TFD E Study V1.S3.2

Terry Fox Drive Environmental Study Report Eagleson Road to March Road
SECTION 6

EV ALU'ATION OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CONCEPTS

"\'\\\\\\\\\\\\I~

DILLON

CONSULTI~G

,.n ~ J,L.RlchardB & ABsociates Limited ~ll N c",,,".,,,E,,,,,,,, ee ~,,,",,,~,,,.P""",~ .

y onawa-Carleton

@t; CITY OF KANATA

I'

.

.. ~.&tJJt- '"", .... ' .~.

o

c

[

o

c

[

[

[

[

L

c

[

Terry Fox Drive Environmental Assessment Study March Road to Eagleson Road

Environmental Study Report

6.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CONCEPTS

This section of the ESR documents the evaluation of the roadway alignment alternatives presented in Section 5.0. As noted in Section 5.0, alternative alignments were only available for Sections 1 and 4 of the Terry Fox Drive corridor. Potential impacts for the entire length of Terry Fox Drive as well as appropriate measures to mitigate these impacts are presented in Section 7.0 of this ESR.

The first step in the evaluation of alternative design concepts was the development of evaluation criteria. These criteria form the basis of the comparative evaluation of alternatives. Using these criteria, the following steps were carried out for both Sections 1 and 4 of Terry Fox Drive:

• documentation of evaluation assumptions;

• data collection and the identification of potential effects for each alternative;

• evaluation of alternative alignments for each criteria group (i.e. natural environment, social, transportation services, etc.); and

• an overall multi-disciplinary evaluation to identify the preferred alignment.

6.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The evaluation structure was based on a set of criteria groups, criteria and indicators. Criteria groups are broad categories or subject areas that describe the full scope of the environment defined in the EA Act. The following criteria groups were used for Phase 3 of the Terry Fox Drive EA:

•

Natural Environment; Agriculture;

Social;

Planned Land Uses and Future Communities; Cultural Resources;

Economics;

Cost; and

Transportation Service.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

For each criteria group, criteria were identified to measure the effects of the criteria group. Indicators, or specific measures of effect were developed for each criterion. These indicators represent ways of identifying, describing and measuring impacts, costs and levels of service. For example, for the criterion "Impact on Significant Natural Areas and Terrestrial Habitat" one indicator or measurement is the "area of wetlands designated for environmental protection removed". The criteria, indicators and data sources for Terry Fox Drive are presented in Table 6.1.

Dillon Consulting Limited

J.L. Richards & Associates Limited

October, 2000 Page 6-1

.....

= Q)

s

= o

;...

os:

= r.:l

'" '"r::l

§

::a

o

~

4-< o

,-...

o o

=, o

......

,-...

o o o

o~

......

,-...

o o o o~ ...... ...... '-'

I:::: .S

...... o

2 e

c,

-

co:

;...

=

.....

co:

Z

[

[

[

[

c

[

L

I[

r[

[[

[[

[u

(

([

([

il

,-.._

o o o

o

......

,-.._ o o o

o~

......

-

1:':1

....

<:.I o rJ1

,-.._ o o =,

o

......

,-.._ o o o

o~

......

...... '-"

,-.._

o o =, o

I[

I~

)[

Ie

iC

I[

I[

Il

L [.

L' C [

[

[

c

[

L

L



6.1.1 Relative Importance of Evaluation Criteria Groups

Public comments on the criteria and indicators were received at the Criteria Workshop held on May 7, 1998 and have been incorporated where appropriate. One of the key activities at the Criteria Workshop was to obtain public input on the relative order of importance of the criteria groups. Consensus was not reached among the three workshop groups on an order of importance for all the criteria groups, however, participants generally felt that the Natural Environment Criteria Group should be given the highest consideration and that the Economics Criteria Group should be considered as the least important criteria group. For the purposes of the evaluation of alternative alignments, the criteria groups were divided into two categories - those with a higher level of importance and those with a lower level of importance. The level of importance for a criteria group was one of the considerations in the overall multi-disciplinary evaluation. The following shows the criteria groups in each category and provides some rationale:

Higher Importance Criteria Groups

Natural Environment - the area in the vicinity of all alignments remains relatively undisrupted and thus there is the potential for significant effects on natural environment features. This was also identified by participants in the May 7th Criteria Workshop as one of the most important criteria groups.

Planned Land Use and Future Communities - there are future plans for development for much of the

area involved. .

Cost - given the variable terrain, the different roadway cross-sections and the different lengths of the alternative alignments, it is anticipated that the cost for the alternatives will vary.

Transportation Service - the purpose of the improvements/modifications is to provide the required level of transportation service in the City of Kanata as a whole and specifically to the future community between Goulboum Forced Road/Terry Fox Drive and Campeau Drive.

Lower Importance Criteria Groups

Social - there are very few residences and community or recreational features in the vicinity of any of the alignments thus, the social impacts are anticipated to be minimal.

Economics - there are no businesses in the vicinity of any of the new alignments, thus the impacts associated with the Economics Criteria Group are anticipated to be negligible. This criteria group was identified as one with a lower importance by participants at the May 7th Criteria Workshop.

Agriculture - although the alignments do cross areas designated as Agriculture Resource Area in the Regional Official Plan, the extent of the alignment within these areas is relatively small.

Cultural Resources - although there are cultural resources in the vicinity of the alignments, the majority of these are in areas slated for future development and will be impacted regardless of the Terry Fox Drive alignment.



Octtober, 2000 Page 6-7



r r

r

L [

6.2 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF SECTION 1 ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS

Section 1 extends from Eagleson Road to Fernbank Road. A comparative evaluation was undertaken of the four alternative alignments (1-1, 1-2, 1-3 and 1-4) for this section of Terry Fox Drive to identify a preferred alignment. These alternatives are described in Section 5.2.1. This section of the report presents the results of this evaluation, including: the evaluation assumptions, the data collected and potential effects, the preferred alignment for each criteria group with supporting rationale, and, the preferred alignment overall with supporting rationale.

6.2.1 Evaluation Assumptions

The following assumptions were made in the evaluation of alternatives for Section 1:

• In the identification of effects, consideration was given to existing conditions, as well as proposed future land use as stated in the Regional Official Plan. For example, impacts to existing natural environmental features within areas designated as Agricultural Resource Area in the Official Plan were given higher consideration than impacts to existing natural features in the area designated as Business Park, since there is a likelihood that existing natural features in the Business Park could be removed by future development regardless of the roadway;

• The study area used for determining removal/displacement effects is the extent of land required to construct Terry Fox Drive to meet 2021 transportation demands. The study area to be used for disruption effects for some of the criteria (in particular those related to social effects) is the geographic extent of noise impacts. This was used because noise is expected to be the most significant disruption effect; and

,( L

(

[ [

C [

• A ROW to meet ultimate demands is to be protected and that future widenings of the proposed roadway would require further approval through the EA Act.

6.2.2 Data Collection and Identification of Potential Impacts

The evaluation of alternatives in Section 1 was based on the evaluation criteria presented in Section 6.1 of this report. Due to the uniform characteristics of the study area and the fact that differences among the alternatives were fairly obvious, the data collected and potential impacts are presented by criteria group rather than criteria and indicator in Table 6.2.

6.2.3 Overall Evaluation of Alternative Alignments

A paired comparison evaluation approach was used for the overall evaluation. The pair-wise comparison method is a qualitative evaluation method that involves comparing all alternatives in pairs. It is based on the premise that people can more easily understand trade-offs when only two alternatives are considered at a time. At a minimum, the method requires that data be collected for each criterion and that the alternatives be rated/ranked on the basis of each criterion. The pair-wise comparison method can recognize criteria rankings and the magnitude of differences in trading off the advantages and disadvantages of alternatives being considered.

c [

L '[



Octtober, 2000 Page 6-8

c

[ G

[

[

(

l

[

L

l

]

"3

u .t::

00 o:s '+-< o

]

u o p.

.... ....

<E 0

'" Q)

~

o

'" Q)

~

1

u

.S b

- '"

"3 '"

"'..9 ~ .... o

.c :;!

- u

oj

of' o~

- U

oj

- ell

o U

- ell

o U

3 o§.

U

'+-<

o

- ell

o U

'+-< o

- ell

o U

3 o§.

U

[I

[,

f

(

(

[

{ (

( 1

IL

\l

([



The method involves the following steps:

1. Select an alternative to be used as the first alternative in the comparison.

2. Compare this alternative to a second alternative. Of these two alternatives, the one that has the most advantages and least disadvantages is identified as preferred and is then compared to the next alternative.

3. If the first preferred alternative is still preferred, it is then compared to all other alternatives to confirm that it is the preferred alternative overall.

4. If at any point in the comparisons the first alternative selected is found to be less preferred, the process must be re-initiated with the "new" preferred alternative.

An alternative that is preferred to all other alternatives in the list is identified as the preferred alternative overall.

The "new roadway" alternatives (1-2, 1-3 and 1-4) were first compared to each other with the preferred of these three then being compared to Alternative 1-1, which involves a widening of existing roadways. Table 6.3 summarizes the overall rankings with shading showing the criteria groups identified as being of higher importance in the evaluation.

The following explains the results of the pair-wise comparison.

Comparison of Alternative 1-2 to Alternative 1-3

No differences were identified between the alternatives with respect to the Social, Cultural Resources, Transportation Service and Economics criteria groups. The advantages are slight in all categories, but in the absence of any advantages to Alternative 1-3, they are enough to identify a preferred Alternative. The advantages of Alternative 1-2 over Alternative 1-3 are as follows:

•

the area of agricultural land isolated by the Terry Fox Drive alignment in the southwest corner of the Fernbank RoadlEagleson Road intersection is slightly smaller for Alternative 1-2;

the cost to construct Alternative 1-2 would be slightly less (+/- $100,000), given that it is a shorter length of road and the cross-sections are identical; and

Alternative 1-2 is more consistent with the development concepts that have been developed for the area. The lands east of Eagleson Road (north of Hope Side Road) have subdivisions that

•

•






6.3.1 Evaluation Assumptions

The following assumptions were made in the evaluation of alternatives for Section 4:

• Although existing conditions were taken into account, the identification of effects focused on the proposed future land use as stated in the Regional Official Plan. For example, impacts to existing natural environmental features within areas designated as Natural Environment Areas (NEA) in the Official Plan were given higher consideration than impacts to existing natural features in the. General Urban Area (GUA) since there is a likelihood that existing natural features in the GUA could be removed by future development regardless of the roadway;

•

Alternative 4-2 represents the western boundary of the City of Kanata as shown in both the Kanata Official Plan and the Regional Official Plan. Concern has been expressed that the westerly alignment (Alternative 4-1) suggests an expansion of Kanata's urban boundary further to the west. The evaluation recognized that Alternative 4-1, if selected, could lead to pressures to expand the current urban boundary. However, at this time, the land use designations included in the current Regional Official Plan are the accepted designations and significant study, outside of the purview of this project, would be required to justify any changes;

•

•

It is assumed that some internal collector road network would be constructed and be in place to serve the local community and that only through traffic would use the Terry Fox Drive alignment. This internal collector road was assumed to be an u~ ded Goulbourn Forced Road. None of theefrects po entially associated with t e co ector were considered, as they would be

c~n to all alternatives; 1c\-0./ C<:::{J. __ ~ . '

'+-~~

Section 4 includes varying terrain, sensitive features and land use replanning issues. Thus, for

this section, the alternatives were evaluated at the criteria and indicator level first, prior to criteria group and overall evaluations.

•

F or the purpose of the evaluation and effects analysis; effects were assessed for the entire area impacted by the roadway infrastructure (e.g. driving lanes, median, sidewalk, side slopes) required to meet 2021 transportation needs for Alternatives 4-1 and 4-2; '"

•

The study area used for determining displacement effects is the extent of land required for the roadway infrastructure to meet 2021 demands. The study area to be used for disruption effects for some of the criteria (in particular those related to social effects) is the geographic extent of noise impacts. This will be used because noise is expected to be the most significant disruption effect; and

•

Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B involve the widening of the assumed existing internal collector road (with a rural cross-section) so that effects/costs were associated only for the additional roadway infrastructure to accommodate the required two additional lanes;

•

The new alignment of Terry Fox Drive would be a limited access roadway;

•

A ROW to meet ultimate demands is to be protected and that future widenings of the proposed roadway would require further approval through the EA Act.




r

r I

r

it

1 r I(

I ( ((

If

~L lL

Ie

[ [

[

r

L [

[

~



6.3.2 Data Collection and Identification of Potential Effects

For each of the four alternative alignments, data were collected for all criteria and indicators. The data sources and criteria used were previously presented in Section 6.1 of this report. The identified potential effects are presented in Table 6.4. The following provides clarification and details of the assumptions used in the data collection step for each of the criteria groups.

Natural Environment

The Natural Environment Criteria Group includes criteria to determine effects on terrestrial habitat, aquatic habitat and surface water quality and quantity. For the terrestrial habitat criteria, data were collected and effects identified recognizing the future land use designations. Thus, the habitat that will be protected by the Natural Environment Area (NEA) designation in the Regional Official Plan, was measured separately from the habitat that is within the General Urban Area (GUA), as habitat within the GUA may ultimately be removed as a result of future development. Within the NEA designation, wetlands and woodlands (including mature upland forest, lowland forest, early successional forest and abandoned fields) were identified separately. Within the GUA designation, there was no distinction made between these two types of habitat. The main significant natural areas within Section 4 of the Study Area are the South March Highlands and Kanata Lakes. These areas provide significant wildlife habitat and serve as a major corridor for wildlife (mainly birds) between the Carp River and the Ottawa River. Potential for impact on wildlife and the corridor function these areas serve was not assessed separately but is considered to be a function of removal/impacts on terrestrial habitat.

Regarding the aquatic habitat criteria, all of the fish habitat within the Terry Fox Drive corridor is considered moderately sensitive to development. Most of the habitat is considered to be warm water baitfish habitat and no cold water streams were identified. The amount of fish habitat was calculated based on a new or increased roadway infrastructure which would require culvert installation. Habitat disruption was calculated based on the assumption that increased traffic could result in impacts for 20 metres upstream and 100 metres downstream of the proposed crossing.

To measure the impacts on surface water, two indicators were used. The "potential for alteration of watercourse flows" identifies which alternative alignments cross a drainage basin such that they will temporarily impede the flow of water to its final destination, either the Carp River or Shirley's Brook. To determine the "potential for change in surface water quality", the nature of the roadway surface was identified for each alternative alignment. Rural roadways with a gravel shoulder are preferred over urban roadways as they allow some infiltration of surface runoff, thus reducing the need for treatment of surface water.




r r

I [

C n [

[ [ [ [

l

[ c c

r C

D [

[

1 '

L

,e o

C Q

u c U L



Agriculture

For the Agriculture Criteria Group, data were collected and effects identified in the context of future land use designations. Only impacts on agricultural lands and operations within the Agriculture Resource Area (ARA) designation in the Regional Official Plan were identified. Removal of agricultural land is identified by the amount of land removed from the ARA by the alignment roadway infrastructure. The criteria "impact on agricultural operations" reflects the potential for disruption impacts to any existing or future farming operation in the ARA. Disruption impacts include both the potential for nuisance impacts (such as salt spray) on crops adjacent to the alignment and the potential for the fragmentation of farmland.

The identification of social effects focused on the potential for displacement or disruption of existing residents and recreational features. Residents and recreation features directly adjacent to the proposed alignment were considered to be potentially disrupted. The Social Criteria Group also considered the potential change in the character of the community and visual impacts resulting from Terry Fox Drive.

Planned Land Uses and Future Communities

The Planned Land Use Criteria Group considered potential impacts to future development as presented in the Regional and City of Kanata Official Plans as well as "draft approved" and approved development plans. Any plans for development that had not received draft approval by September 1997 were not considered.

Cultural Resources

The Cultural Resources Criteria Group assessed the effects' of the alternative alignments on both archaeological resources and heritage resources (including both built heritage features and cultural landscapes). Data collection and the identification of archaeological effects related solely to the area impacted by the road alignment. Consequently, future land use issues for adjacent areas were not a factor in the evaluation. For heritage resources, displacement or direct effects on built heritage features included both the removal of the feature as well as permanent removal of access to the heritage feature. Disruption or an indirect effect on a heritage feature included temporary removal of access to the feature or removal of property in proximity to the feature. The indicator "change in cultural landscapes" assesses any negative changes to the context in which built heritage features exist or have existed. Future land use designation was a consideration in the identification of effects on heritage resources as features within the GUA are destined to be impacted by future development regardless of the location of Terry Fox Drive.

Economics

The economics criteria group considered the potential for impacts on existing businesses. No businesses that would be affected differently by the alternatives were identified in the vicinity of any of the four alignments.





r r


The cost criteria group considered the estimated construction costs for the 2021 cross-sections for the four alignments, as discussed in Section 5.0. The cost estimates included all "cut and fill" required to bring the alignments to the maximum acceptable grade. They also included such elements as:

r

•

additional length required for intersecting collector roads; pavement and medians;

road substructure;

drainage facilities (e.g., catchbasins, storm sewer, ditching); roadway illumination;

ROW sodding;

traffic signals; and

sidewalks, bicycle lanes and medians

[ [

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Costs were based on unit prices provided by the Project Management Unit of the Region of OttawaCarleton and are accurate to a Class "C" level of accuracy (±25%). This is generally considered to be the appropriate approach to costing for EAs.

[ [

Transportation Service

The various transportation service criteria and indicators measure three key elements, safety, level of service provided by the roadway, and relative usefulness of the roadway to the future community. Most of the effects identified for this criteria group are a reflection of proximity of the alignment to future development.

r

6.3.3 Evaluation of Alternatives on a Criteria Group Basis

( C

The four Alternatives were comparatively evaluated for each of the criteria groups noted above. This involved ranking the alternatives for each criterion and indicator and then developing an overall ranking for the criteria group. The following were considered for each criterion and indicator when developing the overall criteria group rank:

•

potential for effect; severity of effect; public policy;

local and regional significance; frequency and duration of effect; certainty of prediction of effect; potential for mitigation; and public and agency comments.

[

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Rankings were based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative data/effects. The indicator ranks and the criteria group ranks are presented with the supporting data in Table 6.4. The following describes the evaluation for each criteria group.

1 L l [

Agriculture

The land use designation on the western boundary of Kanata between Richardson Side Road and Highway 417 is Agriculture Resource Area. The common segment of all alternatives south of Richardson Side Road impacts on the eastern edge of the ARA and will result In the removal of


JL. Richards & Associates Limited


o [

c r [

l



approximately 1.8 hectares ofland designated for long term agricultural use. As this segment is common to all alternative alignments it does not help in identifying a preferred alignment. Alternative 4-1 bisects the ARA involving the removal of 4.0 hectares of agricultural area in total and resulting in the fragmentation of ARA designated lands. The extent of this fragmentation is considered to be of low impact. Although this area is designated ARA is should be noted that for the most part, the land is not very conducive to agriculture due to the presence of bedrock at or near the surface.

Thus Alternative 4-1 is considered to be less preferred than the other Alternatives on a relative basis but only slightly. Alternative 4-2, 4-3A and 4-3B are equal and preferred from an agricultural perspective.

From a cost perspective, Alternative 4-1 was preferred as it had the lowest construction cost estimated at $13.5 million. Alternative 4-3A was ranked second with a construction cost of $16.2 million. Alternatives 4-3B and 4-2 were ranked third, with estimated construction costs of $17.1 million and $17.3 million, respectively.

Cultural Resources

Overall, for the Cultural Resources Criteria Group, Alternative 4-1 was clearly least preferred. It impacts approximately 3,000 metres of medium to high archaeological potential; has the highest impact on cultural landscape as it passes through an area where no previous roadway existed; and it changes the access to a significant mid 19th Century farmstead north of Richardson Side Road thus causing disruption to this feature.

Alternative 4-2 impacts approximately 2,000 metres of medium to high archaeological potential. There are no built heritage features associated with this alignment. As it follows an unopened section of the nineteenth century survey of First Line Road, impacts to cultural landscapes are minimal.

Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B both impact approximately 700 metres of prehistoric and historic archaeological potential in the vicinity of Shirley's Brook. Alternatives 4-3A involves the removal of a built heritage feature on Goulbourn Forced Road north of the Amprior-Nepean Railroad tracks and the significant disruption of another feature south of the tracks. Alternative 4-3B will disrupt access to and remove property from both of these features. Given the proximity of the alignment to these features, it is possible that both features may have to be removed for either alternative. Although it is recognized that future removal of these two features may result from their location in the GUA designation, impacts associated with this undertaking are still considered to be significant.

As the removal of and disruption to built heritage features is considered to be more significant than impacts to areas with archaeological potential, Alternative 4-2 was preferred for the Cultural Resources Criteria Group. Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B were less preferred and Alternative 4-1 was least preferred.

Economics

All alternatives were ranked equally for economics due to the fact that no existing businesses will be differentially effected by any alternative. Existing businesses in this section are adjacent to the portion of the Alternatives that is common to all (i.e. just north of Campeau Drive).

Natural Environment




The Natural Environment Criteria Group considers impacts on three key elements of the natural environment - terrestrial habitat, aquatic habitat and surface water. In the evaluation, each of these had two or more indicators to measure potential effects.

Terry Fox Drive Environmental Assessment Study Environmental Study Report

March Road to Eagleson Road

['

For the terrestrial habitat criteria the measurement of indicators was based on future land designations, but the existing habitat conditions were also examined through field investigations. All of the alternatives were ground truthed irrespective of their future designations.

Alternatives 4-1 and 4-2 follow roughly the same route from Goulbourn Forced Road/Terry Fox Drive to approximately the Arnprior-Nepean Railroad crossing. While the future planning designation shows portions of this roadway to be NEA and GUA, this portion of the route follows the southeastern boundary of the South March Highlands (Brunton, 1992). This area is fairly undisturbed and includes many of the vegetation units described in Section 3.1.2 including Wet Forests, Dry Forests, Wet NonForest and Dry Non-Forest. At the Arnprior-Nepean Railroad crossing, Alternatives 4-1 and 4-2 begin to differ, with Alternative 4-2 heading southeast along the unopened First Line Road and hydro corridor, and Alternative 4-1 paralleling this route, but situated more to the west, adjacent to the Carp River floodplain.

r [

In the section between the Arnprior-Nepean Railroad crossing and Richardson Side Road, the planning designation is mostly NEAIO. Alternative 4-1 is situated on the west side of a ridge that includes rocky outcrops, dry forest and agricultural lands that are either cultivated or in pasture. Alternative 4-2 goes through similar vegetation communities (with the exception of agricultural lands) even though it is situated along the existing hydro right-of-way. The difference in the amount and type of vegetation encountered by both Alternatives is minimal. For example, the difference in woodland removal is 1.2 ha, both routes have been previously disturbed by either agricultural clearing (Alternative 4-1) or hydro line clearing and maintenance, and forest fragmentation has occurred along both alternatives to some degree. Both routes pass through wetlands that could be complexed with the South March Highlands wetland. Overall, Alternatives 4-1 and 4-2 routes still provide opportunities for wildlife and could be easily rehabilitated. Alternatives 4-1 and 4-2 were therefore ranked equally with respect to terrestrial environment considerations.

c

[

Between Richardson Side Road and Campeau Drive, both routes pass through an area that has a designation of Agricultural Resource Area. While some of this area has been cleared for crop fields, an uncleared area at the southwest corner of Richardson Side Road and First Line Road remains. It includes mostly rocky outcrops that are covered with dry forest with open areas.

[ [ [

Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B follow roughly the same route with the exception of the northern end in the vicinity of Goulbourn Forced Road/Terry Fox Drive. Alternative 4-3B follows the existing Goulbourn Forced Road, while 4-3A skirts the western edge of Trillium Woods and joins up with the extension of Terry Fox Drive.

From a terrestrial environment point of view, Alternatives 4-3A/B are preferred over 4-1 and 4-2 for the following reasons:

L l [

• Both Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B remove relatively small amounts (1.7 ha and 1.1 ha respectively) of woodland that has been designated for long term environmental protection. In comparison, Alternatives 4-1 and 4-2 remove up to 5 times this amount.

10 Note: No distinction has been made between whether the alignment passes through either NEA-A or NEA-B lands. From a natural heritage perspective, the NEA-A lands (which are only within the urban boundary) are of no greater or less importance than the NEA-B lands (which are only within the rural area). In both designations, the intent is to protect natural heritage features from development.




c c

c C' (

IJ C

[

[ G Q

L



• All alternatives are within the Kanata Lakes Study area (Brunton, 1992) and Trillium Woods Park.

However, the use of the existing Goulbourn Forced Road (Alternatives4-3A1B) reduces the amount of clearing of mature hardwood forest and fragmentation of the Region's forest.

• From the Amprior-Nepean Railroad crossing to Richardson Side Road, the majority of the area adjacent to Alternatives 4-3B is designated as General Urban Area. Therefore, any impacts through this area were judged to be less significant, as they would occur on lands slated for future development.

• From examining the existing conditions in this section, the habitat potential of adjacent lands to Goulbourn Forced Road is lower compared to that found in the vicinity of the alternatives. This is because most of the land along Goulbourn Forced Road consists of abandoned crop fields that have varying amounts of early successional growth.

The preference for Alternative 4-3A and 4-3B from a terrestrial habitat perspective is mirrored by the criteria and indicators that address impacts to aquatic habitat. The Alternatives that use Goulboum Forced Road require only culvert extensions at existing stream crossings (anticipated displacement of 570 rrr' of fish habitat) rather than new crossings as required for Alternatives 4-1 and 4-2 (anticipated displacement of 8, 1 00 rrr' and 8,220 rrr' of fish habitat respectively).

For the surface water indicator "potential for alteration of watercourse flows", Alternative 4-2 is preferred as a roadway in this location is on top of the drainage divide between the Carp River and Shirley's Brook drainage basins and thus minimizes changes to the watercourse flows in either basin. Alternative 4-1 is considered to be the least preferred as a new roadway in the Carp River Basin will change the drainage pattern in the area and will require flood storage compensation. In the case of Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B, Goulbourn Forced Road has already altered watercourse flows and changed the drainage pattern and future development in this area will result in further significant changes. Thus Alternatives 3-4AIB are slightly better than Alternative 4-1 but not as good as Alternative 4-2.

For the second surface water indicator "potential for change in surface water quality", Alternative 4-1 is preferred, asit would be a rural cross-section providing opportunity for infiltration compared to the other alternatives which are urban roadways and allow no opportunity for pretreatment. This indicator, however, was considered to be of lesser importance since best management practices for the treatment of surface runoff will be put in place for all Alternatives and the surface runoff must meet the same standards before being discharged into receiving waters regardless of the nature of the roadway surface.

Overall, Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B were ranked first or second for all criteria and indicators for the Natural Environment Criteria Group with the exception of the indicator "area of wildlife habitat designated for future development removed" where more habitat will be removed for Alternative 4-3A than the others. This disadvantage is outweighed by the fact that 4-3A and 4-3B involve significantly less disruption and removal of woodlands in the NEA and less impact on aquatic habitat as no new crossings are required.

For the Natural Environment Criteria Group, Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B are equal and preferred, and Alternatives 4-2 and 4-1 are ranked third and fourth respectively.

Planned Land Use and Future Communities

None of the Alternatives are entirely consistent with the land use designations and policies in the City of Kanata and Regional Official Plans. Alternatives 4-1 and 4-2 were, however, considered preferred. Although Alternative 4-2 is considered more consistent with the Kanata and Regional Official Plans, it is slightly less preferred than Alternative 4-1 with respect to impacts on future communities. Alternative






[ r ~ r L

4-2 will have residential development on one side (potential for disruption effects), whereas Alternative 4-1 has no development adjacent to it, unless there is a change in land use.

Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B were considered to be much less preferred than the other Alternatives. Neither of these Alternatives conform to the alignment shown on the Official Plan schedule. In addition, these Alternatives would require an amendment to the Kanata Official Plan to change the designation of Goulbourn Forced Road from a Minor Arterial road as it is currently designated in the Official Plan to a Major Arterial Road. These alternatives also have the greatest impact on future communities with the potential for barrier effects as well as disruption effects to adjacent residents from traffic.

Most of this study area passes through an area that is not developed and there are few existing residents and communities in the vicinity of the alignment. No residences are expected to be displaced. Alternative 4-2 is considered preferred as it has the least potential for disruption impacts and impacts to community/recreation features. Alternative 4-1 was ranked slightly less preferred as it has potential for disruption effects for one additional residence (Richardson farmhouse) and potential for effects to a planned trail along the Carp River. Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B were ranked least preferred due to greater potential for disruption effects.

lJ

[ [

Transportation Service

[ [ [ [

Alternatives 4-1 and 4-2 are preferred with respect to regional mobility for autos and commercial vehicles because they separate the mobility function of the arterial road from the access and service function of the collector road. They are also preferred for safety for users of adjacent land uses ("exposure of pedestrians and bicycles from land uses adjacent to the alignment"), as well as potential for a scenic roadway. Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B were ranked better than Alternatives 4-1 and 4-2 from the perspective of access for pedestrian and bicycle trips and public transit access to the local community. The proximity of Alternatives 4-3A/B to the future development means that there is a higher potential for conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles and thus a higher potential for safety concerns. However, this proximity also means that the roadway better serves the bicycle, pedestrian, transit and local auto needs of the future local community. All Alternatives were judged to provide equal levels of local automobile access because they will not use direct driveway accesses from adjacent land uses and any differences in travel time originations within the local community is not significantly different.

o

For this portion of Terry Fox Drive, the provision of transportation service to the regional user (mobility for autos and commercial vehicles) and fewer potential safety concerns were judged to be more important than providing access and mobility for pedestrians, bicycles and transit. As the Marchwood and Lakeside communities develop, facilities will be provided to serve local pedestrian and bicycle trips that would be more attractive than Terry Fox Drive. Public transit would also likely not make much use of this portion of Terry Fox Drive, as OC Transpo generally plans its routes to travel on community collector streets. Given that the demand for use of Terry Fox Drive by pedestrians, bicycles and public transit are not expected to be significant, Alternatives 4-1 and 4-2 are the preferred Alternatives. As these two Alternatives are very similar, there was no distinction made between them from a transportation perspective.

Alternatives 4-1 and 4-2 were also preferred for the criteria "potential for widening to meet future transportation needs", These Alternatives would initially be constructed as two lane roads north of Richardson Side Road, however, the 45m ROW for these alignments would permit future widenings. Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B will be constructed as four lane roads by 2021 and it would not be possible,




[ r

c

[

C l

L l (_

L



from a practical perspective, to widen these roads further to six lanes (should this ever prove necessary) to address the needs of future growth beyond the current planning horizon.

Overall from a Transportation perspective, Alternative 4-1 and 4-2 were considered equally preferred over Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B.

6.3.4 Overall Multi-Discipline Evaluation of Alternatives

The overall multi-discipline evaluation brings together the alternative rankings by criteria group to determine the preferred alignment for the segment of Terry Fox Drive between Campeau Drive and Goulbourn Forced Road/Terry Fox Drive.

As with Section 1 evaluation, a pair-wise comparison of alternatives was undertaken to identify the overall preferred alignment (see Section 6.2.3 for an explanation of the approach).

For this evaluation, consideration was given to the relative importance of the criteria groupings established in Section 6.1.1. This relative importance was reflected in the qualitative analysis of the alternatives. Table 6.5 summarizes the ranking of the alternative alignments for each criteria group as rationalized in the previous section. The shading represents the criteria groups that were identified to be of higher importance in the evaluation.

Note: Shading represents higher importance criteria groups.

Overall Ranking

For the Economic Criteria Group, there was no difference identified among the alternative alignments and, therefore, all were ranked equally. This criteria group was not considered further in the overall multi-disciplinary evaluation.

Based on the individual criteria group rankings, Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B were considered to be generally equal, although there is a minor difference between these two alignments for the Planned Land Use and Future Communities criteria group. These two alternatives were therefore grouped as one alternative for the purpose of the pair-wise comparison. In the event that Alternative 4-3A14-3B is considered preferred, these minor differences would be considered further. The following describes the results of the pair-wise comparison.

The first comparison selected was Alternative 4-1 versus Alternative 4-2






[ r G r l

Comparison of Alternative 4-1 to Alternative 4-2

Alternative 4-2 is preferred over Alternative 4-1 on the basis of the Agriculture, Cultural Resources, Natural Environment and Social criteria groups. Only one of the criteria groups (Natural Environment) is considered to be a higher importance criteria group. Alternative 4-1 is preferred over Alternative 4-2 with respect to Cost which is a high importance criteria group. There was no difference identified between these two alignments with respect to the Economics, Planned Land Use and Future Communities and Transportation Service criteria groups.

The key trade-off to make is whether the advantages of Alternative 4-2 are worth the additional $3.8 million that it will cost to build it which represents approximately one-third of its total cost. The following provides comments on the benefits associated with Alternative 4-2:

• Alternative 4-2 results in approximately 1 ha less of agricultural land removed; approximately 5 ha less of agricultural land potentially disturbed and 18 ha less of agricultural land fragmented. However, given that this agricultural land is generally not conducive to agriculture due to the presence of bedrock at surface, this is not considered to be a significant advantage;

•

Alternative 4-2 results in only 0.8 ha less of protected woodland being removed (9.6 ha versus 8.4 ha) and 1.5 ha less of woodland that is designated for development. This represents less than a 10% difference and certainly very little in the context of the overall area of woodlands in the City of Kanata;

•

Alternative 4-2 is considered to have less potential for changes to surface water flows as it is located on the drainage divide. Impacts to flows from Alternative 4-1 are, however, considered to be minimal and can be mitigated through design;

[ [ [

•

Alternative 4-1 effects an additional 2,500 m of archaeological potential lands due to the proximity of this alignment to the Carp River. As well, Alternative 4-1 is in proximity to a 19th Century farmhouse. These are only potential impacts and mitigation opportunities exist to minimize these impacts;

[

• Alternative 4-1 has the potential to disrupt one additional residence and potentially disrupt a yet to be built pathway along the Carp River.

Although Alternative 4-2 has a number of advantages over Alternative 4-1, each are not considered to be overly significant. Mitigation measures can be implemented to minimize most of the negative effects of Alternative 4-1 which would cost much less than the cost difference between these alternatives. The additional $3.8 million to construct Alternative 4-2 cannot, therefore, be justified and as a result, Alternative 4-1 was preferred over Alternative 4-2. Alternative 4-1 was then carried forward for comparison with Alignment 4-3.

[




Comparison of Alternative 4-1 to Alternative 4-3AIB

Alternative 4-1 is preferred over Alternative 4-3AIB on the basis of the Planned Land Use and Future Communities, Transportation Service and Cost criteria groups, all of which are considered to be higher importance criteria groups. It was also preferred for the Social Criteria Group. Alternative 4-3AIB is preferred for the Agriculture, Cultural Resources and Natural Environment Criteria Groups. The following describes these advantages/disadvantages further:

[ [

[

[ c

Q C

c [



Alternative 4-1 has three key advantages over Alternative 4-3A1B, all of which are high importance criteria groups:

• For the Planned Land Use Criteria Group, which is a higher importance criteria group, Alternative 4-1 is considered to have an advantage over Alternatives 4-3A/B because it is consistent with Kanata and Regional Official Plan policies. Also, Alternative 4-1 will not create a barrier within the future community and will result in less disruption impacts on the future community. This is considered to be a significant advantage.

• Alternative 4-1 is clearly preferred with respect to Transportation Service as it is considered to be safer for pedestrianslbicycles; provides better service for through traffic; has better potential to be developed as a scenic roadway and can support future widenings.

• For the Cost Criteria Group, which is a higher importance criteria group, Alternative 4-1 is estimated to cost approximately $2.7 to $3.6 million dollars less than Alignments 4-3A and 4-3B

respectively.

The advantages of Alternative 4-3A/B over 4-1 include:

•

Alternative 4-3A/B results in the removal of 1.7 ha less agricultural land. As explained previously, this agricultural land is considered to be of low quality and is not under intensive use.

•

For the Cultural Resources Criteria Group, which is a lower importance criteria group, Alternative 4-1 has greater potential for impacts on areas of archaeological potential and greater potential for impacts on heritage landscapes. These impacts can be mitigated through facility design and construction practices.

• Alternative 4-3A/B removes 6.9 to 7.9 ha less of woodlands designated for protection than Alignment 4-1 as well as 7,530 rrr less of aquatic habitat. With respect to the aquatic habitat, it will be necessary to compensate this loss so that there is no net loss to habitat, thus lessening the significance of this impact. Impacts to woodland can be partially mitigated through treatment of the ROW corridor.

In making these tradeoffs between Alternatives 4-1 and 4-3A/B, the advantages associated with Alternative 4-1 (better transportation service, lower cost and less impacts on future communitiesall higher importance criteria groups) were considered to be more significant than the advantages associated with Alternative 4-3A/B (agriculture, natural environment and cultural resources). It is also noted that Alternative 4-3A/B could not be widened (i.e. to 6 lanes) should this ever be required and as a result, a "ring-road" would be required in the long term. This would negate most of the advantages associated with Alternative 4-3A/B. As a result, Alternative 4-1 is considered to be preferred overall.




r c

G r l

[ [ [

r [

c

l

[ L i

[

. TABLE 6.4 - DATA COLLECTED, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND RAN KINGS FOR SECTION 4 OF TERRY FOX DRI¥E

.1 ;,1.

Agriculture

[, Impact on Agricultural Land

Area (ha) of prime agricultural land designated for long term agricultural use removed

Ranked Fourth: This alternative crosses an area identified as an Agriculture Resource Area (ARA) in the RMOC Official Plan thus removing approximately 4.5 ha of land designated for long term agricultural use. This area is in the vicinity of Richardson Side Road and First Line Road. It should be noted that while this area is within the ARA designation, most of the land in question is not conducive to agriculture due to the presence of bedrock at or near the surface.

Ranked First: This alternative will remove approximately 3.0 ha of the land on the eastern boundary of the ARA in the area of Richardson Side Road and First Line Road.

Ranked First: This alternative remove

approximately 2.7 ha of the land on the eastern boundary of the ARA in the area of Richardson Side Road and First Line Road.

Ranked First: This alternative will remove approximately 2.9 ha of the land on the eastern boundary of the ARA in the area of Richardson Side Road and First Line Road.

Impact on Agricultural Operations

Area (ha) of designated agricultural land within 30 m of the new roadway that may be impacted by nuisance effects

Ranked Fourth: This alternative has the potential to disturb agricultural operations on both sides of the road mostly from salt spray and dust. Approximately 7.8 ha of agricultural land could be impacted. It should be noted that while this area is within the ARA designation, most of the land in question is not conducive to agriculture due to the nrp'~prH'p of bedrock at or near the surface.

Potential for farmland fragmentation!

Ranked Fourth: This alternative results in the fragmentation of agricultural land isolating approximately 18 ha ofland from a contiguous farmed area. It is anticipated that this will result in a low impact. It should be noted that while this area is within the ARA designation, most of the land in question is not conducive to agriculture due to the nrp'CP'H'P of bedrock at or near the surface.

Overall Agriculture Criteria Group Ranking

Costs

This alignment is estimated to cost "nr'rnVlnn"t,plv $13.5 million dollars.

, Construction Cost

Cultural Resources

Estimated roadway improvement cost

Ranked First: This altemative will only result in the potential disturbance of agricultural land from salt spray and dust on the west side of the alignment only. Approximately 2.4 ha of agricultural land could be impacted.

Ranked First: This alternative does not result in the fragmentation of farmland.

1

Ranked First: This alternative will only result in the potential disturbance of agricultural land from salt spray an dust on the west side of the alignment only. Approximately 2.4 ha of agricultural land could be impacted.

Ranked First: This alternative does not result in the fragmentation of farmland,

1

Ranked First: This alternative will only result in the potential disturbance of agricultural land from salt spray and dust on the west side of the alignment only. Approximately 2.4 ha of agricultural land could be impacted.

Ranked First: This alternative does not result in the fragmentation of farmland,

1

Impact on Archaeological Resources

c

Area of medium and high archaeological potential affected

Ranked Fourth: This alternative impacts the most area of possible archaeological significance. Approximately 2,750 metres of archaeological potential within the level land east of First Line; approximately 250 metres of medium tc high potential in vicinity of CNR tracks.

This alignment is estimated to cost 17.3 million dollars.

This alignment $16.2 million

Ranked First: Alternatives 4-3A 4-3B impact

the same areas of archaeological potential. Approximately 700 metres of prehistoric and historic archaeological potential iI~ vicinity of Shirley's Brook and level areas south of the Brook.

This potential is associated with the water crossing and the sites of six former 19th century farmsteads

adjacent to the segments of Forced,

Richardson Side Road and First Road in this

alternative

Ranked Equally: There are no archaeological resources within 3

This alignment is estimated to cost 17.1 million dollars.

Ranked First: Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B impact the same areas of archaeological potential. Approximately 700 metres of prehistoric and historic archaeological potential in vicinity of Shirley's Brook and level areas south of the Brook.

This potential is associated with the water crossing and the sites of six former 19th century farmsteads adjacent to the segments of Goulbourn Forced, Richardson Side Road and First Line Road in this alternative.

Ranked Equally: There are no known archaeological resources within 3 km of the

This potential is associated with the alternative's proximity to the Carp River and the sites of five former 19th century farmsteads in the immediate

of the .

Ranked Third: This alternative may impact some area of archaeological significance. Approximately 250 metres of prehistoric and historic archaeological potential in vicinity of CNR tracks; approximately 200 metres of potential in the level land and area overlooking the level land about 1600 metres north of Richardson Side Road.

This potential is associated with the 19th century road alignment and agricultural areas, and height of land

Ranked Equally: There are no known archaeological resources within 3 km of the

I Farm fragmentation that isolates 40+ ha of viable farmland from a contiguous fanned area is considered to be a high impact. Farm fragmentation that isolates 20 to 40 ha of viable farmland from a contiguous fanned area is cons ide ed to be a medium impact. Farm fragmentation that isolates 1-19 ha of viable farmland from a contiguous farmed area is considered to be low impact.

Proximity to known archaeological resources

r

I

I ,

! I

I

~,

[J ,[

L L l

r

, TABLE 6.4 - DATA COLLECTED, POTENTIAL IMPACTS A~D RANKINGS FOR SECTION 4 OF TERRY FOX DRIV~

: (

"

4

Ranked Second: This alternative will result in no loss of heritage features.

The significant mid-Is" century farmstead located approximately 70 metres east of alignment on north side of Richardson Side Road is likely to experience some indirect disruption effects associated with changing the access route to the feature. As a result of the realignment of the proposed route further west at the request of the landowner, significant effects are not expected.

Segment of alignment connecting Terry Fox Drive with Richardson Side Road (this section is common to all alternatives) crosses foundations of former bam, however 19th century farmhouse associated with this ruin has previously been removed and impact to the ruin is insignificant.

Ranked First: This alternative will result in no loss or disruption of heritage features.

The segment of alignment south of Richardson Side Road (this section is common to all alternatives) crosses foundations of former bam, however 19th century farmhouse associated with this ruin has previously been removed and impact to ruin is insignificant.

Ranked Third: This alternative involves:

• Loss of 19th century farmstead on west side of Goulbourn Forced Road north ofCNR crossing;

• disruption of the access to 19th century residence on east side of Goulb9urn Forced Road directly south of CNR crossing.

Both of these features are located within the area designated for future urban development and thus are likely to be further impacted. However, this is still considered to be a greater impact than that for alignments 4-1 and 4-2.

Segment of alignment west of Richardson Side Road (this section is common to all alternatives) crosses foundations of former bam, however 19C farmhouse associated with this ruin has previously been removed and impact to ruin is insignificant.

Ranked Third: This alternative involves the Disruption of access to two built heritage features, a 19th century farmstead and a 19th century residence located directly adjacent to the alignment at the CNR crossing. The proximity of the features to the future alignment suggests that the disruption would be significant thus alignment 4-38 is considered to be equal to alignment 4-3A.

Both of these features are located within the area designated for future urban development and thus are likely to be further impacted. However, this is still considered to be a greater impact than that for alignments 4-1 and 4-2.

Segment of alignment west of Richardson Side Road (this section is common to all alternatives) crosses foundations of former bam, however 19th century farmhouse associated with this ruin has previously been removed and impact to ruin is

Change in cultural landscapes

Ranked Fourth: Negative visual impacts result from proximity of alignment to significant mid-19C farmstead located approximately 70 metres east of alignment on north side of Richardson Side Road; intrusion of alignment on historic agricultural landscape and setting associated with this built heritage feature.

Cultural Resources Criteria Group Ranking

Loss of 8usinesses

I\.~m~.<:u Equally: No alternative results in a loss of businesses.

Potential for loss of business activity from disruption effects such as noise and loss of access

Ranked Equally: There are no businesses in proximity to any of the alternatives.

Equal

Economics Criteria Group Rank

Ranked First: Alignments 4-2, 4-3A and 4-38 all follow former roadways thus mimicking the landscape of the past. These alignments will have less impact on cultural landscape than Alignment 4- I. North of Richardson Side Road Alignment 4-2 follows 19C survey of First Line Road, formerly opened for several lots north of Richardson Side Road and now unused except as hydro-electric transmission corridor.

This alignment also abuts the GUA, which will result in further impacts to the cultural landscape in the future.

1

Ranked First: Alignments 4-2, 4-3A and 4-3B all follow former roadways thus mimicking the landscape of the past. These alignments will have less impact on cultural landscape than Alignment 4- I. Alignment 4-3A generally follow~ that of existing Goulbourn Forced Road and original alignment of Second Line, currently abandoned.

This alignment also goes through the GUA which will result in further impacts to the cultural landscape in the future

2

l\.illII ... <:U Equally: No alternative results in a loss of

businesses. '


Equally: No alternative results in a loss of businesses.

Equal

'impact on Significant Natural Areas and Terrestrial Habitat

Ranked First: This alternative results in the least amount of wildlife habitat removed in the areas designated for development (approximately 4.0 ha)

Area (ha) of wetlands designated for environmental protection removed

Ranked Equally: This alternative will result in the removal of approximately 0.5 ha of wetland. Given the scale of measurement this is considered to be equal to the 0.5 ha removed for the remaining three alternatives. All alignments pass through wetlands that may be complexed with South March

Hi lands wetland.

Area (ha) of designated for

environmental protection removed

Ranked Third: This alternative is the least preferred as it will result in the removal of the most woodland (approximately 10.0 ha).

Area (ha) of wildlife habitat (including woodlands and wetlands) designated for future development removed

: Woodlands include mature upland forest. lowland forest, early successional forest and abandoned fields.


Equal

Ranked Equally: This alternative will result in the removal of approximately 0.3 ha of wetland. All alignments pass through wetlands that may be complexed with South March Highlands wetland.

Ranked Third: This alternative involves the removal of approximately 8.5 ha of woodland. It is considered slightly better than alternative 4-1, but

not as as Alternatives 4-38 and 4-3A.

Ranked First: This alternative will result in the removal of approximately 3.0 ha of wildlife habitat in the area designated as General Urban Area and is

nr"tprrprj to Alternative 4-1.

Ranked Equally: This alternative removal of approximately 0.1 ha alignments pass through wetlands complexed with South March

Ranked First: This alternative results in the I

removal of approximately 1.7 ha o~woodland area

and is equally preferred to Alternative 4-38.

Ranked Fourth: This alternative v{ill result in the removal of approximately 6.9 ha or wildlife habitat designated for development.

Ranked First: Alignments 4-2, 4-3A and 4-3B all follow former roadways thus mimicking the landscape of the past. These alignments will have less impact on cultural landscape than Alignment 4- I. Alignment 4-3B generally follows that of existing Goulbourn Forced Road.

This alignment also goes through the GUA which will result in further impacts to the cultural landscape in the future

2

.""u ... ",u Equally: No alternative results in a loss of businesses.


Equal

in the All

Ranked Third: This alternative will remove approximately 5.7 ha of wildlife habitat in the area designated as General Urban Area.

Ranked Equally: This alternative will result in the removal of approximately 0.1 ha of wetland. All alignments pass through wetlands that may be complexed with South March Highlands wetland.

Ranked First: This alternative results in the removal of approximately 1.1 ha of woodland area.

[ [ [ [ [

1] [ [

c

[

l t.

l L L l

TABLE 6.4 - DATA COLLECTED, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND RAN KINGS FOR SECTION 4 OF TERRY FOX DRIV

, t ~ II

I .

Amount and quality of aquatic habitat displaced

Ranked Third: This altemative includes three new stream crossings. Approximately 8,100 m2 of fish habitat will be displaced.

Ranked Third: This alternative includes three new stream crossings. Approximately 8,200 m2 offish habitat will be displaced.

Amount and quality of aquatic habitat disrupted

Ranked Third: The right-of-way for this alternative runs along the length of a tributary, which is likely fish habitat. Approximately 5400 m2 of fish habitat will potentially be disrupted as a result of increased traffic.

Ranked Third: The right-of-way for this alternative runs along the length of a tributary, which is likely fish habitat. Approximately 5400 m2 of fish habitat will potentially be disrupted as a result of increased traffic.

existing crossings which means the potential disruption of approximately 3600 m2 of fish habitat due to increase traffic at these crossings.

Ranked First: This alternative includes two existing crossings which means the potential disruption of approximately 3600 m2 of fish habitat due to increased traffic at these crossings.

Impact on Surface Water Quality/Quantity

Potential for alteration of watercourse flows

Ranked Fourth: This alternative involves an entirely new roadway in the Carp River drainage basin. This new roadway will result in changes to the current drainage pattern. For example, water that currently flows along the surface to the Carp River will now be stopped and required to change course by this alignment. Mitigation through facility design will minimize effects.

Ranked First: This alternative has the least impact of all alternatives. It is situated at the top of the drainage divide between the Carp River and Shirley's 8rook drainage basins. This means that the alignment will not impede flows or change the drainage pattern in either basin. It should also be noted that watercourses on the east side of this alignment are likely to be significantly impacted by future development.

Ranked Second: Alternative 4-3A and 4-3B are relatively equal. Both alternatives follow the existing Goulbourn Forced Road for the majority of their length. This existing roadway has already altered watercourse flows in the area. Although these alternatives are likely to result in additional changes to watercourse flows, these additional changes are not as significant as the changes likely to result from alignment 4-1, which is an entirely new roadway. It should also be noted that these watercourses are likely to be significantly impacted by future development on both sides of the

Ranked Second: Alternative 4-3A and 4-38 are relatively equal. Both alternatives follow the existing Goulbourn Forced Road for the majority of their length. This existing roadway has already altered watercourse flows in the area. Although these alternatives are likely to result in additional changes to watercourse flows, these additional changes are not as significant as the changes likely to result from alignment 4-1, which is an entirely new roadway. It should also be noted that these watercourses are likely to be significantly impacted by future development on both sides of the

Potential for change in surface water quality

Ranked First: This alternative has a lesser impact on water quality because it is a rural cross section, which allows for some pretreatment of surface runoff through infiltration.

Ranked Second: Alternatives 4-1, 4-3A and 4-38 are the least preferred. These alternatives involve urban cross sections for the entire alignment. Since urban roads are entirely paved (even the shoulder) there is no opportunity for pretreatment of surface runoff.

Ranked Second: Alternatives 4-1, 4-3A and 4-3B are the least preferred. These alternatives involve urban cross sections for the entire alignment. Since urban roads are entirely paved (even the shoulder) there is no opportunity for pretreatment of surface runoff.

Ranked Second: Alternatives 4-2 4-3A and 4-3B are the least preferred. These alternatives involve urban cross sections for the entire alignment. Since urban roads are entirely paved (even the shoulder) there is no opportunity for pretreatment of surface runoff.

Overall Natural Environment Ranking

1

4

3

Land Use and Future Communities

Impact on Planned Land Uses

Consistency with land use designations and approved development plans

Ranked Second: This alignment is slightly less preferred than Alignment 4-2. It does not conform to what is presented in the Kanata Official Plan and the RMOC Official Plan. It is also beyond the urban boundary as defined in these plans and thus may result in pressure to expand the urban area.

In addition, Alignment 4-1 crosses or abuts land designated as ARA and NEA(B). The NEA(B) designation is less restrictive that NEA(A) and is thus considered to be more compatible with a roadway.

Approved and draft approved development plans are common to all alternatives.

Ranked First: This alignment is considered preferred. It conforms most closely with the alignments contained in the Kanata Official Plan and the RMOC OfficiaI.Plan.

In addition, this alignment crosses or abuts some NEA(A) area, which is not considered to be compatible with roadway development.


Ranked Third: This alignment is considered to be equal to Alignment 4-3B and slightly less preferred than Alignment 4-1. Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B do not conform with the Kanata andl Regional Official Plans but are within the urban boundary.

In addition, this alignment crosses J abuts some NEA(A) area, which is not considel'bci to be compatible with roadway development.


Ranked Third: This alignment is considered to be equal to Alignment 4-3A and slightly less preferred than Alignment 4-1. Alternative 4-3A and 4-3B do not conform with the Kanata and Regional Official Plans but are within the urban boundary.

In addition, this alignment crosses or abuts some NEA(A) area, which is not considered to be compatible with roadway development.


c

Consistency with local and regional Official Plan policies

Ranked First: There are no RMOC policies for specific designations that deal with roadways.

The Kanata Official Plan allows roadways in all designations (subject to some criteria) with the exception of the Agricultural Resource designation. However, there is some flexibility in this policy. Alignment 4-1 is the only alignment that crosses Agriculturally designated areas (except for the sections common to all alignments).

Generally, Alignments 4-1 and 4-2 allow greater flexibility for long range future expansions to the west side of the Urban Area.

Ranked First: There are no RMOC policies for specific designations that deal with roadways

The Kanata Official Plan allows roadways in all designations (subject to some criteria) with the exception of the Agricultural Resource designation. The only section of ARA crossed by this alignment is common to all alternatives.

Generally, Alignments 4-1 and 4-2 allow greater flexibility for long range future expansions to the west side of the Urban Area.

Ranked Third: There are no RMOC policies for specific designations that deal with roadways


Alignments 4-3A and 4-38 are identified as Minor Arterial Roads in the Kanata Official Plan. This designation would require upgrading to Major Arterial.

Ranked Third: There are no RMOC policies for specific designations that deal with roadways


Alignments 4-3A and 4-3B are identified as Minor Arterial Roads in the Kanata Official Plan. This designation would require upgrading to Major Arterial.

[

lJ [

[

o c [

L

L_

TABLE 6.4 - DATA COLLECTED, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND RANKINGS FOR SECTION 4 OF TERRY FOX DRIV ~

, " I':

Future residential areas disrupted as a result of potential noise impacts associated with traffic operations

Ranked First: Regarding disruption effects on future residential areas, this alternative will have the least (approximately 900 metres) of its length abutting residential areas along one side of the roadway.

For impacts to the character of the future community Alignments 4-1 and 4-2 are slightly preferred as they will not bisect the community.

Ranked Second: Regarding disruption effects on future residential areas, this alternative will have approximately 2300 metres of its length abutting residential areas along one side of the roadway.

For impacts to the character of the future community Alignments 4-1 and 4-2 are slightly preferred as they will not bisect the community.

Ranked Fourth: Regarding disruption effects on future residential areas, this alternative will result in the most disruption as it has approximately 1950 metres of its length abutting residential areas on one side and 1800 m one the other side of the roadway.

Alignments 4-3A or 4-3B will bisect the future Marchwood/Lakeside community creating a barrier and potentially causing noise and dust impacts. This may result in making this community less desirable.

Ranked Third: Regarding disruption effects on future residential areas, this alternative involves slightly less disruption than 4-3A with approximately 850 metres of its length abutting residential areas along one side and 1800 metres on the other side of the roadway.

Alignments 4-3A or 4-3B will bisect the future Marchwood/Lakeside community creating a barrier and potentially causing noise and dust impacts. This may result in making this community less desirable.

Planned Land Use and Future Communities Criteria Group Ranking

1

1

4

3

Number of Residences Displaced

Ranked Equally: No residences will be displaced. Ranked Equally: No residences will be displaced. . Ranked Equally: No residences will be displaced.

It is anticipated that the two nearby residences can be avoided.

Ranked Equally: No residences will be displaced. It is anticipated that the two nearby residences can be avoided.

Number of existing residences disrupted as a result of noise impacts associated with construction and/or operation

Ranked Second: There is one farmhouse at the north-east comer of Alternative 4-1 and Richardson Side Road that is in proximity to the road and would therefore be subject to disruption effects such as noise. This farmhouse is not likely to be affected by future development, as it is located in a NEA area.

All alternatives are likely to result in noise disruption to the southern portion of the South March Subdivision at the north west comer of Goulbourn Forced Road and Terry Fox Drive.

Ranked First: There are no residences in

proximity to the roadway alignment.

All alternatives are likely to result in noise disruption to the southern portion of the South March Subdivision at the north west comer of Goulboum Forced Road and Terry Fox Drive.

Ranked Third: There are two residences located adjacent to this alignment. They are located on the northwest and southeast comers of Goulbourn Forced Road and the CNR tracks.

In addition, Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B have the potential for disruption impacts on the retirement home at the north end of Castlefrank Rd.

All alternatives are likely to result if' noise disruption to the southern portion of the South March Subdivision at the north west comer of Goulbourn Forced Road and Terry Fox Drive.

Note: At the time of writing, the Heritage Hills Community was not yet constructed so any impacts are considered under Planned Land Use,

Ranked Third: There are two residences located adjacent to this alignment. They are located on the northwest and southeast corners of Goulbourn Forced Road and the CNR tracks.

In addition, Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B have the potential for disruption impacts on the retirement home at the north end of Castlefrank Rd.

All alternatives are likely to result in noise disruption to the southern portion ofthe South March Subdivision at the north west comer of Goulbourn Forced Road and Terry Fox Drive.

Note: At the time of writing, the Heritage Hills Community was not yet constructed so any impacts are considered under Planned Land

Potential for negative impact on community/recreational features

Ranked Third: This alternative has the potential to cross the trails at Trillium Woods Park, and the recreational pathway along the CNR corridor envisioned in the Region's OP. It will also likely run alongside the future recreational pathway along the Carp River designated in Schedule I of the Region's Official Plan. As a roadway in this location has the potential to significantly reduce the aesthetic value of a trail along the river, this alternative is ranked third.

Ranked First: This alternative has the potential to cross the trails at Trillium Woods Park and the recreational pathway along the abandoned ArnpriorlNepean Corridor envisioned in the Region's Official Plan.

Ranked First: This alternative has the potential to cross the trails at Trillium Woods arl~ the recreational pathway along the abandoned ArnpriorlNepean Corridor envisiont;~ in the Region's Official Plan, the Great Goulbourn Trail System and the Beaver Pond Trail System. It also involves increasing the traf~c on a rqadway that already runs parallel to a trail along Goulbourn Forced Road (north of Richardson ~:ide Road). People using these trails have always had to cross Goulbourn Forced Road so the i associated with widening the road are less than construction of a new road. Also, trails are within the GUA and will

of these be

Change in community character

Ranked Equally: Most of the land in the vicinity of the alternative alignments is currently vacant with only a few sporadic residences. Due to the absence of "community", all alternative alignments are considered to have and equal low potential for change in existing community character.



Ranked First: This alternative has the potential to cross the trails at Trillium Woods and the recreational pathway along the abandoned Arnprior/Nepean Corridor envisioned in the Region's Official Plan, the Great Goulbourn Trail System and the Beaver Pond Trail System. It also involves increasing the traffic on a roadway that already runs parallel to a trail along Goulbourn Forced Road (north of Richardson Side Road). People using these trails have always had to cross Goulbourn Forced Road so the impacts associated with widening the road are less than the construction of a new road. Also, some of these trails are within the GUA and will likely be

future


l Overall Social Criteria Group Ranking

2

3

3

[ [

c c [

r

[

l C L l

Support for Utilitarian Walking and Cycling

Ranked First: This alternative has the ability to be widened to provide roadway capacity for the ultimate scenario.

Exposure of pedestrianslbicycles from land uses adjacent to the alignment due to location of alignment

Overall Transportation Service Criteria Group Ranking

Ranked First: Due to its distance from the existing and future community, this alternative involves the least potential for safety concerns associated with pedestrianslbicycles from adjacent land uses. Thus, this alternative is considered to be the most

Length of alignment alternative

Ranked Third: This alternative involves the longest length of roadway (approximately 6.1 km). Given the time associated with walking and cycling trips compared to auto travel, a shorter overall roadway length is preferred for this indicator.

Access to pedestrian and bicycle trip origins and destinations

Ranked Fourth: This alternative is most removed from the existing and future community and has the poorest access to trip origins and destinations for pedestrian and bicycle trips. Thus, is the least likely of the four alternatives to be useful for local

and' travel within the

Proximity of the alignment to transit market

Ranked Third: This alternative has better access than Alternative 4-1 but is still less preferred than the internal .

Level of mobility for regional trips provided by alignment

Ranked First: This alternative would have the least amount of interference from adjacent land uses and, therefore, would provide the highest level of regional mobility.

Ranked Second: This alternative will have the future community on one side only. It has a lower potential exposure than the internal alignments but a higher potential exposure than Alternative 4-1 and thus is ranked second.

Ranked Third: This alternative is approximately 5.9 km, which is shorter than Alternative 4-1 but longer than Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B. Given the time associated with walking and cycling trips compared to auto travel, a shorter overall roadway for this indicator.

Ranked Third: This alternative has better access than Alternative 4-1 but is still less preferred than the internal alignments.

Ranked Third: This alternative has better access than Alternative 4-1 but is still less preferred than the internal


Ranked Third: Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B have the highest potential exposure to pedestrianslbicycles from adjacent land uses as they bisect the existing and future communities.

Ranked Second: Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B involve the shortest roadway length (Jpproximately 5.5 km). Given the time associated with walking and cycling trips compared to auto travel, a shorter overall roadway length is preferred for this indicator.

Ranked First: Alternatives 4-3A andl have

the best access to trip origins and destinations for pedestrian and bicycle trips. These alternatives are considered to preferred, as they will be the most useful for local pedestrian and bicycle travel.

Ranked First: Alternatives 4-3A and\4-3B have the best proximity to transit markets.

Ranked Third: This alternative interference from adjacent land uses Alternatives 4-1 and 4-2, but equal interference to Alternatives 4-3B. It would provide the lowest level of

Mobility for commercial vehicles/goods



Ranked Third: This alternative would have more interference from adjacent land uses than Alternatives 4-1 and 4-2, but equal inierference to Alternatives 4-3B. It would provide the lowest

level of I

to develop a Scenic Roadway

Anticipated view from the Roadway

Ranked First: This alternative is beyond the land designated for general urban area (GUA) in the RMOC Official Plan. Thus, it is assumed that the area will remain undeveloped and that roadway users will have a view of natural features on the east side of the roadway and a clear view of the

Carp River to the west. .

All alternatives provide adequate buffer to provide landscaping etc. to screen the roadway where desired.

Ranked Second: This alternative is slightly less preferred than Alternative 4-1. It marks the western boundary of the GUA and thus future development is anticipated on the east side of the alignment. However, to the west, roadway users will have a clear view of the Carp River.

All altematives provide adequate buffer to provide landscaping etc. to screen the roadway where desired.

Ranked Third: This alternative is less preferred than Alternative 4-2 and is equal Altelnative 4-3B. While currently the views from the roadway in this area are mainly of natural environmerlt features, this alignment bisects the GUA and in the future will resulting in development on both! sides of the roadway.


Ability to serve local private vehicle access needs

Ranked Equally: Ability to serve local private vehicle access needs.

Ranked Equally: There is no difference between Alternatives for serving private vehicle access needs.

Access

Ability to support future widenings

-Ability to support future widenings

c

L

c

Ranked Equally: There is no appreciable difference between Alternatives for serving private vehicle access needs.

Ranked First: This alternative has the ability to be widened to provide roadway capacity for the ultimate scenario.

1

Ranked Third: As an internal , it could

not be widened to six lanes to provide capacity for the ultimate scenario.

Ranked Third: Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B have the highest potential exposure to pedestrianslbicycles from adjacent land uses as they bisect the existing and future communities.

Ranked First: Alternative 4-3A has the second shortest roadway length (approximately 5.1 km). Given the time associated with walking and cycling trips compared to auto travel, a shorter overall roadway length is preferred for this indicator.

Ranked First: Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B have the best access to trip origins and destinations for pedestrian and bicycle trips. These alternatives are considered to preferred, as they will be the most useful for local pedestrian and bicycle travel.

Ranked First: Alternatives 4-3A and 4-3B have the best proximity to transit markets.

Ranked Third: This alternative would have e interference from adjacent land uses than Alternatives 4-1 and 4-2, but equal interference to Alternatives 4-3A. It would provide the lowest level of

Ranked Third: This alternative would have e interference from adjacent land uses than Alternatives 4-1 and 4-2, but equal interference to Alternatives 4-3A. It would provide the lowest level

Ranked Third: This alternative is less preferred than Alternative 4-2 and is equal Alternative 4-3A. While currently the views from the roadway in this area are mainly of natural environment features, this alignment bisects the GUA and in the future will resulting in development on both sides of the roadway.


Ranked Equally: There is no appreciable difference between Alternatives for serving private vehicle access needs.

Ranked Third: As an internal roadway, it could not be widened to six lanes to provide capacity for the ultimate scenario.

3

3

[J

I

(.

n [-)

r\ [)

OJ fJ OJ [1

[I CJ Lr OJ

I

)

l

".

TFD E Study V1.S3.2

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

TFD E Study V1.S3.2

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Terry Fox Drive Environmental Study Report Eagleson Road to March Road

Potrebbero piacerti anche

TFD E Study V1.S3.2

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

TFD E Study V1.S3.2

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

﻿Terry Fox Drive Environmental Study Report Eagleson Road to March Road

Potrebbero piacerti anche

Terry Fox Drive Environmental Study Report Eagleson Road to March Road