Carp Snow Disposal Facility

Carp Snow Disposal Facility
Municipal Class Environmental

Assessment Study Phases 1 & 2
Final Report

September 11, 2013
Insert revision record
Sign-off Sheet

This document entitled Carp Snow Disposal Facility Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment Study Phases 1 & 2 was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. for the
account of the City of Ottawa. The material in it reflects Stantecs best judgment in light
of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party
makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the
responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec Consulting Ltd. accepts no responsibility
for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions
based on this report.

Prepared by
(signature)
Gerry Lalonde

Reviewed by
(signature)
John van Gaal

CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2

cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx i
Executive Summary
A Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) is being undertaken by the City of
Ottawa to develop a 23.4 hectares (ha) property located at 2125 Carp Road for use as a snow
disposal facility to service the needs of Ottawas west end. A 2009 study by the City had
identified the snow disposal needs to be 357,000 cubic metres (m3). Figure 2 shows the
communities that will be serviced by the proposed facility. The property is currently privately
owned but the City is proceeding with its purchase in 2013. The MCEA study is being
conducted in accordance with the planning process for a Schedule B project.
Phase 1 of the MCEA process was completed in February 2013 and a Public Open House held
February 23rd to present the findings of the Problem Definition. Phase 1 summarized the
previous work completed by the City in their review and evaluation of ten potential sites
considered for development. The 2009 study identified the site at 2125 Carp as being the
preferred location for a new facility. A copy of the Notice and the Executive Summary of the
Phase 1 report was circulated electronically to provincial and federal agencies, the Conservation
Authority, Aboriginal communities, and internally within the City.
Phase 2 of the MCEA process involved the description of the environment through numerous
investigative studies undertaken during 2012 and 2013 and the evaluation of alternatives to and
alternative methods (design). Studies completed in Phase 2 included a geotechnical
investigation, hydrogeological assessment, archaeological assessment, transportation
assessment, drainage and stormwater management assessment, meltwater assessment, an
Environmental Impact Statement (Natural environment), a Visual/Landscape assessment, and
social/heritage assessment. The findings of the Phase 2 for the preferred design, as identified
below, was presented to the public at an Open House held August 6th, 2013 at the former
Goulburn municipal office on Huntley Road. Notices for the meeting were published in both the
Ottawa Sun and Le Droit on two consecutive weeks prior to the event.
The preferred design is the development of the site as per layout shown in Figure 9. Our
preferred design will provide a capacity of approximately 350,000 m for snow stockpile and
accommodate the disposal demand predicted for the 1:50 year snow event. The snow footprint
would occupy an area of approximately 4 to 5 ha with an additional 1ha for the dump pad. The
maximum stockpile height would extend to 15 m above the base elevation (around elevation
127 to 128m). The back slope and side slopes of the snow stockpile are specified as 1H:1V and
the front slope (facing south) at 5 H:1V The base of the snow footprint would be graded on a
0.5% slope facing southward towards the meltwater pond/facility.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2

cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx ii
To accommodate truck and pup combinations and tri-axle trucks, a dump pad area with a 50 m
width was specified. The dump pad and the snow footprint would be underlain by a geotextile
laying directly on the native silt and overlain with 600 mm of granular material (450 mm of
granular B, 150 mm of granular A) and 150-200mm of asphalt grinding.
A low hydraulic conductivity membrane would be installed beneath the stockpile and dump pad
to prevent seepage of chloride impacted meltwater into the groundwater.
The dump pad would be sloped to provide positive drainage to the meltwater pond forebay. A
permanent pool is provided in the meltwater pond to allow a minimum of 24 hours settling of
sediment. And oil/grit separator would be provided at the outlet of the meltwater pond which
then discharges to the ditch leading to Highway 417. The meltwater pond and the ditch would
be lined with a low hydraulic conductivity membrane to prevent seepage of chloride impacted
meltwater into the groundwater.
The site design also includes a 4ha size stormwater management facility/pond for quantity and
quality control of on-site and off-site drainage generated from the 1:100 year storm event. The
pond size is much larger than what would typically be required for treatment of on-site
conditions (post development flow being equal to pre-development) because drainage from off-
site properties (59ha) flow through the property and need to be accounted for in the design. The
stormwater pond volume will contain approximately 50,000 m3 of water. Some of this water will
be used during spring melt to dilute the discharge from the meltwater pond. The discharge from
both ponds will be mixed and discharged into the Highway 417 roadside ditch.
The target discharge limits for the mixed discharge is 40 mg/L for Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
and 1000 mg/L for chloride. Both ponds are designed to provide 24 hours of detention time.
A net effect analysis for the preferred design was completed and mitigation measures proposed
to minimize negative effects. Most potential environmental effects resulting from the Project
following implementation of mitigation measures will be small in size and temporary in nature.
Numerous mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate effects on Valued
Environmental Components (VECs) through all phases of the Project (i.e. site preparation,
construction and operation).
Despite implementation of best practices and mitigation through good design, some residual
environmental effects will remain. For those cases additional monitoring and follow-up programs
have been recommended.

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2

cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx iii
Approvals required to implement the development of the site include Ministry of the Environment
(MOE) approval of the stormwater and meltwater ponds for on-site work and existing drainage
works off-site through the issuance of Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECA). The City
will also undertake an amendment to their Zoning by-law to permit snow disposal as a permitted
use in the light Industrial designation for this property this process is under the Planning Act
and separate from the MCEA process. The Stage 1 & 2 archaeological assessment approvals
for ground disturbance are required before construction activities commence.
The estimate of probable cost for the development of the site is $ 6 million, as detailed in
Section 8.10
Following the completion of the Phase 1& 2 consultation and revisions to the MCEA report (as
required), a Notice of Completion for the Study will be published and provide a period of 30 days
for final review. If public concerns regarding this project cannot be resolved, any person may
request a Part II Order. Should the Minister of Environment deem that this is necessary; the
project could be elevated to a Schedule C or an Individual Environmental Assessment. If no
concerns are expressed to the Minister of the Environment within thirty (30) days of filing the
study and notification thereof, the project will proceed in accordance with the recommendations
of the Phase 1 & 2 Report.
The Phase 1&2 MCEA report was circulated electronically to provincial and federal agencies,
the Conservation Authority, Aboriginal communities, and internally within the City. Physical
copies of the documentation is posted at the City of Ottawa libraries (see Notice in Appendix C
for locations) and at the Citys corporate office. A copy of the report and Appendices is also
available electronically from the Citys website for this project.

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2

cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1.1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION WEST END SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY ............... 1.2
1.1.1 Study Area ................................................................................................. 1.2
1.1.2 Planning Period and Snow Disposal Volume ............................................. 1.3
1.2 PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT ............................................................ 1.4
1.2.1 Lack of Snow Disposal Capacity in West End Ottawa ................................ 1.4
2.0 ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR SNOW DISPOSAL .................................................... 2.1
2.1 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE UNDERTAKING ...................... 2.1
2.2 CONSIDERATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS ............................................ 2.2
3.0 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................... 3.1
3.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION ................................................................................. 3.1
3.2 ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT ............................................. 3.1
3.3 MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS ................... 3.2
3.4 DETERMINATION OF MCEA SCHEDULE ........................................................... 3.4
3.5 ONTARIO GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES .......................... 3.5
3.4.1 Guidelines for Snow Disposal and De-icing Operations in Ontario ............. 3.6
3.4.2 Water Management, Goals, Policies and Implementation .......................... 3.6
3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT ............................................................... 3.7
3.7 PLANNING ACT .................................................................................................... 3.7
3.7.1 Official Plan ............................................................................................... 3.7
3.7.2 Zoning ....................................................................................................... 3.8
3.7.3 Community Design Plan ............................................................................ 3.8
3.7.4 Site Plan Control ........................................................................................ 3.9
3.8 CANADA FISHERIES ACT ................................................................................... 3.9
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................... 4.1
4.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................. 4.1
4.1.1 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................................ 4.1
4.1.2 Aquatic Resources ..................................................................................... 4.2
4.1.3 Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 4.2
4.1.4 Gulls .......................................................................................................... 4.3
4.1.5 Climate ...................................................................................................... 4.4
4.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................. 4.5
4.2.1 Significant Natural Heritage Features ........................................................ 4.5
4.2.2 Surrounding Land Use and Receptors ....................................................... 4.9
4.2.3 Topography and Drainage ......................................................................... 4.9
4.2.4 Surface Water Features ........................................................................... 4.10
4.2.5 Groundwater ............................................................................................ 4.10
4.2.6 Air Quality and Noise ............................................................................... 4.12
4.2.7 Air Quality and Vibration .......................................................................... 4.13
4.2.8 Geological Setting/Soils ........................................................................... 4.13
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2

cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx ii
4.2.9 Geotechnical ............................................................................................ 4.14
4.2.10 Land Ownership/Legal ............................................................................. 4.14
4.2.11 Transportation ......................................................................................... 4.14
4.2.12 Utilities ..................................................................................................... 4.16
4.3 SOCIAL CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................ 4.17
4.3.1 Community/Development ......................................................................... 4.17
4.3.2 Heritage ................................................................................................... 4.17
4.3.3 Archaeological ......................................................................................... 4.18
4.3.4 Aboriginal ................................................................................................ 4.19
4.3.5 Aesthetics ................................................................................................ 4.20
4.4 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................. 4.21
5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES .......................................................... 5.1
5.1 DESIGN OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................... 5.1
5.2 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ............................................................ 5.1
5.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA & METHODOLOGY ...................................................... 5.2
5.4 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE ................................. 5.8
6.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION AND NET EFFECTS FOR
PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................... 6.1
6.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION ...................................... 6.1
6.1.1 Construction Timing ................................................................................... 6.1
6.1.2 Erosion and Sediment Control ................................................................... 6.4
6.1.3 Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 6.4
6.1.4 Significant Natural Heritage Features ........................................................ 6.4
7.0 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................................... 7.1
7.1 MELTWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY/POND .................................................. 7.1
7.1.1 Meltwater Quality Control ........................................................................... 7.1
7.1.2 Meltwater Quantity Control ........................................................................ 7.2
7.1.3 Meltwater Discharges and Mixing in Feedmill Creek .................................. 7.2
7.2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY/POND .............................................. 7.5
7.2.1 On-site stormwater management facility/pond ....................................... 7.5
7.2.2 Off-site stormwater management facility/pond and roadside ditches ..... 7.7
8.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES FOR PREFERRED DESIGN ................................. 8.1
8.1 SUMMARY SDF PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................... 8.1
8.2 LIGHTING ............................................................................................................. 8.1
8.3 SITE SECURITY & FENCES ................................................................................ 8.2
8.4 GRADING AND BERMING ................................................................................... 8.2
8.5 SITE ENTRANCE ................................................................................................. 8.3
8.6 PARKING AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE ............................................................. 8.3
8.7 NOISE BARRIER AND LANDSCAPING ............................................................... 8.3
8.8 TRUCK RATES AND HOURS OF OPERATION ................................................... 8.4
8.9 SITE EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 8.4
8.10 ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST ....................................................................... 8.5
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2

cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx iii
9.0 MONITORING ............................................................................................................... 9.1
9.1 MELTWATER AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ....................... 9.1
9.1.1 Pond Operating Levels .............................................................................. 9.1
9.1.2 Monitoring Program ................................................................................... 9.1
9.1.3 Sediment Removal .................................................................................... 9.1
10.0 CONSULTATION ........................................................................................................ 10.1
10.1 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... 10.1
10.2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION .................................................................................. 10.2
10.2.1 Notice of Completion ............................................................................... 10.5
10.2.2 First Nations and Aboriginal Consultation ................................................ 10.5
10.2.3 Website ................................................................................................... 10.6
LIST OF TABLES

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

List of Appendices

Appendix A - List of Figures
Figure 1 - Snow Disposal Facilities (2001) Location Plan
Figure 2 - West End Servicing Area
Figure 3 - Potential Sites investigated by the City 2009
Figure 4 - West District Snow Disposal Facilities 2009
Figure 5 - Study Area - Vegetation Communities
Figure 6 - Project Area as shown over detail from 1879 Belden Historical Atlas
Figure 7 - Area Map showing Facility and Points of Reception
Figure 8 - Zones of Archaeological Potential, Results of Stage 1AA
Figure 9 - Conceptual Site Layout
Appendix B Phase 1 Consultation and Supporting Documentation
Appendix C Phase 2 Consultation and Supporting Documentation
Appendix D Meetings
Appendix E Correspondence and Other Communication
Appendix F Compact Disk - Studies

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013
cs w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\municipal class ea phase 2\rpt_mcea_final_draft_20120911.docx 1.1
1.0 Introduction
In January 2012, the City of Ottawa retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) to review and
complete an environmental planning process for the development of a new snow disposal
facility (SDF) in Ottawas west end to service the disposal needs within Kanata and the
surrounding area. New disposal capacity is required to replace the capacity lost from the
closure of several existing SDF sites (Glen Cairn, Whelan Park) and future planned closure of
other temporary sites at Maple Grove and Carp Road, as well as to accommodate growth from
new development within the study area. Figure 1 identifies the location of the 28 SDFs, as they
existed in 2002.
In October 2002, the City adopted a report to Council based on the Scoping Analysis of Snow
Disposal Facilities (SAS) which established a strategy for the management of snow disposal for
a planning period of 20 years. In 2002, the City had 28 SDFs with four of these being
engineered facilities. Based on the design annual snow accumulation of 390cm for the 1:50
year frequency, the City required a disposal capacity of 3.06 million cubic metres (m
3
) for
servicing the 2001 land use (for the entire City). The strategy presented in the 2002 report for
the 20 year period 2001-2021 predicted that the required capacity would increase to 3.9 million
m
3
for the 2021 land use development (for the entire City).
For the Citys west end, the SAS identified the existing SDFs at Maple Grove B, Carp, Kinburn,
Glen Cairn, and a new Site H (yet to be identified) as being required to satisfy the disposal
needs. By 2012, we observe the following changes to the 2002 SAS recommendations, these
being;
Glen Cairn site has been closed,
the Kinburn SDF is a small rural site and services a small community outside of the
urban centre of Kanata. This site is too far removed from the urban centre to offer any
potential use as a large SDF,
a new site (identified as Site H in previous studies) was reviewed by the City in 2009 and
found to be less desirable than other locations offering more potential,
the Carp Site located adjacent to the Park & Ride (P&R) has environmental constraints
and would be difficult to develop as an engineered SDF,
imminent closure of the Maple Grove B and Carp (P&R) sites. Since these two sites are
the only two SDFs in existence for servicing the west end, their closure would pose a
serious deficiency in capacity which must be replaced by a new site.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
Introduction
September 11, 2013

Planning for municipal infrastructure is typically done in accordance with the planning process
set out in a document published by the Municipal Engineers Association entitled Municipal
Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) dated October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011.
While Clauses 10 and 39 of the MCEA Project Schedules identify Snow Disposal related
activities as being a Schedule A project, the City in discussion with the Ministry of the
Environment (MOE) during 2012 was encouraged to select a higher level planning process
offered by the Schedule B project category (Section 3.2 provides a description of the above
Schedules).
The City elected to follow this recommendation for the following reasons;
Land acquisition is likely to be necessary,
a new property is likely to require a change in zoning,
consultation with the public and agencies at an early stage of the MCEA process would
provide feedback on the acceptability of the site for development as an SDF. This
consultation would also provide early detection of concerns that could be expressed in
the mandatory consultation required by the change in zoning and the Site Plan Control
process,
the infrastructure required to support the activities at the new SDF (such as stormwater
management) may involve activities that are subject to the MCEA process so it would be
prudent to follow a more rigorous process from the beginning.
This Phase 1 & 2 Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) Report is intended to satisfy the
legislative requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). The MCEA process is
further explained in Section 3 of this Report.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION WEST END SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY
1.1.1 Study Area
The catchment area for snow removal in the west end for the purpose of this Phase 1 & 2
MCEA Report is shown in Figure 2 and summarized below;
North extends to the Carp community and Ottawa River
South extends to Flewellyn Road but also includes the community of Richmond
East extends to Richmond Road and Highway 416
West extends to west limit of Stittsville but also includes the community of Munster
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
Introduction
September 11, 2013

1.1.2 Planning Period and Snow Disposal Volume
The 2002 Scoping Analysis of Snow Disposal Facilities (SAS) study had identified the planning
period to end in 2021. The SAS had calculated the snow disposal demand to service the west
end to 2021 to be 308,000 m
3
.
This volume was based on the following assumptions:
Historical truck box measurements showing that during an average year with 223 cm of
snowfall, the volume of snow to be disposed was calculated to be 96,000 m
3
for the
2001 west end land use.
Growth in volume of snow to be disposed between 2001 and 2021 was assumed to be
correlated to the population growth and a multiplication factor of 1.73 was applied to the
2001 volume.
The City, based on the 2002 SAS study, selected the 1:50 year annual snowfall as being
the basis for defining maximum capacity for an SDF design. To calculate the snow
disposal volume for the 1:50 year snowfall (390 cm of snow), a multiplication factor of
2.5 was applied (1:50 snow accumulation/1:5 snow accumulation) to the 2021 disposal
volume.
The above calculations resulted in a volume of snow equivalent to 308,000 m
3
as being the
disposal capacity requirements for the west end by 2021.
The City is currently reviewing their Official Plan and the long term strategy for
infrastructure/transportation planning (Transportation Master Plan, Delcan 2008) has a planning
period ending in 2031. To make use of the transportation planning growth projections provided
in the Delcan report, the planning period for this MCEA will extend to 2031.
The Transportation Master Plan (Draft 2008) estimated between 2006 and 2031 that the
population of the west urban sector was to grow from 88,400 to 162,200, an increase of 73,800
people or 28% (equivalent to 5.56% per 5 year increment). Assuming that the road
infrastructure continues to grow at the same rate as the population, applying a 11.12% increase
(5.56*2) to the 2021 snow disposal demand volume (308,000 m
3
) increases the snow disposal
demand to 342,250 m
3
. While this is a rather simplistic approach to account for the increased
road infrastructure between 2021 and 2031, the large uncertainty in defining other variables do
not make a more accurate determination worthwhile.
In 2009, the City reviewed historical snow volumes delivered to the west end SDFs and
estimated the disposal needs to service the west end to be 357,000 m
3
this larger volume
accounted for the 2007/2008 season where a significant amount of the annual snowfall occurred
in the latter part of the season and equipment had difficulty in keeping pace with snow delivery
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
Introduction
September 11, 2013

and resulted in less than optimal placement. Since similar events are to be anticipated, this
MCEA will plan on providing a disposal volume of 357,000 m
3
for the planning period.
While the MCEA will plan to provide disposal capacity for the 1:50 year snowfall to
accommodate growth to 2031, the City could proceed with a smaller disposal volume should the
property(ies) being considered have constraints that restrict a larger volume.
1.2 PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT
1.2.1 Lack of Snow Disposal Capacity in West End Ottawa
The City needs to provide 357,000 m
3
of snow disposal capacity to service the Citys west end.
The 357,000 m
3
volume may be increased or decreased slightly to accommodate potential
constraints posed by one or more potential sites.
During consultation for Phase 1 of the MCEA process with key agencies, the MOE requested
that if the selected property for a SDF development was going to be at 2125 Carp Road, off site
drainage improvements would also need to be included in the approval process.
With the development of disposal capacity at a new SDF, the use of the existing SDFs at Maple
Grove and Carp (P&R) can be phased out.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013
2.0 Alternative Methods for Snow Disposal
2.1 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE UNDERTAKING
Alternatives to the undertaking have been evaluated in several previous studies prepared for the
former Regional Municipality of Ottawa Carleton and the City of Ottawa. Alternatives identified
and evaluated in prior studies, as listed below;
Innes Snow Disposal Facility Environmental Study and Design Report dated April 2006
by Stantec Consulting Ltd.,
Strandherd Snow Disposal Facility Environmental Study Report dated May 2006 by A.J.
Robinson,
Strategic Plan for Snow Disposal Inside the Greenbelt dated 1995 by McNeely
Tunnock)
included dumping directly into a surface water body, sewer chutes (dumping into sanitary
sewer), mobile melters, land disposal, and do nothing. A brief description of these alternatives
is provided below.
Do Nothing
The status quo or do nothing alternative is considered the most unsatisfactory given that there
would be no efforts to ensure that the safety of people and vehicles using the road infrastructure
is provided. The City of Ottawa (City) is responsible for the removal and disposal of snow within
its municipal boundaries. The Municipal Act and O. Regulation 239/02 establish the minimum
standards for road maintenance. The City has adopted standards in their document:
Maintenance Quality Standards for Roads, Sidewalks and Pathways which establishes the
minimum level of service for various types of roads and a maintenance standard including the
removal of snow/ice and application of salt/other materials within the City.

Disposal in Water Body
The alternative of river disposal is constrained by the lack of effective control over potential
flooding. Dumping snow into the floodway of a river may cause upstream flooding as well as
negative environmental impacts by direct release of contaminants into the surface water course.

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
Alternative Methods for Snow Disposal
September 11, 2013

Sewer Chutes
Direct discharge into a sanitary sewer through chutes requires a significant trunk sewer with the
capacity and sewage flow required to melt the snow and not create a blockage in the trunk
sewer pipe. Meltwater would be directed to the sewage treatment plant. In the west end,
nighttime sewage flows are not sufficient to accommodate disposal of any significant snow
quantities.

Melters
Meltwater discharged from mobile thermal melters is of poor quality. Mobile thermal melters
require specific weather conditions to operate efficiently, otherwise chemicals or a shelter may
have to be provided so that the meltwater does not freeze before draining into the sewer. The
colder mean average winter temperatures experienced in Ottawa effectively preclude their use.
Also since this equipment requires an extensive set-up process with many coordinated
activities, it is not suitable for the shorter more discontinuous type of snow removal operations
anticipated for the west end.

Land Disposal
Land disposal provides an opportunity to properly treat snow melt in a basin prior to its
discharge into a surface water course. It is therefore considered to be the most preferable
alternative in terms of mitigating potential negative environmental impacts from contaminants in
snow. Its operational simplicity is a major factor to its acceptance. For the land disposal
alternative, the most significant constraint is that sites must be located away from residential
areas to minimize land use incompatibility. Within the designated growth centres outside of the
greenbelt, the land disposal alternative offers the most flexibility and is the most technically
feasible solution.
In summary, the land disposal alternative with treatment is considered to be the most
appropriate alternative for snow disposal in the City since it is shown to be environmentally safe,
technically reliable, economically viable, and socially acceptable. Consequently, for the purpose
of this MCEA study, land disposal is the only alternative to considered for snow disposal.
2.2 CONSIDERATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS
In June 2009, the Citys Operations Research Unit (ORU) completed a report Evaluation of
Properties for a West District Snow Disposal Facility (SDF) that identified 10 sites that offered
potential for development as a SDF. The location of the 10 sites is shown in Figure 3. In
completing the above study, the City reviewed its calculations for snow volumes for the 1:50
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

year snowfall taking into consideration some of the closures of sites that had been identified in
the 2002 SAS strategy. Figure 4 identifies the revised capacity calculations for the entire City
and more particularly, shows a revised snow disposal requirement of 357,000 m
3
to service the
west end.
The Citys ORU report (2009) describes how the sites were identified and how the evaluation,
using the criteria (rating) below, was conducted by Technical Services. The rating was
established as follows;
Location travel time and haul distance have the greatest impact on efficiency of snow removal
operations and long term operating costs this criteria was given a rating of 50 points on a total
of 100.
Technical and Environmental Considerations a suitable discharge location for meltwater is
critical as well as the soil type for groundwater protection this criteria was given a rating of 25
points out of 100.
Property Size the site must be sufficiently large to accommodate the snow disposal
requirements while respecting zoning setbacks - this criteria was given a rating of 15 points out
of 100.
Economics acquisition costs must be affordable and development costs reasonable - this
criterion was given a rating of 10 points out of 100.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013


As haul distance and travel time were determined to be the most important considerations, the
10 closest sites to the catchment areas (Figure 3) were chosen for an evaluation.
Table 1: Average Haul Distance and Travel Time to Catchment Areas
Property
Average Haul Distance to
Catchment Areas (kms)
Average Travel Time to
Catchment Areas (minutes)
1818 Bradley Side 8.2 12
2125 Carp Road 9.6 10
1170 March Road 10.3 12
6559 Hazeldean 10.6 15
6437 Flewellyn 11.8 15
915 Riddell 12.3 15
2822 Carp Road 12.4 14
2914 Carp Road 13 15
2050 Dunrobin Road 13.9 17
Carp & March 14.4 17

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

The results of the evaluation are shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Scoring for the 10 Closest Properties
Property Rank Score Concerns
1818 Bradley Side
1 75
Size of property, 0.5 km force main to Carp
River
2125 Carp Road 2 75 Soils, concerns for drainage outlet
0 Carp & March 3 74 Haul distance, travel time
6559 Hazeldean 4 68.5 Soils, Concerns for drainage outlet
2822 Carp Road 5 68 Concern for drainage outlet
6437 Flewellyn 6 66 Soils, Concerns for drainage outlet
2914 Carp Road 7 64 Concerns for drainage outlet
915 Riddell 8 59 Zoning, Concerns for drainage outlet
1170 March Road 9 51 Zoning, Concerns for drainage outlet
2050 Dunrobin
Road
10 41
Zoning, Concerns for drainage outlet
The Citys Operations Research Unit (ORU) met with Planning and Infrastructure Approvals to
discuss the 5 best ranked properties and consensus was that the property located at 2125 Carp
Road site was the best opportunity to pursue.
The following is a brief summary of the planning issues for the 5 best ranked properties.
1818 Bradley Side Road: Although the 1818 Bradley property ranked highest, because
it was close to the snow removal catchment areas and had a meltwater outlet, it was
eliminated as a candidate site because the City did not want to change the agriculture
(AG) zoning for a property situated outside the urban boundary.
2125 Carp Road: 2125 Carp Road was chosen as the next candidate property because
it was located in an industrial area, next to a major transportation network and has good
access to the catchment areas. While there are some drainage issues attached to the
property, ORU implied that if, with the development of the 2125 Carp Rd property the
City was able to improve some of the upstream drainage for the adjacent lands, this
would be viewed as a positive.
Carp and March Road: with the property situated farther away from the catchment
areas, and because the Carp River and several of its small tributaries flow through the
property, the development of the site as a SDF would not be well viewed from an
environmental perspective.
6559 Hazeldean and 2822 Carp Road: properties are relatively well situated but neither
site has ideal outlets for their meltwater.
In summary, the 2009 Citys ORU West SDF Report identified the site at 2125 Carp Road as
offering the most potential for development as a SDF.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

This Phase 1 & 2 MCEA report is for the development of an SDF at 2125 Carp Road. While the
property is privately owned, the City is proceeding with its purchase in 2013 and seeking
approval from regulatory agencies for its use as an SDF.
The property at 2125 Carp Road will be carried forward as the preferred location for the
development of an SDF following the MCEA process.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013
3.0 Regulatory Environment
This section outlines the environmental legislation applied in this study to snow disposal using
the land disposal alternative.
3.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION
The primary contacts for the project are:
Mr. Ravi Mehta, P. Eng. (Phase 1 only) and Ms. Carolyn Newcombe, P. Eng. (Phase 2)
Project Managers, City of Ottawa
Mr. Gerry Lalonde, P. Eng.
Project Manager, Stantec Consulting Ltd.
The responsibilities of each of the parties involved in the study are briefly described in Table 3
below.
Table 3: Organizational Responsibilities
Ministry of the
Environment
Provides technical input during document review
City of Ottawa
Proponent of the study
Responsible for overall conduct of the study
Provides background information on existing facilities,
systems, and review comments
Public
Provides input to the entire process and comments on
published reports
Agencies federal,
provincial, others such as
the Conservation
Authority.
Provide input during document review
Aboriginal and First
Nations
Provide input during document review
Stantec Consulting Ltd Consultant responsible for completing the study

3.2 ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
Ontarios Environmental Assessment (EA) Act was passed in 1975 and was first applied to
municipalities in 1981. The EA Act requires the study, documentation, and examination of the
environmental effects that could result from major projects or activities.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
Regulatory Environment
September 11, 2013

The objective of the EA Act is to consider the possible effects of these projects early in the
planning process, when concerns may be most easily resolved, and to select a preferred
alternative with the fewest environmental impacts.
The EA Act defines environment very broadly as:
a) Air, land or water
b) Plant and animal life, including humans
c) Social, economic, and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a
d) community
e) Any building, structure, machine, or other device or thing made by humans
f) Any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration, or radiation resulting directly or
g) indirectly from human activities

and any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or
more of them, in or of Ontario.
In applying the requirements of the EA Act to projects, two types of EA planning and approval
processes are identified:
Individual EAs (Part II of the EA Act): projects for which a Terms of Reference and an Individual
EA are carried out and submitted to the Minister of the Environment for review and approval.
Class EAs: projects are approved subject to compliance with an approved Class EA process;
provided that the appropriate Class EA approval process is followed, a proponent will comply
with Section 13(3) a, Part II.1 of the EA Act.
3.3 MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
The approved Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) document prepared by
the Municipal Engineers Association in 2000, amended in 2007 & 2011 documents an
approved Class EA process under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. Projects can be
evaluated based on their Class while still meeting the requirements of the EAA. For projects
to be evaluated under the MCEA process, they must meet the following conditions;
Be recurring,
Usually similar in nature,
Usually limited in scale,
Have a predictable range of environmental effects, and
Be responsive to mitigative measures.

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

The MCEA provides for the implementation of five key principles of successful planning. These
are:
1. Early consultation with affected parties (includes public, landowners, stakeholders, etc).
2. Consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives.
3. Identification and consideration of the effects of each alternative on any or all aspects of
the environment.
4. Evaluation of alternatives to determine their net environmental effect.
5. A clear and complete documentation of the planning process to allow "traceability" of the
decision-making.
The MCEA process provides for the planning and implementation of municipal projects also
referred to as "undertakings". Since these projects undertaken by municipalities vary in their
environmental impact, such projects (or undertakings) are classified in terms of Schedules. In
brief these Schedules can be summarized as follows:
Schedule A Projects in this classification are limited in scale, have minimal adverse effects.
These projects include the majority of municipal operations and maintenance
activities, such as culvert replacements or watermain and sewer extensions
within existing road allowances or winter operations, and can proceed to
implementation without further approvals under the MCEA.
Schedule B Projects in this classification have the potential for some adverse environmental
effects. The proponent is therefore required to undertake a screening process,
involving mandatory contact with the directly affected public, stakeholders, and
with relevant government agencies, to ensure that they are aware of the project
and that their concerns are addressed. If there are no outstanding concerns then
the proponent may proceed to implementation. If, however, the screening
process raises a concern that cannot be resolved, then the project may be
"bumped-up" (Part II Order) to a Schedule C or an individual EA.
Projects under this schedule must, as a minimum requirement, comply with
Phases 1, 2 and 5 of the MCEA, as shown in Exhibit A.2 (refer to Section 3.8)
and as described below.
Schedule C Projects in this classification have the potential for significant environmental
effects and must proceed under the full planning and documentation procedures
specified in the MCEA. If concerns are raised that cannot be resolved, the
"bump-up" (Part II Order) procedure to an individual EA may be invoked.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

Projects under this schedule must, as a minimum requirement, comply with
Phases 1 through 5, inclusively, in compliance with the MCEA process, as shown
in Exhibit A.2 and as described below. Such projects may include the
construction or expansion of facilities beyond their rated capacities.
Exhibit A.2 also illustrates the process followed in the planning and design of projects covered
by the MCEA. In the case of this project, only Phase 1 and 2 were completed as is the
requirement for Schedule B projects. The steps considered essential for compliance with the
requirements of the Act are summarized as follows:
Phase 1 This stage consists of identifying the problems or deficiencies with the current
snow disposal system for Ottawas west end.
Phase 2 This stage consists of identifying alternative solutions to the problems and
establishing the preferred solution, taking into account public and review agency
input. During this Phase, the study identifies the approval requirements and
confirms the appropriate schedule for the Undertaking, which for this study
includes Phases 1 and 2 of a Schedule B activity. This Phase requires a
mandatory public consultation and review process.
Phase 3 While this project is not anticipated to go into Phase 3, should there be a Part II
Order request, it could be elevated into a Schedule C. For projects classified as
Schedule C activities, this stage consists of examining alternative methods of
implementing the preferred solution in accordance with the MCEA requirements
and includes a mandatory public consultation and review process.
Phase 4 For projects classified as Schedule C activities, this stage consists of
documenting in an environmental study report (ESR) a summary of the rationale,
planning, design and consultation process of the project as established through
the preceding phases. This document is subject to scrutiny by review agencies
and the public.
Phase 5 Once the above phases have been completed, this stage consists of completing
the contract documents and proceeding to construction, operation and monitoring
of the Undertaking.
3.4 DETERMINATION OF MCEA SCHEDULE
This project is being planned as a Schedule B activity subject to a screening process. This
report will therefore customize and document the project specifics and needs for a project.
Phase 1, Problem or Opportunity, was presented to the public and circulated to agencies in
February 2013. This combined Phase 1& 2 MCEA was presented to the public and circulated to
agencies in September 2013. A Public Open House was held August 6th 2013 to present the
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

findings of the Phase 2 studies to the public. Exhibit A.2 shows the planning process for this
project.

3.5 ONTARIO GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
The selection and environmental assessment process for snow disposal sites requires a
detailed review of relevant provincial guidelines and regulations to ensure compliance with
these environmental directives. The establishment of a new SDF will likely require management
of stormwater and meltwater discharge, both will require approval by the City and MOE through
the issuance of an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA).
The guidelines and regulations are as follows:
Guidelines for Snow Disposal and De-icing Operations in Ontario, MOE
Water Management, Goals, Policies and Implementation Procedures of the Ministry of
the Environment, 1978 (Revised, 1984)
Environmental Protection Act, 1990
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

Environmental Assessment Act, 1990
Planning Act, 1990.
Outlined below are brief descriptions of the policy directives of these documents and their use in
the environmental review process for snow disposal sites.
3.4.1 Guidelines for Snow Disposal and De-icing Operations in Ontario
The guideline broadly covers the topics of snow disposal, site selection criteria and de-icing
chemicals in connection with potential water pollution from snow disposal, snow disposal
practices and winter road maintenance operations. The intent of the guideline is to minimize the
environmental impact of snow collection, disposal practices and de-icing operations.
The guideline outlines some considerations such as accessibility, noise, alternate land uses,
visual considerations, drainage factors and subsurface drainage. Within the section on
subsurface drainage, the requirement for a detailed hydrogeologic study is outlined to determine
the uses of groundwater down gradient of the site, locating the site in areas with impervious soil
stratum to prevent contaminant migration and siting considerations for sites located in recharge
areas. These general criteria do not provide for the quantitative measurement of the potential
environmental impact and thus only provide a qualitative tool for the assessment of the
environmental suitability of snow disposal sites.
3.4.2 Water Management, Goals, Policies and Implementation
This publication outlines the water management programs of the Ontario MOE which provide for
the management of the surface water and groundwater quality and quantity. Program
management goals are stated, following by policy directives, implementation procedures, and
the standards, which apply, to maintaining water quality.
The goals and policy directives in this document are pertinent in the assessment of snow
disposal sites as the primary management programs address surface water and groundwater
impact.
Based on these regulatory requirements, the following approvals under the Ontario Water
Resources Act are required for works undertaken as part of the development of the Carp SDF:
1. Environmental Compliance Approval for the meltwater treatment facility, including the
potential for a pump station and any associated piping and mechanical/electrical
components.
2. Environmental Compliance Approval(s) for the stormwater management facilities one
ECA for the on-site SWM pond and another ECA for the off-site drainage improvements
(linear pond and roadside ditches).
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
The Ontario Environmental Protection Act provides legislative authority to limit the discharge of
contaminants to the natural environment. Section 14(1) of the Ontario Environmental Protection
Act (R.S.O. 1990) states: no person shall discharge a contaminant or cause or permit the
discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment that causes or is likely to cause and
adverse effect.
EPA approval would apply to air quality (emissions and noise) from stationary equipment (such
as a standby generator to provide backup power). Since we do not anticipate any permanent
structures on site (except for the security trailer), we do not anticipate that an approval under the
EPA is required.
3.7 PLANNING ACT
3.7.1 Official Plan
Section 3.9 Snow Disposal Facilities of the Official Plan (OP) provides the following guidance
on Official Plan Policies;
Policies
Snow disposal facilities are not designated on the schedules of this Plan.
Existing snow disposal facilities will be recognized in the zoning by-law. A new snow
disposal facility will require an amendment to the zoning by-law. New Snow Disposal
Facilities will only be permitted in areas where it can be demonstrated that the impacts of
trucking and any other negative impacts can be minimized and subject to a zoning by-
law amendment.
Snow disposal facilities will not be permitted in Natural Environment Areas, significant
wetlands south and east of the Canadian Shield, flood plains, unstable slopes and urban
natural features.
The impacts of snow disposal facilities for existing or committed sites shall be mitigated
through urban design and site plan control measures which include locating landscaping,
road allowances, open space uses, utility installations, commercial uses, etc. in any
intervening separation distance between the snow disposal facilities and a sensitive land
use.
The appropriateness of new Snow Disposal Facilities or expansions to existing facilities
will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:
o Appropriate setbacks from residential uses and neighboring properties in
accordance with Ministry of Environment Guidelines for setbacks from residential
uses and for recommended acceptable noise levels;
o Safe and secure access which does not encourage truck traffic on local roads;
o A grading and drainage plan that shows all melt water can be handled in an
environmentally- acceptable fashion; and,
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

o The preparation of a study that addresses:
Existing soil and water quality conditions to establish baseline levels of
soil and water components,
Presence of any contaminants and the potential for accumulation of any
contaminants that could migrate or be made more dangerous as a result
of the snow disposal facility,
Proximity to drinking wells and impact on them,
Soil stability,
Sub-surface drainage and impact on surrounding properties,
Proximity to any open water courses and potential impacts on them,
Noise and vibration,
Aesthetics,
Seagull control,
Air quality.
On an on-going basis, the City will monitor water quality and soil conditions in and
surrounding existing and proposed Snow Disposal Facilities and implement measures to
mitigate any impacts in these areas.
The property at 2125 Carp Road is designated as being in the Carp Road Corridor Rural
Employment Area and this designation does not prohibit snow disposal. The development of
the property at 2125 Carp Road does not require any change to the Citys Official Plan.
3.7.2 Zoning
While the OP does not have a specific land use category for snow disposal, it does specify that
the zoning for the property must permit snow disposal. The property has a zoning designation
RG5 Rural General Industrial Five Zone where snow disposal is not a permitted use. An
amendment to the Zoning By-Law (ZBL) is required to allow a snow disposal facility as a
permitted use. The planning process for the ZBL amendment will be a separate process but
held concurrent with the MCEA process.
3.7.3 Community Design Plan
The property is within the Carp Road Corridor Community Design Plan (CDP) and within the
Light Industrial designation. Certain design policies for this designation include;
Permitted uses include compatible public and institutional uses,
Uses to be designed to minimize nuisance or interference with the use of adjoining
lands, and
Mitigation such as landscaping, screening and buffering are to be used to reduce impact.

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

As snow disposal is an operation compatible with the Light Industrial designation. We do not
anticipate that any changes are required to the Carp Road Corridor CDP.
3.7.4 Site Plan Control
The establishment of any facility with an Industrial designation requires that an approval be
sought under the Site Plan Control process. A list of studies required by the Site Plan Control
process has been identified by the Citys Planning and Growth Management and is shown in
Appendix D.
3.8 CANADA FISHERIES ACT
This act protects fish habitat in its broadest sense. Destruction of fish habitat directly or
indirectly, may be prosecuted as a criminal offence. Conditions in the Act allow for protection,
compensation, or replacement. The Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) has
level 2 delegated authority to administer the Act. Issues outside the delegated authority require
direct involvement by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The MVCA has advised the City
that it does not consider the drainage on site as being supportive of fish habitat; therefore there
are no anticipated issues with fish on-site.

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013
4.0 Description of the Environment
Numerous studies were undertaken to describe the environment and are reproduced in
electronic format in Appendix F. The reports are also available through the Citys website for
this specific project. The description of the environment at 2125 Carp Road is provided in the
following sections of this report.
4.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
4.1.1 Terrestrial Resources
Field studies and natural environment inventories were completed within the subject property to
confirm the boundaries and characteristics of the natural heritage features that may be affected
by the proposed development. Natural heritage features on adjacent lands, where permission to
access was not provided, were inventoried by conducting visual assessments from the study
area. Field surveys were conducted by Stantec biologists on the following dates in 2012: April
24, May 31, June 1, June 15, June 27 and November 29.
Vegetation communities present within the Study Area include Swamp, Marsh, Mixed-
Woodland, Plantation and Disturbed (Figure 5). The southern and eastern areas of the property
are mainly scrub habitats and disturbed areas. The northeastern area contains a Scots Pine
(Pinus sylvestris) plantation that transitions into a mixed woodlot to the west. The western
boundary and a majority of the southern boundary exhibit wetland characteristics with willows
(Salix sp.), Gray (Speckled) Alder (Alnus incana) and Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides)
as the dominant tree/shrub layer. These communities and the vegetation species that inhabit
them are not considered sensitive or significant and are common of disturbed, urban
landscapes.
Five Butternut trees were identified and assessed on the site. Two of the five Butternut trees are
within the proposed dump pad area and need to be removed. The removal of the retainable
Butternut trees is an activity that must be registered with the Ministry of Natural Resources
(MNR). A planting plan will be required and must be provided to MNR with the registration.
Retainable Butternut will not be removed without the prior registration with MNR. Protective
measures identified in the tree planting and protection plan must be implemented prior to site
preparation or construction. Butternut seedlings that have been planted to replace retainable
trees must be monitored and tended for two years.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
Description of the Environment
September 11, 2013

4.1.2 Aquatic Resources
Two small-bodied fish were observed within the east-west drainage feature along Westbrook
Road during the April field survey.
Feedmill Creek, downstream of the subject property, has been documented as fish habitat with
a well-developed fisheries community that includes minnow species and several game-fish
species. Feedmill Creek is a tributary of the Carp River. The Carp River
Watershed/Subwatershed Study (City of Ottawa 2004) provides a detailed fish habitat analysis
and outlines all species encountered within Feedmill Creek. Twenty-two species of fish were
documented in the Carp River system, including Feedmill Creek and Pool Creek (TSH 2006) in
a study that overlaps the area of Feedmill Creek downstream of the proposed project. The fish
observed were predominantly warm water species that are tolerant of degraded conditions,
although one cool water species (Mottle Sculpin) was recorded (TSH 2006).
Most of the habitats available within the subject property are aquatic with several linear
watercourses, wetland and small ponds. Based on the vegetation present and the current
conditions it appears that most of these aquatic features remain inundated.
4.1.3 Wildlife
The small and fragmented woodlands and plantation do not offer interior forest habitat but they
do provide nesting opportunities for breeding birds and mammals. Some locations in the subject
property were identified as providing White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) feeding
opportunities and bedding locations. These habitats were also providing cover and nesting
opportunities for birds identified in the subject property.
Green Frogs (Lithobates clamitans) were observed during the June 15 site visit. The amount of
standing water observed in the wetland habitats offer suitable breeding habitat for amphibian
species on the subject property.
While conducting basking and nesting surveys for Blandings Turtle, 11 Midland Painted Turtles
(Chrysemys picta marginata) were observed within the marsh community. A range of sizes
between all of the individuals suggest that this population is reproducing. Midland Painted
Turtles were observed during each of the turtle surveys.
During the May 31 site visit a turtle nesting location was observed along the bank of the marsh
community where fill, mainly gravel, had been deposited. There was an evident location where
turtles were exiting the water (slide) and travelling up the gravel bank. Approximately eight
potential egg deposit locations were identified. Based on the size of the slide exiting the water,
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

the size of the nest excavation, location and nesting substrate it is likely that this is an area
where Snapping Turtles have nested. During the subsequent site visit on June 18 all of the
observed nests were predated. No egg shells remained and therefore a positive identification
was not made. Snapping Turtles are a species at risk, listed as Special Concern both
provincially and federally.
The wetland habitats within the subject property offered nesting, roosting and feeding
opportunities for a variety of avian wetland species. Several species of wading birds were
observed using the site on a regular basis, most notably the observation of an adult Virginia Rail
(Rallus limicola) with several fledglings on June 27. This species is a secretive bird of
freshwater marshes that remains hidden and generally excludes itself from any type of
disturbance.
A complete list of wildlife species identified during the various surveys is provided in
Appendix E. None of the species observed are regionally, provincially or federally significant.
In summary, the findings of the natural environment inventory include the presence of nesting
sites for turtles and Least Bittern and three retainable butternut trees.
4.1.4 Gulls
Roosting sites are specific areas where gulls spend the night in dense communal flocks.
Roosting behaviour is most prevalent outside the breeding season and roosting sites are
typically established in areas where the gulls are safe from terrestrial predators. Once
established, gulls often roost in the same area year after year. It is not uncommon for gulls to
make daily flights up to 60 km to and from a feeding site and a roosting site. During the breeding
season, mature birds roost in close proximity to the nest site, on islands or adjacent waters.
Loafing describes a range of activities which is somewhat like "communal resting" whereby gulls
will bathe, drink, preen or simply sit and rest in flocks of various sizes. These loafing sites are
typically close to feeding areas or areas between feeding and roosting sites. Favoured loafing
sites typically provide protection from most predators or sources of disturbance or they provide
excellent visibility for the detection of predators. Ideal loafing sites include: fresh water ponds
and lakes, ploughed or harvested agricultural fields, open grassy areas, open flat undisturbed
land and large flat rooftops. During the breeding season, loafing sites are primarily established
by non-breeding sub-adult birds.
The Citys Official Plan requires that a review of seagulls be addressed in any rezoning for
establishment of a SDF. Since SDFs are not a source of food and the annual site cleanup
following the melt will remove any detritus (that could have provided some short term food
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

supply if left), the potential to attract gulls is limited. Without a food source and with some 6ha
of the property remaining vegetated (that could attract predators) and truck traffic within the site
during snow removal, we interpret that conditions are not favorable for this location being a
roosting or loathing site. No gulls were observed during the natural environment inventory.
We do note that an active integrated wildlife management program to deter gulls is in effect at
the landfill located directly north of the proposed SDF.
4.1.5 Climate
This report describes the typical weather at the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport
(Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) weather station over the course of an average year. It is based on
the historical records from 1977 to 2012. Ottawa, Ontario has a humid continental climate with
warm summers and no dry season.
The following summarizes the climate data for Ottawa;
- annual precipitation of 950mm
- average snow depth of 30mm at month end (January and February)
- mean annual evapotranspiration of 550mm
- growing season of 118 days and 142 days are frost free
- mean annual temperature of 5.9 degrees Celsius (-11C in January and 20C in July). The
cold season lasts from December 3 to March 10 with an average daily high temperature
below 0 C. The coldest day of the year is January 19, with an average low of -15C and
high of -6C. Frozen ground conditions exist between mid- November and late March
During the cold season, there is a 70% average chance that precipitation will be observed at
some point during a given day. When precipitation does occur it is most often in the form of light
snow (59% of days with precipitation have at worst light snow), moderate snow (22%), heavy
snow (7%), and light rain (6%).
During peak snow season, the chances of there being snow on the ground are highest around
January 8, occurring 65% of the time. The season in which snow is relatively likely to be on the
ground spans from November 21 to April 7. The snow is typically at its deepest on February 9,
with a median depth of 27.9 cm; the depth exceeds 63.6 cm only one year out of ten.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

Over the course of the year typical wind speeds vary from 0 m/s to 7 m/s (calm to moderate
breeze), rarely exceeding 10 m/s (fresh breeze). The highest average wind speed of 4 m/s
(gentle breeze) occurs around April 14, at which time the average daily maximum wind speed is
7 m/s (moderate breeze). The wind is most often out of the west (18% of the time), south west
(15% of the time), east (13% of the time), south (13% of the time), and north west (13% of the
time). The wind is least often out of the south east (4% of the time).
4.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
4.2.1 Significant Natural Heritage Features
4.2.1.1 Designated Natural Heritage Features
According to the City of Ottawa OP (2003, consolidated 2012), there is a Significant Woodland
identified as a Natural Heritage System Feature located approximately 100 m northeast of the
subject property across Highway 417. This Significant Woodland is located approximately 130
m east of the culvert that discharges from the property to the MTO drainage ditch.
There is no designated Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW) or other Natural Environment
Areas on or within 120 m of the study area. Another Significant Woodland (Area 306 of the
Natural Environmental Systems Strategy) is situated approximately 400 m northwest of the
proposed project. The Goulbourn Wetland Complex PSW is over 1 km to the west of the subject
property.
4.2.1.2 Significant Wildlife Habitat
Significant wildlife habitat is one of the more complicated natural heritage features to identify
and evaluate. Pursuant to the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide, there are four
general types of significant wildlife habitat: (a) seasonal concentration areas; (b) rare or
specialized habitat; (c) habitat for species of conservation concern; or (d) migration corridors.
4.2.1.2.1 Seasonal Concentration Area
Seasonal concentration areas are those sites where large numbers of a species gather together
at one time of the year, or where several species congregate. The best wildlife seasonal
concentration areas are usually designated as significant wildlife habitat. Areas that support a
species at risk, or if a large proportion of the population may be lost if the habitat is destroyed,
are examples of seasonal concentration areas which may be designated as significant (MNR
2000).
The subject property is not a significant seasonal concentration area for wildlife.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

4.2.1.2.2 Rare or Specialized Habitat
Rare or specialized habitats are two separate components. Rare habitats are those with
vegetation communities that are considered rare in the province. It is assumed that these
habitats are at risk and that they are also likely to support additional wildlife species that are
considered significant.
Specialized habitats are microhabitats that are critical to some wildlife species. The Significant
Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide identifies a number of habitats that could be considered
specialized habitats, such as habitat for area sensitive species, forests providing a high diversity
of habitats, amphibian woodland breeding ponds, turtle nesting habitat, highly diverse sites,
seeps and springs.
No rare habitats are present within or adjacent to the subject property. Though nesting evidence
for turtle species were observed, the area where the nesting occurred is not considered
specialized habitat due to the potential of nest predation from raccoons, skunks and other
animals (MNR 2000).
4.2.1.2.3 Species of Conservation Concern
The largest habitat group to be assessed is habitat for species of conservation concern. This
includes four types of species: (a) those that are rare; (b) those whose populations are
significantly declining; (c) those that have been identified as being at risk to certain common
activities; and (d) those with relatively large populations in Ontario compared to the remainder of
the globe.
Rare species are considered at five levels: (1) globally rare; (2) nationally rare (COSEWIC); (3)
provincially rare (COSSARO); (4) regionally rare (at the Site Region level); and (5) locally rare
(in the municipality or Site District). This is also the order of priority that should be attached to
the importance of maintaining species. Though no rare species were observed, several of their
habitat components were identified.
Another group of species of conservation concern includes species that have been identified as
being susceptible to certain practices or activities, and their presence may result in an area
being designated significant wildlife habitat. Examples include species vulnerable to forest
fragmentation and species such as woodland raptors that may be susceptible to forest
management or human disturbance. None of these species were observed.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

The final group of species of conservation concern includes species that have a high proportion
of their global population in Ontario. Although they may be common in Ontario, they are found in
low numbers in other jurisdictions. No globally rare species were identified.
4.2.1.2.4 Migration Corridors
Migration corridors are areas that are traditionally used by wildlife to move to one habitat from
another. This is usually in response to different seasonal habitat requirements. Some examples
are trails used by deer to move to wintering areas, and areas used by amphibians between
breeding and summering habitat.
The drainage ditch that bisects the subject property could potentially be used as a migration
corridor for aquatic reptiles and aquatic mammals moving to downstream areas. This ditch
would not be considered an important migration corridor.
4.2.1.3 Species at Risk
A review of the Distribution of Fish Species at Risk Maps produced by the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO 2011) indicate there are likely no aquatic species at risk on
the subject property. Based on a review of the NHIC database and consultation with the MNR,
the following rare, threatened or endangered species have been identified as occurring or
historically occurring within the general vicinity of the subject property:
Blandings Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) (S3) is designated as a provincially and
federally Threatened species. High quality overwintering habitat for Blandings Turtle
does not exist within the subject property, however potential nesting habitat was
observed. Blandings Turtle were not observed during the 2012 turtle surveys.
Butternut (Juglans cinerea) (S3?) is designated as a provincially and federally
Endangered species. Five Butternut trees were observed within the subject property and
were assessed by a MNR certified Butternut Health Assessor. Two of the five trees were
determined to be retainable.
Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianu migrans) is an Endangered species that is
protected provincially and federally. This critically imperiled species prefers grasslands
and pastures located within alvar habitats in Ontario, which usually have small trees and
shrubs dotting the landscape, usually Red Cedar and hawthorn species (MNR 2010). No
preferred habitat for this species was observed within the subject property. This species
was not observed during any of the site visits.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) (S4B) is a provincially and federally Threatened species
of marsh habitats. Marsh habitats of approximately 5 hectares are required. There are
small areas of cattail marsh with open water within the subject property that could
potentially provide Least Bittern low quality nesting habitat; however this species was not
observed.
Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) (S4B) is a Threatened species that is protected both
provincially and federally. There were no significant grassland features within the subject
property to accommodate Bobolink nesting. This species was not observed during any of
the site visits.
Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magnais) (S4B) is listed as Threatened provincially. This
species is found throughout native grassland habitats, pastures and savannahs; though
it will use forage crops, weedy meadows, fencerows and grassy airfields. No grassland
habitats are present for this species within the subject property. This species was not
observed during any of the site visits.
Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) (S4B) is listed as Threatened provincially and federally.
No preferred nesting habitat for this species was observed within the subject property.
This species was not observed during any of the site visits.
Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferous) (S4B) is a Threatened species that is protected
both provincially and federally. No preferred nesting habitat for this species was
observed through field investigations. This species was not observed during any of the
site visits.

No significant habitat of endangered or threatened species was observed during the 2012
surveys. The MNR identified potential habitat on site for Milksnake (Special Concern), Eastern
Ribbonsnake (Special Concern) and Snapping Turtle (Special Concern).
Eastern Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum) (S3) is a species that is designated as
Special Concern provincially and federally. No hibernacula habitat for this species was
observed through field investigations. This species was not observed during any of the
site visits.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

Eastern Ribbonsnake (Thamnophis sauritus) (S3) is a species that is designated as
Special Concern provincially and federally. There is wetland habitat for Eastern
Ribbonsnake within the subject property; however this species was not observed during
any of the site visits.
Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) (S3) is a species that is designated as Special
Concern provincially and federally. There is potential feeding and nesting habitat for the
Snapping Turtle within the subject property. A possible nesting site was observed but not
confirmed. This species was not observed during any of the site visits.
4.2.2 Surrounding Land Use and Receptors
The subject property is located within the City of Ottawa, Ontario in parts of Lot 2, Concession
3, and geographic Township of Huntley. The property is west of Carp Road and bounded to the
north and south by Highway 417 and Westbrook Road, respectively. The east boundary is
bordered by a vacant lot and a commercial business. The west boundary is bordered by
industrial and commercial businesses. The property is currently vacant land owned by a private
entity with the City of Ottawa having a first right of refusal on the purchase conditional on
obtaining a zoning amendment. During the fall of 2013, the City has decided to proceed with the
purchase of the property (not yet concluded at the time of writing this report).
The subject property and surrounding lands are designated as the Carp Road Corridor Rural
Employment Area according to Schedule A Rural Policy Plan and are considered in the
Community Design Plan of Annex 7 rural Village Plans, both of which are contained in the City
of Ottawas Official Plan (OP) (City of Ottawa 2003, 2012 consolidation). The subject property
is zoned under the Citys Zoning By-law RG Rural General Industrial Zone.
4.2.3 Topography and Drainage
The subject property contains various unnamed drainage features, an unevaluated wetland in
the southwestern portion, and two ponds in the eastern portion, as shown on Figure 5. The
wetland type within the subject property is predominantly swamp with small marsh features.
Drainage over the site is generally from south to north. The site drainage features and wetland
are located in the Feedmill Creek headwaters region. The ponds had water present during all
site visits and did not have any apparent surface water connectivity to the other aquatic features
on the site.
A drainage easement is registered against the west half of the property to accommodate
flooding during wet weather events. The level of water is controlled by the invert of the
corrugated steel pipe at the north end of the property that discharges to the MTO Highway 417
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

ditch. As described in the hydrogeological report (Appendix F), the soils in the area being
flooded do not have a high hydraulic conductivity and therefore runoff ponds for some time on
site before it infiltrates into the ground.
4.2.4 Surface Water Features
The subject property contains various unnamed drainage features, an unevaluated wetland in
the southwestern portion, and two ponds in the eastern portion, as shown on Figure 1. The
wetland type within the subject property is predominantly swamp with small marsh features.
Other surface water features that are located within the study area include a linear unnamed
watercourse that originates north of Walgreen Road and continues under Westbrook Road
where it contributes flows to the subject property. It appears that water within this watercourse is
collected from the adjacent roadside ditches and stormwater outfalls associated with the
development in this area. This watercourse is characterized by standing, stagnant water and an
abundance of aquatic vegetation, mainly algae.
The unnamed watercourse upstream of the subject property, originating from Walgreen Road, is
a linear feature that is characterized by shallow, turbid water with little to no flow. Cattails
(Typha) are the dominant riparian vegetation type and instream vegetation was mainly
composed of algae. The substrate observed at the culverts is characterized by muck and silt
mixed with detritus. Similar features are observed within this watercourse north of Westbrook
Road as it travels through the subject property and meets the drainage ditch along Highway
417. A physical barrier created by the difference in elevation at the discharge point of the main
site drainage feature into the Highway 417 ditch is considered to be impassible by fish at all
times of the year.
4.2.5 Groundwater
A hydrogeological investigation was started in 2012 with the installation of 2 boreholes to define
groundwater conditions over the site. In 2013, an additional 4 boreholes were installed to more
fully characterize the groundwater regime to respond to concerns that the City and the
Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) had regarding the site being shown as a
Significant Groundwater Recharge Area. The hydrogeological assessment consisted of
installing a limited number of monitoring wells, developing the monitoring wells and obtain
groundwater level measurements, undertaking short-duration recovery tests at selected well
locations and estimating aquifer properties (e.g., hydraulic conductivity, storage, etc.),
undertaking percolation testing at selected locations to determine in-situ percolation and
infiltration rates in near-surface soils, determining the direction and magnitude of vertical
hydraulic gradients, determining groundwater recharge using a variety of techniques, and
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

preparing a hydrogeological assessment report summarizing the results of field investigation
and data analysis.
Based on the results of field investigation, a conceptual understanding of the site hydro-
stratigraphy was formulated. The site hydro-stratigraphy interpreted from the field borehole and
monitoring well installation program is presented in the table below:

Elevation
(m ASL
1
)
Depth
(m
bgs
2
)
Strata
Description
Deposit
Type
Hydro-Stratigraphy
+ 129 0 Topsoil, fill Non-native Unsaturated
Fibrous peat Organic
Unsaturated / seasonally saturated / variably
saturated
This unit is expected to behave as an unconfined
aquifer when stressed

Silty
sand/sandy
silt

Glacio-
fluvial
Unsaturated / saturated
Bounded below by a layer of lower hydraulic
conductivity (till). This unit is expected to behave
as an unconfined aquifer when stressed.

Silty sand with
gravel (Till)
Glacial drift
Saturated
This unit is expected to behave as an unconfined
aquifer when stressed.
+ 118 11
Grey
limestone
Paleozoic
bedrock
Saturated
A low-yielding aquifer bounded above by a layer of
lower hydraulic conductivity (till). This unit is
characterized as poorly confined.
The surficial soils were found to have a hydraulic conductivity in the order of 10
-5
cm/s while the
deeper bedrock unit varied between 10
-5
to 10
-8
cm/s. A site-specific groundwater contour map
was developed to examine the direction of groundwater flow in the overburden. Groundwater
flows in the overburden units indicate a northeast trend. In general, the positive values of
vertical gradient were observed between the shallow and deep geologic units at the site
suggesting the potential for downward flow direction during spring months. The small positive
values of vertical gradient at well pair MW12-1 and MW12-2 indicate a marginal potential for
downward movement of groundwater between the shallow and deep geologic units during
summer and non-spring months.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

Groundwater recharge rates were estimated for the site based on the observed water table
fluctuations in monitoring wells screened in the overburden. Annual estimated groundwater
recharge to the overburden ranged from 21 mm to 119 mm per year.
In order to evaluate if the site qualifies as a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area (SGRA),
observed site conditions were compared with SGRA characteristics presented in the Mississippi
Valley Source Protection Area Assessment Report (August 2011). Although hydrogeological
data indicate that some degree of groundwater recharge is possible at the site, the estimated
annual groundwater recharge, the presence of standing surface water, the nature and thickness
of overburden units and the absence of outcrops of the Nepean Formation (sandstone aquifer)
suggest that the site does not meet the characteristics of an SGRA.
In order to evaluate if the site qualifies as a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer (HVA), observed site
conditions were compared with HVA characteristics presented in the Mississippi Valley Source
Protection Area Assessment Report (August 2011). Although the nature of the overburden
materials and the shallow water table do not promote the interpretation that the site be
considered as an HVA, it is recommended that the areas where snow and meltwater are stored
be lined with low permeability material in order to prevent meltwater from impacting the
groundwater at the site.
4.2.6 Air Quality and Noise
An acoustic assessment was performed by Stantec in 2012. The City By-Law 2008-250
indicates that the snow disposal facility must be located at 200 m from the nearest residentially
zoned area. Snow disposal facility can situated a minimum of 100 m from the nearest dwelling if
noise control measures are implemented such that the facility is not considered a nuisance.
Preliminary analysis shows that four receptors to the east of the site fall within the setback
distances and therefore noise mitigation will be required as per the bylaw. The exclusionary
minimum sound level for Class I areas are, for a facility operating between 7 AM and 7 PM, the
limit is 50 dBA; for a facility operating between 7 PM and 11 PM, the limit is 47 dBA; and a
facility operating between 11 PM and 7 AM, the limit is 45 dBA. Short-term spot check
measurements were conducted at the proposed facility and surrounding area during the Sunday
of October 21, 2012. The measurements near Carp Road suggest that even during a relatively
quiet weekend day, the daytime sound level in the area is expected to be in the range of 55 to
60 dB.
Observations confirm that Highway 417 and Carp Road are both highly traveled and the
adjacent industrial facilities (including an aggregate facility to the northwest) contribute to the
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

sound level in the area. Therefore for the purpose of this assessment, a limit of 55 dB during
daytime and 50 dB during nighttime was considered. This limit is the same historical sound level
guidelines for the City of Ottawa that is applicable to air conditioners, heat pumps, compressors
and similar devices.
The results of the assessment show an equivalent sound level contour for the predictable worst-
case operating scenario which includes the operation of 2 dozers and 20 trucks per hour. The
results show that during daytime and nighttime, sound levels from site operation is predicted at
the closest residence to the east to exceed the criteria by 8 dB at nighttime and in the daytime
by 3 dB. Predictive analysis shows that a 50 m long L-shaped barrier with at least 4 m height
installed along the east side of the property boundary will result in the nighttime sound level
lower than 55 dB at all potential receptors.
4.2.7 Air Quality and Vibration
Air quality will be impacted primarily from the exhaust emissions from the trucks hauling the
snow and the crawlor tractors (1 or 2) used to stockpile the snow. An approval under Section 9
of the Environmental Protection Act is not required for the SDF development since there are no
permanent buildings or stationary equipment that would generate emissions. In addition, the
emissions from the seasonal truck traffic (40 trips/hour) is negligible compared to the traffic
generated along Highway 417 (greater than 110,000 Average Annual Daily Traffic - AADT) to
the north and Westbrook Road to the south. The impact to surrounding industrial properties is
negligible.
For the same reasons as cited above, vibration from traffic is not considered to be a problem.
The melting of the snow will impact air temperature and humidity near the snow stockpile during
the month of May (in May, the snow stockpile is the only area with any remaining snow - during
April, the entire site is covered in melting snow so moisture is not localized to the snow stockpile
area). Since pre-development conditions had most of the site covered in water during the
spring melt, the reduction of the area of ponded water created by the construction of the
stormwater pond should mitigate any effects.
4.2.8 Geological Setting/Soils
The unconsolidated sediments (topsoil, fill, organic and glacio-fluvial deposits, glacial till) at the
site are underlain by the Bobcaygeon Formation of Paleozoic age, which consists of crystalline
limestone and calcarenite with some shale partings. The reported water yielding capability of
Bobcaygeon Formation aquifer is fair. The Paleozoic limestone bedrock was inferred or
intercepted at depths 3 m and greater.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

4.2.9 Geotechnical
A preliminary geotechnical investigation was originally completed in April 2010 for the
investigation of the site as part of a Serviceability Study (Stantec 2010). The 2010 geotechnical
investigation recommendations were reviewed for this MCEA and now incorporate the findings
from the additional wells installed for the hydrogeological program in 2012 and 2013.
The geotechnical program identified the soils on-site to consist of competent soil material
suitable to support conventional spread footing foundations. However the site has organic
material in the low lying areas and other areas with fill where the soil layers will require removal
and replacement with structural fill if facilities are to be constructed in these areas. The
geotechnical recommendations for the heavy traffic areas include a base of 600 mm thickness
of granular material (B&A) and a 190 mm thickness of asphalt (or grindings).
Based on the soil conditions identified, the recommended site classification for seismic site
response for the site is in Site Class D in accordance with the Ontario Building Code.
The geotechnical investigation did not reveal any soil conditions which would have a significant
negative impact on the development of the site. Although the surface soil with peat and covered
in standing water present challenges for dewatering, the underlying silty type soils provide
adequate strength to allow the site development as an SDF.
4.2.10 Land Ownership/Legal
The site is located on the west side of Carp Road, between Highway 417 and Westbrook Road
and is known municipally as 2125 Carp Road. A single detached dwelling with that address
was severed from this site. The site that is the subject of this MCEA is vacant and has an area
of 23.4 hectares. It is an irregular shaped property with 501 metres of frontage (east-west) on
Westbrook Road and a depth of 459 metres (north-south) to Highway 417. The site is
described as Part of Lot 2, Concession 3, Huntley Ward, geographic Township of Goulbourn,
now the City of Ottawa, comprised of Part 4 Plan 4R-3392 and Parts 2 and 6, Plan 4R-23561 as
well as Part of Block 7, Plan 4M-300.
The City is proceeding with the purchase of the property from an individual for the development
of the SDF.
4.2.11 Transportation
The City is responsible for the removal and disposal of snow within its municipal boundaries.
The Municipal Act and O. Regulation 239/02 establish the minimum standards for road
maintenance. The City has adopted standards in their Maintenance Quality Standards for
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

Roads, Sidewalks and Pathways which establishes the minimum level of service for various
types of road and a maintenance standard including the removal of snow/ice and application of
salt/other materials within the City. A summary of the standards for snow clearing is shown in
Table 4 and the standard for snow removal is reproduced in Appendix D. Snow collected by
private contractors doing snow removal on private properties, within the City boundaries is not
accepted at any municipal disposal facilities. The reason for this is that the existing snow
disposal capacity is limited and the City is protecting the space for its use.

Table 4: Maintenance Quality Standards for Snow and Ice Control on City Roads
Road Maintenance
Class
Road Type
Minimum depth
of Snow
Accumulation
for Deployment
of Resources
(Depth as per
MMSMH)
Time to clear
Snow From
the End of
Snow
Accumulation
or Time to
Treat Icy
Conditions
(Time as per
MMSMH)
Treatment standard
Bare
pave
ment
Centre
bare
Snow-
packed
1
A
High
priority
roads
As accumulation
begins (2.5-8 cm
depending on
class)
2 h (3-4 h)

X

B X
2 A 3 h (3-6 h) X
3
B
Most major
collectors
4 h (8-12 h)
X
A X
B X
4
A
Most minor
collectors
5 cm (8 cm) 6 h (12-16 h)
X
B X
C X
5
A, C Residential
roads and
lanes
7 cm (10 cm) 10 h (16-24 h) X
B
10 cm (not
defined)
16 h (not
defined)
X
The classification of Highways is a function of the Average Annual Daily Traffic and the Posted
or Statutory Speed Limit (refer to Section 1 of O. Regulation 239/02 for more complete details).
A transportation assessment was completed for the development of the site with regard to the
existing and future estimated traffic conditions for Westbrook Road and the intersection of
Westbrook Road with Carp Road. Design traffic was assumed to be 20 trucks per hour inbound
and outbound for a total of 40 trips per hour for a dozer operation and considered an increase in
traffic of 1% per year from existing conditions in 2013 to 2022. The Westbrook Road analysis
considered stopping sight distance and departure sight distance based on the vertical geometry
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

calculated from contours and using design criteria for the posted and design speeds for
Westbrook.
The assessment concluded that under the existing conditions the intersection fails to provide an
adequate level of service for the north bound left turn lane on to Westbrook from Carp, for south
bound through traffic lane on Carp, and for a left turn lane for eastbound traffic on Westbrook on
to Carp Road.
Due to the vertical geometry of Westbrook Road, for safety reasons the site access will require
a right turn deceleration lane to accommodate truck traffic entering the site. The deceleration
lane for the entrance to the site which is aligned with Walgreen Road will require a 90m stacking
length and a 60 m taper length this should be achievable within the existing right of way
(ROW).
Mitigative measures were considered to reduce impact from traffic. One measure considered
was to maintain the desired opening day horizon for the snow disposal facility to be 2014 but
limit or restrict typical snow disposal trucking operations to occur outside of the peak hour.
Normal trucking activities would not be permitted between 7 AM to 9 AM and between 4 PM to 6
PM while acknowledging that Carp Road and Westbrook Road intersection will continue to
operate at level F until the widening improvements of the Carp Road Widening EA (study by
others) are incorporated. During emergency situations the peak hour truck traffic restrictions
would be lifted.
In summary with the installation of a right turn lane for access into the site and cognizant of the
existing deficiencies at the intersection of Carp and Westbrook, there are no constraints to site
development.
4.2.12 Utilities
An assessment of the electrical requirements for the development of the snow disposal site was
undertaken by Stantec. A new overhead power supply line would be extended from Westbrook
Road along the east property limit to feed lighting to the snow pad dump area. A pole mounted
bank of transformers will step down the voltage at that location. At the snow dump pad location
a minimum objective up 10 lux would be the standard lighting for the pad area, the snow
stockpile area along the access road and its intersection at Westbrook Road.
Additional study will be required to finalize the layout of the poles and lighting as part of the site
plan control application. Light levels should be maintained as low as possible close to the
property limits and controlled by the use of a full cut off features and other features such as
earth berms. A computer liking simulation will be performed to confirm the light fixture source
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

photometric distribution type, mounting height, fixture locations and quantity, as well as aiming
details.
A power supply would be provided to the security trailer so that heat and lighting can be
supplied. Exterior receptacles would also be provided near the trailer to allow vehicles and
equipment to plug in block heaters.
The electrical review has not identified any significant restrictions to development of the site.
4.3 SOCIAL CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
4.3.1 Community/Development
An amendment to the zoning bylaw is required to allow snow disposal as a permitted use in the
RG(5) General Rural classification for this site. The application for the zoning amendment has
the potential to be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. The Open House #1 held for the
MCEA in February 2013 was poorly attended and did not invoke any significant response from
the public or agencies. POH # 2 held August 6th 2013 was also poorly attended and did not
result in any comments being submitted.
While we anticipate that the zoning amendment (Planning Act application) will be viewed in a
positive manner, an appeal to the OMB is a possibility that should not be discounted.
4.3.2 Heritage
The earliest settlement in Huntley Township occurred on either side of Carp road, largely in
Concession 3, but also in Concession 2 (Belden, 1879). Among the earliest settlers were
George and Hugh Erwin, who settled in Lot 3, Concession 3 in 1820 and Dennis Hogan, who
settled in Huntley in 1821 (Belden, 1879).
Census records from 1851 list two Hogan families, one of which was headed by Dennis Hogan,
aged 67 and born in Ireland and John Hogan, son of Dennis (LAC, 1851). In 1851 John Hogan
is listed as being 34 years of age and born in Ireland, which would have made him four years
old at the time the family originally settled in Huntley.
On Walling's 1863 map of Carleton County there is a D. Hogan shown as resident in Lot 1,
Concession 3 and a J. Hogan (the aforementioned John) resident in Lot 2, Concession 3
(Figure 5) (Walling, 1863). The residence in Lot 2 is shown as being just outside of the
Project property limits (Figure 5). The map may refer to either the original settler Dennis, who
would have been 79 at that time, or his son Dennis Jr., who would have been 37 at that time.
Most likely it refers to Dennis Jr., who would have acquired the lot from his father . In either
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

case it suggests that Lot 1 was settled very early in the history of Huntley Township, and Lot
2 relatively early. Further, with so much of the early settlement located along Carp Road this
road would have been a main thoroughfare from the earl iest settlement of the township.
By the time of Belden's 1879 Historical Atlas of Carleton County the lots largely remained in the
hands of the Hogan family, although Lot 2 had been divided between John, his son Dennis (a
third Dennis Hogan) and his daughter Mary (Figure 6) ( Belden, 1879). The Hogan residence in
Lot 2 may have been located in or very near to the limits of the Project property (Figure 6).
Based on the early settlement of the general area and relatively early settlement of Lot 2,
Concession 3, the early importance of Carp Road as a transportation and communication route
in the township and the long association of one family with the property from its earliest
settlement the Project property should be considered to have elevated potential for the
presence of historic period archaeological resources which could shed light on the earliest Euro-
Canadian take up of the land.
4.3.3 Archaeological
A Stage 1 archaeological assessment was undertaken by Stantec during 2012 and 2013.
Based on the review of historical mapping, there is potential to find cultural artifacts.
A site visit was made by Stantec biologist staff to the Project property on April 24, 2012 to
identify natural environment characteristics. Information and photographs obtained during that
site visit were made available to archaeology staff in order to refine the archaeological potential
modeling and identification of areas where further archaeological assessment might be
required. A subsequent field visit to the site was made by Stantec archaeological staff on
October 22, 2012 to confirm the delineation of zones of archaeological potential.
No specific archaeological studies have been previously completed on or within 50 m of the
Project property. An Archaeological Resource Potential Mapping study was completed for the
City of Ottawa (then the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton) in 1999 (ASI, 1999).
Archaeological potential mapping from that study identifies some of the property as being within
an area of low archaeological potential. Archaeological studies completed in areas close to the
project property include: Adams, 2004; HQI, 2007a, 2007b and 2008; and Stantec, 2009 and
2012. These studies were all completed along Highway 417, near the Carp River and Huntmar
Drive (Adams, 2004). Several non-registerable artifacts from the pre-contact and historic
periods have also been identified in close proximity to the Carp River (Stantec, 2009).
There are at present no registered archaeological sites within a 1 km radius of the Project Area
(von Bitter, pers. comm.). There are three sites registered within approximately 3.5 km to the
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

east of the Project property, including two 19
th
century period domestic sites (Adams, 2004;
HQI, 2008) and a multi-component site composed of a non-dateable pre-contact component
and a 19
th
century domestic component.
Based on a review of existing archaeological potential models, recent archaeological
assessment reports, topographic mapping, archival research and knowledge of the Project
property parts of the property demonstrate characteristics consistent with criteria used by the
MTCS to determine archaeological potential.
Based on the above criteria and the generally undisturbed nature of the Project property it
should be considered that much of the Project property, with the exception of land which has
been previously disturbed or which are within the limits of existing wetlands, should be
considered to contain potential for the presence of as yet undiscovered archaeological
resources. A map identifying zones of archaeological potential is shown in Figure 8. A Stage 2
archaeological assessment is being recommended for these areas.
4.3.4 Aboriginal
The Late Woodland period in southern Ontario is associated with societies referred to as the
Ontario Iroquois Tradition. This period is often divided into three temporal components; Early,
Middle and Late Iroquoian. In eastern Ontario, especially in the Ottawa River Valley, there is
considerable overlap of people continuing to practice a hunting and gathering economy and
those using limited horticulture as a supplement to gathered plants. For the most part, however,
classic Late Woodland sites in eastern Ontario are limited to an area at the east end of Lake
Ontario and along the St. Lawrence River valley. Middle Iroquoian sites have not been identified
east of Kingston.
During the Late Iroquoian period a distinctive material culture emerges at the east end of
Lake Ontario and along the St. Lawrence River up to Quebec City, known as the St.
Lawrence Iroquois (SLI). SLI sites are characterized by large semi-permanent villages and
associated satellite settlements. The inhabitants of these villages and satellites practiced
horticulture of staple crops which made up the bulk of their diet. Other food resources were
hunted, fished and gathered. SLI village sites can be extensive, up to 10 acres or more in
size and composed of a number of longhouse structures. Special purpose satellite
settlements, such as hunting and fishing camps, are smaller in area and in the number and
size of structures within the settlement.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

While the early-contact period descendants of the Late Woodland SLI and Huron used the
Ottawa River and its tributaries as transportation routes between the St. Lawrence River and the
interior, Late Woodland village sites are have not been identified along this area.
4.3.5 Aesthetics
A visual assessment was completed to identify visual impact zones (zones where the 15m high
snow stockpile can be seen).
A review of the aerial photography and site photos resulted in the identification of the following
potential receptors surrounding the snow disposal facility property that could potentially be
impacted by the proposed development of the site. There are several types of receptors to be
considered; resident on the east side of the site, drivers using the Highway 417 eastbound and
westbound directions, the industrial areas to the west and south. Figure 7 identifies the potential
receptors and the distance from each of the potential receptors to the edge of the snow
stockpile.
4.3.5.1 Receptors
One resident is located 40m from the east property line, as shown in Figure 3. The existing
vegetation is not sufficient to screen the snow stockpile. Visual impacts are anticipated and
mitigative measures consisting of a 4 m high berm along the east limit with conifer tree planting
is proposed to screen the snow disposal. The snow stockpile will also maintain a 60m buffer to
the east property line so that a total of 100m is provided between the snow stockpile and the
residence.
4.3.5.2 Highway 417 - Eastbound
Traffic will be able to see the snow stockpile during winter conditions. There is a 20 to 30m wide
strip of existing vegetation that is primarily deciduous and wont be able to screen the snow
stockpile during winter conditions. The critical period will be at the start of the melt period when
the snow stockpile is at its maximum height and the vegetation has not yet bloomed. Additional
conifers are proposed along the north limit for the west half of the property to improve
screening.
4.3.5.3 Highway 417 -Westbound
The existing conifer trees along the north limit will remain in place and provide a 20m wide
visual screen that will effectively block the view of the snow stockpile for westbound traffic.
4.3.5.4 Carp Road
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

Carp Road is a main road linking Highway 417 to Stittsville. The existing industrial properties
and vegetation within the buffer provide an effective all season visual screen. As noted
previously, a 4m high berm is also proposed along the east limit to provide screening for the
nearby residence so no additional measures are needed.
4.3.5.5 Westbrook Road
Westbrook Road is the main road through the industrial park. Given the industrial type
businesses located to the south of Westbrook Road, and that the snow stockpile is located more
than 100m north of the road, only a fence along the south edge of the snow dump pad is
proposed to screen operations from traffic along Westbrook.
There are no mitigative measures proposed for the west property limit because of the industrial
type properties along this sight line.
4.4 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
A preliminary cost estimate has been prepared for the development of the site and is presented
in Table 10 of Section 8.10. The estimate does not include the cost for land purchase, for off-
site drainage improvements, potential utility relocations, detailed engineering and construction
supervision, contract administration, taxes and any other works that may be requested by the
public or agencies as part of the consultation for the MCEA or the ZBL amendment. The current
estimate of capital cost is $ 6 million.
The 2013 estimate of probable cost should be considered as a Class C estimate.

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013
5.0 Identification of Design Alternatives
5.1 DESIGN OBJECTIVES
Many of the design objectives for the development of a site were reviewed when the ten sites
were evaluated by the City in 2009. The characteristics of a preferred location would include
many of the design considerations listed below, these are;
One property sufficiently large enough to accommodate the full disposal volume required
and have potential for other uses,
Property already owned by the City or readily available (avoid expropriation),
Site location is near an arterial or major collector road so that truck route is not on local
roads,
Compatibility with surrounding land uses considering the significant investment in
establishing a new site, its long term use as a snow disposal location must be protected
by ensuring compliance with the planning policies of the zoning by-law.
Can provide the buffer zone setback specified in the zoning by-law or measures can be
implemented to mitigate impact,
Soil conditions favorable to the protection of groundwater and nearby wells,
Near an outlet for drainage to a watercourse, ditch or storm sewer,
Compatibility with future land use policies of the Official Plan minimize constraints to
future growth development.
Section 5.3 provides a qualitative of site design based on the above considerations.
5.2 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
In developing the site, various design configurations/layouts were reviewed and discussed with
City staff in order to maximize the potential use of the site. The following are the key design
components that were reviewed;
1. Location of entrance into SDF
2. Alignment of access road within site
3. Placement of snow disposal stockpile
4. Stormwater Management
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
Identification of Design Alternatives
September 11, 2013

5. Drainage from on-site and off-site sources
6. Visual Screening
The conceptual layout shown in Figure 9 is the result of the qualitative evaluation of the above
design considerations. The evaluation is presented in Table 6 in Section 5.3.
5.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA & METHODOLOGY
The evaluation of the various design layouts discussed in Section 5.2 for development of the
site at 2125 Carp Road was based on findings from various investigative studies and reports
prepared for the development and are reproduced in a CD contained in Appendix F. The
various studies and Technical Memos reproduced in Appendix F included the following items;
Geotechnical Investigation
Ambient Noise/Acoustics Assessment
Surface Water / Stormwater management and Drainage
Hydrogeological Assessment
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - Significant Natural Heritage Features
EIS - Terrestrial Wildlife
EIS - Avifauna
EIS - Terrestrial Vegetation
EIS - Fish Habitat
Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment
Visual Assessment/Landscaping
Electrical
Transportation Assessment
Section 6 presents an evaluation of the potential environmental effects and proposed mitigation
measures for each of the above considerations on the site development.
A qualitative evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages for each of the above design
considerations is presented in Table 5.
CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

Table 5: Qualitative Evaluation of Design Components
Description Advantages Disadvantages
Location of Entrance all
entrances will be off
Westbrook Road
- Entrance at
intersection of
Walgreen (eastern
portion of site)

- Entrance towards
middle of property
(central portion of site)

- Entrance near west
limit (western portion)

Favorable traffic design layout
Can make use of existing fill on property for
road base making it more economical to build
Electrical servicing nearby same side of road
Watermain located at Walgreen intersection

Improved line of sight and stopping distance

Improved line of sight and stopping distance

Some shrubs need to be cut for sight triangle
Requires a deceleration lane for right turn movements
on to the site

Interferes with the existing drainage ditch
Soft soils will require more fill for road base
Overhead power supply located on south side of road

Clearing of existing mature trees to create a sight
triangle for left turn movements exiting site.
Truck traffic close to most of the existing development
Overhead power supply located on south side of road

Access Road will need to be
aligned with site entrance.

September 11, 2013

Alignment along eastern
portion

Alignment along the central
portion

Alignment along the western
portion
The preferred alignment of the access road is
along the eastern portion of the site because it
makes use of the existing fill for the road base.

No advantages to this alignment

No advantages to this alignment
Truck traffic closer to residences and thus mitigative
measures required to control noise.

The central portion of the site is generally wet due to
the presence of the drainage ditch. Ditch relocation
would be required as well as significant volume of
granular fill for the road base.

While the western portion is not as wet as the central
portion, there is a limited amount of fill at this location
and thus significant volume of granular fill required for
the road base. Truck traffic closer to industrial
businesses along the west limit.
Placement of snow disposal
stockpile
Eastern portion

The highest elevation on site is in the north east
portion of the site. This allows for a design that
can use gravity for the meltwater and
stormwater drainage and has the most vertical
separation to the groundwater table (dry road
base).
Soil excavated for the pad can be used as fill
elsewhere on the property.
Existing drainage ditch can be maintained near
its existing alignment.

Two butternut trees are located within the proposed
dump pad location and would need to be removed.

September 11, 2013

Central portion
Western portion

The flat terrain in the central and western portion of the
site would require significant granular fill to raise the
grade so that the dump pad and snow stockpile pad
can be constructed to accommodate truck traffic. The
drainage ditch in the central portion of the site would
need to be realigned.
Stormwater Management
Drainage coming on to the
property from the south side
of Westbrook enters the
property within the central
portion of the site. MOE
guidelines specify level of
treatment required (80%
removal of TSS and 1:100
year event).

No advantages to placing stormwater pond in
eastern portion of site.

Central portion of the site is at a lower grade
than the NE portion and thus more suitable for
storage of water in a pond. Maintains the
existing drainage ditch and the existing culverts
beneath Westbrook at its current location. The
existing drainage ditch location provides the
most direct alignment to the discharge to the
MTO Highway 417 roadside ditch.

Western portion also has a lower grade than the
northeast portion and could provide an area for
a pond construction for stormwater treatment.

Higher ground elevations in the northeast corner make
it difficult to create a pond without a deep excavation
since we also need to drain the central and western
portions of the site.

The existing drainage ditch would need to be re-
aligned. This would increase the overall drainage path
through the property and reduce the available grade.
Since the ditch bottom grade on the existing ditch is
inadequate, this would worsen the situation.

September 11, 2013

Accommodating drainage
location of pond as per above
discussion.
1) from on-site only

2) from off-site sources.

Matching pre-development flow to post
development flow and satisfying the MOE
criteria for treatment for runoff generated on-site
only requires a much smaller pond than the 4ha
identified in Figure 9.

Matching pre-development flow to post
development flow and satisfying the MOE
criteria for treatment for runoff generated both
on-site and off-site requires a pond with 50,000
m
3
of permanent storage and occupies an area
of 4ha.

Quantity of water generated off-site and discharging on
to the property would upset treatment (settling)
process provided by a smaller pond.

City is providing stormwater treatment for runoff
generated by others. Pond size is increased
significantly and results in significant higher costs.

MOE had requested that the City consider stormwater
treatment for both on-site and off-site sources, that a
MCEA process be followed for the planning for
approvals for the new pond and existing off-site
treatment in roadside ditches and an existing linear
pond.
Visual appearance of snow
stockpile from surrounding
land users.

Eastern portion

Existing trees can visually screen the snow
stockpile from the north, west and east property
limits. Provide a physical barrier to screen
equipment from the south view.

September 11, 2013

Central portion

Western portion

Snow stockpile can be visually screened from
the north, west and east property limits. Provide
a physical barrier to screen equipment from the
south view.

Snow stockpile can be visually screened from
the north, west and east property limits. Provide
a physical barrier to screen equipment from the
south view.
Large amount of granular fill required to raise the
existing grade to allow this portion of the site to be
used to stockpile snow.

Large amount of granular fill required to raise the
existing grade to allow this portion of the site to be
used to stockpile snow.

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

5.4 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE
Based on the above design considerations, a preferred conceptual design was developed and is
shown in Figure 9.
Our preferred design will provide a capacity of approximately 350,000 m for snow stockpile and
accommodate the disposal demand predicted for the 1:50 year snow event. The snow footprint
would occupy an area of approximately 4 to 5 ha with an additional 1ha for the dump pad. The
maximum stockpile would extend to a height of 15 m above the base elevation (around
elevation 127 to 128m). The back slope and side slopes of the snow stockpile are specified as
1H:1V and the front slope (facing south) at 5 H:1V The base of the snow footprint would be
graded at a minimum of 0.5% slope facing southward a steeper slope would be desirable if
MTO would permit the discharge ditch to be relocated further east so that additional grade can
be attained.
To accommodate truck and pup combinations and tri-axle trucks, a dump pad area with a 50 m
width was specified. The dump pad and the snow footprint would be underlain by a geotextile
laying directly on the native silt and overlain with 600 mm of granular material (450 mm of
granular B, 150 mm of granular A) and 150-200mm of asphalt grinding. A low hydraulic
conductivity membrane would be installed beneath the stockpile and dump pad to prevent
seepage of chloride impacted meltwater into the groundwater.
The dump pad would be sloped to provide positive drainage to the meltwater pond forebay. A
permanent pool is provided in the meltwater pond to allow a minimum of 24 hours settling of
sediment. And oil/grit separator would be provided at the outlet of the meltwater pond which
then discharges to the ditch leading to Highway 417. The meltwater pond and the ditch would
be lined with a low hydraulic conductivity membrane to prevent seepage of chloride impacted
meltwater into the groundwater.
Piping would connect the meltwater and stormwater ponds so that some of the stormwater
could be used to dilute the meltwater during the melt period and following the melt period, could
be drained and used for stormwater management during the summer and fall.
Due to the high groundwater level over most of the flooded area of the site, it is difficult to
provide storage capacity for stormwater treatment for off-site drainage problems. To gain
additional storage capacity, it is necessary to lower the upstream invert of the outlet culvert to
Highway 417 roadside ditch by 0.5 m. By lowering the upstream invert of the culvert, the
discharge capacity of the culvert is reduced from 825 L/s to less than 400 L/s.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

To the south of Westbrook Road, the linear pond during the 1:100 year storm event has
inadequate storage capacity and the 5 culverts crossing Westbrook Road have inadequate
hydraulic capacity to pass water without surcharging and creating potential for flooding. To
relieve this problem, additional hydraulic capacity will be required across Westbrook Road by
the addition of more culverts or a more efficient opening (new type of structure). Our strategy is
to maintain the permanent pool provided in the linear pond to provide water quality treatment for
total suspended solids for the drainage area south of Westbrook Road.
Detailed engineering will be completed following the completion of the MCEA so that an
Environmental Compliance approval can be requested for the construction of the new meltwater
and stormwater ponds including off-site facilities (Westbrook roadside ditch and existing inline
pond to the south of Westbrook).
Additional approvals being requested by the City include a Zoning By-Law amendment under
the Planning Act and approval of detailed drawings & reports under Site Plan Control.

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013
6.0 Potential Environmental Effects, Mitigation and Net Effects for
Preferred Design Alternatives
The environmental impacts that might reasonably be expected to occur as a result of the
proposed development have been identified and discussed in this section. Potential direct and
indirect impacts, as well as short term and long term impacts, associated with the proposed
development have been considered and appropriate mitigation measures recommended. An
assessment of overall net environmental impacts is also provided based on the implementation
of appropriate mitigation, restoration and enhancement measures to improve the overall
integrity of the natural system in the area.
6.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Potential impacts have been identified in Table 6 for each of the design considerations
discussed in Section 5.1. Mitigation measures are proposed and the net effect of the
development stated.
6.1.1 Construction Timing
Works adjacent to aquatic resources that possess reptile habitat, or have the potential to
support reptile habitat, are often restricted to certain periods to avoid construction-related
impacts to reptiles species during their most sensitive / vulnerable life cycles (i.e., during
reproduction and early development stages of off-spring). In-water works required for
construction of the project should be scheduled to avoid disturbance of hibernating turtles,
which generally occurs from October 15 to April 15. If work is to occur over this period,
appropriate fencing should be installed in early fall around the work site to prevent turtles from
entering.
The Migratory Birds Convention Act prohibits the killing or capturing of migratory birds, as well
as any damage, destruction, removal or disturbance of active nests. To avoid contravention of
the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act and/or the provincial Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Act, vegetation removal should be avoided between April 15 and July 31 (as per City of Ottawa
(2012) Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines). If vegetation removal must be conducted
during this period, a sweep of the area should be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify
and locate active nests and develop a mitigation plan.

Potential Environmental Effects, Mitigation and Net Effects for Preferred Design Alternatives
September 11, 2013
Table 6: Potential Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures

September 11, 2013


Additional details on other measures are provided below.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

6.1.2 Erosion and Sediment Control
Appropriate erosion and sediment controls should be employed during all phases of
construction to minimize the potential deposition of silt, sediment and debris in the downstream
watercourses as a result of site grading works. Measures to restore any disturbed areas as
soon as possible should be combined with appropriately designed erosion control measures to
minimize erosion potential and capture any eroded materials prior to being discharged
downstream.
6.1.3 Wildlife
Generally, noise generated by construction activities represents a short-term disturbance to
wildlife within the subject property. It is expected that with the completion of construction, wildlife
will quickly return to their normal use patterns within the natural areas adjacent to the
development. Perimeter fencing and silt fencing may be used to exclude wildlife from the site
during construction. The fencing should be inspected daily to ensure wildlife are not trapped
inside the construction area.
6.1.4 Significant Natural Heritage Features
Two retainable Butternut trees were identified and assessed on the site. If the retainable
Butternut trees will remain on site, a 25 m buffer will be required to protect the trees. If the
retainable Butternut trees are to be removed, the activity must be registered with the MNR; a
planting plan will be required and must be provided to MNR with the registration. Retainable
Butternut will not be removed without the prior registration with MNR. Protective measure
identified in the tree planting and protection plan must be implemented prior to site preparation
or construction. At least 25 replacement Butternut seedlings must be planted to replace both
retainable trees, if they are removed: 20 seedlings to replace the 61 cm dbh Butternut and 5 to
replace the 3 cm dbh Butternut.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

7.0 Water Management Plan
Meltwater quality is an important element in the design of a snow disposal facility. Concerns
with the discharge of contaminants comes under a number of Federal and Provincial laws. The
Canada Fisheries Act, which protects fish habitat, is the most significant legislation protecting
the surface water environment. The Ontario Water Resources Act is equally important and
under it the City is required to obtain an Environmental Compliance Approval (EC A) for the
stormwater and meltwater management facilities. Concerns with the downstream impacts of the
melt will lead to a review of the ECA requirements by the MOE and MVCA.
7.1 MELTWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY/POND
The overall site design includes consideration of snow melt from the SDF and natural snow
pack of the surrounding area. During the melt period, typically late March to mid-May, the SDF
can be expected to generate large volumes of meltwater at an accelerated rate due to its large
unshaded surface area.
A meltwater pond has been included in the site design to control meltwater quality and quantity.
The pond would feature a permanent pool to retain the snow melt for 24 hours for water quality
control. Since melting rates fluctuate throughout the day, an active storage volume would be
required above the permanent pool level. Ultimately, the meltwater will drain through an on-site
swale that converges with the discharge from the stormwater management pond, thus
effectively mixing the two swales prior to directing both flows into the 417 ditch at the specified
discharge rates.
A preliminary analysis of the melting rates and storage requirements of the SDF was conducted
based on calculations used by Robinson Consultants for the design of the Strandherd facility.
Local climatology data such as wind speed and temperature was collected for various stages of
snow melt over 5 year intervals from 1970 to 1990. The peak, average and minimum hourly
heat flux and radiation throughout the day was computed from the data and used to calculate
peak, average and minimum melting rates. The average melting rate was used to determine the
permanent pool volume required to retain the melt for 24 hours.
7.1.1 Meltwater Quality Control
The meltwater pond design was based on an average daily melt rate for the 50-year event of
approximately 30 L/s. At this rate, the stormwater pond will require a permanent pool volume of
approximately 3,000m
3
for 24 hour retention. Quality control standards generally limit the
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
Water Management Plan
September 11, 2013

minimum depth of retention pond forebays to 1.5m, and 1 to 2m for the permanent pool (MOE
SWM Manual, 2003). The meltwater pond has been sized at 1.6ha.
Components of the melt pond include a vegetative strip, oil/grit separator, sediment fore bay
and a wet pond. Discharge from the meltwater pond will be via a lined drainage ditch to the
MTO Highway 417 roadside ditch.
The vegetative strip provides a BMP method of removing the heavier sediments and any oil and
grease that may adhere to both the sediment and vegetation.
The oil and grit separator shall consist of a deep sump manhole with a snout on the outlet
pipe. Oil and grease will float on the surface and the heavy grit will settle in the chamber. Some
oil may settle with the grit. The sump should be cleaned annually or more frequently, if required
(i.e. when the grit depth exceeds 600mm).
The forebay will provide a second chamber with the weir acting as baffle and with most of the
flow through the inverted pipes provided at the weir. Oil and grease trapped in this area will float
on the water and eventually the oil and grease will attach to the sediment and settle out.
7.1.2 Meltwater Quantity Control
The meltwater pond design was based on a critical melt scenario and a 50-year snow disposal
volume of 357,000 m
3
. Quality control standards generally limit the minimum depth of retention
pond forebays to 1.5 m, and 1-2 m for the permanent pool (MOE SWM Manual, 2003).
From the data, the volume of active storage was calculated based on the peak hourly melting
rates. This was found to be approximately 3,500m
3
. Thus, the total pond capacity required was
found to be approximately 6,500m
3
. It is anticipated that a volume greater than 6,500m
3
can be
provided within the allotted 1.6ha (includes 3000 m
3
for permanent storage) footprint at the
current conceptual design stage for the permanent snow melt pond and active storage.
7.1.3 Meltwater Discharges and Mixing in Feedmill Creek
The March 21
st
to April 30
th
average daily inflow to the MWMF was estimated based on the
melting of the SDF volumes using average daily temperatures and combining with average daily
rainfalls. Flows into the pond will vary significantly over the day and depend on the climatic
condition, however the target flow rate occurring out of the pond was established at 25 L/s for
average year conditions snow disposal volume.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

Three options were evaluated for mixing of the meltwater with stormwater with the objective of
complying with a discharge of 40 mg/L TSS and 1000 mg/L for chloride. The three options are
discussed below;
Option 1
Under Option 1 we modeled that there is no pumping of the Westbrook SWMF to increase flows
for mixing of the MWMF runoff. Flows and chloride concentrations in the mixing zone are the
result of normal base flows from the Westbrook SWMF combined with the controlled discharge
from the SDF MWMF.
Option 2
The Westbrook SWMF is sized to provide quality control and quantity control for the SDF
development. Although water quality control requirements are foreseeably met by the grassed
conveyance systems in the development, the pond will provide additional water quality control.
The permanent pool volume (on site + off site ponds) exceeds the required MOE volume for
enhanced protection. As per the MOE guidelines, for a drainage area of 59 ha at 35%
imperviousness, the required permanent pool volume for enhanced protection is 5,900m
3
and
the required extended detention volume is 2,400m
3
.
The available ice free and sediment free zone of the Westbrook SWMF quiescent zone is
40,000m
3
and can be pumped to a rate of 40 L/s from April 1
st
to April 17
th
.
Under Option 2, the 40L/s pump rate from the Westbrook SWMF is mixed with the SDF MWMF
discharge rate to determine a chloride concentration at the MTO ditch.
Option 3
Under Option 3 the SWMF will have a set pump discharge and sufficient volume to dilute the
MWMF discharges in accordance with the target Chloride concentration of 1000mg/L.
This pump rate will continue subject to the pond volume being exhausted or the MWMF chloride
concentration being less than 1000mg/L, whichever occurs first.
Table 7 summarizes the assimilation modeling of the SDF meltoff mixed with the Westbrook
Development Storm Water Management facility discharges for the average year snow volume.

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

Table 7: Average Year Assimilation of SDF Chlorides with SWMP
March 21 to
March 31
flow
(1)

April 1
st
to April
7
th
flow
April 8
th
to
April 15
th
flow
April 16
th
to
April 30
th
Flow
O
p
t
i
o
n

1

M
T
O

d
i
t
c
h

a
t

W
e
s
t
b
r
o
o
k

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

w
/
o

P
u
m
p
i
n
g

Average Flow 70 L/s 44 L/s 35 L/s 35 L/s
Max. Cl
-

Conc.
2569 mg/L
(March 21
st
)
1762 mg/L
(April 3
rd
)
1342 mg/L
(April 10
th
)
874 mg/L
(April 18
th
)
O
p
t
i
o
n

2

M
T
O

d
i
t
c
h

a
t

W
e
s
t
b
r
o
o
k

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

w
/
P
u
m
p
i
n
g

t
o

4
0

L
/
s

Max Cl
-

Conc.
2569 mg/L
(March 21
st
)
1102 mg/L
(April 2
ndt
)
774 mg/L
(April 9
th
)
992 mg/L
(April 17
th
)
O
p
t
i
o
n

3

M
T
O

d
i
t
c
h

a
t

W
e
s
t
b
r
o
o
k

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

w
/
P
u
m
p
i
n
g

t
o

5
0
L
/
s

Max Cl
-

Conc.
2730 mg/L
(March 21
st
)
988 mg/L
(April 2
nd
)
704 mg/L
(April 9
th
)
992 mg/L
(April 17
th
)
Water quality from the SDF MWMF should be within the MOE provincial water quality objectives
and a TSS compliance limit of 40mg/L. The MOE does not have a surface water objective for
chloride concentration. SDF snow melt concentrations are influenced by the precedent climatic
conditions and are thus highly variable.
Under the average year scenario, wherein climatic data, snow disposal volumes and the
chloride concentrations are averaged, the chloride design objective of 1000mg/L at the MTO
ditch is achieved.
Under Option 1, the SDF meltwater is diluted with water from the Westbrook SWMF by a ratio of
0.3:1. The assimilation modeling results in a target chloride concentration of less than 1000mg/L
after April 15th.
Under Option 2, the SDF meltwater (i.e. 25L/s) is diluted with water pumped from the Westbrook
SWM (i.e. 40L/s) by a ratio of 1.6:1. The assimilation modeling results in a chloride
concentration of less than1000mg/L after April 4
th
. The chloride concentration in the discharge
exceeds 1000mg/L from the start of the melt to April 4
th
.
Under Option 3, the April 1st objective of 1000mg/L, at the MTO ditch is obtained with a flow
rate and storage volume of 50L/s and 50,000m3 respectively.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

Based on the above analysis, the Carp SDF design is proceeding on the basis of a dilution flow
from the SWMF of 50L/s and 50,000m3 of storage in order to maintain this flow rate for 15 days
in April. Depending on the available grade at the outlet, this could be achieved by gravity
drainage or through pumping (discussions with MTO will determine which option is selected).
7.2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY/POND
7.2.1 On-site stormwater management facility/pond
A drainage and stormwater management assessment was completed to evaluate the peak
drainage runoff contribution from off-site and on-site areas. The drainage boundaries were
assessed based on available base mapping provided by the City and updated with a limited
survey completed by Stantec.
Stantecs survey included field verification of road cross sections of Westbrook Road, Walgreen
Rd and Willowlea Road; where, culverts, ditches, spot elevations and details on the water level
and bottom of existing ponds was also verified. The limited survey was superimposed over the
available City topographic information to create a new model for drainage assessment.
Drainage tributaries and boundaries were determined with the updated model, where an
average runoff coefficient was also confirmed.
AutoCAD Sanitary and Storm Analysis 2011 was used to model storm events based on the City
of Ottawa standards for the 2-yr, 5-yr, 25-yr, 50-yr and 100-yr 3-hour Chicago storm. The
capacity of existing culverts was calculated and modeled.
The site outlet to the Highway 417 roadside ditch was verified to be an existing 600mm CSP
with a slope of approximately 2.5% with an existing full flow capacity of approximately 826L/s.
The intent of the analysis (at the time of this letter) is to match the modeled discharge rates for
the 100-yr 3-hour event from the tributary draining for the Westbrook Industrial area and on-site
contributions. It was determined, based on the existing conditions and flooding on-site and off-
site, that a peak 100-yr discharge at the outlet culvert can be expected to be approximately
404L/s.
The intent of the proposed design requires that the MTO roadside ditch culvert to be lowered
approximately 0.5m at its upstream invert (maintaining the downstream invert elevation) in order
to allow for positive drainage to occur in order to alleviate the restrictions due to on-site grading
constraints including:
1. High groundwater table reducing the depth a pond can be constructed below existing
grades;
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

2. Lack of vertical separation between the linear pond culvert discharge and the site outlet.
3. Ability to provide a sufficient quantity of dilution flow for mixing water from SWP, with
MWP meltwater, in order to attain water quality objectives of 1000 mg/l for chlorides
In order to match the existing outlet conditions (in compensating for lowering the upstream
culvert invert) it is proposed that a new culvert be installed in order to match the available
capacity of 826L/s but restrict the sites peak discharge to the modeled existing rates of 404L/s.
This effectively provides similar hydraulic conditions. Table 8 summarizes pre and post
development peak discharge rates.
Table 8: Site Outlet Pre vs. Post Discharges

Peak Site Discharge Rate (L/s)
Model 2yr 5yr 10yr 25yr 50yr 100yr
Pre-development 231 284 316 353 378 404
Post-development 106 130 147 185 270 380
NOTE: the modifications to the existing outlet are imperative for this concept to
be feasible by gravity.

It is assumed that the MTO will not have any objections to this modification as no significant
impact will occur downstream of the discharge location and that existing hydraulic conditions will
be met.
In order to match existing discharge conditions a Stormwater management facility pond (SWMF)
is required with an active volume of 23,000m
3
. Due to the restrictions mentioned above, a
maximum ponding depth ranging from 0.5m to 0.7m dictates that a footprint of approximately
4ha (40,000m
2
) is required. The depth of the pond will be increased so that a permanent
storage volume of 50,000 m
3
is created and would be used for mixing and dilution of chloride
during the spring melt.
Additional review of off-site culverts showed that they are undersized for current City Standards
and are required for replacement as stipulated and required for the MCEA. In order to alleviate
upstream (off-site) flooding additional culverts are required at the linear ponds outlet across
Westbrook Road to alleviate drainage issues upstream from the linear pond between Westbrook
Road and Walgreen Road. The increased flow from off-site tributaries will not affect the volume
of water required to be stored on-site to match existing discharge rates and conditions.

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

7.2.2 Off-site stormwater management facility/pond and roadside ditches
The land surrounding the site consists of commercial and industrial properties along Westbrook
Road, Walgreen Road and Willowlea Road. These properties contribute a large amount of
stormwater which flows on site via culverts, ditches or swales. This upstream stormwater
tributary is believed to cause flooding on-site despite the presence of an attenuating linear storm
pond.
The outlet of the linear pond consists of five (5) 600mm culverts that run beneath Westbrook
Road and discharge into the southern portion of the SDF property (typically flooded). Since
these discharge culverts are perched, the linear pond (300m long) is filled with water throughout
the year. During drier seasons, the water level of the linear pond was found to be below the
invert elevation of the culverts but still high, providing permanent storage of water within the
pond.
The MOE advised the City that no Environmental Compliance Approval had been issued by the
Ministry for these upstream works. The MOE advised the City that it would be prudent to
include the approval of these works into the MCEA for the Carp SDF. The MCEA was prepared
with the intent of accommodating this request.
The benefit of filling in the linear pond and providing all water quality treatment within the SDF
property was briefly examined. The City decided it was going to keep the linear pond because it
is anticipated that some drains from the surrounding buildings discharge into it.

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

8.0 Site Development Features for Preferred Design
The proposed land use within the Carp SDF will consist of a dump pad for trucks with a hard
recycled asphalt surface, a 4ha snow disposal stockpile, landscaped berms, meltwater and
stormwater management ponds, a security trailer, an access road, equipment parking area,
security fencing, monitoring wells, and lighting.
An improved drainage system will divert external drainage through the site and into a site
retention/flow control pond, which outlets into the 417 roadside ditch.
The SDF operation is based on end dumping the trucks of incoming snow and bulldozing from
ground level to a maximum height of 15 meters. At its maximum height, the compacted pile
volume can reach 357,000 m
3
(compacted) which would accommodate the 1:50 year snow
event.
8.1 SUMMARY SDF PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The main characteristics of the SDF development are as follows:
Quantity
Design Disposal Volume 357,000m
3

Property Size 23.4 ha
Snow Disposal Containment Area 6.5 ha
Snow Disposal Footprint 4 ha
Snow Pile Height 15 meters
Meltwater Pond Area 1.6 ha
Stormwater Pond 4 ha
Open Space after development 6.0 ha

8.2 LIGHTING
Adequate site lighting will be required to ensure efficiency and safety. It is proposed to provide
lighting at the entrance, along the vehicle access road and at the dump pad.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
Site Development Features for Preferred Design
September 11, 2013

There are no recommended lighting levels specifically provided for snow disposal facilities. The
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) recommends that railroad and
lumber yards be illuminated to an average of 10 lux., and while an SDF does not require
security type lighting, our design objective was established at 10 lux (average) with a minimum
uniformity ratio of 10:1 (which is the standard for parking lots).
While it is recommended that lighting levels at the Carp Road SDF be sufficient for safety
purposes, it is also important to prevent light spill onto surrounding areas (i.e. neighboring
properties and Highway 417) and as such, the light levels should be maintained as low as
possible at the property. The lighting spill should be controlled by use of full cutoff fixtures, and
civil features such as sufficient setback, earth berms and trees.
During the preliminary design phase, a computer lighting simulation will be performed to confirm
the light fixture source, photometric distribution type, mounting height, fixture locations and
quantities as well as aiming details.
8.3 SITE SECURITY & FENCES
Site security is not a significant design issue but is important from a liability point of view.
Uninvited access could result in injury and vandalism. Accordingly, a double wide gate with
padlock is required at the entrance and a perimeter fence will be required around the entire
property. The fence shall consist of a 1.8m high chain link fence. In addition, a privacy fence
shall be erected along the east limit (on the top of a berm) to provide a visual barrier for the
nearby residence.
Site security will be looking for municipal snow removal trucks that carry the proper identification
(i.e. permits). Only permit holders will be allowed to dump on the site. The site security trailer
will only be occupied during a snow removal blitz, and as required during the day for dozing
activities. During periods when there is no snow removal activity and during the off-season, the
security trailer will not be staffed and the gate will be kept locked. The trailer will be provided
with a telephone, hydro, (a 100 amp service), electric heat, lighting (inside and outside), bottled
water dispenser, and an outside portable toilet.
8.4 GRADING AND BERMING
The excavation for construction of the stormwater and meltwater ponds will create significant fill.
The fill will largely consist of fine sand material that can be reused in the construction of berms.
Excess fill shall be used to raise the grade in the remaining open space area within the west
portion of the site (the organic material will be stripped and stockpiled before this is done).
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

The area beneath the snow stockpile will be sloped a minimum of 0.50% so it drains towards a
collection swale and into the meltwater pond forebay. The stormwater pond will also have a
minimum slope of 0.5%, although this could be increased if additional grade is permitted by
MTO.
The existing area containing fill will require some regrading to accommodate the recommended
road base and surface preparation for the parking area (between the access road and east
property limit). The existing fill was found to have some contaminants with concentrations
exceeding the maximum values listed for inert fill - thus all fill will need to remain on site.
8.5 SITE ENTRANCE
The site entrance will be designed to accommodate large truck and pup combinations and
triaxle trailers. A deceleration lane (150m total length) will be provided along Westbrook to
accommodate right turn movements into the site. No issues have been identified with truck
turning movements exiting the site. A double wide (page wire fence) gate will be provided at
entrance.
8.6 PARKING AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE
Parking for site security, equipment operators and other staff members is required. Based on
staff at the site and shift changes, a total of 6 parking spaces should be provided. This would
include one security person, up to 4 equipment operators and one space for visiting supervisors.
The parking will be situated along the access road near the site trailer and be lighted.
Exterior portable toilets will be provided for washroom facilities. Staff and truckers may use the
washroom facilities.
Truckers will not be permitted into the security trailer.
8.7 NOISE BARRIER AND LANDSCAPING
A noise barrier shall consist of a 4 m high landscaped berm located on the east side of the SDF
and include vegetation (trees) to provide a visual screen. Construction shall be in accordance
with City of Ottawa standards. Earth material for berm construction shall be taken from the
excavation of the ponds.
Landscaped berms are included in the site development design to reduce noise and visual
impacts. The landscaping materials include mostly deciduous trees as well as low maintenance
woody shrubs. The vegetation planting will be done using native species.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

Litter cleanup of the site should be done as soon as all the snow melts. Litter should be
disposed of at an approved MOE landfill.
8.8 TRUCK RATES AND HOURS OF OPERATION
The truck rate is a function of the number of snow removal crews, truck types, the number of
trucks per crew, and the haul distance. While truck types vary, the City advises that the most
common haulage vehicles used in the Ottawa area for snow removal operations are truck & pup
combinations and tri axle trucks with a typical capacity of 18m
3
.
The design of the Carp SDF is to provide a dozer type operation. A single dozer operation with
a maximum push of 105m and working at a maximum slope of 5H:1V can accommodate
approximately 20 truckloads per hour. At this rate, it would accommodate three snow removal
crews with 7 trucks per crew. At 18m
3
/truck and 20 trips/hour, the incoming rate to the SDF is
360m
3
/hr. To reach the maximum capacity of 357,000 m
3
at this rate would represent
approximately 41 days of haulage (24 hours haulage/day). Since snow fall is rarely evenly
distributed over the winter season, a second dozer operation may be required at the site to
handle peak snow removal days. The 2007/2008 winter season created some operational
issues when a significant portion of the total snowfall fell over a brief period in late spring. The
full capacity at some SDFs could not be developed because the incoming rate was greater than
what equipment could handle effectively thus snow did not get pushed back far enough to
develop capacity to the design height.

8.9 SITE EQUIPMENT
Equipment required for the SDF operations will include one dozer (typically Caterpillar D8 size
or smaller) and one loader to push the snow from its dump location into the dozer path. A
second dozer operation would require the same equipment. A two dozer operation should
provide for all event types, except if the distribution of snowfall is skewed significantly to create
an emergency situation.
In the event of an emergency, a blower may be required to throw snow further back into the pile
to increase its height. As noted previously, a blower operation could handle snow at a rate
equivalent to 4-5 dozer operations. The use of a blower would only be contemplated towards
the end of a season when a site is constrained and additional capacity is needed in short order.

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

8.10 ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST
An estimate of probable cost (Table 9) has been prepared based on the main components of
the SDF but excluding land purchase, engineering and construction supervision.
Table 9: Estimate of Probable Cost (2013)
Site entrance and Westbrook Road improvements $370,000
Snow Disposal Working Area $3,630,000
SWM Pond $300,000
Meltwater Pond $880,000
Drainage $ 30,000
Access Road and berms $350,000
Lighting $210,000
Landscaping $100,000
Security and Fencing $130,000

Total (excluding all taxes) $6,000,000

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

9.0 Monitoring
9.1 MELTWATER AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
9.1.1 Pond Operating Levels
The meltwater pond was designed with a forebay to trap sediment and a discharge to a
permanent pool providing a 24 hour detention. Mixing of meltwater with cleaner water in the
stormwater pond shall be undertaken to dilute the chloride to acceptable concentrations. The
meltwater pond shall be drained at the end of the melt period and any detritus removed. The
meltwater pond shall be kept in a dry state during the summer period, that is any runoff from the
snow stockpile and dump pad area shall be drained into the meltwater pond and from there into
the stormwater pond.
Sediment material removed from the pond shall be disposed of in an MOE approved landfill or
kept on site for other uses.
9.1.2 Monitoring Program
A monitoring program is proposed to measure flow and water quality at various locations to
compare discharge quality to specified targets.
To determine if the site is operating as designed, a three year sampling and monitoring program
is proposed. The program, which is outlined below, includes water quality sampling of the snow
pile discharge, meltwater pond forebay and outflow, stormwater pond outlet, drainage ditch at
outlet to Highway 417 and ditch discharge at head of Feedmill Creek. Estimates of flow shall be
taken at each monitoring location as well as water temperature.
The existing groundwater monitoring wells at locations MW10-04 and MW 10-03 (west limit and
north limit) should be sampled each summer.
Water quality parameters should include TSS, Cadmium, Zinc, Iron, Copper, Manganese,
Chloride, Sodium, TPH, TDS, Phenols, BOD5, Oil & Grease, and Mercury. The first sample
should be collected at the start of the melt (last week of March) and be done weekly in April and
into mid-May (total of 8 weeks).
9.1.3 Sediment Removal
Sediment removal would occur in 4 areas as follows:
The drainage ditch may need to be cleaned of litter every year and cleaned of silt every
5 or so years.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
Monitoring
September 11, 2013

The oil and grease trap in the meltwater pond should be pumped clean every summer by
a licensed hauler.
The forebay and meltwater pond should be drained and inspected every year for
potential damage to the underlying liner. The fore bay and meltwater pond include a
drainage pipe that has a valve to allow for a complete draining of the forebay and pond
areas.
The stormwater pond area will need to be inspected annually but with mostly fine
sediments being deposited, it will not likely require cleaning for 5-10 years.

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
Consultation
September 11, 2013

10.0 Consultation
10.1 OBJECTIVES
The development of the Carp SDF is being undertaken by the City to achieve conformance with
the MCEA and design guidance identified in approving agencies regulations and guidelines,
including the MOEs Guidelines for Snow Disposal and De-Icing Operations in Ontario. The
objectives for the public consultation process are as follows:
to educate the general public about snow disposal operations, their necessity and their
impact, and to include the public at the earliest possible stages of the project;
to promote public participation in the decision making process and provide opportunities
for public participation;
to provide sufficient information to the public to promote effective participation and to
ensure that all stakeholders are informed of the project and have the opportunity to
provide input;
to ensure that local officials are informed of the project and the process;

The strategies considered to meet the above objectives consisted of the following:
Open Houses to engage the public and notification through newspaper advertising and
via email distributed to businesses in the general vicinity of the site through the Carp
Road BIA;
direct contact with City staff;
meetings with key agencies and City Councillors representing the west end;
providing access to reports and presentation material from Open House through City
website, and;
providing direct responses to participants that submitted comments.

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
Consultation
September 11, 2013

10.2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION
At the start of the MCEA, an English copy of the Notice of Study Commencement was published
in the Ottawa Sun newspaper on December 21 2012 and a French copy in Le Droit on
December 21, 2012. Copies of the Notice publication are shown in Appendix B.
The proposed consultation for the MCEA process consisted of two Public Open House events,
as follows;
POH # 1 was held on February 23 2013 to present the Phase 1 report. The POH was held at
the former Goulburn municipal office on Huntley Road near Stittsville. The format for the Open
House was display boards (bilingual) and a handout which was a summary of all the boards
displayed. A comment sheet was provided to receive comments. The information presented at
POH # 1 (reproduced in Appendix B) was mainly the problem definition and background
information on the review of previous sites considered by the City for development of a SDF in
the west end. Notices for the POH # 1 were posted in English in the local newspaper, EMC
Barrhaven and in the French newspaper Le Droit. A copy of the Notices is reproduced in
Appendix B.
Table 10 identifies the newspaper and dates of publication of all the Notices issued (Notice of
Study Commencement, POH#1, and POH#2).
Table 10: Newspaper Notices
Item Newspaper Date Published
Notice of Study
Commencement
Ottawa Sun (English)
Le Droit (French)
December 21, 2012
December 21, 2012
Notice of Public Open House #1 EMC Barrhaven (English)
Le Droit (French)
February 14, 2013
February 14, 2013
Notice of Public Open House #2 Ottawa Sun (English)
Le Droit (French)
July 26, 2013 and August 2, 2013
July 26, 2013 and August 2, 2013
Notice of Completion Ottawa Sun (English)
Le Droit (French)

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
Consultation
September 11, 2013

POH # 2 was held on August 6 2013 to present the Phases 1& 2 MCEA report. The POH was
held at the former Goulburn municipal office on Huntley Road near Stittsville. The format for the
Open House was through display boards (bilingual) and a handout which was a summary of all
the boards displayed. A comment sheet was provided to receive comments. The information
presented in POH # 2 was primarily the findings of the various investigative studies conducted
during Phase 2 of the MCEA and used to support the proposed SDF design, most notably the
hydrogeological study, natural environment inventory and the stormwater and meltwater
assessment, and drainage. Notices for the POH # 2 were posted in English in the local
newspapers, more particularly in English in the Ottawa Sun and in French in the newspaper Le
Droit. A copy of the Notices is reproduced in Appendix C. As specified in the MCEA, the
Notices for the mandatory meeting during Phase 2 were published on two occasions in the
same newspaper (English - Ottawa Sun and in French - Le Droit).
A copy of the display boards and the attendance sheet for each POH is reproduced in
Appendix C.

Responses to POH # 1 and POH # 2
A total of three comment sheets, one email response and two letters were submitted as a result
of POH # 1 and a copy of the response provided to all participants is reproduced in
Appendix B. The main issues identified at POH # 1 are summarized in the response that the
City formulated and distributed to all participants. The comments referred to drainage issues for
properties along Walgreen (offsite), truck traffic on the 417 exit ramp making a left turn
movement on to Carp Road, use of the remaining (open space) property for social events, and
protection of groundwater quality.
No comment sheets, email, or letters were received from POH # 2.
Agency Circulation
A Master Circulation List that identifies the agencies to which the Notice for POH # 1 and the
Executive Summary of the draft Phase 1 report was circulated via electronic means (email) is
reproduced in Appendix B. Because of the anticipated large file size for the above Phase 1
report, an electronic ftp site was created so that agencies could access the reports and its
Appendices. The City also posted a copy of the Notice on their website.
A Master Circulation List that identifies the agencies to which the Phase 1 & 2 report was
circulated via electronic means (email) is reproduced in Appendix C. Because of the
anticipated large file size for the above Phase 1& 2 report, an electronic ftp site was created so
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
Consultation
September 11, 2013

that agencies could access the reports and its Appendices. The City posted a copy of the POH
# 2 Notice, the Executive Summary of the MCEA and Executive Summaries for each of the
supporting investigative studies on the City website. A copy of the Executive Summary for each
report was translated into French and also posted on the City website.
During 2012, the City held meetings with the MOE and the MTO to explore the potential for a
SDF development at 2125 Carp Road. The result of this consultation with several key agencies
resulted in a broader scope of work for the project, as described below;
MOE meeting at MOE Ottawa office on August 30, 2012 and July 31 2013.
Ministry of Transportation meeting at MTO Ottawa office on June 5, 2012
Ministry of Natural Resources meeting at MNR Kemptville office on May 25, 2012
Mississippi Valley Conservation teleconference with MVCA on May 28, 2012 and
meeting on August 27th 2013.
Carp Road Business Improvement Area meeting on September 20
th
, 2012.

As a result of the 2012 meetings, the following issues arose;
The MOE requested that the City follow prior precedent for other SDFs approvals and
complete an environmental report (Schedule B) under the MCEA process for this sites
development. The MOE indicated that there were off-site drainage issues that needed
to be rectified and that prior drainage works (referred to as the linear pond, road side
ditches, and other ditches inside of property along Westbrook) provided some
stormwater treatment and these had never been recognized through an MOE approval.
City and MOE acknowledge that a drainage easement is registered against most of the
property. Stormwater management facilities have to be implemented as part of the
development to deal with on-site and off-site drainage issues. It would be difficult to
proceed with any development unless the drainage easement can be removed from the
property.
The MVCA identified that the site was classified as a Significant Groundwater Recharge
Area (SGRA) and that consideration should be given to maintaining the recharge rate to
groundwater. The hydrogeological assessment (2012) concluded that while the site is in
a recharge zone, it did not meet the criteria for classification as a SGRA.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
Consultation
September 11, 2013

MVCA advised that they did not consider any surface water on the property to be
considered as fish habitat.
Stantec urban planner (D. Krajaesfski) and City Planning staff discussed the General
Rural (RG5) designation of the property and agreed that a zoning by-law amendment
would be required to include snow disposal as a permitted use on this property. The
planning approvals and consultation for a zoning by-law amendment is separate from
the MCEA process.
MTO advised that they did not have any record of an approval being granted for
installation of the existing pipe at the north limit that discharges to the Highway 417
ditch. MTO also advised that major drainage works were being undertaken shortly in the
417 Highway ROW and that this area would be a construction zone for some time.
10.2.1 Notice of Completion
A Notice of Completion will be published once the circulation for Phase 2 has been completed.
The Notice will be printed in the Ottawa Sun and in Le Droit to provide the public, agencies,
Aboriginal and First Nations and other participants the opportunity to provide comments on the
MCEA report. The Notice will identify the right for each reviewer to request additional
information or make a Request for a Part II Order to elevate the status of the study.
10.2.2 First Nations and Aboriginal Consultation
The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada were consulted to
identify potentially affected communities that may have an interest in the project. Consultation
with First Nation and Aboriginal communities included the Mtis Nation of Ontario Consultation
Unit and the Algonquins of Ontario Consultation Office which represents Algonquin communities
in the Ottawa River watershed. The Notice of Study Commencement, the Notice for POH # 1
and the Executive Summary of Phase 1 were sent to the communities. Correspondence sent to
communities is provided in Appendix E.
Consultation for Phase 2 with Aboriginal communities included correspondence with the Ministry
of Aboriginal Affairs and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the Mtis Nation of Ontario
Consultation Unit and the Algonquins of Ontario Consultation Office. The documentation
provided to these communities in September 2013 included the Executive Summary of the
MCEA, an electronic copy of the MCEA and the various supporting documentation (included in
Appendix F) on compact disk. No meetings with First Nations or Aboriginal groups were
conducted during Phases 1 or 2 of the project.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
Consultation
September 11, 2013

10.2.3 Website
The Project websites were launched to provide up-to-date information through the Project life-
cycle and available in both French and English.
http://ottawa.ca/en/carp-snow-disposal-facility-0

http://ottawa.ca/fr/hotel-de-ville/consultations-publiques/depot-de-neige-du-chemin-carp

The website contained information from the public open houses (i.e. poster boards) to allow
stakeholders to view the public information if unable to attend or to follow up from the public
open houses. All communication materials contained the path to the website in an effort to
encourage the public to fill-out and submit questionnaires distributed at various milestones. All
communications materials were appended with key personnel contact information for both the
Project and the MCEA process. All communications materials, including presentations, were
available in both English and French.
STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

APPENDIX A
Figures

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

APPENDIX B
Phase 1 Consultation and Supporting
Documentation

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

APPENDIX C
Phase 2 Consultation and Supporting
Documentation

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

APPENDIX D
Meetings

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

APPENDIX E
Correspondence and Other Communication

STUDY PHASES 1 & 2
September 11, 2013

APPENDIX F
Compact Disk - Studies

Carp Snow Disposal Facility

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Carp Snow Disposal Facility

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Carp Snow Disposal Facility

Municipal Class Environmental

Você também pode gostar