Appendix B: Meeting Minutes

MINUTES

K:\PROJ\1150293\08 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT\ENVIRONMENTAL\CONSULTATION\CAG\CAG MEETING 1\FINAL CAG MEETING #1 MINUTES.DOCX

Community Advisory Group Meeting #1

Project: Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Eastern Region Wolfe Island Ferry and Docking Improvements Preliminary Design and EA Study Agreement No. 3014-E-0024, GWP No. 4061-14-00

Project No.: 1150293.00

Place: St. Margaret’s Hall, Wolfe Island

Date: February 25, 2016

Time: 7:00 – 9:30 p.m.

Independent Facilitator:

Glenn Pothier GLPi

Project Team Attendees:

Tina White Sharon Westendorp Amanda Grypma Heather Roebuck Edward Li Mike Bricks Kevin Coulter Nick Crockford

MTO – Project Manager MTO – Environmental Planner MTO – Environmental Planner MTO – Operational Services Morrison Hershfield (MH) – Project Manager MH – Environmental Planner MH – Environmental Planner MH – Environmental Planner

CAG Members:

Wendy Bellamy Jacqueline Bird Perry Chesney Kim Christensen Eric Connell Hank Connell Michael Ezay Steve Fargo Casey Fisher Roger Healey Dan Hogan Danny Hulton Harry Hulton

Michael Jablonicky Karen King Margaret Knott Eldon McCready Anne Prichard Jason Pyke Brian Scoville Rachel Seal Helen Senis John Van Strien Dave Woodman Tom Wroe

Regrets: Observers:

Derek Butler Paul Hogan Ken White Jarda Zborovsky Nine (9) members of the public attended as observers

Legend: Q: Question R: Response C: Comment

– 2 –

1. Opening Remarks and Introductions

G. Pothier welcomed the meeting attendees, reviewed the meeting agenda, facilitated introductions of attendees. G. Pothier highlighted objectives of the meeting, and objectives and expectations of the Community Advisory Group.

The Role and Purpose of the CAG is to:

Have dialogue and multi-perspective information exchange

Have input on and joint exploration of key issues, challenges, opportunities, ideas and best practices

Act as a sounding board: review and comment on project approaches, alternatives/options, and reports

Liaison — a conduit to/from the ‘community’

Facilitate a high quality outcome

The CAG will:

Be a non-voting advisory Group

Have 4 planned meetings (typically 2-3 hours in length, in the evening) over the life of the project — varied meeting formats

o Typically linked to PICs

o Potential for topic, geographic, issue-specific meetings

Have an agenda distributed in advance

Allow for participant ‘open forum’ agenda component

Prepare/share summary notes (that will be part of the public record)

Have an expectation of attendance and preparation

Not have a designated public spokesperson

Be open to the public as observers

o But no delegations (agenda provision for public comment)

Independent facilitation (Chair: Glenn Pothier)

T. White thanked the members for volunteering their valuable time to provide input into the study.

2. Study Background Presentation

E. Li gave a 20 minute presentation on the background of the study, what’s been done to-date, the study process, and the consultation process that will be completed for the study.

Q: Not many mainlanders on the group. How were they engaged?

R: Not as interested in the ferry as residents. We do have a few members from the City, but most interest was from Island residents. Kingston BIA, Chamber of Commerce among others were engaged, but did not respond.

– 3 –

3. Group Exercise

G. Pothier led the group through a KnoWonder exercise, posing the questions: What do we know, and what are we wondering?

Answers during this period were:

C: Ship has served us well and has many years left. Good design.

Q: Why aren’t we looking at fixed link. Can this study look at it?

Q: Looking at a shorter route?

Q: Has the budget been approved for two ferries?

Q: Will tolling be considered in the future?

Q: Are we looking at both Marysville and Dawson Point or only Dawson Point for the new ferry?

Q: How much of the EA released so far is fixed in stone? Have decisions already been made?

C: Comes down to the money, a political consideration.

Q: Is the intention that the new ferry and back up ferry be inter-operable?

Q: How soon will there be a third ferry?

Q: What consideration/relationship with Horne’s ferry?

Q: Has there been analysis/input with the Township’s Official Plan with regards to transportation. What’s the relationship between the two?

C: Planning to put facilities for senior citizens on the island.

Q: What do we need to do to encourage young people to stay on Wolfe Island?

C: Improved highway from Wolfe Island ferry to Horne ferry is required.

C: Wider road for cyclists.

Q: Just Marysville and Dawson Point, or are there alternatives?

Q: New ferry the same size or larger and seasonal?

C: The cost difference for two ferries vs fixed link.

Q: Loading and unloading improvements (how can we improve?).

C: Integration with current traffic quickly (especially with larger ferry).

C: Concerns about parking.

Q: Is it possible that one terminal will be eliminated (not using Dawson Point or not using Marysville)?

C: Discussion on privatization, selling to the residents.

C: Improvements on Kingston side; lots of congestion at Barrack Street. Coordination with City of Kingston is required to improve intersection.

Q: Would more people be able to walk on to a ferry servicing Marysville Terminal as opposed to ferry servicing Dawson Point Terminal given its remote location?

C: Parking on Kingston side get lots of attention when an event is on at the K-Rock Centre (often used for free parking).

Q: How much of what we are doing is a duplication of what was done in 2011?

R: We are building on it, not replicating it. This is a more in-depth level of study.

C: Issue of priority of traffic and how it is handled.

C: The design of the new ferry, ice issues specifically. Wolfe Islander 3 has problems with ice.

C: Making carpooling easier.

Q: Will both ferries be able to operate out of the village?

– 4 –

4. Breakout Group Workshop

G. Pothier described the structure of the self-facilitated workshop portion of the meeting. One Study Team member sat at each table to assist in facilitating the completion of the workbook and to answer questions that arose. Groups had 45 minutes for the exercise. A single workbook from each table was completed summarizing the thoughts of the people at each table.

A summary of the responses written in the workbooks is attached to these minutes.

G. Pothier facilitated a rapid fire response period where each table highlighted their responses to the workbook questions — covering both challenges and opportunities for the different docking facilities and the ferry itself. C: Traffic light should be installed at the Marysville terminal with signals showing when ferry is loading up the street.

C: Better social media integration.

C: Dawson Point is middle of nowhere at night.

C: Help buttons at Dawson Point or security.

C: There is a pinch point downtown when ferry is loading, third crossing may alleviate.

C: Blocking traffic at Ontario Street with more cars.

C: Expanded marshalling to account for increased traffic.

C: Increase marshalling area significantly, particularly to reduce queuing length.

C: Separate vehicles and pedestrians with barrier for better safety.

C: Marysville: facility/staging scattered everywhere, expand the area into the bay.

C: Dawson Point lines are too long, double lines up, eliminate parking at the side of the road.

C: Barrack Street: increase parking, add parking level.

C: Pedestrians should be closer to ferry to minimize walking distances.

C: Better shelter facilities are required.

C: Warmth in the winter (heated), drinking water.

C: Pedestrian / cyclist / motorcycle congestions, a process for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, loading order.

C: Facilities for bikes on the ferry, a bike rack.

C: Better communication for delays.

C: Marysville: not enough parking.

C: Intersection can be confusing at Fargo’s (Marysville Terminal).

C: Improvements, more washrooms, move the ferry out of the village.

C: Barrack Street marshalling, confusing with the lights, light is different timing, sometimes longer than others.

C: Marshalling area too small.

C: Parking too small.

5. Summary of Discussions

Ten words or less: If this study did nothing else wouldn’t it be great if:

C: We got a bridge.

C: Line ups weren’t so long.

C: We could come and go as we please.

– 5 –

C: We had some shelters at Dawson Point and Marysville.

C: It didn’t take 4 hours to get home on the music concert weekend.

C: More people came to the island.

C: I didn’t have to go an hour ahead of time to ensure I got on the ferry.

C: MTO could be convinced that this should be done sooner.

C: We could accelerate the process. T. White: This study is a little different than past studies in that we have formally initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA) Process. Once the EA is complete, we have approval to proceed to the next step and ultimately to construct. This project is currently funded in the 5 year Southern Highways program.

o Q: How can they budget if we don’t know the final cost yet?

R: Estimates are used to budget

Q: When will the EA be done? R: End of 2017

E. Li: Great ideas from everyone, hadn’t considered the importance of pedestrian and vehicle separation inside the boat as much as on the shore. C: Keep in mind that it is called an EA but the natural environment is only one component. In the context of the EA Act environment means natural, socio, economic and cultural environments. M. Bricks noted that we are in the early stages of this study, but some decisions have been made in the 2011 study. Yes, the bridge may be an option in the future but we are only looking at improvements to the ferry terminals to accommodate enhanced ferry service. It is great to see that supporters of a bridge have rolled up their sleeves to focus on providing suggestions for improvements to ferry service even if they ultimately want to see a bridge. C: We did have dual ferry service and it was great.

C: This meeting is great.

C: Appreciate the comment about the handling of pedestrian / cyclists on the ferry from E. Li.

C: Supplied plans are very helpful, deck plans of the ferry would be useful for next time. 6. Opportunity for Observer “Open Forum”

C: Dawson Point Road is unsafe most of the time, needs to be replaced.

C: Scope of the project: would like to ensure the bubble system is part of the scope.

C: If consideration of moving the ferry completely out of the Marysville is an option, there must be a transit component to get people to the other dock.

Q: With a new 75 car ferry, it would likely be just at Dawson Point. To speed up the process why not replicate the Wolfe Islander 3 with fixes?

C: Biggest concern is not moving 75 cars in an hour but moving them in under that. 40 minute service was better. Move cars faster, not just more cars.

C: Having two ferries load at the same time would have a significant impact on the space required for marshalling.

C: Imperative that we have new ferry that goes Dawson Point to Kingston. Experiencing stress that we are still five years before increased service.

– 6 –

C: Amherst was allotted $20M for new ferry in today’s budget.

C: Thanked everyone for their time. Noted that this is very important and that we need to get it right for the next generation. Wished luck for the next meeting and was hoping to speed up the process.

7. Closing Remarks

E. Li discussed next steps re: developing alternatives at a high level to present to the public at the first round of PICs (early spring). The next CAG meeting will be held after the first round of PICs.

M. Bricks noted that the intention of the next CAG meeting will be to review revised drawings with the CAG based on the comments received at the first PIC.

G. Pothier closed the meeting by thanking everyone for their time.

Dist: Participants

– 7 –

Summary of Workbook Responses

Marysville Terminal – Vehicle Marshalling Related

Problems Solutions

Intersection of County Road 96 and facility terminal Widen the intersection and County Road 96

Hard to tell if the line is moving/if the ferry is arriving Move the terminal

Vehicles cut in line More marshals to assist traffic

Difficult to tell if parked cars are in line or not Increase marshalling area

No cameras at the terminal Expand the dock into the bay and increase marshalling to hold 1 ferry load of vehicles

Install traffic light controlled by the ferry staff.

Use Dawson Point for heavy vehicles

More parking spaces

Notifications for ferry delays

Marysville Terminal – Pedestrian / Cyclist Related

Problems Solutions

Safety Increase signage

Blocking traffic Unload bikes last (phased loading/unloading)

No designated lanes or space Widen streets

No segregation from traffic Expand the dock

Poor shelters Staff control traffic light

Railings

Improve shelters

– 8 –

Marysville Terminal – Service Facilities Related

Problems Solutions

Access to the public boat launch Provide seating

No washrooms Add washroom

No heated waiting area Provide real time information on road and at terminal

No accessibility drop off Increased education on marshaling procedures and parking

requirements

Increase accessibility

Better shelter

No real time information

No parking lot

Marysville Terminal –Other

Problems Solutions

No heavy vehicle spaces Add signage along highway for delay notification

No information along County Road 96

Not able to see full length of line up

Dawson Point Terminal – Vehicle Marshalling Related

Problems Solutions

Parking spots are too narrow More parking, close to the ferry

Line is long Two lines for marshalling

Poor connectivity to Marysville New marshalling on adjacent land

Shuttle bus to Marysville

Paint new, larger parking spots

Remove roadside parking and increase parking lot size

– 9 –

Dawson Point Terminal – Pedestrian / Cyclist Related

Problems Solutions

No transport to Marysville Bus services

No bus service between Dawson Point and Marysville Bike lanes

No designated area for waiting Widen road

No bike lanes Keep cyclists back

Not enough room for pedestrians / cyclists Better pick up and drop off area

Dawson Point Terminal – Service Facilities Related

Problems Solutions

No washrooms Help / emergency buttons

Facilities are not very weather-proof (i.e. from the cold and wind).

Security

No cameras Washrooms

No services/coffee Shelters

Middle of nowhere Wi-Fi

Barrack Street Terminal – Vehicle Marshalling Related

Problems Solutions

Confusing marshalling Increase parking

Lack of parking Improve marshalling

Traffic light slows unloading Improve light timing

Management of trucks to load fairly with cars Right turn lane out of terminal

Signage for new users Traffic signal controlled by ferry staff to allow for unloading in one go

Dangerous corner by terminal / gas station Create larger docking area

Line overflows into street and into downtown Signage / painted arrows for marshalling lanes

Dock can’t accommodate 150 cars Add 3rd crossing

Slow unloading Monitor parking

Resident sticker for parking

Join to Marriot dock

– 10 –

Barrack Street Terminal – Pedestrian / Cyclist Related

Problems Solutions

Dangerous corner by terminal / gas station Bike lockers

Bike security Additional ramp

Traffic Police the pedestrians

No area for pedestrians / cyclists Painted walkway

Accessible parking not in an area congested by pedestrians / cyclists

Motorcycles need better system for loading / unloading

Pedestrians have to walk across vehicle path

No access from building to ferry

Barrack Street Terminal – Service Facilities Related

Problems Solutions

Space tight for large trucks Widen driveway

Not enough parking Expand dock to west – add a second level

Barrack Street Terminal –Other

Problems Solutions

Pick up/drop off area

Ferry – Pedestrian / Cyclist Related

Problems Solutions

2nd level chairs too high Place for cyclists / bike racks

No designated space for walk-ons Use B.C. Ferries model for bike storage

No bike rack

Crew should manage cyclists

– 11 –

Ferry – Service Facilities Related

Problems Solutions

Preference for only using the Marysville Terminal

Loud exhaust fans on top

Ferry–Other

Problems Solutions

Inadequate signage for safe movement on ferry Allow passengers on fueling and hazardous runs

No passengers while fueling More no-smoking signs

Not enough no smoking signs Reduce noise

Noise in cabin Better training for crew

Emergency preparedness Better public notice for priority boarding

Priority boarding

MINUTES

Community Advisory Group Meeting #2

Project: Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Eastern Region Wolfe Island Ferry and Docking Improvements Preliminary Design and EA Study Agreement No. 3014-E-0024, GWP No. 4061-14-00

Project No.: 1150293.00

Place: St. Margaret’s Hall, Wolfe Island

Date: June 7, 2016

Time: 6:45 – 9:00 p.m.

Independent Facilitator:

Glenn Pothier GLPi

Project Team Attendees:

Tina White Sharon Westendorp Amanda Grypma Heather Roebuck Edward Li Robert Wargala Mike Bricks Nick Crockford

MTO – Project Manager MTO – Environmental Planner MTO – Environmental Planner MTO – Operational Services Morrison Hershfield (MH) – Project Manager MH – Transportation MH – Environmental Planner MH – Environmental Planner

CAG Members:

Jarda Zborovksy Jacqueline Bird Perry Chesney Kim Christensen Eric Connell Hank Connell Michael Ezay Casey Fisher Roger Healey Dan Hogan Danny Hulton Harry Hulton Beth Caldwell

Karen King Margaret Knott Eldon McCready Anne Prichard Jason Pyke Brian Scovill Helen Senis John Van Strien Dave Woodman Tom Wroe Paul Hogan Bev Allinson

Regrets: Observers:

Wendy Bellamy Derek Butler Ken White Five (5) members of the public attended as observers

Steve Fargo Michael Jablonicky Rachel Seal

Legend: Q: Question R: Response C: Comment

– 2 –

1. Opening Remarks and Introductions

G. Pothier welcomed the meeting attendees, reviewed the meeting agenda and facilitated introductions of attendees.

T. White thanked the members for volunteering their valuable time to provide input into the study.

G. Pothier invited CAG members to identify any errors or omissions from the minutes of the previous CAG meeting. None were raised and the minutes are now final.

2. Presentation on Service Scenario Screening

M. Bricks gave a brief overview of attendance and comments received at the Public Information Centre held in early June.

M. Bricks gave a 15 minute presentation on the development and screening of the four proposed Service Scenarios, with an emphasis on the two Scenarios being carried forward for further analysis.

Q: What impacts would the Service Scenarios have on agricultural equipment and heavy vehicles?

R: All Service Scenarios, except for Service Scenario 1, would provide the opportunity for heavy vehicles to avoid the village. MTO would likely not restrict vehicles from accessing a Marysville Terminal, however, the option is available.

Q: What weather conditions would prevent the ferry from coming into Marysville?

R: For Service Scenario 3, it would be the same as the current limitations, water levels and ice. Service Scenario 4 would include sufficient dredging to provide the flexibility for year round access.

G. Pothier asked the CAG if they were comfortable with the screening completed to eliminate Service Scenarios 1 and 2 and to only carry forward Service Scenarios 3 and 4.

C: Would like to see the cost comparison between Service Scenario 3, 4 and a fixed link.

R: Costs will be provided for these Service Scenarios during the next phase of the study, however, a fixed link alternative is not being considered at this time.

G. Pothier requested the CAG’s thoughts on and/or preferences for Service Scenarios 3 and 4.

C: Service Scenario 4 is likely a better option for the business and tourism community. Businesses already have to encourage people to take the ferry to come to their business. They don’t need the extra hurdle of getting them from Dawson Point to Marysville

Q: Why is Service Scenario 1 and 2 taken out when 2 terminals (instead of 3) would be less costly and more fiscally responsible?

C: Dawson Point doesn’t serve the people of the island, Service Scenario 4 is preferred.

C: Service Scenario 4 is preferred from a business and tourism perspective. Also provides more backup. The ferry can operate as an emergency shelter so being able to access both terminals is better.

– 3 –

Q: Flexibility is important. Does Service Scenario 4 provide access for both ferries at both terminals?

R: Yes.

Q: If service is reduced during non-peak times, which terminal would be affected and how is the decision made as to which terminal would be used?

R: This decision would be made by MTO Operations based on demand. MTO Operations is currently undertaking an operation study to begin investigating the best way to provide the service. An example of this can be seen with the Glenora ferry service, where 2 ferries run in the summer with only a single ferry for the rest of the year.

Q: How long would it take to load and unload a 75-car ferry?

R: The design alternatives allow for faster loading and unloading by improving intersection operations and traffic flows.

C: Service Scenario 4 is the most logical.

Q: What’s the difference between Service Scenario 1 and Service Scenario 4?

R: Service Scenario 1 would see Dawson Point terminal decommissioned. Service Scenario 4 keeps both terminals operational with the flexibility to use both or only one at a time.

Q: How will you know where to catch the next ferry?

C: Bicycles/Pedestrians don’t benefit from dual-vessel operation.

Q: Can the dredging material be used to fill the void for the creation of the new docks?

R: Assuming the material is appropriate for this use, yes it is possible.

Q: Is the City of Kingston on board with these improvements?

R: Meetings with staff at the City of Kingston occur regularly and they are involved in the project.

Q: Is the City committed to helping the ferry unload? If they aren’t will the project stop?

R: They are supportive. Intersection improvements will help all traffic.

C: Would like to know what businesses operate during the winter months in Marysville

3. Ranking of Evaluation Criteria

M. Bricks provided a brief presentation on the Evaluation Criteria.

G. Pothier explained the ranking process. Participants were given the opportunity to provide ranking on the evaluation criteria sub factors. Each participant completed their own individual ranking.

Q: Which sub factor would churches fall under?

R: Churches should be added under socio-economic.

G. Pothier listed each sub factor and had participants raise their hands if that sub factor was present in the participants top 3 ranking. Most people indicated cost, vehicle and vessel operations and socio-economic sub-factors as the most significant.

– 4 –

Complete results of the ranking exercise are attached to these minutes.

4. Input on Alternatives

E. Li provided a brief presentation reviewing the groupings of alternatives.

Q: Why are there places for two docks at Dawson Point and Marysville?

R: For redundancy, each terminal was given an emergency ramp for use in the event the primary ramp is not operational or if there is an emergency.

Q: In all three Kingston alternatives, the current ferry slip is left void, why?

R: After discussion with the Canadian Armed Forces, options using this location or alternatives to the north were eliminated due to security, environmental impacts and heritage/visual impacts. Leaving this slip open also makes it easier to stage construction and maintain operations throughout construction

G. Pothier explained that the next exercise would involve participants using post-it notes to stick comments onto the appropriate alternatives which had been placed on the outer walls of the room. Specifically, people were asked to comment on what they liked/disliked about the alternatives, what enhancement could be made and any preferences.

Tables were divided into 4 groups and assigned a group of alternatives to comment on first. Once they commented on these alternatives, they were free to comment on any other alternative. This was done to ensure comments were received for all alternatives. Comments received are summarized in an attachment to these minutes.

G. Pothier began a review of comments, but CAG members agreed this was unnecessary given that they had read most of the comments while they were providing their own.

G. Pothier then asked all attendees (including the Study Team and observers) if they had any final comments

Q: Is there a budget?

R: The current government has committed to funding the project in its 5 year Capital Budget.

C: Concerned that we are proceeding with design of the docks without a design for the new vessel.

R: MTO has hired a naval architect to assist with the new vessel specifications so that everything is compatible. The process to design a vessel can only be completed as a Design-Build process, therefore it was difficult to combine the vessel design and dock improvements under a single project, but the two processes are being coordinated.

Q: Could a smaller vessel be dedicated for only emergency services to use?

R: Not under this project, but that could be considered by the Township as many emergency services are the responsibility of the municipality.

– 5 –

Q: During the 2011 Planning Study we were told it was too expensive to have year round service to Marysville. What has changed?

R: We have done more detailed geotechnical investigations and found clay over bedrock at greater depths than assumed. Therefore, dredging is likely less expensive than envisioned during the 2011 Planning Study. During the next phase of the study we will assess all the impacts and benefits of the various alternatives (including cost of dredging) to assist in selecting a preferred alternative.

Q: Will Amherst Island Ferry and Glenora ferries be compatible with this operation?

R: A bid for the replacement of ramps for the Amherst Island ferry is current underway. Those docks will be designed to accommodate the existing Amherst ferry, the Wolfe Islander III, and the new Amherst Island vessel, and potentially the new 75-car vessel for Wolfe Island. The goal is to have integration between all terminals for all MTO ferry services.

Q: If dredging proceeds, is consideration being given to the potential that it would allow for businesses to open 12 months a year instead of just the peak summer period?

R: That decision would be made by local business. The assessment of alternatives will note this potential benefit, but we cannot fully quantify the economic benefits as operational decisions are determined by individual business owners.

5. Observer Open Forum

C: The biggest concern is the cost and threat that a fare will be put in place to fund these improvements. This would have a big impact on local residents.

Q: In Marysville, most alternatives are extended 500 feet beyond the current dock, how many people will want to walk into town from there?

R: People who are already coming to the island are not likely to be deterred by this added distance. Others have commented regarding the use of parking elsewhere in town. We will now take this feedback and begin to refine the alternatives to see if there are further options.

C: Concerned that we are dealing with so many different ferry capacities and all different types of docks that we need to have compatibility between all ferries to work at all terminals. Another 55 car ferry would eliminate the need for expansion at all the terminals.

Q: Is the Dawson Point Terminal being decommissioned?

R: No, the Service Scenarios being carried forward all include a Dawson Point Terminal.

Q: What are some of the comments received during today’s session for the Dawson Point Terminal?

R: [G. Pothier proceeded to read several of the comments received on the Dawson Point terminal. Comments for all alternatives have been attached to these minutes.]

6. Next Steps / Closing Remarks

M. Bricks reviewed the next steps for the study.

G. Pothier closed the meeting by thanking everyone for their time.

– 6 –

Dist: Participants

Enclosed:

Evaluation Ranking Analysis

Comments Received during the Input on Alternatives Exercise

CAG #2 Presentation Slides

MINUTES

Wolfe Island Ferry Docks – Community Advisory Group Meeting #3

Project: Wolfe Island Ferry Project No.: 1150293

Attendees: CAG Members

Roger Healey Eldon McCready Sherry Zborovsky Harry Hulton Jason Pyke Eric Connell Margaret Knott Brian Scovill Wendy Bellamy Kim Christensen Tom Wroe Paul Hogan Bev Allinson

Study Team

Tina White – MTO Sharon Westendorp – MTO Heather Roebuck – MTO Glenn Pothier – GLPi Edward Li – MH Mike Bricks – MH Nick Crockford – MH Gerry Shoalts – SZA Eric Riddell – SZA

Absent: Steve Fargo Michael Jablonicky John Van Strien Hank Connell Danny Hulton Helen Senis Perry Chesney Dan Hogan Dave Woodman Jacqueline Bird Michael Ezay Rachel Seal Karen King Derek Butler Anne Prichard Casey Fisher Ken White

Date / Time: September 7, 2017 6:45p.m. Place: St. Margaret’s Hall, Wolfe Island

ITEM MINUTES ACTION BY

/ DATE

1. Introductions

Glenn Pothier facilitated a round of introductions to re-familiarize the CAG members and Study Team.

Info

2. Overview Presentation

Mike Bricks provided a brief presentation covering previous consultation activities, progress to date, the recommended alternatives and next steps.

Info

– 2 –

ITEM MINUTES ACTION BY

/ DATE

3. Questions/Comments

Q: The new entrance coming from Queen St. has too many turns for large trucks which would prefer straight lines onto the ferry.

A: Turning moves are designed to accommodate large trucks and the staggered times that vehicles arrive will allow for trucks to make these turns easily. The design is conceptual and will continue to be refined as we move forward

Q: In reference to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) review process, will the Minister consider greenhouse gases?

A: The Minister will only review the EA if a Part II order is requested. If a request is received, the Minister will review based on the specific issues raised in the request. However, the Ministry has considered greenhouse gases through the inclusion of a carpool lot and electric vehicle charging stations at Dawson Point, connection to local transit in Kingston, and improved pedestrian and cyclist facilities at all three terminals.

Info

4. Rendering Review

Q: Queuing is rather random, what kind of parking controls will be put in place?

A: Signage will be developed during Detail Design. Pavement markings and operations on the dock will continue to be developed with public and municipal input..

Q: Where is the parking? Are there accessible spaces?

A: No public parking is provided at Kingston or Marysville terminals to reduce the size of the footprint for each terminal although there are parking opportunities with the municipality . Accessible spots are provided at all three terminals.

Q: Two different docks operating doesn’t make sense, trucks need access to both.

A: The operations of both the ferries are still under review. No decisions has been made regarding trucks in the Village. These decisions will be made with public and municipal input..

C: Unnecessary costs associated with constructing the Dawson Point terminal.

Q: What is the main advantage to running two island terminals?

A: Flexibility, safety, security and redundancy are the benefits of providing two island terminals. Additionally, there is no consensus on which terminal to close if only one was selected.

C: The new International Joint Commission regulations about water levels will require dredging into Marysville to maintain access for the Wolfe Islander III so the additional cost of dredging required for year round operations is not significant.

Q: Why are the buildings so large?

A: The main building in Kingston is for housing staff offices, meeting rooms, and locker rooms, in addition to the public amenities such as washroom and waiting areas. The smaller buildings are for components such as the bubbler compressor and waste management bins.

Q: Busses should come into the terminal.

C: The terminal is designed to allow busses to pick-up in the terminal but the decision to have the busses pick-up in the terminal will be made by the City of Kingston as they operate the service.

C: The large windows will be good to view the approaching ferry.

Info

– 3 –

ITEM MINUTES ACTION BY

/ DATE

Q: Will the building meet any LEED requirements?

A: The buildings are expected to meet LEED Silver requirements as a minimum.

C: Bright/open space for the public is good.

Q: Would you sacrifice green space for parking?

A: There is currently no plan for providing public parking at Kingston dock, the green space adjacent to Ontario Street may change as we progress through detail design

C: The proximity of parking to the ferry should be a consideration. If the purpose of the ferry is to get more people on foot, these designs promote cars.

C: Make sure that the trees/plants that are placed can actually grow.

C: There are always lots of dogs, make sure there is lots of green space.

Q: Is the space left between the new dock and the Queen St. dock big enough for the continued use of boaters that moor there?

A: Space has been left for future use of the Queen St. dock but it is up to Marine Operations as to whether to allow users to moor along the proposed terminal. .

C: The ferry is a long way of pedestrians coming from Ontario St. If the Kingston busses came into the terminal it would be substantially better.

Q: Is there heritage considerations being given to the Kingston Terminal building?

A: A heritage impact assessment is currently being undertaken to determine the heritage value.

Q: Why are there two buildings?

A: Buildings serve different purposes and it is better to keep them separated. The external look will be the same for each building.

C: The service buildings should be moved away from the passenger areas (perhaps the opposite side of the terminal) to create two distinct areas – a passenger area and a service area. Service buildings house connecting hoses to service the hydraulic ramps and the bubblers and should be place as close to the water as possible.

Q: There are two ramps in Marysville but it doesn’t appear to be enough space to two vessels.

A: The Marysville and Dawson Point terminals were not designed to accommodate two vessels. The second ramp is not a full service ramps and is intended for emergency uses.

Q: Should the design incorporate the history and character of the area?

A: Yes. Limestone material used to match, especially in Kingston, is a good choice.

C: The buildings should incorporate areas to charge cell phones.

C: The terminals designs need to consider safety, especially at night on the island where it can be very dark.

Q: How many spots are there for marshalling in Marysville?

A: 75 spaces.

C: There shouldn’t be 2 ferries going to 2 different docks.

– 4 –

ITEM MINUTES ACTION BY

/ DATE

A short discussion regarding ferry operations resulted in the suggestion that attendees visit the online survey put up by MTO operations to provide comments on how the services should be run. The survey can be found at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PR6TZ3P

The survey will remain open for the time being. MTO will provide advance notice when a deadline for comments through the survey has been determined.

C: The internal flow of all the terminals should be the same. Three different ways of marshalling is confusing.

Q: Why is the breakwater at Dawson Point so long?

A: The breakwater provides shelter for the ferry as it docks at Dawson Point from wave/wind action.

C: Safety out on the breakwater is a serious concern. People already jump off the dolphins into the water. The winter winds, snow and ice will also create a safety hazard.

C: The breakwater doesn’t necessarily need to have public access.

C: Dawson Point is inhospitable and not pedestrian friendly.

C: There should be sidewalks and cycling paths connecting the two island terminals.

C: There should be considerations for some sort of windbreak at Dawson Point (e.g. a hedge row).

Q: The Community Advisory Group is very valuable to the project. Will it continue in subsequent stages of the project?

A: During the Detail Design, consultation activities like the CAG will continue and will include more PICs.

5. In CAG Appreciation

A letter to each CAG member from Regional Director Kathryn Moore was distributed while Tina White and Glenn Pothier provided thanks to the group.

Info

6. Detail Design Enhancements

CAG members were asked to write any questions they thought needed to be answered during Detail Designs on to index cards. The purpose of this exercise was to identify questions that might arise during Detail Design, not to provide answers.

Q: Can we plug in cell phones or other devices in the waiting areas?

Q: Would the extra wide sidewalks in Kingston be better to be cut down to allow some parking?

Q: How will you ensure clean operating facilities, particularly on the Island?

Clarification asked by MTO: What is meant by clean?

A: Cleanliness of the facilities (e.g. washrooms, preventing graffiti, etc.)

Q: Once the marshalling area at Marysville is full, where will overflow vehicles go?

Q: Where are you recommending people park in Marysville?

Q: Where do we park (in Marysville and Kingston)?

Q: How will parking for walk on traffic be handled in Marysville? Same as now? An additional lot? Some spaces on the dock?

Q: How do we handle overflow traffic in Marysville when there are more than 75 cars?

Q: How will we ensure that there are sufficient controls in marshalling areas?

Info

– 5 –

ITEM MINUTES ACTION BY

/ DATE

Q: How will the intersection in Marysville be handled, especially for trucks?

Clarification asked by MTO: What do you mean by handled?

A: Are extra-long trucks able to turn at the intersection?

Q: How can we ensure passengers are safe and secure while waiting for the ferry?

Q: Are dock facilities going to be allowed by Department of Environment and Fisheries and Oceans, etc.?

Q: How does this design address our goal to reduce Greenhouse gasses by reducing the use of single occupancy vehicles?

Q: Can we plan for direct foot traffic from Food Basics and LCBO? (sidewalks along route to waiting at the terminal).

Q: At the Kingston dock how will pedestrians to/from K-Rock be controlled as there are no sidewalks?

Q: Can we make better use of the land and provide some parking in Kingston?

Q: Why is the maintenance facility so spread out at Kingston?

Q: Why are the docks at Dawson spaced differently than in Marysville?

Q: Why not have on entrance and exit from Queen St, thus eliminating Tragically Hip Way turning lane?

Q: How can we ensure that when the ferry is dock that the boat will not float away due to west winds?

Q: Operation (business) requirements drive design. Need more precision in these requirements. (i.e. traffic flows, pick up and drop off areas, stress testing, trucking loading ease, snow removal, practical constraints.

7. Observer Input

C: In Kingston: the parking is in adequate, walls along Ontario St. block the view to the water and the team should ensure the turning radius is ok for trucks. The design sucks for boaters as there is no place to tie up and there are no ladders if people fall in.

C: A boat launch is needed at Marysville.

C: Marysville will be messy as last minute people try to scramble into the marshaling area.

C: People may not walk into town from the new marshaling area in Marysville.

C: Marysville needs a traffic light.

C: Pedestrians walking on are now being discouraged as there is no parking.

C: Truck turns will be difficult at Marysville.

C: Dawson Point terminal is still needed.

C: Security and Safety at Dawson Point is crucial.

C: Dawson Point Rd. is a nightmare, it needs to be widened and have lighting installed.

C: Excited about the project and the value add of the expansions

Info

8. Final Remarks

Glenn Pothier once again thank the CAG members for their time and ended the meeting.

Info

– 6 –

ITEM MINUTES ACTION BY

/ DATE

9. Additional Comments Received

Attendees and Observers were all provided comment sheets to provide any comments they were not given the opportunity to say during the meeting. The following is a summary of those comments:

Info

Can a smaller ferry be used to deliver pedestrian and cyclist traffic to the village of Marysville and have vehicle traffic use Dawson Point?

Perhaps a seasonal dock to manage tourists.

Provide ladders at the docks to permit someone who fell in the water to get out.

Allow boats to temporary tie up during emergencies.

Walls should not block the view from Ontario St. to the waterfront.

Marysville will be a messy parking lot. Traffic lights need to be installed in Marysville. Drivers likely won’t walk back into Marysville after parking in the line.

No parking means fewer walk-ons and increased ferry loads.

Security and safety at Dawson Point are a major issue. The road leading to Dawson Point narrow and twisty and should have street lighting.

Access some local artists to assist with decorative elements of the terminals.

Dist: Participants

MINUTES

Wolfe Island Ferry - Initial Discussions with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Project: Wolfe Island Preliminary Design and Class EA Study

Project No.: 1150293.00

Place: Teleconference

Date: January 31, 2017

Time: 10:00 am

Present: Catherine Warren (MNRF) Monique Charette (MNRF) Tina White (MTO) Sharon Westendorp (MTO)

Edward Li (Morrison Hershfield) Mike Bricks (MH) Grant Nichol (MH) Robert Wargala (MH) Nick Crockford (MH)

ITEM MINUTES ACTION

BY

1. Introductions/Background/History Info

M. Bricks provided an overview of the project to date including: the project history, 2011 Planning Study results, and consultation activities.

Info

2. Existing Environmental Conditions Info

G. Nichol provided an overview of the existing conditions work including field work timing and methodologies, results of fisheries and terrestrial assessments, potential and confirmed species at risk (SAR) present, and quality of habitat observed.

Info

3. Design Alternatives Info

M. Bricks reviewed the design alternatives discussing the in-water work associated with each alternative and the feedback received from stakeholders.

Info

4. Potential environmental effects and permitting issues Info

Dawson Point

o Q: Where was the American Eel caught in relation to the terminal?

o A: In the nearshore area of the bay to the south of the ferry terminal.

o As a result of the presence of the American Eel, an ESA permit may be required. MNRF will review the occurrence to determine what permitting and mitigation requirements may apply.

Info

Info

Info

MNRF

– 2 –

ITEM MINUTES ACTION

BY

o Q: Can MNRF provide any information they have on American Eel in this area?

o A: MNRF will coordinate with internal staff to supply any information available.

o Q: Is the habitat similar at other terminals to support the American Eel?

o A: The other terminals were not found to provide adequate habitat for American Eel.

MNRF

MNRF

Info

Info

Kingston

o No major concerns considering the highly impacted shoreline at the Kingston terminal.

o The confirmation of Barn Swallow nesting within the tire bumpers along the dock will require registration with MNRF and nesting will need to be prevented prior to construction.

Info

Info

Info

Marysville

o The habitat in the areas adjacent to the Marysville terminal support a number of sportfish, however, the habitats at the terminal itself were of low quality.

o The less fill in the water the better.

o Similar issues as Kingston regarding the presence of Barn Swallow. Registration with MNRF will be required and nesting will need to be prevented prior to construction.

o Dredging in Marysville will be required if all season access is required. Dredging may also be required based on the new water level regulations which allow for lower water levels in order to maintain current levels of access.

o Q: how often would dredging have to occur?

o A: It is possible that maintenance dredging may be required but the frequency is not known yet. No maintenance dredging has been required since the Wolfe Islander III was put into operation 40 years ago.

Info

Info

Info

Info

Info

Info

Info

5. Other Discussions Info

Schedule

o A technically preferred alternative is expected by April 2017.

o The Ministry is in the process of procuring the a new vessel by 2020, new terminals should be in operations for delivery of the new vessel.

o It will take roughly 2-3 years to build each terminal.

Info

Info

Info

Info

– 3 –

ITEM MINUTES ACTION

BY

While MNRF does not get directly involved in DFO Fisheries Act Authorizations, DFO often consults with MNRF for site specific information.

Spawning of Northern Pike at Dawson Point is unlikely based on lack of required habitat, however, their presence in the bay to the south of the terminal indicates they utilize the area for post-spawn staging. Spawning of this species likely occurs in the PSW to the east.

MH/MTO will arrange a follow up meeting with MNRF once a preferred alternative has been selected.

Info

Info

MH

Dist: Participants

MINUTES

Wolfe Island Ferry – Meeting with the MNRF

Project: Wolfe Island Ferry Project No.: 1150293

Attendees: Catherine Warren (MNRF) Monique Charette (MNRF) Tina White (MTO) Sharon Westendorp (MTO) Mike Bricks (Morrison Hershfield) Grant Nichol (MH) Tom Howson (MH) Nick Crockford (MH)

Absent:

Date / Time: 10/23/2017 9:00 AM Place: Teleconference

ITEM MINUTES ACTION BY

/ DATE

1. Introductions and Project Update Presentation

A round table introduction was undertaken.

In advance of the meeting MH provided existing conditions reports for terrestrial and aquatic features, terrestrial impact assessment report and a summary presentation.

Mike Bricks and Grant Nichol provided a presentation covering the project progress to date, consultation activities, the recommended technically preferred alternatives, terrestrial impacts and fisheries impacts.

In general MNRF did not see any terrestrial impacts with exception of Barn Swallow registration. From an aquatic perspective they agreed that there will be fisheries related impacts. An ESA permit may be required for American Eel at Dawson Point (see below for action items).

Info

2. Discussion/Action Items

Discussions following the presentation resulted in the following action items:

o MNRF will inquire to see if they can share the Draft Lake Ontario Management Plan currently under development which identifies areas of potential habitat enhancement within Lake Ontario. If unable to share the entire document, they may be able to share portions important to the Wolfe Island/Kingston area.

o MNRF does not have clear direction internally regarding American Eel habitat enhancements and will need to have further internal discussions before they can comment.

o MTO will have internal discussions regarding the need to engage Williams Treaty First Nations.

o MH will complete the IGF and AAF forms for the American Eel at Dawson Point to allow MNRF to advance their internal discussions on the requirements for potential permitting implications.

MNRF

MNRF

MTO

MH

Dist: Participants

MINUTES

Transport Canada Meeting for the Wolfe Island Ferry Preliminary Design and Class EA

Project: Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Eastern Region Wolfe Island Ferry and Docking Improvements Preliminary Design and EA Study Agreement No. 3014-E-0024, GWP No. 4061-14-00

Project No.: 1150293.00

Place: Via Teleconference

Date: October 24, 2016

Time: 11:00 am

Present: Tina White Sharon Westendorp Amanda Grypma Angela Jeffray David Zeit Linda Beaulieu Kathy Morris Kelly Thompson Edward Li Robert Wargala Mike Bricks Nick Crockford Jane Graham

MTO – Project Manager MTO – Environmental MTO – Environmental MTO – Geomatics Transport Canada – Environmental Transport Canada – Environmental Transport Canada – Navigation Protection Transport Canada – Navigation Protection Morrison Hershfield – Project Manager Morrison Hershfield – Engineering Morrison Hershfield – Environmental Morrison Hershfield – Environmental Shoreplan Engineering

ITEM MINUTES ACTION

BY

1. Introductions Info

2. T. White provided an overview of the purpose of the meeting, which was to:

Provide an overview of the project and progress to date and

Request input from Transport Canada on the implications of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and Navigation Protection Act on the project.

M. Bricks provided a presentation covering:

an overview of the project;

background of the project;

information on ferry demand;

consultation to date;

First Nations consultation; and

major comments received.

Info

– 2 –

ITEM MINUTES ACTION

BY

3. R. Wargala provided a review the assumptions used to identify the navigational channel.

Info

4. R. Wargala reviewed each alternative for the Kingston, Marysville and Dawson Point Terminals, providing a brief description of the differences in each alternative.

Info

5. CEAA Discussions Info

In both Kingston and Marysville there was no opportunity for land-based alternatives due to the potential impacts on surrounding land uses.

The project team is looking to understand what permits and approvals might be required from Transport Canada and if there are any major navigational issues with the alternatives under consideration

David Zeit noted that there are two types of EAs under CEAA. An EA for designated project, and an effects assessment for a non-designated project as triggered under Section 67.

Under Section 67 of CEAA a three part test is required to be met in order to trigger a Section 67 review. The three parts are:

o The work must be considered a “project”;

o The project must be partially or wholly on Federal Land at the start of construction; and

o A Federal department must have a regulatory duty.

The three part test is currently met at the Kingston Terminal as the work is considered a project, sits partially on Federal lands and Transport Canada will have a regulatory duty under the Navigation Protection Act (NPA). This is not the case at the other terminals.

If the water lot currently owned by Transport Canada in Kingston is sold to MTO prior to the start of construction, then Section 67 would no longer apply. However, regulatory approval under the NPA would still be required.

The Section 67 is more of an internal due diligence review than a formal EA and consultation with the public is not required.

Further First Nation consultation may be required under the Section 67 review.

Transport Canada would generally lead a single review process in this case and would engage other Federal Departments (i.e. DFO)

Info

Info

Info

Info

Info

Info

Info

Info

Info

– 3 –

ITEM MINUTES ACTION

BY

A Section 67 review has a more narrow focus then a Class EA so in general there is unlikely to be significant requirements beyond what is already been completed under the Class EA. The Class EA would act as a starting point for the Section 67 review. Though CEAA does require an examination of Transboundary Effects, they likely wouldn’t apply in this case.

Info

6. NPA Discussions Info

For NPA approval, an application would be required for each terminal and the bubbler system (four applications in total).

Typically applications are submitted during Detail Design but it is possible to start the process during Preliminary Design (once a preferred alternative has been identified).

The applications should include information such as the level of vessel traffic through the Kingston Harbour. This could be based on the count of lifts from the Causeway bridge and/or number and size of boats at the Marina north of the Causeway. MH will try to gather some information on this.

In Marysville, Transport Canada will want to see that the nearby residence have been consulted as their water access will be impacted.

No issues are currently anticipated at Dawson Point.

As a result of the NPA authorization, it’s likely that lighting and marking conditions will be required at all Terminals.

Info

Info

Info/MH

Info

Info

Info

7. Other Business

Once a Technically Preferred Alternative is selected, the Project Team will schedule another meeting with Transport Canada to discuss the project further. This is likely to occur in March/April of 2017.

Transport Canada First Nation Consultation Staff should be included in any future meetings. When the next meeting is scheduled Transport Canada will coordinate to have the appropriate staff attend.

MH

Transport Canada

Dist: Participants

MINUTES

Wolfe Island Ferry – Meeting with the DFO

Project: Wolfe Island Ferry MH Project No.:

1150293.00

Attendees: Bill Glass (DFO) Richard Kavanaugh (DFO) Sharon Westendorp (MTO) Mike Bricks (Morrison Hershfield) Grant Nichol (MH) Tom Howson (MH) Nick Crockford (MH)

Absent:

Date / Time: 11/2/2017 9:00 AM Place: Teleconference

ITEM MINUTES ACTION BY

/ DATE

1. Introductions and Project Update Presentation

A round table introduction was undertaken. Sharon Westendorp gave introduction of project and expressed importance of meeting the anticipated project completion date.

In advance of the meeting MH provided the fish and fish habitat existing conditions report and a summary presentation.

Mike Bricks and Grant Nichol provided a presentation covering the project progress to date, consultation activities, the recommended technically preferred alternatives, and fisheries impacts including an overview of the current HEAT maps.

Overall, DFO was pleased that MTO and MH have started discussions related to Fisheries Act Authorization and Offsetting at an early stage of the project and DFO is willing to continue providing oversight and input throughout the preliminary design.

Bill Glass noted he would be the designated project biologist for DFO and we can liaise with him as needed.

Info

2. Discussion/Action Items

Discussions following the presentation resulted in the following action items:

o DFO confirmed that a Fisheries Act (FA) Authorization will be required based on the magnitude of in-water impact, however, a Request for Review must still be submitted at this stage in order for them to issue the MTO a formal FA Letter F.

o MH will complete an MTO Request for Review Application Form and submit to Bill Glass directly.

o DFO stated that the Request for Review submission could be reviewed within a few weeks.

o MH to continue HEAT model analysis following Request for Review submission. Once all HEAT maps and tables are complete MH will send to DFO to review, provide comment and run various scenarios to determine offsetting needs and opportunities, both on-site and off-site.

DFO

MH

DFO

MH

Dist: Participants

MINUTES

Stakeholder Meeting – CFB Kingston

Project: Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Eastern Region Wolfe Island Ferry and Docking Improvements Preliminary Design and EA Study Agreement No. 3014-E-0024, GWP No. 4061-14-00

Project No.: 1150293.00

Place: Canadian Forces Base Kingston – Real Property Operations Unit Building

Date: May 12, 2016

Time: 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm

Present:

LCol Edward Padvaiskas LCol Don Saunders Maj Mike Avery CWO Darryl Foster Regan Reshke Marielle Roch Andrew Wollin Tina White (TW) Sharon Westendorp (SW) Amanda Grypma (AG) Angela Jeffray (AJ) Edward Li (EL) Robert Wargala (RW)

Acting Base Commander CFB Kingston Commanding Officer, Real Property Operations Unit (Ontario) Officer Commanding, Real Property Operations Unit (Ontario) Detachment Kingston Regimental Sergeant Major, Real Property Operations Unit (Ontario) Engineering Officer, Real Property Operations Unit (Ontario) Detachment Kingston Property Officer, Real Property Operations Unit (Ontario) Detachment Kingston CFB Kingston Environmental Officer MTO – Project Manager MTO – Environmental MTO – Environmental MTO – Geomatics Morrison Hershfield (MH) – Project Manager MH – Highway Engineering

K:\PROJ\1150293\04 PROJECT MANAGEMENT\MEETING AGENDAS & MINUTES\WOLFE ISLAND DND MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12_16 REVISED DRAFT NOT YET SENT.DOCX

ITEM MINUTES ACTION

BY

1 Introduction

1.1 A round table introduction was made. Info

– 2 –

ITEM MINUTES ACTION

BY

2 Presentation

2.1 Project Scope E. Li introduced the project scope to attendees as per the attached presentation material. Key points of the scope presentation included:

Info

a. Background and overview of the 2011 Planning Study;

b. Provincial EA process;

c. Existing problems;

d. Purpose of the current Preliminary Design assignment;

e. Planning Study recommendations;

f. Overview of the alternative generation and evaluation process;

g. Service Scenarios

2.2 Design Alternatives for Kingston

R. Wargala gave a brief overview of each Kingston alternative developed to address the needs identified in the Planning Study and traffic demand forecasts done to date.

Note: Alternatives have not yet been released into the public domain, and as such details will not be documented in these minutes.

Info

3 Discussion

3.1 Environmental

a. Several of the alternatives are shown to be encroaching onto a Department of National Defence (DND) water lot located to the north of the existing Kingston pier, and to the east of Fort Frontenac. A. Wollin indicated that there may be potential environmental concerns with building the facility into the water lot which may affect DND’s legal ability to transfer title to MTO due to contamination. DND was of the opinion that acquisition of this water lot may adversely and significantly affect the overall project schedule.

MTO/

MH

b. It was noted by A. Wollin that National Defence follows pre-2012 CEAA screening process.

c. A Wollin suggested MH confirm the Rideau Canal’s Parks Canada and Unesco Heritage List status as this may affect the project. R. Wargala commented that MH’s understanding was that the canal ended at the causeway, however MH will review.

MH

d. A. Wollin indicated that should the need arise for Heritage work at Fort Frontenac through this project, that the Ontario provincial process will be adequate.

Info

– 3 –

ITEM MINUTES ACTION

BY

3.2 Security

a. LCol Padvaiskas expressed a security concern with any alternatives that gave direct line of sight from proposed public areas (e.g. parking, walkways, waiting areas) into the Fort Frontenac compound, and highlighted the elevated parking structures as particularly concerning. Further alternative development by MH will endeavour to locate parking and public areas away from the north side. DND indicated that they would not provide support or endorsement for any alternatives that encroached any further north than the current docking location, as well as for any raised parking structure due to same security concerns indicated above. DND does not believe that any form of mitigation to the above would be effective.

Revision: DND deemed Alternative K6 (maintaining northerly edge of pier) as supportable.

MH/

MTO

b. LCol Padvaiskas indicated that when considering alternatives that pushed the facility southward, a solid wall of approximately 6’ height, along the north edge of the pier would be desirable as a detractor to security threats, but is not considered a must-have. MH and MTO will consider this as the study progresses.

MH/

MTO

3.3 Other Business

a. LCol Padvaiskas and Maj Avery indicated that the driveway access point between Fort Frontenac and the terminal yard is used primarily as an egress with occasional use by incoming larger vehicles, and should be maintained.

Info

4 Properties

4.1 LCol Saunders and M. Roch provided some general principles of land transfer of DND lands if requests are made.

Info

4.2 Generally if a parcel of DND land is declared surplus, transfer of land is possible, or transfer of land can be made based on an agreement with the agency based on fair market value. In cases where the land is deemed required, transfer will not be allowed.

Info

5 Conclusion

5.1 E. Li concluded the presentation with an overview of the evaluation criteria and study timelines.

Info

5.2 DND officers and staff were invited to attend one or both of the upcoming Public Information Centres being held on June 1 and June 2 to present the current range of alternatives to the public. There will be a 30 minute pre-PIC session for agency and government officials on both days. Further information in attached presentation material.

Info

– 4 –

ITEM MINUTES ACTION

BY

5.3 Next meeting. MH indicated that a followup meeting can be held with DND officers and staff at a point approaching the second PIC, and will be arranged at that time.

Info

The minutes were prepared by Robert Wargala. Please advise Robert of any errors or omissions within 5 days of receipt of these minutes at rwargala@morrisonhershfield.com.

Dist.: Participants and Project Team Members