FINAL REPORT Opportunities and Constraints Report + Waterfront Trail Feasibility Study (Port Hope to Cobourg)

Transcription

1 FINAL REPORT Opportunities and Constraints Report + Waterfront Trail Feasibility Study (Port Hope to Cobourg)

2 Report Waterfront Trail Feasibility Study (Port Hope to Cobourg) PREPARED BY: Dan Campbell, BA Project Manager VERIFIED BY: Will McCrae, P.Eng. Project Director CIMA+ 55 King Street East Bowmanville, ON K9A 5K7 September 17, 2015

3 Table of contents 1. Project Background The Waterfront Trail County Road 2 Environmental Assessment Planning Process and Opportunity Statement Preferred Alternative Solution Preferred Design Alternative Timing of Implementation Study Purpose Context Opportunities and Constraints Provincially Significant Wetlands Carr s Marsh PSW Peter s Rock PSW Gage Creek and Municipality of Port Hope Connection Town of Cobourg Connection Railways Flood Plain and Erosion Hazards Land Use and Ownership Accessibility Considerations Estimated Costs Conclusions & Next Steps Integration with the County Road 2 EA and Phasing Short Term Integration: Phase II-a and Phase II-b Medium Term Integration: Phase III Long-term Integration: Phase IV & Phase V Beyond the Completion of County Road 2 Upgrades Recommended Next Steps i

4 List of Figures Figure 1: The Waterfront Trail in Ontario... 1 Figure 2: Preferred Design Cross-Section (Rural)... 4 Figure 3: Preferred Design Cross CPR Bridge Structure... 4 Figure 4: Alternative Shoreline Alignment... 6 Figure 5: Limits of Carr s Marsh PSW... 7 Figure 6: Carr s Marsh looking south from Bob Carr Road right-of-way... 8 Figure 7: Example wetland viewing platform (Port Hope Waterfront Trail)... 8 Figure 8: Limits of Peter's Rock PSW... 8 Figure 9: Peter's Rock PSW... 9 Figure 10: Gage Creek Area Figure 11: Mouth of Gage Creek Figure 12: View Across Gage Creek North of Mouth Figure 13: Cobourg Parks Master Plan excerpt Figure 14: CN Rail Corridor Figure 15: Looking south from County Road 2 CPR overpass Figure 16: Land use map: Hamilton Township Official Plan (annotated) Figure 17: Existing Waterfront Trail in Port Hope South of Sculthorp Marsh List of Appendices Appendix A: Appendix B: Conceptual Trail Alignment Map Cost Estimates ii

5 1. Project Background 1.1 The Waterfront Trail Northumberland County Road 2 between The Town of Cobourg and the Municipality of Port Hope currently forms part of the original 270 km long section of the Waterfront Trail that now follows the Ontario shores of Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair as well as the Niagara, Detroit and St. Lawrence Rivers. Established in 1995 the Waterfront Trail now consists of 1,400 kilometres of pathway (21%), neighbourhood streets (21%) and rural roadways (58%). County Road 2 from Hamilton Road to Rogers Road is currently part of the 58% of the Waterfront Trail that follows a rural roadway. Trail facilities for cyclists and pedestrians on County Road 2 are currently provided in the form of paved shoulders on both sides of the roadway. There are no separated pathway/trail facilities along or parallel to this portion of County Road 2. Figure 1: The Waterfront Trail in Ontario Northumberland County Road 2 Kingston Toronto Map adapted from: Waterfront Regeneration Trust, State of the Waterfront Trail (2013) Since 1995 the Waterfront Regeneration Trust (WRT) has been working with partners that include waterfront municipalities, conservation authorities and senior levels of government to improve the Waterfront Trail towards the legacy goal for the Trail, which is to become a dedicated off-road path as close to the water s edge as possible. The WRT s 2013 State of the Waterfront Trail report recognizes that utilizing road infrastructure has been a key component of the trail s growth, which has allowed it to connect sixty-eight waterfront communities. However, a survey of participants in the 2013 Great Waterfront Trail Adventure found that: + 59% would like to see the trail move-off road + 90% would like the trail to be closer to the water s edge In this regard, there are currently 140 projects planned or underway to improve the Waterfront Trail and the associated waterfront landscapes. 1

6 1.2 County Road 2 Environmental Assessment Upgrades along County Road 2, which are currently being planned by the County of Northumberland, constitute one of the 140 projects that are proposed or underway along the Waterfront Trail. In 2010, the County initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Study to examine alternatives to address future transportation needs along the County Road 2 corridor between: + Hamilton Road in the Municipality of Port Hope; and + William Street in the Town of Cobourg Planning Process and Opportunity Statement HDR itrans was retained by the County to undertake the Class EA Study following the guidelines for a Schedule C project in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment documentation published by the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) in June 2000 and amended in 2007, 2011 and The Class EA Study examined existing conditions within the study area and evaluated solutions for transportation improvements along the County Road 2 corridor to provide a strategy that: + Improves Accessibility: Provides safe, economic and efficient movement of people and goods and is supportive of all modes of transportation + Promotes Sustainability: Preserves the natural integrity of the County Road 2 corridor and promotes active transportation + Respects Culture: Maintains the rural character of the communities + Creates a Complete Street: Creates an opportunity to escalate the current status of County Road Preferred Alternative Solution Broadly, the preferred solution developed during Class EA Study involves widening County Road 2 to a three-lane cross section and incorporating a two-way centre left turn lane to facilitate turns to and from County Road 2. Reflecting public and agency input received during the EA Study, the alternative solution also incorporates: + an off-road multi-use trail along the rural section; + a bicycle and/or multi-use trail along the urban section; + maintenance of the existing 1.5-metre-wide paved shoulders in the rural section; and + traffic calming at key intersections Preferred Design Alternative Several design alternatives were subsequently examined in detail to determine a preferred method for implementing the preferred solution described above. The preferred design alternative 2

7 incorporates the following improvements as detailed Section 5.11 of the County Road 2 Class EA Environmental Study Report. RURAL SECTION + A road widening along the north side of County Road 2 to accommodate a centre two-way left turn lane from Hamilton Road to Lovshin Road / New Amherst Boulevard. The turning lane will facilitate turning movements on and off of County Road 2. + A 1.5-metre-wide paved shoulder from Hamilton Road to Lovshin Road / New Amherst Boulevard. + A 3.0-metre off-road, multi-use trail from Hamilton Road to Lovshin Road / New Amherst Boulevard. + One roundabout at the Theatre Road intersection to promote traffic calming and reduce vehicular speeding. + Lowering the posted speed from 80 km/h to 70 km/h to further reduce vehicular speeding. + Relocation of the Burnham Market s access onto Apple Orchard Boulevard. URBAN SECTION + A road widening along the north side of County Road 2 to accommodate a four-lane cross section from Lovshin Road / New Amherst Boulevard to Rogers Road that will match the existing four-lane cross section between Rogers Road and William Street / Burnham Street metre on-road bike lanes between Lovshin Road / New Amherst Boulevard and Rogers Road. + A 1.5-metre concrete sidewalk on the south boulevard of County Road 2 from Lovshin Road / New Amherst Boulevard to Rogers Road. + A 3.0-metre off-road, multi-use trail on the north side of County Road 2 from Rogers Road to Strathy Road to provide a connection from an existing trail on the east side of Strathy Road to the Waterfront Trail that continues south along Rogers Road. STRUCTURES + Rehabilitation of the CPR Bridge Structure. + A separate multi-use trail structure south of the CPR Bridge Structure + A separate multi-use trail structure south of County Road 2 over Gages Creek Cross-sections for the preliminary preferred design developed for the EA are graphically illustrated in Figure 2 & Figure 3 below. 3

8 Figure 2: Preferred Design Cross-Section (Rural) Figure 3: Preferred Design Cross CPR Bridge Structure 1.3 Timing of Implementation Considering the 6km length of the project and financial limitations, the Class EA Study for County Road 2 recommends that construction of the preferred design be implemented in phases progressing from east to west. Rehabilitation of the CPR Bridge was identified as high priority (Phase I) and improvements are now substantially complete. Phase II is divided into two portions to support growth in the developing areas in the east part of Cobourg: + Phase II-a: Multi-use Trail Construction from Strathy Road to Rogers Road, with pavement rehabilitation, but no road widening. + Phase II-b: Widening to 4-lanes from Rogers Road to Lovshin Road with bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Any pedestrian or cycling facilities constructed as part of Phase II will constitute an improvement to the existing Waterfront Trail route on County Road 2 and will also form an important component of the local active transportation network in the northeast part of the Cobourg urban area. As a result, the shorter-term implementation of Phase II multi-use trail/sidewalk/bicycle lane improvements will have both immediate and long-term value regardless of the ultimate location of the Waterfront Trail west of Lovshin Road. 4

9 The County Road 2 Class EA Study also notes that the design of the roadway improvements proposed for Phases III, IV & V will not be impacted by the decision to implement the Waterfront Trail at a location other than along County Road Study Purpose While feasible, the construction of the multi-use trail along County Road 2 described in the Class EA Study will represent a significant investment for the County and may not result in a facility that is consistent with the ultimate objectives for the Waterfront Trail. Maintaining the Waterfront Trail along County Road 2 will result in several less-than-ideal outcomes, including: + Separation from the Lake Ontario waterfront and associated natural landscapes + Proximity to the busy and higher speed County Road 2 corridor + Connections to the Cobourg and Port Hope urban areas along high-volume urban arterial roadways that are not directly linked to the existing waterfront routes and waterfront amenities in both communities In this regard, an alternative alignment for the Waterfront Trail that follows the Lake Ontario shoreline between Port Hope and Cobourg rather than County Road 2 has the potential to offer significant benefits by providing a facility that is: + Better aligned with the overall objectives of the Waterfront Trail as set-out by the WRT + More attractive to users of all skill levels from a safety perspective + Able to offer a greater diversity of attractions for recreational users, both local residents and tourists + Easier to connect to the waterfront trails, parks and other public open spaces that already exist in the communities of Port Hope and Cobourg Given the foregoing, the County has initiated this feasibility study to examine, at a conceptual level, the feasibility of an alternative alignment. The objective of this report is to examine the opportunities and constraints associated with the shoreline alternative to provide: + An overview of the feasibility of a shoreline-orientated alignment that can be incorporated into the conclusion of the County Road 2 Class EA Study. + Guidance relative to the studies and consultative process that will be required if this alternative is pursued further. While this study will examine the feasibility of an alternate alignment for the Waterfront Trial, it is recognized that public input into the County Road 2 Class EA Study has highlighted the value of the existing paved shoulders along County Road 2. Specifically, the existing paved shoulders provide experienced and confident cyclists with a direct route that can be better maintained year-round for commuting use between communities and longer distance sport cycling. In this regard, a key assumption of this study is the future retention of the paved shoulders on County Road 2 as described in the Class EA Study. 5

10 3. Context Land use south of County Road 2 is primarily agricultural with larger parcels fragmented by the CNR and CPR railways and to a lesser degree by the overhead hydro corridor. The CNR corridor separates the southern section of most parcels from the northern portions that are actively used for agriculture. Sections of these parcels south of the CNR corridor are not actively farmed and consist primarily of coastal wetlands, small forested areas and other natural geographic features that present several unique challenges for trail development. The Waterfront Trail alignment oriented along the Lake Ontario shoreline is most consistent with previous local planning for creation of a recreational trail facility and, based on a high-level review, a shoreline oriented alignment appears technically feasible, although it will require significant time and coordination with stakeholders and approving agencies to complete the planning, negotiation and design required to make it a reality. Figure 4 below identifies the study area and the alternative shoreline alignment is shown in green. Figure 4: Alternative Shoreline Alignment 4. Opportunities and Constraints The following sections provide discussion on the opportunities and constraints associated with the natural and built geographic features in the study area as well as the social, cultural and economic considerations that will impact potential alternative alignments. 4.1 Provincially Significant Wetlands There are two identified Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) within the study area: Peter s Rock PSW and Carr s Marsh PSW (see Figure 4 above). Limited trail development is permitted in both evaluated and unevaluated wetlands if the mitigation of impacts is demonstrated through an environmental impact study. 6

11 4.2 Carr s Marsh PSW The extent of the Carr s Marsh PSW is delineated by the hatched lines shown in Figure 5 below. This marsh is comprised of 42.4 hectares of marsh and swamp with minimal open water area. It is one of the few intact coastal wetlands in the area and is also a designated Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI). Portions of the marsh are owned by the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) and managed as a wildlife reserve. Public access to the wildlife reserve is not encouraged. Carr s Marsh PSW provides habitat to a variety of species including: + Least Bittern (nationally threatened species) + Caspian Tern & Black Tern (provincially significant) + Passerine, shorebird and raptor stopover site of significance in the district + Amphibian and fish species (breeding location), as well as other wildlife in conjunction with adjacent uplands The Pineridge Broadcasting Inc. property located adjacent to the northeast corner of the marsh has some potential with regard to providing trail access for the shoreline alignment via Bob Carr Road. Lands on this property are higher in elevation, previously disturbed and suitable for construction of parking and trailhead facilities; however, land acquisition or an agreement with the property owner would be required. Figure 5: Limits of Carr s Marsh PSW OPPORTUNITIES + Previously disturbed high-ground on the Pine Ridge Broadcasting site may provide opportunity for facilities and amenities such as a trailhead and parking area, interpretive/educational displays and an elevated viewing platform. 7

12 CONSTRAINTS + Connections for wildlife to adjacent forested uplands need to be preserved. + The trail should be aligned north of PSW to avoid sensitive habitat and minimize environmental impacts. + Trail alignment through or near the PSW would require intrusive and expensive boardwalk construction and should be avoided. The photographs provided below depict potential views and the type of viewing facilities that may be associated with a trailhead on the Pine Ridge Broadcasting site. Figure 6: Carr s Marsh looking south from Bob Carr Road right-of-way Figure 7: Example wetland viewing platform (Port Hope Waterfront Trail) 4.3 Peter s Rock PSW Peter s Rock PSW encompasses a small area of open water on the shoreline of Lake Ontario that is separated from the main lake by a barrier beach. The Peter s Rock PSW was evaluated in 1991 and has an area of 2.52ha composed of 28% swamp and 72% marsh. The PSW spans the entire area between the Lake Ontario shoreline and the CNR corridor. The 1991 evaluation notes that Peter s Rock is a feeding habitat for two provincially significant species: Black Tern and Black-crowned Night Heron. The limits of the Peter s Rock PSW are illustrated in Figure 8. Figure 8: Limits of Peter's Rock PSW 8

13 CONSTRAINTS + The open water portion of the Peter s Rock PSW, which directly abuts the CNR will require the trail to be oriented on the south side of the PSW. + The south side of the PSW is separated from the Lake Ontario beach be a narrow (10 metre ±) strip of trees and woody vegetation similar to the shoreline south of the Sculthorp Marsh PSW in Port Hope. As a result, a trail through this section will likely require construction of a boardwalk on footings to minimize impacts and provide stability. + The boardwalk will require 15 20m clear span section at the location of the outlet from the Peter s Rock PSW into Lake Ontario. Canadian National Railway Peter s Rock PSW Potential Boardwalk Segment Outlet Figure 9: Peter's Rock PSW 9

14 4.4 Gage Creek and Municipality of Port Hope Connection Whether located along County Road 2 or Lake Ontario shoreline Waterfront Trail facilities that are separated from County Road 2 will require a new crossing structure over Gage Creek. South of County Road 2, Gage Creek runs roughly parallel to the eastern boundary of Port Hope and is the main tributary for a watershed of approximately 50 square kilometres. The creek is home to 22 identified fish species, including native Brook Trout, and is monitored by the GRCA. There are several wetland areas east of Gage Creek. These wetlands have not been evaluated under the Provincial wetland classification system. Figure 10: Gage Creek Area The existing Port Hope Waterfront Trail provides access to the area from the west with a north-south leg that follows the west bank of the creek before terminating at the CNR corridor. The Waterfront alignment would require construction of a pedestrian/multi-use bridge to span Gage Creek; however, a suitable location for bridge construction would need to consider potentially sensitive wetlands to the east of the creek as well as active morphology of the creek mouth. OPPORTUNITIES + The existing Port Hope Trail that follows the west bank of Gage Creek north of the Lake Ontario shoreline and provides access to more stable crossing locations upstream of the creek mouth. + A small parking area and open space provide the opportunity for a trail head and gateway features at the crossing of Gage Creek and several large public parking areas further west are connected by the existing trail. CONSTRAINTS + The barrier beach at mouth of Gage Creek creates a dynamic environment that is not suitable for a bridge crossing due to the changing configuration of the creek mouth and surrounding beaches. + CNR corridor limits opportunities for north-south connections. + Unevaluated wetlands east of Gage Creek may require construction of boardwalk to connect the trail back to the waterfront from a more northerly crossing point. 10

15 Figure 11: Mouth of Gage Creek Figure 12: View Across Gage Creek North of Mouth 11

16 4.5 Town of Cobourg Connection The Town of Cobourg s Parks Master Plan identifies the current configuration of the Waterfront Trail where it enters the westerly town limits along County Road 2 (Elgin Street West). The Plan also recognizes westerly extensions of the open space system and associated trail network westerly from the Town boundary along the waterfront and the along the former Grand Trunk rail corridor. The preferred routing for a shoreline oriented trail connection is illustrated in the Master Plan as following Pebble Beach Drive and King Street West easterly to Monks cove and the rest of the existing open space network. The excerpt from the Parks Master Plan (below) shows the two alignments as part of the town s open space network with arrowheads extending to the west, south of Elgin Street West. The alignment closest to the shoreline would potentially extend west from Pebble Beach Drive connecting the Waterfront Trail westerly through lands immediately inside of the west Cobourg boundary that are owned by interested land developers. OPPORTUNITIES + Can incorporate planning for trail facilities into approval of development proposals for properties within the Cobourg boundary + An initial loop connecting Kerr Street and Pebble Beach may be possible utilizing the north-south road allowance between Lot 24 & Lot 25 Figure 13: Cobourg Parks Master Plan Excerpt CONSTRAINTS + Private residential property in Hamilton Township immediately west of Cobourg boundary may limit potential for a continuous linkage westerly from future development within the Town of Cobourg town limits. 12

17 4.6 Railways As noted, both the CPR and CNR mainlines run through the study area (see Figure 4 above). Land north of the CNR corridor is largely agricultural. There is limited land area between the CNR corridor and the Lake Ontario shoreline, and much of this area is comprised of wetlands. Construction of a multi-use trail in proximity to the CNR corridor would provide a means to bypass, at least in part, the wetland areas and minimize the need for construction of boardwalk; however, other constraints exist. CN Policy for their Rails with Trails program requires: Figure 14: CN Rail Corridor + no use of the rail right of way metre (50 ft.) minimum separation between the railway and an adjacent trail (measured from the centreline of the nearest track) metre (6 ft.) high fencing separating the railway and trail + all other approvals in place before applying to CN for approval OPPORTUNITIES + Partner with railway to upgrade north-south access routes and formalize controls at both the CPR and CPR level crossings: As part of future development in the southeast portion of Cobourg the informal trail that has emerged in the unopened road allowance between Lot 24/Lot 25 could be upgraded to formalize a north-south connection to the trail/linear park system along Kerr Street Bob Carr Road is already upgraded to a reasonable condition that could be further formalized to provide a smoother surface, improved level crossings and access to a potential trailhead parking area south of the CNR. Extension of the Kerr Street trail along the hydro corridor to Bob Carr road may provide further looping opportunities. The extension of the Theater Road right-of-way is currently unopened south of County Road 2 and occupied primarily by a drainage ditch that flows south to Carr s Marsh. If additional access is considered necessary along the middle section of the trail there may be potential to create a linkage in the Theater Road right-of-way. The former road allowance between Lot 34 and Lot 35 is now owned by the CNR and was upgraded to facilitate equipment access for clean-up activities in response to the train derailment that occurred several years ago. + Determine if there is an opportunity to reduce fencing requirements if the trail is separated from the track by natural features or a certain distance. 13

18 CONSTRAINTS If the waterfront trail is located adjacent to the Lake Ontario shoreline: + Trail loops and access roads will require crossings over both railways as per railway policy and Transport Canada s RTD10 specification + Setback requirements will confine trail alignment to the south of Peter s Rock PSW where the corridor between the lake and the railway is narrowest + Fencing requirements will increase project costs + Separation requirements will limit the opportunity to take advantage of the swath cleared for the railway to mitigate the trail s impact on natural features. 4.7 Flood Plain and Erosion Hazards The majority of the shoreline land south of the CNR is located within the flood plain and the setback from the Lake Ontario erosion limit. In this regard trail construction will likely have to be limited to the basic linear facilities and fill placement will likely have to be limited to the greatest extent possible with an emphasis on cut-fill balance. Furthermore crossing structures on water courses will have to be sized to prevent upstream flood plain impacts, particularly with respect to water surface elevations at the CNR corridor. In certain locations such as adjacent to the Peter s Rock PSW boardwalk structures will have to be design to resist erosion to a reasonable degree and cost benefit analysis will likely be required to determine the value of providing erosion protection vs. accepting risk of facility disruption. 4.8 Land Use and Ownership Publicly owned land along the waterfront is limited to a narrow parcel within the limits of Carr s Marsh that is owned by the Township of Hamilton. Adjacent to this parcel and immediately to the west is the parcel owned by the GRCA that is managed as a wildlife reserve rather than a conservation area that is actively used by the public. Within the study limits, there are five private landowners south of the CNR corridor. All land south of CNR is isolated and largely undeveloped with the exception of a single residential development at the east end of the study area that was recently approved by Hamilton Township. Future development of these lands is also constrained by official plan policies and zoning provisions. The majority of the land north of the CNR is currently in use for active agricultural purposes. Figure 15: Looking south from County Road 2 CPR Overpass 14

19 Figure 16: Land use map - Hamilton Township Official Plan (annotated) CPR Agricultural Port Hope Significant ANSI Flood Plain CNR Cobourg Significant Wetland OPPORTUNITIES + Current planning documents preclude significant development along a future shoreline alignment but do allow for development of trail facilities. + The Environment Canada Ecological Gifts Program offers a win-win land transfer opportunity with significant tax benefits to landowners who donate land or a partial interest in land to a qualified recipient such as the GRCA, the Northumberland Land Trust or the Nature Conservancy of Canada (Ontario branch). The recipient will then ensure that the land s biodiversity and environmental heritage are conserved in perpetuity. This may be one avenue through which the County is able to initiate a land acquisition strategy. CONSTRAINTS + It is understood that preserving privacy and opportunities for private recreation is a priority among current land owners. + Land acquisition, either by Northumberland County, the Township of Hamilton or through Environment Canada s Ecological Gifts Program, will have to be an evolving and carefully managed process. It should be noted that this process can be time consuming and would require coordinated and ultimately successful negotiations to ensure all property owners are on board. 4.9 Accessibility Considerations In accordance with Section 80.9 of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), new trails must: + Provide minimum clear width of 1.0 metres and minimum clear height of 2.1 metres + Provide a minimum clear width at entrances of 0.85 metres to 1.0 metres + Include adequate edge protection with a 50 millimetre height when located near water or dropoffs 15

20 + Have a firm and stable surface (packed granular is acceptable) + Incorporate clear, informative trailhead signage + Incorporated accessible rest areas and amenities into the trail design in accordance with s.80.8 of the AODA Boardwalks and ramps are subject to additional requirements under the AODA (s80.12 & s80.13). For longer trails, an accessible loop may be desired by the community. 5. Estimated Costs Establishing a shoreline alignment for the Waterfront Trail between Port Hope and Cobourg will require the construction of approximately 5.9km of trail. Since paved shoulders on Country Road 2 will provide a paved route for cyclists requiring a smooth surface the it is anticipated that the shoreline alignment can be constructed with a 3.0m width and a packed granular surface (e.g. limestone screenings) on a compacted granular base. In locations where the soil and terrain conditions are not suitable for granular trail construction a boardwalk-type trail supported on piles will likely be required. Anticipated locations requiring boardwalk construction include: + Wetland area east of Gage Creek where a connection must be established between the stable crossing location over Gage Creek southerly to the stable strip of land located behind the Lake Ontario beach. + Adjacent to the Peter s Rock PSW where the trail must be located between the PSW and Lake Ontario due to the close proximity of the CNR line to the PSW s northern edge. In addition to the boardwalk sections of the trail the portion of the trail that will run through Lots 34 and 35 immediately east of Gage Creek will be somewhat complex to construct due to the relatively narrow strip of stable land that exists between Lake Ontario beach and the unevaluated wetland areas to the north. In this location design and construction of the trail will have to be more context sensitive to avoid significant disturbance to the trees and other vegetation in the area. An approach similar to that used west of Gage Creek (in Port Hope) to construct the existing trail between the beach and the Sculthorp Marsh PSW will likely be required (See Figure 17). This might involve narrowing the trail surface and or constructing an at-grade boardwalk on shallow footings to minimize disturbance due to excavation. Table 1 below summarizes the estimated costs associated with planning, designing and Figure 17: Existing Waterfront Trail in Port Hope South of Sculthorp Marsh 16

21 constructing the east-west portions of the main trail. This cost estimate does not include costs associated with: + Property acquisition; + north-south connections/loops; and + major programming or amenity type features. In total, construction costs are estimated at $3.3million (2014 dollars). Soft costs include engineering work associated with a Schedule B EA, detailed design and construction inspection as well as permit fees and are estimated at an additional $605,000 for a total estimated cost of approximately $3.9million. Table 1: Summary of Estimated Costs Location Estimated Costs (2014 $) Section Description From/To Length per Const. Soft Total (m) m A Cobourg Connection West End of Ravensdale Road to West Cobourg Boundary ,000 56, , B C D Carr's Marsh Area Peter's Rock Wetland Area Gage Creek Area West Cobourg Boundary Augustine Creek Augustine Creek to Lot 33/34 Boundary Lot 33/34 Boundary to Gage Creek (Incl. Crossing) 2,530 1,248, ,000 1,466, , , ,000 1,010, , , ,000 1,120, Total 5,910 3,348, ,000 3,953,000 Appendix A includes a map illustrating the conceptual alignment of the shoreline Waterfront Trail that forms the basis for the cost estimates above. Detailed cost estimates for each section of trail are included in Appendix B. 6. Conclusions & Next Steps Based on the high-level review, described herein, a shoreline oriented alignment for the Waterfront Trail between Port Hope and Cobourg appears technically feasible. However, given the challenges involved, it will take significant time and co-operation to complete the planning processes, negotiations and design work required to make such a trail a reality. In particular, the lack of available public land along the shoreline presents a significant challenge. In this regard, the concept alignment and rational presented in this report should be considered representative of a vision that may take many years to implement and will likely be subject to refinement as opportunities are explored and better understood. The following sections provide a detailed discussion of how future planning for the shoreline alignment can be integrated into: + The finalization of the County Road 2 EA 17

22 + The phased implementation of planned improvements along County Road 2 over the next 20 years + Future planning activities separate from the County Road 2 EA 6.1 Integration with the County Road 2 EA and Phasing Given the long timelines and potential complexities that may be associated with the County s opportunity to access shoreline land for trail construction purposes it is considered prudent that the County continue to include the construction of a separate multi-use pathway in the preferred solution identified in the County Road 2 Class EA Study. However, the EA documentation should include provisions to allow the County to continue working to establish a shoreline alignment as an alternative to implementing the multi-use pathway along County Road 2. The figure included in Appendix C illustrates the planned phasing of the County Road 2 improvements in conjunction with a flow chart that details the decision making process that can be used to determine where the Waterfront Trail will be constructed as the project progresses Short Term Integration: Phase II-a and Phase II-b As outlined in Section 1.3, the pedestrian and cycling facilities planned for Phase II-a and Phase II-b of the County Road 2 improvements (east of Lovshin Road) are required regardless of the ultimate location selected for the Waterfront Trail. As a result, Phase II of the planned improvements on County Road 2 can be implemented without the need for a final decision regarding location of the Waterfront Trail. This will provide the County with a 5-10 year window of time during which some or all of the next steps detailed in Section 6.2 can be completed. If agreements can be reached regarding land acquisition/access during the 5-10 year time horizon the County will then be in position to undertake a Schedule B EA specific to the shoreline alignment of the Waterfront Trail. The Schedule B EA planning process would involve more detailed site investigations and consultation with the public and agencies to develop a preliminary design for the shoreline alignment complete with documentation of the mitigating measures required to minimize impacts on the natural and social environment. If completed and approved the Schedule B EA would provide the basis for the County to formally focus all future Waterfront Trail construction along the shoreline with the scope of future phases of the County Road 2 improvements modified to exclude the multi-use pathway west of Loveshin Road. Future integration between the County Road 2 improvements and the construction of the shoreline Waterfront Trail would then be limited. Subject to the availability of funds, this would allow for the full length of the trail to be completed before the road improvements are implemented completely between Port Hope and Cobourg Medium Term Integration: Phase III If all feasibility challenges, primarily land access, cannot be resolved prior to the start Phase III of the County Road 2 improvements there will still be opportunities to explore implementing a portion of the shoreline trail with beneficial connections. Specifically, if the multi-use pathway is constructed along County Road 2 through the limits of Phase III it will improve access to the Burnham Farm Market for 18

23 pedestrians and cyclists. Furthermore, it will create an opportunity to develop an eastern trail loop connecting the route on County Road 2 to the Cobourg waterfront areas via Bob Carr Road. The following outlines the key considerations that would need to be addressed by the County in cooperation with Hamilton Township and the Town of Cobourg to implement an eastern trail loop. + Integrate the trail loop into the planning and design for the future development of the lands south of the CNR in the west end of Cobourg (west of the existing Pebble Beach subdivision). + Obtain access and/or acquire property for a route across Property L owned by Hamilton Township and Property M, which is privately owned. Ideally, to support future shoreline trail development, this access would allow the tail to be routed south of the CNR. However, if it was easier to obtain access for a route located north of the CNR or north of the CPR this should be considered. The east-west routing of the trail across properties L and M should also consider options to utilize any existing railway crossings that might be approved through the efforts of others. + Upgrade existing crossings over the CNR and CPR tracks along Bob Carr Road if the east-west property access allows the trial to be routed south of the CNR or along the road allowance between Lot 24 and Lot 25 if property access requires the trail to be routed north of the CNR and/or CPR. + Complete the requirements of a Schedule A environmental assessment as part of the planning, design and permitting of the trail loop. + Formalize trail facilities in the Bob Carr Road right-of-way potentially including fencing and other delineation along boundaries with private property. While implementing Phase III of the County Road 2 improvements, and potentially the eastern trail loop, the County will have another 5 year window to continue pursuing the next steps listed in Section 6.2 in an effort to overcome the identified challenges and potentially develop a shoreline land acquisition strategy that provides greater certainty prior to implementing Phase IV Long-term Integration: Phase IV & Phase V If agreements can be reached regarding shoreline land acquisition/access during the 5-10 year time horizon of Phase III improvements on County Road 2 the County will be in position to revist the shoreline Waterfront Trail planning process prior to starting Phase IV. This would involve undertaking a Schedule B EA specific to the shoreline alignment, completing more detailed site investigations and consultation with the public and agencies to develop a preliminary design for the shoreline alignment complete with documentation of the mitigating measures required to minimize impacts on the natural and social environment. If completed and approved the Schedule B EA would provide the basis for the County to formally focus all future Waterfront Trail construction along the shoreline with the scope of future County Road 2 improvements modified to exclude the multi-use pathway west of Theater Road. Future integration between the County Road 2 improvements and the construction of the shoreline Waterfront Trail would then be limited. 19

24 Should it not be possible to reach an agreement for shoreline land access prior to the start of Phase IV it will likely be impractical to consider not completing the Waterfront Trail as a multi-use pathway along County Road 2. As part of Phase V opportunities to create a western loop connecting to the existing facilities along the Lake Ontario shoreline in Port Hope should be explored Beyond the Completion of County Road 2 Upgrades If shore line land access issues remain unresolved and the planned County Road 2 upgrades are completed without construction of a shoreline trail the County and its member municipalities will still have the opportunity to consider exploring opportunities a parallel shoreline facility if desired. Because this will be 20+ years in the future it will be beyond the planning horizon of many existing land use plans. As such it is likely that the most effective means of planning for a future shoreline facility will be through integration with the development of future land use plans and policy. 6.2 Recommended Next Steps Given the current situation, this challenge may only be overcome as land ownership and land-use evolve over the long-term. Working towards the long-term vision of a shoreline alignment the County should: + Maintain an open dialogue with relevant land owners to identify and discuss mutually beneficial opportunities for land acquisition by the County or land transfer to supportive third parties such as the Nature Conservancy of Canada or the GRCA, should such opportunities arise. + Work in partnership with the GRCA to undertake any baseline existing conditions environmental inventories within the study area should opportunities for land access arise. + Work closely with member municipality s to ensure that planning approvals for properties within the study area incorporate provisions to support the short-term and long-term development of the shoreline alignment and any necessary connecting links. + Work closely with member municipalities to protect and plan for north-south connections and access routes that will allow loops to be established and provide opportunities for maintenance or emergency access. + Engage in preliminary discussions with CNR/CPR to identify a process for including railway approvals in a future Municipal Class EA. + Jointly with GRCA engage in preliminary discussions with Ministry of Natural Resources to further refine options for trail construction adjacent to the two Provincially Significant Wetlands. + Integrate Port Hope to Cobourg waterfront trail considerations into future local and county-wide official plans as those documents are updated to consider planning horizons further into the future that may involve the expansion of urban boundaries and accompanying land use designation changes. 20

25 Report: Waterfront Trail Feasibility Study APPENDIX A Conceptual Trail Alignment Map

26 HAMILTON ROAD BOB CARR ROAD ( ( ( ( N LEGEND Conceptual Trail Alignment Trail Type Granular LOT 1 LOT 1 ( MUNICIPALITY OF PORT HOPE A LOT 35 HAMILTON TOWNSHIP G a g e C COUNTY ROAD 2 LOT 35 B r e e k INDEX OF SHORELINE PROPERTIES Identifier C C Address/Locations LOT 34 LOT 34 D D k L a O e Ow ner LOT 33 LOT 33 a n t E o i r Total LOT 32 MOORE SERVICE ROAD ( E LOT 32 P e t e r ' s R o c k W e t l a n d Area (ha) South of CNR A Lot 35 (w est) Hunco Farms Limited B Lot 35 (centre) Hunco Farms Limited C 7083 County Road 2 Raymond Lane D Lot 34 Hunco Farms E 7169 County Road 2 Harris McKeen F 7373 County Road 2 Lloyd McKeen G Lot 31 (east), Lot 30, Lot 29 Hunco Farms H Lot 30 Hunco Farms I Lot 29 Hunco Farms J Lot 27 GRCA K Lot 27 Pine Ridge Broadcasting L Lot 26 Tow nship of Hamilton M 7875 County Road 2 Roger Mahabir F F F LOT 31 ( LOT 31 A u g u s t i n e C r e e k AUGUSTINE ROAD ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( COUNTY ROAD 2 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY ( (( THEATRE ROAD SOUTH LOT 30 LOT 29 LOT 28 LOT 27 CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (( I LOT 30 G LOT 29 LOT 28 H LOT 27 G G (( ( ( H ( ( (( H ( (( ( ( C a r r ' s ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( M a r s h J I ( K ( ( ( APPLE ORCHARD ROAD ( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( LOT 26 LOT 24 LOT 25 ( (( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( M ( (( (( ( HAMILTON TOWNSHIP TOWN OF COBOURG LOT 26 LOT 25 L M ( ( L M ( ( (( COUNTY ROAD 2 ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( LOVSHIN ROAD LOT 24 LOT 23 LOT 23 CLIENT SCALE: PROJECT NAME: SHEET TITLE: SUB TITILE: PROJECT No: DRAFTER: APPROVER PORT HOPE TO COBOURG WATERFRONT TRAIL FESIBILITY STUDY CONCEPTUAL SHORELINE WATERFRONT TRAIL ALIGNMENT & MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES S. MAY D. CAMPBELL Context Sensitive Boardwalk ( Trail Water Course Crossing Municipal Boundary Overhead Transmission Line (( ( (( Wetland Railway Existing Railway Crossing Watercourse Area of Natural & Scientific Interest Evaluated Not Provincially Significant Evaluated Provincially Significant Not Evaluated DESIGNER APPROVER FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES D. CAMPBELL W. McCRAE meters 1:15,000 CLIENT FILE No: --- DRAWING No: A1 DATE: SHEET No: 08/01/ of 1

27 Report: Waterfront Trail Feasibility Study APPENDIX B Cost Estimates

28 Benchmark Estimate of Shoreline Waterfront Trail Construction 08/01/2015 Part 'A' Cobourg Connection Trail Construction Unit Quantity Estimated Unit Cost Estimated Devlopment Costs a) 3.0m Wide Granular m 915 $ $ 210, b) Context Sensitive Section m 0 $ $ - c) 3.0m Wide Board Walk m 0 $ $ - Watercourse Crossings a) Minor Culvert ea 0 $ 15, $ - b) Major Culvert ea 0 $ 25, $ - c) Pedestrian Bridge ea 0 $ 250, $ - Fencing $ 10, $ - a) 1.8m High Railway Safety Fence m 225 $ $ 33, b) 1.2m High Trail Edge Fence m 90 $ $ 8, General Items a) Environmental Protection and Sediment Controls LS 100% $ 10, $ 10, b) Staging and Access LS 100% $ 5, $ 5, c) Bonds, Securities and Maintenances LS 2.5% $ 267, $ 6, d) Contingency LS 10.0% $ 267, $ 26, Total Construction $ 300, Soft Costs a) Environmental Assessment LS 5% $ 300, $ 15, b) Engineering & Design LS 5% $ 300, $ 15, c) Construction Inspection LS 7.5% $ 267, $ 20, d) Permit Fees LS 100.0% $ 5, $ 5, Total Soft Costs $ 55, Total Cost $ 355,831.25

29 Benchmark Estimate of Shoreline Waterfront Trail Construction 08/01/2015 Part 'B' Carrs Marsh Area Trail Construction Unit Quantity Estimated Unit Cost Estimated Devlopment Costs a) 3.0m Wide Granular m 2320 $ $ 533, b) Context Sensitive Section m 210 $ $ 72, c) 3.0m Wide Board Walk m 0 $ $ - Watercourse Crossings a) Minor Culvert ea 0 $ 15, $ - b) Major Culvert ea 4 $ 25, $ 100, c) Pedestrian Bridge ea 0 $ 250, $ - Fencing a) 1.8m High Railway Safety Fence m 1900 $ $ 285, b) 1.2m High Trail Edge Fence m 420 $ $ 37, General Items a) Environmental Protection and Sediment Controls LS 100% $ 60, $ 60, b) Staging and Access LS 100% $ 20, $ 20, c) Bonds, Securities and Maintenances LS 2.5% $ 1,108, $ 27, d) Contingency LS 10.0% $ 1,108, $ 110, Total Construction $ 1,247, Soft Costs a) Environmental Assessment LS 5% $ 1,247, $ 62, b) Engineering & Design LS 5% $ 1,247, $ 62, c) Construction Inspection LS 7.5% $ 1,108, $ 83, d) Permit Fees LS 100.0% $ 10, $ 10, Total Soft Costs $ 217, Total Cost $ 1,465,365.63

30 Benchmark Estimate of Shoreline Waterfront Trail Construction 08/01/2015 Part 'C' Peters Rock Wetland Area Trail Construction Unit Quantity Estimated Unit Cost Estimated Devlopment Costs a) 3.0m Wide Granular m 880 $ $ 202, b) Context Sensitive Section m 0 $ $ - c) 3.0m Wide Board Walk m 465 $ $ 279, Watercourse Crossings a) Minor Culvert ea 0 $ 15, $ - b) Major Culvert ea 2 $ 25, $ 50, c) Pedestrian Bridge ea 0 $ 250, $ - Fencing a) 1.8m High Railway Safety Fence m 880 $ $ 132, b) 1.2m High Trail Edge Fence m 0 $ $ - General Items a) Environmental Protection and Sediment Controls LS 100% $ 60, $ 60, b) Staging and Access LS 100% $ 30, $ 30, c) Bonds, Securities and Maintenances LS 2.5% $ 753, $ 18, d) Contingency LS 10.0% $ 753, $ 75, Total Construction $ 847, Soft Costs a) Environmental Assessment LS 5% $ 847, $ 42, b) Engineering & Design LS 5% $ 847, $ 42, c) Construction Inspection LS 7.5% $ 753, $ 56, d) Permit Fees LS 100.0% $ 20, $ 20, Total Soft Costs $ 161, Total Cost $ 1,008,837.50

31 Benchmark Estimate of Shoreline Waterfront Trail Construction 08/01/2015 Part 'D' Port Hope Connection Trail Construction Unit Quantity Estimated Unit Cost Estimated Devlopment Costs a) 3.0m Wide Granular m 0 $ $ - b) Context Sensitive Section m 820 $ $ 282, c) 3.0m Wide Board Walk m 300 $ $ 180, Watercourse Crossings a) Minor Culvert ea 1 $ 15, $ 15, b) Major Culvert ea 0 $ 25, $ - c) Pedestrian Bridge ea 1 $ 250, $ 250, Fencing a) 1.8m High Railway Safety Fence m 0 $ $ - b) 1.2m High Trail Edge Fence m 184 $ $ 16, General Items a) Environmental Protection and Sediment Controls LS 100% $ 60, $ 60, b) Staging and Access LS 100% $ 40, $ 40, c) Bonds, Securities and Maintenances LS 2.5% $ 844, $ 21, d) Contingency LS 10.0% $ 844, $ 84, Total Construction $ 950, Soft Costs a) Environmental Assessment LS 5% $ 950, $ 47, b) Engineering & Design LS 5% $ 950, $ 47, c) Construction Inspection LS 7.5% $ 844, $ 63, d) Permit Fees LS 100.0% $ 10, $ 10, Total Soft Costs $ 168, Total Cost $ 1,118,353.75

32 Report: Waterfront Trail Feasibility Study APPENDIX C Phasing Considerations and Decision Making Process

33 HAMILTON ROAD ( BOB CARR ROAD ( ( ( ( N Trail Completion Design & Construction of Shoreline Trail Land Acquisition for Shoreline Trail LOT 21 LOT 1 LOT 1 ( MUNICIPALITY OF PORT HOPE A Monitor for LOT Opportunities 35 to LOT 34 Implement Complete or Partial Shoreline Trail HAMILTON TOWNSHIP G a g e COUNTY ROAD 2 LOT 35 B C r e e k INDEX OF SHORELINE PROPERTIES Identifier C C Possible Western Loop Address/Locations LOT 34 D D k L a Road Completion Road/Trail LOT 33 Completion O e Owner LOT 33 a n t E o i r Total Proceed with LOT 32Phase V of County Road 2 Including LOT 31 Multi Use Trail MOORE SERVICE ROAD ( E LOT 32 P e t e r ' s R o c k W e t l a n d Area (ha) South of CNR A Lot 35 (w est) Hunco Farms Limited B Lot 35 (centre) Hunco Farms Limited C 7083 County Road 2 Raymond Lane D Lot 34 Hunco Farms E 7169 County Road 2 Harris McKeen F 7373 County Road 2 Lloyd McKeen G Lot 31 (east), Lot 30, Lot 29 Hunco Farms H Lot 30 Hunco Farms I Lot 29 Hunco Farms Proceed with Phase V of County Road 2 Excluding Multi Use Trail Add Western Loop with a Connection to County Road 2 Along ROW between Lot 34/35 J Lot 27 GRCA K Lot 27 Pine Ridge Broadcasting L Lot 26 Tow nship of Hamilton M 7875 County Road 2 Roger Mahabir yrs yrs PHASE V F F F ( LOT 31 A u g u s t i n e C r e e k AUGUSTINE ROAD ( LOT 30 (( ( ( ( ( ( ( COUNTY ROAD 2 G ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY G G ( (( THEATRE ROAD SOUTH CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LOT 29 Proceed with Phase IV of County Road 2 Excluding Multi Use Trail (( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( (( LOT 28 H ( ( ( H ( H ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( (( LOT 27 ( ( Carr's Marsh J LEGEND Conceptual Trail Alignment Trail Type Granular I Context Sensitive Boardwalk I ( APPLE ORCHARD ROAD K ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( Trail Water Course Crossing Proceed with Phase III of County Road 2 Excluding Multi Use Trail ( ( ( ( L ( (( L ( (( ( ( ( LOT 26 ( ( ( ( ( ( M M ( (( M (( ( Municipal Boundary HAMILTONTOWNSHIP ( ( (( TOWN OF COBOURG LOT 25 ( ( ( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( Wetland Overhead Transmission Line Railway Existing Railway Crossing Watercourse ( ( ( ( ( ( (( ( (( LOVSHIN ROAD Yes EA Approval? NEW AMHERST BLVD LOT 24 COUNTY ROAD 2 Area of Natural & Scientific Interest Evaluated Not Provincially Significant Evaluated Provincially Significant Not Evaluated Undertake Schedule B EA for Shoreline Alignment Assess Options for LOT 29 Proceed with Identified LOT 27 Proceed with No LOT Partial 30 Shoreline Phase IV of LOT 28 Shoreline Phase LOT 26 III of LOT 25 LOT 24 LOT 23 Trail Crossing County Road 2 No Feasibility County Road 2 Assess Options for Parcels A, B, & Including Multi Challenges Including Multi No Partial Shoreline C Use Trail Resolved? Use Trail Feasible? Trail Crossing No Parcels L & M Add Eastern Loop Only with a Connection Yes Feasible? Yes to County Road 2 Yes Along Bob Carr Road PHASE IV PHASE III PHASE II-b Summary of Shoreline Feasibility Challenges Shoreline land required is privately owned and not currently accessible Railway co-operation Availability of financial resources See Section 6 for additional detail. Possible Eastern Loop 10-15yrs Yes 5-10 yrs Alternate Routing for Eastern Loop CL IENT ROGERS ROAD LOT 23 LOT 22 PROJECT NAME: SHEET TITLE: SUB TITILE: SCALE: PROJECT No: DRAFTER: S. MAY APPROVER DATE: DESIGNER APPROVER LOT 22 No PORT HOPE TO COBOURG WATERFRONT TRAIL FESIBILITY STUDY FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES CLIENT FILE No: DRAWING No: SHEET No: STRATHY ROAD LOT 21 CONCEPTUAL SHORELINE WATERFRONT TRAIL ALIGNMENT PHASING CONSIDERATIONS D. CAMPBELL Yes D. CAMPBELL W. McCRAE meters 1:15,000 Identified Shoreline Feasibility Challenges Resolved? PHASE II-a yrs A1 02/04/ of 1