This document entitled Carp Snow Disposal Facility Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment Study – Phases 1 & 2 was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. for the
account of the City of Ottawa. The material in it reflects Stantec’s best judgment in light
of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party
makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the
responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec Consulting Ltd. accepts no responsibility
for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions
based on this report.
This document entitled Carp Snow Disposal Facility Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment Study – Phases 1 & 2 was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. for the
account of the City of Ottawa. The material in it reflects Stantec’s best judgment in light
of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party
makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the
responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec Consulting Ltd. accepts no responsibility
for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions
based on this report.
This document entitled Carp Snow Disposal Facility Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment Study – Phases 1 & 2 was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. for the
account of the City of Ottawa. The material in it reflects Stantec’s best judgment in light
of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party
makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the
responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec Consulting Ltd. accepts no responsibility
for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions
based on this report.
This document entitled Carp Snow Disposal Facility Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment Study – Phases 1 & 2 was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. for the
account of the City of Ottawa. The material in it reflects Stantec’s best judgment in light
of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party
makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the
responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec Consulting Ltd. accepts no responsibility
for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions
based on this report.
September 11, 2013 Insert revision record Sign-off Sheet
This document entitled Carp Snow Disposal Facility Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study Phases 1 & 2 was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. for the account of the City of Ottawa. The material in it reflects Stantecs best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec Consulting Ltd. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.
Prepared by (signature) Gerry Lalonde
Reviewed by (signature) John van Gaal
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx i Executive Summary A Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) is being undertaken by the City of Ottawa to develop a 23.4 hectares (ha) property located at 2125 Carp Road for use as a snow disposal facility to service the needs of Ottawas west end. A 2009 study by the City had identified the snow disposal needs to be 357,000 cubic metres (m3). Figure 2 shows the communities that will be serviced by the proposed facility. The property is currently privately owned but the City is proceeding with its purchase in 2013. The MCEA study is being conducted in accordance with the planning process for a Schedule B project. Phase 1 of the MCEA process was completed in February 2013 and a Public Open House held February 23rd to present the findings of the Problem Definition. Phase 1 summarized the previous work completed by the City in their review and evaluation of ten potential sites considered for development. The 2009 study identified the site at 2125 Carp as being the preferred location for a new facility. A copy of the Notice and the Executive Summary of the Phase 1 report was circulated electronically to provincial and federal agencies, the Conservation Authority, Aboriginal communities, and internally within the City. Phase 2 of the MCEA process involved the description of the environment through numerous investigative studies undertaken during 2012 and 2013 and the evaluation of alternatives to and alternative methods (design). Studies completed in Phase 2 included a geotechnical investigation, hydrogeological assessment, archaeological assessment, transportation assessment, drainage and stormwater management assessment, meltwater assessment, an Environmental Impact Statement (Natural environment), a Visual/Landscape assessment, and social/heritage assessment. The findings of the Phase 2 for the preferred design, as identified below, was presented to the public at an Open House held August 6th, 2013 at the former Goulburn municipal office on Huntley Road. Notices for the meeting were published in both the Ottawa Sun and Le Droit on two consecutive weeks prior to the event. The preferred design is the development of the site as per layout shown in Figure 9. Our preferred design will provide a capacity of approximately 350,000 m for snow stockpile and accommodate the disposal demand predicted for the 1:50 year snow event. The snow footprint would occupy an area of approximately 4 to 5 ha with an additional 1ha for the dump pad. The maximum stockpile height would extend to 15 m above the base elevation (around elevation 127 to 128m). The back slope and side slopes of the snow stockpile are specified as 1H:1V and the front slope (facing south) at 5 H:1V The base of the snow footprint would be graded on a 0.5% slope facing southward towards the meltwater pond/facility. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx ii To accommodate truck and pup combinations and tri-axle trucks, a dump pad area with a 50 m width was specified. The dump pad and the snow footprint would be underlain by a geotextile laying directly on the native silt and overlain with 600 mm of granular material (450 mm of granular B, 150 mm of granular A) and 150-200mm of asphalt grinding. A low hydraulic conductivity membrane would be installed beneath the stockpile and dump pad to prevent seepage of chloride impacted meltwater into the groundwater. The dump pad would be sloped to provide positive drainage to the meltwater pond forebay. A permanent pool is provided in the meltwater pond to allow a minimum of 24 hours settling of sediment. And oil/grit separator would be provided at the outlet of the meltwater pond which then discharges to the ditch leading to Highway 417. The meltwater pond and the ditch would be lined with a low hydraulic conductivity membrane to prevent seepage of chloride impacted meltwater into the groundwater. The site design also includes a 4ha size stormwater management facility/pond for quantity and quality control of on-site and off-site drainage generated from the 1:100 year storm event. The pond size is much larger than what would typically be required for treatment of on-site conditions (post development flow being equal to pre-development) because drainage from off- site properties (59ha) flow through the property and need to be accounted for in the design. The stormwater pond volume will contain approximately 50,000 m3 of water. Some of this water will be used during spring melt to dilute the discharge from the meltwater pond. The discharge from both ponds will be mixed and discharged into the Highway 417 roadside ditch. The target discharge limits for the mixed discharge is 40 mg/L for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and 1000 mg/L for chloride. Both ponds are designed to provide 24 hours of detention time. A net effect analysis for the preferred design was completed and mitigation measures proposed to minimize negative effects. Most potential environmental effects resulting from the Project following implementation of mitigation measures will be small in size and temporary in nature. Numerous mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate effects on Valued Environmental Components (VECs) through all phases of the Project (i.e. site preparation, construction and operation). Despite implementation of best practices and mitigation through good design, some residual environmental effects will remain. For those cases additional monitoring and follow-up programs have been recommended.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx iii Approvals required to implement the development of the site include Ministry of the Environment (MOE) approval of the stormwater and meltwater ponds for on-site work and existing drainage works off-site through the issuance of Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECA). The City will also undertake an amendment to their Zoning by-law to permit snow disposal as a permitted use in the light Industrial designation for this property this process is under the Planning Act and separate from the MCEA process. The Stage 1 & 2 archaeological assessment approvals for ground disturbance are required before construction activities commence. The estimate of probable cost for the development of the site is $ 6 million, as detailed in Section 8.10 Following the completion of the Phase 1& 2 consultation and revisions to the MCEA report (as required), a Notice of Completion for the Study will be published and provide a period of 30 days for final review. If public concerns regarding this project cannot be resolved, any person may request a Part II Order. Should the Minister of Environment deem that this is necessary; the project could be elevated to a Schedule C or an Individual Environmental Assessment. If no concerns are expressed to the Minister of the Environment within thirty (30) days of filing the study and notification thereof, the project will proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Phase 1 & 2 Report. The Phase 1&2 MCEA report was circulated electronically to provincial and federal agencies, the Conservation Authority, Aboriginal communities, and internally within the City. Physical copies of the documentation is posted at the City of Ottawa libraries (see Notice in Appendix C for locations) and at the Citys corporate office. A copy of the report and Appendices is also available electronically from the Citys website for this project.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx i Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1.1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION WEST END SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY ............... 1.2 1.1.1 Study Area ................................................................................................. 1.2 1.1.2 Planning Period and Snow Disposal Volume ............................................. 1.3 1.2 PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT ............................................................ 1.4 1.2.1 Lack of Snow Disposal Capacity in West End Ottawa ................................ 1.4 2.0 ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR SNOW DISPOSAL .................................................... 2.1 2.1 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE UNDERTAKING ...................... 2.1 2.2 CONSIDERATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS ............................................ 2.2 3.0 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................... 3.1 3.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION ................................................................................. 3.1 3.2 ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT ............................................. 3.1 3.3 MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS ................... 3.2 3.4 DETERMINATION OF MCEA SCHEDULE ........................................................... 3.4 3.5 ONTARIO GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES .......................... 3.5 3.4.1 Guidelines for Snow Disposal and De-icing Operations in Ontario ............. 3.6 3.4.2 Water Management, Goals, Policies and Implementation .......................... 3.6 3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT ............................................................... 3.7 3.7 PLANNING ACT .................................................................................................... 3.7 3.7.1 Official Plan ............................................................................................... 3.7 3.7.2 Zoning ....................................................................................................... 3.8 3.7.3 Community Design Plan ............................................................................ 3.8 3.7.4 Site Plan Control ........................................................................................ 3.9 3.8 CANADA FISHERIES ACT ................................................................................... 3.9 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................... 4.1 4.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................. 4.1 4.1.1 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................................ 4.1 4.1.2 Aquatic Resources ..................................................................................... 4.2 4.1.3 Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 4.2 4.1.4 Gulls .......................................................................................................... 4.3 4.1.5 Climate ...................................................................................................... 4.4 4.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................. 4.5 4.2.1 Significant Natural Heritage Features ........................................................ 4.5 4.2.2 Surrounding Land Use and Receptors ....................................................... 4.9 4.2.3 Topography and Drainage ......................................................................... 4.9 4.2.4 Surface Water Features ........................................................................... 4.10 4.2.5 Groundwater ............................................................................................ 4.10 4.2.6 Air Quality and Noise ............................................................................... 4.12 4.2.7 Air Quality and Vibration .......................................................................... 4.13 4.2.8 Geological Setting/Soils ........................................................................... 4.13 CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx ii 4.2.9 Geotechnical ............................................................................................ 4.14 4.2.10 Land Ownership/Legal ............................................................................. 4.14 4.2.11 Transportation ......................................................................................... 4.14 4.2.12 Utilities ..................................................................................................... 4.16 4.3 SOCIAL CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................ 4.17 4.3.1 Community/Development ......................................................................... 4.17 4.3.2 Heritage ................................................................................................... 4.17 4.3.3 Archaeological ......................................................................................... 4.18 4.3.4 Aboriginal ................................................................................................ 4.19 4.3.5 Aesthetics ................................................................................................ 4.20 4.4 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................. 4.21 5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES .......................................................... 5.1 5.1 DESIGN OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................... 5.1 5.2 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ............................................................ 5.1 5.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA & METHODOLOGY ...................................................... 5.2 5.4 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE ................................. 5.8 6.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION AND NET EFFECTS FOR PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................... 6.1 6.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION ...................................... 6.1 6.1.1 Construction Timing ................................................................................... 6.1 6.1.2 Erosion and Sediment Control ................................................................... 6.4 6.1.3 Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 6.4 6.1.4 Significant Natural Heritage Features ........................................................ 6.4 7.0 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................................... 7.1 7.1 MELTWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY/POND .................................................. 7.1 7.1.1 Meltwater Quality Control ........................................................................... 7.1 7.1.2 Meltwater Quantity Control ........................................................................ 7.2 7.1.3 Meltwater Discharges and Mixing in Feedmill Creek .................................. 7.2 7.2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY/POND .............................................. 7.5 7.2.1 On-site stormwater management facility/pond ....................................... 7.5 7.2.2 Off-site stormwater management facility/pond and roadside ditches ..... 7.7 8.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES FOR PREFERRED DESIGN ................................. 8.1 8.1 SUMMARY SDF PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................... 8.1 8.2 LIGHTING ............................................................................................................. 8.1 8.3 SITE SECURITY & FENCES ................................................................................ 8.2 8.4 GRADING AND BERMING ................................................................................... 8.2 8.5 SITE ENTRANCE ................................................................................................. 8.3 8.6 PARKING AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE ............................................................. 8.3 8.7 NOISE BARRIER AND LANDSCAPING ............................................................... 8.3 8.8 TRUCK RATES AND HOURS OF OPERATION ................................................... 8.4 8.9 SITE EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 8.4 8.10 ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST ....................................................................... 8.5 CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx iii 9.0 MONITORING ............................................................................................................... 9.1 9.1 MELTWATER AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ....................... 9.1 9.1.1 Pond Operating Levels .............................................................................. 9.1 9.1.2 Monitoring Program ................................................................................... 9.1 9.1.3 Sediment Removal .................................................................................... 9.1 10.0 CONSULTATION ........................................................................................................ 10.1 10.1 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... 10.1 10.2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION .................................................................................. 10.2 10.2.1 Notice of Completion ............................................................................... 10.5 10.2.2 First Nations and Aboriginal Consultation ................................................ 10.5 10.2.3 Website ................................................................................................... 10.6 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Average Haul Distance and Travel Time to Catchment Areas ................................... 2.4 Table 2: Scoring for the 10 Closest Properties ........................................................................ 2.5 Table 3: Organizational Responsibilities.................................................................................. 3.1 Table 4: Maintenance Quality Standards for Snow and Ice Control on City Roads ................ 4.15 Table 5: Qualitative Evaluation of Design Components ............................................................ 5.3 Table 6: Potential Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures .......................................... 6.2 Table 7: Average Year Assimilation of SDF Chlorides with SWMP .......................................... 7.4 Table 8: Site Outlet Pre vs. Post Discharges ............................................................................ 7.6 Table 9: Estimate of Probable Cost (2013) ............................................................................... 8.5 Table 10: Newspaper Notices ................................................................................................ 10.2
List of Appendices
Appendix A - List of Figures Figure 1 - Snow Disposal Facilities (2001) Location Plan Figure 2 - West End Servicing Area Figure 3 - Potential Sites investigated by the City 2009 Figure 4 - West District Snow Disposal Facilities 2009 Figure 5 - Study Area - Vegetation Communities Figure 6 - Project Area as shown over detail from 1879 Belden Historical Atlas Figure 7 - Area Map showing Facility and Points of Reception Figure 8 - Zones of Archaeological Potential, Results of Stage 1AA Figure 9 - Conceptual Site Layout Appendix B Phase 1 Consultation and Supporting Documentation Appendix C Phase 2 Consultation and Supporting Documentation Appendix D Meetings Appendix E Correspondence and Other Communication Appendix F Compact Disk - Studies
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 September 11, 2013 cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 1.1 1.0 Introduction In January 2012, the City of Ottawa retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) to review and complete an environmental planning process for the development of a new snow disposal facility (SDF) in Ottawas west end to service the disposal needs within Kanata and the surrounding area. New disposal capacity is required to replace the capacity lost from the closure of several existing SDF sites (Glen Cairn, Whelan Park) and future planned closure of other temporary sites at Maple Grove and Carp Road, as well as to accommodate growth from new development within the study area. Figure 1 identifies the location of the 28 SDFs, as they existed in 2002. In October 2002, the City adopted a report to Council based on the Scoping Analysis of Snow Disposal Facilities (SAS) which established a strategy for the management of snow disposal for a planning period of 20 years. In 2002, the City had 28 SDFs with four of these being engineered facilities. Based on the design annual snow accumulation of 390cm for the 1:50 year frequency, the City required a disposal capacity of 3.06 million cubic metres (m 3 ) for servicing the 2001 land use (for the entire City). The strategy presented in the 2002 report for the 20 year period 2001-2021 predicted that the required capacity would increase to 3.9 million m 3 for the 2021 land use development (for the entire City). For the Citys west end, the SAS identified the existing SDFs at Maple Grove B, Carp, Kinburn, Glen Cairn, and a new Site H (yet to be identified) as being required to satisfy the disposal needs. By 2012, we observe the following changes to the 2002 SAS recommendations, these being; Glen Cairn site has been closed, the Kinburn SDF is a small rural site and services a small community outside of the urban centre of Kanata. This site is too far removed from the urban centre to offer any potential use as a large SDF, a new site (identified as Site H in previous studies) was reviewed by the City in 2009 and found to be less desirable than other locations offering more potential, the Carp Site located adjacent to the Park & Ride (P&R) has environmental constraints and would be difficult to develop as an engineered SDF, imminent closure of the Maple Grove B and Carp (P&R) sites. Since these two sites are the only two SDFs in existence for servicing the west end, their closure would pose a serious deficiency in capacity which must be replaced by a new site. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Introduction September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 1.2 Planning for municipal infrastructure is typically done in accordance with the planning process set out in a document published by the Municipal Engineers Association entitled Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) dated October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011. While Clauses 10 and 39 of the MCEA Project Schedules identify Snow Disposal related activities as being a Schedule A project, the City in discussion with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) during 2012 was encouraged to select a higher level planning process offered by the Schedule B project category (Section 3.2 provides a description of the above Schedules). The City elected to follow this recommendation for the following reasons; Land acquisition is likely to be necessary, a new property is likely to require a change in zoning, consultation with the public and agencies at an early stage of the MCEA process would provide feedback on the acceptability of the site for development as an SDF. This consultation would also provide early detection of concerns that could be expressed in the mandatory consultation required by the change in zoning and the Site Plan Control process, the infrastructure required to support the activities at the new SDF (such as stormwater management) may involve activities that are subject to the MCEA process so it would be prudent to follow a more rigorous process from the beginning. This Phase 1 & 2 Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) Report is intended to satisfy the legislative requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). The MCEA process is further explained in Section 3 of this Report. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION WEST END SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY 1.1.1 Study Area The catchment area for snow removal in the west end for the purpose of this Phase 1 & 2 MCEA Report is shown in Figure 2 and summarized below; North extends to the Carp community and Ottawa River South extends to Flewellyn Road but also includes the community of Richmond East extends to Richmond Road and Highway 416 West extends to west limit of Stittsville but also includes the community of Munster CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Introduction September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 1.3 1.1.2 Planning Period and Snow Disposal Volume The 2002 Scoping Analysis of Snow Disposal Facilities (SAS) study had identified the planning period to end in 2021. The SAS had calculated the snow disposal demand to service the west end to 2021 to be 308,000 m 3 . This volume was based on the following assumptions: Historical truck box measurements showing that during an average year with 223 cm of snowfall, the volume of snow to be disposed was calculated to be 96,000 m 3 for the 2001 west end land use. Growth in volume of snow to be disposed between 2001 and 2021 was assumed to be correlated to the population growth and a multiplication factor of 1.73 was applied to the 2001 volume. The City, based on the 2002 SAS study, selected the 1:50 year annual snowfall as being the basis for defining maximum capacity for an SDF design. To calculate the snow disposal volume for the 1:50 year snowfall (390 cm of snow), a multiplication factor of 2.5 was applied (1:50 snow accumulation/1:5 snow accumulation) to the 2021 disposal volume. The above calculations resulted in a volume of snow equivalent to 308,000 m 3 as being the disposal capacity requirements for the west end by 2021. The City is currently reviewing their Official Plan and the long term strategy for infrastructure/transportation planning (Transportation Master Plan, Delcan 2008) has a planning period ending in 2031. To make use of the transportation planning growth projections provided in the Delcan report, the planning period for this MCEA will extend to 2031. The Transportation Master Plan (Draft 2008) estimated between 2006 and 2031 that the population of the west urban sector was to grow from 88,400 to 162,200, an increase of 73,800 people or 28% (equivalent to 5.56% per 5 year increment). Assuming that the road infrastructure continues to grow at the same rate as the population, applying a 11.12% increase (5.56*2) to the 2021 snow disposal demand volume (308,000 m 3 ) increases the snow disposal demand to 342,250 m 3 . While this is a rather simplistic approach to account for the increased road infrastructure between 2021 and 2031, the large uncertainty in defining other variables do not make a more accurate determination worthwhile. In 2009, the City reviewed historical snow volumes delivered to the west end SDFs and estimated the disposal needs to service the west end to be 357,000 m 3 this larger volume accounted for the 2007/2008 season where a significant amount of the annual snowfall occurred in the latter part of the season and equipment had difficulty in keeping pace with snow delivery CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Introduction September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 1.4 and resulted in less than optimal placement. Since similar events are to be anticipated, this MCEA will plan on providing a disposal volume of 357,000 m 3 for the planning period. While the MCEA will plan to provide disposal capacity for the 1:50 year snowfall to accommodate growth to 2031, the City could proceed with a smaller disposal volume should the property(ies) being considered have constraints that restrict a larger volume. 1.2 PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT 1.2.1 Lack of Snow Disposal Capacity in West End Ottawa The City needs to provide 357,000 m 3 of snow disposal capacity to service the Citys west end. The 357,000 m 3 volume may be increased or decreased slightly to accommodate potential constraints posed by one or more potential sites. During consultation for Phase 1 of the MCEA process with key agencies, the MOE requested that if the selected property for a SDF development was going to be at 2125 Carp Road, off site drainage improvements would also need to be included in the approval process. With the development of disposal capacity at a new SDF, the use of the existing SDFs at Maple Grove and Carp (P&R) can be phased out. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 September 11, 2013 cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 2.1 2.0 Alternative Methods for Snow Disposal 2.1 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE UNDERTAKING Alternatives to the undertaking have been evaluated in several previous studies prepared for the former Regional Municipality of Ottawa Carleton and the City of Ottawa. Alternatives identified and evaluated in prior studies, as listed below; Innes Snow Disposal Facility Environmental Study and Design Report dated April 2006 by Stantec Consulting Ltd., Strandherd Snow Disposal Facility Environmental Study Report dated May 2006 by A.J. Robinson, Strategic Plan for Snow Disposal Inside the Greenbelt dated 1995 by McNeely Tunnock) included dumping directly into a surface water body, sewer chutes (dumping into sanitary sewer), mobile melters, land disposal, and do nothing. A brief description of these alternatives is provided below. Do Nothing The status quo or do nothing alternative is considered the most unsatisfactory given that there would be no efforts to ensure that the safety of people and vehicles using the road infrastructure is provided. The City of Ottawa (City) is responsible for the removal and disposal of snow within its municipal boundaries. The Municipal Act and O. Regulation 239/02 establish the minimum standards for road maintenance. The City has adopted standards in their document: Maintenance Quality Standards for Roads, Sidewalks and Pathways which establishes the minimum level of service for various types of roads and a maintenance standard including the removal of snow/ice and application of salt/other materials within the City.
Disposal in Water Body The alternative of river disposal is constrained by the lack of effective control over potential flooding. Dumping snow into the floodway of a river may cause upstream flooding as well as negative environmental impacts by direct release of contaminants into the surface water course.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Alternative Methods for Snow Disposal September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 2.2 Sewer Chutes Direct discharge into a sanitary sewer through chutes requires a significant trunk sewer with the capacity and sewage flow required to melt the snow and not create a blockage in the trunk sewer pipe. Meltwater would be directed to the sewage treatment plant. In the west end, nighttime sewage flows are not sufficient to accommodate disposal of any significant snow quantities.
Melters Meltwater discharged from mobile thermal melters is of poor quality. Mobile thermal melters require specific weather conditions to operate efficiently, otherwise chemicals or a shelter may have to be provided so that the meltwater does not freeze before draining into the sewer. The colder mean average winter temperatures experienced in Ottawa effectively preclude their use. Also since this equipment requires an extensive set-up process with many coordinated activities, it is not suitable for the shorter more discontinuous type of snow removal operations anticipated for the west end.
Land Disposal Land disposal provides an opportunity to properly treat snow melt in a basin prior to its discharge into a surface water course. It is therefore considered to be the most preferable alternative in terms of mitigating potential negative environmental impacts from contaminants in snow. Its operational simplicity is a major factor to its acceptance. For the land disposal alternative, the most significant constraint is that sites must be located away from residential areas to minimize land use incompatibility. Within the designated growth centres outside of the greenbelt, the land disposal alternative offers the most flexibility and is the most technically feasible solution. In summary, the land disposal alternative with treatment is considered to be the most appropriate alternative for snow disposal in the City since it is shown to be environmentally safe, technically reliable, economically viable, and socially acceptable. Consequently, for the purpose of this MCEA study, land disposal is the only alternative to considered for snow disposal. 2.2 CONSIDERATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS In June 2009, the Citys Operations Research Unit (ORU) completed a report Evaluation of Properties for a West District Snow Disposal Facility (SDF) that identified 10 sites that offered potential for development as a SDF. The location of the 10 sites is shown in Figure 3. In completing the above study, the City reviewed its calculations for snow volumes for the 1:50 CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Alternative Methods for Snow Disposal September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 2.3 year snowfall taking into consideration some of the closures of sites that had been identified in the 2002 SAS strategy. Figure 4 identifies the revised capacity calculations for the entire City and more particularly, shows a revised snow disposal requirement of 357,000 m 3 to service the west end. The Citys ORU report (2009) describes how the sites were identified and how the evaluation, using the criteria (rating) below, was conducted by Technical Services. The rating was established as follows; Location travel time and haul distance have the greatest impact on efficiency of snow removal operations and long term operating costs this criteria was given a rating of 50 points on a total of 100. Technical and Environmental Considerations a suitable discharge location for meltwater is critical as well as the soil type for groundwater protection this criteria was given a rating of 25 points out of 100. Property Size the site must be sufficiently large to accommodate the snow disposal requirements while respecting zoning setbacks - this criteria was given a rating of 15 points out of 100. Economics acquisition costs must be affordable and development costs reasonable - this criterion was given a rating of 10 points out of 100. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Alternative Methods for Snow Disposal September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 2.4
As haul distance and travel time were determined to be the most important considerations, the 10 closest sites to the catchment areas (Figure 3) were chosen for an evaluation. Table 1: Average Haul Distance and Travel Time to Catchment Areas Property Average Haul Distance to Catchment Areas (kms) Average Travel Time to Catchment Areas (minutes) 1818 Bradley Side 8.2 12 2125 Carp Road 9.6 10 1170 March Road 10.3 12 6559 Hazeldean 10.6 15 6437 Flewellyn 11.8 15 915 Riddell 12.3 15 2822 Carp Road 12.4 14 2914 Carp Road 13 15 2050 Dunrobin Road 13.9 17 Carp & March 14.4 17
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Alternative Methods for Snow Disposal September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 2.5 The results of the evaluation are shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: Scoring for the 10 Closest Properties Property Rank Score Concerns 1818 Bradley Side 1 75 Size of property, 0.5 km force main to Carp River 2125 Carp Road 2 75 Soils, concerns for drainage outlet 0 Carp & March 3 74 Haul distance, travel time 6559 Hazeldean 4 68.5 Soils, Concerns for drainage outlet 2822 Carp Road 5 68 Concern for drainage outlet 6437 Flewellyn 6 66 Soils, Concerns for drainage outlet 2914 Carp Road 7 64 Concerns for drainage outlet 915 Riddell 8 59 Zoning, Concerns for drainage outlet 1170 March Road 9 51 Zoning, Concerns for drainage outlet 2050 Dunrobin Road 10 41 Zoning, Concerns for drainage outlet The Citys Operations Research Unit (ORU) met with Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to discuss the 5 best ranked properties and consensus was that the property located at 2125 Carp Road site was the best opportunity to pursue. The following is a brief summary of the planning issues for the 5 best ranked properties. 1818 Bradley Side Road: Although the 1818 Bradley property ranked highest, because it was close to the snow removal catchment areas and had a meltwater outlet, it was eliminated as a candidate site because the City did not want to change the agriculture (AG) zoning for a property situated outside the urban boundary. 2125 Carp Road: 2125 Carp Road was chosen as the next candidate property because it was located in an industrial area, next to a major transportation network and has good access to the catchment areas. While there are some drainage issues attached to the property, ORU implied that if, with the development of the 2125 Carp Rd property the City was able to improve some of the upstream drainage for the adjacent lands, this would be viewed as a positive. Carp and March Road: with the property situated farther away from the catchment areas, and because the Carp River and several of its small tributaries flow through the property, the development of the site as a SDF would not be well viewed from an environmental perspective. 6559 Hazeldean and 2822 Carp Road: properties are relatively well situated but neither site has ideal outlets for their meltwater. In summary, the 2009 Citys ORU West SDF Report identified the site at 2125 Carp Road as offering the most potential for development as a SDF. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Alternative Methods for Snow Disposal September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 2.6 This Phase 1 & 2 MCEA report is for the development of an SDF at 2125 Carp Road. While the property is privately owned, the City is proceeding with its purchase in 2013 and seeking approval from regulatory agencies for its use as an SDF. The property at 2125 Carp Road will be carried forward as the preferred location for the development of an SDF following the MCEA process. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 September 11, 2013 cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 3.1 3.0 Regulatory Environment This section outlines the environmental legislation applied in this study to snow disposal using the land disposal alternative. 3.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION The primary contacts for the project are: Mr. Ravi Mehta, P. Eng. (Phase 1 only) and Ms. Carolyn Newcombe, P. Eng. (Phase 2) Project Managers, City of Ottawa Mr. Gerry Lalonde, P. Eng. Project Manager, Stantec Consulting Ltd. The responsibilities of each of the parties involved in the study are briefly described in Table 3 below. Table 3: Organizational Responsibilities Ministry of the Environment Provides technical input during document review City of Ottawa Proponent of the study Responsible for overall conduct of the study Provides background information on existing facilities, systems, and review comments Public Provides input to the entire process and comments on published reports Agencies federal, provincial, others such as the Conservation Authority. Provide input during document review Aboriginal and First Nations Provide input during document review Stantec Consulting Ltd Consultant responsible for completing the study
3.2 ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT Ontarios Environmental Assessment (EA) Act was passed in 1975 and was first applied to municipalities in 1981. The EA Act requires the study, documentation, and examination of the environmental effects that could result from major projects or activities. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Regulatory Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 3.2 The objective of the EA Act is to consider the possible effects of these projects early in the planning process, when concerns may be most easily resolved, and to select a preferred alternative with the fewest environmental impacts. The EA Act defines environment very broadly as: a) Air, land or water b) Plant and animal life, including humans c) Social, economic, and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a d) community e) Any building, structure, machine, or other device or thing made by humans f) Any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration, or radiation resulting directly or g) indirectly from human activities
and any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of them, in or of Ontario. In applying the requirements of the EA Act to projects, two types of EA planning and approval processes are identified: Individual EAs (Part II of the EA Act): projects for which a Terms of Reference and an Individual EA are carried out and submitted to the Minister of the Environment for review and approval. Class EAs: projects are approved subject to compliance with an approved Class EA process; provided that the appropriate Class EA approval process is followed, a proponent will comply with Section 13(3) a, Part II.1 of the EA Act. 3.3 MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS The approved Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) document prepared by the Municipal Engineers Association in 2000, amended in 2007 & 2011 documents an approved Class EA process under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. Projects can be evaluated based on their Class while still meeting the requirements of the EAA. For projects to be evaluated under the MCEA process, they must meet the following conditions; Be recurring, Usually similar in nature, Usually limited in scale, Have a predictable range of environmental effects, and Be responsive to mitigative measures.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Regulatory Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 3.3 The MCEA provides for the implementation of five key principles of successful planning. These are: 1. Early consultation with affected parties (includes public, landowners, stakeholders, etc). 2. Consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives. 3. Identification and consideration of the effects of each alternative on any or all aspects of the environment. 4. Evaluation of alternatives to determine their net environmental effect. 5. A clear and complete documentation of the planning process to allow "traceability" of the decision-making. The MCEA process provides for the planning and implementation of municipal projects also referred to as "undertakings". Since these projects undertaken by municipalities vary in their environmental impact, such projects (or undertakings) are classified in terms of Schedules. In brief these Schedules can be summarized as follows: Schedule A Projects in this classification are limited in scale, have minimal adverse effects. These projects include the majority of municipal operations and maintenance activities, such as culvert replacements or watermain and sewer extensions within existing road allowances or winter operations, and can proceed to implementation without further approvals under the MCEA. Schedule B Projects in this classification have the potential for some adverse environmental effects. The proponent is therefore required to undertake a screening process, involving mandatory contact with the directly affected public, stakeholders, and with relevant government agencies, to ensure that they are aware of the project and that their concerns are addressed. If there are no outstanding concerns then the proponent may proceed to implementation. If, however, the screening process raises a concern that cannot be resolved, then the project may be "bumped-up" (Part II Order) to a Schedule C or an individual EA. Projects under this schedule must, as a minimum requirement, comply with Phases 1, 2 and 5 of the MCEA, as shown in Exhibit A.2 (refer to Section 3.8) and as described below. Schedule C Projects in this classification have the potential for significant environmental effects and must proceed under the full planning and documentation procedures specified in the MCEA. If concerns are raised that cannot be resolved, the "bump-up" (Part II Order) procedure to an individual EA may be invoked. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Regulatory Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 3.4 Projects under this schedule must, as a minimum requirement, comply with Phases 1 through 5, inclusively, in compliance with the MCEA process, as shown in Exhibit A.2 and as described below. Such projects may include the construction or expansion of facilities beyond their rated capacities. Exhibit A.2 also illustrates the process followed in the planning and design of projects covered by the MCEA. In the case of this project, only Phase 1 and 2 were completed as is the requirement for Schedule B projects. The steps considered essential for compliance with the requirements of the Act are summarized as follows: Phase 1 This stage consists of identifying the problems or deficiencies with the current snow disposal system for Ottawas west end. Phase 2 This stage consists of identifying alternative solutions to the problems and establishing the preferred solution, taking into account public and review agency input. During this Phase, the study identifies the approval requirements and confirms the appropriate schedule for the Undertaking, which for this study includes Phases 1 and 2 of a Schedule B activity. This Phase requires a mandatory public consultation and review process. Phase 3 While this project is not anticipated to go into Phase 3, should there be a Part II Order request, it could be elevated into a Schedule C. For projects classified as Schedule C activities, this stage consists of examining alternative methods of implementing the preferred solution in accordance with the MCEA requirements and includes a mandatory public consultation and review process. Phase 4 For projects classified as Schedule C activities, this stage consists of documenting in an environmental study report (ESR) a summary of the rationale, planning, design and consultation process of the project as established through the preceding phases. This document is subject to scrutiny by review agencies and the public. Phase 5 Once the above phases have been completed, this stage consists of completing the contract documents and proceeding to construction, operation and monitoring of the Undertaking. 3.4 DETERMINATION OF MCEA SCHEDULE This project is being planned as a Schedule B activity subject to a screening process. This report will therefore customize and document the project specifics and needs for a project. Phase 1, Problem or Opportunity, was presented to the public and circulated to agencies in February 2013. This combined Phase 1& 2 MCEA was presented to the public and circulated to agencies in September 2013. A Public Open House was held August 6th 2013 to present the CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Regulatory Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 3.5 findings of the Phase 2 studies to the public. Exhibit A.2 shows the planning process for this project.
3.5 ONTARIO GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES The selection and environmental assessment process for snow disposal sites requires a detailed review of relevant provincial guidelines and regulations to ensure compliance with these environmental directives. The establishment of a new SDF will likely require management of stormwater and meltwater discharge, both will require approval by the City and MOE through the issuance of an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA). The guidelines and regulations are as follows: Guidelines for Snow Disposal and De-icing Operations in Ontario, MOE Water Management, Goals, Policies and Implementation Procedures of the Ministry of the Environment, 1978 (Revised, 1984) Environmental Protection Act, 1990 CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Regulatory Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 3.6 Environmental Assessment Act, 1990 Planning Act, 1990. Outlined below are brief descriptions of the policy directives of these documents and their use in the environmental review process for snow disposal sites. 3.4.1 Guidelines for Snow Disposal and De-icing Operations in Ontario The guideline broadly covers the topics of snow disposal, site selection criteria and de-icing chemicals in connection with potential water pollution from snow disposal, snow disposal practices and winter road maintenance operations. The intent of the guideline is to minimize the environmental impact of snow collection, disposal practices and de-icing operations. The guideline outlines some considerations such as accessibility, noise, alternate land uses, visual considerations, drainage factors and subsurface drainage. Within the section on subsurface drainage, the requirement for a detailed hydrogeologic study is outlined to determine the uses of groundwater down gradient of the site, locating the site in areas with impervious soil stratum to prevent contaminant migration and siting considerations for sites located in recharge areas. These general criteria do not provide for the quantitative measurement of the potential environmental impact and thus only provide a qualitative tool for the assessment of the environmental suitability of snow disposal sites. 3.4.2 Water Management, Goals, Policies and Implementation This publication outlines the water management programs of the Ontario MOE which provide for the management of the surface water and groundwater quality and quantity. Program management goals are stated, following by policy directives, implementation procedures, and the standards, which apply, to maintaining water quality. The goals and policy directives in this document are pertinent in the assessment of snow disposal sites as the primary management programs address surface water and groundwater impact. Based on these regulatory requirements, the following approvals under the Ontario Water Resources Act are required for works undertaken as part of the development of the Carp SDF: 1. Environmental Compliance Approval for the meltwater treatment facility, including the potential for a pump station and any associated piping and mechanical/electrical components. 2. Environmental Compliance Approval(s) for the stormwater management facilities one ECA for the on-site SWM pond and another ECA for the off-site drainage improvements (linear pond and roadside ditches). CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Regulatory Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 3.7 3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT The Ontario Environmental Protection Act provides legislative authority to limit the discharge of contaminants to the natural environment. Section 14(1) of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act (R.S.O. 1990) states: no person shall discharge a contaminant or cause or permit the discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment that causes or is likely to cause and adverse effect. EPA approval would apply to air quality (emissions and noise) from stationary equipment (such as a standby generator to provide backup power). Since we do not anticipate any permanent structures on site (except for the security trailer), we do not anticipate that an approval under the EPA is required. 3.7 PLANNING ACT 3.7.1 Official Plan Section 3.9 Snow Disposal Facilities of the Official Plan (OP) provides the following guidance on Official Plan Policies; Policies Snow disposal facilities are not designated on the schedules of this Plan. Existing snow disposal facilities will be recognized in the zoning by-law. A new snow disposal facility will require an amendment to the zoning by-law. New Snow Disposal Facilities will only be permitted in areas where it can be demonstrated that the impacts of trucking and any other negative impacts can be minimized and subject to a zoning by- law amendment. Snow disposal facilities will not be permitted in Natural Environment Areas, significant wetlands south and east of the Canadian Shield, flood plains, unstable slopes and urban natural features. The impacts of snow disposal facilities for existing or committed sites shall be mitigated through urban design and site plan control measures which include locating landscaping, road allowances, open space uses, utility installations, commercial uses, etc. in any intervening separation distance between the snow disposal facilities and a sensitive land use. The appropriateness of new Snow Disposal Facilities or expansions to existing facilities will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria: o Appropriate setbacks from residential uses and neighboring properties in accordance with Ministry of Environment Guidelines for setbacks from residential uses and for recommended acceptable noise levels; o Safe and secure access which does not encourage truck traffic on local roads; o A grading and drainage plan that shows all melt water can be handled in an environmentally- acceptable fashion; and, CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Regulatory Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 3.8 o The preparation of a study that addresses: Existing soil and water quality conditions to establish baseline levels of soil and water components, Presence of any contaminants and the potential for accumulation of any contaminants that could migrate or be made more dangerous as a result of the snow disposal facility, Proximity to drinking wells and impact on them, Soil stability, Sub-surface drainage and impact on surrounding properties, Proximity to any open water courses and potential impacts on them, Noise and vibration, Aesthetics, Seagull control, Air quality. On an on-going basis, the City will monitor water quality and soil conditions in and surrounding existing and proposed Snow Disposal Facilities and implement measures to mitigate any impacts in these areas. The property at 2125 Carp Road is designated as being in the Carp Road Corridor Rural Employment Area and this designation does not prohibit snow disposal. The development of the property at 2125 Carp Road does not require any change to the Citys Official Plan. 3.7.2 Zoning While the OP does not have a specific land use category for snow disposal, it does specify that the zoning for the property must permit snow disposal. The property has a zoning designation RG5 Rural General Industrial Five Zone where snow disposal is not a permitted use. An amendment to the Zoning By-Law (ZBL) is required to allow a snow disposal facility as a permitted use. The planning process for the ZBL amendment will be a separate process but held concurrent with the MCEA process. 3.7.3 Community Design Plan The property is within the Carp Road Corridor Community Design Plan (CDP) and within the Light Industrial designation. Certain design policies for this designation include; Permitted uses include compatible public and institutional uses, Uses to be designed to minimize nuisance or interference with the use of adjoining lands, and Mitigation such as landscaping, screening and buffering are to be used to reduce impact.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Regulatory Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 3.9 As snow disposal is an operation compatible with the Light Industrial designation. We do not anticipate that any changes are required to the Carp Road Corridor CDP. 3.7.4 Site Plan Control The establishment of any facility with an Industrial designation requires that an approval be sought under the Site Plan Control process. A list of studies required by the Site Plan Control process has been identified by the Citys Planning and Growth Management and is shown in Appendix D. 3.8 CANADA FISHERIES ACT This act protects fish habitat in its broadest sense. Destruction of fish habitat directly or indirectly, may be prosecuted as a criminal offence. Conditions in the Act allow for protection, compensation, or replacement. The Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) has level 2 delegated authority to administer the Act. Issues outside the delegated authority require direct involvement by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The MVCA has advised the City that it does not consider the drainage on site as being supportive of fish habitat; therefore there are no anticipated issues with fish on-site.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 September 11, 2013 cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.1 4.0 Description of the Environment Numerous studies were undertaken to describe the environment and are reproduced in electronic format in Appendix F. The reports are also available through the Citys website for this specific project. The description of the environment at 2125 Carp Road is provided in the following sections of this report. 4.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 4.1.1 Terrestrial Resources Field studies and natural environment inventories were completed within the subject property to confirm the boundaries and characteristics of the natural heritage features that may be affected by the proposed development. Natural heritage features on adjacent lands, where permission to access was not provided, were inventoried by conducting visual assessments from the study area. Field surveys were conducted by Stantec biologists on the following dates in 2012: April 24, May 31, June 1, June 15, June 27 and November 29. Vegetation communities present within the Study Area include Swamp, Marsh, Mixed- Woodland, Plantation and Disturbed (Figure 5). The southern and eastern areas of the property are mainly scrub habitats and disturbed areas. The northeastern area contains a Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris) plantation that transitions into a mixed woodlot to the west. The western boundary and a majority of the southern boundary exhibit wetland characteristics with willows (Salix sp.), Gray (Speckled) Alder (Alnus incana) and Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides) as the dominant tree/shrub layer. These communities and the vegetation species that inhabit them are not considered sensitive or significant and are common of disturbed, urban landscapes. Five Butternut trees were identified and assessed on the site. Two of the five Butternut trees are within the proposed dump pad area and need to be removed. The removal of the retainable Butternut trees is an activity that must be registered with the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). A planting plan will be required and must be provided to MNR with the registration. Retainable Butternut will not be removed without the prior registration with MNR. Protective measures identified in the tree planting and protection plan must be implemented prior to site preparation or construction. Butternut seedlings that have been planted to replace retainable trees must be monitored and tended for two years. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.2 4.1.2 Aquatic Resources Two small-bodied fish were observed within the east-west drainage feature along Westbrook Road during the April field survey. Feedmill Creek, downstream of the subject property, has been documented as fish habitat with a well-developed fisheries community that includes minnow species and several game-fish species. Feedmill Creek is a tributary of the Carp River. The Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Study (City of Ottawa 2004) provides a detailed fish habitat analysis and outlines all species encountered within Feedmill Creek. Twenty-two species of fish were documented in the Carp River system, including Feedmill Creek and Pool Creek (TSH 2006) in a study that overlaps the area of Feedmill Creek downstream of the proposed project. The fish observed were predominantly warm water species that are tolerant of degraded conditions, although one cool water species (Mottle Sculpin) was recorded (TSH 2006). Most of the habitats available within the subject property are aquatic with several linear watercourses, wetland and small ponds. Based on the vegetation present and the current conditions it appears that most of these aquatic features remain inundated. 4.1.3 Wildlife The small and fragmented woodlands and plantation do not offer interior forest habitat but they do provide nesting opportunities for breeding birds and mammals. Some locations in the subject property were identified as providing White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) feeding opportunities and bedding locations. These habitats were also providing cover and nesting opportunities for birds identified in the subject property. Green Frogs (Lithobates clamitans) were observed during the June 15 site visit. The amount of standing water observed in the wetland habitats offer suitable breeding habitat for amphibian species on the subject property. While conducting basking and nesting surveys for Blandings Turtle, 11 Midland Painted Turtles (Chrysemys picta marginata) were observed within the marsh community. A range of sizes between all of the individuals suggest that this population is reproducing. Midland Painted Turtles were observed during each of the turtle surveys. During the May 31 site visit a turtle nesting location was observed along the bank of the marsh community where fill, mainly gravel, had been deposited. There was an evident location where turtles were exiting the water (slide) and travelling up the gravel bank. Approximately eight potential egg deposit locations were identified. Based on the size of the slide exiting the water, CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.3 the size of the nest excavation, location and nesting substrate it is likely that this is an area where Snapping Turtles have nested. During the subsequent site visit on June 18 all of the observed nests were predated. No egg shells remained and therefore a positive identification was not made. Snapping Turtles are a species at risk, listed as Special Concern both provincially and federally. The wetland habitats within the subject property offered nesting, roosting and feeding opportunities for a variety of avian wetland species. Several species of wading birds were observed using the site on a regular basis, most notably the observation of an adult Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola) with several fledglings on June 27. This species is a secretive bird of freshwater marshes that remains hidden and generally excludes itself from any type of disturbance. A complete list of wildlife species identified during the various surveys is provided in Appendix E. None of the species observed are regionally, provincially or federally significant. In summary, the findings of the natural environment inventory include the presence of nesting sites for turtles and Least Bittern and three retainable butternut trees. 4.1.4 Gulls Roosting sites are specific areas where gulls spend the night in dense communal flocks. Roosting behaviour is most prevalent outside the breeding season and roosting sites are typically established in areas where the gulls are safe from terrestrial predators. Once established, gulls often roost in the same area year after year. It is not uncommon for gulls to make daily flights up to 60 km to and from a feeding site and a roosting site. During the breeding season, mature birds roost in close proximity to the nest site, on islands or adjacent waters. Loafing describes a range of activities which is somewhat like "communal resting" whereby gulls will bathe, drink, preen or simply sit and rest in flocks of various sizes. These loafing sites are typically close to feeding areas or areas between feeding and roosting sites. Favoured loafing sites typically provide protection from most predators or sources of disturbance or they provide excellent visibility for the detection of predators. Ideal loafing sites include: fresh water ponds and lakes, ploughed or harvested agricultural fields, open grassy areas, open flat undisturbed land and large flat rooftops. During the breeding season, loafing sites are primarily established by non-breeding sub-adult birds. The Citys Official Plan requires that a review of seagulls be addressed in any rezoning for establishment of a SDF. Since SDFs are not a source of food and the annual site cleanup following the melt will remove any detritus (that could have provided some short term food CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.4 supply if left), the potential to attract gulls is limited. Without a food source and with some 6ha of the property remaining vegetated (that could attract predators) and truck traffic within the site during snow removal, we interpret that conditions are not favorable for this location being a roosting or loathing site. No gulls were observed during the natural environment inventory. We do note that an active integrated wildlife management program to deter gulls is in effect at the landfill located directly north of the proposed SDF. 4.1.5 Climate This report describes the typical weather at the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) weather station over the course of an average year. It is based on the historical records from 1977 to 2012. Ottawa, Ontario has a humid continental climate with warm summers and no dry season. The following summarizes the climate data for Ottawa; - annual precipitation of 950mm - average snow depth of 30mm at month end (January and February) - mean annual evapotranspiration of 550mm - growing season of 118 days and 142 days are frost free - mean annual temperature of 5.9 degrees Celsius (-11C in January and 20C in July). The cold season lasts from December 3 to March 10 with an average daily high temperature below 0 C. The coldest day of the year is January 19, with an average low of -15C and high of -6C. Frozen ground conditions exist between mid- November and late March During the cold season, there is a 70% average chance that precipitation will be observed at some point during a given day. When precipitation does occur it is most often in the form of light snow (59% of days with precipitation have at worst light snow), moderate snow (22%), heavy snow (7%), and light rain (6%). During peak snow season, the chances of there being snow on the ground are highest around January 8, occurring 65% of the time. The season in which snow is relatively likely to be on the ground spans from November 21 to April 7. The snow is typically at its deepest on February 9, with a median depth of 27.9 cm; the depth exceeds 63.6 cm only one year out of ten. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.5 Over the course of the year typical wind speeds vary from 0 m/s to 7 m/s (calm to moderate breeze), rarely exceeding 10 m/s (fresh breeze). The highest average wind speed of 4 m/s (gentle breeze) occurs around April 14, at which time the average daily maximum wind speed is 7 m/s (moderate breeze). The wind is most often out of the west (18% of the time), south west (15% of the time), east (13% of the time), south (13% of the time), and north west (13% of the time). The wind is least often out of the south east (4% of the time). 4.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 4.2.1 Significant Natural Heritage Features 4.2.1.1 Designated Natural Heritage Features According to the City of Ottawa OP (2003, consolidated 2012), there is a Significant Woodland identified as a Natural Heritage System Feature located approximately 100 m northeast of the subject property across Highway 417. This Significant Woodland is located approximately 130 m east of the culvert that discharges from the property to the MTO drainage ditch. There is no designated Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW) or other Natural Environment Areas on or within 120 m of the study area. Another Significant Woodland (Area 306 of the Natural Environmental Systems Strategy) is situated approximately 400 m northwest of the proposed project. The Goulbourn Wetland Complex PSW is over 1 km to the west of the subject property. 4.2.1.2 Significant Wildlife Habitat Significant wildlife habitat is one of the more complicated natural heritage features to identify and evaluate. Pursuant to the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide, there are four general types of significant wildlife habitat: (a) seasonal concentration areas; (b) rare or specialized habitat; (c) habitat for species of conservation concern; or (d) migration corridors. 4.2.1.2.1 Seasonal Concentration Area Seasonal concentration areas are those sites where large numbers of a species gather together at one time of the year, or where several species congregate. The best wildlife seasonal concentration areas are usually designated as significant wildlife habitat. Areas that support a species at risk, or if a large proportion of the population may be lost if the habitat is destroyed, are examples of seasonal concentration areas which may be designated as significant (MNR 2000). The subject property is not a significant seasonal concentration area for wildlife. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.6 4.2.1.2.2 Rare or Specialized Habitat Rare or specialized habitats are two separate components. Rare habitats are those with vegetation communities that are considered rare in the province. It is assumed that these habitats are at risk and that they are also likely to support additional wildlife species that are considered significant. Specialized habitats are microhabitats that are critical to some wildlife species. The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide identifies a number of habitats that could be considered specialized habitats, such as habitat for area sensitive species, forests providing a high diversity of habitats, amphibian woodland breeding ponds, turtle nesting habitat, highly diverse sites, seeps and springs. No rare habitats are present within or adjacent to the subject property. Though nesting evidence for turtle species were observed, the area where the nesting occurred is not considered specialized habitat due to the potential of nest predation from raccoons, skunks and other animals (MNR 2000). 4.2.1.2.3 Species of Conservation Concern The largest habitat group to be assessed is habitat for species of conservation concern. This includes four types of species: (a) those that are rare; (b) those whose populations are significantly declining; (c) those that have been identified as being at risk to certain common activities; and (d) those with relatively large populations in Ontario compared to the remainder of the globe. Rare species are considered at five levels: (1) globally rare; (2) nationally rare (COSEWIC); (3) provincially rare (COSSARO); (4) regionally rare (at the Site Region level); and (5) locally rare (in the municipality or Site District). This is also the order of priority that should be attached to the importance of maintaining species. Though no rare species were observed, several of their habitat components were identified. Another group of species of conservation concern includes species that have been identified as being susceptible to certain practices or activities, and their presence may result in an area being designated significant wildlife habitat. Examples include species vulnerable to forest fragmentation and species such as woodland raptors that may be susceptible to forest management or human disturbance. None of these species were observed. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.7 The final group of species of conservation concern includes species that have a high proportion of their global population in Ontario. Although they may be common in Ontario, they are found in low numbers in other jurisdictions. No globally rare species were identified. 4.2.1.2.4 Migration Corridors Migration corridors are areas that are traditionally used by wildlife to move to one habitat from another. This is usually in response to different seasonal habitat requirements. Some examples are trails used by deer to move to wintering areas, and areas used by amphibians between breeding and summering habitat. The drainage ditch that bisects the subject property could potentially be used as a migration corridor for aquatic reptiles and aquatic mammals moving to downstream areas. This ditch would not be considered an important migration corridor. 4.2.1.3 Species at Risk A review of the Distribution of Fish Species at Risk Maps produced by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO 2011) indicate there are likely no aquatic species at risk on the subject property. Based on a review of the NHIC database and consultation with the MNR, the following rare, threatened or endangered species have been identified as occurring or historically occurring within the general vicinity of the subject property: Blandings Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) (S3) is designated as a provincially and federally Threatened species. High quality overwintering habitat for Blandings Turtle does not exist within the subject property, however potential nesting habitat was observed. Blandings Turtle were not observed during the 2012 turtle surveys. Butternut (Juglans cinerea) (S3?) is designated as a provincially and federally Endangered species. Five Butternut trees were observed within the subject property and were assessed by a MNR certified Butternut Health Assessor. Two of the five trees were determined to be retainable. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianu migrans) is an Endangered species that is protected provincially and federally. This critically imperiled species prefers grasslands and pastures located within alvar habitats in Ontario, which usually have small trees and shrubs dotting the landscape, usually Red Cedar and hawthorn species (MNR 2010). No preferred habitat for this species was observed within the subject property. This species was not observed during any of the site visits. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.8 Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) (S4B) is a provincially and federally Threatened species of marsh habitats. Marsh habitats of approximately 5 hectares are required. There are small areas of cattail marsh with open water within the subject property that could potentially provide Least Bittern low quality nesting habitat; however this species was not observed. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) (S4B) is a Threatened species that is protected both provincially and federally. There were no significant grassland features within the subject property to accommodate Bobolink nesting. This species was not observed during any of the site visits. Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magnais) (S4B) is listed as Threatened provincially. This species is found throughout native grassland habitats, pastures and savannahs; though it will use forage crops, weedy meadows, fencerows and grassy airfields. No grassland habitats are present for this species within the subject property. This species was not observed during any of the site visits. Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) (S4B) is listed as Threatened provincially and federally. No preferred nesting habitat for this species was observed within the subject property. This species was not observed during any of the site visits. Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferous) (S4B) is a Threatened species that is protected both provincially and federally. No preferred nesting habitat for this species was observed through field investigations. This species was not observed during any of the site visits.
No significant habitat of endangered or threatened species was observed during the 2012 surveys. The MNR identified potential habitat on site for Milksnake (Special Concern), Eastern Ribbonsnake (Special Concern) and Snapping Turtle (Special Concern). Eastern Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum) (S3) is a species that is designated as Special Concern provincially and federally. No hibernacula habitat for this species was observed through field investigations. This species was not observed during any of the site visits. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.9 Eastern Ribbonsnake (Thamnophis sauritus) (S3) is a species that is designated as Special Concern provincially and federally. There is wetland habitat for Eastern Ribbonsnake within the subject property; however this species was not observed during any of the site visits. Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) (S3) is a species that is designated as Special Concern provincially and federally. There is potential feeding and nesting habitat for the Snapping Turtle within the subject property. A possible nesting site was observed but not confirmed. This species was not observed during any of the site visits. 4.2.2 Surrounding Land Use and Receptors The subject property is located within the City of Ottawa, Ontario in parts of Lot 2, Concession 3, and geographic Township of Huntley. The property is west of Carp Road and bounded to the north and south by Highway 417 and Westbrook Road, respectively. The east boundary is bordered by a vacant lot and a commercial business. The west boundary is bordered by industrial and commercial businesses. The property is currently vacant land owned by a private entity with the City of Ottawa having a first right of refusal on the purchase conditional on obtaining a zoning amendment. During the fall of 2013, the City has decided to proceed with the purchase of the property (not yet concluded at the time of writing this report). The subject property and surrounding lands are designated as the Carp Road Corridor Rural Employment Area according to Schedule A Rural Policy Plan and are considered in the Community Design Plan of Annex 7 rural Village Plans, both of which are contained in the City of Ottawas Official Plan (OP) (City of Ottawa 2003, 2012 consolidation). The subject property is zoned under the Citys Zoning By-law RG Rural General Industrial Zone. 4.2.3 Topography and Drainage The subject property contains various unnamed drainage features, an unevaluated wetland in the southwestern portion, and two ponds in the eastern portion, as shown on Figure 5. The wetland type within the subject property is predominantly swamp with small marsh features. Drainage over the site is generally from south to north. The site drainage features and wetland are located in the Feedmill Creek headwaters region. The ponds had water present during all site visits and did not have any apparent surface water connectivity to the other aquatic features on the site. A drainage easement is registered against the west half of the property to accommodate flooding during wet weather events. The level of water is controlled by the invert of the corrugated steel pipe at the north end of the property that discharges to the MTO Highway 417 CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.10 ditch. As described in the hydrogeological report (Appendix F), the soils in the area being flooded do not have a high hydraulic conductivity and therefore runoff ponds for some time on site before it infiltrates into the ground. 4.2.4 Surface Water Features The subject property contains various unnamed drainage features, an unevaluated wetland in the southwestern portion, and two ponds in the eastern portion, as shown on Figure 1. The wetland type within the subject property is predominantly swamp with small marsh features. Other surface water features that are located within the study area include a linear unnamed watercourse that originates north of Walgreen Road and continues under Westbrook Road where it contributes flows to the subject property. It appears that water within this watercourse is collected from the adjacent roadside ditches and stormwater outfalls associated with the development in this area. This watercourse is characterized by standing, stagnant water and an abundance of aquatic vegetation, mainly algae. The unnamed watercourse upstream of the subject property, originating from Walgreen Road, is a linear feature that is characterized by shallow, turbid water with little to no flow. Cattails (Typha) are the dominant riparian vegetation type and instream vegetation was mainly composed of algae. The substrate observed at the culverts is characterized by muck and silt mixed with detritus. Similar features are observed within this watercourse north of Westbrook Road as it travels through the subject property and meets the drainage ditch along Highway 417. A physical barrier created by the difference in elevation at the discharge point of the main site drainage feature into the Highway 417 ditch is considered to be impassible by fish at all times of the year. 4.2.5 Groundwater A hydrogeological investigation was started in 2012 with the installation of 2 boreholes to define groundwater conditions over the site. In 2013, an additional 4 boreholes were installed to more fully characterize the groundwater regime to respond to concerns that the City and the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) had regarding the site being shown as a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area. The hydrogeological assessment consisted of installing a limited number of monitoring wells, developing the monitoring wells and obtain groundwater level measurements, undertaking short-duration recovery tests at selected well locations and estimating aquifer properties (e.g., hydraulic conductivity, storage, etc.), undertaking percolation testing at selected locations to determine in-situ percolation and infiltration rates in near-surface soils, determining the direction and magnitude of vertical hydraulic gradients, determining groundwater recharge using a variety of techniques, and CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.11 preparing a hydrogeological assessment report summarizing the results of field investigation and data analysis. Based on the results of field investigation, a conceptual understanding of the site hydro- stratigraphy was formulated. The site hydro-stratigraphy interpreted from the field borehole and monitoring well installation program is presented in the table below:
Elevation (m ASL 1 ) Depth (m bgs 2 ) Strata Description Deposit Type Hydro-Stratigraphy + 129 0 Topsoil, fill Non-native Unsaturated Fibrous peat Organic Unsaturated / seasonally saturated / variably saturated This unit is expected to behave as an unconfined aquifer when stressed
Silty sand/sandy silt
Glacio- fluvial Unsaturated / saturated Bounded below by a layer of lower hydraulic conductivity (till). This unit is expected to behave as an unconfined aquifer when stressed.
Silty sand with gravel (Till) Glacial drift Saturated This unit is expected to behave as an unconfined aquifer when stressed. + 118 11 Grey limestone Paleozoic bedrock Saturated A low-yielding aquifer bounded above by a layer of lower hydraulic conductivity (till). This unit is characterized as poorly confined. The surficial soils were found to have a hydraulic conductivity in the order of 10 -5 cm/s while the deeper bedrock unit varied between 10 -5 to 10 -8 cm/s. A site-specific groundwater contour map was developed to examine the direction of groundwater flow in the overburden. Groundwater flows in the overburden units indicate a northeast trend. In general, the positive values of vertical gradient were observed between the shallow and deep geologic units at the site suggesting the potential for downward flow direction during spring months. The small positive values of vertical gradient at well pair MW12-1 and MW12-2 indicate a marginal potential for downward movement of groundwater between the shallow and deep geologic units during summer and non-spring months. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.12 Groundwater recharge rates were estimated for the site based on the observed water table fluctuations in monitoring wells screened in the overburden. Annual estimated groundwater recharge to the overburden ranged from 21 mm to 119 mm per year. In order to evaluate if the site qualifies as a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area (SGRA), observed site conditions were compared with SGRA characteristics presented in the Mississippi Valley Source Protection Area Assessment Report (August 2011). Although hydrogeological data indicate that some degree of groundwater recharge is possible at the site, the estimated annual groundwater recharge, the presence of standing surface water, the nature and thickness of overburden units and the absence of outcrops of the Nepean Formation (sandstone aquifer) suggest that the site does not meet the characteristics of an SGRA. In order to evaluate if the site qualifies as a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer (HVA), observed site conditions were compared with HVA characteristics presented in the Mississippi Valley Source Protection Area Assessment Report (August 2011). Although the nature of the overburden materials and the shallow water table do not promote the interpretation that the site be considered as an HVA, it is recommended that the areas where snow and meltwater are stored be lined with low permeability material in order to prevent meltwater from impacting the groundwater at the site. 4.2.6 Air Quality and Noise An acoustic assessment was performed by Stantec in 2012. The City By-Law 2008-250 indicates that the snow disposal facility must be located at 200 m from the nearest residentially zoned area. Snow disposal facility can situated a minimum of 100 m from the nearest dwelling if noise control measures are implemented such that the facility is not considered a nuisance. Preliminary analysis shows that four receptors to the east of the site fall within the setback distances and therefore noise mitigation will be required as per the bylaw. The exclusionary minimum sound level for Class I areas are, for a facility operating between 7 AM and 7 PM, the limit is 50 dBA; for a facility operating between 7 PM and 11 PM, the limit is 47 dBA; and a facility operating between 11 PM and 7 AM, the limit is 45 dBA. Short-term spot check measurements were conducted at the proposed facility and surrounding area during the Sunday of October 21, 2012. The measurements near Carp Road suggest that even during a relatively quiet weekend day, the daytime sound level in the area is expected to be in the range of 55 to 60 dB. Observations confirm that Highway 417 and Carp Road are both highly traveled and the adjacent industrial facilities (including an aggregate facility to the northwest) contribute to the CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.13 sound level in the area. Therefore for the purpose of this assessment, a limit of 55 dB during daytime and 50 dB during nighttime was considered. This limit is the same historical sound level guidelines for the City of Ottawa that is applicable to air conditioners, heat pumps, compressors and similar devices. The results of the assessment show an equivalent sound level contour for the predictable worst- case operating scenario which includes the operation of 2 dozers and 20 trucks per hour. The results show that during daytime and nighttime, sound levels from site operation is predicted at the closest residence to the east to exceed the criteria by 8 dB at nighttime and in the daytime by 3 dB. Predictive analysis shows that a 50 m long L-shaped barrier with at least 4 m height installed along the east side of the property boundary will result in the nighttime sound level lower than 55 dB at all potential receptors. 4.2.7 Air Quality and Vibration Air quality will be impacted primarily from the exhaust emissions from the trucks hauling the snow and the crawlor tractors (1 or 2) used to stockpile the snow. An approval under Section 9 of the Environmental Protection Act is not required for the SDF development since there are no permanent buildings or stationary equipment that would generate emissions. In addition, the emissions from the seasonal truck traffic (40 trips/hour) is negligible compared to the traffic generated along Highway 417 (greater than 110,000 Average Annual Daily Traffic - AADT) to the north and Westbrook Road to the south. The impact to surrounding industrial properties is negligible. For the same reasons as cited above, vibration from traffic is not considered to be a problem. The melting of the snow will impact air temperature and humidity near the snow stockpile during the month of May (in May, the snow stockpile is the only area with any remaining snow - during April, the entire site is covered in melting snow so moisture is not localized to the snow stockpile area). Since pre-development conditions had most of the site covered in water during the spring melt, the reduction of the area of ponded water created by the construction of the stormwater pond should mitigate any effects. 4.2.8 Geological Setting/Soils The unconsolidated sediments (topsoil, fill, organic and glacio-fluvial deposits, glacial till) at the site are underlain by the Bobcaygeon Formation of Paleozoic age, which consists of crystalline limestone and calcarenite with some shale partings. The reported water yielding capability of Bobcaygeon Formation aquifer is fair. The Paleozoic limestone bedrock was inferred or intercepted at depths 3 m and greater. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.14 4.2.9 Geotechnical A preliminary geotechnical investigation was originally completed in April 2010 for the investigation of the site as part of a Serviceability Study (Stantec 2010). The 2010 geotechnical investigation recommendations were reviewed for this MCEA and now incorporate the findings from the additional wells installed for the hydrogeological program in 2012 and 2013. The geotechnical program identified the soils on-site to consist of competent soil material suitable to support conventional spread footing foundations. However the site has organic material in the low lying areas and other areas with fill where the soil layers will require removal and replacement with structural fill if facilities are to be constructed in these areas. The geotechnical recommendations for the heavy traffic areas include a base of 600 mm thickness of granular material (B&A) and a 190 mm thickness of asphalt (or grindings). Based on the soil conditions identified, the recommended site classification for seismic site response for the site is in Site Class D in accordance with the Ontario Building Code. The geotechnical investigation did not reveal any soil conditions which would have a significant negative impact on the development of the site. Although the surface soil with peat and covered in standing water present challenges for dewatering, the underlying silty type soils provide adequate strength to allow the site development as an SDF. 4.2.10 Land Ownership/Legal The site is located on the west side of Carp Road, between Highway 417 and Westbrook Road and is known municipally as 2125 Carp Road. A single detached dwelling with that address was severed from this site. The site that is the subject of this MCEA is vacant and has an area of 23.4 hectares. It is an irregular shaped property with 501 metres of frontage (east-west) on Westbrook Road and a depth of 459 metres (north-south) to Highway 417. The site is described as Part of Lot 2, Concession 3, Huntley Ward, geographic Township of Goulbourn, now the City of Ottawa, comprised of Part 4 Plan 4R-3392 and Parts 2 and 6, Plan 4R-23561 as well as Part of Block 7, Plan 4M-300. The City is proceeding with the purchase of the property from an individual for the development of the SDF. 4.2.11 Transportation The City is responsible for the removal and disposal of snow within its municipal boundaries. The Municipal Act and O. Regulation 239/02 establish the minimum standards for road maintenance. The City has adopted standards in their Maintenance Quality Standards for CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.15 Roads, Sidewalks and Pathways which establishes the minimum level of service for various types of road and a maintenance standard including the removal of snow/ice and application of salt/other materials within the City. A summary of the standards for snow clearing is shown in Table 4 and the standard for snow removal is reproduced in Appendix D. Snow collected by private contractors doing snow removal on private properties, within the City boundaries is not accepted at any municipal disposal facilities. The reason for this is that the existing snow disposal capacity is limited and the City is protecting the space for its use.
Table 4: Maintenance Quality Standards for Snow and Ice Control on City Roads Road Maintenance Class Road Type Minimum depth of Snow Accumulation for Deployment of Resources (Depth as per MMSMH) Time to clear Snow From the End of Snow Accumulation or Time to Treat Icy Conditions (Time as per MMSMH) Treatment standard Bare pave ment Centre bare Snow- packed 1 A High priority roads As accumulation begins (2.5-8 cm depending on class) 2 h (3-4 h)
X
B X 2 A 3 h (3-6 h) X 3 B Most major collectors 4 h (8-12 h) X A X B X 4 A Most minor collectors 5 cm (8 cm) 6 h (12-16 h) X B X C X 5 A, C Residential roads and lanes 7 cm (10 cm) 10 h (16-24 h) X B 10 cm (not defined) 16 h (not defined) X The classification of Highways is a function of the Average Annual Daily Traffic and the Posted or Statutory Speed Limit (refer to Section 1 of O. Regulation 239/02 for more complete details). A transportation assessment was completed for the development of the site with regard to the existing and future estimated traffic conditions for Westbrook Road and the intersection of Westbrook Road with Carp Road. Design traffic was assumed to be 20 trucks per hour inbound and outbound for a total of 40 trips per hour for a dozer operation and considered an increase in traffic of 1% per year from existing conditions in 2013 to 2022. The Westbrook Road analysis considered stopping sight distance and departure sight distance based on the vertical geometry CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.16 calculated from contours and using design criteria for the posted and design speeds for Westbrook. The assessment concluded that under the existing conditions the intersection fails to provide an adequate level of service for the north bound left turn lane on to Westbrook from Carp, for south bound through traffic lane on Carp, and for a left turn lane for eastbound traffic on Westbrook on to Carp Road. Due to the vertical geometry of Westbrook Road, for safety reasons the site access will require a right turn deceleration lane to accommodate truck traffic entering the site. The deceleration lane for the entrance to the site which is aligned with Walgreen Road will require a 90m stacking length and a 60 m taper length this should be achievable within the existing right of way (ROW). Mitigative measures were considered to reduce impact from traffic. One measure considered was to maintain the desired opening day horizon for the snow disposal facility to be 2014 but limit or restrict typical snow disposal trucking operations to occur outside of the peak hour. Normal trucking activities would not be permitted between 7 AM to 9 AM and between 4 PM to 6 PM while acknowledging that Carp Road and Westbrook Road intersection will continue to operate at level F until the widening improvements of the Carp Road Widening EA (study by others) are incorporated. During emergency situations the peak hour truck traffic restrictions would be lifted. In summary with the installation of a right turn lane for access into the site and cognizant of the existing deficiencies at the intersection of Carp and Westbrook, there are no constraints to site development. 4.2.12 Utilities An assessment of the electrical requirements for the development of the snow disposal site was undertaken by Stantec. A new overhead power supply line would be extended from Westbrook Road along the east property limit to feed lighting to the snow pad dump area. A pole mounted bank of transformers will step down the voltage at that location. At the snow dump pad location a minimum objective up 10 lux would be the standard lighting for the pad area, the snow stockpile area along the access road and its intersection at Westbrook Road. Additional study will be required to finalize the layout of the poles and lighting as part of the site plan control application. Light levels should be maintained as low as possible close to the property limits and controlled by the use of a full cut off features and other features such as earth berms. A computer liking simulation will be performed to confirm the light fixture source CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.17 photometric distribution type, mounting height, fixture locations and quantity, as well as aiming details. A power supply would be provided to the security trailer so that heat and lighting can be supplied. Exterior receptacles would also be provided near the trailer to allow vehicles and equipment to plug in block heaters. The electrical review has not identified any significant restrictions to development of the site. 4.3 SOCIAL CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 4.3.1 Community/Development An amendment to the zoning bylaw is required to allow snow disposal as a permitted use in the RG(5) General Rural classification for this site. The application for the zoning amendment has the potential to be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. The Open House #1 held for the MCEA in February 2013 was poorly attended and did not invoke any significant response from the public or agencies. POH # 2 held August 6th 2013 was also poorly attended and did not result in any comments being submitted. While we anticipate that the zoning amendment (Planning Act application) will be viewed in a positive manner, an appeal to the OMB is a possibility that should not be discounted. 4.3.2 Heritage The earliest settlement in Huntley Township occurred on either side of Carp road, largely in Concession 3, but also in Concession 2 (Belden, 1879). Among the earliest settlers were George and Hugh Erwin, who settled in Lot 3, Concession 3 in 1820 and Dennis Hogan, who settled in Huntley in 1821 (Belden, 1879). Census records from 1851 list two Hogan families, one of which was headed by Dennis Hogan, aged 67 and born in Ireland and John Hogan, son of Dennis (LAC, 1851). In 1851 John Hogan is listed as being 34 years of age and born in Ireland, which would have made him four years old at the time the family originally settled in Huntley. On Walling's 1863 map of Carleton County there is a D. Hogan shown as resident in Lot 1, Concession 3 and a J. Hogan (the aforementioned John) resident in Lot 2, Concession 3 (Figure 5) (Walling, 1863). The residence in Lot 2 is shown as being just outside of the Project property limits (Figure 5). The map may refer to either the original settler Dennis, who would have been 79 at that time, or his son Dennis Jr., who would have been 37 at that time. Most likely it refers to Dennis Jr., who would have acquired the lot from his father . In either CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.18 case it suggests that Lot 1 was settled very early in the history of Huntley Township, and Lot 2 relatively early. Further, with so much of the early settlement located along Carp Road this road would have been a main thoroughfare from the earl iest settlement of the township. By the time of Belden's 1879 Historical Atlas of Carleton County the lots largely remained in the hands of the Hogan family, although Lot 2 had been divided between John, his son Dennis (a third Dennis Hogan) and his daughter Mary (Figure 6) ( Belden, 1879). The Hogan residence in Lot 2 may have been located in or very near to the limits of the Project property (Figure 6). Based on the early settlement of the general area and relatively early settlement of Lot 2, Concession 3, the early importance of Carp Road as a transportation and communication route in the township and the long association of one family with the property from its earliest settlement the Project property should be considered to have elevated potential for the presence of historic period archaeological resources which could shed light on the earliest Euro- Canadian take up of the land. 4.3.3 Archaeological A Stage 1 archaeological assessment was undertaken by Stantec during 2012 and 2013. Based on the review of historical mapping, there is potential to find cultural artifacts. A site visit was made by Stantec biologist staff to the Project property on April 24, 2012 to identify natural environment characteristics. Information and photographs obtained during that site visit were made available to archaeology staff in order to refine the archaeological potential modeling and identification of areas where further archaeological assessment might be required. A subsequent field visit to the site was made by Stantec archaeological staff on October 22, 2012 to confirm the delineation of zones of archaeological potential. No specific archaeological studies have been previously completed on or within 50 m of the Project property. An Archaeological Resource Potential Mapping study was completed for the City of Ottawa (then the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton) in 1999 (ASI, 1999). Archaeological potential mapping from that study identifies some of the property as being within an area of low archaeological potential. Archaeological studies completed in areas close to the project property include: Adams, 2004; HQI, 2007a, 2007b and 2008; and Stantec, 2009 and 2012. These studies were all completed along Highway 417, near the Carp River and Huntmar Drive (Adams, 2004). Several non-registerable artifacts from the pre-contact and historic periods have also been identified in close proximity to the Carp River (Stantec, 2009). There are at present no registered archaeological sites within a 1 km radius of the Project Area (von Bitter, pers. comm.). There are three sites registered within approximately 3.5 km to the CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.19 east of the Project property, including two 19 th century period domestic sites (Adams, 2004; HQI, 2008) and a multi-component site composed of a non-dateable pre-contact component and a 19 th century domestic component. Based on a review of existing archaeological potential models, recent archaeological assessment reports, topographic mapping, archival research and knowledge of the Project property parts of the property demonstrate characteristics consistent with criteria used by the MTCS to determine archaeological potential. Based on the above criteria and the generally undisturbed nature of the Project property it should be considered that much of the Project property, with the exception of land which has been previously disturbed or which are within the limits of existing wetlands, should be considered to contain potential for the presence of as yet undiscovered archaeological resources. A map identifying zones of archaeological potential is shown in Figure 8. A Stage 2 archaeological assessment is being recommended for these areas. 4.3.4 Aboriginal The Late Woodland period in southern Ontario is associated with societies referred to as the Ontario Iroquois Tradition. This period is often divided into three temporal components; Early, Middle and Late Iroquoian. In eastern Ontario, especially in the Ottawa River Valley, there is considerable overlap of people continuing to practice a hunting and gathering economy and those using limited horticulture as a supplement to gathered plants. For the most part, however, classic Late Woodland sites in eastern Ontario are limited to an area at the east end of Lake Ontario and along the St. Lawrence River valley. Middle Iroquoian sites have not been identified east of Kingston. During the Late Iroquoian period a distinctive material culture emerges at the east end of Lake Ontario and along the St. Lawrence River up to Quebec City, known as the St. Lawrence Iroquois (SLI). SLI sites are characterized by large semi-permanent villages and associated satellite settlements. The inhabitants of these villages and satellites practiced horticulture of staple crops which made up the bulk of their diet. Other food resources were hunted, fished and gathered. SLI village sites can be extensive, up to 10 acres or more in size and composed of a number of longhouse structures. Special purpose satellite settlements, such as hunting and fishing camps, are smaller in area and in the number and size of structures within the settlement. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.20 While the early-contact period descendants of the Late Woodland SLI and Huron used the Ottawa River and its tributaries as transportation routes between the St. Lawrence River and the interior, Late Woodland village sites are have not been identified along this area. 4.3.5 Aesthetics A visual assessment was completed to identify visual impact zones (zones where the 15m high snow stockpile can be seen). A review of the aerial photography and site photos resulted in the identification of the following potential receptors surrounding the snow disposal facility property that could potentially be impacted by the proposed development of the site. There are several types of receptors to be considered; resident on the east side of the site, drivers using the Highway 417 eastbound and westbound directions, the industrial areas to the west and south. Figure 7 identifies the potential receptors and the distance from each of the potential receptors to the edge of the snow stockpile. 4.3.5.1 Receptors One resident is located 40m from the east property line, as shown in Figure 3. The existing vegetation is not sufficient to screen the snow stockpile. Visual impacts are anticipated and mitigative measures consisting of a 4 m high berm along the east limit with conifer tree planting is proposed to screen the snow disposal. The snow stockpile will also maintain a 60m buffer to the east property line so that a total of 100m is provided between the snow stockpile and the residence. 4.3.5.2 Highway 417 - Eastbound Traffic will be able to see the snow stockpile during winter conditions. There is a 20 to 30m wide strip of existing vegetation that is primarily deciduous and wont be able to screen the snow stockpile during winter conditions. The critical period will be at the start of the melt period when the snow stockpile is at its maximum height and the vegetation has not yet bloomed. Additional conifers are proposed along the north limit for the west half of the property to improve screening. 4.3.5.3 Highway 417 -Westbound The existing conifer trees along the north limit will remain in place and provide a 20m wide visual screen that will effectively block the view of the snow stockpile for westbound traffic. 4.3.5.4 Carp Road CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Description of the Environment September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 4.21 Carp Road is a main road linking Highway 417 to Stittsville. The existing industrial properties and vegetation within the buffer provide an effective all season visual screen. As noted previously, a 4m high berm is also proposed along the east limit to provide screening for the nearby residence so no additional measures are needed. 4.3.5.5 Westbrook Road Westbrook Road is the main road through the industrial park. Given the industrial type businesses located to the south of Westbrook Road, and that the snow stockpile is located more than 100m north of the road, only a fence along the south edge of the snow dump pad is proposed to screen operations from traffic along Westbrook. There are no mitigative measures proposed for the west property limit because of the industrial type properties along this sight line. 4.4 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT A preliminary cost estimate has been prepared for the development of the site and is presented in Table 10 of Section 8.10. The estimate does not include the cost for land purchase, for off- site drainage improvements, potential utility relocations, detailed engineering and construction supervision, contract administration, taxes and any other works that may be requested by the public or agencies as part of the consultation for the MCEA or the ZBL amendment. The current estimate of capital cost is $ 6 million. The 2013 estimate of probable cost should be considered as a Class C estimate.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 September 11, 2013 cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 5.1 5.0 Identification of Design Alternatives 5.1 DESIGN OBJECTIVES Many of the design objectives for the development of a site were reviewed when the ten sites were evaluated by the City in 2009. The characteristics of a preferred location would include many of the design considerations listed below, these are; One property sufficiently large enough to accommodate the full disposal volume required and have potential for other uses, Property already owned by the City or readily available (avoid expropriation), Site location is near an arterial or major collector road so that truck route is not on local roads, Compatibility with surrounding land uses considering the significant investment in establishing a new site, its long term use as a snow disposal location must be protected by ensuring compliance with the planning policies of the zoning by-law. Can provide the buffer zone setback specified in the zoning by-law or measures can be implemented to mitigate impact, Soil conditions favorable to the protection of groundwater and nearby wells, Near an outlet for drainage to a watercourse, ditch or storm sewer, Compatibility with future land use policies of the Official Plan minimize constraints to future growth development. Section 5.3 provides a qualitative of site design based on the above considerations. 5.2 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVES In developing the site, various design configurations/layouts were reviewed and discussed with City staff in order to maximize the potential use of the site. The following are the key design components that were reviewed; 1. Location of entrance into SDF 2. Alignment of access road within site 3. Placement of snow disposal stockpile 4. Stormwater Management CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Identification of Design Alternatives September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 5.2 5. Drainage from on-site and off-site sources 6. Visual Screening The conceptual layout shown in Figure 9 is the result of the qualitative evaluation of the above design considerations. The evaluation is presented in Table 6 in Section 5.3. 5.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA & METHODOLOGY The evaluation of the various design layouts discussed in Section 5.2 for development of the site at 2125 Carp Road was based on findings from various investigative studies and reports prepared for the development and are reproduced in a CD contained in Appendix F. The various studies and Technical Memos reproduced in Appendix F included the following items; Geotechnical Investigation Ambient Noise/Acoustics Assessment Surface Water / Stormwater management and Drainage Hydrogeological Assessment Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - Significant Natural Heritage Features EIS - Terrestrial Wildlife EIS - Avifauna EIS - Terrestrial Vegetation EIS - Fish Habitat Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Visual Assessment/Landscaping Electrical Transportation Assessment Section 6 presents an evaluation of the potential environmental effects and proposed mitigation measures for each of the above considerations on the site development. A qualitative evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages for each of the above design considerations is presented in Table 5. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Identification of Design Alternatives September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 5.3 Table 5: Qualitative Evaluation of Design Components Description Advantages Disadvantages Location of Entrance all entrances will be off Westbrook Road - Entrance at intersection of Walgreen (eastern portion of site)
- Entrance towards middle of property (central portion of site)
- Entrance near west limit (western portion)
Favorable traffic design layout Can make use of existing fill on property for road base making it more economical to build Electrical servicing nearby same side of road Watermain located at Walgreen intersection
Improved line of sight and stopping distance
Improved line of sight and stopping distance
Some shrubs need to be cut for sight triangle Requires a deceleration lane for right turn movements on to the site
Interferes with the existing drainage ditch Soft soils will require more fill for road base Overhead power supply located on south side of road
Clearing of existing mature trees to create a sight triangle for left turn movements exiting site. Truck traffic close to most of the existing development Overhead power supply located on south side of road
Access Road will need to be aligned with site entrance.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Identification of Design Alternatives September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 5.4 Description Advantages Disadvantages Alignment along eastern portion
Alignment along the central portion
Alignment along the western portion The preferred alignment of the access road is along the eastern portion of the site because it makes use of the existing fill for the road base.
No advantages to this alignment
No advantages to this alignment Truck traffic closer to residences and thus mitigative measures required to control noise.
The central portion of the site is generally wet due to the presence of the drainage ditch. Ditch relocation would be required as well as significant volume of granular fill for the road base.
While the western portion is not as wet as the central portion, there is a limited amount of fill at this location and thus significant volume of granular fill required for the road base. Truck traffic closer to industrial businesses along the west limit. Placement of snow disposal stockpile Eastern portion
The highest elevation on site is in the north east portion of the site. This allows for a design that can use gravity for the meltwater and stormwater drainage and has the most vertical separation to the groundwater table (dry road base). Soil excavated for the pad can be used as fill elsewhere on the property. Existing drainage ditch can be maintained near its existing alignment.
Two butternut trees are located within the proposed dump pad location and would need to be removed.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Identification of Design Alternatives September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 5.5 Description Advantages Disadvantages Central portion Western portion
The flat terrain in the central and western portion of the site would require significant granular fill to raise the grade so that the dump pad and snow stockpile pad can be constructed to accommodate truck traffic. The drainage ditch in the central portion of the site would need to be realigned. Stormwater Management Drainage coming on to the property from the south side of Westbrook enters the property within the central portion of the site. MOE guidelines specify level of treatment required (80% removal of TSS and 1:100 year event).
No advantages to placing stormwater pond in eastern portion of site.
Central portion of the site is at a lower grade than the NE portion and thus more suitable for storage of water in a pond. Maintains the existing drainage ditch and the existing culverts beneath Westbrook at its current location. The existing drainage ditch location provides the most direct alignment to the discharge to the MTO Highway 417 roadside ditch.
Western portion also has a lower grade than the northeast portion and could provide an area for a pond construction for stormwater treatment.
Higher ground elevations in the northeast corner make it difficult to create a pond without a deep excavation since we also need to drain the central and western portions of the site.
The existing drainage ditch would need to be re- aligned. This would increase the overall drainage path through the property and reduce the available grade. Since the ditch bottom grade on the existing ditch is inadequate, this would worsen the situation.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Identification of Design Alternatives September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 5.6 Description Advantages Disadvantages Accommodating drainage location of pond as per above discussion. 1) from on-site only
2) from off-site sources.
Matching pre-development flow to post development flow and satisfying the MOE criteria for treatment for runoff generated on-site only requires a much smaller pond than the 4ha identified in Figure 9.
Matching pre-development flow to post development flow and satisfying the MOE criteria for treatment for runoff generated both on-site and off-site requires a pond with 50,000 m 3 of permanent storage and occupies an area of 4ha.
Quantity of water generated off-site and discharging on to the property would upset treatment (settling) process provided by a smaller pond.
City is providing stormwater treatment for runoff generated by others. Pond size is increased significantly and results in significant higher costs.
MOE had requested that the City consider stormwater treatment for both on-site and off-site sources, that a MCEA process be followed for the planning for approvals for the new pond and existing off-site treatment in roadside ditches and an existing linear pond. Visual appearance of snow stockpile from surrounding land users.
Eastern portion
Existing trees can visually screen the snow stockpile from the north, west and east property limits. Provide a physical barrier to screen equipment from the south view.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Identification of Design Alternatives September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 5.7 Description Advantages Disadvantages Central portion
Western portion
Snow stockpile can be visually screened from the north, west and east property limits. Provide a physical barrier to screen equipment from the south view.
Snow stockpile can be visually screened from the north, west and east property limits. Provide a physical barrier to screen equipment from the south view. Large amount of granular fill required to raise the existing grade to allow this portion of the site to be used to stockpile snow.
Large amount of granular fill required to raise the existing grade to allow this portion of the site to be used to stockpile snow.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Identification of Design Alternatives September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 5.8 5.4 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE Based on the above design considerations, a preferred conceptual design was developed and is shown in Figure 9. Our preferred design will provide a capacity of approximately 350,000 m for snow stockpile and accommodate the disposal demand predicted for the 1:50 year snow event. The snow footprint would occupy an area of approximately 4 to 5 ha with an additional 1ha for the dump pad. The maximum stockpile would extend to a height of 15 m above the base elevation (around elevation 127 to 128m). The back slope and side slopes of the snow stockpile are specified as 1H:1V and the front slope (facing south) at 5 H:1V The base of the snow footprint would be graded at a minimum of 0.5% slope facing southward a steeper slope would be desirable if MTO would permit the discharge ditch to be relocated further east so that additional grade can be attained. To accommodate truck and pup combinations and tri-axle trucks, a dump pad area with a 50 m width was specified. The dump pad and the snow footprint would be underlain by a geotextile laying directly on the native silt and overlain with 600 mm of granular material (450 mm of granular B, 150 mm of granular A) and 150-200mm of asphalt grinding. A low hydraulic conductivity membrane would be installed beneath the stockpile and dump pad to prevent seepage of chloride impacted meltwater into the groundwater. The dump pad would be sloped to provide positive drainage to the meltwater pond forebay. A permanent pool is provided in the meltwater pond to allow a minimum of 24 hours settling of sediment. And oil/grit separator would be provided at the outlet of the meltwater pond which then discharges to the ditch leading to Highway 417. The meltwater pond and the ditch would be lined with a low hydraulic conductivity membrane to prevent seepage of chloride impacted meltwater into the groundwater. Piping would connect the meltwater and stormwater ponds so that some of the stormwater could be used to dilute the meltwater during the melt period and following the melt period, could be drained and used for stormwater management during the summer and fall. Due to the high groundwater level over most of the flooded area of the site, it is difficult to provide storage capacity for stormwater treatment for off-site drainage problems. To gain additional storage capacity, it is necessary to lower the upstream invert of the outlet culvert to Highway 417 roadside ditch by 0.5 m. By lowering the upstream invert of the culvert, the discharge capacity of the culvert is reduced from 825 L/s to less than 400 L/s. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Identification of Design Alternatives September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 5.9 To the south of Westbrook Road, the linear pond during the 1:100 year storm event has inadequate storage capacity and the 5 culverts crossing Westbrook Road have inadequate hydraulic capacity to pass water without surcharging and creating potential for flooding. To relieve this problem, additional hydraulic capacity will be required across Westbrook Road by the addition of more culverts or a more efficient opening (new type of structure). Our strategy is to maintain the permanent pool provided in the linear pond to provide water quality treatment for total suspended solids for the drainage area south of Westbrook Road. Detailed engineering will be completed following the completion of the MCEA so that an Environmental Compliance approval can be requested for the construction of the new meltwater and stormwater ponds including off-site facilities (Westbrook roadside ditch and existing inline pond to the south of Westbrook). Additional approvals being requested by the City include a Zoning By-Law amendment under the Planning Act and approval of detailed drawings & reports under Site Plan Control.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 September 11, 2013 cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 6.1 6.0 Potential Environmental Effects, Mitigation and Net Effects for Preferred Design Alternatives The environmental impacts that might reasonably be expected to occur as a result of the proposed development have been identified and discussed in this section. Potential direct and indirect impacts, as well as short term and long term impacts, associated with the proposed development have been considered and appropriate mitigation measures recommended. An assessment of overall net environmental impacts is also provided based on the implementation of appropriate mitigation, restoration and enhancement measures to improve the overall integrity of the natural system in the area. 6.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION Potential impacts have been identified in Table 6 for each of the design considerations discussed in Section 5.1. Mitigation measures are proposed and the net effect of the development stated. 6.1.1 Construction Timing Works adjacent to aquatic resources that possess reptile habitat, or have the potential to support reptile habitat, are often restricted to certain periods to avoid construction-related impacts to reptiles species during their most sensitive / vulnerable life cycles (i.e., during reproduction and early development stages of off-spring). In-water works required for construction of the project should be scheduled to avoid disturbance of hibernating turtles, which generally occurs from October 15 to April 15. If work is to occur over this period, appropriate fencing should be installed in early fall around the work site to prevent turtles from entering. The Migratory Birds Convention Act prohibits the killing or capturing of migratory birds, as well as any damage, destruction, removal or disturbance of active nests. To avoid contravention of the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act and/or the provincial Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, vegetation removal should be avoided between April 15 and July 31 (as per City of Ottawa (2012) Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines). If vegetation removal must be conducted during this period, a sweep of the area should be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify and locate active nests and develop a mitigation plan.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Potential Environmental Effects, Mitigation and Net Effects for Preferred Design Alternatives September 11, 2013 cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 6.2 Table 6: Potential Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Potential Environmental Effects, Mitigation and Net Effects for Preferred Design Alternatives September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 6.3
Additional details on other measures are provided below. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Potential Environmental Effects, Mitigation and Net Effects for Preferred Design Alternatives September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 6.4 6.1.2 Erosion and Sediment Control Appropriate erosion and sediment controls should be employed during all phases of construction to minimize the potential deposition of silt, sediment and debris in the downstream watercourses as a result of site grading works. Measures to restore any disturbed areas as soon as possible should be combined with appropriately designed erosion control measures to minimize erosion potential and capture any eroded materials prior to being discharged downstream. 6.1.3 Wildlife Generally, noise generated by construction activities represents a short-term disturbance to wildlife within the subject property. It is expected that with the completion of construction, wildlife will quickly return to their normal use patterns within the natural areas adjacent to the development. Perimeter fencing and silt fencing may be used to exclude wildlife from the site during construction. The fencing should be inspected daily to ensure wildlife are not trapped inside the construction area. 6.1.4 Significant Natural Heritage Features Two retainable Butternut trees were identified and assessed on the site. If the retainable Butternut trees will remain on site, a 25 m buffer will be required to protect the trees. If the retainable Butternut trees are to be removed, the activity must be registered with the MNR; a planting plan will be required and must be provided to MNR with the registration. Retainable Butternut will not be removed without the prior registration with MNR. Protective measure identified in the tree planting and protection plan must be implemented prior to site preparation or construction. At least 25 replacement Butternut seedlings must be planted to replace both retainable trees, if they are removed: 20 seedlings to replace the 61 cm dbh Butternut and 5 to replace the 3 cm dbh Butternut. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 7.1 7.0 Water Management Plan Meltwater quality is an important element in the design of a snow disposal facility. Concerns with the discharge of contaminants comes under a number of Federal and Provincial laws. The Canada Fisheries Act, which protects fish habitat, is the most significant legislation protecting the surface water environment. The Ontario Water Resources Act is equally important and under it the City is required to obtain an Environmental Compliance Approval (EC A) for the stormwater and meltwater management facilities. Concerns with the downstream impacts of the melt will lead to a review of the ECA requirements by the MOE and MVCA. 7.1 MELTWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY/POND The overall site design includes consideration of snow melt from the SDF and natural snow pack of the surrounding area. During the melt period, typically late March to mid-May, the SDF can be expected to generate large volumes of meltwater at an accelerated rate due to its large unshaded surface area. A meltwater pond has been included in the site design to control meltwater quality and quantity. The pond would feature a permanent pool to retain the snow melt for 24 hours for water quality control. Since melting rates fluctuate throughout the day, an active storage volume would be required above the permanent pool level. Ultimately, the meltwater will drain through an on-site swale that converges with the discharge from the stormwater management pond, thus effectively mixing the two swales prior to directing both flows into the 417 ditch at the specified discharge rates. A preliminary analysis of the melting rates and storage requirements of the SDF was conducted based on calculations used by Robinson Consultants for the design of the Strandherd facility. Local climatology data such as wind speed and temperature was collected for various stages of snow melt over 5 year intervals from 1970 to 1990. The peak, average and minimum hourly heat flux and radiation throughout the day was computed from the data and used to calculate peak, average and minimum melting rates. The average melting rate was used to determine the permanent pool volume required to retain the melt for 24 hours. 7.1.1 Meltwater Quality Control The meltwater pond design was based on an average daily melt rate for the 50-year event of approximately 30 L/s. At this rate, the stormwater pond will require a permanent pool volume of approximately 3,000m 3 for 24 hour retention. Quality control standards generally limit the CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Water Management Plan September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 7.2 minimum depth of retention pond forebays to 1.5m, and 1 to 2m for the permanent pool (MOE SWM Manual, 2003). The meltwater pond has been sized at 1.6ha. Components of the melt pond include a vegetative strip, oil/grit separator, sediment fore bay and a wet pond. Discharge from the meltwater pond will be via a lined drainage ditch to the MTO Highway 417 roadside ditch. The vegetative strip provides a BMP method of removing the heavier sediments and any oil and grease that may adhere to both the sediment and vegetation. The oil and grit separator shall consist of a deep sump manhole with a snout on the outlet pipe. Oil and grease will float on the surface and the heavy grit will settle in the chamber. Some oil may settle with the grit. The sump should be cleaned annually or more frequently, if required (i.e. when the grit depth exceeds 600mm). The forebay will provide a second chamber with the weir acting as baffle and with most of the flow through the inverted pipes provided at the weir. Oil and grease trapped in this area will float on the water and eventually the oil and grease will attach to the sediment and settle out. 7.1.2 Meltwater Quantity Control The meltwater pond design was based on a critical melt scenario and a 50-year snow disposal volume of 357,000 m 3 . Quality control standards generally limit the minimum depth of retention pond forebays to 1.5 m, and 1-2 m for the permanent pool (MOE SWM Manual, 2003). From the data, the volume of active storage was calculated based on the peak hourly melting rates. This was found to be approximately 3,500m 3 . Thus, the total pond capacity required was found to be approximately 6,500m 3 . It is anticipated that a volume greater than 6,500m 3 can be provided within the allotted 1.6ha (includes 3000 m 3 for permanent storage) footprint at the current conceptual design stage for the permanent snow melt pond and active storage. 7.1.3 Meltwater Discharges and Mixing in Feedmill Creek The March 21 st to April 30 th average daily inflow to the MWMF was estimated based on the melting of the SDF volumes using average daily temperatures and combining with average daily rainfalls. Flows into the pond will vary significantly over the day and depend on the climatic condition, however the target flow rate occurring out of the pond was established at 25 L/s for average year conditions snow disposal volume. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Water Management Plan September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 7.3 Three options were evaluated for mixing of the meltwater with stormwater with the objective of complying with a discharge of 40 mg/L TSS and 1000 mg/L for chloride. The three options are discussed below; Option 1 Under Option 1 we modeled that there is no pumping of the Westbrook SWMF to increase flows for mixing of the MWMF runoff. Flows and chloride concentrations in the mixing zone are the result of normal base flows from the Westbrook SWMF combined with the controlled discharge from the SDF MWMF. Option 2 The Westbrook SWMF is sized to provide quality control and quantity control for the SDF development. Although water quality control requirements are foreseeably met by the grassed conveyance systems in the development, the pond will provide additional water quality control. The permanent pool volume (on site + off site ponds) exceeds the required MOE volume for enhanced protection. As per the MOE guidelines, for a drainage area of 59 ha at 35% imperviousness, the required permanent pool volume for enhanced protection is 5,900m 3 and the required extended detention volume is 2,400m 3 . The available ice free and sediment free zone of the Westbrook SWMF quiescent zone is 40,000m 3 and can be pumped to a rate of 40 L/s from April 1 st to April 17 th . Under Option 2, the 40L/s pump rate from the Westbrook SWMF is mixed with the SDF MWMF discharge rate to determine a chloride concentration at the MTO ditch. Option 3 Under Option 3 the SWMF will have a set pump discharge and sufficient volume to dilute the MWMF discharges in accordance with the target Chloride concentration of 1000mg/L. This pump rate will continue subject to the pond volume being exhausted or the MWMF chloride concentration being less than 1000mg/L, whichever occurs first. Table 7 summarizes the assimilation modeling of the SDF meltoff mixed with the Westbrook Development Storm Water Management facility discharges for the average year snow volume.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Water Management Plan September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 7.4 Table 7: Average Year Assimilation of SDF Chlorides with SWMP March 21 to March 31 flow (1)
April 1 st to April 7 th flow April 8 th to April 15 th flow April 16 th to April 30 th Flow O p t i o n
Conc. 2569 mg/L (March 21 st ) 1762 mg/L (April 3 rd ) 1342 mg/L (April 10 th ) 874 mg/L (April 18 th ) O p t i o n
2
M T O
d i t c h
a t
W e s t b r o o k
d i s c h a r g e
w / P u m p i n g
t o
4 0
L / s
Average Flow 70 L/s 67 L/s 65 L/s 25 L/s Max Cl -
Conc. 2569 mg/L (March 21 st ) 1102 mg/L (April 2 ndt ) 774 mg/L (April 9 th ) 992 mg/L (April 17 th ) O p t i o n
3
M T O
d i t c h
a t
W e s t b r o o k
d i s c h a r g e
w / P u m p i n g
t o
5 0 L / s
Average Flow 73 L/s 76 L/s 75 L/s 25 L/s Max Cl -
Conc. 2730 mg/L (March 21 st ) 988 mg/L (April 2 nd ) 704 mg/L (April 9 th ) 992 mg/L (April 17 th ) Water quality from the SDF MWMF should be within the MOE provincial water quality objectives and a TSS compliance limit of 40mg/L. The MOE does not have a surface water objective for chloride concentration. SDF snow melt concentrations are influenced by the precedent climatic conditions and are thus highly variable. Under the average year scenario, wherein climatic data, snow disposal volumes and the chloride concentrations are averaged, the chloride design objective of 1000mg/L at the MTO ditch is achieved. Under Option 1, the SDF meltwater is diluted with water from the Westbrook SWMF by a ratio of 0.3:1. The assimilation modeling results in a target chloride concentration of less than 1000mg/L after April 15th. Under Option 2, the SDF meltwater (i.e. 25L/s) is diluted with water pumped from the Westbrook SWM (i.e. 40L/s) by a ratio of 1.6:1. The assimilation modeling results in a chloride concentration of less than1000mg/L after April 4 th . The chloride concentration in the discharge exceeds 1000mg/L from the start of the melt to April 4 th . Under Option 3, the April 1st objective of 1000mg/L, at the MTO ditch is obtained with a flow rate and storage volume of 50L/s and 50,000m3 respectively. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Water Management Plan September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 7.5 Based on the above analysis, the Carp SDF design is proceeding on the basis of a dilution flow from the SWMF of 50L/s and 50,000m3 of storage in order to maintain this flow rate for 15 days in April. Depending on the available grade at the outlet, this could be achieved by gravity drainage or through pumping (discussions with MTO will determine which option is selected). 7.2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY/POND 7.2.1 On-site stormwater management facility/pond A drainage and stormwater management assessment was completed to evaluate the peak drainage runoff contribution from off-site and on-site areas. The drainage boundaries were assessed based on available base mapping provided by the City and updated with a limited survey completed by Stantec. Stantecs survey included field verification of road cross sections of Westbrook Road, Walgreen Rd and Willowlea Road; where, culverts, ditches, spot elevations and details on the water level and bottom of existing ponds was also verified. The limited survey was superimposed over the available City topographic information to create a new model for drainage assessment. Drainage tributaries and boundaries were determined with the updated model, where an average runoff coefficient was also confirmed. AutoCAD Sanitary and Storm Analysis 2011 was used to model storm events based on the City of Ottawa standards for the 2-yr, 5-yr, 25-yr, 50-yr and 100-yr 3-hour Chicago storm. The capacity of existing culverts was calculated and modeled. The site outlet to the Highway 417 roadside ditch was verified to be an existing 600mm CSP with a slope of approximately 2.5% with an existing full flow capacity of approximately 826L/s. The intent of the analysis (at the time of this letter) is to match the modeled discharge rates for the 100-yr 3-hour event from the tributary draining for the Westbrook Industrial area and on-site contributions. It was determined, based on the existing conditions and flooding on-site and off- site, that a peak 100-yr discharge at the outlet culvert can be expected to be approximately 404L/s. The intent of the proposed design requires that the MTO roadside ditch culvert to be lowered approximately 0.5m at its upstream invert (maintaining the downstream invert elevation) in order to allow for positive drainage to occur in order to alleviate the restrictions due to on-site grading constraints including: 1. High groundwater table reducing the depth a pond can be constructed below existing grades; CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Water Management Plan September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 7.6 2. Lack of vertical separation between the linear pond culvert discharge and the site outlet. 3. Ability to provide a sufficient quantity of dilution flow for mixing water from SWP, with MWP meltwater, in order to attain water quality objectives of 1000 mg/l for chlorides In order to match the existing outlet conditions (in compensating for lowering the upstream culvert invert) it is proposed that a new culvert be installed in order to match the available capacity of 826L/s but restrict the sites peak discharge to the modeled existing rates of 404L/s. This effectively provides similar hydraulic conditions. Table 8 summarizes pre and post development peak discharge rates. Table 8: Site Outlet Pre vs. Post Discharges
Peak Site Discharge Rate (L/s) Model 2yr 5yr 10yr 25yr 50yr 100yr Pre-development 231 284 316 353 378 404 Post-development 106 130 147 185 270 380 NOTE: the modifications to the existing outlet are imperative for this concept to be feasible by gravity.
It is assumed that the MTO will not have any objections to this modification as no significant impact will occur downstream of the discharge location and that existing hydraulic conditions will be met. In order to match existing discharge conditions a Stormwater management facility pond (SWMF) is required with an active volume of 23,000m 3 . Due to the restrictions mentioned above, a maximum ponding depth ranging from 0.5m to 0.7m dictates that a footprint of approximately 4ha (40,000m 2 ) is required. The depth of the pond will be increased so that a permanent storage volume of 50,000 m 3 is created and would be used for mixing and dilution of chloride during the spring melt. Additional review of off-site culverts showed that they are undersized for current City Standards and are required for replacement as stipulated and required for the MCEA. In order to alleviate upstream (off-site) flooding additional culverts are required at the linear ponds outlet across Westbrook Road to alleviate drainage issues upstream from the linear pond between Westbrook Road and Walgreen Road. The increased flow from off-site tributaries will not affect the volume of water required to be stored on-site to match existing discharge rates and conditions.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Water Management Plan September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 7.7 7.2.2 Off-site stormwater management facility/pond and roadside ditches The land surrounding the site consists of commercial and industrial properties along Westbrook Road, Walgreen Road and Willowlea Road. These properties contribute a large amount of stormwater which flows on site via culverts, ditches or swales. This upstream stormwater tributary is believed to cause flooding on-site despite the presence of an attenuating linear storm pond. The outlet of the linear pond consists of five (5) 600mm culverts that run beneath Westbrook Road and discharge into the southern portion of the SDF property (typically flooded). Since these discharge culverts are perched, the linear pond (300m long) is filled with water throughout the year. During drier seasons, the water level of the linear pond was found to be below the invert elevation of the culverts but still high, providing permanent storage of water within the pond. The MOE advised the City that no Environmental Compliance Approval had been issued by the Ministry for these upstream works. The MOE advised the City that it would be prudent to include the approval of these works into the MCEA for the Carp SDF. The MCEA was prepared with the intent of accommodating this request. The benefit of filling in the linear pond and providing all water quality treatment within the SDF property was briefly examined. The City decided it was going to keep the linear pond because it is anticipated that some drains from the surrounding buildings discharge into it.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 8.1 8.0 Site Development Features for Preferred Design The proposed land use within the Carp SDF will consist of a dump pad for trucks with a hard recycled asphalt surface, a 4ha snow disposal stockpile, landscaped berms, meltwater and stormwater management ponds, a security trailer, an access road, equipment parking area, security fencing, monitoring wells, and lighting. An improved drainage system will divert external drainage through the site and into a site retention/flow control pond, which outlets into the 417 roadside ditch. The SDF operation is based on end dumping the trucks of incoming snow and bulldozing from ground level to a maximum height of 15 meters. At its maximum height, the compacted pile volume can reach 357,000 m 3 (compacted) which would accommodate the 1:50 year snow event. 8.1 SUMMARY SDF PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The main characteristics of the SDF development are as follows: Quantity Design Disposal Volume 357,000m 3
Property Size 23.4 ha Snow Disposal Containment Area 6.5 ha Snow Disposal Footprint 4 ha Snow Pile Height 15 meters Meltwater Pond Area 1.6 ha Stormwater Pond 4 ha Open Space after development 6.0 ha
8.2 LIGHTING Adequate site lighting will be required to ensure efficiency and safety. It is proposed to provide lighting at the entrance, along the vehicle access road and at the dump pad. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Site Development Features for Preferred Design September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 8.2 There are no recommended lighting levels specifically provided for snow disposal facilities. The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) recommends that railroad and lumber yards be illuminated to an average of 10 lux., and while an SDF does not require security type lighting, our design objective was established at 10 lux (average) with a minimum uniformity ratio of 10:1 (which is the standard for parking lots). While it is recommended that lighting levels at the Carp Road SDF be sufficient for safety purposes, it is also important to prevent light spill onto surrounding areas (i.e. neighboring properties and Highway 417) and as such, the light levels should be maintained as low as possible at the property. The lighting spill should be controlled by use of full cutoff fixtures, and civil features such as sufficient setback, earth berms and trees. During the preliminary design phase, a computer lighting simulation will be performed to confirm the light fixture source, photometric distribution type, mounting height, fixture locations and quantities as well as aiming details. 8.3 SITE SECURITY & FENCES Site security is not a significant design issue but is important from a liability point of view. Uninvited access could result in injury and vandalism. Accordingly, a double wide gate with padlock is required at the entrance and a perimeter fence will be required around the entire property. The fence shall consist of a 1.8m high chain link fence. In addition, a privacy fence shall be erected along the east limit (on the top of a berm) to provide a visual barrier for the nearby residence. Site security will be looking for municipal snow removal trucks that carry the proper identification (i.e. permits). Only permit holders will be allowed to dump on the site. The site security trailer will only be occupied during a snow removal blitz, and as required during the day for dozing activities. During periods when there is no snow removal activity and during the off-season, the security trailer will not be staffed and the gate will be kept locked. The trailer will be provided with a telephone, hydro, (a 100 amp service), electric heat, lighting (inside and outside), bottled water dispenser, and an outside portable toilet. 8.4 GRADING AND BERMING The excavation for construction of the stormwater and meltwater ponds will create significant fill. The fill will largely consist of fine sand material that can be reused in the construction of berms. Excess fill shall be used to raise the grade in the remaining open space area within the west portion of the site (the organic material will be stripped and stockpiled before this is done). CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Site Development Features for Preferred Design September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 8.3 The area beneath the snow stockpile will be sloped a minimum of 0.50% so it drains towards a collection swale and into the meltwater pond forebay. The stormwater pond will also have a minimum slope of 0.5%, although this could be increased if additional grade is permitted by MTO. The existing area containing fill will require some regrading to accommodate the recommended road base and surface preparation for the parking area (between the access road and east property limit). The existing fill was found to have some contaminants with concentrations exceeding the maximum values listed for inert fill - thus all fill will need to remain on site. 8.5 SITE ENTRANCE The site entrance will be designed to accommodate large truck and pup combinations and triaxle trailers. A deceleration lane (150m total length) will be provided along Westbrook to accommodate right turn movements into the site. No issues have been identified with truck turning movements exiting the site. A double wide (page wire fence) gate will be provided at entrance. 8.6 PARKING AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE Parking for site security, equipment operators and other staff members is required. Based on staff at the site and shift changes, a total of 6 parking spaces should be provided. This would include one security person, up to 4 equipment operators and one space for visiting supervisors. The parking will be situated along the access road near the site trailer and be lighted. Exterior portable toilets will be provided for washroom facilities. Staff and truckers may use the washroom facilities. Truckers will not be permitted into the security trailer. 8.7 NOISE BARRIER AND LANDSCAPING A noise barrier shall consist of a 4 m high landscaped berm located on the east side of the SDF and include vegetation (trees) to provide a visual screen. Construction shall be in accordance with City of Ottawa standards. Earth material for berm construction shall be taken from the excavation of the ponds. Landscaped berms are included in the site development design to reduce noise and visual impacts. The landscaping materials include mostly deciduous trees as well as low maintenance woody shrubs. The vegetation planting will be done using native species. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Site Development Features for Preferred Design September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 8.4 Litter cleanup of the site should be done as soon as all the snow melts. Litter should be disposed of at an approved MOE landfill. 8.8 TRUCK RATES AND HOURS OF OPERATION The truck rate is a function of the number of snow removal crews, truck types, the number of trucks per crew, and the haul distance. While truck types vary, the City advises that the most common haulage vehicles used in the Ottawa area for snow removal operations are truck & pup combinations and tri axle trucks with a typical capacity of 18m 3 . The design of the Carp SDF is to provide a dozer type operation. A single dozer operation with a maximum push of 105m and working at a maximum slope of 5H:1V can accommodate approximately 20 truckloads per hour. At this rate, it would accommodate three snow removal crews with 7 trucks per crew. At 18m 3 /truck and 20 trips/hour, the incoming rate to the SDF is 360m 3 /hr. To reach the maximum capacity of 357,000 m 3 at this rate would represent approximately 41 days of haulage (24 hours haulage/day). Since snow fall is rarely evenly distributed over the winter season, a second dozer operation may be required at the site to handle peak snow removal days. The 2007/2008 winter season created some operational issues when a significant portion of the total snowfall fell over a brief period in late spring. The full capacity at some SDFs could not be developed because the incoming rate was greater than what equipment could handle effectively thus snow did not get pushed back far enough to develop capacity to the design height.
8.9 SITE EQUIPMENT Equipment required for the SDF operations will include one dozer (typically Caterpillar D8 size or smaller) and one loader to push the snow from its dump location into the dozer path. A second dozer operation would require the same equipment. A two dozer operation should provide for all event types, except if the distribution of snowfall is skewed significantly to create an emergency situation. In the event of an emergency, a blower may be required to throw snow further back into the pile to increase its height. As noted previously, a blower operation could handle snow at a rate equivalent to 4-5 dozer operations. The use of a blower would only be contemplated towards the end of a season when a site is constrained and additional capacity is needed in short order.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Site Development Features for Preferred Design September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 8.5 8.10 ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST An estimate of probable cost (Table 9) has been prepared based on the main components of the SDF but excluding land purchase, engineering and construction supervision. Table 9: Estimate of Probable Cost (2013) Site entrance and Westbrook Road improvements $370,000 Snow Disposal Working Area $3,630,000 SWM Pond $300,000 Meltwater Pond $880,000 Drainage $ 30,000 Access Road and berms $350,000 Lighting $210,000 Landscaping $100,000 Security and Fencing $130,000
Total (excluding all taxes) $6,000,000
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 9.1 9.0 Monitoring 9.1 MELTWATER AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES 9.1.1 Pond Operating Levels The meltwater pond was designed with a forebay to trap sediment and a discharge to a permanent pool providing a 24 hour detention. Mixing of meltwater with cleaner water in the stormwater pond shall be undertaken to dilute the chloride to acceptable concentrations. The meltwater pond shall be drained at the end of the melt period and any detritus removed. The meltwater pond shall be kept in a dry state during the summer period, that is any runoff from the snow stockpile and dump pad area shall be drained into the meltwater pond and from there into the stormwater pond. Sediment material removed from the pond shall be disposed of in an MOE approved landfill or kept on site for other uses. 9.1.2 Monitoring Program A monitoring program is proposed to measure flow and water quality at various locations to compare discharge quality to specified targets. To determine if the site is operating as designed, a three year sampling and monitoring program is proposed. The program, which is outlined below, includes water quality sampling of the snow pile discharge, meltwater pond forebay and outflow, stormwater pond outlet, drainage ditch at outlet to Highway 417 and ditch discharge at head of Feedmill Creek. Estimates of flow shall be taken at each monitoring location as well as water temperature. The existing groundwater monitoring wells at locations MW10-04 and MW 10-03 (west limit and north limit) should be sampled each summer. Water quality parameters should include TSS, Cadmium, Zinc, Iron, Copper, Manganese, Chloride, Sodium, TPH, TDS, Phenols, BOD5, Oil & Grease, and Mercury. The first sample should be collected at the start of the melt (last week of March) and be done weekly in April and into mid-May (total of 8 weeks). 9.1.3 Sediment Removal Sediment removal would occur in 4 areas as follows: The drainage ditch may need to be cleaned of litter every year and cleaned of silt every 5 or so years. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Monitoring September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 9.2 The oil and grease trap in the meltwater pond should be pumped clean every summer by a licensed hauler. The forebay and meltwater pond should be drained and inspected every year for potential damage to the underlying liner. The fore bay and meltwater pond include a drainage pipe that has a valve to allow for a complete draining of the forebay and pond areas. The stormwater pond area will need to be inspected annually but with mostly fine sediments being deposited, it will not likely require cleaning for 5-10 years.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Consultation September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 10.1 10.0 Consultation 10.1 OBJECTIVES The development of the Carp SDF is being undertaken by the City to achieve conformance with the MCEA and design guidance identified in approving agencies regulations and guidelines, including the MOEs Guidelines for Snow Disposal and De-Icing Operations in Ontario. The objectives for the public consultation process are as follows: to educate the general public about snow disposal operations, their necessity and their impact, and to include the public at the earliest possible stages of the project; to promote public participation in the decision making process and provide opportunities for public participation; to provide sufficient information to the public to promote effective participation and to ensure that all stakeholders are informed of the project and have the opportunity to provide input; to ensure that local officials are informed of the project and the process;
The strategies considered to meet the above objectives consisted of the following: Open Houses to engage the public and notification through newspaper advertising and via email distributed to businesses in the general vicinity of the site through the Carp Road BIA; direct contact with City staff; meetings with key agencies and City Councillors representing the west end; providing access to reports and presentation material from Open House through City website, and; providing direct responses to participants that submitted comments.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Consultation September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 10.2 10.2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION At the start of the MCEA, an English copy of the Notice of Study Commencement was published in the Ottawa Sun newspaper on December 21 2012 and a French copy in Le Droit on December 21, 2012. Copies of the Notice publication are shown in Appendix B. The proposed consultation for the MCEA process consisted of two Public Open House events, as follows; POH # 1 was held on February 23 2013 to present the Phase 1 report. The POH was held at the former Goulburn municipal office on Huntley Road near Stittsville. The format for the Open House was display boards (bilingual) and a handout which was a summary of all the boards displayed. A comment sheet was provided to receive comments. The information presented at POH # 1 (reproduced in Appendix B) was mainly the problem definition and background information on the review of previous sites considered by the City for development of a SDF in the west end. Notices for the POH # 1 were posted in English in the local newspaper, EMC Barrhaven and in the French newspaper Le Droit. A copy of the Notices is reproduced in Appendix B. Table 10 identifies the newspaper and dates of publication of all the Notices issued (Notice of Study Commencement, POH#1, and POH#2). Table 10: Newspaper Notices Item Newspaper Date Published Notice of Study Commencement Ottawa Sun (English) Le Droit (French) December 21, 2012 December 21, 2012 Notice of Public Open House #1 EMC Barrhaven (English) Le Droit (French) February 14, 2013 February 14, 2013 Notice of Public Open House #2 Ottawa Sun (English) Le Droit (French) July 26, 2013 and August 2, 2013 July 26, 2013 and August 2, 2013 Notice of Completion Ottawa Sun (English) Le Droit (French)
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Consultation September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 10.3 POH # 2 was held on August 6 2013 to present the Phases 1& 2 MCEA report. The POH was held at the former Goulburn municipal office on Huntley Road near Stittsville. The format for the Open House was through display boards (bilingual) and a handout which was a summary of all the boards displayed. A comment sheet was provided to receive comments. The information presented in POH # 2 was primarily the findings of the various investigative studies conducted during Phase 2 of the MCEA and used to support the proposed SDF design, most notably the hydrogeological study, natural environment inventory and the stormwater and meltwater assessment, and drainage. Notices for the POH # 2 were posted in English in the local newspapers, more particularly in English in the Ottawa Sun and in French in the newspaper Le Droit. A copy of the Notices is reproduced in Appendix C. As specified in the MCEA, the Notices for the mandatory meeting during Phase 2 were published on two occasions in the same newspaper (English - Ottawa Sun and in French - Le Droit). A copy of the display boards and the attendance sheet for each POH is reproduced in Appendix C.
Responses to POH # 1 and POH # 2 A total of three comment sheets, one email response and two letters were submitted as a result of POH # 1 and a copy of the response provided to all participants is reproduced in Appendix B. The main issues identified at POH # 1 are summarized in the response that the City formulated and distributed to all participants. The comments referred to drainage issues for properties along Walgreen (offsite), truck traffic on the 417 exit ramp making a left turn movement on to Carp Road, use of the remaining (open space) property for social events, and protection of groundwater quality. No comment sheets, email, or letters were received from POH # 2. Agency Circulation A Master Circulation List that identifies the agencies to which the Notice for POH # 1 and the Executive Summary of the draft Phase 1 report was circulated via electronic means (email) is reproduced in Appendix B. Because of the anticipated large file size for the above Phase 1 report, an electronic ftp site was created so that agencies could access the reports and its Appendices. The City also posted a copy of the Notice on their website. A Master Circulation List that identifies the agencies to which the Phase 1 & 2 report was circulated via electronic means (email) is reproduced in Appendix C. Because of the anticipated large file size for the above Phase 1& 2 report, an electronic ftp site was created so CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Consultation September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 10.4 that agencies could access the reports and its Appendices. The City posted a copy of the POH # 2 Notice, the Executive Summary of the MCEA and Executive Summaries for each of the supporting investigative studies on the City website. A copy of the Executive Summary for each report was translated into French and also posted on the City website. During 2012, the City held meetings with the MOE and the MTO to explore the potential for a SDF development at 2125 Carp Road. The result of this consultation with several key agencies resulted in a broader scope of work for the project, as described below; MOE meeting at MOE Ottawa office on August 30, 2012 and July 31 2013. Ministry of Transportation meeting at MTO Ottawa office on June 5, 2012 Ministry of Natural Resources meeting at MNR Kemptville office on May 25, 2012 Mississippi Valley Conservation teleconference with MVCA on May 28, 2012 and meeting on August 27th 2013. Carp Road Business Improvement Area meeting on September 20 th , 2012.
As a result of the 2012 meetings, the following issues arose; The MOE requested that the City follow prior precedent for other SDFs approvals and complete an environmental report (Schedule B) under the MCEA process for this sites development. The MOE indicated that there were off-site drainage issues that needed to be rectified and that prior drainage works (referred to as the linear pond, road side ditches, and other ditches inside of property along Westbrook) provided some stormwater treatment and these had never been recognized through an MOE approval. City and MOE acknowledge that a drainage easement is registered against most of the property. Stormwater management facilities have to be implemented as part of the development to deal with on-site and off-site drainage issues. It would be difficult to proceed with any development unless the drainage easement can be removed from the property. The MVCA identified that the site was classified as a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area (SGRA) and that consideration should be given to maintaining the recharge rate to groundwater. The hydrogeological assessment (2012) concluded that while the site is in a recharge zone, it did not meet the criteria for classification as a SGRA. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Consultation September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 10.5 MVCA advised that they did not consider any surface water on the property to be considered as fish habitat. Stantec urban planner (D. Krajaesfski) and City Planning staff discussed the General Rural (RG5) designation of the property and agreed that a zoning by-law amendment would be required to include snow disposal as a permitted use on this property. The planning approvals and consultation for a zoning by-law amendment is separate from the MCEA process. MTO advised that they did not have any record of an approval being granted for installation of the existing pipe at the north limit that discharges to the Highway 417 ditch. MTO also advised that major drainage works were being undertaken shortly in the 417 Highway ROW and that this area would be a construction zone for some time. 10.2.1 Notice of Completion A Notice of Completion will be published once the circulation for Phase 2 has been completed. The Notice will be printed in the Ottawa Sun and in Le Droit to provide the public, agencies, Aboriginal and First Nations and other participants the opportunity to provide comments on the MCEA report. The Notice will identify the right for each reviewer to request additional information or make a Request for a Part II Order to elevate the status of the study. 10.2.2 First Nations and Aboriginal Consultation The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada were consulted to identify potentially affected communities that may have an interest in the project. Consultation with First Nation and Aboriginal communities included the Mtis Nation of Ontario Consultation Unit and the Algonquins of Ontario Consultation Office which represents Algonquin communities in the Ottawa River watershed. The Notice of Study Commencement, the Notice for POH # 1 and the Executive Summary of Phase 1 were sent to the communities. Correspondence sent to communities is provided in Appendix E. Consultation for Phase 2 with Aboriginal communities included correspondence with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the Mtis Nation of Ontario Consultation Unit and the Algonquins of Ontario Consultation Office. The documentation provided to these communities in September 2013 included the Executive Summary of the MCEA, an electronic copy of the MCEA and the various supporting documentation (included in Appendix F) on compact disk. No meetings with First Nations or Aboriginal groups were conducted during Phases 1 or 2 of the project. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 Consultation September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 10.6 10.2.3 Website The Project websites were launched to provide up-to-date information through the Project life- cycle and available in both French and English. http://ottawa.ca/en/carp-snow-disposal-facility-0
The website contained information from the public open houses (i.e. poster boards) to allow stakeholders to view the public information if unable to attend or to follow up from the public open houses. All communication materials contained the path to the website in an effort to encourage the public to fill-out and submit questionnaires distributed at various milestones. All communications materials were appended with key personnel contact information for both the Project and the MCEA process. All communications materials, including presentations, were available in both English and French. CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 September 11, 2013
APPENDIX A Figures
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 September 11, 2013
APPENDIX B Phase 1 Consultation and Supporting Documentation
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 September 11, 2013
APPENDIX C Phase 2 Consultation and Supporting Documentation
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 September 11, 2013
APPENDIX D Meetings
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 September 11, 2013
APPENDIX E Correspondence and Other Communication
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2 September 11, 2013