EXTENSION OF HIGHWAY 5 PROJECT BETWEEN FARM POINT AND THE CONNECTION TO ROAD 366
SCREENING REPORT FINAL VERSION
BY TRANSPORT CANADA FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
DECEMBER 2010
NOTE
This report has been written in French. In the event of discrepancy between the English version and the French version, the latter shall take precedence.
Screening Report December 2010 - i - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. Introduction...... 9 1.1 Overview of the project...... 9 1.2 Legal framework of the environmental assessment ...... 9 1.2.1 Regulatory Context...... 9 1.2.2 Scope of the environmental assessment ...... 10 2. Public participation ...... 11 3. environmental assessment Methodology ...... 12 3.1 Description of the study area...... 12 3.2 Method use to assess environmental effects ...... 12 3.2.1 Determination of interactions ...... 12 3.2.2 Determining the significance of environmental effects ...... 13 4. Project description...... 14 4.1 Project Overview and Main Components...... 14 4.2 Timetable...... 15 4.3 Maintenance and Operational Procedures ...... 15 4.3.1 Use of de-icing agents ...... 15 4.3.2 Vegetation Control ...... 15 4.3.3 Maintenance of bridges, overpasses and roadways...... 16 4.4 Mitigation Measures Integrated in the Project...... 16 5. description AND EVALUATION of ENVIRONMENTAL effects...... 16 PART A: General description...... 16 5.1 Pysical Environment ...... 16 5.1.1 Soil Quality ...... 16 5.1.2 Surface water quality...... 17 5.1.3 Groundwater quality...... 17 5.1.4 Air Quality...... 18 5.1.5 Hydrography...... 18 5.2 Biological environment ...... 19 5.2.1 Plant species...... 19 5.2.2 Wildlife and habitat ...... 22 5.3 Socio-economic environment ...... 28 5.3.1 Aboriginal use of lands and resources for traditional purposes...... 28 5.3.2 Navigation ...... 28 5.3.3 Archaeological potential...... 28 5.3.4 Agricultural land...... 29 5.3.5 Noise environment ...... 29 PART B: effects, mitigation measures and significance of residual effects of Biophysical Environment ...... 29 5.4 Air quality – Effects, Mitigation Measures and Significance of residual effects ...... 29 5.5 Surface water - Effects, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Impact ...... 30
Screening Report December 2010 - iii - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield TABLE DES MATIÈRES
5.5.1 Construction-related effects ...... 30 5.5.2 Effects related to the presence and use of the highway ...... 30 5.6 Soil and sediments - Effects, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Impact ...... 30 5.7 Vegetation (including protected species) – Effects, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Impact ...... 31 5.7.1 Clearing ...... 31 5.7.2 Loss or impairment of rare plant species or habitats ...... 31 5.7.3 Loss of riparian vegetation ...... 32 5.7.4 Changes in roadside plant communities ...... 32 5.8 Wetlands– Effects, Mitigation measures and Significance of Residual Effect ...... 33 5.8.1 Construction-related effects, mitigation measures and significance of residual effects ...... 33 5.8.2 Operation-related effects, mitigation measures and significance of residual effects ...... 33 5.9 Herpetofauna (including rare species with special status) ...... 35 5.10 Ichtyian wildlife (including special status species) – Effects, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Effect ...... 36 5.10.1 Suspension of fine particulate in fish habitat ...... 36 5.10.2 Losses and Modifications of Fish Habitat ...... 37 5.10.3 Exposure of aquatic life to chlorides or other maintenance products ...... 39 5.10.4 Conclusion of analysis in relation to the Fisheries Act ...... 40 5.11 Avian Wildlife (including special-status species) – Effects, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Effect ...... 40 5.11.1 Construction-related effects ...... 40 5.11.2 Effects related to operation and presence of the highway ...... 40 5.12 Mammals– Effects, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Effect ...... 41 5.12.1 Loss or degradation of habitats suited to mammals ...... 41 5.12.2 Limitation of wildlife movement and habitat fragmentation ...... 41 PART C: indirects Effects on socio-économic Components ...... 42 5.13 Historical, archeological, paleontological or architectural heritage...... 42 5.14 Navigation ...... 42 5.15 Current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons ...... 42 5.16 Human Health ...... 43 5.16.1 Effects on health resulting from the direct effects on groundwater quantity and quality ...... 43 5.16.2 Effects on health resulting from direct effects on air quality (noise) ...... 45 5.17 Other Consideration : Agricultural land ...... 46 PART D: CUMULATIVE EffeCts ...... 46 5.18 Cumulative Effects ...... 46 5.18.1 Analysis of effects...... 46 5.18.2 Mitigation Measures...... 48 5.18.3 Significance of the residual effects...... 48
Screening Report December 2010 - iv - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield TABLE OF CONTENT
PART E : ACCIDENTS, MALFUNCTIONS AND EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT ...... 48 5.19 ACCIDENTS, MALFUNCTIONS AND EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT (INCLUDING PRELIMINARY EMERGENCY MEASURES PLAN) ...... 48 5.19.1 Accidents and Malfunctions ...... 48 5.19.2 Effects of the environment on the project ...... 49 PART F: MITIGATION MEASURES AND COMPENSATION OF RESIDUEL EFFECTS...... 49 5.20 RESULTS...... 49 6. Monitoring and FollOW-Up Programs; Adaptive Management ...... 59 6.1 Monitoring...... 59 6.2 Follow-up under CEAA...... 59 6.3 Follow-up of compensation measures for fish habitats...... 61 6.4 Adaptive Management...... 61 7. References...... 63
Screening Report December 2010 - v - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 List of environmental components to be considered in this screening report ...... 11
Table 5.1 General description of wetlands observed in the study zone ...... 20
Table 5.2 Protected Herpetofauna that are present or likely to be present in the study zone...... 24
Table 5.3 Protected wildlife species confirmed present within the right-of-way ...... 27 Table 5.4 Expected Losses of wetlands ...... 34
Table 5.5 Total Estimated Fish Habitat Destruction, Deterioration and Disturbance (HDDD) Generated by the Project ...... 37
Table 5.6 Assessment of environmental effects for the extension of Highway 5 project between Farm Point and the connection to Road 366 ...... 51
LIST OF MAPS
Maps are grouped in a separate document posted on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry (CEAR). This Maps Index is also available at the Wakefield Library in the Outaouais Area.
Map 4.1 Highway 5 - Phases
Map 4.3 Study Area
Map 5.1 Surface Deposits
Map 5.2 Watercourse n 1 (La Pêche River)
Map 5.3 Watercourse n 2
Map 5.4 Watercourse n 3
Map 5.5 Watercourse n 4
Map 5.6 Watercourse n 5 (Meech Creek)
Map 5.7a Biological Environment – La Pêche Section
Map 5.7b Biological Environment – Chelsea Section
Map 6f1 Location of wetlands surveyed in 2010 – La Pêche Section
Map 6f2 Location of wetlands surveyed in 2010 –Chelsea Section
Rapport d’examen préalable Novembre 2010 - vii - Prolongement de l’autoroute 5 – Chelsea - Wakefield
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview of the project
The ministère des Transports du Québec (MTQ) is proposing to extend Highway 5 over a distance of approximately 6.5 km between Farm Point, in the municipality of Chelsea (Chelsea section), and the junction with Route 366, in the municipality of La Pêche (La Pêche section). The proponent plans to start work in early 2011 and complete work within a two to three year time frame.
1.2 Legal framework of the environmental assessment
1.2.1 Regulatory Context
Under subsection 5(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), an environmental assessment of the project is required if a federal authority exercises one of the following powers or performs one of the following duties or functions: • is the proponent of the project; • makes or authorizes payment to the proponent; • has the administration of federal lands and sells, leases or otherwise disposes of those lands; • issues a permit or licence under a provision prescribed pursant to paragraph 59(f).
For this project, the federal authorities are considering exercising the following duties, powers or functions: • provision of financial assistance by Transport Canada to the proponent under the Outaouais Road Agreement; • authorization by Transport Canada under subsections 5(1) and (3) of the Navigable Waters Protection Act ; • transfer and administration of federal land by the National Capital Commission (NCC) to enable the project to be carried out; • authorization by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) under subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act .
Transport Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the National Capital Commission as responsible authorities (RAs), must ensure that an environmental assessment is conducted before they can exercise their duties, powers or functions in relation to the project. In addition, specialists from Health Canada, Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada, although they do not exercise powers, duties or functions under CEAA, have provided their views on the aspects of the project within their areas of expertise in order to enable the responsible authorities to make an informed decision.
In accordance with CEAA, the RAs have delegated the environmental assessment and the preparation of the assessment report to the proponent, the MTQ. In December 2010, the MTQ has presented to the RAs the environmental assessment report prepared by Genivar. The acronym EAR will be used in this report to refer to the proponent’s report. The present report called screening report (ssee section 1.2.2) is largely based on the EAR. Although the proponent was required to provide an analysis and conclusions on the potential significance of the residual environmental effects of the proposed project, the final determination as to the significance of residual
Screening Report December 2010 - 9 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
environmental effects under the CEAA is required to be made by the federal responsible authorities. Under CEAA, the RAs must conclude whether the project, taking into consideration the implementation of mitigation measures, is or is not likely to cause a significant adverse environmental effects. The information provided by the proponent and the analysis of the effects remains a key component of this decision-making process. In making this determination, the RAs consider not only the views of the proponent, but also their own expertise, the expertise of other federal authorities and any other available information, in assessing significance.
1.2.2 Scope of the environmental assessment
A screening-level environmental assessment was conducted in accordance with subsection 18(1) of CEAA given that the project meets the definition of a project under CEAA (construction of a physical work) and is not subject to the Exclusion List Regulations and does not appear on the Comprehensive Study List.
The responsible authorities have defined the scope of the project to be assessed to include the construction, operation and maintenance of the Highway 5 between Meech Creek and Road 366 near Wakefield. It also includes related work that is essential to the completion of the core project, such as watercourse crossing structures and ground preparation, as well as ancillary work and work that is physically linked to the proposed project and interdependent work, such as the relocation of public utility services, the construction, relocation, renovation or improvement of access roads, branch roads, and intersections and demolition of infrastructure.
Under CEAA, the screening report (SR) shall include a consideration of the following factors: • the environmental effects 1 of the project, including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the project and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out; • the significance of the effects referred to in first point; • comments from the public that are received in accordance with this Act and the regulations; • measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the project; and • any other matter relevant to the screening, comprehensive study, mediation or assessment by a review panel, such as the need for the project and alternatives to the project, that the responsible authority or, except in the case of a screening, the Minister after consulting with the responsible authority, may require to be considered.
As part of this screening report, federal authorities identified the environmental components to be considered, which are presented in Table 1.1.
1 Under the CEAA, an “environmental effect” means, in respect of a project, (a) any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any change it may cause to a listed wildlife species, its critical habitat or the residences of individuals of that species, as those terms are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Species at Risk Act , (b) any effect of any change referred to in paragraph ( a) on (i) health and socio-economic conditions, (ii) physical and cultural heritage, (iii) the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons, or (iv) any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance, or (c) any change to the project that may be caused by the environment, whether any such change or effect occurs within or outside Canada;
Screening Report December 2010 - 10 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
Finally, the screening report must consider the potential effects of the project at the worksite and within its immediate area of influence during the construction, operation and maintenance of the highway. The temporal scope of the work corresponds to the period covered by the construction, operation, decommissioning and rehabilitation of the site and cessation of operation or other activities that may be proposed by the proponent or carried out in connection with the work proposed by the proponent, including mitigation and compensatory measures relating to fish habitat. The time required for a biophysical or socioeconomic component to recover from the effect in question and return to its previous state must also be taken into consideration.
Table 1.1 List of environmental components to be considered in this screening report Effects Environmental components − Air quality − Surface water − Soil and sediments − Vegetation − Wetlands Direct effects on the biophysical − Vegetative rare species environment − Reptiles and amphibians − Fish and fish habitat − Birds − Mammals − Wildlife rare species
− Historical, archeological, paleontological or architectural heritage − Navigation Indirect effects on socio-economic − Aboriginal use of lands and resources for traditional purposes activities − Human Health (resulting from direct effects on groundwater and air quality (noise)
Cumulative environmental effects likely to result from the project in Work or activities for which formal plans or applications have been combination with other projects or completed or are underway. activities Elements of the project likely to experience leaks or procedural failures Environmental effects of or, which may contribute to the risk of spills (of liquids, wastes or solid malfunctions materials), fire, explosions and collisions or other accidents. Other consideration Farmland
2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The project is subject to a screening-level assessment under the CEAA. Although the Act does not require public consultation during this type of environmental assessment, the Act gives the responsible authorities the discretionary ability to determine if public consultation is appropriate.
Given the interest and concerns expressed by the public since the outset of the environmental assessment, the federal responsible authorities opted to provide opportunities for public participation during the environmental assessment, in accordance with section 18(3) of the CEAA.
On August 6, 2010, the federal authorities posted a notice on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry (CEAR) inviting the public to provide comments on a summary of the preliminary findings of the ongoing environmental assessment. A summary of the results was also submitted to the Wakefield Library and, in response to public requests, additional studies on specific issues were made available at the library.
Screening Report December 2010 - 11 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
The responsible authorities received roughly 60 comments and questions from the public during the consultation period, which ended on August 31, 2010. The issues raised relate primarily to the type of environmental assessment, the methodology used to determine the significance of the environmental effects, the contamination of Wakefield’s domestic wells and spring, wetlands, access to Brown Lake, the proximity of Gatineau Park and the project justification.
Finally, prior to making their decisions on the significance of the environmental effects of the project, the responsible authorities have made the complete screening report available to the public to comment on the results. At this final stage of the environmental assessment process the responsible authorities published on the CEAR the responses to the concerns raised during the first stage of the public consultation. Responses to concerns raised during the ongoing consultation period will be considered by the responsible authorities in making their respective environmental assessment decisions.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
3.1 Description of the study area
The boundaries of the study area were defined to encompass all the valued environmental components 2 identified within the surrounding environment for the purposes of identifying, as precisely as possible, the anticipated direct and indirect environmental effects of the project (map 4.3). In general, the study area selected extends for 300 m on either side of the right-of-way. In some cases, this area has been reduced to the footprint of the right-of-way or to a wider or narrower strip on either side. For components affecting the aquatic environment, the study area generally extends upstream and downstream of the right-of-way.
3.2 Method use to assess environmental effects
The purpose of the environmental effects assessment is to identify, describe and assess the potential project-environment interactions, in order to take them into account into planning and decision-making processes in a manner that promotes sustainable development.
The environmental effects assessment is conducted to identify and measure the potential adverse effects of the proposed project on the environment. Once the potential adverse adverse effects have been identified, measures are proposed in an effort to avoid, mitigate or compensate these adverse effects (mitigation measures). The effects of the environment on the project and cumulative effects are also taken into account.
Finally, the decision on the overall environmental effects of the project is based on the significance of the residual environmental effects, which are defined as those effects that are likely to persist following the implementation of mitigation measures.
3.2.1 Determination of interactions
The first step in this approach is to identify the project components and related activities (sources of impact on the biophysical and human environments) and the environmental components (valued environmental components, or VECs). The second step is to identify the potential project-
2 Assessing all of the potential issues associated with a proposed undertaking is impractical, if not impossible (Beanlands and Duinker, 1983). It is therefore commonly acknowledged that an environmental assessment should focus on those components of the environment that are valued by society and/or that serve as indicators of environmental change. These are known as Valued Environmental Components.
Screening Report December 2010 - 12 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
environment interactions. The project team identifies these interactions on the basis of the following information: • technical characteristics of the project; • basic data on the environment; • lessons learned from similar projects; • scientific documentation.
The analysis takes into account all project components (defined in greater detail in Chapter 4) and the two phases of implementation which are the construction phase and operation (presence of the highway) phase. Generally, the proponent does not anticipate decommissioning the proposed highway in the long term. Consequently, the decommissioning of the project is not discussed.
3.2.2 Determining the significance of environmental effects
The significance of an effect relates to the changes created in VECs as a result of the project. This prediction is based on objective facts and measurable variables, such as the intensity , scope and duration of these changes. The criteria used to assess the potential significance of the environmental effects include intensity, geographic extent and duration. These criteria are described below:
Intensity
The intensity of the effect reflects the relative importance to the environment of the consequences arising from changes in the environmental component. The intensity may be described as low, moderate or high. • a low-intensity effect alters an environmental component almost imperceptibly, without modifying the specific characteristics, use or quality of the affected element; • a moderate-intensity effect involves the loss or modification of certain specific characteristics of the affected environmental component and slightly reduces its use, specific nature or quality; • a high-intensity effect significantly alters the specific characteristics of the affected environmental component, threatening its integrity or considerably reducing its use or quality.
Geographic Extent
The geographic extent of the effect is dependent on the scale of the impact considered and/or the number of people affected by the impact. It may be described as isolated, local or regional. • the extent may be described as isolated when a modification affects a very limited area (e.g., within the right-of-way, in one or a very few specific locations, or in the immediate area) or an area that can still be used, or is perceptible to only a few individuals; • the extent may be described as local when a modification affects a broader area (e.g., a series of lots) or a number of individuals or groups of individuals (e.g., all the residents within the vicinity of the right-ofway); • the extent may be described as regional when a modification affects large areas or communities (e.g., a number of municipalities served by the proposed Highway 5).
Screening Report December 2010 - 13 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
Duration and frequency
Duration and frequency assesses the length of time the effects of a project will last and at what frequency effects will be experienced (i.e. continuous or discontinuous). The duration of the effect can be described quantitatively as either short, moderate or long term. • the duration of the impact is considered short when the effect is felt, continuously or discontinuously, only during the construction period or when the environmental component requires less than three years to recover or adapt; • the duration of the impact is considered moderate when the effect is felt continuously or discontinuously for a period of 3 to 10 years; • the duration of the impact is considered long when the effect is felt continuously or discontinuously for a period or a number of periods exceeding 10 years.
The combination of these three criteria (intensity, extent and duration) have been used to determine the significance of the effect.
CEAA establishes two possible environmental effect classifications: significant and not significant.
The significance of the residual effects takes into consideration the implementation of the mitigation measures used to minimize them. The residual effects are those persisting after the mitigation measures have been implemented. While the effects are described for each source (e.g., clearing, operations in aquatic environments), the significance is assessed on an overall basis for the construction period as a whole, and then for the operation and presence phase as a whole.
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The description of the project described below is derived in part from the environmental assessment report prepared by Genivar, Société en commandite on behalf of the MTQ (Genivar 2010).
4.1 Project Overview and Main Components
The construction phase includes five major components: • transportation and traffic: includes the presence and operation of machinery and detour routes during construction, and the delivery of granular materials from extraction sites; • clearing: includes operations such as clearing of the right-of-way; • excavation, grading and construction of infrastructure: includes all activities involved in building the highway (for example: from excavation to the installation of light standards and the construction of overpasses); • operations in aquatic environments: specifically includes operations in aquatic environments, from the installation of culverts or bridge piers to the diversion or relocation of portions of watercourses; • waste management: refers to waste management, including the disposal of unused excavated materials and contaminated soils or sediments.
The operation and presence of the Highway phase includes three major components: • presence of the Highway and other infrastructure: assesses the environmental effects related to the actual presence of the highway, such as those caused by the permanent encroachment of the surface by the right-of-way and roadways;
Screening Report December 2010 - 14 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
• traffic: includes the effects related to the movement of automobiles and trucks over a new road; • maintenance, snow removal and use of de-icing agents: includes the general effects of normal highway maintenance, as well as those related to winter maintenance (snow removal and use of de-icing agents).
The extension of Highway 5 – Phase 2 spans a distance of 6.5 km from Farm Point to the south (Municipality of Chelsea), to Highway 366 to the north (Municipality of La Pêche). The new highway will run along Highway 105 to the west. This is Phase 2 of a broader three-phase Highway 5 extension project (map 4.1). Phase 1, construction of a 2.5-km stretch in Chelsea was completed in November 2009, extends from the end of Highway 5 over a 2.5-km stretch in Chelsea. Highway 5 generally extends along the Eastern boundary of Gatineau Park.
Highway 5 between Farm Point and Route 366 consists mainly of two lanes separated by a central median of varying width. In certain areas, both paved lanes are contiguous, separated by a guardrail, while in other areas the lanes are spaced as much as 120 metres apart near the Chelsea- La Pêche boundary. This phase involves two sections of road (the Chelsea and La Pêche sections).
In the Chelsea section, the new highway will include two bridges crossing over Meech Creek, as well as the construction of two overpasses to maintain traffic flow over the new highway surface for Carman and Cross Loop roads. The project also includes the construction of a complete interchange to provide access between the highway and Cross Loop Road. Further, to ensure the stability of the road infrastructure, counterweights will be installed in the Meech Creek sector (one in the Park and one partly in the right-of-way and partly in the Park) and finally stabilization structures will be installed on the right bank of the creek.
4.2 Timetable
Construction work is scheduled to begin in 2011 and will continue for a period of two to three years.
4.3 Maintenance and Operational Procedures
These activities consist essentially of snow removal and de-icing of the roadway, vegetation control in the right-of-way and maintenance of bridges, overpasses and the roadway itself.
4.3.1 Use of de-icing agents
De-icing agents will be applied using the same method used for the existing highway system. The quantities of de-icing agents used are determined by a number of factors, including temperature, the presence or absence of slopes or curves, and the existence of structures. The MTQ will implement best management practices in the areas of salt application, salt storage and snow removal, as described in the Transportation Association of Canada publication “ Syntheses of Best Practices Road Salt Management” . Finally, salt management must comply with the “Code of Practice for the Environmental Management of Road Salts” published by Environment Canada.
4.3.2 Vegetation Control
Vegetation will be mechanically controlled, as it is on the road system as a whole. Grass will be cut along the edge of the roadway in a way that reduces maintenance costs while maintaining an acceptable visual appearance. The ecological vegetation management approach introduced by the MTQ several years ago will be applied.
Screening Report December 2010 - 15 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
4.3.3 Maintenance of bridges, overpasses and roadways
Bridges and overpasses will be maintained in the same manner as the rest of the road system. The roadway will be maintained regularly to protect the quality of the surface course and ensure automobile safety.
4.4 Mitigation Measures Integrated in the Project
As indicated previously, all work in or near streams required to complete the project will be reviewed by the DFO and mitigation measures will be specified in the approvals to be obtained under the terms of the Fisheries Act (see section 5.10 for a non-exhaustive list). The work will also be subject to the provisions contained in the plans and specifications in the Cahier des charges et devis généraux – Infrastructures routières (CCDG) (MTQ, 2010), which define the rights and responsibilities of the MTQ and its agents. The measures included concern maintenance and diversion of traffic, signage, protection of property and compensation for damage, use of explosives, protection of waterbodies, clean-up, camps and worksites, clearing, forest fire prevention, dust suppressants and stabilizers and landscaping. These provisions do not limit the measures specified in the approvals required under the terms of the Fisheries Act or those referred to all other federal permits and authorizations.
5. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Section 7.0 of the environmental assessment report (EAR) submitted by the proponent (MTQ, 2010) contains a complete list of the environmental effects and specific mitigation measures that the proponent agrees to implement to attenuate or remedy said effects.
The RAs are of the opinion that, on the whole, the proponent’s study is an accurate depiction of the anticipated effects and mitigation measures that are required. However, RAs have decided to request additional pertinent measures.
The environmental impact assessment presented in this section focus mainly on effects as defined by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and for which federal authorities have issued opinions or which call for specific mitigation measures.
PART A: GENERAL DESCRIPTION
5.1 Pysical Environment
Maps 5.1 to 5.6 show the key physical characteristics of the study area.
5.1.1 Soil Quality
Superficial deposits in the right-of-way consist essentially of marine clay-type soil. The significant presence of clay, typical of the soil in the study area, accounts for the presence of unstable sectors. The few hills along the present route are covered with a thin layer of till and characterized by rocky outcroppings. The October 2009 geotechnical study by LVM Technisol (MTQ, 2009a) found a thick layer of marine sediment deposits associated with the Champlain Sea and a glacial deposit overlying the third stratigraphic unit, i.e. the rocky embankment.
Screening Report December 2010 - 16 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
The soils typical of marine deposits found in this area come from the Dalhousie and Pontiac series. In general, soils from these series exhibit good to moderate drainage. However, drainage is less than perfect near the lakes due to the presence of wetlands. The sensitivity of clay to remodelling generally varies from low to moderate and may be high in some areas. Lastly, the soils are well- drained on the till. In short, the soils in the region typically consist of fine, possibly unstable sediments, especially near streams and/or watercourses.
Several erosion zones have been identified near the permanent and intermittent watercourses in the study area. One such area was observed at the right bank of the La Pêche River and, further south, a possible erosion zone is located within the highway right-of-way along the left bank of tributary T20201. Several erosion zones are also present along stream no. 3. Erosion zones have also been observed in several areas along Meech Creek, where the creek bank is unstable in several places (concave banks of the meanders) (JFSA, 2010).
The quality and potential or actual contamination of soils in the study area were assessed on the basis of various environmental site assessments (ESAs) carried out in the study area. In general, features within the right-of-way do not adversely affect its soil quality. According to the information received from the ministère du Développement durable de l’Environnement et des Parcs (MDDEP), the contaminated land located closest to the right-of-way is more than one kilometre south of the right-of-way, along Highway 105.
5.1.2 Surface water quality
Surface water is considered to be generally of good quality because the flow is from west to east and therefore essentially originates in Gatineau Park. Locally, however, the presence of human facilities and farming activities can be the source of a certain amount of surface water contamination.
5.1.3 Groundwater quality
Findings of Bacteriological and Physico-chemicals Analyses
As part of this preliminary study, physico-chemical and bacteriological analyses were conducted on 15 of the 18 wells identified near the future right-of-way. Upon further study, 17 of the 34 wells surveyed were tested for analysis. Tables 5.1a (initial analysis series) and 5.1b (second series) of the EAR show a summary of the findings. Results show that several of the criteria have been exceeded and do not satisfy provincial and/or federal drinking water quality recommendations. Some of the levels exceeded correspond to only aesthetic qualities (taste, odour, colour), while others may affect the health of users.
Note that the Vallée Verde sector is of particular interest. Indeed, this area features the presence of an excellent aquifer located within the sand layer under the clay horizon. The water table in this location is under artesian pressure (Les Laboratoires Outaouais inc., 1990) and the supply for this aquifer is located on a slope located a bit more than 100 meters north of Brown Lake Road.
Note, too, that a spring located approximately 500 metres east of the Valley Drive/Route 105 junction and the site, developed by the Municipality of La Pêche, is used extensively by the public. The water is delivered via a 100-mm diameter conduit installed at a depth of 0.6 metres along the south side of Valley Drive, but does not reach Route 105 (MTQ, 2009b). The Municipality performs bacteriological and physic-chemical tests of the spring, pursuant to the Quebec Regulation respecting the quality of drinking water .
According to Natural Resources Canada experts, “the water feeding this spring appears to come from the hills in the upper watershed area, to the east and south of the spring, and from the sand
Screening Report December 2010 - 17 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
and gravel pit located on either side of Route 105, near Rockhurst Road (a former quarry is also present). This water was filtered by and flowed through the clay layer into the fine sand unit (or sandy till) and resurfaced at the spring.” This hypothesis, based on information from drilling logs in the Qualitas Outaouais report of February 2008, was confirmed by additional drilling on October 26, 2010. Further, consultants’ opinions confirm that there is no hydraulic connection between the Wakefield spring and the lakes to the south (Carman and Brown).
A larger number of parameters have been tested for this supply (see EAR, Appendix 4). Tests on water samples collected at this location on June 17, 2009, showed the presence of certain parameters (coliforms, nitrates, and nitrites) that suggest that this source is also influenced by surface water. According to an employee of the Municipality, periods of heavy rainfall also affect the spring. It is therefore highly likely that the quality of the water is variable (MTQ, 2010). Note that the water analyses performed in 2010 indicate bacteriological contamination of the spring (total coliforms), which has tended to increase over the past few years (Health Canada, 2010).
5.1.4 Air Quality
Since the Outaouais region is lightly industrialized, air pollution problems are localized and air quality is generally good. Air quality in the study zone appears to be excellent, due to the area’s proximity to Gatineau Park.
5.1.5 Hydrography
The drainage system is strongly influenced by the presence of the Gatineau River, toward which the waterways in the area flow. Several lacustrian stretches are scattered along the highway route and marshy sectors appear sporadically on the rocky plateau (MTQ, 1986a). Specifically, the future highway will cross four permanent waterways, from north to south, that feed into the Gatineau River (no. 1, 3, 4 and 5; maps 5.2, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6), while Valley Drive crosses another stream near the edge of the work site (stream no. 2; map 5.3).
The first waterway to be crossed is the La Pêche River (stream No. 1). The average width and depth of this waterway is up to 2.5 m and 0.7 m, respectively. The river features a long channel sandwiched between two sets of rapids (map 5.2) and a bay is located at its confluence with the Gatineau River. The rapids consist of an amalgam of cobbles, pebbles, and boulders. The channel consists mainly of a substrate that varies from silt to boulders. Several areas of silty deposits are found in the channel. Note that two tributaries (T10301 and T10201) are also affected by the right- of-way of the future highway. The first (T10301) flows permanently. It is located partially within the right-of-way on the west side, but is not crossed by the highway route. It consists of a channel approximately 60-cm wide and 20 cm deep. This tributary slopes gradually and flows gently. Its substrate is composed mainly of silt and sand (90%) with a small percentage of gravel (10%). There is no data available for the second tributary (T10201), which was dry during the field study.
Stream No. 2 follows Valley Drive, which crosses this waterway. Of the five waterways considered here, this is the only one that does not cross the highway. The downstream part of the section within the right-of-way flows over a steep grade, but this slope tends to decrease upstream (map 5.3). This section features a channel approximately 0.6 m wide on average and less than 10 cm deep. There is a significant presence of fine sediments in this waterway. On the other hand, the section downstream from the right-of-way is also predominantly heterogeneous in terms of width, depth, and variety of substratum. Lastly, the highway right-of-way will encroach on two intermittent tributaries to this waterway (tributaries T20201 and T20301). These tributaries are less than 10 cm deep and vary in width from 25 to 85 cm.
Stream No. 3 features a shallow channel (18 cm on average) with low flow velocity (map 5.4). The substrate consists mainly of sand and silt. This watecourse originates from wetland MH1 and flows
Screening Report December 2010 - 18 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
toward the Gatineau River. Between Route 105 and the Gatineau River, its course is interrupted by an un-named lake.
Downstream from the small artificial lake corresponding to wetland MHX, stream No. 4 (T40101) drains into a farmer’s field, then into a small wooded sector (map 5.5). The section of the waterway located on agricultural land includes the branch that crosses the highway right-of-way and features a shallow, poorly defined (braided) channel. However, it is better defined in the wooded areas. This stream flows over clay. Lastly, the right-of-way will affect three intermittent tributaries to this stream (branches T40102, T40201, and T40202).
The last stream crossed by the highway is Meech Creek (stream No. 5, tributary T50101). The tributary located within the right-of-way features a channel that is 8 m wide on average and varies in depth from 0.6 to 0.8 m. Flow rates are low. The banks consist mainly of clay and show signs of instability in places (map 5.6). Downstream from the right-of-way, the creek shows a broad diversity of lentic and lotic environments. In the lotic environments, the substrate consists of boulders, cobbles, and pebbles. Finally, note that six intermittent tributaries (T50201 to T50701)feed this stream which flows over clay. Significant deposits of fine sediments have also been observed in the first tributary (T50201).
5.2 Biological environment
5.2.1 Plant species
In the summer of 2007, a survey was conducted (McKenzie, 2007a) to document the presence of plant species of special status and to establish a list of all plant species recorded on the property (See Appendix 1 of the EAR). Additional surveys were also conducted in 2009 and 2010.
5.2.1.1 Terrestrial vegetation
The inventory of vegetation was conducted in the forest areas. These areas are significantly bio- diverse and are likely to harbour protected species. The inventories have identified 306 plant species, including 35 tree species, 24 shrub species and 247 herb species (Appendix 1 of the EAR). Analysis of forest maps of the Government of Québec (2008) evaluates the area of the highway right-of-way covered with young or mature forests as approximately 56.5 ha, which represents just over 40% of the area of the right-of-way. A detailed survey of the vegetation on the remainder of the right-of-way was not conducted. It is occupied primarily by cropland and regenerating stands. Details on the area of the various types of cover are presented in Table 5.3 of the EAR.
The study area contains no exceptional forest ecosystems (EFE) as defined by the Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune (MRNF, 2008b).
5.2.1.2 Wetlands
Inventories conducted in 2007 and 2010 identified 17 wetlands located partially or completely in the work area of the project. Two other wetlands have been characterized adjacent to the right-of-way of the highway. The various wetlands can be classified as marsh, swamps/floodplain or shallow water according to the Canadian Wetland Classification System (National Wetlands Working Group, 1997). Maps 6f1 and 6f2 (annexe 6f of the EAR) show the location of wetlands identified on the ground. Table 5.1 (CIMA, 2010 gives a general description of environments observed in the study area.
Screening Report December 2010 - 19 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
Table 5.1 General description of wetlands observed in the study zone WETLAND NO. WETLAND CLASSES DOMINANT SPECIES PRESENCE SURFACE OF HYDRIC AREA (m 2) Swamp Marsh Shallow LINK Within the water study zone (total) 3 Complex MH1 X X X Trembling aspen and X 28 384 Carex sp. (91 665)
MH4 X Dwarf scouring rush X 2 295 and Willow sp. (2 295) MH5 X Narrowleaf cattail 2 830 (2 830) MH6 X Carex sp. and Blackish X 164 bulrush (164) MH7 X Carex sp. and Blackish X 69 bulrush (69) MH8 X Reed phalaris X 63 (63) MHX X Narrowleaf cattail X 0 9 460 ZH100 X Narrowleaf cattail and 0 (point herpetile) Blackish bulrush (126)
ZH 235 X Carex sp. and Canada 1 499 (point herpetile) goldenrod (1 504) V1 X Carex sp. and X 923 Narrowleaf cattail (1 014) V3 X X Carex sp. X 222 (222) V5 X American elm 168 (168) V9 X Grass species and X 250 Black ash (250) V9-2 X Moss species and Black X 205 ash (205)
3Wetlands MH1, MH2, MH3 and MH9 form a single wetland area composed of distinct vegetation units. These units are interconnected. These wetlands will be herin further described as complex MH1 or MH1, respectively.
Screening Report December 2010 - 20 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
WETLAND NO. WETLAND CLASSES DOMINANT SPECIES PRESENCE SURFACE OF HYDRIC AREA (m 2) Swamp Marsh Shallow LINK Within the water study zone (total) V10 X Narrowleaf cattail and 368 Blackish bulrush (368) V11 X Common reed et X 791 Willow sp. (1 228) V12 X Carex sp. and Blackish X 465 bulrush (465) V14 X Narrowleaf cattail 111 (196) V15 X Carex sp. and Blackish 107 bulrush (257)
These wetlands serve many purposes, for example, hydrological, bio-geo-chemical, land-based and aquatic habitat, ecological, cultural and social, scenic, recreational, educational and to raise public awareness. In the report on wetlands (CIMA 2010) commissioned by the proponent, the functions of these wetlands were assessed in two phases using the method of Bond et al (1992). Findings indicate that complex MH1 and environment MHX are of greater value, given the wide variety of purposes that they serve within the ecosystem (see the EAR for further information regarding the functions of the wetlands).
5.2.1.3 Rare Plant Species
A total of eight protected plant species have been identified in the 11 floristic stations located within the future Highway 5 right-of-way. Refer to Table 5.6 of the EA for a complete list of the species in question. Of these, butternut ( Juglans cinerea) , which is legally designated as endangered nationally under the federal Species at Risk Act (COSEWIC, 2003) and may be designated as threatened or vulnerable at the provincial level (CDPNQ, 2008c) has been identified in the study zone. Wild leek (Allium tricoccum ), legally designated by the province as vulnerable, has also been identified. Only station S2, where the presence of butternut has been noted, is located on federal land (NCC property). The six other species inventoried are considered vulnerable for commercial harvesting (CDPNQ, 2008c). However, these six are not considered rare and their disappearance is not anticipated for the time being (McKenzie, 2007b).
With respect to butternut, five mature trees and one sapling were identified within the right-of-way during the initial inventory. Following the initial inventory in autumn 2009 on NCC property in the La Pêche section (MTQ, 2009c), a cluster of four new trees was found within the right-of-way of the Vallée Verdée section. The second supplementary inventory held in autumn 2009 resulted in the identification of two new butternuts that had not been identified to date. The 2010 CIMA+ inventory resulted in identification of a new butternut tree near the western edge of the right-of-way. All of the butternuts identified in the three supplementary inventories of 2009 and 2010 are located in the La Pêche section, near floristic station S2 (map 5.7a). The precarious state of this tree species is due to a fungus, the butternut canker, which causes a disease that is fatal to this tree (COSEWIC, 2003). The five mature trees found during the initial inventory were all infected, while the sapling (station S8) showed no signs of this disease. All of the butternuts identified in the autumn of 2009 and 2010 also showed signs of infection.
Screening Report December 2010 - 21 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
5.2.2 Wildlife and habitat
5.2.2.1 Fish habitat
In general, we observe that the fish habitats located within the right-of-way are uniform channel- type habitats. Quality has been deemed to vary from nil to moderate at best. Note that no spawning grounds could be identified in the tributaries of waterways within the projected right-of- way because of the high turbidity of the water. However, most of the sections downstream from the right-of-way (streams No. 1, 2 and 5; maps 5.7a and b) show high potential for fish habitat.
La Pêche River (stream No. 1)
Section T10101 (La Pêche River) can be divided into two sections delineated by the waterfall of an old dam located approximately 700 m from the mouth (of the river). Downstream, habitat potential is considered high due to the broad diversity of the environment. Upstream from the waterfall, habitat potential is moderate to low.
Tributary T10301 flows permanently. It is largely dominated by a facies channel-type gravity flow and constitutes low-quality habitat for fish. The intermittent tributary T10201 to the La Pêche River has reduced habitat potential during the summer, since the stream was nearly dry during the summer site survey. Since the La Pêche River occasionally floods the downstream portion of stream T10201 and therefore provides temporary habitat for resident fish species, the downstream portion of this small stream will be considered to have low potential for fish habitat.
Stream No. 2
The downstream portion of section T20101 exhibits characteristics conducive to fish habitat, due especially to varied flow conditions, which promote diversity. Potential sites for spawning brook trout have also been identified in this part of the creek. Note that an obstacle 700 metres upstream from the mouth of the stream is considered insurmountable to fish migration. The portion of this waterway upstream from Valley Drive has lower habitat potential because it is shallow and does not appear to have been colonized by fish (no catches recorded).
Sections T20201 and T20301 are not considered fish habitat of interest for the highway right-of- way.
Stream No. 3
Section T30101 is a relatively shallow channel with low fish habitat potential. A 217-m section in the eastern half (downstream) of section T30101 shows better habitat potential; however, this is fragmented by the presence of a culvert near its western end. This culvert is considered an insurmountable obstacle to fish migration.
The value of sections T30201 and T30301 during spring run-off are unknown, since these were not surveyed at that time of year. Both of these tributaries are located outside the projected highway right-of-way.
Stream No. 4
The general features of section T40101 (shallow with gentle flow, significant presence of silt, partly located on agricultural land) rank it extremely low for potential as a fish habitat. The three tributaries to this stream (sections T40102, T40201 and T40202) show no habitat of interest for the fish.
Screening Report December 2010 - 22 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
Meech Creek (stream No 5)
The portion of section T50101 located downstream from the highway route has high potential for fish habitat, particularly because of the broad diversity of facies therein (channel, pond, rapids, cascades).
Within the right-of-way of the future highway, section T50101 has a channel-type facies. Potential for fish habitat in this section of T50101 is considered low.
Tributary T50201 is small and intermittent. In the upstream portion of its watershed area, where it will be crossed, the stream is of no interest for potential fish habitat. Since the downstream sections of intermittent tributaries T50301 and T50401 are subject to periodic flooding by Meech Creek, they are considered to have low potential for fish habitat. However, only tributary T50401 will be affected by the project, since tributary T50301 is located on the west bank of Meech Creek, outside the project zone.
The project could affect the downstream portions of the Meech Creek tributaries (surveyed March 2010) due to the installation of riprap on some sections of the right bank of the creek. Tributary T50501 flows over slopes in excess of 10% over the downstream section and was nearly dry during the survey conducted during the spring run-off. This is not a fish habitat. The downstream sections of tributaries T50601 and T50701 are likely to shelter fish during spring run-off. The downstream portions of both of these tributaries are therefore considered to have low potential as fish habitat.
5.2.2.2 Ichthyofauna During the two survey periods combined, 19 species of fish were identified in the streams in the study zone. Table 5.7 of the EAR shows a complete list of these species by season and by fishing method employed. Of these species, only one, the margined madtom, has been identified as a species that is likely to be designated as threatened or vulnerable by the MRNF 4. Table 5.8 of the EAR reports the findings for each of the sections surveyed. The majority of the species identified were only found in the La Pêche River or Meech Creek, which offer larger habitats and which were both studied more extensively. Only six species were identified in the smaller streams, i.e. the tributaries to the five streams surveyed and streams 2, 3 and 4.
Among the fish species identified in the study zone, three are of particular interest. These are the brook trout, prized by anglers and relatively uncommon in this sector; bluegill, whose presence in the region is unusual; and the margined madtom, which provincial authorities consider likely to be designated as threatened or vulnerable (MNR, 2010).
The waterways inventoried are generally uniform in the areas where they cross the right of the right-of-way and there is a significant presence of fine sediment over the substrate.
During the wetland inventories, only one fish (Northern Redbelly Dace) was caught, in wetland MH4. Given its physical characteristics, its connection with stream No. 4 and the confirmed presence of fish, wetland MH4 is considered low-quality fish habitat.
5.2.2.3 Herpetofauna
The inventory of reptiles and amphibians took place between late April and early October 2007 (Picard, 2008a). In total, these inventories confirmed the presence of 12 amphibian species (8 frogs and 4 salamanders) and 8 reptile species (3 turtles and 5 snakes) in and around the right-of-way. The findings of these inventories and information provided by the AARQ ( Atlas des amphibians et
4 Source : MRNF, 2010
Screening Report December 2010 - 23 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
reptiles du Québec ) and the CDPNQ ( Centre de données sur le patrimoine naturel du Québec ) show a significant presence of amphibians and reptiles in the study zone, including 7 protected species. These species are shown on Table 5.2. For a complete list of the species considered to be present or likely to be present in the study zone, refer to Table 5.10 of the EAR.
Table 5.2 Protected Herpetofauna that are present or likely to be present in the study zone. Status Source Canada English Name Scientific Name Quebec 1 SRA 2/ Inventory 4 AARQ 5 CDPNQ 6 COSEWIC 3 Amphibians Western Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata V -/T - X Reptiles Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina -/SC 6 X Blanding’s turtle Emydoidea blandingii T T/T 1 X Water snake Nerodia sipedon LDTV 2 Smooth green snake Liochlorophis vernalis LDTV 8 X X Diadophis punctatus Ringneck snake LDTV - X X edwardsii Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum LDTV SC/SC 1 X 1 Source : Regulation respecting threatened or vulnerable wildlife species and their habitats ; c. E-12.01, r.0.4 (Quebec), 2010. 2 (V: vulnerable, T: threatened, LDTV: likely to be designated as threatened or vulnerable). 3 Source: Species at Risk Act, 2002 (T: threatened, SC: special concern) 4 Source: COSEWIC, 2008 (T: threatened, SC: special concern). 5 Source: Picard, 2008a (figures represent total number of mentions). 6 Source: AARQ, 2008. In terms of aquatic habitat, complex MH1 must be considered as the most significant in the inventory zone with respect to reptiles and amphibians, since it exhibits extremely high potential for this group, particularly for anuras (Picard, 2008a), and because two protected species of reptiles were found, snapping turtle and water snake. To note that the portion of this wetland showing the highest potential for reptiles and amphibians is a large beaver pond located just west of the right-of- way. The remainder of the wetland area has high potential as for reptiles and amphibians. Note that a portion of this complex is located inside the highway right-of-way. No protected species was identified in the areas adjacent to the large beaver pond. Not only does complex MH1 shelter numerous species of reptiles and amphibians, but it also includes breeding grounds favoured by these species. Other wetlands show some potential for reptiles and amphibians, particularly wetlands MH4, ZH100, ZH235, V3, V14 and V15.
For land-based habitats, the area richest in species is located near Brown Lake Road, northwest of complex MH1. The nest of a Blanding’s turtle, a species designated as endangered under both the federal Species at Risk Act (SRA) and the provincial Regulation respecting threatened or vulnerable wildlife species and their habitats , was found in this location. A disturbed site used as a landfill is also noteworthy, since it provides choice habitat for snakes, including the smooth green snake. Eight individuals of this species, considered likely to be designated as threatened or vulnerable, were captured at this site, located west of Route 105, approximately 800 metres northwest of Carman Road.
In addition to the three protected species inventoried in the afore-mentioned habitats, a dead milk snake was also identified on Route 105 during the inventory of reptiles and amphibians. Two other protected species, the ringneck snake and western chorus frog, are considered likely to be present, based on historical references in proximity of the study zone.
5.2.2.4 Avian Fauna
The inventories conducted in 2007 identified a total of 65 bird species in the right-of-way area, while 27 other species were also identified in the zone (not within inventory periods) for a total of 92
Screening Report December 2010 - 24 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
species. Refer to Table 5.11 of the EAR for a complete list of the bird species inventories in the study zone. Of the species identified during the inventories, 59 were nesting, while only 23 species were recorded during migration periods. However, most of these 23 species were also identified during the nesting period. Note that only one of the species inventoried in the study zone has protected status, the Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow. However, this species was only observed during fall migration near the beaver pond in complex MH1 5.
Moreover, based on consultation of the various studies and data bases, the number of species likely to be in the study zone would be much more substantial, as shown on Table 5.11 of the EAR. According to these sources, 169 species of birds have been observed in proximity of the study zone during one time or another of the year (Appendix 2 of the EAR). Of these, nine, including the Canada warbler, have protected status at the provincial or federal level. According to the information from the NCC GIS data base, a sighting of this species was recorded near Brown Lake Road.
The inventories conducted during the spring and fall migrations along the main streams and several of the wetland areas in the study zone permitted identification of several species of waterfowl (mallard duck, common teal, hooded merganser, great blue heron, Virginia rail, spotted sandpiper, Wilson’s snipe and belted kingfisher). These species are common and a limited number of them were present in every case, except in complex MH1, specifically in the large beaver pond beside the right-of-way. An abundance of ducks was observed during the fall. None of the inventoried sites is recognized as a major migratory stopover. None of the sites is considered conducive to waterfowl during the winter.
The inventories conducted during migrations also enabled the identification of numerous species currently associated with aquatic environments. The most common of these were red-winged blackbird, song sparrow, swamp sparrow and American crow. A dozen other common species were also identified, including one protected species (Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow).
Of the species identified during the nesting period, the American crow, ovenbird, red-eyed vireo and black-and-white warbler were most frequently observed in wooded environments, while the red- winged blackbird was determined to be particularly common in clearings and near streams. As for aquatic species, the nesting period inventory enabled identification of five common species, including three species of waterfowl (black ducks and mallards, hooded merganser, American bittern, belted kingfisher) for a total of 12 individuals scattered among three sectors (Meech Creek, wetland complexes MH1 and MHX).
Two distinct methods were used to assess the abundance of nesting pairs in the various wooded environments and clearings of the right-of-way: limited area point counts, and the local abundance index. The former considers only birds that are seen or heard within a radius of 50 meters, which assesses their density, while the latter method also takes into account the birds identified outside of this area.
In the 23 listening stations in the inventory area, 40 species (a total of 129.5 pairs) were identified using the limited area point count method, while the local abundance index method permitted identification of 52 species (282 pairs). The density statistics obtained using the limited area point count method can also estimate the density of nesting pairs in the study zone at 7.2 per hectare. The density of nesting forest bird pairs, which may be affected by the project, is slightly lower, at 6.4 per hectare. The wooded environments found within the highway right-of-way (56.74 ha) therefore shelter approximately 365 pairs of nesting birds.
5 Note that the beaver pond is outside of the right-of-way.
Screening Report December 2010 - 25 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
5.2.2.5 Mammals For a snapshot of fur animal species and large mammals likely to be present in the study zone, hunting and trapping statistics for fur animals the past five years (2003-04 to 2007-08) were consulted (UGAF, fur animals management unit; MRNG, 2008a). Refer to Table 5.13 of the EAR for a complete list of these statistics. This sector includes the study zone as well as the southern portion of the Outaouais, and covers an area approximately 150 km by 50 km. The hunting and trapping statistics show the presence of 15 fur animals, including 12 carnivores. One can actually consider 17 species in all, including 14 carnivores, since weasels are not identified as a species in these statistics and, based on their distribution, the three weasel species in Quebec are likely to frequent the study zone (Prescott and Richard, 2004). Of these, two are protected, i.e. the status of the Eastern wolf is of special concern according to the SRA 6 and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 7), and the least weasel ( Mustela nivalis ) is considered likely to be designated as threatened or vulnerable by provincial authorities 8. White-tailed deer, American black bear, and moose are also considered likely to be present in the study zone, although conditions are more favorable to white-tailed deer and American black bear than to moose.
On-site observations during the various inventories performed as part of this study report the presence of a beaver dam beside the future Highway 5 right-of-way (complex MH1). Further, wetlands MH4 and MH5 are potential habitats for white-tailed deer (CIMA+, 2010a).
Data on several rodent species are also available, but provide no information on rodents that are considered micromammals, or on other species that are not trapped for their fur, such as American porcupine ( Erethizon dorsatum ), groundhog ( Marmota monax ), eastern chipmunk ( Tamias striatus ), southern flying squirrel ( Glaucomys volans ) and northern flying squirrel ( Glaucomys sabrinus ). Statistics regarding the snowshoe hare ( Lepus americanus ) and eastern cottontail ( Sylvilagus floridanus ), belonging to the order of Lagomorpha, also are omitted from Table 5.13. However, given their habitats, these last seven species should be considered as likely to be present in the study zone (Jocelyn Caron, MRNF, pers. comm. of November 4, 2008). Of these, note that the southern flying squirrel is likely to be designated as threatened or vulnerable (MRNF, 2010). Since no specific micromammal inventory has been conducted for this project, Gatineau Park data was consulted to prepare a list of species likely to frequent the study zone (NCC, 2007). Refer to Table 5.14 of the EAR for a list of these micromammals. We consider that only these seven insectivores and ten rodents are likely to frequent the study zone. Only one species, the southern bog lemming, is considered likely to be designated as threatened or vulnerable by provincial authorities 9. Its presence is considered likely in the Park. According to the CIMA+ inventory (2010a), many of the wetlands along the highway right-of-way could be potential habitats for small mammals, particularly wetlands ZH100, ZH235, V3, V9, V9-2, V14 and V15. As for chiropters (bats), little data is available regarding this especially low-profile group of mammals. Based on their distribution, the eight bat species in Quebec, including five with protected status in the province (MRNF, 2010), may be found in the study zone (Prescott and Richard, 2004). According to information from CDPNQ, the eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii), which is considered likely to be designated as threatened or vulnerable, has already been spotted less than one kilometer north of the study zone.
6 Source: Species at Risk Act, 2002. 7 Source: COSEWIC, 2008. 8 Source: Regulation respecting threatened or vulnerable wildlife species and their habitats ; c. E-12.01, r.0.4 (Quebec), 2010. 9 Source: Regulation respecting threatened or vulnerable wildlife species and their habitats. ; c. E-12.01, r.0.4 (Quebec), 2010.
Screening Report December 2010 - 26 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
5.2.2.6 Rare wildlife species
The inventories for the various wildlife groups also targetted rare wildlife species. These inventories show the presence of seven rare wildlife species within the study area, i.e. one species of fish, five reptile species, and one bird species (Table 5.3). The observation sites for these species are shown on maps 5.7a and 5.7b. Of these seven species, only the Blanding’s turtle and milk snake are included in Schedule I Endangered Species of the Species at Risk Act.
The fish that provincial authorities consider likely to be designated as threatened or vulnerable (LDTV; MRNF, 2010), identified during the inventories, is the margined madtom, of which three specimens were netted in the La Pêche River.
The presence of five reptile and amphibian species was also noted during the inventories, i.e. three snakes and two turtles. Three of the five species were identified two or fewer times. Six snapping turtle specimens were found in wetland complexes MH1 and MH4 and Meech Creek. Eight specimens of smooth green snake were identified in a small, hidden landfill on the west side of Route 105. Two specimens of water snake were identified in complex MH1, while one crushed milk snake was found on Route 105 between the La Pêche River and Valley Drive. The NCC has also reported this last species west of wetland MHX. The sole mention of the Blanding’s turtle comes from the detection of a nest of this species on October 7, 2007, near Brown Lake Road.
The only protected bird species observed within the study zone was the Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow. This species is only likely to frequent the study zone during migration.
Table 5.3 Protected wildlife species confirmed present within the right-of-way Status Canada Number Name in English Scientific name Where observed Quebec 1 SRA 2/ observed COSEWIC 3 Margined Madtom Noturus insignis LDTV 4 La Pêche River Smooth green snake Liochlorophis vernalis LDTV 8 Landfill near Route 105 Large beaver pond near complex Water snake Nerodia sipedon LDTV 2 MH1 Milk snake Lampropeltis triangulum LDTV SC/SC 1 Crushed on Route 105 Blanding’s turtle Emydoidea blandingii T T/T 04 Brown Lake Road Large beaver pond near complex Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina -/SC 6 MH1 Nelson’s sharp-tailed Large beaver pond near complex Ammodramus nelsoni LDTV 1 sparrow MH1 1. Source: Regulation respecting threatened or vulnerable wildlife species and their habitats ; c. E-12.01, r.0.4 (Quebec), 2010. (LDTV: likely to be designated as threatened or vulnerable). 2. Source: Species at Risk Act, 2002. (SC : special concern) 3. Source: COSEWIC, 2008. (SC : special concern, T : threatened) 4. Nest observed.
5.2.2.7 Wildlife habitats
Apart from the fish habitat, the project will not affect any other wildlife habitat that is considered essential or protected (CDPNQ, 2008b). On the other hand, the study zone does not contain any deeryard or breeding ground for white-tailed deer (Tecsult, 2005; Jocelyn Caron, MRNF, pers. comm. November 5, 2008). Moreover, no area of concentration of waterfowl is found within the project area (Mousseau, 2007a).
Screening Report December 2010 - 27 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
5.3 Socio-economic environment
5.3.1 Aboriginal use of lands and resources for traditional purposes
Officials have notified the community of Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg (Algonquin), whose territory is located near Maniwaki, that project construction will soon begin. A letter was sent on May 5, 2009, to the chief of Kitigan Zibi to inform him of the latest project developments. The information contained in this letter also included the roles of the authorities responsible for this project. Several discussions have also taken place since the letter was sent.
As a result of this consultation, information to date does not demonstrate that the Algonquin use the land and resources affected by Phase 2 of the Highway 5 extension project for traditional purposes. Therefore, the changes that project completion may cause to the environment should have no effect on the traditional use of land and resources by aboriginal peoples.
5.3.2 Navigation
The site for the future bridge crossing of the La Pêche River is 400 meters upstream from the dam of the old Wakefield Mill. The presence of this dam creates a navigable waterway in the project location. Although small craft, such as canoes and kayaks, are observed occasionally on the La Pêche River (Charles Ricard, Municipality of La Pêche, pers. comm. December 18, 2008), the site offers some boating potential, considering the presence of a country inn nearby. This watercourse is approximately 15 metres wide and deep enough to permit navigation in this section. Considering the foregoing, authorization pursuant to sections 5(1) and (3) of the Navigable Waters Protection Act is required for this structure. Authorization under Section 10 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act is also required for restoration of the decommissioned bridge and for the bridge that is currently in use that must undergo maintenance if it needs to be retained until the end of construction. Therefore, Transport Canada’s Navigable Waters Protection group should be contacted to obtain these permits prior to commencing the work.
5.3.3 Archaeological potential
Consultation of the Quebec Cultural Property and Territory Register ( Registre des biens culturels et arrondissements du Québec ) indicates that no cultural property or classified or recognized archaeological site, as defined by Quebec’s Cultural Property Act has been found within a 10-km radius of the section of Highway 5 that bypasses Wakefield. It indicates, however, the presence of two 19th century structures located downstream from the La Pêche River, approximately 500 m east of Route 366, mentioned by Bilodeau (1993). The Parks Canada Agency considers these properties, which are located within the Gatineau Park boundary and belong to the federal government, to be of heritage value (“recognized” status). They include the former MacLaren Brothers Mill (Wakefield Mill), which has now been converted into an inn (the Wakefield Mill Inn and Spa), and their residence (MacLaren House). The tomb of the Honourable Lester B. Pearson is also located nearby, in the MacLaren Cemetery in Wakefield. This tomb is protected under the Parks Canada Grave Sites of Canadian Prime Ministers program.
Consultation of the survey charts for archaeological sites from the Inventaire des sites archéologiques du Québec (ISAQ, Quebec archaeological sites inventory) also fails to reveal the presence of archaeological sites within the previously defined zone. However, an archaeological pre- inventory sector that briefly notes a zone of potential archaeological interest, is found in this zone. This sector, located near Lac Gauvreau, more than two kilometres northwest of the Highway 5 route, contains evidence of potential anthropogenic activity that likely dates back to the prehistoric era.
Screening Report December 2010 - 28 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
The ISAQ data also indicates that an archaeological inventory was completed inside the zone within the 10-km radius described previously (Bilodeau, 1993). This inventory, conducted on behalf of MTQ, did not reveal any archaeological sites. However, according to information obtained from the NCC (NCC 1999, 2000), the right-of-way crosses zones whose archaeological potential varies from moderate to high.
At NCC request, an archaeological inventory was conducted from November 21 to 27, 2009, on parcels of land, affected by the project, for which potential was considered moderate to high. At the same time, an inventory of properties likely to be affected by the project (Archéo-08, 2009) was also conducted. This inventory permitted systematic visual inspection of the sector under study and prompted 2,183 manual trial excavations. No traces or archaeological remnants were found.
5.3.4 Agricultural land
The only agricultural activities that take place within the right-of-way at this time are permitted until the start of construction of the highway. The MTQ has either already acquired the properties inside the right-of-way, or the NCC will transfer the land once construction is complete. According to ecoforestry maps 31 G/12 SO and 31 G/12 NO of 2008 (scale 1:20 000, Government of Quebec, 2008), the agricultural property within the highway right-of-way covers some 41.6 hectares.
5.3.5 Noise environment
The main source of noise in the study zone is traffic-related, particularly to heavy trucking on Route 105, Route 366, Valley Drive and the part of Highway 5 north of the proposed highway. Residents of the zones near this route could therefore be inconvenienced by the noise, especially during peak traffic hours. However, noise pollution issues in the Outaouais region are generally concentrated in the Communauté urbaine de l’Outaouais (CUO) (Roustan, 1999).
PART B: EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND SIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
Table 5.6 summarizes the effects, mitigation measures and significance of residual effects of this component. A brief description follows.
5.4 Air quality – Effects, Mitigation Measures and Significance of residual effects
It should be noted that the impact of highway traffic on air quality is not considered here, since traffic will remain essentially the same following the construction of the highway. The new highway will be slightly further from residential areas.
During the construction phase, a number of activities, such as grading and landscaping of the shoulders and transportation of backfill and excavated materials will cause an increase in dust concentration compared to what is normally present in the surrounding environment. The use of heavy equipment will also result in exhaust gas emissions that will increase concentrations of pollutants in the air. Residences located less than 100 metres from the highway will be most affected by a temporary decrease in air quality. These include homes located near Route 105, in the Croissant Road area, as well as homes located between the highway right-of-way and Route 105, near Brown Lake Road.
Screening Report December 2010 - 29 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
Mitigation measures identified to minimize the adverse effects of the project on this component call for limiting suspended dust particles in the air by applying water or dust suppressants or revegetation in areas that are potentially problematic.
Since air quality in the area is generally good, and given the mitigation measures that will be implemented, the intensity of these effects is deemed to be low. It will be temporary and perceived locally; essentially on the boundaries of the highway right-of-way and proposed route as well as along the local roads that will be used by the trucks. On the whole, the project’s residual effects on air quality during construction are anticipated to be insignificant.
5.5 Surface water - Effects, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Impact
5.5.1 Construction-related effects
Effects on surface water are associated with the risk of contamination by petroleum products and other hazardous materials, as well as temporary impairment of water quality due to sediments in the streams.
The proposed mitigation measures are the largely the same ones employed to protect the soil from potential contamination (section 5.6). Moreover, mitigation measures will be applied to mitigate an increase in concentrations of suspended particles in the water. These measures will include actions identified by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to protect fish habitat (section 5.10)
On the whole, intensity is considered low, is limited to the local area and of short duration. Residual effects are deemed insignificant.
5.5.2 Effects related to the presence and use of the highway
During the operational phase, the environmental effects on the quality of surface water are associated with increased concentrations of chlorides or other road maintenance compounds in the waterways.
The MTQ is committed to implement the best management practices for salt application, salt storage and snow disposal as described in the guide “ Syntheses of Best Practices – Road Salt Management » from the Transportation Association of Canada . Moreover, the salt management will have to take into account the «Code of practice for the management of road salts » published by Environment Canada. The « Stratégie québécoise pour une gestion environnementale des sels de voirie », which is inspired, from EC’s code of practice among others, will allow for the reduction of negative impacts of road salts released to the environment.
On the whole, the intensity of disruption during the operational phase is considered low, limited to the local area and of short duration. Residual effects are deemed not significant.
5.6 Soil and sediments - Effects, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Impact
The environmental effects on the soils are associated mainly with contamination resulting from accidental spills of petroleum products or other contaminants during highway construction and operation. Other effects relate to erosion, compaction, and displacement of the soil. The measures shown on Table 5.6 will be implemented to mitigate these potential effects.
Screening Report December 2010 - 30 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
On the whole, the intensity of disturbance of the soils and sediments is considered low, limited to the local area and of short duration, being limited to the construction period only. Residual effects of this component are deemed not significant.
5.7 Vegetation (including protected species) – Effects, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Impact
5.7.1 Clearing
During the construction phase, work will result in a loss of both young and/or mature forests, with the addition to populations of forest regeneration, for a total of 88.2 ha, which represents roughly two-thirds of the total surface area of the right-of-way. Moreover, some of the highway stabilization work will require clearing outside of the right-of-way. This will affect approximately 6 ha, including some 4 ha of NCC property, for excavation/backfill, counterweights, riprap in some Meech Creek locations, realignment of Trail 52, and retaining walls. Deforestation will be required outside the right-of-way will be relatively small in comparison to the overall clearing required for this project. This area will undergo revegetation and or compensation will be made.
Ongoing mitigation measures will enable us to avoid any unnecessary clearing and protect unaffected populations. Outside of the area occupied by the road infrastructure, land-based, grassy vegetation will grow along the new right-of-way. The space will be seeded with grasses for rapid restoration of the plant cover.
Any tree with a DBH over 10 cm that must be cut on NCC property will be compensated for by ratio of 2:1 pursuant to an NCC-approved development plan (trees native to the Park for felling in the Park). In some areas, replanting could provide a wooded transition zone between the future highway and the Park boundary.
Since the areas to be cleared are limited and they do not possess any exceptional or scarcity in relation to the surrounding forest zones, particularly in Gatineau Park, the intensity of these effects is considered low. The duration of these effects will be permanent and the context is local, since vegetation will have to be removed along the entire right-of-way of the future highway. Residual effects are therefore deemed insignificant.
5.7.2 Loss or impairment of rare plant species or habitats
As noted in section 5.2.1.3, two rare species were identified during the inventories conducted, i.e. wild leek and butternut. Of the two largest populations of wild leek found within the right-of-way, only the group containing approximately 1,385 seedlings will be partly affected.
Thirteen butternut trees were also identified within the right-of-way. Nine of these are on property belonging to the NCC. Among the butternuts identified in the right-of-way, only one was untouched by the butternut canker. This sapling will be kept and protected by a safety fence at a distance of 4 m from the trunk. The affected butternut tree that is located in the Municipality of Chelsea will be cut down, while the eleven diseased (or dead) trees may also be cut down (to be confirmed in final plans).
In an effort to diminish the effects of highway encroachment on wild leek, the specimens affected by the work will be transplanted to another location and monitored to determine the success of transplanting. Transplanting will comply with all current regulations.
Regarding thebutternut trees, they will be compensated by a ratio specified by the SRA to counteract the loss of the trees that need to be cut down. Federal consultants will determine compensation and monitoring procedures for the Gatineau Park site (section 6).
Screening Report December 2010 - 31 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
For the trees infected by butternut canker that need to be permanently removed, the following measures will apply: all woody materials from these trees (trunks, branches, limbs, bark) will be buried in place in the right-of-way to limit the risk of propagation. On the other hand, barked (peeled) logs may be recovered. The other mitigation measures, shown on Table 5.6 will be implemented to mitigate the loss or impairment of protected plant species and/or their preferred habitats.
Measures designed to safeguard a portion of the populations of protected plant species present within the right-of-way will mitigate the project’s residual effects on this component. It is even possible that the butternut compensation project could enhance the chances of survival of this threatened species from an entropic standpoint. Considering that the loss of suitable habitat for these species will be relatively limited and the survival of this species in the area will not be threatened, particularly due to the close proximity of Gatineau Park, the residual effects of this component are deemed insignificant.
5.7.3 Loss of riparian vegetation
At water crossings, some of the riparian vegetation will have to be removed to make way for infrastructures, especially in the La Pêche River and Meech Creek areas and around other small streams.
Mitigation measures will consist of marking and conserving riparian vegetation as long as possible prior to excavation. A 20-m wide buffer zone of vegetation along the waterways will be conserved until work begins and trees will be cut at ground level so as to conserve the stumps. In a 5-m strip on either side of the streams, trees greater than 10 cm in diameter will be cut on an individual basis. In the case of Meech Creek, the riprap above the normal high water mark will be planted with grassy plants and bushes, preferably native to Gatineau Park or to the Outaouais region. These will be replaced by plant stabilization techniques, as required, as long as safety is not compromised. Any vegetation used to reconstruct the riparian zone on NCC property will use species native to the Park, and that have been pre-approved by the NCC. A landscape architect will supervise this work.
The intensity of the effects of the project on this component is considered low, since the disappearance of a portion of the riparian vegetation will not significantly affect its ecological function on the stream. Effects will be permanent and limited to the local area. Consequently, residual effects are deemed not significant.
5.7.4 Changes in roadside plant communities
During the construction phase, disturbances and/or changes will occur in terrestrial vegetation along the boundaries of the right-of-way. During the operational phase, the seasonal use of de-icing salts to maintain the new infrastructures could affect the vegetation beside the highway and the effects could be felt beyond this threshold. Finally, maintenance operations in the right-of-way will impede the development of bush-type species in favour of grass.
Mitigation measures for construction phase will consist of seeding the right-of-way with grass, which is less sensitive to de-icing salts, and, on Gatineau Park land, plant grass native to the Park and/or the Outaouais region. During the operational phase, ongoing mitigation measures are designed chiefly to limit the effects of de-icing salts on plant life and promote adequate surface water drainage.
On the whole, the intensity of these effects is considered low. It will vary from temporary (disturbance of vegetation during construction) to permanent (removal of plant life sensitive to de- icing salts) and be confined to the local area. In light of the foregoing, the residual impact of this component is not considered significant.
Screening Report December 2010 - 32 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
5.8 Wetlands– Effects, Mitigation measures and Significance of Residual Effect
5.8.1 Construction-related effects, mitigation measures and significance of residual effects
This section concerns the environmental impacts of this environmental component relating to wetland degradation and loss.n phase de construction, les effets environnementaux sur cette composante environnementale sont liés à la dégradation et à la perte de milieux humides.
The effect associated with de-icing salts during the operation phase is not considered significant to this component because almost all of the wetlands that remain after the work is completed will be located hydraulically upstream of the highway.
During the construction phase, temporary encroachment may be inevitable. Mitigation measures will endeavour to physically delineate the wetlands to be protected to prevent any unnecessary encroachment and limit the risk of contamination and erosion. Upon completion of the work, the wetlands temporarily affected will be restored.
Given that occasional encroachment on the wetlands will be temporary and that measures will ensure that the effect remains temporary and of low intensity, the residual effect of the project on the wetlands during construction is considered not significant.
5.8.2 Operation-related effects, mitigation measures and significance of residual effects
During the operation phase, the road infrastructure will result in the disappearance of many wetlands through direct encroachment or dewatering caused by drainage. The Proponent’s environmental impact assessment describes each of the wetlands affected by the project and sketches a portrait of the anticipated effects on their area and functions. An overview of area and function losses is presented here. Table 5.4 details the wetland area losses resulting from this project.
To reduce the effect of the project’s impact on the wetlands, the ditches for the new highway will be constructed so that natural drainage of these wetlands is maintained under current conditions, which will ensure conservation of the portion of these wetlands that is not encroached by the highway. Furthermore, by reducing the encroachment of bridge abutments on the La Pêche River to a minimum below the natural high water mark (NHWM), 99% of the area of wetland V11 can be preserved. Lastly, the embankment and ditch on the west side of the highway can be developed in a way to avoid wetland ZH235 entirely.
Despite these efforts, the project will inevitably cause the loss of wetlands. As Table 5.4 shows, the project will generate a total loss of 20,587 m2. Almost three-quarters of area losses are associated with the partial elimination of complex MH1 (15,100 m2). Area losses on federal lands will amount to 8,378 m2 (in all, on NCC property located in the Municipality of La Pêche), and 6,722 m2 on provincial lands.
However, several wetlands that will be lost completely (MH7, MH8, V1, V5, V9-2, V10, V12) are small and perform limited functions that can be offset by certain mitigation measures provided under the project. Protective riprap (bridge abutments and Meech Creek shoreline) will limit erosion and thereby assume a portion of the functions of MH7 and MH8. Furthermore, the ditches constructed along the highway will be able to play a role similar to small wetlands at a hydrological and bio- geochemical level. To some extent, these artificial habitats would also be used by generalist and
Screening Report December 2010 - 33 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
tolerant wildlife (e.g., amphibians, birds and small mammals). Under these circumstances, the overall loss of functions in smaller wetlands that perform limited functions will not be significant.
The functions of larger wetlands could be more greatly affected by the project . This is particularly the case for complex MH1, which performs a more diverse range of functions than the others. However, 5/6 of complex MH1 can be conserved and the 1/6 that will be harmed by the project contains less diversity than the rest of the wetland, and performs no function that is not already performed elsewhere in this wetland.
Overall, most wetland function losses will be generated by the partial destruction of complex wetlands MH1, MH4 and MH5. Once the project is complete, these wetlands will contribute less extensively to regulating the two waterways. However, the loss will have no major consequences for these waterways since that much of these environments will be conserved and a large wetland (MHX) upstream from environments MH4 and MH5 will help maintain this function. The impact of the project on these three wetlands will also result in a habitat loss for certain wildlife species. In these circumstances, although the project will generate a few net wetland function losses (hydrological function and land and aquatic wilflife function), they are considered minor. This will be distributed in a similar manner among federal and provincial lands.
The project will not lead to fragmentation of any wetlands. Furthermore, the vast majority of wetlands that can be conserved partly or entirely are located west of the future highway, in an area more sheltered from the influence of human activity.
Table 5.4 Expected Losses of wetlands
Actual Area (m 2) Expected Losses (m 2) Wetland Property In Study (section) Total Federal Provincial Area
Chelsea
MH4 Provincial 2 295 2 295 0 1 125
MH5 Provincial 2 830 2 830 0 2 000
MH6 Federal 164 164 0 0
MH7 Provincial 69 69 0 69
MH8 Provincial 63 63 0 63
Private and MHX 9 460 0 0 0 federal
V1 Provincial 1 014 923 0 1 014
V3 Federal 222 222 0 0
V5 Provincial 168 168 0 168
V12 Provincial 2 012 465 0 465
La Pêche
Complex Federal/Provincial 91 665 28 384 9 115 5 985 MH1
ZH100 Federal 126 0 0 0
Screening Report December 2010 - 34 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
Actual Area (m 2) Expected Losses (m 2) Wetland Property In Study (section) Total Federal Provincial Area
ZH235 Federal 1 504 1 499 0 0
V9 Federal 250 250 0 0
V9-2 Federal/Provincial 205 205 188 17
V10 Provincial 368 368 0 368
V11 Federal 1 228 791 10 0
V14 Federal/Provincial 196 111 0 0
V15 Federal/Provincial 257 107 0 0
Subtotal – Chelsea ND 7 199 0 4 904
Subtotal – La Pêche ND 31 715 9 313 6 370
9 313 11 274 Total ND 38 914 20 587
Mitigation measures include the development of highway drainage ditches to maintain the natural drainage patterns of parts of wetlands MH1, MH4 and MH5 that will not be encroached upon by the project. This measure will maintain most of the MH1, about half of MH4 and almost one-third of MH5. At the same time, it will reduce the project’s effect on acreage and function losses in these wetlands.
To offset the project’s effect on the wetlands (lost acreage area and function), compensation options will be submitted by the MTQ and other experts for assessment and approval by the federal- provincial expert panel which will be created. The chosen compensation plan will provide a functioning capacity equal to or greater than the wetlands affected and have the support of the federal-provincial expert panel. It will be developed in greater detail by the Panel in the first year of project construction, and applied by the proponent prior to completion of the work. In particular, the compensation plan must aim to comply with the principle of zero net functional losses, maintain a range of functions equal to that of the affected wetlands, and meet a minimum area ratio of 3:1. This ratio could be reviewed by the Panel according to the potential of the chosen plan. Compensation on NCC lands in Gatineau Park, NCC lands outside the Park in the Outaouais, or other property in the Outaouais, in the order of preference shown, is planned to compensate for wetlands affected by this project. All compensation options must be located at least 500 metres from all main roads or side roads.
The wetlands compensation project will greatly reduce the project’s effect on this component. Additionally, an effort will be made to preserve certain wetlands when possible. In particular, this will ensure conservation of 5/6 of the wetland of the greatest ecological interest among those affected by the project. Therefore, given the low-intensity of the effect, its permanent duration and local scope, the project’s residual effect on this component is considered not significant.
5.9 Herpetofauna (including rare species with special status)
Although some disruption of herpetofauna is likely to occur during construction, the bulk of the project’s effects are expected to occur during the operation phase (although the habitat loss takes
Screening Report December 2010 - 35 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
place during the construction phase). It is the permanent change of use which is considered the source of the effect (a transportation corridor in place of a natural environment).
The environmental effects on amphibians and reptiles pertain to the loss, fragmentation or degradation of herpetofauna reproduction and feeding habitats (construction and operation phases).
In addition to mitigation measures to limit the project’s negative effects on vegetation (section 5.7), on wetlands (section 5.8) and on aquatic habitats (section 5.10), filling and partial drainage of habitats will occur outside the reproduction period to foster replacement habitat colonization by species before they reproduce. In a portion of the MH1 complex located in the right-of-way, where four species of frog reproduce, a restriction period from April to August has been deemed sufficient.
As mentioned in section 5.2.2.3, inventories developed for the purposes of this project led to the identification of five rare species of reptile. Among the habitats of interest confirmed for these various species, only one small dumpsite where several smooth green snakes were found will likely be negatively affected by the project. The mitigation measure consists of conducting an intensive search immediately prior to work at the site in question to capture all specimens and relocate them to a suitable environment.
In the case of the Blanding’s turtle, if it cannot be protected during construction, the required Environment Canada and MDDEP permits will be requested and the conditions specified in them will be enforced. Furthermore, if the site where a Blanding’s turtle was discovered in 2007 (although use of the site by this species cannot be confirmed) is affected by construction, another site suited to egg-laying by this species will be developed near Brown Lake Road. A gravel area could thus be set up at an appropriate location. We would also mention that he highway will be bordered along its entire length by a paved shoulder and vegetated banks. The areas surrounding the future highway will therefore not provide a suitable environment for egg-laying by turtles, which will lower the risk of collision with them.
The proposed mitigation measures will limit the loss and degradation of habitat favoured by amphibians and reptiles. However, permanent habitat losses are inevitable, but will be limited to and restricted by the highway right-of-way.
Overall, the intensity of the disruption during the construction phase is considered low, the scope, occasional; and the duration, long. The residual effect is considered not significant whether in terms of habitat or the various species, particularly those with special status.
5.10 Ichtyian wildlife (including special status species) – Effects, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Effect
5.10.1 Suspension of fine particulate in fish habitat
During the construction phase, the importance of this effect will largely be a function of the magnitude of the anticipated changes in water quality. Many construction activities, especially the removal of shoreline vegetation, grading and excavation activities, and the installation of culverts, could increase the amount of sediment in runoff water and thus affect fish and their habitat downstream from the construction sites.
The measures planned to limit soil erosion (section 5.6), including conservation of a wooded buffer strip along the edge of waterways, and measures designed to limit the sediment suspension in runoff water will mitigate the project’s effect on fish habitat.
Screening Report December 2010 - 36 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
The measures generally recommended by DFO during work in fish habitat will appear on the 35(2) authorization to be issued by DFO. Restricted work periods will also be established to mitigate the impact on fish habitat.
Considering the mitigation measures to be implemented during the work, the intensity of the residual effects associated with an increase in suspended solids on fish habitat is considered low. Its duration will be temporary and its scope, occasional. Therefore, no significant residual effect is anticipated.
5.10.2 Losses and Modifications of Fish Habitat
Although the estimated losses are but approximations, the implementation of the project will cause habitat destruction over an area of approximately 3,570 m2 (comprising exclusively standard or low value habitat).
Habitat deterioration could affect a total area of approximately 4,320 m2, particularly because of the need to install riprap ong the edge of Meech Creek over an estimated distance of 700 metres partly located on Gatineau Park property (225 m).
Four counterweights are also required: two located in the right-of-way, one in Gatineau Park, and one partly in the right-of-way and partly in the Park. The surveys conducted show that the counterweights will not encroach on habitat of special interest compared to what exists elsewhere along Meech Creek. Furthermore, at some locations, this riprap will alter the existing substrate below the NHWM, but will mitigate certain erosion problems confronting this waterway and in turn benefit fish and their habitat. Furthermore, the new bridges built over the waterways will be free standing and allow unobstructed fish movement in these waterways at all times.
The deterioration of 800 m2 area considered for the La Pêche River is a conservative estimate since it is likely that the encroachment by the riprap at the abutments below the NHWM will likely be more limited. Furthermore, dismantling the decommissioned bridge could allow for restoration of a certain portion of aquatic habitat.
At this stage of the preparatory work, the areas prone to habitat disturbance are estimated at 390 m2.
Table 5.5 Total Estimated Fish Habitat Destruction, Deterioration and Disturbance (HDDD) Generated by the Project HDDD Estimates (m 2) Type of habitat Destruction Deterioration Disturbance Total High value 0 3,800 300 4,100 Standard / Low value 3,570 520 90 4,180 Total 3,570 4,320 390 8,280 The bridges to be built on the La Pêche River and Meech Creek will be freestanding and will therefore allow unobstructed fish movement at all times in these waterways.
Riprap to be installed at Meech Creek will be vegetated from the shore to the natural high water mark (two-year recurrence). However, it could be replaced at certain locations by plant stabilization where this alternative will ensure the stability of the future highway and safety of highway users. Rock fill work will be performed in a manner that allows adequate water flow in the three tributaries of Meech Creek, its mouth located opposite the area where this stabilization work will occur.
Lastly, this rock fill will be embedded in the shoreline in a way that prevents any reduction in the habitat area available to fish, and will be replanted with species native to the region (approved by the NCC and DFO), including shrub varieties.
Screening Report December 2010 - 37 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
The mitigation measures generally recommended by DFO for work performed in fish habitat will appear on the 35(2) authorization to be issued by DFO. Among the measures recommended by DFO, those not included in the contract document but applicable to this project will be added to the Contractor’s action plan. These include but are not limited to the following:
• Comply with restriction periods for in-water works that reflect sensitive periods for fish.
• To the extent possible, prevent encroachment by the loadbearing members of temporary bridges below the natural high water mark (NHWM).
• Restore drainage ditches damaged by machinery (damage to flow gradient, embankment shoulder, etc.).
• Restore shorelines using accepted vegetation stabilization techniques that account for stability, erosion sensitivity, and the slope and height of the embankment. Planting must begin as soon as possible after the completion of excavation work, with a preference for species indigenous to the Gatineau Park or Outaouais region.
• Restore floodways to their original condition after filling.
• Limit rock fill at waterway shorelines at the NHWM, and vegetate the shoreline starting at the 2-year water line. Rock fill must comprise stones free of fine particulate.
• Restore shorelines and waterway beds to their original condition (granulometry, waterway bed profile, etc.) once temporary structures are dismantled.
The fish habitat losses described above will be compensated by fish habitat development to reach a balance of zero net losses in accordance with the DFO Fish Habitat Management Policy.
Priority action will focus on reconstituting fish habitat within the new waterway segments created for culvert installation (inside the culverts and connections to natural waterways) for maximum compensation of habitat losses in each of the waterways affected by the work (auto-compensation). Habitat reconstitution must give consideration to the following factors in particular:
• Ensure sufficient water flow above the substrate by minimizing interstitial flow.
• Concentrate water flow during the low-water period.
• Submit installations that foster habitat heterogeneity for fish (ditches, shelves, bends, debris, shelter, etc.).
• Ensure that fish have unobstructed passage.
• Provide adequate vegetation cover (plans and shrubs) at shorelines to serve as a shoreline buffer zone that meets the needs of fish.
Despite these reconstitution efforts at the work sites themselves, residual losses of fish habitat will occur. The cumulative extent of these residual losses will be compensated by the new habitat development. Two courses of action are suggested: the creation of fish habitat in Meech Creek and habitat restoration following removal of the abandoned bridge on La Pêche River.
The project proposed to compensate for residual fish habitat losses will enable the development of new habitat by re-profiling the shores of Meech Creek. Re-profiling will consist of expanding the Creek to enlarge floodable areas of the waterway, which will generate feeding and reproduction habitats for several species of cyprinids and perch. The extent of habitat gains will be at least 2,000 m2 proposed at this location. This compensation work at Meech Creek could form part of the
Screening Report December 2010 - 38 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
stabilization work planned on its right shore, which would maximize the use of machinery stationed at this location already, and limit the size of the shoreline area where movement will occur.
The area, exact location, specific design and work methods used for Meech Creek installations will be determined during the preparation of plans and specifications and in light of n exact determination of habitat losses (area of deterioration, destruction and disturbance). These factors will also be approved by DFO and will appear in the 35(2) authorization to be issued by DFO under the Fisheries Act. DFO will ensure that the physical parameters of the Creek, particularly its hydrology, are taken into account to ensure the stability of the installations. Particular attention will be paid to preventing the installations from negatively affecting the adjacent and opposite shoreline, e.g., by ensuring that no erosion source is created.
In addition to the compensation program proposed for Meech Creek, other installations could also have positive spinoffs for fish habitat, such as the restoration of aquatic habitats in La Pêche River following replacement of the abandoned bridge with a bridge having a longer span. The wetlands compensation program could also generate benefits for fish habitat.
Apart from the conditions for developing the compensatory installations, the authorization to be issued by DFO will also include objectives to be met and spedify the terms and conditions of the follow-up activities to be performed, particularly in relation to the stability of the installations. Remedial action could be required if negative effects are observed or if the installations prove unstable.
Given the measures identified to mitigate the project’s effect on fish habitat and compensate for possible habitat losses, the intensity of the project’s effect on this component is considered low. Its duration will be permanent, and slightly alter aquatic habitat distribution in the area. The scope of this impact will be occasional since the sites affected cover small areas. Therefore, this residual effect is deemed not significant.
5.10.3 Exposure of aquatic life to chlorides or other maintenance products
During the operation phase, the increased level of chloride ions in the waterways mentioned in section 5.5 is likely to have a negative effect on aquatic habitats and associated species, including fish. When these ions are present in excessive concentrations, they can become toxic to aquatic organisms. This situation is likely to occur during the spring thaw in small waterways, particularly those that flow through areas where roads are densely located.
At high concentrations, these ions can be lethal to certain species, which may have an impact on the structure, diversity and productivity of aquatic communities. According to estimates, approximately 5% of species are affected by chloride at levels of about 210 mg/l and 10% could be affected at levels of 240 mg/l (Environment Canada and Health Canada, 2001). To protect aquatic life, the MDDEP has established the acute chloride toxicity cut-off at 860 mg/l.
Although de-icing salts associated with winter maintenance of the highway are the primary maintenance product likely to affect fish habitat, other activities, particularly bridge maintenance, many also generate negative effects on fish and fish habitat with penetration of sand and harmful substances (e.g., paint, solvents, oil and grease) into waterways. However, these products are used in smaller amounts and intermittently.
In this project, the waterway most vulnerable to this effect is creek no. 3, a long portion of which is located in the right-of-way. This waterway constitutes a fish habitat to the right of the right-of-way, and has a small watershed. The permanent tributary of La Pêche River (T10301) and waterway no. 4 exhibit some vulnerability for the same reasons, but they cross the highway right-of-way over shorter distances. Waterway no. 2, which also has a small watershed and contains one valued fish
Screening Report December 2010 - 39 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
species, is considered less sensitive because it flows further away from the new highway, outside the proposed excavation limits.
The standard measures required to mitigate this effect are the same as those designed to limit the effect of chlorides on water quality (section 5.5). Additional details about the proposed mitigation measures are provided in Table 5.6.
The intensity of this environmental effect is considered negligible to low for all waterways in the study area. The waterways most sensitive to this effect are of relatively minor value from an ichtyofauna point of view. Waterways characterized by significant diversity of species, or that contain valued species, are less sensitive given their size (La Pêche River and Meech Creek) or their location at a greater distance from the new roadways (waterway no. 2). The increased chloride levels compared to the existing situation will be permanent, and recurrent (every spring), and occasional to local in scope. The potential effect of chlorides on aquatic organisms will diminish quickly moving toward the downstream sections of the waterways affected. Considering these factors and the proposed mitigation measures, this environmental effect is deemed not significant.
5.10.4 Conclusion of analysis in relation to the Fisheries Act
In light of available information concerning fish habitat, DFO Fish Habitat Management experts have determined that the application of fish mitigation measures will lower the project’s effects on the fish habitat described in the three previous sections, and that the fish habitat destruction, deterioration and disturbance compensation plan will ensure that the principle of zero net losses is met in accordance with the DFO Fish Habitat Maintenance Policy (1986).
Therefore, the responsible authorities have determined that the project is unlikely to generate major negative environmental effects on fish habitat.
5.11 Avian Wildlife (including special-status species) – Effects, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Effect
5.11.1 Construction-related effects
The environmental effects on avian wildlife concern the disruption of nesting couples along the edge of the right-of-way caused by machinery noise and traffic.
To limit the effect of the work on bird nesting, the MTQ, at the request of Environment Canada, plans to establish a land clearing restriction period from April 1 to August 15. Most forest bird nesting activities, including egg-laying and fledgling raising, occur at this time for most of the species that use this area.
In light of the mitigation measures, the intensity is considered low, the scope, local; and the duration, short-term. The residual effect is deemed not significant.
5.11.2 Effects related to operation and presence of the highway
The effects caused by highway operation concern the loss, fragmentation or degradation of the habitat of several bird species. Lost habitat in the right-of-way includes cropland, forest and aquatic environments.
Standard mitigation measures will limit the clearing activities and machinery ground traffic required for permanent excavation and at work sites, to protect wooded environments at the edge of work sites and limit stripping, excavation, filling and grading. In addition, losses will be limited to and restricted by the highway right-of-way, and a limited number of species and specimens will be
Screening Report December 2010 - 40 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
affected. Furthermore, if the proposed highway runs along the edge of Gatineau Park, many replacement habitats are available nearby and birds will likely move to these habitats, which are used sparsely or below their full capacity.
Accordingly, the anticipated habitat losses are unlikely to alter the quality or integrity of bird communities. Considering these measures, the intensity is deemed low; the scope, local; and the duration, long-term. The residual effect is considered not significant.
5.12 Mammals– Effects, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Effect
The environmental effects on mammals deal with the loss or degradation of habitats suited to mammals (construction and operation phase), the limitation on wildlife movement and habitat fragmentation (operation phase). Concerning habitat losses and degradation, although some mammal disruption will likely occur during the work, most of the project’s effects are expected during the operation phase, although the loss becomes effective at the construction stage. The permanent change in usage is considered to be the cause of the effect (a transportation corridor replacing a natural environment). Furthermore, the disruption to mammals during construction will not be significant. Species disturbed by the work are expected to temporarily avoid nearby areas.
5.12.1 Loss or degradation of habitats suited to mammals
During the operation phase, the new highway will cause the permanent loss of a maximum of 88.2 ha of natural land. Among the species likely to be affected by the loss of these habitats are the white-tailed deer, black bear, raccoon, snowshoe hare, red fox, and several species of weasels and numerous small mammals. For species that prefer more open environments (eg, meadow jumping mouse, etc.), the construction of the highway will result in a maximum loss of approximately 41.6 ha of farmland.
Standard mitigation measures designed to limit forest losses caused by the project will be implemented. These will also lower mammal habitat losses. Furthermore, for farmland environments, losses will be compensated by the creation of similar habitats along the edge of the future highway.
Although habitat losses will be permanent, they will be limited to the highway right-of-way. The quality or integrity of mammal populations will therefore not be jeopardized by the minor habitat losses anticipated. The residual effect of lost or degraded habitat suitable for mammal species is therefore considered not significant.
5.12.2 Limitation of wildlife movement and habitat fragmentation
During the operation phase, the highway could create a barrier to movement by several wildlife species. The two areas which will be separated by the future highway are quite different in nature. The western portion is primarily reserved for conservation and contains an abundance of quality habitat, while the eastern section is characterized more by heavy human settlement. Furthermore, this latter area contains no specific habitats near the future right-of way that would encourage wildlife species that frequently cross highway 5. Furthermore, potential ecological corridors are currently being studied by the NCC in cooperation with municipalities, the Regional County Municipalities (RCM) and environmental groups. The preservation of natural areas adjacent to the Part is an asset to protecting biodiversity within the National Capital Region, including the protection of wildlife species with special status, the movement of wildlife, etc.
The portion of the trail to be preserved under the highway along La Pêche River will facilitate wildlife movement from one side of the highway to the other in this area. Other highway crossing sites could
Screening Report December 2010 - 41 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
also be used to a marginal degree by wildlife (e.g., water crossing structures, certain roads that pass under the highway). As well, if specific studies indicate a wildlife movement problem in the Highway 5 vicinity (Phase 2), various stakeholders could meet to discuss remedial measures to mitigate the problem.
Considering the low interest among wildlife species to cross from one side of the right-of-way to the other and their abundance on its western side, the environmental effect is currently considered to be of low intensity. Its duration will be permanent and its scope, local. Therefore, the residual environmental effect is considered not significant.
PART C: INDIRECTS EFFECTS ON SOCIO-ÉCONOMIC COMPONENTS
An overview of the indirect effects on the socio-economic environment, mitigation measures and the significance of residual effects is shown in Table 5.6 and a summary is given below.
5.13 Historical, archeological, paleontological or architectural heritage
Environmental effects on archaeology and historical properties are linked to the risk of disturbing archeological remains by moving or removing soil during the construction phase of the project.
No trace of any archeological evidence was found during the systematic archeological surveys conducted in November 2009. If any unexpected discovery of archeological evidence is made during the work, measures will be taken to protect any artefacts. These measures are listed in Table 5.6.
Considering these measures, the intensity is considered low, the duration, permanent and the scope, intermittent. The indirect residual effect on this component is therefore deemed unimportant.
5.14 Navigation
It is important to mention that only the indirect effects on navigation, i.e., effects on navigation resulting from a change in the environment, were considered in the environmental assessment under CEAA.
For the purposes of this project, no indirect effect on navigation has been identified. However, the direct effects on navigation primarily concern the possible restriction of navigation activities during work on the La Pêche River and were assessed by the Transport Canada officer, Navigable Waters Protection Program. This officer assessed the effects of this project and identified all measures required to mitigate them and thus ensure the public’s right to navigate and boating safety. These measures will be included in the conditions of any approvals issued under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
5.15 Current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons
Under CEEA, it is required to assess the effects of any environmental changes that the project might cause on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons must be examined. Existing data does not appear to indicate that the lands and resources affected by the project and covered by this screening report are currently used for traditional purposes by Aboriginal communities. Furthermore, the mitigation, compensation and monitoring measures identified in this report suggest that the effects on the various components of the environment, such as physical and biological environments, are not significant and it therefore seems unlikely that the indirect effect on
Screening Report December 2010 - 42 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
the current use of these resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons, if the community can establish such use, would be significant
5.16 Human Health
5.16.1 Effects on health resulting from the direct effects on groundwater quantity and quality
5.16.1.1 Reduction in potable water associated with lowering of the water table
During the construction phase, excavation activities can sometimes drawdown of the groundwater table and thus reduce the amount of intake water entering certain potable water wells. In some cases, blasting operations can also affect well water levels and water quality. As part of a study performed on the wells in 2009, six were identified at risk of this effect, specifically wells P23 to P28 (MTQ, 2009b). A pumping test will also be performed on these well prior to the start of construction. In addition, two wells belonging to the NCC are located on the highway right-of-way (P20 and P21). These two wells will be decommissioned and closed according to the method provided in the Règlement sur le captage des eaux souterraines (Regulation respecting groundwater catchment) of the MDDEP.
Four new potable water supply sources will be operative before the construction begins to ensure a continuous supply of potable water (of sufficient quality and quantity) to homes currently supplied by well P21, which will have to be decommissioned and closed. Consistant standards or poplicies will be in force to ensure the quality of drinking water for a period of three years.
The follow-up program described in section 6 will aim to ensure that wells deemed at risk will continue to provide an acceptable supply of water to the residents concerned, as well as the spring in Wakefield. If this is not the case and it is deemed to be the Department’s responsibility to act, the situation will be promptly corrected at the Department’s cost (e.g., well relocation, well drilling at a greater depth, etc.) in order to restore the potable water supply (sufficient flow and adequate quality) to the residents concerned. The potable water well monitoring program is enforced at all MTQ work sites in Quebec.
The intensity of this effect is considered low because it primarily constitutes a risk. Furthermore, the Department is responsible for restoring the water supply as soon as possible. As necessary, the effect will be temporary and intermittent because few residents will likely confront this situation. The effect associated with lowering of the water table is not deemed significant.
5.16.1.2 Risk of potable water supply contamination
During the operation phase, de-icing salts applied regularly for winter maintenance of the highway will likely reach the water table used as the potable water supply.
Water quality analyses performed in 1991 and 2009 (Lajeunesse et coll. , 1992; MTQ, 2009b) show that wells located near the future roadbed are characterized by relatively good water quality, although some of them exceed at least one of the MDDEP or Health Canada quality criteria (section 5.1.3). Furthermore, most of the wells near the highway project are located hydraulically downstream from the future roadway, and most present a low risk of contamination from construction of the new highway. The majority of these wells are located relatively far from the future highway, while some of them use aquifers covered by a layer of clay that protects against this effect. The two areas with the highest concentration of wells downstream from and relatively close to the right-of-way are the Lac Brown Road area, which includes the Vallée Verde aquifer, and the area south of the Cross Loop Road.
Screening Report December 2010 - 43 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
The Vallée Verde aquifer must be considered at a greater risk because of its quality and the nature of work to be performed in this area. It is located in a layer of sand covered by a clayey horizon that maintains groundwater conditions. The presence of this natural, impervious barrier and the ascending hydraulic gradients associated with artesian conditions protect the aquifer from possible contamination by chlorides. However, considering that the replenishing zone for this aquifer is located immediately to the north, on the path of the future highway, and that rock cutting will be required in this area, the aquifer could be exposed to chloride contamination at this location. In fact, a hydraulic connection exists between the fractured rock and the sand deposit. This area at risk could be more clearly delineated during development of the final plans and specifications, depending on the rock cutting required. During the 2009 well study, six wells were identified to be at risk of contamination: wells P23 à P28 (MTQ, 2009b).
Concerning the Wakefield spring, Health Canada experts have analyzed the results of physico- chemical and biological tests performed for the Municipality since 2003. The experts note the presence of total coliforms, which has occurred more frequently in the past two years, climbing from
According to the experts, total coliforms are not considered a risk to human health since this group of bacteria exists both in the environment and in feces. The presence of total coliforms in an untreated underground spring does not necessarily indicate fecal contamination. However, it does indicate degradation in water quality. This suggests surface water infiltration, which in turn suggests that the ground water is vulnerable to contamination. Positive samples may also result from the growth of a biofilm in the well or in the conduits.
In any case, Health Canada considered an investigation necessary to identify conditions surrounding the spring (e.g., examine the condition of pipes, check for possible sources of contamination, etc.) and suggested that remedial action be taken.
Meanwhile, the Municipality of La Pêche, in an effort to protect water quality, launched research to determine the cause of the increase in total coliforms. The cause was identified. Many users were filling large containers with a hose connected to the spring while the containers were still in the trunks of their cars.
Since the end of August 2010, prior to taking samples, municipal workers disinfect the spring valve. Since then, the tests indicate no further total coliforms in the spring water.
Mitigation measures designed to reduce the use of de-icing salts (section 5.5.2) will also lower the risk of potable water supply contamination. Also bear in mind that a follow-up program (section 6) will ensure that commissioning of the new highway causes no contamination of the Wakefield spring or wells deemed at risk, i.e., wells along the edge of the right-of-way or hydraulically downstream from it. Furthermore, project optimization will aim to ensure that drainage ditches included in the new road infrastructure in the Vallée Verde aquifer replenishing area are impermeable.
Considering the distance that separated most potable water sources from the future highway, the mitigation measures to be taken, the proposed follow-up program and optimization efforts in the most vulnerable area, the project’s effect on this component is considered of low intensity. Its scope is intermittent and its duration is considered permanent. However, if the results of follow-up activities reveal a need, actions will be taken to correct the situation and ensure a supply of quality potable water supply to affected residents. Therefore, the residual effect on this component is deemed not significant.
Screening Report December 2010 - 44 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
5.16.2 Effects on health resulting from direct effects on air quality (noise)
5.16.2.1 Disruption to residents during work
During the construction phase, the sound-related nuisance caused by the work will be perceived locally by residents living adjacent to the boundary of the future highway or along the roadways used by machinery and trucks. Residents in proximity to the work will likely be affected most. In this regard, 76 residences have been identified along a 300-m strip of land on each side of the future highway. They are primarily concentrated along highway 105 (east of the right-of-way) along with a few at the end of Carman Road (west of the right-of-way).
The proposed mitigation measures essentially aim to reduce noise disruptions to residents living near the work area. A noise control program will be implemented to keep sound levels below an acceptable treshold for buildings located near the work area. Furthermore, in accordance with section 6.2 of the CCDG, municipal bylaws will be enforced. As well, blasting work will be performed in accordance with the provisions of the CCDG.
The intensity of this effect is considered low to moderate, while its duration will be temporary. Since background noise in and around the project area will be affected by the work, the scope of this effect will be local. Overall, the residual effect of the project on this component will not be significant.
5.16.2.2 Disruption to residents and disturbance of wild species during use of the highway and maintenance activities
The commissioning of a new roadway will cause changes in the sound and visual environment of areas surrounding the project. As explained earlier, the 76 residential dwellings located within a 300 m strip of land on each side of the future highway are considered most vulnerable to this effect.
In terms of changes in sound levels associated with commissioning of the highway, bear in mind that the project will divert 70% to 80% of the traffic on highway 105 to highway 5, located farther to the west. This situation should translate into a reduction in sound levels perceptible to a greater number of residents living within the project’s area of influence, primarily residents living east of highway 105. Areas where the project is likely to generate the most pronounced negative sound effects are the residential area near Brown Lake Road between highway 105 and highway 5, and the area containing a few residential dwellings at the west end of Carman Road. One residence located on Cross Loop Road, immediately east of the right-of-way, is also vulnerable to increased sound levels along the highway. In addition to residents living near the highway, certain more sensitive wild species may also experience some disruption caused by use and maintenance of the highway.
Measures designed to limit clearing to a minimum and compensate for the loss of vegetation (section 5.7) will reduce the nuisance caused by the presence and use of the highway.
For most residents located within 300 m of the new highway, the commissioning of this new roadway will likely improve the sound ambiance. Locations where this positive effect will be most perceptible are situated east of highway 105 compared to sections of the highway constructed farthest to the west of highway 105. Furthermore, although the project will improve the sound climate in many inhabited areas, the highway’s presence could generate a negative effect for some homes located to the west of the highway (in the Carman Road area), and others located between this zone and highway 105, particularly in the Brown Lake Road area. Overall, however, the project’s impact on this component is considered not significant since the project will divert a considerable amount of road traffic from highway 105 to the future highway. The duration of the effect will be permanent, but its scope, intermittent.
Screening Report December 2010 - 45 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
5.17 Other Consideration : Agricultural land
The project’s impact on agricultural activities do not qualify as environmental effects within the meaning of the CEAA. However, the NCC considers the matter worthy of a brief discussion in this report.
Agricultural activities cannot continue in the highway right-of-way. In total, areas used for farming currently comprise some 41.6 ha, which will be lost as a result of the project. However, these activities occur on lands owned by the MTQ or the NCC, and agreements have been reached with local operators that they may continue until the Highway 5 construction begins.
However, crop lands outside the right-of-way on NCC lands may be damaged by the construction work. Mitigation measures to limit the impact of construction work on farmland located on NCC property outside the highway right-of-way involve site restoration and the replanting of damaged planted areas in accordance with NCC requirements.
Considering that agricultural activities in the highway right-of-way are temporary and that the loss of farm land outside the right-of-way on NCC property during the construction phase is unlikely, and given the mitigation measures required, the intensity is considered low, the scope, local and the duration permanent for farm land in the right of way and temporary for affected farm land outside the right of way. Therefore, the residual effect on this component is considered not significant.
PART D: CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
5.18 Cumulative Effects
This purpose of this section is to meet the requirements of CEAA for predicting cumulative effects that result from the completion of the Highway 5 project. The method used is based on the recommendations set out in the Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioner’s Guide (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency - CEAA, 1999). The Agency defines cumulative effects as follows: “… Cumulative effects are changes to the environment that are caused by an action in combination with other past, present and future human actions. A cumulative effects assessment (CEA) is an assessment of those effects.” (CEAA, 1999).
5.18.1 Analysis of effects
This section presents the analysis of the cumulative effects of the project with respect to the concerns identified.
The baseline condition is first described for each of the valued environmental components, the anticipated cumulative effects of past and future projects are then detailed. Finally, the applicable mitigation measures are presented. The significance of the effects is evaluated and the follow-up is proposed, where deemed necessary.
The lines that follow describe, for each VEC, the cumulative effects may result from this project taking into account all recent or planned projects in the vicinity of the study area.
Wetlands
The proposed wetlands compensation project will compensate for the loss of ecological functions of the wetlands that will be affected by the highway extension. Consequently, the current project will not have any permanent adverse effects on this component, and will therefore not be a source of cumulative effects.
Screening Report December 2010 - 46 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
To note, Phase 1 of the Highway 5 extension project, in which construction was completed in December 2009, affected a small wetland area that is considered to have a low potential for herpetiles (MTQ, 2005). As for Phase 3 of the extension, it may affect two wetlands (covering an area of approximately 0.2 to 0.3 ha) and the riparian strips along two streams in the work area (GENIVAR, 2006). According to the preliminary plans, the wetlands will only be affected by a very small encroachment, approximately 200 m2 in area.
It is also possible that some municipal projects to be considered (e.g., housing developments, construction of various buildings) will encroach on one or more wetlands. Given the limited scope of these projects and their location in more urbanized areas, losses of this type of habitat that they have been generated or may be generated are likely to be negligible. The detailed information provided by the NCC on the projects to be completed to the east of the right-of-way, near the La Pêche River, indicates that these projects will not encroach on wetlands.
Aquatic Habitats
As in the case of wetlands stated above, a compensation program will be implemented so that Phase 2 of the Highway 5 extension project does not result in net losses for this component. No cumulative effects associated with encroachment on the natural environment will be considered for this component.
However, this project will affect the chloride concentration in streams, an effect that is mainly associated with winter road maintenance. Since the effect of the project at this level will add to the effects in phases 1 and 3 of the Highway 5 extension, it is likely to generate cumulative effects. However, none of the watercourses that will be directly affected by this project is affected by either of the other two road projects to be considered. The only stream that will be affected by all three projects is the Gatineau River, which will be affected indirectly. This project could therefore generate cumulative effects on the aquatic habitat in that river. The magnitude of the cumulative effects will be greatly reduced by the distance between the project and the river, and by the large volume of water flowing through the Gatineau River. Any chlorides that dissolve in the surface water and reach the river will therefore be diluted quickly.
Rare Wildlife and rare plants
In the case of rare plant species, inventories carried out for phases 1 and 3 of the Highway 5 extension show that the areas affected by the two phases contain very few of such species. In fact, only a few wild leek plants and two butternut trees were identified in the right-of-way of Phase 1 (Fondex Shermont Inc., 2006). The loss of these two butternut trees was compensated for by the planting of 14 butternut trees in Gatineau Park, which are being closely monitored. The growth of all but one of the of the trees planted is considered normal to date. The area affected by Phase 3 of the project contains no rare plant species habitats. It is unlikely that the other projects to be considered have caused or are causing the destruction of rare plants given that such plants are usually found in natural environments, particularly in forest environments. The residential developments on Mountainview Road and Chemin des Pommiers, however, may have encroached on the habitats of these species.
In terms of rare wildlife species, to date, only two have been identified as being present in the right- of-way of one or the other of the routes for phases 1 and 3 of the Highway 5 extension. For the same reason cited in the case of rare plant species, the other projects considered in this analysis are less likely to have harmed rare wildlife or to do so in the future. These projects are in fact mostly located east of the future highway in an area that has already been altered from its natural state.. In this area, wildlife habitats are less and less abundant and of poorer quality because of they are so sparsely located.
Screening Report December 2010 - 47 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
5.18.2 Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures described earlier in this chapter are considered sufficient to reduce the scope of the cumulative effects associated with the proposed project to extend Highway 5 between Farm Point and the junction with Route 366. Appropriate mitigation measures will also be implemented to reduce the adverse environmental effects that could result from other current and future projects on federal lands (partly or entirely) or future projects funded by the government of Canada.
In addition to the compensation programs for wetlands and fish habitats, several other mitigation measures will be implemented to protect the VECs. Certain measures will strive to minimize the effect of chlorides on watercrossings, while others will specifically target rare flora and fauna species. In this way, the habitats of these species will be protected where possible, and specimen relocation will also be considered for some species (wild leek, smooth green snake) in cases where loss of habitat is unavoidable. Butternut trees that must be cut will be compensated for on the basis of a ratio of 2:1 (unless another ratio is specified in the permit obtained byEnvironment Canada).
Clearing will be minimal and reduced to only that which is necessary in the right-of-way. In so doing, it is likely that some of the wildlife habitats found there may be preserved, creating a buffer zone between the highway and the boundary of the Park. In addition, with the exception of the butternut, trees with a DBH of over 10 cm that must be cut down on NCC lands located within Gatineau Park must be compensated for on the basis of a 2:1 ratio within the Park. Other trees that must be cut down on NCC lands (inside or outside the right-of-way on lands outside the Park) must be compensated for on the basis of a 2:1 ratio, either by landscaping within the right-of-way or by other plantings on NCC lands.
5.18.3 Significance of the residual effects
It is inevitable that the projects considered will have certain environmental effects. Although the project’s contribution to cumulative effects as a whole is not significant, it will nevertheless contribute to a gradual change in the natural environment by adding to the other effects caused by projects or activities that have occurred or will occur in the area affected by the project.
These cumulative effects (i.e., encroachment into the natural environment and increased chlorides in streams), however, are considered not significant. Moreover, the numerous mitigation measures proposed in the earlier sections of this chapter will significantly reduce their magnitude.
PART E : ACCIDENTS, MALFUNCTIONS AND EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT
5.19 ACCIDENTS, MALFUNCTIONS AND EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT (INCLUDING PRELIMINARY EMERGENCY MEASURES PLAN)
5.19.1 Accidents and Malfunctions
During the construction and operational phases, several types of accidents can occur such as leaks, spills, fires, explosions, collisions, etc.
During the construction period, the most probable accidents are spills of waste oil or gasoline from machinery used by the contractor responsible for carrying out the work. In order to minimize adverse effects on the environment, the construction site supervisor must have at his disposal all the
Screening Report December 2010 - 48 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
equipment necessary to contain such spills as well as the telephone numbers of specialized firms in the region that can respond and recover the spilled substances and clean up the affected sites. The construction site supervisor must ensure that certain preventive measures are followed, such as designating specific locations for oil changes or filling gasoline tanks, which should be sufficient distance from watercourses or drainage ditches.
Although likely in the construction period, accidents are even more probable in the operational phase of the highway given the increase in vehicular traffic. Among all accidents that may occur, the spill of hazardous materials is the most likely to result in significant environmental impacts. To minimize these impacts, all carriers must comply with the Quebec Regulation “Règlement sur le transport des matières dangereuses” and follow the “Guide sur le transport des matières dangereuses” (MTQ, 2003b).
During the construction and operational phases, the failures that may be observed will mainly involve the collapse of a portion of highway or of a structure (bridge, culvert). A collapse could be due to poor soil drainage, the use of improper back fill materials during construction, or the use of inappropriate construction or rehabilitation methods. However, in light of the standards governing the design of highway construction projects, as well as current construction techniques, such failures are unlikely.
The Outaouais Branch of the MTQ, in collaboration with the police and municipal authorities, has an emergency measures plan for Highway 5. The purpose of the plan is to respond to emergency situations by means of an operational process that was developed in 2003 by the MTQ’s operational support unit. This process is a complement to the Plan national de sécurité civile du MTQ. It will therefore be applied to the new road infrastructure, with the necessary updates.
5.19.2 Effects of the environment on the project
Environmental factors affecting the project may include extreme natural events such as landslides, freezing and thawing and heavy precipitation, or localized infrastructure breakdown near the road. However, considering the proposed mitigation measures and the construction codes and standards in force, the anticipated effects of the environment on the project to extend Highway 5 between Farm Point and the Highway 366 junction are not considered significant.
PART F: MITIGATION MEASURES AND COMPENSATION OF RESIDUEL EFFECTS
5.20 RESULTS
Table 5.6 summarizes the environmental effects and the mitigation measures aimed at minimizing the project’s environmental effects.
Screening Report December 2010 - 49 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
Table 5.6 Assessment of environmental effects for the extension of Highway 5 project between Farm Point and the connection to Road 366 Sources of the Required mitigation measures Significance of Nature of the environmental effects Affected component environmental Note : All work related to the following mitigation measures should be regularly inspected and, if necessary, corrections will be made (see Chapter 6 the residual (description) effects of the screening report on adaptive management). effects CONSTRUCTION PHASE Temporary deterioration of air quality during the Routine measures: work. 1) Ensure that machinery is, at all time, well maintained and leak-free on arrival at the work site and subsequently maintain the machinery in this condition by carrying out regular inspections. 2) In the areas most vulnerable to erosion, stabilize the soil as the work progresses, through vegetation stabilization or by using surface protection materials (spreading mulch, wood fibre blankets, geotextile membranes). (CCDG 10.4.3.5) ∗ 3) Application of water or dust control agent, in sectors where dust is likely to disturb residents. (CCDG 12.4) General 4) Turn off the engines of all motorized equipment on the sites when not being used. Air quality construction 5) Stabilize waste materials to prevent them from entering waterbodies. Not significant (See section 5.4) activities 6) Vegetate any disturbed areas by planting and seeding native trees, shrubs or grasses, and cover such areas with mulch to prevent erosion. If there is insufficient time remaining in the growing season, the site should be stabilized (e.g. cover exposed areas with erosion control blankets to keep the soil in place and prevent erosion) and vegetated the following spring. (CCDG 18.3) Specific measures: 7) Plant native species to Gatineau Park, preferably, or Outaouais Region on the riverbanks and structure embankments and use a variety of species of varying sizes. For activities that might affect NCC land (ex.: Meech Creek), the plant species used to reconstitute the riparian strip will have to be native to Gatineau Park and non-invasive. Risk of surface water contamination from oil Routine measures: products and other dangerous materials during 1) 5) 6) the work. 8) In the event of a minor accidental spill, stop the leak, contain the substance and recover it as quickly as possible using appropriate equipment Keep an emergency spill kit on site at all times. (CCDG 1 10.4.2) 9) Take the usual precautions concerning the maintenance and refuelling of transport vehicles and machinery on the work site. Refuelling, repairing and maintaining activities will be carried out within areas designated for this purpose and located more than 60 metres from any waterbody. (CCDG 10.4.3.1) 10) An emergency response plan shall be prepared and implemented it in the event of an accidental spill of contaminants. Post, in appropriate locations clearly visible to workers at all times during construction, a notice indicating Urgence environnement telephone number as well as the names and telephone numbers of the emergency measures officers. 11) No storage of hydrocarbons or other hazardous products will be permitted within 60 metres of any waterbody. General 12) Before work begins, mark the limits of the planned excavation area, identify the clearing and soil stripping areas as well as the areas to be cut Surface water construction down to the ground. Restrict the movement of vehicles and machinery to the work areas and designated access points and use vehicles adapted to Not significant (See section 5.5) activities the soil’s bearing capacity. (CCDG 11.2, 11.4 and 11.6) 13) Materials and waste will be disposed of at an appropriate site in accordance with the applicable regulations. Contaminated soils will be disposed according to the ministère du développement durable et des parcs (MDDEP) management grid. (CCDG 10.4.3.1, 11.2.3 and 11.4.7.3) 14) In a 20-m-wide strip along streams, the vegetation cover (shrub stratum) must be preserved until work begins and trees are to be cut to the ground level in order to preserve the stumps. In a 5 m wide strip on either side of streams, trees more than 10 cm in diameter must be cut down individually. 15) As stated in article 10.4 of CCDG, work will be done by protecting waterbodies and banks including the implementation of protective measures against erosion. 16) Prohibit machinery from crossing streams unless specific CCDG conditions are respected (CCDG 10.4.3.4). 17) Install protective measures against erosion such as by the bank stabilisation and the implementation of retention structures (filter berms, sediment traps, sediment barriers, sedimentation basins and ditches). Implement ditches to prevent sediments from entering waterbodies. (CCDG 10.4 et 11.5)
∗ CCDG refers to Cahier des charges et devis généraux – Infrastructure routière – Construction et réparation – Édition 2010 (MTQ, 2009).
Screening Report December 2010 - 51 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
Sources of the Required mitigation measures Significance of Nature of the environmental effects Affected component environmental Note : All work related to the following mitigation measures should be regularly inspected and, if necessary, corrections will be made (see Chapter 6 the residual (description) effects of the screening report on adaptive management). effects Specific measures: 18) Decommissioning of the septic system at 7, chemin du Lac Brown in accordance with NCC procedures (drain the sewage sludge and remove the system or fill with gravel, sand, dirt or inert material, dispose of sewage sludge and debris related to the dismantling of the system (if applicable) in an appropriate disposal site outside the Park. 19) Minimize the movement of machinery near stream banks and use the lightest equipment possible. CONSTRUCTION PHASE Temporary deterioration of water quality due to Routine measures: sediment input in streams. 2) 6) 12) 14) 15) 17) 20) Cofferdams for the construction of watercourse structures should be used in a manner that minimizes sediment suspension. Specific measures: 7) 19) 21) Install protective riprap on Meech Creek bridge abutment (near chaining 11+600 of the road south), in order to stabilize the section of the stream Surface water quality General bank close to the work. (continued) construction Not significant 22) In order to reduce the risk of sediment suspension in Meech Creek during the implementation of the riprap, machinery shall operate from the (See section 5.5) activities bank of Meech Creek and a geotextile barrier must also be installed between this area and the creek, and it will remain in place until disturbed areas are fully vegetated. It is also proposed to use a turbidity curtain in the Meech Creek until the bed of the watercourse in order to confine and make settle quickly the sediment that may be suspended in water to a restricted area. Finally, stabilization work must be carried out from upstream to downstream during the summer or winter low water period and the riprap must be achieved to provide adequate drainage of the tributaries of the Meech Creek that the creek mouth is located in front of this riprap. 23) Operate machinery on land (above the high-water mark) and in a manner that minimizes disturbance to the banks of the waterbody. Risk of soil contamination from oil products and Routine measures: other dangerous materials during the work. 1) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 24) Locate temporary storage areas on site and after completion, return the sites to their original condition if they are not part of the work areas. Specific measures: Not significant 18) 25) If treated wood is used and installed in the park, follow the procedures for treated wood described in the guidelines for the use of treated wood (NCC, 2003). Risk of soil erosion, movement and compaction Routine measures: during the work. 2) 12) 14) 15) 24) General Soil and sediment 26) Application of erosion protection measures, particularly bank and slope stabilization. (CCDG 10.4) construction (See section 5.6) 27) If necessary, use trench boxes or a movable shoring/support system to maintain unstable soil and prevent any landslides on stream banks. activities 28) Recover the topsoil excavated that it can be reused during landscaping work. (CCDG 11.4.5.3.2) 29) Movement of vehicles or machinery and the storage of any equipment, vehicles, machinery, waste or other materials outside the limits of the designated work area, even on a temporary basis, will be strictly prohibited without the owner(s) authorization. (CCDG 6.9) Not significant 30) As stated in article 7.11 of CCDG, the contractor is responsible for restoring the work site. Specific measures: 21) 22) 23) ** 31) In the event of a landslide caused by the works during construction off limits to the work area, provide land stabilization and restore the site. ** 32) Recover the topsoil excavated on the grounds of the Gatineau Park and store it separately for reuse to rehabilitate sites in the park during the landscaping work.
** This measure was requested by the National Capital Commission (NCC) and the NCC will be responsible for ensuring the implementation of this measure. ** Idem.
Screening Report December 2010 - 52 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
Sources of the Required mitigation measures Significance of Nature of the environmental effects Affected component environmental Note : All work related to the following mitigation measures should be regularly inspected and, if necessary, corrections will be made (see Chapter 6 the residual (description) effects of the screening report on adaptive management). effects CONSTRUCTION PHASE Removal of vegetation within the right-of-way Routine measures: as well as potentially on several lots owned by 28) 29) the NCC, within and outside of Gatineau Park. 33) Minimize the areas to clear, and preserve the vegetation by carefully marking the areas to be cleared and avoiding clearing beyond these marked areas. Protect the trees that are to be preserved, and cut down trees so that the direction of fall is within the areas to be cleared. (CCDG 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 10.4.3.5 and 11.2) 34) Retain chip wood residues and use the chips as a soil stabilizer and amendment during rehabilitation of disturbed areas. (CCDG 11.4.5 et 18) Specific measures: Not 35) Install protective fencing around trees to keep at a distance of 2 meters of their trunks to protect their root system and to not damage their barks. significant General 36) Compensate 2:1 within Gatineau Park on NCC lands for cut trees on NCC lands in the Park with a diameter at breast height of 10 cm or more. construction 37) Compensate 2:1, either by landscaping done in the work area or by any other planting on NCC grounds, trees to be cut inside or outside the work activities area on NCC lands that are not part of the Gatineau Park. 38) The tree-planting plan will have to be approved by the NCC. 39) For NCC lands located within the Park boundaries, planting native species to the Park and non-invasive. Inside the work area, first consider planting native species to the Park or, if this is not possible under special conditions, plant species present in the Outaouais region. Completion of the work and access to the site Routine measures: could potentially disturb and/or damage existing 6) 12) 13) Not vegetation outside the work areas. Specific measures: significant 35) 40) Use existing trails, roads or cut lines wherever possible to avoid disturbance to the riparian, forest and other vegetation. Vegetation Loss of riparian vegetation. Routine measures: Stream crossing (See section 5.7) 12) 14) 29) 33) 35) and Not significant Specific measures: reconfiguration 7) Modification of roadside plant communities. N.B.: The measures aimed at minimizing the effect of chlorides on surface water quality and measures aimed at preventing damage to vegetation General that is to be preserved will also help reduce the project’s effect on this component. construction Not significant Routine measures: activities 41) Seed plant communities that are resistant to road salt and native to the Gatineau Park or the Outaouais region. Loss or degradation of special status plant N.B.: the measures aimed at minimizing clearing will also help mitigate the effect on this component since they will help reduce habitat losses. species or habitats suitable for these species Routine measures: inside the right-of-way as well as a few NCC 12) land sections, inside or outside Gatineau Park. Specific measures: 42) Transplant wild leeks present in part of vegetation station S5 that will be impacted by the work. These species will have to be transplanted to General Gatineau Park or other property (as applicable) in an appropriate environment that will not be affected by the work. construction 43) Regarding the butternut to be protected, install a safety fence at a distance of 4m from the tree trunk to protect this specimen. Not significant activities 44) Compensate 2:1 for cut butternuts, affected or not by the butternuts canker, (or with another compensation ratio recommended by Environment Canada permit) by a planting in Gatineau Park in an appropriate habitat. 45) For butternuts infected by butternut canker that are to be cut down, it is important to dispose of all woody material from these trees (trunks, branches, twigs) in accordance with the methods prescribed by Natural Resources Canada in order to prevent the risk of spread of the disease. 46) Protect special-status plant species during construction. If this proves to be impossible, obtain required EC permits ou MDDEP permits as appropriate and meet the requirements in these permits. Wetland loss or degradation during work. N.B.: The measures to reduce risk of contamination and erosion of soils and surface water will also mitigate the effect on the wetland. General Wetlands Routine measures: construction Not significant (See section 5.8) 12) 30) activities Specific measures:
Screening Report December 2010 - 53 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
Sources of the Required mitigation measures Significance of Nature of the environmental effects Affected component environmental Note : All work related to the following mitigation measures should be regularly inspected and, if necessary, corrections will be made (see Chapter 6 the residual (description) effects of the screening report on adaptive management). effects 47) The boundaries of all wetlands on federal lands that may potentially be impacted by the work must be clearly marked in the field by installing wooden stakes and a protective fence that will protect and demarcate their boundaries clearly. 48) The project shall be carried out in a manner that does not modify the natural drainage pattern of the wetlands outside the work area and does not impact their ecological functions. 49) Following analysis of the ecological functions of the wetlands, the proponent shall present to the responsible federal authorities a compensation project for wetlands with an ecological capacity that is equal to or greater than those impacted. A group including federal and provincial members must be created to establish the compensation project. The principle of no net loss must be adhered to. 50) Compensation on NCC land or in the Outaouais Region is required for wetlands on NCC land that will be impacted by construction of the highway. CONSTRUCTION PHASE Adverse effects on reptiles and amphibians due N.B.: The measures designed to limit the effects of the project on wetlands will also mitigate the effect on this component since they will reduce to loss, fragmentation and/or disturbance of habitat losses for reptiles and amphibians. their breeding and feeding habitat Routine measures: ** 51) The proponent will do every effort to protect wildlife during work. Specific measures: Reptiles and General 52) Comply with a restriction period for the partial drainage of wetland complex MH1 to avoid the breeding season of the frog species that occur Amphibians construction there and to allow them to find alternative breeding habitats. This period would run from April to August for this wetland, which supports four frog Not significant (See section 5.9) activities species. 53) The site where a nest of Blanding turtles was located during the inventory has been visited twice in 2009 without the use of the site by the species can be confirmed. Should this site be destroyed, an equivalent site in an area determined by the federal and provincial experts will replace it. If the experts determined that the appropriate alternative site is within the Gatineau Park, permissions from the NCC will be required. ** 54) Plan tree planting so as to create, wildlife corridors (areas of contiguous habitat) connecting areas that will remain wooded wherever possible, keeping them at a sufficient distance from the highway in order to compensate for habitat loss. Suspension of fine particles in fish habitat. Routine measures: 2) 12) 14) 17) 20) 26) 55) A work restriction period shall be followed for work to be carried out in water body in order to protect the life cycles of fish species of interest Stream crossing found there. These periods will be defined when more details are provided on the work to be done. Fish and fish habitat and 56) Among the measures recommended by the DFO (see EA report Annex 5), those which are not included in the contract documents and that Not significant (See section 5.10) reconfiguration would be applicable to this project will be added to the contractor’s action plan. Specific measures: 21) 22) 57) Restore degraded wildlife habitat areas in the vicinity on NCC grounds.
** This measure was requested by the National Capital Commission (NCC) and the NCC will be responsible for ensuring the implementation of this measure. ** Idem.
Screening Report December 2010 - 54 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
Sources of the Required mitigation measures Significance of Nature of the environmental effects Affected component environmental Note : All work related to the following mitigation measures should be regularly inspected and, if necessary, corrections will be made (see Chapter 6 the residual (description) effects of the screening report on adaptive management). effects Habitat loss and alteration for aquatic wildlife. Routine measures: 56) Specific measures: 58) The culvert in stream No. 3 will be buried and it should be possible to install it with a slight inclination so as to facilitate its use by fish. 59) The restoration of fish habitat should be concentrated within the new stream portions created for the new culverts installation. This measure will help to mitigate the fish habitat loss within each stream affected by the works. As per residual loss, a fish habitat compensation program will create new aquatic habitats in Meech Creek, along the riprap. An area of 2 500 to 3 000 m 2 is covered. Part of the loss of habitat will also be compensated Not significant following the fish habitat restoration following the decommissioning and withdrawal of the La Peche river bridge 60) Construct culverts by complying with the mitigation measures set out in the guides Bonnes pratiques pour la conception et l’installation de ponceaux permanents de moins de 25 mètres [Best practices for the design and installation of permanent culverts less than 25 metres] (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2007) and Recommandations pour la conception des traversées de cours d’eau où le libre passage des poissons doit être assuré [Recommendations for the design of stream crossings where the free passage of fish must be ensured] (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2007). CONSTRUCTION PHASE General Disturbance of breeding pairs along the edge of Routine measures: Birds construction the right-of-way. 51) 54) Not significant (See section 5.11) activities 61) Land clearing should not be carried out during the migratory bird nesting and breeding season (April 1 to August 15). Adverse effects on species of special status N.B.: The measures designed to limit land clearing and fish habitat losses will also make it possible to mitigate the effect on this component since due to loss, disturbance and/or fragmentation of they will reduce habitat losses. their breeding and feeding habitat. The measures designed to limit the effects of the project on La Pêche River, on Meech Creek, and on wetlands will also mitigate the effect on this component since they will reduce habitat losses. Species of special Routine measures: General status 2) 55) 56) 61) construction Not significant (See sections 5.9, 5.10, Specific measures: activities 5.11) 21) 22) 53) 54) 57) 62) Protect special status wildlife during construction. If this proves to be impossible, obtain required EC permits ou MDDEP permits as appropriate and meet the requirements in these permits. 63) The site where several smooth green snakes were found during the survey will have to be searched just before the work begins in order to capture any specimens that may occur there and relocate them to a suitable site. Adverse effects on wildlife due to loss, N.B.: The measures designed to limit land clearing will also make it possible to mitigate the effect on this component since they will reduce habitat disturbance and/or fragmentation of their losses. Activités breeding and feeding habitat. Routine measures: Mammals générales de 13) 51) Not significant (See section 5.12) préparation de site Specific measures: et de construction 30) 54) 57) ** 64) Workers must maintain the site in clean state and avoid leaving trash or food scraps that may attract animals and denature wildlife. Risk of disturbance of yet-to-be-discovered Specific measures: archaeological remains. 65) If archaeological remains are accidentally discovered during construction, work will halt at that location until a complete evaluation of the site is Archaeology and General conducted by a professional archaeologist. The Outaouais regional branch of the Quebec Department of Culture, Communications and the Status of heritage construction Women (819-772-3002) and the NCC archaeologist to the Programme du Patrimoine de la CCN (613-239-5751) will be contacted in the event of the Not significant (See section 5.13) activities discovery of heritage resources. 66) The accidental discovery of human remains during construction will force the immediate suspension of work at this location. The Contractor shall contact the project manager of the MTQ and the Senior Planner of the Capital Planning (613-239-5462) immediately.
** This measure was requested by the National Capital Commission (NCC) and the NCC will be responsible for ensuring the implementation of this measure.
Screening Report December 2010 - 55 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
Sources of the Required mitigation measures Significance of Nature of the environmental effects Affected component environmental Note : All work related to the following mitigation measures should be regularly inspected and, if necessary, corrections will be made (see Chapter 6 the residual (description) effects of the screening report on adaptive management). effects CONSTRUCTION PHASE Possible restriction of boating activities. N.B.: The measures provided by Transport Canada’s Navigable Waters Protection group under the Navigable Waterways Protection Act (NWPA) Stream crossing will be implemented as required. The MTQ will have to meet the conditions issued as part of the NWPA approval. Navigation and re-routing Specific measures: Not significant (See section 5.14) (La Pêche River) 67) Install temporary signage prohibiting access to ensure the safety on the La Pêche River during bridge construction. The signage will have to be removed following completion of bridge construction. Reduction in drinking water supplies associated N.B.: The long-term drinking water well monitoring that will be carried out by the MTQ will make it possible to ensure that the well considered to be at with water table drawdown. risk, as well as other wells selected from among the wells deemed safe (including the spring on Valley Road in Wakefield), continue to provide * adequate water supplies, in terms of quantity, to affected residents. Corrective measures will be taken if necessary. Human health : General Specific measures: Quality and quantity of ** construction 68) Four new drinking water supplies will be dug to replace the well P21 (responsibility of the NCC) and these will be drilled on the lands of the Not significant groundwater activities residents concerned, before work begins, to ensure a continuous supply of quality drinking water for homes served by the well P21 who will have to (See section 5.16) be decommissioned and closed (in accordance with applicable standards or politics for drinking water quality for a period 3 years).
Disturbance of residents during the work. Routine measures: 4) * 69) For buildings located near the work area, a noise control program will be implemented to keep noise levels below an acceptable threshold. Human health : General 70) Motorized equipment and other noisy equipment must be equipped with mufflers, acoustic enclosures or other noise-control devices. Noise construction Not significant 71) The rock blasting work will have to be carried out in accordance with accepted practices. (CCDG 11.4.4) (See section 5.16) activities 72) If necessary, use acoustic enclosures or temporary noise barriers (ex: fabric, earth berms, etc.). 73) Advise residents of construction schedules, specifically for work that generates specific nuisances (ex: blasting, etc.). 74) The passage of heavy vehicles for work will only be permit during the hours prescribed by the municipal regulations. OPERATIONAL PHASE Risk of surface water contamination by N.B.: When the Stratégie québécoise pour une gestion environnementale des sels de voirie will be launched, it will make possible to reduce adverse chlorides or other maintenance products during effects of the chlorides on the environment. operations. Routine measures: 75) Respect and reestablish, where necessary, normal surface-water flows primarily near poorly drained areas and depressions to avoid the Surface water Maintenance accumulation of chlorides along the road and facilitate an evacuation and a rapid dilution of them. Not significant (See section 5.5) Specific measures: 76) Minimize the use of herbicides and chemical maintenance products on roadsides. 77) For the two drainage ditches that will pass through the NCC, sections of riprap are planned and a buffer zone of shrub between the end of outflow and the limit of the right-of-way. Risk of soil contamination during road N.B.: The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations, the heavy vehicle transportation safety standards and the Responsible Care program of Soils and sediments accidents. the Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association will be followed and thus will contribute to reducing this risk. Use of the road Not significant (See section 5.6) Routine measures: 13) Modification of plant communities along N.B.: The measures designed to limit the effect of chloride on quality of surface water and those to prevent damage to the vegetation will also Vegetation roadsides. reduce the effect on this component. Maintenance Not significant (See section 5.7) Routine measures: 41)
* The direct effects of the project on groundwater and on the air quality (noise) are likely to indirectly affect human health. ** This measure was requested by the National Capital Commission (NCC) and the NCC will be responsible for ensuring the implementation of this measure. * Idem.
Screening Report December 2010 - 56 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
Sources of the Required mitigation measures Significance of Nature of the environmental effects Affected component environmental Note : All work related to the following mitigation measures should be regularly inspected and, if necessary, corrections will be made (see Chapter 6 the residual (description) effects of the screening report on adaptive management). effects OPERATIONAL PHASE Wetlands Presence and use Loss or degradation of wetlands. Specific measures: Not significant (See section 5.8) of the road 48) 49) 50) Loss, fragmentation or degradation of reptile N.B.: The measures designed to limit land clearing, fish habitat losses and effects on wetlands will also make it possible to mitigate the effect on this and amphibian breeding and feeding habitat. component since they will reduce habitat losses for reptiles and amphibians. Due to the presence of an asphalt shoulder and vegetated Reptiles and Presence and use embankment for the entire length of the right-of-way, the area bordering the highway will not be suitable for egg-laying by turtles, thus reducing the amphibians Not significant of the road risk of collisions. (See section 5.9) Specific measures: 52) Habitat loss and alteration for aquatic wildlife. Routine measures: Presence and use 56) Not significant of the road Specific measures: Fish and fish habitat 58) 59) (See section 5.10) Effect of inputs of chlorides and maintenance N.B.: When the Stratégie québécoise pour une gestion environnementale des sels de voirie will be launched, it will make possible to reduce adverse
products on the aquatic wildlife. effects of the chlorides on the environment. Maintenance Not significant Routine measures: 75) Birds Presence and use Loss, fragmentation or degradation of habitats N.B.: The measures designed to limit land clearing and effects on wetlands will also make it possible to mitigate the effect on this component since Not significant (See section 5.11) of the road for several bird species. they will reduce habitat losses for birds. Landscaping in the context of this project will also have a similar effect. Species of special Loss, fragmentation or degradation of breeding N.B.: The measures designed to limit land clearing and habitat loss for fish will also mitigate the effect on this component since it will reduce habitat status Presence and use and feeding habitats for wild of special status. losses. Not significant (See section 5.9, 5.10, of the road The measures designed to limit the effects on the La Pêche River, Meech Creek and the wetlands will also mitigate the effect on this component 5.11) since they will reduce habitat losses. Loss, fragmentation or degradation of Note: The measures designed to limit land clearing will also mitigate the effect on this component since it will reduce habitat losses. mammals breeding and feeding habitat. Routine measures: Not significant 30) Specific measures: Mammals Presence and use 57) (See section 5.12) of the road Limitation of wildlife movements and et la N.B.: The passage that will be maintained under the La Pêche River bridge is also likely to promote wildlife movements on either side of the highway fragmentation of habitats. in this sector. To a lesser extent, other sites of crossing the highway may also be used (e.g.: river crossings, passages of certain roads under the highway). Not significant The fence meshing installed on either side of the right-of-way size must be large enough to allow passage of small wildlife and the height of the fence must allow the passage the big wildlife. Risk of contamination of drinking water N.B.: The measures designed to limit the effect of chlorides in surface waters will also reduce the effect on this component. sources. The monitoring of the drinking water wells by MTQ will make it possible to ensure that the wells considered to be at risk continue to adequately Human health: supply potentially affected residents. Corrective measures will be taken if necessary. (direct effects on Routine measures: quality and quantity of Maintenance Not significant 13) groundwater Specific measures: (See section 5.16) 76) 78) Seal highway ditches in the Valley Verde area to prevent migration of contaminants from highway into aquifer. OPERATIONAL PHASE Human health: Presence and use Disturbance of residents and disruption of N.B.: The measures designed to limit land clearing as well as plant screens that will be preserved or planted and landscaping will help mitigate the Not significant (from direct effects on of the road / wildlife species during the use of the highway highway perceptions for residents. However, these measures shall have no significant effect on the noise environment.
Screening Report December 2010 - 57 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
Sources of the Required mitigation measures Significance of Nature of the environmental effects Affected component environmental Note : All work related to the following mitigation measures should be regularly inspected and, if necessary, corrections will be made (see Chapter 6 the residual (description) effects of the screening report on adaptive management). effects air quality (noise) Maintenance and during maintenance activities Routine measures: (See section 5.16) 1) 4) OPERATIONAL PHASE – OTHER CONSIDÉRATION Loss of cultivated fields. Routine measures: 2) 12) 13) 29) 33) * Agricultural land Presence and use Specific measures: Not significant (See section 5.17) of the road 7) 35) 40) ** 79) Cultivated areas outside the right-of-way on the NCC land that are damaged by any associated construction work will have to be restored for agricultural use as required by the NCC.
* Project effects on agricultural activities are not environmental effects under CEAA. However, the NCC considers it appropriate to discuss briefly in the screening report. ** This measure was requested by the National Capital Commission (NCC) and the NCC will be responsible for ensuring the implementation of this measure.
Screening Report December 2010 - 58 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
6. MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP PROGRAMS; ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
6.1 Monitoring
An environmental monitoring program for the project will be implemented, primarily during the construction work to verify if the mitigation measures have been implemented.
The environmental standards, guidelines and measures included in the plans and specifications (contract terms and conditions) will be implemented during construction. The environmental specifications for each section must be forwarded to the responsible authorities in sufficient time before the start of construction to allow for the analysis of these documents.
While the work is being performed, the construction supervisor for the given section will be responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures for the project are being implemented. The supervisor will have access to a number of documents for this purpose, including a copy of Table 5.6 of this screening report, the main sections of the CCDG, the main sections of the MTQ document entitled “L’environnement dans les projets routiers,” the application for the certificate of authorization and all applicable certificates of authorization, orders and permits. The construction supervisor must pay particular attention to activities related to work that affects water resources, wetlands, rare species, fish habitats and soil stabilization and erosion control. A landscape architect will have to monitor the landscaping work and be present during the planting of vegetation.
In addition, the MTQ will produce a report that will outline the construction supervisor’s observations regarding environmental issues during and at the end of the project. These reports are to be completed on a monthly basis when work warranting sustained monitoring is in process. A copy of these reports will be forwarded to Transport Canada and to the NCC.
The responsible authorities may visit the site to ensure that all mitigation measures have been implemented and are functional.
6.2 Follow-up under CEAA
Within the framework of the proposed Highway 5 project, the following components will be subject to environmental follow-up under CEEA, including: • stabilization work and plantings; • rare plants: Butternut and wild leek • functions of the affected and compensated wetlands; • wetlands compensation project will be subject to follow-up to verify the achievement of the stated objectives; • physicochemical quality and quantity of water in sensitive wells. The environmental follow-up will be coordinated by the MTQ and will aim at verifying the accuracy of the environmental assessment and determining the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. As a result, solutions could be required to protect the environment or to ensure that the project is being realized according to the standards established at the outset.
Screening Report December 2010 - 59 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
Stabilization and Planting work
To ensure that the proposed roadside plantings survive, the Contractor will take responsibility for landscape maintenance and the replacement of dead plants for three years following work 10 . Furthermore, structures designed to stabilize the shores of waterways crossed by road infrastructures will also be monitored for three years following their installation. All damaged plants must be replaced. Furthermore, the growth conditions of these plans will also be monitored every year at the beginning of the summer (for three years) to allow for any required remedial action or additions.
On NCC property, the MTQ shall ensure similar monitoring over a three-year period for plantings. This monitoring will be performed in accordance with established standards, although the NCC’s specific concerns will also be taken into account. The follow-up of the impact on both shores of Meech Creek must be monitored for five years.
Plant specifies with special status
A monitoring program specific to the two special status plant species covered by compensation efforts under this project will also be developed. Accordingly, the growth and health of butternut trees, to be compensated at a ratio of 2:1, will be monitored over a five-year period. The adjustment of transplanted wild leek to their new environment will also be monitored.
Wetland functions affected and compensated
The wetlands affected by the project (primarily complex MH1) will be monitored by the Committee established to ensure that the functions of wetlans will be assessed and mitigated. The natural drainage patternof the MH1 complex will be monitored to ensure that it has not been altered by the project. If the drainage pattern has been altered, remedial action will be taken. Furthermore, monitoring of birds in the MH1 complex is also suggested, starting one year after completion of the project.
Five-year follow-up is required for wetlands affected by construction and operation of the highway, and for wetlands created, to monitor wetland function loss. Details concerning this follow-up will be provided at a later time by the committee created, at the same time that the wetland compensation program is authorized.
Potable water quality and quantity
The four new wells excavated, along with the well at the Moulin Wakefield hotel and spa, the well at Maclaren House as well as other and wells (both at at risk and those considered safe) will be subject to a follow-up program. Potable water monitoringby the MTQ during the course of road development prioritizes the follow-up of all wells considered “at risk following a detailed well study (MTQ, 2009b). However, if the number of such wells is too low to generate a representative sampling across the length of the project, some wells considered to present “no problem anticipated” will also be including in follow-up activities.
In the case of 4 new wells which will replace well P21 (responsibility of the NCC), a monitoring program will be in effect to ensure a continuous supply of quality drinking water which meets the standards or policies on the quality of drinking water for a period of 3 years.
Testing will be conducted on these wells every spring after project completion for a duration of at least two years. The results will be compared to the results of sampling activities performed prior to
10 This measure has been requested by the National Capital Commission (NCC) and the NCC will have the responsibility to make sure that this measure will be implemented.
Screening Report December 2010 - 60 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
commencement of the construction work (provided that the proposed work is carried out within two years of the first measurement; otherwise, other analyses will have to be performed prior to commencement of the work). In this case, the Wakefield spring supply source (Valley Road spring) will be monitored for two years even though it falls in the “no problem anticipated” category (MTQ, 2010).
In cases where water quality has not changed, monitoring may end after this two-year period. Where water quality has dropped below acceptable levels and the deterioration was deemed project- related, environmental follow-up will continue for at least one year.
Where water quality has deteriorated to a point that exceeds the recommended acceptable criteria governing domestic water consumption and such deterioration is directly related to the project, measures will be taken to supply the owners in question with potable water (in sufficient quantity and of acceptable quality).
In addition to these follow-up elements, standard for MTQ projects, radionuclide analyses will be performed at least once over the course of this project.
Once the monitoring reports have been prepared they will be forwarded to federal authorities for further action, if required.
6.3 Follow-up of compensation measures for fish habitats
The proponent will have to meet all conditions of the authorization to be issued by DFO in accordance with Subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act. It will include the implementation of a follow- up program to measure the efficiency of the compensation program and to make sure that the objectives set were met. Remedial measures may be required depending on the results of the follow-up.
6.4 Adaptive Management
Identifying the sources of impacts involves determining the project activities that are likely to result in changes to the physical, biological and human environments. The sources of impacts are presented for the construction and operational phases. Sources of impacts other than those identified in the screening report could be identified during the lifetime of the project particulary during follow-up requested or when events or non-planned work.
The MTQ will inform the responsible authorities within a reasonable timeframe of these particular situations to ensure compliance with the principles of adaptive management practices recommended as part of current best practices. The authorities may require other mitigation measures. If some modifications to the project are proposed, a separate environemental assessment may be required.
Screening Report December 2010 - 61 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
7. REFERENCES
ACEE (Agence canadienne d’évaluation environnementale), 1999. Évaluation des effets cumulatifs. Guide du praticien.
Beanlands G.E. and P.N. Duinker. 1983. An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment in Canada. Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies. Dalhousie University, in cooperation with the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. 132 pp.
Centre de recherche sur les terres humides, 1997. Système de classification des terres humides du Canada. Université de Waterloo, Waterloo (Ontario). Édité par B.G. Warner et C.D.A. Rubec, 68 p.
CIMA, (2010a) Caractérisation des milieux humides présents dans l’aire des travaux de l’autoroute 5 projetée, municipalités de Chelsea et de La Pêche – Révision 2 . Déposé au ministère des Transports du Québec (MTQ). Le 17 novembre 2010. 58 p. et annexes.
COSEPAC,. 2005. Espèces canadiennes en péril. Comité sur la situation des espèces en péril au Canada. Site Web : http://www.cosepac.gc.ca/fra/sct0/rpt/rpt_ecep_f.cfm [Consulté le 16 septembre 2005].
David, N., 1996. Liste commentée des oiseaux du Québec. Association québécoise des groupes d’ornithologues. 169 p.
DesGranges, J.-L. et B. Tardif, 1995. « Les oiseaux nicheurs des milieux aquatiques et riverains du Saint-Laurent » p. 1223-1230, dans Gauthier, J. et Y. Aubry (sous la direction de). Les oiseaux nicheurs du Québec. : Atlas des oiseaux nicheurs du Québec méridional. Association québécoise des groupes d’ornithologues, Société québécoise de la protection des oiseaux, Service canadien de la faune, Environnement Canada, région du Québec, Montréal. 1295 p.
Desroches, J.-F. et I. Picard, 2004. Pour la sauvegarde des amphibiens : la conservation et non la relocalisation. Le Naturaliste canadien. 128 (2) : 29-34.
Desrosiers, N., R. Morin, J. Jutras. 2002. Atlas des micromammifères du Québec. Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec. Direction du développement de la faune. Fondation de la faune du Québec. 92 p.
Downes, C.M. et B.T. Collins, 2003. Le relevé des oiseaux nicheurs du Canada, de 1967 à 2000. Cahier de biologie n o 219. Environnement Canada, Service canadien de la faune.
Environnement Canada, 2005. Espèce en péril. Site internet : http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/default_f.cfm.
Environnement Canada, 2005. Zones d’interdiction de chasse (ZIC). SCF – Québec. La Voie verte. (http ://www.qc.ec.gc.ca/faune/faune/html/zic.html). Page consultée le 20-09-2005. Mis à jour le 26 octobre 2005.
Environnement Canada, 2006. Loi sur les espèces en péril, registre public. Site Internet mis à jour le 2006-03-13. (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/schedules_f.cfm?id=1). Page consultée le 2006-04-03.
Environnement Canada, 1997. Guide pour l’évaluation des impacts sur les oiseaux. Division des évaluations environnementales et Service canadien de la faune, région du Québec.
Screening Report December 2010 - 63 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
Environnement Canada. 1991. La politique fédérale sur la conservation des terres humides. Ottawa. 16 p.
Environnement Canada et Santé Canada, 2001. Liste des substances d'intérêt prioritaire, Rapport d'évaluation – Sels de voirie. Loi canadienne sur la protection de l'environnement (1999). 188 p.
Environnement Canada, 2004a. Espèces en péril. Le méné d’herbe. (http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/search/speciesDetails_f.cfm?SpeciesID=546 ). GENIVAR 2010. Prolongement de l’autoroute 5 entre Farm Point et le raccordement à la route 366. Rapport d’évaluation environnementale. Version finale de GENIVAR Société en commandite présenté à Transports Canada, à Pêches et Océans Canada et à la Commission de la Capitale Nationale. Décembre 2010. 210 p. et annexes
Gauthier, J. et Y. Aubry (sous la direction de) 1995. Les oiseaux nicheurs du Québec. : Atlas des oiseaux nicheurs du Québec méridional. Association québécoise des groupes d’ornithologues, Société québécoise de la protection des oiseaux, Service canadien de la faune, Environnement Canada, région du Québec, Montréal. 1295 p.
Gauthier, Benoît (1997) Politique de protection des rives, du littoral et des plaines inondables; notes explicatives sur la ligne naturelle des hautes eaux. Direction de la conservation et du patrimoine écologique. Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Faune. 23 p.
Gouvernement du Canada (2005). Loi sur les espèces en péril . http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/default_f.cfm
Gouvernement du Canada, 2004. Examen préalable en vertu de la Loi canadienne sur l’évaluation environnementale . Directive générale. Les ministères fédéraux. Région du Québec. 39 p.
Lavoie, G., 1992. Plantes vasculaires susceptibles d'être désignées menacées ou vulnérables au Québec. Direction de la conservation et du patrimoine écologique, Ministère de l'Environnement du Québec, QEN/SP00014. 180 pp.
Lynch-Stewart, P., I. Kessel-Taylor et C. Rubec. 1996. Terres humides et le gouvernement: politique et législation concernant la conservation des terres humides au Canada. Communication no. 1999-1. Conseil nord-américain de conservation des terres humides (Canada). 67 p.
MDDEP (Ministère du Développement Durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs), 2005. Plantes menacées ou vulnérables au Québec. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/biodiversite/especes/index.htm
MEF (Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune), 1997. Directive pour la réalisation d'une étude d'impact sur l'environnement d'un projet routier. Évaluations environnementales. 26 p.
MENV (Ministère de l’Environnement), 2001. Critères de qualité de l’eau de surface au Québec. Direction du suivi de l’état de l’environnement, ministère de l’Environnement, Québec. 430 p. (http://www.menv.gouv.qc.ca/eau/criteres_eau/index.htm).
MENV (Ministère de l'Environnement), 1999. Politique de protection des sols et de réhabilitation des terrains contaminés. Révisé en 2001.
MPO, 1986. Politique de gestion de l’habitat du poisson du Ministère des Pêches et des Océans. Ministre des Approvisionnements et Services Canada. 28 p.
MTQ (Ministère des Transports du Québec), 2003b. Guide sur le transport des matières dangereuses.
Screening Report December 2010 - 64 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield
http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/publications/camionnage/matieres_dangereuses/guide_fr.pdf. Page consultée le 20-10-2005. 48 p.
MTQ (Ministère des Transports du Québec), 1994. La politique sur l’environnement du Ministère des Transports du Québec. Gouvernement du Québec. 12 p.
Wright, D.G. et G.E. Hopky, 1998. Lignes directrices concernant l’utilisation d’explosifs à l’intérieur ou à proximité des eaux de pêche canadiennes. Pêches et Océans Canada. Rapport technique canadien des sciences halieutiques et aquatiques 2107. 14 p. + annexes.
Screening Report December 2010 - 65 - Highway 5 Extension – Chelsea - Wakefield