Transportation Improvements from the Beaver Creek Bridge to the Entrance of Santa s Village District of Muskoka Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Welcome Please sign in Take a comment sheet Staff are here for your questions, comments or concerns Complete the comment sheet. Public input is an important part of the Class EA process
Project Purpose: The District of Muskoka has initiated this Municipal Class Environmental Assessment to review Alternative Solutions to consider potential transportation improvements to Muskoka Road 15, from Beaver Creek Bridge to the entrance of Santa s Village (approximately 3.4 km). Project Study Area Purpose of this PIC is to: Provide a summary of the project, Present an evaluation of the various Alternative Solutions based on technical, natural, social, cultural/heritage and economic environment, and Obtain public input on the Alternative Solutions. Please complete a comment sheet and place it in the box, or email, mail or fax it to the addresses shown on the form by September 12, 2017. Privacy Policy Personal information provided may be used for future contact in relation to this study. Information will be collected and maintained to meet the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act for the purpose of creating a record that will be available to the general public as described in Section 37 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. All comments and personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location will become part of the public record. 2
Municipal Class EA Process This project is being considered as a Schedule B Project (Phases 1 to 2), as defined in the Municipal Engineers Association Class EA document Problem / Opportunity Statement The District of Muskoka has identified a need for transportation improvements to Muskoka Road 15 from Beaver Creek Bridge to the entrance of Santa s Village. Improvements to address road surface, road base and subgrade performance deficiencies, drainage, erosion control and active transportation will be considered. We Are Here 3
Existing Natural Environment ELC Vegetation Communities (CUP3-2) White Pine Coniferous Plantation Type (CUM1-1) Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow Type (FOD3) Dry-Fresh Poplar-White Birch Deciduous Forest Ecosite (FOD3-2) Dry-Fresh White Birch Deciduous Forest Type (FOD2-1) Dry-Fresh Oak Red Maple Deciduous Forest Type (FOC1-2) Dry-Fresh White Pine Red Pine Coniferous Forest (FOC2) (FOM2) (FOM1) (MAS3) Type Dry-Fresh Cedar Coniferous Forest Ecosite Dry-Fresh White Pine Maple Oak Mixed Ecosite Dry Oak Pine Mixed Forest Ecosite Organic Shallow Marsh Ecosite Vegetation Communities A total of 10 vegetation communities were identified that are immediately adjacent to the existing road allowance. The vegetation communities observed are considered to be common and abundant in Ontario. Sensitive plant species were not observed during the site reconnaissance. Reptiles No snakes or turtles were observed within the study area during the fall site reconnaissance. Preferred potential habitat for Species at Risk snakes is considered to be beyond the potential footprint of the alternative solutions Birds Several breeding bird species have the potential to be located within the study area including Species at Risk birds as well as area sensitive species of forest, wetland and open habitat, species which require large tracts of habitat. Bats Some mature trees were identified as having potential for bat maternity roosting features, however, some of the key features of sites considered significant for roosting bats are absent from the study area, including mature forest habitat with a relatively high snag density. Overall the study area is considered to have low potential for candidate roosting habitat. 4
Existing Technical Environment Existing speed limit in the Study Area is 50km/h. Existing sight distances along the road corridor are deficient at some curves. Existing stormwater management features along the corridor consist of shallow ditches complete with outlets to the river. Drainage issues have been reported in some areas. Cable guide rails are present in limited areas along the corridor. Road side hazards such as the river, embankments and trees are present throughout the road corridor. Active Transportation facilities such as bike lanes and walkways do not exist. Insert sightlines pics 5
Existing Social/Cultural Environment Many properties north of the road have docks/boathouses located on the south (river) side of the road, with unobstructed access. The existing road has minimal shoulders and other features to support active transportation. The road provides an access route to Santa s Village, which is a significant tourist destination in the area. There are a large number of mature trees located adjacent to the existing road, which provide privacy, shade and scenic attributes throughout the river corridor. Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment noted archaeological potential in the study area. Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment is recommended in select areas of the study area. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report noted cultural landscape features are not anticipated to be directly impacted by the proposed alternatives. The proposed alternatives will represent a negligible impact, if any, to the heritage integrity of the study area. Facsimile Segment of the Historic Atlas Map of the Township of Monck (H. R. Page & Co. 1879) AMICK Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report 6
Your Feedback The Notice of Commencement for the project was published on May 12, 2016 and provided a brief project description, alternative solutions for consideration, and an opportunity to provide input into the planning and design of the project. Comments on local experience with transportation and related issues in the study area were included to assist in the selection of a preferred alternative. The most common comments received in response to the Notice of Commencement are as follows. All feedback received during the EA process is considered in the evaluation of the alternative solutions and documented as part of the final Project File Report. Concern or Issue Guardrails Sanitary Sewers Active Transportation Drainage Road Alignment and Speed Limit - Existing curves are a danger to motorists - Straightening curves may allow for faster traffic speed - Desire for lowered speed limit River water impact Aesthetics Access to properties during Construction Archaeological Resources Response Guardrail placement is dependent on roadside hazards and the type of road cross section. River access is also considered during evaluation process. At this time sanitary sewers are not being considered in this area. The Evaluation process includes safety concerning the shared usage of the road with motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. The majority of surface water is expected to continue to be managed with roadside ditches under some Alternatives. For some Alternatives, storm sewers and more efficient open ditches are proposed for certain areas. Existing road alignment and roadside hazards will be evaluated in accordance with design manuals for Canada and Ontario. Considerations for safety of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians will also be included in assessment. Mitigation measures will be required to ensure that the river is not negatively impacted by any construction activities. Some work may be required in close proximity to the river and protection of the environment will be paramount during the evaluation, design and construction phases. Various environmental protection agencies such as the MNRF will be contacted and asked to provide comments and recommendations during the design process of the Preferred Alternative Solution. If the Preferred Alternative Solution requires construction, then various solutions will be considered and evaluated for impacts to aesthetics. During construction the contractor will be required to maintain access to all properties along the Santa s Village Road and motorist, cyclist and pedestrian safety will be controlled in accordance with the Ontario Traffic Manual. A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment has been completed, and a Stage 2 is recommended for sections of the Study Area depending on the Preferred Alternative Solution.. 7
Alternative Solutions Alternative 1: Do Nothing Maintain the status quo. Make no changes to the road geometrics or right-of-way. Repaving of the road (along the same footprint) would be required due to the deteriorated condition of the road, plus high operations and maintenance costs for maintaining an aged road. Sightlines could be partially improved through maintenance activities (clearing within right-of-way). Estimated 25 year Lifecycle Cost $2,123,000. Advantages No impact to potential archaeological resources No impact to resident property No change to existing access to Muskoka River Lowest 25-year lifecycle costs. Some potential improvements to sightlines through maintenance activities Disadvantages No improvements to existing curves, motorist or pedestrian/cyclist safety. No improvement to active transportation or drainage issues. Increased maintenance. 8
Alternative Solutions Alternative 2: Rural Cross Section with Shallow Ditch Reconstruct the road with 3:1 slopes to a shallow ditch on the north side complete with perforated subdrain to collect surface water. 3.5 m travel lanes, with 1.0 m bicycle lanes and 1.0 m gravel shoulder. Road crossing culverts required at low points to drain surface water and collect sub drains Additional guiderail installed at various locations on the south side due to safety zone requirements based on the proximity of the river and other hazards. Estimated 25 year Lifecycle Cost: $5,610,000. Legend Yellow lines - guiderail Red lines - property acquisition Advantages Improved motorist safety with installation of guide rails, Improved pedestrian/cyclist safety with bike lanes and gravel shoulder, Improvement to drainage issues. Disadvantages Obstructed river access along most of the corridor, Potential impact to archaeological resources, Significant property acquisition required, Significant tree removals, Significant utility relocation, High capital cost. 9
Alternative Solutions Alternative 3: Semi-Urban Cross Section with Bicycle Lanes Full depth reconstruction of the road with curb and gutter on both sides of the road in select areas as required. Alignment is along general existing alignment. 3.5 m lanes with 1.0 m bicycle lanes (as per the Muskoka Active Transportation Strategy). Catch basins and road crossing culverts required at low points to drain surface water and collect sub drains. Curb and gutter utilized in combination with additional clearance on the south side of roadway to provide protection from the riverbank (limited guiderail required). Estimated 25-year Lifecycle Cost: $6,287,000 Legend Yellow lines - guiderail Red lines - property acquisition Advantages Improvements to existing curves and sightlines, Pedestrian/cyclist safety improved with bike lanes, Improved drainage, Access to Muskoka River unimpeded by guiderails. Disadvantages Highest lifecycle cost of all alternatives, Curb does not completely eliminate potential road side hazards, Potential impact to archaeological resources, Significant impact to vegetation and trees, Minor property acquisition required. 10
Alternative Solutions Alternative 4: Semi-Urban Cross Section with Multi-Use Trail Full depth reconstruction of the road with curb and gutter on the River side of the road, and in select areas along the north side of the road. Alignment is slightly north of existing alignment. 3.45 m lanes with a separate 2.0 m wide multi use asphalt trail to be built on the south side behind the curb and gutter for pedestrians and cyclists. Catch basins and road crossing culverts required at low points to drain surface water and collect sub drains. Curb and gutter utilized in combination with additional clearance on the south side of roadway to provide protection from the riverbank. Estimated 25-year Lifecycle Cost: $5,688,000 Legend Yellow lines - guiderail Red lines - property acquisition Advantages Improvements to existing curves and sightlines, Pedestrian/cyclist safety improved with trail (above curb), Improved drainage and stormwater treatment, Access to Muskoka River unimpeded by guiderails, Curb and larger clear zone provides more safety for motorists. Disadvantages High lifecycle cost, Potential impact to archaeological resources, Significant impact to vegetation and trees, Major property acquisition required. 11
Alternative Solutions Alternative 5: Semi-Urban Cross Section (No multi-use trail or bike lanes) Full depth reconstruction of the road with curb and gutter on the River side of the road, and in select areas along the north side of the road. Alignment is slightly south of general existing alignment. 3.25 m lanes to minimize road cross section. Proposed alignment to remain as close to the river as possible to reduce property and tree clearing requirements. Catch basins and road crossing culverts required at low points to drain surface water and collect sub drains. Curb and gutter installed along the entire south side of the roadway. Guiderail is to be installed in areas where there are no private docks in order to increase safety for drivers while still allowing for easy access for residents to the river. Estimated 25-year Lifecycle Cost: $5,189,000 Legend Yellow lines - guiderail Red lines - property acquisition Advantages Improvements to existing curves and sightlines Improved drainage and stormwater treatment Disadvantages Extensive guiderail required Potential impact to archaeological resources Minor impact to vegetation and trees Minor property acquisition required High lifecycle cost 12
Alternative Solutions Alternative 6A: Enhanced Road Profile Complete with 2m Paved Shoulder on South Side and 1m Paved Shoulder on North Side of Road Resurfacing of the road (along the same footprint), with full depth reconstruction of the road widening area only. Alignment is along general existing alignment. Minor changes to the road geometrics and sight lines. 3.0 m lanes to minimize road cross section, with a 2.0 m and 1.0 m paved shoulder on the south side and north side, respectively, and 0.3 m gravel shoulders. Additional guiderail required in localized areas throughout the Study Area. Estimated 25 year Lifecycle Cost: $3,623,000. Legend Yellow lines - guiderail Red lines - property acquisition Advantages Minimal impact on resident property, potential archaeological resources, river access, vegetation and trees. Low capital and lifecycle costs. Significant improvement to traffic calming, active transportation, pedestrian and cyclist safety. Disadvantages Increased maintenance over full reconstruction alternatives. Only minor improvements to drainage issues. 13
Alternative Solutions Alternative 6B: Enhanced Road Profile Complete With 1.5m Paved Shoulders on Both Sides of Road Resurfacing of the road (along the same footprint), with full depth reconstruction of the road widening area only. Alignment is along general existing alignment. Minor changes to the road geometrics and right-of-way. 3.0 m lanes to minimize road cross section, with 1.5 m paved shoulders and 0.3 m gravel shoulders on both sides. Additional guiderail required in localized areas throughout the Study Area. Estimated 25 year Lifecycle Cost: $3,623,000. Legend Yellow lines - guiderail Red lines - property acquisition Advantages Minimal impact on resident property, potential archaeological resources, river access, vegetation and trees. Low capital and lifecycle costs. Significant improvement to traffic calming, active transportation and cyclist safety. Disadvantages Increased maintenance over full reconstruction alternatives. Only minor improvements to drainage issues. 14
Potential Impacts and Mitigation Potential Impact Surface water, and groundwater quality from sedimentation or spills during construction Archaeological, cultural heritage impacts Mitigation The footprint of the disturbed area to be minimized as much as possible. Develop an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan for construction and operational phases of the project, including training for on-site workers Equipment fueling and maintenance completed off-site. Prepare a geotechnical investigation and report, as part of the detailed design to outline groundwater conditions at the site and provide recommendations for dewatering and MOECC permit requirements. Complete a Stage 2 archaeological assessment for areas of potential earthworks within Study Area to determine if there are any archaeological resources. No impacts to cultural heritage are anticipated. Temporary nuisance noise /dust during construction activities. Resident access and safety during construction activities Implement noise control measures, where required and only allow construction activities during specific times in accordance with District/Municipal Noise Bylaw. Vehicles / machinery and equipment should be in good repair, equipped with emission controls, as applicable, and operated within regulatory requirements. If required, dust control measures may include the wetting of surfaces using a non-chloride based compound to protect water quality. During construction the contractor will be required to maintain access to all properties along the Santa s Village Road and motorist, cyclist and pedestrian safety will be controlled in accordance with the Ontario Traffic Manual. Single Lane traffic is expected to be controlled with flag persons or temporary traffic signals as required. 15
Next Steps Review public, stakeholder and Agency comments generated from the PIC (please submit comments by September 12, 2017). Prepare a PIC Summary Report including comments and responses, as applicable, to be available on the District website following the PIC comment period. Select a preferred alternative solution with consideration of comments received during the EA. Present the preferred alternative to the District for approval in September 2017. Issue Notice of Study Completion and provide Project File Report (if Schedule B Solution) for final public review and comment Fall 2017; and Detailed Design and Construction Currently proposed for 2018 (as identified in capital budget, subject to change). Help Shape Decisions made in this Study You can provide your comments by completing a comment sheet and placing it in the comment box, or you may take it home and return it at a later date. Please submit your comments to the project contacts below by September 12, 2017. If you would like more information or if you have any questions or concerns please email MuskokaRoad15EA@rjburnside.com or contact one of the following Project Team members: Mr. Paul Hausler Project Manager R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 3 Ronell Crescent Collingwood, ON L9Y 4J6 Telephone: (705) 707-4289 Fax: (705) 446-2399 Paul.Hausler@rjburnside.com Elvis Jose, P.Eng.,PMP Manager of Engineering Services The District Municipality of Muskoka 70 Pine Street Bracebridge, ON P1L 1N3 Office: (705) 645-6764 Toll free 1-800-281-3483 Fax: (705) 645-7599 ejose@muskoka.on.ca Information will be collected and maintained to meet the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act for the purpose of creating a record that will be available to the general public as described in Section 37 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. All comments and personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location will become part of the public record. 16