional FLR per five additional field crew, as outlined in the chart below: Number of Field Personnel Number of FLRs Required 1to14 2 15 to 19 3 20 to 24 4 25 to 29 5 30 to 34 6 35 to 39 7 40+ 8+ Page 820 of 917 17. The Parties acknowledge that the FLRs time and travel will be recorded and verified using the ClockShark Time Tracking Software System and that invoicing will be prepared using these records, not those of a third party. 18. If archaeological resources are encountered at any time during construction or other Project -related activity, all excavation or other activity that could disturb the site shall immediately cease, and the Proponent shall immediately notify MCFN's Archaeological Operations Supervisor or designate. The Parties shall work collaboratively to minimize impacts and ensure respectful treatment of any archaeological resources in accordance with the practices and values of MCFN as identified by MCFN. 19. If human remains are encountered at any time during construction or other Project -related activity, the following steps shall be taken: a. All excavation or other activity that could disturb the site shall immediately cease, and the area shall be secured in a manner which protects the site location and prevents public access and trespass; and b. In addition to any notifications required under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, SO 2002, C 33, the Proponent shall immediately contact MCFN's duly appointed Archaeological Operations Supervisor or designate; and c. MCFN shall be permitted to conduct any ceremonies on site in relation to the human remains that may be of Aboriginal ancestry ("Ancestral Remains"); and d. MCFN shall be consulted about all steps in the investigation and any decisions or agreements to be made regarding Ancestral Remains. D - Coordination of the FLRs 20. The Parties agree that the FLRs will follow the reasonable instructions of the Proponent and their consultant firm(s) conducting the environmental and/or archaeological work concerning safety practices, and that the FLRs will attend "tailgate" safety meetings if requested. 21. The contact person for activities relating to the environmental assessment portion of the Project is [Allison Featherstone] from [LGL Limited]. Contact information for this person is as follows: Allison Featherstone Contact Number Office: 519-622-3300 Mobile: 519-500-3758; Email: afeatherstone@lgl.com] M Page 821 of 917 22. The contact person for activities relating to the archaeological assessment portion of the Project is [Victoria Cafik] from [ARA Heritage]. Contact information for this person is as follows: Victoria Cafik 219-900 Guelph Street, Kitchener, ON, N2H 5Z6 P 519.212.5172 1 F 519.286.0493 E Victoria. cafikkaraheritage.ca www.araheritage.ca 23. The Parties agree that the contact person for the consultant firm(s) will coordinate site meeting locations and times through MCFN's duly appointed Field Coordinator. Contact information for the Field Coordinator is as follows: Joelle Williams Telephone: 905-768-4260 Cell: 905-870-2918 Email: joelle.williamsgmncfn.ca E - Status of the FLRs 24. The FLRs selected by MCFN have appropriate qualifications for the work required — for example, training in environmental and/or archaeological monitoring — and experience in bridging Indigenous perspectives with Western approaches, as reasonably determined by MCFN. 25. The Parties agree that the FLRs are not employees, contractors, or sub -contractors of the Proponent or their consultant(s) and that the FLRs will be responsible for their own personal protective equipment, such as hard hats, safety boots, and safety vests, unless specific or otherwise unique personal protective equipment is required, which will therefore be provided or reimbursed by the Proponent. 26. FLRs take direction from MCFN. MCFN pays Workplace Safety and Insurance Board ("WSIB") contributions in respect of the FLRs and will, at its own expense, maintain for the term of this agreement a comprehensive general liability ("CGL") policy or policies with a limit of at least $1 million and shall provide the Proponent with evidence of such insurance, upon request. MCFN agrees that FLRs will perform their activities safely, in a good and competent manner, in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and guidelines. Page 822 of 917 27. MCFN expects that the Proponent will comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 0. 1, the Ontario Human Rights Code, R. S. O. 1990, c. H.19, and maintain a safe, harassment -free work environment. 28. The Proponent is responsible for negligence or other failure to maintain a safe and harassment -free work environment. To the extent that the Proponent is responsible for negligence or other failure to maintain a safe and harassment -free work environment, the Proponent is liable and shall indemnify MCFN claims or demands related to injury, accident, discrimination, or harassment by the Proponent's employees, agents, consultants, or other parties under the control or direction of the Proponent. F - Method of Pam 29. The Parties agree that the Proponent will pay the capacity funding as agreed to above by cheque or bank transfer and upon receipt of an invoice from MCFN. All invoices will be addressed directly to the Proponent, the Project will be noted in the text of each invoice, and all invoices will be prepared as per MCFN-DOCA's standard invoicing format. Invoices should be submitted electronically to the following address: Email address: anaseem@mte85.com Attention: MTE Consultants Inc. Asma Naseem (519) 743-6500 520 Bingemans Centre Dr, Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 30. All payment should be made to the MCFN Department of Consultation and Accommodation to the following address. For additional information, please call the office at 905-768-4260. Email address: nicole.laforme-hesskmncfn.ca Attention: MCFN-DOCA 4065 Highway 6 Hagersville, Ontario NOA 1H0 31. After thirty [30] days, a 5% monthly compounded interest rate will be charged on outstanding invoices. After six [6] months of non-payment, a 20% monthly compounded interest rate will be charged on outstanding invoices. G — Disclaimer Page 823 of 917 32. The Parties agree that the capacity funding payments for the FLRs will be used only for the purposes described in this Agreement and will not be paid for the improper personal gain of any individual or for any other purpose that might violate any Canadian anti- corruption law. 33. This agreement may be executed in counterparts. 34. This agreement is legally binding on MCFN and the Proponent. 35. The term of this agreement is from February 3, 2021 to February 2, 2022. In the event that Project -related activities requiring FLR participation continue past this termination date, a new agreement will be executed between Parties. [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.] Page 824 of 917 Signed this 4th day of February Authorized Signatory on behalf of The Proponent Dave Wilhelm Manager, Water/Wastewater Municipal MTE Consultants Inc. ec'041�- Witness Gemma Charlebois Design Engineer Municipal MTE Consultants Inc. 2021, Authorized Signatory on behalf of Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation Mark LaForme Director Dept. of Consultation and Accommodation Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation Witness Megan DeVries Archaeological Operations Supervisor Dept. of Consultation and Accommodation Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation Page 825 of 917 f9n 10a gtnn NnrRN MIwcY I • ry Schedule A o� LYM 4�Ir� IWlmur wry lr � 4 MYM GIMpR � ann wsl�.lMgr � 1 •aurleti r4aur� f b;umkp%66"",� ■ M..ain fnp C,, Intl •, r�i beflrtivE r�r'w,. *r qn� MCFN Territory and Treaty Areas Um I%&a lgas Treaty al N agara;178 Rotween 'he 1. akes Tr maty, No- 3 11792( Brad Track Tteaty.. No 8 (1767) Taranto Purchase treaty, No 13 (1665; Head of the Lake Treaty, No. 14 (1806'1 Alelanca Traaly, No 19 (1818) Treaty 22 (mo) Ireaty 23 (1820) Roope Tract Claire (subrrrled in 2G 1:, Mtlnirlpal Fjowmiarm Mtsaiss7_rgar, of the Craft Territara Ughl Gray Canvas Base F .i -WW �a Pf &V tYtley �11LFp4d w 1'n PAIA" INed (N%qc vO AY lull Fnf — Lrie" ".&.d }v F !M ibwf W Lrer C -am R.u. etUq M ire.r cr Rr Lda to Rte R.- R.A.- AW .: ,yrAW 1! 1Grtrle elm UP RW RNr M YW tptAq M40 IN MW AWAI lW rl W ffw %?J r TOW— DWI SRI} b t� f4YFIP RY �w o1 Ins AAK& A{ k Crlrer.W IF. JAM—k" d lot Cn de Itinen,ey r}. fad Municipalities within Mississaugas of the Credit Treaty Lands and Territory 9 Page 826 of 917 Schedule B MISSiSSAUGA5 OF THE CREDIT FIRST NATION MILEAGE & ALLOWANCE CHART EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2020 to MARCH 31, 2021 MILEAGE $ 0,56 per KM https://www.nic-cnm.Rc.caldirective/dIO/v238/s658/en#s658-tc-tm MEAL ALLOWANCE not eligible if: BREAKFAST $ 20.65 leave after Sam; get home before 7:30am LUNCH $ 20.90 leave after 1:15pm; get home before 12:15pm DINNER $ 51.25 leave after 7prn; get home before 6:30pm INCIDENTALS $ 17,30 not staying overnight htt s://www.nic-cnm. c.caldirectiveldlQlv2381s659yen#s659-tc-tm NIGHTTIME* $ 51.25 'Applies only to nighttime surveys that would not otherwise trigger dinner or breakfast. 10 Page 827 of 917 From: Victoria <victoria.cafik@araheritage.ca> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 10:26 AM To: Gemma Charlebois Cc: Asma Naseem; Zenova E. Gentles; Paul Racher; monica.maika@araheritage.ca Subject: RE: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Attachments: Huron Wendat Area of Interest.JPG; Huron Wendat Accidentally invited to Project outside their Area oflnterest.eml; Upper Hidden Valley.kmz Good Morning Gemma, My name is Victoria Cafik and I am the Indigenous Engagement and Accommodation Manager for ARA. I was recently cc'd on an email to the Huron Wendat Nation (HWN) regarding engagement for the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain project in the City of Kitchener and was tasked with drafting the invitation to participate letters. In reading the email and preparing the letter, I noticed that the study area for this project is a fair distance outside the HWN area of interest. The project is within the Haldimand Tract (see attached KMZ), which is part of the Traditional and/or Treaty Territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation and the Six Nations of the Grand River represented by the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council and the Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council. Upon recognizing this, I reached out to Maxime at HWN to point out the location of the project and confirm that it is located outside of the HWN's mapped area of interest anticipating that he would excuse the HWN from participating in the project. He responded to agree that it is outside of the HWN's mapped area of interest, but that the HWN still has interest in projects located outside of this area (correspondence attached). As a result, I need confirmation from you as to how you would like to proceed regarding engagement. I suggest that given that HWN has expressed interest we could offer them the final report for their files — not for review and comment. If you have other suggestions of how you would like to proceed please let me know. All the best, Victoria Victoria Cafik, Hons. BA Indigenous Engagement and Accommodation Manager Business Development Team 219-900 Guelph Street, Kitchener, ON, N2H 5Z6 P 519.212.5172 1 F 519.286.0493 E Victoria. cafik@araheritage.ca www.araheritage.ca C@ArchResearch C@ARAHeritage Privileged to work within the treaty lands and traditional territories of the Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island. Page 828 of 917 ARCHAEOLOGY I HERITAGE I OUTREACH CONSOVATION From: Maxime Picard Sent: January 7, 20219:31 AM To: monica.maika@araheritage.ca Cc: Asma Naseem; Zenova E. Gentles; Gemma Charlebois; Victoria Subject: RE: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Thanks for following-up quickly Monica. We will wait to hear back from you. Regards, Maxime De : monica.maika@araheritage.ca [mailto:monica.maika@araheritage.ca] Envoye : 7 janvier 202109:26 A : 'Maxime Picard' Page 829 of 917 Cc : 'Asma Naseem' ; 'Zenova E. Gentles' ; 'Gemma Charlebois' ; 'Victoria' Objet : RE: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Good morning Maxime, Hope you are doing well in this New Year. ARA has been contracted to complete a Stage 1 archaeological assessment as part of the project. We received project mapping this week, and will be sending and invitation to participate to the HWN. No fieldwork will occur until ground conditions meet MHSTCI standards, so we are likely a couple months away from any site visits that will occur. We will provide more information regarding the archaeology as soon as we are able. Thank you for your interest in the archaeological portion of the project and we look forward to working with you again. Regards, Monica From: Maxime Picard <maxime.Picard @cnhw.qc.ca> Sent: January 7, 20219:14 AM To: monica.maika@araheritage.ca Cc: Asma Naseem <ANaseem@mte85.com>; Zenova E. Gentles <ZGentles@mte85.com>; Gemma Charlebois <GCharlebois@mte85.com> Subject: RE: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Good morning Monica, Can you please let us know where you at with the archaeological studies of this project ? Thanks and best regards, Maxime Page 830 of 917 De: Gemma Charlebois [mailto:GCharlebois@mte85.com] Envoye : 7 janvier 202108:56 A :'Maxime Picard' <maxime.Picard @cnhw.qc.ca> Cc : monica.maika@araheritage.ca; Asma Naseem <ANaseem@mte85.com>; Zenova E. Gentles <ZGentles@mte85.com> Objet : RE: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Maxime, Archeological studies are planned as part of the EA. Monica Maika with ARA (cc'd) is the archeologist for this project. Please direct any questions to her and cc MTE. Thanks. Gemma Gemma Charlebois, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. I Design Engineer MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x1227 GCharleboisgmte85.com From: Maxime Picard <maxime.Dicard(@cnhw.ac.ca> Sent: January 7, 20218:16 AM To: Zenova E. Gentles <ZGentles@mte85.com>; cfosterpengelly@grand river. ca; Planning@Grandriver.ca; Mark. La Forme@mncfn.ca; Fawn.Sault@mncfn.ca; Megan.DeVries@mncfn.ca; tanyahill-montour@sixnations.ca; dlaforme@sixnations.ca; Ion nybomberry@sixnations.ca; tworowarchaeology@gmail.com; williams.todde@gmail.com; Rob.Dobos@ec.gc.ca; SAROntario@ontario.ca; amy.shaw@ontario.ca; SAROntario@ontario.ca; lee.orphan@ontario.ca; Crystal. Lafrance@ontario.ca; eanotification.swregion@ontario.ca; tammy.verhaeghe@ontaria,.Li ian.thornton@ontario.ca; iennifer.harvard@ontario.ca; MNRF.Ayl.Planners@ontario.ca; katie.wood@kitchener.ca, Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca; Lau ra.anderson@kitchener.ca; Admin@kitchener.ca; iohn.gazzola@kitchener.ca; shevaughne.wvnter@hvdroone.com; moneil@regionofwaterloo.ca; mkroker@regionofwaterloo.ca, Page 831 of 917 Jlane@regionofwaterloo.ca; Jennifer Benedict@cpr.ca; lack carello@cpr.ca Cc: Gemma Charlebois <GCharlebois@mte85.com>; Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com>; katie.wood@kitchener.ca Subject: RE: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Good morning Zenova, This is to acknowledge reception of you email and notice on the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA. Could you please clarify if any archaeological studies are anticipated as part of this EA process ? Thanks and best regards, Maxime Picard De: Zenova E. Gentles [mailto:ZGentles@mte85.com] Envoye : 6 janvier 202116:52 A : 'cfosterpengelly@grandriver. ca' <cfosterpengelly@grandriver. ca>; 'Planning@Grandriver.ca' <Planning@Grandriver.ca>; 'Mark. La Forme@mncfn.ca' <Mark.LaForme@mncfn.ca>; 'Fawn.Sault@mncfn.ca' <Fawn.Sault@mncfn.ca>; 'Megan.DeVries@mncfn.ca' <Megan.DeVries@mncfn.ca>; 'tanyahill-montour@sixnations.ca' <tanyahill-montour@sixnations.ca>; 'dlaforme@sixnations.ca' <dlaforme@sixnations.ca>; 'Ion nybomberry@sixnations.ca' <Ionnybomberry@sixnations.ca>; 'tworowarchaeology@gmail.com' <tworowarchaeology@gmail.com>; 'williams.todde@gmail.com' <williams.todde@gmail.com>; 'maxime.picard@cnhw.qc.ca' <maxime.picard@cnhw.gc.ca>; 'Rob.Dobos@ec.gc.ca' <Rob.Dobos@ec.gc.ca>; 'SAROntario@ontario.ca' <SAROntario@ontario.ca>; 'amy.shaw@ontario.ca' <amy.shaw@ontario.ca>; Page 832 of 917 'SAROntario@ontario.ca' <SAROntario@ontario.ca>; 'lee.orphan@ontario.ca' <lee.orphan@ontario.ca>; 'Crystal.Lafrance@ontario.ca' <Crystal.Lafrance@ontario.ca>; 'eanotification.swregion@ontario.ca' <eanotification.swregion@ontario.ca>; 'tammy.verhaeghe@ontario.ca' <tammy.verhaeghe@ontario.ca>; 'ian.thornton@ontario.ca' <ian.thornton@ontario.ca>; 'jennifer.harvard@ontario.ca' <iennifer.harvard@ontario.ca>; 'MNRF.Ayl.Planners@ontario.ca' <MNRF.Ayl.Planners@ontario.ca>;'katie.wood@kitchener.ca' <katie.wood@kitchener.ca>; 'Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca' < Linda. Cooper@kitchener.ca>; 'Lau ra.anderson@kitchener.ca' <Laura.anderson@kitchener.ca>; 'Admin@kitchener.ca' <Admin@kitchener.ca>; 'john.gazzola@kitchener.ca' <iohn.gazzola@kitchener.ca>; 'shevaughne.wynter@hydroone.com' <shevaughne.wynter@hydroone.com>; 'moneil@regionofwaterloo.ca' <moneil@regionofwaterloo.ca>; 'mkroker@regionofwaterloo.ca' <mkroker@regionofwaterloo.ca>; 'Jlane@regionofwaterloo.ca' <Jlane@regionofwaterloo.ca>; 'Jennifer_Benedict@cpr.ca' <Jennifer Benedict@cpr.ca>; 'jack_carello@cpr.ca' <iack carello@cpr.ca> Cc: Gemma Charlebois <GCharlebois@mte85.com>; Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com>; 'katie.wood@kitchener.ca' <katie.wood@kitchener.ca> Objet : 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Good afternoon: Please find attached a digital copy of Notice of Commencement informing you of the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Class EA. This study is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, as a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. All notices related to this project can be found on the City of Kitchener's website at the following link: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/city-services/environmental-assessments.aspx The purpose of the current study is to define a sanitary servicing solution that will support responsible development in the Hidden Valley area, as outlined in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan (June 2019). The servicing solution will include identifying a sanitary pumping station location and forcemain alignment. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this study should you wish to do so. Please feel free to call or email me using the contact details below should you require additional information. We look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Zenova Gentles, B.Sc I Administrative Assistant MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x1359 ZGentles(a�mte85.com 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N213 3X9 www.mte85.com I Twitter I LinkedIn I Instagram I Facebook COVID-19 Update: We remain operational and are currently available by email and phone, however, our offices are closed. Staff that are required to visit job sites or perform field work are required to follow MTE health and safety policies and procedures, as well as additional COVID-19 protocols, which can be viewed here. Notice: The electronic information provided is confidential and privileged, and may not be used for purposes other than work related to the subject project. Redistribution or copies to others made without written permission from MTE Consultants Inc. is strictly prohibited. MTE assumes no liability or responsibility, and makes no guarantee or warranty with respect to the data contained, either expressed or implied. Page 833 of 917 From: Victoria <victoria.cafik@araheritage.ca> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 10:45 AM To: rlinn@sixnations.ca; Tanya Hill -Montour Cc: Dawn LaForme; lonnybomberry@sixnations.ca; monica.maika@araheritage.ca; Asma Naseem; Gemma Charlebois; Dave Wilhelm; Katie Wood; Zenova E. Gentles Subject: ARA Project Invitation - Upper Hidden Valley Sewer and Forcemain Project - SNGREC Attachments: 2020-0220 - Upper Hiddien Valley Sewer and Forcemain - St 1 -CHAR - Invitation to Participate - SNGREC.pdf Dear Tanya and Robin, The proponent has asked us to reach out to invite your community to participate in a Stage 1 archaeological assessment and Cultural Heritage Assessment being undertaken for the Upper Hidden Valley Sewer and Forcemain project in Kitchener, Ontario. Participation for each project could include joining ARA on the site visit, providing Traditional Knowledge and/or report reviews. Please find the formal invitation to participate letter attached. In order to incorporate Traditional Knowledge into the report, we would appreciate your feedback no later than April 1, 2021. Please contact Victoria Cafik at victoria.cafik@araheritaRe.ca or at 519-212-5172 if you would like to provide a monitor to be present during the Stage 1 archaeological assessment. The site visit has not been scheduled at this time, however, in order to begin the deployment process, we would like to confirm your interest in participating by March 15th, 2021. We look forward to working with your community on this project. Best Regards, Victoria Cafik, Hons. BA Indigenous Engagement and Accommodation Manager Business Development Team Member Heritage Team Member 219-900 Guelph Street, Kitchener, ON, N2H 5Z6 P 519.212.5172 1 F 519.286.0493 E Victoria. cafik@araheritage.ca www.araheritage.ca C@ArchResearch C@ARAHeritage Privileged to work within the treaty lands and traditional territories of the Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island. ARCHAEOLOGY I HERITAGE 1 OUTREACH I CONSERVATION Page 834 of 917 From: Victoria <victoria.cafik@araheritage.ca> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 10:49 AM To: darin.wybenga@mncfn.ca; Megan DeVries Cc: monica.maika@araheritage.ca; Asma Naseem; Dave Wilhelm; Gemma Charlebois; Katie Wood; Zenova E. Gentles; amy.barnes@araheritage.ca Subject: ARA Project Invitation - Upper Hidden Valley Sewer and Forcemain Project - MCFN Attachments: 2020-0220 - Upper Hiddien Valley Sewer and Forcemain - St 1 -CHAR - Invitation to Participate - MCFN.pdf Dear Megan and Darin, The proponent has asked us to reach out to invite your community to participate in a Stage 1 archaeological assessment and Cultural Heritage Assessment being undertaken for the Upper Hidden Valley Sewer and Forcemain project in Kitchener, Ontario. Participation for each project could include joining ARA on the site visit, providing Traditional Knowledge and/or report reviews. Please find the formal invitation to participate letter attached. In order to incorporate Traditional Knowledge into the report, we would appreciate your feedback no later than April 1, 2021. Please contact Victoria Cafik at victoria.cafik@araheritaRe.ca or at 519-212-5172 if you would like to provide a monitor to be present during the Stage 1 archaeological assessment. The site visit has not been scheduled at this time, however, in order to begin the deployment process, we would like to confirm your interest in participating by March 15th, 2021. We look forward to working with your community on this project. Best Regards, Victoria Cafik, Hons. BA Indigenous Engagement and Accommodation Manager Business Development Team Member Heritage Team Member 219-900 Guelph Street, Kitchener, ON, N2H 5Z6 P 519.212.5172 1 F 519.286.0493 E Victoria. cafik@araheritage.ca www.araheritage.ca C@ArchResearch C@ARAHeritage Privileged to work within the treaty lands and traditional territories of the Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island. ARCHAEOLOGY I HERITAGE 1 OUTREACH I CONSERVATION Page 835 of 917 M 00 N m (6 a I� I III I II �,I1I M 00 N m (6 a II III III II IIII, 11 � 111111111111minim111 111111 1 1111 11 1 HOME a of of of of of of qa 681 Hidden Valley Road Kitchener Ontario 15 May 2022 Dave Wilhelm MTE Consultants 520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, Ontario Richard Kelly-Ruetz Project Manager Hidden Valley Secondary Plan City of Kitchener Planning Department 200 King Street West Kitchener, Ontario Dear Dave and Richard, Dave, thank you for your response to our letter from February 1 1'". We truly appreciate the work that you and your team have done to secure some answers from the Region regarding sanitary servicing for our parcel on Hidden Valley Road. We are generally encouraged by the information you have described from the Region regarding septic. It is our understanding from your letter (Item #I & 2), that the Region will support and approve a septic solution based on the results of the Draft EA with the provision for a hydrogeological study that supports septic. Are you able to secure a letter in writing from the Region that confirms this information, and let us know who our contact would be at the Region to continue this discussion? You also mentioned that the City cannot add a 'septic option' into the EA due to 'documents not being completed' - does this refer to the hydrogeological study? Or does this relate to the forthcoming Secondary Plan? Richard, when does the City anticipate that this Page 838 of 917 plan will be completed? Will potential development and/or severances on our parcels be delayed and subject to the approval of the Draft Secondary Plan? Dave, in your Response #5A & 513, you indicate that the City has no short-term plans or funding to bring City water to this section of Hidden Valley Road. Per your response, if road upgrades or water services extensions are required for a small estate residential neighborhood on our parcel, it is the future Developer's responsibility to do so. Does this mean the street would have to be updated to current City widths and roadway standards for water lines to be installed? Road widening on the Hidden Valley 'eastside' is not currently the direction that Richard is outlining in the Draft Secondary Plan for the 'Heritage Corridor'. Only our two parcels have the 'City -owned' 3m wide 'severance/ROW' to allow for future road widening. How can water services be brought to our property when all the surrounding parcels are privately owned with their property lines extending right up to the current street edge and no ROW? In addition, a City waterline extension from the closest neighborhood with City water, would likely mean the waterline would cross at least one creek and potentially, a GRCA easement on our property. Given the challenges of crossing creeks that have been identified in the Draft EA, this would be an expensive and potentially multi-year process - for which a potential large subdivision of a hundred homes might make sense - but for 4-8 lots is not feasible. Given this reality, is there any way Engineering & Planning can continue the dialogue with the Region to secure the same provision for private wells as you were able to negotiate for septic? Otherwise, we are back in the same position we were before the EA and our property becomes challenging to develop per the Official Plan due to Engineering and Planning that is not consistent with the Official Plan. While we are encouraged by the information on the septic, we are still looking for the City's continued support on obtaining a more feasible plan to bring water to our site or providing for a private well option. We believe strongly that water is part of a servicing study, and although you suggest it is outside the current EA scope, it is a servicing issue that negatively impacts the ability to sell our parcel and/or allow for thoughtful development consistent with the Draft Secondary Plan and Official Plan which allow for Estate Residential Development. KA Page 839 of 917 We remain positive and encouraged by the progress that the City has made with the Region on the allowance for septic in the last 3 months. As we are only proposing 4-8 estate residential lots on our ten acres, we are hopeful that City Engineering, Planning and the Region will collaborate and also support an allowance for private wells in the `Heritage Corridor'. Many thanks for your consideration and continued collaboration. Sincerely, KI Page 840 of 917 From: Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 11:36 AM To: Gemma Charlebois Subject: RE: Hidden Valley Area He said the tree removal and new trails were at this intersection. I believe it is private property most likely, not in the ROW. He couldn't be more specific. He just had a few question about what the EA will be for and how it will affect him. I' 3TRLAL PARK ''CH Sincerely, Katie Wood, C.E.T. Project Managers Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7135 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.wood@kitchener.ca You From: Gemma Charlebois Sent: Thursday, January 14, 202111:32 AM To: Katie Wood Cc: Asma Naseem ; Zenova E. Gentles Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Hidden Valley Area Katie, Do you know where he was referring to? On the City ROW? On private property? Was he concerned about something as it relates to the EA? Thanks. Gemma 1 Page 841 of 917 Gemma Charlebois, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. I Design Engineer MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x12271 GCharlebois(a�,mte85.com 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N213 3X9 www.mte85.com I Twitter I LinkedIn I Instagram I Facebook COVID-19 Update: We remain operational and are currently available by email and phone, however, our offices are closed. Staff that are required to visit job sites or perform field work are required to follow MTE health and safety policies and procedures, as well as additional COVID-19 protocols, which can be viewed here. Notice: The electronic information provided is confidential and privileged, and may not be used for purposes other than work related to the subject project. Redistribution or copies to others made without written permission from MTE Consultants Inc. is strictly prohibited. MTE assumes no liability or responsibility, and makes no guarantee or warranty with respect to the data contained, either expressed or implied. From: Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 20212:19 PM To: Gemma Charlebois <GCharlebois@mte85.com> Subject: Hidden Valley Area Hey Gemma, I was talking to a resident this morning about the EA and he brought up a lot of tree removal happening at the south intersection of Wabanaki and Hidden Valley. I said I would ask you to see if you knew anything about it. Apparently there are new ATV trails being constructed in that area also. Sincerely, Katie Wood, C.E.T. Project Managers Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7135 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.wood@kitchener.ca Page 842 of 917 From: Dave Wilhelm Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 3:45 PM To: Asma Naseem Cc: Zenova E. Gentles; Gemma Charlebois Subject: FW: Hidden Valley Study For file..... Thanks Client First I Right Solution Work Together Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng. Manager, Water/Wastewater Kitchener x1225 From: Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 20216:10 PM To: Dave Wilhelm Subject: Re: Hidden Valley Study Hi Dave, 212 River Birch. Thanks, Ben Get Outlook for iOS From: Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 20215:34:42 PM To: Subject: RE: Hidden Valley Study Hi Thanks for the interest in this project. Do you mind providing your full name and house address? Thanks Dave Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng. I Manager, Water/Wastewater MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x1225 I dwilhelmCcDmte85.com 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N2B 3X9 www.mte85.com Twitter Linkedln Instagram Facebook COVID-19 Update: We remain operational and are currently available by email and phone, however, our offices are closed. Staff that are required to visit job sites or perform field work are required to follow MTE health and safety policies and procedures, as well as additional COVID-19 protocols, which can be viewed here. Notice: The electronic information provided is confidential and privileged, and may not be used for purposes other than work related to the subject project. Redistribution or copies to others made without written permission from MTE Consultants Inc. is strictly prohibited. MTE assumes no liability or responsibility, and makes no guarantee or warranty with respect to the data contained, either expressed or implied. 1 Page 843 of 917 From Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 20211:22 PM To: Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com> Subject: Hidden Valley Study Hi Dave, Please add me to the email list for updates on this study (as recommended by Heather Harte). Thanks so much! Page 844 of 917 From: Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 12:21 PM To: Asma Naseem; Gemma Charlebois Subject: RE: Hidden Valley Area The person I was talking to yesterday was 2296 Hidden Valley Cres I was also contacted by i at 2043 Hidden Valley - Both pretty much wondering how the EA will affect them and if they will be made to connect to a sanitary sewer if one is provided. Sincerely, Katie Wood, C.E.T. Project Managers Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7135 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.wood@kitchener.ca "111 From: Asma Naseem Sent: Thursday, January 14, 202112:14 PM To: Gemma Charlebois; Katie Wood Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Hidden Valley Area Hi Katie, Can you send the residents contact information? We'll add him to our Residents Log so we ensure he is sent all future correspondence on this EA. Asma Asma Naseem, P.Eng., PMP I Project Manager MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x1362 ANaseem(a�mte85.com From: Gemma Charlebois <GCharlebois@mte85.com> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 202111:48 AM To:'Katie Wood' <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca> Cc: Asma Naseem <ANaseem@mte85.com> Subject: RE: Hidden Valley Area RM 1 Page 845 of 917 Sounds like it would be best just to reiterate the notice of commencement since we can't really comment on unrelated works on private property, but that if he wanted to be copied on future correspondence we would be sure to send him emails. Gemma Client First I Right Solution I Work Together Gemma Charlebois, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Design Engineer Kitchener x1227 From: Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 202111:36 AM To: Gemma Charlebois <GCharlebois@mte85.com> Subject: RE: Hidden Valley Area He said the tree removal and new trails were at this intersection. I believe it is private property most likely, not in the ROW. He couldn't be more specific. He iust had a few question about what the EA will be for and how it will affect him. "Iti y 'SI r-5 ^rj it N I j f J, 3TRIAL PARK 'tC+ OR Sincerely, Katie Wood, C.E.T. Project Managers Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7135 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.wood@kitchener.ca From: Gemma Charlebois <GCharlebois@mte85.com> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 202111:32 AM To: Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca> NO r. 2 Page 846 of 917 Cc: Asma Naseem <ANaseem@mte85.com>; Zenova E. Gentles <ZGentles@mte85.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Hidden Valley Area Katie, Do you know where he was referring to? On the City ROW? On private property? Was he concerned about something as it relates to the EA? Thanks. Gemma Gemma Charlebois, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. I Design Engineer MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x12271 GCharleboisgmte85.com 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N213 3X9 www.mte85.com I Twitter I LinkedIn I Instagram I Facebook COVID-19 Update: We remain operational and are currently available by email and phone, however, our offices are closed. Staff that are required to visit job sites or perform field work are required to follow MTE health and safety policies and procedures, as well as additional COVID-19 protocols, which can be viewed here. Notice: The electronic information provided is confidential and privileged, and may not be used for purposes other than work related to the subject project. Redistribution or copies to others made without written permission from MTE Consultants Inc. is strictly prohibited. MTE assumes no liability or responsibility, and makes no guarantee or warranty with respect to the data contained, either expressed or implied. From: Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 20212:19 PM To: Gemma Charlebois <GCharlebois@mte85.com> Subject: Hidden Valley Area Hey Gemma, I was talking to a resident this morning about the EA and he brought up a lot of tree removal happening at the south intersection of Wabanaki and Hidden Valley. I said I would ask you to see if you knew anything about it. Apparently there are new ATV trails being constructed in that area also. Sincerely, Katie Wood, C.E.T. Project Managers Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7135 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.wood@kitchener.ca M&AIab, # 46 Sn- Page 847 of 917 From: Dave Wilhelm Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 3:53 PM To: Asma Naseem Cc: Gemma Charlebois; Zenova E. Gentles Subject: FW: Hidden Valley MCEA Kitchener For file....Thanks Client First I Right Solution Work Together Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng. Manager, Water/Wastewater Kitchener x1225 From Sent: Thursday, January 28, 20213:52 PM To: Dave Wilhelm Cc: Subject: Re: Hidden Valley MCEA Kitchener Hi Dave We actually don't have an address but we are on the east and west sides of 280 Hidden Valley road. Hope that helps. K Get Outlook for Android From: Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm 2mte85.com> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021, 3:44 p.m. To: Cc: Subject: RE: Hidden Valley MCEA Kitchener Thanks for the call and email Please let me know the street address of your property. Thanks, Dave Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng. I Manager, Water/Wastewater MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x1225 I dwilhelm(a)-mte85.com 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N2B 3X9 www.mte85.com Twitter Linkedln Instagram Facebook COVID-19 Update: We remain operational and are currently available by email and phone, however, our offices are closed. Staff that are required to visit job sites or perform field work are required to follow MTE health and safety policies and procedures, as well as additional COVID-19 protocols, which can be viewed here. 1 Page 848 of 917 Notice: The electronic information provided is confidential and privileged, and may not be used for purposes other than work related to the subject project. Redistribution or copies to others made without written permission from MTE Consultants Inc. is strictly prohibited. MTE assumes no liability or responsibility, and makes no guarantee or warranty with respect to the data contained, either expressed or implied. From Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 20218:08 PM To: Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com> Cc: Subject: Hidden Valley MCEA Kitchener Hi Dave Thank you for returning my call and clarifying some of your project goals and timing. We understand that the city is looking to maximise the density at the north end of Hidden Valley as per the new Master plan (June 2019) The servicing and development of this area will compliment the Regions LRT ridership goals as well as support Fairway road commercial zone with the expanded mixed use opportunities. We all understand the shortage of residential housing in the area as well and having this project brought online as soon as possible will support those servicing requirements. Look forward to your report and progress by the City of Kitchener Best Regards K Property owner Hidden Valley (since 1993) Page 849 of 917 From: Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 5:40 AM To: Dave Wilhelm Cc: Subject: Re: Municipal services in Hidden Valley Thanks, Dave Jake BENJAMINS REALTY INC. Jake Benjamins Broker of Record Mobile: (519) 496-1370 Email: iake(a�beniaminsrealty.com Office: 26 River Valley Dr. Kitchener, N2C 2V6 (side entrance) Bus: (519) 575-9092 Fax: (519) 489-2842 www.BenmaminsRealty.com On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 5:37 PM Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelmgmte8 5. com> wrote: Hi Jake Thanks for your interest in this Study. We will put you on the mailing list and provide updates as the Study proceeds. Regards, Dave Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng. Manager, Water/Wastewater MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x1225 dwilhelma-mte85.com 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N2B 3X9 www.mte85.com Twitter Linkedln Instagram Facebook 1 Page 850 of 917 COVID-19 Update: We remain operational and are currently available by email and phone, however, our offices are closed. Staff that are required to visit job sites or perform field work are required to follow MTE health and safety policies and procedures, as well as additional COVID-19 protocols, which can be viewed here. Notice: The electronic information provided is confidential and privileged, and may not be used for purposes other than work related to the subject project. Redistribution or copies to others made without written permission from MTE Consultants Inc. is strictly prohibited. MTE assumes no liability or responsibility, and makes no guarantee or warranty with respect to the data contained, either expressed or implied. From: Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 202112:20 PM To: Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com> Cc: Subject: Municipal services in Hidden Valley Good morning Dave It was good to connect last week. I've been talking with my neighbour ; she always has a keen interest in everything Hidden Valley. She shared your email address. Please keep me in the loop regarding developments for municipal services in Hidden Valley. Jake BENJAMINS REALTY INC. Broker of Record Mobile Email: Office: 26 River Valley Dr. Kitchener, N2C 2V6 (side entrance) Page 851 of 917 From: Dave Wilhelm Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 9:46 AM To: Asma Naseem Cc: Gemma Charlebois; Zenova E. Gentles Subject: FW: 74 Canters Close For file....Dave Client First I Right Solution Work Together Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng. Manager, Water/Wastewater Kitchener x1225 From: Sent: Friday, January 29, 20214:14 PM To: Dave Wilhelm Subject: RE: 74 Canters Close Thank you Dave, I am good and now understand the process. We are on septic much like the remaining houses in Hidden Valley as there was no sewer servicing when we built the house. As you probably know, the neighbourhood before coming into Hidden Valley does have a pump station and that neighbourhood is serviced by city sewers. I am not sure of their experience, pros/cons and what can go wrong with the pump station and consequences, odours or environmental impact etc.... This is the first house I have lived in where we are on septic but it is working well for us, we service it regularly and we have had no issues since 2006 when we had the house build and moved in. I will wait to see and evaluate the recommendations of the study. Have a great weekend! 1 Page 852 of 917 From: Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com> Sent: January -29-21 2:47 PM To SUUjecL. Mr. i1+�,anLera�,wae Currently we are informing the residents, landowners, government agencies and other affected parties (stakeholders) that a Class EA sanitary servicing study is in progress for the Upper Hidden Valley area. After we compile the initial feedback we receive; consider design issues; and complete studies we will identify a list of sanitary servicing alternatives. At that point we will hold a virtual, pre-recorded meeting to inform the stakeholders of the alternatives that are being considered and request feedback. Based on that feedback and the results of various studies, we will evaluate the alternatives and select the Preferred Alternative which the City can move forward with. The Preferred Alternative will be summarized in a report which will be posted for public review. There will be an appeal process available at that time. Pending no appeals, the City will implement the Preferred Alternative. We have your name on the mailing list so we will notify you via email of the timing for the virtual, online meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or have anything you'd like us to consider at this time. Thanks again for your interest in the study.... Dave Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng. I Manager, Water/Wastewater MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x1225 I dwilhelma_mte85.com From: Sent: Thursday, January 28, 20215:49 PM To: Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com> Subject: RE: 74 Canters Close Thank you Dave, I did receive your letter and I am not sure as to what the next steps would be in your study or what input/questions you would have of the residents. Thanks Page 853 of 917 From: Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com> Sent: January -28-21 4:25 PM To: Subject: RE: 74 Canters Close Thank you for your interest in this study Mike. Dave Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng. I Manager, WaterMastewater MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x1225 I dwilhelm(a)-mte85.com 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N2B 3X9 www.mte85.com Twitter Linkedln Instagram Facebook COVID-19 Update: We remain operational and are currently available by email and phone, however, our offices are closed. Staff that are required to visit job sites or perform field work are required to follow MTE health and safety policies and procedures, as well as additional COVID-19 protocols, which can be viewed here. Notice: The electronic information provided is confidential and privileged, and may not be used for purposes other than work related to the subject project. Redistribution or copies to others made without written permission from MTE Consultants Inc. is strictly prohibited. MTE assumes no liability or responsibility, and makes no guarantee or warranty with respect to the data contained, either expressed or implied. From: Sent: Thursday, January 28, 20214:15 PM To: Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com> Subject: 74 Canters Close Our address is above and the best way to reach me is email or my mobile number below. Thank you Page 854 of 917 From: Dave Wilhelm Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:50 PM To: Cc: Gemma Charlebois; Zenova E. Gentles Subject: FW: Hidden Valley Study Updates For file....Thanks Client First I Right Solution Work Together Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng. Manager, Water/Wastewater Kitchener x1225 From: Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 20213:55 PM To ;; Dave Wilhelm Subject: Hidden Valley Study Updates Good Afternoon, Please add both our email address (' is cc' d on this email) to your contact list for the Hidden Valley water/wastewater study updates. We reside at 2036 Hidden Valley Crescent. Thank you, Page 855 of 917 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: For file....Thanks Dave Wilhelm Wednesday, January 27, 2021 4:47 PM Gemma Charlebois; Zenova E. Gentles FW: Hidden Valley pump station study Client First I Right Solution I Work Together Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng. Manager, Water/Wastewater Kitchener x1225 -----Original Message ----- From: Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 20213:42 PM To: Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com> Subject: Hidden Valley pump station study > Good afternoon Dave - thank you so much for returning my call and answering my questions. I would greatly appreciate it if you could please add me to the email list with updates on the study. > Thanks so much, > 50 River Valley Drive > Kitchener 1 Page 856 of 917 From: Dave Wilhelm Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 12:39 PM To: i Cc: Zenova E. Gentles; Gemma Charlebois Subject: FW: Hidden Valley Road EA Study & Sanitary Pump/services Study Attachments: HiddenValleySewerStudyProposal 2.pdf For file....Dave Client First I Right Solution Work Together Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng. Manager, Water/Wastewater Kitchener x1225 From: Sent: Thursday, February 4, 202112:33 PM To: Dave Wilhelm Cc: Katie.wood@kitchener.ca Subject: Hidden Valley Road EA Study & Sanitary Pump/services Study Hello Dave and Katie, My family owns 681 and 691 Hidden Valley Road and we are third generation Hidden Valley Road residents. We received your letter from January 6th and are interested speaking with you to discuss the study you have proposed, its scope and anticipated completion date. We currently have the 681 Hidden Valley Road property listed for sale and have done some schematic planning and development studies with MHBC to determine an estimated property value and prepare some options for future lot development using a Condo Plan format with a narrow internal cul-de-sac and 5-6 one acre lots. This plan is preliminary, and we do not intend to prepare any severances or development plans on our own. We anticipate that a Developer will purchase the land in the near future and process the necessary plans and studies through the City and Regional agencies. We worked extensively with Brandon Sloan at the City in our initial pre -meetings and City feedback sessions, and he felt confident that our proposal was something that City Planning could work with as a concept for development. Our current understanding is that each lot could have its own septic and potential for a well or City water services given the Estate Residential zoning and proposed minimum one acre lot size. We understand that since our property is identified on the Masterplan for'Hidden Valley Heritage Corridor', there is currently no plan to widen the street and bring City services to our property, and as such, wells and septic are our only current option. We are excited to learn that the City is preparing these servicing studies, and expect that the City will include plans to bring services to our property, or allow septic and wells as part of the current study. Please let us know if we can set up a phone call or zoom meeting. And we would like to be included in all future correspondence regarding the studies. Page 857 of 917 Our family has seen all the development in our Hidden Valley community over the last 30 years, and have supported the thoughtful estate residential planning. We are looking forward to working with the City to coordinate services to our parcel and the potential to sell our property for development using similar standards as have already been approved by the City and Region for other parcels in the Hidden Valley Community. We look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Page 858 of 917 From: Dave Wilhelm Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:41 AM To: Gemma Charlebois Cc: ; Zenova E. Gentles Subject: FW: MTE File No. C48301-100 For file....Thanks Client First I Right Solution Work Together Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng. Manager, Water/Wastewater Kitchener x1225 From: Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 20215:44 PM To: Dave Wilhelm Cc: katie.wood@kitchener.ca Subject: Re: MTE File No. C48301-100 Hi Dave, I am a resident of 86 Canters Close Kitchener. On Tue., Jan. 26, 2021, 5:41 p.m. Dave Wilhelm, <dwilhelmgmte85.com> wrote: Thanks for your email ! It's important that we receive feedback like this. Do you mind providing your house address so we can keep track of your request? Thanks again, Dave Dave Wilhelm, P.Eng. I Manager, Water/Wastewater MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x1225 dwilhelma-mte85.com 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N213 3X9 www.mte85.com Twitter Linkedln Instagram Facebook COVID-19 Update: We remain operational and are currently available by email and phone, however, our offices are closed. Staff that are required to visit job sites or perform field work are required to follow MTE health and safety policies and procedures, as well as additional COVID-19 protocols, which can be viewed here. Notice: The electronic information provided is confidential and privileged, and may not be used for purposes other than work related to the subject project. Redistribution or copies to others made without written permission from MTE Consultants Inc. is strictly prohibited. MTE assumes no liability or responsibility, and makes no guarantee or warranty with respect to the data contained, either expressed or implied. Page 859 of 917 From: Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 20213:17 PM To: Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com> Cc: katie.wood@kitchener.ca Subject: Re: MTE File No. C48301-100 Hi Dave, My name is and received a letter couple of weeks ago regards to Hidden valley Sanitary Pumping station study (refer to subject file number). I am a resident of Hidden Valley neighborhood and very excited to hear that city of Kitchener is undertaking this study to include all the houses in the Hidden Valley area and connect to city wastewater & sewer system and hence eliminating the need for septic tank for each individual house. I am looking forward to having my house connected to the city wastewater/sewer systems. Please keep me included in the communication process and if you can share some timelines that would be much appreciated. thanks, Page 860 of 917 0 cn k E S 0 •v Fl �5 L �i c 0 J i e u 0000ao®c�0 rlI LeiVA Laura Anderson From: Katie Wood Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 8:53 AM To: Laura Anderson Subject: Hidden Valley EA - Contact info Attachments: CON FIDENTIAL_HV_draft_landuse_parcelIDs.pdf Hey Laura, Could you help me get mailing addresses for the residents/property owners within the boundary of our EA study area? I have attached a map for reference. Let me know how I can help. Sincerely, 'Xatie Wood,, C.E.T. Project Manager) Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7135 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.wood@kitchener.ca Page 863 of 917 From: monica.maika@araheritage.ca Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 9:26 AM To: 'Maxime Picard' Cc: Asma Naseem; Zenova E. Gentles; Gemma Charlebois; 'Victoria' Subject: RE: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Good morning Maxime, Hope you are doing well in this New Year. ARA has been contracted to complete a Stage 1 archaeological assessment as part of the project. We received project mapping this week, and will be sending and invitation to participate to the HWN. No fieldwork will occur until ground conditions meet MHSTCI standards, so we are likely a couple months away from any site visits that will occur. We will provide more information regarding the archaeology as soon as we are able. Thank you for your interest in the archaeological portion of the project and we look forward to working with you again. Regards, Monica From: Maxime Picard Sent: January 7, 20219:14 AM To: monica.maika@araheritage.ca Cc: Asma Naseem ; Zenova E. Gentles; Gemma Charlebois Subject: RE: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Good morning Monica, Can you please let us know where you at with the archaeological studies of this project ? Thanks and best regards, Maxime Page 864 of 917 From: Gemma Charlebois Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 8:56 AM To: 'Maxime Picard' Cc: monica.maika@araheritage.ca; Asma Naseem; Zenova E. Gentles Subject: RE: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Maxime, Archeological studies are planned as part of the EA. Monica Maika with ARA (cc'd) is the archeologist for this project. Please direct any questions to her and cc MTE. Thanks. Gemma Client First Right Solution Work Together Gemma Charlebois, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Design Engineer Kitchener x1227 From: Maxime Picard Sent: January 7, 20218:16 AM To: Zenova E. Gentles ; cfosterpengelly@grandriver.ca; Planning@Grandriver.ca; Mark. La Forme@mncfn.ca; Fawn.Sault@mncfn.ca; Megan. DeVries@mncfn.ca; tanyahill-montour@sixnations.ca; dlaforme@sixnations.ca; Ion nybomberry@sixnations.ca; tworowarchaeology@gmail.com; williams.todde@gmail.com; Rob.Dobos@ec.gc.ca; SAROntario@ontario.ca; amy.shaw@ontario.ca; SAROntario@ontario.ca; lee.orphan@ontario.ca; Crystal.Lafrance@ontario.ca; eanotification.swregion@ontario.ca; tammy.verhaeghe@ontario.ca; ian.thornton@ontario.ca; jennifer.harvard@ontario.ca; MNRF.Ayl.Planners@ontario.ca; katie.wood@kitchener.ca; Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca; Lau ra.anderson@kitchener.ca; Admin@kitchener.ca; john.gazzola@kitchener.ca; shevaughne.wynter@hydroone.com; moneil@regionofwaterloo.ca; mkroker@regionofwaterloo.ca; Jlane@regionofwaterloo.ca; Jennifer_ Benedict@cpr.ca; jack_carello@cpr.ca Cc: Gemma Charlebois; Dave Wilhelm ; katie.wood@kitchener.ca Subject: RE: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Good morning Zenova, This is to acknowledge reception of you email and notice on the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA. Could you please clarify if any archaeological studies are anticipated as part of this EA process ? Thanks and best regards, Maxime Picard Page 865 of 917 NATION HURONNE-WENDAT Bureau du Nion er,Wo Maxime Ricard, B. Sc. A. Coordonnateur de profets - Ontario 255, Plato Chef Michel-Laveau ft a , W@ndakB 10c) GOA 4VO 7616phone : 4 19443 -3767 R 21105 !fie ver -vacs vraiment im,primer ce rourr Courrirl najume.pica rd cnh .q-c.ca Pensions 0ienwrcinnement Oo ypu rrtc Ily nee*l'to prig ;his irm*V rhook ro the enywarlment Avis #ur la protection at la confldoint laliti des Inforrnathofts L'i n forma tion contenue dare: to courriel tst confodenti*1Ie et: proti;S+ie to vertu des lois trt riglements applicabil es. San con ton u e ri--er+ve au{x$ destinatai;re(sl a qui; aI est adressk. it est donc interdit de le diffuser ou d'en dev011er ies intention& Si Yous raece+vez c message part et e.ur, veutrllez It d4truore et nous on faire part dans lex plus tu*fs dilais. Warning on protection and confidentiality of information The information contained in this a-rnaGl is confidential and Protected in accordance with the sPPncablelawsandretula,tions. Its content is intended spe€rfically for the recipient{s} to whom it as addressed.. It 6 therefare prohibited to d{sinbute or to disclose t ccn;en* if you receive this communication by error. please destrov it and notdV us as soon as possibte. De: Zenova E. Gentles [mailto:ZGentles@mte85.com] Envoye : 6 janvier 202116:52 A : 'cfosterpengelly@grandriver. ca' <cfosterpengelly@grandriver. ca>; 'Planning@Grandriver.ca' <Planning@Grandriver.ca>; 'Mark. La Forme@mncfn.ca' <Mark.LaForme@mncfn.ca>; 'Fawn.SauIt@mncfn.ca' <Fawn.Sault@mncfn.ca>; 'Megan.DeVries@mncfn.ca' <Megan.DeVries@mncfn.ca>; 'tanyahill-montour@sixnations.ca' <tanyahill-montour@sixnations.ca>; 'dlaforme@sixnations.ca' <dlaforme@sixnations.ca>; 'Ion nybomberry@sixnations.ca' <Ionnybomberry@sixnations. ca>; 'two rowarchaeology@gmail.com' <tworowarchaeology@gmail.com>; 'will iams.todde@gmail.com' <williams.todde@gmail.com>; 'maxime.picard@cnhw.gc.ca' <maxime.picard@cnhw.gc.ca>; 'Rob.Dobos@ec.gc.ca' <Rob.Dobos@ec.gc.ca>; 'SAROntario@ontario.ca' <SAROntario@ontario.ca>; 'amy.shaw@ontario.ca' <amy.shaw@ontario.ca>; 'SAROntario@ontario.ca' <SAROntario@ontario.ca>; 'lee.orphan@ontario.ca' <lee.orphan@ontario.ca>; 'Crystal. Lafrance@ontario.ca' <Crystal.Lafrance@ontario.ca>; 'eanotification.swregion@ontario.ca' <eanotification.swregion@ontario.ca>; 'tam my.verhaeghe@ontario.ca' <tammy.verhaeghe@ontario.ca>; 'ian.thornton@ontario.ca' <ian.thornton@ontario.ca>; 'jennifer.harvard@ontario.ca' <iennifer.harvard@ontario.ca>; 'MNRF.Ayl.Planners@ontario.ca' <MNRF.AyI.Planners@ontario.ca>; 'katie.wood@kitchener.ca' <katie.wood@kitchener.ca>; 'Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca' <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; 'Lau ra.anderson@kitchener.ca' <Laura.anderson@kitchener.ca>; 'Admin@kitchener.ca' <Admin@kitchener.ca>; 'john.gazzola@kitchener.ca' <iohn.gazzola@kitchener.ca>;'shevaughne.wynter@hydroone.com' <shevaughne.wvnter@hvdroone.com>; 'moneil@regionofwaterloo.ca' <moneil@regionofwaterloo.ca>; 'mkroker@regionofwaterloo.ca' <mkroker@regionofwaterloo.ca>; 'Jlane@regionofwaterloo.ca' <Jlane@regionofwaterloo.ca>; 'Jennifer_13enedict@cpr.ca' <Jennifer Benedict@cpr.ca>; 'jack_carello@cpr.ca' <iack carello@cpr.ca> Cc: Gemma Charlebois <GCharlebois@mte85.com>; Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com>; 'katie.wood@kitchener.ca' <katie.wood@kitchener.ca> Objet : 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Good afternoon: Page 866 of 917 Please find attached a digital copy of Notice of Commencement informing you of the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Class EA. This study is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, as a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. All notices related to this project can be found on the City of Kitchener's website at the following link: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/city-services/environmental-assessments.aspx The purpose of the current study is to define a sanitary servicing solution that will support responsible development in the Hidden Valley area, as outlined in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan (June 2019). The servicing solution will include identifying a sanitary pumping station location and forcemain alignment. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this study should you wish to do so. Please feel free to call or email me using the contact details below should you require additional information. We look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Zenova Gentles, B.Sc Administrative Assistant MTE Consultants Inc. T:519 -743-6500x1359 ZGentles(a)mte85.com 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N2B 3X9 www.mte85.com Twitter Linkedln Instagram Facebook COVID-19 Update: We remain operational and are currently available by email and phone, however, our offices are closed. Staff that are required to visit job sites or perform field work are required to follow MTE health and safety policies and procedures, as well as additional COVID-19 protocols, which can be viewed here. Notice: The electronic information provided is confidential and privileged, and may not be used for purposes other than work related to the subject project. Redistribution or copies to others made without written permission from MTE Consultants Inc. is strictly prohibited. MTE assumes no liability or responsibility, and makes no guarantee or warranty with respect to the data contained, either expressed or implied. Page 867 of 917 NATION HURONNE-WENDAT Bureau du Nion er,Wo Maxime Ricard, B. Sc. A. Coordonnateur de profets - Ontario 255, Plato Chef Michel-Laveau ft a , W@ndakB 10c) GOA 4VO 7616phone : 419-843.3767 R 21105 !fie ver -vacs vraiment im,primer ce rourr Courrirl najume.pica rd cnh .q-c.ca Pensions 0!'enwrcinnement Oo ypu rrtc Ily nee*l'to prig ;his irm*V rhook ro the enywarlment Avis #ur la protection at la confldoint laliti des Inforrnathofts L'i n forma tion contenue dare: to courriel tst canfodent+ellr et: proti;S+ie to vertu des lois trt riglements applicabil es. San con ton u e ri--er+ve au{x$ destinatai;re(sl a quc aI est adressk. it est donc interdit de le diffuser ou d'en dev011er ies intention& Si Yous raece+vez c message part et e.ur, veutrllez It d4truore et nous on faire part dans lex plus tu*fs dilais. Warning on protection and confidentiality of information The information contained in this a-rnaGl is confidential and Protected in accordance with the sPPncablelawsandretula,tions. Its content is intended spe€rfically for the recipient{s} to whom it as addressed.. It 6 therefore prohibited to d{sinbute or to disclose t ccn;en* if you receive this communication by error, please destrov it and notdV us as soon as possibte. De: Gemma Charlebois [mailto:GCharlebois@mte85.com] Envoye : 7 janvier 202108:56 A :'Maxime Picard' <maxime.Picard @cnhw.gc.ca> Cc : monica.maika@araheritage.ca; Asma Naseem <ANaseem@mte85.com>; Zenova E. Gentles <ZGentles@mte85.com> Objet : RE: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Maxime, Archeological studies are planned as part of the EA. Monica Maika with ARA (cc'd) is the archeologist for this project. Please direct any questions to her and cc MTE. Thanks. Gemma Gemma Charlebois, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. I Design Engineer MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x1227 GCharlebois(cr�,mte85.com From: Maxime Picard <maxime.Picard @cnhw.gc.ca> Sent: January 7, 20218:16 AM To: Zenova E. Gentles <ZGentles@mte85.com>; cfosterpengelly@grand river. ca; Planning@Grandriver.ca; Mark. La Forme@mncfn.ca; Fawn.Sault@mncfn.ca; Megan.DeVries@mncfn.ca; tanyahill-montour@sixnations.ca; dlaforme@sixnations.ca; Ion nybomberry@sixnations.ca- tworowarchaeologv@gmail.com; williams.todde@gmail.com; Rob.Dobos@ec.gc.ca; SAROntario@ontario.ca; amy.shaw@ontario.ca; SAROntario@ontario.ca; lee.orphan@ontario.ca; Crystal. Lafrance@ontario.ca; eanotification.swregion@ontario.ca; tammy.verhaeghe@ontaria,. a ian.thornton@ontario.ca; iennifer.harvard@ontario.ca; MNRF.Ayl.Planners@ontario.ca; katie.wood@kitchener.ca; Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca; Lau ra.anderson@kitchener.ca; Admin@kitchener.ca; iohn.gazzola@kitchener.ca; shevaughne.wvnter@hvdroone.com; moneil@regionofwaterloo.ca; mkroker@regionofwaterloo.ca,- Page 868 of 917 Jlane@regionofwaterloo.ca; Jennifer Benedict@cpr.ca; lack carello@cpr.ca Cc: Gemma Charlebois <GCharlebois@mte85.com>; Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com>; katie.wood@kitchener.ca Subject: RE: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Good morning Zenova, This is to acknowledge reception of you email and notice on the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA. Could you please clarify if any archaeological studies are anticipated as part of this EA process ? Thanks and best regards, Maxime Picard NATION HURONNE-WENDAT I Bureau du Nion e t io Maxime Picard, S. Sc. A. oCoordonnateur ode projets - Ontario 255, Place Chef Michel•Laveau +V orWake (Qc) GOA 4VO t TilipF o : d 19443.3767 oe 21105 Courriael : maxarne,picao crihw. c.ca pi#urt+t'vo a vroi .ret imbrimer Cie courr rn 6 x envievnnr rrient Do you rW1i''++owd ro print;hP5 ewtod? Auis Jur la protect lon at la confldentI&I10 cllas Informaotlions L"Inforrmation contenue dans to courrie# est confidentiel I t et protiSie on veru des Goes yet ri grements applicabits. Son can ten u e reserve aujx� destinateiire(s) a quL A est adresse, IC est done interdit de le diffuser ou d"en devoiler les intentions. Sr vous recever c message pear erneur. veuillex It d+etruire tt neus era faire part dans les plus beefs delais. Warning on protirs6on and confideritiaiitV of information The information contair*d in this e-mail is confidential and protected Iii accordance with the apphca blo [awsand itgulationl.. Its cont4ant is intended specifically for the recipient(s) to whore it as addressed_ It as Iher 0ore prohibited to distnbut* or todisclose t content. If you receive this communicatdon by sfrar, please destroy it and notify u: as soon as possibre. De : Zenova E. Gentles [mailto:ZGentles@mte85.com] Envoye : 6 janvier 202116:52 A : 'cfosterpengelly@grandriver. ca' <cfosterpengelly@grandriver. ca>; 'Planning@Grandriver.ca' <Planning@Grandriver.ca>; 'Mark. La Forme@mncfn.ca' <Mark.LaForme@mncfn.ca>; 'Fawn.SauIt@mncfn.ca' <Fawn.Sault@mncfn.ca>; 'Megan.DeVries@mncfn.ca' <Megan.DeVries@mncfn.ca>; 'tanyahill-montour@sixnations.ca' <tanyahill-montour@sixnations.ca>; 'dlaforme@sixnations.ca' <dlaforme@sixnations.ca>; 'Ion nybomberry@sixnations.ca' <Ionnybomberry@sixnations. ca>; 'two rowarchaeology@gmail.com' <tworowarchaeology@gmail.com>; 'will iams.todde@gmail.com' <williams.todde@gmail.com>; 'maxime.picard@cnhw.gc.ca' <maxime.picard@cnhw.gc.ca>; 'Rob.Dobos@ec.gc.ca' <Rob.Dobos@ec.gc.ca>; 'SAROntario@ontario.ca' <SAROntario@ontario.ca>; 'amy.shaw@ontario.ca' <amy.shaw@ontario.ca>; Page 869 of 917 'SAROntario@ontario.ca' <SAROntario@ontario.ca>; 'lee.orphan@ontario.ca' <lee.orphan@ontario.ca>; 'Crystal.Lafrance@ontario.ca' <Crystal.Lafrance@ontario.ca>; 'eanotification.swregion@ontario.ca' <eanotification.swregion@ontario.ca>; 'tammy.verhaeghe@ontario.ca' <tammy.verhaeghe@ontario.ca>; 'ian.thornton@ontario.ca' <ian.thornton@ontario.ca>; 'jennifer.harvard@ontario.ca' <iennifer.harvard@ontario.ca>; 'MNRF.Ayl.Planners@ontario.ca' <MNRF.Ayl.Planners@ontario.ca>;'katie.wood@kitchener.ca' <katie.wood@kitchener.ca>; 'Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca' < Linda. Cooper@kitchener.ca>; 'Lau ra.anderson@kitchener.ca' <Laura.anderson@kitchener.ca>; 'Admin@kitchener.ca' <Admin@kitchener.ca>; 'john.gazzola@kitchener.ca' <iohn.gazzola@kitchener.ca>; 'shevaughne.wynter@hydroone.com' <shevaughne.wynter@hydroone.com>; 'moneil@regionofwaterloo.ca' <moneil@regionofwaterloo.ca>; 'mkroker@regionofwaterloo.ca' <mkroker@regionofwaterloo.ca>; 'Jlane@regionofwaterloo.ca' <Jlane@regionofwaterloo.ca>; 'Jennifer_Benedict@cpr.ca' <Jennifer Benedict@cpr.ca>; 'jack_carello@cpr.ca' <iack carello@cpr.ca> Cc: Gemma Charlebois <GCharlebois@mte85.com>; Dave Wilhelm <dwilhelm@mte85.com>; 'katie.wood@kitchener.ca' <katie.wood@kitchener.ca> Objet : 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Good afternoon: Please find attached a digital copy of Notice of Commencement informing you of the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Class EA. This study is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, as a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. All notices related to this project can be found on the City of Kitchener's website at the following link: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/city-services/environmental-assessments.aspx The purpose of the current study is to define a sanitary servicing solution that will support responsible development in the Hidden Valley area, as outlined in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan (June 2019). The servicing solution will include identifying a sanitary pumping station location and forcemain alignment. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this study should you wish to do so. Please feel free to call or email me using the contact details below should you require additional information. We look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Zenova Gentles, B.Sc I Administrative Assistant MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x1359 I ZGentles(a�mte85.com 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N213 3X9 www.mte85.com I Twitter I LinkedIn I Instagram I Facebook COVID-19 Update: We remain operational and are currently available by email and phone, however, our offices are closed. Staff that are required to visit job sites or perform field work are required to follow MTE health and safety policies and procedures, as well as additional COVID-19 protocols, which can be viewed here. Notice: The electronic information provided is confidential and privileged, and may not be used for purposes other than work related to the subject project. Redistribution or copies to others made without written permission from MTE Consultants Inc. is strictly prohibited. MTE assumes no liability or responsibility, and makes no guarantee or warranty with respect to the data contained, either expressed or implied. Page 870 of 917 From: Maxime Picard <maxi me.picard @cnhw.gc.ca> Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 8:16 AM To: Zenova E. Gentles; cfosterpengelly@g randriver.ca; Planning@Grandriver.ca; Mark.LaForme@mncfn.ca; Fawn.Sault@mncfn.ca; Megan.DeVries@mncfn.ca; tanyahill- montour@sixnations.ca; dlaforme@sixnations.ca; lonnybomberry@sixnations.ca; tworowarchaeology@gmail.com; williams.todde@gmail.com; Rob.Dobos@ec.gc.ca; SAROntario@ontario.ca; amy.shaw@ontario.ca; SAROntario@ontario.ca; lee.orphan@ontario.ca; Crystal.Lafrance@ontario.ca; eanotification.swregion@ontario.ca; tam my.verhaeg he@onta rio.ca; ian.thornton@ontario.ca;jennifer.harvard@ontario.ca; MNRF.Ayl.Planners@ontario.ca; katie.wood@kitchener.ca; Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca; Lau ra.anderson@kitchener.ca; Admin@kitchener.ca;john.gazzola@kitchener.ca; shevaughne.wynter@hydroone.com; moneil@regionofwaterloo.ca; mkroker@regionofwaterloo.ca; Jlane@regionofwaterloo.ca; Jennifer_Benedict@cpr.ca;jack_carello@cpr.ca Cc: Gemma Charlebois; Dave Wilhelm; katie.wood@kitchener.ca Subject: RE: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Good morning Zenova, This is to acknowledge reception of you email and notice on the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA. Could you please clarify if any archaeological studies are anticipated as part of this EA process ? Thanks and best regards, Maxime Picard Page 871 of 917 NATION HURONNE-WENDAT Bureau du Nion er,Wo Maxime Ricard, B. Sc. A. Coordonnateur de profets - Ontario 255, Plato Chef Michel-Laveau ft a , W@ndakB 10c) GOA 4VO 7616phone : 4 19443 -3767 R 21105 !fie ver -vacs vraiment im,primer ce rourr Courrirl najume.pica rd cnh .q-c.ca Pensions 0!'enwrcinnement Oo ypu rrtc Ily nee*l'to prig ;his irm*V rhook rrr the enywarlment Avis #ur la protection at la confldoint laliti des Inforrnathofts L'i n forma tion contenue dare: to courriel tst confodenti*1Ie et: proti;S+ie to vertu des lois trt riglements applicabil es. San con ton u e ri--er+ve au{x$ destinatai;re(sl a quc aI est adressk. it est donc interdit de le diffuser ou d'en dev011er ies intention& Si Yous raece+vez c message part et e.ur, veutrllez It d4truore et nous on faire part dans lex plus tu*fs dilais. Warning on protection and confidentiality of information The information contained in this a-rnaGl is confidential and Protected in accordance with the sPPncablelawsandretula,tions. Its content is intended spe€rfically for the recipient{s} to whom it as addressed.. It 6 therefare prohibited to d{sinbute or to disclose t ccn;en* if you receive this communication by error, please destrayr.t and notdV us as soon as possibte. De: Zenova E. Gentles [mailto:ZGentles@mte85.com] Envoye : 6 janvier 202116:52 A : 'cfosterpengelly@grandriver. ca' ; 'Planning@Grandriver.ca' ; 'Mark.LaForme@mncfn.ca' ; 'Fawn.Sault@mncfn.ca' ; 'Megan.DeVries@mncfn.ca' ;'tanyahill-montour@sixnations.ca' ; 'dlaforme@sixnations.ca' ; 'Ion nybomberry@sixnations.ca' ; 'tworowarchaeology@gmai1.com' ; 'will iams.todde@gmail.com' ; 'maxime.picard@cnhw.gc.ca' ; 'Rob.Dobos@ec.gc.ca' ; 'SAROntario@ontario.ca' ; 'amy.shaw@ontario.ca' ; 'SAROntario@ontario.ca' ; 'lee.orphan@ontario.ca' ; 'Crystal.Lafrance@ontario.ca' ; 'ea notification.swregion@ontario.ca' ; 'tammy.verhaeghe@ontario.ca' ; 'ian.thornton@ontario.ca' ; 'jennifer.harvard@ontario.ca' ; 'MNRF.Ayl.Planners@ontario.ca' ; 'katie.wood@kitchener.ca' ; 'Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca' ; 'Lau ra.anderson@kitchener.ca' ; 'Admin@kitchener.ca' ; 'john.gazzola@kitchener.ca' ; 'shevaughne.wynter@hydroone.com' ; 'moneil@regionofwaterloo.ca' ; 'mkroker@region ofwaterloo.ca' ; 'Jlane@regionofwaterloo.ca' ; 'Jennifer_ Benedict@cpr.ca' ; 'jack_carello@cpr.ca' Cc : Gemma Charlebois ; Dave Wilhelm ; 'katie.wood@kitchener.ca' Objet : 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Good afternoon: Please find attached a digital copy of Notice of Commencement informing you of the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Class EA. This study is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, as a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. All notices related to this project can be found on the City of Kitchener's website at the following link: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/city-services/environmental-assessments.aspx The purpose of the current study is to define a sanitary servicing solution that will support responsible development in the Hidden Valley area, as outlined in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan (June 2019). The servicing solution will include identifying a sanitary pumping station location and forcemain alignment. 2 Page 872 of 917 We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this study should you wish to do so. Please feel free to call or email me using the contact details below should you require additional information. We look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Zenova Gentles, B.Sc I Administrative Assistant MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x1359 I ZGentlesgmte85.com 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N213 3X9 www.mte85.com I Twitter I LinkedIn I Instagram I Facebook COVID-19 Update: We remain operational and are currently available by email and phone, however, our offices are closed. Staff that are required to visit job sites or perform field work are required to follow MTE health and safety policies and procedures, as well as additional COVID-19 protocols, which can be viewed here. Notice: The electronic information provided is confidential and privileged, and may not be used for purposes other than work related to the subject project. Redistribution or copies to others made without written permission from MTE Consultants Inc. is strictly prohibited. MTE assumes no liability or responsibility, and makes no guarantee or warranty with respect to the data contained, either expressed or implied. Page 873 of 917 From: Tanya Hill-Montour <tanyahill-montour@sixnations.ca> Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 9:05 AM To: Zenova E. Gentles; 'cfosterpengelly@grandriver.ca'; 'Planning@Grandriver.ca'; Dawn LaForme; Lonny Bomberry; 'SAROntario@ontario.ca'; 'amy.shaw@ontario.ca'; 'SAROntario@ontario.ca'; 'lee.orphan@ontario.ca'; 'Crystal.Lafrance@ontario.ca'; 'eanotification.swregion@ontario.ca'; 'tammy.verhaeghe@ontario.ca'; Robin Linn; 'ian.thornton@ontario.ca'; 'jennifer.harvard@ontario.ca'; 'MNRF.Ayl.Planners@ontario.ca'; 'katie.wood@kitchener.ca'; 'Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca'; 'Lau ra.anderson@kitchener.ca'; 'Admin@kitchener.ca'; john.gazzola@kitchener.ca'; 'shevaughne.wynter@hydroone.com'; 'moneil@regionofwaterloo.ca'; 'mkroker@regionofwaterloo.ca'; 'Jlane@regionofwaterloo.ca'; 'Jennifer_Benedict@cpr.ca'; 'jack_carello@cpr.ca' Cc: Gemma Charlebois; Dave Wilhelm; 'katie.wood@kitchener.ca' Subject: RE: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Good morning Zenova, Acknowledging that I have received this email. I have forwarded the notification email to our Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council Consultation and Accommodation (CAP) team to set up a introduction meeting and discussion of the project. Kind Regards, Tanya Hill -Montour BA (Hons) Archaeology Supervisor Six Nations Lands & Resources (519) 753-0665 From: Zenova E. Gentles [mailto:ZGentles@mte85.com] Sent: January 6, 20214:52 PM To: 'cfosterpengelly@grandriver.ca' ; 'Planning@Grandriver.ca' ; 'Mark. La Forme@mncfn.ca' ; 'Fawn.Sault@mncfn.ca' ; 'Megan.DeVries@mncfn.ca' ; Tanya Hill -Montour; Dawn LaForme ; Lonny Bomberry; 'two rowarchaeology@gmail.com' ; 'williams.todde@gmail.com' ; 'maxime.picard@cnhw.qc.ca' ; 'Rob.Dobos@ec.gc.ca' ; 'SAROntario@ontario.ca' ; 'amy.shaw@ontario.ca' ; 'SAROntario@ontario.ca' ; 'lee.orphan@ontario.ca' ; 'Crystal.Lafrance@ontario.ca' ; 'ea notification.swregion@ontario.ca' ; 'tammy.verhaeghe@ontario.ca' ; 'ian.thornton@ontario.ca' ; 'jennifer.harvard@ontario.ca' ; 'MNRF.Ayl.Planners@ontario.ca' ; 'katie.wood@kitchener.ca' ; 'Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca' ; 'Lau ra.anderson@kitchener.ca' ; 'Admin@kitchener.ca' ; 'john.gazzola@kitchener.ca' ; 'shevaughne.wynter@hydroone.com' ; 'moneil@regionofwaterloo.ca' ; 'mkroker@regionofwaterloo.ca' ; 'Jlane@regionofwaterloo.ca' ; 'Jennifer_ Benedict@cpr.ca' ; 'jack_carello@cpr.ca' Cc: Gemma Charlebois ; Dave Wilhelm ; 'katie.wood@kitchener.ca' Subject: 48301-100 Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Environmental Class EA Good afternoon: Please find attached a digital copy of Notice of Commencement informing you of the Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pumping Station and Forcemain Class EA. 1 Page 874 of 917 This study is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, as a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. All notices related to this project can be found on the City of Kitchener's website at the following link: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/city-services/environmental-assessments.aspx The purpose of the current study is to define a sanitary servicing solution that will support responsible development in the Hidden Valley area, as outlined in the Hidden Valley Land Use Master Plan (June 2019). The servicing solution will include identifying a sanitary pumping station location and forcemain alignment. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this study should you wish to do so. Please feel free to call or email me using the contact details below should you require additional information. We look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Zenova Gentles, B.Sc I Administrative Assistant MTE Consultants Inc. T: 519-743-6500 x1359 I ZGentles(a�,mte85.com 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N213 3X9 www.mte85.com I Twitter I LinkedIn I Instagram I Facebook COVID-19 Update: We remain operational and are currently available by email and phone, however, our offices are closed. Staff that are required to visit job sites or perform field work are required to follow MTE health and safety policies and procedures, as well as additional COVID-19 protocols, which can be viewed here. Notice: The electronic information provided is confidential and privileged, and may not be used for purposes other than work related to the subject project. Redistribution or copies to others made without written permission from MTE Consultants Inc. is strictly prohibited. MTE assumes no liability or responsibility, and makes no guarantee or warranty with respect to the data contained, either expressed or implied. Page 875 of 917 Appendix G Proposed Alternatives Evaluation 01"MTE Page 876 of 917 R C C af �O Y .2o 0 n C fa O O R U C R N N m R C O C O N' E 0 yY N N O O m _ o O O)R a) Q >-O CL (n — r U �Uz 0) U N `O N N Q >— a) R W E E N i) N > y,• O N aJ R -T)> m 3 C R N R a) t O 2 O C) N V O f6 Oi C R 7 O .O N U, U E`-5oaRi0 E N .i0 n = U N Q Qoa C N fa C w" t C .� ; :? c IL � ac'i.s�� z 3t ca z 0 3 w Ew � �'-C �m a° U) o m C Q R U m M r O t 0 O N ) C y, m .N O O C a) _ -0 M ca d Q 3 -Co 0)m a)'�N -U 7R� OU U N iN` T5 R RNw R 30 j Q O C pr +-' 0- 0 O C N R .� OC7U O C R O a) R a) m O N C N m 0 R •U O t-6 yiUU C a) 0 R p —'- y0 � 'a) 'Lr-- O'C (6-C cl N O a o Z o U E ,)-2 O v N O O t>> a) � � O U) Ez O �.- E J a) 2.g) R .0 E c �af a) N 0)Q E E o r J N d' >.0 H> > 2d LL O d' R V) -C >i Q-'= fn LLQ R j>,c m m Y_ N N C m d N C c }S c E y m d N N E ._ co N'� U Q t CL VI �.R U 3 y O O U> �j Nm O4= R R N w O R� y6 3 O C N a J CUU N R i m - O N > CU R t a) N N U m C R m 0.N IL E rn-2.2 00 0 0 0-C o y 0 o c 2 o E R'Ez o f rnR.E E C �af a) o mQ E E or- af >.SH�O �= R � o R'at 3 �-9 2U) Lr R �C m g .2 a a) ui N C5 C N'2 E U N N V p O Q -o O W O U O i-� CL fn — 0 U lO C t O moH'E y0 N LO UwtL N E ui E y0 N -0 m 0 mm E� .2 E N C) az O .`g.a0 EJ m 'o o m O N aC.2 C- ° E 0 o 2 ca a05 c m C E — 7 E -2-0 y U N E co r ' C C U -C -E 7 af -E a >.9tU mri z 3 mea z° L) U) 3 EvQi �m R a N _m.2 a C O C .� C N y 0 is 0 Y 7 W U O p B- O y0 O m O w Q O - Y C U Q p N t N p~ N `p N -0 E Vi m E N -0 N t E� .2 E . CD S U N -J C E R C m >> N O aC.V (Ca O-,.0. d M t E - 7 a 0 0 m�0 E E--0 --0 , E m m� �. _= C C-0 t I� -r-o a) °.=�ci cRri z° 3 mea z 0.ui 3 m Zai gym' C C Os 0 W Z p 0 0 -0 m m 0 m - C 3 o N o y y 0 0 3 Q> > N m 3 3 o m .L 6- R N ` N N SUp N C � i >` 7 U uEc D o 3 Cu N i R a R0 0 a) U N' N C o R U E.2 R R N 0O 6 of O a C J V -00 N W a V; N � .0 N .O � C N 00.— r 4) 2a E cu it •L } (Q L v Z •� c LU N N O N R 7 c R z� a, Z W O w OLL J a< z> W a} o_a r Z a� ~ J N W C7 � Za az 2 :3a aX �F- a~ Fa Z � Z (/) O wF a J � as > W Z W W S Z W LLI ar aJ �a a r.. R c Y •2 o — r �_ -CD 3: O C 'N N s N 'O J O C Rq c0 N R 2 R Z J C 04�N O O. (n •.2 R c o c a) T t,,, a) m m E 0-°'O R p Mn N N c> O VO) O E O co C E J AN E O� 0- 0 C U y^m, doa — 7 IL s >°c a E D'6 O N U U R U R oa2 m } O c Q'R O o'y O) O u) N 5 R> N R N R> E a) n 7 �2o1) f, O. —0) 0 m.9 c R RNO-0cLn 0 0 2 N '6 U N O Q O E. 7 R p N V C t O N R U E m c — 7 R V aJN O O a) R a) _> N N r.+ — V 0 7 a) Hcoi33UmIL (L m� R c 0) en M m.'E O m 15 O0 O Y0 N N Q O -O N (nN LL a) a) mt 2 a) o d mt m N R N 3> E -Roo-ocLO ° ma �mo� a—�M otT XOUog ��3uy .S m: O` N U N O t L O C E J N C Q > y a) _ 'p).O .� N 7 (n N Q R a) a 0 0 +N' Q 0 7 6 m Q "' O U t 'O N R U E r m c a N 0 S m Ev¢i m °�$ �'� ao > v m °? �Z � m>t mt o aoi o� H v 3 3CJ and U))� m cm a) c0» R (fit= c0 c0 LL o R �a c N N .2 = Y .2 N N CL O }a .5 0 J o 'v Ea .�. _ N V O O E E N d iE N N m O C R R C N R•�a � O R u) ,O U -O R -O — C f0 m N N a) E CL N c 0 R 0 N U f0 '6 Q > E U O O R �0 N O c E O O VN) N Mn Y O> c E N O N'a0 N� a m}`� o a) m`) a a ac) �`� Y 7 ° Q 'UL4: 0 Ed U a V U .N a) U O O O) C E C U R a) U N R o> E E °'c ° O E E N y r N E 3 0 °)6 t o rn�tN C co 2 Z 2 co (n a) �O N F Q.� R E .�.. R aR) R° c m F c 3 Z R> ati Of C s O 0 c z p O 0 6 0) Na) O y a) t ? Q te C OO D C O Ra)N RNw N2 7 C R R -O R Q O R o 2 NC y R N 2 O O U aa) ' u U .0 OR a4! .N U O .2 o C�O 'yX E V3OL Q R O> yRN. N N t N 0 E -C UYaOT) d Uta R E �X N 2 O UU 0OEE Y O c NOC ' dCNc' a) c >r- o COD m R o 3 a O ai 3 zaf L) 00 _ Q=>a� O � t) •O � v 0 a r.. N N O N m R 7 C R Z) Q I �Z O � Q O� LL Q z � ZW Q} OQ Q Z F- N W ?a IL 13 aaa Q ~ �a Z� NZ O Luf- J ZW W W 0 F 2a a, Z W a' aW a� �Q 0 w N O a O w a a r.. rn I - co a) R a Ro R 2 U O� O a3 N U c O a3 C a) C a E a C O R 5 p fn a) N O_ > U O t s O U O a O. C U M.B. .N 0 7 N N OU U U N -O .O O y J a) a) O a) N` m 0 m U C E - 7 N O N m 0 p t U E R a) > O) j S> i 7 a) a) N IL (o .2-0 U) c n a) N- 3 c J Q R (n N 0> N OU w T O m0 N N O R C C R O F _ - O U i =3 -C O O C C N C p (p M m.2 O- r s a U O c i O c 7. V N > ... 2 a O (6 C R C _ 0U N •� o� Q O R co: a) Q a o O O Qa -2- O R > > fn R- E 0) - E U c N _ O p N c 1) O a i O T'C i a) a R C a) O Q R OI� Y _ U U a) a) R 0 -6 a) y c OU 0 O N O' O O a) c' N R E N a5 i �6 Q R a' R> a7 R L C O) U 7 U 'U a 0 y O N '7 U O- c R c O_ p)7 > 7 N f6 O- O N 7 a) a) N 7 ,aR. a) N N a J N c 0 O (n 2 �-6 U R a) O a) a) 0> N U 0= I N 0 > N a) 3 O aT) R Om •a ` E o • c a c _ R p ,O Q0 8O O R NN- OR O N O c a 0 0 Na a) O. O U J EO -o aU E U U R EO U CJ C >a T N UQ N-OQiRa' OQ V R ) S c U U - c O c c p 2 -O aC CO p NC N OU N U 0==cU3 0> R N o a a c a) a) -.2.2 c N �c p Q N. � 'N � U F -o m rn � )m Q aa)) -o � m a a o'm U = o ma R U) O 0 a) c .o N m a) a) .N m D s O m a) O a i O N O) R a) t >, O ai 0 7 c s E 0 U «� L c 0 R 0 a) a Q U N O O O. O Y C U O' J 0 f6 a) .- R .N-. UN o s U R« E O i .f6 p c O E N C O C. a R N E Q N. O) a) N R i Q T Q L a .2 - ._CL c n °c c 0> .E )i m°° &5 ° 3 2 !n w N° o = a 3 R a O C a) E O 3 R a) U c c C O a) N N R o< oO jO o o Q a n a o•Ec =O .2NyR ,O O O N O U p aj aa.C -Fu �2 O O aR a) L 7 R a) -p.5O aON O . R O. O C U TO c S a U N EC O E �N R i - L O a) � N U L o .aN 'E QU E O) - NN ca Np a' QC L«E U n 2 c i >c R U N c C s O 0 a Z O O 0 > (6 T N N U Q 1 O U UO O -C-- UR O r = a p R C 'U t m O- R C p) ,a) O OR Q N Ea) Ca) O G moO E E U N Q QU0 .•> yE C a) ) � O)d a U NRQ OU p m R " aC QN R a E QNiC R NU cu CN R a R t a) N •�-• .�.+ C 'C 0.- _T y 'C .�0+ t O) N U R U a) Q C Q a) O- C D C 6a) R 0E - a) .R. a) E -am 7N a) .R• a) Us R t N U =O)CE � 0aa.2 C C0a- N > > > f0 L L cn y cn L O R L L R V U .O .r_ Q_ 0 0 Gj 7 E H fA W H S U a r.. rn I - co a) R a N N O N R 7 C R Z � a 2z, W O w OLL J a< z> W a} Z d' Oa a� F N W O � Za a 2z :a aX �F- a~ Fa Z � Z fn O wH a J � as > W Z W W � H =a Z W � W0- W a� �a a r.. 0 00 00 a) R a R N C U C (0 R V U p > 2 a)(p C N C C V C .R+ .0 N N y p m .'a)) U O R O y y• N O N N N C C > R Y m m m -o ,�., C O N R O O t (0 t V N Q R U .0 N '> N 'j 2E>R O .-. Ct_t.. O N N O a p J S U a) C .y N t E N 7 EQ N E 03 a) N Q y O Q N c a> U) 3 -c E Oa T V l C, p m n °c' IL 6 U U o O° R R `[2 a a) N N a) N t U C '6 0 U R R cl U J U O) fn N J � J N H .0 R cc R N r- MN N T R m M aS !-Rc" •a6ELJr0s- >N N X Nf a) C a) NN O t U)5 0 N O O O) U x N E co U R W M O R n8 3: N h > 6R>d � M O. Y C R co U C m a N R R ' -0 m M N a'p 0 u O m po QO E E -0E�m UEU 7U • HC z N U i U > m� � NR -VLN (NjCm Jw E'6 W -O M >, L"C .R+ •0 m a) E C O _ N N +�-' E � Y R m R O N N O R N p C O U (D Mi O O O Y m N t t f' N 6I R U O N '6 3i ;3 O U 3 D. N CL Y .0 U 6 U C R 6) N C "' N '� E -O R C N M U) EJ m� aN NY f0 � o o2 R N t E t E � E 2 d H R >o Q U U U> m N m N T N J N J W N E '6 N c m '; 3Y N n N '.ra U) -0 Nm a) R E o ns v�N ° �� r a 2 m T O i-� O' - 6I R N ai U a) 3 O •-• O U I�> N 2 N 6) in co N N O Y •C O EJ S R -6 ) a�� a w O O t E t E R E - 7 N V NUt > '62 -60) 6)(O E Y v d CE R> a U Z 2 C W C00 C N J r J cl VT) v a R m o E 6 N .R+ 'r a •C N O N R O (D N N m M N E N R R O O C R y •C R N V p N N a) C U N t t jr y 6I R ca C R T U " 2 N M (0 V N O N J > = N U O. N �O Y O O N N a cE (D(0)aLia) i °)'' 2-6 tE tE N - dd' IL R > -0 NCL) -6-t6(o a-.- 0 U J J cl E ui N 16 16 N C a) y ,N U mCD E C t o E 0 E o 9 6 o E o m 0° o fl. O Z 6 ._ NN= N C p a a -C o U p t cl O N ❑ r U m N Q 6 0) N Q O a O 0 C ' E C a) U '6 O E O` E C �� N a) .0 R Q '6 E 5 .�.. N N N -O N U C O U' N N T U R N .0 �� C R m Y U O,t„ �, O_t O. d 6 _ N 0-0 O = N" a) Y R O rn E .0 O. O N N 2 y C ` C N i o f6 O y0 m R O a 2) O U N = N R R N �u N E D a) y O y N C) y N .6. O E� `) U O O) � m m 0)R 7 E m R - U N U N U R cu R a O .0 R O R U Cp y 2 O C a) C E a O O D U (`' C m C Z N a) C 0 a) U N T R V) C a y Q a) U y at, C U ._ *- m - 7 6 0 C S �- -6 C p a` )p U -6 '6 U R C N .6 N 6 f0 N z f6 z a O N E a) a) R N O .0 7 ,C R .V E a) U a C a) p a C9 a N R E= N y N C O R CO -.2 yN V N a) N r N J y O '= 6 E U C x 3 N R R O ,•t.• N Q x 3 O E O Q 7 O >, N i Q V R N N. O C .y a) 2 U O O N U Z 2 O U N U — 2 20 y G1 d G1 R O �— O U i v fn U fn C •R •V U fA Q UO in CL a r.. 0 00 00 a) R a \ §� § L) a< �§ SK k 0- k § 2z � < �§ «« §� z (/)g §k } §§ > of �« z 0LLI § _« ) 2 �§ ) E ] \ k U) § E \ / )k0 k \ \ \ \ \ \ j \ ) f§� ® IL _0M � cL 2 _k\\f) § \ _ co04m rL �=®cG o EE/a e 0.0 m§ k kk\ CL )� o E0 f IL \$« N U�\ .2 / m » fE ® IL �§ N kf/ 0 CL )� 0 c)fE IL b zCL 2 o A % ( § /# k % (a - S z �� ) cu -Fu zEo ! w $ {/§ ¥7? k j n cn 0 0 ) 2 ) E ] \ ? { § E \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ j \ ) ) 2 Alternative Solutions Evaluation Matrix Scoring Upper Hidden Valley Sanitary Pump Station (SPS) and Forcemain EA Evaluation Categories Alternative Solutions 1 2 2a 3 3a 4 Do Nothing Install SPS at Location A Install SPS at Location A with part of service area to drain by gravity Install SPS at Location B Install SPS at Location B with part of service area to drain by gravity Install SPS at Location C Natural Environment 1 2 3 1 1 3 Social Environment 1 2 2 3 4 3 Heritage/Cultural Impacts 1 3 3 2 2 3 City Operations 0 3 3 2 2 3 Technical 0 3 4 1 2 1 Servicing Potential 0 3 2 4 3 2 Costs 0 1 4 0 2 3 Total 3 17 21 12 15 18 Scoring 0 Nearly Infeasible. Very high risk. 1 Undesirable. High risk 2 Multiple mitigation measures required. Several risks 3 Feasible and desirable. Lower risk. 4 Lowest risk. Page 882 of 917