CONESTOGA MEAT PACKERS, BRESLAU ENVIRONMENTAL

Transcription

CONESTOGA MEAT PACKERS,
BRESLAU
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STUDY
Project No. 160311233
Prepared for:
Conestoga Meat Packers Ltd.
313 Menno Street
RR#2 Breslau, ON N0B 1M0
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Ltd
49 Frederick Street
Kitchener, ON N2H 6M7
November 20, 2013
CONESTOGA MEAT PACKERS, BRESLAU
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY
Table of Contents
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1.1
STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................... 1.1
APPROACH ..................................................................................................................... 1.1
REGULATORY AND ADVISORY AGENCY CONSULTATION......................................... 1.2
2.0
2.1
2.2
NATURAL HERITAGE AND HAZARD POLICY CONSIDERATIONS .................................2.1
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT ................................................................................. 2.1
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO REGIONAL OFFICIAL POLICIES
PLAN ................................................................................................................................ 2.1
TOWNSHIP OF WOOLWICH OFFICIAL PLAN ................................................................ 2.2
GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY POLICIES AND REGULATION .............. 2.3
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT .......................................................................................... 2.3
SUMMARY OF POLICY IMPLICATIONS .......................................................................... 2.3
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
METHODOLOGY FOR DATA COLLECTION ..................................................................3.1
BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION............................................................................. 3.1
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................................................... 3.1
3.2.1
Botanical Surveys ......................................................................................... 3.2
3.2.2
Aquatic Habitat Assessment ...................................................................... 3.2
3.2.3
Erosion Assessment ...................................................................................... 3.3
3.2.4
Wildlife Observations and General Wildlife Habitat Surveys ................. 3.3
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND SENSITIVITY ............................................................ 3.3
SITE DESCRIPTION AND NATURAL FEATURES ..............................................................4.1
GENERAL OVERVIEW OF SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................ 4.1
DESIGNATED NATURAL FEATURES ................................................................................. 4.1
PHYSIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. 4.1
HYDROLOGY .................................................................................................................. 4.1
4.4.1
Surface Water .............................................................................................. 4.1
4.4.2
Wetlands ....................................................................................................... 4.2
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 4.2
4.5.1
Landscape Ecology .................................................................................... 4.2
4.5.2
Vegetation Communities ........................................................................... 4.2
4.5.3
Vascular Plants ............................................................................................. 4.3
4.5.4
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ....................................................................... 4.3
AQUATIC RESOURCES.................................................................................................... 4.3
4.6.1
GRCA Surveys .............................................................................................. 4.4
4.6.2
Stantec Surveys ............................................................................................ 4.4
4.6.3
Overall Assessment of Habitat Quality ..................................................... 4.5
EROSION ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 4.5
4.7.1
Methods ........................................................................................................ 4.6
4.7.2
Results ............................................................................................................ 4.7
4.7.3
Summary ....................................................................................................... 4.8
te v:\01609\active\160311233_conestoga meat packers\planning\report\eis\draft\160311233_eis_draft_07112013 new template..docx
i
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS ................................5.1
SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS ................................................................................................ 5.1
SIGNIFICANT HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES .................... 5.1
SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS .......................................................................................... 5.1
SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLAND ............................................................................................ 5.2
SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT .................................................................................... 5.2
5.5.1
Seasonal Concentration Areas ................................................................. 5.2
5.5.2
Rare or Specialized Habitat ....................................................................... 5.2
5.5.3
Species of Conservation Concern ............................................................ 5.3
5.5.4
Migration Corridors ...................................................................................... 5.3
SIGNIFICANT AREAS OF NATURAL AND SCIENTIFIC INTEREST .................................... 5.3
FISH HABITAT.................................................................................................................... 5.3
SUMMARY OF NATURAL HERITAGE CONSTRAINTS ..................................................... 5.3
6.0
6.1
6.2
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..........................................................................................6.1
PROPOSED PLANT EXPANSION ..................................................................................... 6.1
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................... 6.1
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
IMPACT IDENTIFICATION, ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION.......................................7.1
IMPACT ON SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES............................................................ 7.1
7.1.1
Fish Habitat ................................................................................................... 7.1
7.1.2
Construction Timing ..................................................................................... 7.1
7.1.3
Erosion and Sediment Control ................................................................... 7.2
7.1.4
Stormwater Management ......................................................................... 7.2
RECOMMENDED RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES ........................... 7.2
NET ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................. 7.2
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING STRATEGY ................................................................ 7.2
8.0
8.1
8.2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...................................................................................8.1
POLICY COMPLIANCE ................................................................................................... 8.1
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 8.2
9.0
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................9.1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
ii
Ecological Field Work .................................................................................. 3.2
Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Vegetation Types ........................ 4.2
Water Quality Conditions Recorded on July 11, 2011 ............................ 4.5
Geomorphological characteristics of the Randal Drain ....................... 4.7
Bankfull discharge and critical parameters related to the initiation of
erosion along the surveyed section of Randall Drain ............................ 4.8
Introduction
November 20, 2013
1.0
Introduction
The existing site is a 4.6 ha processing facility that contains storage tanks, process facilities,
administration buildings, a wastewater treatment facility, and truck storage areas. Conestoga Meat
Packers (CMP) is proposing to increase the size of their processing plant. The expansion will be phased in
over several years and will include additional office space, processing areas, cooler, parking, loading area
and a new stormwater management (SWM) facility.
The proposal for the 11 ha Phase 1 expansion of the CMP facility is to construct an additional 22,690
square meter processing plant on to the existing facility complete with the requisite additional parking.
An additional 25,000 square meters of processing plant on 16.8 ha is planned with an office facility in the
northeastern part of the site, with the associated additional requisite parking which represents the Phase
2 ultimate expansion.
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is intended to identify the natural heritage features and
functions on, and adjacent to, the development footprint (referred to as the Subject Property) that may be
impacted by the proposed expansion of the meat packaging facility, and to recommend appropriate
measures to avoid and mitigate potential impacts and to restore and enhance the natural environment
and associated ecological functions, where possible. In particular it will address the impacts to the branch
of Randall Drain that traverses the Subject Property that could be impacted as a result of an increase in
discharge of effluent from the plant.
1.1
STUDY AREA
The CMP facility is located at 313 Menno Street R.R. #2 east of Fountain Street in Breslau, Ontario. The
Study Area is bounded to the north by Menno Street, to the west by Lonsdale Road, to the south by
agricultural lands, and to the east by a drainage feature (Figure 1, Appendix A).
The Study Area consists predominantly of agricultural lands currently being operated as a sod farm. The
drainage feature to the east, a section of Randall Drain, provides an outflow for the meat packing facility.
The Study Area includes the Subject Property and adjacent natural features within 120 metres of the
Subject Property, and defines the area within which potential impacts are reasonably anticipated to occur
(MNR, 2010). A more detailed description of existing conditions, assessment of significance and
evaluation of potential impacts is provided in subsequent sections of the report.
1.2
APPROACH
The information contained in this report is based on existing published data and data made available
through various public agencies, web-based mapping programs, on-line databases and other
environmental reports pertaining to the Subject Property, which has been supplemented through various
1.1
Introduction
November 20, 2013
site-specific field investigations and discussions with appropriate agency staff to confirm and refine our
understanding of the current site conditions, natural features and ecological functions in the Study Area.
Coordination with other supporting studies being completed by the study team, including stormwater
management, hydrogeological and geotechnical studies provides a more comprehensive assessment of the
proposed development. This information has been synthesized and the policy implications are presented
for consideration in support of the proposed facility expansion.
1.3
REGULATORY AND ADVISORY AGENCY CONSULTATION
Review and approval agencies were contacted to solicit initial comments, identify potential concerns and
obtain pertinent information for consideration during the development of the proposed site plan and
completion of the EIS.
The proposed field investigations, timing, assessment of potential impacts and components of the EIS
were identified during a meeting with the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) on April 1, 2011.
A pre-consultation meeting was held on May 22, 2012 with the Township of Woolwich, Region of
Waterloo, GRCA and City of Kitchener to request approval to proceed with the application to increase the
size of the processing plant.
1.2
Natural Heritage and Hazard Policy Considerations
November 20, 2013
2.0
An assessment of the natural heritage features and functions within the Study Area was undertaken to
comply with the requirements of the following policy and guideline documents:
2.1
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT
This assessment has been done in a manner consistent with Policy 2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement
(PPS) (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2005), and the Natural Heritage Reference Manual
for Natural heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement ((MNR, 2010). The natural heritage
features to be considered in accordance with the PPS include:
•
Significant wetlands (in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E) and significant coastal wetlands;
•
Significant habitat of endangered and threatened species;
•
Significant woodlands;
•
Significant valleylands;
•
Significant wildlife habitat;
•
Significant areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSIs); and
•
Fish habitat.
In southern Ontario, development is not permitted in significant habitat of endangered and threatened
species, significant wetlands or significant coastal wetlands. Development and site alteration may be
permitted on lands adjacent to significant wetlands, coastal wetlands and the habitat of endangered and
threatened species if it is demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or
the ecological functions for which the area was identified.
Development is not permitted within, or on lands adjacent to, the other significant natural heritage
features unless the ecological function of these lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated
that no negative impacts on the natural heritage features or their ecological function will occur.
Development and site alteration is not permitted within fish habitat except in accordance with provincial
and federal requirements.
2.2
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO REGIONAL OFFICIAL POLICIES PLAN
The current approved Regional Municipality of Waterloo (RMOW) Regional Official Policies Plan (ROPP
2006) recognizes significant natural areas as highly valuable and irreplaceable areas, the interconnections
among which should be recognized, maintained and enhanced to prevent further fragmentation and
degradation of the ecological integrity of the landscape (Natural Habitat Network). Any development
within or contiguous to Environmental Preservation Areas (EPA), Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas
(ESPA) or Regionally Significant Natural Corridors, or Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW) or fish
habitat, requires the submission of an EIS to the RMOW in support of the development application
2.1
November 20, 2013
(Sections 3.2 and 4.1). ROPP polices also exist to prevent the re-designation of land in Wellhead
Protection Sensitivity Areas (WPSA) that would pose a greater risk to municipal groundwater supplies
(Section 5.2).
A new Regional Official Plan (ROP) was approved by Region of Waterloo Council in June 2009 and is
currently under appeal. Once approved, the new ROP will replace the current document and provide the
policy framework for development in the Region of Waterloo. The new ROP identifies Landscape Level
Systems, Core Environmental Features and Supporting Environmental Features and the linkages between
them as components of the Greenlands Network.
The Core Environmental Features Policies of the new ROP state that development and site alteration will
not be permitted within Core Environmental Features (7.C.8) and that development or site alteration will
only be permitted on lands contiguous to a Core Environmental Feature where an EIS, or similar study,
has determined that approval of the proposed development will not result in adverse environmental
impacts on the features and ecological functions of the Core Environmental features (7.C.9).
2.3
TOWNSHIP OF WOOLWICH OFFICIAL PLAN
The Township of Woolwich Official Plan 2000 (updated to July 31 2012) recognizes the existence of the
diverse and complex nature of environmental features. Policies are in place to protect elements of the
Natural Habitat Network that includes the following:
•
Environmental Protection Areas (EPAs);
•
Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas (ESPAs);
•
Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs);
•
Significant Valleylands;
•
Significant Woodlands;
•
Fish habitat;
•
Significant Wildlife Habitat;
•
Locally Sensitive Natural Areas (LSNAs); and
•
Sensitive Groundwater Areas, Recharge Areas, Discharge Areas and Headwaters and Aquifers
Where elements of the Natural Habitat Network are present, the submission of an EIS will be required
and prepared to identify and evaluate the potential effects of the proposed development on the Natural
Habitat Network (13.2.3). An EIS will identify the nature and extent of potential impacts, recommend
methods for preventing, minimizing and mitigating potential impacts and identify opportunities for
enhancement and determine appropriate buffer zones (Section 13.16.1).
2.2
November 20, 2013
2.4
GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY POLICIES AND REGULATION
Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06, prior permission is required from the GRCA for any
development within a floodplain, valleyland, wetland, or other hazardous land, any alteration to a river,
creek, stream or watercourse or any interference with a wetland. The decision-making policies for such
Permits are contained within the Policies for the Administration of the Development, Interference with
Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation (GRCA, August 1, 2009).
Generally, any development, interference or other alteration that may negatively impact the control of
flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land are not permitted.
2.5
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA, 2007) identifies wildlife species considered to be at risk in
Ontario and designates them as threatened, endangered, extirpated or of special concern. Provincial
species at risk are identified and assessed by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario
(COSSARO) which is an committee of wildlife experts and scientists, as well as those who provide
Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge, that classify species according to their degree of risk based on the best
available scientific information, community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge. When
COSSARO classifies a species at risk, that classification applies throughout Ontario, unless otherwise
noted.
The ESA protects threatened and endangered species and their habitats by prohibiting anyone from
killing, harming, harassing or possessing protected species, as well as prohibiting any damage or
destruction to the habitat of species identified as threatened or endangered on the SARO List. All
threatened and endangered species on the SARO List are provided with general habitat protections under
the ESA, which protect areas that species depend on to carry out their life processes, such as reproduction,
rearing, hibernation, migration or feeding.
Any activity that may impact a protected species or its habitat requires the prior issuance of a Permit from
the MNR. Such permits may only be issued under certain circumstances, which are limited to activities
required to protect human health and safety, activities that will assist in the protection or recovery of the
species, activities that will result in an overall benefit to the species or activities that may provide
significant social or economic benefit without jeopardizing the survival or recovery of the species in
Ontario.
2.6
SUMMARY OF POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The policies and guidelines summarized above provide the context within which the approval of a
development will be granted from a natural environment perspective. The corresponding opportunities
and constraints established by these policies and supporting guidelines have been recognized and
addressed through the development design, location and supporting documentation, including the
identification of appropriate mitigation, restoration and enhancement measures to offset potential
2.3
November 20, 2013
negative impacts. The intent of this EIS is to demonstrate how the proposed development complies with
the applicable policy documents noted above.
2.4
Methodology for Data Collection
November 20, 2013
3.0
3.1
BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION
A variety of background documents and sources of information were consulted during the preparation of
this report, including the following primary data sources:
•
Township of Woolwich Official Plan 2000 (updated 2012)
•
Regional Official Policies Plan (ROPP) (Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 2006 Consolidation);
•
Draft Regional Official Plan (ROP) (Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 2010)
•
GRCA On-line GIS Mapping website (2011)
http://grims.grandriver.ca/imf/imf.jsp?site=grca_viewer&ddsid=a1354c
•
GRCA Regulatory Mapping;
•
Region of Waterloo GIS Locator (http://locator.region.waterloo.on.ca/locator.htm)
•
Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) Biodiversity Explorer Database (2011);
•
Grand River Fisheries Management Plan (MNR and GRCA, 1998)
•
Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (2001 - 2005)
•
Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al. 1987)
•
Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario (Dobbyn, 1994);
•
Aerial photography (2011) was used to interpret the location of the natural heritage features in the
area.
These information sources were reviewed to provide an understanding of the Subject Property in the
context of the surrounding area. Secondary sources of information were used to identify the known
environmental constraint areas and to map the significant features, including watercourses, floodplains
and potential wildlife occurrences.
3.2
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
The fieldwork methodology for this study was designed to generate a dataset sufficient for the
identification and assessment of natural heritage features within the Study Area. Field studies and
natural environment inventories were completed on the Subject Property and lands adjacent to the
proposed development (where access was permitted) to confirm and refine the boundaries, characteristics
and significance of the natural features that may be affected by the proposed development.
Table 3.1 below provides a summary of the field investigations undertaken for this EIS.
3.1
November 20, 2013
Table 3.1
Ecological Field Work
Purpose of Field Work
Date(s) of Field Work
Personnel
Ecological Land Classification (ELC) and
Botanical Inventory
July 13, 2011
Natalie Leava
Aquatic Habitat Assessment
July 11, 2011
Nancy Harttrup
Botanical Surveys
Incidental Wildlife Observations
Erosion Assessment
3.2.1
All surveys
July 28, 2011
Heather Amirault
Trevor Chandler
Botanical Surveys
Field investigations were conducted to confirm and assess the character of existing conditions in the
Study Area. The work included Ecological Land Classification (ELC) and a botanical inventory of
vegetation communities on the Subject Property, as well as roadside ELC and a botanical inventory of the
wetland area downstream.
The Subject Property was systematically covered on foot to ensure a complete inventory of plant species
and vegetation communities potentially impacted by the proposed development. Community
characterizations (eco-sites and vegetation types) identified during these surveys were based on the
Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system (Lee et al., 1998). Vegetation communities were delineated
on aerial photographs and checked in the field. English colloquial names and scientific binominals of
plant species generally follow Newmaster et al. (1998).
Specific attention was paid during the surveys for potential plant rare species or species at risk known to
occur in the vicinity of the Subject Property, such as Butternut, and other rare plants, as well as rare
vegetation community types (e.g., prairie, savannah and oak woodlands). This included scanning hedgerows
to search for occurrences of rare species and considering the applicability of the rare community types to the
observations in the field. The results of these surveys are presented in Section 4.5.2 and 4.5.3. A
complete list of vegetation species identified during the various surveys is provided in Appendix B.
3.2.2
Aquatic Habitat Assessment
The characterization of on-site fisheries habitat was based on the presence/absence of key aquatic habitat
features. The information was utilized to identify potential fisheries and aquatic habitat constraints
associated with the proposed expansion and possible effects on aquatic habitat that may result from an
increase in production at the meat packing facility.
The habitat survey conducted on July 11, 2011 included the entire length of Randall Drain within the
Subject Property.
The field investigation assessed only the existing habitat conditions; fish collections were not completed
as part of the survey. Information collected consisted of a general description of the watercourse, (i.e.,
3.2
November 20, 2013
dimensions, bank stability, morphology) and identification of features that typically contribute to fish
habitat (i.e., in water and riparian cover, substrate). Water quality conditions were recorded with a YSI
Sonde multiprobe and site photographs were taken at a variety of locations (Appendix C).
3.2.3
Erosion Assessment
An erosion threshold assessment was undertaken in a section of the Randall Drain that represented one of
the headwater tributaries located in the vicinity of the existing facility (Figure 2, Appendix A). The
assessment was undertaken to ensure that a proposed increase in process water to be discharged from the
plant to the watercourse does not exacerbate erosion conditions downstream of the outfall. To this end, an
erosion assessment was completed, which involved a historical/background review, detailed field data
collection and the application of hydraulic equations and empirical relations, suitable to the site
conditions, to determine erosion thresholds.
3.2.4
Wildlife Observations and General Wildlife Habitat Surveys
Observations of wildlife, such as direct species observation and den sites, were identified and recorded
when encountered during surveys. Attention was paid during each survey for possible reptile species
within natural vegetation communities on, and adjacent to, the Subject Property. All wildlife species
identified by sight, sound or distinctive signs during all surveys were recorded, as per Section 4.5.4.
3.3
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND SENSITIVITY
Biological field data were evaluated to determine the significance of natural heritage features. The
provincial status of flora and fauna was provided by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC,
2010). Status rankings (SRANKs) for plants, vegetation communities and wildlife are based on the
number of occurrences in Ontario and have the following meanings:
•
S1: critically imperiled; often fewer than 5 occurrences
•
S2: imperiled; often fewer than 20 occurrences
•
S3: vulnerable; often fewer than 80 occurrences
•
S4: apparently secure
•
S5: secure
•
S?: unranked, or, if following a ranking, rank uncertain (e.g. S3?).
The global, federal and provincial status of wildlife was determined by reviewing species accounts
published by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC, 2007). Provincial significance of
vegetation communities was based on the draft rankings assigned by the Natural Heritage Information
Centre (Bakowsky, 1996). The provincial status of all plant species is based on Newmaster et al. (1998),
with updates from the database of the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC, 2010). Species at risk
protected under the Endangered Species Act include those listed on the current Species at Risk in Ontario
(SARO) List.
3.3
November 20, 2013
Identification of potentially sensitive plant species was based on the coefficient of conservatism value (CC)
assigned to each native species in southern Ontario (Oldham et al. 1995). The value of CC, ranging from 0
(low) to 10 (high), is based on a species’ tolerance of disturbance and fidelity to natural habitats. Species
with a CC value of 9 or 10 generally exhibit a high degree of fidelity to a narrow range of habitat
parameters and undisturbed environments.
The potential significance of the natural heritage features and associated ecological functions was
evaluated in accordance with the following provincial and municipal guideline documents:
•
Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy
Statement, 2005 (MNR, 2010) to determine Provincially Significant natural heritage features and
associated ecological functions
•
Significant Wildlife Habitat: Technical Guide (MNR, 2000) to determine the significance of
identified wildlife habitat features and functions
The potential sensitivity of natural heritage features and functions, such as existing wetlands and
watercourse functions, was also measured through an assessment of:
•
surface water and groundwater patterns;
•
vegetation communities (habitat quality, floral quality index, degree of disturbance);
•
sensitive species (plants with a high coefficient of conservatism value); and
potential linkage and corridor functions.
3.4
Site Description and Natural Features
November 20, 2013
4.0
The information contained in this section describes the natural environment features, functions and
context in the Study Area based on a review of existing information and refinement of current conditions
based on the field investigations.
4.1
GENERAL OVERVIEW OF SITE CONDITIONS
Effluent from the CMP facility is conveyed underground from the plant and drains to a small water
feature that flows in a southerly direction through the property. The effluent discharge to the water
feature is located approximately 350 m downstream of Menno Street. The property consists largely of
agricultural lands currently in use as a sod farm. Also present are hedgerows along portions of the
southern end of the Subject Property.
4.2
DESIGNATED NATURAL FEATURES
No natural features have been identified on the Subject Property, although wetlands that are part of the
Breslau Provincially Significant Wetland Complex are located upstream of Menno Street and downstream
near Lonsdale Road.
4.3
PHYSIOGRAPHY
The Subject Property is located within the Waterloo Hills physiographic region (Chapman and Putnam,
1984). The Waterloo Hills region occupies approximately 192,000 acres which lie primarily in the
Municipality of Waterloo. The surface of this region is characterized by sandy hills with outwash sands
occupying the intervening hollows. Due to the sandy nature of the region, drainage is particularly good. A
number of small kettle lakes are present in this region, as are numerous small swamps.
The ground surface topography within the general Study Area is characterized as hummocky topography
and generally decreases in elevation in a south and westerly direction.
4.4
4.4.1
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water
The Subject Property is located within the Randall Drain subwatershed, a tributary of the Grand River.
The most prominent surface water feature in the vicinity of the Subject Property is the Randall Drain,
which originates in wetlands to the north. These wetlands are a portion of the Breslau Wetland Complex,
a provincially significant wetland (PSW). The portion of Randall Drain adjacent to the property connects
wetlands from this complex that are located north and south of the property. Surface water was present
downstream of the CMP facility input at the time of the survey, however, no water was present upstream
of this location.
4.1
November 20, 2013
4.4.2
Wetlands
No wetlands are located on the Subject Property. The Provincially significant Breslau Wetland Complex
is located downstream to the south and upstream to the north.
4.5
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES
4.5.1
Landscape Ecology
The Study Area is located within the Huron-Ontario section of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Forest
Region (Rowe, 1972). This section covers much of southwestern Ontario, the northern boundary of which
is generally coincident with the Precambrian Shield. Sugar maple and beech are common over the entire
section, with associates such as basswood, white and red ash, yellow birch, red maple, red, white, black
and bur oaks, aspen species, butternut, bitternut hickory, hop-hornbeam, black cherry, sycamore and
black walnut. In lowlands, other hardwood species can be found, such as blue-beech, silver maple, red
and rock elm, black ash, and eastern white cedar. Coniferous species including eastern red cedar, eastern
white pine, eastern hemlock and balsam fir can be found amongst hardwood species where appropriate
conditions are present.
4.5.2
Vegetation Communities
The vegetation communities, based on the ELC system for Southern Ontario, are shown on Figure 2,
Appendix A. This Study Area consisted primarily of active agricultural land, hedgerows bordering the
western perimeter, along with fragmented lowland communities along the eastern and southeastern
perimeter. Communities downstream of the Study Area were also assigned a general classification;
however, these communities were reviewed from the roadside and therefore a brief description is
provided.
The vegetation community types are briefly described in Table 4.1 below.
Table 4.1
Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Vegetation Types
ELC TYPE
Community Description
Forest (FO)
Deciduous Forest (FOD)
FOD
This community was assessed from the roadside. Species such as sugar
maple, silver maple, and white ash composed the canopy as well as the
subcanopy, along with common buckthorn. The understorey is
dominated by smooth brome. Ground cover contained yellowish
enchanter’s nightshade, fringed loosestrife, herb robert and wild ginger.
Marsh (MA)
Meadow Marsh (MAM)
MAM2-2
4.2
This community was assessed from the roadside. Willow species boarded
November 20, 2013
ELC TYPE
Community Description
Reed Canary Grass
Mineral Meadow
Marsh
this habitat, along with occasional white ash and white elm. Reed
canary grass was the dominant vegetation type, with associations of
smooth brome, and occasionally common milkweed. This community
was situated south of the Study Area, downstream of the drainage ditch
running along the west side of the Study Area boundaries.
Hedgerow (HR)
HR1
This linear community borders the west and southwest boundaries of the
Study Area. Black cherry, silver maple, willow species, white oak,
common buckthorn, trembling aspen and Manitoba maple were
observed consistently throughout this habitat. Herbaceous species such
as tufted vetch, common milkweed, quack grass and smooth brome
were commonly found in the ground layer.
*ELC code not listed the First Approximation of ELC for Southern Ontario
Each of these communities is ranked S5 by the NHIC; common and secure in Ontario.
4.5.3
Vascular Plants
16 species of vascular plants were recorded from the Study Area during the survey. Of that number, 11
species or 69% were native and 5 species or 31% were exotic. 100% of the native species observed are
ranked S5 (Secure in Ontario).
16 species of vascular plants were recorded during the roadside ELC survey, south of the Study Area. Of
that number, 11 species or 69% were native and 5 species or 31% were exotic. 100% of the native species
observed are ranked S5 (Secure in Ontario).
No provincially or federally rare, threatened or endangered species were observed.
4.5.4
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
No incidental species were observed during the survey.
Wildlife habitat on the Subject Property was generally absent, but included a hedgerow and wetland
conditions along the drainage ditch. Infrequent rock piles were observed along hedgerows, although these
are likely not suitable for snake hibernacula.
4.6
AQUATIC RESOURCES
The Randall Drain was historically a tributary of the Grand River and is mapped by the GRCA as a
coldwater stream. Downstream of the Study Area, the Randall Drain crosses Lonsdale Road. Historical
maps and GRCA mapping show the watercourse flowing through the Waterloo Regional Airport lands and
crossing Fountain Street however field investigations and recent air photos and topographic maps show
no connection to the channel at Fountain Street.
4.3
November 20, 2013
4.6.1
GRCA Surveys
Fish Community
The fish community in the regional context of Randall Drain was identified by the GRCA through
electrofishing surveys conducted from 2005-2009. A total of 14 species was identified, the majority of
which prefer cool water conditions and are characteristic of cool water streams in the Grand River
watershed.
Water Quality
Based on information provided from water quality surveys conducted by the GRCA, the Randall Drain
contained high levels of phosphorous, chloride, nitrate and nitrite and the thermal regime is considered to
be cool (19-25°C). Nutrient and chloride inputs appear to be higher in the summer months than in the
spring. Baseflow conditions in the summer months are such that levels are quite low, indicating that the
outfall from the CMP facility located upstream is likely contributing to a higher proportion of the actual
flow.
4.6.2
Stantec Surveys
Within the Study Area, the tributary appears to have been straightened. The channel had a trapezoidal
shape and low berms along the top of most banks. Land use on both sides was agricultural and there were
occasional trees on the banks; the channel banks appeared stable. Riparian vegetation consisted primarily
of grasses. The channel had a very low gradient there was no pool/riffle habitat within the Study Area.
At the time of the survey, most of the upper portion of the watercourse contained no flowing water, with a
bottom of soft mud and dense cattail growth. Watercourse characteristics alternated between areas that
were relatively open, to areas of dense cattails or grasses. There was one area of water ponding, however
it was stagnant (not flowing) and covered with dense growth of duckweed (Photos 4 and 5). Downstream
of input from the CMP facility, water appeared to be present on a permanent basis. Although not always
visible from the banks, water flowed through the dense grass in the channel bottom or slowed and formed
wider stagnant areas depending on the gradient.
Wetted channel width ranged from 0.2 m to approximately 3 m and mean depth was approximately 6 cm
in areas where it could be measured (Photos 9 to 11). In most areas the channel bottom consisted of soft,
unconsolidated sediments that were easily disturbed. Downstream of input from the plant, there were
areas with dense, slimy algae on the water surface (Photos 9 and 10). At the downstream end of the
Subject Property water was pooled in front of the CSP culvert and small boulders in the channel bottom
were covered with dense, filamentous algae (Photos 16 and 17).
Water quality conditions are summarized in Table 4.2. Due to the absence of water in the upper portion
of the Study Area, measurements were only recorded downstream of the effluent discharge location. In
the eight days preceding the survey, no rain was recorded by Environment Canada at the
Kitchener/Waterloo monitoring station. As a result of the dry weather prior to the survey, it is likely that
4.4
November 20, 2013
all water in the channel at the time of the survey originated from the CMP facility which is consistent with
the high conductivity observed. Conductivity in the Grand River at Bridgeport in summer 2011 was
typically about 450 μS/cm (GRCA on-line data).
At the time of the survey the dissolved oxygen concentration of surface water within the Subject Property
boundary was too low to support most fish species, which typically need 4 mg/L.
Water quality measurements were also recorded at the culvert under Londsdale Road. Although
conductivity was similar to the upstream stations, dissolved oxygen was sufficient to support fish, and
small minnows were observed on the south (downstream) side of Lonsdale Road. The minnows likely
came from a pond located immediately north of Lonsdale Road, which drains to the watercourse. No fish
were observed at any other locations during the survey.
Table 4.2
Water Quality Conditions Recorded on July 11, 2011
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Conductivity (μS/cm)
pH
Water Temperature (oC)
Air Temperature
(oC)
Below effluent input
Near downstream
end of property
Downstream of
property (at
Lonsdale Road)
2.5
2.11
7.02
3390*
4706
4900
7.34
7.51
7.88
27.8
26.7
26.3
30 - 33
30 - 33
30 - 33
* variable
4.6.3
Overall Assessment of Habitat Quality
The watercourse within the Study Area does not directly provide fish habitat, as poor water quality and
lack of water depth make this area unsuitable for fish. Small cyprinids were observed downstream at
Lonsdale Road, however the watercourse does not connect to any other streams or tributaries due to
diversions within the Waterloo Regional Airport property. As a result, any cyprinids do not likely provide
forage for piscivorous species further downstream.
4.7
EROSION ASSESSMENT
Historical aerial photographs and previous reporting were reviewed to gain additional insight into the
channel and channel processes. The watercourse was straightened prior to 1930 and the surrounding
upland terrain has been utilized for agriculture for more than 80 years. Over this time riparian vegetation,
consisting mainly of grasses and herbaceous vegetation, has likely exerted considerable control on
channel form.
The fluvial geomorphology of Randall Drain and other nearby watercourses was characterized in a recent
subwatershed study (Water’s Edge, 2008). The long profile of Randall Drain indicated that channel slope
4.5
November 20, 2013
varies considerably between the headwater reaches and its confluence with the Grand River. Slope is
relatively low (0.0029 m/m) in upstream reaches and steeper (0.0175 m/m) in downstream in areas
where the watercourse flows across terrace features and the Grand River valley wall. The CMP facility is
located along the relatively flat upstream reaches.
As part of the 2008 study, erosion thresholds were calculated in the steeper sections of watercourse.
Critical discharge (i.e. the discharge at which the motion of streambed sediment is initiated) was found to
be relatively high (Qcr > 3 m3/s) which is to be expected given the watercourse’s large cross-sectional area
and the coarse bed sediment (cobble/gravel) which is able to resist movement.
Erosion thresholds were not determined in the vicinity of the CMP facility. Erosion of bed sediments at
this location is expected to occur at relatively low discharges due to the smaller size of the watercourse
and the fine texture (medium sand) of the bed sediment. To this end, this section presents the results of
an erosion threshold investigation that was undertaken in this section of watercourse.
Quaternary sediments within the vicinity of the study site are dominated by Port Stanley Till, consisting
mainly of silt and sand (Karrow, 1987). The channelized drain is considered to have been excavated into
this material. As a result, the creek substrate consists of medium sand that is derived from the gradual
long term erosion of these sediments.
4.7.1
Methods
Field data collected from the watercourse consisted of qualitative and quantitative measurements of the
physical channel attributes that govern sediment entrainment and transport including, channel crosssectional form (i.e., width/depth/cross-sectional area), channel slope, substrate characterization, and
degree of vegetation influence. Five channel cross-sections were measured along a 200 m section of
watercourse downstream of the CMP outfall. To approximate the severest “worst case” conditions, crosssections were established in sections of the watercourse where the cross-sectional width was narrowest
and thus erosion potential greatest. Each section consisted of approximately 20 surveyed points to ensure
there was sufficient detail with which to adequately quantify cross-sectional dimensions. Bankfull stage
was estimated at each cross-section by surveying localized basal scour or depositional features, where
present. Cross-section data were entered into the RiverMorph software to quantify channel dimensions.
Based on the collected data, empirical erosion threshold analyses most suitable to the site conditions were
selected. The threshold models used in this study were developed for large and small watercourses,
including small agricultural drains, and stream bed sediments ranging from coarse silt to very fine gravel
and therefore considered appropriate for use in the Study Area. Specifically, the relations used included
critical permissible velocity (Chow, 1959) and critical shear stress (Laursen, 1958 as modified by Madden,
1993). These models consider such factors as gradient, grain size depth and flow resistance. Based on the
recommended thresholds, critical depths (i.e., depth required to initiate erosion) were determined and
then subsequently incorporated into actual cross-sections measured in the field in order to translate the
results into the more meaningful representation of discharge.
4.6
November 20, 2013
4.7.2
Results
The geomorphological field survey was undertaken by Stantec on July 28, 2011. Weather conditions at
this time were rainy but the channel was dry upstream of the CMP facility outfall. Downstream of the
outfall, a flow of 10 L/s was measured which consisted of water discharged from the CMP pipe. The sandy
bed material was immobile at this time and the water clear.
The Randall Drain downstream of the CMP facility discharge pipe was observed to be a well-defined,
straightened trapezoidal watercourse. The channel banks and, in many areas the channel bed, were
dominated by abundant and densely rooted grassy and herbaceous vegetation which exerted considerable
control on channel morphology. There were no riffles observed, but there were pools that tended to be
long (20-30 m) and shallow, occurring upstream of localized obstructions of woody debris or instream
herbaceous vegetation. Stream gradient was relatively low (0.0044 m/m) which is consistent with long
profile data (Water’s Edge, 2008).
Based on the July 2011 survey results, the geomorphological characteristics of the watercourse were
determined (Table 4.3). Bankfull dimensions were poorly defined owing to the artificial
(straightened/trapezoidal) condition of the channel. Minor basal scour, which was located approximately
40-50 cm above the water level on the day of the survey, indicated possible bankfull stage. Stream
substrate was inspected visually and consisted of uniform medium sand with a median grain size
estimated to be 0.3 mm.
Table 4.3
Geomorphological characteristics of the Randal Drain
Parameter
Measurement
Surveyed stream length (m)
Drainage area (ha.)
Creek discharge (L/s)
200
250
10
Bankfull width (m)
Bankfull depth (m)
Bankfull area (m2)
Stream gradient (m/m)
4.65
0.51
2.35
0.0044
Entrenchment ratio
Substrate D50 (mm)
Rosgen stream type
0.3
B5c
Bankfull discharge was estimated for the surveyed reach using measurements of cross-sectional
dimensions, stream gradient, and stream bed roughness (Table 4.4). Threshold calculations were based
on a Manning’s roughness coefficient of 0.055, as determined using the method of Cowan (1956), as
presented in USGS (1984). This method accounts for additional roughness elements such as vegetative
4.7
November 20, 2013
influences and other natural stream irregularities. The selected value of 0.055 was considered
representative of roughness conditions in the watercourse in late winter when there is minimal vegetative
cover and thus erosion potential is greatest. The permissible velocity for fine sand (0.3 mm) is 0.3 m/s
(Chow, 1959).
Using the aforementioned input parameters, the erosion threshold calculations indicate that a minimum
discharge of 0.11 m3/s is required to initiate sediment entrainment and transport (Table 4.4). The
threshold discharge is less than 5% bankfull discharge. The interpreted sensitivity of the channel is due
mainly to the relatively small size of the watercourse and the fine-textured sediment (D50).
The erosion threshold result is considered to be conservative. The analyses did not account for the
presence of permanently rooting vegetation, which is prevalent along the channel banks and on many
sections of the bed as well, or the presence of pools and other types of form roughness, both of which
would substantially increase the resistance of the bed materials to erosion.
Table 4.4
Bankfull discharge and critical parameters related to the initiation of
erosion along the surveyed section of Randall Drain
Parameter
Bankfull velocity (m/s)
Bankfull discharge (m3/s)
Criticala shear stress of substrate (N/m2)
1.1
2.5
0.22
Critical depth (m)
Permissible velocity (m/s)
Critical discharge (m3/s)
0.12
0.30
0.11
a
“critical” refers to conditions required to initiate erosion of streambed sediments.
4.7.3
Summary
A section of the Randall Drain, a tributary to the Grand River, was investigated to determine erosion
thresholds. A reach dominated by sandy substrate, located immediately downstream of the CMP facility
discharge pipe, underwent detailed analysis. Threshold discharges were calculated based on the required
shear stress and velocity needed to transport the median grain size (D50 = 0.3 mm). A critical discharge of
0.11 m3/s was determined for the watercourse. The fine textured substrate (medium sand) is mainly
responsible for the relatively low erosion threshold at this location.
The proposed maximum discharge from the pipe is 0.05556 m3/s, which represents approximately 50% of
the calculated threshold discharge of 0.11 m3/s. As such, the maximum proposed increase in flow from the
CMP facility effluent discharge is not expected to exceed the erosion threshold of the streambed
sediments.
4.8
Significant Natural Features and Policy Implications
November 20, 2013
5.0
This section provides an assessment of significance of each of the natural heritage features and associated
ecological functions associated with the Subject Property. This assessment is based on the Natural
Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (MNR,
2010) and the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNR, 2000). Consideration for the natural
heritage designations of the Region of Waterloo Regional Official Plan, which implements similar policies,
is also provided.
The natural heritage features to be considered in accordance with the PPS include:
5.1
•
Significant wetlands (in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E);
•
Significant habitat of endangered and threatened species;
•
Significant woodlands;
•
Significant valleylands;
•
Significant wildlife habitat;
•
Significant areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSIs); and
•
Fish habitat.
SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS
There are no provincially significant wetlands on, or within, 120 m of the Subject Property. No other
wetlands were found within 120 m of the Subject Property.
5.2
SIGNIFICANT HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
No Threatened or Endangered flora or fauna species were observed during the field investigations or
identified during our review of available background information. Significant habitat for these species is
not considered to be present on, or within 120 m of, the Subject Property.
5.3
SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS
Criteria suggested by the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR, 2010) for designating significant
woodlands include woodland size, ecological function (shape, proximity to other woodlands or natural
features, linkages), species diversity, uncommon characteristics, and economic and social values.
However, it is the local planning authority’s responsibility to designate significant woodlands.
There are no significant woodlands present on, or within 120 m of, the Subject Property.
5.1
November 20, 2013
5.4
SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLAND
Recommended criteria for designating significant valleylands include prominence as a distinctive
landform, degree of naturalness, importance of its ecological functions, restoration potential, and
historical and cultural values (MNR, 2010). Identification of significant valleylands is a municipal
responsibility (MNR, 2010). There are no significant valleylands on, or within 120 m of, the Subject
Property.
5.5
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 (MNR, 2000), there are four
general types of significant wildlife habitat: (a) migration corridors, (b) seasonal concentration areas, (c)
rare or specialized habitat, and (d) habitat for species of conservation concern, as follows:
5.5.1
Seasonal Concentration Areas
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. Such areas include, but are not limited to, deer yards,
amphibian breeding ponds, snake and bat hibernacula, waterfowl staging and moulting areas, raptor
roosts, bird nesting colonies, shorebird staging areas, and passerine migration concentrations. Only the
best examples of these concentration areas are usually designated as significant wildlife habitat. Areas
that support a species at risk, or areas where a large proportion of the population may be lost if the habitat
is destroyed, are examples of seasonal concentration areas which should be designated as significant
(MNR, 2000).
No potential seasonal concentration areas were identified on, or within 120 m of, the Subject Property.
5.5.2
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. All of the
identified ELC communities are considered common in Ontario (S5). No rare habitats exist on, or within
120 m of, the Subject Property.
Specialized habitats are microhabitats that are critical to some wildlife species. The Significant Wildlife
Habitat Technical Guide (MNR, 2000) 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 specialized habitats for wildlife exist on, or within 120 m of, the Subject Property.
5.2
November 20, 2013
5.5.3
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. During the field investigations no rare or declining species were identified.
Although two species at risk have historic ranges that include the Study Area (i.e., Jefferson Salamander
and Eastern Ribbonsnake), neither of these species were observed during field investigations and suitable
habitat for these species was not observed within the Study Area. As such, these species and their habitats
are considered to be absent on, and within 120 m of, the Subject Property.
5.5.4
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, vegetated linkages along watercourses and areas used by amphibians
between breeding and summering habitat.
No migration corridors have been identified on or within 120 m of the Subject Property.
5.6
SIGNIFICANT AREAS OF NATURAL AND SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
No ANSIs have been identified on, or within 120 m of the Subject Property.
5.7
FISH HABITAT
Development and site alteration are not permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and
federal regulations. Under the federal Fisheries Act, all fish habitat is considered equal. When dealing
with fish habitat, proponents must demonstrate that there will be no net loss of fish production as a result
of development or site alteration. There is no fish habitat within the Subject Property, however,
downstream of the property the Randall Drain and associated wetlands provide fish habitat and therefore
have the potential to be impacted by discharge from the meat facility upstream.
5.8
SUMMARY OF NATURAL HERITAGE CONSTRAINTS
Based on the information contained above, the only significant natural heritage feature identified on, or
adjacent to, the Subject Property is fish habitat in the downstream portion of the Randall Drain (Figure
2, Appendix A).
5.3
Proposed Development
November 20, 2013
6.0
Proposed Development
6.1
PROPOSED PLANT EXPANSION
The expansion will be phased in over several years and will include additional office space, processing
areas, cooler, parking, loading area and a new stormwater management (SWM) facility. The proposal for
the Phase 1 expansion of the CMP facility is to construct an additional 22,690 square meter processing
plant on to the existing facility complete with the requisite additional parking. An additional 25,000
square meters of processing plant is planned with an office facility in the northeastern part of the site,
with the associated additional requisite parking which represents the Phase 2 ultimate expansion.
In addition to the above, a new SWM facility is proposed at the southeast corner of the site that will collect
the surface drainage from the expansion lands and the existing site that currently drains towards the
Randall Drain.
6.2
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The proposed Preliminary SWM strategy in the Draft Functional Servicing Report (Stantec 2013) for the
CMP facility expansion incorporates stormwater conveyance through a series of storm sewer networks
and drainage swales followed by temporary detention in an “end-of-pipe” constructed wetland SWM
facility for water quality treatment and peak flow control, to be located near the southeast corner of the
developed area. The wetland will provide enhanced water quality control for all minor flows through the
provision of permanent pool storage, extended detention storage, and a sediment settling area (forebay).
The SWM strategy has been developed to support construction in two stages associated with the Phase 1
and Ultimate expansion of the proposed development and has been designed to provide a Normal level of
water quality control in accordance with the Stormwater Management Practices and Design Manual
(MOE, 2003).
6.1
Impact Identification, Assessment and Evaluation
November 20, 2013
7.0
The environmental effects that might reasonably be expected to occur as a result of the proposed
development are 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.
7.1
IMPACT ON SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES
Potential impacts associated with the expansion of the meat packing facility include an increase in
impervious surface cover, impacts to the hydrologic cycle through reduced recharge and increased runoff
from paved surfaces and an increase in effluent.
No development is proposed within the significant natural heritage feature (fish habitat) described in
Section 5.8 and identified on Figure 2, Appendix A.
The following is an assessment of potential direct and indirect impacts on fish habitat and ecological
functions on, and adjacent to, the Subject Property and an indication of recommended mitigation
measures proposed and incorporated into the proposed site plan.
7.1.1
Fish Habitat
No development is proposed within the fish habitat located adjacent to the Subject Property. A
stormwater management facility will be constructed to manage additional runoff resulting from an
increase in impervious surface cover. The design of the SWM facility will result in a discharge of effluent
into the Randall Drain equal to or less than (in the case of storm events) the current level of discharge as
per the Conestoga Meat Packers Functional Servicing Report (Stantec 2013). As a result of this design,
there will be no additional impacts on the fish habitat.
Due to the absence of fish and fish habitat in the Study Area, additional effluent from the proposed
expansion will not negatively affect fish or fish habitat in this watercourse. Downstream at Lonsdale Road,
cyprinids are present and the increase in flow volumes from the expanded facility will not negatively affect
cyprinids in that location.
7.1.2
Construction Timing
Timing of any in-water construction activities should occur outside of the critical breeding periods of the
warmwater cyprinid species (in-water work is allowed from July 1 to March 15 in accordance with MNR
policies).
7.1
November 20, 2013
7.1.3
Erosion and Sediment Control
In order to minimize erosion potential and the introduction of sediment into the Randall Drain during
grading activities, a number of erosion and sediment (E & S) control measures should be implemented
prior to the initiation of any construction in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline
for Urban Construction (Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities, 2006). These control
measures should be monitored and maintained in good repair throughout all phases of development.
7.1.4
Stormwater Management
Urban development is typically associated with an increase in the quantity and a decrease in the quality of
post development flows. Normal water quality control and peak flow detention will be provided through
an “end-of-pipe” constructed wetland SWM facility, as part of the proposed development, further details
of which are provided in the Conestoga Meat Packers Functional Servicing Report (Stantec 2013).
7.2
RECOMMENDED RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES
Naturalization efforts within the SWM facility are proposed and will include native plantings.
7.3
NET ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Long-term impacts will be mitigated through appropriate surface water management that includes the
implementation of an effective SWM facility.
7.4
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING STRATEGY
Monitoring should be undertaken to ensure that the proposed mitigation measures have been
implemented in accordance with the approved development plans and to ensure that the measures
implemented have successfully mitigated potential impacts.
It is recommended that monitoring be undertaken during all phases of development to ensure compliance
with the final grading and erosion and sediment control plans. This includes ensuring that the erosion
and sediment controls are in place and functioning properly throughout all phases of development and
that no encroachment occurs outside of the limits of the proposed development. Remedial action should
be undertaken as soon as possible wherever discrepancies are identified. Monitoring is recommended
during construction to ensure the following:
•
construction activities remain inside the construction envelope;
•
erosion and sediment controls are installed and maintained at the buffer limits and edge of
construction envelope; and
•
construction and planting of the stormwater management facilities are undertaken according to the
recommended design.
7.2
November 20, 2013
Compliance monitoring reports should be prepared and submitted to the Township of Woolwich
seasonally while the site is actively being developed / constructed with a log of dates when the facilities
(i.e. erosion and sediment controls, construction fencing) were inspected, the condition of the facilities at
the time and any recommended remedial actions, if any, that was taken. This monitoring should continue
until substantial completion of the grading and construction. The inspection activities will include:
•
Inspection of E&S control measures after each significant rainfall event (greater than 13 mm) or
bi-weekly, whichever is shorter;
•
Inspections should include all silt fence installations, rock check dams, sediment traps,
impoundments, outlets and vegetation;
•
All noticeable erosion shall be repaired immediately, with investigation into the cause so
implementation of mitigation measures to prevent recurrence will be more successful; and
•
Sediment shall be removed from all temporary basins when the level of accumulation has reduced
the permanent pool (dead storage) volume by one half.
Submission of regular monitoring results to the Township of Woolwich during active construction period.
Monitoring reports should be submitted monthly (quarterly, during periods of inactivity or house
construction) and should be based on inspections completed bi-weekly or after any significant rainfall
events (>13 mm), whichever is greater.
7.3
Summary and Conclusion
November 20, 2013
8.0
This EIS demonstrates that the recommendations and intent of the relevant provincial and municipal
policies have been successfully interpreted for the proposed development on the Subject Property.
The purpose of this EIS is to present and discuss the natural heritage features currently found on, and
adjacent to, the Subject Property. In addition, this EIS also identifies potential constraints these features
could represent to proposed development plans, and provides recommendations as to how the proposal
should proceed in light of these constraints.
The following is a summary of the EIS:
•
No provincially rare species were observed during the field surveys;
•
No development is proposed on or within 120 m of any natural heritage features and will occur
outside of areas where the ecological functions of these features would be affected;
•
The potential impacts of the proposed development on the Randall Drain will be mitigated through
the establishment of an “end-of-pipe” constructed wetland SWM facility for water quality treatment
and peak flow control; and
•
Potential erosion and sedimentation of the Randall Drain will be controlled during construction
through a series of measures in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for
Urban Construction (Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities, 2006).
Based on our understanding of the proposed development, as described in this report, the potential
impacts of this development are anticipated to be minor. We do not anticipate any significant impacts to
the natural heritage features or functions adjacent to the Subject Property as a result of the proposed
development provided the proposed mitigation measures are incorporated, maintained and monitored
during all phases of development.
8.1
POLICY COMPLIANCE
The information contained in this EIS is presented in the context of the current regulatory and policy
frameworks and demonstrates that the proposed development will be consistent with the various policies
contained within, provided the recommendations included in this report will be implemented through the
site planning, design and construction process.
In accordance with Section 2.1 of the PPS, there will be no impacts to fish habitat. The potential impacts
of development on fish habitat will be minimized and prevented through the incorporation of stormwater
management and erosion and sediment controls.
The proposed development has been assessed in the context of the new Region of Waterloo draft policies
to ensure consistency with the new ROP when it is finally approved.
8.1
November 20, 2013
Based on the information contained in this report, and subject to the recommended mitigation and
restoration measures, the proposed development is consistent with the natural heritage protection
policies established by the Region of Waterloo, Township of Woolwich and the Province.
8.2
RECOMMENDATIONS
The environmental recommendations usually associated with the completion of an impact analysis have
been incorporated proactively through this EIS process by identifying and considering the constraints and
recommendations outlined in this report during the development of the related development plan and
Draft Conestoga Meat Packers Functional Servicing Report (Stantec, 2013).
The following recommendations should be implemented during the planning, design and construction of
the proposed development:
a) The principles and general approach discussed in the SWM design recommended in the Draft
Conestoga Meat Packers Functional Servicing Report (Stantec, 2013) be adhered to;
b) The correct construction and maintenance of the SWM facility;
c) Effectiveness and compliance monitoring be undertaken according to the recommendations of this
report and the Draft Conestoga Meat Packers Functional Servicing Report (Stantec, 2013);
d) The use of conditions for site plan control to ensure mitigation measures discussed in this report are
implemented; and
e) Construction monitoring be undertaken on the Subject Property according to this report, and
performance monitoring be undertaken according to the Draft Conestoga Meat Packers Functional
Servicing Report (Stantec, 2013).
These conclusions and recommendations are based on the information currently available for this area,
the preliminary design and location of the proposed development and the implementation and
maintenance of the recommendations described above.
This information is respectfully submitted in support of the proposed building expansion on behalf of
Conestoga Meat Packers.
8.2
November 20, 2013
We trust this EIS provides the necessary information to demonstrate that the proposed development will
not negatively impact the natural features and ecological functions on, or adjacent to, the Subject
Property.
Regards,
STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.
Janice Ball
Terrestrial Ecologist
Phone: 519-585-7287
Fax: 519-579-6733
janice.ball@stantec.com
Vince Deschamps
Senior Environmental Planner
Phone: 519-836-6050
Fax: 519-836-2493
vince.deschamps@stantec.com
8.3
References
November 20, 2013
9.0
References
Bakowsky, W.D. 1996 (draft). Natural heritage resources in Ontario: S-ranks for communities in Site
Regions 6 and 7. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
Peterborough. 11 pp.
Chapman, L.J. and Putnam, D.F. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological
Survey, Special Volume 2, 270p. Accompanied by Map P.2715 (coloured), scale 1:600 000.
Chow, V.T., 1959: Open-channel Hydraulics. McGraw Hill. Boston, MA. 624 pp.
Cowan, W.L., 1956: Estimating hydraulic roughness coefficients: Agricultural Engineering, v. 37, no. 7, p.
473-475.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2013. Distribution of Fish and Mussel Species at Risk – Grand
River Conservation Authority Maps 6 and 13. Available Online: http://www.conservationontario.on.ca/projects/DFO.html.
Grand River Conservation Authority. 2009. Policies for the Administration of the Development,
Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, Regulation Ontario
Regulation 150/06. Approved July 31, 2009, Policies Effective August 1, 2009.
GRCA On-line GIS Mapping website (2011)
http://grims.grandriver.ca/imf/imf.jsp?site=grca_viewer&ddsid=a1354c
Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities, 2006. Erosion and Sediment Control
Guidelines for Urban Construction.
Karrow, P.F., 1987: Quaternary Geology of the Cambridge Area, Southern Ontario;
Ontario Geological Survey, Map 2508, scale 1:50 000.
Laursen, E.M., 1958: The Total Sediment Load of Streams. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE. 84
(HY-1), 1-36.
Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological
land classification for Southwestern Ontario: first approximation and its application. Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources, South Central Region, Science Development and Transfer Branch.
Technical Manual ELC-005.
Madden, E.B., 1993: Modified Laursen Method for Estimating Bed-Material Load. USACE Contract
Report HL-93-3. Washington DC, 20314 1000. 71 pp.
9.1
References
November 20, 2013
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2005. Provincial Policy Statement. Queen’s Printer for
Ontario.
Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Fish and Wildlife
Branch. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. October 2000.
Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of
the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005.
Ministry of Natural Resources 2011. Land Information Ontario Mapping. Available Online:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LIO/index.html
Ministry of Natural Resources and Grand River Conservation Authority. 1998. A Community-based
Approach to Fisheries Management in the Grand River Watershed. Compact Disk PDF, 2005.
Ministry of the Environment. 2003. Stormwater Management Practices Planning and Design Manual.
Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). 2007. Provincial status of plants, wildlife and vegetation
communities database. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic.html. OMNR, Peterborough.
Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). 2011. Biodiversity Explorer.
https://www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhicWEB/mainSubmit.do
Newmaster, S.G., A. Lehela, P.W.C Uhlig, S. McMurray and M.J. Oldham. 1998. Ontario plant list.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, ON,
Forest Research Information Paper No. 123. 550 pp. + appendices.
Oldham, M.J., W.D. Bakowsky and D.A. Sutherland. 1995. Floristic quality assessment for southern
Ontario. OMNR, Natural Heritage Information Centre, Peterborough. 68 pp.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1993. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, Southern Manual. 107
pp.
Regional Municipality of Waterloo (RMOW). 2006. Planning for a Sustainable Community: Regional
Official Policies Plan. September 2006 Office Consolidation.
Regional Municipality of Waterloo (RMOW). 2010. Regional Official Plan. (Under Appeal)
Rowe, J.S. 1972. Forest Regions of Canada. Canadian Forest Service Publication No. 1300. 172 pp.
Stantec, 2013. Conestoga Meat Packers Functional Servicing Draft Report.
Township of Woolwich, 2000. Township of Woolwich Official Plan (Updated July 2012)
9.2
References
November 20, 2013
Water’s Edge Environmental Solutions Team, 2008: East Side Subwatersheds Study: Fluvial
Geomorphological Characterization. Unpublished report updated August 5, 2010. 27 pp.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1984: Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for
Natural Channels and Flood Plains. United States Geological Survey Water-supply Paper 2339
9.3
Appendix A:
Figures
550000
±
Legend
Subject Property
Study Area Limits
Existing Operation
Watercourse
Provincially Significant Wetland
Regulation Limit (GRCA)
Waterbody
Eb
es
tR
ai
n
t
un
yc
r
oa
d
St
S tr
ee
TOWNSHIP OF
WOOLWICH
t
an tz
lw
oo
No rth
W
ou
ad
tS
Ro
ee
ti on
S tr
Sta
ich
CITY OF
KITCHENER
no
Sh
r e et
M en
th
d
e
dal
d
ar
R
iv
ad
o
iv e
th
R
ba
er
nk
D riv
v
le
rive
Dr
ve
lle r
Ze
t
KEY MAP
le r D
r D ri
rB
ou
Ea s
o ad
er R
D aim
k ne
Old
Oldfield Drive
R iv
Ze lle
Lac
Ko
ss u
ed
s
Ro ad
t
as
Be av er da le
tE
vill e R o a
e
re
Spe
St
Fo
e
dg
B ri
s
Lon
CITY OF
CAMBRIDGE
Notes
eR
oa d
\\cd1004-f06\Work_group\01603\active\160311233\design\drawing\gis\mxd\Terrestrial\EIS\160311233_EIS_Fig01_SubjectProperty.mxd
Revised: 2013-10-22 By: ccoghlan
Menno Street
1.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
2.
Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2013.
3.
Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2010.
Client/Project
Conestoga Meat Packers
Figure No.
0
100
1:4,000
550000
200
Title
m
1
Subject Property
October 2013
160311233
550000
Legend
")
±
Subject Property
OutfallLocation
Permanent Watercourse
Intermittent Watercourse
Me nno Stree t
")
AG SOIL
Residential
HR
s
Lon
dal
Notes
eR
oa d
\\cd1004-f06\Work_group\01603\active\160311233\design\drawing\gis\mxd\Terrestrial\EIS\160311233_EIS_Fig02_ELCCommunities.mxd
Existing
Operation
1.
2.
3.
Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 20xx.
October 2013
160311233
Client/Project
Figure No.
MAM2-2
0
DRAFT
100
1:4,000
550000
200
Title
m
2
DRAFT
ELC Communities & Natural Features
550000
±
Legend
Subject Property
Proposed Expansion Area
Existing Operation
Phase I Area
Phase II Area
Watercourse
Provincially Significant Wetland
Menno Street
Regulation Limit (GRCA)
Waterbody
PHASE II
PHASE I
PHASE I SWM POND
s
Lon
dal
Notes
eR
oa d
\\cd1004-f06\Work_group\01603\active\160311233\design\drawing\gis\mxd\Terrestrial\EIS\160311233_EIS_Fig03_ProposedSitePlan.mxd
EXISTING
1.
2.
3.
Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 20xx.
October 2013
160311233
Client/Project
Figure No.
0
DRAFT
100
1:4,000
550000
200
Title
m
3
DRAFT
Proposed Development Phases
Appendix B:
Plant List
LATIN NAME
COMMON NAME
DICOTYLEDONS
Aceraceae
Acer
Acer
Acer
Acer
Asclepiadaceae
Asclepias
Euphorbiaceae
Vicia
Fagaceae
Quercus
Geraniaceae
Geranium
Oleaceae
Fraxinus
Rhamnaceae
Rhamnus
Rosaceae
Prunus
Salicaceae
Populus
Salix
Vitaceae
Vitis
MONOCOTYLEDONS
Poaceae
Bromus
Elymus
DICOTS
Maple Family
Manitoba Maple
Red Maple
Silver Maple
Sugar Maple
Milkweed Family
Common Milkweed
Spurge Family
Tufted Vetch
Beech Family
White Oak
Geranium Family
Herb-robert
Olive Family
White Ash
Buckthorn Family
Common Buckthorn
Rose Family
Black Cherry
Willow Family
Trembling Aspen
Willow species
Grape Family
Riverbank Grape
MONOCOTS
Grass Family
Awnless Brome
Quack Grass
negundo
rubrum
saccharinum
saccharum ssp. saccharum
syriaca
cracca
alba
robertianum
americana
cathartica
serotina
tremuloides
species
riparia
inermis ssp. inermis
repens
WEEDINESS
INDEX
PROVINCIAL
STATUS
COSEWIC
STATUS
COEFFICIENT OF
CONSERVATISM
WETNESS INDEX
0
4
5
4
-2
0
-3
3
S5
S5
S5
S5
G5
G5
G5
G5T?
0
5
S5
G5
SE5
G?
S5
G5
SE5
G5
S5
G5
SE5
G?
3
S5
G5
0
S5
G5
-2
S5
G5
SE5
SE5
G4G5T?
G?
5
6
3
5
4
0
5
3
FLORISTIC SUMMARY & ASSESSMENT
Species Diversity
Total Species:
Native Species:
Exotic Species
S1-S3 Species
S4 Species
S5 Species
16
11
5
0
0
10
Co-efficient of Conservatism and Floristic Quality Index
Co-efficient of Conservatism (CC) (average)
CC 0 to 3
lowest sensitivity
CC 4 to 6
moderate sensitivity
CC 7 to 8
high sensitivity
CC 9 to 10
highest sensitivity
Floristic Quality Index (FQI)
2.9
4
5
0
0
9
Presence of Weedy & Invasive Species
mean weediness
weediness = -1
low potential invasiveness
weediness = -2
moderate potential invasiveness
weediness = -3
high potential invasiveness
-2.4
1
1
3
20%
20%
60%
Presence of Wetland Species
average wetness value
upland
facultative upland
facultative
facultative wetland
obligate wetland
2.1
4
6
2
3
0
27%
40%
13%
20%
0%
69%
31%
0%
0%
100%
44%
56%
0%
0%
-2
3
3
3
-1
-3
-3
-3
OMNR STATUS
GLOBAL STATUS
LATIN NAME
COMMON NAME
DICOTYLEDONS
Aceraceae
Acer
Acer
Apiaceae
Daucus
Aristolochiaceae
Asarum
Asclepiadaceae
Asclepias
Asteraceae
Cirsium
Caryophyllaceae
Lychnis
Geraniaceae
Geranium
Oleaceae
Fraxinus
Onagraceae
Circaea
Primulaceae
Lysimachia
Rosaceae
Rubus
Ulmaceae
Ulmus
Vitaceae
Vitis
MONOCOTYLEDONS
Poaceae
Bromus
Phalaris
DICOTS
Maple Family
Silver Maple
Sugar Maple
Carrot or Parsley Family
Wild Carrot
Duchman's-pipe Family
Wild Ginger
Milkweed Family
Common Milkweed
Composite or Aster Family
Canada Thistle
Pink Family
Mullein Pink
Geranium Family
Herb-robert
Olive Family
White Ash
Evening-primrose Family
saccharinum
saccharum ssp. saccharum
carota
canadense
syriaca
arvense
coronaria
robertianum
americana
lutetiana ssp. canadensis
ciliata
allegheniensis
americana
riparia
inermis ssp. inermis
arundinacea
Yellowish Enchanter's Nightshade
Primrose Family
Fringed Loosestrife
Rose Family
Alleghany Blackberry
Elm Family
White Elm
Grape Family
Riverbank Grape
MONOCOTS
Grass Family
Awnless Brome
Reed Canary Grass
COEFFICIENT OF
CONSERVATISM
WETNESS INDEX
5
4
-3
3
5
16
11
5
0
0
11
Co-efficient of Conservatism and Floristic Quality Index
Co-efficient of Conservatism (CC) (average)
2.8
CC 0 to 3
lowest sensitivity
6
CC 4 to 6
moderate sensitivity
5
CC 7 to 8
high sensitivity
0
CC 9 to 10
highest sensitivity
0
Floristic Quality Index (FQI)
9
-2
PROVINCIAL
STATUS
OMNR STATUS
COSEWIC
STATUS
GLOBAL STATUS
S5
S5
G5
G5T?
SE5
G?
6
5
S5
G5
0
5
S5
G5
3
-1
SE5
G?
5
-1
SE3
G?
5
-2
SE5
G5
4
3
S5
G5
3
3
S5
G5T5
4
-3
S5
G5
2
2
S5
G5
3
-2
S5
G5?
0
-2
S5
G5
0
5
-4
SE5
S5
G4G5T?
G5
FLORISTIC SUMMARY & ASSESSMENT
Species Diversity
Total Species:
Native Species:
Exotic Species
S1-S3 Species
S4 Species
S5 Species
WEEDINESS
INDEX
69%
31%
0%
0%
100%
55%
45%
0%
0%
Presence of Weedy & Invasive Species
mean weediness
weediness = -1
low potential invasiveness
moderate potential invasiveness
weediness = -2
weediness = -3
high potential invasiveness
-1.8
2
2
1
40%
40%
20%
Presence of Wetland Species
average wetness value
upland
facultative upland
facultative
facultative wetland
obligate wetland
1.9
6
5
0
5
0
38%
31%
0%
31%
0%
-3
Appendix C:
Photos
Photo 1 Facing south from Menno St.
Photo 2 150 m south of Menno St., facing south
Photo 3 Ponded area south of Oak tree in Photo 2
Photo 4 Bottom of channel upstream of effluent input
Photo 5 Facing south along drain channel from south of
Photo 3
Photo 6 Upstream of effluent inflow, facing downstream
PREPARED FOR:
ATTACHMENT
1
TITLE
SITE:
Randall Drain
July 11, 2011
PAGE
te \\cd1004-f06\01609\active\160311233_conestoga meat packers\planning\report\eis\draft\appendices\appendix c photos.docx
1 of 3
Photo 7 Culvert from Conestoga Meat Packers
Photo 8 Facing downstream from downstream of effluent
culvert
Photo 9 Algae mats and bottom substrate typical in the vicinity
of Photo 8
Photo 10
Facing downstream from downstream of
Photo 8
Photo 11
Facing upstream from near lower end of
study area
Photo 12
Facing upstream from 30 m upstream of
property limit
PREPARED FOR:
ATTACHMENT
1
TITLE
SITE:
Randall Drain
July 11, 2011
PAGE
2 of 3
Photo 13
Facing downstream from 20 m upstream of
property limit
Photo 14
Channel bottom approximately 20 m
upstream of property limit
Photo 15
Photo 16
Photo 17
Culverts at south end of property
Culverts at south end of property
Photo 18
PREPARED FOR:
ATTACHMENT
1
TITLE
SITE:
Randall Drain
July 11, 2011
PAGE
3 of 3

CONESTOGA MEAT PACKERS, BRESLAU ENVIRONMENTAL

Transcription

Similar documents

Case Study

Brochure - Habitat for Zoomanity A Life Science Webquest

engineering success through investment in education

The truth about… The truth about… habitats

Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District

Letter

Cobra Starship band interview

Instant Marinater

packers and movers chandigarh @ http://www.shiftingsolutions.in/