Southwestern Landfill Proposal Environmental Assessment ......Southwestern Land Fill Proposal,...

GUIDING SOLUTIONS IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

1 4 4 M a i n S t . N o r t h , S u i t e 2 0 6 , M a r k h a m , O n t a r i o , C a n a d a L 3 P 5 T 3 T e l : ( 9 0 5 ) 2 0 1 7 6 2 2 F a x : ( 9 0 5 ) 2 0 1 0 6 3 9

Southwestern Landfill ProposalEnvironmental Assessment

Ecological Work Plan

Prepared For:Walker Environmental Group

Prepared By:Beacon Environmental

Date: Project:May 2013 212048

S o u t h w e s t e r n L a n d F i l l P r o p o s a l , E n v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t ,E c o l o g i c a l ( T e r r e s t r i a l / A q u a t i c ) W o r k P l a n

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

p a g e

1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 2. Purposes and Objectives .......................................................................... 1 3. Environmental Assessment Criteria ......................................................... 2 4. Study Areas ................................................................................................ 4 5. Indicators/Measures ................................................................................... 6 6. Data Collection ......................................................................................... 10

6.1 Background Data Collection .......................................................................................... 10 6.2 Field Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 10

6.2.1 Aquatic ........................................................................................................................... 10 6.2.2 Terrestrial ....................................................................................................................... 13

7. Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 16 7.1 Aquatic .......................................................................................................................... 16

7.1.1 Index of Biotic Integrity ................................................................................................... 16 7.1.2 Nearshore Community Index Netting ............................................................................. 17 7.1.3 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index .................................................................................................... 17 7.1.4 Fulton’s Condition Factor ............................................................................................... 18

7.2 Terrestrial ...................................................................................................................... 18

8. Reporting .................................................................................................. 19 9. References ................................................................................................ 19


F i g u r e s Figure 1. Proposed Sampling Locations ...............................................................................after page 2 T a b l e s Table 1. Primary EA Criteria .................................................................................................................. 2 Table 2. Other EA Criteria Related to Ecology ...................................................................................... 3 Table 3. Primary EA Criteria and Associated Duration .......................................................................... 4 Table 4. Primary Criteria and Associated Study Area ........................................................................... 5 Table 5. Range and Relevance of Potential Change for Ecology .......................................................... 7 Table 6. Criteria for Aquatic System Types as Defined by the Oxford Natural Heritage Study

(2009) ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 7. Fish Community Health Based on Index of Biotic Integrity .................................................... 17 Table 8. Water Quality Assessment Based on Hilsenhoff Biotic Index ................................................ 18 A p p e n d i c e s A. Environmental Assessment Criteria and Studies


Page 1

1. Introduction

Walker Environmental Group (WEG) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the “provision of future waste landfill capacity at the Carmeuse Lime (Canada) site in Oxford County for solid, non-hazardous waste generated in the Province of Ontario”. Figure 1 shows the proposed site location. Terms of Reference for the EA are being prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. If these Terms of Reference are approved, then the Environmental Assessment will proceed. At that time, one of the requirements of the EA will be an assessment of the proposed undertaking, in order to determine its potential environmental effects. This is one of a series of draft work plans that are being prepared by qualified experts on behalf of WEG for review and discussion among various stakeholders to the EA, each covering a particular area of study. WEG will carefully consider the input received in finalizing the work plans and carrying out the impact assessment studies. Comments on this work plan may be provided to WEG; contact information is supplied at the end of this document.

2. Purposes and Objectives

The purpose of this study is to complete an ecological (terrestrial and aquatic) assessment of the landfill proposed by Walker. The objectives of the study are listed below, in general accordance with the requirements for the assessment of an undertaking, as set out in Section 6.1(2)(c) of the Environmental Assessment Act:

(a) Describe the environment potentially affected by the proposed undertaking, including both the existing environment as well as the environment that would otherwise be likely to exist in the future without the proposed undertaking;

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

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

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

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


Page 2

WEG will prepare and provide a set of initial design and operating assumptions for the landfill prior to the initiation of the assessment, and following its review of alternatives1. WEG will also prepare and provide a forecast of future land use assumptions for the purposes of projecting future environmental baseline conditions.

3. Environmental Assessment Criteria

WEG launched the EA for the Southwestern Landfill proposal in March 2012. Since launching the EA, WEG has been collecting input from the public on characteristics of the local environment that should be evaluated through the EA process. WEG developed the environmental assessment criteria to be used for this EA using input received from the public, previous experience with the EA process and guidelines published by the Ministry of the Environment. Appendix A contains a complete list and detailed descriptions of the environmental assessment criteria that are proposed to be used in this EA. From that list, the following are the primary ecological environmental assessment criteria that are to be addressed in the ecological assessment (Table 1).

Table 1. Primary EA Criteria

Environmental Criteria Issue(s) Raised through Public Consultation Loss or disturbance to aquatic ecosystems Effects through direct or indirect impacts on water

resources and aquatic habitats Loss or disturbance to terrestrial ecosystems Direct and indirect effects on habitats or species

including species at risk or sensitive species and disruption of connectivity

Disease transmission Disease could be transmitted from landfill to people via vermin or insects

Increased risk to aviation Birds, mostly gulls, attracted to landfill may cause unacceptable safety risk to air traffic at local, regional or international airports

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

1 Note that this work plan may be amended or adjusted prior to the initiation of the assessment in order to properly accommodate the

preferred alternatives that arise from that review.

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Highway

401

68 Road

Hamilton

Road

Karn Roa

d

Union Road

19 Line

74 Road

64 Road

62 Road

60 Road

31st Line

37th Line

27th Line

17th Line

45th LineFolden's Line

Ingersoll

Woodstock

Project 212048November 2012

-1:70,0000 1,250 2,500625 Meters

UTM Zone 17 N, NAD 83

Proposed AquaticSampling Stations Figure 1

Walker SW Landfill

First Base SolutionsWeb Mapping Service 2010

LegendSubject PropertyOBM WatercourseOBM Waterbodies

!( Proposed Sampling StationsSystem Type (ONHS 2006)

Type 1 WatercourseType 2 WatercourseType 3 Watercourse

Thames R i ve

r


Page 3

Table 2. Other EA Criteria Related to Ecology

Environmental Criteria Issue(s) Raised through Public Consultation Primary Expert Nuisance associated with vermin or wildlife

Vermin or other wildlife attracted to landfill may create an effect associated with property enjoyment including recreational opportunities

Social and Cultural

Nuisance associated with vermin or wildlife

Vermin or other wildlife attracted to landfill may cause an effect on agricultural operations

Social and Cultural

Property values Ecological elements that could be affected by the proposed landfill could result in property value impacts.

Economics

Displacement of forestry resources

This could occur due to interference with ability to use forest resources nearby.

Land Use

It should be noted that the above list is not a complete list of the criteria and experts that may use the findings of the ecological assessment. Beacon Environmental will make study findings available to all experts for use in evaluating any environmental criteria the individual experts determine as necessary. For each of the primary criteria to be addressed in this study, two durations (or time frames) will be considered in which potential environmental effects can occur. These are: Operational Period The time during which the waste disposal facility is constructed, filled with

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

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

Table A1 appended to this work plan identifies the study duration associated with each of the criteria. Specifically, for the ecological assessment, the study durations to be considered for each of the primary assessment criteria are summarized in the Table 3.


Page 4

Table 3. Primary EA Criteria and Associated Duration

EA Criteria Associated Study Duration Rationale

Loss or disturbance to aquatic ecosystems.

Operational period

Post-closure period

Physical disturbance such as construction and use of haul route crossings may disturb or remove fish habitat Changes in baseflow to creeks, or water tables associated with wetlands could create concomitant effects to aquatic ecosystems

Loss or disturbance to terrestrial ecosystems.

Operational period Loss or disturbance, directly or indirectly (e.g., vegetation removal including of vegetation within areas of connectivity, dust, noise (traffic), could result in effects to terrestrial ecosystems

Disease transmission via insects or vermin.

Operational period Insects and vermin attracted to a waste disposal facility may have the potential to transmit diseases or pathogens to humans

Aviation impacts due to gull interference.

Operational period Birds may be attracted to waste disposal facilities and could increase the safety risk to aircraft using the airspace around the facility, primarily at lower altitudes

4. Study Areas

Table A1 in Appendix A identified three general study areas. These are: On Site and Vicinity

On-site includes the waste disposal facility plus the associated buffer zones. Site vicinity is the area immediately adjacent to the waste disposal facility property that is directly affected by the on-site activities. The area will be variable and flexible in order to encompass the actual extent of the effects, but could consist of neighbouring properties, communities and/or adjacent features (e.g. ponds, watercourses, vegetation communities etc.).


Page 5

Haul Routes

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

The broader area, which is generally beyond the immediate on site and vicinity. Depending on the particular criterion this may include neighbourhoods, local municipalities, Oxford County, or the Province. This study area can also be used for some of the general or indirect effects of a landfill that are not resulting from specific physical activities on the site. Table A1 indicates the relevant study areas that will be examined for each of the criteria. These study areas are not intended to be fixed. Flexibility is needed to expand or contract study areas, depending on the study findings. For the purposes of this ecological assessment, the initial estimate of the study areas based on experience of the existing Carmeuse Site, and other landfills, is provided in Table 4.

Table 4. Primary Criteria and Associated Study Area

EA Criteria Associated Study Areas Rationale Loss or disturbance to aquatic ecosystems

On Site and Vicinity Haul Routes

Ecological effects more likely in immediate vicinity of the project.

Construction of haul route crossings may reduce area of fish habitat and may cause sediment input into watercourses which would compromise habitat quality. Also, salt and sediment input during operation from increased use could impact habitat quality up to 200 m downstream.

Loss or disturbance to terrestrial ecosystems

On Site and Vicinity – within 120 m of study area

Haul Routes – within 50 m of

route Wider Area – for connectivity

This will capture the direct effects zone for terrestrial receivers

The haul route (portions on Carmeuse Property) may include natural or semi natural areas, direct effects can be anticipated within approximately 50 m

Connectivity across the


Page 6

EA Criteria Associated Study Areas Rationale and context, within 1 km of the site

landscape requires a broader context, using existing information and site visits the general natural heritage system will be described within this range to allow the landscape context to be developed

Disease transmission via insects or vermin

On site and Vicinity – the actual waste disposal area is the potential source, the potential receptors are the nearby residential communities and farmland

Primarily a potential on-site issue, would be adjusted if field investigations indicate otherwise

Aviation impacts due to gull interference

On site and Vicinity – the site and areas within 500 m

Wider Area. All areas within a 20

km radius of the proposed site as the site is located within the air traffic movement patterns of two airports

Wider Area. A Secondary Study

Area, to include the London International Airports, will include lands located 16 to 60-km distant from the airport

Characteristics and features of the immediate environment are important to how birds might use the site

The proposed landfill site is

located in proximity to the Woodstock Airport which is located approximately 6 km to the northeast and the Tillsonburg Regional Airport which is located approximately 18 km to the southwest

This represents an area where

birds movements to and from attractants could result in birds moving through airspace frequented by aircraft after feeding or loafing

These initial study areas will be reviewed and refined following the analysis of the environmental baseline conditions.

5. Indicators/Measures

Indicators identify how the potential environmental effects will be measured for each criterion. In Table 5 are the indicators that are proposed for each of the primary EA criteria to be addressed in this assessment along with potential units of measure and the range and relevance of potential change. The units of measure are explained in more detail in the Section 7.0 of this report.


Page 7

Table 5. Range and Relevance of Potential Change for Ecology

EA Criteria Proposed Effects Indicators

Potential Unit of Measure

Range and Relevance of Potential Change

Comments

Negligible Potentially Meaningful

Loss or disturbance to aquatic ecosystems

Benthic Invertebrates

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index See Section 7.1.3


Page 8




Comments


Loss or disturbance to terrestrial ecosystems

Ecological Land Classification (ELC) communities as defined by ELC System for Southern Ontario (other than woodland and wetland which are addressed below)

Presence Area in hectares

5% loss

Loss of habitat for area sensitive species (as defined by MNR 2000) (ha)

Wetlands Presence Area in hectares

Loss of >10% of unit that is not PSW;

Loss of PSW or loss of >10% of unit that is not PSW

Defined by the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (MNR 1993)

Woodlands Presence, Area in hectares

Loss of cultural woodland types

Loss of woodland determined by planning authority to be significant

Significant woodlands are determined in Official Plans using guidelines provided by the MNR

Species at Risk Use of habitat and presence, sometimes historical

None present Use of habitat where that use may be affected

Regulated through the Endangered Species Act and/or Species at Risk Act (where applicable)

Rare Communities or Species

Presence of communities or species defined by the provincial S-rank system as S1, S2 or S3 (NHIC, on-line)

Loss of incidental habitat

Loss of regularly used habitat

Rare species and communities are highly valued and are often indicative of high quality habitat or special habitat conditions

Colonial Nesting (birds that nest in colonies)

Presence of multiple pairs

Temporary disturbance

Loss of any breeding habitat

Bank Swallow is the only species likely to occur within disturbance areas based on habitat


Page 9




Comments


Loss or disturbance to terrestrial ecosystems, cont’d

Breeding Amphibian Areas Calling males during breeding season, (using a standardised monitoring scale) Hydroperiod of breeding pond

Loss of non-breeding habitat

Loss of productive breeding habitat

Breeding amphibians are particularly sensitive to habitat loss or disturbance

Landscape Connectivity Identified Corridors Minor impairment to connectivity

Major impact to connectivity

Professional judgment

Disease transmission via insects or vermin

Primary vectors (gulls) Background numbers of gulls

No change in background number of potential vectors (primarily gulls)

Increase beyond pre-determined background level due to landfill

Literature review and professional judgment will be used to confirm pathway for transfer of pathogens Field work will determine background levels

Aviation impacts due to gull interference

Increased risk of bird strikes

Airport Bird Risk Assessment Process (ABRAP) for the Woodstock, Tillsonburg Regional and London International Airports

Negligible increase in Risk

Unacceptable increase in Risk

Transport Canada guidelines detailed in Safety Above All (TP 8240, 2009) and the Airport Wildlife Management and Planning Regulations (Canadian Aviation Regulations -CAR 302.301-306). Mitigation in the form of an Integrated Gull Management Plan would be required along with a contingency, should the ABRAP determine that the landfill is creating an unacceptable elevated risk to aircraft operating in the vicinity,


Page 10

6. Data Collection

6.1 Background Data Collection

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

County of Oxford. 2006. Oxford Natural Heritage Study; Ministry of Natural Resources Fish Dot Mapping; Ministry of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Information Centre; Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. 2007. Woodstock Natural Heritage

Inventory; Cudmore, B., C.A. MacKinnon and S.E. Madzia. 2004. Aquatic species at risk in the

Thames River watershed, Ontario. Can. MS Rpt. Fish. Aquat. Sci.; Taylor, I., B. Cudmore, C.A. MacKinnon, S.E. Madzia. and S. Hohn. 2004. The Thames

River Watershed Synthesis Report; Fisheries and Oceans Canada SAR Mapping; Transport Canada Airport Bird Strike Data; Airport Wildlife Management Plans (3); Christmas Bird Count data; Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Data (and other atlas data as available); Upper Thames River Conservation Authority natural heritage data; Knowledgeable local naturalists; Natural Heritage Information Center, Peterborough; Ministry of Natural Resources District Office; and Official Plan policies and mapping related to natural features.

6.2 Field Data Collection

Field data will be collected from watercourses on and within the vicinity of the Site commencing as soon as practical or once the Terms of Reference for the EA has been approved. 6.2.1 Aquatic

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


Page 11

Sampling Locations

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

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

System Type Species Supported Flow Regime Temperature Regime

1 Sensitive or significant species, species at risk, top level predators, sportfish, habitat to support sensitive species

Permanent Warmwater Coolwater Coldwater

2 Baitfish, species resilient to change Permanent Warmwater

3 Seasonally accessed by baitfish and larger fish Intermittent or ephemeral Warmwater

Sampling sites were selected based on their proximity to the landfill site and their potential for effects (Figure 1). Two sampling sites were selected downstream of the landfill site to determine the downstream extent of potential impacts from the proposed landfill. Reference sites for each system type have also been identified. Data from these reference sites will be compared to sample sites. Sampling and reference sites have yet to be field verified and may change as a result of local conditions. Sampling sites will be distributed throughout the system types to ensure that there are sample and reference sites in all system types. Lakes/Ponds Sampling sites within lake and pond habitats will be selected based on the physical characteristics of the waterbody. The number and location of the sampling sites will be dependent on overall surface area, water depth, slope profiles, substrates and aquatic macrophyte distribution. Sampling sites will be distributed through waterbodies where there is a potential for an interaction with the project and will be representative of the habitat conditions present. Biomass Study

Watercourses Sampling and reference sites located in watercourse system types 1 and 2 will be assessed using triple-pass electrofishing surveys to sample fish species. Surveys will follow the protocol detailed in Section 3, Module 1 of the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP) (Stanfield et al. 2010). This technique involves removal of individual fish by isolating a sample reach with block nets at the


Page 12

upstream and downstream extents and electrofishing using a backpack unit to capture all fish. The sample reach will extend from crossover point to crossover point. A crossover point is defined as the location within a watercourse where the thalweg (concentration of flow) is in the center of the channel during bankfull discharge. This survey method allows for the detection of differences in fish catches over time or between sites. Sampling will occur twice annually, during the spring and fall. Fish captured through this survey method will be identified to species, and lengths, weights and general condition will be recorded. Lakes/Ponds Sampling sites within lake and pond habitats will be assessed using the Nearshore Community Index Netting (NSCIN) methodology (MNR 1999). NSCIN is a standardized, live release, netting program which samples fish from the littoral zone of waterbodies and provides an evaluation of fish species abundance. Fish sampling is undertaken using trap or hoop nets which are set for 24 hour periods. The standardized methodology allows for trend through time sampling of fish communities and can be used to detect changes in fish abundance. NSCIN will be undertaken annually and as per the protocol will occur during a period extending from August 1st until the water temperature drops below 13ºC (usually late September in southern Ontario).

Benthic Invertebrate Survey

Standard methodology set out in the Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network (OBBN) (Jones et al. 2004) will be used for the benthic invertebrate survey. Benthic invertebrates will be collected at sampling and reference sites located in system types 1 and 2 using a travelling kick and sweep method. The travelling kick and sweep is typically applied by wading along transects through the habitat of interest, kicking the substrate to dislodge benthos, and collecting dislodged benthos by “sweeping” a hand-held net through the water. Mesh size of the net will be 500 µm, which is considered an intermediate size within the common range of net sizes typically used. Sampling will occur once annually during the spring, which is a time of high species richness. Samples would be preserved and identified by an aquatic entomologist.

Aquatic Habitat Study

Watercourses Aquatic habitat within watercourses will be evaluated at sampling and reference sites located in system types 1, 2 and 3. Aquatic habitat will be evaluated using the point-transect method for channel morphology, water depth, flow velocity, cover, substrate and bank condition method as detailed in Section 4, Module 2 of the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (Stanfield et al. 2010). The number of observation points on each transect is a function of the width of the watercourse and would be determined in the field. Aquatic habitat sampling will occur once annually during the late spring. Field data of quantitative baseflow data and water quality parameters will be obtained from the groundwater/surface water work team.


Page 13

Lakes/Ponds Aquatic habitat within lake and ponds will be assessed. Habitat types will be delineated and mapped. Parameters that will be recorded include: depth, substrate composition, aquatic macrophyte species and distribution, and available cover type. Field data for water quality parameters will be obtained from the groundwater/surface water work team. Species at Risk

Species at Risk (SAR) are regulated through the Provincial Endangered Species Act (2007) or Federal Species at Risk Act (2003) (where applicable). Fish SAR would likely be captured through the electrofishing survey. The potential for mussel SAR will be identified and if their presence is considered likely, a survey will be conducted according to the protocol designed by Mackie et al. 2008. 6.2.2 Terrestrial

Ecological Land Classification (ELC) and Floral Surveys

The standard ELC protocol for southern Ontario (Lee et al.) will be undertaken for the EA. The first step will be to use the most current orthogonally rectified aerial photographs of the Site and Vicinity Study Area (and Haul Routes to the first public road) to approximate vegetation community polygons (discrete areas of similar, contiguous vegetation) through air photo interpretation. These communities will then be ground-truthed in May and in August to confirm or amend the polygon boundaries. Ground-truthing will involve visiting each of the distinct polygons to assess the vegetation community. ELC Community Description and Classification Data records will be completed for each polygon. Where they are necessary, soil samples (using a dutch auger) will be taken. Communities will be described to Vegetation Type (the finest level of detail). Vegetation Types are recurring plant species assemblages that dominate a community based on relative cover, generally those that make up the majority of canopy cover (Lee et al.) Occasionally, polygons of similar vegetation will include small areas of dissimilar form. The general standard for ELC is not to map areas less than 0.5 hectares in size. Therefore, any such areas may be designated as ‘inclusions’ within a larger vegetation community. The final community boundaries will be transferred to GIS-based mapping. A floral inventory of the site will be completed in conjunction with this task. This will involve roaming the area to record vascular plant species that occur on the property. The specific locations of plants that are rare in Oxford County, or provincially rare according to the MNR Natural Heritage Information Centre will be noted and geo-referenced using GPS. Qualitative Surveys for Species-at-Risk and Rare Species

Surveys will be conducted to determine if Species at Risk area present in the site study area or Haul Route study area or in nearby features (e.g., ponds and lakes) using screening data gathered from the background review. The survey protocols are highly species-specific and therefore will be developed once the screening list is created based on habitat and likely occurrences. Species that


Page 14

could occur may include but are not limited to: Butternut, Spiny Softshell Turtle, Blanding’s Turtle, Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark. . Most likely, specific field surveys, if required, would be undertaken during May, June, July and August. Breeding Bird Surveys

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

no precipitation (except the lightest drizzle which stops shortly after dawn); visibility greater than 200 m; wind less than force five on the Beaufort scale (29 km/hr); temperatures not deviating more than four degrees Celsius from the average for the time

of day and date; and, counts finished by 10:45 a.m.

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

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


Page 15

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

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

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

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

Amphibian breeding areas will be mapped. Winter Wildlife Use and Incidental Wildlife Observations

Winter visit will be made in January within 48 hours of a snow fall to document winter use of the site and haul study areas. This will consist primarily of tracking and habitat assessment. Stick nests of raptor species or herons will also be noted at this time for follow-up in the field season. During the entire field program incidental observations of all wildlife species will be documented and reported. Landscape Connectivity

Landscape connectivity will be assessed by first resolving landscape pathways using aerial photography these will be ground-truthed using a specific field visit for the purpose during the field season. Bird Hazards

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

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

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


Page 16

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

7. Data Analysis

Assessment of effects requires a range of analytical tools (e.g., mapping, models, relevant project experience, case studies, comparison against benchmarks and professional judgement). The following paragraphs describe the approach taken for the ecological assessment. 7.1 Aquatic

7.1.1 Index of Biotic Integrity

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

Species richness and composition; Indicator species (Rainbow Darter, Iowa Darter, Mottled Sculpin); Trophic function; Diseased individuals; and Abundance.


Page 17

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

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

IBI Integrity Class Characteristics

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

60-


Page 18

Table 8. Water Quality Assessment Based on Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

HBI Value Water Quality Assessment 0.00 – 4.50 Not impacted 4.51 – 6.50 Slightly impacted 6.51 - 8.50 Moderately impacted 8.51 – 10.0 Severely impacted

7.1.4 Fulton’s Condition Factor

The Condition Factor (K) is a robust and easily measured surrogate for the ‘well-being’ of a fish. The K value combines length and weight data of a fish to determine fish health. The value of K is influenced by age of fish, sex, season, stage of maturation, fullness of gut, type of food consumed, amount of fat reserve and degree of muscular development. The Condition Factor also allows a quantitative comparison of the condition of individual fish within a population, individual fish from different populations, and two or more populations from different localities. It may also be used as an index of the productivity of a waterbody or watercourse. 7.2 Terrestrial

Manual calculations will be made of direct impacts whenever possible. This will include computer-assisted calculations made in a Geographic Information System platform (ArcView 10). Direct loss of habitat can be assessed using mapping. Mapping will include maps of ELC communities, pathways of connectivity, rare communities and species and other natural environmental features of interest or importance. The mapping base will be recent digital orthogonally rectified high definition aerial photographs. Additional base information may include drainage features and previously documented features in the wider study area. Relevant project experience should be used by the project team in applying the assessment. This experience should include federal, provincial and Class environmental assessments. Benchmarks are available for the effects on noise and dust on natural receivers (e.g., Farmer 1991; FPCAP, 1976) and these can be used to help assess effects related to the site and haul route study area. The ABRAP process also provides a methodology to assess risk to aircraft and this process will be followed. Professional judgement will be used to describe and discuss effects. This is based on team experience with similar projects and on knowledge of conditions at the scale of each of the three project study areas. Professional judgement is frequently used to help assess effects in the ecological assessment.


Page 19

8. Reporting

The ecology assessment report will be structured to address each of the major objectives set out previously in Section 2 of this work plan. Also included in the report will be detailed appendices containing data and analyses carried out in the course of the study, along with other pertinent information to support the conclusions.

9. References

Anderson, R. O. and Neuman, R.M. 1996. Length, Weight and Associated Structural Indices. Pages 447-477 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries Techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland

Bowen, Z. H., M. C. Freeman, and D. L. Watson. 1996. Index of Biotic Integrity Applied to a Flow-Regulated River System IN Proceedings of the 50th Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 1996: U.S. Fish and Wildlife, p. 26-37 Farmer, A. M. 1991. The effects of dust on vegetation – a review. Environmental Pollution 79 63-75. Federal-Provincial Committee on Air Pollution (FPCAP). 1976. Criteria for National Air Quality Objectives: Sulphur Dioxide, Suspended Particulates, Carbon Monoxide, Oxidants (Ozone) and Nitrogen Dioxide. Federal-Provincial Committee on Air Pollution (FPCAP). 1976. Criteria for National Air Quality Objectives: Sulphur Dioxide, Suspended Particulates, Carbon Monoxide, Oxidants (Ozone) and Nitrogen Dioxide. Jones, C., K.M. Somers, B. Craig, and T.B. Reynoldson. 2004.

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

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

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


Page 20

New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. 2003. Good practice guide for assessing and managing the environmental effects of dust emissions. Available at: http://mfe.govt.nz Natural Heritage Information System. On-line. http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/ Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 2005. Summary of O.Reg. 419/05 Standards and Point of Impingement (POI) Guidelines & Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQCs); Standards Development Branch. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1993. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System Southern Manual. Third Edition (updated). Queens Printer. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (Appendix G). 151 pp. plus appendices. Outen A. R. 2002. The ecological effects of road lighting. In: Sherwood B, Culter D, and Burton JA (Eds). Wildlife and roads: the ecological impact. London, UK: Imperial College Press. Edmund J. Pert and Daniel C. Dauwalter. 2001.

Development of an Index of Biotic Integrity for Fish Assemblages for Wadeable Streams in Arkansas’ Ozark Highlands Ecoregion. Tetra Tech Inc.

Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, and H. Meeuwsen. 1996. The effects of car traffic on the density of breeding birds in Dutch Agricultural Grasslands. Biological Conservation 75: 255-260 pp. Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, and G. Veenbaas. 1997. Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds: evaluation of the effect and planning and managing road corridors. Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 567-581 pp. Rheindt, F.E. 2003. The impact of roads on birds: does song frequency play a role in determining susceptibility to noise pollution? Journal für Ornithologie, 144, 295–306 pp. Stanfield, L.W., (Ed.). 2010.

Stream assessment protocol for Ontario, v.8. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Department of Fisheries and Oceans, draft procedural manual. Glenora, ON.

Transport Canada. 2007.

TP 8240 Airport Wildlife Management Bulletin No. 38, Fall 2007, and particularly, Appendix B – Airport Bird Hazard Risk Assessment Process

Transport Canada. 2009.

Safety Above All - A Coordinated Approach to Airport Vicinity Wildlife Management


Page 21

Transport Canada. 2006. Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) Part III, Subpart 2- Airports CARs 302.301-308. Airport Wildlife Planning and Management Regulation.


Page 22

Contact Information Comments or questions regarding this draft work plan, or the Environmental Assessment, may be addressed through any of the following:

Sending written comments by mail or fax to: Joe Lyng Walker Industries 160 Carnegie Street

Ingersoll, ON N5C 4A8 Sending an email with your comments to [email protected]

Additional information about the EA may be obtained at:

The project web site: www.walkerea.com

Calling the toll-free project number: 1-855-392-5537

Registering to receive the Southwestern Landfill Proposal Newsletter and electronic updates by sending an email with your contact details to: [email protected]. There is also a Newsletter that can be subscribed to by phone or mail.

Appendix A

E n v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t C r i t e r i a a n d S t u d i e s

A p p e n d i x A

Study that will be primarily responsible for addressing criterion. Page A- 1 1. Note: Many of the studies will provide input to criteria that will be addressed through other impact assessment studies.

A p p e n d i x A

Table A-1. Environmental Assessment Criteria and Studies

Studies Addressing the Criteria Study Areas Duratio

n

Criteria

Definition/ Rationale

Agriculture

Air Q

uality

Archaeology/

Cultu

ral

Heritage

Ecolog

y

Econ

omic/

Fina

ncial

Grou

ndwater/

Surface Water

Land

Use

Noise/V

ibratio

n

Social

Traffic

Visual/

Land

scap

e

On‐Site & Site

Vicinity

Alon

g the

Haul

Routes

Wider Area

Ope

ratio

nal

Perio

d

Post‐Closure

Perio

d

Public Health & Safety 1 Explosive hazard due to

combustible gas accumulation in confined spaces.

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

2 Effects due to exposure to air emissions.

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

A p p e n d i x A



n

Criteria


Agriculture

Air Q

uality

Archaeology/

Cultu

ral

Heritage

Ecolog

y

Econ

omic/

Fina

ncial

Grou

ndwater/

Surface Water

Land

Use

Noise/V

ibratio

n

Social

Traffic

Visual/

Land

scap

e

On‐Site & Site

Vicinity

Alon

g the

Haul

Routes

Wider Area

Ope

ratio

nal

Perio

d

Post‐Closure

Perio

d

3 Effects due to fine particulate exposure.

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

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

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

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

6 Disease transmission via insects or vermin.

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

7 Potential for traffic collisions.

The risk of traffic collisions may increasealong the haul routes to the waste disposal facility. This includes the risk to pedestrian, bicycle and farm machinery.

Public Health & Safety (continued) 8 Aviation impacts due to

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

Social and Cultural

A p p e n d i x A



n

Criteria


Agriculture

Air Q

uality

Archaeology/

Cultu

ral

Heritage

Ecolog

y

Econ

omic/

Fina

ncial

Grou

ndwater/

Surface Water

Land

Use

Noise/V

ibratio

n

Social

Traffic

Visual/

Land

scap

e

On‐Site & Site

Vicinity

Alon

g the

Haul

Routes

Wider Area

Ope

ratio

nal

Perio

d

Post‐Closure

Perio

d

9 Displacement of residents from houses.

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

10 Disruption to use and enjoyment of residential properties.

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

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

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

12 Disruption to local traffic networks.

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

A p p e n d i x A



n

Criteria


Agriculture

Air Q

uality

Archaeology/

Cultu

ral

Heritage

Ecolog

y

Econ

omic/

Fina

ncial

Grou

ndwater/

Surface Water

Land

Use

Noise/V

ibratio

n

Social

Traffic

Visual/

Land

scap

e

On‐Site & Site

Vicinity

Alon

g the

Haul

Routes

Wider Area

Ope

ratio

nal

Perio

d

Post‐Closure

Perio

d

13 Visual impact of the waste disposal facility.

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

14 Nuisance associated with vermin.

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

Social and Cultural (continued) 15 Displacement/disturbanc

e of cultural/heritage resources.

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

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

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

A p p e n d i x A



n

Criteria


Agriculture

Air Q

uality

Archaeology/

Cultu

ral

Heritage

Ecolog

y

Econ

omic/

Fina

ncial

Grou

ndwater/

Surface Water

Land

Use

Noise/V

ibratio

n

Social

Traffic

Visual/

Land

scap

e

On‐Site & Site

Vicinity

Alon

g the

Haul

Routes

Wider Area

Ope

ratio

nal

Perio

d

Post‐Closure

Perio

d

17 Displacement/destruction of archaeological resources.

Archaeological resources are non‐renewable cultural resources that can be destroyed by the construction and operation of a waste disposal facility.

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

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

19 Effects on other public services.

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

20 Changes to community character/cohesion.

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

Social and Cultural (continued) 21 Compatibility with

municipal land use designations and official plans.

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

A p p e n d i x A



n

Criteria


Agriculture

Air Q

uality

Archaeology/

Cultu

ral

Heritage

Ecolog

y

Econ

omic/

Fina

ncial

Grou

ndwater/

Surface Water

Land

Use

Noise/V

ibratio

n

Social

Traffic

Visual/

Land

scap

e

On‐Site & Site

Vicinity

Alon

g the

Haul

Routes

Wider Area

Ope

ratio

nal

Perio

d

Post‐Closure

Perio

d

Economics 22 Displacement/disruption

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

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

24 Direct employment in waste disposal facility construction and operation.

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

25 Indirect employment in related industries and services.

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

26 New business opportunities related directly to waste disposal facility construction and operation.

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

A p p e n d i x A



n

Criteria


Agriculture

Air Q

uality

Archaeology/

Cultu

ral

Heritage

Ecolog

y

Econ

omic/

Fina

ncial

Grou

ndwater/

Surface Water

Land

Use

Noise/V

ibratio

n

Social

Traffic

Visual/

Land

scap

e

On‐Site & Site

Vicinity

Alon

g the

Haul

Routes

Wider Area

Ope

ratio

nal

Perio

d

Post‐Closure

Perio

d

Economics (continued) 27 New business

opportunities in related industries and services.

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

28 Public costs for indirect liabilities.

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

29 Effects on the municipal tax base.

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

30 Effect on the cost of service to customers.

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

31 Effects on the provincial/ federal tax base.

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

Natural Environment & Resources 32 Loss/displacement of

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

33 Impact on the availability of groundwater supply to wells.

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

A p p e n d i x A



n

Criteria


Agriculture

Air Q

uality

Archaeology/

Cultu

ral

Heritage

Ecolog

y

Econ

omic/

Fina

ncial

Grou

ndwater/

Surface Water

Land

Use

Noise/V

ibratio

n

Social

Traffic

Visual/

Land

scap

e

On‐Site & Site

Vicinity

Alon

g the

Haul

Routes

Wider Area

Ope

ratio

nal

Perio

d

Post‐Closure

Perio

d

34 Effects on stream baseflow quantity/quality.

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

Natural Environment & Resources (Continued)35 Loss/disturbance of

terrestrial ecosystems. Terrestrial ecosystems refer to the land‐based habitats connected through the vegetation cover; their protection and integration maintains and regulates ecological health. Waste disposal facility operations and/or traffic may remove or disturb the functioning of these systems.

36 Loss/disturbance of aquatic ecosystems.

Aquatic ecosystems refer to the water‐based habitats connected through the surface water; their protection and integration maintains and regulates ecological health. Waste disposal facility operations may remove or disturb the functioning of these systems.

37 Displacement of agricultural land.

The establishment of a waste disposal facility has the potential to displace existing or potential agricultural resources, including the loss of prime agricultural land.

38 Disruption of farm operations.

The establishment and operation of the waste disposal facility may affect agricultural crop or livestock production and related agriculture activities.

39 Sterilization of industrial mineral resources.

The establishment of a waste disposal facility may limit the opportunity to extract industrial mineral resources located beneath the site.

40 Displacement of forestry resources.

The establishment of a waste disposal facility may limit the opportunity to utilize forestry resources on or near the site.

A p p e n d i x A



n

Criteria


Agriculture

Air Q

uality

Archaeology/

Cultu

ral

Heritage

Ecolog

y

Econ

omic/

Fina

ncial

Grou

ndwater/

Surface Water

Land

Use

Noise/V

ibratio

n

Social

Traffic

Visual/

Land

scap

e

On‐Site & Site

Vicinity

Alon

g the

Haul

Routes

Wider Area

Ope

ratio

nal

Perio

d

Post‐Closure

Perio

d

41 Loss/disruption of recreational resources.

Waste disposal facility operations and traffic may displace/disrupt existing recreational resources in the area, which could adversely affect the community at large. Disturbances could result from noise, dust, odour, visibility, birds and traffic congestion. Recreational resources include naturalist and interpretive opportunities.

Southwestern Landfill Proposal Environmental Assessment ......Southwestern Land Fill Proposal,...

Documents

Transcript of Southwestern Landfill Proposal Environmental Assessment ......Southwestern Land Fill Proposal,...