Would you expect that this would be a federal EA? Any more thoughts on the duration or the types of things it would look at unique to the Havelock Sub? Would it be end-to-end? USRC-Peterboro-Havelock-Smith's Falls-Ottawa-Montreal? Or broken up into sections? Would there be more intense EAs for the grade separations
@Urban Sky noted?
I'm not an expert on the structure of EA's, I mostly just know that they are necessary and in the public interest. (Digression - this is the sort of thing that a VIA Rail Canada Act might clarify authority and perhaps avoid the long way around)
Things that I would expect VIA to have to address on the abandoned portion of the Havelock line would be
- Having never had an EA process prior to abandonment, we have little baseline data on what important/endangered species are resident close to the ROW, and might be affected - both flora and fauna.
- Impact of new bridge and culvert (re)construction on specific waterways - I rely on comments in Collenette's report to believe that existing bridges may not be up to code for higher speed operation, and would possibly be replaced from the ground up. Any construction over a waterway needs environmental analysis.
- Impact of changes to fill, drainage on water flow and water levels in various creeks and streams and wetlands, and resulting impact on aquatic wildlife
- Tree cutting required and impact on wildlife - bird nesting etc. Plans to reforest in situ or in exchange for loss of forest cover
- Wildlife has had unfettered access across the ROW for the past 45 years...what is the impact of fencing the ROW to migration, breeding, access to food?
- Noise and vibration levels where there is either specific wildlife resident (see first bullet) or human inhabitation
- Impacts on cottages and recreational businesses - recreational fishing, marinas, lodging, access to lakes, constraints on hunting
The portion that is currently an operating railway might require some of those, particularly where new structures replace existing. Again, per Collenette, bridges in places such as Rouge Valley, Dranoel, Cavan, Peterboro, Indian River, Norwood might need major construction efforts. Some of those watersheds and natural habitats are sensitive.
I would expect the EA for the sections through Perth and eastern GTA to look much like TPAP's for GO expansion along ML lines.... sound walls, grade separation needs, vibration and noise, pedestrian access points, heritage impacts, in light of the proximity to suburban development and residential/commercial structures.
The restoration of the line in the Don Valley should require diligence equal to what other changes in that zone have received.
Wherever curves are reduced, there will be a new alignment, which while relatively short in length, could be be in fact a new line crossing terrain not previously used as a railway - so it deserves full analysis. (BTW, one of the curve realignments proposed back in the GO Peterboro study sits on a very large single tract of land with a single house - a very wealthy person's country estate. This is the sort of situation that generates legal challenge even if the local mayor is happy).
Throughout the project, road traffic levels and priorities for grade separation should be identified.
Fulfilling the legal obligation to consult First Nations fully and properly is absolutely essential.
I am not alleging any of these are showstoppers....although all it takes is one surprise about a rattlesnake colony or a bank swallow breeding area to bring a project back to the drawing board for a few months....or longer.
We've seen enough proponents with worthwhile project proposals bull ahead on the basis of a legal opinion.... only to get sent back by the courts to cross their t's. Better preparation and outreach up front means smoother sailing and no surprises.
- Paul
