Appendix A Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 & 2)€¦ · booster station building. It is bordered to the east and south by landscaped lawns and to the west by an RMC parking lot

Appendix A Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 & 2)

This Archaeological Assessment can be obtained from the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports through the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. One can send an email to [email protected] to request a report from the Register.”

mailto:[email protected]

Appendix B Natural Environment Review

Ecological Services R.R. #1, 3803 Sydenham Road Elginburg, Ontario K0H 1M0 Phone: (613) 376-6916 E-mail: [email protected]

FINAL REPORT January 24, 2014 Re: Expansion/upgrade of an existing water pumping station at the James Street Booster Pump Station The accompanying Environmental Site Evaluation (ESE) was completed at the request of CH2M HILL who is completing a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the James Street Booster Pump Station. The proposed project is to occur on mostly landscaped lawns, which includes the existing booster station building. It is bordered to the east and south by landscaped lawns and to the west by an RMC parking lot and more landscaped lawns. The lawns contain a few ornamental trees. To the north the work site is bordered by James St. There is some residential development and a 0.8 hectare woodland north of James St. As a cultural site, the project site itself has no clear significant natural heritage features. In situations such as this that involve work within an existing developed or landscaped area and where environmental constraints are likely to be low, the CRCA has acknowledged our use of the accompanying ESE, which is a scoped version of an Environmental Impact Assessment. Our focus is on possible impacts to natural heritage features and functions as outlined in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the City of Kingston Official Plan. There is fish habitat within the Cataraqui River about 65 meters north of the proposed work site. Due to the intervening residential development and the intervening woodland we do not anticipate any negative impacts to this natural heritage feature as long as there is no work activity north of James St., and silt screen sedimentation barriers are applied where necessary. The provincially significant Cataraqui Creek Marsh occurs within the Cataraqui River, although we could see no signs of wetland as defined by the provincial wetland evaluation manual along the shoreline north of the project site. However, taking a conservative approach, there could be significant wetland about 65 meters north of the proposed work site. Due to the intervening residential development and the intervening woodland we do not anticipate any negative impacts to this natural heritage feature as long as there is no work activity north of James St., and silt screen sedimentation barriers are applied where necessary.

The woodland north of James St. has many negative value indicators such as small size, numerous non-native/invasive species, trails, and garbage to name a few. However, it could be a significant woodland due to the proximity feature that is described in the Natural Heritage Training Manual for the Natural Heritage Policies of the PPS. The proximity feature can be applied to woodlands that are adjacent to a significant natural heritage feature such as a provincially significant wetland. In order to maintain this potential significance defining feature, there should be no intrusion into the woodland north of James St. Other potential significant natural heritage features nearby could include species at risk and significant wildlife habitat. In both cases, potential significance comes from association with the river about 65 meters to the north. Therefore if no construction work occurs north of James St. within the intervening woodland and residential development, and silt screen sedimentation barriers are used where appropriate, then negative impacts to these potential significance natural heritage features are not anticipated. Respectfully

Rob Snetsinger

Ecological Services R.R. #1, 3803 Sydenham Road Elginburg, Ontario K0H 1M0 Phone: (613) 376-6916; Fax: (613) 544-0072 E-mail: [email protected]

ENVIRONMENTAL SITE EVALUATION Municipality: City of Kingston Location: James Street Booster Pump Station, operated by Utilities Kingston, James Street/Green Bay Road intersection and surrounding area. Proponent: Utilities Kingston Planning Application Reference: n/a Description of Application: The engineering firm CH2M Hill is completing a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for expansion/upgrade of an existing water pumping station at the James Street Booster Pump Station near James St. and Main St. near Barriefield (see Figure 1). Purpose: The purpose of this site evaluation is to provide background information relevant to the “Natural Environment” component of the Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, and to provide recommendations regarding any potentially significant natural features, and any mitigation measures that may be required either during construction or ongoing. Site Description:

A. Ecological Land Classification (ELC): ELC mapping is provided in Figure 1. The project area is mostly composed of parkland (landscaped lawn), containing a few ornamental trees (e.g., Norway maple, Siberian elm), shrubs, and roads. There is no ecological designation for landscaped lawns, and this area has been labeled as Cu (for Cultural). There is a 0.8 hectare (ha) woodlot north of the project area, located between James St. and the Cataraqui River (see Figure 2). It is dominated by non-native and/or weedy species including garlic mustard, Siberian elm, crack willow, and Manitoba maple. It has been labeled FOD (Deciduous Forest) because no specific ELC Ecosite or ELC Type designation could be found that fits the mix of species that are present here. There are several trails within the woodlot and it contains much garbage and dog excrement. A small area of cultural meadow (CUM) containing weedy forbs and grasses exists further west. This site is actually too small (i.e., > 0.5 ha) to be considered for ELC designation. Cultural meadow sites, such as this one, typically have low ecological value. A small area of cultural thicket (CUT) dominated by non-native invasive species (e.g., lilac, European buckthorn, Tartarian honeysuckle) is located on the east side of Main St. Like cultural meadow sites, cultural thickets such as this one have

low ecological value.

B. Soils: Roads and sandy loam overlain by landscaping. C. Slope: Initially flat, but sloping upwards to the east.

Is the Proposed Development: A. In a Provincially Significant Wetland? Yes No Adjacent to a Provincially Significant Wetland? Mapping in Schedule 7A of the OP shows areas of possible wetland along the shoreline, north and within 120 m of the project area. However, from our Fall field work we could see no signs of wetland as defined in the provincial wetland evaluation manual. The river and possible wetland are partially buffered by a swath of non-developed woodland that is at least 55 m wide. Since we can’t confirm or deny the wetland presence, we are taking the conservative approach and assuming that PSW is present in the river. In regards to the PPS and the OP, there will be no negative wetland impacts from the proposed project if:

1. No construction work occurs north of James St. within the intervening woodlot. 2. If runoff from the project area flows unimpeded into the river, then appropriate silt barriers should be used to prevent sediments from entering the river.

Yes No

B. In a Regionally Significant Wetland? Yes No Adjacent to a Regionally Significant Wetland? Yes No C. In/adjacent to an Unevaluated Wetland? Yes No D. In an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest? Yes No Adjacent to an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest? Yes No E. In the habitat of Species at Risk? Yes No Adjacent to habitat of Species at Risk? The work area, which is mostly landscaped lawn, does not provide habitat for species at risk. The Cataraqui River (less than 120 m away) is known to contain a variety of SAR turtle species including Blandings (THR), snapping (SC), musk (THR), and map turtles (SC). As well, the nearby boathouses could contain Barn swallows (THR). Due to the nature of the surrounding habitat, these species would mostly confine themselves to the river or shoreline areas. In regards to

Yes No

the PPS and the OP, there should be no negative impacts from the proposed project if no construction work occurs north of James St. within the intervening woodlot. F. In significant wildlife habitat? Yes No Adjacent to significant wildlife habitat? Unknown, but the open water and shoreline portions of the river could include the following significant wildlife ecoregion criteria: Shorebird Migratory Stopover (within the river) Waterfowl Stopover and Staging (within the river) Amphibian Breeding (within the wetland) All of these criteria are based on spring usage, and therefore spring field work would be needed to determine the level of significance. Since we can’t confirm or deny significance at this time, we are taking the conservative approach and assuming that all three of the above are present in the river. In regards to the PPS and the OP, there should be no negative wetland impacts from the proposed project if:


Yes No Unknown

G. Within 120 m of a waterbody? The work could be as close as 65 meters to the Cataraqui River.

Yes No

H. In fish habitat? Yes No Adjacent to fish habitat? The work could be as close as 65 meters to the Cataraqui River, which contains fish habitat. In regards to the PPS and the OP, there will be no negative impacts to fish habitat from the proposed project to fish habitat if:

1. No construction work occurs north of James St. in the intervening woodlot.

2. If runoff from the project area flows unimpeded into the river, then appropriate silt barriers need to be used to prevent sediments from entering the river.

Yes No

I. Adjacent to Highly or Moderately Sensitive Lake Trout Lake? Yes No J. In a significant woodland? Yes No Adjacent to a significant woodland?

Yes No

The 0.8 ha. woodland next to the proposed work area is designated as significant in Schedule 8A of the OP. Ordinarily urban woodlands of this small size that are heavily dominated by non-native and invasive species, and disturbed by human use (i.e., trails and garbage), would not get consideration for significance. We assume it was given the designation because it is next to a significant wetland. As such, it would have the proximity feature that is described in the Natural Heritage Training Manual for the Natural Heritage Policies of the PPS. If there is no intrusion into the woodlot with the proposed work (which could result in tree damage), then this proximity feature should not be impacted and for the purposes of the PPS and the OP, there will be no negative impacts. K. In a significant valleyland? Yes No Adjacent to a significant valleyland? Yes No In our opinion, is a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required to demonstrate the appropriateness of the proposed development? Yes No The project should occur on landscaped parkland and developed infrastructure, which has minimal ecological value. Nearby significant natural heritage features should not be negatively impacted due to intervening impact barriers and the temporary nature of the project. If yes, which natural feature(s) should the assessment focus on? n/a Recommendations for Mitigation:


Environmental Site Evaluation Completed By: Rob Snetsinger M.Sc. Date of Site Inspection: Nov. 13, 2013

Signature: January 23, 2014

Figure 1. Aerial image showing ELC designations and the approximate work area provided by CH2M Hill.

Figure 2. Intervening FOD woodlot north of James St.

Appendix C Heritage Impact Assessment

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

James Street Booster Station, 213 James St., Kingston

Revised and re-submitted to CH2M HILL Canada Ltd. – 7 April 2014

Laurie Smith Heritage Consulting 4 Bullock Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 1G8 Tel. (613) 236-8582 Cel. (613) 863-8852 [email protected]

Heritage Impact Assessment - James Street Booster Station 2

Laurie Smith Heritage Consulting ▪ 4 Bullock Ave, Ottawa K1S 1G8 ▪ 613-236-8582 ▪ [email protected]

Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4

3.0 Relevant Policy Provisions ........................................................................................................... 4

4.0 Methodology and Qualifications .................................................................................................... 6

5.0 Description of the Project ............................................................................................................. 7

6.0 Heritage Designations Potentially Impacted .................................................................................. 7

7.0 Cultural Heritage Evaluation of James Street Booster Station ....................................................... 9

8.0 Cultural Heritage Value of Barriefield HCD ................................................................................. 10

9.0 Conservation Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................ 12

10.0 Stakeholder Consultation ........................................................................................................... 14

11.0 Potential Impacts on Heritage Value ........................................................................................... 15

12.0 Recommended Mitigation ........................................................................................................... 16

13.0 Recommended Policy Measures and Next Steps ....................................................................... 17

14.0 Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 18

15.0 Appendix A – Statement of Cultural Heritage Value .................................................................... 28

16.0 Appendix B – City of Kingston Official Plan, s7.3.C.7 .................................................................. 30

17.0 Appendix C – Evaluation of James Street Booster Station against O. Reg. 9/06, OHA ................ 31

1.0 Executive Summary

This report is a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) of the James Street Booster Station, a water pumping station located within the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District (HCD) and close to the Rideau Canal National Historic Site/World Heritage Site in the east end of Kingston. The station was built in 1956 and refurbished in 1991. As part of updating the 2007 Drinking Water Master Plan, Utilities Kingston retained CH2M HILL Canada Ltd. (CH2M HILL) to assisting in completing a Schedule B, Class Environmental Assessment to study current and future needs of the booster station. This HIA is being prepared as part of the Environmental Screening Report, in order to address potential impacts on cultural heritage resources.

The preferred alternative proposes that the existing building remain in its current location, that a new building be constructed as an addition to, or immediately adjacent to the existing building, and that the 1991 addition will likely be removed. The existing setback will be maintained and the new building will extend to the rear/south of the existing building, with a possible east or west projection. The new building is expected to be similar in size and height to the existing building.

Heritage designations in the vicinity of the booster station include the Barriefield HCD, the Rideau Canal NHS/WHS) and three other national historic sites. As well, the City of Kingston Official Plan identifies certain views in this area that are protected by the policies set out in that document. Only the Barriefield HCD will potentially be impacted by the proposed project. The key potential for impact is the design of the new station and the extent to which it achieves compatibility with the heritage character of the district. The following measures are recommended to mitigate potential negative impacts:

The new addition/building should be compatible with the existing building and with properties on the north side of James Street, and should utilize traditional building forms and proportions.



The new addition/building should have a low- or medium-pitch roof, clad in black or grey asphalt shingles, cedar shingles or metal, and roof vents, solar panels, skylights and dormers should be located at the rear.

Windows should use vertical and rectangular proportions.

Clapboard, limestone and white or grey stucco are preferred for wall cladding (in that order) but plain, red-clay, Ontario-sized brick is also possible.

The size of the surface parking pad should be minimized, and soft landscaping should be installed around the booster station and between the parking area and James Street, using plants identified in the HCD Plan.

If construction will involve excavation, pre-construction surveys of adjacent buildings should be undertaken. Less-intrusive, mechanical methods should be used for any rock removal, and any damage to buildings or structures older than 40 years should be assessed by a qualified heritage professional.

Staging areas should be placed to minimize damage to trees, hedgerows, fences and stone walls, and should be restored to their pre-construction condition following construction. If necessary, James Street should be restored, following construction, to its existing alignment, elevation, width and materials, with gravel shoulder and grassed boulevard, and without sidewalks and curbs.

The following policy measures are recommended:

Detail design should incorporate and address the mitigation measures set out above.

The architectural and engineering team should include qualified heritage professionals with recent, relevant experience working with built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.

Utilities Kingston will require a heritage permit for this project, obtained through the Heritage & Urban Design section of the Planning & Development Department, and with the consent of the Municipal Heritage Committee and Council. The Heritage & Urban Design section recommends that a scope HIA be prepared with respect to the preferred design. A pre-consultation at the detail design stage is advisable.

Parks Canada should be circulated on the project as it progresses.



2.0 Introduction

CH2M HILL retained Laurie Smith of Laurie Smith Heritage Consulting to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)

1 for built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes, for the rehabilitation of

the James Street Booster Station, a project being proposed by Utilities Kingston.

The James Street Booster Station pumps drinking water to supply the Kingston East Water System. It is a small, one-storey building with a red-brick exterior and a gabled hip roof (Figure 1). The station was built in 1956 by the former Pittsburgh Township and refurbished in 1991 to designs by Downey & Inglis (architects) and J.L.Richards (engineers). The 1991 architectural changes to the station included the construction of a small western addition (changing the footprint from rectangular to T-shaped); the augmentation of the flat roof to become a gabled hip roof with a side gable; and the substitution of brick infill for the former glass block panels.

The booster station is located on the south side of James Street at Green Bay Road, in the former Pittsburgh Township, now part of the City of Kingston (Figure 3, Figure 2). It is located within the boundaries of the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District (HCD) (Figure 4).

2

Utilities Kingston is in the process of updating its 2007 Drinking Water Master Plan. As part of the Master Plan update, Utilities Kingston retained CH2M HILL to assist in completing a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for the James Street Booster Station, in order to develop a strategy to address the current and future operational and capacity needs of the station. The study is proceeding as a “Schedule B” undertaking under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (2000, amended 2007, amended 2011) (“MCEA”). Phase 1 involved the identification of the problem or opportunity to be addressed. Phase 2 involves the development of alternative solutions and the identification of a preferred solution. The preferred solution proposes the rehabilitation of the James Street Booster Station by extending and enlarging the existing station.

This HIA is being prepared as part of Phase 2, in order to address potential impacts on cultural heritage resources, including the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District and the Rideau Canal World Heritage Site. The purpose of the HIA is to understand and document designated cultural heritage properties and potential heritage properties on or in the vicinity of the proposed project, and to consider how the recommended alternatives might impact the heritage value and attributes of cultural heritage properties. It also makes recommendations to mitigate any negative impacts and to enhance heritage value.

This report deals solely with the built and landscape aspects of cultural heritage. Archaeology is being considered separately by a licensed archaeologist.

3.0 Relevant Policy Provisions

The Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (“EAA”) provides for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment. It defines environment in a broad way that includes natural, social, cultural, economic and built environments, and provides the basis for including cultural heritage in the environmental assessment process. Environmental assessments under the EAA will consider cultural heritage properties (both designated and potential), assess the potential impacts of the proposed development, and propose mitigation. The EAA does not limit the type of cultural heritage properties to those recognized by a provincial or municipal authority, so federally or internationally recognized cultural heritage properties can also be considered for potential impact.

The MCEA outlines a process to enable municipalities to comply with EAA requirements while expediting the environmental assessment of smaller recurring projects. It applies to municipal infrastructure projects 1 The document is identified as a “Heritage Impact Assessment” in keeping with terminology in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 and that used by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. The document is referred to in the City of Kingston Official Plan as a Heritage Impact Statement. In Ontario, the terms are synonymous 2 Barriefield Heritage Conservation District was designated by Pittsburgh Township in 1980 under Part V, Ontario Heritage Act



such as roads, watermains and sewers. Schedule B projects include generally include improvements and expansions to existing facilities.

The Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS provides that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved, by identifying, protecting, using and/or managing those resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. Heritage attributes are the principal features, characteristics, context and appearance that contribute to the cultural heritage significance of a protected heritage property. The PPS contemplates the use of a Heritage Impact Assessment to evaluate the impacts of proposed development and propose mitigation strategies.

3

The Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”) permits municipalities to designate properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest, based on criteria set out in Ont. Reg. 9/06.

4 Municipalities may designate heritage conservation districts and adopt a district plan for managing change.

5 The Act provides

processes for consent to alterations to designated properties and for alterations, demolitions, removals or new construction within a heritage conservation district.

6

The City of Kingston has adopted a policy and process for protecting cultural heritage resources as part of the City of Kingston Official Plan, consistent with the provisions of the PPS and the OHA.7 “Cultural heritage resources” include OHA-designated properties, protected and identified buildings, identified monuments, structures and installations, geographic heritage districts, areas and corridors and such landscape features as scenic vistas, viewplanes, streetscapes, gardens, battlefields and cemeteries, and archaeologically significant areas and sites. The Official Plan supports the preparation of a Heritage Impact Statement where a development proposal has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource or where construction, alteration, demolition, or addition to a property located within a heritage conservation district is proposed (ss. 7.1.7 & 7.3.C.5). It requires the city to conserve and protect cultural heritage resources in designing and constructing any public, capital and maintenance works involving or adjacent to designated and other cultural heritage resources (s.7.1.11a) and to cooperate with other levels of government in conserving cultural heritage resources within the municipality (s.7.1.11b).

The City of Kingston Official Plan specifically recognizes the city’s intent to conserve cultural heritage landscapes using the tools set out in section 7 (s.7.3). It recognizes heritage conservation districts as a type of cultural heritage landscape. Any private or public work or development that is proposed within or adjacent to a designated heritage conservation district must demonstrate that it respects and complements the identified heritage character of the district or area (s.7.3.C.4).

In addition, the City of Kingston Official Plan specifically recognizes Barriefield as a designated Heritage Conservation District under Part V OHA. Any new development or any alteration must follow the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan and must maintain the heritage buildings, features and landscapes; the topography; and archaeological sites and resources. It lists seven specific matters that must be addressed in any new development, including: “new residential and institutional units must be low profile and compatible with adjacent properties” (s.7.3.C.7). The entire section is reproduced as Appendix B.

The Official Plan also acknowledges the Rideau Canal’s status as a National Historic Site of Canada, a Canadian Heritage River, and a UNESCO World Heritage Site (s.7.3.A). It recognizes Parks Canada’s jurisdiction over riverbed and shore areas of the Rideau Canal and undertakes to work cooperatively to

3 PPS, ss. 2.6 & 6.0. 4 OHA, s. 29. 5 OHA, ss. 41 and 41.1. 6 OHA, ss. 33 and 42.

7 City of Kingston Official Plan, adopted 27 January 2010, s.7.



ensure that: cultural heritage landscapes and built heritage resources directly associated with the Canal are protected; development adjacent to or over the canal does not interfere with safe and efficient navigation on the Canal; development or site alteration on adjacent lands demonstrates that cultural heritage resources will be conserved; and new bridge or public utilities crossings undertake satisfactory environmental assessments in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan (s.7.3.A.1).

4.0 Methodology and Qualifications

This Heritage Impact Assessment was prepared by Laurie Smith of Laurie Smith Heritage Consulting for CH2M HILL. Laurie is trained as a historian and has worked as a heritage consultant for more than 13 years. She is a member and past director of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and has completed hundreds of reports evaluating heritage properties and communicating their heritage value at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Laurie has prepared heritage impact assessments for the cities of Ottawa and Kingston, including those for Phases I and II of the Environmental Assessment for a Third Crossing of the Cataraqui River in 2009-11, and the Heritage Impact Assessment for Utilities Kingston for the River Street Pump Station Twin-Forcemain Extension, Ravensview Trunk Sewer Twinning, and James Street Watermain in September 2012. Both the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport8 and the City of Kingston9 provide guidelines for the preparation of an HIA/HIS. This HIA responds to both sets of requirements.

Research was carried out in November and December 2013 and included:

a review of relevant policy documents, including MCEA, PPS, OHA and the City of Kingston Official Plan;

a review of existing municipal and federal heritage designations within or adjacent to the study area, including statements of significance, statements of cultural heritage value, and reasons for designation, and a review of Barriefield Conservation District Plan (1992);

telephone consultation with Susan Millar, Planner, Ontario Waterways, Parks Canada regarding Rideau Canal NHS/WHS (22 November 2013);

telephone and email consultation with Shirley Bailey, Heritage Manager, City of Kingston and Ryan Leary, Senior Planner, City of Kingston (19, 26 & 28 November, 2013);

telephone and email consultation with Robert Cardwell, member of Historic Properties Working Group and former member of Kingston Municipal Heritage Committee (MHC) (19 & 25 November 2013);

a review of project documents provided by Marcelle Jordan of CH2M HILL and site photographs provided by Utilities Kingston;

Recommendations in this report follow the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada, 2003, rev 2010), a nationally accepted standard that is also required by the City of Kingston Official Plan policy on cultural heritage.

8 MTCS suggests that a HIA should generally include: (1) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; (2)

identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the property; (3) description of the proposed development/site alteration; (4) measurement of impacts; (5) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; (6) implementation and monitoring schedules; (7) summary statement and conservation recommendations. 9 City of Kingston guidelines require: (a) owner information; (b) property description and documentation of cultural heritage resources; (c) statement of significance; (d) heritage assessment of existing conditions; (e) brief outline of proposed development; (f) summary of conservation objectives; (g) extent to which any demolition represents a loss of cultural heritage significance and its impact on the streetscape and sense of place; (h) ability of proposed development to reinstate or enhance cultural heritage value; (i) additional studies required; (j) qualifications of author; (k) references; (l) list of people contacted.



5.0 Description of the Project

Drinking water is supplied to the Kingston East Water System through the James Street Booster Station, a water pumping station located on James Street at Green Bay Road. The station was built in 1956 and refurbished in 1991. It is a small, one-storey building on a concrete slab foundation, with a brick exterior and a gabled hip roof. The station and its pumping equipment are currently in need of rehabilitation and upgrades.

Utilities Kingston is in the process of updating its 2007 Drinking Water Master Plan to accommodate current drinking water demands and to plan for additional infrastructure requirements to satisfy future drinking water requirements for Kingston East. The Master Plan update project will identify the preferred alternative to satisfy future water demands in the Kingston East Water System.

10 In order to consider the

impact of anticipated changes from the Master Plan update, and to ensure future requirements are met, Utilities Kingston has initiated a study of the James Street Booster Station. This study will assess options and develop a strategy to address the current and future operational and capacity needs of the station. This booster station study is being undertaken as a “Schedule B” project under the MCEA process.

The booster station study puts forward three alternatives, all of which will involve an expansion of the existing booster station in its current location. In order to achieve this expansion, the study is proposing the following changes to the James Street Booster Station:

11

the existing building (1956, altered 1991) will remain in its current location;

an additional building will be required to house additional pumping equipment. The new building will be constructed as an addition to, or immediately adjacent to, the existing building;

the existing setback from James Street will be maintained. The new building will extend to the rear/south of the existing building. Part of the new building may project slightly east or west of the wall planes of the existing building;

the 1991 addition to the footprint of the building will likely be removed;

the exact dimensions of the new building/addition are not yet confirmed, but it is expected to be similar in size to the existing building;

the new building/addition is not expected to be any taller than the existing building;

the exterior treatment of the existing building and the new building/addition has not yet been confirmed. Consideration will be given to the surrounding heritage buildings when selecting the final exterior treatment.

6.0 Heritage Designations Potentially Impacted

Heritage designations in the vicinity of the James Street Booster Station project include: Barriefield Heritage Conservation District; Rideau Canal National Historic Site and World Heritage Site; and national historic site designations at Old Fort Henry, Kingston Fortifications and Kingston Navy Yard. In addition, certain views have been identified as protected in the City of Kingston Official Plan.

Barriefield Heritage Conservation District

The James Street Booster Station is located just inside the western boundary of the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District (Figure 4).The district was designated in 1980 by the former Pittsburgh Township

10

This description of the project was provided by Marcelle Jordan, P. Eng., Operations Lead, Water Business Group, CH2M HILL, by email on 12 November 2013. 11 This description of proposed changes was provided by Marcelle Jordan, P.Eng., Operations Lead, Water Business Group, CH2M HILL, by telephone on 5 December 2013.



(now City of Kingston) under Part V of the OHA.12 It is managed by the City of Kingston using the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan, 1992.

City of Kingston Official Plan

Three viewscapes related to Barriefield are identified in the City of Kingston Official Plan as being protected by the policies set out in that document (Figure 5):

from Highway 15 towards the north end of Barriefield;

from the centre of Barriefield towards the Cataraqui River; and

from the Department of National Defence land on the east shore of the river, up the hill towards Barriefield.

13

Only the third viewscape includes the current James Street Booster Station and has the potential to be affected by any additions or alterations to the Booster Station. However, the protected viewscape has been seriously compromised, if not obliterated, by the federal construction of a large sportsdome in 2011 on land held by the Department of National Defence to the west of the HCD.

Rideau Canal

The James Street Booster Station is located on the western edge of the Cataraqui River, which forms the southernmost leg of the Rideau Canal. The Rideau Canal is a National Historic Site of Canada (“NHSC”), a Canadian Heritage River (“CHR”) and a UNESCO World Heritage Site (“WHS”). The James Street Booster Station is beyond the 30-metre WHS buffer zone and is separated from the river by a broad margin of trees, bushes and grassland. It is not visible from or to the river. There are no protected viewscapes in the NHSC, WHS or CHR designations between the canal and Barriefield.

The Parks Canada planner was consulted as to whether they had any concerns with the proposed rehabilitation of the James Street Booster Station. Parks Canada takes a visual impact approach to proposed development along the canal. The planner confirmed that Parks Canada does not have any concerns with this project as it is currently described. However, Parks Canada would like to be circulated by the city as the project progresses.

14

Other federal heritage designations

There are also a number of federal heritage designations in the vicinity. Research carried out as part of this HIA has determined that there is no potential for impact on these designations.

15

Old Fort Henry NHSC is located south of the proposed route. The character-defining elements for Old Fort Henry NHSC include viewscapes from the redoubt to Barriefield. The protected viewscapes do not intersect with the James Street Booster Station site.

Kingston Fortifications NHSC is located south and west of the proposed route. It includes a series of fortifications clustered around Kingston harbour and the mouth of the Cataraqui River: Old Fort Henry NHSC, Fort Frederick, Murney Tower NHSC, Shoal Tower NHSC and Cathcart Martello Tower. The protected viewscapes do not intersect with the James Street Booster Station site.

Kingston Navy Yard NHSC is located at Royal Military College, south and west of the proposed route. The protected viewscapes do not intersect with the James Street Booster Station site.

12

By-law 17-80, passed 21 April 1980. Approved by the Ontario Municipal Board 27 January 1981. HCD Plan implemented 1992. 13 City of Kingston Official Plan, approved January 22, 2010, Schedule 9 - Heritage Areas, Features, and Protected Views. 14

Telephone conversation with Susan Millar, planner, Ontario Waterways, Parks Canada, 22 November 2013. 15

Research included a review of the Statements of Significance and character-defining elements for each designation on the Directory of Federal Heritage Designations Federal designations use a Statement of Significance to describe cultural heritage value, and apply the term “character-defining elements” to denote heritage attributes.



7.0 Cultural Heritage Evaluation of James Street Booster Station

The James Street Booster Station is included within the boundary of the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District, but is not identified in the District Plan as contributing to the cultural heritage value of the district. Additional research and analysis has confirmed that the James Street Booster Station does not itself have cultural heritage value under Ontario Regulation 9/06.

The criteria for determining cultural heritage value under Ont. Reg. 9/06 consider the possible heritage value of a property in three main areas:

1. Design or physical value (because it is a rare, unique representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method; displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit; or demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement);

2. Historical or associative value (because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community; yields or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture; or demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community);

3. Contextual value (because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area; is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings; or is a landmark).

The James Street Booster Station is a small, one-storey building on a concrete-slab foundation (Figure 6, Figure 7). It has a red-brick exterior with metal doors on its north, west and south elevations, and a single, small window opening on its west elevation (Figure 8). The building features a prominent, gabled hip roof with a shallow slope and broad, overhanging eaves. Louvred panels in the gables on its south and west elevation provide interior ventilation (Figure 9, Figure 10). The building is fronted by an asphalt parking area and surrounded by grassed lawn (Figure 11).

The booster station was built in 1956 by Pittsburgh Township as a pumping station for drinking water. It was part of the extension of the Kingston water system, which Pittsburgh was to join. A key component was the new Kingston Sewage Disposal Plant (1953), located in Pittsburgh and bitterly opposed by the township, but eventually imposed by an Ontario Municipal Board decision.

16 Other township improvements during this period included the building or rebuilding of schools (1953), the introduction of street names and garbage collection in the village of Barriefield (1954), and the building of a fire hall (1955) for the newly established fire department. When the Township of Pittsburgh was amalgamated with the City of Kingston in 1998, the booster station became part of the city’s infrastructure. It is operated by Utilities Kingston, a municipal agency responsible for water and sewer services for the City of Kingston.

The James Street Booster Station was originally built as a flat-roofed building with a rectangular footprint and a brick exterior. Panels of glass blocks were inserted next to the entrance door on the north elevation. The design was a competent interpretation of the modern aesthetic, a typical but unexceptional example of a small mechanical building of the mid-1950s. The B-64 Pumping Station, located further west on James Street, provides an extant example of this type (Figure 12).

However, in 1991 Pittsburgh Township extended and refurbished the booster station to accommodate new mechanical equipment that required roof ventilation space. Inglis & Downey (architects) and J.L.Richards (engineers) were hired to complete the design (Figure 13). It was thought that the existing flat-roofed building was incompatible with the design aesthetic of the heritage conservation district, and the Pittsburgh Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) strongly encouraged the township to take the opportunity to incorporate the renovations in a more sympathetic design. A new, gabled hip roof with wide, overhanging eaves was installed, replacing the flat roof. As well, a small addition was made to the west side of the building, and the glass block panels were replaced with brick infill. Although the building continues to bear a 1956 date inscription, the 1991 renovations effectively 16 William J. Patterson, Lilacs and Limestone: An Illustrated History of Pittsburgh Township 1878-1987, (Kingston: Pittsburgh Historical Society, 1989) at pp. 255-8.



compromised any heritage value that might have existed in the building as a representative example for its period of a small mechanical facility.

The James Street Booster Station is one of five drinking water booster stations17 and 29 waste water pumping stations operated by Utilities Kingston. At least four of these were built in the 1950s.18

At least four municipal water pumping stations in the province of Ontario have been designated as heritage sites, three under the OHA (at Hamilton, Guelph and Cambridge) and one as a national historic site (at Hamilton). All four were built prior to 1900 and are significant for their architectural design as well as their historical associations.19

The James Street Booster Station does not meet the criteria set out in O.Reg. 9/06 for having significant cultural heritage value or interest. Although it is compatible with the heritage character of Barriefield, it does not itself hold cultural heritage value or contribute to the heritage character of the village. The 1991 alterations to the footprint, roof profile and exterior walls of the building have obscured or altered what was at best a competent rendition of a common mid-1950s design. A full evaluation against the O.Reg. 9/06 criteria is included as Appendix C.

8.0 Cultural Heritage Value of Barriefield HCD

The Village of Barriefield is located on a hillside on the east shore of the Cataraqui River, north of Highway 2 and west of Highway 15 (Figure 4). It was designated as an HCD in 1980 by the former Pittsburgh Township under Part V, OHA.

20 Barriefield was initially managed using the Barriefield HCD

Study (1978) and the Barriefield HCD Plan (1979). A new Barriefield HCD Plan was adopted in 1992 in order to guide and manage physical change and development within the district.

21 The 2005 changes to the OHA strengthened municipal powers to manage change within heritage conservation districts and required additional provisions in district plans. The City of Kingston is currently in the process of tendering an update to the Barriefield HCD Plan to reflect the 2005 amendments and the current heritage values of the district.

22

A copy of the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value prepared by the City of Kingston for Barriefield HCD is included as Appendix A, and provides a description of heritage value and heritage attributes.

23 Barriefield

is an evolving village landscape that retains its historic 19th century character. Its heritage value lies in its

17

Stantec Consulting Ltd., Condition Assessment of Water and Waste Water Pumping Stations, prepared for Utilities Kingston, December 2008. The other four are: Gardiners Road Booster Station (built 1978, refurbished 2007); Collins Bay Booster Station (built 1987); Old Colony Road Booster Station (date of construction unknown); and Sydenham Road Booster Station (date of construction unknown). 18 Stantec, Condition Assessment. The other stations built in the 1950s are: Portsmouth Pump Station (built 1954, refurbished 2000); River Street Pump Station (built 1957, refurbished 2004); North End Pump Station (built 1958, refurbished 2007); and Morton Street Pump Station (built 1959, refurbished 1995). 19 Hamilton Waterworks National Historic Site of Canada, Hamilton (built 1856-9, designated a national historic site in 1977); Guelph Waterworks Engine House and Pumping Station, Guelph (built 1879, designated by City of Guelph, 1997); Middleton Water Pumping Station, Cambridge (built 1890-91, designated by City of Cambridge, 1997); and The Pumping Station, Waterloo (built 1899, designated by the City of Waterloo, 1990). See the Canadian Register of Historic Places at http://www.historicplaces.ca . 20 By-law 17-80, passed 21 April 1980. Approved by the Ontario Municipal Board 27 January 1981. 21

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates, Wendy Shearer Landscape Architect Limited, & Jedd Jones Architect Ltd., The Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan, Part I: Conservation, Design and Landscaping Guidelines, and Part II, s 1 & 2). Prepared for the Corporation of the Township of Pittsburgh, May 1992. See also Andre Scheinman Heritage Preservation Consultant, Jedd Jones Architect Ltd., Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates, and Wendy Shearer Landscape Architect Limited, The Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan, Part II: Appendices. Prepared for the Corporation of the Township of Pittsburgh, May 1992. 22

RFP F31-CS-PD-2013-04, “Issues Analysis Report and Heritage Conservation District Plan Update for Barriefield Heritage Conservation District”. 23

Available online at the Canadian Register of Historic Places at http://www.historicplaces.ca



long association with European settlement and military activity in the Kingston area. It was first settled during the War of 1812 when landowner Richard Cartwright surveyed a small street grid and divided the land into 13 two-acre lots to provide housing for Kingston Naval Dockyard. Named for Commodore Barrie, the village continued to grow through the 1820s and 1830s as the dockyard thrived and Fort Henry was built (1832-7). The village had largely reached its present size by 1850, when activity at the dockyard and fort began to decline. Although a few significant buildings such as a post office and town hall were added in the late 19

th century, the village population remained stable and there was very little new construction

for the next 100 years. After the Second World War, both the population and the condition of the housing stock began to decline. The Highway 2 rock cut (1930) and the Highway 15 bypass (1979) relieved the village of heavy traffic. The village‘s designation as a heritage conservation district in 1980 was a response to increased development pressure in the late 1970s.

24

While new residences have been built and some existing heritage properties altered, the overall 19th century village character has been retained. The distinctive design value of the Barriefield HCD lies in the scale, mass, decorative detailing and siting of its buildings, typified by low-profile, one-and-a-half storey houses. Views from Highway 15 to the north, Highway 2 to the east and downtown Kingston to the west, all afford panoramic vistas of Barriefield. From Barriefield there are clear views of the Cataraqui and St. Lawrence Rivers and Fort Henry. Large grassy open spaces on the north, east and south sides of the village preserve these vistas. The formerly clear view of downtown Kingston, a key feature of the district, has been compromised by the insertion of a large sports ‘bubble’ on the DND property to the southeast. The District’s landscape includes a mix of natural and built features that contribute to its historic character, including: the original street grid, lilac hedgerows, dry stone walls and other elements that define property boundaries. Barriefield also has notable archaeological resources.

25

The Historical Building Inventory appended to the Barriefield HCD Plan provides information on four properties located on the north side of James Street, opposite the Booster Station property:

James Medley House, 230 James Street, west of Main (Figure 14). Built by local tailor James Medley in 1856-7, this one-and-a-half-storey limestone house was restored after a fire in the 1980s. It includes a representational fragment of the wrought iron fence which once enclosed the yard.

Sharman House, 232 James Street (Figure 15). This two-storey frame building was built c1863 by local carpenter and boat builder Jacob Sharman, and is thought to incorporate an existing frame house built c1820. Aluminum siding has been added over clapboard.

234 James Street (Figure 16). This simple frame house is typical of the many post-Second-World-War houses built during the 1940s and early 1950s. Vinyl siding has been added over insulbrick.

Pittsburgh Inn, 236 James Street (Figure 17). This two-storey limestone building was built by William Walker c1838-40 and operated as a tavern for many years, first as the Pittsburgh Inn (1842-67) and later as the “Dominion House” (1867-1925).

The log house at the corner of Green Bay Road and James Street was moved to this site in the early 1980s by a local heritage contractor (Figure 18). It is a composite structure assembled from log buildings which originally stood in Ottawa, Ancaster, and Hamilton, Ontario.

26 The building was not included in the 1992 Barriefield HCD inventory and is not considered to contribute to the heritage character of the conservation district.

24 This summary of heritage value is based on the Statement of Significance for Barriefield HCD, written by the City of Kingston, and supplemented by information in the Barriefield HCD Plan (1992), “Appendix 2: Historical Context”. 25 Idem. 26 Telephone conversation with Christine Sypnowich, MHC, 17 September 2012, based on information in the Barriefield walking tour guide.



9.0 Conservation Goals and Objectives

The following Conservation Goals and Objectives, set out in the Barriefield HCD Plan, are relevant to the proposed project:

To maintain the low density residential character of Barriefield heritage conservation district. (2.2.1)

To protect and enhance the existing low rise residential profile of Barriefield. (2.2.1)

To encourage the maintenance, enhancement and protection of the village landscape character of Barriefield. (2.2.3)

To maintain and preserve natural features such as the Cataraqui River banks, existing trees, treelines, hedgerows and grass lands within the district. (2.2.3)

To maintain and preserve built landscape features such as stone walls and fences. (2.2.3)

To encourage the protection and retention of existing road and streetscapes within Barriefield and to avoid or minimize the adverse effects of public undertakings. (2.2.3)

To enhance public spaces with appropriate landscaping. (2.2.3)

To avoid wherever possible the disruption or disturbance of known archaeological sites within the Barriefield HCD. (2.2.4)

27

Any proposed changes within the district must be considered with regard to certain principles, two of which are relevant here:

All public works should seek to avoid adverse effects to the character of Barriefield HCD and in particular to individual heritage buildings, archaeological sites, walls, fences and distinctive trees and treelines within the district.

New construction comprising freestanding buildings should respect the prevailing character of: adjacent buildings; the existing streetscape, landscaping and grade levels; and the district as a whole. New construction must be of compatible design in location, size, height, setback, orientation, materials, colour, roof and roofline, fenestration, scale and proportion.

28

Generally the historic buildings of Barriefield were built either of stone or in wood siding over a frame structure. A number of brick masonry structures also exist.29

The HCD Plan provides specific guidelines for alterations, additions and new construction. The following guidelines should be considered in the design and placement of alterations and additions to non-heritage buildings (4.2):

Avoid alterations to walls, windows and doors that attempt to recall historical design motifs and materials such as “snap-in” muntins, decorative surrounds and shutters.

Wherever possible locate new roof vents, solar panels, skylights, and dormers away from public view in inconspicuous locations.

Attempt to design and locate needed parking spaces in unobtrusive areas of a residential property, trying to ensure that front lawns, tree plantings and hedges are retained.

Where possible try to locate new additions in a way that will not result in the widening of the existing front façade, i.e. at the rear or stepped back from the façade towards the rear of the building.

27 Barriefield HCD Plan, s. 2.2, Barriefield District Conservation Goals and Objectives. 28

Barriefield HCD Plan, s. 2.3, Barriefield District Conservation Principles. 29

Barriefield HCD Plan, s. 3.4, Exterior Wall Cladding.



Upper storey additions should attempt to maintain the height of existing roof lines and predominant roof profile and configuration of adjacent buildings especially in close proximity to heritage structures.

Materials should match the existing wherever possible.

The following guidelines should be considered for construction of new buildings (4.5):

Building demolition will be actively discouraged.

New development shall be required to be compatible with the character of adjoining properties and the streetscape.

Contemporary design is encouraged but with a view to utilizing traditional building forms and proportions.

Building height and floor area: the district is typified by low-profile development with a predominance of one to one-and-a-half storey buildings and this low profile form of development is encouraged. Building height of new structures must maintain the building height of adjacent properties and the immediate streetscape and should be neither excessively higher nor lower. (4.5.1)

Building location: there is no one predominant building line or setback that distinguishes the whole district. The varied topography, road alignments and landscape units argue for the consideration of each individual development proposal on its own merits. New buildings should generally be located with the front façade parallel to the street. (4.5.2)

Roofs: use of a low-pitch (less than 30˚ slope) or medium-pitch (30˚ to 45˚ slope), side gable should be encouraged for new development. Cross-gabled, flat or mono-pitched roofs, and steeply pitched roofs (more than 45˚ slope), should be avoided. Black or grey asphalt shingles, cedar shingles and metal are all appropriate roofing materials; concrete and clay tile roofs are prohibited. Roof vents, solar panels, skylights and dormers are best located at the rear of a new building. (4.5.3)

Windows and entrances: every attempt should be made to reflect traditional proportions and symmetrical facades. Window designs that reflect vertical and rectangular proportions and avoid the use of decorative or “snap-in” muntins are preferred. Square pane divisions are suitable in certain instances. On street-facing facades, windows and doors should maintain existing proportions prevailing in the district and should not be excessive in relation to the façade. Large, full-length, multi-storey or picture windows and entrances must be avoided. Decorative shutters should appear to cover their respective windows in width and length. (4.5.4)

Walling: materials should reflect traditional materials and their respective colours and texture, namely clapboard, limestone and stucco (executed in white or light grey). Concrete (or other masonry blocks), and plain and textured sheathing should be avoided.

Brick: should be avoided in the core area (bounded by James, LaChappelle, Cataraqui River, Wellington and George streets). Plain, red-clay, Ontario-size brick may be used outside the core area provided the lot is not adjacent to a lot with a limestone, stucco or brick structure. Use of quoins or brick patterning is not permitted. Board and batten is not recommended as the principal walling material for main buildings.

The HCD Plan cautions that public works have the potential to cause considerable disruption to the rich variety of heritage resources both above and below ground, and requires that every effort be made in both day-to-day operations and longer term planning, to minimize adverse effects to the heritage conservation district and its constituent elements. (4.5.7)

With respect to landscape conservation and enhancement, the HCD Plan recommends that

undertakings by the municipality or utility companies relating to underground servicing should be planned so as to retain as much as possible the existing fences and hedgerows along the street



rights-of-way. Uneven edges to the pavement, narrow sidewalks and grass boulevards should be retained or reinstated at the time of any road improvements such as resurfacing (5.2);

sidewalks in the village are generally three feet wide and sit flush with the surrounding grade of the boulevard. Where sidewalk construction or new construction is undertaken in the village, it is recommended that the narrow width and grade be retained as much as possible while at the same time providing full accessibility at intersections and entrances (5.2);

where new landscape plantings are undertaken…a range of species should be selected which were traditionally found in the district and are still evident in the village, including: trees (Black Walnut, Butternut, Ash, Norway Spruce, Apple, Scots Pine, Oak, Mountain Ash), shrubs (Lilacs, Honeysuckle, Viburnum, Shrub Roses, Rose of Sharon), and herbaceous material (Daylilies, Virginia Creeper, Violets, Lily of the Valley, Peony) (5.2);

the existing alignments, elevations, layout pattern and road widths of streets should be regularly maintained and retained in any resurfacing or upgrading work and all drainage improvements should be designed to retain, as much as possible, the gravel shoulder and the distance separating the pavement and the residences (5.3.1);

replacement sidewalks should duplicate the existing pattern: approximately three feet wide, flush with the street and bordered by a grass or gravel boulevard. Minor modifications should be made at each intersection to ensure that the sidewalk is ramped to the pavement and therefore fully accessible. Wide curb face sidewalks should not be installed (5.3.3);

the municipality is encouraged to preserve existing lilac hedgerows along road allowances and to install new trees and hedgerows where needed throughout the village. Street trees should be selected from a variety of hardy tree species to reinforce the mix of vegetation currently found in the district (5.3.4);

The HCD Plan divides the District into eight landscape units – two are relevant to this HIA.30

Landscape Unit 3 – James Street, north side, from 226 James to Main St. The five properties along the north side of the street have a variety of setbacks from road’s edge and a variety of property line treatments. The uneven edge consisting of the gravel shoulder and grass boulevard softens the urban edge and is an important feature. The present mix of fencing and hedgerows defining the property lines and the edge of the street should be retained. Property owners whose properties lack this clear definition are encouraged to install similar fencing or hedgerows along their frontages. Front yard parking should be eliminated if possible or screened from view by the planting or fencing.

Landscape Unit 4 – Grassed open space (south, east and north of district). This landscape unit contained very few trees or features in 1992. Gently sloped, it served as an important foreground affording uninterrupted panoramic views of the village. The open space surrounding the district should be conserved as much as possible in order to protect significant views into and from the village. Of particular sensitivity is the gradual slope on the south east, at the approach from Kingston, and the area north of the church. These areas in particular accent through contrast the cohesive visual character of the settlement area. Use of these areas for parking such as along the south side of James St. should be moderated with the installation of plant material screening.

10.0 Stakeholder Consultation

Comments on potential impacts were provided by Parks Canada, and by the Heritage & Urban Design section of the Planning & Development Department for the City of Kingston.

Susan Millar, Planner, Ontario Waterways, Parks Canada, advised that Parks Canada does not have concerns with the proposed project in terms of visual impact on the Rideau Canal NHS/WHS. Parks Canada would like to be circulated by the city as the project progresses.

30

Barriefield HCD Plan, s.5.4, Landscape Conservation and Enhancement: Specific areas for improvement.



Ryan Leary, Senior Planner, Heritage & Urban Design section, responded that the scale, massing and location of the new structure are of most concern. The design and exterior cladding, including the roofing, are also of interest. Section 4.5 of the HCD Plan outlines a number of factors to consider when designing a new building in the District. If the building is designed and located properly, the impacts will be minimal. Proper and increased landscaping, in accordance with the HCD Plan, should also help mitigate impact. Utilities Kingston will need a heritage permit for this work through the Municipal Heritage Committee and Council. A scoped HIS with respect to the preferred design is recommended and a pre-consultation at the detail design stage is advisable.

31

The Heritage & Urban Design section also suggested that Robert Cardwell be asked to provide comments. Mr. Cardwell has been a resident of James Street, Barriefield, since 1966. He was a member of the former Pittsburgh Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) and of the City of Kingston Municipal Heritage Committee until November 2012. He is a member of the Historic Properties Working Group of the Kingston Municipal Heritage Committee and a member of the Barriefield Village Association. Mr. Cardwell noted that:

The area in which the existing booster station is located was historically reserved and used as a cleared military exercising ground. The existing booster station has always been viewed as a necessary intrusion on this significant cultural landscape. However, the cultural landscape and its accompanying viewscapes have now been completely compromised by the construction of the soccer dome (Figure 19).

In scale, the present booster station building sits rather comfortably away from the street and not competing with its heritage neighbours. Surrounding support items, such as the transformer box, extremely tall communications pole and large parking pad are negative intrusions into the streetscape.

The reconfiguration or increased size of a new facility would need to be compatible with the HCD and remaining viewscapes. The scale or mass should not detract from surrounding heritage buildings.

The siting of the existing booster station at a generous distance off the street provides a better opportunity for landscaping and makes it appear more separated from the historical one-sided streetscape. Any addition or new building should similarly be well away from the street.

11.0 Potential Impacts on Heritage Value

The primary area for potential impact on heritage value is the design of the proposed new addition/building and the extent to which it achieves compatibility with the heritage character of the district. Although the existing building does intrude on the heritage character of the district, this is minimized by its modest size, generous setback from James Street, and pleasant aesthetic with forms and vocabulary borrowed from the village. The new addition/building must be compatible in terms of its scale, massing, height, location, setback, roof pitch and profile, fenestration, materials, colour and overall exterior design. The ways in which compatibility can be achieved are detailed in the HCD Plan and will be discussed under “Recommended Mitigation” below. The proposed design already incorporates a number of features which will minimize impact:

- maintaining the existing building in its current location

- maintaining the existing setback from James Street

- the location of the new addition/building to the rear/south of the existing building

- the scale and size of the new addition/building, similar to that of the existing building

- the height of the new addition/building, no taller than the existing one-storey building

31

Email from Ryan Leary, City of Kingston, 28 November 2013.



The new addition/building has the potential to impact the protected viewscape of the city of Kingston from Barriefield, but only to the extent that this viewscape has not already been obliterated by the soccer dome. The proposed one-storey height and proposed proportions are in keeping with the current station and would not interfere with this viewscape beyond what is already taken up by the dome.

The nature of the foundation and footings of the new addition/building have not been specified. If excavation of rock material by mechanical methods is required during construction, this has the potential to indirectly harm 19th and early 20

th century houses along the north side of James Street.

Staging for the project and the ingress and egress of construction vehicles has the potential to impact on the heritage character of the district if it alters or damages the existing road surface, gravel shoulder, grassed boulevard, hedgerows or fencing of James Street, or the grassed open area to the east and south of the booster station.

12.0 Recommended Mitigation

The following measures are recommended to mitigate the potential negative impacts on the cultural heritage value of Barriefield HCD. These measures should be integrated with the detailed design requirements for the project and implemented during construction. Monitoring should be carried out as recommended below:

The new addition/building should be compatible with the existing building, and with properties on the north side of James Street that contribute to the heritage value of the district. It should have a pleasing aesthetic that utilizes traditional building forms and proportions.

The new addition/building should have a low-pitch (less than 30˚ slope) or medium-pitch (30˚ to 45˚ slope), side-gable roof. The roof should be clad in one of: black or grey asphalt shingles, cedar shingles or metal. Roof vents, solar panels, skylights and dormers should be located at the rear of the new addition/building.

Any windows should use vertical and rectangular proportions.

Exterior wall materials should reflect traditional materials used in the village. Clapboard, limestone, and white or grey stucco are preferred (in that order), but plain, red-clay, Ontario-sized brick is also possible.

The size of the surface parking area associated with the booster station should be minimized.

Soft landscaping should be installed along the south side of James Street and around the booster station itself, as a visual buffer between the booster station, its parking lot and the historical properties along the north side. Appropriate plantings should be selected from the list provided in the HCD Plan.

If construction will involve excavation, pre-construction condition surveys of houses, buildings and other structures along James Street should be undertaken. Surveys should include: the exterior envelope of buildings, including masonry walls, foundations and windows; and hard landscape features such as stone walls and fences. Surveys of buildings older than 40 years should be carried out with the involvement of a qualified heritage professional with experience in the conservation of 19

th century and early 20

th century buildings and structures, and should

include site-specific recommendations for preventative measures to minimize physical impact during construction. Any recommendations should be included in construction specifications.

Where rock removal is necessary during excavation, mechanical methods should be used which are the least intrusive possible, and least likely to cause the damage through vibration or flying debris.

Should any damage occur during construction activity to buildings or structures older than 40 years (other than the James Street Booster Station itself), work should cease at once and the structure(s) should be immediately assessed by a qualified heritage professional, and



conservation recommendations prepared. Remedial work should be carried out as recommended and as soon as possible.

Staging areas should be carefully placed so as to minimize disturbance to black willows and other mature trees, wetland grasses, lilac hedgerows, fences and stone walls. Staging areas should be restored to their pre-construction condition following construction.

Following construction, James Street should be restored, if necessary, to match its existing alignment, elevation, width, and materials, and to restore the gravel shoulder and grass boulevard. Sidewalks and curbs do not currently exist along the James Street right-of-way, and should NOT be installed.

13.0 Recommended Policy Measures and Next Steps

The following next steps are recommended:

Detail design for the James Street Booster Station rehabilitation project should address and incorporate the mitigation measures recommended above.

The architectural and engineering team preparing detail design should include qualified heritage professionals with recent, relevant experience in working with built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes, such as members of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals.

Utilities Kingston will require a municipal heritage permit for this project, obtained through the Heritage & Urban Design section of the City of Kingston Planning Development Department, and with the consent of the Municipal Heritage Committee and Council. The Heritage & Urban Design section recommends that a scoped HIA be prepared with respect to the preferred design. A pre-consultation with staff of the Heritage & Urban Design section, at the detail design stage, is advisable.

Parks Canada should be circulated on the project as it progresses.



14.0 Figures

Figure 1 –The James Street Water Booster Station was built in 1956 and altered in 1991. (LSHC 2012)

Figure 2 – The James Street Booster Station is located on the south side of James Street, at Green Bay Road, in the former Pittsburgh Township, now the City of Kingston. (Google, with arrow added)



Figure 3 – The booster station is located in the former Pittsburgh Township, now City of Kingston. (City of Kingston)

Figure 4 – Barriefield Heritage Conservation District, showing district boundary as broken line. Red arrow shows location of James Street Booster Station. (Source: Barriefield HCD Plan, 1992)



Figure 5 – Excerpt from the Official Plan showing protected views related to Barriefield. (Source: City of Kingston Official Plan, approved January 2010, Schedule 9)

Figure 6 – North elevation of the booster station. (Utilities Kingston, 2013).



Figure 7 – East elevation of the booster station. (Utilities Kingston, 2013)

Figure 8 – West elevation of the booster station. (Utilities Kingston, 2013)



Figure 9 – West elevation of the booster station. (Utilities Kingston, 2013)

Figure 10 – South elevation of the booster station. (Utilities Kingston, 2013)



Figure 11 – The green space east of the booster station, on the south side of James Street. (Utilities Kingston)

Figure 12 - The B-64 Pumping Station is located west of the James Street Booster Station, and was likely built at the same time and in the same style as the original booster station. (LSHC 2012)



Figure 13 – 1991 as built plans for alterations to the booster station. (Inglis & Downey, 1991. Provided by Utilities Kingston)

Figure 14 – James Medley House, 230 James St. (LSHC 2012)



Figure 15 - Sharman House, 232 James St. (LSHC 2012)

Figure 16 – 234 James St. (LSHC 2012)



Figure 17 – Pittsburgh Inn, 236 James St. (LSHC 2012)

Figure 18 – The log house at the corner of Green Bay Road and James Street is a composite of log buildings from other sites. (Credit: Sotheby’s Realtors).



Figure 19 – The soccer dome is directly southeast of the booster station. (Utilities Kingston, 2013)



15.0 Appendix A – Statement of Cultural Heritage Value

The Statement of Cultural Heritage Value is taken from the Barriefield HCD entry in the Canadian Register of Historic Places online at http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=10829 .

Description of Historic Place

The Barriefield Heritage Conservation District (HCD) is an evolving village landscape that has retained much of its historic 19th century character. It sits on a hillside rising from the eastern shore of the Great Cataraqui River, adjacent to the intersection of Highways 2 and 15 near Fort Henry, the Royal Military College and Canadian Forces Base Kingston.

The District was designated by the former Township of Pittsburgh under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act on April 21, 1980 (By-law 17-80).

Heritage Value

Barriefield HCD contains a diverse ensemble of buildings, mostly residences, and landscape features of 19th century character, while reflecting two centuries of physical, social, economic and natural change.

Barriefield has a long association with European settlement and military activity in the Kingston area, beginning in 1814, with a detailed townsite plan. The streets were named after military figures from the War of 1812. The village itself was named, in 1820, after Commodore Robert Barrie, Commissioner of the nearby Kingston Naval Dockyard. Barrie's secretary, John Bennet Marks, an early village resident, was elected MPP, in 1836, and first Reeve of Pittsburgh Township, in 1850.

Early growth of the village was associated with the increased activity at the nearby Kingston Naval Dockyard, during the War of 1812, and the construction of Fort Henry, from 1832 to 1837. By the 1840s growth had stabilized, but Barriefield saw further commercial and industrial development in the 19th century, mainly associated with taverns, hotels, boat building and sawmills. Slowly changing from the 1840s to the early 20th century, Barriefield was a reflection of the stable population and economy. In 1886 the Pittsburgh Township Hall, designed by William Newlands, was added to the Village. There was little new construction after 1900. Post 1945, the buildings in the village began to suffer, as the population declined so too did the property values. Since 1977, however, Barriefield has been under increasing development pressure, which led, in part, to the creation of the Heritage Conservation District by Pittsburgh Township, in 1980. While new residences have been built and some existing heritage properties altered, the overall 19th century village character has been retained. Barriefield also has notable archaeological resources.

The distinctive design value of the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District is found in the scale, mass, decorative detailing and siting of its buildings. Most are detached single family residences of frame or stone construction with a few semi-detached houses. There are also a few two-storey buildings, but the overall built environment is typified by low profile, one-and-a-half storey houses. Brick buildings are uncommon with only four 19th century examples. Additions and alterations to properties in the village have reflected continuing use and changing needs and tastes of their owners and occupants over time. Most changes have been sympathetic to the historic character of the buildings.

Views from the approaches along Highway 15 to the north, Highway 2 to the east and downtown Kingston to the west, all afford uninterrupted panoramic views of Barriefield, as it sits prominently upon the hill. As well Barriefield's position provides clear views of the Cataraqui and St. Lawrence rivers, Fort Henry and downtown Kingston. Large grassy open spaces on the north, east and south sides preserve these vistas. The northern entrance to Barriefield is through a stone gate and bordered by a walnut grove. On the northern edge, the prominent landmark of St. Mark's Church is highly visible from a distance. The steeply sloping river bank with its screen of deciduous trees and the mature black willows surrounded by tall wetland grasses along the river edge further define the District and contribute to the rich variety of its natural features. The District's landscape reveals a mix of natural and built features that further contribute to the distinctive overall historic character. These include; the original street grid, dividing the properties into rectangular lots, lilac hedgerows, dry stone walls and other surviving landscape elements that define property boundaries.



Sources: Former Township of Pittsburgh By-law 17-80; Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan, May 1992; City of Kingston Heritage Property File CHE-P18-572-2006.

Character-Defining Elements

Character defining elements that contribute to the heritage value of the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District include its:

street names recognizing the War of 1812 and British military officers

proximity to the site of the former Kingston Naval Dockyard and Fort Henry

archaeological resources

cohesiveness of the overall use, scale, siting and building materials in the village

constraining village boundaries of the Military Reserve and river

low-density residential scale of most properties, continuous throughout the history

predominance of 19th and early 20th century buildings, showing evidence of change over time

predominance of one-and-a-half storey buildings typifying the overall form of the District

minimal setback of most buildings

predominance of local limestone and frame construction, with only four 19th century brick buildings

central front gables generally found as original construction on the post-1850 stone houses, and as a later addition in the roofs of some pre-1850 houses

use of squared rubble in the stone buildings, either coursed, un-coursed or broken-coursed

predominance of clapboard or cove siding on frame houses

side gable, centre hall plan and symmetrical three bay façade of most smaller houses, with some exceptions featuring off centre entranceways

five bay façades of the larger two storey dwellings

end gable, side hall plan with off centre doors on the late 19th century frame houses

brick or stone chimneys typically located at either end of the roof ridges

typically vertical rectangular window openings, usually symmetrically arranged on each elevation with untrimmed openings and sills of wood or cut stone, headed with voussoirs on the stone houses

surviving double hung sashes of most original windows

round arched windows in most central front gables

main entrances typically located on the long wall of the end gabled stone houses

rubble foundation walls typically found on the frame houses

plain entranceways—some with transoms—of the frame houses

minimal exterior detailing of the earlier frame houses

one-storey open porches running the full-width of the façades of many houses

its setting on a hillside rising from the riverbank

viewscapes from the village towards the Cataraqui and St. Lawrence rivers, Fort Henry and downtown Kingston

grassy open space on the north, east and south sides of the District



street geometry, laid out in a grid following the 1814 townsite plan and forming rectangular lots

more intensive settlement pattern of the core of the village and along the two historical main roads

surviving historic landscape features, such as stone survey markers, dry stone walls, abandoned rights of way–now used as public pathways, hillside streets, lilac hedgerows and mature black locusts

mature black willows, overhanging the water and surrounded by tall wetland grasses along the river's edge

landmark of St. Mark's Church (built 1844), the most prominent building in the District, highly visible from a distance

landscaped setting, including decorative stone gate posts and dry stone walls marking the entrance and grove of walnut trees at the road which form a distinctive northern gateway to the District.

16.0 Appendix B – City of Kingston Official Plan, s7.3.C.7

Barriefield Heritage Conservation District

Barriefield is a designated Heritage Conservation District containing historic buildings, laneways and landscapes that have preserved a 19th century village setting. New development or any alteration must follow the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan and must maintain the heritage buildings, features and landscapes, the topography, and archaeological sites and resources. The following specific matters must be addressed:

a. land uses must be limited to detached dwellings and limited numbers of semi-detached dwellings (being 10% or less of the total);

b. a church, publicly-funded school, or other community facility, and a senior citizens home may be permitted subject to a rezoning;

c. permitted commercial uses must be small in scale, convenience oriented, supportive of the heritage setting, will not increase traffic volumes, and may have a maximum of three residential units as an accessory use above the main floor use;

d. new lots must have full street frontage and be similar to the lot pattern and grid road structure of the heritage area;

e. new residential and institutional units must be low profile and compatible with adjacent properties;

f. a landscaped buffer along Highway 15 must be maintained and no new structure will be permitted to impede the view of St. Mark’s Church from either Main Street or Highway 15; and,

g. no new lots will be severed from the Barriefield House property except one with frontage on Regent Street with a depth of 30 metres.



17.0 Appendix C – Evaluation of James Street Booster Station against O. Reg. 9/06, OHA

ONTARIO REG. 9/06 CRITERION RESPONSE (YES/NO)

RATIONALE

1. The property has design or physical value because:

i. it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method

NO As built, the James Street Booster Station was a competent interpretation of the modern aesthetic, a typical but unexceptional example of a very common form: a small mechanical building of the mid-1950s, However, 1991 renovations altered the form, roofline, footprint and window openings, compromising any representativeness.

ii. it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit

NO The James Street Booster Station does not display any particular craftsmanship or artistic merit. It was built and later renovated using standard manufactured materials

iii. it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement

NO The James Street Booster Station does not demonstrate technical or scientific achievement. It follows a standard technical program and is one of five local booster stations.

2. The property has historical value or associative value because:

i. it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community

NO The James Street Booster Station was one of many infrastructure improvements introduced in the former Pittsburgh Township during the mid-1950s. It is not associated with any theme, event, person etc. of significance to the community.

ii. it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture

NO No evidence has been discovered to suggest that the James Street Booster Station yields or has the potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of community or culture.

iii. it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community

NO The original designer of the James Street Booster Station is not known. The original design has been severely compromised by renovations in 1991.

3. The property has contextual value because:

i. it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area

NO The James Street Booster Station does not define, maintain or support the heritage character of the Barriefield HCD, but is somewhat compatible as a result of 1991 renovations.

ii. it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings

NO The James Street Booster Station is distinct from the built environment of the surrounding Barriefield HCD.

iii. it is a landmark NO The James Street Booster Station does not function as a landmark. It is an unexceptional component of the area.

Appendix D Public and Agency Consultation Materials

Federal Agencies

Master List of Agencies and Stakeholders Page 1 of 6

Federal Agency Name Title Branch Address 1 City Province Postal Code Phone E-mailDepartment of Indian and Northern Affairs Mr. Glenn Gilbert

Regional Manager, Environment

25 St. Clair Ave East, 8th Floor Toronto ON M4T 1M2 (416) 973-2131

Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Mr. Shawn Green Environmental Officer

25 St. Clair Ave East, 5th Floor Toronto ON M4T 1M2 (416) 973-1298

Environment Canada Mr. Rob Dobos Head EA SectionP.O. Box 5050 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington ON L7R 4A6 (416) 739-4788 [email protected]

Fisheries and Oceans Canada Ms. Debbie Miller Referrals Coordinator Ontario - Great Lakes Area401 King St W, P.O. Box 1000 Prescott ON K0E 1T0 (613) 925-2865

Health CanadaMs. Diane McClymont-Peace Health and Environment

200 Eglantine Driveway, Tunney's Pasture Ottawa ON K1A 0K9 (613) 946-9663 [email protected]

Health Canada Anik GuertinEnvironmental Health Assessment Officer

200 Eglantine Driveway, Tunney's Pasture Ottawa ON K1A 0K9 (613) 957-2490 [email protected]

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Ms. Louise Knox Director (Ontario Region)

55 St. Clair Avenue East, Room 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 (416) 952-1575 [email protected]

Correctional Service CanadaMs. Nancy L. Stableforth

Deputy Commissioner (Regional Headquarters - Ontario) Kingston Branch 440 King St. W. Kingston ON K7L 4Y8 (613) 536-4527

Public Works and Government Services Canada Mr. Dean Miller

Regional Director General (Ontario Region) 4900 Yonge Street Toronto ON M2N 6A6 (416) 512-5610 [email protected]

Transport Canada Haya Finan Environmental OfficerEnvironment and Engineering 4900 Yonge Street North York ON M2N 6A5 (416) 952-0505 [email protected]

Canadian Forces Base - Kingston(correspondence typically via Jim Miller @ UK)

Major Don Saunders Major

Officer Commanding Engineer Support Squadron

PO Box 17000, Station Forces | CP 17000, Succ Forces Kingston ON K7K 7B4

613-541-5010 x5280 [email protected]








Provincial Agencies


Provincial Agency Name Title Branch Address 1 City Province Postal Code Phone E-mail

Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Mr. Ted Johnston

Coordinator, Facilities Management - Strategic Planning & Capital Projects Unit

George Drew Building, 13th Flr, 25 Grosvenor St Toronto ON M7A 1Y6 (416) 327-1096 [email protected]

Ministry of Energy Mr. Allan Jenkins Senior Policy Specialist 880 Bay Street 3rd Floor Toronto ON M7A 2C1 (416) 325-6926 [email protected] of Energy Mr. Kevin Pal Manager 880 Bay Street 6th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2C1 (416) 325-7204 [email protected] of Health and Long Term Care Ms. Cheryl Szikita

Senior Policy Analyst - Environmental Health Policy 5700 Yonge Street 2nd Floor Toronto ON M2M 4K5 (416) 212-7258 [email protected]

Ministry of Infrastructure Renewal Ms. Tija DirksDirector - Growth Policy, Planning and Analysis Branch 777 Bay Street 4th Floor Suite 425 Toronto ON M5G 2E5 (416) 325-1546 [email protected]

Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing Mr. Michael Elms

Manager (Acting) - Community Planning & Development 8 Estate Lane, Rockwood House Kingston ON K7M 9A8 (613) 545-2132 [email protected]

Ministry of Natural Resources Ms. Anne Bendig Area BiologistKemptville District Office 10 Campus Drive, Postal Bag 2002 Kemptville ON K0G 1J0 613-258-8303 [email protected]

Ministry of the Environment Ms. Vicki Mitchell Technical Support SectionP.O. Box 22032 1259 Gardiners Road, Unit 3 Kingston ON K7M 8S5 (613) 540-6852 [email protected]

Ministry of Tourism and Recreation Ms. Mary Beach Manager (East Region) 347 Preston Street 4th Floor Ottawa ON K1S 3J4 (613) 742-3366 [email protected]










Regional Agencies


Regional Agency Name Title Branch Address 1 City Province Postal Code Phone E-mail

City of KingstonMs. Shirley Bailey Senior Policy Planner Community Development Services 216 Ontario Street Kingston ON K7L 2Z3 (613) 546-4291 [email protected]

City of Kingston Ms. Cherie Mills Manager, Policy PlanningPlanning and Development Branch, Sustainability and Growth 216 Ontario Street Kingston ON K7L 2Z3 (613) 546-4291

Kingston Fire & Rescue Mr. Paul PatryAssistant Chief / Director of Fire Prevention 500 O'Connor Drive Kingston ON K7P 1N3

(613) 548-4001 x5127 [email protected]

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Mr. Rob McRaeProject Manager - Source Water Protection

1641 Perth Road, P.O. Box 160 Glenburnie ON K0H 1S0


Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Mara ShawWatershed Management Coordinator

1641 Perth Road, P.O. Box 160 Glenburnie ON K0H 1S0 (613) 546-4228 [email protected]

Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington Health Unit Mr. Gord Mitchell Public Health Inspector

221 Portsmouth Avenue Kingston ON K7M 1V5 (613) 549-1232 [email protected]

Kingston Economic Development Corporation Mr. Jeff Garrah Chief Executive Officer 67 Brock Street Kingston ON K7L 1R8 (613) 544-2725 [email protected] Economic Development Corporation

Christa Wallbridge

Project Manager, Business Infrastructure 67 Brock Street Kingston ON K7L 3Y1


Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est de l'Ontario Mr. Mario Lajoie

Director - Planning, Accountability and Strategic Consultation 4000, rue Labelle Gloucester ON K1J 1A1 (613) 746-3637

Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'Ontario

M. Roch Landriault Director des Services techniques

2445, boulevard St-Laurent Ottawa ON K1G 6C3 (613) 742-8960 [email protected]

Algonquin and Lakeshore District School Board

Mr. Doug Campbell

Controller of Plant and Planning Services 151 Dairy Ave Napanee ON K7R 4B2 (613) 354-6257 [email protected]

Limestone District School Board Manny Brandao Capital Project Coordinator Facility Services Department220 Portsmouth Ave, Postal Bag 610 Kingston ON K7L 4X4


Triboard Student Transportation Services Mr. Steve Wowk Manager of Transportation 81 Dairy Avenue Napanee ON K7R 1M5 (613) 354-1981 [email protected]











Non Governmental Organizations


Non-Governmental Organization Name Title Branch Address 1 City Province Postal Code Phone E-mailDucks Unlimited Mr. Scott Muir 1-614 Norris Ct. Kingston ON K7P 2R9 (613) 376-3306Kingston Environmental Advisory Forum Ms. Brandi Timpson Clerk 216 Ontario Street Kingston ON K7L 2Z3 (613) 546-0000 [email protected] Field Naturalists Kingston Field Naturalists PO. Box 831 Kingston ON K7L 4X6 613-389-8338Little Cataraqui Creek Environment Association Ms. Christine J. Cannon Chair 930 Old Front Road Kingston ON K7M 4M1 (613) 389-5712Pittsburgh Residents Association c/o Sheila Nichol 22 Riverside Dr. Kingston ON K71 4V1Ardoch Algonquin First Nation Mireille Lapointe Co-chief Ardoch Algonquin First Nation Box 91, 26 Spring Street Westport ON K0G 1X0Mississaugas of Alderville First Nation Chief James R. Marsden Mississaugas of Alderville First Nation P.O. Box 4 Roseneath ON K0K 2X0Mississaugas of Alderville First Nation Dave Simpson Lands and Resources Communications Officer Mississaugas of Alderville First Nation P.O. Box 4, 11696 Second Line Roseneath ON K0K 2X0 905-352-2662 [email protected] of The Bay of Quinte Lisa Maracle Lands Researcher Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory R. R. #1 Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory ON K0K 1X0Huron-Wendat Nation Luc Laine Huron-Wendat Nation 255 Rue Mishwl-Lave Wendake QC G0A 4V0Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation Chief Doreen Davis Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation 29649-7 Hwy Arden ON K0H 1B0 Note: This mailing address returned, no forwarding address availableCurve Lake First Nation Chief Keith Knott Curve Lake First Nation 22 Winookeeda Road Curve Lake ON K0L 1R0 705-657-8045 [email protected]; [email protected] First Nation Council Chair Greg Cowie Hiawatha First Nation 123 Paudash Street, R.R. #2 Keene ON K0L 2G0 705-295-4421 [email protected] of Scugog Island Chief Tracy Gauthier Mississaugas of Scugog Island 22521 Island Rd. Port Perry ON L9L 1B6 905-985-3337 [email protected] Nishnawbe First Nation Chief Kris Nahrgang Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation P.O. Box 1432 Lakefield ON K0L 2H0 705-654-4661Williams Treaty First Nations Karry Sandy-Mackenzie Williams Treaty First Nation Claims Coordinator 8 Creswick Court Barrie ON L4M 2S7






Commercial Organizations


Commercial Interests Name Title Branch Address 1 City Province Postal Code Phone E-mailEnbridge Consumers Gas Mr. Mike Johnson 400 Coventry Road Ottawa ON K1K 2C7

Hydro OneMr. Gary Panter/Bill Lowry 913 Crawford Drive Peterborough ON K9J 3X1

Bell Canada Mr. Cam Moorhead 39 Apple St., P.O. Box 40 Brockville ON K6V 5T7

Bell Canada Mr. Fred H. BerryImplemention Mgr. Access Network Facilities

449 Princess Street, Floor 6, P.O. Box 3000 Kingston ON K7L 4Z9

Trans-Northern Pipelines Mr. Walter H. Watt Property Administrator 45 Vogell Road, Suite 310 Richmond Hill ON L4B 3P6 (905) 770-3353 [email protected]

Canadian National Railway Ms. Marissa Crawford Project Engineer Engineering Services P.O. Box 1000 Concord ON L4K 1B9 (905) 669-3114 [email protected] Pacific Railway Mr. Adam Perelsan St. Luc Yard Office 5901 Westminster Ave. North Montreal, QC QC H4W 2J9

Union Gas Mr. Peter SiemonsenUtility Services & Construction Management

1-613-389-7006 x76249 [email protected]

Union Gas Mr. Jerry Lollar Field Manager1-613-389-7006 x76236 [email protected]





Public Stakeholders


Affiliation Name Title Branch Address 1 City Province Postal Code Phone E-mailBarriefield Village Association Christine Sypnowich http://www.barriefieldvillage.com/ ? Kingston ON ? ? [email protected] Village Association Bob Cardwell ? Kingston ON ? ? [email protected]

November 25, 2013

To whom it may concern:

Subject: Utilities Kingston - East Water System Review Including James Street Booster Station Upgrades - Environmental Assessment

CH2M HILL Canada Limited has been retained by Utilities Kingston to update the 2007 Master Plan for Water Supply for the City of Kingston (Simcoe Engineering, 2007) for the area east of the Great Cataraqui River (“Kingston East”) and to prepare a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for potential upgrades/expansion to, or the relocation of, the James Street Booster Station.

Since the 2007 Water Master Plan there have been physical changes to the water distribution system in Kingston East, including the construction and commissioning of the Innovation Drive Elevated Storage Tank. In addition, potential future changes to water storage in Kingston East (decommissioning of the Gore Road Standpipe, the CFB Kingston Elevated Storage Tank and the Milton Standpipe) requires re-evaluation. Long term configuration and operation of the Kingston East system to the year 2033 will be evaluated, along with consideration of how new infrastructure will operate in the short term prior to system buildout when the ultimate water demands are reached.

With all water supply for Kingston East currently passing through the James Street Booster Station, the evaluation of this station’s operation is integral to both the current and future performance of the Kingston East Water System. At issue is meeting fire flows, maintaining water quality and system pressures following potential decommissioning of several of the smaller storage locations in the system, while still providing reasonable system pressures for users in the lower areas of the pressure zone.

This study is being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011). The final deliverable for this project will be an updated Master Plan described in a technical memorandum, including projected future water demands for Kingston East, and an environmental assessment report outlining the preferred alternative for infrastructure changes for the James Street Booster station to meet those demands. This report will be filed and available for public review for period of 30 days upon completion. A public information centre will be held in early 2014 with an advertised notice provided prior to the session.

CH2M HILL

1101 Prince of Wales Drive, Suite 330

Ottawa, ON K2C 3W7

Canada

Tel: 613.723.8700

Fax: 613.723.7489

www.ch2mhillcanada.com

Review of East Water System Including James Street Booster Station Upgrades Environmental Assessment

Utilities Kingston has initiated a review to update the 2007 Master Plan for Water Supply for the City of Kingston for the area east of the Great Cataraqui River (“Kingston East”) and to prepare a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for potential upgrades to, or the relocation of, the James Street Booster Station.

Since the completion of the 2007 Water Master Plan there have been physical changes to the water distribution system in Kingston East, including the construction and commissioning of the Innovation Drive Elevated Storage Tank. In addition, potential future changes to water storage in Kingston East require re-evaluation. Long term configuration and operation of the Kingston East system to the year 2033 will be evaluated, along with consideration of how new infrastructure will operate in the short term prior to system buildout.

With all water supply for Kingston East currently passing through the James Street Booster Station, the evaluation of this station’s operation is integral to both the current and future performance of the Kingston East Water System. At issue is meeting fire flows, maintaining water quality and system pressures following potential decommissioning of several of the smaller storage locations in the system, while still providing reasonable system pressures for users in the lower areas of the pressure zone.

This study is being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011). The final deliverables for this project will be an updated Master Plan described in a technical memorandum, including projected future water demands for Kingston East, and an environmental assessment report outlining the preferred alternative for providing infrastructure to meet those demands. This report will be filed and available for public review for a period of 30 days upon completion.

Public and agency consultation is a key element of the Class EA process. One Public Information Centre (PIC) is planned for this project and project information will be available on the Utilities Kingston website (http://www.utilitieskingston.com) with an advertised notice also provided prior to the session. A Notice of Completion will be issued upon close of the project.

A mailing list for notification of project activities and the PIC is now being compiled. If you wish to receive notification of the EA activities (PIC), or if you have any questions regarding the project, please contact one of the people listed below or send an e-mail to [email protected].

Comments are welcome at any time during the study.

Marcelle Jordan, P.Eng. Project Manager CH2M HILL Canada Limited 1101 Prince of Wales Drive, Suite 330 Ottawa, Ontario K2C3W7 Tel: 613-723-8700 ext. 73116 [email protected]

David Fegan, P.Eng. Utilities Engineer Utilities Kingston P.O. Box 790 Kingston, ON K7L 4X7 Tel: 613.546.1181 ext. 2302 Fax: 613.542-1463 [email protected]

This Notice Published: Tuesday, November 19, 2013, The Kingston Whig-Standard

Notice of Study Commencement

http://www.utilitieskingston.com/



Final Problem Statement for East Water System – Master Plan Update and James Street Booster Station Schedule B Environmental Assessment

“Utilities Kingston has determined the need to update the 2007 Drinking Water Master Plan to accommodate current (2013) drinking water demands and to plan for additional infrastructure requirements to satisfy the short-term (2013), mid-term (2026) and long-term (2033) drinking water requirements for the area of Kingston East. This project will identify the preferred alternative to satisfy the future (2033) water demands in the Kingston East Water System, while considering operation both in the short term and long term through the phasing process towards future infrastructure build out, while minimizing the impacts on the natural and social/cultural environment. The ability of the alternatives to allow for decommissioning of existing infrastructure that has reached the end of its useful life will be incorporated into the evaluation of alternatives, along with the potential for cooperation with Department of National Defence for completion of the project and its impacts on water supply to their facilities.

Water is supplied to the Kingston East System through the James Street Booster Station, which is currently in need of rehabilitation and upgrades. The impact of anticipated changes from the Master Plan update need to be considered to ensure future requirements are met at the station. Consequently, a study to assess options and develop a strategy to address the current and future operational and capacity needs of the James Street Booster Station is required.

This Study is being undertaken as a “Schedule B” project under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process.”

1

Long, Andrew/OTT

From: Fegan,David <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:33 AMTo: 'Christine Sypnowich'Cc: McLachlan,Robert; Jordan, Marcelle/OTTSubject: RE: James Street Booster Station upgradesAttachments: PIC_AdvertisementNotice_rev1.pdf

Hi Christine, The Public Information Center for the Booster Station project has been scheduled for Tuesday Jan 28th 6-8pm at the LaSalle Secondary School. I have attached our notice which will be published in the Whig later this week. Would you please pass this along to association members? Thank you! David David Fegan, P.Eng. Utilities Engineer Utilities Kingston P.O. Box 790 Kingston, ON Canada K7L 4X7 p. 613.546.1181 x. 2302 c. 613.453.0716 [email protected]

From: Christine Sypnowich [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 12-18-2013 5:27 AM To: Fegan,David Cc: McLachlan,Robert; [email protected]; '[email protected]'; Doug Morrow ([email protected]); [email protected]; Stuart Payne; [email protected] Subject: RE: James Street Booster Station upgrades Dear David, I haven’t heard of any issues, so I assume the public meeting will suffice. Many thanks for your concern. Christine From: Fegan,David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 11:06 AM To: Christine Sypnowich Cc: McLachlan,Robert; [email protected] Subject: RE: James Street Booster Station upgrades Hi Christine,

2

Thanks for distributing the information regarding the proposed James Street Booster Station upgrades to your members. We haven’t received any questions or feedback regarding the project so far, so I wanted to touch base with you and see if you have heard anything yet? Depending on the response, and level of concern we could simply see you at the Public Meeting, or if the level of concern warrants we could have a phone call to explain things, or offer to meet with the Barriefielders separately – sometimes we would show up an hour early to the open house to discuss additional concerns. This will not be the only chance for input. The study has looked at various possible locations for the booster station and will recommend that it remain where it is; the study also looked at long term planning to make sure we can deliver enough water to supply populations into the future. A detailed design phase would begin in the Spring 2014 and at that time there will be another opportunity for comment mid-late 2014 on detailed design considerations such as the architecture. We welcome your feedback and would be happy to discuss the project in greater detail with you or the members. If the level of concern warrants an info session above and beyond the Public Meeting scheduled for the week of January 20th please let me know. Otherwise we would look forward to seeing your members there. I will email again once we have the time and location determined. Thanks, David David Fegan, P.Eng. Utilities Engineer Utilities Kingston P.O. Box 790 Kingston, ON Canada K7L 4X7 p. 613.546.1181 x. 2302 c. 613.453.0716 [email protected]

From: Christine Sypnowich [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 11-28-2013 9:08 PM To: Fegan,David Cc: McLachlan,Robert; [email protected] Subject: RE: James Street Booster Station upgrades Dear David, Thanks for getting in touch. I’d be happy to forward any electronic copies of materials. Paper copies, though, would be best distributed by your office, by post, or hand delivery. Thanks again for opening up the lines of communication. Yours, Christine From: Fegan,David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 3:12 PM To: Christine Sypnowich

3

Cc: McLachlan,Robert; [email protected] Subject: James Street Booster Station upgrades Hi Christine, I don’t believe we have met yet, but I am working on a project near the Barriefield Village and would like to open up a channel for communications between Utilities and the Barriefield Village Association. The project is an Environmental Assessment for the James Street Booster Station Upgrades which had been identified in the Water Master Plan for capacity upgrades. The EA covers booster station capacity upgrades as well as the related impacts. I won’t launch into too many details for now as I am simply trying to open up the lines of communication. Can we contact yourself to distribute information to the rest of the group or is there a contact who would be better for that? We’d like to send you our mail out bundle which includes a covering letter, Notice of Commencement, and problem statement. And of course, there will be a public info session which will likely be scheduled for mid-January. Please let me know who we should contact for communications, and feel free to give me a shout if you have questions. I am cc’ing Rob McLaughlan who will be taking over this project for me in the future, as well as our consultant on the project Marcy Jordan of CH2M Hill. Thank-you, Dave David Fegan, P.Eng. Utilities Engineer Utilities Kingston P.O. Box 790 Kingston, ON Canada K7L 4X7 p. 613.546.1181 x. 2302 c. 613.453.0716 [email protected]

This E-mail contains confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named in the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply E-mail and delete the original message. This E-mail contains confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named in the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify us by reply E-mail and delete the original message.

WelcomeWelcome

January 28, 2014

to the

Public Information Centre for the

East Water System - James Street Booster Pump Station Upgrades

Environmental Assessment

Please sign in and take a Comment Sheet

Utilities Kingston staff and their consultants from CH2M HILL are on hand

to answer your questions.

Purpose of the ProjectPurpose of the Project

Utilities Kingston has initiated a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) to develop and assess options for upgrades to the James Street Booster Pump Station (BPS), as part of an overall review of the water Master Plan for Kingston East

This project is a Schedule B Class EA

– Phase 1 – Identify the Problem

– Phase 2 – Alternative Solutions• Identify reasonable alternative solutions to the problem

• Evaluate the alternative solutions

• Identify the preferred solution

• Public information centre

• Finalize the recommended solution

– Phase 5 – Implementation of Preferred Solution

We are here

Class EA ProcessClass EA Process

Problem StatementProblem Statement

“Utilities Kingston has determined the need to update the 2007 Drinking Water Master Plan to accommodate current (year 2013) drinking water demands and to plan for additional infrastructure requirements to satisfy the short-term (year 2013), mid term (year 2026) and long-term (year 2033) drinking water requirements for the area of Kingston East.

This project will identify the preferred alternative to satisfy the future (2033) water demands in the Kingston East Water System, while considering operation both in the short term and long term through the phasing process towards future infrastructure build out, while minimizing the impacts on the natural and social/cultural environment.

The ability of the alternatives to allow for decommissioning of existing infrastructure that has reached the end of its useful life will be incorporated into the evaluation of alternatives, along with the potential for cooperation with Department of National Defence for completion of the project and its impacts on water supply to their facilities.”

Problem StatementProblem Statement

“Water is supplied to the Kingston East System through the James Street BPS, which is currently in need of rehabilitation and upgrades.

The impact of anticipated changes from the Master Plan update need to be considered to ensure future requirements are met at the station. Consequently, a study to assess options and develop a strategy to address the current and future operational and capacity needs of the James Street BPS is required.

This Study is being undertaken as a “Schedule B” project under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process.”

Kingston East Water SystemKingston East Water System

Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation Criteria

•Impact on terrestrial systems•Environmentally Sensitive Areas / Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest

•Groundwater

Natural Environment

•Cultural and Heritage Resources•Archaeology•Impact to Residents

Social and Cultural Environment

•Estimated Capital costs•Estimated O&M costs

Economic

•System Performance – Water Pressure•System Performance – Water Quality•System Performance – Fire Flow•Operational Complexity•Flexibility•Constructability•Sustainability

Technical

Alternative SolutionsAlternative Solutions

Definitions: FPC: Firm Pumping Capacity, BPS: Booster Pumping Station, EST: Elevated Storage Tower, PZ: Pressure Zone

Alternative Number

James St BPS Location

James St BPS Pumping Capacity

Other Pumping

Water Storage Facilities Conveyance Upgrades

1A Exis tingFPC > Max Day

Demand- Innovation Dr EST

Conveyance Through DevelopmentsHighway 15 UpgradesHighway 2 Upgrades

1B Exis tingFPC = Max Day

Demand-

Innovation Dr ESTNew EST in PZ 3C

Conveyance Through DevelopmentsHighway 15 Upgrades

1C Exis tingFPC = Max Day

DemandNew BPS with

ReservoirInnovation Dr EST

New Reservoi r in PZ 3CConveyance Through Developments

Highway 15 Upgrades

2A NewFPC > Max Day

Demand- Innovation Dr EST

Conveyance Through DevelopmentsHighway 15 UpgradesHighway 2 Upgrades

2B NewFPC = Max Day

Demand-

Innovation Dr ESTNew EST in PZ 3C

Conveyance Through DevelopmentsHighway 15 Upgrades

2C NewFPC = Max Day

DemandNew BPS with

ReservoirInnovation Dr EST

New Reservoi r in PZ 3CConveyance Through Developments

Highway 15 Upgrades

Evaluation of Alternative SolutionsEvaluation of Alternative Solutions

ALT‐1A ALT‐1B ALT‐1C

System Performance – Water Pressure B G EA - Low suction pressures, and large variation in downstream system pressures, C - Lower HGL needed for ground reservoir filling resulting in less high pressure areas

System Performance – Water Quality E G EB - Storage volume more difficult to phase with an elevated tank, which could result in some temporary water quality issues which would need to be mitigated through flushing

System Performance – Fire Flow B E E A - Available fire flow lower than B or C

Operational Complexity B E B

A - More complex pump operating strategy to meet peak hour and fire

flow, C - Requires the highest operation and maintenance effort due to

two pump stations

Flexibility G G EA & B & C - Additional pumps can be added over time, C - Reservoir can

also be phased over time

Constructability G B B

Each alternative involves modifications to existing James St BPS, retrofitting existing infrastruture requires careful planning. B & C - Additional construction impacts to public from construction of new storage facility

Sustainability G E B

A - Moderate efficiency due to additional pumping rates and higher dynamic head requirements, B - High efficiency due to passive elevated storage tower, C - Low efficiency due to additional need for hydraulic energy and double pumping

Category Evaluation Criteria

TECH

NICAL

Qualitative Score1,2Scoring Notes

Qualitative Assessment

Note: Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C were found to not be technically feasible and were not included in the evaluation of alternatives.E = Excellent, G = Good, B = Below Average

Evaluation of Alternative SolutionsEvaluation of Alternative Solutions

Qualitative Assessment

Note: E = Excellent, G = Good, B = Below Average

ALT‐1A ALT‐1B ALT‐1C

Terrestria l Systems E G G

A - Only one s i te, so least impacts to terrestria l systems, B & C - Each have two s i tes so more impacts to terrestria l systems than A. Impacts from any a l ternative expected to be addressed through mitigation, no species at ri sk or high ri sk natural envi ronmenta l impacts expected.

Environmenta l ly Sens i tive Area/ Area of Natura l and Scienti fi c Interest

G G GNo environmenta l ly sens i ti ve areas were found at the pump s tation s i te. The location of the proposed storage faci l i ties in B and C wi l l be fina l i zed at a later date.

Groundwater G G GNot expected to have impacts at any s i te that cannot be mitigated. The location of the proposed s torage faci l i ties in B and C wi l l be fina l i zed at a later date.

Cul tura l and Heri tage Resources G G GHeri tage impacts at the James St BPS wi l l be mi tigated. The location of the proposed storage faci l i ties in B and C wi l l be fina l i zed at a later date.

Archaeology G G GNo archaeologica l ly arti facts of s igni ficant cul tura l heri tage were found at the James St BPS s i te. The location of the proposed s torage faci l i ties in B and C wi l l be final i zed at a later date.

Impact to Res idents G G B

Each a l ternative wi l l have some impacts on res idents during operations such as maintenance activi ties , etc., but can be minimized through des ign features . C expected to have s l ightly more impacts due to increased maintenance activi ties at new pump s tation.

Capita l Costs G G B

A - Expected to have moderate capi ta l costs associated with pump s tation upgrade, and l ikely conveyance upgrades to provide fi re flows us ing only pumps (i .e. no elevated storage) therefore areas of the sys tem wi l l require pumping upgrades , B - Expected to have the lowest capi ta l costs , C - Expected to have the highest capi ta l costs .

O&M Costs G G BA & B - Expected to have s imi lar operating costs , C - Expected to have the highest operating costs due to a second booster pump s tation required with the ground reservoir.

Category Evaluation Criteria

NAT

URA

L EN

VIRO

NMEN

TSO

CIAL

AND CULTURA

L EN

VIRO

NMEN

TECONOMIC

Qualitative Score1,2Scoring Notes

Recommended Alternative SolutionRecommended Alternative Solution

Quantitative Assessment

Rank Alternative Number

Description of Alternative Major System Components

1 1BPumping: Expans ion of Exis ting James St Booster Station: Pumping Maximum Day DemandStorage: Innovation Dr Elevated Tower, New Elevated Tower in Exis ting Pressure Zone 3CConveyance: Conveyance Through Developments , Highway 15 Upgrades

2 1A

Pumping: Expans ion of Exis ting James St Booster Station: Pumping Capaci ty Increas e Beyond Maximum Day DemandStorage: Innovation Dr Elevated TowerConveyance: Conveyance Through Developments , Highway 15 Upgrades , Highway 2 Upgrades

3 1C

Pumping: Expans ion of Exis ting James St Booster Station: Pumping Maximum Day Demand. New Booster Station With New Ground ReservoirStorage: Innovation Dr Elevated Tower, New Ground Reservoir in Exis ting Pressure Zone 3CConveyance: Conveyance Through Developments , Highway 15 Upgrades

Natural Environment and Archaeology Assessments

Natural Environment and Archaeology Assessments

An archaeological assessment of the anticipated impact area for the expansion of the James Street BPS was completed, in order to ascertain whether its construction would have a negative impact on any archaeological resources.

A Stage 2 assessment was performed

– Between 1.0 and 1.2 metres of limestone rubble fill in a clay matrix is present in this area, overlying a black / grey clay buried soil horizon.

– No significant archaeological deposits were encountered.

The project area is mostly composed of parkland (landscaped lawn), containing a few ornamental trees (e.g., Norway maple, Siberian elm), shrubs, and roads.

The project is to occur on landscaped parkland and developed infrastructure, which has minimal ecological value.

Nearby significant natural heritage features will not be negatively impacted due to intervening impact barriers and the temporary nature of the project.

Heritage AssessmentHeritage Assessment

A heritage impact assessment for the expansion of the James Street BPS was completed in order to ascertain whether its construction would have a negative impact on the heritage character of surrounding heritage assets, specifically the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District (HCD).

The James Street BPS is located at the edge of the boundary of the Barriefield HCD, but is not identified in the District Plan as contributing to the cultural heritage value of the district. Additionally the BPS does not itself have cultural heritage value under Ontario Regulation 9/06.

The following has been recommended to mitigate potential negative impacts:– The new addition/building should be

compatible with the existing building and with properties on the north side of James Street, and should utilize traditional building forms and proportions and appropriate exterior finishes.

Draft RecommendationsDraft Recommendations

Upgrade James Street BPS in its current location.

Construct an addition to the existing building that will include new pumps, electrical equipment, standby generator, chlorine booster system, and other required appurtenances and systems as needed.

Include design features for the building addition and exterior finishes that are compatible with the existing building and with properties on the north side of James Street.

Include landscaping using plants identified in the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District plan.

Future infrastructure (not included in this EA) to include a new elevated water storage tower east of CFB Kingston, and conveyance upgrades on Highway 15 and through new developments.

James St Pump Station Conceptual Site PlanJames St Pump Station Conceptual Site Plan

Note: Layout is conceptual in nature, and will evolve with the progression of the design

Next StepsNext Steps

Next Steps:– Review of comments received from Public

Information Centre– Incorporation of public comments into final

evaluation– Prepare final recommendation– Posting of final study report for 30 day review

As the project continues, UK will continue to seek input from the public. If you are interested

in being kept informed about this project, please add your name to our mailing list.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact:

Marcy Jordan, P.Eng.Project ManagerCH2M HILL1101 Prince of Wales Drive,Suite 330

Ottawa, Ontario K2C 3W7Tel: 613-723-0233 ext. 73116E: [email protected]

Robert McLachlan, P.Eng.Utilities EngineerUtilities Kingston85 Lappan’s LaneKingston, ON K7L 4X7Tel: 613-546-1181 ext. 2339E: [email protected]

1

Long, Andrew/OTT

From: Long, Andrew/OTTSent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:50 AMTo: '[email protected]'Cc: Jordan, Marcelle/OTT; McLachlan,Robert; Fegan,DavidSubject: James St Booster Pumping Station Upgrades Project EAAttachments: stage1_2_report_jamestreetpumping_revised30_12_2013.pdf

Hello Bob, It was a pleasure to meet you on Tuesday evening at the Public Information Centre for the James Street Booster Pumping Station Upgrades project. As discussed, I have attached the archaeological assessment report completed for the project for your reference. We will also be sending the display boards from the information centre to Christine who will distribute them if you would like to obtain a copy. Please let us know if you have any additional questions or comments about the report or the project. Best Regards, Andrew Long, EIT, LEED GA | CH2M HILL 1101 Prince of Wales Drive | Suite 330 | Ottawa T: 613.723.8700 x 73107 | F: 613.723.7489 | www.ch2m.com

Please consider the environment before printing this email

1

Long, Andrew/OTT

From: Long, Andrew/OTTSent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:54 AMTo: '[email protected]'Cc: Jordan, Marcelle/OTT; McLachlan,Robert; Fegan,DavidSubject: James St Booster Pumping Station Upgrades Project EAAttachments: JamesStBPS_PIC_DisplayPanels_email.pdf; HIA - James St Booster Stn - 23 Jan 14 -

Final.pdf

Hello Christine, It was a pleasure to meet you on Tuesday evening at the Public Information Centre for the James Street Booster Pumping Station Upgrades project. As discussed, I have attached the display boards from the information centre so you may distribute to other members of the community who have an interest in the project. I have also attached the heritage assessment report completed for the project for your reference. Please let us know if you have any additional questions or comments about the attached documents or the project. Best Regards, Andrew Long, EIT, LEED GA | CH2M HILL 1101 Prince of Wales Drive | Suite 330 | Ottawa T: 613.723.8700 x 73107 | F: 613.723.7489 | www.ch2m.com

Please consider the environment before printing this email

1

Long, Andrew/OTT

From: Spang, Elizabeth (MNR) <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 11:33 AMTo: Jordan, Marcelle/OTTSubject: Notice of Commencement - Kingston East Water System Upgrades; MNR fIle #13-KING-

KNG-EAE-1702Attachments: CataraquiMarshANSI.PDF; Fish Species for the Cataraqui River.doc; ANSI IMPACT

ANALYSIS.DOC

Dear Ms. Jordan: MNR Peterborough District has received your notice of commencement dated November 25, 2013 for water system upgrades within the general area of the Kingston East-Rideau community. Since there does not appear to be a well-defined study area at this time, we provide the following information generalized to the Cataraqui East community east of the Cataraqui River. General: MNR Data and Information We would like to inform you that MNR’s natural heritage and natural resources data and information for the study area can be obtained through the Land Information Ontario Warehouse (LIOW) through the Ministry’s Land Information Ontario (LIO) website at: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LIO/2ColumnSubPage/STDPROD_068994.html. A data sharing agreement is required to access data within the LIO database. The following link provides information about obtaining an agreement: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LIO/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_167959.html You can also obtain Species at Risk occurrence information on our Natural Heritage Information Centre website: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/NHIC/index.html. In addition, the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List can be obtained at: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_080230_e.htm We recommend that you use the above-noted sources of information during the review of your project proposal. Wetlands and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) The study area contains the Cataraqui River Marsh Provincially Significant ANSI, the Greater Cataraqui Marsh Provincially Significant Wetland, and the Butternut Creek Complex Provincially Significant Wetland. The City should seek to avoid placing infrastructure within or adjacent to these features. Information about the Cataraqui Marsh Life Science ANSI is attached. If an assessment of impacts is required, work should be done in the proper growing season (generally ranging from April to August) and consider all impacts to the features and functions of these significant natural areas. Assessment of impacts and mitigation if necessary should address the 5 ANSI selection criteria (Representation, Diversity, Condition, Ecological factors, Special Features) and specifically how these relate to this ANSI (see attached information). *Our office can provide more detailed comments regarding the above features if additional details (e.g. detail design options) are circulated to our office. If impacts are expected to the ANSI or wetland features or boundaries, our office would appreciate being circulated for further comment. MNR is responsible for identifying and confirming both significant wetland and ANSI boundaries. The study area may contain unevaluated wetlands. We recommend contacting the local conservation authority for more information on approvals that may be required. Fisheries The study area includes the Cataraqui River, Butternut Creek and other small tributaries. Our available fisheries information for the Cataraqui River is attached. Please note that the Cataraqui River is under Federal jurisdiction. *Please contact Parks Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Ocean/local Conservation Authority for any approvals that may be required and/or recommendations on any sediment/erosion control measures that may be required during construction.

2

For more information on fisheries management, please contact Monique Charette, Management Biologist, at our Kingston Area office at 613-531-5715 or [email protected] Species at Risk A review of our available data records and best available information (as of 2013) indicates that there are occurrences of Chimney Swift (Threatened), Milksnake (Special Concern), Eastern Ribbonsnake (Special Concern), Butternut (Endangered), Gray Ratsnake (Threatened), Least Bittern (Threatened), Blanding’s Turtle (Threatened), Eastern Whip-poor-will (Threatened), Common Five-lined Skink (Special Concern), Snapping Turtle (Special Concern), Barn Swallow (Threatened), Bobolink (Threatened) and Eastern Meadowlark (Threatened) in the immediate (1km) and general (5km) of the proposed works. Although no other threatened or endangered species or their habitat have been documented in the area of the proposed project, these features may be present and this list should not be considered complete. Species listed as endangered or threatened on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list are protected under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Section 9(1) of the ESA prohibits a person from killing, harming, harassing, capturing or taking a member of a species listed as endangered, threatened or extirpated on the SARO list. Section 10(1) of the ESA prohibits the damage or destruction of habitat of a species listed as endangered or threatened on the SARO list. Since comprehensive mapping for most Species at Risk is not available and if the proposal involves site alterations, a site assessment is recommended to identify the presence of any Species at Risk and/or their habitat on the subject lands, as a decision should not be made in the absence of such information. The focus of the site assessment can include a review of the information about known occurrences provided by MNR above along with other information sources such as species distributions and habitat requirements as well as field visits using MNR approved protocols during the appropriate seasons by a qualified professional. It is the responsibility of a person(s) undertaking any proposed activity to ensure they are in compliance with all provincial and federal legislation including the ESA. Therefore a person(s) should ensure their proposed activities will not adversely affect a Species at Risk or its habitat protected under the ESA. If an impact to a Species at Risk or its habitat cannot be avoided, a person(s) may apply for an authorization under the ESA. However, if an authorization is not issued by MNR, the person(s) must comply with the ESA by modifying proposed activities to avoid impacts to Species at Risk and habitat protected under the ESA. As of July 1, 2013, there are new regulatory provisions provided under the ESA. This regulatory provision allows eligible activities, such as work undertaken to repair, modify, demolish, replace or general maintenance of a structure or the removal of buildings and/or excavation of land that is considered to be species at risk habitat to proceed without a permit, provided the proponent register with the Ministry of Natural Resources and then follow the specific rules in regulation under the ESA. These rules include, but is not limited to, preparing a mitigation plan and implementing steps to minimize the adverse effects of the activity on the species identified. Information on the new ESA regulatory provision that come into effect on July 1, 2013 can be found at http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/About/2ColumnSubPage/STDPROD_104342.html. The amended ESA regulation (O.Reg 242/08) can be found at http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_080242_e.htm. If any species at risk are found during assessments or surveys, please contact the Species at Risk Biologist at the Peterborough District MNR office and provide the geographic location (UTM coordinates) as well as photographs of the species occurrences. If you have any questions regarding species at risk or the new regulations, contact the Species at Risk Biologist at the Peterborough District MNR office at 705-755-3104. Significant Wildlife Habitat The subject property may contain Significant Wildlife Habitat such as seasonal concentration areas for wildlife species (e.g. snake hibernaculum), rare vegetation communities (e.g. tallgrass prairie), specialized habitats of wildlife (e.g. turtle nesting and over-wintering areas), habitats of species of conservation concern (e.g. Special Concern species as identified on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list and animal movement corridors (e.g. amphibian movement corridors). The identification of Significant Wildlife Habitat is the responsibility of the respective planning authority.

3

We refer you to Section 9.3.2 of the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM) which provides guidance on determining criteria for when Significant Wildlife Habitat should be identified and evaluated. We also refer you to the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide which was prepared alongside the NHRM to assist planning authorities and other participants in the land use planning system. The most recent Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule for the identification of Significant Wildlife Habitat (February 2012) can be found here (http://publicdocs.mnr.gov.on.ca/View.asp?Document_ID=21842&Attachment_ID=45644). Public Lands Act Except for federal canals and harbours, the beds of most lakes and streams are public land in Ontario. Please note that you may require a Work Permit under the Public Lands Act if you are proposing any work in water or near shore areas below the spring high water mark. If you have any questions about the Public Lands Act, please contact the Senior Lands and Waters Technical Specialist in our Kingston office at 613-531-5703. Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act Approval may be required under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA) if you are planning to construct, alter, repair or decommission a dam. If you have any questions about the LRIA, please contact the Senior Lands and Waters Technical Specialist in our Kingston office at 613-531-5703. Other Approvals It is the responsibility of the proponent to acquire all other information and necessary approvals from any other municipal, provincial or federal authority under other legislation. We recommend that you contact your local Conservation Authority, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Rideau Canal (Parks Canada), Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, etc. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, don’t hesitate to contact me. Please reference the file number in the subject line for any future correspondence. Liz Spang, M.Pl A/District Planner Peterborough District Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 300 Water Street, 1st Floor South Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5 Tel: (705) 755-3294 Fax: (705) 755-3125 Email: [email protected]

1

Long, Andrew/OTT

From: Kirzati, Katherine (MTCS) <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 10:03 AMTo: Laurie SmithCc: Jordan, Marcelle/OTT; Didrikson, Amy (MTCS)Subject: RE: Utilities Kingston - James St Booster Stn Upgrades

Laurie, Marcy – Good morning: In thinking over the matter, it’s probably best that the HIA be submitted as part of the package rather than on its own. Therefore, I will await the entire submission, seeing that I’ll need to see the EA component as well. Please note that I will be on medical leave starting next week, for the all of Feb. While I’m away, Amy Didrikson will be my back up, balancing my files along with hers. My hope is that the James St Booster Station is dealt with quickly, but please bear in mind that, with a doubling in workload, Amy may not get to it and the reports may still be reviewed by me when I return. If you have any questions, give me a call. Regards, Katherine From: Laurie Smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: January-23-14 10:50 AM To: Kirzati, Katherine (MTCS) Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Utilities Kingston - James St Booster Stn Upgrades Hi Katherine, Sorry to hear you were sick! Hope you are feeling better now. I would be available tomorrow for a conversation anytime between 10:30am and 2:30pm. Shall I phone you between 10:30 and 11am or do you prefer later? Thank you for taking the time to go through this with me. Laurie Laurie Smith Laurie Smith Heritage Consulting 4 Bullock Avenue Ottawa, ON K1S 1G8 613-863-8852 [email protected]

From: Kirzati, Katherine (MTCS) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: January-23-14 9:07 AM To: Laurie Smith Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Utilities Kingston - James St Booster Stn Upgrades

Good morning Laurie:

2

My apologies for not replying to your phone calls and email until now, but I’ve been off sick. As to the HIA, although many consultants provide it through the ESR, it’s been our policy for almost a decade to have it submitted separately. This allows modifications to be made earlier in the process so that the ESR is closer to a final document, where heritage is concerned. I’m available tomorrow for a conversation. Let me know what time works for you. Regards, Katherine From: Laurie Smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: January-22-14 11:57 AM To: Kirzati, Katherine (MTCS) Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Utilities Kingston - James St Booster Stn Upgrades Re: Utilities Kingston - James St Booster Stn Upgrades, MTCS file 0000560 Hello Katherine, I have prepared the HIA in the abovenoted project. I'm wondering if you can give me a call re your comment below that the Ministry prefers that the HIA be submitted separately from the ESR? This is a different process than we have followed in the past. I have tried to reach you by telephone but have not been successful. Thanks, Laurie Laurie Smith Laurie Smith Heritage Consulting 4 Bullock Avenue Ottawa, ON K1S 1G8 613-863-8852 [email protected]

From: Kirzati, Katherine (MTCS) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: December-17-13 3:02 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Utilities Kingston - James St Booster Stn Upgrades

Thanks Marcy. Please note that HIAs and AAs are to be submitted to MTCS as separate documents. Different units review and comment on them. Also, our Ministry’s preference is to have an HIA submitted in advance of the ESR itself, so that any concerns that may have arisen can be addressed as soon as possible. Regards, Katherine

3

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: December-17-13 1:30 PM To: Kirzati, Katherine (MTCS) Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Utilities Kingston - James St Booster Stn Upgrades Good afternoon Katherine, We have retained Ms. Laurie Smith, of Smith Heritage for this project, because the project will take place within a heritage conservation district. Ms. Smith has prepared a heritage impact assessment, as required by the checklist for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes. She has prepared a heritage impact assessment that addresses potential impacts on the Barriefield Heritage Conservation District, on the nearby Rideau Canal WHS/NHS, and on nearby national historic sites. The HIA also assesses the existing booster station in order to determine if it has cultural heritage value independent of the heritage conservation district (it does not). The HIA will be submitted as part of the ESR and the MTCS will be able to review it at that point. Availability of the ESR for review during the 30-day period, after Notice of Completion, is expected to occur in late January 2014. The HIA does not address archaeology, however we have retained a separate consultant that carried out a Stage 2 archaeological assessment (Adams Heritage), as required by the archaeology checklist. The study does not recommend the need for any further archaeology study. Please let me know if you have any further questions, comments or requirements, Best regards, Marcy Marcelle (Marcy) Jordan, P.Eng. Project Manager Operations Lead, Water Business Group CH2M HILL 1101 Prince of Wales Drive, Suite 330 Ottawa, ON K2C 3W7 Canada Direct 613.723.8700 ext. 73116 www.ch2mhill.com From: Kirzati, Katherine (MTCS) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 2:51 PM To: Jordan, Marcelle/OTT Subject: Utilities Kingston - James St Booster Stn Upgrades Hello Marcelle: The above-noted project has been assigned to me as Heritage Planner for Eastern Ontario. Our file # is 0000560. In reading the notice, I see that the project deals with updating the master plan, as well as the potential upgrading of services at the James St. booster station. Since a physical component is part of the project, I have attached our checklists for determining whether cultural heritage resources will be impacted by the project. Please keep our ministry on the mailing list of interested parties for future notices, etc. Regards, Katherine Katherine Kirzati Heritage Planner Culture Services Unit

4

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 Toronto, ON M7A 0A7 t: 416.314.7643 f: 416.314.7175 [email protected]

1

Long, Andrew/OTT

From: Nick Adams <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 8:31 AMTo: Jordan, Marcelle/OTTSubject: Fw: REPORT RECEIVED: The ministry has received your report for PIF number(s)

P003-0394-2013 / *

as requested Nick From: pastport Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 8:27 AM To: [email protected] Subject: REPORT RECEIVED: The ministry has received your report for PIF number(s) P003-0394-2013 / * Dear Nicholas Adams, The ministry has received the project report package for PIF number P003-0394-2013 submitted on Jan 16, 2014. The package will be processed within 10 business days. Please do not reply to this e-mail. The message will be undeliverable and we are unable to respond from this address. If you have any questions about this report email us at: [email protected]

Chief: James R. Marsden

Councillor: Julie Bothwell

Councillor: Jody Holmes

Councillor: Dave Mowat

Councillor: Angela Smoke

ALDERVILLE FIRST NATION

11696 Second Line

P.O. Box 46

Roseneath, Ontario K0K 2X0

Phone: (905) 352-2011

Fax: (905) 352-3242

March 10, 2014

CH2M Hill

1101 Prince of Wales Drive, Suite 330

Ottawa, ON K2C 3W7

Att: Marcelle Jordan, P. Eng.

Re: Utilities Kingston – East Water System Review Including James Street Booster

Station Upgrades – Environmental Assessment

Dear Marcelle Jordan,

Thank you for your consultation request to Alderville First Nation regarding the above noted

project which is being proposed within our Traditional and Treaty Territory. We appreciate the

fact that CH2M Hill recognizes the importance of First Nations Consultation and that your office

is conforming to the requirements within the Duty to Consult Process.

As per the Alderville First Nation Consultation Protocol, your proposed project is deemed a level

3, having minimal potential to impact our First Nations’ rights, therefore, please keep Alderville

apprised of any changes to your project. I can be contacted at the mailing address above or

electronically via email, at the email address below.

In good faith and respect,

Dave Simpson [email protected]

Lands and Resources

Communications Officer Tele: (905) 352-2662

Alderville First Nation Fax: (905) 352-3242


Review of East Water System Including James Street Booster Station Upgrades Environmental Assessment

Utilities Kingston has developed an update to the 2007 Master Plan for Water Supply for the City of Kingston for the area east of the Great Cataraqui River (“Kingston East”) and prepared a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for potential upgrades to the James Street Booster Station.

Since the completion of the 2007 Water Master Plan there have been physical changes to the water distribution system in Kingston East, including the construction and commissioning of the Innovation Drive Elevated Storage Tank. In addition, potential future changes to water storage in Kingston East required re-evaluation. Long term configuration and operation of the Kingston East system to the year 2033 have been evaluated, along with consideration of how new infrastructure will operate in the short term prior to system buildout.

With all water supply for Kingston East currently passing through the James Street Booster Station, the evaluation of this station’s operation is integral to both the current and future performance of the Kingston East Water System. The recommended solution arising from the technical study and EA evaluation is to upgrade and expand the James Street Booster Pump Station in its existing location, including a building extension to house new pumps, electrical equipment and other associated appurtenances.

This study was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011) as a Schedule B project. The final deliverable for the EA portion of the project is an environmental assessment report outlining the preferred alternative for the pump station upgrades. This document has been completed and by this Notice is being placed in the public record for review. The Master Plan update technical memorandum is also available via request through Utilities Kingston.

The James Street Booster Station Upgrade report is available for review at the following locations:

Utilities Kingston, 85 Lappan’s Lane, Kingston, Ontario (contact Utilities Engineering) City Hall, 216 Ontario Street, Kingston, Ontario (go to Clerk’s Department) Pittsburgh Library Branch, 80 Gore Road, Kingston, Ontario (front desk)

Comments on this information should be directed to:

Marcelle Jordan, P.Eng. Project Manager CH2M HILL Canada Limited 1101 Prince of Wales Drive, Suite 330 Ottawa, Ontario K2C 3W7 Tel: 613-723-8700 ext. 73116 [email protected]

Robert McLachlan, P.Eng. Utilities Engineer Utilities Kingston 85 Lappan’s Lane Kingston, ON K7L 4X7 Tel: 613.546.1181 ext. 2339 [email protected]

This Notice Published: February 11, 2014, The Kingston Whig-Standard

Notice of Study Completion

Documents

Appendix A Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 & 2)€¦ · booster station building. It is bordered to the east and south by landscaped lawns and to the west by an RMC parking lot