Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
DSD-2024-104 - Class Environmental Assessment for Blair Creek Drive Extension
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: March 25, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Chris Spere, Director Engineering, 519-741-2200 ext. 7412 PREPARED BY: Niall Melanson, Project Manager, 519-741-2200 ext. 7133 WARD INVOLVED: Ward 5 DATE OF REPORT: February 20, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD-2024-104 SUBJECT: Class Environmental Assessment for Blair Creek Drive Extension RECOMMENDATION: Project File Report (PFR) prepared by MTE Consultants Inc., dated February 2024, which recommends Alternative 2 as the preferred solution, be received; and further, That Bla Project File Report (PFR) be filed with the Ministry of the Environment for the mandatory thirty (30) days review period as required by the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to evaluate an alignment for the extension of Blair Creek Drive from future Strasburg Road to existing Reidel Drive. The key finding of this report is there were no significant features so a straight alignment was the preferred solution. The financial implications are the project is 100% funded with Development Charges, as follows: Detailed Design in 2025; Construction in 2026. Community engagement included a Public Information Centre held at the Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre Page. Agency consultation included the MECP, Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Grand River Conservation Authority, Local Utilities, Local emergency Services and Grand River Transit. Aboriginal communities consultation included Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council and Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council. This report supports the delivery of core services. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. BACKGROUND: In support of the Blair Creek Drive extension, MTE Consultants Inc. completed a Project File Assessment. A new City of Kitchener major community collector street is required to provide east-west access and connectivity within the planned new community of Dundee North in southwest Kitchener. The need for this road has been established and is supported by the City of Kitchener Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan. An extension of Blair Creek Drive between Reidel Drive and the future Strasburg Road will allow for multi-modal movement of people and goods between the internal road system and the surrounding area road network. Creek Drive extension will include on-street parking, cycling facilities, sidewalks and trees to create a functional aesthetically pleasing streetscape for homes, schools and other properties located along the street. the extension of Blair Creek Drive westerly to future Strasburg Road. The planned area road network supports local, Regional and Provincial objectives in growth and transportation for the surrounding communities in the Doon South and Brigadoon areas in Kitchener. The study area is located within the Dundee North Growth Area as outlined in the Kitchener Growth Management Plan (2019) and is situated on current green field lands that are designated by the Official Plan as Urban. Initiatives related to this planned Growth Area that are currently ongoing include the development of the Dundee North Secondary Plan, which will outline detailed land use, and the design and construction the Strasburg Road Extension. Figure 1. Blair Creek Drive Extension (DC) Background Study identified that a Class EA study was required for the extension of Blair Creek Drive from future Strasburg Road to Reidel Drive.The extension was to include the road along with watermain and associated storm sewers. The DC Background Study also identified that a sanitary sewer could be included in the extension pending the outcome of the EA. REPORT: A range of options were developed to address the problem statement. Each alternative runs in a straight east-west alignment from the point of intersection of the existing / planned Blair Creek Drive east for Reidel Drive. Four (4) alternatives were considered for the Blair Creek Drive Extension as follows: Alternative One: 24.8m right-of-way The first alternative is a two-lane road with a 24.8m right-of-way. This cross-section matches the existing cross-section of Blair Creek Drive east of Reidel Drive. The overall width of the asphalt is 14.8m from the front of curb. The driving lanes are 3.5m wide, with 1.5m bike lanes and 2.4m parking lanes along both sides of the road. The boulevards are 3.2m wide and the sidewalks are 1.5m wide. Alternative Two: 26.0m right-of-way with Cycle Tracks (Preferred) The second alternative is a two-lane road with a 26.0m right-of-way. This cross-section matches the preferred cross-section for a major collector street as outlined in the City of Complete Streets Guidelines. The overall width of the asphalt is 9m from the front of curb. The driving lanes are 3.3m wide with a 2.4m wide parking lane on one side only. The boulevards are 4m wide and the cycle tracks are set back from the road within the boulevard. The cycle tracks are 1.6m wide and the sidewalks are 1.8m wide on both sides. There is a 0.2m buffer to separate the cyclists and pedestrians. Alternative Three: 26.0m right-of-way with Bike Lanes The third alternative is a two-lane road with a 26.0m right-of-way. This cross-section matches the alternative cross-section for a major collector street as outlined in the City of front of curb. The driving lanes are 3.3m wide with a 2.4m parking lane on one side only. There are 2.4m wide bike lanes on each side of the road, with a 0.4m safety buffer between the bike lanes and the driving or parking lane. The boulevards are 3.1m wide and the sidewalks are 1.8m wide. Alternative Four: Do nothing Assessment process and evaluates the advantages and disadvantages assuming the project is stopped completely and does not progress any further. Evaluation of Alternative Solutions The initial evaluation of the alternatives was completed prior to the Public Information Centre so that the alternatives as well as the preferred solution could be presented to the public. An evaluation matrix was developed to evaluate and score each option according to the following criteria: Natural Environment Social/Cultural Environment Heritage/Archaeological Environment Disruption to Exiting or Future Land Uses Technical/City Standards Costs Climate Change Each alternative was rated based on its ability to meet each criterion using a poor to good. A detailed evaluation matrix was completed with input from various City departments. A summary of the evaluation, the main advantages and disadvantages of each alternative, as well as the preferred alternative were presented at the Public Information Centre. Figure 2.0 Evaluation Matrix Summary of Design Alternatives Preferred Alternative Based on the results of the evaluation, Alternative 2, with a 26.0m right-of-way and cycle tracks is preferred as it has the least negative impacts, fully addresses the problems, and takes advantage of the opportunities. A straight road alignment has no significant negative impacts to the surrounding environment, and establishes the east-west collector road as intended through past planning processes, enhancing the overall transportation network and supporting future community growth and development. Given the lack of significant natural features, a wider right-of-way was chosen to provide the ideal cross- Preferred Alternative cross-ages and -separated from the driving and parking lanes. Wide, 1.8m sidewalks are AODA compliant, and large boulevards provide ample opportunity for future tree planting, streetscaping, low-impact development features and winter snow storage, which all contribute to a high-quality pedestrian environment. Alternative 2 allows for a variety of transportation choices which will support the new Dundee North community and the surrounding existing neighbourhoods. Storm and watermain will follow a direct alignment in accordance with standard City of Kitchener cross-sections. Figure 3.0 - Alternative 2 - 26.0m ROW with Cycle Track STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Funds are currently available from Development Charges. Operating Budget The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM From the outset of this study, public involvement was recognized as being important to the overall success of the assignment. A formal Notice of Study Commencement was published in The Kitchener Record on April 28, 2023, to advise the Public of the Class EA process and provide notification that the EA study for the Blair Creek Drive extension was to proceed. In addition to the newspaper advertisement, the Notice of Commencement was mailed to residences within the project area and non-resident property owners/developers. Stakeholders and agencies were emailed a copy on the same date. A project page was established on the notices and other project information were posted online. CONSULT A Public Information Centre (PIC) was hosted on September 20, 2023, in person at the Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre. The public was able to view the display boards, speak with the Project Team, and provide feedback through comment sheets or the Engage website. The display boards featured the purpose of the project, the problem/opportunity statement, an overview of the study area and the studies being completed, the design alternatives, design criteria, evaluation matrix and the preferred alternative. The PIC boards were posted online on the EngageWR project page the next day. Comment sheets were available but no written feedback was received after the PIC. One email from a member of the public was received after the PIC which expressed support for the preferred alternative, along with other comments unrelated to the scope of this project. The email was addressed by the Project Team. Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council, and Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council were provided the Notice of Commencement, the notification of PIC, and the PIC documents via email by MTE Consultants Inc. Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council responded to the Notice of Commencement and the notification of PIC. They requested clarification of the project area which MTE provided. No other comments have been received as of the time of writing of this report. It was noted that archaeological work is not being completed as part of this study, as this area has been covered by recent Stage 1 and Stage 2 investigations by Stantec. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) was provided the Notice of Commencement and the notification of PIC via email by MTE Consultants Inc. The MECP responded with a letter of acknowledgement. The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) was provided the Notice of Commencement and the notification of PIC via email by MTE Consultants Inc. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, DSD ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Blair Creek Drive Exten Assessment Project File Report. Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File Report Project Location: Kitchener, Ontario Prepared for: City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, Kitchener Prepared by: MTE ConsultantsInc. 520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 Revised: March2024 January 2024 MTE File No.:53018-100 Contents 1.0INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.........................................................................1 1.1Introduction..................................................................................................................1 1.2Study Area...................................................................................................................1 1.3Class Environmental Assessment................................................................................2 1.4Study Organization......................................................................................................3 1.5Agency Consultation....................................................................................................3 1.6Aboriginal Communities Consultation...........................................................................4 1.7Background and Planning Context...............................................................................4 2.0EXISTING CONDITIONS................................................................................................4 2.1Transportation..............................................................................................................5 2.1.1Existing Transportation Network..............................................................................5 2.1.2Traffic and Transportation Assessment....................................................................5 2.2Land Use and Physical Environment............................................................................5 2.3Natural Environment....................................................................................................6 2.3.1Natural Heritage and Tree Inventory........................................................................6 2.3.2Source Water Protection, Drainage and Stormwater................................................7 2.3.3Groundwater, Geotechnical, Environmental/Soils Conditions...................................7 2.4Cultural Heritage Environment.....................................................................................8 2.4.1Built Cultural Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes........................................8 2.4.2Archaeology.............................................................................................................8 2.5Municipal Infrastructure................................................................................................9 3.0PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES..............................................................................9 3.1Problem and Opportunity Statement............................................................................9 3.2Evaluation Criteria......................................................................................................10 4.0ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS........................................................................................10 4.1Development of Alternatives......................................................................................10 4.2Detailed Description of Alternatives............................................................................11 4.2.1Alternative 1 24.8m ROW...................................................................................11 4.2.2Alternative 2 26.0m ROW with Cycle Tracks.......................................................11 4.2.3Alternative 3 26.0m ROW with Bike Lanes..........................................................11 4.2.4Do Nothing.............................................................................................................11 i 5.0EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................15 5.1Evaluation Matrix.......................................................................................................15 5.2Preferred Alternative..................................................................................................23 6.0POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION...................................................................23 6.1Impacts......................................................................................................................23 6.1.1Excess Soils..........................................................................................................23 6.1.2Natural Heritage and Cultural Heritage Environment..............................................23 6.1.3Construction Impacts: Noise, Vibration, Air Quality, Access/Staging......................24 6.1.4Climate Change/Sustainability...............................................................................25 6.1.5Integration with Secondary Plan and Surrounding Development............................25 6.1.6Drainage and Stormwater Management.................................................................25 6.1.7Sanitary Sewer......................................................................................................26 6.1.8Water and Utilities..................................................................................................26 7.0CONSULTATION..........................................................................................................26 7.1Notice of Project Commencement..............................................................................26 7.2Public Information Centre...........................................................................................26 7.2.1PIC........................................................................................................................27 7.3Agency Correspondence............................................................................................27 7.3.1Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP)..............................27 7.3.2Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA).........................................................27 7.3.3Indigenous Consultation........................................................................................27 7.3.4City of Kitchener Council........................................................................................27 7.4Notice of Study Completion........................................................................................28 8.0PERMITS/APPROVALS AND NEXT STEPS................................................................28 8.1Approvals...................................................................................................................28 8.2Next Steps.................................................................................................................28 8.3Construction Staging..................................................................................................28 8.3.1Project Cost Estimate............................................................................................29 8.4Preliminary Design.....................................................................................................29 9.0SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................30 9.1Recommendations.....................................................................................................30 i Figures Figure 1.0: Study Area................................................................................................................1 Figure 2.0: Class EA Planning Process (Municipal Engineers Association, 2023).......................2 Figure 3.0: Existing Conditions of Site and Surrounding Area.....................................................6 Figure 4.0: Alternative 1 24.8m ROW.....................................................................................12 Figure 5.0: Alternative 2 26.0m ROW with Cycle Track..........................................................13 Figure 6.0: Alternative 3 26.0m ROW with Bike Lane.............................................................14 Figure 7.0: Alternatives Scoring................................................................................................15 Tables Table 1.0: Evaluation Summary of Design Alternatives (Presented at PIC)...............................16 Table 2.0: Advantages and Disadvantages of Design Alternatives (Presented at PIC)..............17 Table 3.0: Design Alternatives Detailed Evaluation Matrix.........................................................18 Appendices Appendix ACorrespondence Appendix BLetters, Notices, Bulletins, etc. Appendix CReports by Consultant and Others Appendix DPreliminary Design Drawings i 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction The City of Kitchener has completed a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Study to evaluate an alignment for the extension of Blair Creek Drive from the future Strasburg Road to the intersection of Reidel Drive and Blair Creek Drive. The study was carried out as a Schedule B project in accordance with the Municipal Class EA document (October 2000, as amended in 2007, 2011, 2015, and 2023). This Project File Report documents the planning and design process followed to identify the problem and opportunities, identify alternative solutions, conduct consultation, and establish the preferred solution for the alignment of the Blair Creek Drive extension and its associated underground servicing, including storm sewer and watermain. 1.2 Study Area The Blair Creek Drive Class EA study area is situated between the future Strasburg Road at the west end, and the intersection of the future western limit of Blair Creek Drive and Reidel Drive at the east end, comprising approximately 700m. Blair Creek Drive east of Reidel Drive is not yet constructed, however its alignment through the Stauffer Woods subdivision has been established. The study area is located entirely on a single agricultural property, 271 Reidel Drive in Kitchener, Ontario. Figure 1.0: Study Area MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 1 1.3 Class Environmental Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Document Association (October 2000, as amended in 2007, 2011, 2015, and 2023) approved under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act specific agencies and potentially affected members of the public of the problem/opportunity and alternative solutions with one optional and two mandatory points of contact/consultation, including a Notice of Project Commencement, Public Information Centre and Notice of Project Completion. This project conforms to the Class EA planning process (Refer to Figure 2.0) and is described under Part B Municipal Road Projects, New Roads. The study process consists of two of the five Phases of Planning and Design Process. Phases 1 and 2 will be covered in this document with the Preliminary Design being completed separately. Figure 2.0: Class EA Planning Process (Municipal Engineers Association, 2023) The purpose of this Project File Report is to summarize all information collected and alternatives ). The primary objective is to alignment of the Blair Creek Drive Extension based on an evaluation of environmental impacts (natural, social/cultural, heritage/archaeological), operations, constructability and economic considerations, as well as public, agency and other stakeholder feedback. Once the Project File Report is completed, it will be made available for a 30-day public review period. A Notice of Study Completion will be circulated to announce the start of the public review period. The MECP will then require an additional 30 days to resolve any questions from the public. MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 2 1.4 Study Organization The study was directed by the City of Kitchener and carried out by MTE. The members of the Project Team are listed below: Project Team Members Name Company Mr. Niall Melanson, C.E.T. City of Kitchener Project Manager Mr. Vince Pugliese, P.Eng., MBA, PMP MTE Consultants Inc. Project Manager Ms. Lyndsay Dokas, P.Eng. MTE Consultants Inc. Project Engineer Formal Project Team meetings were held throughout the duration of the study to assess pertinent data, to develop alternative concepts and evaluation criteria, to solicit public/agency input, and to prepare for the Public Information Centre. Several sub-consultants were contracted by MTE Consultants to conduct various studies within the Blair Creek Drive extension study area to provide information on existing conditions and input on the proposed alternatives: Sub-Consultants Name of Company Expertise Work Provided Archaeological Research Heritage Consultant Heritage Impact Assessment Associates (ARA) Paradigm Transportation Transportation Consultants Transportation Study Solutions (PTSL) Natural Resource Natural Environment Natural Environment Report Solutions (NRSI) Consultants Characterization services. 1.5 Agency Consultation Full communication and participation by the review agencies (both directly and indirectly involved) in the Study was encouraged from the outset of the project. Each of the review agencies listed below received notification by email prior to the Public Information Centre as well as the Notice of Commencement. These were sent to was being conducted and requested their comment and input to the Study (refer to Appendix A for list of contacts and communications log). Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Grand River Conservation Authority Utilities (Enova Power, Gas/Water/Kitchener Utilities, Bell, Rogers) MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 3 Emergency Services (Police and Fire) Grand River Transit Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region and Waterloo Region and Catholic District School Board Appendix A contains municipal and agency correspondence. Section 5 discusses the input and responses provided by the interested parties and agencies. 1.6 Aboriginal Communities Consultation The following communities were contacted by email to be notified of the study and invited to comment: Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation Six Nations of the Grand River a. Elected Council, and b. Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) 1.7 Background and Planning Context Transportation Master Plan (2013) and Official Plan (2014) includes the extension of Strasburg Road southerly to New Dundee Road, and the extension of Biehn Drive, Robert Ferrie Drive and Blair Creek Drive westerly to Strasburg Road. The planned area road network supports local, Regional and Provincial objectives in growth and transportation for the surrounding communities in the Doon South and Brigadoon areas of Kitchener. The study area is located within the Dundee North Growth Area as outlined in the Kitchener Growth Management Plan (2019) and is situated on current greenfield lands that are designated by the Official Plan as Urban. Initiatives related to this planned Growth Area that are currently ongoing include the development of the Dundee North Secondary Plan, which will outline detailed land use, and the design and construction of the Strasburg Road Extension. Coordination meetings between the Blair Creek Drive Project Team and the Strasburg Road and Dundee North Secondary Plan Project Teams took place throughout the EA process to ensure the proper context was being considered. The City of Kitchener Complete Streets document was referenced to assist with the development of alternative cross-section options for the Blair Creek Drive Extension. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS Below is a description of the existing conditions within the study area, which provides the context within which solutions for the project were considered. Further detail of the existing conditions is contained in the various studies which were undertaken as part of this Environmental Assessment (see Appendix C). MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 4 2.1 Transportation 2.1.1 Existing Transportation Network Blair Creek Drive is an east-west major community collector roadway as outlined in the City Official Plan, with an urban two-lane cross section and a posted speed limit of 40 km/h (30 km/h where School Zones exist). Sidewalks and bike lanes are provided on both sides of the roadway. As of July 2023, Blair Creek Drive terminates at Thomas Slee Drive and will be extended westerly to Reidel Drive in the near future. Reidel Drive is a north-south local street with a rural two-lane cross section and posted speed limit of 50 km/h. No active transportation facilities are provided. Strasburg Road is a north-south city arterial street with a four-lane urban cross section and a posted speed limit of 60 km/h. A multi-use trail is provided on both sides of the roadway. Strasburg Road currently terminates at Rockcliffe Drive and will be extended to New Dundee Road in the future. 2.1.2 Traffic and Transportation Assessment A Transportation Study was conducted by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited (Paradigm) to review future traffic operations within the Blair Creek Drive Extension Corridor and provide recommendations on road cross-section, and intersection geometry and traffic control including at the future intersections of Blair Creek Drive and Reidel Drive and at Strasburg Road. Seven-year total traffic forecasts for the intersections were determined, the methodology of which is described in the Traffic Study report by Paradigm in Appendix C. Based on the projected traffic volumes, the intersections were assessed to determine whether traffic signals, roundabouts, left-turn lanes, all-way stops or two-way stops were warranted. The study concluded that the intersections within the Blair Creek Drive Extension corridor, including at Strasburg Road and at Reidel Drive, are forecast to operate with acceptable levels of service under two-way stop control conditions. A southbound left-turn lane with 25 metres of storage is warranted at the intersection with Strasburg Road The Paradigm study was completed in December 2023 under the assumption that Strasburg Road would be designed as a two-lane road. Since that time, the City has revised the design for Strasburg Road to a four-lane road. A separate Intersection Control Study was completed by CIMA+ for the intersection as part of the Strasburg Road Design project, where the southbound left turn lane storage length is noted as 84m. The discrepancy in storage lengths should be reconciled during detailed design of Blair Creek Drive. Future development of the surrounding area may warrant a future traffic study to analyze intersection controls. The CIMA+ ICS report is appended to this Project File Report for reference (Appendix C). A roundabout screening analysis completed as part of the Paradigm study showed that the traffic volumes do not warrant a roundabout at either Strasburg Road or Reidel Drive. 2.2 Land Use and Physical Environment The Blair Creek Drive extension study area is located in southwest Kitchener. The approximately 700m stretch of land between Reidel Drive to the east and the future Strasburg Road to the west is entirely situated on land owned by Activa (271 Reidel Drive) and slated for future development. Figure 3.0 is a Google Earth image depicting the property and surrounding MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 5 area in its existing state (as of 2018). 271 Reidel Drive is characterized by rolling topography and currently consists of active agricultural fields and hedgerows, a farmstead, a woodlot, and a wetland, encompassing approximately 80.9 hectares. The property is bordered by the future Strasburg Road to the west, Stauffer Drive to the north, Reidel Drive to the east, and New Dundee Road/the Kitchener City limit to the south. The property also forms part of the Dundee North Secondary Plan area. The proposed Blair Creek Drive extension has been incorporated into the draft plans for the development and will serve as a major collector road, providing access to the development and the surrounding transportation network. Figure 3.0: Existing Conditions of Site and Surrounding Area The Stauffer Woods development is currently under construction to the east of the subject property. 2.3 Natural Environment 2.3.1 Natural Heritage and Tree Inventory A Natural Environment Report (NER) was completed by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI) to characterize any natural features and identify significant and sensitive features that have the potential to be impacted by the Blair Creek Drive extension. The study area for the purposes of MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 6 the NER was the area within 120m of the slated Blair Creek Drive extension west of Reidel Drive. A desktop review of existing natural heritage information was completed to scope the project determine the study approach. Field surveys were undertaken in the spring and summer of 2023 to map and classify vegetation communities, inventory trees within the subject property, and confirm habitat for Species at Risk (SAR) and Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) for birds and bats. The review confirmed that there are no significant and sensitive natural features within the Blair Creek Drive Extension study area. The proposed construction is primarily contained within an agricultural field, and all natural heritage features are located 120m or greater in distance away. Nine trees were inventoried as part of the field work. Four of the trees were identified as candidate SAR bat roost trees. Prior to commencing the field investigations, a wooded area just east of Reidel Drive had been removed, as well as the majority of the trees associated with the farmstead. Some trees along the western boundary (future Strasburg Road corridor) had been tagged by others, prior to NRSI arriving on-site. Further details are contained in the NER in Appendix C including maps of the Study Area and Designated Significant Natural Features and Existing Conditions, and the tree inventory data including species and overall health. 2.3.2 Source Water Protection, Drainage and Stormwater Source Water Protection source water protection conditions in the study area and potential for drinking water threats. The study area is located within a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area (SGRA) with a medium level of Intrinsic Vulnerability. No other sensitivities were identified related to groundwater, and none related to surface water. Drainage and Stormwater The study area falls within the Grand River Watershed and the Blair Creek Subwatershed and falls under the jurisdiction of the Grand River Conservation Authority. The study area is adjacent to the Roseville Swamp Cedar Creek Wetland Complex Regionally Significant Woodland and Provincially Significant Wetland within the Blair Creek Natural Area. Blair Creek flows through the northeast portion of the property at 271 Reidel Drive but no watercourse is mapped within the study area. Surface runoff is limited as the site is located in an area of highly permeable soils conducive to high rates of infiltration and storage during storm events. 2.3.3 Groundwater, Geotechnical, Environmental/Soils Conditions A geotechnical investigation was conducted by MTE in May 2023 to determine soil and groundwater conditions through the study area and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for servicing, excavations and dewatering, low impact development (LID) feasibility, pavement structure design and construction and pavement drainage requirements. The subsurface soils along the proposed roadway location generally are comprised of topsoil, overlying native granular deposits consisting of sand, silty sand to sandy silt and/or gravelly sand layers, with areas of fill material overlying the native soils. Based on the results of the investigation, construction of the new road and associated services is feasible for the proposed location. MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 7 A hydrogeological report was prepared by Stantec in 2022 for the site on behalf of the property owner. MTE reviewed the report and determined that no additional hydrogeological work was necessary to include in the scope of the EA. During the geotechnical investigation, saturated conditions were not encountered within the anticipated construction depths, therefore no monitoring wells were installed. In conjunction with the geotechnical field work, a preliminary environmental soil quality assessment was undertaken. Representative soil samples were collected from the boreholes for chemical analyses. No visual or olfactory evidence of environmental impact (staining, odour, presence of deleterious debris) was observed during the field activities. However, sample results indicate the presence of concentrations of Benzene, Toluene and Xylenes, which is suspected may have been caused by impacted groundwater flowing near this location at some point in time. The soil is suitable for reuse on site. attached in Appendix C. 2.4 Cultural Heritage Environment 2.4.1 Built Cultural Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the study area was conducted by Archaeological Research Associates Limited (ARA) based on a site-specific Terms of Reference provided by or adjacent to the project location. The primary residence at 271 Reidel Drive is listed as a non- designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register (Built Heritage Resource BHR-1). The study area is located adjacent to the Reidel Drive Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL-1) which was identified in the Cultural Heritage Landscape Study, approved by Council in 2015. A site visit was conducted on July 7, 2023, including the exterior and interior of the residential structure. BHR-1 underwent a O. Reg. 9/06 heritage evaluation and met two criteria, indicating that it may be worthy of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. On the evening of November 12, 2023, the house at 271 Reidel Drive caught fire. It was observed that many of the proposed heritage attributes of the residence were destroyed. The one storey stone construction section with gable peak and some window openings remains. The complete HIA can be found in Appendix C. 2.4.2 Archaeology Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessments of 271 Reidel Drive have been completed by Stantec on behalf of the developer. The Stage 1 archaeological assessment determined that the study area retained potential for the identification and documentation of archaeological resources and Stage 2 archaeological assessment was recommended. The Stage 2 survey resulted in the recording of 13 new archaeological locations and 36 pre-contact Indigenous isolated findspots. During the Stage 2 archaeological assessment, Stantec archaeologists were joined by representatives from Mississauga of the Credit First Nation, Six Nations of the Grand River, and the Haudenosaunee Development Institute. Additional Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, and Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment is recommended for some locations within the study area. The reports were submitted to and accepted by the Minister of Citizenship MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 8 and Multiculturalism (MCM) and entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports. The Blair Creek Drive Extension study area is covered by these existing archaeological scope. 2.5 Municipal Infrastructure There is no existing Municipal Infrastructure within the study area. Sanitary sewer, storm sewer and watermain will be designed and incorporated into the new road and tie into surrounding infrastructure to service development north of the Blair Creek Drive Extension as per the Dundee North Secondary Plan. At the eastern limit, Reidel Drive will be a 2-lane road with a 16.2m right-of-way and 1.8m wide sidewalks on either side. Blair Creek Drive continuing east of Reidel Drive will be a 2-lane collector road with on-road bike lanes and a 24.8m right-of-way width. There is a 525mm sanitary sewer proposed under Blair Creek Drive east of Reidel Drive. At the western limit, the future Strasburg Road will be a 4-lane road secondary arterial road with multi-use trails on either side and a 30m right-of-way width. There is a 300mm diameter watermain proposed under Strasburg Road. The Blair Creek Drive extension should provide continuous connection of active transportation facilities. Utilities and lighting will be planned and installed to support the development. 3.0 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES 3.1 Problem and Opportunity Statement Based on a review of the background information and planning context, the problem/opportunity statement for the project was developed. The Municipal Class EA addresses the following Problem/Opportunity Statement: A new City of Kitchener major community collector street is required to provide east- west access and connectivity within the planned new community of Dundee North in southwest Kitchener. The need for this road has been established and is supported by the City of Kitchener Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan. An extension of Blair Creek Drive between Reidel Drive and the future Strasburg Road will allow for multi- modal movement of people and goods between the internal road system and the surroundin Complete Streets by providing a balanced and safe environment for drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and transit users alike. The Blair Creek Drive extension will include on-street parking, cycling facilities, sidewalks and trees to create a functional and aesthetically pleasing streetscape for homes, schools and other properties located along the street. The purpose of this project is to determine an alignment for the extension of Blair Creek Drive and its intersection with Strasburg Road, along with storm sewer and watermain, to serve planned community growth and associated travel demand. MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 9 3.2 Evaluation Criteria Prior to developing the Alternative Solutions, evaluation criteria were established to assist in generating and evaluating the options. Criteria Description Natural Environment What are the effects on vegetation, water quality, habitat, wetlands, woodlands, and/or species at risk. Social/Cultural What is the Environment traffic operations, etc.) Are there impacts to the local community (noise, parking, construction, etc.) Heritage/Archaeological What are the impacts to potential heritage resources (existing Environment buildings/structures or landscapes) What are the impacts on archaeological resources Property Impacts Are there impacts to existing/future land uses Technical/City Feasibility of construction and operation Standards What are the space requirements for surface and underground infrastructure Does the alternative adhere to existing planning documents Costs Capital cost of implementation of each alternative Maintenance cost Climate Change Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions Stormwater runoff 4.0 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS 4.1 Development of Alternatives A range of options were developed to address the problem statement. Each alternative runs in a straight east-west alignment from the point of intersection of the existing/planned Blair Creek Drive east of Reidel Drive. Four (4) alternatives were considered for the Blair Creek Drive Extension as follows: Alternative 1 24.8m Right-of-Way Alternative 2 26.0m Right-of-Way with Cycle Tracks Alternative 3 26.0m Right-of-Way with Bike Lanes Alternative 4 Do nothing MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 10 When developing the alternatives, the project team considered whether an additional alternative with a curved alignment should be included. Since there were no natural environmental features to avoid and additional cost required to design and construct a less direct roadway, this alternative was screened out and not brought forward to the evaluation stage. The above alternatives were presented to the interested parties at the Public Information Centre (PIC). The cross-sections are shown in Figures 4.0 6.0, and the full plan/profile views are included in Appendix D. The plan views incorporate sample mid-block intersections with minor collector roads. The number and location of these intersections are not part of the scope of this project and will be confirmed later through development planning. The purpose of showing the intersections with the alternatives is to provide a visual example of how this section of Blair Creek Drive could look in the future and demonstrate opportunities for traffic calming. 4.2 Detailed Description of Alternatives 4.2.1 Alternative 1 24.8m ROW The first alternative is a two-lane road with a 24.8m right-of-way. This cross-section matches the existing cross-section of Blair Creek Drive east of Reidel Drive. The overall width of the asphalt is 14.8m from the front of curb. The driving lanes are 3.5m wide, with 1.5m bike lanes and 2.4m parking lanes along both sides of the road. The boulevards are 3.2m wide and the sidewalks are 1.5m wide. 4.2.2 Alternative 2 26.0m ROW with Cycle Tracks The second alternative is a two-lane road with a 26.0m right-of-way. This cross-section matches the preferred cross- Complete Streets Guidelines. The overall width of the asphalt is 9m from the front of curb. The driving lanes are 3.3m wide with a 2.4m wide parking lane on one side only. The boulevards are 4m wide and the cycle tracks are set back from the road within the boulevard. The cycle tracks are 1.6m wide and the sidewalks are 1.8m wide on both sides. There is a 0.2m buffer to separate the cyclists and pedestrians. 4.2.3 Alternative 3 26.0m ROW with Bike Lanes The third alternative is a two-lane road with a 26.0m right-of-way. This cross-section matches the alternative cross- Complete Streets Guidelines. The overall width of the asphalt is 14.6m from the front of curb. The driving lanes are 3.3m wide with a 2.4m parking lane on one side only. There are 2.4m wide bike lanes on each side of the road, with a 0.4m safety buffer between the bike lanes and the driving or parking lane. The boulevards are 3.1m wide and the sidewalks are 1.8m wide. 4.2.4 Do Nothing Environmental Class Assessment process and evaluates the advantages and disadvantages assuming the project is stopped completely and does not progress any further. MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 11 12 2024 March | 24.8m ROW .0: Alternative 1 4 Figure nvironmental Assessment Project File E Blair Creek Drive Extension | 100 - 53018 | Consultants MTE 13 2024 March | 26.0m ROW with Cycle Track 26.0m ROW with Cycle Track - 2 .0: Alternative 2 .0: Alternative nvironmental Assessment Project File 5 5 E Figure Figure Blair Creek Drive Extension | 100 - 53018 | Consultants MTE 14 2024 March | 26.0m ROW with Bike Lane .0: Alternative 3 6 nvironmental Assessment Project File E Figure Blair Creek Drive Extension | 100 - 53018 | Consultants MTE 5.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Evaluation Matrix The initial evaluation of the alternatives was completed prior to the Public Information Centre so that the alternatives as well as the preferred solution could be presented to the public. An evaluation matrix was developed to evaluate and score each option according to the following criteria: Natural Environment Social/Cultural Environment Heritage/Archaeological Environment Disruption to Existing or Future Land Uses (Property Impacts) Technical/City Standards Costs Climate Change Each alternative was rated based on its ability to meet each criterion using a poor to good scaling as shown in Figure 7.0. Figure 7.0: Alternatives Scoring A detailed evaluation matrix was completed with input from various City departments (Table 1.0). A summary of the evaluation, the main advantages and disadvantages of each alternative (shown below in Tables 2.0 and 3.0), as well as the preferred alternative were presented at the Public Information Centre. MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 15 Table 1.0: Evaluation Summary of Design Alternatives (Presented at PIC) MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 16 5.2 Preferred Alternative Based on the results of the evaluation, Alternative 2, with a 26.0m right-of-way and cycle tracks is preferred because it has the least negative impacts, fully addresses the problems, and takes advantage of the opportunities. A straight road alignment has no significant negative impacts to the surrounding environment, and establishes the east-west collector road as intended through past planning processes, enhancing the overall transportation network and supporting future community growth and development. Given the lack of significant natural features, a wider right-of-way was chosen to provide the ideal cross-The Preferred Alternative cross-section provides a continuation of a safe, network with the cycle tracks grade-separated from the driving and parking lanes. Wide, 1.8m sidewalks are AODA compliant, and large boulevards provide ample opportunity for future tree planting, streetscaping, low-impact development features and winter snow storage, which all contribute to a high-quality pedestrian environment. Alternative 2 allows for a variety of transportation choices which will support the new Dundee North community and the surrounding existing neighbourhoods. Storm and watermain will follow a direct alignment in accordance with standard City of Kitchener cross-sections. 6.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 6.1 Impacts 6.1.1 Excess Soils Excess soil regulations must be followed through design and construction. On-site reuse of soil within the project area should be prioritized through efficient design and cut and fill planning, particularly in the areas where the concentrations of Benzene, Toluene and/or Xylenes were present. Off-site disposal of this material could result in a significant increase in construction cost since it must go to either a landfill or a Class 1 site. If dewatering is required during construction, it is noted that the groundwater may be impaired with Benzene, Toluene and/or Xylenes. 6.1.2 Natural Heritage and Cultural Heritage Environment Natural Heritage The proposed undertaking may result in the removal of a small number of trees near the intersection with Reidel Drive, including two candidate SAR bat roost trees. This is considered to represent a proportionally small and negligible impact in the local landscape and can be mitigated through the following measures: All vegetation and tree removal is to be completed outside of the peak breeding bird period The candidate bat maternity roost trees are to be removed outside the active bat roosting period MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 23 Standard erosion and sediment control (ESC), and dust control measures should be implemented to limit dust settling on any adjacent vegetation/trees being retained. Cultural Heritage Identified impacts to the Built Heritage Resource: 271 Reidel Drive include a change in land use for a portion of the subject property from agricultural to transportation. The creation of a new road has the potential to impact the grade and drainage patterns which may adversely affect unknown archaeological resources. Identified impacts to the Cultural Heritage Resource: Reidel Drive Cultural Heritage Landscape include loss of vegetation that abuts the roadside and defines the edge of Reidel Drive, and the potential to detract from the character or visual context of Reidel Road CHL as the new urban road cross-- along Reidel Drive. While not all the impacts can be mitigated by their nature, there are some measures that can be implemented: Avoid use of the lands directly surrounding the farmstead and its heritage attributes at 271 Reidel Drive as construction and staging areas Remove only the required/minimal amount of roadside vegetation definining the road edge on Reidel Drive Consider commemoration of the Reidel Drive CHL and/or the 271 Reidel Drive BHR through the inclusion of signage, plaques, or public art with a design sympathetic to the character of the area The recommendations of the archaeological assessments completed by Stantec are to be followed. 6.1.3 Construction Impacts: Noise, Vibration, Air Quality, Access/Staging Noise and Vibration A noise study was not completed as part of the scope of this project as the surrounding area is primarily agricultural and slated for future development. The existing dwellings/businesses are located well outside of the Blair Creek Drive extension corridor and therefore are not considered to be highly sensitive to noise or vibration impact. It is anticipated that Noise Impact Assessments for the overall property will be completed as part of the Dundee North Secondary planning process. The potential for construction noise and vibration issues will be further reviewed during detailed design. Air Quality An air quality assessment was not undertaken as part of the scope of this project as the surrounding area is primarily agricultural and slated for future development. During construction of the roadway, emissions sources including from construction equipment, and airborne dust, will be temporarily present. Industry best practice will be employed during construction to mitigate these impacts. Some examples of this are: Ensuring all motorized equipment is in good condition, properly and regularly maintained, and compliant with applicable federal and provincial regulations. MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 24 Ensuring all equipment is well maintained and operated in accordance with the Locating stationary equipment as far away from sensitive receptors as practical. Implementing a Dust Management Plan for the full duration of construction activities with the use of non-chloride dust suppressants. Access/Staging Staging will need to be determined and including how and when motorists using Reidel Drive will be impacted. Reidel Drive is currently an access to the residence at 500 Stauffer Drive. Local access only or a detour using Stauffer Drive can be implemented if necessary and marked and signed accordingly. 6.1.4 Climate Change/Sustainability The City of Kitchener is committed to the TransformWR strategy to mitigate climate change in Waterloo Region which has set a goal of an 80% greenhouse gas emission reduction by 2050. One of the 5 main focus areas is transportation. The Blair Creek Drive extension will comprise a key part of the overall strategy for the Dundee North Secondary plan to create a sustainable, mixed-use community with multi-modal transportation options. The inclusion of all ages and abilities cycle tracks, wide sidewalks, tree canopy and attractive streetscaping will ideally reduce single occupant vehicle use. Building finer-grain, efficient road networks creates more route options, limits extra travel distances and reduces associated vehicle emissions from vehicles. Emissions from construction equipment can be mitigated using industry best practice. 6.1.5 Integration with Secondary Plan and Surrounding Development Detailed design of the Blair Creek Drive Extension will most likely proceed in coordination with the phasing of the development on the Activa land. The development plans are subject to the land use outcomes of the Dundee North Secondary Plan currently underway by the City of Kitchener as well as other development requirements and approvals. While the alignment is generally proposed as an east-west corridor, the number of mid-block intersections and their locations are not yet known. Other land use features such as institutional (i.e. a school) will require special provisions for parking and student transportation to be incorporated into the road design. Streetscape design will be completed as per the development plan. 6.1.6 Drainage and Stormwater Management A new road with hard surfaces will create stormwater runoff that must be managed according to City of Kitchener and MECP design criteria. It is assumed that the overall drainage and stormwater management plan for the 271 Reidel Drive property will be designed as part of the Activa site development. The preliminary design (Appendix D) for the Blair Creek Drive extension includes a storm sewer that will collect the runoff from the roadway and outlet to a future stormwater management facility, with the exact location of the outlet and SWM pond still to be determined. Should the Blair Creek Drive extension be constructed prior to the development, an interim storm design will be necessary to capture and treat runoff from the roadway. This could be accomplished by running a deeper storm sewer along Blair Creek Drive and connecting into the storm sewer heading north along Reidel Drive, which has an outlet point MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 25 directed east towards the Stauffer Woods development. Low-impact development features should be explored during detailed design to reduce the overall quantity of storm runoff and take advantage of the naturally permeable soils and low groundwater table in the area. 6.1.7 Sanitary Sewer Preliminary design of sanitary sewer along the Blair Creek Drive extension was not initially considered part of the scope of the project. The City then requested that MTE address this issue, and review how the City could maximize the catchment area that would feed into a Blair Creek Drive trunk sanitary sewer. After a background review of existing and ongoing studies/investigations MTE learned that the sanitary trunk sewer for the greater surrounding area will likely not follow the alignment of Blair Creek Drive due to the depths required. MTE and the City agreed that the sanitary sewer should remain outside of the scope of this EA given that land use has not yet been determined. The preliminary design drawings do not include a sanitary sewer, however the need for a local sewer can be explored with size and depth to be confirmed during the detailed design and development planning process. 6.1.8 Water and Utilities The City and developer will engage with Kitchener Utilities, Enova Power, and other utility companies during the detailed design of the Blair Creek Drive extension to determine the needs and coordinate design and installation, as per the Dundee North Secondary Plan and approved site development plan. While Enova is not currently planning to extend the power line along the Blair Creek Drive extension, this may change in the future. 7.0 CONSULTATION 7.1 Notice of Project Commencement From the outset of this study, public involvement was recognized as being important to the overall success of the assignment. A formal Notice of Study Commencement was published in The Kitchener Record on April 28, 2023, to advise the Public of the Class EA process and provide notification that the EA study for the Blair Creek Drive extension was to proceed. In addition to the newspaper advertisement, the Notice of Commencement was mailed to residences within the project area and non-resident property owners/developers. Stakeholders and agencies were emailed a copy on the same date. A project page was established on the (EngageWR) website where copies of all notices and other project information were posted online. Copies of all notices are included in Appendix B. 7.2 Public Information Centre A Notice of Public Information Centre (PIC) was sent to all residents, property owners/developers, stakeholders, agencies and other interested parties identified in response to the Notice of Study Commencement, by mail or email on September 1, 2023. On the same day, the Notice of PIC was posted online on the EngageWR project page and published in the MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 26 Kitchener Record. The letter invited the public to attend the PIC to view and comments on the alternatives and the preferred solution for the Blair Creek Drive Extension. 7.2.1 PIC The PIC was hosted on September 20, 2023, in person at the Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre. The public was able to view the display boards, speak with the Project Team, and provide feedback through comment sheets or the Engage website. The display boards featured the purpose of the project, the problem/opportunity statement, an overview of the study area and the studies being completed, the design alternatives, design criteria, evaluation matrix and the preferred alternative. The PIC boards were posted online on the EngageWR project page the next day. The PIC display boards are included in Appendix B. Comment sheets were available but no written feedback was received after the PIC. One email from a member of the public was received after the PIC which expressed support for the preferred alternative, along with other comments unrelated to the scope of this project. The email was addressed by the Project Team. 7.3 Agency Correspondence Appendix A includes a log of all communications conducted with various agencies for this project, as well as copies of communications (emails, letters, etc.). Some key contact with agencies is as follows: 7.3.1 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) The MECP was provided the Notice of Commencement and the notification of PIC via email by MTE Consultants Inc. The MECP responded with a letter of acknowledgement. 7.3.2 Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) The Grand River Conservation Authority was provided the Notice of Commencement and the notification of PIC via email by MTE Consultants Inc. 7.3.3 Indigenous Consultation of the Grand River Elected Council, and Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council were provided the Notice of Commencement, the notification of PIC, and the PIC documents via email by MTE Consultants Inc. Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council responded to the Notice of Commencement and the notification of PIC. They requested clarification of the project area which MTE provided. No other comments have been received as of the time of writing of this report. It was noted that archaeological work is not being completed as part of this study, as this area has been covered by recent Stage 1 and Stage 2 investigations by Stantec. 7.3.4 City of Kitchener Council Ayo Owodunni, Ward 5 City Councillor, received the Notice of Commencement. The Blair Creek Drive Extension submitted to the Standing Committee on March 25, 2024. MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 27 7.4 Notice of Study Completion Upon Council approval, a Notification of Study Completion will be advertised and filed with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. The Notice of Study Completion will also be emailed to the interested parties. This Project File Report will be available for public viewing for a period of 30 days. 8.0 PERMITS/APPROVALS AND NEXT STEPS 8.1 Approvals During the detailed design phase of the project, there will be several submissions that will need to be made regarding various elements of the project: Feature Approval Details Timing Storm Sewers Storm sewer design, including OGS units and 90% Detailed any Low Impact Development features will Design require CLI-ECA submission to the City. Sanitary Sewers Sanitary sewer design will require CLI-ECA 90% Detailed submission to the City. Design Watermain design will require a Form 1 100% Detailed Watermain submission to the City. Design 8.2 Next Steps A 30-day public and agency review period will follow the submission of this report. At the conclusion of this period, the detailed design phase of the project may continue. The drawings and documents must incorporate all the environmental and mitigation measures identified in this report to avoid and mitigate adverse impacts. These mitigation measures will be expanded upon where necessary during detailed design. The City should maintain ongoing coordination with interested parties, the public, utilities and emergency services throughout the design and construction phases. 8.3 Construction Staging As the project transitions from the Class EA phase to the detailed design phase, there will be much more focus on the construction staging and timing of construction. Currently, it is anticipated that the detailed design phase will take place in 2025, with an expected construction start of 2026. This may be subject to the completion of the Strasburg Road construction which at the time of writing this report is expected to begin in 2025. In addition, development plans are underway for the subject property and it is likely that the Blair Creek Drive extension will be designed and built along with the development. During the detailed design phase, the Project Team and the City will need to coordinate with the Strasburg Road Project Team and the Developer to determine the ideal timing of the work. MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 28 8.3.1 Project Cost Estimate As part of the preliminary design, a construction cost estimate was completed. A significant portion of the overall construction cost will be earthworks which can be further refined through adjustment of the road profile to minimize cut/excess soil. The project cost estimate is as follows: Site Preparation, Removals and Traffic Control $ 1,145,000 Road Works $ 1,525,000 Storm Sewer $ 850,000 Watermain $ 750,000 Allowances (street lighting, line painting, contaminated material) $ 200,000 Sub-Total $ 4,470,000 Miscellaneous (15%) $ 670,500 Contingency (20%) $ 894,000 Engineering (20%) $ 894,000 Total Estimated Construction Cost $ 6,928,500 8.4 Preliminary Design In addition to this Project File Report, MTE Consultants prepared a preliminary (30%) design of the preferred alternative (Appendix D). The plans include a preliminary plan and profile of Blair Creek Drive between Reidel Drive and Strasburg Road, along with preliminary sizing and alignment of underground watermain and storm sewer. Prior to completing the preliminary design, City staff will have an opportunity to review and provide comments. Coordination with all relevant departments and developers will be crucial to preparing servicing plans that meet the needs of all interested parties. The decisions that are made during the preliminary design will be the foundation of the detailed designs for the extension of Blair Creek Drive. The detailed road and servicing design will be determined subject to the Secondary Plan land use objectives and the approval of future development plans on the property. MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 29 9.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS As part of the Class EA process, the Do Nothing Alternative, along with three (3) Design Alternatives for the extension of Blair Creek Drive were evaluated. Following a Schedule B Class EA process, a Preferred Alternative was selected for the alignment of the roadway. Alternative 2, a straight, 26.0m ROW with separated cycle tracks was selected to go forward with preliminary design. The alternative selected meets the future transportation and servicing needs of the City, developers and interested parties. 9.1 Recommendations During detailed design, the Project Team should further evaluate the opportunity to include low impact development (LID) features, specifically boulevard bioretention. Based on existing groundwater levels, and local soil conditions, LID measures should be generally feasible, however due to layers of silty sand to sandy silt being present, insitu infiltration testing should be performed in areas of proposed LID measure to accurately measure the infiltration of the soils in those areas. Once locations of mid-block intersections are known, the Project Team should incorporate protected intersections for pedestrian and cyclist crossings, along with traffic calming measures such as tighter corner radii/curb bump outs. The proposed 300mm diameter watermain should be checked against development plans to ensure sizing is still appropriate. It is assumed that the construction of Blair Creek Drive will proceed in tandem with the development. Storm runoff from the roadway will be stormwater management plan and outlet to one of the stormwater management ponds located on the site. Should the road go to construction ahead of the development, an interim stormwater management solution will need to be designed for road drainage. Groundwater should be tested for impacts if dewatering will be required during construction. Photometric analysis should be included in detailed lighting design. Analysis should include the active transportation infrastructure. Enova Power and other local utilities should be circulated for input on the detailed design. The City should consider including underground infrastructure to support future improvements to the pedestrian crossings during detailed design. This would include underground conduit for future signalization of the intersections at Strasburg Road and/or Reidel Drive if warranted. Reidel Drive will be closed to through traffic north of Blair Creek Drive and become a municipally owned private driveway to maintain access to 500 Stauffer Drive. MTE Consultants | 53018-100 | Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment Project File | March 2024 30 Appendix A Correspondence Ext. Phone 519-445-2201 Email communications@mncfn.caLRCS@sixnations.cadlaforme@sixnations.cainfo@hdi.land Mailing Address 1695 Chiefswood Rd, PO Box 5000Oshweken, ON N0A 1M0 Contact Name and Title Peter GrahamDawn LaForme Community ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES Mississaugas of the Credit First NationSix Nations of the Grand River Elected Council (SNGREC)Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) Lyndsay Dokas From:Barry Cronkite <Barry.Cronkite@kitchener.ca> Sent:Thursday, September 21, 2023 3:43 PM To:Niall Melanson; Christine Goulet; Darren Kropf; Steven Ryder; Vince Pugliese; Lyndsay Dokas Subject:RE: Closing Reidel Drive You don't often get email from barry.cronkite@kitchener.ca.Learn why this is important Thanks Niall. I think that we can still close Reidel Drive at Blair Creek and turn it into a municipally owned private driveway essentially. Emergency gates on Stauffer/Caryndale and Stauffer/Riedel would also be required. The reality is that we can’t keep Stauffer/Riedel open to through traffic in the condition that they’re in. Thanks Barry From: Niall Melanson <Niall.Melanson@kitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 10:03 AM To: Barry Cronkite <Barry.Cronkite@kitchener.ca>; Christine Goulet <Christine.Goulet@kitchener.ca>; Darren Kropf <Darren.Kropf@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; 'Vince Pugliese' <vpugliese@mte85.com>; Lyndsay Dokas <ldokas@mte85.com> Subject: RE: Closing Reidel Drive Good morning Transportation MTE and the City hosted the Blair Creek Drive PIC last night. Representatives from 500 Stauffer Drive were extremely adamant that they did not want a future driveway connection to Strasburg Road and requested that the access to the property remain down Reidel Drive. I told them that the scope of the PIC was to discuss the Blair Creek Drive Extension and there were no finalized plans for Reidel Drive but that I would take their comments back to the Transportation Division. I will leave this with Transportation and please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Niall Melanson, C.E.T. Project Manager, Development Engineering, City of Kitchener niall.melanson@kitchener.ca, 519-741-2200 x 7133 200 King St. W., Kitchener, ON N2G 4GX From: Niall Melanson Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 1:42 PM To: Barry Cronkite <Barry.Cronkite@kitchener.ca>; Christine Goulet <Christine.Goulet@kitchener.ca>; Darren Kropf <Darren.Kropf@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Vince Pugliese <vpugliese@mte85.com>; Lyndsay Dokas <ldokas@mte85.com> Subject: Closing Reidel Drive Hello Everyone. 1 Further to our Teams meeting today the following topics were agreed upon: 1)A driveway from the Strasburg Road extension to 500 Stauffer Drive will not be required. 2)Stauffer Drive will be closed at Reidel Drive. MTE/Paradigm will need to revise the traffic study which is part of the Blair Creek Drive EA. 3)Reidel Drive will remain open between New Dundee Road and future Blair Creek Drive. 4)Reidel Drive between future Blair Creek Drive and Stauffer Drive will become the access point for 500 Stauffer Drive. The access will be choked off similar to a driveway entrance and a ‘No Exit’ sign will be posted. The City will retain ownership of the right-of-way. 5)Transportation Division will review if it is feasible for Reidel Drive between future Blair Creek Drive and Stauffer Drive to have a bylaw passed closing it as a right-of-way and therefore eliminating the maintenance requirements. Please advise if there are any revisions required to the above. Barry – As discussed please forward to Leslie MacDonald in Legal for comment. Thank you. Niall Melanson, C.E.T. Project Manager, Development Engineering, City of Kitchener niall.melanson@kitchener.ca, 519-741-2200 x 7133 200 King St. W., Kitchener, ON N2G 4GX 2 Lyndsay Dokas From:Niall Melanson <Niall.Melanson@kitchener.ca> Sent:Tuesday, September 26, 2023 4:44 PM To:'KELLI KUZYK'; Vince Pugliese Subject:RE: Blair Creek Drive Extension Hello Kelli I will forward your email along to Transportation and keep a record of it. Thanks again. Niall Melanson, C.E.T. Project Manager, Development Engineering, City of Kitchener niall.melanson@kitchener.ca, 519-741-2200 x 7133 200 King St. W., Kitchener, ON N2G 4GX From: KELLI KUZYK <kkuzyk@rogers.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 3:38 PM To: vpugliese@mte85.com; Niall Melanson <Niall.Melanson@kitchener.ca> Cc: Kelli Kuzyk <kkuzyk@rogers.com> Subject: Re: Blair Creek Drive Extension You don't often get email fromkkuzyk@rogers.com.Learn why this is important Hi Niall. Are you able to pass on my comments about Stauffer and Reidel to the Transportation Division or can you provide me with a name of someone to contact? With thanks, Kelli On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 01:42:23 p.m. EDT, Niall Melanson <niall.melanson@kitchener.ca> wrote: Good afternoon Kelli Thank you for your email. I can only provide comments based on the scope of my assignment which is Blair Creek Drive. Future road closures would be reviewed by the Transportation Division. Enjoy your day. Niall Melanson, C.E.T. Project Manager, Development Engineering, City of Kitchener 1 niall.melanson@kitchener.ca, 519-741-2200 x 7133 200 King St. W., Kitchener, ON N2G 4GX From: KELLI KUZYK <kkuzyk@rogers.com> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 2:18 PM To: Niall Melanson <Niall.Melanson@kitchener.ca>;vpugliese@mte85.com Cc: Kelli Kuzyk <kkuzyk@rogers.com> Subject: Blair Creek Drive Extension Good Afternoon... Further to attending last Wednesday night, I did want to confirm my comments in writing. In terms of the Blair Creek Extension, I am in favour of it and the alignment looks reasonable. I would however like to urge that both Stauffer and Reidel remain open for future. Using these roads out of Doon South and Brigadoon is a huge timesaver to get to the 401 Westbound at Cedar Creek Road aka Highway 97. Across New Dundee Road from Reidel, the road name changes to Cameron which leads to Roseville Road.On Roseville Road, you have the option to go west to Industrial Road to access Cedar Creek Road and the 401 westbound exit OR go east to go into Cambridge or access North Dumphries Road to Cedar Creek Road. Using the Blair Creek or Robert Ferrie Extensions which lead to Strasburg Road to then New Dundee Road will make for a convoluted road system and force back tracking which would be unnecessary. I do recognize that some roadwork to Reidel and Stauffer would be necessary but not to the extent to adding shoulders, rather new pavement and fixing up of potholes etc. The Robert Ferrie Extension is also critical to add to the infrastructure so that people from Doon South can also access Strasburg Road as an alternate to Blair Creek. With a subdivision this large, two exits are definitely needed. Lastly, Niall, I am sure you are aware of the proposed Biehn Drive Extension going through a wetland as part of the Master Transportation Plan. I do not support the Biehn Drive Extension for the various reasons Delegations have pointed out to City Council earlier this year but do support this group's proposed solution of Alternate 4. With that said, the Robert Ferrie Extension becomes critical to the Brigadoon residents living west of McLeod Court off of Biehn Drive to access Strasburg Road via Caryndale Drive to Robert Ferrie. As part of the Working Group opposing the Biehn Drive Extension, we continue to wait on the final EA work City Council requested prior to they making any decision. 2 Sincerely, Kelli Kuzyk 3 Ministry of the Environment, Ministèr Conservation and Parks de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs Environmental Assessment Direction des évaluations Branch environnementales st 1 Floor Rez-de-chaussée 135 St. Clair Avenue W 135, avenue St. Clair Ouest Toronto ON M4V 1P5 Toronto ON M4V 1P5 Tel.: 416 314-8001 Tél. : 416 314-8001 Fax.: 416 314-8452 Téléc. : 416 314-8452 October 13, 2023 Niall Melanson City of Kitchener Email: niall.melanson@kitchener.ca Vince Pugliese MTE Consultants Inc Email: vpugliese@mte85.com BY EMAIL ONLY Re: Blair Creek Drive Extension City of Kitchener Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, Schedule B Acknowledgement of Notice of Commencement Dear Project Team, This letter is in response to the Notice of Commencement for the above noted project. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) acknowledges that the City of Kitchener (proponent) has indicated that the study is following the approved environmental planning process for a Schedule B project under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA). The updated (August 2022) of interest in the EA documentation at an appropriate level for the EA study. Proponents who address all the applicable areas of interest can minimize potential delays to the project schedule. Further information is provided at the end of the Areas of Interest document relating to recent changes to the Environmental Assessment Act through Bill 197, Covid-19 Economic Recovery Act 2020. The Crown has a legal duty to consult Aboriginal communities when it has knowledge, real or constructive, of the existence or potential existence of an Aboriginal or treaty right and contemplates conduct that may adversely impact that right. Before authorizing this project, the Crown must ensure that its duty to consult has been fulfilled, where such a duty is triggered. Although the duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples is a duty of the Crown, the Crown may delegate procedural aspects of this duty to project proponents while retaining oversight of the consultation process. The proposed project may have the potential to affect Aboriginal or treaty rights protected Constitution Act triggered in relation to the proposed project, the MECP is delegating the procedural aspects of rights-based consultation to the proponent through this letter. The Crown intends to rely on the delegated consultation process in discharging its duty to consult and maintains the right to participate in the consultation process as it sees fit. Based on information provided to date and the Crown`s preliminary assessment the proponent is required to consult with the following communities who have been identified as potentially affected by the proposed project: Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation Six Nations of the Grand River o Elected Council, and o Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) Steps that the proponent may need to take in relation to Aboriginal consultation for the Environmental Assessment Process Assessment Act is available online at: www.ontario.ca/environmentalassessments. communities. The proponent must contact the Director of Environmental Assessment Branch (EABDirector@ontario.ca) under the following circumstances after initial discussions with the communities identified by the MECP: Aboriginal or treaty rights impacts are identified to you by the communities; You have reason to believe that your proposed project may adversely affect an Aboriginal or treaty right; Consultation with Indigenous communities or other stakeholders has reached an impasse; or A Section 16 Order request is expected based on impacts to Aboriginal or treaty rights The MECP will then assess the extent of any Crown duty to consult for the circumstances and will consider whether additional steps should be taken, including what role you will be asked to play should additional steps and activities be required. A draft copy of the report should be sent directly to me prior to the filing of the final report, allowing a minimum of 30 Please also ensure a copy of the final notice is sent to the minisWest Central Region EA notification email account (eanotification.wcregion@ontario.ca) after the draft report is reviewed and finalized. Should you or any members of your project team have any questions regarding the material above, please contact me at Joan.delvillarcuicas@ontario.ca or 365-889-1180. Sincerely, Joan Del Villar C Regional Environmental Planner West Central Region Project Review Unit, Environmental Assessment Branch Cc: Aaron Todd, Guelph District Manager, MECP Zenova Gentles, Administrative Assistant, MTE Consultants Inc. Enclosed: Areas of Interest Attached: A with Aboriginal Communities AREAS OF INTEREST (v. August 2022) It is suggested that you check off each section after you have considered / addressed it. Planning and Policy Applicable plans and policies should be identified in the report, and the proponent should describe how the proposed project adheres to the relevant policies in these plans. o Projects located in MECP Central, Eastern or West Central Region may be subject to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020). o Projects located in MECP Central or Eastern Region may be subject to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2017) or the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (2014). o Projects located in MECP Central, Southwest or West Central Region may be subject to the Niagara Escarpment Plan (2017). o Projects located in MECP Central, Eastern, Southwest or West Central Region may be subject to the Greenbelt Plan (2017). o Projects located in MECP Northern Region may be subject to the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario (2011). The Provincial Policy Statement (2020) heritage and water resources. Applicable policies should be referenced in the report, and the proponent should describe how the proposed project is consistent with these policies. In addition to the provincial planning and policy level, the report should also discuss the planning context at the municipal and federal levels, as appropriate. Source Water Protection The Clean Water Act, 2006 (CWA) aims to protect existing and future sources of drinking water. To achieve this, several types of vulnerable areas have been delineated around surface water intakes and wellheads for every municipal residential drinking water system that is located in a source protection area. These vulnerable areas are known as a Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPAs) and surface water Intake Protection Zones (IPZs). Other vulnerable areas that have been delineated under the CWA include Highly Vulnerable Aquifers (HVAs), Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRAs), Event-based modelling areas (EBAs), and Issues Contributing Areas (ICAs). Source protection plans have been developed that include policies to address existing and future risks to sources of municipal drinking water within these vulnerable areas. Projects that are subject to the Environmental Assessment Act that fall under a Class EA, or one of the Regulations, have the potential to impact sources of drinking water if they occur in designated vulnerable areas or in the vicinity of other at-risk drinking water systems (i.e. systems that are not municipal residential systems). MEA Class EA projects may include activities that, if located in a vulnerable area, could be a threat to sources of drinking water (i.e. have the potential to adversely affect the quality or quantity of drinking water sources) and the activity could therefore be subject to policies in a source protection plan. Where an activity poses a risk to drinking water, policies in the local source protection plan may impact how or where that activity is undertaken. Policies may prohibit certain activities, or they may require risk management measures for these activities. Municipal Official Plans, planning decisions, Class EA projects (where the project includes an activity that is a threat to drinking water) and prescribed instruments must conform with policies that address significant risks to drinking water and must have regard for policies that address moderate or low risks. In October 2015, the MEA Parent Class EA document was amended to include reference to the Clean Water Act (Section A.2.10.6) and indicates that proponents undertaking a Municipal Class EA project must identify early in their process whether a project is or could potentially be occurring with a vulnerable area. Given this requirement, please include a section in the report on source water protection. o The proponent should identify the source protection area and should clearly document how the proximity of the project to sources of drinking water (municipal or other) and any delineated vulnerable areas was considered and assessed. Specifically, the report should discuss whether or not the project is located in a vulnerable area and provide applicable details about the area. o If located in a vulnerable area, proponents should document whether any project activities are prescribed drinking water threats and thus pose a risk to drinking water (this should be consulted on with the appropriate Source Protection Authority). Where an activity poses a risk to drinking water, the proponent must document and discuss in the report how the project adheres to or has regard to applicable policies in the local source protection plan. This section should then be used to inform and be reflected in other sections of the report, such as the identification of net positive/negative effects of alternatives, mitigation measures, evaluation of alternatives etc. While most source protection plans focused on including policies for significant drinking water threats in the WHPAs and IPZs it should be noted that even though source protection plan policies may not apply in HVAs, these are areas where aquifers are sensitive and at risk to impacts and within these areas, activities may impact the quality of sources of drinking water for systems other than municipal residential systems. In order to determine if this project is occurring within a vulnerable area, proponents can use Source Protection Information Atlas, which is an online mapping tool available to the public. Note that various layers (including WHPAs, WHPA-Q1 and WHPA-Q2, IPZs, HVAs, mapping tool will also provide a link to the appropriate source protection plan in order to identify what policies may be applicable in the vulnerable area. For further information on the maps or source protection plan policies which may relate to their project, proponents must contact the appropriate source protection authority. Please consult with the local source protection authority to discuss potential impacts on drinking water. Please document the results of that consultation within the report and include all communication documents/correspondence. More Information For more information on the Clean Water Act, source protection areas and plans, including specific information on the vulnerable areas and drinking water threats, please refer to site where you will also find links to the local source protection plan/assessment report. A list of the prescribed drinking water threats can be found in section 1.1 of Ontario Regulation 287/07 made under the Clean Water Act. In addition to prescribed drinking water threats, some ctivities, as approved by the MECP. Climate Change The document "Considering Climate Change in the Environmental Assessment Process" (Guide) is now a part of the Environmental Assessment program's Guides and Codes of Practice. The Guide sets out the MECP's expectation for considering climate change in the preparation, execution and documentation of environmental assessment studies and processes. The guide provides examples, approaches, resources, and references to assist proponents with consideration of climate change in EA. Proponents should review this Guide in detail. The MECP expects proponents of Class EA projects to: 1. Consider during the assessment of alternative solutions and alternative designs, the following: a. the project's expected production of greenhouse gas emissions and impacts on carbon sinks (climate change mitigation); and b. resilience or vulnerability of the undertaking to changing climatic conditions (climate change adaptation). 2. Include a discrete section in the report detailing how climate change was considered in the EA. How climate change is considered can be qualitative or quantitative in nature and should be In all instances, both a project's impacts on climate change (mitigation) and impacts of climate change on a project (adaptation) should be considered. The MECP has also prepared another guide to support provincial land use planning direction related to the completion of energy and emission plans. The "Community Emissions Reduction Planning: A Guide for Municipalities" document is designed to educate stakeholders on the municipal opportunities to reduce energy and greenhouse gas emissions, and to provide guidance on methods and techniques to incorporate consideration of energy and greenhouse gas emissions into municipal activities of all types. We encourage you to review the Guide for information. Air Quality, Dust and Noise If there are sensitive receptors in the surrounding area of this project, a quantitative air quality/odour impact assessment will be useful to evaluate alternatives, determine impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures. The scope of the assessment can be determined based on the potential effects of the proposed alternatives, and typically includes source and receptor characterization and a quantification of local air quality impacts on the sensitive receptors and the environment in the study area. The assessment will compare to all applicable standards or guidelines for all contaminants of concern. Please contact this office for further consultation on the level of Air Quality Impact Assessment required for this project if not already advised. If a quantitative Air Quality Impact Assessment is not required for the project, the MECP expects that the report contain a qualitative assessment which includes: o A discussion of local air quality including existing activities/sources that significantly impact local air quality and how the project may impact existing conditions; o impacts on present and future sensitive receptors; o A discussion of local air quality impacts that could arise from this project during both construction and operation; and o A discussion of potential mitigation measures. projects. Dust and noise control measures should be addressed and included in the construction plans to ensure that nearby residential and other sensitive land uses within the study area are not adversely affected during construction activities. The MECP recommends that non-chloride dust-suppressants be applied. For a comprehensive list of fugitive dust prevention and control measures that could be applied, refer to Cheminfo Services Inc. Best Practices for the Reduction of Air Emissions from Construction and Demolition Activities report prepared for Environment Canada. March 2005. The report should consider the potential impacts of increased noise levels during the operation of the completed project. The proponent should explore all potential measures to mitigate significant noise impacts during the assessment of alternatives. Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Any impacts to ecosystem form and function must be avoided where possible. The report should describe any proposed mitigation measures and how project planning will protect and enhance the local ecosystem. Natural heritage and hydrologic features should be identified and described in detail to assess potential impacts and to develop appropriate mitigation measures. The following sensitive environmental features may be located within or adjacent to the study area: o Key Natural Heritage Features: Habitat of endangered species and threatened species, fish habitat, wetlands, areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSIs), significant valleylands, significant woodlands; significant wildlife habitat (including habitat of special concern species); sand barrens, savannahs, and tallgrass prairies; and alvars. o Key Hydrologic Features: Permanent streams, intermittent streams, inland lakes and their littoral zones, seepage areas and springs, and wetlands. o Other natural heritage features and areas such as: vegetation communities, rare species of flora or fauna, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas, federal and provincial parks and conservation reserves, Greenland systems etc. We recommend consulting with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and your local conservation authority to determine if special measures or additional studies will be necessary to preserve and protect these sensitive features. In addition, for projects located in Central Region you may consider the provisions of the Rouge Park Management Plan if applicable. Species at Risk The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks has now assumed responsibility of and technical resources to assist you are found at https://www.ontario.ca/page/species- risk. attached to the covering email for your reference and use. Please review this document for next steps. For any questions related to subsequent permit requirements, please contact SAROntario@ontario.ca. Surface Water The report must include enough information to demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or ecological functions of any watercourses within the study area. Measures should be included in the planning and design process to ensure that any impacts to watercourses from construction or operational activities (e.g. spills, erosion, pollution) are mitigated as part of the proposed undertaking. Additional stormwater runoff from new pavement can impact receiving watercourses and flood conditions. Quality and quantity control measures to treat stormwater runoff should be considered for all new impervious areas and, where possible, existing surfaces. The Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (2003) should be referenced in the report and utilized when designing stormwater control methods. A Stormwater Management Plan should be prepared as part of the Class EA process that includes: Strategies to address potential water quantity and erosion impacts related to stormwater draining into streams or other sensitive environmental features, and to ensure that adequate (enhanced) water quality is maintained Watershed information, drainage conditions, and other relevant background information Future drainage conditions, stormwater management options, information on erosion and sediment control during construction, and other details of the proposed works Information on maintenance and monitoring commitments. Ontario Regulation 60/08 under the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) applies to the Lake Simcoe Basin, which encompasses Lake Simcoe and the lands from which surface water drains into Lake Simcoe. If the proposed sewage treatment plant is listed in Table 1 of the regulation, the report should describe how the proposed project and its mitigation measures are consistent with the requirements of this regulation and the OWRA. Any potential approval requirements for surface water taking or discharge should be identified in the report. A Permit to Take Water (PTTW) under the OWRA will be required for any water takings that exceed 50,000 L/day, except for certain water taking activities that have been prescribed by the Water Taking EASR Regulation O. Reg. 63/16. These prescribed water-taking activities require registration in the EASR instead of a PTTW. Please review the Water Taking User Guide for EASR for more information. Additionally, an Environmental Compliance Approval under the OWRA is required for municipal stormwater management works. Groundwater The status of, and potential impacts to any well water supplies should be addressed. If the project involves groundwater takings or changes to drainage patterns, the quantity and quality of groundwater may be affected due to drawdown effects or the redirection of existing contamination flows. In addition, project activities may infringe on existing wells such that they must be reconstructed or sealed and abandoned. Appropriate information to define existing groundwater conditions should be included in the report. If the potential construction or decommissioning of water wells is identified as an issue, the report should refer to Ontario Regulation 903, Wells, under the OWRA. Potential impacts to groundwater-dependent natural features should be addressed. Any changes to groundwater flow or quality from groundwater taking may interfere with the ecological processes of streams, wetlands or other surficial features. In addition, discharging contaminated or high volumes of groundwater to these features may have direct impacts on their function. Any potential effects should be identified, and appropriate mitigation measures should be recommended. The level of detail required will be dependent on the significance of the potential impacts. Any potential approval requirements for groundwater taking or discharge should be identified in the report. A Permit to Take Water (PTTW) under the OWRA will be required for any water takings that exceed 50,000 L/day, with the exception of certain water taking activities that have been prescribed by the Water Taking EASR Regulation O. Reg. 63/16. These prescribed water-taking activities require registration in the EASR instead of a PTTW. Please review the Water Taking User Guide for EASR for more information. Consultation with the railroad authorities is necessary wherever there is a plan to use construction dewatering in the vicinity of railroad lines or where the zone of influence of the construction dewatering potentially intercepts railroad lines. Excess Materials Management In December 2019, MECP released a new regulation under the Environmental Protection On-Site and Excess Soil Management (O. Reg. 406/19) to support improved management of excess construction soil. This regulation is a key step to support proper clear rules on managing and reusing excess soil. New risk-based standards referenced by this regulation help to facilitate local beneficial reuse which in turn will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from soil transportation, while ensuring strong protection of human health and the environment. The new regulation is being phased in over time, with the first phase in effect on January 1, 2021. For more information, please visit https://www.ontario.ca/page/handling-excess-soil. The report should reference that activities involving the management of excess soil should Management of Excess Soil A Guide for Best Management Practices (2014). All waste generated during construction must be disposed of in accordance with ministry requirements Contaminated Sites Any current or historical waste disposal sites should be identified in the report. The status of these sites should be determined to confirm whether approval pursuant to Section 46 of the EPA may be required for land uses on former disposal sites. We recommend referring to the -4 guideline for land use considerations near landfills and dumps. o Resources available may include regional/local municipal official plans and data; provincial data on large landfill sites and small landfill sites; Environmental Compliance Approval information for waste disposal sites on Access Environment. Other known contaminated sites (local, provincial, federal) in the study area should also be identified in the report (Note information on federal contaminated sites is found on the website). The location of any underground storage tanks should be investigated in the report. Measures should be identified to ensure the integrity of these tanks and to ensure an be contacted in such an event. Since the removal or movement of soils may be required, appropriate tests to determine contaminant levels from previous land uses or dumping should be undertaken. If the soils are contaminated, you must determine how and where they are to be disposed of, consistent with Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and Ontario Regulation 153/04, Records of Site Condition, which details the new requirements related to site assessment and clean up. Please contact the appropriate MECP District Office for further consultation if contaminated sites are present. Servicing, Utilities and Facilities The report should identify any above or underground utilities in the study area such as transmission lines, telephone/internet, oil/gas etc. The owners should be consulted to discuss impacts to this infrastructure, including potential spills. The report should identify any servicing infrastructure in the study area such as wastewater, water, stormwater that may potentially be impacted by the project. Any facility that releases emissions to the atmosphere, discharges contaminants to ground or surface water, provides potable water supplies, or stores, transports or disposes of waste must have an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) before it can operate lawfully. or amended ECA will be required for any proposed infrastructure. environmental land use planning guides to ensure that any potential land use conflicts are considered when planning for any infrastructure or facilities related to wastewater, pipelines, landfills or industrial uses. Mitigation and Monitoring Contractors must be made aware of all environmental considerations so that all environmental standards and commitments for both construction and operation are met. Mitigation measures should be clearly referenced in the report and regularly monitored during the construction stage of the project. In addition, we encourage proponents to conduct post-construction monitoring to ensure all mitigation measures have been effective and are functioning properly. Design and construction reports and plans should be based on a best management approach that centres on the prevention of impacts, protection of the existing environment, and opportunities for rehabilitation and enhancement of any impacted areas. -construction monitoring plans must be documented in the report, as outlined in Section A.2.5 and A.4.1 of the MEA Class EA parent document. Consultation The report must demonstrate how the consultation provisions of the Class EA have been fulfilled, including documentation of all stakeholder consultation efforts undertaken during the planning process. This includes a discussion in the report that identifies concerns that were raised and describes how they have been addressed by the proponent throughout the planning process. The report should also include copies of comments submitted on the these comments (as directed by the Class EA to include full documentation). Please include the full stakeholder distribution/consultation list in the documentation. Class EA Process If this project is a Master Plan: there are several different approaches that can be used to conduct a Master Plan, examples of which are outlined in Appendix 4 of the Class EA. The Master Plan should clearly indicate the selected approach for conducting the plan, by identifying whether the levels of assessment, consultation and documentation are sufficient to fulfill the requirements for Schedule B or C projects. Please note that any Schedule B or C projects identified in the plan would be subject to Part II Order Requests under the Environmental Assessment Act, although the plan itself would not be. Please include a description of the approach being undertaken (use Appendix 4 as a reference). If this project is a Master Plan: Any identified projects should also include information on the MCEA schedule associated with the project. The report should provide clear and complete documentation of the planning process in order to allow for transparency in decision-making. The Class EA requires the consideration of the effects of each alternative on all aspects of the environment (including planning, natural, social, cultural, economic, technical). The report should include a level of detail (e.g. hydrogeological investigations, terrestrial and aquatic assessments, cultural heritage assessments) such that all potential impacts can be identified, and appropriate mitigation measures can be developed. Any supporting studies conducted during the Class EA process should be referenced and included as part of the report. Please include in the report a list of all subsequent permits or approvals that may be required for the implementation of the preferred alternative, including but not limited to, permits, MTO permits and approvals under the Impact Assessment Act, 2019. Ministry guidelines and other information related to the issues above are available at http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/environment-and-energy. We encourage you to review all the available guides and to reference any relevant information in the report. Amendments to the EAA through the Covid-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020 Once the EA Report is finalized, the proponent must issue a Notice of Completion providing a minimum 30-day period during which documentation may be reviewed and comment and input can be submitted to the proponent. The Notice of Completion must be sent to the appropriate MECP Regional Office email address. The public can request a higher level of assessment on a project if they are concerned about potential adverse impacts to constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights. In addition, the Minister may issue an order on his or her own initiative within a specified time period. The Director (of the Environmental Assessment Branch) will issue a Notice of Proposed Order to the proponent if the Minister is considering an order for the project within 30 days after the conclusion of the comment period on the Notice of Completion. At this time, the Director may request additional information from the proponent. Once the requested information has been received, the Minister will have 30 days within which to make a decision or impose conditions on your project. Therefore, the proponent cannot proceed with the project until at least 30 days after the end of the comment period provided for in the Notice of Completion. Further, the proponent may not proceed after this time if: a Section 16 Order request has been submitted to the ministry regarding potential adverse impacts to constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights, or the Director has issued a Notice of Proposed order regarding the project. Please ensure that the Notice of Completion advises that outstanding concerns are to be directed to the proponent for a response, and that in the event there are outstanding concerns regarding potential adverse impacts to constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights, Section 16 Order requests on those matters should be addressed in writing to: Minister David Piccini Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks 777 Bay Street, 5th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2J3 minister.mecp@ontario.ca and Director, Environmental Assessment Branch Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks 135 St. Clair Ave. W, 1st Floor Toronto ON, M4V 1P5 EABDirector@ontario.ca Appendix B Copies of Notices, Letters, Bulletins, etc. Notice of Study Commencement Blair Creek DriveExtension Municipal Class Environmental Assessment The Study The City of Kitchenerhas initiated a ClassEnvironmental Assessment Studyfor the extension of Blair Creek Drive from the future Strasburg Road to the intersection of Reidel Drive and Blair Creek Drive, approximately 700 metres (see Figure 1.0forstudy area). The Blair Creek Drive extension will include new storm sewer as wellas watermain. This study will identify and evaluate alternative solutionsanddetermine a preferredalignmentforthe road. The Process This project is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Actby following the 2023 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment documentand it is being planned under Schedule Bof the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA). The City of Kitchenerhas requested MTE Consultants to undertake thestudy, which involvesan evaluation of alternatives,selection of preferred alternative, and evaluation of environmental and cultural heritage impacts, and their mitigation measures. At the end of the study, aProject File Report (PFR)documenting the process will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP) and will be available for public review for a period of 30 calendar days. Before any decisions are made on the recommendation, or acceptance of the preferred solution, all interested parties will have an opportunity to attend a Public Information Centre (PIC) meeting. Notification of the PIC will be provided at the appropriate time by means of a similar advertisement. To learn more, please visit the Engage Kitchenerwebsiteand look for the project:https://www.engagewr.ca/hub-page/kitchener Comments Invited Public, Indigenous, and agency consultation is a key component of the Class EA process, and we value your input during the planning process. To help facilitate this input, a PICis scheduled to take placeinFall2023. Ifyou wish to be placed on the study mailing list to receive notices and information, or, if you wish to provide comments at any time during the Class EA process, you can do so by contacting: Vince Pugliese, P.Eng., PMP,Niall Melanson, C.E.T. MBA City of Kitchener MTE Consultants Inc. Phone: (519) 741-2200 ext.7133 Phone: (519) 743-6500 ext.1225 Email:niall.melanson@kitchener.ca Cell: (519) 651-7903 Email: vpugliese@mte85.com Please note that all correspondence will be kept on file for use during the decision-making process throughout the project and will become part of the public record. Under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, any personal information such as name, address, and telephone number included in a submission may become part of the public record unless otherwise requested in the submission. Figure 1. Blair Creek Drive Extension (Study Area) This figure illustrates the limits of the study area bounded by the future extension of Strasburg Road and Reidel Drive. This notice was issued on April 28, 2023. Notice of Public Information Centre Blair Creek Drive Extension - Municipal Class Environmental Assessment To support future development in southwest Kitchener, this study includes the extension of Blair Creek Drive from the intersection of Reidel Drive and Blair Creek Drive to the future Strasburg Road, approximately 700 metres (SeeFigure 1.0 for study area). On behalf of the City of Kitchener, MTE Consultants is undertaking a study to determine a preferred road alignment and preliminary design of the new Blair Creek Drive. This project is being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act by following the Municipal Class EA document (as amended in 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2023) and it is being planned under Schedule ‘B’ of the Municipal Class EA. At this stage of the project, several technical studies have been completed or are underway including Ecological, Heritage, Traffic and Geotechnical. MTE has identified a preferred alignment and cross-section for the extension of Blair Creek Drive in the study area shown below. Figure 1: Blair Creek Drive Extension Area Presentation, discussion, and input on the identified alternatives will be conducted at the Public Information Centre (PIC). MTE Consultants and the City of Kitchener invite all interested parties to attend a PIC meeting on Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 6:30pm Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre, Room 2 150 Pioneer Drive Kitchener, ON N2P 2C2 Notification of this PIC will also be provided via newspaper advertisement in The Record and online at EngageKitchener. Please note that comments will be maintained for reference throughout the project and will become part of the public record. Under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, any personal information such as name, address, and telephone number included in a submission will become part of the public record unless the comments specifically request that such personal details not be included in the public record. Project information including the PIC presentation materials will be made available after September 20 on the City’s Website:Blair Creek Drive Extension Environmental Assessment | EngageWR This Notice was issued on September 1, 2023. 1:250 Sep-23 FUNCTIONAL DESIGN 2 AppendixC Copies of Reports prepared by Consultant and Others NRSI, September 2023 Natural Environment Report and Tree Inventory 48025004802000480150048010004800500 48025004802000480150048010004800500 U O F BR D RK 4801800480160048014004801200 4801800480160048014004801200 SF;!Cbdlhspvoe!Jogpsnbujpo!Sfrvftu!.!Cmbjs!Dsffl!Esjwf!Fyufotjpo-!Ljudifofs!PO Tvckfdu;!SF;!Cbdlhspvoe!Jogpsnbpo!Sfrvftu!.!Cmbjs!Dsffl!Esjwf!Fyufotjpo-!Ljudifofs!PO Gspn;!Disjt!Gptufs.Qfohfmmz!=dgptufsqfohfmmzAhsboesjwfs/db? Ebuf;!3134.17.34-!22;41!b/n/ Up;!Hjob!NbdWfjhi!=hnbdwfjhiAostj/po/db? DD;!#flsbvttAostj/po/db#!=flsbvttAostj/po/db? Ij!Hjob- Qmfbtf!oe!cfmpx!uif!cbdlhspvoe!uibu!uif!HSDB!ibt!jo!uif!Cmbjs!Dsffl!Esjwf!Fyufotjpo!Tuvez!Bsfb; 2/!Op!xbufsdpvstf!jt!nbqqfe!xjuijo!uif!231!n!tuvez!bsfb/ 3/!Tqfdjft!pg!dpodfso!xjui!sfdpset!ofbscz!jodmvef; –!Tobqqjoh!Uvsumf!)Difmzesb!tfsqfoujob* –!Njemboe!Qbjoufe!Uvsumf!)Disztfnzt!qjdub!nbshjobub* –!Cvuufsovu!)Kvhmbot!djofsfb* –!Kfggfstpo!Tbmbnboefs!)Bncztupnb!kfggfstpojbovn* –!Vojtfyvbm!Bncztupnb!)Kfggfstpo!Tbmbnboefs!efqfoefou!qpqvmbujpo*!.Bncztupnb!izcsje!qpq/ 2/ 4/!B!voju!pg!uif!Sptfwjmmf!Txbnq!Dfebs!Dsffl!Qspwjodjbmmz!Tjhojgjdbou!Xfumboe!bqqfbst!up!cf!nbqqfe kvtu!xjuijo!uif!fbtufso!foe!pg!uif!231!n!tuvez!bsfb/ 5/!Op!BOTJt!xjuijo!231!n!pg!tuvez!bsfb/ 6/!Op!nbqqfe!xjmemjgf!ibcjubu!wbmvft!xjuijo!231!n!pg!uif!tuvez!bsfb/ Uibol!zpv- Disjt Disjt!Gptufs.Qfohfmmz-!N/Td/ Pggjdf;!62:.732.3874!fyu/!342: Upmm.gsff;!2.977.:11.5833 xxx/hsboesjwfs/db!}!!Dpoofdu!xjui!vt!po!tpdjbm!nfejb !Qfsnjut!=qfsnjutAhsboesjwfs/db? !Xfeoftebz-!Kvof!25-!3134!4;3:!QN !Disjt!Gptufs.Qfohfmmz!=dgptufsqfohfmmzAhsboesjwfs/db? !GX;!Cbdlhspvoe!Jogpsnbpo!Sfrvftu!.!Cmbjs!Dsffl!Esjwf!Fyufotjpo-!Ljudifofs!PO !Hsboe!Sjwfs!Dpotfswbpo!Bvuipsjuz!=hsdbAhsboesjwfs/db? !Xfeoftebz-!Kvof!25-!3134!3;38!QN !Qfsnjut!=qfsnjutAhsboesjwfs/db? !GX;!Cbdlhspvoe!Jogpsnbpo!Sfrvftu!.!Cmbjs!Dsffl!Esjwf!Fyufotjpo-!Ljudifofs!PO !Hjob!NbdWfjhi!=hnbdwfjhiAostj/po/db? !Xfeoftebz-!Kvof!25-!3134!22;26!BN !Hsboe!Sjwfs!Dpotfswbpo!Bvuipsjuz!=hsdbAhsboesjwfs/db? !Fwf!Lsbvtt!=flsbvttAostj/po/db? !Cbdlhspvoe!Jogpsnbpo!Sfrvftu!.!Cmbjs!Dsffl!Esjwf!Fyufotjpo-!Ljudifofs!PO 2!pg!33134.1:.23-!21;58!b/n/ SF;!Cbdlhspvoe!Jogpsnbujpo!Sfrvftu!.!Cmbjs!Dsffl!Esjwf!Fyufotjpo-!Ljudifofs!PO Hppe!bfsoppo- J!bn!tvcnjoh!b!sfrvftu!gps!cbdlhspvoe!jogpsnbpo!sfhbsejoh!uif!fyufotjpo!pg!Cmbjs!Dsffl!Esjwf!jo Ljudifofs-!PO/!!OSTJ!xjmm!cf!dbsszjoh!pvu!tdpqfe!fme!tvswfzt!jo!tvqqpsu!pg!b!Dmbtt!FB!)fyfnqu0B* bttpdjbufe!xjui!uif!fyufotjpo/!!Qmfbtf!tff!bbdife!gps!b!gpsnbm!cbdlhspvoe!jogpsnbpo!sfrvftu mffs-!jodmvejoh!b!nbq!pg!uif!tuvez!bsfb/ Bu!uijt!nf-!xf!bsf!sfrvftoh!boz!gvsuifs!jogpsnbpo!po!Tqfdjft!bu!Sjtl!ps!puifs!obuvsbm!ifsjubhf gfbuvsft!uibu!nbz!opu!ibwf!cffo!qsfwjpvtmz!jefofe!xjuijo!uif!qsfmjnjobsz!cbdlhspvoe!jogpsnbpo dpmmfdpo/!!Jg!boz!beejpobm!jogpsnbpo!jt!sfrvjsfe!bu!uijt!nf-!qmfbtf!mfu!nf!lopx/ Uibol!zpv!jo!bewbodf- Hjob .. Hjob!NbdWfjhi!!G/X/U/!!!)tif0ifs* Tfojps!Brvbujd!Cjpmphjtu Obuvsbm!Sftpvsdf!Tpmvujpot!Jod/ 526!Qijmmjq!Tusffu-!Voju!D Xbufsmpp-!PO!O3M!4Y3 )q*62:.836.3338!Fyu/!516!!)g*!62:.836.3686 )n*!337.559.:845 )x*xxx/ostj/po/db)f*!hnbdwfjhiAostj/po/db AostjofxtObuvsbm!Sftpvsdf!Tpmvujpot!Jod/ Pwfs!31!zfbst!pg!fowjsponfoubm!dpotvmujoh!fydfmmfodf 3!pg!33134.1:.23-!21;58!b/n/ SF;!Cbdlhspvoe!Jogpsnbujpo!Sfrvftu!.!Cmbjs!Dsffl!Esjwf!Fyufotjpo-!Ljudifofs!PO Tvckfdu;!SF;!Cbdlhspvoe!Jogpsnbpo!Sfrvftu!.!Cmbjs!Dsffl!Esjwf!Fyufotjpo-!Ljudifofs!PO Gspn;!#Efozft-!Ebwje!)NOSG*#!=Ebwje/EfozftApoubsjp/db? Ebuf;!3134.17.25-!4;33!q/n/ Up;!Hjob!NbdWfjhi!=hnbdwfjhiAostj/po/db? DD;!#flsbvttAostj/po/db#!=flsbvttAostj/po/db? Ifmmp!Hjob- Uibol!zpv!gps!zpvs!sfrvftu!gps!jogpsnbpo!po!obuvsbm!ifsjubhf!gfbuvsft/ J“wf!sfwjfxfe!pvs!sfdpset!boe!opuf!uibu!xf!epo“u!ibwf!boz!beejpobm!jogpsnbpo!up!qspwjef!gps!uif!jefofe!tuvez bsfb/ Bctfodf!ps!mbdl!pg!jogpsnbpo!gps!b!hjwfo!hfphsbqijd!bsfb!epft!opu!ofdfttbsjmz!nfbo!uif!bctfodf!pg!obuvsbm!ifsjubhf gfbuvsft/!Nboz!bsfbt!jo!Poubsjp!ibwf!ofwfs!cffo!tvswfzfe!boe!ofx!qmbou!boe!bojnbm!tqfdjft!sfdpset!bsf!tmm!cfjoh ejtdpwfsfe!gps!nboz!mpdbmjft/!Jo!beejpo-!ofx!tqfdjft!nbz!cf!mjtufe!boe!ofx!obuvsbm!ifsjubhf!gfbuvsft!nbz!cf efofe!pwfs!nf/!Gps!uiftf!sfbtpot-!uif!Njojtusz!dboopu!qspwjef!b!efojwf!tubufnfou!po!uif!qsftfodf-!bctfodf!ps dpoejpo!pg!obuvsbm!ifsjubhf!gfbuvsft!jo!bmm!qbsut!pg!Poubsjp/! Sfhbset- Ebwje Ebwje!Efozft Nbobhfnfou!Cjpmphjtu Njojtusz!pg!Obuvsbm!Sftpvsdft!boe!Gpsftusz Wjofmboe!Gjfme!Pggjdf 59:1!Wjdupsjb!Bwfovf!Opsui Wjofmboe!Tubujpo!PO-!M1S!3F1 Ufm;!)39:*!352.7983 ebwje/efozftApoubsjp/db Gspn;!Hjob!NbdWfjhi!=hnbdwfjhiAostj/po/db? Tfou;!Xfeoftebz-!Kvof!25-!3134!22;34!BN Up;!Tdjfod!Dpmmfdpo!Qfsnjut!Hvfmqi!)NOSG*!=tdq/hvfmqiApoubsjp/db? Dd;!Fwf!Lsbvtt!=flsbvttAostj/po/db? Tvckfdu;!Cbdlhspvoe!Jogpsnbpo!Sfrvftu!.!Cmbjs!Dsffl!Esjwf!Fyufotjpo-!Ljudifofs!PO DBVUJPO!..!FYUFSOBM!F.NBJM!.!Ep!opu!dmjdl!mjolt!ps!pqfo!bbdinfout!vomftt!zpv!sfdphoj{f!uif!tfoefs/ Hppe!bfsoppo- J!bn!tvcnjoh!b!sfrvftu!gps!cbdlhspvoe!jogpsnbpo!sfhbsejoh!uif!fyufotjpo!pg!Cmbjs!Dsffl!Esjwf!jo Ljudifofs-!PO/!!OSTJ!xjmm!cf!dbsszjoh!pvu!tdpqfe!fme!tvswfzt!jo!tvqqpsu!pg!b!Dmbtt!FB!bttpdjbufe!xjui uif!fyufotjpo/!!Qmfbtf!tff!bbdife!gps!b!gpsnbm!cbdlhspvoe!jogpsnbpo!sfrvftu!mffs-!jodmvejoh!b nbq!pg!uif!tuvez!bsfb/ Bu!uijt!nf-!xf!bsf!sfrvftoh!boz!gvsuifs!jogpsnbpo!po!Tqfdjft!bu!Sjtl!ps!puifs!obuvsbm!ifsjubhf gfbuvsft!uibu!nbz!opu!ibwf!cffo!qsfwjpvtmz!jefofe!xjuijo!uif!qsfmjnjobsz!cbdlhspvoe!jogpsnbpo 2!pg!33134.1:.23-!21;57!b/n/ SF;!Cbdlhspvoe!Jogpsnbujpo!Sfrvftu!.!Cmbjs!Dsffl!Esjwf!Fyufotjpo-!Ljudifofs!PO dpmmfdpo/!!Jg!boz!beejpobm!jogpsnbpo!jt!sfrvjsfe!bu!uijt!nf-!qmfbtf!mfu!nf!lopx/ Uibol!zpv!jo!bewbodf- Hjob .. Hjob!NbdWfjhi!!G/X/U/!!!)tif0ifs* Tfojps!Brvbujd!Cjpmphjtu Obuvsbm!Sftpvsdf!Tpmvujpot!Jod/ 526!Qijmmjq!Tusffu-!Voju!D Xbufsmpp-!PO!O3M!4Y3 )q*62:.836.3338!Fyu/!516!!)g*!62:.836.3686 )n*!337.559.:845 )x*xxx/ostj/po/db)f*!hnbdwfjhiAostj/po/db AostjofxtObuvsbm!Sftpvsdf!Tpmvujpot!Jod/ Pwfs!31!zfbst!pg!fowjsponfoubm!dpotvmujoh!fydfmmfodf 3!pg!33134.1:.23-!21;57!b/n/ CommentsEvidence of branch failure; grape vine throughout trunk and canopy; some poor branch attachment; few dead branches.Grape vine all throughout canopy; twisted trunk; slightly suppressed.Numerou s dead branches; aggressive grape vine up trunk and throughout canopy; poor branch attachment.Middle size stem broken off recently but still has growth; poor branch attachment; few dead branches.Poor branch attachment; evidence of branch failure; few dead branches; stems all shooting different directions.Aggressive grape vine throughout canopy; evidence of branch failure; numerous wildlife holes; few dead branches.Completely covered by grape vine; evidence of branch failures.Main stem completely hallow; smaller stems with growth; on other side of fence so possibly has smaller stems; scaffold branching; wildlife tree.Covered in grape vine; epicormic growth; growing from stone pile. Required Compensation Removal Rationale for Action Proposed Location FairFairFairFairFairFairFair Poor Overall Page 1 of 3 Very Poor Condition PossiblePossiblePossiblePossible Probable Structural ImprobableImprobableImprobableImprobable Potential for Failure Rating 9.05.07.04.07.03.05.04.0 (m) 11.0 Crown Radius 15.028.519.0 60+45 19.0+23.8 DBH (cm) 60.0+34.0+20.015.0+11.9+13.7 37+45+40+47+25+36+65 36.4+38.5+36.4+13.3+31.7 311317122 Stem Count NativeNativeNativeNativeNativeNativeNativeNativeNative native Native/ Non- Scientific NameJuglans nigraJuglans nigraJuglans nigraJuglans nigraAcer negundoTilia americanaAcer negundoTilia americanaTilia americana Common NameBlack WalnutBlack WalnutBlack WalnutBlack WalnutManitoba MapleAmerican BasswoodManitoba MapleAmerican BasswoodAmerican Basswood 006005004297298299300 19011902 Tree Number PROJECT NAME Tree Protection PlanTree Inventory Data ARA, September 2023 Heritage Impact Assessment (Draft) MTE Consultants Inc. 520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 Tel: (519) 743-9800 HR-453-2023 ARA File # 2023-0033 i The study area is an approximately 200-acre parcel of land and is characterized by rolling topography, lands which appear under agricultural use, a small creek, forested area, slopes, and grade changes which surround a primary residence with multiple outbuildings. The residence on in the study area fronts onto Reidel Drive. That only the required/a minimal amount of roadside vegetation which defines the road edge on Reidel Drive be removed for the construction of the road. Further that the diverse roadside vegetation which defines the road edge on Reidel Drive which is not being removed be protected during staging and construction activities with construction fencing. If possible, replacement of any vegetation removed and the integration of additional vegetation along the new roadway should be considered. A Landscape Plan may be considered to limit negative impacts associated with vegetation removal. ii That an archaeological assessment is suggested to address the potential impacts of ground disturbance and change in grade and drainage patterns to unknown archaeological resources. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd iii 2.1 Federal Guidelines 4 2.2 Provincial Policies and Guidelines 4 2.3 Municipal Policies 7 4.1 Settlement History 13 4.2 Study Area History 16 4.3 Site Specific History - 271 Reidel Drive 17 7.1 Contextual Surrounding 25 7.2 Site Layout 25 7.3 Main Residence (July 7, 2023) 26 7.4 Outbuildings 27 7.5 Architecture and Design 28 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd iv 8.1 Reidel Drive CHL 31 8.2 271 Reidel Drive 32 8.3 Evaluation of 271 Reidel Drive According to Ontario Regulation 9/06 34 8.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 35 8.5 271 Reidel Drive Current Conditions (November 13, 2023) 38 9.1 Alternative Design Options 39 9.2 Do Nothing Option 39 10.1 BHR-1: 271 Reidel Drive 43 10.2 CHL -1: Reidel Drive CHL 44 11.1 Preferred Design Option 45 11.2 Mitigation Measures 46 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd v Archaeological Research Associates Ltd vi ROP Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 1 1.0 The study area is an approximately 200-acre parcel of land and is characterized by rolling topography, lands which appear under agricultural use, a small creek, forested area, slopes, and grade changes which surround a primary residence with multiple outbuildings. The residence on in the study area fronts onto Reidel Drive. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 2 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 3 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 4 2.0 2.1 Federal Guidelines At the national level, The Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada 2010) provides guidance Such guidance includes the planning and implementation of heritage conservation activities. 2.2 Provincial Policies and Guidelines 2.2.1 Planning Act Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 5 2.2.2 The Provincial Policy Statement (2020) 2.2.3 Ontario Heritage Act Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 6 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1. 2. 3. 2.2.4 Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties 1. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 7 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 2.2.5 Ontario Heritage Tool Kit o o 2.3 Municipal Policies 2.3.1 Region of Waterloo Official Plan Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 8 2.3.2 City of Kitchener Official Plan Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 9 2.3.3 City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (2014) 2.3.4 Summary of Policies Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 10 3.0 Built Heritage Resource (BHR) can be defined in the PPS monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that including Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that has been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included Conserved resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by relevant planning authority and/or decision-makers. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and Significant determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 11 determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the 2020:51). Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 12 o o Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 13 4.0 4.1 Settlement History 4.1.1 Pre-Contact (Wright 1972; Ellis and Ferris 1990; Warrick 2000; Munson and Jamieson 2013) Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 14 4.1.2 Post-Contact (Smith 1846; Sutherland 1864; Coyne 1895; Lajeunesse 1960; Cumming 1972; Janusas 1988; Ellis and Ferris 1990; Surtees 1994; Hayes 1997; Bloomfield 2006; AO 2022) Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 15 4.1.3 Past and Present Land Use 4.1.3.1 Overview 4.1.3.2 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 16 4.1.3.3 Oregon 4.1.3.4 Roseville 4.2 Study Area History 4.2.1 Mapping and Imagery Analysis An aerial image from 1954 (UW 2016) Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 17 4.3 Site Specific History - 271 Reidel Drive Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 18 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 19 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 20 (Produced under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri; OHCMP 2019) Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 21 (Produced under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri; MU 2001) Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 22 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 23 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 24 5.0 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 25 6.0 7.0 7.1 Contextual Surrounding The contextual surrounding is characterized by rolling topography, forested lands, rural roadway, slopes, and grade changes (see - .) 7.2 Site Layout Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 26 7.3 Main Residence (July 7, 2023) 7.3.1 Exterior 7.3.2 Interior Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 27 7.4 Outbuildings Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 28 7.5 Architecture and Design 7.5.1 Historic Ontario Farms Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 29 7.5.2 Gothic Revival Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 30 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 31 8.0 8.1 Reidel Drive CHL 8.1.1 Description Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 32 8.2 271 Reidel Drive 8.2.1 Heritage Register Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 33 o o o o o o o Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 34 8.3 Evaluation of 271 Reidel Drive According to Ontario Regulation 9/06 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 35 8.3.1 Summary of Evaluation 8.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 8.4.1 Introduction and Description of Property Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 36 8.4.2 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value/Statement of Significance Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 37 o Type Address/ and Value Statement(s) Heritage Attributes Name Number o o o o o Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 38 Type Address/ and Value Statement(s) Heritage Attributes Name Number 8.5 271 Reidel Drive Current Conditions (November 13, 2023) 9.0 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 39 9.1 Alternative Design Options 9.1.1 Design Option 1 9.1.2 Design Option 2 9.1.3 Design Options 3 9.2 Do Nothing Option Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 40 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 41 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 42 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 43 10.0 10.1 BHR-1: 271 Reidel Drive Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 44 10.2 CHL -1: Reidel Drive CHL Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 45 10.2.1 Summary of Impacts 11.0 11.1 Preferred Design Option Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 46 11.2 Mitigation Measures That only the required/a minimal amount of roadside vegetation which defines the road edge on Reidel Drive be removed for the construction of the road. Further that the diverse roadside vegetation which defines the road edge on Reidel Drive which is not being removed be protected during staging and construction activities with construction fencing. If possible, replacement of any vegetation removed and the integration of additional vegetation along the new roadway should be considered. A Landscape Plan may be considered to limit negative impacts associated with vegetation removal. That an archaeological assessment is suggested to address the potential impacts of ground disturbance and change in grade and drainage patterns to unknown archaeological resources. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 47 12.0 The study area is an approximately 200-acre parcel of land and is characterized by rolling topography, lands which appear under agricultural use, a small creek, forested area, slopes, and grade changes which surround a primary residence with multiple outbuildings. The residence on in the study area fronts onto Reidel Drive. That only the required/a minimal amount of roadside vegetation which defines the road edge on Reidel Drive be removed for the construction of the road. Further that the diverse roadside vegetation which defines the road edge on Reidel Drive which is not being removed be protected during staging and construction activities with construction fencing. If possible, replacement of any vegetation removed and the integration of additional vegetation along the Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 48 new roadway should be considered. A Landscape Plan may be considered to limit negative impacts associated with vegetation removal. That an archaeological assessment is suggested to address the potential impacts of ground disturbance and change in grade and drainage patterns to unknown archaeological resources. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 49 13.0 Archives of Ontario (AO) 2022 Access our Collections. Accessed online at: http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/access/our_collection.aspx. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 50 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 51 Library and Archives Canada (LAC) 2001 The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project. Accessed online at: http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/default.htm. 2006a Ontario Heritage Toolkit Series. Toronto: Ministry of Culture. 2006b Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit Series. Toronto: Ministry of Culture. 2006c InfoSheet #2: Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Ontario Heritage Toolkit Series. Toronto: Ministry of Culture. 2006d InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit Series. Toronto: Ministry of Culture. Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 52 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 53 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 54 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 55 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 56 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 57 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 58 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 59 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 60 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 61 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 62 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 63 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 64 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 65 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 66 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 67 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 68 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 69 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 70 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 71 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 72 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 73 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 74 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 75 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 76 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd 77 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd MTE, January 2024 Geotechnical Investigation Report Blair Creek Drive Extension Geotechnical Investigation Report Project Location: Blair CreekDrive,Kitchener, Ontario Prepared for: City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ONN2G 4G7 Prepared by: MTEConsultantsInc. 365Home Street Stratford, ONN5A 2A5 January18, 2024 MTE File No.:53018-100-Rev01 Contents 1.0Introduction......................................................................................................................1 2.0Investigative Program ......................................................................................................1 2.1Field Program ..............................................................................................................1 2.2Laboratory Program .....................................................................................................2 3.0Soil Conditions ................................................................................................................2 3.1Topsoil .........................................................................................................................2 3.2Fill ................................................................................................................................2 3.3Silty Sand and Sandy Silt .............................................................................................3 3.4Sand and Gravelly Sand ..............................................................................................3 4.0Groundwater Conditions ..................................................................................................3 5.0Discussion and Recommendations ..................................................................................4 5.1Site Servicing ...............................................................................................................4 5.1.1Excavations and Dewatering ....................................................................................4 5.1.2Pipe Bedding ...........................................................................................................5 5.1.3Trench Backfilling ....................................................................................................5 5.2Curbs, Gutter, and Sidewalks .......................................................................................5 5.3Pavement Construction ................................................................................................6 5.3.1Pavement Drainage .................................................................................................7 5.4Low Impact Developments (LIDs) ................................................................................7 5.5Construction Inspection and Testing ............................................................................7 6.0Limitations of Report ........................................................................................................9 Tables Table 1 - Borehole Coordinate Summary ....................................................................................2 Table 2 - Results of Sand and Gravelly Sand Particle Size Distribution Analyses .......................3 Table 3 - Pavement Design .........................................................................................................6 Appendices Appendix A Figures Appendix B Borehole Logs Appendix C Tables 1.0 Introduction MTE Consultants Inc. (MTE) was retained by the City of Kitchener to conduct a geotechnical investigation for the extension of Blair Creek Drive in Kitchener, Ontario. The proposed extension extends eastward from Reidel Drive, as shown onFigure 1 in Appendix A. It is anticipated that the proposed project will involve the construction of new sanitary and storm sewers, watermain, new pavement structure, and curbs and sidewalks. Sewer depths are anticipated to be approximately 4.0 to 5.0 meters below ground surface (mbgs) along the roadway. The purpose of this geotechnical investigation is to determine the soil and groundwater conditions along the roadway and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for site servicing, excavations and dewatering, low impact development (LID) feasibility, pavement structure design and construction, and pavement drainage requirements. 2.0 Investigative Program 2.1 Field Program The fieldwork for this investigation was carried out on May 5, 2023, and involved the drilling of seven (7) boreholes (Boreholes BH101-23 to BH107-23) to depths ranging from approximately 4.9 to 6.7 m. The locations of the boreholes are shown on the Site Plan,Figure 1 in Appendix A. Public utility companies were contacted prior to the start of drilling activities in order to isolate underground utilities near the boring locations. The boreholes were advanced with a Track Mounted D50T drill rig equipped with continuous flight hollow stem augers and was supplied and operated by London Soil Test Ltd. Representative soil samples were recovered throughout the depths explored. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were carried out during sampling operations in the boreholes using conventional split spoon equipment. The SPT N-values recorded are plotted on the borehole logs in Appendix B. Selected soil samples collected from the boreholes (within the proposed construction depths) were subdivided for visual and olfactory screening, combustible soil vapour (CSV) headspace measurements, and/or laboratory chemical analysis. Samples for chemical analysis were collected directly into pre-cleaned, laboratory supplied, test group specific containers. For the analysis of PHC F1 and VOCs/BTEX, soil samples were collected by means of plastic syringe core samplers into Teflon lined screw cap, gas tight glass vials prepared by the subcontracted laboratory with methanol preservative. The results of the laboratory testing are provided in the concurrent Soil Characterization Report. Upon completion of drilling, the boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite in accordance with Ontario Regulation 468/10 (formerly O. Reg. 903) under the provinces Water Resources Act. The fieldwork was monitored throughout by a member of our geotechnical and environmental engineering staff, who directed the drilling procedures; recorded the SPT values; documented the soil stratigraphy; monitored the groundwater conditions; and transported the recovered soil samples to our office for further classification. MTE Consultants| 53018-100-Rev01 | Blair Creek Drive Extension - Geotechnical Investigation | January 18, 20241 The borehole coordinates and ground surface elevations were surveyed by MTE with a Trimble Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) rover. The borehole locations are referenced to Canadian Spatial Reference System (CSRS 1997) coordinates with the zone reference (17T) excluded. The geodetic ground surface elevations are based on GNSS and local base station telemetry and have a vertical root mean squared error of less than 20mm. The borehole locations and elevations are provided in the following table: Table 1 - Borehole Coordinate Summary BoreholeNorthing(m)Easting(m)Elevation(masl) 4801601544136 BH101-23333.8 4801581544040 BH102-23339.4 4801567543961 BH103-23338.9 4801535543869 BH104-23343.0 4801517543768 BH105-23342.1 4801493543674 BH106-23345.8 4801469543580 BH107-23342.3 Notes: masl meters above sea level 2.2 Laboratory Program All of the soil samples collected were submitted for moisture content testing with the results shown on the borehole logs inAppendix B. Additionally, two (2) soil samples were submitted for particle size distribution analyses and the results are provided inAppendix C. The remaining soil samples will be stored for a period of 3 months and will be discarded of at that time without prior request from the client to extend storage time. 3.0 Soil Conditions Reference is provided to the appended borehole logs for soil stratigraphy details, SPT N-values, moisture content profiles, and groundwater observations and measurements. Soil conditions encountered at the site typically include topsoil and/or fill, overlying native sand deposits. 3.1 Topsoil Topsoil was encountered at ground surface in all seven boreholes and was 130 to 560 mm thick (average thickness of 240 mm). The topsoil typically comprised dark brown sandy silt with roots and other organic content. A 300 mm thick layer of buried topsoil was encountered in Borehole BH106-23 at a depth of 2.0 mbgs (elevation 343.8 masl). The topsoil was determined through visual observation and no nutrient testing for applicable plant growth was performed as part of the scope of work for this project. The topsoil was noted as very moist at the time of the fieldwork. 3.2 Fill A layer of sand fill with various amounts of organics was encountered underlying the surficial topsoil in Borehole BH106-23. The sand fill was about 1.9 m in thickness when fully penetrated and extended to a depth of about 2.0 mbgs in Borehole BH106-23. SPT N-values in the fill range from 1 to 3 blows per 300 mm penetration of the split spoon sampler indicating very loose conditions. MTE Consultants| 53018-100-Rev01 | Blair Creek Drive Extension - Geotechnical Investigation | January 18, 20242 Insitu moisture contents in the fill range from about 8 to 15% indicating very moist conditions. 3.3 Silty Sand and Sandy Silt Layers of native silty sand to sandy silt were encountered underlying the surficial topsoil in Boreholes BH105-23, and BH107-23 and at various depths in Boreholes BH101-23, BH103-23 and BH106-23. Where fully penetrated the layers of silty sand to sandy silt ranged from 0.8 to 3.1 m in thickness and were generally brown in colour. SPT N-values measured in the silty sand to sandy silt layers range from 4 to above 49 blows per 300 mm penetration of the split spoon sampler indicating loose to dense conditions. Insitu moisture contents in the silty sand to sandy silt range from about 3 to 20% indicating moist to very moist conditions. It is noted, saturated seams were encountered within the silty sand deposits in Boreholes BH103-23, BH106-23, and BH107-23. 3.4 Sand and Gravelly Sand Layers of native sand and gravelly sand was encountered beneath the surficial topsoil in Boreholes BH101-23 to BH104-23 and the buried topsoil in Borehole BH106-23. Layers of sand and gravelly sand were encountered at various depths in all seven boreholes and extended to the termination depths in all boreholes. The sand and gravelly sand was brown in colour, and cobbles were encountered during drilling and should be expected during construction. The results of particle size distribution analyses conducted on samples of the sand and gravelly sand are provided inAppendix C and summarized in the following table; Table 2 - Results of Sand and Gravelly Sand Particle Size Distribution Analyses Sample DepthGravelSandSiltClay Borehole Number (mbgs)(%)(%)(%)(%) BH101-231.5 - 2.1138052 BH104-233.0 - 3.7276472 SPT N-values measured in the sand and gravelly sand layers range from 11 to above 50 blows per 300 mm penetration of the split spoon sampler indicating compact to very dense conditions. Insitu moisture contents in the sand and gravelly sand ranged from about 1 to 9% indicating damp to very moist conditions. 4.0 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater observations and measurements were carried out in the open boreholes at the time of drilling and are summarized on the borehole logs. Saturated conditions were not encountered in the seven boreholes during drilling and the seven boreholes were dry prior to backfilling. However, isolated wet to saturated seams were encountered, generally within the silty sand to sandy silt layers and the fill material encountered in BH106-23. It should be noted that the groundwater levels can vary and are subject to seasonal fluctuations and local variations. It should also be noted that perched groundwater conditions may occur due to relatively impermeable nature of silt soils. MTE Consultants| 53018-100-Rev01 | Blair Creek Drive Extension - Geotechnical Investigation | January 18, 20243 5.0 Discussion and Recommendations This project will involve the construction of the proposed extension of Blair Creek Drive including pavement structure, sidewalks, curbs and gutter, and associated underground utilities. The subsurface stratigraphy along the proposed roadway location generally comprises of topsoil, overlying native granular deposits consisting of sand, silty sand to sandy silt and/or gravelly sand layers, with areas of fill material overlying the native granulars (Borehole BH106-23). Saturated conditions were not encountered within the depths of exploration. Based on the results of this geotechnical investigation, construction of the new pavement structure and associated services is feasible for the proposed location. The following subsections of this report contain geotechnical recommendations pertaining to site servicing, excavations and dewatering, LID feasibility, pavement structure design, pavement construction, and pavement drainage requirements. 5.1 Site Servicing 5.1.1 Excavations and Dewatering It is understood that the project will involve the construction of pavement structure and installation of services along the roadway. Construction depths are anticipated to be approximately 3.0 to 5.0 metres below ground surface. Temporary excavations to conventional depths for installation of underground pipes at this site must comply with the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for Construction Projects. The predominate soils encountered at the site are classified as Type 3 soils (O. Reg. 213/91, s. 226 (4)). Temporary side slopes through this material must be cut at an inclination of 1.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical or flatter from the base of the excavation, exclusive of groundwater effects. Where wet to saturated conditions are encountered, excavation side slopes should be expected to slough to flatter inclinations, potentially 3.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical or flatter. Trench side slopes must be continuously inspected especially after periods of heavy rainfall or snow melt to identify areas of instability. Surface water should be directed away from entering the trench. Where spatial limitations (from utility poles, existing underground services, above ground structures, etc.) do not permit overburden cut slopes at the inclinations above, a steeper cut slope can be employed if trench boxes are used to protect workers. Some movement or slumping of the soils adjacent to the trench box should be expected if this option is used. Minor groundwater should be expected from saturated seams and wet conditions within the fill and upper native soil deposits. It is envisioned that conventional sump pump techniques will be adequate to control the inflow. It will be necessary to flatten or support the excavation side slopes where groundwater seepage is occurring to ensure stability. Every excavation that a worker may be required to enter shall be kept reasonably free of water (O. Reg. 213/91, s. 230). MTE Consultants| 53018-100-Rev01 | Blair Creek Drive Extension - Geotechnical Investigation | January 18, 20244 It should be noted that an Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) or Permit to Take Water (PTTW), issued by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, will be required if the dewatering system/sumps result in a water taking of more than 50,000L/day or 400,000 L/day, respectively. The design of the dewatering system should be left to the provide stable excavation base. The contractor shall notify the prime consultant in the event that they feel that an EASR/PTTW will be needed. 5.1.2 Pipe Bedding It is anticipated that the invert elevation of the proposed storm sewer will be approximately 3.0 to 5.0 metres below ground surface. No bearing problems are anticipated for pipes set on properly dewatered native inorganic subsoil. The bedding material may need to be thickened if excavations encounter soft or spongy soil at the base of the service trench. Pipe bedding for services should be conventional Class 'B' pipe bedding comprising a minimum 150 mm thick layer of OPSS 1010 Granular 'A' aggregate below the pipe invert. Granular 'A' type aggregate should be provided around the pipe to at least 300 mm above the pipe and the bedding aggregate should be compacted to a minimum 100% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD), as per the Region of Waterloo and Area Municipalities Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services Document (DGSSMS), dated January 2019. A well-graded clear stone such as Coarse Aggregate for HL4 Asphaltic Concrete (OPSS 1003) could be used in the sewer trenches as bedding below the spring line of the pipe to facilitate sump pump dewatering, if necessary. The clear stone should be compacted with a plate tamper and fully wrapped with a non-woven geotextile to prevent the migration of fine particles from the saturated soils. 5.1.3 Trench Backfilling The trenches above the specified pipe bedding should be backfilled with inorganic on-site soils placed in maximum 300 mm thick lifts and compacted to at least 98% SPMDD, as per the DGSSMS. Wet or saturated soils are not considered suitable for reuse as trench backfill. Any additional material required at the site should comprise imported inorganic soils such as OPSS 1010 Select Subgrade Material specifications. To minimize potential problems, backfilling operations should follow closely after excavation so that only a minimal length of trench is exposed. Care should be taken to protect side slopes of excavations by diverting surface run-off away from the excavations. If construction extends into the winter, then additional steps should be taken to minimize frost and ensure that frozen material is not used as backfill. 5.2 Curbs, Gutter, and Sidewalks The concrete for curbs, gutters and sidewalks should be proportioned, mixed, placed and cured in accordance with the requirements of OPSS 353, and OPSS 1350 and shall meet the following specific requirements (OPSS 353.05.01), as per the City of Kitchener specification CKSS 353: Minimum compressive strength = 32 MPa at 28 days Maximum water to cement (w/c) ratio = 0.45 Coarse aggregate = 20.0 mm nominal max. size Maximum slump = 45 mm (for curb) / 70 ± 20 mm (for sidewalk) MTE Consultants| 53018-100-Rev01 | Blair Creek Drive Extension - Geotechnical Investigation | January 18, 20245 Air entrainment = 6.5 ± 1.5% A minimum of 150 SPMDD is required as a base for sidewalks. During cold weather any freshly placed concrete must be covered with insulating blankets to protect against freezing as per OPSS 904. Three cylinders from each pour should be taken for compressive strength testing. Air entrainment, temperature and slump tests should be conducted on the same batch of concrete from the test cylinders made. 5.3 Pavement Construction Installation of the services and construction of the new roadway is proposed along the subject area. The full construction of the pavement structure would consist of removing the existing topsoil, excavating to suitable subgrade elevation, and placement of imported OPSS 1010 hot mix asphalt. The existing fill materials encountered in Borehole BH106-23 are considered suitable to be left below the road structure following a proof roll and inspection by qualified geotechnical personnel. Areas with excessive organic content and/or topsoil, if encountered, must be subexcavated. Depending on finished grades at the site the pavement subgrade soils will comprise of compacted trench backfill, existing fill materials, or native soils. The City of Kitchener specified pavement design for a collector roadway without a transit route was deemed sufficient for the reconstruction and is provided in the following table; Table 3 - Pavement Design Pavement ComponentThickness HL3 Surface Hot Mix Asphalt40 mm HL4 Binder Hot Mix Asphalt80 mm 210 mm 450 mm Samples of aggregates should be checked for conformance to OPSS 1010 prior to utilization on-site and during construction. The Granular 'B' subbase and Granular 'A' base courses must be compacted to 100% SPMDD, as verified by insitu density testing. The hot mix asphalt paving materials should conform to the requirements of OPSS 1150. The asphalt should be placed and compacted in accordance with OPSS 310. The City of Kitchener specified Performance Graded Asphalt Cement (PG-AC) designation for the hot mix asphalt is 58-28. The surface asphalt should each be placed in one lift. The binder asphalt should be placed in two lifts. It is recommended to place the surface asphalt as soon as possible following placement of the binder asphalt to ensure the full pavement strength is provided for regular traffic. A joint transition treatment will be required where old and new pavement meet. Provided the existing pavement is 100 mm thick or greater, the recommended transition treatment comprises milling of the old surface layer approximately 0.3 m wide and 50 mm deep. Where the existing pavement is less than 100 mm thick, the transition treatment should comprise saw cutting the existing asphalt to provide a clean face to tie the new asphalt into. MTE Consultants| 53018-100-Rev01 | Blair Creek Drive Extension - Geotechnical Investigation | January 18, 20246 It is recommended to clean all of the construction joints with stiff bristle brooms and compressed air to remove all dirt, dust, and other foreign matter. A tack coat should be applied to all construction joints prior to the placement of hot mix asphalt to ensure an adequate bond is achieved between the pavement layers. The necessity for continuous repair work and paving supervision as well as quality assurance testing during road reconstruction projects cannot be over emphasized. An annual maintenance program is also recommended to maintain the pavements at a suitable level. The pavement design is based on the assumption that construction will be carried out during the drier time of the year and that the subgrade soil is stable as determined by proof-rolling inspected by qualified geotechnical personnel. The subgrade and subbase materials can be significantly damaged and loose internal strength if construction is conducted in unfavorable weather. If the subgrade is wet and unstable, additional granular subbase will be required. All materials and construction services required for the work should be in accordance with the relevant sections of the Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications. 5.3.1 Pavement Drainage Adequate subsurface drainage is considered critical to the performance and lifespan of pavement. The pavement subgrade should be sloped at a minimum of 3% to promote drainage, and the pavement granular courses and asphalt should be sloped at a minimum of 2% to promote rainwater drainage. Surface water should not be allowed to pond along the outside pavement edges. Short subdrains should be placed at subgrade level at each catchbasin and installation shall be in accordance with OPSS 405 and OPSD 216.021. The subdrain shall be 150 mm diameter perforated pipe conforming to OPSS 1801 or 1840, and prewrapped with geotextile conforming to OPSS 1860. 5.4 Low Impact Developments (LIDs) Based on the information provided, the use of Low Impact Developments (LIDs) are being considered. Based on the results of the investigation, the soil conditions in the upper 3.0 metres generally consist of topsoil overlying silty sand to sandy silt layers and/or sand and gravelly sand layers. Grain size analysis testing was carried out on a sample of the native sand and the gravelly sand, based on the results the sands and gravelly sands have an estimated hydraulic -1-4 permeability ranging from 1x10 to 1×10 m/s. LID measuress constructed within the sand and or gravelly sand should perform adequately. However, due to layers of silty sand to sandy silt being present insitu infiltration testing should be performed in the areas of proposed LID measures to accurately measure the infiltration of the soils in those areas. 5.5 Construction Inspection and Testing MTE recommends that geotechnical inspection and testing procedures be conducted throughout the various phases of the project. Engineer site visits should be conducted to confirm suitable subgrade conditions and soil compaction testing should be carried out on trench backfill. Imported granular materials should be tested for conformance to specifications prior to importation to the site. Field compaction testing of the pavement structure components (granulars and hot mix asphalt) should be conducted. Samples of the hot mix asphalt should be collected during pavement and laboratory testing for compliance completed. It is recommended to collect hot mix asphalt samples at a minimum frequency of 1 sample for each 500 tonnes placed on-site. MTE Consultants| 53018-100-Rev01 | Blair Creek Drive Extension - Geotechnical Investigation | January 18, 20247 During placement of concrete at the site, testing should be performed on-site to confirm the slump and air content of the concrete are within specifications. Concrete test cylinders should be cast for compressive strength testing from the same samples tested for slump and air 3 content. Concrete should be tested at a frequency of once every 100m or daily, whichever is greater. MTE offers soil compaction, concrete, and asphalt testing, as well as soil inspection services through our Kitchener, Stratford, and London offices. MTE Consultants| 53018-100-Rev01 | Blair Creek Drive Extension - Geotechnical Investigation | January 18, 20248 6.0 Limitations of Report Services performed by MTE Consultants Inc. (MTE) were conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the Geotechnical Engineering & Consulting profession practicing under similar conditions in the same geographic area were the services are provided. No other warranty or representation expressed or implied as to the accuracy of the information, conclusions or recommendations is included or intended in this report. This report was completed for the sole use of the Client. This report is not intended to be exhaustive in scope or to imply a risk-free site. As such, this report may not deal with all issues potentially applicable to the site and may omit aspects which are or may be of interest to the reader. In addition, it should be recognized that a soil sample result represents one distinct portion of a site at the time it is collected, and that the findings of this report are based on conditions as they existed during the time period of the investigation. The material in the report reflects our best judgment using the information available at the time the report was written. The soil and groundwater conditions between and beyond the test holes may differ from those encountered in the test holes. Should subsurface conditions arise that are different from those in the test holes MTE should be notified to determine whether or not changes should be made as a result of these conditions. It should be recognized that the passage of time may affect the views, conclusions and recommendations (if any) provided in this report because groundwater conditions of a property can change, along with regulatory requirements. All design details were not known at the time of submission of this report and it is recommended MTE should be retained to review the final design documents prior to construction to confirm they are consistent with our report recommendations. Should additional or new information become available, MTE recommends that it be brought to our attention in order that we may determine whether it affects the contents of this report. Any use which another party makes of this report, or any reliance on, or decisions to be made based upon it, are the responsibility of such parties. MTE accepts no responsibility for liabilities incurred by or damages, if any, suffered by another party as a result of decisions made or actions taken, based upon this report. Others with interest in the site should undertake their own investigations and studies to determine how or if the condition affects them or their plans. The contractors bidding on this project or undertaking the construction should make their own interpretation of the factual information and draw their own conclusions as to how subsurface conditions may affect their work. The benchmark and elevations provided in this report are primarily established to identify differences between the test hole locations and should not be used for other purposes such as, planning, development, grading, and excavation. MTE Consultants| 53018-100-Rev01 | Blair Creek Drive Extension - Geotechnical Investigation | January 18, 20249 All of which is respectfully submitted, MTE Consultants Inc. Randy AxfordBen Heinbuch, P.Eng. Project Manager, GeotechnicalGeotechnical Engineer 519-271-7952519-703-4505 raxford@mte85.combheinbuch@mte85.com RMB:bgh M:\\53018\\100\\06 Reports\\Geotechnical Investigation\\Report\\REV01\\53018-100_2024-01-18_Geotechnical Rpt_BlairCreekDrive_Rev01.docx MTE Consultants| 53018-100-Rev01 | Blair Creek Drive Extension - Geotechnical Investigation | January 18, 202410 Appendix A Figures Figure 1-Site Plan AppendixB BoreholeLogs Abbreviations and Symbols MTE BoreholesBH101-23toBH107-23 Abbreviations The following are abbreviations and symbols commonly used on borehole logs, figures and reports. Sample TypesSoil Tests ASAuger SamplePPPocket Penetrometer CSChunk Sample FVField Vane BSBulk Sample SPTStandard Penetration Test GSGrab Sample CPTCone Penetration Test WSWash Sample WCWater Content SSSplit Spoon WLWater Level RCRock Core SCSoil Core TWThinwall, Open TPThinwall, Piston Penetration Resistance The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped Standard Penetration Test, 760 mm (30 in.) required to drive a 50 mm (2 in.) open spilt N (ASTM D1586) spoon sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in.). The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped Dynamic Cone Penetration760 mm (30 in.) required to drive an uncased 50 mm (2 in.) Resistance of 300 mm (12 in.). Soil Description Sampler advanced by static Cohesive SoilsUndrained Shear Strength (Cu) WH weight of hammer Sampler advanced by static ConsistencykPapsf WR weight of drilling rods Very Soft0 to 120 to 250 Sampler advanced by PH Soft12 to 25250 to 500 hydraulic force Sampler advanced by Firm25 to 50500 to 1,000 PM manual force Stiff50 to 1001,000 to 2,000 DTPLDrier than Plastic Limit Very Stiff100 to 2002,000 to 4,000 APLAbout Plastic Limit HardAbove 200Above 4,000 WTPLWetter than Plastic Limit Cohesionless Soils Metres below Ground mbgs Surface Relative DensitySPT N Value Very Loose0 to 4 Loose4 to 10 Compact10 to 30 Dense30 to 50 Very DenseAbove 50 1 AppendixC Laboratory Test Results Table 101 101 53018-100 Table No: MTE File No.: Description Gravelly SAND, trace Silt and Caly SAND, some Gravel, trace Silt and Clay 1.5-2.1 mbgs3.0-3.7 mbgs Date Tested:May 26-30, 2023 Date Sampled:May 5, 2023 SS-3SS-5 US Standard Sieve Numbers Sample #Sample Depth Particle Size DistributionAnalysis Test Results Symbol Borehole ID Client:City of Kitchener Sieve OpeningIn Inches Project Name:Blair Creek Drive Extension Project Location:Blair Creek Drive, Kitchener, ON NOTES: MTE, July 2023 Soil Characterization Report (Draft) Blair Creek DriveBlair Creek DriveBlair Creek Drive Future ExtensionFuture ExtensionFuture Extension Draft PreliminaryPreliminaryPreliminarySoil CharacterizationSoil CharacterizationSoil Characterization ReportReportReport Project Location:Project Location:Project Location: Blair CreekBlair CreekBlair CreekDriveDriveDrivefromfromfromReidel Drive and Strasburg DriveReidel Drive and Strasburg DriveReidel Drive and Strasburg Drive KitchenerKitchenerKitchener, ON, ON, ON Prepared for:Prepared for:Prepared for: City of KitchenerCity of KitchenerCity of Kitchener 200 King Street West200 King Street West200 King Street West Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 Prepared by:Prepared by:Prepared by: MTEMTEMTEConsultantsConsultantsConsultantsInc.Inc.Inc. 520 Bingemans Centre Drive520 Bingemans Centre Drive520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ONKitchener, ONKitchener, ONN2B 3X9N2B 3X9N2B 3X9 JJJulyulyuly121212, 20, 20, 20232323 MTE File No.:MTE File No.:MTE File No.:53018-100 Contents 1.0Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................................................1 2.0Scope of the Investigation.......................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................1 3.0Investigation Methods............................................................................................................................................................................... .......................................................2 (i)Drilling............................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................................................2 (ii)Soil Sampling...................................................................................................................................................................................... .............................................................................................2 (iii)Field Screening Measures.......................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................222 (iv)Groundwater........................................................................................................................................................................................ .................................................................................................333 (v)Sediment............................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................333 (vi)Analytical Testing................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................333 (vii)Residual Management............................................................................................................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................444 (viii)Elevation Surveying.............................................................................................................................................................................. ..........................................................................................................................................4 (ix)Quality Assurance/Quality Control MeasuresQuality Assurance/Quality Control MeasuresQuality Assurance/Quality Control Measures..................................................................... .............................................................................................................................4 (x)Deviations from Sampling andDeviations from Sampling andDeviations from Sampling andAnalysis PlanAnalysis PlanAnalysis Plan......................................................................... .........................................................................................................................4 4.0Review and EvaluationReview and EvaluationReview and Evaluation..................................................................................................................................... ...............................................................................................................................................................5 (i)Project Area Geology and HydrogeologyProject Area Geology and HydrogeologyProject Area Geology and Hydrogeology..................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................5 (ii)Regulatory Regulatory Regulatory StandardsStandardsStandards....................................................................................................................................... ..............................................................................................................................................................5 (iii)Soil QualitySoil QualitySoil Quality.............................................................................................................................................................. .......................................................................................................................................................6 (i)Leachate TestingLeachate TestingLeachate Testing.................................................................................................................................................... .....................................................................................7 (ii)(ii)(ii)QA/QCQA/QCQA/QC............................................................................................................................................................................ .............................................................................................................................................7 (iv)(iv)(iv)Summary of FindingsSummary of FindingsSummary of Findings.................................................................................................................................. ....................................................................................................7 (v)(v)(v)DiDiDiscussion and Recommendations scussion and Recommendations scussion and Recommendations Excess Soil Management Reuse OptionsExcess Soil Management Reuse OptionsExcess Soil Management Reuse Options.............8 (i)(i)(i)OnOnOn---Site Reuse of Soil within Project AreaSite Reuse of Soil within Project AreaSite Reuse of Soil within Project Area................................................................... .................................................................8 (ii)(ii)(ii)Zone 1 Excess Soil: Landfill or Class 1 Site Zone 1 Excess Soil: Landfill or Class 1 Site Zone 1 Excess Soil: Landfill or Class 1 Site Soil Concentrations Above Table 2.1 ICC ESQS, but below Table 2 SCSESQS, but below Table 2 SCSESQS, but below Table 2 SCS...................................................................................................................... ......................................8 (iii)(iii)(iii)Zone 2 Excess Soil: Beneficial OffZone 2 Excess Soil: Beneficial OffZone 2 Excess Soil: Beneficial Off---Site Reuse Site Reuse Site Reuse Meeting Table 1 SCS/ESQS (and Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS)Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS)Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS)....................................................................................................... ..............................................9 (iv)Recommended OnRecommended OnRecommended On---Site Reuse ApproachSite Reuse ApproachSite Reuse Approach...................................................................10 (vi)Groundwater ConsiderationsGroundwater ConsiderationsGroundwater Considerations.........................................................................................10 5.0LimitationsLimitationsLimitations................................................................................................................................................................... ...................11 6.0References.....................................................................................................................................................................................12 Figures Figure 1:SitePlan Figure 2:Plan and Profile Tables Tables101and 201:Metals and InorganicsAnalysis in Soil Tables 102and 202:Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) Analysis in SoilPetroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) Analysis in SoilPetroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) Analysis in Soil Tables 103and 203:Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene and Xylenes (BTEX)Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene and Xylenes (BTEX)Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene and Xylenes (BTEX)Analysis in SoilAnalysis in SoilAnalysis in Soil Tables 104and 204:OC PesticidesAnalysis in Soil Appendices AppendixA:BoreholeLogs Appendix B:LaboratoryCertificates of AnalysisCertificates of AnalysisCertificates of Analysis 1.0Introduction MTE Consultants Inc. (MTE) was retained by the City of Kitchener (City) to conduct a preliminaryenvironmental soil quality assessment and to prepare this draft Soil Characterization Report (SCR) for the extension of Blair Creek Drive in Kitchener, Ontario. The proposed ener, Ontario. The proposed ener, Ontario. The proposed new stretchof Blair Creek Drivewill extend betweenReidel Driveandthe future the future the future Strasburg RoadStrasburg RoadStrasburg Road extension, as shown , as shown , as shown onononFigure 1Figure 1Figure 1. The Project Area currently consists ofa portion of a vacant agricultural field.agricultural field.agricultural field.TheTheThesurrounding surrounding surrounding properties consist of agricultural fields, wood lots and rural residentialresidentialresidentialpropertiespropertiesproperties, including a , including a , including a farmstead with several outbuildings which is located approximately 60 m to the northeastfarmstead with several outbuildings which is located approximately 60 m to the northeastfarmstead with several outbuildings which is located approximately 60 m to the northeast. The . The . The existing Reidel Road corridor is located to the east and a golf driving range is located Reidel Road corridor is located to the east and a golf driving range is located Reidel Road corridor is located to the east and a golf driving range is located approximately 400 m to the south on New Dundee Road.approximately 400 m to the south on New Dundee Road.approximately 400 m to the south on New Dundee Road. Theproject will involve the installation of services along the new roadway and construction of will involve the installation of services along the new roadway and construction of will involve the installation of services along the new roadway and construction of pavement structure withone lane in each direction ne lane in each direction ne lane in each direction including including including concrete curbs and gutters on each concrete curbs and gutters on each concrete curbs and gutters on each side along the road. Construction depths are anticipated to be approximately 4.0 meters below Construction depths are anticipated to be approximately 4.0 meters below Construction depths are anticipated to be approximately 4.0 meters below ground surface (mbgs) along the new roadway.ground surface (mbgs) along the new roadway.ground surface (mbgs) along the new roadway. Thisgeotechnical investigation for the geotechnical investigation for the geotechnical investigation for the project as part of the preliminary design stage. project as part of the preliminary design stage. project as part of the preliminary design stage. Under Under Under Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.)Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.)Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.)406/19 t406/19 t406/19 there here here are exemptions for low-risk Project Areas that are/have been used for agrisk Project Areas that are/have been used for agrisk Project Areas that are/have been used for agricultural purposes ricultural purposes ricultural purposes (refer to Section 8 of O.Reg. 406/19)Reg. 406/19)Reg. 406/19)and, aand, aand, as suchs suchs such,,,this project isthis project isthis project iscurrentlycurrentlycurrentlyexempt from the exempt from the exempt from the regulated planning requirements.planning requirements.planning requirements. Asnew road constructionconstructionconstructionwillwillwillnot not not likely occur likely occur likely occur forforfora few years, the City opted to complete a a few years, the City opted to complete a a few years, the City opted to complete a preliminary environmental soil quality assessmentnvironmental soil quality assessmentnvironmental soil quality assessmentin conjunction with the geotechnical in conjunction with the geotechnical in conjunction with the geotechnical investigation. Therefore, tTherefore, tTherefore, the work described herein he work described herein he work described herein waswaswascompleted in completed in completed in the spirit ofthe spirit ofthe spirit ofO. Reg. 406/19for preliminary due diligence purposes. for preliminary due diligence purposes. for preliminary due diligence purposes. n Assessment of n Assessment of n Assessment of Past Uses (APU) and a formal Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) have not been completed and are Uses (APU) and a formal Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) have not been completed and are Uses (APU) and a formal Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) have not been completed and are outside of the current scope of work.outside of the current scope of work.outside of the current scope of work. The purpose of the assessment was to determine the general environmental quality of soil The purpose of the assessment was to determine the general environmental quality of soil The purpose of the assessment was to determine the general environmental quality of soil within the Project Area in advanwithin the Project Area in advanwithin the Project Area in advance of the project, which at a minimum is expected to generate ce of the project, which at a minimum is expected to generate ce of the project, which at a minimum is expected to generate excess topsoil requiring appropriate management during the future construction activities.excess topsoil requiring appropriate management during the future construction activities.excess topsoil requiring appropriate management during the future construction activities. was previowas previowas previously named the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the Ontario Ministry usly named the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the Ontario Ministry usly named the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). For ease of discussion in this report, of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). For ease of discussion in this report, of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). For ease of discussion in this report, 2.0Scope of the InvestigationScope of the InvestigationScope of the Investigation Thefollowing scope of work was completed following scope of work was completed following scope of work was completed forthe SCR: PreparPreparPrepareeeaaaSiteSiteSite---SpecificSpecificSpecificHealth and Safety Plan (HASP) including safety provisions for project team for project team for project team members and personal protective equipmentmembers and personal protective equipmentmembers and personal protective equipmentrequirements. Advancement ofAdvancement ofAdvancement ofsevenboreholesin conjunction with thegeotechnicalinvestigation, for the collection of representative soil samples. Recordthe soil stratigraphyandheadspace readings from all collected soil sample intervals, including observing any staining or visual evidence of contamination. MTE Consultants|53018-100|Draft Soil Characterization Report | Blair Creek Drive Extension,Kitchener, ON|July12, 20231 Submission of selected topsoil andsub-soil samples to an accredited laboratory for chemical analysis including Petroleum HydrocarbonFractions (PHC)F1-F4, Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX),Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs),Metals,Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons(PAHs),Electrical Conductivity (EC),Sodium Adsorption Ration (SAR),and pH. The collection of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) field field field duplicates samplesduplicates samplesduplicates samples. Surveyingthe ground surface at all investigative locations with respect to a fixed the ground surface at all investigative locations with respect to a fixed the ground surface at all investigative locations with respect to a fixed point. Data assessment and reporting. 3.0Investigation Methods (i)Drilling The fieldworkfor this investigation was carried out for this investigation was carried out for this investigation was carried out on May 5, 2023on May 5, 2023on May 5, 2023and involved the drilling of and involved the drilling of and involved the drilling of sevenBoreholes (BH101-23to BH107-232323)))to 5 or 6 mbgsto 5 or 6 mbgsto 5 or 6 mbgs...The locations of the boreholes are The locations of the boreholes are The locations of the boreholes are shown on the LocationPlan, Figure 1...The borehole logs are provideThe borehole logs are provideThe borehole logs are providedddin in in Appendix Appendix Appendix AAA... Public utility companies were contacted prior to the start of drilling activities Public utility companies were contacted prior to the start of drilling activities Public utility companies were contacted prior to the start of drilling activities tototoidentify identify identify underground utilities near the drilling drilling drilling locations.locations.locations. The boreholes were advanced with a Morooka MST 800 drill rig eqThe boreholes were advanced with a Morooka MST 800 drill rig eqThe boreholes were advanced with a Morooka MST 800 drill rig equipped with continuous flight uipped with continuous flight uipped with continuous flight solid stem augers and was supplied and operated by London Soil Test Ltd.solid stem augers and was supplied and operated by London Soil Test Ltd.solid stem augers and was supplied and operated by London Soil Test Ltd. Soil cores were recovered from each borehole location using split spoon samplers and were Soil cores were recovered from each borehole location using split spoon samplers and were Soil cores were recovered from each borehole location using split spoon samplers and were logged by MTE for geological characteristics as well as visualogged by MTE for geological characteristics as well as visualogged by MTE for geological characteristics as well as visual and olfactory evidence of l and olfactory evidence of l and olfactory evidence of environmental impacts such as staining, odours or the presence of nonenvironmental impacts such as staining, odours or the presence of nonenvironmental impacts such as staining, odours or the presence of non---soil materials. Sampling soil materials. Sampling soil materials. Sampling equipment (e.g.,e.g.,e.g.,split spoons) wsplit spoons) wsplit spoons) was as as cleaned between locations to minimize the potential for cross cleaned between locations to minimize the potential for cross cleaned between locations to minimize the potential for cross contamination between boreholes.contamination between boreholes.contamination between boreholes. (ii)SoiSoiSoil Samplingl Samplingl Sampling Selected soil samples collected from the split spoons (within theSelected soil samples collected from the split spoons (within theSelected soil samples collected from the split spoons (within theanticipated futureconstruction depths) were subdivided for visual and olfactory screening, combustible soil vapour (CSV) depths) were subdivided for visual and olfactory screening, combustible soil vapour (CSV) depths) were subdivided for visual and olfactory screening, combustible soil vapour (CSV) headspace measurements, and potential laboratory chemicalheadspace measurements, and potential laboratory chemicalheadspace measurements, and potential laboratory chemicalanalysis.All soil samples were placed into new laboratory supplied containers, which were clearly labeled with a unique sample placed into new laboratory supplied containers, which were clearly labeled with a unique sample placed into new laboratory supplied containers, which were clearly labeled with a unique sample identifier, project number, MTE contact name and the requested analytical parameters. Soil identifier, project number, MTE contact name and the requested analytical parameters. Soil identifier, project number, MTE contact name and the requested analytical parameters. Soil samples for PHC F1 and samples for PHC F1 and samples for PHC F1 and VOC/VOC/VOC/BTEX BTEX BTEX analyses were collected following USEPA SWanalyses were collected following USEPA SWanalyses were collected following USEPA SW-846 Method 5035 (field methanol preservation). Soil samples collected for other analyses were collected in 5035 (field methanol preservation). Soil samples collected for other analyses were collected in 5035 (field methanol preservation). Soil samples collected for other analyses were collected in 250250250ml unpreserved clear glass jars supplied by the laboratory.ml unpreserved clear glass jars supplied by the laboratory.ml unpreserved clear glass jars supplied by the laboratory. New nitrile gloves were worn during the hNew nitrile gloves were worn during the hNew nitrile gloves were worn during the handling of all samples, sampling equipment and sample jars and changed between each sample. The soil samples were placed in a cooler with sample jars and changed between each sample. The soil samples were placed in a cooler with sample jars and changed between each sample. The soil samples were placed in a cooler with ice for transportation ice for transportation ice for transportation under Chainunder Chainunder Chain-of-Custody to the analytical laboratory, ALS Environmental (ALS)of WaterlooWaterlooWaterloo, Onta, Onta, Ontario.rio.rio. (iii)Field Screening MeasuresField Screening MeasuresField Screening Measures A portion of each soil sample was placed into a new zipA portion of each soil sample was placed into a new zipA portion of each soil sample was placed into a new zip-top plastic bag for field headspace screening. The organic vapour concentrations in the headspace of each soil sample were measured using a pre-cleaned and calibrated RKIEagle 2 sample drawing monitor. The equipment calibration and maintenance were recommendations prior to arriving at the Project Area and in the field to ensure proper operation. MTE Consultants|53018-100|Draft Soil Characterization Report | Blair Creek Drive Extension,Kitchener, ON|July12, 20232 The procedure for collection of field headspace measurements included waiting approximately 15 minutes for the soil/vapour in the zip-top plastic bag to equilibrate and allow for headspace development andinserting the sampling probe into a small opening in the bag. The field headspace readingswere measured to be 0 parts per million (ppm) or5ppm for organic vapour, indicative of non-detectable or low backgroundconcentrations of volatiles in the recovered soil samples from within the planned construction depth. (iv)Groundwater Groundwater observations and measurements were carried out in the open boreholes at the Groundwater observations and measurements were carried out in the open boreholes at the Groundwater observations and measurements were carried out in the open boreholes at the time of drilling and are summarized on the borehole logs. Saturated conditions were not Saturated conditions were not Saturated conditions were not encountered in the boreholes during drilling and each borehole was dry prior to backfilling.during drilling and each borehole was dry prior to backfilling.during drilling and each borehole was dry prior to backfilling. However, isolated wetto saturatedseamswereencounteredencounteredencountered,,,generally within the generally within the generally within the native native native silty silty silty sand encountered inBH103-23 and BH106-23. It should be noted that the groundwater levels can vary and are subject to seasonal fluctuations groundwater levels can vary and are subject to seasonal fluctuations groundwater levels can vary and are subject to seasonal fluctuations and local variations. (v)Sediment The Project Area consist of a portion of an agricultural field. No ponds or waterbodies are a portion of an agricultural field. No ponds or waterbodies are a portion of an agricultural field. No ponds or waterbodies are present within the Project Area. There is no present within the Project Area. There is no present within the Project Area. There is no sediment sediment sediment present within the Project Areapresent within the Project Areapresent within the Project Areaand, and, and, therefore, sediment samples were not collected for analysis.sediment samples were not collected for analysis.sediment samples were not collected for analysis. (vi)Analytical Testing Environmental analyses were conducted on selected samples, representing Environmental analyses were conducted on selected samples, representing Environmental analyses were conducted on selected samples, representing soil soil soil considered considered considered likely to be excavated or removed as part of the likely to be excavated or removed as part of the likely to be excavated or removed as part of the fufufuture road ture road ture road construction project. All samples construction project. All samples construction project. All samples were submitted to ALSwere submitted to ALSwere submitted to ALSEnvironmental (ALS)Environmental (ALS)Environmental (ALS), a CALA, a CALA, a CALA---accredited laboratory, for analysis of accredited laboratory, for analysis of accredited laboratory, for analysis of the minimum parameterminimum parameterminimum parametergroupsgroupsgroupsrequired under O.Reg. 406/19required under O.Reg. 406/19required under O.Reg. 406/19and/orand/orand/orthethethecontaminants ofcontaminants ofcontaminants ofpotential concern anticipatedanticipatedanticipatedfor the for the for the Project Area (Project Area (Project Area (e.g.,e.g.,e.g.,OC Pesticides in topsoilOC Pesticides in topsoilOC Pesticides in topsoil))). The samples were . The samples were . The samples were selectedfor general for general for general spatial spatial spatial assessment purposes, and as warranted based on field assessment purposes, and as warranted based on field assessment purposes, and as warranted based on field observations and headspace results, as observations and headspace results, as observations and headspace results, as follows:follows:follows: Table 111---Environmental Laboratory Testing SummaryEnvironmental Laboratory Testing SummaryEnvironmental Laboratory Testing Summary Sample IDSample IDApprox. Depth (mbgs)Approx. Depth (mbgs)MatrixMatrixAnalysis BH101BH101BH101--- 0.0.0.000---0.60.60.6TopsoilTopsoilTopsoilPHCs,BTEX, Metals,OCPs, pH BH101BH101BH101---23 SS223 SS223 SS20.80.80.8---1.41.41.4SandSandSand& GravelPHCs,BTEX,Metals, pH BH102BH102BH102---0.0.0.000---0.60.60.6TopsoilPHCs, BTEX, Metals BH102BH102BH102---23 SS323 SS323 SS31.51.51.5---2.12.12.1SandPHCs, BTEX, Metals BH103BH103BH103---0.0.0.000---0.60.60.6TopsoilPHCs, BTEX, Metals,OCPs, pH BH10BH10BH10333---23 SS423 SS423 SS42.32.32.3---2.92.92.9Silty Sand*PHCs, BTEX, Metals, pH, TCLP BH104BH104BH104---0.0.0.000---0.0.0.222TopsoilPHCs, BTEX, Metals BH104-23 SS223 SS223 SS20.80.80.8-1.4SandPHCs, BTEX, Metals BH105-0.0.0.0-0.6TopsoilPHCs, BTEX, Metals,OCPs, pH BH105-23 SS31.5-2.1SandPHCs, BTEX, Metals, pH BH106-0.0-0.6TopsoilPHCs, BTEX, Metals BH106-23 SS20.8-1.4Fill (sand)PHCs, BTEX, Metals BH107-0.0-0.3TopsoilPHCs, BTEX, Metals,OCPs, pH BH107-23 SS42.3-2.9SandPHCs, BTEX, Metals, pH Notes:*wet to saturatedseams;PHC petroleum hydrocarbon fractions; BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes;OCPs Organochlorinated Pesticides;TCLPToxicity CharacterizationLeachate Procedure. MTE Consultants|53018-100|Draft Soil Characterization Report | Blair Creek Drive Extension,Kitchener, ON|July12, 20233 (vii)Residual Management Excess soil cuttings generated during the drilling activitieswere placed/dispersed withinthe Project Area. All ofthe boreholes advanced during drilling activities werebackfilled with bentonite. (viii)Elevation Surveying The borehole coordinates and ground surface elevations were surveyed by MTE with a Trimble The borehole coordinates and ground surface elevations were surveyed by MTE with a Trimble The borehole coordinates and ground surface elevations were surveyed by MTE with a Trimble Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) rover. The borehole locations are referenced to borehole locations are referenced to borehole locations are referenced to Canadian Spatial Reference System (CSRS 1997) coordinates with the zone reference (17T) Canadian Spatial Reference System (CSRS 1997) coordinates with the zone reference (17T) Canadian Spatial Reference System (CSRS 1997) coordinates with the zone reference (17T) excluded. The geodetic ground surface elevations are based on GNSS and local base station excluded. The geodetic ground surface elevations are based on GNSS and local base station excluded. The geodetic ground surface elevations are based on GNSS and local base station telemetry and have a vertical root mean squared error of less than 20 mm.quared error of less than 20 mm.quared error of less than 20 mm. (ix)Quality Assurance/Quality Control Measures/Quality Control Measures/Quality Control Measures A QA/QC program was implemented forexcess soilexcess soilexcess soilsample sample sample activities activities activities to demonstrate that the to demonstrate that the to demonstrate that the data collected was representative of the conditions data collected was representative of the conditions data collected was representative of the conditions within the Project Area within the Project Area within the Project Area and met the saand met the saand met the sampling mpling mpling program objectives. The QA/QC program included field QA/QC procedures and laboratory QA/QC procedures.The QA/QC program included field QA/QC procedures and laboratory QA/QC procedures.The QA/QC program included field QA/QC procedures and laboratory QA/QC procedures. Field QA procedures included: standards and MECP guidance for fielstandards and MECP guidance for fielstandards and MECP guidance for field sample data collection;d sample data collection;d sample data collection; The use of new laboratoryThe use of new laboratoryThe use of new laboratory---supplied sample containers;supplied sample containers;supplied sample containers; The use of new and dedicated sampling equipment;The use of new and dedicated sampling equipment;The use of new and dedicated sampling equipment; Theuse ofuse ofuse ofnew nitrile gloves during and between the handling of all samples and new nitrile gloves during and between the handling of all samples and new nitrile gloves during and between the handling of all samples and field equipment; andfield equipment; andfield equipment; and Implementing equipment cImplementing equipment cImplementing equipment cleaning procedures.leaning procedures.leaning procedures. Laboratory analyses were completed by an analytical laboratory accredited in accordance with Laboratory analyses were completed by an analytical laboratory accredited in accordance with Laboratory analyses were completed by an analytical laboratory accredited in accordance with the International Standard ISO/IEC 17025 General Requirement for the Competence of Testing the International Standard ISO/IEC 17025 General Requirement for the Competence of Testing the International Standard ISO/IEC 17025 General Requirement for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories, dated May 5, 2005 (as and Calibration Laboratories, dated May 5, 2005 (as and Calibration Laboratories, dated May 5, 2005 (as amended), and accredited in accordance amended), and accredited in accordance amended), and accredited in accordance with the applicable standards for proficiency testing developed by the Standards Council of with the applicable standards for proficiency testing developed by the Standards Council of with the applicable standards for proficiency testing developed by the Standards Council of Canada or the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation.Canada or the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation.Canada or the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation. Laboratory QA/QC procedures were implemented internally by tLaboratory QA/QC procedures were implemented internally by tLaboratory QA/QC procedures were implemented internally by the laboratory and validated through a review of the sample Chainthrough a review of the sample Chainthrough a review of the sample Chain---ofofofofofof---Custody forms and Laboratory Certificates of Analysis.Custody forms and Laboratory Certificates of Analysis.Custody forms and Laboratory Certificates of Analysis. QC samples (field duplicates) were also submitted for analysis. The analytical data precision QC samples (field duplicates) were also submitted for analysis. The analytical data precision QC samples (field duplicates) were also submitted for analysis. The analytical data precision was assessed by calculating the Relatiwas assessed by calculating the Relatiwas assessed by calculating the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) between the investigation ve Percent Difference (RPD) between the investigation ve Percent Difference (RPD) between the investigation sample results (C1) and the field duplicate sample results (C2). The RPD acceptance criteria sample results (C1) and the field duplicate sample results (C2). The RPD acceptance criteria sample results (C1) and the field duplicate sample results (C2). The RPD acceptance criteria was set atas set atas set at50% for50% for50% forsoil samples.soil samples.soil samples. (x)Deviations from Sampling and Analysis PlanDeviations from Sampling and Analysis PlanDeviations from Sampling and Analysis Plan There were no deviations from thedeviations from thedeviations from theproposed sampling and laboratory programduring the fieldwork activities on fieldwork activities on fieldwork activities on May 5, 2023May 5, 2023May 5, 2023. MTE Consultants|53018-100|Draft Soil Characterization Report | Blair Creek Drive Extension,Kitchener, ON|July12, 20234 4.0Review and Evaluation (i)Project Area Geology and Hydrogeology The soil stratigraphy encountered at the Project Area generally consisted of The soil stratigraphy encountered at the Project Area generally consisted of The soil stratigraphy encountered at the Project Area generally consisted of surficialtopsoil overlyingfill or native sand to sand and graveldeposits. Borehole logs describing and illustrating the soil stratigraphy at each investigation location are Borehole logs describing and illustrating the soil stratigraphy at each investigation location are Borehole logs describing and illustrating the soil stratigraphy at each investigation location are included in Appendix A. MTE notes the following pertinentinformation: Fill was encountered below the surficialtopsoil at BH106topsoil at BH106topsoil at BH106---232323and extended toand extended toand extended toaaadepthdepthdepth of 2.1mbgs. The fill was comprised of brown sand to silty clay, brown sand to silty clay, brown sand to silty clay, sandy siltsandy siltsandy siltwith trace with trace with trace amounts of wood fragments. No evidence of environmental impacts (e.g., no odour, No evidence of environmental impacts (e.g., no odour, No evidence of environmental impacts (e.g., no odour, staining, or deleterious debris) was observed at the investigatstaining, or deleterious debris) was observed at the investigatstaining, or deleterious debris) was observed at the investigated locations.ed locations.ed locations. (ii)Regulatory Standards MTE compared the analytical results to the following MECP tables:MTE compared the analytical results to the following MECP tables:MTE compared the analytical results to the following MECP tables: On-Site Reuse Considerations 2011 Table 2: Full Depth Background Site Conditional Standards (SCS) for : Full Depth Background Site Conditional Standards (SCS) for : Full Depth Background Site Conditional Standards (SCS) for Agricultural, Residential / Parkland / Institutional , Residential / Parkland / Institutional , Residential / Parkland / Institutional and Industrial / Commercial / and Industrial / Commercial / and Industrial / Commercial / Community Property Use (Table Property Use (Table Property Use (Table 2 Ag., Table 2 RPI SCS, and Table 2 ICC2 Ag., Table 2 RPI SCS, and Table 2 ICC2 Ag., Table 2 RPI SCS, and Table 2 ICCSCSSCSSCS, respectively). Off-site Reuse Considerationssite Reuse Considerationssite Reuse Considerations 2011 Table 1: Full Depth Background Site Conditional Standards (SCS) for 2011 Table 1: Full Depth Background Site Conditional Standards (SCS) for 2011 Table 1: Full Depth Background Site Conditional Standards (SCS) for Residential / Parkland / InstitResidential / Parkland / InstitResidential / Parkland / Institutional / Industrial / Commercial / Community Property utional / Industrial / Commercial / Community Property utional / Industrial / Commercial / Community Property Use (Table 1 SCS); andUse (Table 1 SCS); andUse (Table 1 SCS); and 2020 Table 2.1: Full Depth Background Excess Soil Quality Standards in a Potable 2020 Table 2.1: Full Depth Background Excess Soil Quality Standards in a Potable 2020 Table 2.1: Full Depth Background Excess Soil Quality Standards in a Potable Groundwater Condition for Agricultural, Residential / Parkland / Institutional Groundwater Condition for Agricultural, Residential / Parkland / Institutional Groundwater Condition for Agricultural, Residential / Parkland / Institutional and Industrial / CIndustrial / CIndustrial / Commercial / Community Property Use (Table 2.1 Ag. ESQS, Table 2.1 ommercial / Community Property Use (Table 2.1 Ag. ESQS, Table 2.1 ommercial / Community Property Use (Table 2.1 Ag. ESQS, Table 2.1 RPI ESQS, and Table 2.1 ICC ESQS, respectively).RPI ESQS, and Table 2.1 ICC ESQS, respectively).RPI ESQS, and Table 2.1 ICC ESQS, respectively). NNNote 1ote 1ote 1: For : For : For additional additional additional ease of discussion, the following definitions are provided:ease of discussion, the following definitions are provided:ease of discussion, the following definitions are provided: ------As identified in 'As identified in 'As identified in 'Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (as amended April 15, 2011). Prior to 2021, commonly used to determine soil (as amended April 15, 2011). Prior to 2021, commonly used to determine soil (as amended April 15, 2011). Prior to 2021, commonly used to determine soil quality.quality.quality. --As identified in Appendix 1 of the Rules for Soil Management adopted by reference in O. Reg. 406/19 made under the Rules for Soil Management adopted by reference in O. Reg. 406/19 made under the Rules for Soil Management adopted by reference in O. Reg. 406/19 made under the Environmental Protection Act (December 8, 2020). Current applicable Standards to Environmental Protection Act (December 8, 2020). Current applicable Standards to Environmental Protection Act (December 8, 2020). Current applicable Standards to determine excess soil quality.determine excess soil quality.determine excess soil quality. Note 2: Table 1 SCS are identical to Table 1 : Table 1 SCS are identical to Table 1 : Table 1 SCS are identical to Table 1 ESQS. The soilsample submitted for sample submitted for sample submitted for TCLP analyses wascompared to theapplicable O.Reg. 347/90 Schedule 4 criteria. MTE Consultants|53018-100|Draft Soil Characterization Report | Blair Creek Drive Extension,Kitchener, ON|July12, 20235 (iii)Soil Quality MTE selected 15soil samples(including onefield duplicate soil sample)for laboratory analysis from all sevenboreholeswithin the Project Areaat depths ranging from 0.2and2.9mbgs (representing soil within the anticipated future constructionexcavation depths). The soil quality analytical data isprovided inthe attachedTables 101 to 10Tables 101 to 10Tables 101 to 10444(for comparison to (for comparison to (for comparison to the Table 2 SCS)and Tables 201 to 204(for comparison to the Table 1 or comparison to the Table 1 or comparison to the Table 1 SCSSCSSCSand Table 2.1 and Table 2.1 and Table 2.1 ESQS).Copiesof the ALS Laboratory Certificates of Analysis are included in of the ALS Laboratory Certificates of Analysis are included in of the ALS Laboratory Certificates of Analysis are included in AppendixAppendixAppendixBand a summary of the locations and depths sampled and analyzed are shown on the attached Plan a summary of the locations and depths sampled and analyzed are shown on the attached Plan a summary of the locations and depths sampled and analyzed are shown on the attached Plan and Profile, Figure 2. Based on the analytical results the following isprovided: Allsamples analyzed, inclusive of topsoil and the underlying subsoil, inclusive of topsoil and the underlying subsoil, inclusive of topsoil and the underlying subsoilmeet the Table meet the Table meet the Table 2Ag. SCSand, therefore, the Table 2 RPI and ICC SCS, therefore, the Table 2 RPI and ICC SCS, therefore, the Table 2 RPI and ICC SCSfor the analyzed for the analyzed for the analyzed parameters. Concentrations of Benzene, Toluene and Xylenes above the Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and Concentrations of Benzene, Toluene and Xylenes above the Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and Concentrations of Benzene, Toluene and Xylenes above the Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS were identified in the subsoil at Borehole BH103were identified in the subsoil at Borehole BH103were identified in the subsoil at Borehole BH103---23 between 23 between 23 between approximately 2.3 and 2.9 m.approximately 2.3 and 2.9 m.approximately 2.3 and 2.9 m.The borehole log for this drilling location indicates The borehole log for this drilling location indicates The borehole log for this drilling location indicates saturated seams of silty sand at this depthsaturated seams of silty sand at this depthsaturated seams of silty sand at this depthabove a layer of compact sand from 3 to above a layer of compact sand from 3 to above a layer of compact sand from 3 to 3.4 m bgs, indicating that the benzene, toluene and xylene reported in the soil , indicating that the benzene, toluene and xylene reported in the soil , indicating that the benzene, toluene and xylene reported in the soil above above above 3 m bgsmay have beenmay have beenmay have beencaused caused caused by impacted groundwater by impacted groundwater by impacted groundwater flowing near this location flowing near this location flowing near this location at some point in time.at some point in time.at some point in time. A concentration of BenzeneA concentration of BenzeneA concentration of Benzeneabove the above the above the Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS was identified in the topsoil at Borehole BH105identified in the topsoil at Borehole BH105identified in the topsoil at Borehole BH105---232323...A concentration of total A concentration of total A concentration of total Xylenes above the Table 1 SCS/ESQS was also reported in this sample, but below the Table above the Table 1 SCS/ESQS was also reported in this sample, but below the Table above the Table 1 SCS/ESQS was also reported in this sample, but below the Table 2.1 Ag. ESQS.2.1 Ag. ESQS.2.1 Ag. ESQS. A concentration of Benzene above A concentration of Benzene above A concentration of Benzene above the the the Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS was identified in the identified in the identified in the subsoilsubsoilsubsoilat Borehole BH105at Borehole BH105at Borehole BH105---232323between approximately 1.5 and 2.1 mbetween approximately 1.5 and 2.1 mbetween approximately 1.5 and 2.1 m. A concentration of total Xylenes above the Table 1 SCS/ESQS was also reported in A concentration of total Xylenes above the Table 1 SCS/ESQS was also reported in A concentration of total Xylenes above the Table 1 SCS/ESQS was also reported in this this this sample, but below the Table 2.1 Ag. ESQS.sample, but below the Table 2.1 Ag. ESQS.sample, but below the Table 2.1 Ag. ESQS.The The The borehole log for this drilling location indicates very moist sand at this depth indicating that the benzene and location indicates very moist sand at this depth indicating that the benzene and location indicates very moist sand at this depth indicating that the benzene and xylene reported in the soil may have been the result of impacted groundwater that xylene reported in the soil may have been the result of impacted groundwater that xylene reported in the soil may have been the result of impacted groundwater that flowed near this location at some point in time.flowed near this location at some point in time.flowed near this location at some point in time. The enviroThe enviroThe environmental results are further summarized in the following tablenmental results are further summarized in the following tablenmental results are further summarized in the following table: Table Table Table 222---Environmental Testing Results SummaryEnvironmental Testing Results SummaryEnvironmental Testing Results Summary Sample Sample TTable 1 able 1 Table 2.1 Table 2.1 Table 2.1 Table 2 EExceedancesxceedances LocationLocationSCS/ESQSSCS/ESQSAg.ESQSRPI ESQSICC ESQSAg. SCS BBBenzene, enzene, enzene, BH103-2323231.51.51.5--- Toluene, Toluene, Toluene, FailFailFailFail*Pass 2.1 m2.1 m2.1 m XylenesXylenesXylenes BBBenzeneenzeneenzeneFailFailFailFail*Pass BH105-23 0.0- 0.6 m XXXylenesylenesylenesFailPassPassPassPass BBBenzeneenzeneenzeneFailFailFailFail*Pass BH105-23 1.5- 2.1 m XylenesFailPassPassPassPass NOTES: 1)*See discussion and recommendations in Subsection (v) below. 2)*TheESQS are between 10 and 100 times lower/more stringent than theirrespective Table 2 Ag. SCS. 3)Following receipt of the results, the analytical laboratory was instructedto re-analyze the above noted samples. Elevated concentrations of the target analytes were subsequently confirmed. MTE Consultants|53018-100|Draft Soil Characterization Report | Blair Creek Drive Extension,Kitchener, ON|July12, 20236 All other analytical results indicate that the analyzed soil meets the Table 1 SCS/ESQS for the analyzed parameters. (i)Leachate Testing TCLPAnalysis Should impacted soil at BH103-23 or BH105-23become excess to the project, become excess to the project, become excess to the project, Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) analysesindicates that soil at BHindicates that soil at BHindicates that soil at BH---103103103-23 meets the O.Reg. 347/90 Schedule 4 criteria and, therefore, is considered to be nono be nono be non---hazardous for waste hazardous for waste hazardous for waste disposal purposes. mSPLPAnalysis Based on the above-noted parameters of concern (Benzene, Toluene and XylenesBenzene, Toluene and XylenesBenzene, Toluene and Xylenes), the QP), the QP), the QP ESAESAESA hasdetermined that Modified Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (mSPLP) testing is not determined that Modified Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (mSPLP) testing is not determined that Modified Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (mSPLP) testing is not required under O. Reg. 406/19. (ii)QA/QC As previously noted, MTE collected a field duplicate soil sample (ld duplicate soil sample (ld duplicate soil sample (BH11BH11BH11010101---222333) that ) that ) that was analyzed for pH, Metals andPHC/BTEX/BTEX/BTEXparametersparametersparameters... Allthe calculable Relative Percent Difference (RPDs) for the the calculable Relative Percent Difference (RPDs) for the the calculable Relative Percent Difference (RPDs) for the topsoiltopsoiltopsoils ample collected from sample collected from sample collected from borehole BH101-23 (0.0-0.6 m)and its and its and its field field field duplicateduplicateduplicatesamplesamplesampleBHBHBH111111000111---222333were below the 50% were below the 50% were below the 50% criteria, with RPD variation ranging between criteria, with RPD variation ranging between criteria, with RPD variation ranging between 0.80.80.8% and % and % and 11.611.611.6%.%.%. (iv)Summary of FindingsSummary of FindingsSummary of Findings Based on the findings of this soil quality assessment including field observations and analytical Based on the findings of this soil quality assessment including field observations and analytical Based on the findings of this soil quality assessment including field observations and analytical data, the following summary is provided.data, the following summary is provided.data, the following summary is provided. SevenSevenSevenboreholes were advanced along the Project Area in conjunction with a boreholes were advanced along the Project Area in conjunction with a boreholes were advanced along the Project Area in conjunction with a geotechnical investigationgeotechnical investigationgeotechnical investigation. Representative soil samples were collected throughout . Representative soil samples were collected throughout . Representative soil samples were collected throughout for chemical analyses.for chemical analyses.for chemical analyses. The soil stratigraphy encountered at the Project Area generally consisted of The soil stratigraphy encountered at the Project Area generally consisted of The soil stratigraphy encountered at the Project Area generally consisted of surficial topsoil otopsoil otopsoil overlying fill (verlying fill (verlying fill (fill observed fill observed fill observed at one location) or native sand to sand and gravel at one location) or native sand to sand and gravel at one location) or native sand to sand and gravel depositsdepositsdeposits... IIIsolated wet to saturated solated wet to saturated solated wet to saturated seams were encountered, generally within theseams were encountered, generally within theseams were encountered, generally within thenativesilty sand encountered in sand encountered in sand encountered in BH103BH103BH103---23 and 23 and 23 and BH106BH106BH106-23.Soil from the saturated seam at BH103BH103BH103---23 at a depth of 2.3 to 2.9 m bgs reported concentrations of benzene, 23 at a depth of 2.3 to 2.9 m bgs reported concentrations of benzene, 23 at a depth of 2.3 to 2.9 m bgs reported concentrations of benzene, toluene and xylene above the Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS. This impact may toluene and xylene above the Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS. This impact may toluene and xylene above the Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS. This impact may have been caused by impacted groundwater flowing near this location at some point have been caused by impacted groundwater flowing near this location at some point have been caused by impacted groundwater flowing near this location at some point in time. in time. in time. Soil from the saturated seam at BH106Soil from the saturated seam at BH106Soil from the saturated seam at BH106-23 starting at a depth of 3.0 m bgs was not analyzed during this soil sampling program. However,was not analyzed during this soil sampling program. However,was not analyzed during this soil sampling program. However,soil described as and reported Table 2and reported Table 2and reported Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS exceedances for benzene..1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS exceedances for benzene..1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS exceedances for benzene. report (Ref. 53018-100, dated June 28, 2023) provided under separate cover for discussion related to excavations and 2023) provided under separate cover for discussion related to excavations and 2023) provided under separate cover for discussion related to excavations and dewatering. Should groundwater require manadewatering. Should groundwater require manadewatering. Should groundwater require management during construction the reader is advised that groundwater may be impaired with Benzene, Toluene and/or reader is advised that groundwater may be impaired with Benzene, Toluene and/or reader is advised that groundwater may be impaired with Benzene, Toluene and/or Xylenes. No visual or olfactory evidence of environmental impact (staining, odour, presence of deleteriousdebris) was observed during the field activities. MTE Consultants|53018-100|Draft Soil Characterization Report | Blair Creek Drive Extension,Kitchener, ON|July12, 20237 Select soil samples were submitted to an accredited laboratory for chemical analysis for the Contaminants of Potential Concern anticipated for the Project Area including PHCs, BTEX,Metalsand Hydrides,pH and/orOCPs. The chemical analysis results generally indicate(refer to Section 4.0 (iii)for details): Topsoil o Topsoil at BH105-23 does not meet the Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS for Benzene; however, this sample meets the Table 2 Ag. SCSBenzene; however, this sample meets the Table 2 Ag. SCSBenzene; however, this sample meets the Table 2 Ag. SCS... o All other results indicate that the analyzed soil meets the Table 1 SCS/ESQS ndicate that the analyzed soil meets the Table 1 SCS/ESQS ndicate that the analyzed soil meets the Table 1 SCS/ESQS for the analyzed parameters. Subsoil o Native silty sand at BH103-23between 2.3 and 2.9 m does not meet the between 2.3 and 2.9 m does not meet the between 2.3 and 2.9 m does not meet the Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS forforforBenzene, Toluene and Xylenes; Benzene, Toluene and Xylenes; Benzene, Toluene and Xylenes; however, this sample meets the Table 2 Ag. SCShowever, this sample meets the Table 2 Ag. SCShowever, this sample meets the Table 2 Ag. SCS... o Native sand atBH105-23 between 1.5 and 2.1 m doe23 between 1.5 and 2.1 m doe23 between 1.5 and 2.1 m doesssnot meet thenot meet thenot meet theTable 2.1 Table 2.1 Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQSAg., RPI and ICC ESQSAg., RPI and ICC ESQSfor Benzene; however, this sample meets the Table for Benzene; however, this sample meets the Table for Benzene; however, this sample meets the Table 2 Ag. SCS. o All other results indicate that the analyzed soil meets the Table 1 SCS/ESQS All other results indicate that the analyzed soil meets the Table 1 SCS/ESQS All other results indicate that the analyzed soil meets the Table 1 SCS/ESQS for the analyzed parameters.for the analyzed parameters.for the analyzed parameters. (v)Discussion and Recommendations iscussion and Recommendations iscussion and Recommendations Excess Soil ManagementExcess Soil ManagementExcess Soil ManagementReuse Reuse Reuse Options The following is a summary of the available reuse options for excess soil that may be generated a summary of the available reuse options for excess soil that may be generated a summary of the available reuse options for excess soil that may be generated at the Project Area, based on existing informationat the Project Area, based on existing informationat the Project Area, based on existing informationcollected during the geotechnical investigation collected during the geotechnical investigation collected during the geotechnical investigation which was completed to support designwhich was completed to support designwhich was completed to support design. As noted in the following sections, wh. As noted in the following sections, wh. As noted in the following sections, where applicable, additional soil sampling and analysis for delineation purposes is recommended to better define additional soil sampling and analysis for delineation purposes is recommended to better define additional soil sampling and analysis for delineation purposes is recommended to better define the extent of soil impactsthe extent of soil impactsthe extent of soil impactsin an attempt to reduce volume of soilin an attempt to reduce volume of soilin an attempt to reduce volume of soilrequiring special attention, requiring special attention, requiring special attention, management, andmanagement, andmanagement, and/or/or/ordisposal disposal disposal at the time of construat the time of construat the time of construction.ction.ction.All excess soil exported from the All excess soil exported from the All excess soil exported from the Project Area for offProject Area for offProject Area for off---site reuse must be free of staining; PHC or solventsite reuse must be free of staining; PHC or solventsite reuse must be free of staining; PHC or solvent-like odours, and/or deleterious debris.deleterious debris.deleterious debris. (i)(i)(i)OnOnOn---Site Reuse of Soil within Project AreaSite Reuse of Soil within Project AreaSite Reuse of Soil within Project Area All soil obtained and analyzed from the investigated locatioAll soil obtained and analyzed from the investigated locatioAll soil obtained and analyzed from the investigated locations is considered to be environmentally suitable for continued agricultural use and reuse within the Project Area for environmentally suitable for continued agricultural use and reuse within the Project Area for environmentally suitable for continued agricultural use and reuse within the Project Area for new roadway roadway roadway construction purposes (e.g.construction purposes (e.g.construction purposes (e.g.,,,all analyzed soil meets the Table 2 Ag.all analyzed soil meets the Table 2 Ag.all analyzed soil meets the Table 2 Ag., RPI and ICC SCS), if geotechnically suitable.SCS), if geotechnically suitable.SCS), if geotechnically suitable. (ii)Zone 1 ExceZone 1 ExceZone 1 Excess Soil: ss Soil: ss Soil: Landfill or Class 1 Site Landfill or Class 1 Site Landfill or Class 1 Site SoilConcentrationsAbove Table 2.1 ICC ESQSICC ESQSICC ESQS, but below, but below, but belowTable 2 SCSTable 2 SCSTable 2 SCS Concentrations of Concentrations of Concentrations of Benzene, Toluene and/or XylenesBenzene, Toluene and/or XylenesBenzene, Toluene and/or Xyleneswere reported above the Table 2.1 ICC ESQS in the topsoil or native sand at BH103topsoil or native sand at BH103topsoil or native sand at BH103-23 and BH105-23.(Zone 1 Excess Soil as shown onFigure2) MTE recommends onMTE recommends onMTE recommends on---site reuse of this soil within the Project Area where possible. site reuse of this soil within the Project Area where possible. site reuse of this soil within the Project Area where possible. From the preliminary design drawings, the exceedances at BH103-23 and BH105-23 appear to be in locations where there will either be minimal disturbance (BH103) or ing(BH105) is required to achieve the proposed grades for the new roadway. The design consultant is advised that this soil is suitable to be reused within the Project Area and creative design solutionsand approach to soil management during constructionshould be considered such that topsoil in proximity to MTE Consultants|53018-100|Draft Soil Characterization Report | Blair Creek Drive Extension,Kitchener, ON|July12, 20238 BH105-23, or native silty sand/sandat BH103-23 and BH105-23can remain within the Project Area. Additional soil sampling and analysis would be requiredto better define the spatial extent of the reported soil impacts at these locations to reduce the volume of soil requiring special attention, management, and/or disposal at the time of construction. If topsoil in proximity to BH105-23, or native sand at BH103-23 and BH10523 and BH10523 and BH105---23 becomes excess, 23 becomes excess, 23 becomes excess, theresults of the TCLP testingindicates that the soil id non-hazardous for waste disposal hazardous for waste disposal hazardous for waste disposal purposes. (iii)Zone 2 Excess Soil: Beneficial Off-Site ReuseMeeting Table 1 SCS/ESQS (and Meeting Table 1 SCS/ESQS (and Meeting Table 1 SCS/ESQS (and Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQS) All remaining soil at the investigated locations (e.g., BH101(e.g., BH101(e.g., BH101---23, BH10223, BH10223, BH102---23, BH10423, BH10423, BH104---23, BH10623, BH10623, BH106--- 26 and BH107-23; excludingsoil described in (ii) above) soil described in (ii) above) soil described in (ii) above) meets the Table 1 SCSmeets the Table 1 SCSmeets the Table 1 SCS/ESQS/ESQS/ESQSas well as well as well asthe Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICC ESQSand, therefore, and, therefore, and, therefore, is considered to is considered to is considered to be environmentally be environmentally be environmentally suitable for reuse at an appropriate(Table 1 or Table 2.1) Reuse Site that can accept salt (Table 1 or Table 2.1) Reuse Site that can accept salt (Table 1 or Table 2.1) Reuse Site that can accept salt impacted soil for reuse in accordance with O.Reg. 406/19 and the Soil Rules.impacted soil for reuse in accordance with O.Reg. 406/19 and the Soil Rules.impacted soil for reuse in accordance with O.Reg. 406/19 and the Soil Rules. Reuse Site options may include, but may not be limited to:Reuse Site options may include, but may not be limited to:Reuse Site options may include, but may not be limited to: Other development projects, in accordance with the Soil Rules;development projects, in accordance with the Soil Rules;development projects, in accordance with the Soil Rules;andandand Aggregate pits in accordance with their licenses or rehabilitation plansin accordance with their licenses or rehabilitation plansin accordance with their licenses or rehabilitation plans... The deposit of excess soil on a Reuse Site is also subject to the following conditions:The deposit of excess soil on a Reuse Site is also subject to the following conditions:The deposit of excess soil on a Reuse Site is also subject to the following conditions: 1.The Reuse Site must have a benefiThe Reuse Site must have a benefiThe Reuse Site must have a beneficial purpose for the material being imported and cial purpose for the material being imported and cial purpose for the material being imported and the quantity of soil must be suitable and placed for that purpose. Consultation with a the quantity of soil must be suitable and placed for that purpose. Consultation with a the quantity of soil must be suitable and placed for that purpose. Consultation with a geotechnical engineer may be required.geotechnical engineer may be required.geotechnical engineer may be required. 2.The analytical results documented herein (and any future testing/results) should The analytical results documented herein (and any future testing/results) should The analytical results documented herein (and any future testing/results) should be forwarded to the owner/manager of the Reuse Site(s) prior to proceeding with the forwarded to the owner/manager of the Reuse Site(s) prior to proceeding with the forwarded to the owner/manager of the Reuse Site(s) prior to proceeding with the shipment of soil. shipment of soil. shipment of soil. 3.In accordance with O. Reg. 406/19, the Reuse Site must provide written consent to In accordance with O. Reg. 406/19, the Reuse Site must provide written consent to In accordance with O. Reg. 406/19, the Reuse Site must provide written consent to accept the soil. MTE recommends the use of amended OPSS 180 Forms (formaccept the soil. MTE recommends the use of amended OPSS 180 Forms (formaccept the soil. MTE recommends the use of amended OPSS 180 Forms (forms PH- CCCCCC---181, PH181, PH181, PH---CCCCCC---182, or both182, or both182, or bothand PHand PHand PH---CCCCCC---183183183).).). 4.4.4.TTThe moisture content of the material is suitable for transportation.he moisture content of the material is suitable for transportation.he moisture content of the material is suitable for transportation. 5.5.5.The excess soil must be finally placed no later than two years after it is deposited at The excess soil must be finally placed no later than two years after it is deposited at The excess soil must be finally placed no later than two years after it is deposited at the Reuse Site.the Reuse Site.the Reuse Site. Other considerations Other considerations Other considerations for reuse offfor reuse offfor reuse offfor reuse offfor reuse offfor reuse off---Site, Site, Site, should include:should include:should include: Ensuring appropriate drainage patterns are maintained during and following Ensuring appropriate drainage patterns are maintained during and following Ensuring appropriate drainage patterns are maintained during and following placement at the Reuse Site.placement at the Reuse Site.placement at the Reuse Site. Ensuring the protection of natural heritage features (wetlands and woodlands) during Ensuring the protection of natural heritage features (wetlands and woodlands) during Ensuring the protection of natural heritage features (wetlands and woodlands) during the and following placement at the the and following placement at the the and following placement at the Reuse Site, including the use of erosion controls. Alternatively, these soils could also be transferred to Class 1 Alternatively, these soils could also be transferred to Class 1 Alternatively, these soils could also be transferred to Class 1 Reuse Site. MTE notes the subsurface conditions and environmental quality of the soil may vary between MTE notes the subsurface conditions and environmental quality of the soil may vary between MTE notes the subsurface conditions and environmental quality of the soil may vary between and beyond the sampled locations. If soils are encountered during movement/placement that appear to have been environmentally impacted or observed to contain debris, these soils should not be sent off site for reuse. The contractor should separate these materials and have them inspected/tested by aqualified person (QP) to determine appropriate actions. ESA MTE Consultants|53018-100|Draft Soil Characterization Report | Blair Creek Drive Extension,Kitchener, ON|July12, 20239 (iv)RecommendedOn-Site Reuse Approach MTE recommends on-site reuse of soil within the Project Area in the following preferential order: 1)Soil exceeding Table 2.1 Ag., RPI and ICCESQS, but meeting Table 2 Ag. SCS (Zone 1 Excess Soil);and 2)Soil Meeting Table 1 SCS/ESQSfor RPIICC Property Use(Zone 2(Zone 2(Zone 2ExcessSoil). (vi)Groundwater Considerations Groundwater quality assessment is outside the scope of this excess soil Groundwater quality assessment is outside the scope of this excess soil Groundwater quality assessment is outside the scope of this excess soil assessment assessment assessment report. report. report. Therefore,we refer to report (Ref. 53018report (Ref. 53018report (Ref. 53018---100, dated June 28, 100, dated June 28, 100, dated June 28, 2023) provided under separate cover for discussion related to excavations and dewatering. 2023) provided under separate cover for discussion related to excavations and dewatering. 2023) provided under separate cover for discussion related to excavations and dewatering. Should groundwater require management during construction the reader is advised Should groundwater require management during construction the reader is advised Should groundwater require management during construction the reader is advised that that that groundwater may be impaired with Benzene, Toluene andBenzene, Toluene andBenzene, Toluene and/or Xyl/or Xyl/or Xylenesenesenes... MTE Consultants|53018-100|Draft Soil Characterization Report | Blair Creek Drive Extension,Kitchener, ON|July12, 202310 5.0Limitations Services performed by MTE Consultants Inc.(MTE) were conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the Environmental Engineering & Consulting profession. No other warranty or representation expressed or implied Engineering & Consulting profession. No other warranty or representation expressed or implied Engineering & Consulting profession. No other warranty or representation expressed or implied as to the accuracy of the information, conclusions or recommendations is included or intended mation, conclusions or recommendations is included or intended mation, conclusions or recommendations is included or intended in this report. This report was completed for the sole use of MTE and the clientmpleted for the sole use of MTE and the clientmpleted for the sole use of MTE and the client. It was carried out in . It was carried out in . It was carried out in accordance with the approved Scope of Work referred to in Section 4 and the requirementsaccordance with the approved Scope of Work referred to in Section 4 and the requirementsaccordance with the approved Scope of Work referred to in Section 4 and the requirementsof O. Reg.153/04 (as amended). As such, this report may not deal with all issues potentially 153/04 (as amended). As such, this report may not deal with all issues potentially 153/04 (as amended). As such, this report may not deal with all issues potentially applicable to the site and may omit issues, which are or may be of interest to the reader. MTE applicable to the site and may omit issues, which are or may be of interest to the reader. MTE applicable to the site and may omit issues, which are or may be of interest to the reader. MTE makes no representation that the present report has dealt with any makes no representation that the present report has dealt with any makes no representation that the present report has dealt with any and all of the important and all of the important and all of the important features, including any or all important environmental features, except as provided in the Scope features, including any or all important environmental features, except as provided in the Scope features, including any or all important environmental features, except as provided in the Scope of Work. All findings and conclusions presented in this report are based on site conditions as of Work. All findings and conclusions presented in this report are based on site conditions as of Work. All findings and conclusions presented in this report are based on site conditions as they existed during the time period ofthe investigation. This report is not intended to be the investigation. This report is not intended to be the investigation. This report is not intended to be exhaustive in scope or to imply a risk-free facilityfree facilityfree facilityor conditionsor conditionsor conditions... Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on, or decisions to be made Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on, or decisions to be made Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on, or decisions to be made based upon it, are the responsibility ofbased upon it, are the responsibility ofbased upon it, are the responsibility ofsuch third parties. MTE accepts no responsibility for such third parties. MTE accepts no responsibility for such third parties. MTE accepts no responsibility for liabilities incurred by or damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions liabilities incurred by or damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions liabilities incurred by or damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken, based upon this report. Others with interest in the site should undertake made or actions taken, based upon this report. Others with interest in the site should undertake made or actions taken, based upon this report. Others with interest in the site should undertake their own investigations and studies to determine how or if the condition affects them or their own investigations and studies to determine how or if the condition affects them or their own investigations and studies to determine how or if the condition affects them or their plans. It should be recognized that the passage of time may affect the views, conclusions and It should be recognized that the passage of time may affect the views, conclusions and It should be recognized that the passage of time may affect the views, conclusions and recommendations (if any) provided in this report because environmental crecommendations (if any) provided in this report because environmental crecommendations (if any) provided in this report because environmental conditions of a property onditions of a property onditions of a property can change. Should additional or new information become available, MTE recommends that it can change. Should additional or new information become available, MTE recommends that it can change. Should additional or new information become available, MTE recommends that it be brought to our attention in order that we may rebe brought to our attention in order that we may rebe brought to our attention in order that we may re---assess the contents of this report.assess the contents of this report.assess the contents of this report. All of which is respectfully submitted,All of which is respectfully submitted,All of which is respectfully submitted, MTE ConsultanMTE ConsultanMTE Consultants Inc.ts Inc.ts Inc. DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT Jen LambkeJen LambkeJen LambkeCarol Mitchell, P.Eng, QP(ESA) Senior Project ManagerSenior Project ManagerSenior Project ManagerDirector, Environmental 519-743743743---6500 ext. 6500 ext. 6500 ext. 132513251325Kitchener 519-743-6500 x1250 jlambkejlambkejlambke@mte85.com@mte85.com@mte85.comcmitchell@mte85.com JJL:jmm M:\\53018\\100\\06 Reports\\Excess SoilExcess SoilExcess Soil\\\\\\030303---DeliverablesDeliverablesDeliverables\\SCR\\53018-100_2023-07-12_rpt_Soil Characterization_Blair Creek Road -DRAFT.docx MTE Consultants|53018-100|Draft Soil Characterization Report | Blair Creek Drive Extension,Kitchener, ON|July12, 202311 6.0References 1.Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, 2020.Rules for Soil Management and Excess Soil Quality Standards. 2.Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, 2021Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, 2021Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, 2021. Ontario Regulation 406/19, On-Site and Excess Soil Management. 3.Ontario Ministry of the Environment Protocol, March 9, 2004, ame, March 9, 2004, ame, March 9, 2004, amended nded nded February 19, February 19, February 19, 2021.Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of Part XV.1 of Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. MTE Consultants|53018-100|Draft Soil Characterization Report | Blair Creek Drive Extension,Kitchener, ON|July12, 202312 Figures (nts) 1 0 4 Y W H FIGURE 1 Surveyors 8 0 Y W KEY PLAN H 53018-100 AS SHOWN SITE KITCHENER, ONTARIO ScaleProject No.Rev No. ELEVATION (m AMSL) LOCATION PLAN BOREHOLE DCH BLAIR CREEK DRIVE EXTENSION July 4/23 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION REPORT KITCHENER (339.4m) APRIL 18 - 2023.ACCOMPANYING TEXT.ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. LEGENDREFERENCES 2021 AERIAL IMAGE, ROAD AND WATER NOTES THIS FIGURE IS SCHEMATIC ONLY AND TO BE NETWORK, CITY OF KITCHENER OPENDATA SET; ANDMTE, BLAIR CREEK DRIVE,FILE No. 53018-100-F1, FIGURE No. 1,READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROJECTTITLE DrawnCheckedDate R D L E D I E R D A O R E E D N U D W E N NN OO II SS NN EE TT XX EE EE VV II RR DD KK EE EE RR CC RR II AA LL BB DD EE SS OO PP OO RR PP D A O R G R U B S A R T S D E S O P O R P FIGURE 2 Surveyors 0 53018-100 AS SHOWN KITCHENER, ONTARIO ScaleProject No.Rev No. PLAN AND PROFILE DCH BLAIR CREEK DRIVE EXTENSION SOIL CHARACTERIZATION REPORT July 11/23 PROJECTTITLE DrawnCheckedDate 0.0-0.60.8-1.4 PROPOSED ROAD SURFACE 0.0-0.61.5-2.1 0.0-0.60.0-0.60.0-0.62.3-2.92.3-2.92.3-2.9 APPROXIMATE CURRENTAPPROXIMATE CURRENTAPPROXIMATE CURRENT GROUND SURFACEGROUND SURFACEGROUND SURFACE ACTUAL SPATIAL EXTENT.ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. REFERENCES 2021 AERIAL IMAGE, ROAD AND WATER NETWORK, CITY OF KITCHENER OPEN DATA SET;NOTES THIS FIGURE IS SCHEMATIC ONLY AND TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ACCOMPANYING TEXT.WIDTH OF BOREHOLES FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY AND DO NOT CORRESPOND TOTHE GEOLOGIC SEQUENCE PRESENTED HEREIN IS BASED ON PROFESSIONAL INTERPRETATIONCONDITIONS MAY VARY BETWEEN AND BEYOND LOCATIONS. MTE, BLAIR CREEK DRIVE, FILE No. 53018-100-F1, FIGURE No. 1, APRIL 18 - 2023; ANDMTE, BLAIR CREEK DRIVE, FILE No. 53018-100-FD3, FUNCTIONAL DESIGN 3, JUNE 28 - 2023.FROM THE OVERBURDEN SEDIMENTS RECORDED DURING DRILLING, ACTUAL GEOLOGICAL 0.0-0.20.0-0.20.0-0.20.0-0.20.0-0.20.8-1.40.8-1.40.8-1.40.8-1.4 0.0-0.21.5-2.11.5-2.11.5-2.1 0.0-0.60.8-1.4 ZONE 1ZONE 1ZONE 1 XYLENES ABOVE THE TABLE 2.1 (Ag., RPI and ICC) ESQS.XYLENES ABOVE THE TABLE 2.1 (Ag., RPI and ICC) ESQS.XYLENES ABOVE THE TABLE 2.1 (Ag., RPI and ICC) ESQS.ZONE 2 ANALYZED WITH ALL CONCENTRATIONSANALYZED WITH ALL CONCENTRATIONSANALYZED WITH ALL CONCENTRATIONSTable 2.1 (Ag., RPI and ICC) ESQS. EXCESS SOIL: LOCATION AND DEPTH OF SOIL WITHEXCESS SOIL: LOCATION AND DEPTH OF SOIL WITHEXCESS SOIL: LOCATION AND DEPTH OF SOIL WITHCONCENTRATIONS OF BENZENE, TOLUENE AND/ORCONCENTRATIONS OF BENZENE, TOLUENE AND/ORCONCENTRATIONS OF BENZENE, TOLUENE AND/ORREFER TO SECTION 4(v) IN THE TEXT OF THIS REPORTREFER TO SECTION 4(v) IN THE TEXT OF THIS REPORTREFER TO SECTION 4(v) IN THE TEXT OF THIS REPORTEXCESS SOIL: LOCATION AND DEPTH OF SOILEXCESS SOIL: LOCATION AND DEPTH OF SOILEXCESS SOIL: LOCATION AND DEPTH OF SOILBELOW THE TABLE 1 SCS/ESQS AND THEBELOW THE TABLE 1 SCS/ESQS AND THEBELOW THE TABLE 1 SCS/ESQS AND THEREFER TO SECTION 4(v) IN THE TEXT OF THIS REPORT SILTY SANDSAND & GRAVELGRAVELLY SAND 0.0-0.32.3-2.9 ELEVATION (m AMSL) BOREHOLE TOPSOILFILLSANDSANDY SILT (339.4m) SIMPLIFIED STRATIGRAPHY LEGEND Tables Appendix A Borehole LogsBorehole LogsBorehole Logs Appendix B Laboratory Certificates of AnalysisLaboratory Certificates of AnalysisLaboratory Certificates of Analysis Paradigm, December 2023 Transportation Study 5A-150 Pinebush Road Cambridge ON N1R 8J8 p: 519.896.3163 905.381.2229 416.479.9684 www.ptsl.com 2023-12-20 Project: 230070 Lyndsay Dokas, P.Eng. Project Manager MTE Consultants Inc. 520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener ON N2B 3X9 RE:BLAIR CREEK DRIVE EXTENSION, KITCHENER, ON – CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TRANSPORTATION STUDY The City of Kitchener, through MTE Consultants Inc. retained Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited (Paradigm) to conduct this Transportation Study as part of the Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for the Blair Creek Drive storm sewer, watermain and road extension. The City of Kitchener (the City) has initiated this Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) and preliminary design for the extension of Blair Creek Drive from the future Strasburg Road to the intersection of Reidel Drive and Blair Creek Drive, approximately 700 metres. Figure 1(attached) illustrates the location of the study area. Background The Doon South and Brigadoon planned area road network includes the extension of Strasburg Road southerly to New Dundee Road and the extension of Biehn Drive, Robert Ferrie Drive and Blair Creek Drive westerly to Strasburg Road. Biehn Drive, Robert Ferrie Drive and Blair Creek Drive are expected to each function as major collector roadsand Strasburg Road as an arterial street. The proposed Blair Creek Drive extension will connect westerly (where Blair Creek Drive ends at Reidel Drive) to the future Strasburg Road extension. In September 2016, BA Group prepared an update to the Doon South Community and Broader 1 Study Area Traffic Impact Study which includedthe Blair Creek Drive Extensionunder seven- yearfuture traffic conditions. 1 BA Consulting Group Ltd., Update to Doon South Community and Broader Study Area Traffic Impact Study, 2016. Study Scope ThisTransportation Study has been prepared to review future traffic operations within the Blair Creek Drive Extension Corridor based on previously projected volumes and provide recommendations on road cross-section, and intersection geometry and traffic control accordingly. The study area includes the future intersections of Blair Creek Drive at Reidel Drive and at Strasburg Road. Existing Conditions Blair Creek Drive is an east-west major community collector roadwayas outlined in the City 2 Official Plan, with an urban two-lane cross section and a posted speed limit of 30 km/h. Sidewalks and bike lanes are provided on both sides of the roadway. As of July 2023, Blair Creek Drive terminates at Thomas Slee Drive and will be extended westerly to Reidel Drivein the near future. 3 Reidel Drive is a north-southlocal streetwith a rural two-lane cross section and posted speed limit of 50 km/h. No active transportation facilities are provided. 4 Strasburg Road is a north-south city arterial streetwith a four-lane urban cross section and a posted speed limit of 60 km/h. A multi-use trail isprovided on both sides of the roadway. Strasburg Road currently terminates at Rockcliffe Drive and will be extended to New Dundee Road in the future with a two-lane cross-section. Future Conditions The September 2016 BA Groupstudy included seven-yeartotal traffic forecasts for the intersection of Blair Creek Drive and Strasburg Road. The study did not include forecasts for the intersection of Blair Creek Drive and Reidel Drive. Volumes for this intersection were estimated based onthe difference in traffic volumes at Reidel Drive and New Dundee Road between the seven-yearforecast traffic scenarios with and without the Blair Creek Road Extension. Figure 2(attached) illustrates the forecast traffic volumes. 2 City of Kitchener, City of Kitchener Official Plan: Map 11 Integrated Transportation System, (Kitchener, 2019). 3 City of Kitchener, City of Kitchener Official Plan: Map 11 Integrated Transportation System, (Kitchener, 2019). 4 City of Kitchener, City of Kitchener Official Plan: Map 11 Integrated Transportation System, (Kitchener, 2019). Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 2 Traffic Signal Control Justification The study area intersections have been assessed using the Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) 5 Justification 7to determine if a change in traffic control is warranted. Appendix A contains the warrant analysis worksheetsfor Justification 7. Based on the warrant analysis, traffic control signals are not warranted at eitherintersection under the forecasttraffic conditions. Roundabout Screening Tool In accordance with Region of Waterloo policies, a roundabout screening analysis was completedto estimate the cost of a roundabout in comparison to a stop-control intersection. The results indicate that the roundabout alternative has a higher collision cost than stop-control for both study areaintersections. Therefore, a roundabout does not screen in for either intersection. Appendix B contains the screening worksheetsfor both intersections. Left-Turn Lane Warrants The Ministry of Transportation Design Supplement for the Transportation Association of 6 Canada (TAC) Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roadsprovides guidance on the assessment and/or need for auxiliary left-turn lanes. Warrants have been calculated for southboundleft-turns at Strasburg RoadandBlair Creek Drive. Thewarrant was calculated using the nomographs for left-turn lanes on a two-lane undivided highway atan unsignalized intersectionwith a design speed of 70 km/h (10 km/h over the assumed future speed limit of 60 km/h). Based on this method, a southboundleft-turn lanewith 25metres of storageis warranted under forecasttrafficvolumes. Figure 3(attached) showsthe warrant nomograph. All-Way Stop Control Warrant All-way stop control warrants were assessed for the intersection of Reidel Drive and Blair Creek Drive. The warrants were assessed using the OTM all-way strop minimum volume 7 warrantsto determine if all-way stop control is warranted. Eight hours of data was not available and therefore the warrant analysis was completed based on the highest volumes between the AM and PM peak hours. As the warrants were not completed using eight hours of data, the analysis is only an estimation. The warrant for collector roads and rural arterial roads 5 Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Ontario Traffic Manual Book 12: Traffic Signals, (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2012). 6 Ontario Ministry of Transportation,MTO Design Supplement for TAC Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2020). 7 Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Ontario Traffic Manual Book 5: Regulatory Signs, (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2021). Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 3 was used as Blair Creek Drivewill function as a major collectorand Reidel Drive as a local street. Based on the warrant analysis, all-way stop control is not warranted as traffic volumes on the minor road make up less than 30% of the total approaching volumes and less than 150 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour. Intersection Operations Based on the warrants and screening above, the study area intersections have been analyzed under stop-control on the Blair Creek Drive approaches using Synchro 11 software. Intersection level of service (LOS) isa recognized method of quantifying the average delay experienced by drivers at intersections. It is based on the delay experienced by individual vehicles executing various movements. The delay is related to the number of vehicles intending to make a particular movement, compared to the estimated capacity for that movement. The capacity is based on criteria related to the opposing traffic flows and intersection geometry. The highest possible rating is LOS A, under which the average total delay is equal to or less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle. When the average delay exceeds 80 seconds for signalized intersections, 50 seconds for unsignalized intersections or when the volume to capacity ratio is greater than 1.0, the movement is classed as LOS F and remedial measures are usually implemented ifthey are feasible. LOS E is usually used as a guideline for the determination of road improvement needs on through lanes, while LOS Fmay be acceptable for left-turn movements at peak times, depending on delays. 8 Following the Region of Waterloo Transportation Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines, critical thresholds are as follows: Intersections: overall LOS E or F(i.e. average control delay per vehicle greater than 55 seconds) for signalized intersections; and overall LOS E or F (i.e. average control delay per vehicle greater than 35seconds) for unsignalized intersections; and Movements: the average control delay for individual movements is greater than 55 seconds; th estimated 95percentile queue length for an exclusive movementexceeds the available storage space; th estimated 95percentile queue length for an individual movement will block an existing access; 8 Region of Waterloo, Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, 2014. Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 4 exclusive turning lanes are inaccessible because of the queue lengths in adjacent through lanes; and poor quality of service for non-auto modes. Table 1 summarizes the results of the intersection operational analysis, including the AM and PM peak hourLOS, v/cratios, and 95th percentile queues. The results indicate that the study area intersections are operating with acceptable levels of service under stop-controlon the Blair Creek Drive approaches. Appendix C contains the supporting Synchro 11 reports. TABLE 1:INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Direction/Movement/Approach EastboundWestboundNorthboundSouthbound Control IntersectionMOE Type BBAA LOS<B><B><A><A> Reidel Drive & Blair 111300 Delay<11><13><0><0> TWSC Creek Drive V/C<0.17><0.40><0.00><0.00> Q<4><14><0><0> BAA LOSB>A>AA 1203 Delay12>0>80 Strasburg Road & Blair V/C0.37>0.00>0.070.00 TWSC Creek Drive Q13>0>20 Stor.->->25- Avail.->->23- CBAA LOS<C><B><A><A> Reidel Drive & Blair 161200 Delay<16><12><0><0> TWSC Creek Drive V/C<0.55><0.25><0.00><0.00> Q<26><8><0><0> DAA LOSD>A>AA 2607 Delay26>0>90 Strasburg Road & Blair V/C0.52>0.00>0.270.00 TWSC Creek Drive Q22>0>80 Stor.->->25- Avail.->->17- MOE - Measure of EffectivenessQ - 95th Percentile Queue Length (m)< / > - Shared with through movement LOS - Level of ServiceStor. - Existing Storage (m) Delay - Average Delay per Vehicle in SecondsAvail. - Available Storage (m) V/C - Volume to Capacity RatioTWSC - Two-Way Stop Control Reidel Drive Closure The City has confirmed closure of Stauffer Drive at Reidel Drive, withReidel Drive north of Blair Creek Drive becomingthe access point for the property at 500 Stauffer Drive. The forecast traffic in Figure 2 show volumes to/from the north on Reidel Drive anddoesnot reflect the closure. Intersection operations summarized in Table 1 indicate that the intersection of Reidel Drive and Blair Creek Drive is forecast to operate with acceptable levels of service. A reduced number of trips at this intersection is likely toimprove operations and does not have an impact on the recommended solution reviewed above. Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 5 Conclusions The intersections within the Blair Creek Drive Extension corridor, including at Strasburg Road and at Reidel Drive, are forecast to operate with acceptable levels of service under two-way stop-control on the Blair Creek Drive approaches. A southbound left-turn lanewith 25metres of storageis warranted at the intersection with Strasburg Road. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance. Yours very truly, PARADIGM TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS LIMITED Maddison Murch Jim Mallett M.A.SC., P.Eng., PTOEP.Eng. Presidentand CEO, PrincipalTransportation Engineer Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 6 Attachments Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 7 Figure 1 –Study Area Location Future Roadway SubjectCorridor NTS StudyArea Image Source: Google Earth Study Area Blair Creek Drive Extension, Kitchener Figure 1 230070 Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 8 AM Peak Hour Figure 2 –Forecast Traffic Volumes Blair Creek Dr 0 205 Extension 299 Blair Creek Dr 299299299 940 124124124 0 124 0 PM Peak Hour Blair Creek Dr 0 116 Extension 186 Blair Creek Dr 186186186 700 406406406 0 406 0 Forecast Traffic Volumes Blair Creek Drive Extension, Kitchener Figure 2 230070 Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 9 Figure 3 –Left-turn Lanewarrants AM Peak PMPeak AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour Southbound Left-Turn Lane Warrant Forecast Total Traffic Strasburg Road & Blair Creek Drive Blair Creek Drive Extension, Kitchener Figure 3 230070 Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 10 Appendix A Traffic Signal Control JustificationAssessments Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 11 Tjhobm!Kvtujgjdbujpo!Dbmdvmbujpo!gps!Gpsfdbtu!Wpmvnft )PUN!Cppl!23!.!Kvtujgjdbujpo!8* Ipsj{po!Zfbs;8.Zfbs!Gpsfdbtu!Usbggjd Sfhjpo0Djuz0Upxotijq;SNPX0DpL Nbkps!Tusffu;Opsui0Tpvui@;ZTusbtcvsh!Spbe Njops!Tusffu;Cmbjs!Dsffl!Esjwf Ovncfs!pg!Bqqspbdi!Mboft;2 Xbssbou!Sftvmut Uff!Joufstfdujpo@Z261&!TbujtgjfeOpKvtujgjdbujpo!gps!ofx!joufstfdujpot!xjui!gpsfdbtu!usbggjd Gmpx!Dpoejujpot;Sftusjdufe231&!TbujtgjfeOpKvtujgjdbujpo!gps!fyjtujoh!joufstfdujpot!xjui!gpsfdbtu!usbggjd QN!Gpsfdbtu!Pomz@O Nbkps!TusffuNjops!Tusffu Tusbtcvsh!SpbeCmbjs!Dsffl!Esjwf OpsuicpvoeTpvuicpvoeFbtucpvoeXftucpvoeQfet! MfguUispvhiSjhiuMfguUispvhiSjhiuMfguUispvhiSjhiuMfguUispvhiSjhiu Dspttjoh! Ujnf!Qfsjpe BN!Qfbl!Ipvs5828218257:5316 QN!Qfbl!Ipvs31657471:281227 Bwfsbhf!Ipvsmz!Wpmvn174272286:1111521911 XbssbouBIW 2B!.!Bmm487 2C!.!Njops232 3B!.!Nbkps366 3C!.!Dsptt52 Xbssbou!2!.!Njojnvn!Wfijdvmbs!Wpmvnf Bqqspbdi!Mboft23!ps!npsf Bwfsbhf! Ipvsmz! GsffSftusjdufeGsffSftusjdufe Gmpx!Dpoejujpot Wpmvnf Y 2B 591831711:11487 Bmm!Bqqspbdift 63/3& &!Gvmgjmmfe Bqqspbdi!Mboft23!ps!npsfBwfsbhf! Ipvsmz! GsffSftusjdufeGsffSftusjdufe Gmpx!Dpoejujpot YWpmvnf 2C 291366291366232 Njops!Tusffu! &!Gvmgjmmfe58/6& Bqqspbdift Xbssbou!3!.!Efmbz!Up!Dsptt!Usbggjd Bqqspbdi!Mboft23!ps!npsf Bwfsbhf! Ipvsmz! GsffSftusjdufeGsffSftusjdufe Gmpx!Dpoejujpot Wpmvnf Y 3B Nbkps!Tusffu!591831711:11366 &!Gvmgjmmfe46/5& Bqqspbdift Bqqspbdi!Mboft23!ps!npsfBwfsbhf! Ipvsmz! GsffSftusjdufeGsffSftusjdufe Gmpx!Dpoejujpot YWpmvnf 3C 6186618652 Usbggjd!Dspttjoh! &!Gvmgjmmfe65/8& Nbkps!Tusffu Tjhobm!Kvtujgjdbujpo!Dbmdvmbujpo!gps!Gpsfdbtu!Wpmvnft )PUN!Cppl!23!.!Kvtujgjdbujpo!8* Ipsj{po!Zfbs;8.Zfbs!Gpsfdbtu!Usbggjd Sfhjpo0Djuz0Upxotijq;SNPX0DpL Nbkps!Tusffu;Opsui0Tpvui@;OCmbjs!Dsffl!Esjwf Njops!Tusffu;Sfjefm!Esjwf Ovncfs!pg!Bqqspbdi!Mboft;2 Xbssbou!Sftvmut Uff!Joufstfdujpo@O261&!TbujtgjfeOpKvtujgjdbujpo!gps!ofx!joufstfdujpot!xjui!gpsfdbtu!usbggjd Gmpx!Dpoejujpot;Sftusjdufe231&!TbujtgjfeOpKvtujgjdbujpo!gps!fyjtujoh!joufstfdujpot!xjui!gpsfdbtu!usbggjd QN!Gpsfdbtu!Pomz@O Nbkps!TusffuNjops!Tusffu Cmbjs!Dsffl!EsjwfSfjefm!Esjwf FbtucpvoeXftucpvoeOpsuicpvoeTpvuicpvoeQfet! MfguUispvhiSjhiuMfguUispvhiSjhiuMfguUispvhiSjhiuMfguUispvhiSjhiu Dspttjoh! Ujnf!Qfsjpe BN!Qfbl!Ipvs1235113::1154112151 QN!Qfbl!Ipvs15171129711:211731 Bwfsbhf!Ipvsmz!Wpmvn1244112321145115311 XbssbouBIW 2B!.!Bmm43: 2C!.!Njops86 3B!.!Nbkps365 3C!.!Dsptt53 Xbssbou!2!.!Njojnvn!Wfijdvmbs!Wpmvnf Bqqspbdi!Mboft23!ps!npsf Bwfsbhf! Ipvsmz! GsffSftusjdufeGsffSftusjdufe Gmpx!Dpoejujpot Wpmvnf Y 2B 591831711:1143: Bmm!Bqqspbdift 56/8& &!Gvmgjmmfe Bqqspbdi!Mboft23!ps!npsfBwfsbhf! Ipvsmz! GsffSftusjdufeGsffSftusjdufe Gmpx!Dpoejujpot YWpmvnf 2C 23128123128186 Njops!Tusffu! &!Gvmgjmmfe55/2& Bqqspbdift Xbssbou!3!.!Efmbz!Up!Dsptt!Usbggjd Bqqspbdi!Mboft23!ps!npsf Bwfsbhf! Ipvsmz! GsffSftusjdufeGsffSftusjdufe Gmpx!Dpoejujpot Wpmvnf Y 3B Nbkps!Tusffu!591831711:11365 &!Gvmgjmmfe46/3& Bqqspbdift Bqqspbdi!Mboft23!ps!npsfBwfsbhf! Ipvsmz! GsffSftusjdufeGsffSftusjdufe Gmpx!Dpoejujpot YWpmvnf 3C 6186618653 Usbggjd!Dspttjoh! &!Gvmgjmmfe66/4& Nbkps!Tusffu Appendix B Roundabout Screening Worksheet Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 12 INTERSECTION CONTROL STUDIES Last Rev JAN 2021 SAFETY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (HSM) Reidel Drive Major Road: 7-Year Horizon Scenario: Minor Road:Blair Creek Drive Major Road Direction: LT Lanes Proposed (non RT Lanes Proposed (non roundabout):roundabout): Urban or Rural: Proposed Control:MajorMajor Proposed Config. MinorMinor Is there going to be any fully protected Is the proposed intersection "new" or is it existing: left-turn phasing? Does control and number of approaches remain the same: Number of approaches with FPLTP: Will the proposed intersection have illumination: NOTE: No collision history required Proposed RA Configuration? N/A 5-Year Total Collisions: N/A 5-Year PDO Collisions: * Proposed RA config. - 1st number represents approaches while 2nd represents lanes 1,530 Major Road (mid-block) 10-Year Horizon AADT: 10-Year Horizon 5,920 10-Year Horizon Road (mid-block) 10-Year Horizon AADT: Minor AADT(North Leg)AADT(East Leg) Reidel Drive 1,5305,920 * 10-Year Horizon AADT (10ys post improvement/control) 06200 * Input by movement only 0 1,860 N 0 WE 0 S 4,060 0 Blair Creek Drive Blair Creek Drive 09100 10-Year Horizon10-Year Horizon AADT(West Leg)AADT(South Leg) 5,9201,530 Reidel Drive Direct Capital Costs 20-Year Present Value Collision Costs (DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS) $1,656,500 Fatal = Collisions by SeverityTotalPDOInjuryFatal $60,500 Injury = PDO SIG =$5,000 $110,243.15$14,910.90$76,332.33$18,999.92 Stop Control $4,500 PDO RA = $222,853.83$89,362.18$133,491.65$0.00 Roundabout Discount Rate =0.06 0.5 * Roundabout calibration Factor - INTERSECTION CONTROL STUDIES Last Rev JAN 2021 SAFETY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (HSM) Reidel Drive Major Road: 7-Year Horizon Scenario: Blair Creek Drive Minor Road: North / South Major Road Direction: Roundabout Conflicts:6120 Urban Urban or Rural: Stop Control N/A Proposed Control: 5-Year Total Collisions: 4-Leg Intersection N/A Proposed Config. 5-Year PDO Collisions: Estimated ANNUAL (1-YEAR ONLY) Collisions Future Expected Collisions by TotalPDOInjuryFatal Severity 0.370.260.110.00 Stop Control 1.921.730.190.00 Roundabout TOTAL CRASH COEFFICIENTS USED IN CALCULATION Collision Fatal/Inj. Ratio Intersection Factor ControlInterceptAADTmajAADTminOverdispersion Config 4-Leg -8.90.820.25N/A0.006n/a Stop Control Intersection PDO CRASH COEFFICIENTS USED IN CALCULATION Collision Intersection Fatal/Inj. Ratio ControlInterceptAADTmajAADTminOverdispersionFactor Config 4-Leg -8.740.770.23N/A0.006n/a Stop Control Intersection Left Turn LaneRight Turn LaneCalibration FactorEmpirical Bays Weighting TotalPDO 0.84 N/AN/A Collision Modification Factors (cmf's) Protected LT Illumination Phasing 0.911.00 Comments: INTERSECTION CONTROL STUDIES Last Rev JAN 2021 SAFETY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (HSM) Strasburg Road Major Road: 7-Year Horizon Scenario: Minor Road:Blair Creek Drive Major Road Direction: LT Lanes Proposed (non RT Lanes Proposed (non roundabout):roundabout): Urban or Rural: Proposed Control:MajorMajor Proposed Config. MinorMinor Is there going to be any fully protected Is the proposed intersection "new" or is it existing: left-turn phasing? Does control and number of approaches remain the same: Number of approaches with FPLTP: Will the proposed intersection have illumination: NOTE: No collision history required Proposed RA Configuration? N/A 5-Year Total Collisions: N/A 5-Year PDO Collisions: * Proposed RA config. - 1st number represents approaches while 2nd represents lanes 7,720 Major Road (mid-block) 10-Year Horizon AADT: 10-Year Horizon 5,920 10-Year Horizon Road (mid-block) 10-Year Horizon AADT: Minor AADT(North Leg)AADT(East Leg) Strasburg Road 7,7205,920 * 10-Year Horizon AADT (10ys post improvement/control) 09103,600 * Input by movement only 1,160 700 N 0 WE 0 S 0 0 Blair Creek Drive Blair Creek Drive 02,050460 10-Year Horizon10-Year Horizon AADT(West Leg)AADT(South Leg) 7003,420 Strasburg Road Direct Capital Costs 20-Year Present Value Collision Costs (DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS) $1,656,500 Fatal = Collisions by SeverityTotalPDOInjuryFatal $60,500 Injury = PDO SIG =$5,000 $176,653.99$25,807.32$131,846.74$18,999.92 Stop Control $4,500 PDO RA = $535,279.23$214,641.67$320,637.56$0.00 Roundabout Discount Rate =0.06 0.9 * Roundabout calibration Factor - INTERSECTION CONTROL STUDIES Last Rev JAN 2021 SAFETY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (HSM) Strasburg Road Major Road: 7-Year Horizon Scenario: Blair Creek Drive Minor Road: North / South Major Road Direction: Roundabout Conflicts:8720 Urban Urban or Rural: Stop Control N/A Proposed Control: 5-Year Total Collisions: 3-Leg Intersection N/A Proposed Config. 5-Year PDO Collisions: Estimated ANNUAL (1-YEAR ONLY) Collisions Future Expected Collisions by TotalPDOInjuryFatal Severity 0.640.450.190.00 Stop Control 4.624.160.460.00 Roundabout TOTAL CRASH COEFFICIENTS USED IN CALCULATION Collision Fatal/Inj. Ratio Intersection Factor ControlInterceptAADTmajAADTminOverdispersion Config 3-Leg -13.361.110.41N/A0.006n/a Stop Control Intersection PDO CRASH COEFFICIENTS USED IN CALCULATION Collision Intersection Fatal/Inj. Ratio ControlInterceptAADTmajAADTminOverdispersionFactor Config 3-Leg -15.381.20.51N/A0.006n/a Stop Control Intersection Left Turn LaneRight Turn LaneCalibration FactorEmpirical Bays Weighting TotalPDO 0.61 N/AN/A Collision Modification Factors (cmf's) Protected LT Illumination Phasing 0.911.00 Comments: Appendix C Synchro Reports Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited | Page 13 Blair Creek Drive Extension, Kitchener ------ ------------------------------------------------- 0000000000022222222222 HCM 6th TWSCFuture AM1: Reidel Drive & Blair Creek Drive IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh9.2MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h0124002990043001040Future Vol, veh/h0124002990043001040Conflicting Peds, #/hr0Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeRT Channelized--None--None--None--NoneStorage Length------Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0-Grade, %-0--0--0--0-Peak Hour Factor100100100100100100100100100100100100Heavy Vehicles, %2Mvmt Flow0124002990043001040 Major/MinorMinor2Minor1Major1Major2Conflicting Flow All29714710420914743104004300 Stage 1104104-4343 Stage 219343-166104Critical Hdwy7.126.526.227.126.526.224.12--4.12--Critical Hdwy Stg 16.125.52-6.125.52-------Critical Hdwy Stg 26.125.52-6.125.52-------Follow-up Hdwy3.5184.0183.3183.5184.0183.3182.218--2.218--Pot Cap-1 Maneuver65574495174874410271488--1566-- Stage 1902809-971859 Stage 2809859-836809Platoon blocked, %----Mov Cap-1 Maneuver45074495165274410271488--1566--Mov Cap-2 Maneuver450744-652744 Stage 1902809-971859 Stage 2527859-708809 ApproachEBWBNBSBHCM Control Delay, s10.813.100HCM LOSBB Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTNBREBLn1WBLn1SBLSBTSBRCapacity (veh/h)1488--7447441566--HCM Lane V/C Ratio---0.1670.402---HCM Control Delay (s)0--10.813.10--HCM Lane LOSA--BBA--HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0--0.61.90--Paradigm Transportation Solutions LimitedSynchro 11 Report Blair Creek Drive Extension, Kitchener Lanes, Volumes, TimingsFuture AM1: Reidel Drive & Blair Creek Drive Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph)0124002990043001040Future Volume (vph)0124002990043001040Ideal Flow (vphpl)155015501550155015501550155015501550155015501550Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00FrtFlt ProtectedSatd. Flow (prot)015200015200015200015200Flt PermittedSatd. Flow (perm)015200015200015200015200Link Speed (k/h)50505050Link Distance (m)699.1256.0177.5225.8Travel Time (s)50.318.412.816.3Peak Hour Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Adj. Flow (vph)0124002990043001040Shared Lane Traffic (%)Lane Group Flow (vph)0124002990043001040Enter Blocked IntersectionNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo NoNoNoNoLane AlignmentLeftLeftRightLeftLeftRightLeftLeftRightLeftLeftRightMedian Width(m)0.00.00.00.0Link Offset(m)0.00.00.00.0Crosswalk Width(m)4.84.84.84.8Two way Left Turn LaneHeadway Factor1.291.291.291.291.291.291.291.291.291.291.291.29Turning Speed (k/h)2515251525152515Sign ControlStopStopFreeFreeIntersection SummaryArea Type:OtherControl Type: UnsignalizedIntersection Capacity Utilization 32.7%ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15Paradigm Transportation Solutions LimitedSynchro 11 Report Blair Creek Drive Extension, Kitchener 0000022222 HCM 6th TWSCFuture AM2: Strasburg Road & Blair Creek Drive IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh7.2MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h942054717107146Future Vol, veh/h94205471710714 6Conflicting Peds, #/hr0Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFreeRT Channelized-None-None-NoneStorage Length0---25-Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0Grade, %0-0--0Peak Hour Factor100100100100100100Heavy Vehicles, %2Mvmt Flow942054717107146 Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2Conflicting Flow All4165600640 Stage 156----- Stage 2360-----Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12-Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218-Pot Cap-1 Maneuver5931011--1538- Stage 1967----- Stage 2706-----Platoon blocked, %---Mov Cap-1 Maneuver5511011--1538-Mov Cap-2 Maneuver551----- Stage 1967----- Stage 2657----- ApproachWBNBSBHCM Control Delay, s12.103.2HCM LOSB Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBTNBRWBLn1SBLSBTCapa city (veh/h)--8011538-HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.3730.07-HCM Control Delay (s)--12.17.5-HCM Lane LOS--BA-HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--1.70.2-Paradigm Transportation Solutions LimitedSynchro 11 Report Blair Creek Drive Extension, Kitchener Lanes, Volumes, TimingsFuture AM2: Strasburg Road & Blair Creek Drive Lane GroupWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph)942054717107146Future Volume (vph)942054717107146Ideal Flow (vphpl)176517651775177517751900Storage Length (m)0.00.00.025.0Storage Lanes1001Taper Length (m)7.57.5Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00Frt0.9070.964Flt Protected0.9850.950Satd. Flow (prot)154601678016531863Flt Permitted0.9850.950Satd. Flow (perm)154601678016531863Link Speed (k/h)506060Link Distance (m)699.1153.8208.7Travel Time (s)50.39.212.5Peak Hour Factor1.001.001.001.0 01.001.00Adj. Flow (vph)942054717107146Shared Lane Traffic (%)Lane Group Flow (vph)2990640107146Enter Blocked IntersectionNoNoNoNoNoNoLane AlignmentLeftRightLeftRightLeftLeftMedian Width(m)3.63.63.6L ink Offset(m)0.00.00.0Crosswalk Width(m)4.84.84.8Two way Left Turn LaneHeadway Factor1.101.101.091.091.091.00Turning Speed (k/h)25151525Sign ControlStopFreeFreeIntersection SummaryArea Type:OtherControl Type: UnsignalizedIntersection Capacity Utilization 38.9%ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15Paradigm Transportation Solutions LimitedSynchro 11 Report Blair Creek Drive Extension, Kitchener ------ ------------------------------------------------- 0000000000022222222222 HCM 6th TWSCFuture PM1: Reidel Drive & Blair Creek Drive IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh11.4MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h040600186009100620Future Vol, veh/h040600186009100620Conflicting Peds, #/hr0Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeRT Channelized--None--None--None--NoneStorage Length------Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0-Grade, %-0--0--0--0-Peak Hour Factor100100100100100100100100100100100100Heavy Vehicles, %2Mvmt Flow040600186009100620 Major/MinorMinor2Minor1Major1Major2Conflicting Flow All246153623561539162009100 Stage 16262-9191 Stage 218491-26562Critical Hdwy7.126.526.227.126.526.224.12--4.12--Critical Hdwy Stg 16.125.52-6.125.52-------Critical Hdwy Stg 26.125.52-6.125.52-------Follow-up Hdwy3.5184.0183.3183.5184.0183.3182.218--2.218--Pot Cap-1 Maneuver70873910035997399671541--1504-- Stage 1949843-916820 Stage 2818820-740843Platoon blocked, %----Mov Cap-1 Maneuver57173910033387399671541--1504--Mov Cap-2 Maneuver571739-338739 Stage 1949843-916820 Stage 2632820-384843 ApproachEBWBNBSBHCM Control Delay, s15.611.500HCM LOSCB Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTNBREBLn1WBLn1SBLSBTSBRCapacity (veh/h)1541--7397391504--HCM Lane V/C Ratio---0.5490.252---HCM Control Delay (s)0--15.611.50--HCM Lane LOSA--CBA--HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0--3.410--Paradigm Transportation Solutions LimitedSynchro 11 Report Blair Creek Drive Extension, Kitchener Lanes, Volumes, TimingsFuture PM1: Reidel Drive & Blair Creek Drive Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph)040600186009100620Future Volume (vph)040600186009100620Ideal Flow (vphpl)155015501550155015501550155015501550155015501550Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00FrtFlt ProtectedSatd. Flow (prot)015200015200015200015200Flt PermittedSatd. Flow (perm)015200015200015200015200Link Speed (k/h)50505050Link Distance (m)699.1256.0177.5225.8Travel Time (s)50.318.412.816.3Peak Hour Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Adj. Flow (vph)040600186009100620Shared Lane Traffic (%)Lane Group Flow (vph)040600186009100620Enter Blocked IntersectionNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo NoNoNoLane AlignmentLeftLeftRightLeftLeftRightLeftLeftRightLeftLeftRightMedian Width(m)0.00.00.00.0Link Offset(m)0.00.00.00.0Crosswalk Width(m)4.84.84.84.8Two way Left Turn LaneHeadway Factor1.291.291.291.291.291.291.291.291.291.291.291.29Turning Speed (k/h)2515251525152515Sign ControlStopStopFreeFreeIntersection SummaryArea Type:OtherControl Type: UnsignalizedIntersection Capacity Utilization 38.7%ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15Paradigm Transportation Solutions LimitedSynchro 11 Report Blair Creek Drive Extension, Kitchener 0000022222 HCM 6th TWSCFuture PM2: Strasburg Road & Blair Creek Drive IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh8.9MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h701162054636091Future Vol, veh/h70116205463609 1Conflicting Peds, #/hr0Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFreeRT Channelized-None-None-NoneStorage Length0---25-Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0Grade, %0-0--0Peak Hour Factor100100100100100100Heavy Vehicles, %2Mvmt Flow701162054636091 Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2Conflicting Flow All1039228002510 Stage 1228----- Stage 2811-----Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12-Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218-Pot Cap-1 Maneuver255811--1314- Stage 1810----- Stage 2437-----Platoon blocked, %---Mov Cap-1 Maneuver185811--1314-Mov Cap-2 Maneuver185----- Stage 1810----- Stage 2317----- ApproachWBNBSBHCM Control Delay, s25.507HCM LOSD Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBTNBRWBLn1SBLSBTCapacit y (veh/h)--3571314-HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.5210.274-HCM Control Delay (s)--25.58.8-HCM Lane LOS--DA-HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--2.91.1-Paradigm Transportation Solutions LimitedSynchro 11 Report Blair Creek Drive Extension, Kitchener Lanes, Volumes, TimingsFuture PM2: Strasburg Road & Blair Creek Drive Lane GroupWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph)701162054636091Future Volume (vph)701162054636091Ideal Flow (vphpl)176517651775177517751900Storage Length (m)0.00.00.025.0Storage Lanes1001Taper Length (m)7.57.5Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00Frt0.9160.975Flt Protected0.9820.950Satd. Flow (prot)155701697016531863Flt Permitted0.9820.950Satd. Flow (perm)155701697016531863Link Speed (k/h)506060Link Distance (m)699.1153.8208.7Travel Time (s)50.39.212.5Peak Hour Factor1.001.001.001.0 01.001.00Adj. Flow (vph)701162054636091Shared Lane Traffic (%)Lane Group Flow (vph)1860251036091Enter Blocked IntersectionNoNoNoNoNoNoLane AlignmentLeftRightLeftRightLeftLeftMedian Width(m)3.63.63.6L ink Offset(m)0.00.00.0Crosswalk Width(m)4.84.84.8Two way Left Turn LaneHeadway Factor1.101.101.091.091.091.00Turning Speed (k/h)25151525Sign ControlStopFreeFreeIntersection SummaryArea Type:OtherControl Type: UnsignalizedIntersection Capacity Utilization 57.7%ICU Level of Service BAnalysis Period (min) 15Paradigm Transportation Solutions LimitedSynchro 11 Report Strasburg Blair Creek Intersection Control Study Report CIMA+ January 2024 The Region of Waterloo Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of Kitchener CIMA+ file number: B001669 16 January 2024 Review 01 The Region of Waterloo Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of Kitchener Prepared by: Chantal Meloche, P.Eng. Senior Engineer Transportation Verifiedby: Phil Weber, P.Eng. Senior Project Manager 500-5935 Airport Road, Mississauga, ON CanadaL4V 1W5 CIMA+ file number: B001669 16 January 2024 Review 01 Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of CIMA+ file number: B001669 Kitchener16 January 2024 Review 01 Executive Summary CIMA+ has undertaken an Intersection Control Study (ICS) at Strasburg RoadSouth and Blair Creek Drive in theCity of Kitchener. This is a planned new intersection as part of the Strasburg Road South extension from its existing terminus, the roundabout at Robert Ferrie Drive, southerly to New Dundee Road (Regional Road 12). The ICS compares minor street stop control, a signalized intersection and a roundabout. Conceptual designs for the latter two alternatives are in this report as Figures 2.1 and 2.2. A comparison of construction and 20-year study period costs is shown in Table i. Tablei:Total Study Period Costs Minor Street Signalized CostRoundabout Stop ControlIntersection Construction$1,245,000$1,378,000$1,712,000 Maintenance (PC)-$60,000$20,000 Collision (PC)$142,000$370,000$421,000 Total Study Period $1,387,000$1,808,000$2,153,000 Cost (PC) Expressed as present costs, minor street stop control is estimated to have the lowest20-year study period cost by a margin of $421,000 over a signalized intersection and $766,000 over a roundabout. Both marginsshould probablybe considered significant even withthe assumptions associated with the construction cost estimates and safety prediction methodology. Forecast peak hour delays and 95th percentile queues are predicted to be the lowest overall with a roundabout, but capacity should not be a problem with any of thealternatives Minor street stop control would be an efficient type of intersection, but it would provide no speed control on Strasburg Road nor a controlled east-west crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. A signalized intersection would provide for increased accessibility and may be a more convenient alternative for cyclists. A roundabout would allow for efficientpeak and off-peak traffic operations, would complement the two roundabouts to the north on Strasburg Road, at Huron Road and Robert Ferrie Drive, and would provide an opportunity for landscaping or a gateway treatment. It would also result in some measure of speed control along this section of Strasburg Road, and virtuallyeliminatethe possibility of a fatal crash. However, it is the alternative with the highest 20-year study period cost. Accordingly, it is recommended that a minor street stop controlbe implemented at the future intersection of Strasburg Road and Blair Creek Drive. If a controlled east-west crossing for pedestrians and cyclists is desired, or if delays for drivers on Blair Creek Drive becomes an issue, then it may be converted to a signalized intersection when traffic signals are justified or when deemed appropriate by the City of Kitchener. i https://cimao365-my.sharepoint.com/personal/phil_weber_cima_ca/Documents/Documents/Projects/Strasburg Ext/Blair Creek/B001691 Strasburg Blair Creek ICS Report e01v01.docx Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of CIMA+ file number: B001669 Kitchener16 January 2024 Review 01 Table of Contents 1.Introduction...................................................................................................................1 Purpose of this Report....................................................................................................1 Site Context....................................................................................................................1 2.Alternatives Development............................................................................................2 3.Performance Evaluation...............................................................................................5 Operational Performance................................................................................................5 Safety Performance........................................................................................................7 3.2.1Future Safety Assessment..............................................................................................7 3.2.2Economic Analysis..........................................................................................................7 4.Alternatives Comparison.............................................................................................8 Construction Costs..........................................................................................................8 Study Period Costs.........................................................................................................9 Qualitative Criteria..........................................................................................................9 5.Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................11 ListofTables Table i: Total Study Period Costs................................................................................................i Table 3.1: Predicted Future Peak Hour Traffic Operations........................................................6 Table 3.2: Predicted Annual Collision Frequencies...................................................................7 Table 3.3: Study Period Collision Costs....................................................................................8 Table 4.1: Total Study Period Costs..........................................................................................9 Table 4.2: Summary of Qualitative Evaluation.........................................................................10 ListofFigures Figure 1.1: Study Area Context.................................................................................................2 Figure 2.1: Signalized Intersection Concept..............................................................................3 Figure 2.2: Roundabout Concept...............................................................................................4 Figure 3.1: Forecast Peak Hour Turning Movements................................................................5 ii https://cimao365-my.sharepoint.com/personal/phil_weber_cima_ca/Documents/Documents/Projects/Strasburg Ext/Blair Creek/B001691 Strasburg Blair Creek ICS Report e01v01.docx Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of CIMA+ file number: B001669 Kitchener16 January 2024 Review 01 Listof Appendices Appendix A Capacity Analysis Outputs Appendix B Safety Performance Analysis Appendix C Construction Cost Estimates iii https://cimao365-my.sharepoint.com/personal/phil_weber_cima_ca/Documents/Documents/Projects/Strasburg Ext/Blair Creek/B001691 Strasburg Blair Creek ICS Report e01v01.docx Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of CIMA+ file number: B001669 Kitchener16 January 2024 Review 01 1.Introduction Purpose of this Report The City of Kitchener hasrequested an Intersection Control Study (ICS) to recommend a preferred type of control at Strasburg Road Southand Blair Creek Drive.This is a planned new intersection as part of the Strasburg Road South extension from its existing terminus, the roundabout at Robert Ferrie Drive, southerly to New Dundee Road (Regional Road 12). The ICS compares minor street stop control, a signalized intersection,and a roundabout. The following quantitative criteria were used in the comparison: Peak hour operational performance for motorists. Estimated construction costs. 20-year study period costs (which include motor vehicle collision and intersection maintenance costs). Several qualitative criteria are discussed but not formally evaluated: off-peak traffic operations, environmental considerations, aesthetics, public outreach, conditions for pedestrians, conditions for cyclists, speed control,access management, and driver expectancy. This ICS follows an Environmental Study Report (ESR) completed by SNC Lavalin, May 2012, for the Strasburg Road Extension from north of Stauffer Drive to New Dundee Road, and the Blair Creek Drive Extension Class Environmental Assessment Transportation Studymemo submitted in draft by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, August 2023. Note that a signal warrant analysis was undertaken as part of the Paradigm memo, which concluded that traffic signals are not justified at the intersection. Site Context Strasburg Roadis classified as a City Arterial Street in the 2019 Official Plan. North of the roundabout at Robert Ferrie Drive it extends to Ottawa Street (Regional Road 4). Strasburg Road south of Bleams Road has a four-lane urban section and a posted speed limit of 60 km/h, with multi-use paths on both sides. Blair Creek Drive is classified as a Major Community Collector Street in the 2019 Official Plan. It has atwo-lane urban section and a posted speed limit of 30 km/h, with sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides. As of July 2023, BlairCreek Drive terminates at Thomas Slee Drive and will be extended westerly to Reidel Drive inthe near future, and then farther westto Strasburg Road. The extensions for both streets are planned for the same cross section as existing. Strasburg Road will have a right-of-way width of 30 m. The area along the Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive extensions is planned for predominantly low-density residential development. The site context and approximate alignment of the Strasburg Road extension and Blair Creek Drive is shown in Figure 1.1. 1 Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of CIMA+ file number: B001669 Kitchener16 January 2024 Review 01 Figure1.1:Study Area Context The planned new intersection at Strasburg Road and Blair Creek Drivewill be about 280 m west of Reidel Drive, and 380 m north of New Dundee Road (Regional Road 12). 2.Alternatives Development Conceptual designs for a signalized intersection and a roundabout are shown as Figures 2.1 and 2.2. A conceptual design for minor street stop control has not been developed. It would have the same footprint and lane configuration as a signalized intersection, but without crossings for pedestrians and cyclists on the north and south legs. 2 Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of CIMA+ file number: B001669 Kitchener16 January 2024 Review 01 In accordance with an initial assessment in Synchro, and the planned road cross sections, the signalized intersection has two through lanes northbound and southbound on Strasburg Road. There is an exclusive left-turn lane southbound and a shared right-turn lane northbound. Blair Creek Drive has a shared left/through/right-turn lane westbound. The conceptual designis shown in Figure 2.1. The configuration is the same as at other intersections to the north on Strasburg Road, at Templewood Drive and Rush Meadow Street. A WB-17 design vehicle would need to over-track into the oncoming lane when making a northbound right turn to Blair Creek Drive. In accordance with an initial assessment in ARCADY, the roundabout has two-lane entries on Strasburg Road and a single-lane entry westbound on Blair Creek Drive. The conceptual design is shown in Figure 2.2. Theinscribed circle diameter (ICD) varies between 44 and 50m. The design achievesappropriate speed control for the context and accommodatesa WB-17design vehicle for all movements, although that vehicle will need to over-track adjacent lanes in the two- lane sections. The roundabout will require some property outside of the 30 m right-of-way for Strasburg Road. Multi-use paths are depictedon both sides of Strasburg Road for thealternatives. Specific pedestrian and cyclist crossing treatments for the north, south and east legsare expected to be determined for the preferred alternative during preliminary design. Note that under minor street stop control there would be no crossings on the north and south legs of the intersection. 3.Performance Evaluation Operational Performance Forecast peak hour turning movements at the subject intersection are from Figure 2 in the Blair Creek Drive Extension Class Environmental Assessment Transportation Studymemo, andare summarized in Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1: ForecastPeak Hour Turning Movements 5 Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of CIMA+ file number: B001669 Kitchener16 January 2024 Review 01 The peak hour forecasts were input into Synchro 11under Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology for asignalized intersection, and ARCADY 9 with a y-intercept adjustment of 1 the capacity prediction of 5% downwards for aroundabout. Future heavy vehicle percentages were assumed to be 2% on all approaches.The analysis for minor street stop control was taken from the Paradigm memo. Predicted future peak hour level of service (LOS) and 95th percentile queueresults are provided in Table 3.1. Synchro and ARCADY output sheets for a signalized intersection and a roundabout are containedin Appendix A. Table3.1:Predicted FuturePeak Hour Traffic Operations Minor Street Stop Signalized Roundabout ControlIntersection Movement LOS95% QueueLOS95% QueueLOS95% Queue Blair Creek Dr. WB TRB (D)12 (22) mB (A)36 (25) mA (A)2 (4) m Strasburg Rd. NB TRA (A)-A (A)14 (28) mA (A)2 (2) m Strasburg Rd. SB LA (A)2 (8) mA (D)23 (84) m A (A)5 (4) m Strasburg Rd. SB TA (A)-A (A)22 (24) m OverallA (A)A (C)A (A) Notes: 1.SB, EB, NB,and WB are southbound, eastbound, northbound,and westbound. PM peak hour results in (). 2.LOSuses signalized delay thresholds for asignalized intersection and unsignalized delay thresholds for minor street stop control and a roundabout. 3.direction. ARCADY queues are output in vehicles and converted to metres by multiplying by 7and dividing by the number of lanes. Minor street stop control is predicted to operate at overall peak hour LOS A with minimal queuing. There may be some delay for westbound drivers, who would be under stop control, during the PM peak hour. Asignalized intersection is predicted to operate at overall peak hour LOS A during the futureAM peak hour and LOS Cduring the future PM peak hour. Future 95th percentile queues should be low to moderate, except for the southbound left turn where they may exceed available storage during the PM peak hour unless an extended left-turn lane is provided. The roundabout is predicted to operate at overall futurepeak hour LOS Awith minimal queuing. 1 ARCADY was developed in the United Kingdom, where roundabouts are much more common than in Canada. Therefore a y-intercept adjustment of the capacity prediction in ARCADY should be applied to account for driver unfamiliarity. Based on research and observation it is appropriate to apply a 10% downwards adjustment soon after opening, and a lesser 5% adjustment after several years of operation. 6 Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of CIMA+ file number: B001669 Kitchener16 January 2024 Review 01 Safety Performance 3.2.1Future Safety Assessment Future safety performance for motorists was predicted in accordance with the Intersection Control Studies Safety Assessment Methodology (HSM) spreadsheet (datedJanuary 2021) provided by Region of Waterloo Transportation Services. The spreadsheet utilizesa Safety Performance Function (SPF) for the prediction of collisions at stop-controlled and signalized intersections based on Highway Safety Manual (HSM) methodology using average annual daily traffic (AADT), calibrated using Region crash data at similar intersections. The model is based on multiple-vehicle collisions and isassumed to apply to single-vehicle collisions as well. For the roundabout alternative the spreadsheet draws upon an SPF based on a conflict model developed by the Region from current roundabout collision experience. It has been assumed this collision experience will continue in the future, even as driver familiarity with roundabouts increases. Injury crashes are taken to be 10% of the total crashes, with all remaining collisions being property-damage-only (PDO). The model has the following form: Note that given results when using roundabout was selected (a 3-leg design with single- (a 3-leg design with two-lane entries). The futuretraffic forecasts in the Blair Creek Drive Extension Class Environmental Assessment Transportation Studymemowere assumed to be appropriateas the 10-year horizon forecasts required for input into the Region spreadsheet. The forecast AM and PM peak hour volumes were added and then multiplied by 5 to obtain AADT volumes. Predicted fatal, non-fatal injury, PDO and non-reportable (NR) collisionfrequencies are listed in Table 3.2. Table3.2:Predicted Annual Collision Frequencies Minor Street Signalized Collision SeverityRoundabout Stop ControlIntersection Fatal00- Non-Fatal Injury0.150.450.36 PDO and NR0.330.673.27 Total0.481.123.63 3.2.2Economic Analysis Study period costs associated with motor vehicle collisions by severity were calculated as present costs (PC) using a 6% discount rate over 20 years and the formula: 7 Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of CIMA+ file number: B001669 Kitchener16 January 2024 Review 01 Direct human capital crash costs from the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) Table 4A-1 were used, adjusted using the Consumers Price Index. They are $1,656,000 per fatal, $60,500 per non- fatal injury and $5,000 per PDO collision. The resulting 20-year study period collision costs are provided in Table 3.3. Table3.3:Study Period Collision Costs Minor Street Signalized Collision CostRoundabout Stop ControlIntersection Fatal(PC)$19,000$19,000- Non-Fatal Injury(PC)$104,000$312,000$252,000 PDO and NR(PC)$19,000$38,000$169,000 Total (PC)$142,000$370,000$421,000 A signalized intersection is expected to have the least number of total collisions, and minor street stop control is expected to have the lowest study period collision cost. A roundabout is expected to have the highest number of total collisions, andthe highesttotal direct human capital crash cost. The cost margins over 20 years are $228,000 and $51,000, neither of which should be considered significant given the assumptions associated with the safety predictionmethodology and the underlying traffic forecasts. Crash costs are mostly a societal cost, and if there are any savings associated with an alternative then only a small portion of that savings may return directly to the City. Note thata roundabout will virtually eliminate the possibility of a fatal crash. 4.Alternatives Comparison Construction Costs The estimated construction cost of the minor street stop control alternative is $1,245,000. The estimated cost of asignalized intersection as per Figure 2.1is $1,378,000.Comparedtothe minorstreetstopcontrolthisaddssomeconcreteworkfortwoadditionalpedestriancrossings, and$100,000 for traffic signal plant. Sothecosttoconvertfromstoptosignalcontrolshould justbethedifferencebetweenthetwoestimates,or$133,000(plusanycontractormobilization). The estimated construction cost of aroundabout as per Figure 2.2is $1,712,000, including $79,500 for some property acquisition outside of the 30 m right-of-way for Strasburg Road. The cost estimates are all within the same limits of construction, andinclude a 20% contingency and 10% engineering. Details are provided in Appendix C. 8 Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of CIMA+ file number: B001669 Kitchener16 January 2024 Review 01 Study Period Costs In addition to construction and property acquisition costs, study period costs consist of the societal costs of motor vehicle collisions, plus ongoing operating and maintenance costs. Operation/maintenance costs are estimated at $5,000 per year for a signalized intersection, for a present cost (PC) of approximately $60,000 over 20 years. This consists of following Minimum Maintenance Standards with respect to traffic signal maintenance, but assumes signal replacement occurs after 20 years. The corresponding cost for a roundabout is $2,000 per year, for a PC of approximately $20,000 over 20 years. This includes landscaping and a greater degree of signage, pavement marking and illumination maintenance. A comparison of total construction and 20-year study period costs for the alternatives is shown in Table 4.1. Table4.1:Total Study Period Costs Minor Street Signalized CostRoundabout Stop ControlIntersection Construction$1,245,000$1,378,000$1,712,000 Maintenance (PC)-$60,000$20,000 Collision (PC)$142,000$370,000$421,000 Total Study Period $1,387,000$1,808,000$2,153,000 Cost (PC) Expressed as present costs, minor street stop control is estimated to have the lowest20-year study period costby a margin of$421,000 over a signalized intersection and $766,000 over a roundabout. Both marginsshould probablybe considered significanteven withthe assumptionsassociated with the construction cost estimates and safety prediction methodology. For instance, if the study period collision cost for a roundabout were to be 50% lower, the margin between it and minor street stop control would still be greater than$600,000 over 20 years. Qualitative Criteria Several qualitative criteria are also discussed but were not formally evaluated: off-peak traffic operations, environmental considerations, aesthetics, public outreach, conditions for pedestrians, conditions for cyclists, speed control,access management, and driver expectancy. Table 4.2summarizes comments associated with minor street stop control, a signalized intersection and a roundabout at this location. 9 Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of CIMA+ file number: B001669 Kitchener16 January 2024 Review 01 Table4.2:Summary of Qualitative Evaluation Signalized Signalized CriteriaRoundabout IntersectionIntersection Off-Peak Traffic No delays for drivers Assuming the signals Although all traffic would Operationson Strasburg Rd. but are semi-actuated and need to slow to navigate the potentially higher rest on green for roundabout, control delay delays for those Strasburg Rd, low would be lowoverall. making left turns from delays for these drivers Blair Creek Dr.but potentially higher delays for those making left turns from Blair Creek Dr. Vehicle Noise, Low, as a function of Moderate, as a function Low due to generally lower Fuel motor vehicle delays, of motor vehicle delays, delays and more uniform Consumption start/stop cycles and start/stop cycles and motor vehicle speeds. and Emissionsidling.idling. Could be included as part of Public OutreachStatus quo.Status quo. the ongoing roundabout outreach efforts. AestheticsStatus quo.Status quo.Roundabout provides opportunity for landscapingin central island and to act as a gateway treatment. Conditions for Pedestrians would not Pedestrians wanting to Wait times for pedestrians Pedestrianshave a controlled east-cross Strasburg Rd. should be low. west crossing of would likely have to A roundaboutwith two-lane Strasburg Rd.use pushbutton to entries may result in activate Walk accessibility challenges to indication. people with low vision.Level Signalized intersections 2 Pedestrian Crossovers are considered (PXOs) can be supplemented accessible with with rapid flashing beacons standard curb ramps, (RFBs) if necessary. tactile warning surface Statistically pedestrians are indicators (TWSIs) and 50% to 90% less likely to be accessiblepedestrian involved in a collision at a signals(APS). roundaboutthan a signalized intersection. 10 Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of CIMA+ file number: B001669 Kitchener16 January 2024 Review 01 Conditions for Multi-use paths on Multi-use paths on Multi-use paths on Strasburg CyclistsStrasburg Rd, but Strasburg Rd.Rd. Cyclists would have to cyclists would not have yield to traffic at the a controlled east-west crosswalks regardless of crossing.crossing treatment used. Lower motor vehicle speeds are better suited for cyclists. Statistically, cyclists are less likely to be involved in a collision at a single-lane roundabout, but not necessarily a multi-lane roundabout. No control of motor Motor vehicle speeds Motor vehicle speeds always Speed Control vehicle speedson controlled only during controlled in vicinity of Strasburg Rd.red signal indication.intersection due to geometry of roundabout. Access No restrictions.No restrictions.No anticipated restrictions. Management Driver Most drivers in the Region Status quo.Status quo. Expectancyare familiar with roundabouts. There are two roundabouts to the north on Strasburg Rd. Minor street stop control would be a lower-cost and efficient type of intersection, but it would provide no speed control on Strasburg Road nor a controlled east-west crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. A signalized intersection would be a less efficient type of intersection, but it would provide for increased accessibility for pedestrians with vision loss and may be a more convenient alternative for cyclists. A roundabout would allow for efficientpeak and off-peak traffic operations, and low vehicle noise, fuel consumption and emissions. Itwould also complement the two roundabouts to the north on Strasburg Road, at Huron Road and Robert Ferrie Drive, result in some measure of speed control along this section of Strasburg Road, and provide an opportunity for landscaping or a gateway treatment. However, it is the alternative with the highest 20-year study period cost. 5.Conclusions and Recommendations Expressed as present costs, minor street stop control is estimated to have the lowest20-year study period cost by a margin of $421,000 over a signalized intersection and $766,000 over a roundabout. Both marginsshould probablybe considered significant even withthe assumptions associated with the construction cost estimates and safety prediction methodology. 11 Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of CIMA+ file number: B001669 Kitchener16 January 2024 Review 01 Forecast peak hour delays and 95th percentile queues are predicted to be the lowest overall with a roundabout, but capacity should not be a problem with any of thealternatives Minor street stop control would be an efficient type of intersection, but it would provide no speed control on Strasburg Road nor a controlled east-west crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. A signalized intersection would provide for increased accessibility and may be a more convenient alternative for cyclists. A roundabout would allow for efficientpeak and off-peak traffic operations, would complement the two roundabouts to the north on Strasburg Road, at Huron Road and Robert Ferrie Drive, and would provide an opportunity for landscaping or a gateway treatment. It would also result in some measure of speed control along this section of Strasburg Road, and virtuallyeliminatethe possibility of a fatal crash. However, it is the alternative with the highest 20-year study period cost. Accordingly, it is recommended that a minor street stop controlbe implemented at the future intersection of Strasburg Road and Blair Creek Drive. If a controlled east-west crossing for pedestrians and cyclists is desired, or if delays for drivers on Blair Creek Drive becomes an issue, then it may be converted to a signalized intersection when traffic signals are justified or when deemed appropriate by the City of Kitchener. 12 Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of CIMA+ file number: B001669 Kitchener19 December 2023 Review 01 A Appendix A Capacity Analysis Outputs IDN!Tjhobmj{fe!Joufstfdujpo!Dbqbdjuz!Bobmztjt 4;!Tusbtcvsh!Se!'!Cmbjs!Dsffl!Es!Fyufotjpo Rvfvjoh!boe!Cmpdljoh!Sfqpsu C1127:2 Joufstfdujpo;!4;!Tusbtcvsh!Se!'!Cmbjs!Dsffl!Es!Fyufotjpo Ofuxpsl!Tvnnbsz IDN!Tjhobmj{fe!Joufstfdujpo!Dbqbdjuz!Bobmztjt 4;!Tusbtcvsh!Se!'!Cmbjs!Dsffl!Es!Fyufotjpo Rvfvjoh!boe!Cmpdljoh!Sfqpsu C1127:2 Joufstfdujpo;!4;!Tusbtcvsh!Se!'!Cmbjs!Dsffl!Es!Fyufotjpo Ofuxpsl!Tvnnbsz Appendix A ARCADY Analysis Summary Strasburg Road Southand Blair Creek Drive December 13, 2023 Page A1of A1 1Traffic Volumes 2033 AMPeak Hour 2033PM Peak Hour 2Roundabout Geometry 3Analysis Results Notes 1.Because ARCADY was developed in the United Kingdom, where roundabouts are more common than in Canada, a y-intercept adjustment of the capacity prediction in ARCADY should beapplied to account for driver unfamiliarity. Based on research and observation it is appropriate to apply a 10% downwards adjustment soon after opening, and a lesser 5% adjustment after severalyears of operation. 2.Queue lengths are given in 95th percentile values in vehiclesby approach. They can be converted to metres per lane by multiplying by 7 and dividing by number of lanes, accounting for the storage effects of flared entrieswhere appropriate. 3.Residual capacity is defined as the percent growth in traffic for one of the legs to reach level of service (LOS) 'E' as per Exhibit 17-2 of the Highway Capacity Manual (2010). Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of CIMA+ file number: B001669 Kitchener19 December 2023 Review 01 B Appendix B Safety Performance Analysis INTERSECTION CONTROL STUDIES Last Rev JAN 2021 SAFETY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (HSM) Strasburg Road Major Road: 2033 Scenario: Blair Creek Drive Minor Road: Major Road Direction: LT Lanes Proposed (non RT Lanes Proposed (non roundabout):roundabout): Urban or Rural: Proposed Control: MajorMajor Proposed Config.MinorMinor Is there going to be any fully protected Is the proposed intersection "new" or is it existing: left-turn phasing? Does control and number of approaches remain the same: Number of approaches with FPLTP: Will the proposed intersection have illumination: Proposed RA Configuration? 0 5-Year Total Collisions: 0 5-Year PDO Collisions: * Proposed RA config. - 1st number represents approaches while 2nd represents lanes 6,385 Major Road (mid-block) 10-Year Horizon AADT: 10-Year Horizon5,07510-Year Horizon Minor Road (mid-block) 10-Year Horizon AADT: AADT(North Leg)AADT(East Leg) Strasburg Road 6,3855,075 * 10-Year Horizon AADT (10ys post improvement/control) 01,1852,335 * Input by movement only 1,605 0 N 820 WE 0 S 0 0 Blair Creek Drive Blair Creek Drive 01,260315 10-Year Horizon10-Year Horizon AADT(West Leg)AADT(South Leg) 03,580 Strasburg Road Direct Capital Costs 20-Year Present Value Collision Costs (DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS) $1,656,500 Fatal = Collisions by SeverityTotalPDOInjuryFatal $60,500 Injury = $5,000 PDO SIG = $18,925.37$104,089.54 Stop Control$142,014.83$18,999.92 $4,500 PDO RA = $233,918.49$93,799.00$140,119.49$0.00 Roundabout Discount Rate =0.06 0.5 * Roundabout calibration Factor - INTERSECTION CONTROL STUDIES Last Rev JAN 2021 SAFETY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (HSM) Strasburg Road Major Road: Scenario:2033 Blair Creek Drive Minor Road: North / South Major Road Direction: Roundabout Conflicts:6495 Urban Urban or Rural: Stop Control Proposed Control:0 5-Year Total Collisions: 3-Leg Intersection0 Proposed Config. 5-Year PDO Collisions: Estimated ANNUAL (1-YEAR ONLY) Collisions Future Expected Collisions by TotalPDOInjuryFatal Severity 0.480.330.150.00 Stop Control Roundabout 2.021.820.200.00 TOTAL CRASH COEFFICIENTS USED IN CALCULATION Collision Fatal/Inj. Ratio Intersection Factor ControlInterceptAADTmajAADTminOverdispersion Config 3-Leg -13.361.110.41N/A0.006n/a Stop Control Intersection PDO CRASH COEFFICIENTS USED IN CALCULATION Collision Intersection Fatal/Inj. Ratio ControlInterceptAADTmajAADTminOverdispersion Factor Config 3-Leg -15.381.20.51N/A0.006n/a Stop Control Intersection Left Turn LaneRight Turn LaneCalibration FactorEmpirical Bays Weighting TotalPDO 0.61 N/AN/A Collision Modification Factors (cmf's) Protected LT Illumination Phasing 0.911.00 Comments: INTERSECTION CONTROL STUDIES Last Rev JAN 2021 SAFETY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (HSM) Strasburg Road Major Road: 2033 Scenario: Blair Creek Drive Minor Road: Major Road Direction: LT Lanes Proposed (non RT Lanes Proposed (non roundabout):roundabout): Urban or Rural: Proposed Control: MajorMajor Proposed Config.MinorMinor Is there going to be any fully protected Is the proposed intersection "new" or is it existing: left-turn phasing? Does control and number of approaches remain the same: Number of approaches with FPLTP: Will the proposed intersection have illumination: Proposed RA Configuration? 0 5-Year Total Collisions: 0 5-Year PDO Collisions: * Proposed RA config. - 1st number represents approaches while 2nd represents lanes 6,385 Major Road (mid-block) 10-Year Horizon AADT: 10-Year Horizon5,07510-Year Horizon Minor Road (mid-block) 10-Year Horizon AADT: AADT(North Leg)AADT(East Leg) Strasburg Road 6,3855,075 * 10-Year Horizon AADT (10ys post improvement/control) 01,1852,335 * Input by movement only 1,605 0 N 820 WE 0 S 0 0 Blair Creek Drive Blair Creek Drive 01,260315 10-Year Horizon10-Year Horizon AADT(West Leg)AADT(South Leg) 03,580 Strasburg Road Direct Capital Costs 20-Year Present Value Collision Costs (DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS) $1,656,500 Fatal = Collisions by SeverityTotalPDOInjuryFatal $60,500 Injury = $5,000 PDO SIG = $38,424.24$312,268.61 Signalized$369,692.77$18,999.92 $4,500 PDO RA = $421,053.28$168,838.20$252,215.08$0.00 Roundabout Discount Rate =0.06 0.9 * Roundabout calibration Factor - INTERSECTION CONTROL STUDIES Last Rev JAN 2021 SAFETY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (HSM) Strasburg Road Major Road: Scenario:2033 Blair Creek Drive Minor Road: North / South Major Road Direction: Roundabout Conflicts:6495 Urban Urban or Rural: Signalized Proposed Control:0 5-Year Total Collisions: 3-Leg Intersection0 Proposed Config. 5-Year PDO Collisions: Estimated ANNUAL (1-YEAR ONLY) Collisions Future Expected Collisions by TotalPDOInjuryFatal Severity 1.120.670.450.00 Signalized Roundabout 3.633.270.360.00 TOTAL CRASH COEFFICIENTS USED IN CALCULATION Collision Fatal/Inj. Ratio Intersection Factor ControlInterceptAADTmajAADTminOverdispersion Config 3-Leg -12.131.110.26N/A0.002n/a Signalized Intersection PDO CRASH COEFFICIENTS USED IN CALCULATION Collision Intersection Fatal/Inj. Ratio ControlInterceptAADTmajAADTminOverdispersion Factor Config 3-Leg -13.241.140.3N/A0.002n/a Signalized Intersection Left Turn LaneRight Turn LaneCalibration FactorEmpirical Bays Weighting TotalPDO 0.93 1.59 N/AN/A Collision Modification Factors (cmf's) Protected LT Illumination Phasing 0.911.00 Comments: Intersection Control Study Strasburg Road South and Blair Creek Drive in the City of CIMA+ file number: B001669 Kitchener19 December 2023 Review 01 C Appendix C Construction Cost Estimates Construction Cost Estimate Minor Street Stop Control Strasburg Road and Blair Creek Drive ItemDescriptionUnitEstimatedUnitTotal No.QuantityPrice 2 1Clearing and Grubbing1000$13.50$13,500 m 3 2Earth Borrow500$30.00$15,000 m 3 3Earth Excavation2000$30.00$60,000 m 2 4Remove Asphalt (full depth)0$11.50$0 m 5Remove Curb/Gutterm0$14.00$0 6Asphalt HL-1t850$130.00$110,500 7HDBCt1700$120.00$204,000 8Granular At1800$17.00$30,600 9Granular Bt1700$17.00$28,900 2 10Minor Concrete Works30$75.00$2,250 m 11Asphalt Multi-Use Path (3.0m)m440$250.00$110,000 12Concrete Curb & Gutterm900$48.00$43,200 13Culvert Extensionm0$350.00$0 14Storm Sewer SystemLS1$250,000.00$250,000 15Pavement Marking & SignageLS1$20,000.00$20,000 16IlluminationLS1$20,000.00$20,000 17Utility Relocations/ProtectionLS1$50,000.00$50,000 Sub-Total Construction Cost$957,950 Bump-Up plus Contingency (20% of Construction Cost)$191,590.00 Estimated Engineering - Civil, Geo, etc. (10%)$95,795.00 Total Construction Cost$1,245,335.00 2 Property0$ 50$ - m Rough Total $ 1,245,335 Construction Cost Estimate Signalized Intersection Strasburg Road and Blair Creek Drive ItemDescriptionUnitEstimatedUnitTotal No.QuantityPrice 2 1Clearing and Grubbing1000$13.50$13,500 m 3 2Earth Borrow500$30.00$15,000 m 3 3Earth Excavation2000$30.00$60,000 m 2 4Remove Asphalt (full depth)0$11.50$0 m 5Remove Curb/Gutterm0$14.00$0 6Asphalt HL-1t850$130.00$110,500 7HDBCt1700$120.00$204,000 8Granular At1800$17.00$30,600 9Granular Bt1700$17.00$28,900 2 10Minor Concrete Works55$75.00$4,125 m 11Asphalt Multi-Use Path (3.0m)m440$250.00$110,000 12Concrete Curb & Gutterm900$48.00$43,200 13Culvert Extensionm0$350.00$0 14Storm Sewer SystemLS1$250,000.00$250,000 15Pavement Marking & SignageLS1$20,000.00$20,000 16IlluminationLS1$20,000.00$20,000 17Traffic Signal Installationeach1$100,000.00$100,000 18Utility Relocations/ProtectionLS1$50,000.00$50,000 Sub-Total Construction Cost$1,059,825 Bump-Up plus Contingency (20% of Construction Cost)$211,965.00 Estimated Engineering - Civil, Geo, etc. (10%)$105,982.50 Total Construction Cost$1,377,772.50 2 Property0$ 50$ - m Rough Total$ 1,377,773 Construction Cost Estimate Roundabout Strasburg Road and Blair Creek Drive ItemDescriptionUnitEstimatedUnitTotal No.QuantityPricePrice 2 1Clearing and Grubbing2000$13.50$27,000 m 3 2Earth Borrow1000$30.00$30,000 m 3 3Earth Excavation3000$30.00$90,000 m 2 4Remove Asphalt (full depth)0$11.50$0 m 5Remove Curb/Gutterm0$14.00$0 6Asphalt HL-3t1000$130.00$130,000 7HDBCt2000$120.00$240,000 8Granular At2850$17.00$48,450 9Granular Bt1700$17.00$28,900 2 10Minor Concrete Works80$75.00$6,000 m 11Asphalt Multi-Use Path (3.0m)m500$250.00$125,000 12Concrete Curb & Gutterm1750$48.00$84,000 2 13Concrete Splitter Island850$50.00$42,500 m 2 14Concrete Coloured Truck Apron275$123.00$33,825 m 15Central Island LandscapingLS1$20,000.00$20,000 16Culvert Extensionm0$350.00$0 17Storm Sewer SystemLS1$250,000.00$250,000 18Pavement Marking & SignageLS1$25,000.00$25,000 19IlluminationLS1$25,000.00$25,000 20Utility Relocations/ProtectionsLS1$50,000.00$50,000 Sub-Total Construction Cost$1,255,675 Bump-Up plus Contingency (20% of Construction Cost)$251,135.00 Estimated Engineering - Civil, Geo, etc. (10%)$125,567.50 Total Construction Cost$1,632,377.50 2 Property1590$ 50$ 79,500 m Rough Total$ 1,711,878 AppendixD Preliminary (30%) Design Drawings 53018-100 - BALIR CREEK DRIVE CONSTRUCTION R D R D K DDR ER TDREICHERT DR RGE R N E DOUCR EF VELISRE ML WN O BC H GOD NTL OALVN SS R II TL AEU LRHR WNA IDD ODRHEL VG SCT ELB LW RIERESE NEMCI O E LNR OLD ONP KRLN OLDOLEO ODI ERGTO DIC DMTIER GTEMRGFRONT AN TSI ACURRETE RM ITCD BDRP AR RNC OA DO RORGKD LDO OYS AYUOC GELE OLRW CAL EVSWO EDR K TL RNI ER TPP A OCHPBC OR TO V OT R LDRU R D NR POEOO SF BT OLRSN R ILEH NTC LPLAA D ICN IOW O SM ER MRMO O I DD EDE D F NLK .R TE OSE TD LT E I GS SO ESR TD DIIK AC EE RRO R LMR EREOI AM LA ERERO DR GFPL LS DRDD BHD N MILKI B DOOE RTTNT ASYE DEE RA OLET XG GER ELOS D -TIDLNBC I EFKO STAO L RTD BDCR LTVTE BSOD EIOCBRIL CDLEO ONRID VGEP COED OEWO NEO TLW WNRERN SPAYNOLSO LPIDS CTEERO TD ES PTHE PR TW C S TAKO SOE EHWRO VLPPIXBL RRTEON AEEF HRF D TLTD IC TDL LS PEI O ROR CTILT D NORWCW T GR NIKEE MHNETD REO AE FEMISTYWOR GROHL DRGROHL DR L R STD CS TSE ROF STK RIDGES W E RA E D M R L O C EH RK E TTR CERMEADOI RD H K CE DEA ANR CO CL LH NOTS EU EIDOB ISEFENSIDE ST BD RON FRPR D BL TCSRI SC ARE O ACE NA SS ESTO ER E AD HVT WR N E WWE KC A NL NLG OOM R EPR AD D S E E NTBR E CR R V SD EDM T E NGWA TER LS OKL PI E E OODS TRAIL KSTAUFFER WE OCBUE NRN DNRD AW NR BR AT C RD L E D RD D KD E RE RE N HB HOEED TO FO SKFA UTER LF SFC OLSANCH A TN A PTAUS NWEDLRJ ILHILLRSA REI APV CHT CCA E A NS NL N E OMLB OD TLP S TO DR TPCARYNDALE R IELBL AIR VALLEY DR BLRYNDALE DR OCA M RU C Y T TA SR CKERRANW KIL RE H DG T R OODCA HEARTHWR N ND A A NIEH KILBIROE T E H IO SPENCER T B W E CTCT HL TR HEARRD RTHBRIDGE STA AC CAMERON ES H CREEKVIEW CRES BLAIR CREEK DR REIDEL DR R W C OR D D HA SK E E U M E R R C R I A L B D E S O P DO R R G RP U B S A R T T SC E L T NEWCAS STLEA RC W D ERE OD DE RUR ITNT F G HS TF R U SI STEB L FSWS A FRTLEBAY ICECASR T N- FKR S FHT AST NF E ASCR BBC E U RFONT I HU FE SRF N R RA C B T C TAN TAR RT C N E AS V TE A RR N AC A T T R A T MADELEINE ST CHANTILLY ST T S T OTTENHAMST D N A ST LCANNES T DE I RV A D A WOODBINE AVER MN E NVS O AAN R I TA VERONA STUNL R RP HA CA T T AR FRANKFURT ST NA RT N EC I SA N N E I S FISCHER-HALLMAN RD SIENNACT D R N A M LL A H- R E H C S I F Berry Vrbanovic - Mayor CITY OF KITCHENER COVER SHEET CS1.153018-100- C`sd9ÈÈL`q-È/0,È1/13ÈÄÈ2915ÈolÈÈÈÈOknssdcÈax9ÈOQ`hla`tksÈÈÈEhkdm`ld9ÈO9\[O\[42/07\[0//\[42/07Ä0//ÄBR1-cvf 1 of 7 2 of 7 3 of 7 4 of 7 5 of 7 6 of 7 7 of 7 SHEET No. TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAWING DESCRIPTION SIGNAGE VEGETATION MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL AND ELECTRICAL UTILITIES TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGEND CONTROL SYMBOLS ROAD SURFACE FEATURES WATER SEWERS NATURAL GAS REMOVAL AND ADJUSTMENTS UNDERGROUND SERVICES O9\[O\[42/07\[0//\[42/07Ä0//ÄBR1 LEGEND SHEET CS2.153018-100-LSDÈEHKDÈMn9 1:750 01.09.24 PFR- DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:DATE: (MM.DD.YY)DWG. No. X.X APPROVED BY:SHEET No. JXR 53018-100-ST1 DESIGNED BY: CONSULTANT DWG. No. REIDEL DRIVE BLAIR CREEK DRIVE FUTURE STRASBURG ROAD PROPOSED CONDITIONS - BLAIR CREEK DRIVE - FROM STA 1+000 TO 1+140 ST1-53018-100 1:250 01.09.24 PFR - DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:DATE: (MM.DD.YY)DWG. No. THIS SHEET X.X APPROVED BY:SHEET No. Engineers, BLAIR CREEK DRIVE JXR 53018-100-PP1 DESIGNED BY: CONSULTANT DWG. No. PROPOSED CONDITIONS - BLAIR CREEK DRIVE - FROM STA 1+000 TO 1+140 PP1.1-53018-100 1:250 01.09.24 PFR - DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:DATE: (MM.DD.YY)DWG. No. THIS SHEET X.X APPROVED BY:SHEET No. Engineers, BLAIR CREEK DRIVE JXR 53018-100-PP1 DESIGNED BY: CONSULTANT DWG. No. PROPOSED CONDITIONS - BLAIR CREEK DRIVE - FROM STA 1+140 TO 1+300 PP1.2-53018-100 1:250 01.09.24 PFR - DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:DATE: (MM.DD.YY)DWG. No. THIS SHEET X.X APPROVED BY:SHEET No. Engineers, BLAIR CREEK DRIVE JXR 53018-100-PP1 DESIGNED BY: CONSULTANT DWG. No. PROPOSED CONDITIONS - BLAIR CREEK DRIVE - FROM STA 1+300 TO 1+460 PP1.3-53018-100 1:250 01.09.24 PFR - DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:DATE: (MM.DD.YY)DWG. No. THIS SHEET X.X APPROVED BY:SHEET No. Engineers, BLAIR CREEK DRIVE JXR 53018-100-PP1 DESIGNED BY: CONSULTANT DWG. No. PROPOSED CONDITIONS - BLAIR CREEK DRIVE - FROM STA 1+460 TO 1+620 PP1.4-53018-100 1:250 01.09.24 PFR - DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:DATE: (MM.DD.YY)DWG. No. THIS SHEET X.X APPROVED BY:SHEET No. Engineers, BLAIR CREEK DRIVE JXR 53018-100-PP1 DESIGNED BY: CONSULTANT DWG. No. PROPOSED CONDITIONS - BLAIR CREEK DRIVE - FROM STA 1+620 TO 1+720 PP1.5-53018-100 1:100 01.09.24 PFR - DRAWN BY:DATE: (MM.DD.YY)DWG. No. CHECKED BY:SCALE: Surveyors X.X Scientists, SHEET No. APPROVED BY: Engineers, BLAIR CREEK DRIVE JXR 53018-100-XS2 DESIGNED BY: CONSULTANT DWG. No. BLAIR CREEK DRIVEBLAIR CREEK DRIVE TY\[ICAL SECTION IN PARKING LANE TYPICAL SECTION IN LEFT TURN LANE PROPOSED CONDITIONS - BLAIR CREEK DRIVE - FROM STA 1+620 TO 1+720 XS2.1-53018-100 1:250 Jun-23 FUNCTIONAL DESIGN 1 1:250 Jun-23 53018-100 Surveyors Scientists, Engineers, FUNCTIONAL DESIGN 1 1:250 Jun-23 FUNCTIONAL DESIGN 2 1:250 Jun-23 53018-100 Surveyors Scientists, Engineers, FUNCTIONAL DESIGN 2 1:250 Jun-23 FUNCTIONAL DESIGN 3 1:250 Jun-23 53018-100 Surveyors Scientists, Engineers, FUNCTIONAL DESIGN 3