Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINS-13-023 - Class Environmental Assessment for Strasburg Road Extension - New Technically Preferred Alignment REPORT TO: Special Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: May 22, 2013 SUBMITTED BY: Hans Gross,Director,AssetManagement ,519-741-2416 PREPARED BY: Binu Korah, Manager, Development Engineering, 519 741 2974 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Wards4 & 5 DATE OF REPORT: May 10, 2013 REPORT NO.: INS-13-023 SUBJECT:CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) FOR STRASBURG ROAD EXTENSION FROM NORTH OF STAUFFER DRIVE TO NEW DUNDEE ROAD(SOUTH SECTION)NEW TECHNICALLY PREFERRED ALIGNMENT (TPA) RECOMMENDATION: THAT the New Technically Preferred Alignment (W1) for the Strasburg Road Extension from north of Stauffer Drive to New Dundee Road be approved; and further, THAT staff be directed to prepare Preliminary Design for the New Technically Preferred Alignment, complete the Environmental Study Report (ESR) and present the final ESRat the October 21, 2013 Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting to endorse the document for filing in the Public Record for the mandatory 30-day public review period. BACKGROUND: In April 2010, the City of Kitchener appointed SNC- complete the Class Environmental Assessment for Strasburg Road Extension from north of Stauffer Drive to New Dundee Road. In May 2012, staff presented a Draft Environmental study for this project to Council and released it to the public for review and comments. Based on comments received during the Draft ESR review period (May -September 2012), Council determined that additional work was warranted to identify the Technically Preferred Alignment. Further, Staff presented a report on November 27, 2012 (INS 12-084) with an additional Scope of Work to address the public concerns and to complete the Class Environmental Assessment for Strasburg Road Extension from North of Stauffer Drive to New Dundee Road. In accordance with the approved scope of work, the Project Team currently selected aNew Technically Preferred Alignment for this project. 1 - 1 REPORT: This report summarizes the results of work conducted between December 2012 and May 2013. Evaluation Criteria: Based on public and agency comments since the May 2012 publication of the draft Environmental Study Report (ESR), the Project Team proposed revisions to the Evaluation Criteria, which were presented to Council through a workshop on February 4, 2013. The objective of the workshop was to receive input from members of Council for their preferences with respect to the scope and importance of the various evaluation criteria. Once a consensus from Council as a whole was reached on the Evaluation Criteria and the associated importance, this information was communicated back to the Project Team. Table 1 presents the Evaluation Criteria used for completing the comparative assessment of the alignment alternatives. Criteria that are new or modified from those used in the 2011 assessment of alignment alternatives are identified as such. Additional details on the rationale for the Evaluation Criteria are provided in Appendix A. Table 1: Proposed Alignment Alternatives Evaluation Criteria FACTOR GROUP/FACTOR 1. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 1A. Terrestrial Ecosystems 1B. Aquatic Ecosystems 1C. Groundwater Resources 1D. Surface Drainage 1E. Species at Risk Permits [NEW] 2. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 2A. Land Use Policy [MODIFIED] 2B. Existing Land Use [MODIFIED] 2C. Communities 2D. Noise 3. CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 3A. Archaeological Resources 3B. Built Heritage Features [MODIFIED] 3C. Cultural Heritage Landscapes [MODIFIED] 4. TRANSPORTATION/UTILITIES 4A Transportation Network/Infrastructure 4B. Municipal Services and Utilities 5. FINANCIAL/TECHNICAL 5A. Financial 5B. Technical On February 22, 2013, the Project Team finalized the revised Evaluation Criteria based on input from Council. The full set of Evaluation Criteria used to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the alignment alternatives under consideration is presented in Appendix A. Comparative Assessment: Acomparative assessment was completed by the Project Teamfor the seven (7) alignments using the revised Evaluation Criteria. The alignmentsincludefiveshort-listed alternatives (E1, E2, E3, E4, C2 and W1), the Technically Preferred Alignment(E4 Modified) from the April 2012 Draft ESR, and(W2 Modified) (See attached Appendix B). 1 - 2 The Consultant Team further developed a detailed evaluation matrix and assessed the seven alignment alternatives. The results of the detailed assessment were provided to the Project Team in the form of reference documents in mid-March 2013. A Project Team workshop was held on March 27, 2013, wherein the detailed assessment was presented to the Project Team by various Consultant Team discipline specialists to ensure that all Project Team members gained a full appreciation of the potential advantages and disadvantages associated with the alignment alternatives. The identified advantages and disadvantages were then scored by the full Project Team and around table discussion ensued to select the New Technically Preferred Alignment (TPA). Following is the summary of the comparative evaluation that was used to arrive at the selection of the New TPA. Alignments were scored by assigning a score of 10 to the alignment that best meets the project objectives or would create the fewest adverse impacts, and indexing the remaining alignments against the preferred alternative for each Factor (maximum score of 10; minimum score of 1). Factor scores were averaged to arrive at a normalized score for each Factor Group, because there are a different number of factors in each Factor Group.The Consultant Team presented the initial scoring for each Factor/Factor group, which was then adjusted based on the aforementioned round table discussion by the Project Team. Natural Environment: W1 is the preferred option with respect to potential impacts to natural heritage features (terrestrial/aquatic) because it avoids crossings of the Blair Creek corridor (including the significant woodlot at the west end, wetlands (including Provincially Significant Wetland), Species at Risk (SAR) regulated habitat, regulated floodplain area, and the locally sensitive groundwater recharge/discharge area. It overlies the Regional recharge area and a small portion of a Wellhead Protection Area (Level 4), it will not interfere with an active well, and is the furthest alignment from areas identified as a future Regional groundwater source zone. It would also create less of a barrier to wildlife movement because it does not cross contiguous natural features associated with the creek corridor. E2 and C2 are the least preferred due to large (E2), or multiple crossings (C2) of the Blair Creek corridor, which result in higher impacts to wetlands, aquatic habitat, wildlife passage, and SAR habitat. E2 does not fall within a WPA, but will impact local recharge discharge conditions and is close to an active well. W2 Modified and E4 Modified have the shortest crossings of the Blair Creek corridor which minimizes impacts to natural heritage features. W2 Modified has a shorter crossing but is closer to high quality wetland communities. These shorter crossings decrease groundwater impacts relative to other alignments; however, W2 Modified overlies both the Regional and local recharge zones, and still requires crossings of the PSW and has higher impacts than W1. E3 and E4 have lower impacts to natural heritage features than E2 and C2 due to narrower crossings of the Blair Creek corridor. E3 is preferred to E4 in this regard. These alternatives are similar to E2 from a groundwater perspective. W1 is preferred from a Species at Risk Permit perspective, as it avoids regulated habitat for Jefferson Salamander. All other alternatives would necessitate securing an Endangered Species Act permit from MNR for crossing this regulated area. C2 is considered worst from this perspective, as it would also eliminate high quality potential habitat. Socio-Economic Environment: With respect to land use policy, significant weight was attached to compatibility with the -rural boundary, 1 - 3 and the potential for the new Strasburg Road alignment to create pressure for westerly expansion of the urban envelope into the Protected Countryside.Alignment E2 exhibits the highest degree of compatibility with land use policies, since it is closest to the existing boundary, but is not much different than Alignments E4/E4 Modified in this respect. Alignments E3 and C2 exhibit similar degrees of compatibility, while Alignments W2 Modified and W1 exhibit a low degree of compatibility (potential for relatively significant to very significant relocation of the urban envelope). Alignment E2 imposes the least impacts to prime agricultural lands and agricultural operations, and is the preferred option. However, the East alignments impose the most impacts on the B&B business at 500 Stauffer Drive. Conversely, Alignment W1 imposes the least impacts on the B&B business at 500 Stauffer Drive, but would result in the greatest impacts to agricultural resources and operations. Potential impacts to the planned development at the northeast corner of Reidel Drive and New Dundee Road are not considered to be significant or different across the alignments. Alignment C2 represents the best balance of impacts to existing and approved future land use. Alignment E2 would require the least private property and exhibits the highest degree of compatibility with planned community boundaries (Brigadoon, Doon South Phase 2). Alignments E3 or E4/E4 Modified represent the best opportunities for maintaining or enhancing community connectivity, when considering retaining the existing Reidel Drive corridor as part of the future Doon South trail system to enhance connectivity (see also Cultural Environment Summary). Background noise will increase in the study area due to natural growth in traffic. W1 is the preferred option acoustically (only one sensitive receptor would experience significant noise increases), but there are few receptors in the study area. Key receptors are the residences at 500 Stauffer Drive and 271 Reidel Drive, and Alignments E2 and E4/E4 Modified would create the most significant impacts to these locations. Overall, Alignment E4 or Alignment E4 Modified is the preferred alternative from a socio- economic perspective. Cultural Environment: W1 is the preferred option with respect to potential impacts to archaeological resources because it avoids the most areas with indicated archaeological potential near the Blair Creek corridor. E2 is the least preferred option because of its high impact to features indicating archaeological potential (e.g. watercourses, identified archaeological sites). C2 impacts the largest area of indicated archaeological potential; however, it impacts fewer features indicating archaeological potential than E2. W1 is the preferred option with respect to potential impacts to cultural heritage resources because it avoids all four heritage roadscapes, the farm complex located on the existing Reidel Drive corridor, and minimizes impacts to CHL 7 and the designated heritage resource at CHL 2, which are located north of Stauffer Drive. W2 Modified is the next preferred option given that it avoids the four identified heritage roadscapes, and minimizes impacts to CHL 1, CHL 2 and CHL 7 (impacts are limited to the disruption of fields). C2 will result in lower impacts to CHL 2, a designated heritage resource, and to CHL 3 and CHL 4, scenic-heritage roadscapes. It will, however, negatively impact CHL 5 and CHL 6 through full and partial removal, and disrupt significant views associated with CHL1. E2, E4 and E4 Modified are the least preferred options given their disruption to landscape elements and associated views to and from CHL 2; disruption to landscape 1 - 4 elements associated with CHL 1; and disruption to roadscapes at CHL 3, CHL 4 and CHL 5. Further, E2 will result in removal of CHL 6. Alignments C2, W1 and W2 Modified will result in the extension of connector roads through the southern fields associated with CHL 1, and the northern fields associated with CHL 2 and CHL 7. The Robert Ferrie Drive extension, in particular, has the potential to disrupt cultivated fields and hedgerows associated with CHL 2, as well as obstruct significant views from the farmstead to the woodlot and fields. Transportation/Municipal Services and Utilities: E2 is the preferred option with respect to compliance with transportation/municipal services policies, and also shows the highest projected use for passenger vehicle and public transit usage. The use of existing Reidel Drive makes this preferred from a servicing perspective as well. E4, E4 Modified and C2 are only slightly less preferred options in these regards, due to partial use of the existing Reidel Drive corridor, with E4 being more consistent with transportation/municipal services policy. E4 Modified requires additional length of watermain compared to E4, and is therefore scored slightly lower than E4 for the Municipal Services/Utilities factor. E3 and W1 and W2 Modified are the least preferred options, since their distance from existing infrastructure reduces projected usage by passenger vehicles and transit users and reduces demand/connectivity for services/utilities, while increasing new infrastructure requirements.They also create the need for a staggered crossing of New Dundee Road (to Cameron Road) via an additional intersection not required by the other alignments that meet New Dundee Road at the existing intersection of Reidel Road and New Dundee Road. E3 provides just minimal acceptable spacing between the existing and new intersections, while W2 Modified and W1 provide reasonable spacing, but all three cause north--west across New Dundee Road, increasing volume and local traffic operations delay in the New Dundee Road corridor. Technical and Financial: E4 Modified is the preferred option from a financial perspective, with the lowest capital and operational costs, followed closely by E4. Alignments E3, C2 and E2 have higher capital and operational costs. W1 and W2 Modified have the highest capital and operational costs, with W2 Modified the least preferred option financially. The cost of mitigation for crossing Jefferson Salamander habitat varies, ranging from 0% to 2.5% of overall capital costs. W1 has no mitigation costs (i.e., complete avoidance of the regulated area), and E2 has the highest mitigation cost, since its alignment has the longest crossing of the Jefferson Salamander regulated area. The cost of mitigation does not affect the ranking of the overall capital costs. Although all options are technically feasible, W1 is the easiest to construct from a technical perspective due to the avoidance of large watercourse crossing structures and of crossing of wetland areas, as well as reduced vegetation clearing requirements. C2 and E2 are the least preferred options due to their respective requirements for multiple watercourse crossing bridge structures and multiple span bridge structures. C2 is scored slightly higher than E2 due to its simpler road geometry. Refer toAppendix Cfor the final scoring summary. New Technically Preferred Alignment (TPA): Alignment W1 received the highest scores from the Project Team. As a result of the Council input session and in accordance with the recommendation of the Project Team, the Factor Groups were considered to be of equal importance and therefore received equal weighting 1 - 5 during the scoring of the alternative alignments. It represents an acceptable balance of advantages and disadvantages across the spectrum of evaluation criteria and is being carried forward for presentation to stakeholders as the New Technically Preferred Alignment (See attached Appendix D). Rationale for selection of Alignment W1: Avoids natural heritage features, including wetlands, forests, streams and fish habitat, wildlife passage areas, groundwater recharge areas, regulated floodplain Avoids regulated SAR habitat and significant challenges associated with obtaining an Endangered Species Act permit Results in the least significant impacts to owner-occupied residence and bed and breakfast business at 500 Stauffer Drive Results in the lowest noise impacts Avoids cultural heritage features (roadscapes); limited impacts to other cultural heritage features (farm complexes) Provides the desired spacing between the new intersection on New Dundee Road and the existing Reidel Drive-Cameron Road intersection Is physically the easiest option to construct COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: As part of this Class EA project, four(4) Public Information Centres were conducted to provide the public, agencies, stakeholders, interested and affected parties with an opportunity to review and comment on the study findings including preferred alternative, along with the other alternatives considered. The direct mail-outs, along with the newspaper advertisement advising the public and property owners of the project commencement and the Public Information Centres, provided a project overview, as well as contact names and information for those interested.Furthermore,there were many project meetings conducted to discuss specific issues with stakeholders and affected landowners. The City staff andconsultant also presented the study findings to the Environmental committee and Heritage committee to obtain their valuable input. Public Information Centre No. 4 was held within the time period covered by this report. Public Information Centre (PIC) No. 4 was held on Wednesday, April 24, 2013, where approximately 95people attended and written comments were received from 59 people. The response to the selection of alignments W1 as the New TPA was generally positive. The purpose of the PIC was to present the new set of alternative alignments, their evaluation, and identification of the New Technically Preferred Alignment. Public comments were requested by May 8, 2013. Once all the comments are received and addressed, as appropriate, the Project Team will prepare a revised Environmental Study Report for Council endorsement in October 2013 and file the document with the Ministry of Environment for the 30-day mandatory public review period. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The total cost estimate for the new technically preferred alignment (W1) of Strasburg Road and associated infrastructure, which includes local road extensions/upgrades and a watermain, is $22M. The Strasburg Road portion of the project is approximately $8M and exceeds the cost estimate included in the current capital forecast by $2M. Any additional cost will be included in the upcoming 2014 Development Charge Background Study and will either impact the development charge rate or require a deferral of other projects. 1 - 6 ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: The Strasburg Road Extension project is aligned with the City of Kitchener Strategic Plan; refer to Strategic Plan document, community priorities Development sections 1 & 3. Further, this project is also one of the priority projects identified in the Kitchener Growth Management Plan, as it provides service to lands identified as Priority B CONCLUSION: In accordance with Class Environmental Assessment process together with studies and detailed assessment completed by the Consultant Team, the Project Team has selected a New Technically Preferred Alignment for the Strasburg Road Extension from north of Stauffer Drive to New Dundee Road. There were several Public Information Centres andother consultation process mechanisms used to solicit stakeholder input from April 2010 to May 2013 to review the detailed study findings and receive comments onthis project. As part of the Class EA process, staff also met with various agencies and affected property owners. In conclusion, staff recommend that the New Technically Preferred Alignment (W1) for the Strasburg Road Extension from north of Stauffer Drive to New Dundee Road be approved. Further, it is recommended that staff be directed to prepare Preliminary Design of the New Technically Preferred Alignment, complete the Environmental Study Report (ESR) and present the final ESR at the October 21, 2013 Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting to endorse the document for filing in the Public Record for the mandatory 30-day public review period. ACKNOWLEDGED BY:Pauline Houston, DCAO Infrastructure Services Department 1 - 7 Appendix A: Evaluation Criteria - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Impact to regulatory flood plain of Blair Creek (including need for GRCA work - permit) - - - - - 1 - 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 10 Appendix B: Alignment Alternatives 1 - 11 Appendix B: Alignment Alternatives East 2 [E2] Diverges from Official Plan alignment at north end of farm/B&B operation at 500 Stauffer Drive Skirts east side of farm/B&B operation pond and west side of Stauffer Woods (ESPA 33) Connects to Reidel Drive 325 m south of Stauffer Drive and runs along existing Reidel Drive corridor to New Dundee/Reidel Drive intersection East 3 [E3] Diverges from Official Plan alignment at north end of farm/B&B operation at 500 Stauffer Drive Skirts east side of farm/B&B operation pond and west side of Stauffer Woods (ESPA 33) Crosses narrowest point of Blair Swamp PSW Connects to New Dundee Road 250 m west of Reidel Drive to improve intersection sight distances compared to existing New Dundee/Reidel intersection East 4 [E4] Diverges from Official Plan alignment at north end of farm/B&B operation at 500 Stauffer Drive Skirts east side of farm/B&B operation pond and west side of Stauffer Woods (ESPA 33) Crosses relatively narrow point of Blair Swamp PSW Swings east behind farm buildings at 271 Reidel Drive Intersects New Dundee Road at an angle compatible with opposing Cameron Road leg East 4 [E4] Modified previously identified as the Technically Preferred Alignment Similar to E4 north of Stauffer Drive Crosses narrowest point of Blair Swamp PSW (similar to E3) Swings east behind farm buildings at 271 Reidel Drive and rejoins E4 to intersect New Dundee Road at an angle compatible with opposing Cameron Road leg Central 2 [C2] Diverges from Official Plan alignment at north end of farm/B&B operation at 500 Stauffer Drive Straddles Lot 9/Lot 14 Concession BT property line to south limit of farm/B&B operation Connects to Reidel Drive corridor 625 m south of Stauffer Drive, and runs along existing Reidel Drive corridor to New Dundee/Reidel Drive intersection West 1 [W1] Diverges from Official Plan alignment at north end of farm/B&B operation at 500 Stauffer Drive Skirts west edge of most significant groundwater recharge area and upper Blair Creek corridor Coincident with west boundary of lands in Lot 5 Con BNS south of Blair Creek New intersection with New Dundee Road 720 m west of existing Reidel Drive intersection West 2 [W2] Modified adaptation of original Alignment W2 Diverges from Official Plan alignment near north end of farm/B&B operation at 500 Stauffer Drive Crosses Blair Creek just east of major woodlot at west end of creek corridor Swings slightly east and then straight south to a new intersection with New Dundee Road 400 m west of existing Reidel Drive intersection Note: The assessment of alignment alternatives west of Alignment E2/E3/E4 north of Stauffer Drive and west of existing Reidel Drive has assumed that future Robert Ferrie Drive and future Blair Creek Drive will be extended to connect to future Strasburg Road in order to achieve local road network connectivity. The alignments shown for these collector roads are the best estimate of their possible location. The impacts of these extensions have been included in the assessment of alternative alignments for Strasburg Road. The future extension of Robert Ferrie Drive will be subject to a separate environmental assessment under the Municipal Class EA process, or as part of the Plan of Subdivision approval process. 1 - 12 Appendix C: Final Scoring Summary FACTORALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE E4 W2 E2E3E4C2W1 ModMod 1. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 1A. Terrestrial Ecosystems56674107 1B. Aquatic Ecosystems46564108 1C. Groundwater Resources76793107 1D. Surface Drainage89998107 1E. Species at Risk Permits22221102 Natural Environment Score5.205.805.806.604.0010.006.20 2. SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 2A. Land Use Policy10699513 2B. Existing and Approved Land 65661077 Use 2C. Communities981010648 2D. Noise24335108 Socio-Economic Environment 6.755.757.007.006.505.506.50 Score 3. CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 3A. Archaeological Resources24444104 3B. Built Heritage44245109 2C. Cultural Heritage 25346109 Landscapes Cultural Environment Score2.674.333.004.005.0010.007.33 4. TRANSPORTATION/MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND UTILITIES 4A. Transportation 10799956 Network/Infrastructure 4B.Municipal Services and 10698745 Utilities Transportation/Municipal 10.006.509.008.508.004.505.50 Services & Utilities Score 5. FINANCIAL/TECHNICAL 5A. Financial57910643 5B. Technical57786107 Financial/Technical Score5.007.008.009.006.007.005.00 TOTAL SCORE29.6229.3832.8035.1029.5037.0030.53 RANK5732614 % BEHIND FIRST RANKED 20211152017 ALIGNMENT E4 W2 E2E3E4C2W1 ModMod 1 - 13 Appendix D: New Technically Preferred Alignment (TPA) (Alignment W1) 1 - 14