Environmental Study Report Widening & Rehabilitation of James A. Gifford Causeway Class Environmental Assessment

Transcription

1 Environmental Study Report Widening & Rehabilitation of James A. Gifford Causeway Class Environmental Assessment County of Peterborough July 2013 BTE Project BTE11 012

2 County of Peterborough James A. Gifford Causeway EA Environmental Study Report July 2013 James A. Gifford Causeway Schedule C Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment Report Prepared By: Bytown Engineering 100 Centrepointe Drive, Suite 202 Ottawa, ON K2G 6B1 (613) (855) Toll free July 2013 Z:\BTE Projects\2011 Projects\BTE James Gifford Causeway\ESR\Gifford Causeway ESR JULY 2013 FINAL R1.docx

3 County of Peterborough James A. Gifford Causeway EA Environmental Study Report July 2013 Table of Contents 1.0 Project Summary EA Project Need and Justification Municipal Class EA Process Analysis and Evaluation Planning Solutions Preliminary Design Alternatives Technically Preferred Plan(s) Refinements Recommended Plan Consultation Construction Costs Next Steps Statement of Flexibility Introduction Background Environmental Assessment Process Provincial EA Process Federal EA Process Study Organization Need and Justification Consultation Program Notices Contact List Public Information Centres (PICs) Public Information Centre No Public Information Centre No Stakeholder Consultation Property Owners Steering Committee i

4 4.4.3 Municipal Councils Interest Groups and Agencies First Nations Website Transportation Network Existing Facility Pedestrian and Cycling Facilities Existing Traffic Conditions Future Delay and Safety Performance Concurrent Transportation Studies Environmental Conditions Land Use and Property Natural Habitat Assessment Existing Conditions Significant Features Fish Habitat Assessment Species at Risk Aquatic Vegetation Socio-cultural Environment Views and Vistas Sound Levels Recreation Utilities and Municipal Services Archaeological Resources Drainage and Hydrology Geotechnical/Foundations Evaluation of Alternatives Planning Solutions Evaluation Methodologies Evaluation Techniques Analysis and Evaluation of Preliminary Design Alternatives Public Input Alternatives Bridgenorth Intersection Alternatives ii

5 7.3.4 Causeway Alternatives Ennismore Intersection Alternatives Refined Alternatives Evaluation Criteria Measurement of Effects and Performance of Alternatives Social Utility Functions Weighting of Criteria Evaluation Results Weighted Score Sensitivity Testing Evaluation Recommendations Refinements Recommended Plan(s) Construction Staging Construction Phasing Project Costs Aggregate Resources Effects and Mitigation Natural Environment Sensitivities Surface Water Erosion and Sediment Control Fisheries Terrestrial Socio-cultural effects Future Activities List of Figures Figure 1: Study Area... 1 Figure 2: Project Location... 8 Figure 3: Study Area... 8 Figure 4: Municipal Class Planning and Design Process Figure 5: Intersection Volumes Figure 6: Borehole Locations Figure 7: Causeway Embankment Cross Section Figure 8: Evaluation Process iii

6 Figure 9: Sample Qualitative Evaluation Figure 10A: Bridgenorth Intersection Alternatives 1 and Figure 10B: Bridgenorth Intersection Alternatives 3 and Figure 11A: Ennismore Intersection Alternatives 1 and Figure 11B: Ennismore Intersection Alternatives 3 and 4B Figure 12: Causeway Short Term Improvement Alternatives Figure 13A: Causeway Long Term Widening Alternatives Figure 13B: Causeway Long Term Widening Alternatives Figure 13C: Causeway Long Term Widening Alternatives Figure 14: Sample Utility Functions Figure 15: Sample Linear Utility Function Figure 16: Bridgenorth Intersection Alternatives Evaluation Factor and Subfactor Weights Figure 17: Ennismore Intersection Alternatives Evaluation Factor and Subfactor Weights Figure 18: Causeway Operational (Short term) Alternatives Evaluation Factor and Subfactor Weights Figure 19: Causeway Widening (Long term) Alternatives Evaluation - Factor and Subfactor Weights Figure 20: Bridgenorth Intersection Alternatives Ranking Figure 21: Ennismore Intersection Alternatives Ranking Figure 22: Causeway Short-term Operational Improvement Alternatives Ranking Figure 23: Causeway Long Term Alternatives Ranking Figure 24: Ennismore Sensitivity Tests Figure 25: Bridgenorth Sensitivity Tests Figure 26: Causeway Operational Improvements Sensitivity Tests Figure 27: Causeway Long Term Sensitivity Tests Figure 28: Recommended Operational Improvement Plan Figure 29: Recommended Long Range Plan Figure 30: Fish Compensation Plan List of Photos Photo 1: Historic Floating Bridge across Chemong Lake, (Courtesy of Bridgenorth Beautification Committee)... 9 Photo 2: : Quarry (Courtesy of Bridgenorth Beautification Committee)... 9 Photo 3: Cutting Ice for Roadway (Courtesy of Bridgenorth Beautification Committee)... 9 Photo 4: Causeway created by placing rock fill on ice (Courtesy of Bridgenorth Beautification Committee)... 9 Photo 5: Gabion (Rock Baskets) Rotation Photo 6: Differential Settlement - Longitudinal Pavement Crack Photo 7: Causeway Bridge view looking north Photo 8: Sample Roundabout Picton, Ontario Photo 9: Existing submerged fill/platform for widening to the south iv

7 List of Tables Table 1: Daily (24 Hour) Traffic Counts Summer, Table 2: Projected Safety Performance Yankee Line/Robinson Road Intersection (west side) Table 3: Projected Safety Performance Bridge Street/Ward Street Intersection (east side) Table 4: Existing Fish Species Table 5: Alternative Planning Solutions Table 6: Screening of Long List of Candidate Evaluation Criteria Table 7: Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures List of Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I Appendix J Appendix K Study Design Consultation Traffic Memoradum Natural Environment Memorandum Fish and Fish Habitat Impact Assessment Report Stage 1 Archaeological Background Study Report Geotechnical/Foundation Report Alternative Planning Solutions Report Wayside Quarry Memorandum Historical Causeway Drawings Council Resolutions v

8 County of Peterborough James A. Gifford Causeway EA Environmental Study Report July Project Summary 1.1 EA Project The County of Peterborough, in consultation with the Township of Selwyn (previously the Township of Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield, with the name change occurring during the course of the study), initiated this Class Environmental Assessment (EA) of the James A. Gifford Causeway in November This EA was subject to the Schedule C planning and design process of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Act. This EA study has completed phases 1-4 of the Municipal Class EA by establishing the need and justification for the project, considering all alternatives and proactively involving the public in defining a recommended plan for both short-term and long-term improvements to the James A. Gifford Causeway (County Road 14) from Robinson Road (County Road 16) to Ward Street (County Road 18) including stabilization of the Causeway embankment and improvements to the County Road platform to meet forecast traffic demand and meet current County roadway lane and shoulder standards. The purpose of the study was to maintain existing roadway infrastructure and provide acceptable traffic operations (level of service) to meet forecast traffic demand on Study Area roads. The EA has defined a road management plan for the historic James A. Gifford Causeway and adjoining intersections. The study area is illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1: Study Area The study was carried out in consultation with County staff, the Township of Selwyn, external agencies, the general public, property owners and technical specialists. Two Public Information Centre (PIC) meetings were held to present the study needs, existing environmental conditions, alternatives, recommended plan(s) and seek public input. This Environmental Study Report (ESR) is a summary of the EA project and is presented to the public and review agencies for a 30-day comment period. 1.2 Need and Justification Two primary issues were the core of the need and justification for the James A. Gifford Causeway EA Study. These issues were the need to stabilize the Causeway settlement which is experiencing rotational movement of the sideslopes as the fill slope consolidates (settles) into the compressible underlying soils below the Causeway. This rotational failure is 1

9 evident in longitudinal cracks appearing in the roadway pavement and the rotation of the gabion baskets and steel beam guiderail. In addition, traffic demand is now reaching the capacity of the existing 2-lane roadway and there will be a need for increased vehicular capacity to meet forecast future traffic demand. Slope Stability There has been continued settlement of the Causeway earth embankment. The original fill was placed in 1950 over compressible soils in what was a wetland area before the area was flooded to create the Trent Severn Waterway. As a countermeasure for settlement failures that were occurring in the 1980 s, the County constructed stabilization works in the 1990 s that include the existing gabion baskets. Consolidation of the embankment continues and the outer slopes are experiencing rotational movement of the outer fill and rotation of the gabion baskets. This lateral movement is reflected in longitudinal cracks in the pavement structure (asphalt and underlying granulars). Traffic Demand Historically, Bridge Road (now the location of the James A. Gifford Causeway) was a rural transportation corridor with low speeds and lower volumes of traffic that could be served by a floating bridge. Today, travel demand is associated with residential development that includes several needs such as commuting, local trips to/from residential properties, bicyclist and pedestrian trips, as well as emergency services and goods movement (heavy trucks). The adjoining intersections of Robinson Road (CR 16) to the west and Ward Street (CR 18) to the east are experiencing delays as the level of service deteriorates, as well as having safety issues with the location of adjacent driveways within the influence of the intersection. Today the Causeway is the busiest arterial road under the jurisdiction of the County, with traffic demand over 10,000 vehicles per day. This threshold of traffic is the level where arterial roadways warrant 4 lanes of capacity. Growth is forecast over the next 20 year planning horizon and the study recommendation is that the roadway be widened to 4 lanes to accommodate this growth. In addition, the study is recommending facilities to safely accommodate pedestrian and bicyclist modes of travel. 1.3 Municipal Class EA Process This project followed the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, amended 2011 process for a Schedule C project. The Class EA Process is undertaken in a series of phases commencing with identifying the problem and culminating in the filing of an Environmental Study Report (ESR) for Schedule C projects. For this study, an initial Study Design document was prepared that described the problems to be solved and potential solutions, and the community consultation program to be used to engage stakeholders. The draft study design was available on the County web site and circulated to study stakeholders and First Nation communities. The final study design is included in Appendix A. The study design was flexible and did not prescribe the outcome of the type of project that would be carried forward in that it described the project could either follow a Schedule B or Schedule C process, subject to the study findings. 2

10 However, as the study proceeded (and based on the study findings, project value, and environmental effects) the study has concluded following the Schedule C requirements (for a more complex project than would have been considered should the recommendations have reflected a Schedule B project). The Class EA process includes an evaluation of all reasonable alternatives and the selection of a preferred alternative(s) with acceptable effects (including mitigation) on the natural and social/cultural environments. The following are the specific breakdown of tasks by phase for a Schedule C project 1 : Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3: Phase 4: Phase 5: Identify the Problem Alternative Solutions Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Design Concepts. Environmental Study Report (ESR) Detail Design and Implementation Not undertaken as part of this study. With the filing of this report, Phases 1 to 4 of the EA process have been completed. The Recommended Plan(s) were developed with input from all affected stakeholders. The process included two Public Information Centre meetings. The Township of Selwyn endorsed the technical recommendations of the study on May 28, The County of Peterborough endorsed the technical recommendations for the project at their June 26, 2013 Council Meeting. This ESR is being filed with the County clerk for the 30-day review period commencing on July 26, 2013 and be available at the County and Township offices for public review as well as on the County website. All persons involved in the study have received notification personally of the availability of the ESR report (exceeding the Class EA requirements) to reflect the level of interest in the study by the public. A person or party may request a Part II Order with the Minister of the Environment, during the 30-day review period, if project concerns cannot be resolved. The project is approved for design and construction if no written concerns are provided within the review period. 1.4 Analysis and Evaluation Planning Solutions The analysis and evaluation of planning solutions involved a two-step process; planning solutions followed by a detailed analysis of preliminary design alternatives. Alternative Solutions represent different approaches or strategies to address the needs of the project taking into consideration the existing environment. 1 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, Municipal Engineers Association, amended For this study, the following "Alternative Planning Solutions" were evaluated: The Do Nothing Alternative Limit/Defer Growth 3

11 Transit Improvements Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Improve Existing Roads/Causeway Based on the qualitative evaluation of the planning solutions, it was recommended to carry forward the following solutions as components of the preferred transportation strategy to meet the project needs: Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Improve Existing Roads/Causeway These planning solutions were endorsed by the Steering Committee and supported by the public at the first Public Information Centre meeting Preliminary Design Alternatives A detailed evaluation was undertaken of the following mutually exclusive groups of alternatives: Groups of Alternatives expected beyond the 20 year planning horizon) Pedestrian Access Alternatives Bridgenorth Intersection Alternatives Ennismore Intersection Alternatives (CR 14 (Yankee Line)/ CR 16 ) Bridgenorth Intersection Alternatives Four alternatives were considered for the Ward Street (County Road 18)/Bridge Street (County Road 14) intersection including: Alternative 1 Minor Operational Improvements Alternative 2 Dual Left Turn Lanes (Ward Street northbound) Alternative 3 Single Lane Roundabout Alternative 4 Single Lane Roundabout with through lane (Ward Street northbound) Causeway Alternatives Minor Improvements (Short Term) Four alternatives were considered for short term improvements to the Causeway including: Causeway Operational Improvement Cross Section Alternatives (stabilization of Causeway and accommodating other modes of travel) (Operational improvements are projects expected in the 20 year planning horizon) Causeway Long Range Cross Section Alternatives (to meet traffic demand within Official Plan horizon) (Long Range improvements are projects Alternative m lanes with 3.0 m paved shoulders Alternative m lane with 3.0 m paved shoulder south side, 3.4 m shared lane with 2.0 m partial length (to lookouts) sidewalk north side Alternative m lane with 3.0 m paved shoulder south side, 4.5 m shared lane with 2.0 m sidewalk north side 4

12 Alternative m shared lane, 1.0 m paved shoulders and 2.0 m sidewalks Long Term Widening Improvements Both three and four lane widening improvements were considered for the Causeway. Widening to the south, centre and north were considered for all alternatives. Long range alternatives included: Alternative 1 Rural - Three 3.5 m lanes with 3.0 m paved shoulders Alternative 2 Rural Four 3.5 m lanes with 3.0 m paved shoulders Alternative 3 Urban - Four 3.5 m lanes with 1.0 m paved shoulders and 2.0 m sidewalks Ennismore Intersection Alternatives Four alternatives were considered for the Yankee Line (County Road 14)/Robinson Road (County Road 16) intersection, including: Alternative 1 Minor Operational Improvements Alternative 2 Smart Channel and relocation of yield sign Alternative 3 Signalized Intersection Alternative 4 Single Lane Roundabout Bridgenorth Alternative 4 Single Lane Roundabout with through lane (Ward Street northbound) Ennismore Alternative 3 Signalized Intersection Causeway Short Term Alternative m lane with 3.0 m paved shoulder south side, 4.5 m shared lane with 2.0 m sidewalk north side Causeway Long Term Alternative 2 Rural Four 3.5 m lanes (widening to the south) with 3.0 m paved shoulders Refinements Refinements were subsequently made to the Technically Preferred Plan that was presented at PIC No. 2 as the result of public input. The input was received from PIC No.2, and individual and group meetings with owners of properties within the vicinity of the project. The revised plan reflects this continued input from the public, property owners and the Township of Selwyn. The revisions minimize impacts to business properties located at both the east and west ends of the Causeway. In addition, access modifications to one residential property on Ward Street (east end of Causeway) will increase safety. See Section 7.6 for a description of the refinements that are included in the Recommended Plan. 1.5 Recommended Plan Technically Preferred Plan(s) The Technically Preferred Plans for this project are as follow: Based on the evaluation and input from the public and stakeholders, the Recommended Plan for the James A Gifford Causeway EA Study includes the following: 5

13 Bridgenorth Intersection - Single Lane Roundabout plus through lane on Ward Street. (Technically Preferred Plan alignment shifted east to minimize property impacts on the west side.) Ennismore Intersection Channelization (Long Range plan - protection for roundabout) Causeway Operational Improvements: Alternative m lane with 3.0 m paved shoulder one side, and 4.5 m shared lane with 2.0 m sidewalk across north side (i.e. entire length) and two municipal lookouts (sidewalks, lighting and lookouts to be implemented and funded by the Township) Causeway Long Term Improvements: Alternative 3S - 4 lane urban widening to the south, paved shoulders (urban widening to match urban facilities (i.e. sidewalk) to be implemented with operational improvements) 1.6 Consultation The James A. Gifford Schedule C Municipal Class EA Study included proactive consultation techniques as follow: Two (2) Public Information Centres Affected property owner meetings Meetings with external agencies Presentations to Township and County councils. Two rounds of Public Consultation using Public Information Centre (PIC) meetings were held to present the project, the assessment of planning solutions, environmental inventories, preliminary alignment and cross section design alternatives and the prioritization of improvements. The Recommended Plans were presented to both the Township and the County for endorsement. 1.7 Construction Costs Construction of the single lane roundabout intersection improvements at the west end of the Causeway (Bridgenorth) will cost approximately $1.8 million (current dollars). A signalized intersection at the east end of the Causeway (Ennismore) will cost $0.4 million (current dollars). The future long term plan for a roundabout at this location will cost approximately $1.2 million (current dollars). The cost of the operational improvement of the Causeway including a sidewalk across one side (i.e. entire length) and municipal lookouts and lighting is approximately $2.5 milion (current dollars). The total capital and life cycle cost to widen the Causeway to 4 lanes is approximately $8.9 million (current dollars). See Section Next Steps The County may proceed with design and construction of the recommended plan for this project once environmental clearance is obtained, and subject to availability of funding and construction priorities. 1.9 Statement of Flexibility The County proposes the staging of the project will include: The right, based on availability of funding, to construct any or all of the 6

14 ultimate improvements in the initial construction The use of this plan to implement emergency repairs or construction in the event of a slope failure on the Causeway Property protection and acquisition policies to support the corridor for future implementation of the Plan During detail design and/or prior to construction, review of commercial operations and driveway entrance locations to ensure that the recommended improvements are compatible with the land use. If changes occur to waste pad locations or loading bays in the commercial plaza located in the southwest quadrant of the Gifford Causeway/Ward Street intersection, the detail design will re-examine commercial truck turning radii/movements with respect to access via the relocated (south) Ward Street entrance. Prior to the commencement of the detailed engineering design, the scope of work and cost-sharing as they relate to County and Township responsibilities, be confirmed. 7

15 2.0 Introduction The County of Peterborough, in consultation with the Township of Selwyn (formerly named Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield), initiated this Class Environmental Assessment (EA) in November 2011, in order to maintain existing roadway infrastructure and service the traffic demand on this County road. The EA has defined a road management plan for the historic James A. Gifford Causeway and adjoining intersections. This EA was completed following the Schedule C planning and design process of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA), under the Province of Ontario s Environmental Assessment Act. Figure 2: Project Location This EA study has completed phases 1 to 4 of the Municipal Class EA by establishing the need and justification for the project, considering all alternatives and proactively involving the public in defining a recommended plan for both short-term and long-term improvements to the James A. Gifford Causeway (County Road 14) from Robinson Road (County Road 16) to Ward Street (County Road 18) including stabilization and improvements to the County Road platform. The project location is illustrated in Figure 2 and the study area is illustrated in Figure 3. Figure 3: Study Area 8

16 James A. Gifford Causeway Environmental Assessment 2.1 Background The James Gifford Causeway reflects a historic transportation corridor across Chemong Lake that was originally constructed as a floating bridge. Photo 1: Historic Floating Bridge across Chemong Lake, (Courtesy of Bridgenorth Beautification Committee) Photo 3: Cutting Ice for Roadway (Courtesy of Bridgenorth Beautification Committee) The floating bridge was removed in 1949 and the existing Causeway was constructed using local rock fill with a swing bridge at the east end which was replaced in the early 1970 s with an elevated structure providing a 10 m clearance and higher embankment slopes. See Photos 2 to 4 of the original Causeway embankment construction. Photo 4: Causeway created by placing rock fill on ice (Courtesy of Bridgenorth Beautification Committee) Photo 2: : Quarry (Courtesy of Bridgenorth Beautification Committee) The Causeway experienced long term consolidation of the underlying compressible soils as seen by settlement of the embankment. In the early 1990 s the County previously remediated the outward lateral movement of the embankment through emergency repairs to stabilize the roadway. 9

17 This included additional rock fill and the construction of gabion baskets. However, the lateral rotational movement of the embankment is continuing as evident by the rotation of the gabion baskets and cracks developing in the pavement and granular layers of the pavement structure. This movement requires action in the near term to stabilize the embankment. 2.2 Environmental Assessment Process Provincial EA Process This project was undertaken to satisfy the Provincial EA Act following the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, Amended 2011 process for a Schedule C project. This document specifies the procedures required to plan specific road projects according to an approved planning process. C project) The Planning and Design Process for the Municipal Class EA is illustrated in Figure 4. The Class EA process includes an evaluation of all reasonable alternatives and the selection of a preferred alternative(s) with acceptable effects (including mitigation) on the natural and social/cultural environments. The EA process entails five phases. This study will only be completed to the end of the provincial EA process (i.e. Phase 4). The following are the specific breakdown of tasks by phase for a Schedule C project 2 : The approved planning process includes the Ministry of Environment s five guiding principles for EA studies, namely: Consider all reasonable alternatives; Provide a comprehensive assessment of the environment as it relates to each alternative considered; Utilize a systematic and traceable evaluation of alternatives and net effects; Undertake a comprehensive consultation program (public, stakeholders); and Provide clear and concise documentation of the decision-making process and public consultation program. The Class EA Process is undertaken in a series of phases commencing with identifying the problem and culminating in the filing of an Environmental Study Report (ESR) (Schedule 2 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, Municipal Engineers Association,

18 James A. Gifford Causeway Environmental Assessment Figure 4: Municipal Class Planning and Design Process Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3: Identify the Problem Alternative Solutions Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Design Concepts. Phase 4: Environmental Study Report (ESR) Detail Design and Implementation This phase was not included as part of this study. Phase 5: Federal EA Process Previously, any project for which the federal government owned land required a Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) Screening. With revised EA legislation, projects no longer require a CEAA Screening even if a former federal EA trigger exists. However, projects will still be subject to relevant federal laws, regulations and 11

19 standards, as applicable and CEAA 2012 still requires that before federal authorities make any decision that would allow a project to proceed, they must determine whether a project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. Therefore, the potential need for any federal approvals for the project will be determined. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Parks Canada were consulted with respect to required approvals. The trigger for the Federal EA Act for this project is the Historic Canals Regulations (included in the Law List Regulations under the Act); and the loss of fish habitat (Federal Fisheries Act). A permit will be required from Parks Canada (Trent Severn) for fill placement in the water body (Chemong Lake). Name Organization Role P.K. Chatterji Thurber Foundation/ Engineering Geotechnical 2.3 Study Organization This project was completed by Bytown Engineering (BTE) in conjunction with specialist subconsultants as listed below. Name Organization Role Steve Taylor BTE Project Manager Charlene Buske BTE Henry BTE Zygowski Laura Central McRae Archaeology Dan Brunton Brunton Consulting Rudi Warme Warme Biological Services Leo Sanchez Sanchez Engineering Assistant Project Manager Traffic Archaeology Terrestrial Fisheries Drainage and Stormwater Management 12

20 3.0 Need and Justification Two primary issues were identified as the need and justification for the James A. Gifford EA Study. These issues were the need to stabilize the Causeway settlement and current rotational movement of the of the outer embankment slopes (effecting the slopes and gabion baskets), and the need for increased vehicular capacity to meet forecast future traffic demand. Slope Stability Along the shoreline of the Causeway, gabion baskets were constructed approximately 15 years ago to provide a widened platform for the County road across Chemong Lake and stabilize the outer embankment slopes. Since that time there has been continued settlement and movement of the outer embankment and rotation of the gabion baskets. The lateral movement is reflected in longitudinal cracks in the pavement. Photo 6: Differential Settlement - Longitudinal Pavement Crack The lake bottom includes a compressible silt layer at a depth of approximately 5 m. See Section 6.6 for more information on geotechnical aspects of the embankment foundations. This material has settled as a result of the loading from sequential fill materials placed in the early 1950 s, 1970 s and 1990 s. In addition, some of the aggregate fill materials placed after the original quarried rock was placed may include natural rounded rock that may require a larger angle of repose. There is also wave action occurring on the faces of the Causeway (against the rock slope and gabion foundation) which may be also contributing to the movement of the embankment. Photo 5: Gabion (Rock Baskets) Rotation 13

21 The longer reach across the lake on the north face results in higher wave heights (and lateral forces) and ice loading. Traffic Demand The surrounding Township environment reflects an evolving suburban area that is transitioning from the original rural character of Selwyn (formerly Smith-Ennismore- Lakefield) Township. Today the township reflects a substantial amount of year-round housing that creates greater commuting traffic volumes than were present with the original Causeway. widened to 4 lanes to accommodate this growth. In addition, the study is recommending facilities to safely accommodate pedestrian and bicyclist modes of travel. See Section 5.0 for more information on traffic volumes, operational and safety issues. The preliminary design alternatives carried forward to meet the needs of the project and evaluation of alternatives are provided in Section 7.0 and Section 8.0 respectively. Historically, Bridge Road (link now the location of the James A. Gifford Causeway) was a rural transportation corridor with low speeds and lower volumes of traffic that could be served by a floating bridge. Today, travel demand is associated with residential development that includes several needs such as commuting, local trips to/from residential properties, bicyclist and pedestrian trips, as well as emergency services and goods movement (heavy trucks). The adjoining intersections of Robinson Road (CR 16) to the west and Ward Street (CR 18) to the east are experiencing delays as the level of service deteriorates as well as having safety issues with the location of adjacent driveways within the influence of the intersection. Today, the Causeway is the busiest arterial road under the jurisdiction of the County with traffic demand over 10,000 vehicles per day. This threshold of traffic is the level where arterial roadways warrant 4 lanes of capacity. Growth is forecast over the next 20 year planning horizon and the study recommendation is that the roadway be 14

22 4.0 Consultation Program The James A. Gifford Schedule C Municipal Class EA Study included proactive consultation techniques as follow: Two (2) Public Information Centres Affected property owner meetings Meetings with external agencies Presentations to Township and County councils The following sections provide a summary of the consultation held throughout the duration of the study. 4.1 Notices Notices for the Study Commencement, Public Information Centres, and Study Completion were publicized as follow: Study Commencement - The Examiner (Peterborough): Tuesday January 17 & Wednesday January 18, 2012; The Lakefield Herald: Friday January 20, Public Information Centre No. 1 The Lakefield Herald: Friday April 27, 2012; The Examiner (Peterborough): Saturday April 28, 2012; Connection Newspaper: May Public Information Centre No. 2 The Examiner (Peterborough): Thursday November 22, 2012; The Lakefield Herald: Friday November 23 and 30th, 2012; Connection Newspaper: December 3, Study Completion - The Examiner (Peterborough): Friday July 26, 2013; The Lakefield Herald: Friday August 2, Contact List A public/stakeholder mailing list and list were developed at the outset of the study. Additions to the lists were sought via the Study Commencement Notice, Notice of Public Information Centres (PIC No. 1 and PIC No. 2) in addition to comment sheets at each of the two PICs. The lists were updated throughout the duration of the study. Contact was also provided to the local and Greater Toronto Area origin fishing community through posting of notice of the study at both ends of the Causeway, to be read by the fishing community. These notices were printed in both English and Chinese (Mandarin) languages. Notification of Study Completion and filing of this Environmental Study Report has also been sent to all contacts. 4.3 Public Information Centres (PICs) Two rounds of Public Consultation using Public Information Centre (PIC) meetings were held to present the project, the assessment of planning solutions, environmental inventories, preliminary alignment and cross section design alternatives and the prioritization of improvements. PIC No. 1 presented the project, need and justification, Draft Study Design (Work Plan), environmental inventories, traffic analysis, alternative planning solutions, preliminary alternatives and sought public/agency input. PIC No. 2 presented the evaluation of alternatives and Technically Preferred Alternatives (Causeway and Intersections). For both PICs, a one hour advance session was held to present information to agencies, 15

23 elected officials and First Nations prior to public viewing of the materials. Comment sheets were available for persons to provide feedback on the material presented Public Information Centre No. 1 The first Public Information Centre meeting was held on Wednesday May 16, 2012 at the Bridgenorth Public Library meeting room from 4:00 to 7:00 pm. All property owners within the study area were mailed individual letters inviting them to attend the first Public Information Centre. Over 200 letters were mailed out. Display panels (text, photos and drawings) were set up around the perimeter of the room for leisurely viewing. The panels presented the draft Study Design, preliminary assessment of alternative planning solutions, preliminary coarse screening of design alternatives, existing conditions and environmental inventories and preliminary alignment and cross section design alternatives. County and consultant staff were available to respond to any verbal comments/questions. The fishing community is an extensive user of the Causeway; most notably those travelling from the Toronto area. One exhibit/panel solicited information on the primary location(s) of fishing area(s) along the Causeway in order to determine locations for pedestrian access. In addition to the exhibit, a notice was erected at both ends of the Causeway, seeking comments from the fishing community. The notice was provided in both English and Mandarin; the language spoken by the majority of the fishing community. Fifty-eight (58) people registered at the Public Information Centre. Each person was encouraged to provide a written response to any issues or concerns. A total of fifteen (15) comment sheets/letters/ s were submitted at the PIC and during the subsequent 2-week comment period Public Information Centre No. 2 The second and final Public Information Centre meeting was held on Wednesday December 5, 2012 at the Bridgenorth Public Library meeting room from 4:00 to 7:00 pm. All property owners within the study area were mailed individual letters inviting them to attend the second Public Information Centre. Over 200 letters were mailed out. Display panels (text, photos and drawings) were set up around the perimeter of the room for leisurely viewing. The panels presented the background information, evaluation criteria, analysis and evaluation of preliminary design alternatives (intersections and Causeway), and technically preferred alternatives including refinements. A video, produced by the Ministry of Transportation, was played several times throughout the PIC event. The video depicted the functionality of a roundabout for all users including pedestrians, cyclists and commercial vehicles. The video was well received by those in attendance. County and consultant staff were available to respond to any verbal comments/questions. Forty-three (43) people registered at the Public Information Centre. Each person was encouraged to provide a written response to 16

24 any issues or concerns. A total of twentythree (23) comment sheets/letters/ s were submitted at the PIC and during the subsequent comment period. Refer to Appendix B for more information on the Public Information Centre meetings. 4.4 Stakeholder Consultation Property Owners Property owner meetings were held in December 2012, in advance of PIC 2, to present the preferred plans to the affected property owners. Based on the meetings, refinements were made to the plans which were subsequently presented to the property owners in January 2013 and May Steering Committee The Steering Committee was comprised of representatives from the County of Peterborough, the Township of Smith- Ennismore-Lakefield, agencies (Parks Canada - Trent Severn, Otonabee Region Conservation Authority) and Consultant Staff, including subconsultants. The role of the Steering Committee was to complete/discuss/endorse the technical elements of the project and to communicate and review public, agency and stakeholder consultation comments. Members of the Steering Committee completed the analysis and evaluation of the preliminary design alternatives for the project Municipal Councils The Township of Selwyn (Smith-Ennismore- Lakefield) and the County of Peterborough Councils were informed of the study through their staff, letter correspondence, and via the one-hour advanced session prior to each of two Public Information Centre meetings. Councils endorsed the Recommended Plan as follow: Township of Selwyn (Smith-Ennismore- Lakefield): May 28, 2013 County of Peterborough: June 26, 2013 Refer to Appendix K for Council resolutions Interest Groups and Agencies All agencies or groups that may have had an interest in the project or any documentation to contribute to the study were contacted at various stages for their input. Consultation occurred at study commencement, development of alternatives, development and screening of evaluation criteria, analysis and evaluation of alternatives and development of mitigation measures. The following agencies were contacted for information and/or input into the project: Parks Canada (Trent Severn Waterway) Bridgenorth Beautification Committee BEL Rotary City of Peterborough Ministry of Agriculture and Food Ontario Federation of Agriculture Ministry of Community and Social Services Central East Region Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Service Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry of Environment - Peterborough District Office Ministry of Environment (Eastern Region) Ministry of Economic Development and Trade Transport Canada 17

25 Ministry of Tourism and Culture Culture Services Unit Otonabee Conservation Authority Peterborough & the Kawarthas Tourism Peterborough Field Naturalists Peterborough Cycling Club OPP Peterborough County Detachment Fire Department County of Peterborough EMS Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board Peterborough Victoria Northumberland Clarington Catholic District School Board Ontario Federation Of Snowmobile Clubs District 2 Kawartha Lakes Snowmobile Club Fisheries and Oceans Canada Ontario Secretariat for Aboriginal Affairs Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Environment and Natural Resources Lands and Trusts Services Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Environment and Natural Resources Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Specific Claims Branch Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Litigation Management and Resolution Branch Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, Aboriginal and Ministry Relationships Ontario Secretary of Aboriginal Affairs, Policy and Relationships Branch Ministry of the Attorney General Alderville First Nation Mississaugas of Scugog Island Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation Hiawatha First Nation 4.5 Website Documentation produced for public viewing/comment was posted on the County s website at First Nations The following First Nations were contacted at various milestones throughout the project, including Study Commencement, both PICs and Study Completion. Curve Lake First Nation 18

26 5.0 Transportation Network 5.1 Existing Facility The James A. Gifford Causeway (County Road 14) is a 2-lane roadway which crosses Chemong Lake. The crossing comprises a Causeway segment and bridge/structure (for passing of water craft), linking Ward Street (County Road 18) on the east side and Yankee Line (County Road 14) and Robinson Road (County Road 16) on the west side. The bridge is located approximately 250 m west of the Ward Street/Gifford Causeway intersection. No Parking signs are erected along the Causeway length. The speed limit is 60 km/h. does exist on the north side of the bridge crossing. Ward Street/Bridge Street Intersection South of the Ward Street/Bridge Street intersection, a sidewalk/boulevard exists on the west side of Ward Street but terminates at the Beer Store commercial entrance. An asphalt sidewalk also exists on the east side of Ward Street. North of the Ward Street/Bridge Street intersection, the asphalt sidewalk/boulevard exists on both sides of Ward Street. There are no crosswalks at the Ward Street/Bridge Street intersection. 5.3 Existing Traffic Conditions Daily (24 hour) traffic volumes at select locations in the study area are illustrated in Table 1. Photo 7: Causeway Bridge view looking north 5.2 Pedestrian and Cycling Facilities Robinson Road (CR 16)/Yankee Line (CR 14) Intersection There are no pedestrian facilities at the west end of the Causeway. Causeway There are no sidewalks or bicycle lanes on the Causeway. A 57 m length concrete sidewalk 19

27 Table 1: Daily (24 Hour) Traffic Counts Summer, 2009 # Location Date NB/EB SB/WB 2-Way 1 CR 14, At Park June 10th, CR 14, At Park July 15th, CR 14, At Sip n Dip July 25th, Ward Street South of CR 14 June 9th, Ward Street South of CR 14 July 15th, Ward Street South of Champlain June 9th, Ward Street South of Champlain July 15th, The 2009 counts indicate that Ward Street accommodates approximately 10,500 to 11,300 vehicles/day (i.e. south of Bridge Road); daily volumes on the Causeway were moderately lower at 9,500 to 10,000 vehicles/day. Daily traffic volumes of 10,000 vehicles/day is considered a typical capacity threshold for a 2- lane roadway i.e. warrant for 4-laning. At this volume, capacity, safety and operational concerns become more evident and improvements are normally considered. movement can only occur when a green indication is provided while a right turn can move on a green and red indication (notwithstanding the presence of pedestrians). As such, the capacity of a left turn movement is considerably lower when compared to a right turn movement. Intersection counts at Robinson Road/Yankee Line were conducted in the winter (i.e. January 2012). These turning movements are illustrated in Figure 5. The key movements at the Ward Street/Bridge Road intersection include: The eastbound right turn in the morning peak hour (659 vph), from the Causeway to Ward Street southbound; and The northbound left turn in the afternoon peak hour (537 vph) from Ward Street to the Causeway. Of these two movements, the northbound left turn is the most problematic. A left turn 20

28 Figure 5: Intersection Volumes Jan June 2009 Robinson Rd. Chemong Lake Ward St Yankee Line James A. Gifford Causeway Legend: 100 (200) AM (PM) peak hour turning movements Source:Ward Street Corridor Traffic Study, Village of Bridgenorth, Tranplan Associates, December 2009 and BTE Counts, January 2012 The operation of the Causeway is influenced by the efficiency of the two intersections at the east and west limits primarily the Ward Street/Bridge Road intersection to the east. The number of cars that can enter/leave the Causeway is controlled by the capacity of the intersections. For example, the single northbound left turn lane at the Ward Street/Bridge Road intersection accounts for about 75% of the volume of westbound vehicles entering the Causeway (i.e. afternoon peak hour). The magnitude of this movement requires that a considerable proportion of the signal timing be allotted to this movement thereby reducing the time assigned to the other movements. The introduction of a second northbound left turn lane would convey about twice the volume and greatly improve the efficiency of the intersection. However, the two left turn lanes would require two receiving lanes (i.e. on the Causeway). It should be noted that two left turn lanes are typically considered when a peak hour left turn volume of 400 vph is encountered - the northbound left turn volume at the Ward Street/Bridge Road intersection is well beyond this volume threshold. 21

29 In the morning peak hour, approximately 82% of eastbound vehicles travelling on the Causeway complete a right turn movement at the Ward Street/Bridge Road intersection. Similar to the above, appropriate design and operational features should be implemented to facilitate this movement and avoid operational issues such as lengthy delays and vehicle queues. 5.4 Future Delay and Safety Performance Yankee Line/Robinson Road Intersection (west side) The total intersection delay for various configurations was as follow: 149 mins (roundabout), 207 minutes (signals), 254 minutes (existing configuration, minor improvements or smart channel). A review of the projected safety performance is provided in Table 2. This analysis employed a 2022 horizon; the 2022 volumes were derived by applying linear growth rates of 1%/annum to all existing volumes. For the purpose of this analysis and to address the distinct directional movements in the morning and afternoon peak hours, this analysis is based on an aggregate of the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Table 2: Projected Safety Performance Yankee Line/Robinson Road Intersection (west side) Description Existing Configuration Minor Improvements Smart Channel Signals Single Lane Roundabout Projected Safety Performance Base condition No appreciable change anticipated Projected Crash reductions: 50% of merging, and rear-end crashes for RT Projected Crash reductions: 20% to 35% of all crashes o 45% to 60% of all angle crashes o 25% to 30% of all injury and fatal crashes o 20% to 70% increase in rear-end, left-turn opposing crashes Projected Crash reductions: 35% to 65% of all crashes o 30% to 75% of all injury and fatal crashes o 60% to 80% of all angle, left-turn, head-on crashes o Up to 20% increase in rear-end crashes 22

30 Similar to the operational review (delay), the roundabout alternatives generate the best safety performance followed by the signals. Bridge Street/Ward Street Intersection (east side) The total intersection delay for various configurations was as follow: 825 minutes (roundabout with through lane), 3156 minutes (single lane roundabout), 1823 minutes (dual northbound left turn lanes), 2784 minutes (minor improvements) and 2888 minutes (existing intersection configuration). A review of the projected safety performance is provided in Table 3. The roundabout alternatives generate the best safety performance. Refer to Appendix C for more information on traffic volumes, delay and safety performance. Table 3: Projected Safety Performance Bridge Street/Ward Street Intersection (east side) Description Existing Configuration Minor Improvements Dual NBLT 1 Lane Roundabout 1 Lane Roundabout with Bypass Lanes Projected Safety Performance Base condition No appreciable change anticipated Projected Crash reductions: 25 to 30% of all left turn crashes o 29% estimated reduction in fatal/injury rear-end collisions o 47% estimated reduction in fatal/injury left-turn collisions o 20% estimated reduction in angle fatal/injury collisions Projected Crash reductions: 35% to 65% of all crashes o 30% to 75% of all injury and fatal crashes o 60% to 80% of all angle, left-turn, head-on crashes o Up to 20% increase in rear-end crashes Projected Crash reductions: 35% to 65% of all crashes o 30% to 75% of all injury and fatal crashes o 60% to 80% of all angle, left-turn, head-on crashes o Up to 20% increase in rear-end crashes 23

31 5.5 Concurrent Transportation Studies Implementation of signals at the Ward Street/ Wilcox intersection was completed in the fall of 2011 as a result of the Ward Street Corridor Traffic Study. The County has recently completed an update to their Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The update details planned improvements in the Bridgenorth area including the Bridgenorth Bypass and 4-Lane Widening of County Road 18 (Ward Street); and the 3-Lane Widening of Ward Street and 4-Lane Widening of CR 18. Due to the potential transportation capacity issues anticipated by 2031, the report recommends that the County continue to protect for the current Bypass corridor within the County s Official Plan. However, the implementation of the Bypass is deferred to the end of the current planning horizon. The timing of the need for the Bypass will be largely dependent on the pace of growth in Selwyn (in particular growth in Bridgenorth and Ennismore); however growth in the municipalities to the north of Selwyn, along with any continued growth in external traffic entering Peterborough County from the City of Kawartha Lakes along County Road 14 may also increase the traffic using the Ward Street / County Road 18 corridor. The TMP advises that the next update in 2016 should assess the timing for the Bridgenorth By-Pass and consider revisiting the Bypass route that was approved as part of the original Environmental Study Report through a subsequent EA Addendum, in order to avoid sensitive environmental features and wetland areas. 24

32 6.0 Environmental Conditions Existing conditions of the James A. Gifford Causeway Environmental Assessment study area are described in this section including a description of the land use and property, natural environment, and socio-cultural environment. 6.1 Land Use and Property At the east end of the study area, in Bridgenorth, lands north of the Ward Street intersection are generally designated residential whereas lands south of the intersection are designated commercial. Commercial establishments include Home Hardware, Subway, Palmac s Pet Food, Mister Convenience, Remax, the Beer Store, Bridgenorth Sports and Marine, Village Wine Shoppe, Chemong Chimnee, Valumart, and LCBO. Lakefield (north-east of the study area) and Bridgenorth are noted as Urban Growth Centres (Schedule A1 Land Use Plan Rural Component, Smith and Ennismore Wards). At the west end of the study area, the lands are designated as rural. Active farmland is evident. A trailer park and restaurant (Sip n Dip) are also in operation. The Sip n Dip is located in the only designated Highway Commercial area at the west end of the study area. The Rotary Park has a gazebo on the south side of the Causeway. Community Improvement Plan The Township of Selwyn has produced a Community Improvement Plan (CIP)/Public Realm Improvement Strategy (draft V2 March 2012) to enhance pedestrian connectivity (i.e. sidewalk, trail), improve the identity (i.e. gateway entrance treatments), and beautify (i.e. add public spaces), in Lakefield Village Core, Bridgenorth Village Core, Ennismore Hamlet Core and Young s Point Hamlet Core. Township participation on the Steering Committee permitted recommendations in the CIP to be coordinated with the James A. Gifford Causeway planning project. The township improvement strategies considered were the following: Bridgenorth Action 4 explore a pedestrian connection across the Causeway - with lighting and lookout areas ( bulb outs into the lake). Action7 - Install a concrete sidewalk extension along the side east (and west sides in some sections) of Ward Street. Ennismore Action #10 - Resurface and define the waterfront parking area on the south side of the Causeway. Action #11 - Utilize the space on the north side of the Causeway as a public space or public parking area. Action #12 - Explore opportunities for incorporating a continuous pedestrian connection across the Causeway. (Action #4 Bridgenorth above) 6.2 Natural Habitat Assessment Existing Conditions The majority of the corridor has been transformed from a natural condition. The limited areas of vegetation along the 25

33 Causeway are overwhelmingly dominated by non-native weedy shrubs and small trees such as Manitoba Maple and Lilac, with some representation of native species of disturbed, open sites such as Eastern Cottonwood and White Ash (seedlings). Little native wildlife is evident. The flora is representative of the predominantly nonnative vegetation described above. Fauna are similarly dominated by common species of edge habitat and open ground, such as Song Sparrow, American Goldfinch, Eastern Chipmunk, Northern Cardinal and American Redstart. An active Osprey nest was present during the summer of Small populations of two designated Species At Risk (SAR) are present west of the study area corridor. Several pairs of Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark occur in active agricultural lands south of CR 17 between Joplin Lane and Peregrine Road. One Eastern Meadowlark was observed north of CR 17 close to Joplin Lane but none of these animals were noted in the study area, nor is there habitat here suitable to attract these animals into the corridor. 6.3 Fish Habitat Assessment Chemong Lake is shallow waterbody with a mean depth of 2.4 m and a maximum depth of 6.7 m. It supports a warm water fish community as do all the Kawartha Lakes 3. All the lakes have similar fish communities since they possess similar aquatic habitats and are all connected via the Trent-Severn Waterway. Following the initial introduction of walleye, the lakes continue to support robust populations even though the lakes themselves have undergone some profound changes to both habitat opportunities and resident fish species. Fish catches, initially dominated by walleye, have since been surpassed by the basses through the 1990s when black crappie and bluegill invaded the Lakes. Northern pike have recently begun to appear in the Kawartha Lakes system and the current management strategy considers them an invasive species; therefore, generous catch limits have been set. Refer to Table 4 for a summary of fish species Significant Features No provincially or regionally significant nonfisheries natural environment features are present in the study area corridor. Designated SAR occur in transformed agricultural land to the west but are unaffected by any proposed construction activities within the corridor. No representation of natural vegetation exists here, rendering no potential for the study area to provide even locally significant representation of native habitats. 3 Ministry of Natural Resources Kawartha Lakes Fisheries Assessment Unit 26

34 Table 4: Existing Fish Species Station Location Fish Species* (Scientific name) muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) troutperch (Percopsis omiscomaycus) James A. Gifford Causeway, West Side UTM Coordinates: 17 T E N Latitude N Longitude W rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris) pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) bluegill (L. macrochirus) white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) largemouth bass (M. salmoides) common shiner (Notropis cornutus) black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) yellow perch (Perca flavescens) James A. Gifford Causeway, East Side at Bridge UTM Coordinates: 17 T E N Latitude N Longitude W walleye (Sander vitreus) northern pike (E. lucius) 27

35 6.3.1 Species at Risk The James A. Gifford Causeway study area is located in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Forest Ecoregion. American eel (Anguilla rostrata), Blanding s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) and rainbow mussel (Villosa iris), three aquatic and semi aquatic species of animals listed as threatened or endangered with ranges that overlap the study area, were identified from the records in this Ecoregion or reported by the MNR Peterborough District Office Aquatic Vegetation The summer season provides optimal visibility and access to fish habitat, confirms the presence of aquatic plants, and enables identification and assessment of summer refuge areas. A detailed fish habitat assessment was undertaken on July 7, The Lake shorelines of the Causeway are relatively uniform in the aquatic habitat conditions they provide with the exception of the Causeway ends where tree and shrub cover is more common. Gabion baskets support the roadway embankment. The ground surface above the gabions is stony and devoid of most vegetation with the exception of a sparse grass, horsetail and trefoil cover, well worn by pedestrian traffic. Below the 1 m high gabion wall the stony, rocky foreshore drops off quickly into the water. Shore and lake bed substrate varies from occasional boulders to gabion stone sized rock with cobbles and stones dominant. The submerged substrate is algae covered and filamentous algae clumps were evident beneath the water surface. Floating mats of algae are also common just off shore. The water was a yellow-brown colour. Aside from scattered large rocks and occasional woody debris, in-water and shoreline cover was almost absent for the majority of the Causeway. Overhanging bank vegetation does offer some overhead cover at the ends of Causeway where there is more tree and shrub growth (rock elm, aspen poplar, willow, dogwood, cattails). In shoreline locations where water access for fishermen is more difficult, the surrounding ground has developed areas of weedy cover with species including milkweed, wild carrot, white clover, chickory, daisy, sow thistle and reed canary grass. Refer to Appendix E for more information on the fisheries assessment. 6.4 Socio-cultural Environment Views and Vistas The east end of the Causeway is elevated above the height of the adjacent side streets (Kelly Boulevard, Garthorne Avenue). Trees block the direct view of the Causeway from adjacent landowners. As such, any realignment and/or widening of the Causeway will consider visual intrusion impacts Sound Levels Existing daytime (16 h Leq from 7 am to 11 pm) sound levels are forecast to be 60.7 dba and nighttime (8 h Leq from 11 pm to 7 am) are forecast to be 53.5 dba for the first row of residential receivers (30 m from the road 28

36 centerline). Future sound levels associated with any of the Causeway improvements will not create perceptible increases above future ambient (no improvement) conditions, to warrant investigation of mitigation measures. Any change is forecast to be under 1 dba. Within the influence of an intersection, sound levels will decrease with the removal of stop and go traffic (i.e. stop sign, signals). The predicted sound level reduction is 2 dba with the removal of stop and go traffic within 60 m of the intersection. Residences within m of an intersection will experience a 1 dba reduction in noise. The greatest effect will be to remove the stopping of vehicles on the eastbound incline of the Ward Street intersection approach Recreation Fishing Fishing is a major recreational activity that primarily draws visiting anglers from the Toronto area. Input from the fishing community was sought throughout the study by posting signs at each end of the Causeway and by asking for fishing input at PIC 1. Currently, fishermen park primarily at the east end of the Causeway, on both County and private property. Garbage left behind after a fishing weekend is a major problem. Rotary Park A gazebo was constructed in the Rotary park, located at the west end of the Causeway, in The Rotary Club of Bridgenorth - Ennismore - Lakefield (B-E-L) club members clean up of the Causeway twice a year. The area on the south side of the Causeway has waterfront access which includes the gazebo, a public boat launch and a parking area Utilities and Municipal Services The municipal intersections on both sides of the Causeway include underground and aerial hydro, Bell, gas, cable and storm sewer utilities. Across the Causeway along the north shoulder there is a gas transmission line that must be protected Archaeological Resources Historical Context The James A. Gifford Causeway crosses Chemong Lake, providing a connection for communities located north of the lake to destinations within the City and County of Peterborough. A ferry scow was first utilized to bridge Chemong Lake in The scow was only usable for approximately seven months of the year when the lake was not frozen. The first floating bridge on Chemong Lake was opened on May 24, It was rebuilt in the 1880s and in During the 1901 third rebuild, both the eastern and western ends of the bridge were partially turned into a Causeway. Despite its more substantial construction, the third floating bridge was unusable during the winter and early spring due to ice build-up and damage. The replacement of the floating bridge by a permanent structure was championed by Reeve James A. Gifford. Gifford was traumatized during childhood while crossing the floating bridge and lost family members to 29

37 the dangers of the uncertain crossing of the frozen lake. The Causeway was constructed by the Thompson Construction and Engineering Company of Toronto from 1948 to The Causeway originally had a swinging (bridge) section that opened to allow the passage of taller marine traffic, which was later replaced by a permanent bridge section in Refer to Appendix J for historical drawings Archaeological Potential A Stage 1 archaeological assessment, including a site visit conducted in April 2012, was completed to investigate the cultural land use, archaeological history and the present conditions of the study area. The purpose of a Stage 1 background study is to determine potential for cultural resources on lands for which a change in use or construction in pending. Determining archaeological potential establishes the need for a Stage 2 field assessment involving the search for archaeological sites. The Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture maintains a database of all known registered archaeological sites in the Province. A search of the database around the study area indicates that no (0) archaeological sites have been recorded within a one kilometre radius of the project area. Given the early date of Euro-Canadian settlement within the region, there is moderate to high potential for the discovery of Euro-Canadian archaeological sites within the project limits. Furthermore, temporary camps associated with the lumbering and mining industry remain possible. There is also a long history of the fur trade in the region and there remains the possibility of discovering archaeological sites, especially temporary camps, kill and processing sites, and findspots, associated with the fur trade in the vicinity of the project area. The conclusions of the Stage 1 assessment are as follow: Areas that have been identified as having moderate to high potential undergo a Stage 2 test pit survey, where shovel-sized test pits, no smaller than 30.0 cm in diameter, be excavated into the first 5.0 cm of subsoil to examine for stratigraphy, cultural features, or evidence of fill at 5.0 m intervals. Soil should be screened through mesh no greater than 6.0 mm and all test pits should be backfilled unless instructed to do otherwise. Areas that have been identified as having low potential undergo a Stage 2 test pit survey, where shovel-sized test pits, no smaller than 30.0 cm in diameter, be excavated into the first 5.0 cm of subsoil to examine for stratigraphy, cultural features, or evidence of fill at 10.0 m intervals. Soil should be screened through mesh no greater than 6.0 mm and all test pits should be backfilled unless instructed to do otherwise. An underwater archaeological assessment is recommended to be conducted prior to any Causeway widening. Refer to the Stage 1 Archaeological Background Study Report in Appendix F for more information. 30

38 6.5 Drainage and Hydrology The hydrotechnical analyses component of the Study involved the review and evaluation of the existing lake water levels (controlled by the Trent Severn Waterway) and closed storm sewer systems. The Causeway includes three box culverts which are nearing the ends of their service lives. 6.6 Geotechnical/Foundations Gabion baskets have been utilized to provide erosion protection for the Causeway but have reached the end of their service life in providing an adequate level of erosion protection. The Causeway is therefore experiencing erosion issues and past attempts at spot repairs have not been successful. Cracking is noted on the paved roadway indicating either loss of material from below the roadway due to erosion or a rotational slide in the Causeway. A foundation field investigation was carried out from December 13 to 16, 2011 and was comprised of one borehole drilled to a depth of 12.2m in the southeast quadrant of the Causeway. Borehole encountered a 150 mm thick layer of topsoil at the ground surface. The topsoil was underlain by fill comprised of sand and gravel to sandy gravel with some fines extending to a depth of 5.1 m (Elevation ). A 0.5 m thick layer of silt and sand with some clay was encountered at a depth of 1.1 m (Elevation m). Crushed rock fill (gravel to sand sizes) was encountered below the sand and gravel fill. The crushed rock fill samples obtained in the split spoon sampler ranged from 10 mm to 50 mm in size. The borehole was terminated in the rock fill at a depth of 12.2 m (Elevation m). SPT N-values from 10 to 75 blows per 0.3 m of penetration were measured in the sand and gravel fill, indicating a compact to very dense condition. SPT N-values from 8 to greater than 100 blows per 0.3 m of penetration were measured in the rock fill indicating a loose to very dense condition. A boulder was encountered within the rock fill at a depth of 7.7 m. The results of grain size distribution analysis conducted on samples of the sand and gravel fill are summarized as follows: Sandy Gravel: Gravel % 45 to 63 Sand % 27 to 38 Silt and Clay % 10 to 22 Silt and Sand: Gravel % 9 Sand % 34 Silt % 42 Clay % 15 The water level in the borehole was observed at 1.3 m upon completion. The water level observed in the borehole reflected the water level of the adjacent water body. BH encountered 5.1 m of sand and gravel fill underlain by 7.1 m of crushed rock fill. Due to the limited capacity of the portable drill rig, the borehole could not be extended any further to establish native ground below the rock fill. Two additional boreholes were drilled in March These deeper boreholes were drilled to establish the nature of the native soil deposits below the Causeway rock fill. A summary of the borehole findings is provided in Figure 6. Figure 7 illustrates the approximate rock embankment cross section. For more information regarding the existing Causeway foundation, refer to Appendix G. 31

39

40

41 7.0 Evaluation of Alternatives This chapter presents the evaluation methodology used for the environmental assessment of improvements to the James A. Gifford Causeway. It followed a focused approach that included the general public, interest groups, local municipality and County in the planning and decision-making process. This approach has utilized a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) for the comparison of alternatives. The approach follows the best practices followed by international agencies making infrastructure decisions. This approach allowed the study to meet the following objectives: Define County s long term transportation needs for the James A. Gifford Causeway Provide a defensible plan to minimize environmental impacts Demonstrate to community that a context sensitive solution can be achieved Receive environmental clearance for the Recommended Plan The analysis and evaluation methodology followed the approach of the Multi-Attribute Trade-Off System (MATS) initially developed by the US Ministry of the Interior and used widely in Ontario by the Ministry of Transportation. This approach provides the flexibility to consider different groups of alternatives such as cross sections for the Causeway and intersection alternatives. The strength of this approach is the traceability of the evaluation exercise and ability to include stakeholder input into the decision-making process. The evaluation methodology for this project consisted of the following key steps: A needs analysis to define the problem to be solved; An initial assessment to develop a short list of alternative planning solutions (transportation strategies or approaches) most appropriate to address the problem; Development of alternatives for the preferred planning solution; Identification of the long list of assessment factors and sub-factors; Rating of alternatives with a mathematical score using a recognized evaluation technique; Ranking of alternatives; Sensitivity testing program; and Selection of the technically preferred alternative based on the evaluation results and the development of a logical implementation plan (with flexibility for the County to choose the sequence of projects based on availability of funding, deterioration of the Causeway, traffic growth or other County priorities). The analysis and evaluation process flow chart is shown as in Figure 8, Evaluation Process. 34

42 Needs Analysis Figure 8: Evaluation Process Assessment of Alternative Planning Solutions and Identification of Candidate Design Alternatives Public Review (PIC 1) Identify Design Alternatives And Evaluation Criteria And Division of project into Distinct Evaluation Areas Steering Committee Selection of Factors Steering Committee Selection of Subfactors Definition of Utility Functions Measurement of Raw Data Development of Unweighted Scores Development of Weighted Scores Performance Of Sensitivity Tests Assessment of Effects And Mitigation Measures Public Review (PIC 2) Recommended Plan Refinements To Technically Preferred Plan Council(s) Endorsements Confirm Preferred Planning Solution Environmental Inventories

43 This process was to ensure MOE s guiding principles would be met including: Consider all reasonable alternatives Provide a comprehensive assessment of the environment Systematic and traceable evaluation of alternatives Meaningful Public Consultation Clear and concise documentation of the project The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) governs the planning and design process that the County of Peterborough must follow on road works in the County. This is defined in the Municipal Class EA document (2011) that prescribes the process approved under the EAA. concern. For this study, the following "Alternative Planning Solutions" were evaluated: The Do Nothing Alternative Limit/Defer Growth Transit Improvements Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Improve Existing Roads/Causeway The analysis of the preferred planning solutions alternative(s) is provided in Table Planning Solutions The assessment of planning solutions is an initial step (Phase 2) of the planning and design process of municipal road projects as described in the Municipal Class EA. The Alternative Solutions represent different approaches or strategies to address the needs of the project taking into consideration the existing environment. The approach is to determine a preferred solution taking into account public and agency review input. Municipal transportation alternatives assessed in specific projects vary depending on the location, type and complexity of the project. The level of complexity usually relates to the nature of the study objectives, environmental sensitivities (natural, social, economic, cultural) and external interest or 36

44 Table 5: Alternative Planning Solutions No. Description Effects - Benefits/Impacts Recommendation 1 Do Nothing None. Status quo. Least impact and cost. Does not address operational, safety, mobility, planning and capacity deficiencies Do Not Carry Forward 2 Limit/Defer Growth Reduce future traffic growth Does not address deteriorating Causeway 3 Transit Improvements Reduce traffic/congestion on the Causeway but not at intersections Does not address immediate needs of deteriorating Causeway Do Not Carry Forward Do Not Carry Forward 4 Transportation Systems Management (TSM) i.e. signage, signals 5 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) (improvements to other active transportation modes) 6 Improve existing road(s)/ stabilize Causeway Improve capacity Does not address immediate needs of deteriorating Causeway These solutions alone do not accommodate vulnerable road users (pedestrians and bicyclists). increase cycling and pedestrian usage reduce auto trips by working at home, flexible work hours or carpooling improvements are not sufficient to address the identified current and future traffic demands Does not address deteriorating Causeway Improve access to the Causeway by improving adjacent roads/intersections Address movement/settlement of Causeway Increase capacity across the Causeway Carry Forward as a component of the Solution Carry Forward as a component of the Solution Carry Forward 37

45 Refer to Appendix H for the Assessment of Planning Alternatives memorandum. 7.2 Evaluation Methodologies Evaluation Techniques The MCA technique does not necessarily rely on monetary valuations for making decisions. Monetary approaches such as financial analysis (Life cycle cost (LCC) analyses), cost effective analysis (CEA) and cost benefit analysis (CBA) compare alternatives but do not necessarily consider environmental attributes of alternatives under consideration. The MCA approach allows decision-makers to include these environmental attributes in addition to monetary considerations. The approach utilizes the multi attribute utility theory to allow an unbiased measured comparison of alternatives for a transportation project and fulfills the requirements of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. The methodology described in this report is commonly described as the Multi Attribute Trade-off System (MATS) or the Multi- Criterion Decision Analysis (MCDA). The approach involves the definition of the utility (attractiveness of the options) providing utility scores (dimensionless) and weighting to prioritize the importance of criteria yielding a ranking of the alternatives. The multi-attribute utility theory drives from work of Neumann and Morgenstern and Savage in the 1940 s and 1950 s. The terms criteria and attribute are often used synonymously in literature on MCA. MCA is also often described as Multi-Attribute Analysis (MAA). In this report criterion will be defined as sub-factors that are organized in one of several factor groups. The definition of the sub-factors will describe the attribute/criterion by measuring the performance or impact of the alternatives. This definition is made by a subject area expert in that field Decision-Making Process (Qualitative versus Quantitative Approaches) The comparison of proposals/alternatives generally follows the following sequence: identify objectives or needs Identify options to achieve the objectives Identify criteria to be used to compare the options Analysis/ prioritization of available options Making choices/selections/ranking of actions or alternatives The evaluation process should reflect a defendable process to compare the alternatives and can consider when to use qualitative or quantitative approaches. The description of the qualitative and quantitative evaluation methodologies and the rationale for selecting one approach for a specific group of alternatives is described in the succeeding sections Qualitative (Subjective) Approach Qualitative assessments use several techniques which can include the use of narrative or graphical arguments to illustrate a relative measure of the performance of the options. It can present relative measures of 38

46 the performance of the options and a relative explanation of the relative importance of the criteria. An example of a qualitative assessment is presented in Figure 9. Not appropriate where there are known trade-offs Subject to potential criticism of public, MOE or federal approval agencies Because of these dis-benefits, the project requires risk management of the choice of the decision making methodology. For this study the use of the qualitative approach was used for the evaluation of Planning Solutions. For the comparison of the preliminary design alternatives a more rigorous quantitative approach was utilized Quantitative Approach The quantitative approach has several advantages including: Figure 9: Sample Qualitative Evaluation The advantages of using a qualitative evaluation methodology include: Reduced time frame can accelerate the schedule Reduced cost by simplifying the process Easily presented and understood by public Generally used where decisions are expected to be universally accepted; number of alternatives low and few evaluation criteria Disadvantage of this methodology include: No ability to measure the relative differences between options Flexible to adapt to different types of alternatives Focuses on the differences between alternatives Addresses the complexity of the base data Provides a traceable decision-making process Results can be replicated To use this approach requires additional time and data to undertake. To do so, the environmental inventories and traffic analysis must provide measurable differences between the alternatives for the evaluation criteria. The process involves the numerical calculation of scores for each alternative. These scores are related to impacts or performance through the use of mathematical relationships to eliminate any subjective bias in the decision-making process. This negated the need for evaluation team members to subjectively estimate scores for alternatives. 39

47 The intent was to utilize an evaluation process that allowed for input from the public and external agencies. The systematic process avoided many of the pitfalls associated with qualitative assessments by using an analytical approach that measures scores based on mathematical relationships i.e. the degree of subjectivity by the evaluation team was minimized. The process includes the following steps: Development of a long list of reasonable alternatives for each evaluation group Generation of candidate evaluation criteria (long list of potential criteria) Focus group meetings with environmental experts and stakeholders to prepare a short list of evaluation criteria where there are meaningful and measureable differences between alternatives Collection of data (environmental inventories, traffic operational and safety forecasts) for each alternative Establish social utility functions (relate impacts to preferences) Weighting of evaluation criteria (judging relative importance based on measured effects ) Rating of alternatives with numerical scores Sensitivity testing to consider the confidence in the weighting and uncertainty in measured effects For the evaluation of alternatives where there are a large number of alternatives and/or a large number of competing criteria, a more comprehensive approach is recommended and for this study it was used for the comparison of intersection and cross section alternatives. 7.3 Analysis and Evaluation of Preliminary Design Alternatives As an initial step, the long list of assessment factors and sub-factors are reviewed for each set of alternatives. Only those factors and sub-factors which have meaningful differences among the alternatives are carried forward (i.e. where there are measurable differences among alternatives). The short list of evaluation criteria (factors and subfactors) are detailed in the assessment table and subsequently carried forward. This systematic process includes the following steps: Division of the project into distinct evaluation areas (geographically separate) i.e. cross section alternatives on the Causeway (short term and long term) and intersection alternatives on the east and west ends of the Causeway. Development of criteria (factor groups and sub-factors); Coarse screening of the long list of sub-factors; Collection of data; Definition of social utility functions (measures of performance); Weighting criteria; Ranking alternatives; Sensitivity testing; and Selection of Technically Preferred Alternatives (TPAs). 40

48 7.3.1 Public Input Consultation during the evaluation process included several points of contact for input on the process and comments on alternatives being considered. The initial step for the study was the publishing and distribution of a draft study design report. This draft report tabled the initial study process, alternatives and discussion on environmental inventories and evaluation process. The primary purpose of this voluntary consultation step was to proactively involve the public early and sincerely in soliciting public and agency participation. The next formal step of the consultation program was the presentation of the preliminary design alternatives at PIC No. 1. This meeting allowed the public to review and suggest new or modified alternatives to be considered before the evaluation activities. In fact, this meeting resulted in a refined Roundabout alternative being developed on the Ennismore side of the Causeway. Identification of roadway cross-section alternatives required consideration of roadway classification, as well as design guidelines and standards. The detailed evaluation was undertaken considering the following mutually exclusive groups of alternatives: Groups of Alternatives Causeway Operational Improvement Cross Section Alternatives (stabilization of Causeway and accommodating other modes of travel) Causeway Long Range Cross Section Alternatives (to meet traffic demand within Official Plan horizon) Pedestrian Access Alternatives Bridgenorth Intersection Alternatives (Ward Street/Bridge Street) Ennismore Intersection Alternatives (CR 14 (Yankee Line)/ CR 16 )) Alternatives This section details the preliminary design alternatives that were developed for both the Causeway and adjoining intersections, to meet the identified needs. The identification of roadway cross-section alternatives involved consideration of various potential combinations of a number of roadway elements including: Bridgenorth Intersection Alternatives Four alternatives were considered for the Ward Street (County Road 18)/Bridge Street (County Road 14) intersection. Alternative 1 Minor Operational Improvements Alternative 2 Dual Left Turn Lanes (Ward Street northbound) Number and width of through lanes (e.g. 2, 3 or 4-lanes) Sidewalks, Shared-Use Lanes (cyclists) Alternative 3 Single Lane Roundabout Alternative 4 Single Lane Roundabout with through lane (Ward Street northbound) 41

49 7.3.4 Causeway Alternatives Minor Improvements (Short Term) Four alternatives were considered for short term improvements to the Causeway. Alternative m lanes with 3.0 m paved shoulders Alternative 1 Minor Operational Improvements Alternative 2 Smart Channel and relocation of yield sign Alternative 3 Signalized Intersection Alternative 4 Single Lane Roundabout Alternative m lane with 3.0 m paved shoulder south side, 3.4 m shared lane with 2.0 m partial length (to lookouts) sidewalk north side Alternative m lane with 3.0 m paved shoulder south side, 4.5 m shared lane with 2.0 m sidewalk north side Alternative m shared lane, 1.0 m paved shoulders and 2.0 m sidewalks Widening Improvements (Long Term) Both three and four lane widening improvements were considered for the Causeway. Widening to the south, centre and north were considered for all alternatives. Photo 8: Sample Roundabout Picton, Ontario The alternatives for each evaluation group are illustrated in Figure 10 to Figure 13.. Alternative 1 Rural - Three 3.5 m lanes with 3.0 m paved shoulders Alternative 2 Rural Four 3.5 m lanes with 3.0 m paved shoulders Alternative 3 Urban - Four 3.5 m lanes with 1.0 m paved shoulders and 2.0 m sidewalks Ennismore Intersection Alternatives Four alternatives were considered for the Yankee Line (County Road 14)/Robinson Road (County Road 16) intersection. 42

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58 7.3.6 Refined Alternatives Following PIC 1, based on property owner comments, the Ennismore single lane roundabout alternative (Alternative 4) was shifted approximately 9 m south to minimize impacts to an active farm in the northwest quadrant of the intersection Evaluation Criteria The initial candidate evaluation criteria was generated using in a two-step process that included the identification of five evaluation factor groups followed by the selection of subfactors under each group. The five factor groups were selected by the Steering Committee to describe the general division of distinct areas of the environment to be evaluated. These factor groups were presented to the public at an initial PIC and following this consultation, were accepted as describing the broad definition of the environment to be evaluated. The five factor groups included: Transportation Land Use and Property Natural Environment Social and Cultural Environment Cost A benefit to dividing the evaluation criteria into two levels (factor groups and sub-factors) is that it prevents unbalancing of the evaluation or the perception that is overloaded with more criteria under one factor group. By dividing the criteria into both factor groups and subfactors, allowed a clear presentation to the public of the weights assigned to the factor groups. This provided easy recognition that the weights were not skewed to any one factor group. Within each of the factor groups criteria, described as sub-factors were selected from a long list of candidate criteria created by the project team with some being added or deleted from input from the public or agencies. Where there was no measurable or meaningful difference among alternatives and it was agreed that the alternatives were generally equal with respect to a sub-factor, then that sub-factor was eliminated and not carried forward. When deciding whether to carry forward a sub-factor the following questions were asked: Does the sub-factor measure a meaningful difference between alternatives? Does it describe part of the natural, social or cultural environment that needs to be included in the decisionmaking process? Is there a double counting of criteria? A short list of sub-factors was carried forward which best described the impacts or performance to be assessed for specific alternatives being evaluated. The short list best related the study goals and was comprehensive enough to describe all environmental effects. These sub-factors defined differences among alternatives. The screening of potential sub-factors is presented in Table 6. 51

59 Factor Group Table 6: Screening of Long List of Candidate Evaluation Criteria Bridgenorth Intersection Alternatives Ennismore Intersection Alternatives Causeway Operational Alternatives Causeway Long-term Alternatives Transportation Traffic Operations (delay) N/A Design Consistency Support of Environmentally Sustainable (Active) Transportation Equal Equal Equal Ability to Accommodate Equal Equal Equal Equal Emergency Vehicles Movement of Farm Equal Equal Equal Equipment Safety of Residential N/A N/A Driveways Out-of-way Travel N/A N/A Accommodates Pedestrians Equal Equal See Sustainable Transportation criterion Equal Intersection safety N/A N/A Turning Movement Equal Equal N/A Restrictions to Side Roads Restriction of Commercial Property Access to Right-inright-out Equal Equal N/A N/A Removal of Residential Driveway within Intersection Provision for Future Expansion Removal of Commercial Driveway Land Use and Property Supportive with Community Improvement Plan/Provision of Gateway Opportunities Equal Equal N/A N/A Equal Equal N/A N/A N/A Equal Equal Equal Loss of Rotary Park Land N/A N/A Area of Property Required N/A No. of Property Acquisitions Equal Equal N/A Contaminated Sites impacted Business Impacts (Sip N Dip, driveway closures) Equal Equal Equal Equal Equal N/A N/A 52

60 Factor Group Table 6: Screening of Long List of Candidate Evaluation Criteria Bridgenorth Intersection Alternatives Ennismore Intersection Alternatives Causeway Operational Alternatives Causeway Long-term Alternatives Natural Environment Loss of Fish Habitat Equal Terrestrial impacts Equal Relocation of Osprey Nest Equal Equal Loss of Floodplain Equal Stormwater Runoff Equal Equal Species at Risk Equal Equal Equal Equal Air Quality Equal Equal Equal Equal Social/Cultural Noise impacts Equal Equal Accommodates recreational Equal Equal Equal activities (walking, cycling to lookout) Accessibility to fishing areas Equal Equal Equal Visual intrusion (new Equal Equal Equal lighting, roadway closer to residents) Ability to provide parking N/A N/A N/A N/A Cost Life Cycle Cost Slope Stability Risk N/A N/A Equal 7.4 Measurement of Effects and Performance of Alternatives Following the selection of evaluation factors and sub-factors, measurements of the impacts are completed using topographic plans, aerial photographs, field surveys, and numerical modelling. These measurements resulted in data being available for each subfactor. The data generated from these measurements allow each alternative to be quantitatively compared with respect to a given sub-factor. The Weighted Additive Method is a process where each alternative is given a numerical score for each sub-factor based on its measurement and the weight of the sub-factor. It eliminates any possible subjective opinions of scores for alternatives because the team does not estimate the score for an alternative Social Utility Functions For each sub-factor, a social utility function was developed that described the attractiveness of each alternative based on the impacts or performance of that alternative. Example utility functions are presented in Figure 14. The shape of the utility function was developed based on advice of the subject area expert on the team. 53

61 Dichotomous Function Score Yes No Measurement Stepped Function Linear Negative Function Utility B A0 1.5 C D E5 Measurement Score Best Measurement Worst Figure 14: Sample Utility Functions Creating dimensionless utility scores allows the cumulative impacts to be aggregated numerically. This allows the cumulative effects of sub-factors with non-commensurate data to be added (e.g. the time delay of traffic effects can be added to area of fish habitat loss). To do so, under each sub-factor, alternatives receive a dimensionless score between zero and one based on measurements of the base data. The utility scores are normalized to reflect the range of effects being considered (the delta of best to worst effects). Therefore by creating dimensionless utility scores, allows the cumulative impacts to be aggregated. The result is that the cumulative effects of subfactors with non-commensurate data to be added numerically. The process utilized involves the use of the simple additive method where each criterion is independent of all other criteria. It combines the utility (attractiveness of each criterion) to sum the overall attractiveness of one option in comparison to another. A description of typical social utility functions follows. Dichotomous Utility Function The dichotomous utility function permits the decision-maker to establish criteria that present an either or situation (desirable or undesirable, negative or positive, present or absent etc.). If an alternative is desirable, a utility score of one would be assigned. Otherwise, a score of zero is assigned. No other utility scores are available. 54

62 Stepped Utility Function The stepped utility function permits the decision-maker to assign given alternatives more than one level of impact with respect to a certain sub-factor. For example, an alternative could have high, medium, or low degrees of impact with respect to a certain sub-factor. If a high degree of impact is undesirable, then a utility score of zero would be assigned. A medium degree of impact would be assigned a score of 0.5, and a low degree of impact would be assigned a score of 1. The stepped utility function may have as many categories as required, with each category assigned a value between zero and one. Linear Utility Function If the desirability of an alternative is related to a measured numerical value, the linear function is used. Given a value, a unique utility score between zero and one is assigned to an alternative. The slope of the linear utility function is negative or positive depending on the desirability of the impact. An example linear utility function is given below. Traffic Operations (Delay) A Best B C Worst Figure 15: Sample Linear Utility Function For example, the utility score presented in Figure 15 is calculated based on the average vehicle delay using that alternative. Since it is undesirable to reduce vehicle delay (reduce air borne emissions and delay to the public), an increase in average delay relates to a decrease in utility score. The maximum (worst) and minimum (least) seconds of average vehicle delay refer to all alternatives being evaluated. Using the social utility function approach given above, the total unweighted utility of a given alternative is expressed as: U (Alternative A) = 1X1+ 2X2+ +nxn Where: U (A) = Total unweighted utility for Alternative A n = desirability of given alternative (between zero and one) Xn = measurement of alternative with respect to given factor or sub-factor Weighting of Criteria For this project, the Steering Committee was responsible for determining the relative importance of the factor groups and subfactors. The Steering Committee included representatives from the County, Township, external agencies and consultant staff. This was done by assigning numerical weights to each factor group, and to each sub-factor within a given factor group. Each Steering Committee member assigns percentage weights to each factor and subfactor based on their opinion of the relative 55

63 importance of each. The individual weights are then averaged to determine the average weight for each factor and sub-factor. The evaluation approach is based on the Weighted Additive Method which focuses on the differences of the alternatives, addresses the complexity of the base data collected, and provides a traceable decision-making process. Weighted scores were computed using the weights selected by the Steering committee. The weighted score for each alternative under a specific sub-factor is calculated as follows: (Weighted score) = (utility score) x [(factor global weight) x (sub-factor global weight)] Again using this approach a generic weighted attractiveness function can be expressed as: Uw (Alternative A) =U1W1 + U2W2+ +UnWn Uw (Alternative A) =W11X1+ W11X1+ + WnnXn The summary of Steering Committee weights for each evaluation group is presented in Figure 16 to Figure

64 Figure 16: Bridgenorth Intersection Alternatives Evaluation Factor and Subfactor Weights Factor Group Weights Subfactor Weights Social/Cultural Environment 6% Cost 31% Land Use and Property 12% Transportation 51% Costs Subfactor Weight Life Cycle Costs 100 Transportation Subfactor Weights 42 Traffic Operations (delay) 6 Design Consistency 10 Safety of Residential Entrances 6Out of way Travel 36 Intersection Safety Social/Cultural Subfactor Weights Sound Level Changes 100 Land Use and Property Subfactor Weights Area of Property Required 29 No. of Property Acquisitions 21 Supportive with Community Improvement Plan 50 Figure 17: Ennismore Intersection Alternatives Evaluation Factor and Subfactor Weights Social/Cultural Environment 7% Natural Environment 7% Social/Cultural Subfactor Weight Sound Level Changes 100 % Factor Group Weights Cost 32% Land Use and Property 8% Transportation 46% Natural Environment Subfactor Weights Loss of Fish Habitat 49% Terrestrial Impacts 14% Loss of Floodplain Storage 37% Subfactor Weights Cost Subfactor Weight Life Cycle Costs 100% Transportation Subfactor Weights Traffic Operations (delay) 25% Design Consistency 11% Safety of Residential Entrances 14% Intersection Safety 50% Land Use and Property Subfactor Weights Area of Property Required 28% Supportive with Community Improvement Plan 72% 57

65 Figure 18: Causeway Operational (Short term) Alternatives Evaluation Factor and Subfactor Weights Factor Group Weights Subfactor Weights Social/Cultural Environment, 7% Natural Environment, 6% Cost, 19% Land Use and Property, 17% Social/Cultural Subfactor Weight Accessibility to Fishing Areas 100 % Transportation, 51% Natural Environment Subfactor Weights Loss of Fish Habitat 35.5% Loss of Floodplain Storage 22% Stormwater Runoff 42.5% Cost Subfactor Weight Life Cycle Costs 100% Transportation Subfactor Weights Support of Active Transportation 35% Movement of Farm Equipment 5% Stability of Slope 60% Land Use and Property Subfactor Supportive with Community Improvement Plan 100% Figure 19: Causeway Widening (Long term) Alternatives Evaluation - Factor and Subfactor Weights Factor Group Weights Subfactor Weights Social/Cultural Environment, 7% Natural Environment, 5% Cost, 23% Land Use and Property, 12% Transportation, 53% Cost Subfactor Weight Life Cycle Costs 100% Transportation Subfactor Weights Design Consistency 26% Support of Active Transportation 15% Turning Movement Restrictions to Sideroads 14% Provision for Future Expansion 45% Social/Cultural Subfactor Weight Visual Intrusion 100 % Natural Environment Subfactor Weights Loss of Fish Habitat 36% Loss of Floodplain Storage 24% Stormwater Runoff 40% Land Use and Property Subfactor Area of Property Required 56% No. of Property Acquisitions 44% 58

66 7.5 Evaluation Results Weighted Score When using the weighted additive method, overall scores are assigned to each alternative, the alternatives are ranked in order of preference and then the option with the highest score is selected as the Technically Preferred Alternative (reflecting the opinions of the technical group of evaluators). The results of the evaluation for each group of alternatives are presented below in Figure 20 to Figure 23. Figure 20: Bridgenorth Intersection Alternatives Ranking Bridgenorth Alternative 4 (single lane roundabout plus northbound through lane on Ward Street (CR 18)) ranked #1 with a score of 55. Figure 21: Ennismore Intersection Alternatives Ranking Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Ennismore Alternative 3 (Signalized Intersection) ranked #1 with 65 points. Figure 22: Causeway Short-term Operational Improvement Alternatives Ranking Causeway Short-term Alternative 3 ( 3.5 m lane with 3.0 m paved shoulder one side, and 4.5 m shared lane with 2.0 m sidewalk across one side (i.e. entire length) ranked the highest DN Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Figure 23: Causeway Long Term Alternatives Ranking Alt 1N Alt 1C Alt 1S Alt 2N Alt 2C Alt 2S Alt 3N Alt 3C Alt 3S Causeway Long Term Alternative 2S 4- lane rural widening to the south, paved shoulders, ranked the highest. 59

67 7.5.2 Sensitivity Testing It should be recognized that the scope of the evaluation and determination of weights for the evaluation criteria are a matter of personal and professional judgment. Accordingly, it is considered essential to conduct sensitivity testing to determine the effect of the weights assigned to each factor and sub-factor, and the range of weights suggested by members of the Steering Committee members (i.e. what is the range of perspectives of the importance of this factor or sub-factor). To test how sensitive the outcome of the evaluation is with respect to the assigned weights, or how the outcome would have changed if different weights were used, a sensitivity testing program was undertaken. Sensitivity testing results in greater confidence in the evaluation process and reduces the potential for bias. Often, there is a diversity of opinion within the group of evaluators as to which weight is appropriate for a factor or sub-factors. When an average weight is used to represent the preferences of a group, valuable information on the range of values or perspectives within the group is lost. As a part of this study, several independent tests were undertaken after the weighting exercise was completed. These tests were undertaken to assess how sensitive the outcome was to the weights assigned by the team. These tests considered the spectrum of opinions in the group by considering the highest or lowest weights (opinions of importance) proposed by any one committee member. Alternatives were then evaluated using the highest and lowest weights proposed for a given factor and re-distributing the difference in weight equally between other factors. 60

68 This process was repeated for all factors using the highest and lowest proposed weights for each factor. Sensitivity tests included: Average TAC Weight. Highest Weight in a factor group by any TAC member. Lowest Weight in a factor group by any TAC member. The results of the sensitivity testing program are shown below. Figure 24: Ennismore Sensitivity Tests SCORE RANK Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Transportation High HIGH Low LOW Land Use and Property High HIGH Low LOW Natural Environment High HIGH Low LOW Social/Cultural Environment High HIGH Low LOW Cost High HIGH Low LOW As shown in Figure 24, Alternative 3 ranked first in 9 out of 10 sensitivity tests. 61

69 Figure 25: Bridgenorth Sensitivity Tests SCORE RANK Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Transportation High Low Land Use and Property High Low Social/Cultural High Low Cost High Low Figure 25 indicates that Alternative 4, the preferred alternative, ranked first in 5 out of 8 sensitivity tests. 62

70 Figure 26: Causeway Operational Improvements Sensitivity Tests SCORE RANK Nothing Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Transportation High Low Land Use and Property High Low Natural Environment High Low Social/Cultural Environment High Low Cost High Low Figure 26 demonstrates that Alternative 3 ranked first in eight out of ten sensitivity tests. 63

71 Figure 27: Causeway Long Term Sensitivity Tests SCORE RANK Alt 1N Alt 1C Alt 1S Alt 2N Alt 2C Alt 2S Alt 3N Alt 3C Alt 3S Transportation High Low Land Use and Property High Low Natural Environment High Low Social/Cultural Environment High Low Cost High Low Alternative 2S, widening to the south, ranked first in all ten sensitivity tests for the Causeway Widening Alternatives as shown in Figure

72 7.5.3 Evaluation Recommendations Based on the outcome of the evaluation and public consultation, the following recommendations were made for the study: Bridgenorth Alternative 4 - Single Lane Roundabout plus through lane on Ward Street Ennismore Alternative 3 Signalized Intersection (Long Range plan - protection for roundabout) Causeway Operational Improvements: Alternative m lane with 3.0 m paved shoulder one side, and 4.5 m shared lane with 2.0 m sidewalk across one side (i.e. entire length) Causeway Long Term Improvements: Alternative 2S - 4 lane urban widening to the south, paved shoulders (Note: Although the Causeway Long Term Improvement Alternative 2S (4-lane rural widening) ranked the highest, Alternative 3S (4-lane urban widening) was selected at the preferred alternative based on the municipal desire to implement curb and sidewalk along the north side of the facility.) 7.6 Refinements Refinements were made to the Technically Preferred Plan that was presented at PIC No. 2 as the result of meetings with owners of properties within the vicinity of the project. The revised plan reflects input from the public, property owners and the Township of Selwyn. The Steering Committee has endorsed the following refinements as measures to reduce environmental and property effects of the project on adjacent properties. Ennismore (west side of Causeway) 1. A channelized right turn lane will be maintained at the Robinson Road/Yankee Line Ennismore intersection due to comments that pedestrian traffic was minimal. The original plan was to introduce a smart channel for the westbound to north movement to force vehicles to slow down, thereby permitting pedestrians to cross the road. 2. In conjunction with short-term improvements, a sidewalk will be constructed on the north side of the Causeway, from Ward Street to Robinson Road. The sidewalk will restrict on-street parking at the Sip N Dip. 3. No relocation of parking (for the Sip and Dip restaurant) will be shown within the area currently used for horseshoe pits. Bridgenorth (east side of Causeway) 1. A retaining wall will be constructed on CR 14 west of Kelly Boulevard, to avoid taking property from the Gethsemane Bed and Breakfast. Two existing sheds will be removed from the County right-of-way. 2. A concrete ( pork chop ) island will be installed at the Kelly Boulevard/CR 14 intersection to restrict movements to right-in/right-out. 3. A connection to the storm sewer will be implemented for the existing manhole at the Silver Leaf Spa property (903 Kelly Boulevard). 4. One driveway off of the east leg (current Home Hardware entrance) will be constructed for access to 905 Ward Street. This will eliminate access via 65

73 Ward Street, providing a safer entrance. The Ward Street access will be removed. 5. The south leg of the roundabout was shifted easterly. A sliver of property is now required from the Home Hardware property. Property is no longer required from the Subway plaza. 6. The north entrance to the Subway plaza will be relocated south by approximately 25m, beyond the influence of the median. This refinement maintains full turning movement access with 2 entrances to the site. 7. Barrier curb and boulevard will be implemented on the south side of CR 14, adjacent to the Marine and Sports property, to avoid grading that could reduce available parking. There will still be a property acquisition/easement required so the foreslope can be used for utilities. 8. A retaining wall will be constructed along the toe of the new slope at the Old Causeway Marina property to eliminate slope grading impacts to the northerly dock. Trees will also be planted to minimize visual intrusion. 9. A concrete ( pork chop ) island will be installed at the Garthorne Avenue/CR 14 intersection to restrict movements to right-in/right-out. 10. A depressed median will be installed on CR14 at the Kelly Boulevard/Garthorne Avenue intersection. This will permit westbound vehicles to cross the depressed median and turn left onto Garthorne Avenue. The depressed median will be installed subject to collision monitoring i.e. it may be removed if there is a high collision history. 66

74 8.0 Recommended Plan(s) The Recommended Plan for the James A Gifford Causeway EA Study was finalized following comments received at and following PIC No. 2. Modifications to the plans that ranked highest at the evaluation stage were made based on public and stakeholder comments. The recommended plans (shortterm/operational and long-term) for the Causeway including the intersections at the east and west ends of the facility are shown in Figure 28 and Figure Construction Staging Construction staging for the project may be influenced by factors such as: Opportunity to combine the road widening with other planned capital works (e.g. underground servicing replacement, pavement rehabilitation, intersection improvements, etc.) and in co-ordination with private utility relocation Potential conflicts with planned adjacent capital works that may diminish availability of alternatives/detours for commuters; Physical contract separation requirements; Complexity and length of the proposed road works; and/or Budget availability. Construction staging for the project will be determined at the detail design stage of the project. 67

75

76

77 Priority 3B: Future 4-laning of causeway, including bridge widening subject to traffic growth Note that phasing could be revised in future TMP updates and will be subject to funding availability. Photo 9: Existing submerged fill/platform for widening to the south 8.2 Construction Phasing A preliminary project phasing has been developed for the project. Priority 1: Causeway Slope Stabilization and Platform Widening o 2m sidewalk & lighting of Causeway on north side o creation of 3 m wide shoulder on south side o 4 m extension of rock fill along the south side to surcharge for future 4- laning (see Photo 9) Priority 2: Bridgenorth intersection improvements Priority 3A: Ennismore signals subject to traffic growth and collision history Statement of Flexibility The County proposes the staging of the project will include: The right, based on availability of funding, to construct any or all of the ultimate improvements in the initial construction The use of this plan to implement emergency repairs or construction in the event of a slope failure on the Causeway Property Protection and acquisition policies to support the corridor for future implementation of the Plan During detail design and/or prior to construction, review of commercial operations and driveway entrance locations to ensure that the recommended improvements are compatible with the land use. If changes occur to waste pad locations or loading bays in the commercial plaza located in the southwest quadrant of the Gifford Causeway/Ward Street intersection, the detail design will re-examine commercial truck turning radii/movements with respect to access via the relocated (south) Ward Street entrance. Prior to the commencement of the detailed engineering design, the scope of work and cost-sharing as they relate to County and Township responsibilities, be confirmed. 70

78 8.3 Project Costs Priority 1: The cost to implement operational improvement Alternative 3, which consists of 3.5 m lane with 3.0 m paved shoulder one side, and 4.5 m shared lane with 2.0 m sidewalk across one side (i.e. entire length) is approximately $3.2 million (current dollars). This cost also includes the rock surcharge for the future 4-laning. Priority 2: Construction of the single lane roundabout intersection improvements at the west end of the Causeway (Bridgenorth) will cost approximately $1.8 million. Priority 3A: A signalized intersection at the east end of the Causeway (Ennismore) will cost approximately $0.4 millon (current dollars), including sidewalk and lighting. The future long term plan for a roundabout at this location will cost approximately $1.2 million (current dollars). Priority 3B: The total capital and life cycle cost to widen the Causeway to 4 lanes is approximately $3.4 million (current dollars) which includes property acquisition. The pedestrian facilities (i.e. sidewalk, lookout) will be implemented during the short-term improvements, and therefore are excluded from this cost. Section 55 of the Municipal Act indicates that sidewalks and associated lighting are a lower tier responsibility, therefore all costs associated with pedestrian facilities for this project will be borne by the Township of Selwyn. Causeway construction was investigated. It was concluded that the costs associated with obtaining the permits and associated supporting technical documentation was prohibitive. The fill material required to construct the Causeway widening can be obtained from Robert Young (Ennismore) which is the closest quarry to the construction site. Other quarries are also available in the vicinity of the project. See technical memorandum in Appendix I. 8.4 Aggregate Resources The feasibility of opening a wayside pit at the former aggregate source used for the original 71

79 9.0 Effects and Mitigation Effects on the environment were considered during the analysis and evaluation step of the EA study in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class EA process. Where possible, mitigation measures were proposed for each evaluation factor. The subsequent sections expand on the effects and mitigation by each specific environmental group. The remaining areas of concern, related to the Recommended Plan, will be mitigated to minimize or remove any detrimental effects. The following subsections provide a description of areas of mitigation that will be considered during the implementation phase of the project. This includes: the natural, social, and cultural environments; land use, and property; construction material management; implementation requirements; and municipal services. In addition, this section discusses the following: estimated construction costs; downstream/cumulative impacts; summary of remaining areas of concern; 30-Day public review; and modification process. 9.1 Natural Environment Sensitivities Natural environment concerns include surface water, fisheries/aquatic habitat, erosion and sediment control, and groundwater Surface Water Ditching will be modified at each end of the Causeway to accommodate stormwater runoff. The closed storm sewer system at the Bridgenorth roundabout will be updated and be replaced under this project. A preliminary pipe network system is presented with the Recommended Plan. Implementation of erosion and sediment control measures, spill contingencies and best management practices will be required Erosion and Sediment Control The Causeway widening work will be preceded by installing environmental protection measures - erosion/sediment controls where necessary at construction access points, turbidity curtains along the embankment slopes where rock fill placement is active. Consideration will be given to placement of rock fill during the winter to minimize the effect of siltation when fisheries are active in the Lake Fisheries In-water activities will be restricted to the period June 16 through March 14. Works related to the Causeway widening will generally occur in the winter months. This is intended to permit access to the preconsolidation widening area on the ice to the south for placement of materials within the zones enclosed with turbidity curtains (this reflects the original means of the Causeway construction) while allowing continuous vehicle movement on the Causeway. In-water activities are estimated to take up to 2 months to complete (January-February). Fish passage in the Lake will be not obstructed for this period. It is anticipated that fish and invertebrate recolonization and expansion over the newly created rock embankment slopes will be rapid. 72

80 Measures applicable throughout the Causeway operational improvements work period: sediment and erosion control measures will be installed to isolate the work areas and regularly maintained during operations; no refuelling of equipment will be allowed on the Causeway; all equipment will be clean and maintained so that no oil, grease or other contaminants are on the surface of the machine, and so that no leaks occur; emergency spill kits will be located on site and with equipment; and, a dust control plan will be implemented to prevent airborne materials from being generated and entering the Lake or carried across to adjacent communities Terrestrial Measures related to protection of adjacent terrestrial habitats and migratory birds: The Contractor should schedule any work involving the removal of trees/large shrubs to a period that will avoid disturbing the nests of migratory birds (nesting season typically extends from May 1 through July 31 in this area of the Province); The Contractor should familiarize himself and his workers with the physical characteristics of the SAR animal species (American eel, Blanding s turtle, rainbow mussel) in order to be able to identify any species at risk that might be present and are accidentally encountered. Measures related to Causeway widening work: material and equipment required for widening activities will to be on-site prior to start of operations; suitable turbidity curtain materials will be utilized that will have minimal impacts to fish and fish habitat if present; fish relocations may be necessary from enclosed areas as operations proceed; no in-water operations (rock fill placement) are permitted from the period March 15 through July 15; and, straw mulch to be applied liberally on all exposed soil areas and access routes frequently to reduce/ eliminate the generation of dust/sediments and the onset of erosion through the construction period. A fish compensation plan is provided in Figure

81

82 9.2 Socio-cultural effects Archaeology A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment was undertaken and a moderate to high potential for archaeological resources was found within the study area and along the Recommended Plan. Therefore, a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment is required during the detail design stage. If, during construction, deeply buried/undetected archaeological remains are uncovered, the constructor or agents should immediately notify the Archaeology Section of the Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport (MTCS)(416) In the event that human remains are encountered during construction, the proponent should immediately contact the Police, MTC and the Cemeteries Registry of the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services (416) Noise No noise impacts requiring mitigation were identified for the Study Area. Increased noise levels will be experienced during construction. To mitigate construction noise, construction noise constraints will be incorporated into the contract documents, including requirements to comply with local municipal by-laws, to minimize the idling of construction equipment and to maintain construction equipment in good working order. The environmental effects and mitigation measures associated with the construction of the Recommended Plan/Design for the James A. Gifford Causeway are provided in Table 7. Table 7: Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures Environment Potential Effect(s) Recommended Mitigation Measure(s) Future Works Archaeological Carry out Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment on undisturbed lands Should deeply buried/undetected archaeological remains be uncovered during construction, the constructor or agents should immediately notify the Archaeology Section of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTCS) (416) In the event that human remains are encountered during construction, the proponent should immediately contact the Police, MTCS and the Cemeteries Registry of the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) 75

83 Table 7: Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures Environment Potential Effect(s) Recommended Mitigation Measure(s) Future Works Design Land Use Property Acquisitions Financial Compensation County to liaise with property owners Construction Drainage and Hydrology Surface Water, Groundwater, Erosion impacts associated with construction materials or equipment All machinery maintenance to be 30 m from the Causeway. Use of clean, washed, crushed rock for fill material. Safe construction practices no petroleum, chemicals, debris, etc shall enter the lake. Standard temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures will been incorporated in the contract package in accordance with OPSS 577 (Construction Specification for Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures) and NSSP (Environmental Constraint Erosion and Sedimentation Control General) to specify generic erosion and sedimentation protection measures for ditching and watercourses. Operating, refuelling and maintenance of construction equipment and the handling and storage of toxic materials (e.g. fuel, lubricants, form oils, paints, wood preservatives, and other chemicals) must be carried out in such a way as to avoid contamination of soils, groundwater and surface waters. Temporary materials and equipment storage locations must be approved. Measures must be in place to reduce the risk of spills and to minimize impacts of accidental spills 76

84 Table 7: Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures Environment Potential Effect(s) Recommended Mitigation Measure(s) Future Works during construction, including a contingency plan ready for immediate implementation that includes immediate reporting of incidents to MOE s Spills Action Centre. In addition, there must be adequate measures to prevent or capture and contain any debris and spills resulting from construction activities. All such measures and procedures will conform to pertinent provincial requirements. Fisheries No in-water work between March 15 and July 15th Standard temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures will been incorporated in the contract package in accordance with OPSS 577(Construction Specification for Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures) and NSSP (Environmental Constraint Erosion and Sedimentation Control and sedimentation protection measures for ditching and watercourses. Areas of exposed soil, especially newly graded areas that cannot be immediately stabilized with the final surface treatments are to be treated with straw mulch, erosion blanket, sod, or hydroseed, depending on the specific circumstances. Upon completion of construction, exposed soils should be vegetated with native species. Native trees and shrubs should be established along the roadside, after all construction activities are complete. This will not only provide a vegetative and noise 77

85 Table 7: Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures Environment Potential Effect(s) Recommended Mitigation Measure(s) Future Works buffer, but provide suitable edge habitat for birds. Once vegetation is well established, the erosion control fencing can be properly removed. The vegetated strips, paralleling the constructed roadway will buffer any impacts to the local habitats. Operating, refuelling and maintenance of construction equipment and the handling and storage of toxic materials (e.g. fuel, lubricants, form oils, paints, wood preservatives, and other chemicals) must be carried out in such a way as to avoid contamination of soils, groundwater and surface waters. Noise impacts Noise restrictions during construction. Traffic disruption Utility relocations Residents and business owners will be notified regarding the timing of construction and possible traffic delays. Emergency service providers and school boards will also be notified of the construction schedule. Utility impacts to be determined. Liaise with Utility companies during detail design stage County of Peterborough Utility companies 78

86 10.0 Future Activities This report was prepared in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, The principles and methodology of the environmental assessment process assisted the Steering Committee in the analysis and evaluation of alternatives and the selection of the Recommended Plan. The stakeholders, public and government agencies have directly and indirectly endorsed these findings through their active participation throughout the course of the project. This Environmental Study Report (ESR) will be filed with the County Clerk and be available for review at the County s engineering department, local library (Bridgenorth), County office and Township office. If public concerns regarding this project cannot be resolved, any person may request that the Minister of Environment require the proponent to comply with Part II of the EA Act (which addresses individual EA s). If no concerns are expressed within 30 days of filing this document and notification thereof, the project can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the ESR. Specifically, the approval of the ESR will enable the County of Peterborough to carry out detailed design followed by construction, subject to funding and municipal priorities. 79

87 Appendix A - Glossary Glossary of Terms AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic the average 24-hour, twoway traffic for the period from January 1st to December 31st. Alignment The vertical and horizontal position of a road. Alternative Well-defined and distinct course of action that fulfils a given set of requirements. The EA Act distinguishes between alternatives to the undertaking and alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking. Alternative Planning Solutions Alternative ways of solving problems or meeting demand (Alternatives to the Undertaking). Alternative Design Concepts Alternative ways of solving a documented transportation deficiency or taking advantage of an opportunity. (Alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking). Alternative Project Alternative Planning Solution, see above. ANSI Area of Natural or Scientific Interest Berm Earth landform used to screen areas. BMP Best management practice. BRT Bus Rapid Transit Bump-Up The act of requesting that an environmental assessment initiated as a class EA be required to follow the individual EA process. The change is a result of a decision by the proponent or by the Minister of Environment to require that an individual environmental assessment be conducted. Bypass A form of realignment in which the route is intended to go around a particular feature or collection of features. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) Class Environmental Assessment Document Class Environmental Assessment Process The CEAA applies to projects for which the federal government holds decision-making authority. It is legislation that identifies the responsibilities and procedures for the environmental assessment. An individual environmental report documenting a planning process which is formally submitted under the EA Act. Once the Class EA document is approved, projects covered by the class can be implemented without having to seek further approvals under the EA Act provided the Class EA process is followed. A planning process established for a group of projects in order to ensure compliance with the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act. The EA Act, in Section 13 makes provision for the establishment of Class Environmental Assessments. A i

88 Appendix A - Glossary Compensation The replacement of natural habitat lost through implementation of a project, where implementation techniques and other measures could not alleviate the effects. Consortium A group of businesses or organizations allied to take on a project. Corridor A band of variable width between two locations. In transportation studies a corridor is defined area where a new or improved transportation facility might be located. Criterion(a) Explicit feature or consideration used for comparison of alternatives. Cumulative Effects Cumulative Effects Assessment assesses the interaction and combination of the residual environmental effects of the project during its construction and operational phases on measures to prevent or lessen the predicted impacts with the same environmental effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities. Decibel (db) A logarithmic unit of measure used for expressing level of sound. dba A weighted sound level; the human ear cannot hear the very high and the very low sound frequencies as well as the mid-frequencies of sound, and hence the predicted sound levels, measured in dba, are a reasonable accurate approximation of sound levels heard by the human ear. Detail Design The final stage in the design process in which the engineering and environmental components of preliminary design are refined and details concerning, for example, property, drainage, utility relocations and quantity estimate requirements are prepared, and contract documents and drawings are produced. DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans. EA Environmental Assessment EA Act Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (as amended by S.O C.27), RSO A ii

89 Appendix A - Glossary Environment Air, land or water, Plant and animal life, including man, The social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of man or a community, Any building structure, machine or other device or thing made by man, Any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration or radiation resulting directly or indirectly from the activities or man, or Any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of them, in or of Ontario. Environmental Effect A change in the existing conditions of the environment which may have either beneficial (positive) or detrimental (negative) effects. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA s) Those areas identified by any agency or level of government which contain natural features, ecological functions or cultural, historical or visual amenities which are susceptible to disturbance from human activities and which warrant protection. Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) The level of a continuous sound having the same energy as a fluctuating sound in a given time period. In this report Leq refers to 24-hour, 16 or 18-hour averages. ESR Environmental Study Report. Evaluation The outcome of a process that appraises the advantages and disadvantages of alternatives. Evaluation Process The process involving the identification of criteria, rating of predicted impacts, assignment of weights to criteria, and aggregation of weights, rates and criteria to produce an ordering of alternatives. External Agencies Include Federal departments and agencies, Provincial ministries and agencies, conservation authorities, municipalities, Crown corporations or other agencies other than MTO. Factor A category of sub-factors. Flyover A grade separation with the side road over the freeway. Also described as an underpass. Freeway Freeways are controlled access median divided highway facilities with grade separated crossings and interchanges (e.g. Highway 417). Grade Separation The separation of a cross road with a vertical grade difference from the freeway. Also see overpass, underpass or flyover. A iii

90 Appendix A - Glossary HADD Harmful Alternation, Disturbance or Destruction of fish habitat. Harmonized EA Process Harmonized planning process for this project that will meet both the Provincial and Federal EA requirements. Individual Environmental Assessment An environmental Assessment for an undertaking to which Assessment the EA Act applies and which requires formal review and approval under the Act. Interchange The intersection between two roadways at different levels with connecting ramps for traffic turning between them. LRT Light rail transit. MATS Multi Attribute Trade-off System MCA Multi-Criteria Analysis Mitigating Measure A measure that is incorporated into a project to reduce, eliminate or ameliorate detrimental environmental effects. Mitigation Taking actions that either remove or alleviate to some degree the negative impacts associated with the implementation of alternatives. MNR Ministry of Natural Resources. MOE Ministry of the Environment MTO Ministry of Transportation Ontario Noise Attenuation A mitigation measure used to lessen the intensity of the noise level (dba) where the noise level is increased in a noise sensitive area greater than 5 dba 10 years after completion. NSA Noise Sensitive Area is a noise sensitive land use, which has an outdoor living area associated with the residential unit. OLA Outdoor Living Area is the part of an outdoor amenity area provided for the quiet enjoyment of the outdoor environment. PLG Public Liaison Group. This is a group of members of the public who will provide input on local issues, alternatives and values of the community. Planning Alternatives Planning alternatives are alternative methods under the EA Act. Identification of significant transportation engineering opportunities while protecting significant environmental features as much as possible. Planning Solutions That part of the planning and design process where alternatives to the undertaking and alternative routes are identified and assessed. Also described as Alternative Project under the federal EA Act. PIC Public Information Centre A iv

91 Appendix A - Glossary Prime Agricultural Areas Prime agricultural areas as defined in municipal official plans and other government policy sources. Project A specific undertaking planned and implemented in accordance with this Class EA including all those activities necessary to solve a specific transportation problem. Proponent A person or agency that carries or proposes to carry out an undertaking, or is the owner or person having change, management, or control of an undertaking. Public Includes the general public, interest groups, associates, community groups, and individuals, including property owners. Realignment Replacement or upgrading of an existing roadway on a new or revised alignment. Recommended Plan That part of the planning and design process, during which various alternative solutions are examined and evaluated including consideration of environmental effects and mitigation; the recommended design solution is then developed in sufficient detail to ensure that the horizontal and vertical controls are physically compatible with the proposed site, that the requirements of lands and rights-of-way are satisfactorily identified, and that the basic design criteria or features to be contained in the design, have been fully recognized and documented in sufficient graphic detail to ensure their feasibility. Route Alternatives Location alternatives within a corridor. SADT Summer Average Daily Traffic the average 24-hour, two-way traffic for the period from July 1 st to August 31 st including weekends. Screening Process of eliminating alternatives from further consideration, which do not meet minimum conditions or categorical requirements. Steering Committee The Steering Committee will include the County, Consultant and Township of Smith Ennismore Lakefield. It will act as the decision-making body for the study recommendations. Sub-factor A single criterion used for the evaluation. Each subfactor is grouped under one of the factors. TMP Transportation Master Plan Traceability Characteristics of an evaluation process which enables its development and implementation to be followed with ease. Underpass Cross road goes over the highway. A v

92 Appendix A - Glossary Undertaking In keeping with the definition of the Environmental Assessment Act, a project or activity subject to an Environmental Assessment. A vi