Southwestern Landfill Proposal Environmental Assessment ......haul route crossings may disturb or...

GUIDING SOLUTIONS IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

8 0 M a i n S t . N o r t h , M a r k h a m , O n t a r i o , C a n a d a L 3 P 1 X 5 T e l : ( 9 0 5 ) 2 0 1 7 6 2 2 F a x : ( 9 0 5 ) 2 0 1 0 6 3 9

Southwestern Landfill Proposal Environmental Assessment

Ecological Assessment Work Plan

Prepared For:

Walker Environmental Group

Prepared By:

Beacon Environmental Limited

Date: Project:

September 2017 216421

S o u t h w e s t e r n L a n d F i l l P r o p o s a l , E n v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t ,

E c o l o g i c a l ( T e r r e s t r i a l / A q u a t i c ) W o r k P l a n

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s

p a g e

1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 1

2. Purposes and Objectives ........................................................................... 1

3. Environmental Assessment Criteria ......................................................... 3

4. Study Areas .................................................................................................. 5

5. Indicators/Measures .................................................................................... 7

6. Assumptions .............................................................................................. 12

6.1 Facility Characteristics ................................................................................................ 12 6.2 Land Use Forecast ..................................................................................................... 13 6.3 Climate Change .......................................................................................................... 13

7. Data Collection .......................................................................................... 14

7.1 Background Data Collection ....................................................................................... 14 7.2 Field Data Collection .................................................................................................. 15

7.2.1 Aquatic ...................................................................................................................... 15 7.2.2 Terrestrial .................................................................................................................. 18

8. Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 21

8.1 Aquatic ....................................................................................................................... 21 8.1.1 Index of Biotic Integrity ............................................................................................... 22 8.1.2 Nearshore Community Index Netting .......................................................................... 22 8.1.3 Fulton’s Condition Factor ........................................................................................... 22 8.1.4 Benthic Data Analysis ................................................................................................ 23

8.2 Terrestrial ................................................................................................................... 24

9. Reporting .................................................................................................... 24

10. References ................................................................................................. 26



F i g u r e s

Figure 1. Proposed Site Location ........................................................................................................ 2

Figure 2. Proposed Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Locations ........................................ after page 16

T a b l e s

Table 1. Primary EA Criteria ............................................................................................................... 3

Table 2. Other EA Criteria Related to Ecology .................................................................................... 3

Table 3. Primary EA Criteria and Associated Duration ........................................................................ 4

Table 4. Primary Criteria and Associated Study Area ......................................................................... 6

Table 5. Range and Relevance of Potential Change for Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology ................... 8

Table 6. Criteria for Aquatic System Types as Defined by the Oxford Natural Heritage Study

(2006) ......................................................................................................................... 15

Table 7. Fish Community Health Based on Index of Biotic Integrity .................................................. 22

Table 8. Water Quality Assessment Based on Hilsenhoff Biotic Index .............................................. 23

A p p e n d i c e s

A. Environmental Assessment Criteria



Page 1

1. Introduction

Walker Environmental Group (WEG or “Walker”) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the “provision of future waste landfill capacity at the Carmeuse Lime (Canada) site in Oxford County for solid, non-hazardous waste generated in the Province of Ontario. Figure 1 shows the proposed site location. On March 17, 2016 the Minister of the Environment issued the Notice of Approval to Walker for its Southwestern Landfill Terms of Reference, subject to fifteen further Amendments. Walker published a consolidated version, including these further amendments, under the title “Approved Amended Terms of Reference” (May 10, 2016). Section 8.2 of that document details the approved methodology for

evaluating the environmental effects of the proposed landfill, while Appendix B of that same document identifies the associated technical studies that are required. This work plan specifically addresses the ecological (terrestrial and aquatic) component of the EA.

2. Purposes and Objectives

The purpose of this study is to complete an ecological (terrestrial and aquatic) assessment of the landfill

proposed by Walker. The objectives of the study are listed below, in accordance with the requirements of Section 8.2 of the Approved Amended Terms of Reference:

(a) Describe the environment potentially affected by the proposed undertaking, including

both the existing environment as well as the environment that would otherwise be likely to exist in the future without the proposed undertaking.

(b) Carry out an evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking, using the environmental assessment criteria described in Appendix A.

(c) Carry out an evaluation of any additional impact management actions that may be necessary to prevent, change or mitigate any (negative) environmental effects.

(d) Prepare a description and evaluation of the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the proposed undertaking, based on the net environmental effects that will result following mitigation.

(e) Prepare monitoring, contingency and impact management plans to remedy the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.



Page 2

Figure 1. Proposed Site Location



Page 3

3. Environmental Assessment Criteria

Appendix A contains a complete list and detailed descriptions of the approved environmental

assessment criteria that are to be used in this EA. From that list, the following are the primary environmental assessment criteria that are to be addressed in the ecological assessment, along with examples of related issues heard by Walker during public consultation about the proposal (see Table 1).

Table 1. Primary EA Criteria

Environmental Criteria Issue(s) Raised through Public Consultation

Loss or disturbance to aquatic ecosystems Effects through direct or indirect impacts on aquatic species, water resources and aquatic habitats

Loss or disturbance to terrestrial ecosystems Direct and indirect effects on habitats or species including significant natural heritage features in the County of Oxford*, species at risk or sensitive species and disruption of connectivity

Disease transmission via insects or vermin Insects and vermin drawn to a waste disposal facility may have the potential to transmit diseases

Aviation impacts due to bird interference Birds, mostly gulls, may be attracted to waste disposal facilities. This can pose a risk of bird strikes on aircraft in the vicinity of the site, especially during take-off and landing altitudes

*As defined using criteria from the Oxford Natural Heritage Study (2006).

Furthermore, this study is also designed to provide key input/data to other environmental criteria that will be addressed through studies conducted by other experts. These are provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Other EA Criteria Related to Ecology

Environmental Criteria Issue(s) Raised through Public Consultation Primary Expert

Nuisance associated with vermin or wildlife

Vermin or other wildlife attracted to landfill may

create an effect associated with property

enjoyment including recreational opportunities

Social and Cultural

Nuisance associated with vermin or wildlife

Vermin or other wildlife attracted to landfill may

cause an effect on agricultural operations

Social and Cultural

Property values Ecological elements that could be affected by the

proposed landfill could result in property value

impacts.

Economics

Displacement of forestry resources This could occur due to interference with ability

to use forest resources nearby.

Land Use

It should be noted that the above list is not a complete list of the criteria and experts that may use the findings of the ecological assessment. Beacon Environmental will make ecological study findings



Page 4

available to all experts for use in evaluating any environmental criteria the individual experts determine as necessary. For each of the primary criteria to be addressed in this study, two durations (or time frames) will be considered in which potential environmental effects can occur: Operational Period The time during which the waste disposal facility is constructed, filled with

waste, and capped. These activities are combined since they occur progressively (i.e., overlap) on a cell-by-cell basis, and they have a similar range of potential effects (e.g., there is heavy equipment active on the site).

Post-Closure Period The time after the site is closed to waste receipt. Activities are normally limited to operation of control systems, routine property maintenance and monitoring, and thus have a more limited range of potential effects.

Table A1 appended to this work plan identifies the study duration associated with each of the criteria. For this ecological assessment, the criterion “Loss or disturbance to aquatic ecosystems” will consider both operational and post-closure periods, and the criteria “Loss or disturbance to terrestrial ecosystems”, “Disease transmission via insects or vermin” and “Aviation impacts due to gull interference” will consider only the operational period (see Table 3).

Table 3. Primary EA Criteria and Associated Duration

EA Criteria Associated Study

Duration Rationale

Loss or disturbance to

aquatic ecosystems

Operational period

Post-closure period

Physical disturbance such as construction and use of

haul route crossings may disturb or remove fish habitat

Changes in baseflow to creeks, or water tables

associated with wetlands could create concomitant

effects to aquatic ecosystems

Potential effects to aquatic habitats and species may

accrue as the result of emissions/discharges from the

site, whether they be related to direct surface water

releases or via groundwater contributing to surface water

features off site

Loss or disturbance to

terrestrial ecosystems

Operational period Loss or disturbance, directly or indirectly (e.g., vegetation

removal including of vegetation within areas of

connectivity, dust, noise (traffic), could result in effects to

terrestrial ecosystems

Disease transmission via insects or vermin

Operational period Insects and vermin attracted to a waste disposal facility

may have the potential to transmit diseases or pathogens

to humans

Aviation impacts due to

bird interference

Operational period Birds may be attracted to waste disposal facilities and

could increase the safety risk to aircraft using the

airspace around the facility, primarily at lower altitudes



Page 5

4. Study Areas

Table A1 in Appendix A identified three general study areas. These are:

On-Site and in the Site Vicinity On-site includes the waste disposal facility plus the associated

buffer zones. Site vicinity is the area immediately adjacent to the

waste disposal facility property that is directly affected by the on-site activities. Its size will be variable and flexible in order to encompass the actual extent of the effects, but could consist of neighbouring properties and/or communities as required.

Along the Haul Routes The primary route along which waste disposal facility truck traffic moves between a major provincial highway and the waste disposal facility site entrance, plus the properties directly adjacent to these roads.

Wider Area

The wider area, generally beyond the immediate site vicinity. Depending on the particular criterion this may include

neighbourhoods, local municipalities, Oxford County, or the Province. This study area can also be used for some of the general or indirect effects of a landfill that are not resulting from specific physical activities on the site.

Table A1 indicates the relevant study areas that will be examined for each of the criteria.

These study areas are not intended to be fixed. Flexibility is available to expand or contract study areas, depending on the study findings. For the purposes of this ecological assessment, the initial estimate of the study areas based on our current understanding of the proposed site, and other landfills, is as follows: On-Site and in the Site Vicinity Loss or disturbance to aquatic ecosystems

Loss or disturbance to terrestrial ecosystems (within 120 m) Disease transmission via insects or vermin Aviation impacts due to gull interference (within 500 m)

Along the Haul Routes

Loss or disturbance to aquatic ecosystems Loss or disturbance to terrestrial ecosystems (either side of route within 50 m, to first public road)

Wider Area

Loss or disturbance to aquatic ecosystems Loss or disturbance to terrestrial ecosystems (within 1 km) Aviation impacts due to gull interference (within 20 km and 16-60 km).

The rationale for selection of these study areas is provided in Table 4.



Page 6

Table 4. Primary Criteria and Associated Study Area

EA Criteria Associated Study Areas Rationale

Loss or

disturbance to

aquatic

ecosystems

On Site and Vicinity

Haul Routes

Wider Area – Thames River

and downstream receivers

within a to-be-determined

proximity downstream of the

landfill

Ecological effects more likely in immediate vicinity of the

project.

Construction of haul route crossings may reduce area of

fish habitat and may cause sediment input into

watercourses which would compromise habitat quality.

Also, salt and sediment input during operation from

increased use could impact habitat quality and have

effects on aquatic species.

The proximity of the proposed landfill to the Thames

River may create far-reaching impacts downstream

Includes operational aspects such as wildlife

management

Loss or

disturbance to

terrestrial

ecosystems

On Site and Vicinity – within

120 m of study area

Haul Routes – within 50 m of

route to first public road

Wider Area – for connectivity

and context, within 1 km of the

site

This will capture the direct effects zone for terrestrial

receivers

The haul route (portions on Carmeuse Property) may

include natural or semi natural areas, direct effects can

be anticipated within approx. 50 m

Connectivity across the landscape requires a broader

context, using existing information and site visits the

general natural heritage system will be described within

this range to allow the landscape context to be

developed, as well as to assess potential effects on

connectivity associated with increased traffic.

Disease

transmission

via insects or

vermin

On site and Vicinity – the

actual waste disposal area is

the potential source, the

potential receptors are the

nearby residential

communities and farmland

Primarily a potential on-site issue, would be adjusted if

field investigations indicate otherwise

Aviation

impacts due to

gull

interference

On site and Vicinity - the site

and areas within 500 m

Wider Area. All areas within a

20 km radius of the proposed

site as the site is located within

the air traffic movement

patterns of two airports.

Wider Area. A Secondary

Study Area, to include the

London International Airports,

will include lands located 16 to

60-km distant from the airport

Characteristics and features of the immediate

environment are important to how birds might use the

site

The proposed landfill site is located in proximity to the

Woodstock Airport which is located approximately 6 km

to the northeast and the Tillsonburg Regional Airport

which is located approximately 18 km to the southwest

This represents an area where birds movements to and

from attractants could result in birds moving through

airspace frequented by aircraft after feeding or loafing



Page 7

5. Indicators/Measures

Indicators identify how the potential environmental effects will be measured for each criterion. Table 5

describes the indicators that are proposed for each of the primary EA criteria to be addressed in this assessment along with potential units of measure and the range and relevance of potential change. The units of measure are explained in more detail in Section 7.0 of this work plan.



Page 8

Table 5. Range and Relevance of Potential Change for Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology

EA Criteria Proposed Effects

Indicators

Potential Unit of

Measure

Range and Relevance of Potential

Change Comments

Negligible Potentially

Meaningful

Loss or

disturbance to

aquatic

ecosystems*

Benthic Invertebrates

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

See Section 7.1.3



Page 9


Indicators

Potential Unit of

Measure


Change Comments


Meaningful

directly or indirectly in order to carry out

their life processes.”

Loss or

disturbance to

aquatic

ecosystems*

Species at Risk Use of habitat and

presence, sometimes

historical

None present Presence of habitat

where use may be

affected now or in

the future

Regulated through the provincial

Endangered Species Act and/or federal

Species at Risk Act (where applicable)

* Note: A 10% degree of change in aquatic ecosystems may not be appropriate for all effects indicators, but is intended as a starting point and will be re-

evaluated when meaningful data have been collected.

Loss or

disturbance to

terrestrial

ecosystems

Ecological Land

Classification (ELC)

communities as

defined by ELC

System for Southern

Ontario (other than

woodland and wetland

which are addressed

below)

Presence

Area in hectares

5% loss

Loss of habitat for area sensitive

species (as defined by MNR 2000) (ha)

Intensive vegetation monitoring (using

appropriate parameters) may be

undertaken in locations where a critical

issue is identified (i.e., a rare, sensitive

or important vegetation community

where a negative effect is possible).

Loss or

disturbance to

terrestrial

ecosystems

Wetlands Presence

Area in hectares

Loss of 10% of unit

that is not PSW

Defined by the Ontario Wetland

Evaluation System (MNR 1993)

Loss or

disturbance to

terrestrial

ecosystems

Woodlands Presence, Area in

hectares

Loss of cultural

woodland types

Loss of woodland

that is determined

by planning authority

to be significant

Significant woodlands are determined in

Official Plans using guidelines provided

by the MNRF and the ONHS (2006)



Page 10


Indicators

Potential Unit of

Measure


Change Comments


Meaningful

Loss or

disturbance to

terrestrial

ecosystems

Species at Risk Use of habitat and

presence, sometimes

historical

None present Use of habitat where

that use may be

affected

Regulated through the Endangered

Species Act and/or Species at Risk Act

(where applicable)

Loss or

disturbance to

terrestrial

ecosystems

Rare Communities or

Species

Presence of

communities or species

defined by the provincial

S-rank system as S1, S2

or S3 (NHIC, on-line)

Loss of incidental

habitat

Loss of regularly

used habitat

Rare species and communities are

highly valued and are often indicative of

high quality habitat or special habitat

conditions

Loss or

disturbance to

terrestrial

ecosystems

Colonial Nesting (birds

that nest in colonies)

Presence of multiple

pairs

Temporary

disturbance

Loss of any

breeding habitat

Bank Swallow is the only species likely

to occur within disturbance areas based

on habitat. This will also be addressed

as a Species at Risk.

Loss or

disturbance to

terrestrial

ecosystems

Breeding Amphibian

Areas

Calling males during

breeding season, (using

a standardised

monitoring scale)

Hydroperiod of breeding

pond

Loss of non-

breeding habitat

Loss of productive

breeding habitat

Breeding amphibians are particularly

sensitive to habitat loss or disturbance

Loss or

disturbance to

terrestrial

ecosystems

Landscape

Connectivity

Identified Corridors Minor impairment

to connectivity

Major impact to

connectivity

Corridor/landscape criteria from ONHS

(2006) and professional judgment

Disease

transmission

via insects or

vermin

Primary vectors (gulls) Background numbers of

gulls

No change in

background

number of

potential vectors

(primarily gulls)

Increase beyond pre-

determined

background level due

to landfill

Literature review and professional

judgment will be used to confirm

pathway for transfer of pathogens

Field work will determine background

levels



Page 11


Indicators

Potential Unit of

Measure


Change Comments


Meaningful

Aviation

impacts due to

bird

interference

Increased risk of bird

strikes

Airport Bird Risk

Assessment Process

(ABRAP) for the

Woodstock, Tillsonburg

Regional and London

International Airports

Negligible

increase in Risk

Unacceptable

increase in Risk

Transport Canada guidelines detailed in

Safety Above All (TP 8240, 2009) and

the Airport Wildlife Management and

Planning Regulations (Canadian

Aviation Regulations -CAR 302.301-

306).

Mitigation in the form of an Integrated

Gull Management Plan would be

required along with a contingency,

should the ABRAP determine that the

landfill is creating an unacceptable

elevated risk to aircraft operating in the

vicinity,



Page 12

6. Assumptions

6.1 Facility Characteristics

Walker has provided an initial set of working assumptions regarding the design and operations of the proposed landfill (Facility Characteristics Report; November, 2016). The following key assumptions are drawn from that report for the purposes of this study:

Approximately 75 ha site, with waste to be deposited on approximately 54 ha;

Buffer area around perimeter of waste fill area ranging from 30m – 150 m;

The total calculated capacity of waste and daily/intermediate cover is approximately

17.4 million m3;

Above-ground slopes 20:1 or more shallow to ensure effective surface drainage and no more steep than 4:1 to prevent erosion of final cover;

Average waste thickness less than the maximum permitted as per O. Reg. 232/98; landfill liner system will be a Generic Design Option II- Double Liner as per O Reg. 292/98 and the Landfill Standards Guideline; liner design has been prepared by the MOECC to be fully protective of groundwater for the full contaminating lifespan of leachate;

Landfill liner system to be extended to ground surface at the landfill perimeter, providing a physical barrier to subsurface landfill gas migration;

Any storm water that comes into contact with the active working area and portions of the landfill that do not have final cover, will be considered as potentially contaminated (i.e. contact water);

Storm water in the perimeter areas of the landfill, including the buffer areas, will be directed via perimeter ditching to the storm water management area for sediment removal and monitoring, followed by discharge to the Thames River;

Berming, ditches, grading and other works will be used to contain any contact water where it will be directed into the leachate collection system for treatment as landfill leachate;

The treated water from the leachate treatment plant may be stored in balancing/polishing ponds before being released to the environment, and will meet the following minimum/maximum criteria:

Parameter Units Design Minimum

Inlet Quality

Design Maximum

Inlet Quality

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) mg/L 590 2000

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L 40 350

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) mg/L 130 250

Total Phosphorous (TP) mg/L 0.3 3.5

Iron mg/L 2 15

Zinc mg/L 0 1

pH 5 9

The treated water from the leachate treatment plant may be stored in balancing/polishing ponds before being released to the environment;

The treated water will be discharged to the Patterson-Robbins Drain in proximity to the leachate treatment plant;



Page 13

Onsite uses for treated water (e.g., road watering for dust control) will be considered to minimize the need for using existing groundwater and surface water resources.

Estimated traffic volume is 178 one-way trips/day (only includes entering the facility, not the return trip);

Site is anticipated to operate Monday to Friday, 7:00 am to 5:00 pm and Saturday, 7:00 am to 1:00 pm (closed Sundays and statutory holidays) with site activities occurring up to one hour before and two hours after these times;

Dust control methods will be employed on site and on adjacent external roadways;

Litter fencing will be erected at key locations around working areas and litter collection will be regularly carried out to remove any fugitive blowing litter;

Birds of prey, noisemakers and other industry standard bird control methodologies will be used during operating hours to discourage birds from gathering and scavenging;

Pest control measures will be employed if vermin are found at the site;

Odour control measures will uses that include, but are not limited to, the adaptive application of a small working face, daily cover, and ongoing refinements to the operation of the gas collection and leachate treatment systems;

A formal public hotline, reporting and response procedure will be put in place to identify and correct any nuisance issues; and

Monitoring and reporting will be established regarding leachate quantity and quality, groundwater levels and quality, surface water flows and quality, treated leachate quantity and quality, air emissions, noise levels and particulate.

6.2 Land Use Forecast

In order to address cumulative effects, in accordance with the methodology set out in Section 8.2 of the Approved Amended Terms of Reference, this study will compare the potential effects of the proposed

landfill at its different stages of development to the forecast baseline conditions at that same period of time (i.e., the “do nothing” alternative). In order to guide the forecasting of future baseline conditions, Walker has provided a set of working assumptions regarding future land uses (including community growth, other industrial activities such as quarrying, etc.) at the site, in the surrounding area and in the broader community (Land Use Planning Forecast – Draft Report, Proposed Southwestern Landfill, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited, October 2016:

The site will continue to be designated Quarry Area/Limestone Resource in relation to the aggregate operations;

No change in land use or zoning is anticipated in the site vicinity; and

Growth and expansion (residential or employment development), other than potential infill, is not anticipated within the 1 km Study Area; the majority of growth anticipated to occur in the 5 km Study Area will be a mix of low, medium and high density residential development.

6.3 Climate Change

Minister’s amendment #12 to the Approved Amended Terms of Reference required that climate change is considered in this environmental assessment. The following table summarizes the mean climate change (temperature and precipitation) assumptions to be considered during this study, where relevant.



Page 14

Temperature (oC) Precipitation (mm)

Annual Summer Winter Annual Summer Winter

2011-2040 +2.3 +2.0 +2.2 +52.0 -2.7 +28.3

2041-2070 +3.9 +3.2 +4.5 +87.0 -2.5 +34.9

2071-2100+ +4.8 +4.1 +5.5 +89.0 -4.4 +46.8 Source: McDermid, J., S. Fera and A. Hogg. 2015. Climate change projections for Ontario: An updated synthesis for

policymakers and planners. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Science and Research Branch, Peterborough, Ontario. Climate Change Research Report CCRR-44.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry document from which this data is sourced includes other information that can be used if and where appropriate in this and other studies.

7. Data Collection

7.1 Background Data Collection

A comprehensive background review will be undertaken to gather existing natural heritage information regarding the three study areas. This will include at least the following documents and sources for background data:

County of Oxford. 2006. Oxford Natural Heritage Study;

Ingersoll and District Nature Club;

Oxford Trail Committee;

Ministry of Natural Resources Fish Dot Mapping;

Ministry of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Information Centre;

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. 2007. Woodstock Natural Heritage Inventory;

Cudmore, B., C.A. MacKinnon and S.E. Madzia. 2004. Aquatic species at risk in the Thames River watershed, Ontario. Can. MS Rpt. Fish. Aquat. Sci.;

Taylor, I., B. Cudmore, C.A. MacKinnon, S.E. Madzia and S. Hohn. 2004. The Thames River Watershed Synthesis Report;

Fisheries and Oceans Canada SAR Mapping;

Transport Canada Airport Bird Strike Data;

Airport Wildlife Management Plans (3);

Christmas Bird Count data;

Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Data (and other atlas data as available);

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority natural heritage data;

Knowledgeable local naturalists;

Natural Heritage Information Center, Peterborough;

Ministry of Natural Resources District Office; and

Official Plan policies and mapping related to natural features. For the Wider Area, background data collection will include a detailed review of secondary sources of the Thames River and downstream receivers within a to-be-determined proximity downstream of the landfill.



Page 15

Ecological information that is gathered through the consultation process with Indigenous groups and others though other aspects of the EA will also be utilized.

7.2 Field Data Collection

Field data will be collected from watercourses on and within the vicinity of the Site commencing as soon as practical. 7.2.1 Aquatic

Sampling will be conducted annually for benthic invertebrates and semi-annually for fish community at each site in order to accumulate robust baseline data. These data will provide a thorough characterization of the fish and benthic communities and habitat in the study area and vicinity against which any changes can be measured during the operation and post-closure periods. Sampling Locations

Watercourses Sampling sites within watercourses were selected based on the watercourse classifications described in the Oxford Natural Heritage Study (ONHS) (Oxford County 2006). The ONHS categorizes the watercourses within the project study area into three system types: Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3. Table 6 provides the criteria for each of these system types and Figure 2 depicts the system types within the

vicinity of the study area.

Table 6. Criteria for Aquatic System Types as Defined by the Oxford Natural Heritage Study (2006)

System

Type Species Supported Flow Regime Temperature Regime

1

Sensitive or significant species, species at

risk, top level predators, sportfish, habitat

to support sensitive species

Permanent

Warmwater

Coolwater

Coldwater

2 Baitfish, species resilient to change Permanent Warmwater

3 Seasonally accessed by baitfish and larger

fish Intermittent or ephemeral Warmwater

Sampling sites were selected based on their proximity to the landfill site and their potential for effects (Figure 2). Two sampling sites were selected downstream of the landfill site to determine the

downstream extent of potential impacts from the proposed landfill. Reference sites for each system type have also been identified. Data from these reference sites will be compared to sample sites. Sampling and reference sites have yet to be field verified and may change as a result of local conditions.



Page 16

Sampling sites will be distributed throughout the system types to ensure that there are sample and reference sites in all system types. Field reconnaissance will be undertaken to select the final sample locations. Once sample sites have been finalized unique identifiers will be applied to each sample site. Lakes/Ponds

Sampling sites within lake and pond habitats will be selected based on the physical characteristics of the waterbody, and will be determined by the final project layout and the property owner. The number and location of the sampling sites will be dependent on overall surface area, water depth, slope profiles, substrates and aquatic macrophyte distribution. Sampling sites will be distributed through waterbodies where there is a potential for an interaction with the project and will be representative of the habitat conditions present. Fish Community Survey

Watercourses

Sampling and reference sites located in watercourse system types 1 and 2 will be assessed using triple-pass electrofishing surveys to sample fish species. Surveys will follow the protocol detailed in Section 3, Module 1 of the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP) (Stanfield et al. 2013). This technique

involves removal of individual fish by isolating a sample reach with block nets at the upstream and downstream extents and electrofishing using a backpack unit to capture all fish. The sample reach will extend from crossover point to crossover point. A crossover point is defined as the location within a watercourse where the thalweg (concentration of flow) is in the center of the channel during bankfull discharge. This survey method allows for the detection of differences in fish catches over time or between sites. Sampling will occur twice annually, during the spring and fall. Based on site reconnaissance, Beacon will determine if there are any conditions or circumstances that would present insurmountable challenges in conducting these surveys using this approach, and may adjust the methods accordingly. Fish captured through this survey method will be identified to species, and lengths, weights and general condition will be recorded. Beacon will secure the appropriate fish collection permits from the MNRF in order to conduct the work. Lakes/Ponds Sampling sites within lake and pond habitats will be assessed using the Nearshore Community Index Netting (NSCIN) methodology (MNR 1999). Field reconnaissance will be undertaken to select the final sample locations. Once sample sites have been finalized unique identifiers will be applied to each sample site. NSCIN is a standardized, live release, netting program which samples fish from the littoral zone of waterbodies and provides an evaluation of fish species abundance. Fish sampling is undertaken using trap or hoop nets which are set for 24 hour periods. The standardized methodology allows for trend through time sampling of fish communities and can be used to detect changes in fish abundance. NSCIN will be undertaken annually and as per the protocol will occur during a period extending from August 1st until the water temperature drops below 13ºC (usually late September in southern Ontario). Beacon will secure the appropriate fish collection permits from the MNRF in order to conduct the work. Fish sampling will extend to the quarry “lake”.

#*

#*

#*

")

")

")

South T

hames R

iverFoldens Creek

Patters

on& R

obbins

Drain

Prouse Drain

Hunt Village

Ref

Ref

Ref

Exp

Exp

ExpProject 216421May 2017

-1:14,0000 270 540135 Metres

UTM Zone 17 N, NAD 83

Proposed BenthicInvertebrateMonitoringLocationsFigure 2

Walker Environmental Group

First Base SolutionsWeb Mapping Service 2010

LegendSubject PropertySubject Property + 500 mAdditional Lands Controlled by Licensees

") Exposure Site#* Reference Site

Watercourse (MNRF 2017)



Page 17

Benthic Invertebrate Survey

Benthic invertebrate samples will be collected from reference and exposure sites within the study area using a quantitative assessment method appropriate to the habitat type (including surber sampler, grab or core sample). Sampling will take place in the spring or fall of 2018. Samples will be collected from four wadeable stream sites (two reference, two exposure); and two riverine sites (one reference, one exposure) (Figure 2). If required, additional sites will be added to the program after an initial site visit is conducted. Three replicates will be collected from each station. All samples will be sieved in the field using a 500 µm mesh sieve bag. Samples will be preserved in the field. Samples will be sent to an accredited lab, and a taxonomic assessment will be completed by a qualified professional to the lowest practical level (i.e., genus or species) by a qualified taxonomist. Supporting Environmental Information Physical habitat (e.g., temperature, water depth, substrate) will be standardized among stations to the extent possible. Supporting environmental information will be collected from each station during the benthic invertebrate sampling to aid in the interpretation of the biological data. A calibrated Hanna Instruments pH/Conductivity/TDA metre will be used to measure water quality parameters (including pH, specific conductivity, and water temperature) at each station. A habitat description including dominant habitat type (e.g., run, riffle), substrate composition (e.g., sand/silt/clay, gravel, cobble, boulder) water depth, and presence/absence of benthic algae and macrophytes will be noted. A UTM coordinate will be collected at each station. General weather conditions from the previous 24 hours will also be noted.

Aquatic Habitat Study

Watercourses

Aquatic habitat within watercourses will be evaluated at sampling and reference sites located in system types 1, 2 and 3. Aquatic habitat will be evaluated using the point-transect method for channel morphology, water depth, flow velocity, cover, substrate and bank condition method as detailed in Section 4, Module 2 of the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (Stanfield et al. 2013). The number of observation points on each transect is a function of the width of the watercourse and would be determined in the field. Aquatic habitat sampling will occur once annually during the late spring. Field data of quantitative baseflow data and water quality parameters will be obtained from the groundwater/surface water work team. Lakes/Ponds Aquatic habitat within lake and ponds will be assessed including that of the quarry “lake”. Habitat types will be delineated and mapped. Parameters that will be recorded include: depth, substrate composition, aquatic macrophyte species and distribution, and available cover type. Field data for water quality parameters will be obtained from the groundwater/surface water work team. Species at Risk

Species at Risk (SAR) are regulated through the Provincial Endangered Species Act (2007) or Federal Species at Risk Act (2003) (where applicable). Fish SAR would likely be captured through the

electrofishing survey. If required, Beacon will secure the appropriate permits from the MNRF in order



Page 18

to conduct the work in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The potential for mussel SAR will

be identified and if their presence is considered likely, a survey will be conducted according to the protocol designed by Mackie et al. 2008. As per comments provided by the MNRF, mussel surveys will

focus on habitat assessments, as active species surveys can cause significant adverse effects to individuals. 7.2.2 Terrestrial

Ecological Land Classification (ELC) and Floral Surveys

The standard ELC protocol for southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998) will be undertaken for the EA. The

first step will be to use the most current orthogonally rectified aerial photographs of the Site and Vicinity Study Area (and Haul Routes to the first public road) to approximate vegetation community polygons (discrete areas of similar, contiguous vegetation) through air photo interpretation. These communities will then be ground-truthed via appropriately timed three-season surveys in May, late June/early July and in September to confirm or amend the polygon boundaries. Ground-truthing will involve visiting each of the distinct polygons to assess the vegetation community. ELC Community Description and Classification Data records will be completed for each polygon. Where they are necessary, soil samples (using a dutch auger) will be taken. Communities will be described to Vegetation Type (the finest level of detail). Vegetation Types are recurring plant species assemblages that dominate a community based on relative cover, generally those that make up the majority of canopy cover (Lee et al. 1998). Beacon

will complete the floral inventories according to the ELC protocol and will identify communities to vegetation type incorporating four layers of data (i.e., canopy, sub-canopy, shrub and herbaceous layers). Occasionally, polygons of similar vegetation will include small areas of dissimilar form. The general standard for ELC is not to map areas less than 0.5 hectares in area, and the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) also recognizes a that the minimum size of a vegetation community mapping purposes is typically 0.5 hectares. Therefore, any areas less than 0.5 hectares may be designated as ‘inclusions’ within a larger vegetation community. The final community boundaries will be transferred to GIS-based mapping. A floral inventory of the site will be completed in conjunction with this task. This will involve roaming the area to record vascular plant species that occur on the property. The specific locations of plants that are rare in Oxford County, or provincially rare according to the MNRF’s Natural Heritage Information Centre will be noted and geo-referenced using GPS. Qualitative Surveys for Species-at-Risk and Rare Species

Surveys will be conducted to determine if Species at Risk are present in the site study area or Haul Route study area or in nearby features (e.g., ponds and lakes) using screening data gathered from the background review. The survey protocols are highly species-specific and therefore will be developed once the screening list is created based on habitat and likely occurrences. Species that could occur may include but are not limited to: Butternut, Spiny Softshell Turtle, Blanding’s Turtle, Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark. . Most likely, specific field surveys, if required, would be undertaken during May, June, July and August.



Page 19

Breeding Bird Surveys

Roaming breeding bird surveys will be undertaken such that the site and haul study areas will be surveyed to within 50 m of all areas on foot. These surveys will also include features that are immediately adjacent to the site where access has been granted. To attempt to better describe the temporal variation in breeding birds, the first round of surveys will take place during late May/first week of June and will then be repeated in late June up to July 07 at the latest (at least five days after first survey). Bird counts will commence 20 minutes after first light. This waiting period helps to minimize the effect of frenetic activity associated with dawn. The surveys will take place within acceptable weather and time parameters. These are:

no precipitation (except the lightest drizzle which stops shortly after dawn);

visibility greater than 200 m;

wind less than force five on the Beaufort scale (29 km/hr);

temperatures not deviating more than four degrees Celsius from the average for the time of day and date; and,

counts finished by 10:45 a.m. All birds in suitable habitat and showing some propensity to breed (e.g., territorial behaviour) will be assumed to be breeding. American Woodcock will be surveyed during the amphibian breeding surveys using calling males as an index for the local population. Crow Roost Existing information supplemented with two late fall field visits will be used to determine the location of crow roosts in the landscape within a distance where the birds may interact with the landfill. These data will be used to ascertain the risk of large numbers of crows using the proposed landfill and they will also assist in the bird-aircraft risk assessment. Amphibian Surveys

Amphibian surveys will be conducted at potential breeding areas previously identified on aerial photography and a site reconnaissance. Amphibian surveys will consist of auditory surveys undertaken during the prime breeding period to record calling males that are present. This will be repeated three times during the season (at least 15 days apart) in an attempt to include the short temporal peak for each species of interest. The surveys will involve visiting the site after dusk to listen for calling males. An effective survey of frog calls can be taken when the air temperature is above 5˚C and wind strength is no higher than 4 on the Beaufort scale. The surveys will be conducted from late April to late June. To the extent possible, the three surveys will take place according to the following night time temperatures recommended in the Marsh Monitoring Program Protocol:

a) First Survey: minimum night-time air temperatures of at least 5°C and the first or second warm spring shower.

b) Second Survey: night-time air temperatures should be at least 10° C. c) Third Survey: night-time air temperatures should be at least 17° C.



Page 20

Chorus activity will be assigned a code according to the provincial Marsh Monitoring Program protocol:

0 ......... no calls; 1 ......... individuals of one species can be counted, calls not simultaneous; 2 ......... some calls of one species simultaneous, numbers can be reliably estimated; and, 3 ......... full chorus, calls continuous and overlapping.

Amphibian breeding areas will be mapped. Dragonflies, Damselflies and Butterflies

Three survey dates will be undertaken during the period May to September for these species. The roving surveys will focus on the site and the immediate area including the haul routes. All unusual species will be noted as to number and location. Winter Wildlife Use and Incidental Wildlife Observations

Winter habitat use will be assessed based primarily on the availability of suitable winter wildlife habitat (using the ELC data) and on all sources of existing information. To support these data a winter visit will be made in January within 48 hours of a snow fall to document winter use of the site and haul study areas. This will consist primarily of tracking and habitat assessment. Stick nests of raptor species or herons will also be noted at this time for follow-up in the field season. During the entire field program incidental observations of all wildlife species will be documented and reported including wildlife tracks and sign, and a site visit specifically for mammals will also occur between May and October. Landscape Connectivity

Landscape connectivity will be assessed by first resolving landscape pathways using aerial photography these will be ground-truthed using a specific field visit for the purpose during the field season. Beacon will consider using the ONHS criteria to determine corridors and landscape connectivity. Bird Hazards

The Transport Canada document Safety Above All, identifies the Airport Bird Risk Assessment Process

(ABRAP) as a tool that integrates aircraft flight patterns, potentially hazardous bird species, and related land uses. Landfills have been identified as potentially hazardous land use practices when they occur in the vicinity of an airport. The development of bird hazard zones for each airport within the wider study area will be necessary in order to determine if the proposed landfill will be located within the bird hazard zones. In order to create these zones it will be necessary to collect background information on the airports in the study area including:



Page 21

a) Review of future and present airport operations information (e.g., air traffic movements, aircraft types, airport circuit patterns, bird strike data and gull use data, wildlife control measures); and

b) Transport Canada’s Airport Bird Strike Records for the Region.

Much of the project effort will be dedicated to gaining a sound understanding of existing bird species, their numbers and movements, and the habitats that are attractants prior to the construction of the landfill operations (i.e. natural land cover and human land uses that provide food, water and shelter). The collection of the required information requires a methodical approach to biological surveys at and in the vicinity of the airport. We will undertake an initial survey of the local area to gain a general understanding of the landscape and location of potential bird “hot spots”. This will provide the baseline data for the establishment of existing bird activity in the area. The Primary Study Area are lands within 20-km of the proposed landfill site which will include the Tillsonburg and Woodstock Airports. This area will receive the highest effort of survey as it represents the air space where the highest potential for bird-aircraft interaction could occur. A Secondary Study Area are lands located 16 to 60-km distant from the airport and represents an area where birds movements to and from attractants could result in birds moving through airspace frequented by aircraft. It is anticipated that selective surveys of this area will identify Special Bird Hazards Zones for the ABRAP. Species occurrence, their numbers, movements and seasonality will be documented by the survey efforts. The survey program will occur over four seasons. Key survey periods will occur through the spring and fall migration, when greater numbers of high level rank hazard species (gulls, raptors, etc.) occur in the Ingersoll area. Survey requirements, methods and areas, will be further refined following background review, and the need for specific surveys will be identified as program gains a fuller understanding of the dynamics of bird populations in the wider study area. Until this background step is undertaken it is not possible to design the field program; it must be responsive to conditions in the landscape.

8. Data Analysis

Assessment of effects requires a range of analytical tools (e.g., mapping, models, relevant project experience, case studies, comparison against benchmarks and professional judgement). The following paragraphs describe the approach taken for the ecological assessment.

8.1 Aquatic

As a closed station multiple pass method will be used for stream fish collections (see Section 7.2.1 – Fish Community Survey), fish density and biomass per unit area will be determined and utilized as assessment endpoints for baseline and subsequent monitoring. In addition, catch-per-unit-effort (or area) will be reported.



Page 22

Beacon will have discussions with relevant review agencies during the finalization of the work plan to determine which benthic sampling method is most appropriate for this project and the indices to be used in analysis will be finalized. The following sections describe potential indices that may be considered. 8.1.1 Index of Biotic Integrity

The Index of Biotic Integrity is an ecologically based measure of the health of an ecosystem. It analyzes fish communities for 12 possible metrics. The metrics used will be determined using professional judgment and the index will be calculated using the data obtained through the fish community survey. This information will include:

Species richness and composition;

Indicator species (Rainbow Darter, Iowa Darter, Mottled Sculpin);

Trophic function;

Diseased individuals; and Abundance.

Scoring criteria are applied to each of the selected metrics followed by an assignment of an index score, which gives an overall measure of health (Table 7).

Table 7. Fish Community Health Based on Index of Biotic Integrity

IBI Integrity Class Characteristics

≥80 Excellent Comparable to pristine conditions, exceptional assemblage of species

60-



Page 23

comparison of the condition of individual fish within a population, individual fish from different populations, and two or more populations from different localities. It may also be used as an index of the productivity of a waterbody or watercourse. 8.1.4 Benthic Data Analysis

The following parameters will be calculated for the benthic invertebrate communities at each station:

1) Total invertebrate density, which is the total number of organisms per square metre. 2) Taxa richness, which is the total number of distinct taxa. A richness estimate will provide an

indication of the diversity of benthic invertebrates in an area. 3) Percent EPT taxa, which is the proportion of mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies combined. 4) Percent Diptera, which is the percent of all “true” fly larvae. 5) Relative density, which quantifies the relative proportion of each genus in the benthic

invertebrate community. 6) Percent dominance, which is the percentage of the total number of individuals in the sample

that are in the most abundant genera. 7) Simpson’s Diversity Index, which measures the proportional distribution of organisms in the

community and takes into account the abundance patterns and taxonomic richness of the community. SDI will be calculated as D = (1-∑si=1(pi)2, where: D= Diversity S = total number of taxa per station pi = the proportion to the ith taxon at the station.

SDI values range between 0 and 1, where higher values indicate a community consisting of more taxa among which abundance is more equally distributed. Lower values indicate communities dominated by only a few individuals.

8) Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, which estimates the overall tolerance of the community in a sampled

area, weighted by the relative abundance of each taxonomic group (family, genus, etc.). The HBI is a standard method of water quality assessment and degree of organic pollution in watercourses using the benthic invertebrate community. Table 8 provides the HBI values

and their associated indications of water quality and organic pollution.

Table 8. Water Quality Assessment Based on Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

HBI Value Water Quality Assessment

0.00 – 4.50 Not impacted

4.51 – 6.50 Slightly impacted

6.51 - 8.50 Moderately impacted

8.51 – 10.0 Severely impacted



Page 24

A description of the methods, analysis and results of this study will be included in the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Baseline Report and an appendix of the raw taxonomic data which would be used to calculate the various biotic indices will be provided.

8.2 Terrestrial

Manual calculations will be made of direct impacts whenever possible. This will include computer-assisted calculations made in a Geographic Information System platform (ArcView 10). Direct loss of habitat can be assessed using mapping. Mapping will include maps of ELC communities, pathways of connectivity, rare communities and species and other natural environmental features of interest or importance. The mapping base will be recent digital orthogonally rectified high definition aerial photographs. Additional base information will include drainage features and where appropriate previously documented features in the wider study area. The standards being applied for importance of elements will be the customary standards applied in southern Ontario. Where this is open for debate a rationale will be provided. The assessment of effects will include the interactions/dependencies among terrestrial and aquatic systems, as well as surficial landforms, soils, groundwater, surface water, this will occur though interdisciplinary workshops to discuss effects pathways. Elements will be assessed in the context of the role they play, and the interactions, at various scales being indicated within this EA. This will include the mechanisms sustaining any water-dependent features to enable an evaluation of potential impacts. Relevant project experience should be used by the project team in applying the assessment. This experience includes federal, provincial and Class environmental assessments. Benchmarks are available for the effects on noise and dust on natural receivers (e.g., Farmer 1991; FPCAP, 1976) and these can be used to help assess effects related to the site and haul route study area. The ABRAP process also provides a methodology to assess risk to aircraft and this process will be followed. Professional judgement will be used to describe and discuss effects. This is based on team experience with similar projects and on knowledge of conditions at the scale of each of the three project study areas. Professional judgement is frequently used to help assess effects in the ecological assessment.

9. Reporting

The ecology assessment report will be structured to address each of the major objectives set out previously in Section 2 of this work plan. Also included in the report will be detailed appendices

containing data and analyses carried out in the course of the study, along with other pertinent information to support the conclusions.



Page 25

Report prepared by: Beacon Environmental

Report reviewed by: Beacon Environmental

Brian E. Henshaw Principal

Jo-Anne Lane, M.Sc. Principal



Page 26

10. References

Anderson, R. O. and Neuman, R.M. 1996. Length, Weight and Associated Structural Indices. Pages 447-477 in B. R. Murphy and D. W.

W. Willis, editors. Fisheries Techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland Farmer, A. M. 1991. The effects of dust on vegetation – a review. Environmental Pollution 79 63-75. Federal-Provincial Committee on Air Pollution (FPCAP). 1976. Criteria for National Air Quality Objectives: Sulphur Dioxide, Suspended Particulates, Carbon Monoxide, Oxidants (Ozone) and Nitrogen Dioxide. Jones, C., K.M. Somers, B. Craig, and T.B. Reynoldson. 2004.

Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network: Protocol Manual. Queen’s Printer for Ontario Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. 225 pp. Mackie, Gerald. 2004.

Applied Aquatic Ecosystem Concepts. 2nd Edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company Mackie, G., Morris, T.J., and Ming, D. 2008.

Protocol for the detection and relocation of freshwater mussel species at risk in Ontario-Great Lakes Area (OGLA). Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2790: vi +50 p.

Natural Heritage Information System. On-line. http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/ Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1993. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System Southern Manual. Third Edition (updated). Queens Printer. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (Appendix G). 151 pp. plus appendices. Oxford Natural Heritage Study. 2006.

Published by the County of Oxford. Available on-line: http://thamesriver.on.ca/watershed- health/natural-heritage-studies/oxford-natural-heritage- study/

Stanfield, L.W., (Ed.). 2013.

Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol. Version 9.0. Fisheries Policy Section. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 505 Pages

http://thamesriver.on.ca/watershed-%09health/natural-heritage-studies/oxford-natural-heritage-%20%20study/http://thamesriver.on.ca/watershed-%09health/natural-heritage-studies/oxford-natural-heritage-%20%20study/



Page 27

Contact Information For more information about this work plan and the Southwestern Landfill Environmental Assessment: In-Person/Mail: Darren Fry, Project Director Walker Environmental, 160 Carnegie Street, Ingersoll, ON N5C 4A8 Website: www.walkerea.com Phone: 1-855-392-5537 Email: [email protected] You may register to receive the Southwestern Landfill EA newsletter by mail by contacting our office or receive the newsletter by email by subscribing at www.walkerea.com/subscribe.

http://www.walkerea.com/mailto:[email protected]://www.walkerea.com/subscribe

Appendix A

E n v i r o n m e n t a l As s e s s m e n t C r i t e r i a

Appendix A Table A-1 – EA Criteria Table

Study that will be primarily responsible for addressing criterion. Note: Many of the studies will provide key input to criteria that will be address through other impact assessment studies.

Source: Southwestern Landfill Terms of Reference August 29, 2013 Page A-1

Studies Addressing the Criteria Study Areas Duration

Criteria

Definition/ Rationale

Agr

icul

ture

Air Q

ualit

y

Arch

aeol

ogy

Cultu

ral H

erita

ge

Ecol

ogy

Econ

omic

/ Fi

nanc

ial

Gro

undw

ater

/ Su

rfac

e W

ater

Hum

an H

ealth

Land

Use

Noi

se/V

ibra

tion

Soci

al

Traf

fic

Visu

al/

Land

scap

e

On-

Site

& S

ite

Vici

nity

Alon

g th

e Ha

ul

Rout

es

Wid

er A

rea

Ope

ratio

nal

Perio

d

Post

-Clo

sure

Pe

riod

Public Health & Safety 1 Explosive hazard due to combustible

gas accumulation in confined spaces.

Gas produced within a waste disposal facility (e.g., methane) can move through the ground and accumulate in confined spaces (e.g., manholes, basements, etc.) on or immediately adjacent to the waste disposal facility. There is potential for the gas to combust, creating an explosion and fire hazard.

2 Effects due to exposure to air emissions.

Waste disposal facilities can produce gases containing contaminants that degrade air quality if they are emitted to the atmosphere. Other operations, such as leachate collection facilities, can also produce emissions that could degrade air quality in the vicinity of the site. Air quality in the vicinity of the site should meet regulated air quality standards in order to protect public health.

3 Effects due to fine particulate exposure.

Construction, operation, and truck haulage activities at a waste disposal facility can lead to increased levels of particulate (dust) in the air. Airbourne fine particulate is a health concern in certain size ranges exposure durations.

4 Effects due to contact with contaminated groundwater or surface water.

Contaminants associated with a waste disposal site have the potential to seep into the groundwater or surface water. This could pose a public health concern if it enters local drinking water supplies, or if it mixes with surface water.

5 Flood hazard. The construction of a waste disposal facility can disrupt natural surface water drainage patterns, causing a potential for increased flooding.

6 Disease transmission via insects or vermin.

Insects and vermin drawn to a waste disposal facility may have the potential to transmit diseases.




Criteria


Agr

icul

ture

Air Q

ualit

y

Arch

aeol

ogy

Cultu

ral H

erita

ge

Ecol

ogy

Econ

omic

/ Fi

nanc

ial

Gro

undw

ater

/ Su

rfac

e W

ater

Hum

an H

ealth

Land

Use

Noi

se/V

ibra

tion

Soci

al

Traf

fic

Visu

al/

Land

scap

e

On-

Site

& S

ite

Vici

nity

Alon

g th

e Ha

ul

Rout

es

Wid

er A

rea

Ope

ratio

nal

Perio

d

Post

-Clo

sure

Pe

riod

Public Health & Safety (continued) 7 Potential for traffic collisions. The risk of traffic collisions may increase along the

haul routes to the waste disposal facility. This includes the risk to pedestrian, bicycle and farm machinery.

8 Aviation impacts due to bird interference.

Birds may be attracted to waste disposal facilities. This can pose a risk of bird strikes on aircraft in the vicinity of the site, especially during take-off and landing altitudes.

Social and Cultural 9 Displacement of residents from

houses. Any residents living on a future waste disposal site will have to relocate, which can cause inconvenience and stress to the residents.

10 Disruption to use and enjoyment of residential properties.

Potential nuisance effects associated with the waste disposal facility operation, or traffic moving to and from the waste disposal facility along the haul route, may disturb the daily activities and uses of residential properties. Disturbances could result from noise, dust, litter, odour, visibility, bi d d t ffi ti

11 Disruption to use and enjoyment of public facilities and institutions.

Potential nuisance effects associated with waste disposal facility operations, or traffic moving to and from the waste disposal facility, may disturb the daily activities at community facilities. Disturbances could result from noise, dust, litter, odour, visibility, birds and traffic congestion.

12 Disruption to local traffic networks. Increased traffic volume resulting from a waste disposal facility could disturb the overall traffic flow along the haul routes, and effectively reduce the available road capacity.

13 Visual impact of the waste disposal facility.

Development and operation of a waste disposal facility can affect the visual appeal of a landscape.




Criteria


Agr

icul

ture

Air Q

ualit

y

Arch

aeol

ogy

Cultu

ral H

erita

ge

Ecol

ogy

Econ

omic

/ Fi

nanc

ial

Gro

undw

ater

/ Su

rfac

e W

ater

Hum

an H

ealth

Land

Use

Noi

se/V

ibra

tion

Soci

al

Traf

fic

Visu

al/

Land

scap

e

On-

Site

& S

ite

Vici

nity

Alon

g th

e Ha

ul

Rout

es

Wid

er A

rea

Ope

ratio

nal

Perio

d

Post

-Clo

sure

Pe

riod

14 Nuisance associated with vermin. Waste disposal facilities can attract vermin and birds, which can be a nuisance and lead to a decrease in property enjoyment by area residents. Vermin and birds can also be a nuisance to

Social and Cultural (continued) 15 Displacement/disturbance of

cultural/heritage resources. Cultural resources (including heritage buildings, cemeteries and cultural landscapes) are an important component of human heritage. These non-renewable cultural resources may be displaced by the construction of a waste disposal facility. The use and enjoyment of cultural resources may also be disturbed by the ongoing operation and traffic. Disturbances could result from noise, dust, odour, visibility, birds, litter and traffic congestion

16 Effects on land resources, traditional activities or other interests of Aboriginal Communities.

Major new developments of any type may have positive or negative effects on the interests of Aboriginal Communities (i.e., businesses opportunities, joint ventures)

17 Displacement/destruction of archaeological resources.

Archaeological resources are non-renewable cultural resources that can be destroyed by the construction and operation of a waste disposal f ilit

18 Level of public service provided by the waste disposal facility.

The presence of a waste disposal operation within a municipality can provide an increased level of public service (e.g., convenient access to waste disposal services) to local residents and businesses, as well as those in the broader community(ies)

19 Effects on other public services.

The presence of a waste disposal facility may have positive or negative spin-off effects on other public services in the community (e.g., leachate trucking, waste water treatment capacity, if there is discharge to the sewer system).




Criteria


Agr

icul

ture

Air Q

ualit

y

Arch

aeol

ogy

Cultu

ral H

erita

ge

Ecol

ogy

Econ

omic

/ Fi

nanc

ial

Gro

undw

ater

/ Su

rfac

e W

ater

Hum

an H

ealth

Land

Use

Noi

se/V

ibra

tion

Soci

al

Traf

fic

Visu

al/

Land

scap

e

On-

Site

& S

ite

Vici

nity

Alon

g th

e Ha

ul

Rout

es

Wid

er A

rea

Ope

ratio

nal

Perio

d

Post

-Clo

sure

Pe

riod

Social and Cultural (continued) 20 Changes to community

character/cohesion.

Community character and cohesion refer to physical characteristics, social stability, attractiveness as a place to live and patterns of social interaction. A waste disposal facility may actually or perceptually interfere with these important community attributes.

21 Compatibility with municipal land use designations and official plans.

A waste disposal facility has the potential to affect the viability of present and future land uses, which may have an effect on planning decisions made in the surrounding community.

Economics 22 Displacement/disruption of

businesses or farms. Any on-site businesses or farms would be displaced by a waste disposal facility, and there could be financial losses as a result of relocation. Some types of businesses located in the site vicinity or along the haul routes may suffer financial losses due to the potential nuisance effects or perceived effects associated with the operation of a waste disposal facility such as noise, litter, dust, odour, visibility, birds, vermin and traffic congestion.

23 Property value impacts. The establishment and operation of a waste disposal facility may adversely affect property values in the site vicinity or along the haul routes.

24 Direct employment in waste disposal facility construction and operation.

A waste disposal facility may create new employment opportunities both in the construction and day-to-day operation.

25 Indirect employment in related industries and services.

A waste disposal facility has the potential to have impacts on employment opportunities in local firms supplying products or services directly, or as secondary suppliers.




Criteria


Agr

icul

ture

Air Q

ualit

y

Arch

aeol

ogy

Cultu

ral H

erita

ge

Ecol

ogy

Econ

omic

/ Fi

nanc

ial

Gro

undw

ater

/ Su

rfac

e W

ater

Hum

an H

ealth

Land

Use

Noi

se/V

ibra

tion

Soci

al

Traf

fic

Visu

al/

Land

scap

e

On-

Site

& S

ite

Vici

nity

Alon

g th

e Ha

ul

Rout

es

Wid

er A

rea

Ope

ratio

nal

Perio

d

Post

-Clo

sure

Pe

riod

Economics (continued) 26 New business opportunities related

directly to waste disposal facility construction and operation.

A large capital project, such as the construction and operation of a waste disposal facility, can create new opportunities for local businesses supplying products or services.

27 New business opportunities in related industries and services.

New opportunities may be created for local businesses, or as secondary suppliers to industries working for the waste disposal facility (e.g., restaurants, gas stations, machine shops, repair shops, welding shops, equipment rentals, etc.).

28 Public costs for indirect liabilities. Some public services may have to be upgraded to accommodate the establishment and operation of a waste disposal facility (e.g., snow removal, sewer and water connections, etc.).

29 Effects on the municipal tax base. A waste disposal facility has the potential to affect municipal tax revenues from the site it occupies.

30 Effect on the cost of service to

customers. The costs of constructing a waste disposal facility will effect the price of tipping fees to the site. This affects the cost of service to customers in Oxford cCounty and the province.

31 Effects on the provincial/ federal tax base.

A waste disposal facility has the potential to affect provincial/federal tax revenues.

Natural Environment & Resources 32 Loss/displacement of surface water

resources. Construction of a waste disposal facility may cause the removal of all or part of a natural stream or pond.

33 Impact on the availability of groundwater supply to wells.

A waste disposal facility can impact the availability of groundwater supply if groundwater is pumped from aquifers or if recharge to aquifers is reduced.

34 Effects on stream baseflow quantity/quality.

The presence of a waste disposal facility has the potential to affect the quality or quantity of baseflow to surface water.




Criteria


Agr

icul

ture

Air Q

ualit

y

Arch

aeol

ogy

Cultu

ral H

erita

ge

Ecol

ogy

Econ

omic

/ Fi

nanc

ial

Gro

undw

ater

/ Su

rfac

e W

ater

Hum

an H

ealth

Land

Use

Noi

se/V

ibra

tion

Soci

al

Traf

fic

Visu

al/

Land

scap

e

On-

Site

& S

ite

Vici

nity

Alon

g th

e Ha

ul

Rout

es

Wid

er A

rea

Ope

ratio

nal

Perio

d

Post

-Clo

sure

Pe

riod

Nat

Southwestern Landfill Proposal Environmental Assessment ......haul route crossings may disturb or...

Documents

Transcript of Southwestern Landfill Proposal Environmental Assessment ......haul route crossings may disturb or...