table of contents - wcecwcec.wm.com/resource-documents/01_main report/chapter 4... · 2016. 7....

Environmental Assessment West Carleton Environmental Centre

chapter 4. description of the environment potentially affected by the undertaking

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

4. Description of the Environment Potentially Affected by the Undertaking ...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Existing Site ......................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Study Areas ......................................................................................................4-3 4.3 Environmental Components ..............................................................................4-5 4.4 Existing Environmental Conditions ....................................................................4-5

4.4.1 Atmospheric Environment .....................................................................4-5 4.4.2 Geology and Hydrogeology ................................................................. 4-21 4.4.3 Surface Water ..................................................................................... 4-25 4.4.4 Biology – Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment .................................... 4-31 4.4.5 Archaeology ........................................................................................ 4-42 4.4.6 Cultural Heritage ................................................................................. 4-46 4.4.7 Transportation ..................................................................................... 4-48 4.4.8 Land Use ............................................................................................. 4-54 4.4.9 Agriculture ........................................................................................... 4-58 4.4.10 Socio-Economic Environment .............................................................. 4-60

List of Figures

Figure 4-1 Study Areas ........................................................................................................4-4

Figure 4-2 Total Suspended Particulate Matter Sampling Locations ................................... 4-10

Figure 4-3 Odour and Landfill Gas Worst-Case Discrete Receptor Locations ..................... 4-12

Figure 4-4 Noise Receptor Locations ................................................................................. 4-15

Figure 4-5 Geology and Hydrogeology Study Areas ........................................................... 4-22

Figure 4-6 Surface Water Study Areas ............................................................................... 4-26

Figure 4-7 Surface Water Features .................................................................................... 4-27

Figure 4-8 Surface Water Monitoring Stations .................................................................... 4-29

Figure 4-9 Biology Study Areas .......................................................................................... 4-32

Figure 4-10 Biology Monitoring Stations ............................................................................... 4-33

Figure 4-11 Fish Habitat Classification ................................................................................. 4-35

Figure 4-12 Vegetation Communities ................................................................................... 4-36

Figure 4-13 Wildlife Observations ......................................................................................... 4-38

Figure 4-14 Landscape Context ........................................................................................... 4-43

Figure 4-15 Archaeological Potential .................................................................................... 4-45

Figure 4-16 Cultural Heritage Resources ............................................................................. 4-47



Figure 4-17 Transportation Study Area for Effects from Truck Transportation along

Access Roads ................................................................................................... 4-49

Figure 4-18 Transportation Study Area for Effects on Airport Operations ............................. 4-50

Figure 4-19 Land Use Study Area ........................................................................................ 4-55

Figure 4-20 Soils .................................................................................................................. 4-59

Figure 4-21 Socio-Economic Study Areas (Local Residents and Recreational

Resources) ........................................................................................................ 4-61

Figure 4-22 Local Residents ................................................................................................. 4-63

Figure 4-23 Recreational, Community and Institutional Features.......................................... 4-64

Figure 4-24 Existing Landfill and Proposed Project Area Visibility ........................................ 4-66

List of Tables

Table 4-1 Determination of Daytime Assessment Criteria – Landfilling Baseline

Operations ........................................................................................................ 4-17

Table 4-2 Determination of Daytime Assessment Criteria – Impulsive Pest Control

Baseline Operations .......................................................................................... 4-18

Table 4-3 Determination of Daytime Assessment Criteria – Quasi-Steady Pest

Control Baseline Operations .............................................................................. 4-19

Table 4-4 Determination of Daytime Assessment Criteria – Stationary Source

Baseline Operations .......................................................................................... 4-20

Table 4-5 Mammals Recorded at Ottawa WMF ................................................................. 4-40

Table 4-6 Cultural Heritage Resources ............................................................................. 4-46

Table 4-7 Level of Service Criteria .................................................................................... 4-51

Table 4-8 Intersection Analysis Results (Signalized Intersections) .................................... 4-52

Table 4-9 Intersection Analysis Results (Unsignalized Intersections) ................................ 4-52


4-1


4. Description of the Environment Potentially Affected by the Undertaking

The approved ToR for this EA included a preliminary description of the existing environmental

conditions at the WCEC (Section 7 of the approved ToR, August 2010). Within the ToR a

commitment was made that the description of the existing environmental conditions would be

expanded during the EA1.

The environment, as defined by the OEAA, includes the natural, social, and cultural

environments, specifically:

i. air, land or water,

ii. plant and animal life, including human life,

iii. social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a

community,

iv. any building, structure, machine or other device or thing made by humans,

v. any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration or radiation resulting

directly or indirectly from human activities, or

vi. any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between

any two or more of them, in or of Ontario.

This chapter provides an overview of the existing environmental conditions associated with the

Study Area for the WCEC EA.

4.1 Existing Site

The existing site of the Ottawa WMF, as defined by O. Reg. 232/98 and in Provisional

Certificate of Approval A461002, includes the following:

Entire waste disposal site, including the buffer lands, located on Lots 3 and 4,

Concession 3, in the former Township of Huntley, formerly in the Township of

West Carleton, now the City of Ottawa; and

1. During the EA, and following approval of work plans by the GRT, the project team will collect further information

and conduct studies (desktop and field) to describe components and sub-components of the environment identified in the ToR that may be affected by the undertaking (Approved ToR, Section 7.4, p. 41)


4-2


The contaminant attenuation zone (CAZ), including portions of 2301, 2330,

2104, 2326 and 2300 Carp Road, located on Part of Lot 4, Concession II,

Part of Lot 3, Concession 2, and Part of Lot 2, Concession II, in the former

Township of Huntley, formerly in the Township of West Carleton, now in the

City of Ottawa.

The Ottawa WMF was first licensed by the MOE in 1971 as a sanitary landfill and also for

aggregate extraction. In 1987, Laidlaw Waste Systems Ltd. (Laidlaw) purchased the Ottawa

WMF from Newill Realty Limited. In 1996, Canadian Waste Services (CWS), now WM,

purchased the Ottawa WMF from Laidlaw. WM has owned and operated the Ottawa WMF from

1996 to the present.

The current Ottawa WMF is comprised of various facilities, including:

Closed landfill (closed September 2011);

Landfill-gas-to-energy plant;

Waste transfer station;

Residential recycling drop-off;

Storm water management system;

Gas collection and management system with flares; and

Leachate collection and management system with poplar plantation.

Over the operating life of the Ottawa WMF, a range of engineering, environmental, process and

program improvements have been implemented, including the following:

Comprehensive environmental monitoring program;

Leachate collection and management system;

Gas collection and management system;

CAZs;

Groundwater purge well system;

Odour control enhancements;

Litter control enhancements;

Gull Management Program;

Waste diversion initiatives; and

Wildlife habitat initiatives.


4-3


4.2 Study Areas

In accordance with the approved ToR, the generic On-Site, Site-Vicinity, and Regional Study

Areas for the proposed new landfill footprint at the WCEC are listed below (refer to Figure 4-1):

On-Site ............. the lands owned or optioned by WM and required for the new

landfill. The Site is bounded by Highway 417, Carp Road and

Richardson Side Road;

Site-Vicinity ...... the lands in the vicinity of the site extending about 500 m in all

directions; and,

Regional ........... the lands within approximately 3 to 5 km of the Site for those

disciplines that require a larger analysis area (i.e., socio-

economic, odour, etc.).

The Study Areas identified above were presented in the approved ToR with the commitment

that these generic Study Areas would be modified during the EA to suit the requirements of

each individual environmental component.

Within the On-Site Study Area, two Alternative Landfill Envelopes for the development of

Alternative Landfill Footprints were identified in the approved ToR. One envelope includes the

area north of the existing Ottawa WMF, and the second envelope includes the area to the west

of William Mooney Road. These envelopes are described in more detail in Chapter 5. When

describing the environment potentially affected by the undertaking, reference has been made to

the envelopes in order to provide a geographic reference.

It should be noted that in July 2012 a parcel of land located south of Richardson Side Road,

east of William Mooney Road, and west of Carp Road was optioned by WM. This parcel of land

is shown in Figure 4-1. This land was characterized as land in the Site-Vicinity for the purposes

of establishing existing conditions. This parcel of land was not included as lands owned or

optioned by WM in the Alternative Landfill Envelopes for the development of Alternative Landfill

Footprints as described above and identified in the ToR.


4-4


Figure 4-1 Study Areas


4-5


4.3 Environmental Components

Investigative studies of the following environmental components were carried out for the

purpose of generating a more detailed description and understanding of the environment:

Atmospheric (Air Quality, Odour, Landfill Gas, and Noise);

Geology and Hydrogeology;

Surface Water;

Biology (Terrestrial and Aquatic);

Archaeological Resources;

Cultural Heritage Resources;

Transportation;

Land Use;

Agriculture; and

Socio-Economic.

A summary of the existing conditions in relation to each of the environmental components listed

above is provided in the following sections. Detailed descriptions of the existing environmental

conditions at the WCEC can be found in the Existing Conditions Reports in Supporting

Document 1.

A separate Site Design and Operations existing conditions report has not been prepared. This

information was compiled and utilized in the development and assessment of the alternative

landfill footprints (see Chapter 5) and for the detailed impact assessment of the preferred

alternative (see Chapter 6).

4.4 Existing Environmental Conditions

4.4.1 Atmospheric Environment

In terms of existing atmospheric conditions, since the late 1990s various operational controls have

been applied, including air induction, gas extraction, and enclosed flare systems, to manage

odour sources. From 2006 to 2009, MOE received thousands of complaints related to odours at

the Ottawa WMF. In May 2006, MOE requested that WM prepare a Voluntary Abatement Plan

(VAP) to address odour concerns. In May and December 2007, MOE issued Provincial Officer’s

Orders (POO) requiring WM to implement an Odour Contingency Plan (OCP) to address odour

emission from the landfill at the Ottawa WMF that were causing or likely to cause an adverse

effect to the community. The OCP contained various activities with defined timelines for

implementation, including but not limited to, the expansion of the landfill gas collection systems,

clay capping of the entire site, construction of a synthetic “beanie cap” on the top of the landfill


4-6


footprint, and air emission surveys to identify areas of landfill gas escape, as well as leachate seep management. On October 26, 2011, MOE issued a compliance letter that confirmed WM had met these requirements and complied with the POO and no further action is required by WM regarding the matter. WM continues to manage odours through air induction, gas extraction and enclosed flare systems, and conducts ongoing monitoring in accordance with the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) issued for the Ottawa WMF.

4.4.1.1 Air Quality

The purpose of this assessment was to predict the general levels of particulate matter on the surrounding area once the landfill site is closed. The particulate matter (PM) baseline condition within the study area will include negligible particulate matter emissions from the closed landfill site, roadway emissions, off-site aggregate operation emissions and the general background emissions. This assessment will establish the PM baseline condition for use in any future comparisons. The assessment involved the following components:

Identification of 24-hour total suspended particulate matter (TSP) measurements taken upwind of the landfill site by using the meteorological data collected from the on-site weather station, to ensure the exclusion of irrelevant emissions sources in the PM baseline condition;

Conducting a statistical analysis of the TSP measurement results from the ambient monitoring program conducted in 2004, 2008, 2009 and 2010 to determine the TSP baseline value;

Collection of statistics for TSP, inhalable particulate matter (PM10) and respirable particulate matter (PM2.5) measurements collected and recorded by the MOE air quality monitoring stations and summarized in the Annual Air Quality in Ontario reports; and

Use of typical PM10/TSP and PM2.5 /TSP ratios observed at various MOE air quality monitoring stations throughout the province to predict PM10 and PM2.5 baseline values. The ratios were calculated using the statistics summarized in the Annual Air Quality in Ontario reports.

Contaminants of Interest

The three contaminants of interest in the air quality (or particulate matter) existing conditions or baseline assessment are: TSP, PM10, and PM2.5. TSP refers to particles less than 44 m in aerodynamic diameter (defined as a particle that would have the same aerodynamic behaviour in air as a sphere, with a specific gravity of 1.0


4-7


and a diameter of 44 m). These particles are small enough to remain suspended in the atmosphere over long periods of time due to their low settling velocity. When present in large quantities, they can affect visibility and cause soiling effects. PM10 refers to particles that are less than 10 m in aerodynamic diameter. These particles are referred to as the inhalable portion of particulate matter as they have the ability to enter the lungs. When exposed to elevated levels of PM10 over a long period of time, negative health effects can result. PM2.5 refers to solid or liquid particles that are less than 2.5 m in aerodynamic diameter. These particles are referred to as the respirable portion of particulate matter as these very small particles can be inhaled into the lungs and are small enough to reach the gas transfer sites in the lungs. When exposed to elevated levels of PM2.5 over a long period of time, detrimental health effects can result. Impacts from all three of these particulate matter classes were considered in this assessment. Applicable Guidelines

Measured 24-hour TSP concentrations from the ambient monitoring programs were previously compared to the O. Reg. 419/05 Point of Impingement (POI) Limits. The Regulation’s Schedule 3, 24-hour Standard for Suspended Particulate Matter (


4-8


Handling Sources Dust-producing materials, such as contaminated soil, are handled daily under normal landfill operations. Particulate matter is emitted as this material is moved and dropped.

Wind Erosion Sources Stockpiles of material, along with areas of bare soil, such as the landfill active face, experience wind erosion at high (>5 m/s) wind speeds. This erosion causes fine particulate matter to be emitted.

Landfill Gas Flare Particulate matter is emitted from the landfill gas flare as a combustion by-product. These particles generally fall within the PM2.5 class. The impact of dust emissions from the landfill gas flare is minimal in comparison to the other sources. For this reason, the landfill gas flare was removed from the dust assessment. Dust impacts from the landfill gas flare are considered in the flare combustion by-product analysis.

Once the existing landfill site is closed, the only on-site sources that will still be emitting particulate matter are the landfill gas combustion sources. An on-site meteorological station recorded wind speed and wind direction during the sampling intervals, which was used to determine prevailing wind directions during sampling periods. The prevailing wind directions were used to exclude TSP measurements that may have captured emissions from on-site sources during the ambient monitoring program. Details are provided in the methodology section, below. Off-Site Sources

There are several major off-site sources of particulate matter in the immediate vicinity of the landfill site. These sources include:

Highway 417 and Carp Road, located along the southern and eastern property line;

Two licensed aggregate operations, one located along Carp Road, across from the landfill’s main entrance and another located to the southwest; and,

Farming operations, located between the landfill site and Richardson Side Road.

The prevailing wind directions determined for each sampling period were used to include TSP measurements that may have captured emissions from off-site sources during the ambient


4-9


monitoring program. The statistical analysis was performed using only these TSP

measurements to determine the particulate matter baseline condition. Details are provided in

the methodology section, below.

A total of 87 TSP sample sets were collected at three stationary locations (refer to Figure 4-2)

during four ambient monitoring programs conducted at the WCEC: June 26 to October 24 of

2004; May 12 to August 28 of 2008; May 7 to September 28 of 2009; and June 1 to September

5 of 2010.

Based on these monitoring programs, the particulate baseline condition was calculated to be as

follows:

TSP baseline value of 28 μg/m³

PM10 baseline value of 9 μg/m³

PM2.5 baseline value of 5 μg/m³

Through a comparison of the calculated PM2.5 baseline value to the data collected from the

MOE monitoring station in Eastern Ontario, the baseline condition within the Study Area

appears to be comparable to typical particulate matter conditions for the region.

4.4.1.2 Odour

The purpose of this assessment was to predict the general potential for odour impacts on the

surrounding area once the landfill site is closed and develop a baseline dispersion model that

will be suitable for inclusion in the assessment of the future impacts. Although exposure to

strong odours does not pose a potential health risk to individuals residing close to a landfill, the

odours can be a considerable nuisance, if they occur frequently.

Contaminants of Interest

The cumulative odours from the landfill were assessed as the contaminant of interest in the

odour baseline assessment. The odours from the landfill are based on a mixture of compounds

contained within the landfill gas.

Following closure of the existing landfill, the existing landfill mound (which is completely covered

with a clay cap) is the only significant source of odour. There are occasions when ground

repairs might occur, or when there may be issues with the leachate collection system resulting

in localized odour emissions; however, these are considered upset conditions and are not

included in the analysis.


4-10


Figure 4-2 Total Suspended Particulate Matter Sampling Locations


4-11


Applicable Guidelines

O. Reg 419 provides air quality standards for use in Ontario; however, does not include a standard for “odour” as a mixture of compounds. According to Section 14 of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act, an odour is deemed a nuisance if it is detected and considered unpleasant. The MOE guidance document “Methodology for Modelling Assessments of Contaminants with 10-Minute Average Standards and Guidelines under O. Reg. 419/05”, April 2008, indicates that odour concentrations need only be assessed at odour-sensitive receptor locations, such as residences, commercial buildings, and outdoor parks and recreation areas. Odour impacts that are greater than 1 odour unit (OU) per cubic metre (m3) are acceptable at sensitive receptor locations, if the frequency of exceedance is less than 0.5% of the time. An odour unit is defined as the quantity of odourous substance that, when dispersed in 1 m3 of odour free air, becomes just detectable by a “normal” human observer whose sensitivity to the odourant represents the mean of the population. The average odour detection threshold is 1 OU/m3, although odours at this level are not necessarily a nuisance. Odour concentrations that may cause a complaint due to their ability to annoy typically range from 3 to 5 OU. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) AERMOD dispersion modelling program, which has been approved for use in Ontario by the MOE, was used in conjunction with local meteorological data (2006-2010) as well as calculated odour emission rates to develop a baseline (existing conditions) modelling scenario. Emission Sources

Nine discrete receptor locations were considered in the dispersion modelling, representing receptors of interest in the Site-Vicinity and the Regional Study Areas (refer to Figure 4-3). The modelling results indicate that the maximum impacts at the nearby odour-sensitive receptor locations are predicted to be less than the MOE odour objective of 1 OU/m3. Contours of mean odour concentrations were developed based on a grid of receptors extending 5 km from the facility. The mean odour concentration was found to be less than 1 OU/m3 at all receptors within this grid.

4.4.1.3 Landfill Gas

As waste gradually decays, landfill gas is generated. Any landfill gas that is not collected by the landfill gas collection system or oxidized through the soil cover typically migrates to the atmosphere. This subsection outlines the results of the baseline assessment for predicted landfill gas impacts at and beyond the property with 2012 (the first full year post-closure of the existing landfill) as the baseline year.


4-12


Figure 4-3 Odour and Landfill Gas Worst-Case Discrete Receptor Locations


4-13


Landfill gas, although consisting mainly of methane and carbon dioxide, contains trace amounts

of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and reduced sulphur compounds (less than 1% by

volume), which can potentially result in health impacts at residences or businesses that

surround the landfill site. Twenty-three (23) contaminants of interest in the landfill gas (19 VOCs

and four reduced sulphur species) were reviewed, based on the MOE’s Interim Guideline to

Assess Air Impacts from Landfills and the ToR. Of these 23 compounds, vinyl chloride was

identified as the compound of particular interest, having the strictest provincial standard or

criterion relative to its concentration in raw landfill gas. Vinyl chloride was therefore assumed to

be the limiting contaminant in the landfill gas emitted and was analyzed in single ion mode (SIM)

to produce lower detection limits. In addition, benzene and hydrogen sulphide were also

selected as contaminants of particular interest, based on historical issues at the existing WCEC

facility.

Following closure of the existing landfill, the on-site sources of VOCs and reduced sulphur

compounds are the existing landfill mound, which is completely covered with final cover (clay

cap); the landfill gas-fired generators; and the landfill flares. In the site-vicinity man-made

sources of benzene and other light aromatic compounds are limited to vehicles travelling on the

major roadways adjacent to the landfill site (Carp Road and Highway 417).

The evaluation considered the potential impacts from the baseline conditions at 24 receptor

locations and dispersion modelling focussed on nine of the worst-case discrete receptor

locations representing receptors of interest in the Site-Vicinity and the Regional Study Areas

(refer to Figure 4-3).

The U.S. EPA’s Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LANDGEM) was used to calculate landfill gas

generation for the WCEC landfill for the 2010 calendar year; however, when compared to the

metered landfill gas consumption data from the landfill gas-to-energy facility and the landfill gas

flares, the amount of gas combusted exceeded the amount predicted by LANDGEM. Therefore,

the metered consumption data was used in combination with the estimated collection efficiency

of the landfill gas collection system to back calculate the amount of landfill gas generated by the

landfill in 2010. This result was used as a conservative estimate of the gas generation rate for

the 2012 baseline assessment year.

On-site measurements of the 23 target landfill gas compounds were taken June 10, 2004 and

April 4, 2011, with multiple samples collected on each day. The average concentration for each

compound was calculated for 2004 and 2011 and the higher of the two average concentrations

was used to develop the emission rate for each compound in the baseline assessment.

The U.S. EPA’s AERMOD dispersion modelling program (approved for use in Ontario by the

MOE) was used in conjunction with local meteorological data (2006-2010) and the calculated


4-14


landfill gas emission rates to predict concentrations of landfill gas emitted from the WCEC

existing landfill at various receptors in the vicinity. The only VOC compound modelled was vinyl

chloride. The results for the 22 other contaminants were scaled based on the vinyl chloride

results, using the ratio of their corresponding measured concentration and the vinyl chloride

concentration. The sources included in the dispersion model were the five landfill-gas fired

engines, the three flares, and the landfill mound. All five engines and three flares were assumed

to be operating concurrently at maximum capacity, coupled with maximum fugitive emissions

from the landfill mound. Terrain data and surrounding building information were also considered

in the modelling. Emissions were modelled for 24-hour and 1-hour averaging times, to

correspond with MOE Point of Impingement (POI) Limits for the various compounds.

The results of this calibrated modelling indicate that the maximum impacts at the nearby

discrete sensitive receptor, the property line receptor, and off-site location would be less than

the MOE POI Limits for all 23 assessed compounds in 2012.

4.4.1.4 Noise

Baseline noise conditions predicted for the year 2012, representing noise impacts from the

existing landfill site post-closure, were modelled. An assessment of baseline conditions at five

On-Site receptors and ten receptors in the Site-Vicinity was completed to account for worst-case

noise impacts at each cardinal direction. An additional 16 Regional receptors were selected to

account for noise impacts within the 1-5 km study area. These Regional receptors were

considered in this assessment to be consistent with the assessments undertaken by other

disciplines. The locations of the noise-sensitive receptors are shown in Figure 4-4.

A predictive model was used to establish the noise contributions at receptors due to permanent,

existing on-site noise sources that are expected to remain in operation once landfilling

operations at the existing site have ceased. The approach for predicting the 2012 baseline

included the following:

Collect existing noise emission data on-site and investigate any applicable

regulated off-site operations such as quarries, cement plants, and asphalt

plant that are expected to continue operation past 2011.

Input noise emission data to ISO-9613 Noise Propagation Algorithms to

model worst-case hour existing noise impacts.

Estimate traffic reduction once the existing landfill is closed using traffic data

from the existing landfill and public roadway.


4-15


Figure 4-4 Noise Receptor Locations


4-16


Review available land-use data to select noise-sensitive receptors

representative of worst-case baseline and proposed expansion noise

impacts.

Determine the lowest one-hour sound exposures, using predicted noise

impacts at receptors due to background traffic, in order to establish the

applicable sound level limits.

As the baseline case does not involve an operating landfill the MOE “Stationary Source”

guidelines for Class 2 (suburban) and Class 3 (rural) areas, set out in MOE Publication

NPC-205 [10] and NPC-232 [11], apply respectively. These guidelines state that one hour

sound exposures (Leq (1 hour) dBA values) from stationary noise sources, received at

receptors in Class 2 or Class 3 areas, shall not exceed that of the background, where the

background is defined as the sound level present in the environment produced by noise sources

other than those associated with the facility under assessment.

As the end-purpose of establishing baseline conditions is to provide a comparative tool for the

proposed new landfill footprint alternatives, noise levels for the daytime period – the only period

during which any proposed future WCEC facility will operate – were modelled. The results of the

noise modelling are shown in Tables 4-1 to 4-4.

The analysis shows that the stationary noise sources on the existing landfill will comply with

applicable noise criteria in 2012 and have a minor contribution to the background noise

environment. The results also indicate that the baseline noise levels at noise sensitive receptors

will be dominated by road traffic contributions only.


4-17


Table 4-1 Determination of Daytime Assessment Criteria – Landfilling Baseline

Operations

Point of

Reception

ID

Point of Reception (PoR) Description

MOE Landfill

Guideline Limit[1]

(dBA)

Performance

Limit [2]

(dBA)

Performance

Limit

Source[3]

Resulting Landfill

Guideline Limit [4]

(dBA)

On

-sit

e

Recep

tors

PR2 2-storey home Carp Road Central 55 50 C 55

PR3 2-storey home at 569 William Mooney Road NNW 55 50 D 55

PR5 2-storey home at 505 William Mooney Road NW 55 50 D 55

PR6 1-storey home at 381 William Mooney Road 55 51 C 55

NR3 2-storey home at 427 William Mooney Road West 55 50 D 55

Sit

e V

icin

ity R

ecep

tors

PR4 2-storey home on Richardson Side Road NNW 55 56 C 56

PR9 2-storey home David Manchester Road 55 59 C 59

NR1 1-storey home at 2485 Carp Road North 55 50 C 55

NR2 2-storey home at 2166 Carp Road East 55 60 C 60

NR4 2-storey home at 292 Moonstone Road South 55 64 C 64

NR8 2-storey Terrace Youth Residential Services 55 57 C 57

NR9 2-storey Sensitive Business Operation 55 64 C 64

RR12 2-storey David Manchester Road Central 55 63 C 63

RR14 2-storey at 607 William Mooney Road 55 61 C 61

RR15 2-storey Wilbert Cox Drive 55 50 D 55

Reg

ion

al R

ecep

tors

PR7 2-storey home at 2096 Carp Road South 55 60 C 60

NR5 St. Stephen Catholic Elementary School 55 50 D 55

NR6 Huntleigh United Cemetery 55 50 D 55

NR7 Lloydalex Park 55 50 D 55

RR10 2-storey Spruce Ridge Road Central 55 45 D 55

RR11 2-storey David Manchester Road North 55 60 C 60

RR13 2-storey David Manchester Road South 55 50 D 55

RR16 2-storey Carp Road North 55 50 D 55

RR17 2-storey Oak Creek Road 55 61 C 61

RR18 2-storey West Carleton Industrial Park 55 52 C 55

RR19 2-storey Timbermere 55 50 D 55

RR20 2-storey Stittsville 55 50 D 55

RR21 2-storey Jackson Trails 55 50 D 55

RR22 2-storey Fairwinds 55 50 D 55

RR23 2-storey Arcadia 55 50 D 55

RR24 2-storey Kanata West 55 50 D 55

Notes: - All values shown are rounded to the nearest digit. Any apparent discrepancies are due to rounding.

1. MOE Noise Guidelines for Landfill Sites.

2. Applicable worst-case NPC-205 / NPC-232 / ORNAMENT road traffic modelling sound level limit.

3. Performance limit (aka guideline limit) based on following:

C = Calculated based on road traffic volumes in compliance with NPC-206 requirements.

M = Measured based on monitoring for a minimum 48 hour period, in accordance with NPC-233 requirements.

D = Default guideline minima per NPC-205 / NPC-232, as applicable (e.g., 50 dBA daytime for NPC-205)

4. The higher of MOE Landfill guideline limit or performance limit. This is also referred to as the “baseline noise condition”.


4-18


Table 4-2 Determination of Daytime Assessment Criteria – Impulsive Pest Control

Baseline Operations

Point of

Reception

ID


MOE Impulsive

Guideline Limit[1]

(dBAI)

Performance

Limit [2]

(dBA)

Performance

Limit

Source [3]

Resulting Impulsive

Guideline Limit[4]

(dBAI)

On

-sit

e

Recep

tors






Sit

e V

icin

ity R

ecep

tors











Reg

ion

al R

ecep

tors


















1. MOE Noise Guidelines for Landfill Sites with pest control devices.






4. The higher of MOE Impulsive Landfill guideline limit or performance limit. This is also referred to as the “baseline noise condition”.


4-19


Table 4-3 Determination of Daytime Assessment Criteria – Quasi-Steady Pest Control

Baseline Operations

Point of

Reception

ID


MOE Quasi-

Steady Guideline

Limit [1]

(dBA)

Performance

Limit[2]

(dBA)

Performance

Limit Source[3]

Resulting Quasi-

Steady

Guideline Limit[4]

(dBA)

On

-sit

e

Recep

tors






Sit

e V

icin

ity R

ecep

tors











Reg

ion

al R

ecep

tors


















1. MOE Noise Guidelines for Landfill Sites with pest control devices.






4. The higher of MOE Quasi-Steady Landfill guideline limit or performance limit. This is also referred to as the “baseline

noise condition”.


4-20


Table 4-4 Determination of Daytime Assessment Criteria – Stationary Source

Baseline Operations

Point of

Reception

ID


MOE Stationary

Source

Guideline Limit[1]

(dBA)

Performanc

e Limit [2]

(dBA)

Performanc

e Limit

Source[3]

Resulting

Stationary Source

Guideline Limit[2]

(dBA)

On

-sit

e

Recep

tors






Sit

e V

icin

ity R

ecep

tors











Reg

ion

al R

ecep

tors


















1. MOE NPC-205 Class 2 or NPC-232 Class 3 Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources.






4. The higher of MOE NPC-205/232 guideline limit or performance limit. This is also referred to as the “baseline noise condition”.


4-21


4.4.2 Geology and Hydrogeology

The Study Areas for the description of existing geology and hydrogeology conditions are as

follows (refer to Figure 4-5):

Existing Landfill ........... the lands owned by WM and currently approved for the

establishment and use of a waste disposal site, in

accordance with Provisional Certificate of Approval No.

A461002, including the Contaminant Attenuation Zones;

Detailed Study Area ..... the lands on and surrounding the Existing Landfill and

the North and West Envelopes being considered for

alternative landfill footprints, extending 500 m in all

directions; and,

Regional Study Area ... the lands within natural hydrogeologic boundaries,

including Huntley Creek to the north, Feedmill Creek to

the south, and extending to Carp River in the east. The

upgradient boundary of the Regional Study Area

coincides with the boundary of the Detailed Study Area.

Regarding existing hydrogeologic conditions, numerous operational controls have been

implemented since the early 1990s to address groundwater control and monitoring, including

purge well, landfill liners, and leachate control systems. The first phase of geosynthetic-lined

leachate collection system was installed at the site in 1991 and the total area with lined leachate

collection system is approximately 11 ha. A boundary purge well system was constructed at the

Ottawa WMF along the west side of Carp Road in 1991, with the final approval and

commissioning of a discharge forcemain to the City of Ottawa sanitary sewer system being

completed in November 2001. From 1997 to 2001, an interim purge well system was

implemented, with impacted groundwater collected by the purge wells being trucked to the City

of Ottawa Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre (ROPEC) wastewater treatment plant.

Since the commissioning of the forcemain, impacted groundwater and leachate have been

pumped directly off-site for treatment and discharge. WM continues to manage groundwater by

the purge wells, landfill liner, and leachate control systems, and conducts ongoing monitoring in

accordance with the ECA issued for the Ottawa WMF.

In addition to operational controls applied for groundwater, WM has purchased adjacent lands to

establish CAZs to resolve legacy groundwater issues on downgradient properties (i.e., historical

groundwater impacts associated with the unlined portions of the existing landfill footprint). The

CAZs enable WM to address MOE Guideline B-7 “Incorporation of the Reasonable Use


4-22


Figure 4-5 Geology and Hydrogeology Study Areas


4-23


Concept into MOE Groundwater Management Activities”. Guideline B-7 outlines the basis for

determining “reasonable use" of groundwater on property adjacent to sources of potential

contaminants and for determining levels of contaminant discharges considered acceptable by

the MOE. The CAZs for the Ottawa WMF include a land area of approximately 54.39 ha located

east of Carp Road and 2.02 ha located southeast of Highway 417 and Carp Road. Ongoing

monitoring of the CAZs is conducted and results provided to MOE. The groundwater results

from within the CAZs are compared to assessment criteria, which are the MOE’s Reasonable

Use Limits (RUL) for parameters which have Ontario Drinking Water Standards (ODWS) and

calculated Prediction Limits (PL) for other parameters.

4.4.2.1 Geology

The surficial geology observed in the Regional Study Area generally consists of thick sequences

of sand and gravel deposits underlying deposits of silt and clay. Surficial geology observed in

the Detailed Study Area consists of a mixture of poorly to well-sorted, stratified gravels and

sands, interbedded with lenses of silty sand-gravel till. Toward the eastern side of the North

Envelope, sand and gravel are the predominant surficial deposits; these grade into sand and till

deposits to the west. Along the Highway 417 boundary of the West Envelope, shallow organic

and till deposits overlie the limestone bedrock.

The Regional Study Area is underlain by several carbonate rock-types. Bedrock in the Detailed

Study Area consists of grey, fine to medium-grained fossiliferous limestone with some shaly or

sandy beds. The bedrock surface generally slopes in a north-northeasterly direction under the

Study Area. The bedrock is classified as the Bobcaygeon Formation, a member of the Middle

Ordovician-aged Ottawa Group.

Along the western side of the West Envelope, the Bobcaygeon Formation is in contact with the

underlying (older) Gull River Formation, which is another member of the Ottawa Group. The

contact between these bedrock formations is along a faulted zone. The bedrock formations in

the area are transected by these steeply dipping normal faults. Fracture density typically

increases in close proximity to the fault zone.

4.4.2.2 Hydrogeology

Groundwater occurs within the unconsolidated overburden units and the Paleozoic bedrock

fracture systems found within the Regional Study Area. The general direction of regional

groundwater flow is northeast toward Carp River. Water table elevations range from

approximately 135 mASL southwest of the existing landfill to between 92 mASL and 105 mASL

along Carp River.


4-24


The Detailed Study Area is underlain by two groundwater units:

1. the unconsolidated sands and gravels, and the hydraulically connected

weathered upper bedrock surface (known as the overburden-shallow

bedrock zone); and

2. the deeper bedrock fractures (known as the deeper bedrock zone).

Shallow groundwater flow generally follows the bedrock topography, with a water table elevation

varying from roughly 128 mASL in the southwest portion of the Detailed Study Area to less than

112 mASL east of Carp Road. The direction of groundwater flow within the overburden-shallow

bedrock, in the southwest portion of the site, is towards the north. Across the remainder of the

Detailed Study Area, the direction of groundwater flow in the overburden-shallow bedrock is

towards the northeast. The regional direction of groundwater flow in the deeper bedrock is

northeast, toward the Carp River.

The Detailed Study Area represents a significant groundwater recharge area, with a relatively

shallow water table, unconfined aquifer, and permeable strata.

Groundwater quality within the Carp River watershed is generally acceptable for potable usage,

and is free from recognizable regional-scale groundwater impact. In general, the regional

groundwater quality reflects the characteristics of the limestone bedrock, being dominated by

calcium carbonate (hardness) and also containing iron and sulphur compounds (sulphate,

hydrogen sulphide) from the shaley interbeds.

On the northern portion of the North Envelope, the groundwater quality in the overburden-shallow

bedrock is consistent with background concentrations. The southern boundary of the North

Envelope lies along the northern edge of the existing landfill. Groundwater monitoring completed

as part of the regular environmental monitoring program for the operating landfill site has shown

higher concentrations of leachate indicator parameters relative to background conditions in this

area. Elevated concentrations of dissolved parameters are also seen downgradient of the

stormwater management (SWM) pond, in a former area of biosolids storage.

The observed shallow groundwater concentrations on the West Envelope are generally within

the range of expected background concentrations. In the northeast corner, slightly higher

concentrations of alkalinity and potassium are noted.

Groundwater in monitoring wells installed in the overburden-shallow bedrock zone on the

downgradient side of the existing landfill has higher concentrations of leachate indicator

parameters relative to background conditions. The source of the elevated concentrations is

leachate from the unlined portions of the waste disposal areas.


4-25


4.4.3 Surface Water

The existing landfill site and proposed expansion area is situated adjacent to the south tributary

of the Huntley Creek subwatershed of Carp River. This subwatershed area is relatively flat with

a significant amount of wetland and scattered agricultural use as well as ongoing estate-lot

residential development.

The south tributary has a limited drainage area with a headwater area generally defined to the

west and south by Highway 417, to the north by Cavanmore Road, and to the east by Carp

Road. Local drainage patterns are somewhat undefined and are characterized by large wetland

areas with significant storage potential. Depending on the magnitude of rainfall, flow from these

locations may or may not be realized on adjacent lands and at the landfill site.

The Regional Study Area (refer to Figure 4-6) illustrates the WM site location within the context

of the Huntley Creek subwatershed and its relationship to Carp River, as derived from the Carp

River Restoration EA. The Site-Vicinity Study Area includes all lands bounded by Highway 417,

Richardson Side Road, and Carp Road, encompassing all lands owned or optioned by WM as

well as adjacent off-site drainage areas. The On-Site Study Area includes the existing landfill

footprint as well as those lands being considered for expansion.

Twenty-two (22) catchments have been identified within the Site-Vicinity Study Area that

contribute flow to the south tributary of Huntley Creek at the crossing located south of the

intersection of Carp Road and Richardson Side Road (refer to Figure 4-7). Surface runoff from

these drainage areas is conveyed by either small natural streams or roadside ditches.

4.4.3.1 Water Quantity

In general, surface drainage from four overall catchments comprising the existing Ottawa WMF

are confined to on-site retention and groundwater recharge in the form of two constructed SWM

facilities as well as two locally depressed areas that collect surface runoff with no off-site

discharge except through evaporation or infiltration to groundwater. These areas are identified

on Figure 4-7 and summarized below:

Catchments 1 and 4 drain to SWM Facility #1;

Catchments 2A and 2B drain to SWM Facility #2;

Catchment 3 drains to Depression #2; and,

Catchments 5 and 6 drain to the natural depressions identified as Depression

Area #2 and #1, respectively.


4-26


Figure 4-6 Surface Water Study Areas


4-27


Figure 4-7 Surface Water Features


4-28


Catchment 2B drains the non-landfill areas of the site. Drainage conditions in these areas may

be influenced by increased runoff from 2005 Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Highway 417

widenings and roadway re-configuration south and west of the site. In addition, natural drainage

to William Mooney Road ditches and tributaries of Huntley Creek to the northwest have been

cut off by a new landfill access ramp at the southwest corner of the existing footprint.

The area to the north and immediately east and west of the current operation is characterised

by the following 11 drainage areas (Catchments 7 – 17):

Catchments 7, 8, 15, 16 and 17 drain to roadside ditches along William

Mooney Road and Carp Road;

Catchments 9, 11 and 12 drain north through small tributaries to Huntley

Creek via the Richardson Side Road south ditch; and

Surface drainage from Catchments 10, 13, and 14 is conveyed to self-

contained low lying areas (Depression #3, Depression #4 and Depression #5,

respectively, in Figure 4-7).

Catchments 20 and 21 are located adjacent to Highway 417. During low flow rainfall events, the

existing wetland areas may attenuate runoff; however, under higher runoff events it is likely that

flows would be directed north to Catchment 18.

Results from 2006 and 2011 flow monitoring suggest that there is typically little or no flow at the

William Mooney Road culvert in the southwest corner of the existing site and at the Carp Road

culvert to the northwest of the site (Sites G, C and A in Figure 4-8). Continuous flow (1-2 L/s)

was observed at site J throughout the 2011 monitoring period, during which time no other

monitoring sites had flow. This suggests that, for this reach, there may either be some

groundwater discharge area or pumping from a quarry that has intercepted the water table.

Except during springmelt, there is little to no flow in South Huntley Creek for most of the year.

The 2006 monitoring recorded flows ranging from 0.001 m3/s to 0.114 m3/s in South Huntley

Creek at Site A and from 0.012 m3/s to 0.109 m3/s at Richardson Side Road west of Carp Road

and downstream of M-Con Products Inc. No sustained baseflow was found at these sites over a

three month monitoring period in 2011. These findings are consistent with Carp River

Restoration Project data (Post-Development Flow Characteristics and Flood Level Analysis for

Carp River, Feedmill Creek and Poole Creek – CH2MHill 2006) which identify 2-year peak flows

for Carp River at Highway 417, Richardson Side Road, and Huntmar Drive of 8.6 m3/s, 8.3 m3/s,

and 11.7 m3/s, respectively, and report extensive periods during the summer when flows at

these sites are minimal and there is no sustained baseflow.


4-29


Figure 4-8 Surface Water Monitoring Stations


4-30


4.4.3.2 Water Quality

Surface runoff from the landfill and on-site service roadways is directed to SWM facilities where it either evaporates or recharges to groundwater. An exception is the southwest corner of the landfill site where drainage is west to William Mooney Road. Stormwater from the transfer station and construction and demolition materials recovery pad located in this area is being re-directed to a site specific storage/recharge facility. Baseline surface water quality samples from Huntley Creek, South Huntley Creek and its tributaries were collected three times in 2006 at Sites G, C, A and J and three times in 2011 at sites G, C, A, and J as well as at a new site, K (refer to Figure 4-8). The results were compared to the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) (MOE 1994), a set of guidelines used for the management of the province’s water resources. During sampling periods MOE assessment criteria parameters were below their PWQO for all sites, except for one occurrence of Boron and two for Iron. Despite not being included in MOE assessment criteria parameters, the following notable findings were reported from 2006 sampling:

E. coli exceeded PWQO in all samples and nutrient levels were high, both of which can be attributed to the presence of cattle from local dairy farming operations and local wildlife sources, including waterfowl and beaver/muskrat upstream. As well, local residential septic systems could be a contributing factor if they were not performing to specification.

During the April sampling event, Total Phosphorus and Aluminum were above their respective PWQO and Ammonia, Magnesium, and Zinc were higher than their upstream counterparts at site J. Total Phosphorus and Aluminum were again above their respective PWQO and Ammonia, Magnesium and E. coli were higher than their upstream counterparts in July. These results do not reflect signature characteristics of leachate contamination. Elevated metal levels are assumed to be a function of the activities of industrial land uses in the area, including truck traffic.

As evidenced by these findings, water quality in South Huntley Creek varied significantly between sites and sampling dates, generally reflecting local upstream land uses. Overall, water quality varied from poor to moderate, influenced by nutrient enrichment and the presence of E. coli.


4-31


4.4.3.3 Stormwater Management Facilities

The existing surface water drainage system directs stormwater runoff to three SWM facilities

(recharge ponds) (refer to Figure 4-7), with stormwater eventually discharging to the

overburden water table. The SWM facility volume is sized to handle the 5-year design event

rainfall. SWM facility areas were found to have silty-sand soils that are excellent for recharge

ponds. The three recharge pond surface areas were determined through hydraulic calculations

to ensure groundwater mounding was at or below pond bottom elevations. A sedimentation cell

was incorporated in front of the recharge ponds to minimize potential plugging of recharge

areas.

The two constructed SWM facilities have emergency overflow spillways to prevent overtopping if

the ponds are full or the design flow/volume is exceeded. In such an event, overflow will flow to

lower site areas where it will either pond or recharge. Depressions #3 and #4 and Depression

#1 fulfil these functions for SWM facility #1 and SWM facility #2, respectively, and have capacity

to accommodate 15 to 20 times the runoff from the 1:100 year rainfall event. Depression #2 acts

as a third recharge pond, with a capacity that is over 20 times the runoff from the 1:100 year

event. In the unlikely event that these capacities are exceeded, flow would be east overland to

Carp Road and/or north to South Huntley Creek.

4.4.4 Biology – Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment

The Study Area with respect to vegetation and wildlife is primarily On-Site; however, the Study

Area for potential fish habitat extends off-site to include the downstream extent of South Huntley

Creek to where it meets Huntley Creek (refer to Figure 4-9).

All natural environment investigations were undertaken during appropriate seasonal periods for

the target feature (i.e., breeding bird surveys in spring between May and July when birds are

actively breeding; fisheries investigations before or after fish have spawned when there is low

potential for disturbing breeding periods).

4.4.4.1 Aquatic Ecosystem

The dominant watercourse within the project limits is South Huntley Creek. The most unaltered

and natural portion of South Huntley Creek occurs in the west footprint envelope (Tributaries A,

B, and C) which is bounded by William Mooney Road to the east, Highway 417 to the west, and

Richardson Side Road to the north (refer to Figure 4-10). A smaller series of creek reaches

occur in the north envelope (Tributary D), bounded by William Mooney Road to the west,


4-32


Figure 4-9 Biology Study Areas


4-33


Figure 4-10 Biology Monitoring Stations


4-34


Richardson Side Road to the north, and Carp Road to the east. Small drainages to the creek

historically located within the current landfill property limits have been realigned or buried within

culverts and no longer occur as open creek channel (Tributary E).

Three continuous Onset Tidbit temperature loggers were installed from mid-April to the end of

September 2006 in South Huntley Creek (refer to Figure 4-10). Site 1 was dry for the majority of

the summer with an average summer water temperature of 20.1C. This system is ephemeral

and is considered warmwater when flowing. Site 2 had an average summer water temperature

of 19.7C. This system is considered warmwater when flowing. Site 4 had an average summer

water temperature of 17.9C, indicative of a coolwater thermal regime.

South Huntley Creek and its tributaries contained within the On-Site Study Area are highly

degraded watercourses, affected by historical and ongoing agricultural land use and linear

development (roadways). Although they are considered to be permanent watercourses, dry

conditions observed in some areas during the spring and summer suggests that at least some

reaches of the creek are ephemeral or intermittent.

4.4.4.2 Fisheries Resources

Fish habitat was initially assessed in May, July, and September 2006 (to account for seasonable

variability) at five sites along South Huntley Creek (Sites 1-5) as well as at one site on Huntley

Creek (Site 6) (refer to Figure 4-10). Staff gauges were installed at four sites (Sites 1, 2, 4 and

5) and flow measurements were made at least twice in 2006.

In August 2011 additional habitat assessment work was undertaken. Of the assessed

watercourses, the only tributaries with the potential to support fish communities are Tributary A,

originating south of Highway 417 and flowing northwesterly through the Goulbourn Wetland

(seasonal fish habitat), and Tributary C, an agricultural drain that runs parallel to William

Mooney Road (some seasonal fish habitat) (refer to Figure 4-11). Fish communities were

observed previously in the downstream reaches of South Huntley Creek.

4.4.4.3 Terrestrial

Vegetation Communities

Beyond the operating landfill property, the Study Area consists of a mix of active agriculture,

early successional vegetation on former cropland, and forest (refer to Figure 4-12). A portion of

the Provincially Significant Goulbourn Wetland has been mapped by Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources (MNR) in the core natural area in the western portion of the On-site Study Area.

table of contents - wcecwcec.wm.com/resource-documents/01_main report/chapter 4... · 2016. 7....

Documents