Appendix A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Transcription

1 Appendix A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

2 ARCHEOWORKS INC. Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (AA) for the: Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel City of Toronto Ontario Project Numbers: 007-TO Licensee: Jessica Marr PIF#: P Original Report July 18 th, 2011 Presented to: MMM Group 100 Commerce Valley Drive West Markham, Ontario L3T 0A1 T: F: Prepared by: Archeoworks Inc Yonge Street Suite #1029 Newmarket, Ontario L3X 1X4 T: F:

3 Archeoworks Inc. Executive Summary Archeoworks Inc. was retained by MMM Group to conduct a Stage 1 archaeological assessment (AA) of the proposed Bremner Transformer Station ( Bremner TS ) Cable Tunnel corridor. To accommodate tunnelling activities, four shaft locations have been proposed. The Bremner TS Cable Tunnel and shaft locations will be collectively referred to as the study area. Stage 1 background research was conducted to evaluate the study area s potential to contain archaeological resources and to illustrate the specific features contributing to the classification of high potential zones. Regarding the cable tunnel alignment, the tunnelling will occur minimally 30 metres below the ground surface; these impacts too deep to harm any overlying archaeological resources. As such, no further archaeological concerns exists for this portion of the study. Regarding the shaft locations, the Archaeological Master Plan of the Central Waterfront (ASI, 2003) revealed the entire study area to be under Lake Ontario prior the early 1900s. The central portion of the waterfront is one in which massive landscape changes occurred from the mid to late nineteenth century, through massive filling activities, to accommodate the development of the railways and new infrastructures. The Master Plan mapping revealed the study area to be situated adjacent to a significant historic feature: the Canadian Pacific (CP) Railway Roundhouse. As such, if significant undisturbed archaeological resources are deeply buried below the study area, they would likely be associated with the early railway technology from the period. However, the original roundhouse was built in 1897 and replaced in 1918 to accommodate additional filling of the area, to raise the height of the railway corridor, and are now located in its present location; both these features are located adjacent to the study area. Over 1,000,000 cubic yards of fill from pits located in Scarborough were needed to complete the project. Since then, the grades in the study area and surrounding area have undergone further transformation and have been lowered from the c.1920s elevation to somewhat above the historic land/harbour elevations. In addition, much of the area, including much of the roundhouse, was excavated for the buried part of the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. These excavation activities have provided a substantial amount of information of the railway technology of the area, which is now well understood. Additional background research confirmed the presence of two designated heritage properties within 100 metres of the study area and that nine archaeological sites have been found within a one-kilometre radius of the study area. One of these sites is located within 300 metres of the study area. In terms of Aboriginal archaeological potential, as the study area was submerged under Lake Ontario until c , and then subjected to intensive land filling, any evidence of precontact occupation in this area would have been destroyed or dispersed. Furthermore, given the study area was under water until the early 1900s, there is low potential for the recovery of early nineteenth century historic remains. Therefore, given the extensive soil disturbance within the study area and surrounding lands, as well as the extensive knowledge and excavation previously conducted on the roundhouse and railway technology of the area, it is unlikely that substantial archaeological resources may still be present. As well, it is unlikely that further knowledge may be gained from additional archaeological investigation. Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto i

4 Archeoworks Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... i Table of Contents... ii Project Personnel... iii 1.0 Project Context 1.1 Development Context Historical and Precontact Archaeological Context Property Inspection Analysis and Conclusions Recommendations Advice on Compliance with Legislation Bibliography and Sources... 9 Tables Table 1: Listed and Designated Heritage Properties within 100 metres of Shaft Locations... 3 Table 2: Sites within One Kilometre Radius of the Study Area... 3 Table 3: History of Occupation in Southern Ontario... 4 Appendices Appendix A: Maps Appendix B: Images Appendix C: Study Area Key Plan Appendix D: Inventory of Documentary and Material Record Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto ii

5 Archeoworks Inc. Project Personnel: Project Director Review Archaeologists Report Preparation Graphics Jessica Marr MTC license P334 Nimal Nithiyanantham MTC license R331 Kim Slocki MTC license P029 Nimal Nithiyanantham MTC license R331 Michael Lawson Nimal Nithiyanantham MTC license R331 Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto iii

6 Archeoworks Inc. 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT 1.1 Development Context Archeoworks Inc. was retained by MMM Group to conduct a Stage 1 archaeological assessment (AA) of the proposed Bremner Transformer Station ( Bremner TS ) Cable Tunnel corridor (see Map 1). This new electricity source is needed to replace obsolete equipment at the existing Windsor Transformer Station. The new cable tunnel, which is to connect to the existing Hydro One cable tunnel at Lower Simcoe and Front Street, is proposed to be approximately 600 metres in length, and installed via tunnelling 30 metres below the surface of the road. The new cable tunnel will run east along Bremner Boulevard from Rees Street to Lower Simcoe Street; and north along Lower Simcoe Street to Front Street. To accommodate tunnelling activities, four shaft locations have been proposed: Shaft Alternative 1 is located at the southeast corner of Bremner Boulevard and Rees Street, Alternative 2 and 3 are located just northeast of Bremner Boulevard and Rees Street, and Shaft Alternative 4 is located on Rees Street just south of Bremner Boulevard. The Bremner TS Cable Tunnel and shaft locations will be collectively referred to as the study area. The Stage 1 assessment, reported herein, was conducted under the project and field direction of Ms. Jessica Marr, under archaeological consulting license P334, in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act (1990). This study will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment Process for Minor Transmission Facilities, pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act. Permission to review and assess the archaeological potential of the study area was provided via the landowner s representative, the MMM Group, on May 17 th, Historical and Precontact Archaeological Context Determining Archaeological Potential The Stage 1 background research is conducted to evaluate the study area s potential to contain archaeological resources. Given tunnelling activities, to accommodate the installation of the cable, will occur minimally 30 metres below the ground surface, these impacts will be too deep to harm any overlying archaeological resources. As such, no further archaeological concerns exists for this portion of the study area. The remainder of the study area (ie: shaft locations) will reviewed separately and will be assessed for potential. Potential is determined following an assessment of physical and historical features in the immediate area, as well as the proximity of previously identified archaeological sites. If potential is established, a Stage 2 assessment and/or monitoring must be conducted to confirm the presence of archaeological resources. The results of the background research are provided below Archaeological Significance To establish the archaeological significance of the shaft locations, Archeoworks Inc. conducted a comprehensive review of: the Archaeological Master Plan of the Central Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 1

7 Archeoworks Inc. Waterfront, the City of Toronto s Archaeological Potential Mapping, the Waterfront Toronto Archaeological Conservation & Management Strategy document, registered archaeological sites, and listed and designated heritage properties within close proximity to their limits. Furthermore, a review of the physiography of the overall area and its correlation to locating archaeological remains, as well as consultation of available historic documentation was performed. The results of this background research are documented below. A review of the Archaeological Master Plan of the Central Waterfront (ASI, 2003) revealed the majority of the cable tunnel alignment to be under Lake Ontario prior the early 1900s, and more specifically, all four shaft locations to be under water at this time (see Map 2). The central portion of the waterfront is one in which massive landscape changes occurred from the mid to late nineteenth century, through massive filling activities, to accommodate the development of the railways and new infrastructures (ASI, 2003). This process vastly altered the original shape of Toronto s waterfront and created a succession of shorelines. The Master Plan mapping, however, revealed the shaft locations to be situated adjacent to a significant historic feature: the Canadian Pacific (CP) Railway Roundhouse (see Maps 2+3). Mapping within the Waterfront Toronto Archaeological Conservation & Management Strategy (ASI, 2008), also revealed the presence of the original roundhouse to be within close proximity (less than 50 metres) to the two northern-most shaft locations (see Map 4). In 1893, the area within which construction and filling was permitted in the harbour was extended to the New Windmill Line (see Map 3). The first 15 stalls and the turntable of the original CP Roundhouse were completed in 1897 in an area between the present day CN Tower and the John Street Roundhouse (see Map 4). In 1907, an additional five stalls were added and in 1918 a further seven were constructed. The original 1897 turntable was replaced in As such, if significant undisturbed archaeological resources are deeply buried below the study area, they would likely be associated with the early railway technology from the period. However, the original building and its associated structures were removed in 1929 to accommodate additional filling of the area, to raise the height of the railway corridor, and are now located in its present location. Over 1,000,000 cubic yards of fill from pits located in Scarborough were needed to complete the project (Historic Research Limited, 1989). The new locomotive house was about 17 feet higher than the original roundhouse. Since then, the grades in the study area and surrounding area have undergone further transformation, and have been lowered from the c.1920s elevation to somewhat above the historic land/harbour elevations. In addition, much of the area, including much of the roundhouse, was excavated for the buried part of the Metro Toronto Convention Centre (see Map 3) (C. Andreae 2011, pers. comm. 8 July). These excavations activities have provided a substantial amount of information of the railway technology of the area, which is now well understood Listed and Designated Properties Consultation of the records for listed and designated heritage properties within the City of Toronto s Inventory of Heritage Properties, as well as the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 2

8 Archeoworks Inc. Culture s 1 database, 2, confirmed the presence of two designated heritage properties within 100 metres of the shaft locations (see Table 1). Table 1: Designated Heritage Properties within 100 metres of the Shaft Locations Address Property Name Status Comments 222 Bremner Boulevard 255 Bremner Boulevard CP Roundhouse CP Roundhouse Part IV Designation Part V Designation Registered Archaeological Sites CP Roundhouse, Water Tower, Coaling Tower; Sanding Tower; 1929; ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON SEPT. 4 AND 7, Designation By-Law Passed by City Council on August 12, 1996, partially repealed by by-law No passed on Oct 30, 2008, located within the Union Station Heritage Conservation District; Heritage Easement Agreement AT registered on Oct. 3, 2008 CP Roundhouse, Water Tower, Coaling Tower; Sanding Tower; 1929; Adopted by City Council on Sept 4 & 7, Part IV Designation By-Law Passed by City Council on August 12, Part V Designation by-law passed July 27, Located within the Union Station Heritage Conservation District; Heritage Easement Agreement AT registered on Oct. 3, Partially repealed by by-law No passed on Oct 30, In order that an inventory of archaeological resources could be compiled for this study area, the site record forms for registered sites housed at the Ministry of Tourism & Culture (MTC) were consulted. Each site is registered according to the Borden System, which is an archaeological numbering system used throughout Canada to track archaeological sites and the artifacts that come from them. The specific area under review is located within Borden Block AjGu. According to the MTC site registry files, nine archaeological sites has been registered within a one kilometre radius of the study area (see Table 2). Based on mapping received from the MTC, we can confirm that one of these sites (AjGu-34) is located within 300 metres of all four shaft locations, and the overall study area limits. This site was encountered during the expansion of the Metro Toronto Convention Center. The site is affiliated with the CP Roundhouse and a total of 151 historic, Euro-Canadian artifacts, the Reeses Pier, a sleet pit and railway roundhouse remains were discovered. The site was since been destroyed; however, remains may exist outside area the Metro Toronto Convention Center expansion. Details of the site can be found within the report entitled, Final Report on Archaeological Site Monitoring of the Metro Toronto Convention Center Expansion Toronto, Ontario (ASI, 1995: CIF ). 1 Clarification: As of 2005, the Ontario Heritage Properties Database is no longer being updated. The Ministry of Tourism & Culture is currently updating a new system which will provide much greater detail to users and will become publicly accessible in the future. ( 2 Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 3

9 Archeoworks Inc. Table 2: Sites within a One Kilometre Radius of the Study Area Borden # Name Cultural Affiliation Type AjGu-15 Front Street Euro-Canadian AjGu-21 Navy Wharf British, historic Navy wharf AjGu-23 Esplanade Crib Euro-Canadian Railway AjGu-24 Funiss Water Works Euro-Canadian Navy wharf Wharf AjGu Landfill Euro-Canadian Domestic dump AjGu-28 Elgin-Winter Garden Euro-Canadian Well Theatre AjGu-34 * Euro-Canadian Roundhouse, railway AjGu-48 The Grange ** ** AjGu-50 Ontario Heritage Centre Euro-Canadian Commercial building * Indicates an unnamed site ** All data from form has not yet been entered into the database Having noted the presence of these sites in relation to the study area, it is useful to place them in the proper context by reviewing the cultural history of occupation in Southern Ontario provided in Table 3 below. This data provides an understanding of the potential cultural activity that may occurred within the study area. Table 3: History of Occupation in Southern Ontario Period Archaeological Culture Date Range Attributes PALEO-INDIAN Early Gainey, Barnes, Crowfield BC Big game hunters. Fluted projectile points Late Holcombe, Hi-Lo, Lanceolate BC Small nomadic hunter-gatherer bands. Lanceolate projectile points ARCHAIC Early Side-notched, corner notched, bifurcate-base BC Small nomadic hunter-gatherer bands; first notched and stemmed points, and ground stone celts. Middle Otter Creek, Brewerton BC Transition to territorial settlements Late WOODLAND Narrow, Broad and Small Points Normanskill, Lamoka, Genesee, Adder Orchard etc BC More numerous territorial huntergatherer bands; increasing use of exotic materials and artistic items for grave offerings; regional trade networks Early Meadowood, Middlesex BC Introduction of pottery, burial ceremonialism; panregional trade networks Middle Point Peninsula, Saugeen, Jack s Reef Corner Notched 400 BC-AD 800 Cultural and ideological influences from Ohio Valley complex societies; incipient horticulture Late Algonquian, Iroquoian AD Transition to village life and agriculture Algonquian, Iroquoian AD Establishment of large palisaded villages Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 4

10 Archeoworks Inc. Period Archaeological Culture Date Range Attributes Algonquian, Iroquoian AD Tribal differentiation and warfare HISTORIC Early Huron, Neutral, Petun, Odawa, Ojibwa AD Tribal displacements Late Six Nations Iroquois, Ojibwa, AD s Migrations and resettlement Mississauga Euro-Canadian AD present European immigrant settlements Physical Features Precontact Potential The study area is situated within the Iroquois Plain physiographic region of Southern Ontario, which extends around the western part of Lake Ontario, from the Niagara River to the Trent River, its width varying from a few hundred yards to about eight miles. The lowland bordering Lake Ontario, when the last glacier was receding but still occupied the St. Lawrence Valley, was inundated by a body of water known as Lake Iroquois. The undulating till plains above its old shorelines make up the Iroquois plain (Chapman & Putnam, 1984). The Iroquois lake plain, cut in previously deposited clay and till, is partly floored with sand deposits; from Scarborough to Trenton the plain widens until the old beach is six and one-half miles inland from the present shore of Lake Ontario. The old shoreline is well marked by bluffs or gravel bars while immediately below is a strip of boulder pavement and sandy offshore deposits which vary in width. Poorly drained, this coarse sandy soil is not very productive. Prior to 1930, until 1940, the Iroquois plain was a general farming area, with a tendency for horticulture and growth of canning crops. Since the Second World War, the remaining farms have become larger while much of the land has been put to urban uses. In terms of archaeological potential, potable water is arguably the single most important resource necessary for any extended human occupation or settlement. As water sources have remained relatively stable in southern Ontario since post-glacial times, proximity to water can be regarded as a useful index for the evaluation of archaeological site potential. Indeed, distance from water has been one of the most commonly used variables for predictive modeling of site location. In Southern Ontario, the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists stipulate that undisturbed lands within 300 metres of a water source to be of elevated archaeological potential. Regarding our study area, as all four shaft locations were submerged in Lake Ontario until c , and then subjected to intensive land filling, any evidence of precontact occupation in this area would have been destroyed or heavily dispersed Historical Features To assess the potential for the recovery of historic remains within the limits of the shaft locations, a review of available maps pertaining to the study area and its immediate surroundings was conducted at the City of Toronto Archives in order to gain an understanding of the land-use history. Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 5

11 Archeoworks Inc. According to the earliest map available Plan of York, Leiut. Philpotts, 1818 (see Map 5), all four shaft locations are illustrated as falling within Lake Ontario. As well, the mapping illustrates the northern portion of the Bremner TS Cable Tunnel to be located within the former shoreline of the City of Toronto, encompassing the historic Simcoe Street. However, as mentioned above, due to the depth of tunnelling (30 metres below ground); no further concerns exist for the Bremner TS Cable Tunnel. Further review within the 1860 Tremaine s Map of the County of York revealed all four shaft locations still within the limits of Lake Ontario; however, the shoreline is illustrated as being expanded further south (see Map 6). These results are further seen within the 1878 Illustrated Atlas of the County of York (see Map 7). It was not until c when the study area and surrounding lands were infilled. Given the development pattern of the study area, it was not until the early twentieth century when it started developing. As such, if significant undisturbed archaeological resources are deeply buried below the study area, they would likely be associated with the early railway technology from the period Current Land-Use(s) This Stage 1 AA of the study area, illustrated in Map 8, was undertaken on July 4 th, The study area is situated along the City of Toronto s Waterfront, and consists primarily of reclaimed lands which are currently paved for sidewalk and roadway use. 2.0 Property Inspection A desktop review of the subject lands was undertaken employing Google Street View. Photographic images of the study area are presented within Appendix B. Location and orientation information associated with all photographs taken in the field are provided on Map Analysis and Conclusions The Stage 1 background research was conducted to evaluate the study area s potential to contain archaeological resources. The two components to this project, the tunnel alignment and the shaft locations, were evaluated separately since construction impacts vary greatly for each. Regarding the cable tunnel alignment, tunnelling will occur minimally 30 metres below the ground surface; these impacts will be too deep to harm any overlying archaeological resources. As such, no further archaeological concerns exists for this portion of the study. As to the four shaft locations, this area has been subjected to extensive land alteration activities since c.1893; with much of the development occurring around c The original roundhouse, located adjacent to the study area, was built in 1897 and replaced in 1918 to accommodate additional filling of the area, to raise the height of the railway corridor, and are now located in its present location; both these features are located within and adjacent to the study area. Over 1,000,000 cubic yards of fill from pits located in Scarborough were needed to complete the project (Historic Research Limited, 1989). The new locomotive house was about 17 feet higher than the original roundhouse. Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 6

12 Archeoworks Inc. In addition, as noted above, the grades in the study area and surrounding area have been further heavily disturbed by development activities to lower the grade from the c.1920s elevation to somewhat above the historic land/harbour elevations. Moreover, much of the area has been excavated for the buried part of the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, and, thus, the railway technology is well understood for this part of the city (C. Andreae 2011, pers. comm. 14 July). Given the extensive soil disturbance within the study area and surrounding lands, as well as the extensive knowledge and excavation previously conducted on the roundhouse and railway technology of the area, it is unlikely that substantial archaeological resources may still be present. As well, it is unlikely that further knowledge may be gained from additional archaeological investigation. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The Stage 1AA for the proposed construction of the Bremner TS Cable Tunnel study area revealed the area to have been extensively disturbed, as well as documented through previous archaeological excavation. As a result of these findings, it is recommended that: 1. Given the railway technology and surrounding area is well understood, as well as the extensive disturbance to the study area, both the tunnel and shaft components of this project may be considered free of further archaeological concern. 5.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION 1. This report is submitted to the City s Planning Division (Heritage Preservation Services Unit) and Ministry of Tourism and Culture as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c0.18. 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 Ministry of Tourism and Culture, 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. Until this letter is received, no excavation activities shall take place on the subject property. 2. 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 Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 7

13 Archeoworks Inc. Public Register of Archaeology Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 3. 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. 4. The Cemeteries Act, R.S.O c. C.4 and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 (when proclaimed in force) require that any person discovering human remains must notify the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services. Under Section 6 of Regulation 881 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Archeoworks Inc. will, keep in safekeeping all objects of archaeological significance that are found under the authority of the licence and all field records that are made in the course of the work authorized by the licence, except where the objects and records are donated to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario or are directed to be deposited in a public institution under subsection 66 (1) of the Act. Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 8

14 Archeoworks Inc. 6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES Archaeological Services Inc Final Report on Archaeological Site Monitoring of the Metro Toronto Convention Center Expansion Toronto, Ontario. Toronto 2003 The Archaeological Master Plan of the Central Waterfront, City of Toronto, Ontario. Toronto 2008 Waterfront Toronto Archaeological Conservation and Management Strategy. Toronto Chapman, L. J. and Putnam, D. F The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. Government of Ontario: Toronto. Miles & Co Illustrated historical atlas of the county of York and the township of West Gwillimbury & town of Bradford in the county of Simcoe, Ont. Toronto. Ontario Ministry of Tourism & Culture 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists. Toronto Phillpotts, Lieutenant 1818 Plan of York (Plan BB37). Quebec: Royal Engineers Department September 24, 1823 (reportedly surveyed ca. 1818). Tremaine, Geo. C 1860 Tremaine s Map of the County of York, Canada West. Toronto Websites: City of Toronto: Archaeology City of Toronto's Heritage Property Search Ontario Heritage Properties Database Town of Markham - Heritage Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 9

15 Archeoworks Inc. APPENDIX A: MAPS Map 1: NTS 3 Map Identifying Location of Study Area (Toronto 30-M-11) 3 National Topographical System of Ontario (1997) Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 10

16 Archeoworks Inc. Map 2: Central Waterfront Archaeological Master Map Illustrating Areas of Potential (Base map by: ASI, 2003) Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 11

17 Archeoworks Inc. Map 3: Illustrating the Location of the Study Area in relation to the Current CP Roundhouse Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 12

18 Archeoworks Inc. Map 4: Waterfront Toronto Archaeological Conservation and Management Plan: Central Waterfront Precinct Inventory Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 13

19 Archeoworks Inc. Map 5: 1818 Plan of York, Philpotts Map 6: 1860 Tremaine Map of the Study Area Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 14

20 Archeoworks Inc. Map 7: 1878 Historical Map of the Study Area Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 15

21 Archeoworks Inc. Map 8: Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment: Note northern shaft location immediately adjacent to former CP Roundhouse site Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 16

22 Archeoworks Inc. APPENDIX B: IMAGES 4 Image 1: Looking south along Lower Simcoe Street from Front Street Image 2: Looking north along Lower Simcoe Street from Bremner Blvd Image 3: Looking west along Bremner Blvd from Lower Simcoe Street Image 4: Looking slightly northeast at location of Shaft Alternatives 2 &3 4 Images courtesy of Google Street View Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 17

23 Archeoworks Inc. Image 5: Looking southeast at location of Shaft Alternatives 1 & 4 Image 6: Note, elevation of Rees Street from Lake Shore Blvd West to Bremner Blvd. Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 18

24 Archeoworks Inc. APPENDIX C: STUDY AREA KEY PLAN Error! Objects cannot be created from editing field codes. Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 19

25 Archeoworks Inc. APPENDIX D: INVENTORY OF DOCUMENTARY AND MATERIAL RECORD Project Information: Project Number: Licensee: MTC PIF: 007-TO Jessica Marr P Document/ Material Location Comments 1. Images (Digital) Archeoworks Inc., Yonge Street, Suite 1029, Newmarket, ON, Canada, L3X 1X4 Stored on Archeoworks network servers 2. Research/ Analysis/ Reporting Material Archeoworks Inc., Yonge Street, Suite 1029, Newmarket, ON, Canada, L3X 1X4 Stored on Archeoworks network servers Under Section 6 of Regulation 881 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Archeoworks Inc. will, keep in safekeeping all objects of archaeological significance that are found under the authority of the licence and all field records that are made in the course of the work authorized by the licence, except where the objects and records are donated to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario or are directed to be deposited in a public institution under subsection 66 (1) of the Act. Stage 1 AA for the Proposed Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel, City of Toronto 20

26 Appendix B Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment

27 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES & CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES TORONTO HYDRO BREMNER CABLE TUNNEL TRANSMISSION FACILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY September 2011 Prepared for: MMM Group Ltd. Prepared by:

28 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES & CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES TORONTO HYDRO BREMNER CABLE TUNNEL TRANSMISSION FACILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY September 2011 Prepared for: MMM Group Ltd. 100 Commerce Valley Drive West Thornhill, ON L3T 0A1 Prepared by: Unterman McPhail Associates Heritage Resource Management Consultants 540 Runnymede Road Toronto, ON, M6S 2Z7 Tel:

29 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Report ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES 2.1 Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction Public Consultation and Recognition HISTORICAL SUMMARY John Street Roundhouse DESCRIPTION OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE AND BUILT HERITAGE 5.1 Description of Identified Cultural Heritage Landscape and Built Heritage Resources POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF UNDERTAKING ON CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES 6.1 Introduction Description of Potential Impacts MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS Roundhouse Park 9 SOURCES Appendix: Photographs

30 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Study Area for the Bremner Cable Tunnel EA Project [MMM Group, 2011]. Page 1

31 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report: Built Heritage Resources & Cultural Heritage Landscapes Page 1 Toronto Hydro Bremner Transmission Facilities Environmental Assessment Study City of Toronto, Ontario 1.0 INTRODUCTION The MMM Group Ltd. retained Unterman McPhail Associates, Heritage Management Resource Consultants, to undertake a cultural heritage resource assessment for built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes for the Toronto Hydro Transmission Facilities Environmental Assessment Study. Toronto Hydro has initiated this Environmental Assessment (EA) study for the Bremner Cable Tunnel construction, City of Toronto. Bremner Boulevard and Lower Simcoe Street are four-lane, urban cross section roadways (Figure 1). Figure 1. Study Area for the Bremner Cable Tunnel EA Project [MMM Group, 2011]. 1.1 Purpose of Report The principal objectives of this assessment report for the Bremner Cable Tunnel are: o to conduct a survey of the study corridor and its associated built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes; o to identify sensitivities for change; and, o to make general mitigation recommendations respecting the proposed endeavor with regard to potential impacts to built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. Unterman McPhail Associates September 2011 Heritage Resource Management Consultants

32 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report: Built Heritage Resources & Cultural Heritage Landscapes Page 2 Toronto Hydro Bremner Transmission Facilities Environmental Assessment Study City of Toronto, Ontario 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES The need for the identification, evaluation, management and conservation of Ontario's heritage is acknowledged as an essential component of environmental assessment and municipal planning in Ontario. For the most part, the analysis of cultural heritage resources in the study area addresses those aboveground, person-made heritage resources 40 years of age and old. The application of this rolling forty-year principle is an accepted federal and provincial practice for the preliminary identification of cultural heritage resources that may be of heritage interest or value. Its application does not imply however that all built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes that are over forty years old are worthy of the same levels of protection or preservation. Environmental assessments are undertaken under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. The EAA provides for the protection, conservation and wise management of Ontario s environment. It defines environment in a broad sense that includes natural, social, cultural, economic and built environments. This broad definition of the environment makes the assessment of the impact of the undertaking on cultural heritage resources part of the standard environmental assessment process in Ontario. Environmental assessments made under the EAA therefore assess and address the impact of the undertaking on cultural heritage resources. The analysis throughout the study process addresses that part of the Environmental Assessment Act, subsection 1(c), which defines environment to include: as well as,...cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community ; any building, structure, machine or other device or thing made by humans. Infrastructure undertakings may potentially affect cultural heritage resources in a number of ways. The effects may include displacement through removal or demolition and/or disruption by the introduction of physical, visual, audible or atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with the character of the cultural heritage resources and, or their setting. 2.2 Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) The Ontario Heritage Act gives the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) the responsibility for the conservation, protection and preservation of Ontario s culture heritage resources. Section 2 of the Ontario Heritage Act charges the Minister with the responsibility to, Unterman McPhail Associates September 2011 Heritage Resource Management Consultants

33 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report: Built Heritage Resources & Cultural Heritage Landscapes Page 3 Toronto Hydro Bremner Transmission Facilities Environmental Assessment Study City of Toronto, Ontario...determine policies, priorities and programs for the conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage of Ontario MTC describes heritage buildings and structures, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources as cultural heritage resources. Since cultural heritage resources may be impacted adversely by both public and private land development, it is incumbent upon planning and approval authorities to consider heritage resources when making planning decisions. Heritage attributes, in relation to a property, are defined in the OHA as the attributes of the property that cause it to have cultural heritage value or interest. Part IV of the OHA enables municipalities to list, and to designate by by-law properties of cultural value or interest after consultation with its municipal advisory committee, if one is appointed. Under OHA subsection 27 (1), the municipal clerk is required to keep a current register of properties of cultural heritage value or interest located in their municipality. The municipal register must include all properties designated under Part IV and of the OHA by the municipality or by the Minister of Tourism and Culture and Part V. Municipal designation of heritage resources under Part IV or Part V of the OHA publicly recognizes and promotes awareness of heritage properties, provides a process for ensuring that changes to a heritage property are appropriately managed and that these changes respect the property s heritage value. This includes protection from demolition. Once a property has been designated and notice has been given to the Ontario Heritage Trust, the property is then listed on the provincial register of heritage properties. The alteration process under the OHA section 33 helps to ensure the heritage attributes of a designated property, and therefore its heritage value, are conserved. If an owner of a designated property wishes to make alterations to the property that affects the property s heritage attributes, the owner must obtain written consent from the council. This applies not only to the alteration of the buildings or structures but also to alterations of other aspects of the designated property, such as landscape features or natural features, which have been identified as heritage attributes. The OHA subsection 27 (1.2) also allows a property that is not designated, but considered to be of cultural heritage interest or value by the municipal council, to be placed on the register. This is commonly referred to as listing. In many cases, listed (non-designated properties) are candidates for designation protection under OHA section 29. Once a property is listed under the OHA, any application to demolish the building on a listed property is delayed for 60 days under OHA 27(3). 2.3 Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) MTC is responsible for the administration of the OHA and is responsible for determining policies, priorities and programs for the conservation, protection and preservation of Ontario s heritage, which includes cultural heritage landscapes, built heritage and archaeological resources. Unterman McPhail Associates September 2011 Heritage Resource Management Consultants

34 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report: Built Heritage Resources & Cultural Heritage Landscapes Page 4 Toronto Hydro Bremner Transmission Facilities Environmental Assessment Study City of Toronto, Ontario MTC guidelines assist in the assessment of cultural heritage resources as part of an environmental assessment. They are, Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (October 1992), and, Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments (1980). The Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments state: When speaking of man-made heritage we are concerned with works of man and the effects of his activities in the environment rather than with moveable human artifacts or those environments that are natural and completely undisturbed by man. The guidelines state one may distinguish broadly between two basic ways of visually experiencing cultural heritage resources in the environment, that is, as cultural heritage landscapes and as built heritage. Cultural heritage landscapes are a geographical area perceived as a collection of individual person-made built heritage resources set into a whole such as historical settlements, farm complexes, waterscapes, roadscapes, railways, etc. They emphasize the interrelationship of people and the natural environment and convey information about the processes and activities that have shaped a community. Cultural heritage landscapes may be organically evolved landscapes as opposed to designed landscapes. Some are continuing landscapes, which maintain the historic use and continue to evolve, while others are relict landscapes where the evolutionary process has come to an end but important landscape or built heritage resources from its historic use are still visible. Built heritage resources comprises individual, person-made or modified, parts of a cultural heritage landscape such as buildings or structures of various types. The guidelines also describe the attributes necessary for the identification and evaluation of any discrete aggregation of person-made features or cultural heritage landscapes and the attributes necessary for the identification and evaluation of built heritage resources. MTC has issued the document, Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincially Heritage Properties. It became mandatory for all Ontario ministries and 14 public bodies, effective July 1, The government developed these standards and guidelines under its powers as specified in the OHA under Part III.1. These standards and guideline are similar to those already in required for private property. Unterman McPhail Associates September 2011 Heritage Resource Management Consultants

35 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report: Built Heritage Resources & Cultural Heritage Landscapes Page 5 Toronto Hydro Bremner Transmission Facilities Environmental Assessment Study City of Toronto, Ontario 3.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction For the purposes of this built heritage resource and cultural heritage landscape assessment Unterman McPhail Associates undertook the following tasks: o the identification of major historical themes and activities of the study area through historical research and a review of topographical and historical mapping; o the identification of associated cultural heritage landscapes and built heritage resources within study area through major historical themes and activities and historic mapping; o a survey of the lands within and adjacent to the study area; o the identification and assessment of sensitivities for change to built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes through the review of the historical information, the results of the survey and the proposed improvements to the study area; o to provide general mitigation recommendations respecting the effects of the proposed improvements; and o preparation of a Cultural Heritage Assessment Report. Unterman McPhail Associates undertook a pedestrian survey of the study area in July Cultural heritage landscapes and principal, above ground built heritage features older than forty years within and adjacent to study area were identified at this time. 3.2 Public Consultation and Recognition The John Street Roundhouse was designated a national historic site of Canada in The City of Toronto Heritage Register notes the John Street Roundhouse is protected by a Part IV Designation By-Law passed by City Council on August 12, It is located within the Union Station Heritage Conservation District and designated under Part V Designation By-law passed July 27, The property is also protected by Heritage Easement Agreement. Unterman McPhail Associates September 2011 Heritage Resource Management Consultants

36 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report: Built Heritage Resources & Cultural Heritage Landscapes Page 6 Toronto Hydro Bremner Transmission Facilities Environmental Assessment Study City of Toronto, Ontario 4.0 HISTORICAL SUMMARY The following historical summary of the John Street Roundhouse located at 255 Bremner Boulevard is based on information from Canada s Historic Places and the Toronto Railway Historical Association John Street Roundhouse Construction on Toronto s first railway began in 1851 ushering in a new era of transportation development and economic prosperity for Toronto. With the completion of the Ontario, Huron, and Simcoe Railway in 1853, industrial and port activity dramatically increased. The first station was located south of Front at the corner of Bay Street, close to the location of the current Union Station. The Grand Trunk Railway built the first Union Station at the foot of York Street in A larger and grander second Union Station was built on the same site in The presence of the railway changed the City s shoreline on Lake Ontario. The Esplanade, a new 30m wide embankment into the harbour, was built and the railway was removed from Front Street and to the Esplanade. The infilling of the shoreline continued in an effort to support the rapidly increasing rail and industrial activity in the area. By 1888, the projection of the shoreline projected into Lake Ontario had added large areas of usable industrial land to the waterfront. The increase in rail activity at the turn of the century created the need for a new train station. The Great Fire of 1904 that destroyed almost all of the structures situated along Front Street between York Street and Yonge Street provided an opportunity to redevelop the Union Station area. The present Union Station was conceived as part of a plan drafted by the architect John Lyle in 1911 outlining the large redesign of central Toronto. Chief Engineer J.M.R. Fairbairn of the CPR s Engineering Department designed the John Street Roundhouse; it was built between by Anglin-Norcross Ltd. of Montreal. The roundhouse had a 32-stalls to accommodate the inspection, servicing, cleaning and repair of steam passenger locomotives. The locomotives were moved in and out of the roundhouse on a massive 120-ft. rotating turntable designed by the Canadian Bridge Company. With the introduction of the diesel locomotive, its original use declined after CPR continued to the roundhouse in a reduced capacity; later VIA Rail Canada Inc. used the roundhouse. The facility was donated to the City of Toronto in In , the turntable was removed, the coaling and sanding tower relocated, and bays 1-11 of the roundhouse disassembled and rebuilt to accommodate alternative uses. The structure now includes commercial and museum use by the TRHA. The John Street Roundhouse was designated a national historic site of Canada in 1990 because it is the best surviving example of a roundhouse in Canada. It was determined its 1 Canada s Historic Places, John Street Roundhouse (Canadian Pacific) National Historic Site of Canada, 255 Bremner Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario ; and Toronto Railway Historical Association TRHA, C.P.R. John Street Roundhouse, Unterman McPhail Associates September 2011 Heritage Resource Management Consultants

37 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report: Built Heritage Resources & Cultural Heritage Landscapes Page 7 Toronto Hydro Bremner Transmission Facilities Environmental Assessment Study City of Toronto, Ontario heritage value lies in its location on Toronto s formerly vast rail yards and in the design and surviving physical fabric which illustrate its former role in the rail industry. 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE AND BUILT HERITAGE For the purposes of built heritage and cultural heritage landscape identification, this section provides a brief description of the existing environment of the study corridor. 5.1 Description of Identified Cultural Heritage Landscape and Built Heritage Resources The industrialization of the Union Station area in the mid 19 th century lead to the development of the first and second Union Station at Front and York, and to the current Union Station at Front and Bay. Today, this railroad heritage is protected within the Union Station HCD including the John Street Roundhouse, a site of national historic significance and an important example of facilities and technologies of Toronto s rail age. Currently the lands in the Roundhouse Park and Union Station area are undergoing a major transition with new cultural, commercial, and residential projects. Bremner Boulevard, a new road in the City s network, and Lower Simcoe Street are 4-lane urban arterial roadways. Lower Simcoe Street passes north and south under the railway tracks and intersects with east-west Bremner Boulevard. Bremner Boulevard is bound on the south by the former John Street Roundhouse, now known as the Roundhouse Park. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company built the roundhouse complex between 1929 and The present 17 acre Roundhouse Park houses the Toronto Railway Historical Association locomotive collection, workshops, a Leon s Furniture and Appliance store and the Steam Whistle Brewery in the semi-circular building. Beside roundhouse bay # 32 is situated the relocated coaling tower and sand house (2006). The site was designated as a National Historic Site by Parks Canada in It is described as the best surviving example of a roundhouse in Canada, (Parks Canada, The project area is part of Union Station, Heritage Conservation District, designate under Part V of the OHA in The park setting for the complex is recognized as a Cultural Heritage Landscape. (CHL) Unterman McPhail Associates September 2011 Heritage Resource Management Consultants

38 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report: Built Heritage Resources & Cultural Heritage Landscapes Page 8 Toronto Hydro Bremner Transmission Facilities Environmental Assessment Study City of Toronto, Ontario 6.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF UNDERTAKING ON CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES 6.1 Introduction This section provides an assessment of the potential adverse effects of the proposed cable transmission tunnel and associated shaft locations to identified built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. The conservation of cultural heritage resources in planning is considered to be a matter of public interest. Generally changes to an existing context may have the potential to adversely affect cultural heritage landscapes and built heritage resources by displacement and/or disruption during, as well as after construction. Built heritage resources and/or cultural heritage landscapes may experience displacement, i.e., removal, if they are located within the rights-of-way of the undertaking. There may also be potential for disruption, or indirect impacts, to cultural heritage resources by the introduction of physical, visual, audible or atmospheric elements that are not in keeping with their character and, or setting. 6.2 Description of Potential Impacts The design alternative along Bremner Boulevard and Lower Simcoe Street consists of the construction of an underground tunnel. It is not anticipated that its construction will displace any aboveground cultural heritage resources. As well, the identified shaft location alternatives will not displace any aboveground identified cultural heritage resources. Disruption impacts may occur with construction related tunneling. Vibration from the tunneling may result in conditions that can affect the integrity of the brick masonry of the John Street Roundhouse structure. This is of special concern to those sections of the building located in the northwest corner of the park. It may also affect the concrete and brick coaling and sand house structures. 7.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS A proposed development such as tunneling construction should not adversely affect cultural heritage resources and intervention should be managed in such a way that its impact is sympathetic with the value of the resources and that it minimizes or avoids an adverse effect to a cultural heritage resource. When the nature of the undertaking is such that adverse impacts are unavoidable it may be necessary to implement management or mitigation strategies that alleviate the deleterious effects to cultural heritage resources. Mitigation measures lessen or negate anticipated adverse impacts to cultural heritage resources. These measures may include such actions as avoidance, monitoring, protection, relocation documentation, salvage, remedial landscaping, etc., and may be a temporary or permanent action. Unterman McPhail Associates September 2011 Heritage Resource Management Consultants

39 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report: Built Heritage Resources & Cultural Heritage Landscapes Page 9 Toronto Hydro Bremner Transmission Facilities Environmental Assessment Study City of Toronto, Ontario The principal heritage philosophy for the protection of cultural heritage resources is retention in situ. The protection of built heritage resources is to preserve in situ the structures and their material integrity to the maximum extent possible, consistent with public safety. 7.1 Roundhouse Park The following mitigation actions should be completed for the Roundhouse Park area and the John Street Roundhouse structure. o o o Detailed and close up photography of the Roundhouse building elevations located adjacent to Bremner Boulevard within the study area. Detailed and close up photography of the elevations of coaling tower and sand house within the study area. Preparation of a report describing the existing condition of the roundhouse, coaling tower and sand house masonry within the study area. The purpose of the report will be to document the physical integrity of the masonry prior to construction to note any existing masonry wall and detail failure at present versus potential masonry failure resulting from project related vibration impacts. A qualified built heritage specialist should undertake this work with proven experience in heritage masonry assessment. In addition, any intervention should be managed in such a way that any impact is sympathetic with the value of the heritage resources and that it minimizes or avoids any adverse effect to cultural heritage resources in the study area. Unterman McPhail Associates September 2011 Heritage Resource Management Consultants

40 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report: Built Heritage Resources & Cultural Heritage Landscapes Toronto Hydro Bremner Transmission Facilities Environmental Assessment Study City of Toronto, Ontario SOURCES Environmental Assessment Act RSO 1990, c. E.18. (as am. S.O. 1993, c. 27; 1994, c. 27; and 1996, c. 27). ERA Architects Inc. Union Station District Plan, Appendix 4-Heritage Conservation District Plan. May Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments. Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications and Ontario Ministry of the Environment, October Ontario Heritage Act. RSO Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, January 25, 2006 Ontario Ministry of Culture. Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, Queen s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario Ministry of Culture. Info Sheets. Cultural Landscapes in Ontario. November 27, Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties. Spring Listing Cultural Heritage Properties on the Municipal Register. Spring Heritage Conservation Principles for Land Use Planning. Spring Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. A federal, Provincial and Territorial Collaboration. 2 nd Ed. February Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2010 Weiler, John. Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments. Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Web Sites Canada s Historic Places, John Street Roundhouse (Canadian Pacific) National Historic Site of Canada, 255 Bremner Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario. Access:--< City of Toronto s Heritage Inventory. Access:--< Unterman McPhail Associates September 2011 Heritage Resource Management Consultants

41 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report: Built Heritage Resources & Cultural Heritage Landscapes Page 11 Toronto Hydro Bremner Transmission Facilities Environmental Assessment Study City of Toronto, Ontario Toronto Railway Historical Association TRHA, C.P.R. John Street Roundhouse, Access:--< Unterman McPhail Associates September 2011 Heritage Resource Management Consultants

42 APPENDIX: PHOTOGRAPHS

43 Cultural Heritage Assessment Report: Built Heritage Resources & Cultural Heritage Landscapes Toronto Hydro Bremner Transmission Facilities Environmental Assessment Study City of Toronto, Ontario Appendix Looking east to the John Street Roundhouse, Coaling Tower and Sandhouse (July 2011). Looking west to the John Street Roundhouse and walls to be documented (July 2011). Unterman McPhail Associates September 2011 Heritage Resource Management Consultants

44 Appendix C Consultation Record

45 Class Environmental Assessment Study Notice of Commencement and Public Meeting s. 14(2)(6) Environmental Assessment Act NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT AND PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE To be held by Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited Proposal to Engage in a New Transformer Station and Cable Tunnel Project Name: Bremner Transformer Station, Cable Tunnel and Machine Shop Class Environmental Assessment Project Location: Rees Street and Bremner Boulevard Area, Lower Simcoe, Front St. West and Roundhouse Park Dated at Toronto this 13 th day of April, 2011 Study Background Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited (THESL) is undertaking a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study for the construction and operation of a new Transformer Station ( Bremner TS ) on land in the Rees Street and Bremner Boulevard area (bounded to the north by Bremner Boulevard, south by Lakeshore Boulevard, west by Rees Street, and east by Roundhouse Park), and Simcoe Street from Bremner Boulevard to Front Street West. Electric load in the downtown Toronto area is highly concentrated. Currently, the Windsor Transformer Station at Windsor and Wellington Streets supports the delivery of power to this area of the downtown core. Utilization levels at the Windsor Transformer Station are high and station expansion is not feasible. Therefore, THESL is proposing to add the Bremner TS and a cable tunnel link to the existing Hydro One Cable Tunnel at Lower Simcoe and Front Streets to increase future electrical system reliability. Project Description The Bremner Transformer Station, Cable Tunnel and Machine Shop Class Environmental Assessment will consist of site preparation; the dismantling of an existing structure adjacent to the Roundhouse known as the Machine Shop, construction of the underground substation building and tunnel, installation of electrical equipment and site landscaping work. The supply of the Bremner TS Cable Tunnel Environmental Assessment will examine alternatives for connecting an underground tunnel from the new Bremner TS to the existing Hydro One Cable Tunnel at Lower Simcoe and Front Streets. Environmental Assessment Process These projects will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment Process for Minor Transmission Facilities, pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act. The Class Environmental Assessment Process includes a comprehensive consultation plan, an evaluation of alternatives including the assessment of environmental effects and the identification of measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Upon completion of the study, an Environmental Study Report (ESR) will be prepared for each Environmental Assessment and made available at specified locations for a 30-day review period. Subject to comments submitted and the receipt of necessary approvals, Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited intends to proceed with the planning, design and construction of these projects. Consultation Members of the public, agencies, stakeholders and other interested persons are encouraged to participate actively in the process by attending consultation opportunities and providing comments or concerns. A Public Information Centre (PIC) will be held as a drop-in format where members of the project team will be available to answer any questions about the study. The PIC will be held as follows: Meeting Location: DATE: Wednesday, April 27 th, 2011 TIME: Drop-In anytime between 4:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Metro Toronto Convention Centre, North Building, Room 203D 255 Front Street West, Toronto ON, M5V 3L9 Project Contacts and Information Information on these projects or questions about the Class Environmental Assessment Process can be directed to: Andreas Houlios, Environmental Planner, IBI Group; phone ; andreas.houlios@ibigroup.com Pam Foster, Senior Planner, MMM Group; phone ext 2244; fosterp@mmm.ca Suzanne R. Yelle, Manager, Generation Project Construction; phone ; syelle@torontohydro.com Jennifer Link, Media Contact; phone ; jlink@torontohydro.com Under the Freedom of information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in a submission will become part of the public record files for this matter and will be released, if requested, to any person. Notice first posted on April 13 th, 2011

46 Bremner Transformer Station and Machine Shop CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY April 27, 2011

47 Bremner Transformer Station and Machine Shop CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE Metro Toronto Convention Centre North Building, Room 203D April 27 th 2011, 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Please sign in and complete a comment sheet Project team members are available to discuss the project with you Please feel free to ask questions Visit us at

48 Bremner Transformer Station and Machine Shop CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Background and Context - Toronto Hydro-Electric System The Bremner Transformer Station is a proposed transformer station that will provide service to an important part of Toronto s downtown core The station will help Toronto Hydro replace obsolete equipment at Windsor Station and will increase reliability and supply in Toronto's ever growing City centre The Bremner Station project forms part of Toronto Hydro s PowerUp capital program a key investment to improving future reliability of electricity supply Preferred Location, 6 Bremner Boulevard at Rees Street Windsor Transformer Station The Station will be built adjacent to Toronto s landmark Roundhouse building at Bremner Boulevard and Rees Street The project, coordinated with Hydro One and the Ontario Power Authority, is designed to increase future reliability of Toronto s electricity supply

49 Bremner Transformer Station and Machine Shop CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Class Environmental Assessment Process and Project Need Class Environmental Assessment Process This project is following the Class EA for Minor Transmission Facilities which is approved under the Environmental Assessment Act The Class EA process is an effective way of ensuring that transmission projects that have a predictable range of effects are planned and carried out in a manner which is environmentally acceptable The Purpose of this Public Information Centre is to: Introduce the Bremner Transformer Station and Machine Shop and Cable Tunnel Class EA; and Provide the public with the opportunity to review project information and provide feedback directly to the project team Why is the station required? Existing customers need to be supplied from a new source first, then the transfer of electricity can proceed A new source is needed to reduce the overall loading level at Windsor Transformer Station Typical Switch Gear

50 Bremner Transformer Station and Machine Shop CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY The Bremner Transformer Station location is in close proximity to the Windsor Transformer Station The Site is in close proximity to existing Toronto Hydro duct banks to allow direct connection to the grid Tunnel route and tunnel shaft locations will be evaluated to connect the two facilities Project Area Characteristics The new tunnel will be approximately 600 metres in length, and 30 metres below the surface of the road Project Area

51 Bremner Transformer Station and Machine Shop CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Description of the Proposed Transformer Station The Bremner Transformer Station Includes: Site preparation; Construction of the station building; Installation of electrical equipment; Site landscaping work; Disassembly and Rebuild of the Machine Shop; Offloading of Windsor Station; and New Tunnel to Front Street Hydro One Cable Tunnel How about the future requirements? The Station will include space provisions for future growth for the next years Picture

52 Bremner Transformer Station and Machine Shop CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Description of the Proposed Transformer Station Option 1 South view Before South View After North View Before North View After

53 Bremner Transformer Station and Machine Shop CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Description of the Proposed Transformer Station Option 2 South view Before South View After North View Before North View After

54 Bremner Transformer Station and Machine Shop CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Description of the Proposed Transformer Station Option 3 South view Before South View After North View Before North View After

55 Bremner Transformer Station and Machine Shop CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Description of the Proposed Transformer Station Option 4 South view Before South View After North View Before North View After

56 Bremner Transformer Station and Machine Shop CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY Next steps in the Class EA process include: Next Steps An Environmental Project Report will be prepared and made available at specified locations for a 30 day public review period Subject to necessary approvals, Toronto Hydro intends to proceed with the planning, design and construction of the Bremner Transformer Station and Cable Tunnel Subject to necessary approvals, construction will begin in Fall 2011 Please submit and complete a comment sheet or feel free to contact one of the project representatives below. Comments will be incorporated into the public record and used to assist Toronto Hydro in the planning, design and construction of this project. Suzanne R. Yelle, P. Eng., ing Manager Construction, Major Turnkey Projects, Toronto Hydro 14 Carlton Street Toronto, ON M5B 1K5 Phone: syelle@torontohydro.com Andreas Houlios, B.E.S. Hons. Environmental Planner IBI Group Suite 200, East Wing 360 James Street North Hamilton, ON L8L 1H5 Phone: ext andreas.houlios@ibigroup.com Pam Foster, M. Pl., MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Planning & Environmental Design MMM Group Limited 100 Commerce Valley Drive West Thornhill, ON M5B 1K5 Phone: ext fosterp@mmm.ca

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83 May 30, 2011 To Mr. Andreas Houlios RE: Proposal to engage in a New Transformer Station and Cable Tunnel Thank you for circulating Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) on your Notice of Study Commencement. The ORC is the strategic manager of the government's real property with a mandate of maintaining and optimizing value of the portfolio, while ensuring real estate decisions reflect public policy objectives of the government. Our preliminary review of your notice and supporting information indicates that ORCmanaged property is not within your study area. We have no other concerns with this undertaking. Please remove ORC from your circulation list with respect to this project. Thank you for the opportunity to provide initial comments on this undertaking. If you have any questions I can be reached at the contacts below. Sincerely, Lisa Myslicki Environmental Coordinator Ontario Realty Corporation - Professional Services 1 Dundas Street West, Suite 2000, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2L5 (416) lisa.myslicki@ontariorealty.ca

84 June 28, 2011 Without Prejudice Pam Foster Senior Planner Associate Planning and Environmental Design MMM Group Limited 100 Commerce Valley Drive West Thornhill, Ontario, L3T 0A1 Tel: ext Dear Pam Foster, Thank you for your letter of May 10, 2011 regarding your request for baseline information held by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) on established or potential Aboriginal and treaty rights in the vicinity of the proposed project Bremner Transformer Station Cable Tunnel. As you may know, consulting with Canadians on matters of interest or concern to them is an important part of good governance, sound policy development and decision-making. In addition to good governance objectives, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides statutory, contractual and common law obligations to consult with First Nations, Métis and Inuit people when conduct that might adversely impact rights (established or potential) is contemplated. It is important to note that the information held by AANDC, which is provided as contextual information, may or may not intersect with established or potential Aboriginal or treaty rights. In most cases, the Aboriginal community remains the best placed to explain their traditional use of land, their practices or claims that may fall under section 35. The Department has recently developed a new information system, the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System (ATRIS), which brings together information relating to Aboriginal groups and their various claims (specific, comprehensive and special) and litigation. Using ATRIS and a 100 km radius surrounding the project location, information regarding potentially affected Aboriginal communities is presented in the attached report in three sections: 1. Aboriginal Community Information includes key contact information and any other information such as Tribal Council affiliation. 2. Treaties, Claims and Negotiations includes Specific, Comprehensive and Special Claims. Self-Government may be part of comprehensive claims or stand-alone negotiations. 3. Litigation usually refers to litigation between the Aboriginal Group and the Crown. Where available, Other Considerations, such as Métis rights information or provincial or other consultation, are also provided at the end of the package. 1

85 Should you require further assistance regarding the information provided, or if you would prefer that a smaller or greater buffer be used to gather information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Allison Berman Program Officer for Ontario Consultation and Accommodation Unit Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Tel: Fax: Allison.berman@inac-ainc.gc.ca Disclaimer This information is provided as a public service by the Government of Canada. All of the information is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, including, without limitation, implied warranties as to the accuracy or reliability of any of the information provided, its fitness for a particular purpose or use, or non-infringement, which implied warranties are hereby expressly disclaimed. References to any website are provided for information only shall not be taken as endorsement of any kind. The Government of Canada is not responsible for the content or reliability of any referenced website and does not endorse the content, products, services or views expressed within them. Limitation of Liabilities Under no circumstances will the Government of Canada be liable to any person or business entity for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or other damages based on any use of this information including, without limitation, any lost profits, business interruption, or loss of programs or information, even if the Government of Canada has been specifically advised of the possibility of such damages. 2

86 The following Aboriginal Communities fall within 100km of your proposed project. First Nation/Aboriginal Community Information Within the radius of your project there are seventeen First Nations in two treaty areas. The following information should assist you in planning any consultation that may be required. The information concerning litigation and self-government negotiation for each First Nation which has been provided, illustrates the assertion of rights in the above region. Rights that some Aboriginal peoples hold as part of a community derive from their ancestors long-standing use and occupancy of Canada. The rights as well as the associated customs, practices and traditions existed prior to European settlement. They include the right to hunt, trap, fish, gather and follow Aboriginal customs, practices and traditions on ancestral lands. Land cessions, purchases and early Upper Canada treaties have not extinguished these rights, however, their nature and extent are still open to question and discourse. Specific claims are those based upon either the alleged failure of the federal government to meet the terms of an existing agreement, or its fiduciary obligations with respect to the administration of First Nation s treaties, lands and assets under the Indian Act. Self-government agreements set out arrangements for Aboriginal groups to govern their internal affairs and assume greater responsibility and control over the decision making that affects their communities. Many comprehensive claims settlements also include various self-government arrangements. Self-government agreements address: the structure and accountability of 3

87 Aboriginal governments, their law-making powers, financial arrangements and their responsibilities for providing programs and services to their members. Self-government enables Aboriginal governments to work in partnership with other governments and the private sector to promote economic development and improve social conditions. Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation Chief Donna Big Canoe RR 2 P.O. BOX N-13 Sutton West, Ontario, L0E 1R0 Phone (705) Fax (705) Treaty Area Williams Treaties of 1923 This map comes from the Atlas of Canada. For more information, see Other Considerations below. Membership Chippewa Tri-Council Union of Ontario Indians Ogemawahj Tribal Council See Other Considerations below for more information. Specific Claims Name: Coldwater Narrows Status: in negotiations 4

88 Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged the illegal taking of reserve lands in 1836 and inadequate compensation. Name: 1815 Treaty Payments Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged Canada failed to honour terms of treaty regarding compensation for lands. Name: 1923 Williams Treaties Status: in negotiation Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged that the Williams Treaty was invalid. They state that compensation has been inadequate for land taken, along with a failure to provide reserves. Name: Awenda Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged that a 50,000 acre tract in Simcoe County was not included in the Penetanguishene Treaty of 1798, yet was taken without consent by the provisional agreement of They state it should remain in the control of the First Nation. Name: Notawasaga Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged there has been improper cession of lands in Simcoe county by the Notawasaga treaty of 1815, and inadequate compensation provided. Self-Governance Agreement Negotiations Anishinabek Nation Final Agreement on Governance negotiations and Education Please see Other Considerations below for more details. Litigation No relevant litigation. Chippewas of Mnjikaning (Rama) Chief Sharon Stinson Henry 5884 Rama Road, Suite 200 Rama, Ontario, L0K 1T0 Phone (705) Fax (705) Treaty Area Williams Treaties of 1923 Membership Chippewa Tri-Council Ogemawahj Tribal Council See Other Considerations below for more information. 5

89 Specific Claims Name: Coldwater Narrows Status: in negotiations Description: See Chippewa of Georgina Island First Nation for more information. Name: 1815 Treaty Payments Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: See The Chippewa of Georgina Island for more information. Name: 1923 Williams Treaties Status: in negotiation Description: See The Chippewa of Georgina Island for more information. Name: Notawasaga Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: See Chippewa of Georgina Island for more information. Self-Governance Agreement Negotiations Anishinabek Nation Final Agreement on Governance negotiations and Education Please see Other Considerations for more details. Litigation No relevant litigation Curve Lake First Nation Chief Keith Knott General Delivery Curve Lake, Ontario, K0L 1R0 Phone (705) Fax (705) Treaty Area Williams Treaties of 1923 Membership Union of Ontario Indians See Other Considerations for more information. Specific Claims Name: Flooding of IR 35 Status: active negotiations Description: The First Nation alleges that between acres of reserve land, set aside in 1837 for the Mud Lake Indian Band (now Curve Lake), was flooded when dams constructed for the Trent-Severn Waterway raised water levels in

90 Name: Gunshot Treaty Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The First Nation alleged the Gunshot Treaty of 1788 covering lands in Prince Edward and Northumberland counties and regional municipality of Durham was illegal. Name: Lake Ontario Lakeshore Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged that part of the lakeshore in the townships of Oakville Burlington, Mississauga and Etobicoke were never ceded by treaty or otherwise. The First Nations involved in this claim are Curve Lake, New Credit, Alderville, Scugog and Hiawatha. Name: Navy Island Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged that islands were never ceded in the Niagara treaty of Name: Niagara Treaty Lands Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The Chippewa Tri-Council alleged that lands covered by the Niagara treaty of 1781 in the Regional Municipality of Niagara were never properly ceded & that the Mississauga were not compensated for them. This claim was originally submitted in 1986 by the MTCC (Mississauga Tribal Claims Council) as a component of the Williams Treaty claim & was subsequently hived off as a separate claim in Name: 1923 Williams Treaties Status: in negotiation Description: See The Chippewa of Georgina Island for more information. Name: Islands in the Trent System Status: in negotiation Description: The First Nation alleges that title to certain islands in regional municipality of Durham, county of Peterborough Victoria and Northumberland and loss of some of these islands due to flooding by Trent canal and illegal sale. Name: Damages to Wild Rice Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: The First Nation alleged that Mississauga title to wild rice, traditional economy, waters and lands beneath the waters. They state there has been destruction of the wild rice and traditional economy due to flooding by the Trent canal. Name: Toronto Purchase Status: settled by negotiation in 2010 Description: The First Nation alleged that the Toronto Purchase (1787 & 1805) covering lands in the regional municipality of York, was illegal. Name: Crawford Purchase Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found 7

91 Description: The First Nation alleged that the purchase of covering lands in Frontenac, Prince Edward and Hastings counties and United county of Lennox Addington was illegal. Self-Governance Agreement Negotiations Anishinabek Nation Final Agreement on Governance negotiations and Education Please see Other Considerations for more details. Litigation Name: Curve Lake First Nation and Gimaa Gary Williams suing on his own behalf and on behalf of the members of the Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation and Gimaa Greg Cowie suing on his own behalf and on behalf of the members of the Hiawatha First Nation Status: closed due to inactivity Court Number: T Description: The Plaintiffs allege that the construction of Trent Severn Waterway resulted in the flooding of reserve lands held by the Crown for the use and benefit of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Crown breached a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs to hold the reserves for the use and benefit of the Plaintiffs. They maintain that the fiduciary duty was breached when the Crown failed to inform the Plaintiffs of the flooding, failed to consult with the Plaintiffs, and failed to compensate the Plaintiffs for their loss. Name: Alderville Indian Band et al v. Her Majesty the Queen Status: active Court No: T Description: The Plaintiffs allege the Crown breached its fiduciary duty, and negotiated in bad faith, regarding the 1923 Williams Treaties. Other First Nations involved as plaintiffs in the litigation include Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake and Mississauga (Blind River, Ontario). Litigation to resolve the allegation that Canada negotiated the Williams Treaties in bad faith was launched in 2009 by the Alderville First Nation, and is scheduled to continue in Hiawatha First Nation Chief Sandra Moore 123 Paudash Street Ontario Phone (705) Fax (705) Treaty Area Williams Treaties of 1923 Specific Claims Name: Lake Ontario Lakeshore Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: See Curve First Nation for further information. 8

92 Name: Navy Island Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: See Curve First Nation for further information. Name: Niagara Treaty Lands Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: See Curve Lake First Nation for further information. Name: 1923 Williams Treaties Status: in negotiation Description: See Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation for more information. Name: Islands in the Trent System Status: in negotiation Description: See Curve First Nation for more information. Name: Damages to Wild Rice Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: See Curve First Nation for more information. Name: Serpent Mounds Status: settled Description: The First Nation alleged that the federal government was in breach of statute for failing to set aside Serpent Mounds as an addition to reserve (43 year delay). They also alleged the improper granting of a lease to the lands persuant to the Public Lands Grants Act. Finally, there was an allegation of a breach of fiduciary obligation as a result of mismagement by the federal government from Name: Crawford Purchase Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: See Curve First Nation for more information. Name: Gunshot Treaty Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: See Curve First Nation for more information. Litigation Name: Curve Lake First Nation and Gimaa Gary Williams suing on his own behalf and on behalf of the members of the Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation and Gimaa Greg Cowie suing on his own behalf and on behalf of the members of the Hiawatha First Nation Status: closed due to inactivity Court Number: T Description: See Curve Lake First Nation for more information. Name: R. v. George Henry Howard Status: closed Court Number: Description: This case involved an Ontario fishing prosecution of an alleged breach of federal fisheries regulations. The courts ruled that the Williams Treaties of 1923 extinguished the First Nation s treaty fishing rights previously granted under the Treaty of The SCC dismissed Howard s appeal on May 12,

93 Mississauga s of Scugog Island First Nation Chief Tracy Gauthier Island Road, Port Perry, ON, L9L 1B6 Phone (905) Fax (905) Treaty Area Williams Treaties of 1923 Membership Union of Ontario Indians Ogemawahj Tribal Council See Other Considerations for more information. Specific Claims Name: 1923 Williams Treaty Status: active Description: See Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation for further information. Name: Brant Tract Purchase Status: settled through negotiations Description: Alleged that 1797 treaty for cession of lands at Burlington Bay was illegal, and that the Mississauga Nation retained rights and title to lakeshore at Burlington Bay and 200 acres at Burlington Heights. The other First Nations involved in this claim are: Curve Lake, New Credit, Alderville, Scugog and Hiawatha. Note: this claim was settled on October 29, Name: Crawford Purchase Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: See Curve Lake First Nation for more information. Name: Damages to Wild Rice Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: See Curve Lake First Nation for more information. Name: Gunshot Treaty Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: See Curve Lake First Nation for more information. Name: Lake Ontario Lakeshore Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: See Curve First Nation for more information. Name: Navy Island Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: See Curve Lake First Nation for more information. Name: Niagara Treaty Lands 10

94 Status: concluded- no lawful obligation found Description: See Curve First Nation for further information. Name: 200 Acre Status: settled through negotiations Description: Alleged invalid surrender in 1820, of 200 acres of land on the north shore of the Credit River. Name: Railway Claim Loss of Use Status: settled through negotiation Description: Alleged invalid expropriation of land for railway purposes in 1876, and failure to compensate for interest in lands taken. Name: Toronto Purchase Status: settled through negotiation in 2010 Description: See Curve First Nation for further information. Self-Governance Agreement Negotiations Anishinabek Nation Final Agreement on Governance negotiations and Education Please see Other Considerations below for more details. Litigation No relevant litigation. Six Nations of the Grand River Chief William (Bill) Kenneth Montour PO Box 5000 Ohsweken, Ontario, N0A1M0 Phone Number:(519) Fax Number:(519) Treaty Between the Lakes Treaty of

95 This map comes from the Atlas of Canada. For more information, see Other Considerations below. The Six Nations of the Grand River is the contact point for the following local individual First Nation communities which are found in the radius of your project. Their ancestral homeland is located in the Mohawk River Valley and present day New York State. The main reserve is located 25 km southwest of the city of Hamilton, Ontario. Bay of Quinte Mohawk Deleware Lower Cayuga Niharondasa Seneca Onondaga Clear Sky Upper Cayuga Walker Mohawk Bearfoot Onondago Konadaha Seneca Lower Mohawk Oneida Tuscarora Upper Mohawk The Haudenosaunee Grand Council of Chiefs, also known as the Six Nations Confederacy Council, considers itself to be the central government of the Iroquois Confederacy. They contend that they represent the fifty Chiefs of the Six Nations Confederacy, and assert traditional rights in the southern Ontario region. In the past, federal officials have included them in their notification and consultation, however, they are not legally recognized as the official Canadian leadership of the Iroquois. Specific Claims and Negotiations Six Nations of the Grand River have many specific claims filed with Canada, not all of which are currently active. From the 1980s to the mid-1990s, Six Nations submitted 28 specific claims to Canada. The most relevant claims pertain to the following areas: The Haldimand Tract In general, Six Nations' claims deal with past grievances that relate to lands known as the Haldimand Tract. These lands were set aside for Six Nations when they came from New York to 12

96 Canada in 1784 as allies of the Crown after the American Revolution. While this Tract does not intersect with your project location, the link to a map and information on is included for your information. Canada s negotiation of Six Nations claims is an out-of-court process. In 1999, 2000 and 2001, all three parties-six Nations, the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada-turned from active litigation to talks to find common ground upon which to proceed with some form of out-of-court resolution. While these efforts did not produce results, other efforts have been made since The Government of Canada began exploratory discussions with the Six Nations' elected Chief and Council and the Province of Ontario to address the claims. These discussions were interrupted when a group of Six Nations protesters occupied the then privately owned Douglas Creek Estates site in Caledonia. Negotiation Status: There have been no formal negotiation sessions since October 8, Canada continues to engage in bilateral and trilateral exploratory discussions with representatives from Ontario and Six Nations (both Elected and Haudenosaunee councils). The purpose of these discussions has been to explore means to redefine the negotiation process. The Culbertson Tract Claim This claim concerns the easterly most First Nation, the Mohawk of the Bay of Quinte. The Culbertson Tract claim relates to a land transaction that took place in In recognition of military alliance of the Mohawk people during the American Revolution, a tract of land the size of a township was set aside for the Six Nations under a formal treaty issued by Lt.-Gov. John Graves Simcoe. Under the terms of the treaty, if the lands were to fall into the hands of non-six Nations interests, the Crown promised to "dispossess and evict" the trespassers from the lands and restore the occupied lands to Six Nations possession. The Mohawk of the Bay of Quinte s claim alleges that approximately 827 acres, now located in the townships of Desoronto and Tyendinaga, was improperly taken from the First Nation in Specific claim negotiations with Canada closed in 2008, and the issue is now in litigation with the Ontario Federal Court since However, the Mohawk are not asking the court to determine the validity of their claim to the Tract, but rather they are seeking an order that Canada is in breach of fiduciary duty and other legal duties to negotiate in good faith under the Specific Claims Branch Policy. If the Mohawk choose to claim title to the land, they can do so through the Specific Claims Branch of INAC. The Six Nations have a Consultation and Accommodation Policy which they would like non- Aboriginal developers to adhere to. Additional information on this policy can be found in the Other Considerations section below. Litigation There is some active litigation, however, it is expressly tied to the assertions made in the above noted specific claims. Name: Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians et al. Superior Court of Justice Status: Active Court No.: 406/95 Description: The Plaintiff claims among other things, an accounting of all Six Nations' assets including money and real property that was to be held in trust by the Crown for the benefit of the Six Nations since The Plaintiff seeks a declaration by the Court that the Defendants are in 13

97 breached of their fiduciary duties towards the Plaintiff, and are liable for replacing all assets or the value of all assets found to be missing, with compound interest. Name: Aaron Detlor; The Haudenosaunee Development Institute v. The Corporation of the City of Brantford Superior Court of Justice Status: Active Court No.: CV Description: The Applicants Aaron Detlor and the Haudenosaunee Development Institute intend to question the constitutional validity and applicability of By-laws and of the City of Brantford Municipal Code, made under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25. Métis Consultation in Ontario In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed Métis rights under s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 in the Powley decision. The inclusion of the Métis in s.35 represents Canada s commitment to recognize and value their distinctive cultures, which can only survive if they are protected along with other Aboriginal communities. It is important to recognize that the Métis have asserted rights throughout most of southern Ontario. The best source of information on the nature of these assertions, is from the Métis themselves, who can be contacted via their provincial organization. As neither of the below organizations fully represent the Métis in Ontario, it is recommended that both be contacted. Métis Nation of Ontario Métis Consultation Unit 500 Old St. Patrick Street, Unit D Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 9G4 Fax: (613) Métis National Council 350 Sparks Street, Suite 201 Ottawa, Ontario, K1R 7S8 Phone: (613) Fax: (613) info@metisnation.ca Other Considerations Membership Chippewa Tri-Council This council is an alliance of three First Nation communities composed of the: Beausoleil First Nation- located on Christina Island in Georgian Bay Georgina Island First Nation- located on Georgina Island in Lake Simcoe Rama Mnjikanning First Nation-located near Orillia 14

98 There is not an official location for this council. Please contact the Chief of each First Nation individually. The Union of Ontario Indians (UOI) Ottawa 222 Queen Street Ottawa, Ontario, K1P5V9 Phone: (613) North Bay 1 Miigizi Mikan North Bay, Ontario, P1B 8J8 Phone: (705) Fax: (705) Ogemawahj Tribal Council 5984 Rama Road P.O. Box 46 Rama, Ontario, L0K 1T0 Phone: (705) Fax: (705) Treaty Areas Between the Lakes Treaty Land Cession Treaty 1784 and 1792 This treaty was a land purchase signed by the Mississauga for a tract of land on either side of the Grand river. Governor Haldimand purchased this land for the Six Nations to enhance the original purchase made for them. Williams Treaties of 1923 The Williams Treaties were intended to secure land which had been improperly seized through earlier faulty land cession agreements dating back to the 1700s. After a 1916 inquiry into the status of colonial land surrenders in Upper Canada, Canada and Ontario agreed that a new treaty should be undertaken with the Ojibway peoples living in Central Ontario. Two separate treaties were negotiated with the Chippewa and the Mississauga and signed for the surrender of lands in central Ontario and the northern shore of Lake Ontario. However, the Potawatomi and the Mississaugas of the New Credit were not involved in the negotiations. The Williams Treaties were different from the numbered treaties of the prairies. They did not secure hunting and fishing rights, nor did they guarantee possession of reserves. Even the Rice Lake Treaty of 1818 which is adjacent to the Williams Treaty, guarantees hunting and fishing rights. In a response to these differences, First Nations have entered litigation arguing that the Crown negotiated in bad faith. The Alderville First Nation along with Curve Lake First Nation and the Mississauga launched litigation in 2009, and it is scheduled to continue in Self-Governance Agreement Negotiations 15

99 Anishinabek Nation (Union of Ontario Indians*) Final Agreement negotiations on Governance and Education The First Nations involved in these negotiations in the vicinity of your project are: Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation Chippewas of Mnjikaning (Rama) Curve Lake First Nation Mississauga s of Scugog Island First Nation In 1995, the Anishinabek Nation s Grand Council authorized its secretariat arm, the Union of Ontario Indians (UOI), to begin self-government negotations with Canada. Negotiations toward agreements in the areas of education and governance began in An agreement-in-principle (AIP) on education was signed in November In February 2007, the parties signed the AIP with respect to governance. Final agreement negotiations are proceeding in parallel, and together these agreements would mark important steps toward the Anishinabek Nation s long-term objective of supporting participating First Nations to achieve greater autonomy. The governance final agreement will provide the framework for the establishment of the Anishinabek Nation government and for the recognition of participating First nation lawmaking authority in four core governance areas: leadership selection, citizenship, culture and language, and management and operations of government. The education final agreement (which is nearing conclusion) authorized the parties to negotiate a final agreement with respect to lawmaking authority for primary, elementary and secondary education for on-reserve members, and to administer INAC s post-secondary education assistance program. The Province of Ontario is not a party to these negotiations but is engaged in tripartite discussions on particular issues that would assist in the implementation of the final agreement. *The Union of Ontario Indians (UOI) The UOI is a political advocate for 40 member First Nations across Ontario. Its headquarters is located on Nipissing First Nation, just outside of North Bay Ontario, and has satellite offices in Thunder Bay, Curve Lake First Nation and Munsee-Delaware First Nation. The UOI delivers a variety of programs and services. The Anishinabek Nation incorporated the Union of Ontario Indians (UOI) as its secretariat in The members in the area of your project are: Curve Lake First Nation Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation Mississauga s of Scugog Island First Nation Provincial guidelines Under its responsibility to promote stronger Aboriginal relationships, the provincial government has drafted consultation guidelines to meet Ontario s obligation to consult on Aboriginal and treaty rights. For more information, and to review the guidelines, follow the link: 16

100 Six Nations of the Grand River Land Use Consultation and Accommodation Policy Six Nations of the Grand River Land Use Consultation and Accommodation Policy came into effect in The Six Nations request that the Crown, developers and municipalities consult in good faith to obtain free and informed consent prior to approval of any projects affecting their interests. It is recommended that this protocol be reviewed in advance of consultation to better understand First Nation expectations. However, the federal government does not endorse its content. The link to the protocol is: 17

101 June 29, 2011 Suzanne Yelle Manager, Construction Major Turnkey Projects Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited (THESL) 14 Carlton Street Toronto, ON M5B 1K5 Re: Bremner Transfer Station and Cable Tunnel Class Environmental Assessment Study Dear Ms. Yelle, Bell Canada would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Class Environmental Assessment (EA) being undertaken for the proposed Bremner Transfer Station and Cable Tunnel. We understand that the project team is currently preparing an Environmental Study Report (ESR) resulting from the EA process to date and that the project team will be filing a Site Plan Application with the City of Toronto in the coming weeks with the intent to begin construction in Fall We have reviewed the information provided at the second public consultation event on May 19, 2011 and would like to provide the following to both confirm our interest in this project and to provide you with an understanding of Bell Canada s mandate and provisioning needs. As you are aware, Bell Canada is Ontario s principal telecommunications infrastructure provider. The Bell Canada Act, a federal statute, requires that Bell manage and operate most of the trunk telecommunications system in Ontario. Bell is also responsible for the infrastructure that supports most 911 emergency services in the Province. As much of the infrastructure that supports the provisioning of telecommunications services can be found within the street right-of-way, many of these assets can potentially be effected by projects under the EA Act. As a result, it is critical that telecommunication providers are kept informed throughout the Class EA process, particularly during detailed design. This level of involvement provides a greater understanding of the potential implications to existing and future telecommunications infrastructure and opportunities to undertake further dialogue with respect to mitigating effects on provisioning capabilities and disruption of services, such as 911 emergency. Some of the more detailed information that can be provided with respect to the project area includes: Bell Canada Development and Municipal Services Control Centre Floor 5 BLUE, 100 Borough Drive Toronto, Ontario M1P 4W2 Telephone Fax john.lachapelle@bell.ca

102 June 29, ) Asset locations, 2) Proposed routing for new/planned services, 3) Reinforcement and/or upgrades to services, and 4) Potential impacts to your project and/or our assets We have undertaken a review of the materials provided to date and would like to advise that Bell Canada may be required to recondition, replace and or relocate portions of our facilities depending on the voltage and other pertinent information associated with the Hydro station. To ensure continuity of essential telecommunications services, such as 911 emergency, we would ask that these facilities be taken into consideration at the detailed design stage of this initiative to identify and minimize any potential impacts on these facilities. We would be happy to engage in further dialogue with staff to provide greater insight on the type and amount of infrastructure located in the study area and would ask that these inquiries be directed to Bill Bernaerts, Access Network Provisioning (bill.bernaerts@bell.ca), directly. We would also request that Bell be placed on the list of reviewing agencies for this undertaking and that any information pertaining to this initiative be forwarded to our Development and Municipal Services Control Centre: Mr. John La Chapelle, MCIP, RPP Manager Municipal Relations Access Network Provisioning, Ontario Development and Municipal Services Control Centre Bell Canada Floor 5 BLUE, 100 Borough Drive Toronto, Ontario M1P 4W2

103 June 29, We would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Bremner Transfer Station and Cable Tunnel Class Environmental Assessment Study. If you have any questions, please direct them to the undersigned. Yours truly, John La Chapelle, MCIP, RPP Manager Municipal Relations Access Network Provisioning, Ontario cc: Wayne Corrigan - Associate Director - Access Network Bell Canada Bill Bernaerts, Access Network Provisioning Bell Canada Michael Laxton Access Network Manager Bell Canada Bob Millward RE Millward & Associates

104 Ministry of Tourism and Culture Culture Services Unit Programs and Services Branch 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 Toronto ON M7A 0A7 Tel Fax: Ministère du Tourisme et de la Culture Unité des services culturels Direction des programmes et des services 401, rue Bay, Bureau 1700 Toronto ON M7A 0A7 Tél. : Téléc. : June 30, 2011 Ms Pam Foster (By ) Senior Planner MMM Group 100 Commerce Valley Drive West Thornhill, ON Dear Ms Foster Project: Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited Cable Tunnel for Bremner Transformer Station (Machine Shop) Class EA Location: Bremner Blvd, Lower Simcoe St and Front Street West, City of Toronto MTC File: 20EA053 Further to our phone conversation on Monday June 21 st, 2011, we would like to confirm the following: On April 26, 2011 the Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) received a Notice of Study Commencement and Public Information Centre (PIC) for Bremner Transformer Station, Cable Tunnel and Machine Shop Class Environmental Assessment. We confirm your telephone advice that this Notice includes two separate, but interconnected, environmental assessment studies being conducted on behalf of Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited. IBI Group is undertaking the study involving the construction of a new underground transformer station, which includes dismantling and reassembling the heritage building adjacent to the Roundhouse, known as the Machine Shop. MMM Group is undertaking the EA study for the construction of the Cable Tunnel along Bremner Boulevard and Lower Simcoe Street to Front Street. As part of the Class Environmental Assessment process, the MTC has an interest in the conservation of cultural heritage resources including: archaeological resources, built heritage resources, and cultural heritage landscapes. MTC has learned that a second PIC was held on May19, However, it does not appear that this Ministry received Notice of this PIC MTC would be interested in remaining on the circulation lists and being informed of the project(s) as they proceed through the EA process. We would ask that the contact lists be updated to send future notices to Rosi Zirger A/Heritage Planner at the address above. 1 of 2