Carp Snow Disposal Facility

5/23/2018 Carp Snow Disposal Facility

1/87

Carp Snow Disposal FacilityMunicipal Class EnvironmentalAssessment StudyPhases 1 & 2

Final Report

September 11, 2013

Insert revision record


2/87

Sign-off Sheet

This document entitled Carp Snow Disposal Facility Municipal Class Environmental

Assessment StudyPhases 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


3/87

CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTSTUDYPHASES 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 snowdisposal 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. Themaximum 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.


4/87


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.


5/87


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.


6/87


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 ........................................................................................................... 1.11.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONWEST END SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY ............... 1.2

1.1.1 Study Area ................................................................................................. 1.21.1.2 Planning Period and Snow Disposal Volume ............................................. 1.3

1.2 PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT ............................................................ 1.41.2.1 Lack of Snow Disposal Capacity in West End Ottawa ................................ 1.4

2.0 ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR SNOW DISPOSAL .................................................... 2.12.1 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE UNDERTAKING ...................... 2.1

2.2 CONSIDERATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS ............................................ 2.2

3.0 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................... 3.13.1 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 .......................... 3.53.4.1 Guidelines for Snow Disposal and De-icing Operations in Ontario ............. 3.63.4.2 Water Management, Goals, Policies and Implementation .......................... 3.6

3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT ............................................................... 3.7

3.7 PLANNING ACT .................................................................................................... 3.73.7.1 Official Plan ............................................................................................... 3.7

3.7.2 Zoning ....................................................................................................... 3.83.7.3 Community Design Plan ............................................................................ 3.83.7.4 Site Plan Control ........................................................................................ 3.9

3.8 CANADA FISHERIES ACT ................................................................................... 3.9

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................... 4.14.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................. 4.1

4.1.1 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................................ 4.14.1.2 Aquatic Resources ..................................................................................... 4.24.1.3 Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 4.24.1.4 Gulls .......................................................................................................... 4.3

4.1.5 Climate ...................................................................................................... 4.44.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................. 4.54.2.1 Significant Natural Heritage Features ........................................................ 4.54.2.2 Surrounding Land Use and Receptors ....................................................... 4.94.2.3 Topography and Drainage ......................................................................... 4.94.2.4 Surface Water Features ........................................................................... 4.104.2.5 Groundwater ............................................................................................ 4.104.2.6 Air Quality and Noise ............................................................................... 4.124.2.7 Air Quality and Vibration .......................................................................... 4.134.2.8 Geological Setting/Soils ........................................................................... 4.13


7/87


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 ............................................................................................ 4.144.2.10 Land Ownership/Legal ............................................................................. 4.144.2.11 Transportation ......................................................................................... 4.144.2.12 Utilities ..................................................................................................... 4.16

4.3 SOCIAL CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................ 4.174.3.1 Community/Development ......................................................................... 4.174.3.2 Heritage ................................................................................................... 4.174.3.3 Archaeological ......................................................................................... 4.184.3.4 Aboriginal ................................................................................................ 4.194.3.5 Aesthetics ................................................................................................ 4.20

4.4 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................. 4.215.0 IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES .......................................................... 5.1

5.1 DESIGN OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................... 5.15.2 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ............................................................ 5.15.3

EVALUATION CRITERIA & METHODOLOGY ...................................................... 5.2

5.4 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE ................................. 5.8

6.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION AND NET EFFECTS FORPREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................... 6.16.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION ...................................... 6.1

6.1.1 Construction Timing ................................................................................... 6.16.1.2 Erosion and Sediment Control ................................................................... 6.46.1.3 Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 6.46.1.4 Significant Natural Heritage Features ........................................................ 6.4

7.0

WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................................... 7.1

7.1 MELTWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY/POND .................................................. 7.17.1.1 Meltwater Quality Control ........................................................................... 7.17.1.2 Meltwater Quantity Control ........................................................................ 7.27.1.3 Meltwater Discharges and Mixing in Feedmill Creek .................................. 7.2

7.2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY/POND .............................................. 7.57.2.1 On-site stormwater management facility/pond ....................................... 7.57.2.2 Off-site stormwater management facility/pond and roadside ditches ..... 7.7

8.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES FOR PREFERRED DESIGN ................................. 8.18.1 SUMMARY SDF PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................... 8.18.2 LIGHTING ............................................................................................................. 8.18.3 SITE SECURITY & FENCES ................................................................................ 8.28.4 GRADING AND BERMING ................................................................................... 8.28.5 SITE ENTRANCE ................................................................................................. 8.38.6 PARKING AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE ............................................................. 8.38.7 NOISE BARRIER AND LANDSCAPING ............................................................... 8.38.8 TRUCK RATES AND HOURS OF OPERATION ................................................... 8.48.9 SITE EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 8.48.10 ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST ....................................................................... 8.5


8/87


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 ............................................................................................................... 9.19.1 MELTWATER AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ....................... 9.1

9.1.1 Pond Operating Levels .............................................................................. 9.1

9.1.2 Monitoring Program ................................................................................... 9.19.1.3 Sediment Removal .................................................................................... 9.1

10.0 CONSULTATION ........................................................................................................ 10.110.1 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... 10.110.2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION .................................................................................. 10.2

10.2.1 Notice of Completion ............................................................................... 10.510.2.2 First Nations and Aboriginal Consultation ................................................ 10.510.2.3 Website ................................................................................................... 10.6

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Average Haul Distance and Travel Time to Catchment Areas ................................... 2.4Table 2: Scoring for the 10 Closest Properties ........................................................................ 2.5Table 3: Organizational Responsibilities.................................................................................. 3.1Table 4: Maintenance Quality Standards for Snow and Ice Control on City Roads ................ 4.15Table 5: Qualitative Evaluation of Design Components ............................................................ 5.3Table 6: Potential Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures .......................................... 6.2Table 7: Average Year Assimilation of SDF Chlorides with SWMP .......................................... 7.4Table 8: Site Outlet Pre vs. Post Discharges ............................................................................ 7.6Table 9: Estimate of Probable Cost (2013) ............................................................................... 8.5Table 10: Newspaper Notices ................................................................................................ 10.2List of Appendices

Appendix A - List of FiguresFigure 1 - Snow Disposal Facilities (2001) Location PlanFigure 2 - West End Servicing AreaFigure 3 - Potential Sites investigated by the City 2009Figure 4 - West District Snow Disposal Facilities 2009Figure 5 - Study Area - Vegetation CommunitiesFigure 6 - Project Area as shown over detail from 1879 Belden Historical AtlasFigure 7 - Area Map showing Facility and Points of ReceptionFigure 8 - Zones of Archaeological Potential, Results of Stage 1AAFigure 9 - Conceptual Site Layout

Appendix BPhase 1 Consultation and Supporting DocumentationAppendix CPhase 2 Consultation and Supporting DocumentationAppendix DMeetingsAppendix ECorrespondence and Other CommunicationAppendix FCompact Disk - Studies


9/87

CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTSTUDYPHASES 1 & 2September 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 1identifies 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 fora 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 (m3) 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

m3for 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 theurban centre of Kanata. This site is too far removed from the urban centre to offer anypotential use as a large SDF,

a new site (identified as Site H in previous studies) was reviewed by the City in 2009 andfound 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 arethe only two SDFs in existence for servicing the west end, their closure would pose aserious deficiency in capacity which must be replaced by a new site.


10/87

CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTSTUDYPHASES 1 & 2Introduction

September 11, 2013


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 Mun icipal

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 DESCRIPTIONWEST 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 2and summarized below;

Northextends to the Carp community and Ottawa River

Southextends to Flewellyn Road but also includes the community of Richmond

Eastextends to Richmond Road and Highway 416

Westextends to west limit of Stittsville but also includes the community of Munster


11/87


September 11, 2013


1.1.2 Planning Period and Snow Disposal Volume

The 2002 Scoping Analysis of Snow Disposal Facilities (SAS) study had identified the planningperiod to end in 2021. The SAS had calculated the snow disposal demand to service the west

end to 2021 to be 308,000 m3.

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 m3for 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 m3as being the

disposal capacity requirements for the west end by 2021.

The City is currently reviewing their Official Plan and the long term strategy forinfrastructure/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 m3) increases the snow disposal

demand to 342,250 m3. 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 donot 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 m3this 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


12/87


September 11, 2013


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 m3for 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 m3of snow disposal capacity to service the Citys west end.

The 357,000 m3 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.


13/87



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 infrastructureis 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 potentialflooding. 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.


14/87

CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTSTUDYPHASES 1 & 2Alternative Methods for Snow Disposal

September 11, 2013


Sewer Chutes

Direct discharge into a sanitary sewer through chutes requires a significant trunk sewer with thecapacity 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. Thecolder 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 insnow. 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 alternat ive toconsidered 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


15/87


September 11, 2013


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 m3to service thewest 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;

Locationtravel time and haul distance have the greatest impact on efficiency of snow removal

operations and long term operating coststhis 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.


16/87


September 11, 2013


As haul distance and travel time were determined to be the most important considerations, the10 closest sites to the catchment areas (Figure 3) were chosen for an evaluation.

Table 1: Average Haul Distance and Travel Time to Catchment Areas

PropertyAverage Haul Distance toCatchment Areas (kms)

Average Travel Time toCatchment Areas (minutes)

1818 Bradley Side 8.2 122125 Carp Road 9.6 101170 March Road 10.3 126559 Hazeldean 10.6 156437 Flewellyn 11.8 15915 Riddell 12.3 152822 Carp Road 12.4 142914 Carp Road 13 152050 Dunrobin Road 13.9 17Carp & March 14.4 17


17/87


September 11, 2013


The results of the evaluation are shown inTable 2 below.

Table 2: Scoring for the 10 Closest PropertiesProperty Rank Score Concerns

1818 Bradley Side1 75

Size of property, 0.5 km force main to CarpRiver

2125 Carp Road 2 75 Soils, concerns for drainage outlet0 Carp & March 3 74 Haul distance, travel time6559 Hazeldean 4 68.5 Soils, Concerns for drainage outlet2822 Carp Road 5 68 Concern for drainage outlet6437 Flewellyn 6 66 Soils, Concerns for drainage outlet2914 Carp Road 7 64 Concerns for drainage outlet915 Riddell 8 59 Zoning, Concerns for drainage outlet

1170 March Road 9 51 Zoning, Concerns for drainage outlet2050 DunrobinRoad

10 41Zoning, 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 anenvironmental 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 CitysORU West SDF Report identified the site at 2125 Carp Road as

offering the most potential for development as a SDF.


18/87


September 11, 2013


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.


19/87



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 Table3

below.

Table 3: Organizational Responsibilities

Ministry of theEnvironment

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 onpublished reports

Agenciesfederal,provincial, others such asthe Conservation

Authority.

Provide input during document review

Aboriginal and FirstNations

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.


20/87

CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTSTUDYPHASES 1 & 2Regulatory Environment

September 11, 2013


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.


21/87


September 11, 2013


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.


22/87


September 11, 2013


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 theconstruction 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


23/87


September 11, 2013


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


24/87


September 11, 2013


Environmental Assessment Act, 1990

Planning Act, 1990.

Outlined below are brief descriptions of the policy directives of these documents and their use inthe 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 onsubsurface 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. Programmanagement 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/electricalcomponents.

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).


25/87


September 11, 2013


3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT

The Ontario Environmental Protection Act provides legislative authority to limit the discharge ofcontaminants 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 DisposalFacilities will only be permitted in areas where it can be demonstrated that the impacts oftrucking 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, significantwetlands south and east of the Canadian Shield, flood plains, unstable slopes and urbannatural features.

The impacts of snow disposal facilities for existing or committed sites shall be mitigatedthrough urban design and site plan control measures which include locating landscaping,road allowances, open space uses, utility installations, commercial uses, etc. in anyintervening separation distance between the snow disposal facilities and a sensitive landuse.

The appropriateness of new Snow Disposal Facilities or expansions to existing facilitieswill be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:

o Appropriate setbacks from residential uses and neighboring properties inaccordance with Ministry of Environment Guidelines for setbacks from residentialuses 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,


26/87


September 11, 2013


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 resultof 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 andsurrounding existing and proposed Snow Disposal Facilities and implement measures tomitigate 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.


27/87


September 11, 2013


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.


28/87



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 affectedby 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.


29/87

CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTSTUDYPHASES 1 & 2Description of the Environment

September 11, 2013


4.1.2 Aquatic Resources

Two small-bodied fish were observed within the east-west drainage feature along WestbrookRoad 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,


30/87


September 11, 2013


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 identificationwas 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 pondsand 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


31/87


September 11, 2013


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 aroosting 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

January8,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.


32/87


September 11, 2013


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 is7 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 Woodlandidentified 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.


33/87


September 11, 2013


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 ofthe 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.


34/87


September 11, 2013


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 isprotected 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.


35/87


September 11, 2013


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 couldpotentially 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 wasobserved through field investigations. This species was not observed during any of the

site visits.


36/87


September 11, 2013

cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_d

Carp Snow Disposal Facility

Documents

carp road

snowdisposal facility

new facility

proposed facility

meltwater assessment

visuallandscape assessment

archaeological assessment

hydrogeological assessment