Agendaguelph.ca/wp-content/uploads/NiskaRoadCWGMeeting5Materials.pdf · R.J. Burnside International Limited 292 Speedvale Avenue West Unit 20 Guelph ON N1H 1C4 CANADA telephone (519)

R.J. Burnside International Limited 292 Speedvale Avenue West Unit 20 Guelph ON N1H 1C4 CANADA

telephone (519) 823-4995 fax (519) 836-5477 web www.rjburnside.com

Agenda

Date and Time: July 23, 2014 7-9pm Project No.: 300032275

Project Name: Niska Road EA

Meeting Subject: Niska Road Community Working Group Meeting No. 5

Meeting Location: Guelph City Hall, Meeting room C, 1 Carden Street

Items

1. Review of Meeting Minutes from Tuesday June 3, 2014

2. CHER Report Discussion with Richard Unterman (30 mins)

3. Discussion of Traffic Interview Survey (30 mins)

4. Discussion of Evaluation of Alternatives and Preliminary Preferred Solution (remainder

of meeting)

a. Analysis

b. Conclusion

c. Next Steps

5. Meeting Adjourned

140603_Niska Road EA CWG Meeting 5 Agenda.docx 7/16/2014 5:14 PM

R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 292 Speedvale Avenue West Unit 20 Guelph ON N1H 1C4 CANADA


Minutes of Meeting

Meeting Date: June 3, 2014 Project No.: 300032275.0000

Project Name : Niska Road/Bridge Reconstruction

Meeting Subject: Community Working Group Meeting No. 4

Meeting Location: City Hall, Meeting Room C

Date Prepared: June 10, 2014

Those in attendance were:

Jennifer Vandermeer R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited

Philip Rowe R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited

Ashley Gallaugher R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited

Fraser Robinson R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited

Sarah Draper R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited

Brad Hamilton City of Guelph

Gwen Zhang City of Guelph

Don Kudo City of Guelph

Peter Lennie Niska Road EA Community Working Group

Larry Erickson Niska Road EA Community Working Group

Laura Murr Niska Road EA Community Working Group

Samantha Lawson Niska Road EA Community Working Group

Vince Hanson Niska Road EA Community Working Group

Nather Aziz Niska Road EA Community Working Group

Tim Martin Niska Road EA Community Working Group

Joe Bigley Niska Road EA Community Working Group

Lori MacEwen Niska Road EA Community Working Group

Terry McLellan Niska Road EA Community Working Group

Those absent were:

Sharon Claessens Niska Road EA Community Working Group

Minutes of Meeting Page 2 of 21 Project No.: 300032275.0000 Meeting Date: June 3, 2014

Shaun Goodyer Niska Road EA Community Working Group

Judy Martin Niska Road EA Community Working Group

Jim Miller Niska Road EA Community Working Group

Sandy Nicholls Niska Road EA Community Working Group

The following items were discussed Action by

1. Review of Agenda

Philip Rowe (P.R.) reviewed the agenda with the CWG, asked the group if anyone wants to the agenda under the “other” section. Laura Murr (L.M.) – I wanted to talk about the CHER report. P.R. – Richard Unterman (R.U) is not here today, but you can give us your comments and we can pass them on to Richard, if you prefer we can also wait until the next meeting. L.M. – I would like to talk about it tonight.

Agenda was approved by CWG.

2. Review of Meeting Minutes from Tuesday March 18, 2014

P.R. asked the group to submit any revisions to the minutes from the previous meeting. Samantha Lawson (S.L.) requested that it is noted on page 7 that the GRCA does not review for cultural heritage, they simply flag for it. S.L. – Under R.U.’s discussion of the CHER Report on page 3, the minutes reflect that there are only two bailey bridges in the watershed, but this may not be correct. He may have been referencing our inventory which is not comprehensive. I understood that he meant there are two bailey bridges in Wellington County. In the entire watershed, I believe there are more than two bailey bridges. I tried to get that clarified with our policy planner, but was unable to get an answer. Vince Hanson (V.H.) – It is hard to receive the minutes 7 weeks after the meeting. It is difficult to remember what was said during the meeting after that amount of time has passed. V.H. acknowledged the minutes need to be approved, but suggested a time limit on receiving them. P.R. proposed a two week turnaround time on meeting minutes to give enough time to prepare and review the minutes before distributing to the CWG.



Peter Lennie (P.L.) noted there have been tractor trailers and other goods haulers using the bridge. P.L. felt the bridge has not been maintained in a manner that it should have been and inquired if we need to look into the safety of the bridge. He asked if someone went over the bridge and it collapsed, what it would cost the City. P.L. suggested signage to use the bridge at their own risk or post a weight restriction. Noted that there are talks about opening the wildlife park, doing so will increase traffic. P.L. asked if someone was not doing their job based on the last assessment having been done in 2012. P.R. and Brad Hamilton (B.H.) confirmed that the bridge is inspected biannually. B.H. – The report for 2012 was given to you, but we have had another one done. P.L. – When was the other one done? The report does not stipulate how often it has to be done. P.R. – None of us want to see an accident at the bridge, and there is currently a load restriction in place, as well as signage. Most CGW members have witnessed truck drivers not abiding by the signage. The police are aware of this and are ticketing those disobeying the signage. We have some information regarding the number of tickets and incidents that occur. Currently, the bridge is not a safety concern for car traffic. V.H. – I sent an email documenting my observation of someone backing up all the way from the bridge to pioneer trail. There is no signage before pioneer trail which is the last point at which a truck can turn around. P.R. – We know that signage is a problem and the City is trying to do what they can to provide additional signage. If the bridge were to collapse the City would have to rebuild the bridge right away. We hope that is not the case and we can go through the EA process. Joe Bigley (J.B.) – Why would the bridge just be rebuilt? P.R. – The bridge would need to be rebuilt without waiting for the EA process because it would be considered an emergency. J.B. – If we are considering closing the bridge, I don’t know why it would be imperative to build the bridge right away. P.R. - The debris would need to be removed from the river and council would meet right away to determine if it was integral to the community to have the bridge rebuilt.



J.B. – Is this roadway considered a vital? P.R. – We are getting ahead of ourselves here. The city has options and would approach the MOE and deal with those issues at that time. J.B. expressed concern about rebuilding the bridge right away. Asked how it would play out if the bridge got closed, in regards to emergency vehicles, etc. P.R. – We will get to that point later. L.M. – In section 1.1 of the minutes it is mentioned that Philip spoke about members of the group trying to halt or delay the process, I don’t think that he has ever made comments about that. I would hate for someone reviewing this at the MOE to think that we have not been cooperative with the process. P.R. – I did say those words at the time, this issue was brought up as a result of emails that we received. Apologies were received after the fact, and this has been resolved. At the beginning of the last meeting I indicated to group that it is very important to communicate, but we must remain professional and courteous to each. I understand that the Group may be concerned that MOE may view the CWG as uncooperative. That was not my intent, in fact, I will state for the record, ‘I believe that the group has been constructive and is contributing greatly to this Class EA process.’ V.H. expressed his feeling that everyone is attempting to be constructive members of the group and thought that everyone there could agree on this. P.R. asked the CWG members to disclose if they would like to record the proceedings, as permission should be given by those in attendance beforehand. L.M. noted that she had been typing minutes but had not recorded anything. No other members of the CWG suggested they were recording. P.R. introduced Fraser Robinson (F.R.) to the CWG. V.H. – Should the information that we receive be considered confidential? P.R. – Everything that we have given out is in Draft as studies are not complete and we are still gathering information. We have shared this with the working group so that you can see the changes as the



documents evolve. We keep any emails that are sent to us that are relevant to the process. This becomes part of the EA and the public record. Any names or personal contact information is removed from those emails to protect your privacy. V.H. – I have no wish to talk to others about what happens here but some do. Can we talk to others about the information that we receive? P.R. – You can, and we encourage you to discuss the issues with others. If you hand out draft information it is important that you note that this is a draft document and it is changing. We want to avoid a situation where people are taking draft documents to the MOE as part of a Part II Order. We also need to share the context in which the draft information is being shared. Jennifer Vandermeer (J.V.) – In terms of the public record, personal information is redacted from emails and other correspondence, so that is not given to the public. V.H. – Are initials and names in the minutes to be redacted? J.V. – Initials were not something we were considering redacting, however emails, full name and addresses would be removed. P.R. – As part of the committee your name becomes part of the record, so that you are not a blind face on the committee. However, your personal information such as address will not be shared. P.L. – What about the press? I have seen two letters to the press recently that cover some of the things that we have talked about here. P.R. – We are working from a place of honesty and transparency. If someone takes all of this material and hands it to the press, there is nothing I can do about that. If this happens and we are contacted by the media, there is nothing I can do about that. At the end of the day we are trying to get to a place where we have an understanding of how to move forward in the project. To accomplish this we need to share information that may not be completed and could be taken out of context, but we need trust that the CWG understands that and will act accordingly.

P.R. moved to accept the minutes. P.L seconded the motion.

3. Discussion of Opportunity Statement

3.1P.R. – I have taken four options that were presented and the comments that were made regarding those statements, and melded them together to reflect the best interests of the stakeholders. The problem statement has also been changed to be an opportunity statement because we are



all afforded an opportunity to make the bridge and road better. V.H. – Did the large map with our comments on it get considered in this statement? P.R. – Those comments were reflected in the Alternative Solutions Table. We need to create a statement that guides you to the options in the Alternative Solutions Table and those comments will help to guide us when looking at the options. P.R. noted the comments received by the CWG members via email. L.M. – Can I have a point of clarification about the first paragraph of the statement regarding the boundaries of the study area? Does it include up to the Downey Road and Niska Road intersection? Should these boundaries not be noted in the opportunity statement? P.R. – We can debate a lot of the finer points of the statement, but we felt that it captured the overall interests of the group. V.H. – In response to the second paragraph where Niska Road is referred to as a two lane collector, the actual width of the pavement on the road across from where I live at the top of the hill is less than 28 feet wide. According to the document that L.M. has, it should be 39 feet. The road is considerably narrower than the volume of traffic on this road warrants. I think that the traffic is the result of other decisions such as not extending Stone Road. Without widening the pavement, the road is not going to fit the criteria for a collector. I am not sure based on your response regarding boundaries how it would not be part of the EA study. P.R. – There are two things to consider when talking about the classification of the road. First, there are design criteria; how something should be built based on design and engineering standards of a municipality. The criteria sheet that you talk about states that a new road or future road must be built to that width. Road classification or road designation is not limited by now they are may exist today or constructed in the past. Municipalities classify the roads in their road network through their OP and will then construct each road as either demanded by development or traffic volume. Also, a two lane collector is not necessarily defined by its pavement width or right-of-way width. Municipalities will often either purchase additional lands or have development dedicate lands if a road corridor is found to be narrow or lacking. This design criteria is simply illustrating the features that could be constructed if Niska Road were built as a collector using today’s standards. V.H. – This was written in 1993, and it was listed as a country road in that



time, so how could they designate it as a collector? Gwen Zhang (G.Z.) referenced the Official Plan for the City of Guelph and explained that some parts of the road may be narrow. V.H. – It is important for us as a group to note that this roadway is very narrow and it is a safety concern. The increased traffic will make it less safe and the poor planning decisions of the past should not be exacerbated by this group. V.H. highlighted grading issues on the road and bridge as being an issue in addition to the road width. Rajan stated that this won’t be the preferred route, but he is not here so I don’t know if that is still true. J.B. – Rajan said that it was not supposed to be the route the traffic takes. P.R. – There is a difference between our group discussing if Niska should be a collector road, or design if it should be designed as a collector road or lobbying your counsellor for a change the classification of Niska Road to something other than a collector. The scope and purpose of this Class EA is NOT to evaluate road classifications. The Guelph OP and all relevant amendments have done that, and there is a separate process that manages that situation. Anyone in a community can meet with their word councillor and request that these types of issues be brought forward to City Council. Ultimately, based on existing and future traffic volumes, road issues, safety issues and operational issues, our team must recommend and design a road that meets current safety standards. A road corridor can be defined in a plan as a collector, but is as a collector until something or someone triggers the City to develop the area based on the official plan. I want to make sure that the group is not confused about what can be constructed versus how a road is defined. Previously the road was defined differently, but today the Official Plan defines the Niska Road corridor as a collector road, and the existing right of way width can support a collector road built to today’s standards. V.H. noted that currently the road does not meet the physical criteria for a two lane collector from a safety standpoint and a smart planning decision should be made here. P.R. reminded the CWG that the group will talk about traffic calming measures in the future. This discussion will happen during the preliminary design. To make the right planning decisions many factors will be considered such as an urban/rural roadway blend.



L.M. – The City should have notified everyone on Niska Road about the change in the plan so that we could have opposed it. The road does not meet the criteria based on the geometric design for a collector road and was never designed to carry the traffic from Highway 124. L.M noted that Witaker Court was built after 1993 knowing that the road was built to be a collector. Brad Hamilton (B.H.) – The Design Standards that Burnside provided to the group were taken from a 1993 draft document. Burnside will review the alignment and cross section of the roadway as part of the EA process. V.H. requested the comparable data in the latest plan. L.M. – Does the road meet the current standards? P.R. – We know the road is deficient from a number of standpoints. L.M. requested that the deficiencies be included in the opportunity statement. B.H. – The road meets TAC standards. J.V. suggested that we add in the age of the road in the opportunity statement. V.H. – We should not word smith it so much today, we can submit our changes later. P.L. – Are the 1993 TAC standards currently in use? B.H. – The Design Standards that Burnside provided to the group were taken from a 1993 draft document. The City uses TAC standards for roadway design. J.B. – How much work would be required to get the road up to current standards for a collector? I envision the area being ripped up and redone which would impact the view of the road. P.R. – During the conceptual work that we do, we take straight line perspective of how the road will look. We don’t do a topographic survey. We do get there eventually, but at this stage we just ask if it works. J.B. – We first started off talking about bridge replacement, and now we are talking about ripping up the road by V.H.’s house?



P.R. – We spent a lot of time talking about the bridge, but the EA was from the bridge to the intersection, including the road way. We have always been looking at the bridge, road and intersection so that we know how much work this will involve. Even when the EA is completed, it goes to detailed design, and they are looking the roadway and how it will be rebuilt. Will it have the contour of the land as is, or if we will flatten everything? More forward thinking developers use the topography of the land, the same thing happens with the roadway. We can look at the topography and how to preserve that. P.R. distributed a cross-section concept drawing of roadway. P.R. discussed the cross-section of the roadway and the various features it included to give the CWG a visual representation of the roadway that included crosswalks, bike paths, wider lanes, curbs and ditching. V.H. – What if you put the pedestrians and cyclists on the other side of those trees on GRCA lands? P.R. – We will be looking at that in the summer. There will be some areas where we may have to remove trees and other areas where we can preserve them as part of the mitigation process. V.H. – What section of the road does the cross section reflect? F.R. – It is a sample section 70 to 80 m west of Pioneer Trail and will be typical of the roadway between the bridge and Ptarmigan Drive. V.H. – Would these plans apply to the road in front of my house? F.R. – These are just concepts. P.R. –These are just concepts at this point; nothing is done or decided yet. If you have these kinds of drawings on the board in a PIC, the public gets upset that we have already designed it. We have to be mindful about how much information we give at a public meeting and not to give the impression that we are further ahead in the process than we are. This group may understand this because you have been a part of the process by the general public may not grasp this nuance. Samantha Lawson (S.L.) – How much room do you have in the existing right of way? F.R. – There are 20 meters from property line to property line. The portion we use depends on what option is chosen, what the grades are, and where the tie in is; it is all dependant on the detailed design. Some



places it may be more if we have sidewalks, others may be less where we don’t have sidewalks. S.L. – It all fits in the current right of way? P.R. – The design does fit in the current right of way. As we move along the road, we will encounter trees that may be impacted by the road way. Some will have to be removed, however where no sidewalks are required the trees would not need to be removed. J.V. – What is depicted here, are all the options for the road. L.M requested an option where the bikes are off the road as the Master Plan for the City includes getting bikes off the roads. P.R. – That is great, please give all of this consideration when you are filling out your chart. We always look at the worst case scenario and work down from that. V.H. – How old is the cross-section document? P.R. – This was created today. V.H. – I ask because when I became aware of this project at the first meeting, I was told this road would be about 70 feet wide. Someone obviously knew how wide this would be then. P.R. – That person may have known what the right of way is. Tim (T.M.) – What is Ptarmigan Drive classed as? G.Z. – Ptarmigan Drive is classed as a collector road. T.M. – There may not be a need to look at options between Ptarmigan Drive and Downey Road. P.R. – Niska Road may just need to be tied into the existing road. T.M. – We may not need to do the work and turn Niska Road into a one way street. It would save the tax payers a lot of money to do this. Where is the option for us to suggest this? P.R. – The outstanding work is looking at the TAC manual, and seeing if there is an adjustment that speaks to the current condition of the road in terms of meeting standards or not. G.Z. – The Official Plan says that usually collector roads have capacity of



2 to 4 lanes. The typical right of way is over 23 meters. Some can be narrow, but that does not mean that they do not meet TAC manual, they can still be designated as collectors. S.L. – Do nothing is rehabilitation of the existing bridge? P.R. – The City cannot “do nothing” to the bridge. They must maintain the bridge, so our “do nothing option” is to repair or rehabilitate the bridge because it is the minimal amount of work the City could do. S.L. – Clarifying that if we are listing the options, that it should include the do nothing option, which is repair. P.R. – We speak about the bridge but the real issue are the abutments of the bridge. We can literally use a crane and pick up the deck of the bridge, but the abutments are eroding and they have become fish habitat as they have deteriorated. P.L. – Has anyone talked to Ontario hydro? They bought a lot of equipment to build these bridges and as far as I know they still have it. P.R. – Hydro and all the utilities are on our circulation list, they would have received a letter from us. We have not reached out to hydro for a meeting yet. They are generally more interested when we have started the preliminary design. L.M. - There is a company that makes bailey bridges; they make them for heavier loads and have repair parts. P.R. – Right now the concern is the abutments. S.L. – When talking about the impacts, it would be best to have just the natural environmental impact rather than also having the aquatic separated out. It may get confusing. P.R – Aquatic was listed because we had a scuba driver look at the abutments, and there was a habitat concern regarding the abutments. We wanted to highlight a special environment around the bridge that may need special attention. J.V. – When we look at the evaluation table we really have five options, one of which is not included. This option is to remove the bridge. V.H. – So as long as we understand that, it won’t be an issue. P.R. – We can certainly add that bullet point.



V.H. – Philip did a great job getting this all onto one page. L.M. – We have been asking for an overall Traffic Management Plan for our neighbourhood, I don’t know how this EA process will look at this overall traffic problem. P.R. – That is not part of the EA process. L.M. – How can we look at this comprehensively without including the Traffic Plan? P.R. – We have traffic studies of the area and that will inform our decision. This is not a Master Plan EA for traffic. L.M. – We have been asking for a Traffic Master Plan for years, and have never had it done. This is just a Band-Aid solution for the problems in the neighbourhood. J.B. – This morning I was passed going over the bridge and there were these big signs on Niska Road that say no traffic on Fife Road. There are a few of them, and I didn’t notice them until the construction company opened up. Why can’t something like these signs be put up within a week or two on Niska Road by the City? There is a sign when we get to Road 124 and Whitelaw Road, but it is tiny and you can miss it coming from the other side. For traffic calming maybe some big signs can be put up. B.H. – Signage is a traffic calming measure that we can implement. We have talked to the Townships and we will be making changes to the signage in the Townships. J.B. – Signage alone does not appear to be solving the problem; heavy trucks are still being observed on the bridge. V.H. – Leonard Rach (L.R.) had mentioned that we can engineer a solution that won’t allow trucks to use the bridge regardless of if it is a one or two lane bridge. This seems pretty easy to me, in the meantime signage is easier and faster. If there are lots of traffic calming measures you will find that trucks will not want to use that route.

4. Discussion of Traffic Calming Opportunities

P.R. – I am going out of order of the Agenda, but I might as well stick with the flow of the meeting. You have received the traffic calming hand out “Developing a Traffic Calming Program”. P.R. discussed the various traffic calming measures in the hand out Developing a Traffic Calming Program and how each measure would



work. P.R. noted that the aesthetics of the community was of concern to the residents, and that these traffic calming measures were intended to maintain the look for the community and remind drivers that they have entered an area requiring them to slow down. L.M. – How many other collector roads have traffic calming measures, and do those measures qualify under the policy? G.Z. – We do have a policy “Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy” and it is based on the traffic volumes and speed. This is covered by the Traffic Services Department and I do not have the statistics on that. L.M. – The traffic calming in the City has a very long waiting list which is handled on a first-come-first-served basis. I want to clarify that if we go forward with this process, it does not mean that we will get these measures. G.Z. – We need to communicate with the local residents before the implementation of any measures. If this part of the roadway meets the criteria to warrant a review, we would require 60 % of the residents in the area to sign off on a survey. If traffic calming measures are suggested in that survey, we would need another 60 % of the initial 60 % of the residents to agree to those measures. L.M. – Why should we have to go through another whole public process when we are already in a public process that traffic calming is already a part of? G.Z. – That is a good question, we can ask the staff in the Traffic Services Department. Don Kudo (D.K.) – I think that this is something that we can discuss with the Traffic Services Department staff to see how this policy would work within the EA. P.R. – This EA is evolving to include things like the traffic calming measures; your point is well taken. L.M. – As part of this process, we can send out notices to everyone in the neighbourhood about the traffic calming measures. It would save time and money to include this in the EA. P.L. – Are there any Band-Aids that you can use in the meantime like double yellow lines or ‘stop’ written on the road? If you go down Guelph Line they have a school sign with flashing lights that tells you to slow down in the school zone during certain times of the day. Putting up a sign means nothing to these people. If drivers see some of these



changes it might trigger them to think about it. L.M. – It is my understanding that the City of Guelph will not put speed bumps on roads that have transit. G.Z. – That is currently the general policy. V.H. – There were two street sweepers in front of my house, sweeping side by side on the road and a City bus pulled out and passed both sweepers at 3:00 p.m.in the afternoon. If a bus does it, what will a large truck do? Certainly from Ptarmigan Drive to the bridge they could do something.

5. Review of Evaluation of Alternative Tables for Road and Bridge

P.R. explained the Alternative Table for the bridge and the rankings that will note the preferred options. In our chart we place the symbols in the top bar to rate the options. When they have all been rated, we can tally those results and a clear preferred solution will present itself. This table will be changing as we do more assessments. As a result, the symbols have not been filled in at this time. We can look at the social side of things and look at what preferences should be noted for these options. P.L. – Is there anyone who knows what is going to go on in the wildlife centre? The newspaper said that they were going to go up, but I see a sign saying no trespassing. S.L. – We have 50 signs that say no trespassing around the property. P.L. – Who will be deciding what happens at the wildlife centre? S.L. – The GRCA owns the property, and the tenants are going to leave the property at the end of the year. We don’t just own the 40 acres surrounded by the fence, however, once the tenants are gone we can deal with the site safety issues. We will start a site plan and before anything happens to the property there will be a consultation with the public. There are a number of groups who have ideas for the land. P.L. – Who owns the land on the other side? There has been an increase in recreational use on the lands across from the wildlife centre. Sam – We own some of that land, but we don’t have continuous ownership. There are a number of property owners who use the area. P.L. – People are parking on the side of the road, are they with the GRCA? S.L. – There is no connection to the GRCA.



P.R. and J.V. walked the group through the aquatic habitat section of the preferred alternatives table and discussed the various impacts and benefits of each option. It was noted that even if the “do nothing” option is chosen, mitigation measures would still be required. That applies to every “do nothing” option on the table. Impacts on the environment would need to be discussed with Agencies. Permitting may be required and when we choose an option, we will have to deal with the reality that happens after choosing it. V.H. – How would fish habitat increase with a wider bridge? P.R. – The existing bridge would be removed, the abutments would remain and new abutments would be outside of the current river banks. J.V. – If we keep the original abutments in the water it would allow the abutments to continue to provide the fish habitat. P.R. – We would be allowing nature to take its course and allow the habitat to flourish. S.L. – Under DFO legislation there is a compensation requirement for that as well. V.H. – It sounds like making a positive out of putting in a two lane bridge. J.V. – Emphasis has been put on it when maybe it should not have been. T.M. – The DFO would have lots of comments about this and how it would impact the habitat. V.H. – Would Burnside make a value judgment on this section, or would it be the CWG? P.R. – We are the experts and we would make that evaluation, but we would like to take your comments into consideration. V.H. noted that without the information shared at the meeting it would have been difficult to know how to fill out the table or provide feedback. P.R. – Information is sometimes held back to be presented at meetings so that we can talk about it meaningfully and discuss it with the group. J.V. – Please send any questions you have to us and we will answer them. S.L. – Do you quantify this at all? Do you look at the impacts on the flood



plain? P.R. – We do. We see that information captured in the reports, however, we cannot put the report in the table in its entirety. We do quantify what we put in the table, and give a rational of the comparative to show the impacts on other areas. Take for example, if something we do in aquatics impacts groundwater, it would be reflected in the groundwater section as well. J.V. – We will clearly define impacts where it is possible. Nather Aziz (N.A.) – At the end of the day will we balance the benefits and disadvantage of each category to make a decision? Not everything can be good. P.R. – You have gotten the first cut of us looking at the criteria. When we have more information, we will put that evaluation across the top. When you see them, you may either agree or disagree. T.M. – There are 6 other sheets that we are looking at here. How will we determine what options are best? J.V. – We would aggregate that information at the top of the table. V.H. – Can we talk about the symbols at the top before the PIC? P.R. – Yes we can discuss the symbols. N.A. – Can City Hall have someone who can answer the questions for the group about the chart? J.V. – The Niska Road email is where you can ask questions and we will share them with the City. L.M. – I think you mentioned water upwelling at the bridge, I know that the upwelling under the bridge is like a bathtub in the summer. This can’t be groundwater fed. Ashley Gallaugher (A.G.) – There is actually a lot of groundwater flow in the area right now. L.M. – These pools might be the deepest in the river, it might be the only refuge for some species of fish. If we just start digging in the soil it could impact perched water tables which could impact the upwelling and disrupt the whole fish habitat that has been there for 40 years. S.L. – If you alter the habitat it sends everything off, upwelling can be



breeding areas and those would be gone. Alterations to habitat would impact the fisheries, however, the resiliency of the species in question is something to consider. N.A. – We are going to get the biggest benefit from doing the right bridge, and not focusing on all the smaller pieces, we have to focus on the bigger picture. V.H. – Some people have different ideas of what is important than others. S.L. – We are not weighing all of these ourselves, and if there are mitigation measures in place it will impact the rankings. P.R. – The idea is to evaluate each option in terms of other options so that nothing is weighted independently. This approach will let us see an alternative that stands out as being preferred. Lori MacEwen (L.ME.) – Are you going to have us rank them? P.R. – I want you to look at the table to get an understanding of where we are going. We have tried boiling things down into the important issues, so you can digest them and get an understanding of the process. On page 7 is a local residents section, which is an area that can be quite contentious. V.H. – I would imagine we would have more input in this section than others. J.V. – Social Heritage is also an area where you would have more input. L.ME. – You want us to review this and read it for the next meeting and we can discuss it? P.R. – That is correct. P.R. discussed the financial environment. If we choose the “do nothing” option we will still have a demolition cost. If we close it, again not a lot of work, but cost does come in when we are looking at the removal. This section gives you an idea of the scope and where the dollars are when making decisions. As time goes on, we will adjust those costs. V.H. – The cost for the demolition is $300,000.00? P.R. – That is correct. L.M. – A two lane bridge would only cost a half million more than a one lane bridge?



P.R. – Yes, that is right. T.M. – The cost has not a lot to do with the size of the bridge. Does this include the cost of the road as well as the bridge? P.R. – This is just the bridge.

6. Public Information Centre #1

V.H. – When is the next meeting? P.R. – We were planning a PIC in September. Summer is not a preferred time due to vacations and a lot of people being away. There is a whole area that is a seasonal campground, and we might miss them at the PIC. PIC 2 would be in October or November, after which we would wrap up the ESR. We won’t do anything as formal as a quorum.

7. Other

L.M. discussed the CHER Report with the CWG. L.M. felt that it was incompletely written, as it does not include the viewshed which can be protected under the heritage act. This is an area where a lot of elements come together to define a geographical area of heritage significance. V.H. – Requested that L.M. repeat the term she used to describe the area. LM – An area of geographical heritage significance. When we talk about cultural heritage we think of the church of our lady, but when you stand at the top of the bridge, and at the top of Niska Road, you get that same type of view. Natural heritage viewsheds are also given protection under the heritage act. This is a public resource because it is already owned by the GRCA. V.H. – We put together the presentation in March and it was through that presentation that I gained an understanding of what a viewshed was. I don’t care about the property values of my house, we can move in a minute. This cross-section tells me why I got involved, and that is for these trees and bushes. When I see this diagram, I can see how L.M.’s vision has not changed. It has just put those sidewalks and those people on the GRCA Lands, and we wouldn’t lose a thing. P.R. – I would sayObe patient. Read the documents that we provided you. Make your comments and we will explore all design options V.H. – To all those people who have talked about the bigger vision, this is



the opportunity for that. P.R. – I would like to remind everyone that just because you want a thing, and it seems like a good idea, it may or may not happen. We can document a desire, want or concern that can then be brought forward to the City or the GRCA. Some may happen as part of this process, and other concerns will be held onto for when the right time comes for them. J.B. – Could S.L. speak about the GRCA’s vision for plans for the property? S.L. – The GRCA has planned for passive use of trails. For the fields we will be looking at possible development plans. We have no intentions of opening up the waterfowl park to what it was in the past, we would instead, be looking at a trail system for our master plan. N.A. – How much of the area is a wetland around the river and bridge? I can see there is a lot of residential construction. P.R. – There are no plans for residential homes to be built in that area right now. S.L. – During the process we will identify the agricultural fields, and the opportunities for that land. There are several things we can do. J.B. – As a conservation organization would you be inclined for some sort of natural use? S.L. – It depends. We bought those lands before Guelph expanded out that way. If we sell those lands, the money can be used to restore the waterfowl area. This is down the road, and right now we need to look at making the site safe and getting the tenants out. We own 160 acres, and we are looking at how we want to manage all of those lands. J.V. – Not all lands would be treated equally. V.H. – If the GRCA were going to do a master plan and somehow the bottom alternative comes out as the preferred option, what if we waited and could put the sidewalks or trails on their land? Is it possible that that kind of partnership planning could take place to avoid doubling efforts? That way the GRCA would also have a say in preserving the trees. P.R. – This is why the committees need to be balanced. We have a GCRA member on the committee who can bring these ideas back to them so that nothing is a surprise. V.H. – When we do the road will the county be a part of this?



P.R. – We have provided them with documentation and they have provided us with the input that we tie into their infrastructure on the other side of the bridge. They are aware of what is going on. V.H. – Lots of folks are parking in no parking areas. P.R. – They are aware of what we are doing and we will continue to keep them apprised. There is no interest for them to come and sit with us at this time. L.M. – It is okay to talk to folks about the heritage aspects? So if we want to go to Puslinch Township and talk to them we can? P.R. – Yes they are aware, and yes you can talk to them about it. L.M. – When will the CHER Report be going to the committee for review? D.K. – I don’t know if we have ever taken our EA reports to the committee level. L.M. – It was mentioned that the report would go to the committee to review to see about making a designation. B.H. – Steven expressed interest in taking the report to the committee; that would happen in July or August. L.M. – We can bring our comments to that committee because it is a public committee? B.H. – Yes.

8. Next Meeting

P.L. – Requested that we set up a quorum and agree that meetings may proceed should an agreed upon number of members show up. This would allow the meetings to move forward while people are on vacation. The following meeting dates were tentatively agreed upon by the CWG: • July 15, 2014; and

• August 12, 2014.

P.R. moved to close the meeting, motion seconded by P.L.


The preceding are the minutes of the meeting as observed by the undersigned. Should there

be a need for revision, please advise within seven days. In the absence of notification to the

contrary, these minutes will be deemed to be an accurate record of the meeting.

Minutes prepared by:

R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited

Sarah Draper

Administrative Assistant

SD:sd

Distribution:

All Attendees

140603_Niska Road CWG Meeting No. 4 Minutes 6/18/2014 4:36 PM

300032275 Niska Road EA Alternative Solutions for Bridge – Preliminary Evaluation Table

Page 1 of 20

Understanding the Rating System Least Preferred to Most Preferred

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES

Existing Conditions

Do Nothing/ Repair and Maintain

Close Bridge to Vehicular Traffic and Maintain

Remove Bridge / Do Not Replace Bailey Bridge

Replace the Existing Bailey Bridge With a New One Lane Structure and Provide Operational Improvements to Niska Road

Replace the Existing Bailey Bridge With a New Two Lane Structure and Provide Operational Improvements to Niska Road

A Natural Environment Rating:

1 Designated Sites (e.g. Provincially Significant Wetlands, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest)

Encroachment into designated features. Permitting Requirements.

The Speed River Wetland Complex and former Kortright Waterfowl Park and Wildlife Centre (GRCA owned lands) are within the study area. One federally and provincially ranked Special Concern Species, the Snapping Turtle was observed on adjacent GRCA lands. Grand River holds designation as navigable waterway.

Minimal impact during regular maintenance and repair. In general, minor bridge maintenance activities do not require permitting.

Minimal impact over existing conditions. Snow storage areas may be identified on both sides of the bridge. Emergency vehicle access gates may be installed for EMS and fire. Provision for snow storage and emergency access can be provided in the existing road right-of-way (ROW). Closing the bridge would require turnaround facilities / cul-de-sac for maintenance vehicles with potential to encroach into Designated Sites

Temporary surface disruption will occur. Restoration plan will be required. Permitting from GRCA will be required for work in the regulated area. Removing the bridge would require turnaround facilities / cul-de-sac for maintenance vehicles with potential to encroach into Designated Sites

Potential for encroachment into Designated Sites as a result of construction activities. Impacts will be minimized/ mitigated by using best practices. Any works within the delineated limits of the Speed River Wetland Complex (PSW) will be subject to Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) permitting and approval requirements. Mitigation measures will be required to minimize impacts to the PSW, adjacent lands, common and Special Concern species on site and adjacent lands. Appropriate buffers will be maintained outside of the study area in accordance with GRCA permitting requirements.

Potential for encroachment into Designated Sites as a result of construction activities. Impacts will be minimized/ mitigated by using best practices. Any works within the delineated limits of the Speed River Wetland Complex (PSW) will be subject to GRCA permitting and approval requirements. Mitigation measures will be required to minimize impacts to the PSW, adjacent lands, common and Special Concern species on site and adjacent lands. Appropriate buffers will be maintained outside of the study area in accordance with GRCA permitting requirements. The footprint of the abutments may be larger for a two-lane structure than a one- lane structure.


Page 2 of 20



Existing Conditions






2 Terrestrial Habitat and Biology (e.g. woodlands, wetlands, wildlife corridors)

Displacement of Threatened, vulnerable or endangered species (Species at Risk). Loss of wetland habitat. Loss of trees. Barrier effects on wildlife travel corridors.

Various vegetation types observed including forested, wetland and agricultural land classification. Deer and other incidental wildlife observed onsite and valued by residents and anglers. No rare species identified within study area. One species of Federal and Provincial Special Concern was found on adjacent GRCA lands. Current vegetation surrounding river key to resisting sedimentation in river. Some perching of trees indicates periods of flooding and poor drainage. Current forested and wetland areas provide wildlife habitat and natural corridors.

Existing bridge footprint does not change the current environmental conditions as it relates to terrestrial habitat and biology. Minimal impact during regular maintenance and repair. In general, minor bridge maintenance activities do not require permitting.

Existing bridge footprint does not change the current environmental conditions as it relates to terrestrial habitat and biology. Minimal impact during regular maintenance and repair. In general, minor bridge maintenance activities do not require permitting. Closing the bridge would require turnaround facilities / cul-de-sac for maintenance vehicles with potential to impact Terrestrial Habitat and Biology.

Potential to improve wildlife corridors and habitat by removing the existing structure and removing the fill slopes from the flood plain. Potential for impact to terrestrial habitat and wetland will be taken into consideration. Impacts will be minimized/ mitigated by using best practices. Potential temporary impacts on adjacent terrestrial habitat and biology as a result of removal activities. Removing the bridge would require turnaround facilities / cul-de-sac for maintenance vehicles with potential to impact Terrestrial Habitat and Biology

Potential temporary impacts on adjacent terrestrial habitat and biology as a result of construction activities. Impacts will be minimized/ mitigated by using best practices. However, there is potential to improve wildlife corridors by increasing the span of the bridge. Potential to affect breeding birds using bridges structure as nesting habitat. May require permitting under the Migratory Bird Convention Act.

Potential temporary impacts on adjacent terrestrial habitat and biology as a result of construction activities. Impacts will be minimized/ mitigated by using best practices. However, there is potential to improve wildlife corridors by increasing the span of the bridge. Potential to affect breeding birds using bridges structure as nesting habitat. May require permitting under the Migratory Bird Convention Act. The footprint of the abutments may be larger for a two-lane structure that a one- lane structure.


Page 3 of 20



Existing Conditions






3 Aquatic Habitat and Biology (e.g. fish species, fisheries or aquatic habitat)

Displacement of Threatened, vulnerable or endangered aquatic species (Species at Risk). Loss of/effect to significant individual fish species. Barrier effects on fish. Loss of aquatic habitat.

Stretch of Speed River examined considered a diverse warmwater fish community and considered a recreational fishery. No Species at Risk identified within reach observed. Bridge’s masonry abutments create deep pools. These pools provide refuge to resident fish. Current depth of river as well as substrate type and groundwater provide refuge and potential spawning habitat for fish.

Existing bridge footprint does not change the current environmental conditions as it relates to aquatic habitat and biology. Minimal impact during regular maintenance. In general, minor bridge maintenance activities do not require permitting. However the bridge currently requires in-situ major repairs of the abutments, as such major disruption to fish species and habitat during the abutment repair process that will occur. Pools providing refuge for resident fish will be impacted. Continued structural deterioration has potential to increase sedimentation into river.

Existing bridge footprint does not change the current environmental conditions as it relates to aquatic habitat and biology. Minimal impact during regular maintenance and repair. In general, minor bridge maintenance activities do not require permitting. Lighter loads and traffic volumes likely to decrease rate of structural deterioration lessening impact on aquatic habitat due to sedimentation. Abutment will still require repair, however the extent of the repair may be lessened. Pools would continue to provide refuge for resident fish.

Potential to improve aquatic habitat by removing the existing structure from the flood plain if existing abutments remain. In the event that the removal of existing abutments is required, temporary cofferdams will be installed to minimize the impacts to aquatic habitat. Potential for impact to aquatic habitat will be taken into consideration. Impacts will be minimized/ mitigated by using best practices. Permanent disruption to fish species and habitats during removal activities. Section of river downstream of bridge would widen and infill the deep pools currently used as refuge for resident fish if abutments were removed leading to a loss of habitat.

Temporary disruption to fish species and habitat during bridge construction. In order to minimize impacts to aquatic habitat, abutment locations beyond river embankments will be considered within the ROW allowing for the existing abutments to remain as active fish and aquatic habitat. Aquatic habitat would theoretically remain the same as pre-construction.

Temporary disruption to fish species and habitat during bridge construction. In order to minimize impacts to aquatic habitat, abutment locations beyond river embankments will be considered within the ROW allowing for the existing abutments to remain as active fish and aquatic habitat. Aquatic habitat would theoretically remain the same as pre-construction. The footprint of the abutments will be larger for a two-lane structure. Wider bridge and related abutments would alter habitat downstream of bridge. Potentially increasing refuge habitat.


Page 4 of 20



Existing Conditions






4 Hazard Lands (e.g. floodplain)

Encroachment into floodplain. Erosion and sedimentation impacts within floodplain.

No impact over existing conditions.


Encroachment into the floodplain can be reduced. Road embankments graded/removed from the flood plain. Temporary impact/disruption during removal activities. Affected areas would require re-vegetation with native plantings.

Potential to improve the hazard lands by constructing a new multi-span structure. Repairs that may occur within the floodplain will be subject to GRCA permitting and requirements. Temporary impact/disruption during construction/maintenance activities. Affected areas would require re-vegetation with native plantings.

Potential to improve the hazard lands by constructing a new multi-span structure. Repairs that may occur within the floodplain will be subject to GRCA permitting and requirements. Temporary impact/disruption during construction/maintenance activities. Affected areas would require re-vegetation with native plantings.


Page 5 of 20



Existing Conditions






5 Surface Water Quality and Drainage

Erosion and sedimentation impacts to road drainage features and receiving watercourse. Increases to runoff from impermeable surface.

Current water quality in Speed River good due to slight groundwater seep. Continued deterioration of bridge may negatively impact water quality of Speed River due to sedimentation. Evidence of groundwater input to Speed River, though river is classified as a warmwater thermal regime. The river is a stable, permanent channel characterized as a run. Water quality impacts from roadside litter and bridge runoff including road salt impacts.

Temporary effects during maintenance activities. Continued deterioration of bridge may lead to sedimentation in river. Continued erosion of the embankment around the bridge and abutment structure. Abutments are failing. Impacts from roadside litter, bridge runoff and road salt applications would continue.

Continued structural deterioration may negatively impact water quality. Benefit to water quality through less roadside litter road salt application.

Minimal impact during removal activities. Potential benefit to water quality through less litter and less impact to water quality through road salt applications and bridge runoff.

Temporary effects during construction/ maintenance activities. Potential for less sediment from winter sanding if new bridge wide enough to accommodate machinery to clear debris from bridge. Impacts from roadside litter, bridge runoff and road salt applications would continue however new bridges are found to instill community pride of ownership. Opportunity to improve and manage bridge runoff to river. Opportunity to potentially improve thermal conditions and water quality in area of the bridge towards a sustainable coldwater fishery.

Temporary effects during construction/ maintenance activities. Potential for less sediment from winter sanding if new bridge wide enough to accommodate machinery to clear debris from bridge. Impacts from roadside litter, bridge runoff and road salt applications would continue however new bridges are found to instill community pride of ownership. Opportunity to improve and manage bridge runoff to river. Opportunity to potentially improve thermal conditions and water quality in area of the bridge towards a sustainable coldwater fishery.


Page 6 of 20



Existing Conditions






6 Groundwater Quality

Impacts to groundwater resources from dewatering activities (if necessary).

Curent groundwater quality in Speed River good due to sligt groundwater seep. Continued deterioration of bridge may negatvely impact water quality due to sedimentation. Groundwater quality and quantity in the area of the bridge is unknown. No monitoring wells are in the study area



No impact over existing conditions provided that erosion/sediment and spill controls are in place during removal activities to safeguard water quality.

No impact over existing conditions provided that erosion/sediment and spill controls are in place during construction to safeguard water quality.

No impact over existing conditions provided that erosion/sediment and spill controls are in place during construction to safeguard water quality.


Page 7 of 20



Existing Conditions






B Socio-economic/ Cultural Environment Rating:

1 Local Residents

Nuisance Impacts (noise, dust, vibrations, traffic, detours) during construction and operations. Safety impacts during construction and operations. Heritage Impacts. Traffic Volumes. Public safety.

Current one lane bridge is not deterring traffic as much as the community would like, therefore noise, safety and general community well-being a concern for residents. Traffic safety an issue due to accidents. Increased deterioration of bridge compromises safety of structure. Current condition of bridge is a major concern of City Road Operations.

Temporary nuisance impacts due to road closure/limited access during construction repairs to existing structure. Bridge and road deficiencies cannot be fully addressed through repair/rehabilitation. Therefore ongoing impacts will affect residents and traffic using the road and bridge, including limited emergency services. Local residents view the existing bridge as a heritage character feature of the local community. Local residents consider the single bridge as a traffic calming feature. Local residents are

No vehicle traffic will be permitted across the structure, improving traffic safety. Eliminating vehicle and truck traffic across the bridge will also serve as traffic permanent calming measure along the roadway. Longer travel times may occur for EMS vehicles. EMS vehicles could be given access to bridge. Permanent decrease of traffic through neighbourhood, which is currently favoured by residents. A closed bridge allow for greater cycle and pedestrian use and bicycle use. General community

Temporary nuisance impacts during removal activities. Removal of the structure will also serve as permanent traffic calming measure along the roadway. Residents will be impacted by the removal of the bridge as no longer access to across the Speed River at this location. EMS routing may be impacted for both the City and the Townships. Permanent decrease of traffic through neighbourhood, which is currently favoured by residents. Local residents view the existing bridge as a heritage character feature of the local community.

Temporary nuisance impacts due to road closure/detour/limited access during construction. New bridge will provide access to all emergency services and traffic calming measures will be installed to improve traffic safety. Temporary safety impacts due to construction and increased truck traffic during construction. Potential for increased safety measures of residents if sidewalks and/or bike lanes added as part of new lane bridge.

Temporary nuisance impacts due to road closure/detour/limited access during construction. New bridge will address all existing bridge and road deficiencies and will be beneficial to residents and traffic long term. Temporary safety impacts due to construction and increased truck traffic during construction. Potential for increased safety measures of residents if sidewalks and/or bike lanes added as part of two lane bridge. Local residents are concerned that a new two lane bridge will attract additional traffic volumes through this corridor.


Page 8 of 20



Existing Conditions






concerned about the continued truck traffic that crosses the bridge. Local residents are concerned about the excessive speed of cars over the bridge and through this road corridor. In general, safety issues such as the following remain:

• No sidewalk • No bike path • Speeding over

the bridge. • Near misses • Indecision of

drivers crossing the bridge

• Bridge lighting • No parking • Effective traffic

calming measures

• Deficient bridge and road grade at road.

may be concerned that there is no direct access to the Townships of Guelph Eramosa and Puslinch. Potential betterment of air quality.

This feature will be removed from the community. Both local and external motorists will need to cross the Speed River at Hanlon Parkway and Wellington to the north or near Wellington County Road 32 and Wellington 124 in Puslinch to the south. Potential to increase safety as Niska Road becomes a cul-de-sac at the bridge on both sides.

However traffic modelling show nominal volume change/increase to 2031 as there is little area development planned.

2 Greater Community, Region and Neighbouring Townships

Impacts on proposed development due to property requirements. Conformity to City of Guelph Official Plan

Niska Road Is designated as a collector road in the City of Guelph Official Plan.

No impact over existing conditions. Potential negative impacts on the community and

Would not support Niska Road’s designation as a collector road within the City of Guelph Official Plan.

Would not support Niska Road’s designation as a collector road within the City of Guelph Official Plan.

Potential negative impacts on the local community as new bridge may increase speed. No impact over existing

Supports Niska Road’s designation as a collector road. Positive impacts on the road network through


Page 9 of 20



Existing Conditions






and obligations as per previous EAs. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. Impacts on functional needs of local community. Impacts on functional needs of surrounding community.

Adequate right-of-way exists for potential improvements. Surrounding lands are agricultural, woodlands and residential.

surrounding area as road not properly utilized as a collector road, which negatively impacts the local traffic network. Road not properly utilized as a collector road, which negatively impacts the local traffic network and functional needs of surrounding community. Would not support functional needs of surrounding community and current planning of road network. Hanlon Parkway Class EA identified Niska Road as a fully functioning collector road as part of the analysis and decision making process when analyzing location of ramps and traffic routing. Analysis included the anticipation of a two lane bridge. This option does NOT meet these obligations.

Negative impacts on the local traffic network and surrounding community, increasing commute times around the site. Snow plow and removal operations for the City and neighbouring Townships will require modification and possible snow storage areas. Hanlon Parkway Class EA identified Niska Road as a fully functioning collector road as part of the analysis and decision making process when analyzing location of ramps and traffic routing. Analysis included the anticipation of a two lane bridge. This option does NOT meet these obligations.

Negative impacts on the local traffic network and surrounding community, increasing commute times around the site. Snow plow and removal operations for the City and neighbouring Townships will require modification and possible snow storage areas. Both local and external motorists will need to cross the Speed River at Hanlon Parkway and Wellington to the north or near Wellington County Road 32 and Wellington 124 in Puslinch to the south. Hanlon Parkway Class EA identified Niska Road as a fully functioning collector road as part of the analysis and decision making process when analyzing location of ramps and anticipated traffic routing. Analysis included the anticipation of a two lane bridge. This option does NOT meet these obligations.

conditions. Potential negative impacts on the community and surrounding area as road not properly utilized as a collector road, which negatively impacts the local traffic network. Road will continue to not be properly utilized as a collector road, which negatively impacts the local traffic network and functional needs of surrounding community. Would not support functional needs of surrounding community and current planning of road network. Provides an opportunity to construct safety and recreational features as part of the bridge. Hanlon Parkway Class EA identified Niska Road as a fully functioning collector road as part of the analysis and decision making process when analyzing location of ramps and traffic routing.

increased functional use by surrounding community. Conformity to City of Guelph Official Plan and obligations as per previous EAs. Compatibility with long term surrounding land uses. Meets current obligation of the City’s OP and Class EA’s completed within the past 5 years. Meets obligation of City Council to close the Stone Road Crossing and enhance Niska Road Crossing. Provides an opportunity to construct safety and recreational features as part of the bridge. Hanlon Parkway Class EA identified Niska Road as a fully functioning collector road as part of the analysis and decision making process when analyzing location of ramps and traffic routing. Analysis included the


Page 10 of 20



Existing Conditions






Analysis included the anticipation of a two lane bridge. This option does NOT meet these obligations.

anticipation of a two lane bridge. This option meets these obligations.

3 Heritage Resources (e.g. archaeological features, built

Disruption and/or destruction of sites, structures, landscape units having significant archaeological.

Current bridge holds cultural significance due to historical value. Possibility for

Increased structural deterioration will result in eventual loss of steel truss structure, which will negatively impact the heritage value.

Increased structural deterioration will result in eventual loss of steel truss structure, which will negatively impact the

Loss of steel truss will result in a loss in local heritage aesthetics. A monument or heritage feature can be placed in




Page 11 of 20



Existing Conditions






heritage, and cultural heritage landscapes)

Impacts to historical or architectural value.

archaeological potential in low-laying, well-drained areas, though no features yet identified. One registered archaeological site located within 1km of study area in surrounding township. The bridge is not currently designated under the Ontario Heritage Act and is not listed as a non-designated structure in the City’s Municipal Register of Cultural Heritage Properties. The bridge is not currently recognized as a built heritage resource in the Official Plan

Repairs to steel truss structure will help to increase lifespan of existing structure. Repairs to the existing structure may also compromise existing heritage aesthetics. Repairs to timber bridge abutments will require a more extensive and intrusive approach and will require in-water repair and/or replacement works.

heritage value. Repairs to steel truss structure will help to increase lifespan of existing structure. Repairs to timber bridge abutments will still be required however the extent of the initial required repair may be less than the ‘Do Nothing’ approach. Major repairs to the abutments will eventually be required, that will require in-water repair and/or replacement works.

the area near that displays information on the ‘former’ bridge. Parts of the steel truss can be used in this feature. The old timber bridge abutments will be examined and could remain in place as a reminder of the bridge and as fish habitat. If the abutments are crumbing and are deemed a public hazard, removal of the abutments will be required. Loss of fish habitat will require involvement from GRCA and possibly DFO.

the area near that displays information on the ‘former’ bridge. Parts of the steel truss can be used in this feature. New Bridge will change/alter the ‘viewscape’ of the bridge area.

the area near that displays information on the ‘former’ bridge . Parts of the steel truss can be used in this feature. New Bridge will change/alter the ‘viewscape’ of the bridge area.


Page 12 of 20



Existing Conditions






4 Pedestrian and Cyclist Accessibility and Safety

Impacts to pedestrian and cyclist safety

Currently walking trails throughout surrounding area valued by residents. Access to bridge, and safety of crossings limited by traffic and narrow bridge. Currently no walkway/bike lane on single lane bridge. Roadway width between Niska Bridge and Ptarmigan too narrow to safely support bikes/pedestrian use. Over a 7 day period in October 2013, 77 cyclists shared this section of Niska Road with 250 vehicles during morning and evening rush hours (8:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 to 6:00 p.m.). Safety issue for children walking to

No impact over existing conditions. Continued risk for pedestrians and cyclists due to lack of sidewalks and/or bike lanes. Signalization at the bridge can be introduced to increase overall safety.

Pedestrian and cycling access is greatly improved over the bridge and safety is improved due to the vehicle traffic being removed from the bridge. Also roadway safety is improved due to roadway becoming a cul-de-sac.

Negative impacts to pedestrian and cycling access along Niska Road as there is no river crossing at this location. Cyclists will need to cross the Speed River at Hanlon Parkway and Wellington to the north or near Wellington County Road 32 and Wellington 124 in Puslinch to the south.

Potential to improve pedestrian and cyclist accessibility and safety by adding sidewalks and bicycle lanes to the road and bridge cross section. Potential for increased traffic intensifying safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists.

Potential to improve pedestrian and cyclist accessibility and safety by adding sidewalks and bicycle lanes to the road and bridge cross section. Potential for increased traffic intensifying safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists.


Page 13 of 20



Existing Conditions






school bus from Whittaker to Tanager (no sidewalks).

5 Lifestyle and Culture

Loss of privacy/reduced use and enjoyment of property due to removal of vegetation. Loss of privacy/reduced use and enjoyment of property due to setback requirements. Reduced use and enjoyment of recreational areas during construction and operations. Effects/loss of ‘country’ viewscape

Speed River is considered a Recreational fishery and provides value to river through recreational value. Surrounding community and region surrounding bridge valued culturally as urban/rural interface, historical region and natural heritage landscape/viewscape. Use for recreation (canoeing, fishing, hiking and cycling) valued culturally.

No impact over existing conditions. Continued safety issues at recreational areas due to lack of parking, unsafe crossing conditions and lack of sidewalks and bike lanes.

Increased lifestyle and culture as the natural/rural feel is maintained by reducing vehicle traffic along Niska Road. Increased safe access to recreational areas across the bridge for pedestrians and cyclists. Restricted access to recreational areas for greater community/ motorists.

Increased lifestyle and culture as the natural/rural feel is maintained by reducing vehicle traffic along Niska Road. Decreased access to recreational areas across bridge for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.

Potential impact on lifestyle on culture caused by the bridge improvements. Temporary loss of vegetation to widen road embankments during construction. Potential for increased safe access to recreational areas adjacent to the bridge. Potential alteration of country ‘viewscape.’

Potential impact on lifestyle on culture caused by the bridge improvements. Temporary loss of vegetation to widen road embankments during construction. Potential for increased safe access to recreational areas adjacent to the bridge. Potential alteration of country ‘viewscape.’


Page 14 of 20



Existing Conditions






C Financial Factors Rating:

1 Construction and Demolition Costs

Preliminary Cost Estimates: 2 lane + bike lanes + sidewalk $2.5 million. 1 lane + bike lanes + sidewalk $2 million. Demolition cost of existing bridge $300, 000.

Rehabilitative and repair cost estimate $1,300,600. No demolition costs.

Rehabilitative and repair cost estimate $1,026,000. No demolition costs.

Demolition cost of existing bridge $350, 000. High demolition costs and no construction costs.

1 lane + bike lanes + sidewalk $2 million. High construction and demolition costs associated with new bridge.

2 lane + bike lanes + sidewalk $2.5 million. High construction and demolition costs associated with new bridge.

2 Operation and Maintenance Costs

Current bridge in need of costly

repairs. August 6, 2013 Bridge

inspection Report indicates that bridge requires $1, 026,193

in repair costs.

Currently maintenance and

repairs undertaken as required.

High operating and maintenance costs will significantly increase over time. Continued snow removal issues due to size of bridge. Extensive on-going monitoring. Continued safety issue. Continued truck weight restrictions

Moderate operating and maintenance costs will still significantly increase over time due to its current condition and as bridge deteriorates.

No operating and maintenance costs.

Low initial operating and maintenance cost will moderately increase over time. Bridge life cycle will be approximately 75 to 100 years with current technology, construction methods and quality of materials.

Low initial operating and maintenance cost will moderately increase over time. Bridge life cycle will be approximately 75 to 100 years with current technology, construction methods and quality of materials.


Page 15 of 20



Existing Conditions






D Technical Factors Rating:

1 Structural – Condition and Load Capacity

Currently a maximum weight restriction on bridge for 5 tonnes. Increased deterioration of bridge compromises safety of structure. Overall the structure is in very poor condition. The major concerns at this site are the water encroaching against abutments as a result of span opening being shorter then watercourse width (this situation may lead to unstable substructure in case of high volume water - flooding), major road constriction, absence of a pedestrian access, absence of traffic barrier, progressive undermining of the northwest retaining

Does not address all structural deficiencies, in particular load capacity. Currently a maximum weight restriction on bridge for 5 tonnes helps to deter truck traffic. Could be argued that this condition be considered a traffic calming feature.

Does not address existing structural deficiencies. Currently a maximum weight restriction on bridge for 5 tonnes will become irrelevant and the pace of deterioration may slow down due to absence of vehicular traffic.

Bridge removed, no structural deficiencies addressed.

New bridge will provide a 75 to 100 year life cycle. New bridge will address all existing structural deficiencies.

New bridge will provide a 75 to 100 year life cycle. New bridge will address all existing structural deficiencies.


Page 16 of 20



Existing Conditions






wall, severe failure of the northwest embankment, partial failure of northeast embankment, severe corrosion of the bearing plates, isolated severe corrosion of the bottom chords at the ends and west end verticals, partial poor condition and progressive deterioration of the bearing seats and progressive deterioration of the masonry retaining walls.

2 Geometry – Road Profile and Width

Existing right-of-way an average of 20 meters in width.

Does not address existing geometry deficiencies.

Addresses existing geometry deficiencies as the bridge will no longer support vehicular traffic.

Bridge will be removed. Road profile and approach geometry will be improved. Bridge geometry will be improved but not brought to the minimum standard as per the MTO’s Geometric Design Standards.

Road profile and road geometry will be brought to the minimum standard as per current municipal and MTO standards. Opportunity to introduce pedestrian and cycle facilities (bike lane, multiuse path, sidewalks, trails etc.)


Page 17 of 20



Existing Conditions






3 Roadside Safety – Barriers and Clearances

No structural barrier system over bridge and approach guide rail does not meet minimum length requirements or have correct end treatments.

Does not address existing roadside safety issues.

Does not address existing roadside safety issues.

Bridge will be removed. New bridge will address all roadside safety issues.

New bridge will address all roadside safety issues.

4 Utility Impacts

Movement of hydro transmission lines. Movement of lighting standards. Movement of watermains.

Overhead hydro lines on the south side of the road.

Will not likely impact utilities.


Will not likely impact utilities.

May require temporary or permanent relocation of utilities. Opportunity to improve and upgrade bridge and corridor utilities

May require temporary or permanent relocation of utilities. Opportunity to improve and upgrade bridge and corridor utilities.

5 Emergency Access

Impacts to/loss access for emergency services.

Restrictive 5 tonne load limit prevents fire response vehicles from crossing the bridge.


Emergency access prevented from crossing the river.

Emergency access prevented from crossing the river.

Improved emergency access, no load restriction on bridge.

Significant improvement to emergency access. No load restrictions and two lanes.

6 Traffic Impacts

Impacts to surrounding road networks (e.g. traffic volumes).

Currently study area classed as residential. Residents concerned with speed, truck use, and increase in flow of traffic within neighbourhood. The existing bridge over the Speed River only has a single lane. Currently Niska

Currently one lane bridge not serving functional traffic needs of surrounding community. One lane serves as an unintentional traffic calming measure.

Negative impacts to through traffic by closing bridge. Does not support Niska Road’s designation as a collector road. Would not support functional needs of Official Plan and travelling public dependent on Niska Road.

Negative impacts to through traffic by removing bridge. Does not support Niska Road’s designation as a collector road. Would not support functional needs of Official Plan and travelling public dependent on Niska Road.

Load limit removed from structure allowing all vehicles to cross the structure. Policy can be put in place for truck restrictions allowing for local deliveries only. Two way traffic still restricted by a single lane bridge. Supports Niska Road’s designation and function

Traffic Impacts significantly improved by removing load limit and providing two-way traffic. Policy can be put in place for truck restrictions allowing for local deliveries only. Supports Niska Road’s designation and function as a collector road.


Page 18 of 20



Existing Conditions






Road Bridge exceeds the threshold of 400 vehicles per day (vpd). Ministry of Transportation (MTO) design guidelines recommends the construction of a 2 lane bridge (with a minimum width 7 meters), for bridges with a posted speed of 50 km/hr that service road volumes between greater than 400 vpd. O/Reg 472/10 requires the following; 2. (1) Where any person undertakes or causes to be undertaken the design, evaluation, construction or rehabilitation of a bridge, the design, evaluation, construction or rehabilitation shall conform to,

Closing the bridge serves as a traffic calming measure.

as a collector road. Would service functional needs of surrounding community.

Would service functional needs of surrounding community. Opportunity to fully explore the range of traffic calming measures and recreational features (i.e. cross-walks, bike paths, multi-use paths, sidewalks signage etc.). Summary of the travel survey " importance " of the bridge on a scale 1 (very important) to 5 (not important) :- - 1012 rated 5 (77.1%) - 102 rated 4 (7.8%) - 88 rated 3 ( 6.7%) - 45 rated 2 ( 3.4%) - 66 rated 5 (5%) That is 1313 drivers were interviewed in the 12 hour survey. 4% of participants indicated that the bridge should remain. This comment was unsolicited.


Page 19 of 20



Existing Conditions






(a) the standards set out in the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code; and (b) the most current accepted engineering standards, guidelines, procedures and practices.

7 Stormwater Infrastructure

Effect on existing storm sewers, culverts. Requirements for new storm sewers, culverts.

Improved stormwater management facilities required.

No impact on stormwater infrastructure.



Opportunity to improve adjacent road profile and surrounding stormwater infrastructure in either an urban or rural form.

Opportunity to improve adjacent road profile and surrounding stormwater infrastructure in either an urban or rural form.

8 Vehicular Safety

Deterioration of bridge a vehicular safety concern due to potential for failure. Lack of positive traffic control for the one lane bridge.

No change to existing conditions. Continued risk for users due to road deterioration increasing potential for road failure. Continued vehicular safety concerns due to lack of positive traffic control on existing one-lane bridge. Potential to improve barriers and roadside safety measures. Potential to improve vehicle safety by installing traffic control devices at the bridge

Increase in community safety. Potential for increased traffic on surrounding roads.

Increase in community safety. Potential for increased traffic on surrounding roads.

Potential to improve vehicle safety by installing traffic control devices at the bridge and installing proper roadside safety measures.

Significant improvement to vehicle safety by providing two full lanes with proper barriers and roadside safety measures.


Page 20 of 20



Existing Conditions






and installing proper roadside safety measures.

E Problem Statement Rating:

TOTAL EVALUATION

RECOMMENDATIONS Not carried forward Not carried forward Not carried forward Not carried forward Carried forward

300032275 Niska Road EA Alternative Solutions for Road – Preliminary Evaluation Table

Page 1 of 15 Understanding the Rating System Least Preferred to Most Preferred

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES Existing Conditions Do Nothing/ Repair and Maintain

Repave Surface Reconstruct Road

A Natural Environment Rating:

1 Designated Sites (e.g. Provincially Significant Wetlands, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest)

Encroachment into designated features.

The Speed River Wetland Complex and former Kortright Waterfowl Park and Wildlife Centre (GRCA owned lands) are within the study area. No Species at Risk were observed during field surveys within study area. One federally and provincially ranked Special Concern Species, the Snapping Turtle was observed on adjacent GRCA lands. Grand River holds designation as navigable waterway.

No impact over existing regular maintenance and road repair operations. All maintenance works will occur within the existing right-of-way (ROW).

Potential temporary impacts on adjacent Speed River Wetland Complex (PSW) as a result of construction activities. Mitigation measures will be required to minimize impacts to the PSW, adjacent lands, common and Special Concern species on site and adjacent lands.

Works would occur mainly within existing ROW. Any works within the PSW areas will be subject to permitting and approval requirements as established by GRCA based on the area and function of any impacted features. Mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to the PSW, adjacent lands, common and Special Concern species on site and adjacent lands. Appropriate buffers will be maintained outside of the area defined by the permit.

2 Terrestrial Habitat and Biology (e.g. woodlands, wetlands, wildlife corridors)

Displacement of Threatened, vulnerable or endangered species (Species at Risk). Loss of wetland habitat. Loss of trees. Barrier effects on wildlife travel corridors.

As a result of severe cracking, spidering and roadside erosion, washout and sedimentation in surrounding natural communities has created stress to tree health. Further road deterioration may lead to habitat deterioration. Various vegetation types observed including forested, wetland and agricultural land classification. Deer and other incidental wildlife observed onsite and valued by residents and anglers. No rare species identified within study area. One species of Federal and Provincial Special

No impact over existing conditions. All works will occur within the existing ROW. Risk of reoccurring roadside erosion, washout and sedimentation if traffic use remains as is within existing roadway. Increased erosion, washout and sedimentation may lead to habitat deterioration.

Potential temporary impacts on adjacent natural wooded and wetland areas as a result of construction activities. Mitigation measures will be required to ensure minimal impacts on features on adjacent lands, especially those creating habitat for Special Concern species. Does not address flooding and poor drainage. Does not address sedimentation from road affecting tree health.

Impact over existing conditions as works may be required outside of the existing ROW in order to complete the required improvements to Niska Road. Activities may result in potential habitat loss/change/disturbance. Mitigation measures will be required to ensure minimal impacts on features on adjacent lands, especially those creating habitat for Special Concern species. Opportunity to address flooding and poor drainage. Opportunity to address





Concern was found on adjacent GRCA lands. Current vegetation surrounding river key to resisting sedimentation in river. Some perching of trees indicates periods of flooding and poor drainage. Sedimentation from road affecting tree health. Current forested and wetland areas provide wildlife habitat and natural corridors.

sedimentation from road affecting tree health.





3 Aquatic Habitat and Biology (e.g. fish species, fisheries or aquatic habitat)

Displacement of Threatened, vulnerable or endangered aquatic species (Species at Risk). Loss of/effect to significant individual fish species. Barrier effects on fish. Loss of aquatic habitat.

Stretch of Speed River examined considered a diverse warmwater fish community and considered a recreational fishery. No Species at Risk identified within reach observed. Current depth of river as well as substrate type and groundwater provide refuge and potential spawning habitat for fish.

Risk of re-occurring roadside erosion, washout and sedimentation if traffic use remains as is within existing roadway. Increased erosion, washout and sedimentation may lead to habitat deterioration/ increased sedimentation in waterway.

Construction activities may result in potential habitat loss/change/disturbance. Mitigation measures will be required to ensure minimal impacts on features on adjacent lands. Fresh asphalt is a potential impact to the surrounding environment through runoff and potential spills/ seepage. Slightly increased impermeable surface, increasing amount of runoff. Aquatic habitat would theoretically remain the same as pre-construction.

Construction activities may result in potential habitat loss/change/disturbance. Mitigation measures will be required to ensure minimal impacts on features and habitats on adjacent lands. Increased runoff due to re-established drainage ditches, storm sewers, and re-paving could potentially disrupt fish species and habitat, though no long term impacts are anticipated. Potential for in-water works associated with storm water management outlets. If no in-water works required, aquatic habitat would theoretically remain the same as pre-construction. Fresh asphalt is a potential impact to the surrounding environment through runoff and potential spills/ seepage. Medium to long term, aquatic habitat would theoretically remain the same as pre-construction.





4 Hazard Lands (e.g. floodplain)

Encroachment into floodplain. Erosion and sedimentation impacts within floodplain.

No impact over existing conditions. Potential temporary impact/disruption during construction/maintenance activities. Affected areas would require re-vegetation with native plantings.

Repairs that may occur within the floodplain will be subject to GRCA regulations and permitting requirements. Potential temporary impact/disruption during construction/maintenance activities. Fresh asphalt presents a potential impact to the surrounding environment through runoff and potential spills/ seepage. Slightly increased impermeable surface, increasing amount of runoff.

Repairs that may occur within the floodplain will be subject to GRCA regulations and permitting requirements. Temporary impact/disruption during construction/maintenance activities. Possible increased footprint of right of way due to additional recreation features or excavation of ditches. Pavement may be contained using curb and gutter. Hazard Lands (floodplain) would be impacted. Affected areas would require re-vegetation with native plantings. Fresh asphalt presents a potential impact to the surrounding environment through runoff and potential spills/ seepage.





5 Surface Water Quality and Drainage

Erosion and sedimentation impacts to road drainage features and receiving watercourse. Increases to runoff from impermeable surface.

Current water quality in Speed River good due to slight groundwater seep. Continued deterioration of road may negatively impact water quality of Speed River due to sedimentation. Runoff carrying road sand and eroded ditch bank sediment has some sediment removed by existing grass-lined ditches. Limited hydrocarbon removal from capture in ditch soil. Evidence of groundwater input to Speed River, though river is classified as a warmwater thermal regime. The river is a stable, permanent channel characterized as a run. Water quality impacts from roadside litter and bridge runoff including road salt impacts.

No changes to existing conditions. Continued deterioration of road may negatively impact water quality of Speed River due to sedimentation. Potential temporary effects during construction/maintenance activities. Impacts from roadside litter, road runoff and road salt applications would continue.

Potential temporary increase during resurfacing works, no permanent change to existing runoff conditions. Potential temporary impacts on soils and surface water quality will require that erosion/sediment and spill controls are in place during construction to safeguard water quality. Fresh asphalt presents a potential impact to water quality through runoff. Slightly increased impermeable surface, increasing amount of runoff. Road surface would be re-paved leading to potentially less related sedimentation impacts to the watercourse.

Probable increase in sediment if wider road requiring more winter sanding generates more runoff. Potential temporary impacts on soils and surface water quality will require that erosion/sediment and spill controls are in place during construction to safeguard water quality. Potential water quality improvement with full capture of road runoff in an oil / grit separator. Fresh asphalt presents a potential impact to water quality through runoff. Slightly increased impermeable surface, increasing amount of direct runoff through use of storm sewers. Road surface would be re-paved leading to potentially less related sedimentation impact to the watercourse. Opportunity to address localized flooding in areas by addressing road profiles. Cut and fill design options will include the considerations to minimize impacts to the existing viewscapes, (i.e. minimal fill and minimize tree removal).





6 Groundwater Quality Impacts to groundwater resources from dewatering activities (if necessary).

Current water quality in Speed River is good due to slight groundwater seep. Continued deterioration of road may negatively impact water quality of Speed River due to sedimentation. Groundwater quality and quantity in the area of the bridge is unknown.


Temporary impact over existing conditions. Potential temporary impacts on groundwater resources due to dewatering operations. Erosion/sediment and spill controls will need to be in place during construction to safeguard water quality.

Depending on the elevation of the ground water table, potential temporary impacts on groundwater resources due to dewatering operations during installation of storm sewers. Erosion/sediment and spill controls will need to be in place during construction to safeguard water quality.





B Socio-economic/ Cultural Environment Rating:

1 Residents Nuisance Impacts (noise, dust, vibrations, traffic, detours) during construction and operations. Displacement to properties. Safety impacts during construction and operations.

Surrounding lands are agricultural, woodlands and residential. Current traffic calming measures not deterring traffic as much as intended, therefore noise, safety and general community well-being a concern for residents. Traffic safety an issue due to a number of accidents.

No impact over existing conditions unless traffic volumes increase, which pose risk to residents due to increased wear and traffic on Niska. Temporary nuisance impacts (noise, dust, vibrations, traffic, detours) during road maintenance. Preservation of current appearance of roadway and viewscapes. Community safety concerns are not addressed. No implementation of traffic calming measures or sidewalks.

Temporary nuisance impacts (noise, dust, vibrations, traffic, detours) during construction. Some community safety concerns can be addressed through introduction of road surface traffic calming measures. No sidewalks.

Temporary nuisance impacts (noise, dust, vibrations, traffic, detours) during construction. Community safety concerns can be fully addressed. Opportunity to fully explore the range of traffic calming measures and recreational features (i.e. cross-walks, bike paths, multi-use paths, sidewalks signage etc.).





2 Community and Region

Impacts on proposed development due to property requirements. Conformity to City of Guelph Official Plan and commitments as per previous EAs. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. Impacts on functional needs of local community. Impacts on functional needs of surrounding community.

Niska Road Is designated as a collector road in the City of Guelph Official Plan. Adequate right-of-way exists for potential improvements. City of Guelph Official Plan classes Niska Road as a Collector Road. Traffic Interview Study Performed in June 2014 concluded that Niska integral route for residents of greater community.

No impact over existing conditions. Niska Road considered a collector road in the City of Guelph Official Plan, but currently road width does not support requirements of traditional collector road. Currently one lane bridge and road not serving functional needs of the greater surrounding community. Current traffic volume is too high for existing structural capacity.


Increased usability for community and region. Improvement in Niska Road’s function as a collector road within the City of Guelph Official Plan and road network. Impact over existing conditions as works may be required outside of the existing ROW in order to complete the required improvements to Niska Road. Further land acquisition will be examined through preliminary design, however it is anticipated at this time that all road improvements can be placed within the current ROW.





3 Heritage Resources (e.g. archaeological features, built heritage, and cultural heritage landscapes)

Disruption and/or destruction of sites, structures, landscape units having significant archaeological. Historical or architectural value.

Existing 20 metre right-of-way completely disturbed by existing road corridor therefore no longer holds archaeological potential. Eastern section of proposed right-of-way well drained therefore holding potential for Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian archaeological resources due to located within 300 m of water source and potentially undisturbed. Most areas along road corridor associated with low lying, poorly drained lands therefore holding no archeological potential. One registered archaeological site located within 1km of study area in surrounding township. Agricultural lands east of Pioneer Trail relatively undisturbed therefore holding archaeological potential. Niska Road not currently designated as a historic road. Possibility for archeological potential in low-laying, well-drained areas, though no features yet identified. Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment indicates that no evidence of late 19th century homesteads or other buildings situated along road corridor in the northwestern section of Puslinch Township.


No impact over existing conditions. Niska Road not currently designated as a historic road.

No impact over existing conditions. Potential for archaeological resources will be assessed prior to construction to ensure any potential resources protected. Niska Road not currently designated as a historic road. Road design options will include the considerations to minimize impacts to the existing viewscapes, (i.e. minimal fill and minimize tree removal).





4 Local Economy Nuisance Impacts (noise, vibrations, dust, traffic, detours) to businesses during construction and operations. Displacement of businesses due to property requirements. Impact on business signage due to setback. Impacts on agricultural land due to property requirements.

Truck traffic and speeding are issues.

No change in existing conditions; residential area. Continues existing impacts from restricting traffic across bridge and along Niska Road.

No impact over existing conditions; residential area. Potential negative impacts from restricting traffic across bridge and along Niska Road.

No impact over existing conditions for residential areas. Potential positive impact on agricultural machinery access in surrounding lands due to increased road width. Potential to improve local economy by increasing functional use of Niska Road to connect to commercial areas nearby. Access to future development opportunities may become important.

5 Pedestrian and Cyclist Accessibility and Safety

Impacts to pedestrian and cyclist safety

Currently walking trails throughout surrounding area valued by residents. Roadway width between Niska Bridge and Ptarmigan too narrow to safely support bikes/pedestrian use. Over a 7 day period in October 2013, 77 cyclists shared this section of Niska Road with 250 vehicles during morning and evening rush hours (8:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 to 6:00 p.m.). Safety issue for children walking to school bus from Whittaker to Tanager (no sidewalks)

No impact over existing conditions. Continued risk for pedestrians and cyclists due to roadway being too narrow for sidewalks and/or bike lane. Currently the one-lane bridge connected to a two lane roadway is creating an ‘unintentional’ traffic calming condition; however, there are no sidewalks to provide safe passage for pedestrians and cyclists.

No impact over existing conditions. Continued risk for pedestrians and cyclists due to roadway being too narrow for sidewalks and/or bike lane. Currently the one-lane bridge connected to a two lane roadway is creating an ‘unintentional’ traffic calming condition; however, there are no sidewalks to provide safe passage for pedestrians and cyclists.

Potential to improve pedestrian and cyclist accessibility and safety by adding sidewalks and bicycle lanes to the road. Wider road and shoulders could increase pedestrian safety with painted bike lane. Motorists in a 5m wide lane will feel safe and will tend to speed. Therefore bike lanes should have a solid white stripe leaving a 3.5m wide vehicular path, making drivers perceive a narrow lane, and slow down. A rumble strip could also be introduced as a community entry feature.





6 Lifestyle and Culture Loss of privacy/reduced use and enjoyment of property due to removal of vegetation. Loss of privacy/reduced use and enjoyment of property due to setback requirements. Reduced use and enjoyment of recreational areas during construction and operations. Potential impact to ‘country’ viewscape

Speed River is considered a recreational fishery and provides value to river through recreational value. Surrounding community and region surrounding bridge valued culturally as urban/rural interface, historical region and natural heritage landscape/viewscape. Use for recreation (canoeing, fishing, hiking and cycling) valued culturally.

No impact over existing conditions. The current area look and natural rural feel is maintained. Temporary disruption of use and enjoyment of recreational areas during road maintenance and repair activities. Safety issues such as the following remain:

• No side walk • No bike path • Speeding • Narrow driving area • Street lighting • No parking • Need for safer

/designated school drop-off areas

• No on road traffic calming measures

No impact over existing conditions. Increased lifestyle and culture as the natural/rural feel is maintained. Temporary disruption of use and enjoyment of recreational areas during construction and operations.

Temporary loss of privacy if trees need to be removed during construction. Temporary disruption of use and enjoyment of recreational areas during construction and operations. Potential to for create a safer travel environment for the walking and bicycling public with the addition of bike paths and sidewalks safe to access recreational areas. Opportunity to add and allow for on road parking areas. Opportunity to formalize canoe launch and fishing access areas from safe roadside access points. Potential alteration of ‘viewscape’, as such, special attention must be paid to avoid removal of ornamental vegetation, rehabilitation and restoration. Opportunity to introduce road traffic calming measures.





C Financial Factors Rating:

1 Construction and Demolition Costs

<$20,000 $200,000 $500,000 - $1, 300,000

2 Operation and Maintenance Costs

Road requires rehabilitation. Currently maintenance and repairs undertaken as required. Road section is in great need of repair as the pavement is nearing the end its service life. Current bridge is in need of costly repairs.

Considerable ongoing repair cost No changes over existing conditions. Current bridge is in need of costly repairs that will continue into the future.

Lesser on-going repairs initially, however drainage and flooding issue may not be address effectively. No changes over existing conditions.

Minimum operation cost for the next 20 years. Road will be reconstructed as per City standard. Possible minor increase in area to maintain. Can consider semi-urban design as well. Opportunity to address operational deficiencies (i.e. flooding, erosion control and stormwater management.

3 Property Acquisition Costs

None. None. None. None.

D Technical Factors Rating:

1 Structural – Condition and Load Capacity

Spidering and cracking of road causing washout. Road repairs necessary to prevent continued deterioration creating vehicular safety issues.

Continued maintenance and partial reconstruction. Overall ongoing deterioration of road.

Probable several years without surface restoration. Possible weak subgrade issues not addressed.

Possible minor increase in longevity over rural from curb and drainage improvements. Provides for 60 year life cycle.

2 Geometry – Road Profile and Width

Existing right-of-way an average of 20 meters in width. The existing road corridor consists of a single 3.5 m wide lane in each direction flanked on both sides by drainage ditches.

No changes to existing conditions. Sub-standard design.

No changes to existing conditions. Sub-standard design.

Increase lane width to 5.5m, minor profile adjustment. Meets City standards.





3 Roadside Safety – Barriers and Clearances

Posted speed in study area is 50 km/hr.

No changes to existing conditions.


Curbs increase pedestrian and motorist safety. Widening of existing narrow shoulder increases pedestrian and motorist safety.

4 Utility Impacts Movement of hydro transmission lines. Movement of lighting standards. Movement of watermains.

Minimal disruption anticipated to existing utilities as a result of improvements to Niska Road.



Relocation / protection of existing utilities likely required.

5 Emergency Access Impacts to/loss access for emergency services.

Niska Road provides emergency access to neighbourhood within study and to surrounding residents of Puslinch and Guelph-Eramosa.




6 Traffic Impacts Impacts to surrounding road networks (e.g. traffic volumes).

Currently study area classed as residential. Niska Road being used as a collector road. Residents concerned with speed, truck use, and increase in flow of traffic within neighbourhood.

No impact over existing conditions. Niska Road considered a collector road in the City of Guelph Official Plan, but currently road width does not support requirements of traditional collector road. Currently one lane bridge and road not serving functional needs of surrounding community.

No impact over existing conditions. Niska Road considered a collector road in the City of Guelph Official Plan, but currently road width does not support requirements of traditional collector road. Currently one lane bridge and road not serving functional needs of surrounding community.

Improvement in Niska Road’s function as a collector road within the City of Guelph Official Plan and road network.





7 Stormwater Infrastructure

Effect on existing storm sewers, culverts. Requirements for new storm sewers, culverts.

Improved stormwater management facilities required. Runoff carrying road sand and eroded ditch bank sediment has some sediment removed by existing grass-lined ditches. Limited hydrocarbon removal from capture in ditch soil.


Potential temporary increase during resurfacing works, no permanent change to existing runoff conditions.

Potential water quality improvement with full capture of road runoff in an oil / grit separator. Probable quantity increase. Probable increase in sediment from wider road requiring more winter sanding and generating more runoff.

8 Vehicular Safety Deterioration of road a vehicular safety concern. Lack of positive traffic control for the one lane bridge. Concern for improved tragic control at Niska/Downey intersection.

No changes to existing conditions. Continued risk for users due to road deterioration increasing potential for road failure. Continued vehicular safety concerns due to lack of positive traffic control for the one lane bridge.

Increased stability of road decreasing potential for road failure.

Curbs increase pedestrian and motorist safety. Widening of existing narrow shoulder increases pedestrian and motorist safety. Potential to improve vehicular safety by installing proper roadside safety measures and traffic control.

E Problem Statement Rating:

AVERAGE TOTAL/ PREFERRED SOLUTION

RECOMMENDATIONS Not carried forward Not carried forward Carried forward

Intersection Improvements at Niska and Downey Road A. Traffic Circle/Roundabout: This option has the following distinguishing characteristics and design features:

• Channelized approaches • Yield Control on all entries • Counter Clockwise circulation of all vehicles around a center island • Appropriate geometric curvature to encourage slow travel speeds

B. Traffic Signals: This option proposes to replace the current stop control with a set of

traffic control signals designed to sagely alternate the right of way for all traffic.

C. Stop Control: This option proposed to retain the current stop control on Niska Road at





Downey Road

032275_Niska Road EA

Alternative Solutions for Bridge – Ranking of Evaluation of Alternatives

Criteria Sections Do Nothing/Repair and Maintain Close Bridge to Vehicular Traffic

and Maintain

Remove Bridge / Do Not

Replace Bailey Bridge

Replace the Existing Bailey Bridge

With a New One Lane Structure and

Provide Operational Improvements

to Niska Road

Replace the Existing Bridge With a

New Two Lane Structure and Provide

Operational Improvements to Niska

Road

A: Natural Environment

B: Social Economic/Cultural

Environment

C: Financial Factors

D: Technical Factors

E: Problem Statement

Total Average

Understanding the Rating System:

Least Preferred to Most Preferred

032275_Niska Road EA

Alternative Solutions for Road – Ranking of Evaluation of Alternatives

Criteria Sections Do Nothing/Repair and Maintain Repave Reconstruct Road

A: Natural Environment

B: Social Economic/Cultural

Environment

C: Financial Factors

D: Technical Factors

E: Problem Statement

Total Average

Understanding the Rating System:

Least Preferred to Most Preferred

BRIDGE EVALUATION

Category Criteria Do Nothing Close Bridge Remove Bridge Replace with One Lane Replace with Two Lane

A Natural Environment 1 5 4 3 2 2

2 5 4 3 3 3

3 2 4 2 3 3

4 5 5 4 3 3

5 2 4 5 3 3

6 5 5 4 3 3

Average 4.00 4.33 3.50 2.83 2.83

GRAPH 4 4 4 3 3

B Socio-Economic/Cultural Environment

1 4 5 5 3 3

2 2 2 1 3 5

3 1 3 2 2 2

4 1 5 2 4 4

5 2 5 3 3 3

Average 2.00 4.00 2.60 3.00 3.40

GRAPH 2 4 3 3 3

C Financial Environment

1 3 4 5 2 2

2 1 2 5 4 4

Average 2.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 3.00

GRAPH 2 3 5 3 3

D Technical Factors

1 1 2 3 5 5

2 1 2 3 4 5

3 1 3 3 4 5

4 3 3 3 4 4

5 3 1 1 4 5

6 2 3 3 2 4

7 3 3 3 4 5

8 2 3 4 3 4

Average 2.00 2.50 2.88 3.75 4.63

GRAPH 2 3 3 4 5

E Problem Statement 2 2 2 3 4

Total

Average 2.40 3.17 3.20 3.12 3.57

Preferred Solutuon GRAPH 2 3 3 3 4

ROAD EVALUATION

Category Criteria Do Nothing Repave Reconstruct Road

A Natural Environment 1 5 4 3

2 3 2 4

3 4 2 3

4 4 2 3

5 1 2 4

6 5 4 3

Average 3.67 2.67 3.33

GRAPH 4 3 3

B Socio-Economic/Cultural Environment 1 2 3 4

2 2 3 5

3 5 4 3

4 3 4 5

5 3 4 5

6 2 3 4

Average 2.83 3.50 4.33

GRAPH 3 4 4

C Financial Environment 1 4 3 2

2 1 3 5

3 5 5 5

Average 3.33 3.67 4.00

GRAPH 3 3 4

D Technical Factors 1 3 4 5

2 2 3 4

3 1 2 4

4 3 3 4

5 3 3 3

6 3 3 4

7 4 4 3

8 2 4 5

Average 2.63 3.25 4.00

GRAPH 3 3 4

E Problem Statement 2 3 4

Total

Average 2.89 3.22 3.93

Preferred Solution GRAPH 3 3 4

Effects Criteria and Levels for Determining Signif icance

Effects Criteria

Effects Level Definition

Magnitude (of effect)

Low Medium High Magnitude (of effect) The effects level definitions for magnitude are provided in Table 11.1-2.

Geographic Extent

(of effect)

Low Medium High Geographic Extent

(of effect) Effect is within the Site

Study Area Effect extends into the

Local Study Area Effect extends into the Regional Study Area

Timing and Duration

(of conditions causing effect)

Low Medium High

Timing and Duration

(of conditions causing effect)

Conditions causing effect are evident during the site preparation and

construction phase, or decommissioning phase

Conditions causing effect are evident during the

operations phase

Conditions causing effect extend beyond any one

phase

Frequency (of effect)

Low Medium High

Frequency (of effect)

Conditions or phenomena causing the effect occur infrequently (i.e., several times per

year)

Conditions or phenomena causing the effect occur at regular,

although infrequent intervals (i.e., several

times per month)

Conditions or phenomena causing the effect occur at regular and frequent intervals

(i.e., daily or continuously)

Degree of Irreversibility

(of effect)

Low Medium High Degree of Irreversibility

(of effect) Effect is readily (i.e.,

immediately) reversible Effect is reversible with

time Effect is not reversible

(i.e., permanent)

{ Magnitude = Low >-H Consequence = Low ^ [ N r t S j g j f a n l J

\ Irreversibility = Low~|—H Consequence = Low p-f Not Significant \

| Magnitude = Medium |—H E x l e n l = A" i Timing and Duration = Low~pi Consequence ; Low pi N ° ' Significant j

v [ Irreversibility = Medium/High |—I (Timing and Duration = ] _ J Consequence = Medium H [ Medium/High j '

Social/Ecological Importance - Low |—H N o ( Significant f

Social/Ecological Importance = High p-f May n o t b e Significant

Irreversibility = Low p i Consequence = Low p4 Not Significant \

Residual Adverse Effects on Terrestrial Environment

\ Irreversibility = Medium/High~pT£g n 5 e q u e n c e ' Medium \ Social/Ecological Importance jj Low 1—H N o t Significant |

Social/Ecological Importance = High pi May not be Significant }

j Timing and Duration = Low p-fconsequence = Liw~pH N ° ' Significant |

| Magnitude • High

\ Irreversibility = Low

Extent = Medium H

J Timing and Duration = \_A Consequence = Medium lv Medium/High j

Social/Ecological Importance = Low p~1 N o t Significant \

Social/Ecological Importance = High p~l Us1 " 0 l b e Significant }

\ Timing and Duration = Low~p-l Consequence = Medium

h

Social/Ecological Importance = Low N o t Significant |

Social/Ecological Importance = High p - f M a y not be Significant \

Irreversibility = Medium —

Timing and Duration = [ Medium/High

Cansoquenco = High Social/Ecological Importance = Low [—W MaV n o { b e Significant"}

Social/Ecological Importance = High ]—-""i

{ Extent = High~|—H

\ Irreversibility = High

Consequence = High

Consequence a High Social/Ecological Importance = Low 1—H M a v n o t b e Significant

Social/Ecological Importance = High }—^m

Social/Ecological Importance = Low | ^ { M a y not be Significant}

-̂ Social/Ecological Importance = High ]—'"*•

Determination of Signif icance of Residual Adverse Effects

R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 15 Townline Orangeville ON L9W 3R4 CANADA


Memorandum

Date: July 14, 2014 Project No.: 300032775

Project Name: Niska Road / Bridge Reconstruction

Client Name: City of Guelph

To: CWG Members

From: Niska Road EA Team

Results of Niska Road Traffic Interview Study

A 12-hour 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. travel survey was conducted on Thursday, June 19, 2014 on

Niska Road at the bailey bridge. The following represents a summary of findings:

a) Number of trips by Trip Purpose

Work 1,240

Shopping 125

School 49

Pleasure 409

Other 208

Total: 2,031

b) Corridor Importance

1 106 Respondents

2 72 Respondents

3 135 Respondents

4 163 Respondents

5 1,555 Respondents

Total: 2,031 Respondents

1 Denotes corridor – not important

5 Denotes corridor – very important

Memorandum Page 2 of 2

300032775

July 14, 2014

c) Internal / External Trips by Trip Purpose

Trip Purpose External Internal Total

Work 1,081 159 1,240

Shopping 108 17 125

School 46 3 49

Pleasure 356 53 409

Other 179 29 208

Total: 1,770 261 2,031

d) Internal / External Trips by Mode of Travel

Mode of Travel External Internal Total

Car 1,450 252 1,702

Truck 304 7 311

Motorcycle 6 2 8

Heavy Truck 4 4

Bicycle 6 6

Total: 1,770 261 2,031

LR:hl

140714 CWG Members_memo_032275.docx 7/22/2014 3:07 PM

Documents

Agendaguelph.ca/wp-content/uploads/NiskaRoadCWGMeeting5Materials.pdf · R.J. Burnside International Limited 292 Speedvale Avenue West Unit 20 Guelph ON N1H 1C4 CANADA telephone (519)