Geology & Hydrogeology Geology & Hydrogeology Work Plan
The Geology and Hydrogeology Work Plan addresses both groundwater quality and groundwater flow. The following tasks will be undertaken to characterize existing environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking:
• Compile and interpret information from existing data sources, including data sources listed in Table 1-1. • Conduct Site investigations to confirm site information compiled from existing documentation and document the findings in the Geology & Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA Report. • Based on the Conceptual Designs developed for the Alternative Methods:
o Conduct predictive modelling of contaminating lifespan as per Ontario Regulation 232/98 for each alternative method.
o Based on the Alternative Methods and the results of predictive modelling, identify the potential effects of each alternative on the geological and hydrogeological environment.
o Apply mitigation measures to determine the net effects for each Alternative Method and compare the degree of net effects using the criteria and indicators for the geological and hydrogeological component, rank the Alternative Methods and identify the Recommended Alternative from a geological and hydrogeological perspective. • Once the Preferred Method has been identified and additional details developed from a design and operations perspective, an impact assessment will be carried out so that the potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty and will include more site-specific impact management measures and groundwater monitoring requirements can be clearly identified. The information and analysis will be documented in a Geology and Hydrogeology Impact Assessment Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA.
Table 1-1 – Preliminary Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources
Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on • Predicted effects to • Hydrogeological and geotechnical groundwater groundwater quality at studies quality property boundaries and • Water well records off-site • Determination of water well users in the area • Annual Monitoring Reports for SCRF • Proposed leachate control concept Geology & Hydrogeology designs • Environment Canada Canadian Climate Normals • Leachate generation assessment • Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN) • Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report
GHD | Geology & Hydrogeology Work Plan | 11102771 Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on • Predicted effects to • Hydrogeological and geotechnical groundwater groundwater flow at studies flow property boundaries and • Water well records off-site • Determination of water well users in the area • Annual Monitoring Report for SCRF • Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report
GHD | Geology & Hydrogeology Work Plan | 11102771 Terrapure is proud to have received the 2016 Industry Excellence Award for Health & Safety from Natural Resources Magazine.
Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment Geology/Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report
1195 Stellar Drive, Unit #1 Newmarket Ontario L3Y 7B8 Canada 11102771 | January 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1
2. Study Area ...... 1
3. Methodology ...... 3 4. Characterization of the Existing Environment ...... 3 4.1 Geologic and Hydrogeologic Conditions ...... 4 4.2 Source Water Protection ...... 9 4.2.1 Potential Man-Made Influences on Groundwater Movement ...... 12 4.3 Closed Site – West of SCRF ...... 13 4.4 Groundwater Flow ...... 15 4.5 Groundwater Quality ...... 16
Figure Index
Figure 2.1 Geologic and Hydrogeologic Study Areas ...... 2 Figure 4.1 Overburden Geology of the Local Study Area ...... 5 Figure 4.2 Bedrock Topographic Elevation of the Study Areas ...... 6 Figure 4.3 Cross-Section - Geologic Sequence and Groundwater Control Features ...... 8 Figure 4.4 Intake Protection Zones ...... 11 Figure 4.5 Site Plan and Monitoring Network ...... 14
Table Index
Table 4.1 Groundwater Flow Zones ...... 7
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - i
1. Introduction
This report provides an overview of the existing geology and hydrogeology conditions associated with the Study Area for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF, Facility, Site). The Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment (SCRF EA) included a preliminary description of the existing environment with the commitment that a more detailed description of it would be provided during the preparation of the EA reflecting the final Study Area1. Terrapure Environmental (Terrapure), owner and operator of the SCRF, is proposing to increase the total approved capacity for post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material at the SCRF by 3,680,000 m3, so that the company can continue to operate its business and receive this material to support local industry. The proposal would not change the type or annual volume of residual materials currently accepted at the Facility, nor the maximum number of permitted vehicles to the Site per day, nor the approved service area for the SCRF, which is the Province of Ontario. Terrapure's SCRF has been an important part of the local community since it was approved by the then-Minister of the Environment (now known as the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks) in 1996. The existing SCRF is only permitted to accept solid, non-hazardous waste from industrial, commercial, and institutional sources. These are truly "end of life" materials that have exhausted all recycling options. Putrescible waste (i.e., municipal solid waste, organic material) disposal is not permitted at the SCRF. The total approved capacity under the Environmental Protection Act approvals at the existing SCRF is 6, 500,000 m3, with an approved maximum annual acceptance of 750,000 tonnes of solid, non-hazardous residual waste. The EA Act requires that proponents describe the environment that may potentially be affected or may reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the Alternative Methods and the Undertaking proposed as part of an EA. This report focusses on characterizing the existing conditions in the vicinity of the Facility, for geology and hydrogeology.
2. Study Area
From a Geologic and Hydrogeologic Environment perspective, the characterization of existing conditions within the following Study Areas is appropriate to this EA: Site Study Area, including all lands within the existing, approved boundaries of the SCRF, as defined by Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) No. A181008, as amended. The Site retains an additional 18 ha for industrial fill area, as well as an additional 15 ha (approx.) of buffer zone; and Local Study Area, including all lands within a 1.5 kilometer (km) radius of the four roads that border the existing SCRF. A 1.5 km radius from the Site Study Area boundaries has been selected for a Local Study Area, as this represents a likely potential zone of influence with respect to groundwater impacts from the existing or proposed Undertaking. The Geologic and Hydrogeologic Study Areas are illustrated on Figure 2.1, below.
1. A more detailed description of the environment will be provided during preparation of the SCRF EA reflecting the final Study Area using available existing information sources and investigative studies. (Minister-approved Amended ToR, Section 6.2.6)
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 1
Figure 2.1 Geologic and Hydrogeologic Study Areas
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 2
3. Methodology
Available secondary sources of information were collected and reviewed to characterize the geologic and hydrogeologic existing conditions within the Study Areas. Table 3.1 includes the sources of secondary information and how they were used to characterize the existing environment.
Table 3.1 Secondary Data Sources Source How Source Was Used Jackman Geoscience Inc., 2017. Closed Hamilton (Stoney Used for descriptions of monitoring network, Creek) Landfill, Environmental Compliance Approval groundwater control systems, and current Number A130404 Annual Report 2016. monitoring data for adjacent closed landfill. Jackman Geoscience Inc., 2017. Hamilton (Stoney Used for descriptions of on-site Creek) Landfill, Environmental Compliance Approval monitoring network, groundwater control Number A181008 Annual Report 2016. systems, and current monitoring data. Ontario Geological Survey 2000. Quaternary geology, Used as a source of information for seamless coverage of the Province of Ontario; surficial geology mapping for the Local Ontario Geological Survey, Data Set 14 --- Revised and Site Study Areas. (Presented on Figure 4.1). Gao, C. et al., 2006. Bedrock topography and Used as a source of information for overburden thickness mapping, southern Ontario; bedrock topography and overburden Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release – thickness mapping for the Local and Site Data 207 (Presented on Figure 4.2). Study Areas. Information was used in conjunction with site borehole data. Water Well Information System (WWIS), Used to locate historical and potential 2017. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, existing private water well supply wells Conservation and Parks (Accessed January 2017). within the Local Study Area. Assessment Report for the Hamilton Region Source Used as the source of information Protection Area, July 2015; Approved by the Ministry regarding source water protection of the Environment and Climate Change on August 5, mapping within the Local Study Area. 2015; Halton-Hamilton Source Protection Region; Figure 7.11 (Section 4.2 and Figure 4.4). Brunton, F.R., 2009. Update of Revisions to Early Used as a source of detailed information Silurian Stratigraphy of the Niagara Escarpment: on the bedrock formations and members Integration of Sequence Stratigraphy, Sedimentology within the Local Study Area. Information and Hydrogeology to Delineate Hydrogeologic Units. was used to supplement the Ontario Geological Survey. Open File Report 6240, understanding of site bedrock Sedimentary Geoscience Section (25), Project Unit stratigraphy from borehole data. 08-004. 19p., pgs 5, 11-13. Armstrong, D.K. and Carter, T.R. 2010. The Used as a supplementary source of Subsurface Paleozoic Stratigraphy of Southern information on bedrock formations within Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume the Local Study Area. 7, 301p., pgs 24, 59-67. Brunton, F.R., et al., 2013. Stratigraphic Architecture Reviewed as a source of verification of of the Lockport Group in Ontario and Michigan – A historical interpretations of local geologic New Interpretation of Early Silurian 'Basin Geometrics' sequence. & 'Guelph Pinnacle Reefs'.
4. Characterization of the Existing Environment
The following description of the geologic and hydrogeologic conditions relates to the Site and Local Study Areas, as well as beyond these boundaries, where appropriate.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 3
4.1 Geologic and Hydrogeologic Conditions The existing SCRF is located within fractured bedrock of the Niagara Escarpment in a former quarry. The closed Terrapure landfill, historically referred to as the "West Landfill" (closed landfill), located to the west of the SCRF (across 1st Road West), is also located within a former quarry. The SCRF and closed landfill are underlain by a sequence of shale and dolostone of the Lockport and Clinton formations. A review of Quaternary geology mapping indicates that overburden geology in the Local Study Area is primarily comprised of glaciolacustrine deposits consisting of silt and clay with minor amounts of sand, and silt to silty clay of the Halton Till closer to the escarpment. Beyond the Site Study Area, but within the Local Study Area, the overburden ranges in thickness from 0.0 m where bedrock is exposed, to as much as 12.3 m where man-made materials have been deposited2. The overburden geology of the Local Study Area is illustrated on Figure 4.1. The prominent geologic feature in the Local Study Area is the Niagara Escarpment, located approximately 800 m to the north of the Site Study Area. This escarpment is approximately 80 m in height in the Local Study Area, and is illustrated by the apparent change in bedrock topographic elevation illustrated on Figure 4.23.
2 Ontario Geological Survey 2000. Quaternary geology, seamless coverage of the Province of Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Data Set 14 --- Revised 3 Gao, C. et al., 2006. Bedrock topography and overburden thickness mapping, southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release – Data 207
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 4
Figure 4.1 Overburden Geology of the Local Study Area
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 5
Figure 4.2 Bedrock Topographic Elevation of the Study Areas
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 6
An additional important geologic feature within the Site Study Area is a small escarpment known as the Eramosa Scarp, located along the northern extent of both the SCRF and closed landfill. The Eramosa Scarp was formed by the removal of some rock units at the surface during glacial advancement. Subsequent glacial activity has resulted in burial of the Eramosa Scarp beneath a veneer of overburden4. Previous investigations have identified five distinct bedrock groundwater flow zones within the Local Study Area. Table 4.1 summarizes these flow zones by name and associated lithologic unit.
Table 4.1 Groundwater Flow Zones Flow Zone Lithology Unit Notes Eramosa Flow Eramosa Dolostone Water table aquifer within uppermost bedrock unit Zone Vinemount Flow Vinemount Shale Upper 0.5 m of a 5 m thick shale unit is horizontally permeable. Zone This zone represents the Vinemount Flow Zone Goat Island Upper Goat Island 1.5 m layer of interbedded dolostone and shale within the upper Flow Zone Dolostone portion of Goat Island Unit Goat Island Mid Goat Island Later split into Upper Mid and Lower Mid Flow Zones Flow Zone Dolostone Goat Island Lower Ancaster Chert Flow Zone Beds
The flow zones and their respective lithologic units are also illustrated on Figure 4.3.
4 Jackman Geoscience Inc., 2017. Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill, Environmental Compliance Approval Number A181008 Annual Report 2016
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 7
Figure 4.3 Cross-Section - Geologic Sequence and Groundwater Control Features
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 8
To the north of the Eramosa Scarp, the Eramosa Dolostone and Vinemount Shale do not exist, as they were eroded by glacial advancement. Where these units do not exist, the water table generally occurs within the overburden, however seasonal fluctuations have historically dropped the water table to within the Goat Island Dolostone during dryer periods. Beneath the Ancaster Chert Beds lie the Gasport Dolostone and Decew Dolostones. These units are interpreted to be less than 2 m in thickness in the Local Study Area, and do not represent significant groundwater flow zones. A Unit known as the Rochester Shale underlies the Decew Dolostone. Previous studies have determined that the Rochester Shale has a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of less than 10-8 cm/sec. Vertical hydraulic conductivities have been estimated between 10-8 and 10-10 cm/sec. On this basis, the Rochester Shale is interpreted to be an effective aquitard, and represents the bottom of active groundwater flow within the Local Study Area5. Natural groundwater flow direction in these flow zones within the Local Study Area would be to the northwest towards the Niagara Escarpment; however, there are several natural and man-made features that influence the movement of groundwater in the vicinity of the Local Study Area. These features are discussed in detail in the following section. Prior to quarry development and construction of several sub-surface infrastructure projects, groundwater flow was likely consistently northwest in all five flow zones. In the northern portion of the Local Study Area, closer to the Niagara Escarpment, the rock units are more fractured and interconnected. This interconnecting of units results in a more vertical component of groundwater flow (downward) prior to reaching the Escarpment. As a result, groundwater springs along the Escarpment face are infrequent. Numerous private water supply wells were historically used within the Local Study Area. Water supply in the Local Study Area is currently obtained through the Municipal water distribution system, with no known private water supply wells in use. The long-term environmental monitoring program for the SCRF historically included two private water supply wells as part of the groundwater sampling program; however, these wells are no longer included in the program as they are now serviced by municipal water supply.
4.2 Source Water Protection In 2006, the provincial government made a commitment to the citizens of Ontario by passing the Clean Water Act, which aims to protect municipal drinking water in the province with a multi-barrier approach, starting with Source Water Protection. Within the City of Hamilton, the Halton-Hamilton Source Protection Committee has prepared a Source Water Protection Plan, which outlines potential vulnerable areas, as well as policy to address the potential threats to Source Water. Source Water Protection Plans identify four vulnerable areas: Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA) - Wellhead protection areas are areas on the land around a municipal well, the size of which is determined by how quickly water travels underground to the well, measured in years. The WHPA ranges from WHPA-A to WHPA-D, which represents a travel time between 0-25 years. Intake Protection Zones (IPZ) – Intake protection zones are the area on the water and land surrounding a municipal surface water intake. The size of each zone is determined by how quickly water flows to the intake, in hours. Highly Vulnerable Aquifers (HVA) – An aquifer is an area underground that is highly saturated with water – enough water that it can be drawn for human use. A highly vulnerable aquifer is one that is particularly susceptible to contamination, because of either its location near the ground’s surface, or because of the type of materials found in the ground around it (for instance, clay versus sand versus fractured rock).
5 Jackman Geoscience Inc., 2017. Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill, Environmental Compliance Approval Number A181008 Annual Report 2016
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 9
Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRA) - These are areas on the landscape that are characterized by porous soils, such as sand or gravel, that allows the water to seep easily into the ground and flow to an aquifer. A recharge area is considered significant when it helps maintain the water level in an aquifer that supplies a community with drinking water. The existing SCRF is not located within a WHPA or an IPZ. The mapping provided by the Source Water Protection Plan for Halton-Hamilton does show portions of the SCRF as HVA and SGRA. In reviewing the Clean Water Act, Table 1 identifies a number of Drinking Water Threats with respect to the establishment, operation or maintenance of a waste disposal site within the meaning of Part V of the Environmental Protection Act. The Source Water Protection Policies for waste disposal sites apply to sites that are a ‘Significant Threat’, Vulnerability score of 8 to 10. Based on the Halton-Hamilton Source Water Protection Plan, portions of the SCRF are labelled HVA-6 While the mapping shows part of the SCRF situated within the HVA and SGRA, the existing SCRF is a fully engineered and lined Facility that ensures groundwater protection. Further, as the area has developed over time, there are few (if any) drinking water sources (i.e., wells) for private use. The majority of the area is serviced by the municipal drinking water system. It is further noted that the Municipal Water Supply is derived from an intake located within Lake Ontario. Source Water Protection zone mapping (Figure 4.4) indicates that with the exception of a very small area, the Local Study Area is located outside the limit of the IPZ, which has been based on the interpreted zone of potential groundwater influence on the City of Hamilton’s water intake in Lake Ontario6.
6 Assessment Report for the Hamilton Region Source Protection Area, July 2015; Approved by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change on August 5, 2015; Halton-Hamilton Source Protection Region
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 10
Figure 4.4 Intake Protection Zones
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 11
4.2.1 Potential Man-Made Influences on Groundwater Movement Various construction and infrastructure projects within and in the vicinity of the Local Study Area have influenced local groundwater flow directions and/or gradients. For example, construction of sewers within or below groundwater flow zones can influence groundwater flow by creating preferential pathways for groundwater movement within the granular trench bedding. The following points summarize the construction projects that have intersected the groundwater flow zones, and thus affected the movement of groundwater: A 2.1 m diameter storm sewer was installed within the median of Mud Street to the south of the SCRF landfill during 1994. Construction of this sewer involved removal of portions of the Eramosa Dolostone and the Vinemount Shale. Construction of a 42.7 m deep vertical sanitary sewer drop shaft began in 1974, as part of the Upper Stoney Creek subdivision development within the western portion of the Local Study Area. This drop shaft connects the sanitary sewer at the top of the Niagara Escarpment to the sanitary sewer system at the base of the Escarpment. Construction of this vertical shaft involved blasting and excavating through rock, and thus resulted in connection of the various groundwater flow zones in the immediate vicinity of the vertical shaft. A similar vertical shaft was constructed in the vicinity of Green Mountain Road West and Highway 20 between 2011 and 2012. A trunk sanitary sewer line construction trench which parallels Davis Creek penetrates the bedrock below the creek, and acts as an interceptor drain for groundwater flow where the trench intersects active flow zones. The trunk sanitary sewer was constructed during widening of Mud Street in 1994. The Centennial Parkway Trunk Sanitary Sewer (CPTSS) extension consists of a 2,550 mm diameter tunnel bored into the base of the Niagara Escarpment, roughly following the alignment of Highway 20. The 2.55 km tunnel is connected via a series of vertical shafts to the portion of the trunk sewer extension that runs along Upper Centennial Parkway to the east of the Site, towards the Town of Binbrook. Dewatering of the tunnel boring for the trunk sewer has been ongoing through construction, and the effects of this dewatering have been evident in water level monitoring within the Local Study Area. Phase One of the extension to the CPTSS began in September 2010. A former quarry dewatering sump referred to as the South Sump was excavated into the Vinemount Shale within the footprint of the SCRF in approximately 1990. The South Sump has been operating during construction of four of the landfill cells, in order to keep conditions dry for construction. This sump is connected to a series of granular trenches constructed for the purpose of expanding groundwater collection below the SCRF liner system. It should be noted that this construction took place early on in the life of the Site. A lower quarry excavation located within the footprint of the SCRF was completed into the Goat Island Dolostone for aggregate production in the early 1980s. The eastern portion of this excavation included a 9 m deep dewatering sump. At the completion of quarrying this lower portion, the excavation was backfilled with rubble and capped with a 3 m thick clay plug in 1991. The clay plug was placed at the elevation of the Vinemount Shale. Despite placement of a clay plug, the perimeter of the excavation represents a vertical connection between the Upper and Lower Flow Zones. A pumping well (M4) was installed below the clay plug in 1993, in order to use the highly permeable lower excavation as a source of groundwater capture. A series of Containment Wells are operated along the northern limit of the closed landfill for the purpose of groundwater collection. Operation of these wells affects groundwater flow. A Perimeter Drain was installed in 2001 and 2002 between the closed landfill and the operating SCRF for the purpose of mitigating the movement of impacted groundwater from the closed landfill to the operating SCRF. Eastward movement of groundwater from the closed landfill to the operating SCRF is the result of active groundwater pumping at the South Sump and pumping well M4. The Perimeter Drain system includes groundwater collection trenches and a
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 12
grout curtain installed to reduce movement of groundwater in the Vinemount and Upper Flow Zones.
4.3 Closed Site – West of SCRF Previous investigations undertaken within the Site Study Area identified groundwater impacts related to the closed landfill to the west of the existing SCRF. The impacts are the result of infiltrated rainwater coming into direct contact with buried waste within the un-engineered landfill cells. No impacts to groundwater from the SCRF are evident, as the SCRF is fully lined and under-drained. Historically, impacts from the closed Site have been primarily noted within the Eramosa, Vinemount, Upper and Mid Flow Zones. In response to the identified impacts, several groundwater remediation strategies have been implemented. The principal groundwater remediation strategy is through active leachate or groundwater extraction and control in the areas of identified impact. The following points summarize the groundwater remediation systems currently in place at the closed landfill. A series of Containment Wells are located along the northern boundary of the closed landfill. The locations of these wells correspond largely with the presence of the buried Eramosa Scarp. A total of seven Containment Wells have been installed and historically operated with groundwater pumped and discharged to the sanitary sewer system. With implementation of the Shatter Trench system (described below) and progressive closure of the closed landfill, decreases in available drawdown have been observed at the Containment Wells. These effects, combined with decreased performance due to mineral precipitation, have reduced the active network from 7 to 2 wells, as of 2017. Currently, only CW3 and CW16 continue to actively pump. A horizontal collection pipe runs along the western boundary of the closed landfill. This collection pipe was installed in 1994, and is intended to control the westward migration of impacted groundwater. A groundwater collection trench and grout curtain was constructed between the closed landfill and operating SCRF, for the purpose of reducing migration of impacted water from the closed landfill to the east. Operation of pumping well M4 is located within the lower excavation to the north of the operating SCRF. Operation of this pumping well controls groundwater impacts within the Upper and Mid Flow Zones. Operation of pumping well L1 near the west side of the closed landfill. L1 was installed in 1995, and has been in continuous operation since, with the exception of interruptions for maintenance, etc. L1 draws water from the Lower Flow zone. Operation of pumping wells within a Shatter Trench located to the north of the closed landfill. The Shatter Trench pumping wells remove groundwater from the Upper Flow Zone and the Upper-Mid Flow Zone. Currently, two pumping wells actively remove groundwater from the Shatter Trench (M5A, M5R). During 2016, decreased performance of the Shatter Trench pumping wells was observed in part due to decreased static water levels in the UFZ and the Upper-Mid Flow Zone, from the operation of M4 and the extensive dewatering conducted for the Centennial Parkway Trunk Sewer Extension. The locations of these measures are presented in profile on Figure 4.3 (where possible) and in plan view on Figure 4.5 (where possible).
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 13
Figure 4.5 Site Plan and Monitoring Network
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 14
The results of the monitoring program for the closed landfill to the west of the SCRF has demonstrated that operation of the groundwater remediation systems has been effective at collecting and controlling impacted groundwater at the closed Site. As is discussed in Section 4.4, decreases in the effectiveness of the groundwater remediation systems were noted between 2009 and 2011. The decrease in effectiveness was due to deterioration of pumping rates, primarily at the Shatter Trench pumping wells, the M4 pumping well and the L1 pumping well. In 2014, M4 was inspected and performance tested, and underwent extensive rehabilitation and was re-equipped with a new pump and controller to allow a constant pumping level to be maintained. In 2015, L1, CW3, CW16, M5A, and M5R were inspected and performance tested. L1 was extensively redeveloped and, as a result, the specific capacity was significantly improved and production increased significantly in 2016. The other containment wells were also rehabilitated in 2016. Improvements to the systems effectiveness were implemented as of 2012 through a well rehabilitation program, and improvements in groundwater quality following rehabilitation efforts have been observed through the closed landfill and SCRF groundwater monitoring programs. As mentioned, significant decreases in the available drawdown within the Shatter Trench Wells were observed in 2015 and 2016. These decreases are attributed to an observed lowering of the water table locally. The lowering of the water table is interpreted to be the result of improved groundwater extraction at M4 and the effects of extensive dewatering conducted in the eastern portion of the Local Study Area for the Centennial Parkway Trunk Sewer Extension.
4.4 Groundwater Flow The regional groundwater flow system within the Local Study Area is generally characterized by groundwater movement from the southeast to the northwest towards the Niagara Escarpment. However, due to the various influences on groundwater movement in the Local Study Area, groundwater flow is complex. The following description is taken from the 2014-2016 Annual Reports for the closed landfill, and provides a conceptual description of the movement of groundwater through the Local Study Area: “Shallow groundwater flow in the Local Study Area occurs largely in the uppermost bedrock unit (Eramosa Dolostone). Groundwater flow in the area of the closed landfill flows from the south side of the Site Study Area toward the waste footprint and into the Vinemount Flow Zone, continuing on towards the northern portion of the Site Study Area. Some shallow groundwater will be intercepted by the perimeter drain, located between the closed landfill and operating SCRF, and some will be intercepted by the horizontal collector drain, which is located on the west side of the closed landfill. Beyond the northern limit of waste, the majority of this shallow groundwater is captured by pumping systems located along the Eramosa Scarp (Containment Wells and Shatter Trench pumping wells). In the vicinity of the operating SCRF, shallow groundwater enters from the south within the Eramosa Dolostone. The majority of the shallow groundwater is intercepted by the groundwater collection trenches located in the southern portion of the operating Site. From these trenches, groundwater is directed to the Groundwater Pumping Station, where it is pumped to the sanitary sewer system.” Groundwater flow in the deeper bedrock flow zones within the Site Study Area is largely affected by the groundwater remediation systems currently in operation, with influences from infrastructure being apparent (e.g., vertical sewer shaft at Green Mountain West and Highway 20, Centennial Parkway Trunk Sewer Extension). The dominant horizontal hydraulic gradients in the lower flow zones indicate an overall groundwater flow direction from east to west, or towards Davis Creek and the Niagara Escarpment. As groundwater in each flow zone approaches the Niagara Escarpment, where vertical and horizontal fracturing is more frequent, groundwater moves downward as much as it moves horizontally. This pattern results in groundwater moving through deeper flow zones prior to reaching the escarpment. Groundwater that flows beyond the escarpment discharges to Lake Ontario.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 15
4.5 Groundwater Quality The groundwater monitoring network for the closed landfill and operating SCRF consists of: 23 monitoring locations within the closed landfill property 15 monitoring locations within the SCRF (operating Site) 23 off-property monitoring locations 2 private domestic wells Leachate was historically characterized through sampling the quarry underdrain, where the collected water discharged to a surface water pond north of the Site. Discharge ceased in 1993, following completion of the connection to the sanitary sewer system. Subsequent leachate characterization has been through sampling of individual leachate monitors. Leachate quality has been characterized as elevated in the following parameters: pH (historical range of 7.2 to 12 std. units) chloride (historical range of 109 to 5,010 mg/L) ammonia (historical range of 0.22 to 270 mg/L) phenols (historical range of 2 to 16 mg/L) In comparison, the 2017 median concentrations for these parameters reported from the SCRF leachate monitoring program were as follows: pH (8.48 std. units) chloride (2,700 mg/L) ammonia (190 mg/L) phenols (2.9 mg/L) Detectable concentrations of various organic compounds including BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes), PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), 2, 4-dimethylphenol and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) have also been historically detected in leachate samples. Natural groundwater quality in the flow zones monitored beneath the closed landfill and operating SCRF ranges from generally non-potable shallow groundwater to saline or concentrated brine at depth. The natural poor groundwater quality is the result of the characteristics of the bedrock units and the relatively slow groundwater flow velocity. The Shale and Dolostone formations within the Local Study Area contain readily soluble salts, which result in naturally elevated total dissolved solids. Previous studies have concluded that the degree of groundwater salinity increases with depth. Eramosa Flow Zone Water quality within the Eramosa Flow Zone is variable spatially and seasonally. In general, landfill-related water quality alterations within this shallow flow zone have been improving during recent monitoring years. Closure of the closed landfill and operation of the leachate and groundwater collection systems has resulted in long-term trends of improving water quality. Recent Reasonable Use Trigger Assessments of water quality in this flow zone have concluded that none of the wells considered in the assessment are leachate impacted. Very few Trigger Level exceedances have been noted, and the exceedances noted are attributable to natural water quality variability or other sources (e.g., road salt). Vinemount Flow Zone An area of impacted groundwater within the Vinemount Flow Zone has been described in annual monitoring reports. This area extends beneath and along the southern boundary of the closed landfill, as well as east to the lower excavation and the former South Sump/Groundwater Pumping Station. A small area of impacted groundwater within the Vinemount Flow Zone is also apparent to
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 16
the south of the operating SCRF. The distribution of this impacted groundwater within the Vinemount Flow Zone is interpreted to be the result of: Leachate circulation that occurred at the closed landfill during 1992-1993 Ongoing operation of the Groundwater Pumping Station The presence of the lower excavation and active pumping at M4, completed within the lower excavation Annual Reports for the closed landfill have concluded that the remedial systems in operation at the SCRF and closed landfill are generally effective in controlling the observed impacts within the Vinemount Flow Zone. The 2016 Annual Report recommended additional improvements to operation of the remedial systems to enhanced control of groundwater impacts within this flow zone. Upper Flow Zone A zone of impacted groundwater within the Upper Flow Zone has historically been observed. Leachate recirculation practices carried out in 1992-1993 are suspected to be the primary source of contaminant migration within this unit. Operation of the Containment Well system, the Shatter Trench pumping wells and M4 pumping well has historically resulted in a reduction in the spreading of impacted groundwater within this flow zone. Continued improvements in water quality have been noted within the majority of monitors located within this flow zone. The southwest corner of the Site continues to show minor impact in the perimeter monitors. In 2014, M4 was rehabilitated, and new pumping equipment was installed in late 2015. These upgrades have made it possible to maintain a constant pumping level close to that of 2007, when historical lows were noted in monitors in this flow zone. In July of 2016, CW3, CW16, M5A and M5R were also rehabilitated, and this work is expected to improve the containment efficiency of the Containment Well system. Upper Mid Flow Zone As with the Upper Flow Zone, a zone of impacted groundwater is apparent within the Upper Mid Flow Zone. The source of groundwater impacts to this flow zone is interpreted to be leachate recirculation practices undertaken in 1992-1993, as well as connection of this flow zone to shallower flow zones as a result of construction activities (e.g., lower excavation). Overall improvements in groundwater quality were observed within this flow zone following construction and operation of the various remedial systems in place. However, between 2009 and 2012, decreases in water quality were also observed in various wells completed within the Upper Mid Flow Zone. The changes in water quality are interpreted to be the result of decreasing performance of several remedial systems, including the Shatter Trench pumping wells and the M4 pumping well during this period. Improvements in the operation of the containment systems were implemented between 2012 and 2014, and a corresponding improvement in water quality within Upper Mid Flow Zone monitors has been observed. In addition, improvements to the operation of M4 have been demonstrated through 2016. Once the hydraulic effects of the Centennial Parkway Trunk Sewer Extension have abated, additional improvements in the effectiveness of M4 should be apparent. Lower Mid Flow Zone A zone of impacted groundwater exists within the Lower Mid Flow Zone, however, the real extent of impacts is smaller than that observed in the Upper Mid Flow Zone. In general, the area extends along the Eramosa Scarp in the vicinity of the closed landfill and extends east to the lower excavation. Previous interpretations have stated that construction of the Shatter Trench resulted in a temporary spread of impacted groundwater into this flow zone. Active groundwater pumping at Shatter Trench pumping well M5R, and lower excavation pumping well M4 has reduced vertical gradients between the flow zones in these vicinities, and has reduced the spread of impacted groundwater. Pumping well L1, located to the west of the closed landfill also
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 17
collects groundwater from the Lower Mid Flow Zone and, as such, helps to reduce contaminant migration. Lower Flow Zone Groundwater quality within the Lower Flow Zone is naturally poor, making interpretation of leachate-related water quality impacts more difficult. The pattern of landfill-related water quality impacts within the Lower Flow Zone is similar to that observed within the Lower Mid Flow Zone, running from the northern portion of the closed landfill in the vicinity of the Eramosa Scarp to the lower excavation. A zone of impacted water quality within the Lower Flow Zone also exists to the west of the closed landfill. Pumping well L1 draws water from the Lower Flow Zone in this area to control the observed groundwater impacts, however, variable pumping patterns at L1 have been reported. The 2014 Annual Report for the closed landfill recommended that pumping patterns at this well be stabilized, and that the pumping level be set at approximately 178.5 m AMSL, in order to improve the zone of capture of this well. As referenced above, L1 was rehabilitated in 2015 and the pump and controller were replaced in October 2016. Since these works have been undertaken, improvements in performance at L1 have been demonstrated, with the largest total annual water taking from this well since installation occurring during 2016. Recent improvements to the M4, CW3 and CW16 Containment Wells are expected to significantly improve containment, which will result in continued improvements in Lower Flow Zone water quality. It is expected that the effectiveness of these wells will be further improved once the hydraulic influence of the Centennial Parkway Trunk Sewer Extension project is eliminated. Niagara Escarpment Seepage Sampling Based on the results of seepage sampling conducted at various locations along the Niagara Escarpment, the groundwater seepage has not been impacted by historic landfilling activities within at the Site. It should be noted that the majority of seep locations are considered unsafe for sampling and, as such, have not been sampled during recent monitoring periods.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Geology & Hydrogeology | 11102771 | F - 18 Surface Water Surface Water Resources Work Plan
The Surface Water Resources Work Plan addresses both surface water quality and surface water quantity. The following tasks will be undertaken to characterize existing environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking:
• Compile and interpret information from existing data sources, including data sources listed in Table 2-1. • Conduct Site investigations to confirm site information compiled from existing documentation and document the findings in the Surface Water Existing Conditions Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA Report. • Based on the Conceptual Designs developed for the Alternative Methods:
o Predict and assess future surface water runoff and peak flows and quality conditions associated with each of the alternative methods.
o Compare these predictions to the existing conditions; determine changes and potential adverse effects on downstream watercourses; determine if mitigation measures are required and, if so, develop mitigation (i.e., engineered stormwater management measures/facilities).
o Based on the Alternative Methods and the results of predictive modelling, identify the potential effects of each alternative on the surface water environment.
o Apply mitigation measures to determine the net effects for each Alternative Method and compare the degree of net effects using the criteria and indicators for the surface water component, rank the alternatives, and identify the Recommended Alternative from a surface water perspective. • Once the Preferred Method has been identified and additional details developed from a design and operations perspective, an impact assessment will be carried out so that the potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty and will include more site-specific impact management measures and monitoring requirements can be clearly identified. The information and analysis will be documented in a Surface Water Impact Assessment Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA.
GHD | Surface Water Resources Work Plan | 11102771 Table 2-1 – Preliminary Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources
Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on • Predicted effects on • Topographic maps surface surface water quality • Surface Water Existing Conditions water quality on-site and off-site Report • • Air photos • Facility layout, drainage maps and figures • Proposed on-site stormwater management concept designs for vertical expansion alternatives • Existing leachate management system • Annual Monitoring Report for SCRF • Surface Water Interviews and discussions with staff, Ministry of Environment and Climate Resources Effect on • Predicted change in surface drainage areas Change (MOECC), Conservation Authorities, and Environment Canada water • Predicted occurrence and • Published water quality and flow quantity degree of off-site effects information from MOECC, Environment Canada and conservation authorities • Site reconnaissance • PWQMN • Surface Water Existing Conditions Report
GHD | Surface Water Resources Work Plan | 11102771 Terrapure is proud to have received the 2016 Industry Excellence Award for Health & Safety from Natural Resources Magazine.
Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment Surface Water Existing Conditions Report
1195 Stellar Drive, Unit #1 Newmarket Ontario L3Y 7B8 Canada 11102771 | January 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1
2. Methodology ...... 1
3. Study Areas ...... 2 4. Characterization of the Existing Environment ...... 3 4.1 Watersheds ...... 4 4.2 Drainage Patterns ...... 4 4.3 Water Quality ...... 5
Figure Index
Figure 3.1 Surface Water Study Areas ...... 3
Figure 4.1 Surface Water Monitoring Locations ...... 7
Appendices
Appendix A Stormwater Management Infrastructure Layout
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Surface Water | 11102771 | F - i
1. Introduction
This report provides an overview of the existing surface water environment conditions associated with the Study Areas for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF, Facility, Site). The Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment (SCRF EA) included a preliminary description of the existing environment with the commitment that a more detailed description of it would be provided during the preparation of the EA reflecting the final study area1. Terrapure Environmental (Terrapure), owner and operator of the SCRF, is proposing to increase the total approved capacity for post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material at the SCRF by 3,680,000 m3, so that the company can continue to operate its business and receive this material to support local industry. The proposal would not change the type or annual volume of residual materials currently accepted at the Facility, nor the maximum number of permitted vehicles to the Site per day, nor the approved service area for the SCRF, which is the Province of Ontario. Terrapure's SCRF has been an important part of the local community since it was approved by the then-Minister of the Environment (now known as the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks) in 1996. The existing SCRF is only permitted to accept solid, non-hazardous waste from industrial, commercial, and institutional sources. These are truly "end of life" materials that have exhausted all recycling options. Putrescible waste (i.e., municipal solid waste, organic material) disposal is not permitted at the SCRF. The total approved capacity under the Environmental Protection Act approvals at the existing SCRF is 6, 500,000 m3, with an approved maximum annual acceptance of 750,000 tonnes of solid, non-hazardous residual waste. The EA Act requires that proponents describe the environment that may potentially be affected or may reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the Alternative Methods and the Undertaking proposed as part of an EA. This report focusses on characterizing the existing conditions in the vicinity of the Facility, for the surface water environment.
2. Methodology
Available secondary sources of information were collected and reviewed to characterize surface water existing conditions within the Study Areas. Table 3.1 shows the sources of secondary information and how those sources were utilized to characterize the existing environment.
Table 2.1 Secondary Data Sources Source How Source was Used Closed Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill, ECA Annual To review existing infrastructure and monitoring Report – 2016 for the neighbouring site. Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill, Provisional Certificate To review existing infrastructure and monitoring of Approval Annual Report – 2016 for the existing site. Amended ECA, No. A181008, Stoney Creek Landfill, To have information of the currently approved March 1, 2016 stormwater management system. Certificate of Approval – Industrial Sewage Works, To have information of the currently approved Newalta Stoney Creek Landfill, May 1, 2008 stormwater management system. Assessment Report Hamilton Region Source Protection To have information of the local watersheds. Area Version 2.7, July 24, 2015
1. A more detailed description of the environment will be provided during preparation of the SCRF EA reflecting the final Study Area using available existing information sources and investigative studies. (Minister-approved Amended ToR, Section 6.2.6)
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Surface Water | 11102771 | F - 1
3. Study Areas
From a surface water environment perspective, the characterization of existing conditions within the following Study Areas are appropriate to this EA: Site Study Area, including all lands within the existing, approved boundaries of the SCRF, as defined by Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) No. A181008, as amended. The Site retains an additional 18 ha for industrial fill area, as well as an additional 15 ha (approx.) of buffer zone; and Local Study Area, includes all water bodies and stormwater infrastructure within a 1.5 kilometer (km) radius of the four roads that border the existing SCRF. The main areas affected by surface water runoff from the SCRF include the storm sewer system that starts at a manhole on the southeast corner of First Road West and Green Mountain Road West and conveys stormwater runoff north under First Road West, eventually discharging into Lower Davis Creek. These Study Areas will also be used by GHD to assess the effects of the proposed changes to the on-Site stormwater conveyance and management features and the downstream receivers within the Local Study Area. The surface water Study Areas are illustrated on Figure 2.1.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Surface Water | 11102771 | F - 2
Figure 3.1 Surface Water Study Areas
4. Characterization of the Existing Environment
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Surface Water | 11102771 | F - 3
4.1 Watersheds The Local Study Area is situated in the Stoney/Battlefield Creek Watershed. Three subwatersheds exist within the Local Study Area: Lower Davis Creek, Battlefield Creek and Stoney Creek. Information on these watersheds was obtained from the Assessment Report Hamilton Region Source Protection Area. Version 2.7 2. The Lower Davis Creek receives water from the Upper Davis Creek at Felker’s Falls. It also drains the lands above the escarpment to the east of Upper Davis Creek. Tributaries also drain the Felker’s Falls Escarpment Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) along the face of the escarpment. North of the escarpment, the subwatershed is completely urbanized, primarily as residential properties. The only natural area is within the Red Hill Creek Escarpment Valley ESA. Lower Davis Creek joins Montgomery Creek and flows a short distance to drain into Red Hill Creek. Tributaries within the Battlefield Creek subwatershed drain the northern flank of the Niagara Falls Moraine to a main channel with westerly flowing water. Water flows within the eastern extent of the Felker’s Falls Escarpment ESA and the western extent of the Devil’s Punchbowl Escarpment ESA. The creek reaches Centennial Parkway, a major traffic corridor that ascends the Niagara Escarpment. At Centennial Parkway, Battlefield Creek flows down a natural valley between residential areas. The Stoney Creek subwatershed almost completely surrounds the Battlefield Creek subwatershed. A network of tributaries drains the Niagara Falls Moraine in an easterly direction where they connect with the main channel. Water within the main channel flows in a westerly direction along the base of the Vinemount Moraine, an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest. This channel drains the Vinemount South Swamp and Tapleytown Woods ESAs.
4.2 Drainage Patterns The Local Study Area is situated in the Stoney/Battlefield Creek Watershed which is regulated under the Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA) jurisdiction. Several natural water features are present within the Local Study Area. Lower Davis Creek crosses a limited area of the western portion of the Local Study Area. Battlefield Creek, an intermittent watercourse, is present immediately northeast of the SCRF within the Local Study Area. On HCA regulated areas mapping, a very small portion of the northeast corner of the SCRF is shown as regulated area, due to the presence of Battlefield Creek in the vicinity. An intermittent tributary of Stoney Creek is also shown to occur southeast of the SCRF within the Local Study Area. Lower Davis Creek and Battlefield Creek are both identified as having a warm water thermal regime within and in the vicinity of the Local Study Area. The Lower Davis Creek receives water from the Upper Davis Creek at Felker’s Falls. It also drains the lands above the escarpment to the east of Upper Davis Creek. Tributaries also drain the Felker’s Falls Escarpment ESA along the face of the escarpment. Below the escarpment, the subwatershed is completely urbanized, primarily as residential properties. The only natural area is within the Red Hill Creek Escarpment Valley ESA. Lower Davis Creek joins Montgomery Creek and flows a short distance to empty into Red Hill Creek. Source Water Protection mapping obtained from the Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report3, indicates that approximately 50% of the Local Study Area is within an area that has highly vulnerable aquifers. It should be noted that the municipal water supply is derived from an intake located within Lake Ontario, and not from the aquifers underlying the Site Study Area. Source Water Protection zone mapping also indicates that a small area in the northern portion of the Local Study Area is located within the limit of the Intake Protection Zone, which has been based on the interpreted zone of potential groundwater influence on the City of Hamilton’s water intake in Lake Ontario
2 Halton-Hamilton Source Protection Committee, Assessment Report Hamilton Region Source Protection Area Version 2.7, July 25, 2015. 3 GHD, 2017. Draft Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report. September 2017, Ref. 11102771
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Surface Water | 11102771 | F - 4
The Local Study Area consists of residential, agricultural and park areas. The residential areas are located to the north, northwest, west, southwest and south of the Site. The minor storm flows within the residential areas drain into catch basins, which drain into the storm sewer collection system and discharge into the creeks. Major flows within the residential areas are conveyed by the roadways until discharging into the creeks. The park and agricultural areas make up the remaining Local Study Area, and these areas drain through overland flow. Major and minor flows from these areas are carried overland into the roadways or roadside ditches before discharging to the creeks. The existing surface water conveyance and treatment system for the Site Study Area (See Appendix A) consists of a set of swales, sumps and forcemains that convey stormwater runoff to a stormwater management pond in the northwest corner of the property for water quality treatment and runoff peak flow control. The drainage swales along the south and west sides of the landfill are in their final location. All other drainage swales and forcemains are temporary and will be moved as Site construction progresses. Under currently approved final closure conditions, the swales will wrap around the perimeter of the landfill area, as well as the remaining area on the northern portion of the Site, and convey stormwater runoff from the landfill cap to the stormwater management pond. The stormwater management pond will provide quantity and quality control for Site runoff. The outlet for the stormwater management pond is near the southeast corner of First Road West and Green Mountain Drive. The outlet structure discharges into a manhole located at the southeast corner of the intersection of First Road West and Green Mountain Road. The flows then discharge into a sewer under First Road West. The outlet structure formerly discharged into the roadside swale on the west side of First Road West. In 2017, construction on Green Mountain Road caused the outlet to be redirected to the First Road West storm sewer. The outlet structure is equipped with a sluice gate that can be closed in the event of a trigger parameter failing during regular testing. If a trigger parameter fails twice in a row, the gate will be closed and the stormwater management pond will accumulate water until it overflows into the neighbouring leachate collection pond via the emergency overflow weir. The leachate collection pond is a detention pond located in the northwest corner of the Site, sandwiched between the forebay and main cell of the current stormwater management pond. The detention pond receives water fed from groundwater pumping well M4 of the groundwater collection system and runoff from the truck wash pad. The water in the detention pond is periodically pumped to the leachate equalization pond, west of the SCRF. Any precipitation that falls within an active working area is collected by the leachate collection system and pumped to the equalization pond. The equalization pond flows via a gravity sewer west of the Site to a City of Hamilton sanitary sewer on Mistywood Drive, north of Mud Street. In the future, the collection pond will be removed and the stormwater management pond will be reconfigured to have two forebays to capture inflows from the south/west and east/north perimeter swales. Perimeter berms along the edges of the property direct stormwater runoff away from the working area towards roadside swales surrounding the property. Stormwater runoff from the landfill cap will not come into contact with “clean” stormwater runoff from the edges of the Site or off-Site. The storm sewer under First Road West flows north to Ridgeview Drive, where it turns west towards the Niagara Escarpment. The flow is conveyed over some falls along the escarpment and into storm sewers associated with a residential subdivision. The flow is eventually conveyed through the subdivision and discharged to Lower Davis Creek.
4.3 Water Quality Annual surface water quality monitoring is completed in accordance with the requirements of the Amended ECA and Certificate of Approval for Industrial Sewage Works. The monitoring program has been historically performed by Jackman Geoscience Inc., and involves monitoring for both the closed west landfill (located on the west side of First Road West) and the SCRF4. For the purposes
4 Jackman Geoscience Inc., Closed Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill, Environmental Compliance Approval No. A130404, Annual Report 2016. June 30, 2017 and Jackman Geoscience Inc., Operating Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill, Provisional Certificate of Approval No. A181008, Annual Report 2016. June 30, 2017.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Surface Water | 11102771 | F - 5
of this report, only monitoring relevant to the SCRF will be discussed. The purpose of the surface water monitoring program is to: Assess whether the SCRF is in compliance with the surface water quality policies of the MECP. Evaluate the effectiveness of on-Site sediment control measures. Surface water monitoring related to the SCRF occurs at three locations within the Site Study Area and 18 locations in the Local Study Area5. The exact monitoring program description is contained within Schedule D of ECA A181008, and Section 5 of C of A number 5400-7DSSHU6 The surface water, monitoring locations are illustrated on Figure 4.1.
5 Ibid. 6 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Amended Environmental Compliance Approval, Number A181008, March 1, 2016 and Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Certificate of Approval – Industrial Sewage Works, Number 5400-7DSSHU, May 1, 2008.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Surface Water | 11102771 | F - 6
Figure 4.1 Surface Water Monitoring Locations
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Surface Water | 11102771 | F - 7
Since the completion of construction for the existing stormwater management pond, sampling has indicated that concentrations of phosphorus have exceeded the associated trigger level in the C of A in both the Site Study Area and the Local Study Area. Due to the exceedance of trigger levels for phosphorus, the stormwater management pond has been operated with the sluice gate closed, and has not discharged any stormwater into the storm sewer under First Road West or the roadside ditch along First Road West since its inception. The stormwater has been diverted into the leachate collection pond, which eventually discharges into the City sanitary sewer. Because the stormwater management pond has been operated with the sluice gate closed, none of the water samples obtained from monitoring locations within the Local Study Area are affected by SCRF surface water discharges. All of the Local Study Area surface water samples are affected by other sources within the Local Study Area. Sampling at other surface water monitoring locations (within the Site Study Area and the Local Study Area) during 2016 periodically showed water quality results that exceeded Provincial Water Quality Objectives or trigger levels. However, as documented in the 2016 Annual Monitoring Report, these exceedances are not the result of landfill-related impacts from the SCRF, as all runoff that could have come in contact with waste is diverted to the retention pond, and eventually to City sanitary sewers. PWQO exceedances are interpreted to be largely related to background surface water quality, For example, during 2016 aluminum and Zinc were detected at concentrations above PWQO’s at all off Site sampling locations, for a majority of the sampling events, including upstream monitoring stations. Dissolved oxygen levels were above PWQO’s at all sampling locations except for one occasion at station T-1R, which is a pond that receives impacted groundwater (located on the Closed Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill). During 2016, sampling location T-3, located downstream of the stormwater management pond, demonstrated water quality impacts that are interpreted to be the result of a combination of minor landfill-related and construction-related sources. Drag-out from trucks exiting the SCRF is suspected to be the primary source of landfill-related water quality impacts at T-3. The 2016 Annual Monitoring Report recommended that Terrapure investigate additional means to control drag-out from the SCRF as a means to improving off-Site surface water quality. Sampling location T-3 no longer exists as drainage has been re-configured as part of the reconstruction of First Road West. Discharge from the stormwater management pond is now routed to a new storm sewer that has been installed under First Road West. A replacement sampling location for sampling location T-3 will be determined once construction activities are completed. Given that the stormwater management pond has been operating with its outlet closed since its inception, any off-Site detection of any parameter at concentrations above PWQO’s, or other trigger levels, is not a result of the discharge of impacted stormwater, as no stormwater has been discharged from the Site since the pond was built. Sample results from the leachate collection pond, or other locations along the leachate conveyance system, had concentrations of various parameters that exceed PWQO’s; however, the water from those ponds is discharged into the sanitary sewer system.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Surface Water | 11102771 | F - 8 Terrestrial & Aquatic Terrestrial & Aquatic Environment Work Plan
The Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Work Plan addresses both terrestrial ecosystems and aquatic ecosystems. The following tasks will be undertaken to characterize the existing terrestrial and aquatic environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking:
• Compile and interpret information from existing data sources, including data sources listed in Table 3-1. • Conduct Site investigations to confirm site information compiled from existing documentation and document the findings in the Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Existing Conditions Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA Report. • Based on the Conceptual Designs developed for the Alternative Methods:
o Predict and assess potential impacts of the alternative methods on the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem.
o Apply mitigation measures to determine the net effects for each Alternative Method and compare the degree of net effects using the criteria and indicators for the Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment component, rank the Alternative Methods and identify the Recommended Alternative from a Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment perspective. • Once the Preferred Method has been identified and additional details developed from a design and operations perspective, an impact assessment will be carried out so that the potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty and will include more site-specific impact management measures and monitoring requirements can be clearly identified. The information and analysis will be documented in a Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Impact Assessment Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA.
Table 3-1 – Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources
Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on • Predicted impact on • Previous site surveys terrestrial vegetation communities • Site investigations ecosystems • Predicted impact on • MNRF databases Terrestrial & wildlife habitat • City of Hamilton Official Plan Aquatic • Predicted impact on • Environment Hamilton Conservation Authority vegetation and wildlife databases including rare, threatened • Natural Environment Existing or endangered species Conditions
GHD | Terrestrial & Aquatic Environment Work Plan | 11102771 Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on • Predicted impact on • Previous site surveys aquatic aquatic habitat • Site investigations ecosystems • Predicted impact on • Ministry of Natural Resources and aquatic biota Forestry (MNRF) databases • City of Hamilton Official Plan • Hamilton Conservation Authority databases • Natural Environment Existing Conditions
GHD | Terrestrial & Aquatic Environment Work Plan | 11102771 Terrapure is proud to have received the 2016 Industry Excellence Award for Health & Safety from Natural Resources Magazine.
Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment Natural Environment Existing Conditions Report
1195 Stellar Drive, Unit #1 Newmarket Ontario L3Y 7B8 Canada 11102771 | January 2019 Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1
2. Study Areas ...... 1
3. Methodology ...... 3 3.1 Ecological Land Classification ...... 3 3.2 Breeding Bird Surveys ...... 4
4. Characterization of the Existing Environment ...... 4 4.1 Surrounding Land Use ...... 4 4.2 Topography and Hydrology ...... 4 4.3 Significant Natural Features ...... 7 4.4 Terrestrial Environment and Habitat ...... 8 4.5 Aquatic Environment and Habitat ...... 13 4.6 Wildlife ...... 13 4.7 Species at Risk ...... 14
5. Conclusions ...... 18
6. References ...... 18
Figure Index
Figure 2.1 Natural Environment Study Areas ...... 2
Figure 4.1 Physiography ...... 6
Figure 4.2 Significant Natural Features ...... 8
Figure 4.3 Ecological Land Classification – Local Study Area ...... 11
Figure 4.4 Ecological Land Classification – Site Study Area ...... 12 Figure 4.5 Species at Risk ...... 17 Table Index
Table 3.1 Secondary Data Sources ...... 3 Table 3.2 Weather Conditions During Breeding Bird Surveys ...... 4
Table 4.1 Incidental Wildlife Observations ...... 14
Appendices
Appendix A Species at Risk Screening
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - i
1. Introduction
This report provides an overview of the existing natural environment conditions associated with the Study Area for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF, Facility, Site). The Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment (SCRF EA) included a preliminary description of the existing environment with the commitment that a more detailed description of it would be provided during the preparation of the EA reflecting the final Study Area1. Terrapure Environmental (Terrapure), owner and operator of the SCRF, is proposing to increase the total approved capacity for post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material at the SCRF by 3,680,000 m3, so that the company can continue to operate its business and receive this material to support local industry. The proposal would not change the type or annual volume of residual materials currently accepted at the Facility, nor the maximum number of permitted vehicles to the Site per day, nor the approved service area for the SCRF, which is the Province of Ontario. Terrapure's SCRF has been an important part of the local community since it was approved by the then-Minister of the Environment (now known as the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks) in 1996. The existing SCRF is only permitted to accept solid, non-hazardous waste from industrial, commercial, and institutional sources. These are truly "end of life" materials that have exhausted all recycling options. Putrescible waste (i.e., municipal solid waste, organic material) disposal is not permitted at the SCRF. The total approved capacity under the Environmental Protection Act approvals at the existing SCRF is 6, 500,000 m3, with an approved maximum annual acceptance of 750,000 tonnes of solid, non-hazardous residual waste. The EA Act requires that proponents describe the environment that may potentially be affected or may reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the Alternative Methods and the Undertaking proposed as part of an EA. This report focusses on characterizing the existing conditions in the vicinity of the Facility, for the natural environment.
2. Study Areas
From a natural environment perspective, the characterization of existing conditions within the following Study Areas is appropriate to this EA: Site Study Area, including all lands within the existing, approved boundaries of the SCRF, as defined by Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) No. A181008, as amended. Local Study Area, including all lands within a 1.5 kilometer (km) radius of the four roads that border the existing SCRF. A Local Study Area utilizing a 1.5 km radius is appropriate to assess potential changes to the natural environment as a result of the proposed works. The natural environment Study Areas are illustrated in Figure 2.1.
1. A more detailed description of the environment will be provided during preparation of the SCRF EA reflecting the final study area using available existing information sources and investigative studies. (Minister-approved Amended ToR, Section 6.2.6)
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 1
Figure 2.1 Natural Environment Study Areas
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 2
3. Methodology
Information on the natural environment existing conditions within the Study Areas was gathered from a combination of secondary source review, multiple site visits in 2016 and 2017, and agency consultation. A formal request for information was put in with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), and a response was received on November 18, 2016. Table 3.1 shows the sources of secondary information and how those sources were utilized to characterize the existing environment.
Table 3.1 Secondary Data Sources Source How Source was Used Ministry of Natural Resources MNRF data was reviewed to determine records of Species at Risk (SAR) and and Forestry (MNRF) natural heritage features within the Study Areas, and included the following: SAR data Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) mapping Natural Heritage Features data layers from Land Information Ontario Fisheries and Oceans Canada Used to identify any records for aquatic SAR within the Study Areas. (DFO) Aquatic Species at Risk Mapping (2017) Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Used to identify reptile and amphibian species records for Study Areas. Atlas Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Used to identify breeding bird records for Study Areas. Ontario Butterfly Atlas Used to identify butterfly records for Study Areas. Jackman Geoscience Inc. Used to compile background information on the closed landfill site. (June 30, 2015). Closed Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill: Environmental Compliance Approval Urban Hamilton Official Plan Official Plan Schedules were reviewed to determine the presence of mapped (2013, amended 2017); Rural natural heritage features within the Study Areas: Hamilton Official Plan (2012, Schedule B – Natural Heritage System amended 2016) Schedule B-1 – Life Science ANSI Schedule B-2 – Significant Woodlands Schedule B-3 – Alvar and Tallgrass Prairie Schedule B-4 – Wetlands Schedule B-5 – Lakes and Littoral Zone Schedule B-6 – Environmentally Significant Areas Schedule B-7 – Earth Science ANSI Schedule B-8 – Streams Hamilton Conservation The following sources were reviewed to determine the presence of regulated Authority areas, natural heritage features and species records within the Study Areas: Regulated areas mapping Natural Areas Inventory data eBird Used to identify avian species records in vicinity of Study Areas. Government of Canada: The Used to examine the presence and extent of water features/other mapped Atlas of Canada- Toporama features. FishWerks Used to identify any mapped barriers to fish passage on water features within Study Areas.
3.1 Ecological Land Classification In order to characterize dominant vegetation communities, GHD conducted an Ecological Land Classification (ELC) of the Site and Local Study Areas. ELC mapping of select areas within the Site Study Area was completed in 2016, with minor revisions in 2017. ELC mapping was prepared in
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 3
accordance with Lee et al (1998)2. The updated ELC categories were applied in the absence of suitable 1998 ELC categories (e.g., CV1-2 Disposal). ELC mapping of the Local Study Area was created at a coarser level, and was completed by interpreting aerial imagery and utilizing HCA Natural Areas Inventory (NAI) data for the NAI mapped natural areas present within the Local Study Area.
3.2 Breeding Bird Surveys Breeding bird surveys were conducted in 2017 with the main purpose of documenting the presence of Species at Risk (SAR) bird species utilizing the SCRF and determining the probability of breeding within the SCRF boundaries. Surveys were conducted on June 21, June 28, and July 6, 2017, following a modified version of the point count methodology from the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas3 Three rounds of surveys were completed between 5:00 am and 10:00 am within the breeding bird window of May 24 and July 10, with at least a week between each visit. A 10-minute point count recorded all species heard or observed within a 100 m radius of the surveyor. A transect was then walked connecting the point counts with any new observations recorded. Point counts were spaced a minimum 250 m apart to prevent duplicate observations. For each observation, breeding evidence was recorded to determine if the species was a possible, probable, or confirmed breeder. At each survey, weather conditions were recorded. Surveys were only completed during suitable weather conditions, including good visibility and wind speeds lower than 19 km/hr (or less than 3 on the Beaufort scale). Table 3.2 summarizes the weather conditions of each visit. Weather conditions were stable across point counts, with only small variations in temperature and cloud cover.
Table 3.2 Weather Conditions During Breeding Bird Surveys Date Temp (°C) Wind (Beaufort Scale) Visibility Precipitation Cloud Cover June 21, 2017 17 0 Good None 30% June 28, 2017 18.9 1-2 Good None 0% July 6, 2017 22.6 0-1 Good None 30%
4. Characterization of the Existing Environment
4.1 Surrounding Land Use The Site and Local Study Areas encompass a variety of land uses. North of the Site Study Area, there is active development and the creation of residential neighbourhoods. Actively farmed and/or fallow agricultural fields are present to the east of the Site Study Area, as well as a field to the immediate southwest of the Site Study Area. Two golf courses are present to the east and south, and patches of deciduous forest are present to the southeast and to the northwest of the Site Study Area, with another small patch of deciduous forest present to the north in the area of residential development. To the west is Heritage Green Community Trust Passive Park, a former landfill which has been capped and vegetated, and which now hosts a sports park, leash free dog park, pollinator gardens and walking trails.
4.2 Topography and Hydrology The Site and Local Study Areas encompass several physiographic units, as shown on Figure 4.1. These units include till moraines, clay plains, and escarpments, with beaches and sand plains at the northernmost portion of the Local Study Area.
2 Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG 02 3 Cadman, M.D., D.A Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.), 2007. Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001 2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii + 706 pp.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 4
There are several significant natural landforms within the Local Study Area. The Niagara Escarpment is located in the northwest portion of the Local Study Area. Within the Local Study Area, the Niagara Escarpment is a north-facing cliff, approximately 70 m high, running roughly east west4The Eramosa Escarpment is a buried mini escarpment which is located at the north side of the closed west landfill (Heritage Green Park). The Eramosa Escarpment is mostly buried by glacial till laid down during the last glacial period5. The Local Study Area is situated in HCA jurisdiction. Several natural water features are present within the Local Study Area. Davis Creek crosses a limited area of the western portion of the Local Study Area. Battlefield Creek, an intermittent watercourse, is present immediately northeast of the SCRF within the Local Study Area. On HCA regulated areas mapping, a very small portion of the northeast corner of the SCRF is shown as regulated area due to the presence of Battlefield Creek in the vicinity. An intermittent tributary of Stoney Creek is also shown to occur southeast of the SCRF within the Local Study Area. These water features are discussed in further detail. There are also several manmade water features (e.g., stormwater management ponds and drainage ditches) within the Site and Local Study Areas. Surface water features are discussed in greater detail in the Surface Water Existing Conditions Report which outlines the Local Study Area and site surface water conditions6. Aquatic features within the Site Study Area are discussed in further detail as they relate to aquatic habitat in Section 4.5.
4 Jackman Geoscience Inc., June 30, 2015. Closed Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill: Environmental Compliance Approval. 5 Ibid. 6 GHD, 2017. Draft Surface Water Existing Conditions Report. September 2017, Ref. 11102771 (5)
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 5
Figure 4.1 Physiography
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 6
4.3 Significant Natural Features Significant natural features within the Site and Local Study Areas are shown on Figure 4.2. No Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) or Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) are identified to occur within the Local Study Area; however, several significant natural heritage features are identified on Schedule B of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (OP) and the Rural Hamilton OP as occurring within the Local Study Area7. The majority of the area west of Centennial Parkway, including the Site Study Area, is under regulation of the Urban Hamilton OP, while the remainder of the eastern Local Study Area is under regulation of the Rural Hamilton OP. Immediately to the northwest of the Site Study Area, at the junction of Green Mountain Road West and First Road West, there is a forested area which extends into the Niagara Escarpment. This area is identified as Significant Woodland, Environmentally Significant Area, and Core Area and was observed to consist of a relatively young deciduous forest with a mixed canopy of maple, poplar and ash species with a dense understory of staghorn sumac and grape vines. Small Linkages are identified on Schedule B of the Urban Hamilton OP west and north of the Site Study Area. The Linkage immediately north of the SCRF, in the area of current residential development, was found to be an open willow and maple dominant deciduous forest, with a dense mixed understory of staghorn sumac and dogwood. Immediately south of the SCRF, in the vicinity of Penny Lane, there is a forested area with a small wetland to the south, which is identified on Schedule B as Significant Woodland and a Key Hydrologic Feature. It was observed to consist of maple, ash and poplar forest with a dense understory of dogwood, sumac and herbaceous species, such as asters and goldenrod. A wet area is also present, determined by phragmites observed in the vicinity of Penny Lane. Another Key Hydrologic Feature (Davis Creek) is located to the west of the Site Study Area near the border of the Local Study Area, and is discussed in further detail in Section 4.5. Within the eastern portion of the Local Study Area addressed by the Rural Hamilton OP, Linkages are identified along Green Mountain Road to the east of the Site Study Area. Patches of Core Areas are shown to occur throughout the northeastern portion of the Local Study Area, with associated designations as Significant Woodlands. Several Key Hydrologic Features are also identified and are associated with various pond features in the northeastern and eastern portion of the Local Study Area. With respect to Areas of Natural or Scientific Interest (ANSIs), there are two that fall just within the Local Study Area, namely Felker’s Falls ANSI and Devils Punch Bowl ANSI, and one that borders the southern portion of the Local Study Area, namely the Eramosa Karst ANSI. The Felker’s Falls Escarpment Valley contains Felker’s Falls, a waterfall and plunge pool created by Davis Creek as it crossed the escarpment. A high concentration of Butternut (Juglans cinerea) is present on the talus slopes of the escarpment. Vegetation communities in this feature within the Local Study Area consists of deciduous forest, swamp thicket, shrub bluff, treed talus, and various cultural communities, including cultural thicket, old field, and coniferous plantation8. Devil’s Punch Bowl is a 23 m high waterfall where Stoney Creek has eroded a semi-circular plunge pool. Vegetation communities in this feature within the Local Study Area include treed talus, deciduous forest, deciduous woodland, and deciduous savanna9.
7 City of Hamilton, 2012. Rural Hamilton Official Plan. Hamilton, Ontario. As amended 2016 and City of Hamilton, 2013. Urban Hamilton Official Plan. Hamilton, Ontario. As amended 2017. 8 Hamilton Conservation Authority, 2014. Natural Areas Inventory Project 3rd Edition 9 Ibid.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 7
Figure 4.2 Significant Natural Features
4.4 Terrestrial Environment and Habitat
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 8
The terrestrial environment of the Study Areas was assessed and classified using both secondary source resources (e.g., aerial photography, natural features records), and direct Site observations based on various Site visits between 2016 and 2017. Detailed field investigations were not conducted within the Local Study Area; ecological communities were mapped based on aerial imagery interpretation and secondary source information. ELC mapping of the Local Study Area is shown on Figure 4.3. Different types of vegetation communities include cultural meadow, deciduous forest, deciduous woodland, shrub bluff, treed talus, deciduous savanna, and swamp thicket. Anthropogenic communities include agricultural communities, as well as constructed areas, recreational areas, and golf courses. Within the Site Study Area, main types of habitat available were classified using ELC, and are displayed on Figure 4.4. Eight ecological land classification community classes are represented within the Site Study Area and include wetland, upland and cultural systems. Characteristics of each of the identified community types are provided in the following paragraphs. Wetland Communities MAMM1-2: Cattail Graminoid Mineral Meadow Marsh This unit consists of a small anthropogenic wetland feature south of the access road that was dry at the time of observation. This unit hosted larger amounts of graminoids and robust emergent vegetation, generally dominated by cattails (Typha sp.) with some phragmites (Phragmites australis subsp. australis) around the perimeter. OAW: Open Water Small man-made open water habitats are present throughout the northern portion of the Site Study Area. These areas include a water taking pond, groundwater pond, and various storm water ponds. The water taking pond is located immediately north of the access road, and had cattails and phragmites around its perimeter. The ground water pond hosted phragmites around its perimeter, and the other water feature immediately to the south had limited vegetation consisting primarily of cattails. The stormwater pond in the northwest corner was dry and did not have any aquatic vegetation at the time of observation. The large pond at the northeast corner of the property had very minimal aquatic vegetation, generally consisting of small pockets of phragmites. The water feature to the south of the access road on the west side of Site Study Area also had limited vegetation consisting primarily of cattails. Upland Communities TAGM5: Fencerow This unit represents the fencerow surrounding a large portion of the SCRF. This area generally hosts a mixed forb/graminoid understory, with a variety of planted deciduous and coniferous tree species. The western and northern fencerows are dominated by spruces (Picea sp.), whereas the section bordering the agricultural field at the southwest corner is mixed deciduous and coniferous. MEGM: Dry-Fresh Graminoid Meadow Ecosite The dry-fresh graminoid meadow is mainly characterized by relatively low growing grass species. The soil on this site has been disturbed as this is a capped area of the SCRF and the vegetation present is typical of a disturbed site. There is a gravel road/pathway which runs through the meadow near the southern portion of the Site Study Area. This unit is generally dominated by fescues (Festuca sp.) in the southern portion, with reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) becoming more dominant in northwest portion. Cultural Communities CUM1: Mineral Cultural Meadow Ecosite This unit hosts upland vegetation species common in disturbed areas, such as coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara), common teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), vetches (Vicia sp.), and clovers (Trifolium sp.), with large patches of bare ground and exposed patches of gravel and angular stone.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 9
CUT: Cultural Thicket This unit hosts a variety of smaller trees, shrubs and herbaceous species common in disturbed areas. Low growing staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina), Manitoba maple (Acer negundo), and a variety of other shrub species are present, with an herbaceous ground layer consisting of common species in disturbed areas. CGL-2: Parkland This area surrounds the main office and consists primarily of manicured lawn, with several isolated trees scattered throughout. CVI-2: Disposal This is the area of active landfilling activities, including access roads and associated on-Site amenities.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 10
Figure 4.3 Ecological Land Classification – Local Study Area
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 11
Figure 4.4 Ecological Land Classification – Site Study Area
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 12
4.5 Aquatic Environment and Habitat As previously mentioned, several aquatic features traverse the Local Study Area, including Davis Creek, Battlefield Creek, and an intermittent tributary of Stoney Creek. Davis Creek and Battlefield Creek are both identified as having a warm water thermal regime within and in the vicinity of the Local Study Area. An impassable barrier to fish passage is identified on FishWerks mapping on Battlefield Creek, north of Green Mountain Road. On Davis Creek, a moderate barrier to fish passage is located around Greenhill Avenue. Davis Creek flows over Felker’s Falls at the Niagara Escarpment and continues through a step-pool sequence downstream. The fish community in the vicinity of Felker’s Falls Escarpment has been assessed as part of the Hamilton NAI, with eight species having been documented10. As previously mentioned, intermittent tributaries of Stoney Creek traverse the southeastern portion of the Local Study Area. Immediately outside of the Local Study Area, Stoney Creek has eroded the escarpment below and formed the ‘punch bowl’ landform associated with the Devil’s Punch Bowl ANSI11. Within the Site Study Area, several man-made aquatic features are present. These include a water taking pond, stormwater and groundwater ponds in the northwest corner of the SCRF, and drainage ditches along the perimeter of the property, with substrates ranging from sediment to gravel. Aquatic vegetation is generally minimal to absent, with some ponds hosting robust emergent vegetation, such as phragmites and cattails around their perimeter. Based on observations during the Site visits, these aquatic features appear to currently provide limited nesting habitat, but some foraging opportunities to wildlife species. The northwest pond was also noted to provide nesting material (mud) for barn swallows (Hirundo rustica).
4.6 Wildlife Breeding bird surveys, with the main purpose of documenting breeding of SAR birds, were completed in 2017, and incidental observations of wildlife were collected during the 2016 and 2017 Site visits. A list of incidental wildlife observations, including species detected during the breeding bird surveys, is provided in Table 4.1, attached. A total of 31 bird species were observed within the Site and Local Study Areas during the various Site visits. This included two provincially Threatened bird species, which are discussed in further detail in Section 4.7. There is also anecdotal evidence provided by Site staff of additional species using the Site Study Area, in particular white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), coyote (Canis latrans), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). However, the occurrence of these species within the Site Study Area has reportedly decreased in recent years. In addition, a number of common urban wildlife species have been observed in the Local Study Area (raccoons, skunks, squirrels, etc.). No issues or interactions with wildlife as it relates to operations were observed, as confirmed by Site staff.
10 Ibid. 11 Ibid.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 13
Table 4.1 Incidental Wildlife Observations
4.7 Species at Risk In order to determine the potential for presence of SAR within the Study Areas, secondary sources of information were reviewed including several MNRF species description documents and the MNRF was consulted to request species records, incidental observations of SAR were collected at
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 14
all Site visits, and breeding bird surveys were conducted in 2017 to determine the presence of SAR birds and their use of the SCRF as breeding habitat12. Provincially tracked species records for the Local Study Area are shown on Figure 4.5. The majority of records are historical (pre-1996) sightings, prior to the development of the existing SCRF; the most recent occurrence is of a snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) within the Site Study Area in 2010. No aquatic SAR have been identified on Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Fish and Mussel mapping (2017) as occurring within either the Site or Local Study Area13. A SAR screening activity was conducted to determine the potential for SAR within the Local Study Area, and is provided as Appendix A. Although much of the Local Study Area is developed in nature, many areas still may provide habitat for a number of species, in particular the areas associated with the Niagara Escarpment. Through this activity, the potential for 49 provincially listed SAR was identified within the Local Study Area. Of these 49 species, 31 were determined to have a moderate to high potential of occurrence within the Local Study Area, based on the availability of potentially suitable habitat. From the list in Appendix A, SAR which were detected in the Site Study Area during the Site visits, or for which potentially suitable habitat is present within the Site Study Area, are detailed in the following paragraphs. Eastern Meadowlark The eastern meadowlark is a provincially Threatened species, and receives protection of both individuals and their habitat under the provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA). During field investigations in 2016, an eastern meadowlark was observed singing in suitable breeding habitat on the capped portion of the footprint in the MEGM ELC unit. To determine the extent which this species uses the Site, GHD completed breeding bird surveys during the 2017 field season. Multiple eastern meadowlark were observed singing on all three breeding bird survey visits in 2017, and GHD is of the opinion that this species is using the capped portion of the property for breeding. MNRF will be contacted as part of the design stage to determine if the proposed works qualify for an exemption, or if they will require an application for a Notice of Activity or an Overall Benefit Permit from the MNRF. Barn Swallow Barn swallows are a provincially Threatened species. They are typically found in agricultural areas, cities, and suburbs, and along highways14. Numerous barn swallows were observed foraging during the Site visits in multiple areas of the Site Study Area. One barn swallow was observed gathering mud from one of the on-Site ponds to be used in nest building activities. Nesting sites may exist within the Site Study Area where suitable structures exist (e.g., buildings, large culverts), whereas suitable foraging habitat is presumed to occur within the Site Study Area. No barn swallow nests were documented during the Site investigations, however targeted surveys of suitable habitat (e.g., buildings and large culverts) are recommended if it is determined that these structures may be altered through the course of the proposed works. Snapping Turtle Snapping turtle is a provincially Special Concern species which may have the potential to occur within the Site Study Area. Snapping turtles prefer shallow waters with soft substrate15, habitat which may be present in the multiple ponds present on Site (mapped as OAW). However, the hard
12 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 2017. Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List. https://www.ontario.ca/environment and energy/species risk ontario list (Accessed: September 2017) 13 Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2017. Aquatic Species at Risk. Available at: http://www.dfompo.gc.ca/species especes/index eng.htm 14 Rodewald, P. (Editor). 2016. The Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY 15 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 2017a. Snapping Turtle. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/snapping-turtle (Accessed: September 2017)
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 15
substrate and limited aquatic vegetation in the ponds reduces the likely usage of most on Site ponds by snapping turtles. Butternut Butternut (Juglans cinerea) is a provincially Endangered species that MNRF has identified during consultation as having the potential to occur within the Local Study Area. In Ontario, this species occurs in deciduous forests, preferring moist, well-drained soil and is often found along streams. This species does not do well in the shade, and often grows in sunny openings and near forest edges16. Based on habitat available within the SCRF, GHD suspects that there is a low likelihood of presence within the Site Study Area, due to the lack of deciduous forest; however, this species is known to occur in the Felker’s Falls area within the northwest corner of the Local Study Area.
16 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 2017b. Butternut. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/butternut-species-risk (Accessed: September 2017)
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 16
Figure 4.5 Species at Risk
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 17
5. Conclusions Existing natural environment conditions were determined and described herein through a combination of secondary source review, field investigation, and agency consultation. Habitats observed within the Site Study Area include various wetland, upland, and cultural habitats. The Local Study Area displays a variety of land uses and habitats which also may provide some value for wildlife species and SAR. Within the Site Study Area, although largely disturbed due to ongoing landfilling activities, habitat for a variety of wildlife species exists, including SAR. GHD recommends consultation with MNRF to determine the need for any permits or approvals related to the presence of eastern meadowlark within the SCRF.
6. References Cadman, M.D., D.A Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.), 2007. Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001 2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii + 706 pp. City of Hamilton, 2012. Rural Hamilton Official Plan. Hamilton, Ontario. As amended 2016. City of Hamilton, 2013. Urban Hamilton Official Plan. Hamilton, Ontario. As amended 2017. eBird, 2015. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org (Accessed: September 2017). Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2017. Aquatic Species at Risk. Available at: http://www.dfompo.gc.ca/species especes/index eng.htm Fishwerks, 2017. Barriers to Fish Passage. Available: https://greatlakesconnectivity.org/ (Last accessed November 2017) GHD, 2017. Draft Surface Water Existing Conditions Report. September 2017, Ref. 11102771 (5) Hamilton Conservation Authority, 2014. Natural Areas Inventory Project 3rd Edition. Jackman Geoscience Inc., June 30, 2015. Closed Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill: Environmental Compliance Approval. Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG 02. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 2017. Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List. https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-ontario-list (Accessed: September 2017) Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 2017a. Snapping Turtle. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/snapping-turtle (Accessed: September 2017) Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 2017b. Butternut. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/butternut-species-risk (Accessed: September 2017) Ontario Nature, 2017. Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas. Available: https://www.ontarionature.org/oraa/maps/ (Last accessed November 2017) Rodewald, P. (Editor). 2016. The Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. The Atlas of Canada. 2017. Toporama Mapping Tool. Available: http://atlas.gc.ca/toporama/en/index.html (Last accessed November 2017). Toronto Entomologists’ Association, 2017. Ontario Butterfly Atlas Online: Observations. Available: http://www.ontarioinsects.org/atlas_online.htm. (Last accessed November 2017)
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Natural Environment | 11102771 | F - 18 Appendix A Species At Risk Screening StoneyCreekRegionalFacilityͲSiteStudyArea SpeciesAtRiskScreening
SpeciesAtRisk Endangered PotentialtoOccurwithinLocalStudy RationaleforPotentialtoOccurwithinLocalStudy CommonName ScientificName Act HabitatRequirements SpeciesAct2 Area(Desktop) Area(Desktop) (Sch1)1
InOntario,JeffersonsalamanderisfoundonlyinsouthernOntario,alongsouthern portionsoftheNiagaraEscarpmentandwesternportionsoftheOakRidgesMoraine. Jeffersonsalamanderprefersmoist,wellͲdraineddeciduousandmixedforestswitha closedcanopy.Itoverwintersundergroundinmammalburrowsandrockfissures,and movestovernalpoolsandephemeralwetlandsintheearlyspringtobreed.Breeding pondsaretypicallylocatedinorneartoforestedhabitats,andcontainsubmergeddebris (i.e.sticks,vegetation)foreggattachmentsites.Ephemeralbreedingpoolsneedtohave wateruntilatleastmidͲsummer(midtolateJuly)(JeffersonSalamanderRecoveryTeam Jeffersonsalamander Ambystomajeffersonianum THR END 2010). High SpeciesisknowntooccurinNiagaraEscarpment.
InOntario,monarchisfoundthroughoutthenorthernandsouthernregionsofthe province.Thisbutterflyisfoundwherevertherearemilkweed(Asclepiusspp.)plantsfor itscaterpillarsandwildflowersthatsupplyanectarsourceforadults.Itisoftenfoundon abandonedfarmland,meadows,openwetlands,prairiesandroadsides,butalsoincity Openhabitatwhichlikelycontainsmilkweedispresent gardensandparks.Importantstagingareasduringmigrationoccuralongthenorthshores withintheLocalStudyArea.Thisspecieswasdetected Monarch Danausplexippus SC SC oftheGreatLakes(COSEWIC2010). High inFelker'sFallsduringNAI.
InOntario,themottledduskywingisfoundinthesamehabitatasitsfoodplant Ceanothusspp.:openorpartiallyopen,dry,sandyareas,orlimestonealvars.These habitatsarerelativelyuncommonandincludedryopenpineandpineoakwoodland, otheropendrywoodlands,alvars,savannahandotherdryopensandyhabitats.Usually seennectaringonwildflowers,oronwetsandyroadsinthecompanyofotherduskywing Asmallpatchofsavannahhabitatispresentinthe Mottledduskywing Erynnismartialis —ENDspecies(Linton2015). Moderate northernmostportionoftheLocalStudyArea.
InOntario,rustyͲpatchedbumblebeeisfoundinareasfromthesouthernGreatLakes– St.LawrenceforestregionsouthwardsintotheCarolinianforest.Itisahabitatgeneralist, butitistypicallyfoundinopenhabitats,suchasmixedfarmland,savannah,marshes, sanddunes,urbanandlightlywoodedareas.Itiscold–tolerantandcanbefoundathigh elevations.MostrecentsightingsinOntariohavebeeninoaksavannahhabitatwithwellͲ drained,sandysoilsandmoderatelyopencanopy.Itrequiresanabundanceofflowering Asmallpatchofsavannahhabitatispresentin plantsforforage.Thisspeciesmostoftenbuildsnestsundergroundinoldrodent northernmostportionoftheLocalStudyArea.Other burrows,butalsoinhollowtreestumpsandfallendeadwood(CollaandTaylorͲPindar openareas(e.g.farmland)arealsopresentthroughout RustyͲpatchedbumblebee Bombusaffinis END END 2011).TheonlyrecentsightingsinOntarioarefromthePineryProvincialPark. Moderate theLocalStudyArea.
InOntario,WestVirginiawhiteisfoundprimarilyinthecentralandsouthernregionsof theprovince.Thisbutterflylivesinmoist,mature,deciduousandmixedwoodlands,and thecaterpillarsfeedonlyontheleavesoftoothwort(Cardaminespp),whicharesmall, springͲbloomingplantsoftheforestfloor.ThesewoodlandhabitatsaretypicallymapleͲ beechͲbirchdominated.Thisspeciesisassociatedwithwoodlandsgrowingoncalcaerous Maturedeciduousforestwithmaplesispresentin WestVirginiawhite Pierisvirginiensis —SC bedrockorthinsoilsoverbedrock(Burke2013). Moderate NiagaraEscarpment.
InOntario,theAcadianflycatcherbreedsintheunderstoryoflarge,mature,closedͲ canopyforests,swampsandforestedravines.Thisbirdprefersforestsgreaterthan40ha Althoughpotentiallysuitablehabitatofforested insize,andexhibitsedgesensitivitypreferringthedeepinterioroftheforest.Itsnestis ravinesexistsinLocalStudyArea,thisspeciesprefers looselywovenandplacednearthetipofbranchinasmalltreeorshruboften,butnot thedeepinterioroftheforest,andforesttracts Acadianflycatcher Empidonaxvirescens END END always,nearwater(WhiteheadandTaylor2002). Low greaterthan40haarenotpresent.
InOntario,baldeaglenestsaretypicallyfoundneartheshorelinesoflakesorlargerivers, oftenonforestedislands.Thelarge,conspicuousnestsaretypicallyfoundinlargesuperͲ Nolargewaterbodiesorriversarepresentwithinthe Baldeagle Haliaeetusleucocephalus —SC canopytreesalongwaterbodies(Buehler2000). Low LocalStudyArea.
InOntario,thebankswallowbreedsinavarietyofnaturalandanthropogenichabitats, includinglakebluffs,streamandriverbanks,sandandgravelpits,androadcuts.Nestsare generallybuiltinaverticalornearͲverticalbank.Breedingsitesaretypicallylocatednear openforagingsitessuchasrivers,lakes,grasslands,agriculturalfields,wetlandsand BankSwallowwasobservedduringtheNAIatboth Bankswallow Ripariariparia THR THR riparianwoods.Forestedareasaregenerallyavoided(Garrison1999). High Felker'sFallsandDevil'sPunchBowl.
InOntario,barnowlbreedinghabitatconsistsofopencountryside,withapreferencefor pastures,hayfields,marshesandgrassyroadsides.Suitablehabitatcontainssuitable nestingsitesandadequatemiceandvolepopulations.Nestingoccursinawidevarietyof humanmadestructuresincludingbarnsandnestboxes,aswellasnaturalsitessuchas Althoughsuitablehabitatmaybepresentwithinthe hollowtreesandcavitiesincliffsandriverbanks(Martietal.2005).InOntario, LocalStudyArea,thisisanextremelyrarespeciesand Barnowl Tytoalba END END anthropogenicnestsitessuchasbarnsmaybepreferred(COSEWIC2010). Low unlikelytobepresent.
InOntario,barnswallowbreedsinareasthatcontainasuitablenestingstructure,open areasforforaging,andabodyofwater.Thisspeciesnestsinhumanmadestructures includingbarns,buildings,sheds,bridges,andculverts.Preferredforaginghabitat includesgrassyfields,pastures,agriculturalcropland,lakeandrivershorelines,cleared rightͲofͲways,andwetlands(COSEWIC2011).Mudnestsarefastenedtoverticalwallsor Manypotentialnestingstructuresareavailablewithin builtonaledgeunderneathanoverhang.Suitablenestsfrompreviousyearsarereused theLocalStudyArea.Thisspecieswasobservedwithin Barnswallow Hirundorustica THR THR (BrownandBrown1999). High theSiteStudyAreaduringfieldvisits.
InOntario,blackternbreedsinfreshwatermarshlandswhereitformssmallcolonies.It prefersmarshesormarshcomplexesgreaterthan20hainareaandwhicharenot surroundedbywoodedarea.Blackternsaresensitivetothepresenceofagricultural activities.Theblackternnestsinwetlandswithanevencombinationofopenwaterand emergentvegetation,andstillwatersof0.5Ͳ1.2mdeep.Preferrednestsiteshaveshort densevegetationortallsparsevegetationoftenconsistingofcattails,bulrushesand occasionallyburreedorothermarshlandplants.Blackternsalsorequirepostsorsnagsfor Largefreshwatermarshesarenotpresentwithinthe Blacktern Chlidoniasniger —SC perching(Weseloh2007). Low LocalStudyArea.
InOntario,bobolinkbreedsingrasslandsorgraminoiddominatedhayfieldswithtall vegetation(Gabhauer2007).Bobolinkprefersgrasslandhabitatwithaforbcomponent andamoderatelitterlayer.Theyhavelowtoleranceforpresenceofwoodyvegetation andaresensitivetofrequentmowingwithinthebreedingseason.Theyaremost abundantinestablished,butregularlymaintained,hayfields,butalsobreedinlightly grazedpastures,oldorfallowfields,culturalmeadowsandnewlyplantedhayfields.Their Openagriculturalfieldandmeadowsarepresent nestiswovenfromgrassesandforbs.Itisbuiltontheground,indensevegetation, throughouttheLocalStudyArea.Thisspecieswas Bobolink Dolichonyxoryzivorus THR THR usuallyunderthecoverofoneormoreforbs(MartinandGavin1995). High observedduringtheNAIatDevil'sPunchBowl.
InOntario,breedinghabitatforCanadawarblerconsistsofmoistmixedforestswithawellͲ developedshrubbyunderstory.ThisincludeslowͲlyingareassuchascedarandalder swamps,andriparianthickets(McLaren2007).Itisalsofoundindenselyvegetated regeneratingforestopenings.Suitablehabitatoftencontainsadevelopedmosslayerand anunevenforestfloor.Nestsarewellconcealedonornearthegroundindenseshrubor ferncover,ofteninstumps,fallenlogs,overhangingstreambanksormossyhummocks ThisspecieswasobservedduringtheNAIatFelker's Canadawarbler Cardellinacanadensis THR SC (Reitsmaetal.2010). High FallsandDevil'sPunchbowl.
InOntario,breedinghabitatofceruleanwarblerconsistsofsecondͲgrowthormature deciduousforestwithatallcanopyofunevenverticalstructureandasparseunderstory. Thishabitatoccursinbothwetbottomlandforestsanduplandareas,andoftencontains largehickoryandoaktrees.Thisspeciesmaybeattractedtogapsoropeningsinthe uppercanopy.Theceruleanwarblerisassociatedwithlargeforesttracks,butmayoccur inwoodlotsassmallas10ha(COSEWIC2010).Nestsareusuallybuiltonahorizontallimb Potentiallysuitabledeciduousforestdominatedbyoak Ceruleanwarbler Setophagacerulea END THR inthemidͲstoryorcanopyofalargedeciduoustree(Buehleretal.2013). Moderate andhickoryispresentwithintheNiagaraEscarpment.
InOntario,chimneyswiftbreedinghabitatisvariedandincludesurban,suburban,rural andwoodedsites.Theyaremostcommonlyassociatedwithtownsandcitieswithlarge concentrationsofchimneys.Preferrednestingsitesaredark,shelteredspotswitha verticalsurfacetowhichthebirdcangrip.Unusedchimneysaretheprimarynestingand roostingstructure,butotheranthropogenicstructuresandlargediametercavitytreesare Suitablenestingstructuresarelikelypresentwithinthe Chimneyswift Chaeturapelagica THR THR alsoused(COSEWIC2007). Moderate LocalStudyArea.
Theseaerialforagersrequireareaswithlargeopenhabitat.Thisincludesfarmland,open woodlands,clearcuts,burns,rockoutcrops,alvars,bogferns,prairies,gravelpitsand FarmlandispresentwithintheLocalStudyArea,and Commonnighthawk Chordeilesminor THR SC gravelrooftopsincities(Sandilands2007) Moderate gravelrooftopsmayalsobepresent.
GHD|A Report -Vol 2. Appendix F–NaturalEnvironmentExistingConditionsReport|11102771(20)|Pages1/3 StoneyCreekRegionalFacilityͲSiteStudyArea SpeciesAtRiskScreening
SpeciesAtRisk Endangered PotentialtoOccurwithinLocalStudy RationaleforPotentialtoOccurwithinLocalStudy CommonName ScientificName Act HabitatRequirements SpeciesAct2 Area(Desktop) Area(Desktop) (Sch1)1
InOntario,theeasternmeadowlarkbreedsinpastures,hayfields,meadowsandold fields.Easternmeadowlarkprefersmoderatelytallgrasslandswithabundantlittercover, Thisspecieswasdetectedduringbreedingbirdsurveys highgrassproportion,andaforbcomponent(Hull2003).Theypreferwelldrainedsitesor withintheSiteStudyAreaandobservedinHeritage Easternmeadowlark Sturnellamagna THR THR slopes,andsiteswithdifferentcoverlayers(RoseberryandKlimstra1970) High GreenParkaswell.
InOntario,theeasternwoodͲpeweeinhabitsawidevarietyofwoodeduplandand lowlandhabitats,includingdeciduous,coniferous,ormixedforests.Itoccursmost frequentlyinforestswithsomedegreeofopenness.IntermediateͲagedforestswitha relativelysparsemidstoryarepreferred.Inyoungerforestshavingarelativelydense midstory,ittendstoinhabitattheedges.Alsooccursinanthropogenichabitatsproviding anopenforestedaspectsuchasparksandsuburbanneighborhoods.Nestisconstructed atopahorizontalbranch,1Ͳ2mabovetheground,inawidevarietyofdeciduousand ForestedhabitatsarepresentthroughouttheLocal EasternwoodͲpewee Contopusvirens SC SC coniferoustrees. High StudyArea.
InOntario,Henslow'ssparrowbreedsinlargegrasslandswithlowdisturbance,suchas lightlygrazedandungrazedpastures,fallowhayfields,grassyswalesinopenfarmland, andwetmeadows.Preferredhabitatcontainstall,densegrasscover,typicallyover30cm high,withahighpercentageofgroundcover,andathickmatofdeadplantmaterial. Henslow'ssparrowgenerallyavoidsareaswithemergentwoodyshrubsortrees,and fencelines.Areasofstandingwaterorephemerallywetpatchesappeartobeimportant. Thisspeciesbreedsmorefrequentlyinpatchesofhabitatgreaterthan30haand Undisturbedlargegrasslandsarenotpresentwithin Henslow'ssparrow Ammodramushenslowii END END preferablygreaterthan100ha(COSEWIC2011). Low theLocalStudyArea.
InOntario,theleastbitternbreedsinmarshes,usuallygreaterthan5ha,withemergent vegetation,relativelystablewaterlevelsandareasofopenwater.Preferredhabitathas waterlessthan1mdeep(usually10–50cm).Nestsarebuiltintallstandsofdense emergentorwoodyvegetation(Woodliffe2007).Clarityofwaterisimportantassiltation, SuitablemarshhabitatisnotpresentwithintheLocal Leastbittern Ixobrychusexilis THR THR turbidity,orexcessiveeutrophicationhindersforagingefficiency(COSEWIC2009). Low StudyArea.
InOntario,theloggerheadshrikebreedsinopencountryhabitatcharacterizedbyshort grasseswithscatteredshrubsorlowtrees.Unimprovedpasturecontainingscattered Althoughpotentiallysuitablehabitatmaybepresent hawthorns(Crataegusspp.)onshallowsoilsoverlimestonebedrockisthepreferred withinHeritageGreenPark,presenceisunlikelyasthe habitat.Preferrednestsitesincludeisolatedhawthornsorredcedar.Malesdefendlarge soilsubstrateisnotconducivetotheirpreferred Loggerheadshrike Laniusludovicianus(migranssubsp) END END territoriesofapproximately50ha(Chabot2007) Low habitat.
TheLouisianawaterthrushinhabitsmatureforestsalongsteeplyslopedravinesadjacent torunningwater.Itprefersclear,coldstreamsanddenselywoodedswamps.Trees, bushes,exposedroots,cliffs,banksandmossylogsarefavourednestingspots.Riparian woodlandsarepreferredstopoversitesduringmigration.Nestsareconcealedfromview Matureforestsalongsteeplyslopedravinesadjacent Parkesiamotacilla atthebaseofuprootedtrees,amongmosses,orunderlogsandincavitiesalongthe torunningwaterarenotpresentwithintheLocal Louisianawaterthrush (formerlySeiurusmotacilla) SC THR streambank(COSEWIC2006). Low StudyArea.
InOntario,thenorthernbobwhitebreedsinearlysuccessionalhabitats.Thisspecies requiresacombinationofthreehabitattypes:woodycover,croplandandgrassland. Croplandsprovideforaginghabitat,grasslandandfieldsareusedfornesting,anddense brushprovidesbothwinterforageandyearroundcover.Thesebirdsnestontheground Northernbobwhite Colinusvirginianus END END inashallowdepressionlinedwithgrassesandotherdeadvegetation(Brennan1999). Low Recordsforthisspeciesarehistoriconlyinthisarea.
InOntario,peregrinefalconbreedsinareascontainingsuitablenestinglocationsand sufficientpreyresources.Suchhabitatincludesbothnaturallocationscontainingcliff faces(heightsof50Ͳ200mpreferred)andalsoanthropogeniclandscapesincludingurban centrescontainingtallbuildings,openpitminesandquarries,androadcuts.Peregrine Suitableclifffacesandsufficientlytallbuildingsare falconsnestoncliffledgesandcrevicesandbuildingledges.Nestsconsistofasimple likelynotpresentwithintheLocalStudyArea,although Peregrinefalcon(anatumsubspecies) Falcoperegrinusanatum SC SC scrapeinthesubstrate(COSEWIC2007). Low theymayuseareasincidentallyasforaginghabitat.
InOntario,theprothonotarywarblerbreedsinmatureandsemiͲmature,deciduous swampforestwithaclosedcanopy,andlargeexpansesofrelativelydeep,openstanding water.Swampsaretypicallydominatedbysilvermaple,blackash,yellowbirch,andblack gum.Thesebirdsnestintreecavities,favouringsmall,shallowholesoftensituatedatlow heightsindeadordyingtrees.NestsaretypicallysituatedoverstandingorslowͲmoving water.Artificialnestboxesarealsoreadilyaccepted.Thisspeciesisareasensitiveandis Suitabledeciduousswampforesthabitatislikelynot Prothonotarywarbler Protonotariacitrea END END seldomfoundinforestslessthan100hainsize(COSEWIC2007). Low presentwithintheLocalStudyArea.
InOntario,theredͲheadedwoodpeckerbreedsinopen,deciduouswoodlandsor woodlandedgesandareoftenfoundinparks,cemeteries,golfcourses,orchardsand savannahs(Woodliffe2007).Theymayalsobreedinforestclearingsoropenagricultural areasprovidedthatlargetreesareavailablefornesting.Theypreferforestswithlittleor nounderstoryvegetation.Theyareoftenassociatedwithbeechoroakforests,beaver Deciduouswoodlandedgesandurbanhabitats pondsandswampforestswheresnagsarenumerous.Nestsareexcavatedinthetrunks includinggoldcoursespresentwithinLocalStudy RedͲheadedwoodpecker Melanerpeserythrocephalus THR SC oflargedeadtrees(Smithetal.2000). Moderate Areas.
InOntario,theshortͲearedowlbreedsinavarietyofopenhabitatsincludinggrasslands, tundra,bogs,marshes,clearcuts,burns,pasturesandoccasionallyagriculturalfields.The primaryfactorindeterminingbreedinghabitatisproximitytosmallmammalprey Thereisalargeexpanseofopenhabitatpresentat resources(COSEWIC2008).Nestsarebuiltonthegroundatadrysiteandusually HeritageGreenPark,andagriculturalfieldsarepresent ShortͲearedowl Asioflammeus SC SC adjacenttoaclumpoftallvegetationusedforcoverandconcealment(Gahbauer2007). Moderate throughouttheLocalStudyArea.
InOntario,thewhipͲpoorͲwillbreedsinsemiͲopenforestswithlittlegroundcover. Breedinghabitatisdependentonforeststructureratherthanspeciescomposition,andis SemiͲopenforestwithlittlegroundcovermaybe foundonrockandsandbarrens,openconiferplantationsandpostͲdisturbance presentwithintheLocalStudyAreainareas regeneratingforest.Territorysizerangesfrom3to11ha(COSEWIC2009).Nonestis surroundingtheNiagaraEscarpment.Treedtalusalong EasternwhipͲpoorͲwill Antrostomusvociferus THR THR constructedandeggsarelaiddirectlyontheleaflitter(Mills2007). Moderate theescarpmentmayprovidesuitablehabitat.
InOntario,yellowͲbreastedchatbreedsinearlysuccessional,shrubͲthickethabitats includingwoodlandedges,regeneratingoldfields,railwayandhydrorightͲofͲways,young coniferousreforestations,andwetthicketsborderingwetlands.Tanglesofgrape (Vitisspp.)andraspberry(Rubusspp.)vinesarefeaturesofmostbreedingsites.Thereis Earlysuccessional,shrubͲthickethabitatsarepresent someevidencethattheyellowͲbreastedchatisanareasensitivespecies.Nestsare intheLocalStudyAreainareassurroundingthe YellowͲbreastedchat Icteriavirensvirens END END locatedindenseshrubberyneartotheground(COSEWIC2011). Moderate NiagaraEscarpment.
InOntario,theredsidedace,asmallcoolwaterspeciescommonintheUSAbutlesssoin Canada,isfoundintributariesofwesternLakeOntario,LakeErie,LakeHuronandLake Simcoe.TheyarefoundinpoolsandslowͲmovingareasofsmallheadwaterstreamswith cleartoturbidwater.Overhanginggrasses,shrubs,andundercutbanks,areanimportant partoftheirhabitat,asareinstreambouldersandlargewoodydebris.Preferred substratesarevariableandincludesilt,sand,gravelandboulders.Spawningoccursin ThisspecieswasnotidentifiedonDFOSARmapping Redsidedace Clinostomuselongatus END END shallowriffleareas(RedsideDaceRecoveryTeam2010). Low fortheLocalStudyArea.
InOntario,woodlandvoleisassociatedwithmaturedeciduousforestswithsoft,often sandysoilsandadeeplitterandhumiclayer,suitableforburrowing.Commonassociates includeoaks,hickory,blackwalnut,Americanbeechandtuliptree.Thisspeicesisoften foundatwoodlandedgesnearroads,railwaytracksandfieldedges.Woodlandvoleis Suitablematuredeciduousforesthabitatmaybe Woodlandvole Microtuspinetorum SC SC restrictedtotheCarolinianforestzone(COSEWIC2010). Moderate presentinareassurroundingtheNiagaraEscarpment.
GHD|RA Report -Vol 2. Appendix F–NaturalEnvironmentExistingConditionsReport|11102771(20)|Pages2/3 StoneyCreekRegionalFacilityͲSiteStudyArea SpeciesAtRiskScreening
SpeciesAtRisk Endangered PotentialtoOccurwithinLocalStudy RationaleforPotentialtoOccurwithinLocalStudy CommonName ScientificName Act HabitatRequirements SpeciesAct2 Area(Desktop) Area(Desktop) (Sch1)1
InOntario,Blanding'sturtlewillusearangeofaquatichabitats,butfavorthosewith shallow,standingorslowͲmovingwater,richnutrientlevels,organicsubstratesand abundantaquaticvegetation.Theywilluserivers,butpreferslowͲmovingcurrentsand arelikelyonlytransientsinthistypeofhabitat.Thisspeciesisknowntotravelgreat distancesoverlandinthespringinordertoreachnestingsites,whichcanincludedry coniferormixedforests,partiallyvegetatedfields,androadsides.Suitablenesting Blanding'sturtleͲGreat substratesincludeorganicsoils,sands,gravelandcobble.Theyhibernateunderwaterand PondsarepresentthroughouttheLocalStudyArea; Lakes/St.Lawrencepopulation Emydoideablandingii THR THR infrequentlyunderdebrisclosetowaterbodies(COSEWIC2005). Moderate somemayprovidesuitablehabitat
InOntario,easternribbonsnakeissemiͲaquatic,andisrarelyfoundfarfromshallow ponds,marshes,bogs,streamsorswampsborderedbydensevegetation.Theyprefer Waterfeaturesincludingpondsandstreamsbordered EasternribbonsnakeͲ(GreatLakes sunnylocationsandbaskinlowshrubbranches.Hibernationoccursinmammalburrows, bydensevegetationarepresentwithintheLocalStudy population) Thamnophissauritius SC SC rockfissuresorevenantmounds(COSEWIC2012). Moderate Areaandmayprovidesuitablehabitat.
InOntario,thenorthernmapturtlepreferslargewaterbodieswithslowͲmovingcurrents, softsubstrates,andabundantaquaticvegetation.Idealstretchesofshorelinecontain suitablebaskingsites,suchasrocksandlogs.AlongLakesErieandOntario,thisspecies occursinmarshhabitatandundevelopedshorelines.Itisalsofoundinsmalltolarge riverswithslowtomoderateflow.Hibernationtakesplaceinsoftsubstratesunderdeep Nolargewaterbodiesorriversarepresentwithinthe Northernmapturtle Graptemysgeographica SC SC water(COSEWIC2012). Low LocalStudyArea.
InOntario,snappingturtleutilizesawiderangeofwaterbodies,butshowspreferencefor areaswithshallow,slowͲmovingwater,softsubstratesanddenseaquaticvegetation. Hibernationtakesplaceinsoftsubstratesunderwater.Nestingsitesconsistofsandor PondsarepresentthroughouttheLocalStudyArea; Snappingturtle Chelydraserpentina SC SC gravelbanksalongwaterwaysorroadways(COSEWIC2008). High somemayprovidesuitablehabitat.
InOntario,spinysoftshellwilltypicallyinhabitriverswithsoftbottomsbutoccasionally lakes,impoundments,bays,marshylagoons,aswellasditchesandpondsnearrivers. Softsandyormuddysubstrateswithaquaticvegetationareessentialhabitatfeatures. Hibernationtakesplaceindeeppoolswithsoftsubstrates.Nestingareasconsistofsandy NolargeriversarepresentwithintheLocalStudy Spinysoftshell Apalonespinifera THR END orgravellyareas,relativelyfreeofvegetationandclosetowater(COSEWIC2002). Low Area.
InOntario,easternmuskturtleisveryrarelyoutofwaterandpreferspermanentbodies ofwaterthatareshallowandclear,withlittleornocurrentandsoftsubstrateswith abundantorganicmaterials.Abundantfloatingandsubmergedvegetationispreferred. Permanentbodiesarewaterthatareshallowandclear Stinkpot Hibernationoccursinsoftsubstratesunderwater.Eggsaresometimeslaidonopen arelikelynotpresentwithintheLocalStudyArea,as or ground,orinshallownestsindecayingvegetation,shallowgravelorrockcrevices mostpondswithintheStudyAreasarelikelyimpacted Easternmuskturtle Sternotherusodoratus THR SC (COSEWIC2012). Low byanthropogenicactivities.
ThemostrecentOntariorecordoccurredintheNiagaraGorgeinthe1940s.Timber rattlesnake'spreferredhabitatisconiferousordeciduousforestswithrockyslopesand Thisspeciesisextirpatedfromtheprovince;historical Timberrattlesnake Crotalushorridus EXP EXP ledges(COSEWIC2001). Low recordsonly. InOntario,AmericanchestnutoccursinmixedordeciduousforestsintheCarolinianzone (Farrar1995).Itisoftenfoundincommunitieswithdensecanopycoverandoften Suitabledeciduousforesthabitatmaybepresent associatedwithoakandmaple.Thistreegrowsprimarilyonacidic,sandorgravelsoils withintheNiagaraEscarpment.Oaksandmaplesare Americanchestnut Castaneadentata END END (Bolandetal.2012). Moderate presentthroughouttheNiagaraEscarpment.
InOntario,Americancolumboismostcommonlyassociatedwithopendeciduous forestedslopes,butitcanalsobefoundinthickets,swampsandclearings.Itisoften Suitabledeciduousforesthabitatmaybepresent associatedwithoak,hickoryandsassafrastrees.Americancolumbogrowsonawide withintheNiagaraEscarpment.Oakandhickoryare Americancolumbo Fraseracaroliniensis END END varietyofsoils,particularlydrymesictomesicclayandclayloamsoils(COSEWIC2006). Moderate presentthroughouttheNiagaraEscarpment. InOntario,bashfulbulrushgrowsinopendeciduousforests,especiallydryoak Bashfulbulrush woodlands,withanopenunderstory.Thisplantrequireswarmthandgooddrainage,and or occursonsteepslopeswithneutraltoslightlyacidicsoils(SmithandRothfels2010;Crins Suitabledeciduousforesthabitatmaybepresent FewͲfloweredclubͲrush Trichophorumplanifolium END END 1989). Moderate withintheNiagaraEscarpment.
InOntario,broadbeechferninhabitsrich,undisturbedmaturedeciduousforest dominatedbybeechandmaple.Ittypicallygrowsinmoisttowet,sandysoilsoflower PotentiallysuitablemapleͲdominateddeciduousforest Broadbeechfern Phegopterishexagonoptera —SC valleyslopesandoccasionallyswamps(vanOverbeekeetal.2013). Moderate habitatispresentwithintheNiagaraEscarpment.
InOntario,butternutisfoundalongstreambanks,onwoodedvalleyslopes,andin deciduousandmixedforests.Itiscommonlyassociatedwithbeech,maple,oakand hickory(VossandReznicek2012).Butternutprefersmoist,fertile,wellͲdrainedsoils,but ThisspecieswasfoundwithintheFelker'sFallsand Butternut Juglanscinerea END END canalsobefoundinrockylimestonesoils.Thisspeciesisshadeintolerant(Farrar1995). High Devil'sPunchBowlareasduringtheNAI.
InOntario,cucumbertreegrowsindeciduouswoodlandsinassociationwithspeciessuch asblackcherry,redmaple,beechandwhiteash.Itprefersmoisttowetsites,withslightly acidic,sandyloamsoils(Waldron2003).ItoccursonlyintheNiagaraRegionandNorfolk Suitabledeciduousforesthabitatmaybepresent Cucumbertree Magnoliaacuminata END END County. Moderate withintheLocalStudyArea.
InOntario,easternfloweringdogwoodgrowsintheunderstoryofdrytorichdeciduous forests,especiallyonhillsidesandriverbanks.Itpreferssandyacidicsoilsbutoccasionally isfoundinloams,claysandorganicsoils(Waldron2003).Thisspeciesisrestrictedtothe ThisspecieswasfoundwithintheFelker'sFallsand Easternfloweringdogwood Cornusflorida END END CarolinianzoneofsouthernOntario. High Devil'sPunchBowlareasduringtheNAI.
InOntario,falsehopsedgeoccursinmarshes,riverineswamps,bordersofvernalpools, andwetdepressionsofforests.Itoccasionallyoccursinshallowwaterorverywet floodplainforests.Usuallygrowsunderamoderatelyopencanopybutcantoleratehigh levelsofsunshine.Substratesarecalcareousorneutralandincludemoistwetmucks,silt Thepreferredwethabitatsarelikelynotpresent Falsehopsedge Carexlupuliformis END END loams,oralluvialdepositswithasandytexture(EnvironmentCanada2014). Low withintheLocalStudyArea.
InOntario,greendragonoccursinsomewhatͲwettowetdeciduousforestsalong streams.Inparticular,itgrowsinmapleforestandforestdominatedbyredashandwhite elmtrees.Greendragonisrestrictedtoshadedorpartiallyshadedseasonallyinundated SuitablemapleͲdominateddeciduousforestalong Greendragon Arisaemadracontium —SC floodplains(Donleyetal.2013).ItisprimarilyrestrictedtosouthwesternOntario. Low streamsisnotpresentwithintheLocalStudyArea.
InOntario,redmulberryoccursinmoist,wellͲdrained,forestedhabitatsincluding floodplains,bottomlands,theslopesandravinesalongthesouthernportionoftheNiagra escarpmentandinswalesonsomewesternLakeEriesandspits.Thisspeciesis moderatelyshadetolerant,butgrowsbestinforestopenings(ParksCanadaAgency Suitablehabitatalongslopesandravinesmaybe Redmulberry Morusrubra END END 2011).ThisspeciesisrestrictedtotheCarolinianzoneofsouthwesternOntario. Moderate presentwithintheNiagaraEscarpment.
InOntario,spottedwintergreenoccursinsandy,wellͲdrainedsoilsassociatedwithdryto freshoakͲpineoroakdominatedwoodlands.Itrequirespartialshadeandlimited competitionfromothergroundcoverspecies.ItisrestrictedtosouthernOntario,andthe Potentiallysuitableoakdominatedwoodlandis onlycurrentlyknownpopulationsarefromNorfolkCountyandNiagaraRegion(Ursicetal. presentwithintheLocalStudyAreaneartheNiagara Spottedwintergreen Chimaphilamaculata END END 2010). Moderate Escarpment.
1SpeciesatRiskAct(SARA),2002.Schedule1(LastamendedNovember15,2017);Part1(Extirpated),Part2(Endangered),Part3(Threatened),Part4(SpecialConcern)
2EndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA),2007(O.Reg242/08lastamended14Sept2016asO.Reg308/16).SpeciesatRiskinOntarioList,2007(O.Reg230/08lastamended15June2016asO.Reg200/16,s.1.);Schedule1(ExtirpatedͲEXP),Schedule2(EndangeredͲEND),Schedule3(ThreatenedͲTHR),Schedule4(Special ConcernͲSC)
GHD|EA Report -Vol 2. Appendix F–NaturalEnvironmentExistingConditionsReport|11102771(20)|Pages3/3 Atmospheric Atmospheric Environment Work Plan
The Atmospheric Environment Work Plan addresses air quality, noise, and odour. The following tasks will be carried out to characterize existing atmospheric environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures (if required) and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking:
• Compile and interpret information from existing data sources, including data sources listed in Table 4-1. • Conduct Site investigations to confirm site information compiled from existing documentation and finalize location and nature of potential off-site receptors and document the findings in the Atmospheric Existing Conditions Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA Report. • Compile and document climate normals for the project site, and document the existing climatic conditions. • Consult with the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) and other members of the Government Review Team (GRT) on the modeling protocols to be used in the assessment. • Update existing on-site odour sampling to characterize sources of odour and provide data for input to the air quality and odour assessments. • Update existing noise measurements on-site for environmentally significant mechanical noise sources (stationary and mobile landfill equipment) and off-site measurements as necessary to input into an acoustical model to determine the existing baseline environmental noise levels at potential sensitive points of reception. • The development of an AERMOD atmospheric dispersion model for the site, (prepared in accordance with MOECC’s Air Dispersion Modelling Guide for Ontario (ADMGO)) which will be used to predict effects of the proposed operations. The sources of the data will be reviewed with the MOECC prior to finalization of the modelling dataset. • The development of an ISO 9613 prediction model for the Site, which will be used to predict effects of the proposed operations. • Based on the Conceptual Designs developed for the Alternative Methods:
o Predict and assess potential impacts (including cumulative effects for particulate) of the alternative methods from an atmospheric perspective, including assessing emissions from the Alternative Methods in accordance with applicable MOECC guidance documents. The assessment will focus on the predicted maximum air quality and odour effects associated with each of the Alternative Methods. This study will focus on property line and sensitive receptors.
o Predict and assess potential impacts from a noise perspective in accordance with applicable MOECC Noise guidelines. Noise generation from existing equipment operating at the site will be based on measurements from the existing landfill or data from a database of similar and representative noise sources. This will be followed by the execution of a noise prediction model for each alternative method. The results of this study will predict the worst-case, one hour, off-site environmental noise impacts from each of the alternative methods at the points of reception subject of the study. A
GHD | Atmospheric Environment Work Plan | 11102771 point of reception means an MOECC prescribed location on a noise sensitive land use (existing dwelling or zoned land use) where noise from a stationary source is received.
o Apply mitigation measures to determine the net effects for each Alternative Method and compare the degree of net effects using the criteria and indicators for the Atmosperhic component, rank the Alternative Methods and identify the Recommended Alternative from an Atmospheric Environment perspective. • Once the Preferred Method has been identified and additional details developed from a design and operations perspective, an impact assessment will be carried out so that the potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty and will include more site-specific impact management measures and monitoring requirements can be clearly identified. The information and analysis will be documented in an Atmospheric Environment Impact Assessment Report (in accordance with MOECC reporting guidelines/requirements) that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA.
Table 4-1 – Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources
Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect of • Predicted off-site • Environment Canada or MOECC hourly air point of meteorological data and climate normals quality impingement • Hamilton Air Monitoring Network (HAMN) data on off- concentrations • National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) site (µg/m3) of indicator Ambient Air Monitoring Station 60513 (Hamilton receptors compounds Mountain) • Number of off-site • Site ambient air monitoring, continuous emissions receptors monitoring data potentially affected • Applicable MOECC guidelines and technical (residential standards (i.e., O.Reg. 419/05 Schedule 2, properties, public Schedule 3 and Schedule 6 Standards) Atmospheric facilities, • Aerial photographic mapping and field Environment businesses, and reconnaissance institutions) • Off-Site receptors confirmed on recent mapping • Emissions Summary and Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) reports • Annual Monitoring Reports for SCRF • Available background ambient air data • Waste materials and leachate characterization and sampling data • Proposed facility characteristics • Landfill design and operation data and associated topography • Atmospheric Existing Conditions Report
GHD | Atmospheric Environment Work Plan | 11102771 Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect of • Predicted off-Site • Published odour studies for similar source types odours odour • Site specific odour source data and/or ambient on off- concentrations (µg odour monitoring data 3 site /m and odour • Environment Canada or MOECC hourly receptors units) meteorological data and climate normals • Number of off-Site • Applicable MOECC guidelines and technical receptors standards (i.e., O.Reg. 419/05 Schedule 2, potentially affected Schedule 3 and Schedule 6 Standards) (residential • Site odour complaints history properties, public • Annual Monitoring Reports for SCRF facilities, • Aerial photographic mapping and field businesses and reconnaissance institutions) • Off-site receptors confirmed on recent mapping • Odour assessment reports • Waste materials and leachate characterization and sampling data • Proposed facility characteristics • Landfill design and operation data and associated topography • Atmospheric Existing Conditions Report Effect of • Predicted off-Site • Site-specific equipment noise measurements noise on noise level • Manufacturer provided noise specifications off-site • Number of off-Site • Applicable MOECC guidelines and technical receptors receptors standards (Noise guidelines for landfill sites, Oct, potentially affected 1998; NPC-300, August, 2013; NPC-233). (residential • Aerial photographic mapping and field properties, public reconnaissance to confirm off-Site receptors facilities, • Land Use Zoning Plans businesses, and • Acoustic Assessment Reports institutions). • Annual Monitoring Reports for SCRF • Proposed facility operational characteristics and scenarios • Landfill design and operation data and associated topography • Atmospheric Existing Conditions Report
GHD | Atmospheric Environment Work Plan | 11102771 Air & Odour Terrapure is proud to have received the 2016 Industry Excellence Award for Health & Safety from Natural Resources Magazine.
Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment Air, Odour, and Meteorology Existing Conditions Report
1195 Stellar Drive, Unit #1 Newmarket Ontario L3Y 7B8 Canada 11102771 | January 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 2 1.1 Background ...... 2 1.2 Purpose of the Assessment ...... 3
2. Assessed Air Quality Compounds ...... 3 3. Criteria for Comparison ...... 4
4. Study Areas ...... 4
5. Methodology and Data Sources ...... 8 6. Characterization of the Existing Environment ...... 8 6.1 Meteorology ...... 8 6.2 Air Quality ...... 15 6.2.1 Availability of Data ...... 15 6.2.2 Particulate Matter – PM2.5 ...... 17 6.2.3 Particulate Matter - PM10 ...... 18 6.2.4 Total Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) ...... 19 6.2.5 Landfill Gas ...... 19 6.2.6 Odour ...... 20 6.2.7 Complaints ...... 21
7. Summary and Conclusions ...... 22
Figure Index Figure 4.1 Study Areas ...... 6 Figure 4.2 Air Quality and Human Health Receptors ...... 7 Figure 6.1 On-Site Wind Class Frequency Distribution (2012 – 2016) ...... 10 Figure 6.2 On-Site Wind Rose (2012 – 2016) ...... 11 Figure 6.3 MECP Wind Class Frequency Distribution (1996 – 2000) ...... 13 Figure 6.4 MECP Wind Rose (1996 – 2000) ...... 14
Table Index Table 3.1 MECP Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC) for Species of Interest ...... 4 Table 6.1 Secondary Data Sources ...... 8 Table 6.1 Monitoring Station Information...... 15
Table 6.2 Regional PM2.5 Monitoring Data (2012 – 2016) ...... 17
Table 6.3 On-Site PM10 Monitoring Data (2012 – 2016) ...... 18
Table 6.4 Regional PM10 Monitoring Data (2012 – 2016) ...... 18 Table 6.5 Regional SPM Monitoring Data (2012 – 2016) ...... 19 Table 6.6 Current Landfill Gas Monitoring Program at the SCRF ...... 20 Table 6.7 Complaint Record ...... 21 Table 7.1 Summary of Baseline Air Quality Concentrations for the Project ...... 22
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - i
1. Introduction
This report provides an overview of the existing air, odour and meteorology conditions associated with the Study Area for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF, Facility, Site). The Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment (SCRF EA) included a preliminary description of the existing environment with the commitment that a more detailed description of it would be provided during the preparation of the EA reflecting the final Study Area1. Terrapure Environmental (Terrapure), owner and operator of the SCRF, is proposing to increase the total approved capacity for post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material at the SCRF by 3,680,000 m3, so that the company can continue to operate its business and receive this material to support local industry. The proposal would not change the type or annual volume of residual materials currently accepted at the Facility, nor the maximum number of permitted vehicles to the Site per day, nor the approved service area for the SCRF, which is the Province of Ontario. Terrapure's SCRF has been an important part of the local community since it was approved by the then-Minister of the Environment (now known as the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks) in 1996. The existing SCRF is only permitted to accept solid, non-hazardous waste from industrial, commercial, and institutional sources. These are truly "end of life" materials that have exhausted all recycling options. Putrescible waste (i.e., municipal solid waste, organic material) disposal is not permitted at the SCRF. The total approved capacity under the Environmental Protection Act approvals at the existing SCRF is 6, 500,000 m3, with an approved maximum annual acceptance of 750,000 tonnes of solid, non-hazardous residual waste The EA Act requires that proponents describe the environment that may potentially be affected or may reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the Alternative Methods and the Undertaking proposed as part of an EA. This report focusses on characterizing the existing conditions in the vicinity of the Facility, for meteorology, air quality, and odour.
1.1 Background The Facility is located approximately 6 km southwest of Stoney Creek and 13 km southeast of Hamilton. The nearest residential dwelling (currently under construction) is approximately 35 m north of the existing property boundary, approximately 55 m from Site infrastructure (i.e., surface water ponds), near the intersection of Green Mountain Road West and First Road West. The nearest existing residential dwelling in relation to the southern SCRF property boundary is approximately 60 m south (from the SCRF property line to the nearest residential property line). There are no other major industrial sources within the Study Area. The main road into the Facility is paved, while all other roads on-Site are unpaved and consist of crushed stone (aggregate). Current fugitive emissions of road dust from the Facility are minimal, as the Facility has implemented a Fugitive Dust Management Plan for all road dust on-Site. The Facility is currently operating under an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) that limits the Facility to a maximum of 750,000 tonnes of waste per year, and a maximum of 250 vehicles entering the Site per day. It should be noted that the number of vehicles at the Site is much lower, with an average of 70 to 80 trucks per day. The Facility is only permitted to accept solid, non-hazardous residual material from industrial, commercial and institutional sources. Organic or municipal solid waste (putrescible) is not permitted at the SCRF.
1. A more detailed description of the environment will be provided during preparation of the SCRF EA reflecting the final Study Area using available existing information sources and investigative studies. (Minister-approved Amended ToR, Section 6.2.6)
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 2
1.2 Purpose of the Assessment This report documents the background and existing conditions for this Facility. For the purposes of this report, “background conditions” are defined as those generally present in the Study Area, excluding current Site operations, while “existing conditions” reflect current and prior activities within the Study Areas, including Site operations. Background conditions will be used in the cumulative effects assessment of the Facility, when the air quality dispersion modelling is undertaken to determine the Facility’s future contributions to air quality. The purposes of the assessment of baseline conditions were to: Understand current meteorological conditions in the vicinity of the Facility; Identify appropriate meteorological data suitable for dispersion modelling for the future assessment of the Facility; Consider existing odour concerns or issues at the Facility; Assess current air quality conditions at the Facility; and Obtain background air quality concentrations that can be added to predicted concentrations from dispersion modelling for use in the cumulative effects assessment. This report provides supporting information for the preparation of the EA for the proposed Site modifications.
2. Assessed Air Quality Compounds
The assessment of the existing air quality for the Facility focused on assessing current concentrations of selected compounds. In identifying the compounds to include in the assessment of existing air quality in the vicinity of the Facility, which are likely to be of interest during the assessment of Alternative Landfill Footprints, the following were considered: Airborne particulate, including suspended particulate matter (SPM), particulate matter nominally smaller than 10 µm in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), and particulate matter nominally smaller than 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5). PM10 has historically been measured on-Site. Odour, which is regulated as a nuisance issue in Ontario. Odour has been assessed qualitatively at the Facility, based on the frequency of odour complaints, taking into consideration meteorological conditions at the time the complaints were identified, in order to identify if the Facility could have been the source of the odour.
Landfill gas, including methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen sulphide (H2S), and non- methane organic carbons (NMOC) has been measured at the Facility. Landfill gas is not a regulated compound, but a mixture of species that can be odourous and may have potential nuisance and health effects. It is not anticipated that the emissions of landfill gas will change as a result of the proposed changes at the Facility, and so historic landfill gas assessment has been presented herein, but will not be carried forward for future assessment.
Combustion by-products (such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO)) were not assessed, as the proposed changes to the Site will not result in changes to the number or types of mobile or stationary equipment at the Facility. The Facility has previously assessed combustion by-products in its ECA, and future emissions of these compounds are anticipated to be the same now as they will be after Site modifications are made, so these compounds have not been carried forward for future assessment.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 3
3. Criteria for Comparison
To provide context to the existing conditions presented here, the data will be compared to criteria set by the MECP. A summary of the applicable Ambient Air Quality Criteria is provided in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 MECP Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC) for Species of Interest Compound CAS Averaging Period AAQC (µg/m3) a SPM N/A 24-hour 120 Annual 60 b c PM10 N/A 24-hour 50 d PM2.5 N/A 24-hour 30 Landfill Gas — — CH4 — — CO2 124-38-9 24-hour 21,000 e H2S N/A 10-minute 13 24-hour 7 NMOC — — Odour N/A 10-minute 1 f
Notes: a MECP, 2012, 2016, and 2018. b As a geometric average. c Interim AAQC. d Not an AAQC per se, but included by MECP in AAQC lists for guidance. The Canadian 3 Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) for PM2.5 (24-hour) is 28 µg/m , going down to 27 3 3 3 µg/m in 2020.The Annual CAAQS for PM2.5 is currently 10 µg/m , going down to 8 µg/m in 2020. e Regulated as Total Reduced Sulphur, along with dimethyl disulphide, dimethyl sulphide, and mercaptans. f Reported in odour units per cubic metre (OU/m3), with the definition that 1 OU/m3 is the concentration at which the average person will notice an odour. Not listed in MECP, 2012. — Not regulated / no standard available.
4. Study Areas
From an air quality and odour environment perspective, the characterization of existing conditions within the following Study Areas are appropriate to this EA: Site Study Area, including all lands (41.5 ha (102.5 acres)) within the existing, approved boundaries of the SCRF, as defined by ECA No. A181008, dated May 16, 2016, as amended. The Site retains an additional 18 ha for industrial fill area, as well as an additional 15 ha (approx.) of buffer zone; and Local Study Area, including all lands within a 1.5 kilometer (km) radius of the four roads that border the existing SCRF. As part of the existing conditions, the Site Study Area, as well as the local Study Area around the property, has been assessed, as the Facility's ECA requires that particulate concentration levels be measured at the property line, as well as at sensitive receptors. The Air Dispersion Modelling Guideline for Ontario (MECP – formerly the Ministry of the Environment Climate Change (MOECC)) requires facilities to assess the impact up to 5 km from the SCRF, and so preliminary modelling will be completed for receptors within 5 km of the Facility to
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 4
confirm that maximum predicted concentrations occur within the 1.5 km radius Local Study Area. A finer-resolution gridded receptor network will be created within the 1.5 km radius Local Study Area and along the Facility fence line. The air quality and odour Study Area is illustrated in Figure 4.1 below. Figure 4.2 shows the dispersion modelling receptor locations in the context of the air quality and odour Study Area.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 5
Figure 4.1 Study Areas
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 6
Figure 4.2 Air Quality and Human Health Receptors
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 7
5. Methodology and Data Sources
Available sources of information were collected and reviewed to characterize meteorology, air quality, and odour existing conditions within the Study Areas. Table 3.1 shows the sources of secondary information and how those sources were utilized to characterize the existing environment.
Table 6.1 Secondary Data Sources Source How Source Was Used Newalta Annual Reports for 2012, 2013, and 2014 Used to identify complaints for each year (type of complaint, number, complaint investigation and results). Facility operations/activities and throughputs. Results of prior odour sampling. Terrapure Annual Reports for 2015, and 2016 Used to identify complaints for each year (type of complaint, number, complaint investigation and results). Facility operations/activities and throughputs. Results of prior odour sampling. Ambient On-site PM10 Monitoring Program (by Existing PM10 concentrations downwind of the Rotek Environmental, included in Newalta and Terrapure facility. Identification of number and Terrapure annual reports) magnitude of measured exceedances of Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) standards. Existing site-specific wind speed and wind direction. Environment Canada’s National Air Pollution Background concentrations of species of interest. Surveillance network (2013 through 2017) Hamilton Air Monitoring Network (2013 through Background concentrations of species of interest for 2017) various monitoring stations in Hamilton. Conservation and Parks MECP dispersion Existing regional wind speed and wind direction. meteorological data set for the area Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks Ontario’s Ambient Air Quality Criteria. (MECP) Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks Hamilton Mountain monitoring station background (MECP) ambient air monitoring reports (2013 concentrations of species of interest. through 2017) City of Hamilton (2013) Urban Hamilton Plan Land use in the vicinity of the Facility and determine growth and development around the Study Area. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards. (CCME)
6. Characterization of the Existing Environment
6.1 Meteorology As designated by the Hamilton Urban official Plan the SCRF is located in an area zoned as "Special Policy Area B", which has been identified as the Taro East Quarry Landfill. The surrounding area is made up of community parkland, open space, low-density residential, high-density residential, institutional, and general commercial2. The Facility is currently operating under ECA No. A181008. As part of the ECA, the Facility is required to monitor wind speed and wind direction, and provide monthly data to the City of Hamilton. The wind speed is monitored hourly by Rotek Engineering and 3 included in the Facility’s annual PM10 monitoring . Between 2012 and 2016, the Facility was able to provide wind speed and direction data for more than 99% of the reporting period.
2 City of Hamilton., 2013. Urban Hamilton Official Plan. Accessed: May 20, 2016. Available at: https://www.hamilton.ca/city planning/official plan zoning by law/urban hamilton official plan 3 Newalta 2013, 2014, 2015; Terrapure 2017a, 2017b
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 8
Figure 6.1 presents the wind class frequency distribution from the Facility’s monitoring station for the 2012 through 2016 period, showing the most common wind speed categories are 2.1 to 3.6 m/s (at 31.5% of the time) and 3.6 to 5.7 m/s (at 30.2% of the time). Figure 6.2 presents a three-year Wind Rose diagram from the Facility's monitoring station for the 2012 through 2016 period. Winds are predominantly from the southwest, with significant contributions from south-southwest through west-southwest.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 9
Figure 6.1 On-Site Wind Class Frequency Distribution (2012 – 2016)
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 10
Stoney Creek Landfill, Stoney Creek ON
GHD
Figure 6.2 On-Site Wind Rose (2012 – 2016)
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 11
For comparison, the same figures are provided below for the 1996 to 2000 dispersion meteorological data set from the MECP for this area4. The data are identified as “West Central - Crops”, as the area is not “urban”, which is specific to the built-up downtown areas of cities, nor is the area wooded. The “Crops” data are suitable for this area, as much of the surrounding area within 3 km of the Facility is low-density industrial or commercial, with significant grass areas, few trees, and generally low buildings. Figure 6.3 shows that the most common wind speed categories in the MECP regional data set are 3.6 – 5.7 m/s (at 31.8% of the time) and 0.5 to 2.1 m/s (at 29.5% of the time). Also in this data set, Figure 6.4 shows that the predominant wind direction is from the west (northwest through southwest being the most common winds), with a secondary direction of winds from the east. The differences between these two wind roses are not likely the result of typical year-to-year variation. It is more likely that the differences are due to the different locations from which the data were obtained, as the MECP regional data set is based on surface data from London, Ontario, approximately 110 km west-southwest of the Facility, and 70 m higher in base elevation above sea level. Based on the data presented, the MECP standard dispersion modelling data set is not representative of weather conditions at the Facility, and a Site-specific meteorological data set will be required for the dispersion modelling assessment for the EA for this Facility.
4 MECP. 2017. Air Quality Ontario 2016. Accessed: September 18, 2017. Available at: http://airqualityontario.com/.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 12
Figure 6.3 MECP Wind Class Frequency Distribution (1996 – 2000)
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 13
WIND ROSE PLOT: DISPLAY: WIND ROSE - 1996-2000 Wind Speed MOECC Dispersion Modelling Dataset (London) Direction (blowing from)
NORTH
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
WEST EAST
WIND SPEED (m/s)
>= 11.10 8.80 - 11.10 5.70 - 8.80 SOUTH 3.60 - 5.70 2.10 - 3.60 0.50 - 2.10 Calms: 0.00%
Stoney Creek Landfill, Stoney Creek ON COMMENTS: DATA PERIOD: COMPANY NAME:
Start Date: 1/1/1996 - 00:00 GHD End Date: 12/31/2000 - 23:59 MODELER:
CALM WINDS: TOTAL COUNT:
0.00% 43027 hrs.
AVG. WIND SPEED: DATE: PROJECT NO.: 3.69 m/s 9/14/2017 11102771
WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software
Figure 6.4 MECP Wind Rose (1996 – 2000)
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 14
6.2 Air Quality 6.2.1 Availability of Data The air contaminants of greatest concern from this Facility are particulate matter and odour. Particulate matter is emitted primarily from vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved roads on-Site and fugitive windblown dust. The particulate matter less than 10 micrometres (PM10) is the inhalable particle size fraction. Larger particle sizes are likely to settle on or very close to the Facility.
As part of its ECA, the SCRF is required to monitor PM10 daily and provide to the City of Hamilton the PM10 concentration at an on-Site location. This program has continued to the current day, with reports being compiled and submitted annually. For the purposes of assessing “background” concentrations, the on-Site particulate monitoring data are not the most appropriate, as it is anticipated that the Facility contributes significantly to the measured concentrations at that location. Therefore, regional stations have been considered as a source of background particulate data. Odour complaints directed toward the SCRF are also compiled annually, and have been assessed based on local wind direction, date, time, and location of the complaint, to determine if the complaint may be related to the Facility. Odour is not part of any federal or provincial air quality monitoring program, and so is addressed herein based on the registered complaints. Not all species of interest are measured at ambient air quality monitoring stations that are representative of the Site (either in proximity of the Facility, but not influenced by it; or located in similar types of locations, such as mixed residential/commercial/light industrial in close proximity to a major city with significant heavy industrial sources). In order to assess the existing background concentrations of species of interest, the following stations have been assessed for the 2012 – 2016 period (Table 6.1)5.
Table 6.1 Monitoring Station Information Station ID Distance Electronic Data Availability from Site SPM PM10 PM2.5 (km) On-Site station — 0 — 2012 - 2016 — Hamilton Downtown 60512 10 — — 2012 – 2015 Hamilton Mountain 60513 8 — — 2012 – 2015 St. Catharines 61302 44 — — 2012 – 2015 Brantford 61402 43 — — 2012 – 2015 Kitchener 61502 66 — — 2012 – 2015 Guelph 61802 56 — — 2012 – 2015 Simcoe 62601 56 — — 2012 – 2015 HAMN 29102 9 2012 – 2016 2012 - 2016 — HAMN 29113 8 2012 - 2013 2012 - 2013 — HAMN 29153 6.5 — 2012 - 2016 — HAMN 29154 11.5 — 2012 - 2014 — HAMN 29160 10 2012 - 2016 — — HAMN 29164 8.5 2012 - 2016 — — HAMN 29166 6 2012 - 2016 — — HAMN 29168 7 — 2012 - 2016 — HAMN 29170 9 — 2012 - 2016 —
5 Hamilton Air Monitoring Network. 2013 to 2017. 2012 Annual Air Quality Report. Accessed 14 September, 2017:http://www.hamnair.ca/reporting/HAMN-Annual-Reports.aspx; and Environment Canada. 2013. National Air Pollution Surveillance Network 2012. http://maps-cartes.ec.gc.ca/rnspa-naps/data.aspx. Accessed September 18, 2017 and MECP. 2013 to 2017. Air Quality Ontario 2012. Accessed: September 18, 2017. Available at: http://airqualityontario.com/
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 15
Table 6.1 Monitoring Station Information Station ID Distance Electronic Data Availability from Site SPM PM10 PM2.5 (km) HAMN 29180 8 2014 - 2016 2014 - 2016 — HAMN 29565 6 — 2012 - 2016 — HAMN 29567 10 2012 - 2016 2012 - 2016 —
A brief description of each station follows, indicating why it was selected and how it compares to the Facility. Specific locations for the various stations may be found in the NAPS and HAMN annual reports. Hamilton Downtown (60512) is a NAPS continuous monitoring station. This station is located in the downtown area of Hamilton, south of the portlands, where much of the heavy industry in the city is located. This is a highly urban monitoring location, significantly affected by highly-travelled roads, industrial emissions, marine emissions, and others. This station is unlikely to be representative of air quality at the Facility, but has been presented for the purposes of comparison, and likely represents an upper bound for any comparisons of regional air quality in the vicinity of the Facility. Hamilton Mountain (60513) is a NAPS continuous monitoring station. This station is located at the top of Hamilton Mountain, at higher elevation than the downtown area and portlands. The area is urban-residential with less industrial influence, though in proximity to several highly travelled roadways. This location is generally “upwind” of Hamilton’s significant air quality sources, and is more likely to be representative of conditions near the Facility. St. Catharines (61302) is a NAPS continuous monitoring station. This station is located in the City of St. Catharines, east of Hamilton. The station is in an urban residential location. Brantford (61402) is a NAPS continuous monitoring station. This station is located in the Town of Brantford, west of Hamilton. The station is in a low density/low population urban residential location. Kitchener (61502) is a NAPS continuous monitoring station. This station is located in the City of Kitchener, west of Hamilton. The station is in an urban residential location. Guelph (61802) is a NAPS continuous monitoring station. This station is located in the City of Guelph, west of Hamilton. The station is in an urban residential location. Simcoe (62601) is a NAPS continuous monitoring station. This station is located outside the Town of Simcoe at a rural location. Air quality measurements at this station are therefore likely to represent the lower bounds of what would be expected near the Facility. HAMN STN29102 is a non-continuous (one 24-hour sample collected every 12 days) HAMN station, near the Burlington Skyway bridge. This station is in close proximity to, and generally downwind of, Hamilton’s highly industrialized portlands, and air quality measurements are likely to be higher than those near the Facility. HAMN STN29113 is a non-continuous (one 24-hour sample collected every 12 days) HAMN station, located south of Hamilton’s portlands. Measured air quality at this location is likely to be strongly influenced by local industrial sources. HAMN STN29153 is a non-continuous (one 24-hour sample collected every 12 days) HAMN station, located on the east side of the portlands, and air quality at this location is likely to be strongly impacted by nearby industrial activities. HAMN STN29154 is a non-continuous (one 24-hour sample collected every 12 days) HAMN station, near the west end of the Burlington Skyway bridge. Air quality measurements are likely to be highly influenced by highway traffic, but will be less influenced by Hamilton’s heavy industry areas. HAMN STN29160 is a non-continuous (one 24-hour sample collected every 12 days) HAMN station, at the west end of Hamilton’s portlands. Air quality at this location is likely to be affected by
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 16
nearby industrial activities, but it is generally upwind of many of Hamilton’s major industrial locations. HAMN STN29164 is a non-continuous (one 24-hour sample collected every 12 days) HAMN station, near the Burlington Skyway bridge. Air quality at this location is likely to be strongly affected by both the traffic over the bridge and the nearby industrial sites. HAMN STN29166 is a non-continuous (one 24-hour sample collected every 12 days) HAMN station, toward the east end of Hamilton’s downtown area. Air quality at this location is likely to be strongly affected by both traffic and nearby industrial sides. HAMN STN29168 is a non-continuous (one 24-hour sample collected every 12 days) HAMN station, located south of the portlands, near Hamilton’s downtown. Air quality at this location is likely to be strongly affected by nearby industrial activities. HAMN STN29170 is a non-continuous (one 24-hour sample collected every 12 days) HAMN station, located at the west side of the portlands. Air quality at this location is likely to be affected by nearby industrial activities, but it is generally upwind of many of Hamilton’s major industrial locations. HAMN STN29180 is a non-continuous (one 24-hour sample collected every 12 days) HAMN station, near the Burlington Skyway bridge. Air quality at this location is likely to be strongly affected by both the traffic over the bridge and the nearby industrial sites. HAMN STN29565 is a non-continuous (one 24-hour sample collected every 12 days) HAMN station, east of the portlands. Air quality at this location is likely to be strongly affected by both traffic and nearby industrial sites. HAMN STN29567 is a non-continuous (one 24-hour sample collected every 12 days) HAMN station, west of the portlands. This location is upwind of many of Hamilton’s industrial sources and may be more representative of conditions near the Facility.
6.2.2 Particulate Matter – PM2.5
PM2.5 is not measured on-Site. Table 6.2 summarizes the measured PM2.5 concentrations at the regional stations identified.
Table 6.2 Regional PM2.5 Monitoring Data (2012 – 2016) Station ID Ambient Monitoring Results (24-hour µg/m3) Average Median 75th %ile 90th %ile Maximum Hamilton Downtown 60512 9.8 8.0 13.0 18.0 45.0 Hamilton Mountain 60513 8.5 7.0 11.0 16.0 42.0 St. Catharines 61302 7.7 7.0 10.0 14.0 29.0 Brantford 61402 8.1 7.0 10.0 15.0 30.0 Kitchener 61502 8.2 7.0 11.0 15.0 38.0 Guelph 61802 7.8 7.0 10.0 14.0 38.0 Simcoe 62601 7.6 7.0 10.0 13.8 28.0
During the 2012 to 2015 period for which data are available, five of the seven stations included in this assessment measured at least one exceedance of the MECP’s guideline of 30 µg/m3 (shown in bold) for 24-hour PM2.5. Of these monitoring locations, Hamilton Downtown measured the highest concentrations. It is likely this station is not representative of the area around the Facility, due to the proximity of heavy industry and high level of urbanization. Hamilton Mountain also shows the influence of Hamilton’s heavy industry in the measured PM2.5 concentrations, though it is more similar to the other locations at the 90th percentile level. For the purposes of this assessment, a 90th percentile of 15.0 µg/m3 for 24-hour concentrations (shown in italics) appears most reasonable, this being the mid-point for monitoring data from urban locations not directly downwind of heavy industry, which is most representative for the SCRF.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 17
6.2.3 Particulate Matter - PM10
PM10 is measured on-Site and reported annually, and the reports are summarized in Table 6.3, summarizing existing air quality at the Facility as reported in the Ambient PM10 Monitoring Program, Rotek Environmental reports for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 included in the Newalta Annual Reports for these same years.
Table 6.3 On-Site PM10 Monitoring Data (2012 – 2016) Year Exceedances Exceedances not Ambient Monitoring Results of 24-hour Limit Attributable to SCRF (24-hour µg/m3) Operations Maximum Average
2012 29 1 225 25 2013 23 5 202 24 2014 11 2 178 22 2015 14 3 98 22 2016 12 2 123 18 The City of Hamilton’s monitoring program (Hamilton Air Monitoring Network) reports summary 6 statistics for PM10 at a number of locations in Hamilton . Full statistics are not reported, but the available regional data have been summarized below in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4 Regional PM10 Monitoring Data (2012 – 2016) Station ID Ambient Monitoring Results (24-hour µg/m3) Average Median 75th %ile 90th %ile Maximum HAMN 29102 26 — — — 163 HAMN 29113 23 — — — 133 HAMN 29153 39 — — — 200 HAMN 29154 16 — — — 113 HAMN 29168 22 — — — 104 HAMN 29170 30 — — — 311 HAMN 29180 30 — — — 99 HAMN 29565 21 — — — 104 HAMN 29567 24 — — — 94
Concentrations higher than the MECP’s 24-hour guideline of 50 µg/m3 were measured at every station each year, from 2012 through 2016, averaging between 4 and 89 exceeding days per year (depending on the station). Exceedances are shown in Table 6.4 in bold. For the purposes of the air quality assessment, it has been assumed to be the mid-point of the average of the 24-hour values available, or 23 µg/m3 (shown in italics).
PM10 is typically measured in concentrations of 1.5 to 2 times the measured PM2.5. Based on the 3 3 assumed background of 15 µg/m for PM2.5, the estimated value of 23 µg/m for PM10 appears reasonable for this Facility. It should also be noted that the average PM10 concentrations measured throughout Hamilton are similar to those measured on-Site, indicating that regional sources and long-range transport represent most of the “average” concentration being measured at the on-Site station (which is reported at 18 – 24 µg/m3).
6 Hamilton Air Monitoring Network. 2013 through 2017. Annual Air Quality Report. Accessed 14 September, 2017:http://www.hamnair.ca/reporting/HAMN-Annual-Reports.aspx
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 18
6.2.4 Total Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) SPM is not measured on-Site. The City of Hamilton’s monitoring program (HAMN 2013 through 2017) reports summary statistics for SPM from several stations. Full statistics are not reported, but the available data have been summarized below in Table 6.57.
Table 6.5 Regional SPM Monitoring Data (2012 – 2016) Station ID Ambient Monitoring Results (24-hour µg/m3) Average Median 75th 90th Maximum %ile %ile HAMN 29102 49 — — — 206 HAMN 29113 53 — — — 212 HAMN 29160 63 — — — 590 HAMN 29164 61 — — — 339 HAMN 29166 49 — — — 355 HAMN 29180 57 — — — 220 HAMN 29567 52 — — — 225
As all these stations are in close proximity to significant industrial sources, it is likely that these SPM values are larger than actual background concentrations in the vicinity of the Facility. Concentrations higher than the MECP’s 24-hour AAQC of 120 µg/m3 were measured at every station each year from 2012 through 2016, averaging between 4 and 9 exceeding days per year (depending on the station). Exceedances are shown in Table 6.5 in bold. Because these stations are closer to the industrial centres of Hamilton than the Facility, the assumed background concentration for the purposes of the air quality assessment has been assumed to be the mid-point of the average of the 24-hour values available, or 52 µg/m3 (shown in italics).
SPM is typically measured in concentrations of 1.5 to 2 times the measured PM10. Based on this typical ratio, the estimated background concentration for SPM of 52 µg/m3 is reasonable or slightly higher than would be expected, based on the measured regional PM10 concentrations from Table 6.4, making this a conservatively high estimate of background total particulate concentrations.
6.2.5 Landfill Gas Because the Facility does not receive putrescible or organic material, very little landfill gas is produced at the SCRF and, as such, the Facility is not required to have a landfill gas collection system in place. Ontario Regulation 232/98 requires that a gas recovery system be installed at landfills with a capacity that exceeds 1.5 million m3, unless it can be demonstrated that the Site does not generate significant quantities of landfill gas. In the past, Terrapure successfully applied to the MECP for an exemption from this requirement. The exemption application was supported by a gas emission study which included sampling for surface and point source gas (e.g., leachate collection clean-out structures) emissions, analysis of the samples for methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, and non-methane organic compounds, and predictive gas emission modelling8 . Some of the key conclusions of this study are summarized as follows:
1. Site-wide emissions of methane, CO2, and H2S at the Site are estimated to be: 9.8% of the estimated emissions from a mixed municipal waste landfill (MMWL) receiving the same volume of waste. 21% of the estimated emissions from a MMWL with 1.5 million m3 of waste. 2. Site-wide emissions of NMOCs at the Site are estimated to be:
7 Hamilton Air Monitoring Network. 2013 through 2017. Annual Air Quality Report. Accessed 14 September, 2017:http://www.hamnair.ca/reporting/HAMN-Annual-Reports.aspx 8 Newalta Corporation. 2011. Newalta Stoney Creek East Landfill Gas Emission Study.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 19
2.4% of the estimated emission from a MMWL receiving the same volume of waste. 5.1% of estimated emissions from a MMWL with 1.5 million m3 of waste. 3. Actual sampling results support the predictive modelling and suggest that the model estimates for the Terrapure Site are conservative. Sampling results reflect 65%, 49%, 17% and 14% of the model results for methane, CO2, H2S, and NMOCs, respectively. Notwithstanding this, the ECA for the SCRF requires that as each phase of the Site is constructed, gas monitors be installed around the Site. Eight (8) monitoring wells have been installed around the perimeter of the SCRF since 2003. Ongoing monitoring has shown very few instances of combustible gas being detected. In cases where combustible gas was detected, all readings were well below the Lower Explosive Limit for Methane, and subsequent readings quickly returned to non-detectable levels. The leachate controls at the Site include a geomembrane/clay composite primary liner and a clay secondary liner. This design is considered to be very protective of the environment and effective in limiting the escape of landfill gas that may be present in the waste to the subsurface. Based on the above, the current landfill gas monitoring program at the SCRF is outlined in Table 6.6. As each phase of the Site is constructed and capped, gas monitors should be installed in the waste, plus progressively every 200 m around the landfill, into the water table in the Eramosa bedrock. Monitoring will include combustible gas concentrations in all monitors.
Table 6.6 Current Landfill Gas Monitoring Program at the SCRF
Monitoring Frequency
Routine Monitoring of Waste and Perimeter Monitors Monthly
Monitoring of Perimeter Monitors After Detection of Combustible Weekly (until no further detection of Gas combustible gas for 4 consecutive weeks)
Sampling of Waste Monitors Frequency
One Gas Sample at Each Location (CO2, CH4, N2, O2, H2, NMOCs) Annually
Landfill gas emissions are not anticipated to change at the Site as a result of the proposed changes, and so these are not being carried forward for further review. The Site is also the only local source of landfill gases (other than CO2, which is a naturally-occurring atmospheric gas, as well as being a product of combustion), and therefore background landfill gases in the vicinity of the Facility are likely dominated by the Site’s emissions.
6.2.6 Odour In recent years, the SCRF has implemented procedures to ensure that odour is continuously controlled. The major potential odour sources consist of the leachate pumping station, equalization tank, retention pond, and the working landfill face. The SCRF has implemented several odour abatement strategies to mitigate the potential for odour release. Given that the Facility is not permitted to accept putrescible material, odorous waste received at the Site is a rare occurrence. Notwithstanding this, any potential material that is brought to the Site that may have an odour is identified upon arrival and, once deposited in a cell, is immediately covered with another non-odorous material (impacted soil, other type of waste). The Facility also uses an odour control dosing system at the leachate pumping station and an aeration system at the equalization basin. Of the few odour complaints received over the past five years from neighbouring residents and which were attributable to the SCRF, generally, the complaints were the result of pumping leachate
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 20
into the retention ponds or equalization basins. The Facility typically only operates the pumps on weekdays during Site operating hours. On occasion, during periods of high leachate generation (spring rains and snow melt), the Facility may discharge leachate on weekends as well. If an odour complaint is received, and it has been determined the odour is coming from the retention ponds, the pumping operations are shut down until the odour can be mitigated.
6.2.7 Complaints The Facility maintains a record of all environmental complaints received at the Site (as reported in the complain records and templates, from the Facility’s Annual Reports9 and has put in place the following standard procedures for responding to complaints: All complaints received will be assigned a control number and recorded electronically. Details of the complaint are forwarded to Terrapure Management for follow-up. Terrapure Management will ensure that the complaint is investigated and resolved in a timely manner. Terrapure Management will be advised of the result of the investigation. Terrapure Management will send a confirmation letter to the complainant within 10 days of receiving the details. Terrapure Management will notify the Community Liaison Committee (CLC) via email of the complaint immediately after the investigation has been completed. Complaints will be summarized for inclusion in the Annual Report. A review of the complaint records from the past five years indicates that out of the 43 complaints received about the SCRF, 40 were related to odour perceived to be from the Site, and one (1) was related to dust from the Site. The Site also received a complaint for drag out along First Road West, and a complaint regarding a rusty waste vehicle. When an odour complaint is received by the Facility or by the MECP, the Facility immediately completes an odour investigation at the complainant's location to confirm the odour and identify if the SCRF may be responsible or not. Many complaints have been demonstrated to be not attributable to the SCRF due to wind direction at the time of the complaint (i.e., winds at the time were not blowing from the SCRF toward the location of the complaint, and so the SCRF could not be responsible for the odour). However, because many of the complaints occur after hours, inspections cannot always occur the same day, making it difficult to accurately identify the potential source of the odour. Therefore, many of the odour complaints between 2012 and 2016 cannot be accurately attributed to on-Site or off-Site sources. Table 6.7 summarizes the complaints received per year by the Facility.
Table 6.7 Complaint Record Year Number of Complaints Total Odour Dust Other 2012 4 2 0 2 2013 20 20 0 0 2014 7 6 1 0 2015 3 3 0 0 2016 9 9 0 0
9 Newalta Corporation. 2013 to 2015. Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill Provisional Certificate of Approval No. A181008 Annual Report 2013. June 27, 2014; and Terrapure Environmental Operating Stoney Creek Regional Facility. 2017a and b. Environmental Compliance Approval No. A181008 Annual Report 2015. June 30, 2016.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 21
As detailed in the complaints record, the number of complaints for odour decreased following the reconfiguration in 2013, as the Facility augmented best management practices, such as installing a new dosing/aeration system and impact management measures based on the monitoring data to reduce potential effects from and air quality and odour perspective. Concerned residents or businesses can call the Facility directly, the City of Hamilton, or the MECP if a nuisance effect is perceived to have occurred because of the Facility. All complaints are recorded and investigated in accordance with the SCRF standard complaint procedures and templates. Each complaint is logged and, in many cases, Site staff will go to the location where the nuisance was recorded and conduct on-Site investigations. The date and time of the complaint are cross- referenced with data from the Facility, in order to determine if any adjustments to operations need to be made on-Site due to operating procedures. Each complaint received at the Facility is reported to the MECP. Odour emissions are not anticipated to change as a result of the proposed Site modifications, therefore, odour has not been carried forward for further assessment.
7. Summary and Conclusions
The regional monitoring data collected for Hamilton and other southern Ontario areas similar to the Facility locale represent the existing and naturally occurring sources and contributions from long- range transport into the region. The emissions transported into the region could be considered to be the “existing air quality”. Based on feedback from regulators and expert judgement, the 90th percentile of the available monitoring data is considered a conservative estimate of existing air quality. Median values have only been assumed where the 90th percentile data are not available, as well as for stations which are acknowledged to be in more industrialized areas and likely to be more heavily impacted by local traffic and other sources which are not likely to significantly affect the Site Study Area. A summary of the existing air quality concentrations, which will be used for the assessment of the Facility, is provided in Table 7.1 for the particulate species that are being carried forward for further assessment.
Table 7.1 Summary of Baseline Air Quality Concentrations for the Project Compound Averaging Baseline Air Quality Concentration Period (µg/m3)
Average 90th Percentile
PM2.5 24-hour 8.1 15 Annual 8.1 —
PM10 24-hour 23 — SPM 24-hour 52 —
On-Site monitoring has not been used as a source of baseline air quality in the Study Area, as existing Site operations are currently contributing to measured concentrations. Existing monitoring programs in Hamilton and elsewhere in Ontario provided suitable concentrations for use in the cumulative effects assessment for PM2.5, PM10 and SPM. Monitoring data have been compared to the Ontario Guidelines and to on-Site monitoring (PM10 only) for context. Odour and landfill gas management will continue at the Site, per the conditions of the Facility’s Environmental Compliance Approvals, but are not included as species of interest in the EA for the proposed changes at the Site, because it is not expected that the proposed work will affect odour or landfill gas emissions from the Site in future.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Air & Odour | 11102771 | F - 22 Noise Terrapure is proud to have received the 2016 Industry Excellence Award for Health & Safety from Natural Resources Magazine.
Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment Noise Existing Conditions Report
1195 Stellar Drive, Unit #1 Newmarket Ontario L3Y 7B8 Canada 11102771 | January 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1
2. Study Areas ...... 1
3. Methodology ...... 4 4. Characterization of the Existing Environment ...... 5 4.1 Background Noise Study Results ...... 5 4.2 Semi-Annual Noise Monitoring Survey ...... 5 4.3 MECP Technical Guidelines and Standards...... 8 4.4 Complaints ...... 8
Figure Index
Figure 2.1 Noise Study Areas ...... 3
Figure 4.1 Noise Receptor Assessment ...... 6
Figure 4.2 Noise Measurement Receptors – Aerial Overview...... 7
Table Index
Table 3.1 Secondary Data Sources ...... 4
Table 4.1 Complaint Records ...... 9
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Noise | 11102771 | F - i
1. Introduction
This report provides an overview of the existing environmental noise conditions associated with the Study Areas for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF, Facility, Site). The Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment (SCRF EA) included a preliminary description of the existing environment with the commitment that a more detailed description of it would be provided during the preparation of the EA reflecting the final Study Area1. Terrapure Environmental (Terrapure), owner and operator of the SCRF, is proposing to increase the total approved capacity for post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material at the SCRF by 3,680,000 m3, so that the company can continue to operate its business and receive this material to support local industry. The proposal would not change the type or annual volume of residual materials currently accepted at the Facility, nor the maximum number of permitted vehicles to the Site per day, nor the approved service area for the SCRF, which is the Province of Ontario. Terrapure's SCRF has been an important part of the local community since it was approved by the then-Minister of the Environment (now known as the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks) in 1996. The existing SCRF is only permitted to accept solid, non-hazardous waste from industrial, commercial, and institutional sources. These are truly "end of life" materials that have exhausted all recycling options. Putrescible waste (i.e., municipal solid waste, organic material) disposal is not permitted at the SCRF. The total approved capacity under the Environmental Protection Act approvals at the existing SCRF is 6, 500,000 m3, with an approved maximum annual acceptance of 750,000 tonnes of solid, non-hazardous residual waste. The SCRF is expected to reach capacity in the next 14 to 20 years, accepting a combination of residual material and industrial soils or "fill," which is required to bring the site to final grade. By changing the configuration of the site and accepting more residual materials than industrial soils, it is expected that the SCRF may be able to close sooner than currently anticipated because the market for residuals is much stronger and more consistent than that for soils. The EA Act requires that proponents describe the environment that may potentially be affected or may reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the alternatives and the undertaking proposed as part of an EA. This report focusses on characterizing the existing conditions in the vicinity of the Facility, from a noise perspective.
2. Study Areas
From a Noise environment perspective, the characterization of existing conditions within the following Study Areas, are appropriate to this EA: Site Study Area, including all lands within the existing, approved boundaries of the SCRF, as defined by Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) No. A181008, as amended. Local Study Area, including all lands within a 1.5 kilometer (km) radius of the four roads that border the existing SCRF. The Study Area for the noise discipline was defined by the area extending 1.5 km from the existing SCRF property boundary. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Noise Screening Process Questionnaire requires that industries with significant potential environmental noise profiles or equipment evaluate the off-site environmental noise impact within 1 km from the site; the noise impact beyond 1 km is expected to be environmentally insignificant. Maximum sound level impacts will occur close to the property line and within a 500 m radius which is representative
1. A more detailed description of the environment will be provided during preparation of the SCRF EA reflecting the final study area using available existing information sources and investigative studies. (Minister-approved Amended ToR, Section 6.2.6)
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Noise | 11102771 | F - 1
of a more detailed and worst-case scenario assessment however all receivers within the 1.5 km Study Area were considered for evaluation. The rationale for the Local Study Area for the noise discipline is that the off-site environmental noise impact from the existing Facility or the development of the proposed Alternative Landfill Footprints to provide additional capacity will be defined by the sound power generated by the equipment and activities on-Site and the proximity and line-of-sight noise exposure to the off-site receiver locations which are the subjects of this analysis. In the absence of other developments and intervening built structures, such as businesses or institutions, the rural residential dwellings within the Local Study Area represent the receiver locations which are the subject of the assessment. The nearest existing residential dwelling is approximately 60 m to the south of the existing property boundary. The nearest residential dwelling currently under construction is approximately 35 m north of the existing property boundary, approximately 55 m from site infrastructure (i.e. surface water ponds), near the intersection of Green Mountain Road West and First Road West. There are approximately 3,000 existing residential dwellings within the Local Study Area with the largest concentrations to the south and southwest of the site along Mud Street. An additional subdivision is being constructed to the north. The Noise Study Areas are illustrated in Figure 2.1, below.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Noise | 11102771 | F - 2
Figure 2.1 Noise Study Areas
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Noise | 11102771 | F - 3
3. Methodology
Available secondary sources of information were collected and reviewed to characterize Noise existing conditions within the Study Areas. Table 3.1 shows the sources of secondary information and how those sources were utilized to characterize the existing environment.:
Table 3.1 Secondary Data Sources
Source How Source Was Used Review of historic complaints (Terrapure, 2016) Used to qualitatively assess noise sensitivity. Review of current zoning plans, definitions and land use Used to identify noise sensitive locations. designations (The City of Stoney Creek, 2015; The City of Hamilton, 2018) Aerial photographic mapping (Google Earth, 2018) and field Used to identify noise sensitive locations. reconnaissance to confirm off Site receptors Landfill design, operation data and associated topography Used to model landfill operations. Historic ambient monitoring data and road traffic modelling Used to asses ambient/background sound used to determine the existing acoustical conditions for the levels. area. (Rotek, 2016) Acoustic Assessment Report (Aecom, 2013) Used to assess existing noise sources. Applicable Ministry (Identified over the years as MOE, Used to assess Compliance. MOECC and MECP) guidelines and technical standards Noise Guidelines for Landfill Sites (MECP,1998) NPC-103 (MOE, 1978a) NPC-104 (MOE, 1978b) NPC-207 (MOE, 1983) NPC-300 (MOECC, 2013)
The environmentally significant noise sources or activities occurring on Site and the subjects of this analysis include: 1 x Water Truck 2 x Bulldozers 2 x Excavators 1 x Sweeper Truck 1 x Idling Trucks at Weigh Station 1 x Clean Fill Haul Route Trucks 1 x Waste Fill Haul Route Trucks These noise sources generate continuous steady state mechanical noise. There are no ground-borne vibration sources at the Facility as defined in MECP publication NPC-207 2.
2 Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. (1983). Model Municipal Noise Control By Law Publication NPC 207
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Noise | 11102771 | F - 4
4. Characterization of the Existing Environment
The Terrapure SCRF currently conforms to the City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92 under Section 9.8.5 'Special Exemptions', as ME-1. In addition to permitted uses under the Extractive Industrial "ME" Zone, lands zoned ME-1 are permitted for operations associated with non-hazardous waste from industrial, commercial, and institutional sources (City of Stoney Creek, 2015). The supporting information for the existing zoning and allowed uses has been referenced from GHD's Land Use and Social Environment Existing Conditions Report. The surrounding area is made up of community park, open space, low density, high density, institutional and general commercial. The Facility is currently operating under ECA No. A181008. The Facility is located approximately 6 km southwest of Stoney Creek and 13 km southeast of Hamilton. The closest residential building is approximately 60 m from the Site and there are no other major industrial sources within the Local Study Area as indicated in Figure 2.1. The SCRF is a fully integrated facility that operates leachate processing equipment, storm water pond, retention pond and other small on-site equipment to move waste. The Facility is currently operating under an ECA that limits the Site to a maximum of 750,000 tonnes of waste per year and a maximum of 250 vehicles entering the site per day. It should be noted that the maximum vehicles per day is much lower, with an average of 70-80 trucks per day. There are four roads located within the Local Study Area including: 1. First Road West is a two-lane urban road with minimal local traffic only. 2. Mud Street West is a four-lane road with dominant local traffic. 3. Upper Centennial Parkway is a major four-lane road with significant 24-hour road traffic and is a major throughway for the City of Hamilton. 4. Green Mountain Road West is a two-lane urban road with minimal local traffic only. Green Mountain Road West and First Road West experience low traffic volumes as confirmed by the past traffic studies, as well as through the recent traffic survey undertaken by GHD on May 24, 2016 (further details provided in the Traffic Existing Conditions Report). Mud Street West and Upper Centennial Parkway traffic volumes are elevated during the morning and evening rush hour period as confirmed by previous traffic studies.
4.1 Background Noise Study Results A background noise study had been conducted as part of the Semi Annual Noise Report (Rotek, 2017). The study had shown that adjacent road traffic travelling along the Mud Street West and Upper Centennial parkway arterial roads are the predominant 24-hour ambient noise sources. The background noise study indicated that the ambient one-hour leq sound levels during the daytime periods ranged from 61 dBA to 67 dBA. Nighttime levels were not documented as the SCRF does not operate at night.
4.2 Semi-Annual Noise Monitoring Survey A semi-annual noise monitoring survey was completed during 2016 to measure noise levels at the nearest receptors around the SCRF. In addition, road traffic noise modeling was completed. The survey results are documented in the Figure 4.13:
3 Ibid.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Noise | 11102771 | F - 5
Figure 4.1 Noise Receptor Assessment The annual noise monitoring report documented measured noise levels at the receivers around the SCRF (NR1-NR3) which included heavy contributions from adjacent road traffic. The existing Facility operations are predicted to be well below the predicted traffic impact.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Noise | 11102771 | F - 6
Figure 4.2 Noise Measurement Receptors – Aerial Overview (Rotek, 2017) Figure 4.2 details the locations of the sensitive receptors around the Facility that were the subjects of the previous Acoustic Assessment Reports and the Annual Noise Monitoring Survey for the SCRF. Sensitive receiver NR4 has been added to evaluate the proposed residential development to the North West along Green Mountain Road. The receivers are adjacent to major arterial roads that surround the Facility and have no blocked line-of-sight to roadways or landfill operations. The maximum sound level impacts will occur close to the property line and within a 500 m radius which is representative of a more detailed and worst-case scenario assessment however all receivers within the larger 1.km Local Study Area were considered for evaluation.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Noise | 11102771 | F - 7
4.3 MECP Technical Guidelines and Standards On-Site operations at the SCRF are compared directly against a daytime one-hour leq sound level limit of 55 dBA for landfill operations that are limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. under the "Noise Guidelines for Landfill Sites" (N-1)4. The acoustic character of the Study Area will be defined in accordance with the MECP guidelines NPC-300 "Environmental Noise Guideline, Stationary and Transportation Sources – Approval and Planning," October 20135. As stated in the guideline: A "Class 1 Area" means an area with an acoustical environment typical of a major population centre, where the background noise is dominated by the urban hum. "Class 2 Area" means an area with an acoustical environment that has qualities representative of both Class 1 and Class 3 Areas, and in which a low ambient sound level, normally occurring only between 23:00 and 07:00 hours in Class 1 Areas, will typically be realized as early as 19:00 hours. Other characteristics which may indicate the presence of a Class 2 Area include: Absence of urban hum between 19:00 and 23:00 hours. Evening background sound level defined by natural environment and infrequent human activity. No clearly audible sound from stationary sources other than from those under impact assessment. "Class 3 Area" means a rural area with an acoustical environment that is dominated by natural sounds having little or no road traffic, such as the following: A small community with less than 1000 population. Agricultural area. A rural recreational area, such as a cottage or a resort area. A wilderness area. The Study Area is surrounded by urban land uses and is considered to be a urban Acoustic Class 1 Area.
4.4 Complaints The Facility maintains a record of all environmental complaints received at the SCRF and has put in place the following standard procedures for responding to complaints: All complaints received will be assigned a control number and recorded electronically. Details of the complaint are forwarded to Terrapure Management for follow-up. Terrapure Management will send a confirmation letter to the complainant within 10 days of receiving the details. Terrapure Management will ensure that the complaint is investigated and resolved in a timely manner. Terrapure Management will be advised of the result of the investigation. Terrapure Management will forward a letter or report to the complainant detailing the results of the investigation.
4 Ontario Ministry of the Environment (1998) N-1: Noise Guidelines for Landfill Sites 5 Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (2013) Publication NPC 300: Stationary and Transportation Sources – Approval and Planning.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Noise | 11102771 | F - 8
Terrapure Management will notify the Community Liaison Committee (CLC) via email of the complaint immediately after the investigation has been completed. Complaints will be summarized for inclusion in the Annual Report. A review of the complaint records from the past three years indicates that out of the 31 complaints, zero were related to noise perceived from the Facility (Terrapure, 2016). Table 4.1 Complaint Records Year Total Complaints Complaints for Complaints for Complaints for Other Noise Odour Dust 2012 4 0 2 0 2 2013 20 0 20 0 0 2014 7 0 6 1 0 2015 3 0 3 0 0 2016 9 0 9 0 0
Concerned residents or businesses can call the Facility directly, the City of Hamilton, or the MECP if a nuisance effect is perceived to have occurred because of the Facility. All complaints are recorded and investigated in accordance with the Facility standard complaint procedures and templates. Each complaint is logged and, in many cases, Site staff will go to the location where the nuisance was recorded and conduct on-site investigations. The date and time of the complaint are cross-referenced with data from the Facility in order to determine if any adjustments to operations need to be made at the Site. Each complaint received at the Facility is reported to the MECP.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Noise | 11102771 | F - 9 Land Use Land Use Work Plan
The Land Use Work Plan addresses both existing land uses and visual or views from the existing SCRF. The following tasks will be undertaken to characterize the existing land use environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking:
• Compile and interpret information from existing data sources, including data sources listed in Table 5-1. • Conduct Site investigations to confirm site information, (land uses, viewpoints and viewsheds) compiled from existing documentation and document the findings in the Land Use Existing Conditions Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA Report. • Based on the Conceptual Designs developed for the Alternative Methods:
o Predict and assess potential impacts of the alternative methods on the existing land uses and viewpoints from the SCRF.
o Apply mitigation measures to determine the net effects for each Alternative Method and compare the degree of net effects using the criteria and indicators for the land use Environment component, rank the Alternative Methods and identify the Recommended Alternative from a land use Environment perspective. • Once the Preferred Method has been identified and additional details developed from a design and operations perspective, an impact assessment will be carried out so that the potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty and will include more site-specific impact management measures and monitoring requirements can be clearly identified. The information and analysis will be documented in a Land Use Environment Impact Assessment Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA.
Table 5-1 – Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources
Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on • Current land use • Aerial photographic mapping and field existing land investigations uses • Land Use Existing Conditions Report
Land Use
Effect on • Predicted changes in • Alternative methods views of the views of the facility from • Site grading plans facility the surrounding area • Aerial mapping and field investigation • Land Use Existing Conditions Report
GHD | Land Use Work Plan | 11102771 Economic Environment Work Plan
The Economic Environment Work Plan addresses various economic aspects including land use. The following tasks will be undertaken to characterize the existing environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking:
• Compile and interpret information from existing data sources, including data sources listed in Table 6-1. • Conduct Site investigations to confirm site information compiled from existing documentation and document the findings in the Economic Environment Existing Conditions Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA Report. • Define costs of services to customers and economic benefits to local municipality (royalty program). • Based on the Conceptual Designs developed for the Alternative Methods:
o Predict and assess potential impacts of the alternative methods on current and planned future land uses.
o Apply mitigation measures to determine the net effects for each Alternative Method and compare the degree of net effects using the criteria and indicators for the Economic Environment component, rank the Alternative Methods and identify the Recommended Alternative from an Economic Environment perspective. • Once the Preferred Method has been identified and additional details developed from a design and operations perspective, an impact assessment will be carried out so that the potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty and will include more site-specific impact management measures and monitoring requirements can be clearly identified. The information and analysis will be documented in an Economic Environment Impact Assessment Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA.
Table 6-1 – Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources
Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on • Number, extent, and • City of Hamilton Official Plan approved/planned type of • City of Hamilton Zoning By-law land uses approved/planned land • City of Hamilton development data uses affected and plans Economic • Economic Existing Conditions Report
GHD | Economic Environment Work Plan| 11102771 Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Economic benefit • Employment at site • Alternative methods to the City of (number and duration) • Total volume of post-diversion Hamilton and solid, non-hazardous residual local community material calculated to be received • Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (Attachment A to Supporting Document #1 of the ToR) • Economic Existing Conditions Report
GHD | Economic Environment Work Plan| 11102771 Terrapure is proud to have received the 2016 Industry Excellence Award for Health & Safety from Natural Resources Magazine.
Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment Land Use and Economic Environment Existing Conditions Report
1195 Stellar Drive, Unit #1 Newmarket Ontario L3Y 7B8 Canada 11102771 | January 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Study Areas ...... 1 3. Methodology ...... 3 3.1 Available Secondary Source Information Collection and Review ...... 3 3.1.1 Bill 151, Waste-Free Ontario Act, 2016 ...... 3 3.1.2 Ontario Planning Act ...... 4 3.1.3 Provincial Policy Statement (2014)...... 4 3.1.4 Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Provincial Guidelines D-1: Land Use Compatibility & D-4: Land Use On or Near Landfills and Dumps ...... 5 3.1.5 Urban Hamilton Official Plan (2013) & Rural Hamilton Official Plan (2012) ...... 5 3.1.6 City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92 & City of Hamilton Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 05-200 ...... 5 3.1.7 City of Hamilton Ward Profiles – Ward 9 ...... 5 3.1.8 Stoney Creek Community Profile ...... 6 3.1.9 Niagara West – Glanbrook NHS Profile ...... 6 3.2 Process Undertaken ...... 6 4. Characterization of the Existing Land Use Environment ...... 6 4.1 Site Study Area: Existing Land Use Conditions ...... 6 4.1.1 Urban Hamilton Official Plan (2013) Designations ...... 8 4.1.1 City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92 ...... 9 4.2 Local Study Area: Existing Land Use Conditions ...... 11 4.2.1 Historic Residential Development Activity ...... 11 4.2.2 Land Uses within 500m of the Site ...... 17 4.2.3 Urban Hamilton Official Plan (2013) ...... 24 4.2.4 Rural Hamilton Official Plan (2012) ...... 33 4.2.5 City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92 & City of Hamilton Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 05-200 ...... 35 5. Characterization of the Existing Social/Economic Environment ...... 46 5.1 Neighbourhood & Community Character ...... 46 5.2 Visual...... 47 5.3 Local Businesses, Institutions, Public Facilities and Community Services ...... 55 5.4 Recreation ...... 56 5.5 Agriculture ...... 56 5.6 Local Employment, Labour Supply and Economic Base ...... 61 5.7 Existing Compensation Agreements – Heritage Green Community Trust & City of Hamilton ...... 61
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - ii
Figure Index
Figure 2.1 Land Use Study Areas ...... 2 Figure 4.1 Official Plan Mapping – Nash Neighbourhood Secondary Plans ...... 7 Figure 4.2 Site Study Area Zoning Map ...... 10 Figure 4.3 Historical Residential Development Activity ...... 12 Figure 4.4 Land Uses within 500 m of the SCRF ...... 18 Figure 4.5 OMAFRA Soil Classifications ...... 23 Figure 4.6 Secondary Plans within the Local Study Area ...... 25 Figure 4.7 West Mountain Area (Heritage Green) Secondary Plan ...... 26 Figure 4.8 Old Town Secondary Plan ...... 27 Figure 4.9 Rural Hamilton Official Plan Land Uses ...... 34 Figure 4.10 Zoning within 500 m of the Site Study Area – City of Hamilton Interactive Zoning Map ...... 36 Figure 4.11 Hamilton Zoning Index Map 'H' ...... 37 Figure 4.12 RU 150 ...... 38 Figure 4.13 RU 151 ...... 39 Figure 4.14 RU 166 ...... 40 Figure 5.1 Local Study Area Photo Log Locations ...... 48 Figure 5.2 Land UseSoils and Crop Ratings ...... 58 Figure 5.3 OMAFRA Soils and Canada Land Inventory (CLI) ...... 60 Table Index Table 4.1 Stoney Creek Secondary Plans – Nash Neighbourhood Secondary Plan (Site Study Area) ...... 8 Table 4.2 Residential Development Activity – Registered Plans of Subdivision & Registered Plans of Condominium ...... 13 Table 4.3 Stoney Creek Secondary Plans – Inventory of Existing Land Use Designations ...... 28 Table 4.4 Stoney Creek Secondary Plans – Designation Descriptions and Restrictions ...... 29 Table 4.5 Local Study Area – Existing Zoning Designations...... 41
Appendix Index
Appendix A Agricultural Characterization Study
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - iii
1. Introduction
This report provides an overview of the existing land use and economic environment conditions associated with the Study Area for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF, Facility, Site). The Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment (SCRF EA) included a preliminary description of the existing environment with the commitment that a more detailed description of it would be provided during the preparation of the EA reflecting the final Study Area1. Terrapure Environmental (Terrapure), owner and operator of the SCRF, is proposing to increase the total approved capacity for post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material at the SCRF by 3,680,000 m3, so that the company can continue to operate its business and receive this material to support local industry. The proposal would not change the type or annual volume of residual materials currently accepted at the Facility, nor the maximum number of permitted vehicles to the Site per day, nor the approved service area for the SCRF, which is the Province of Ontario. Terrapure's SCRF has been an important part of the local community since it was approved by the then-Minister of the Environment (now known as the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks) in 1996. The existing SCRF is only permitted to accept solid, non-hazardous waste from industrial, commercial, and institutional sources. These are truly "end of life" materials that have exhausted all recycling options. Putrescible waste (i.e., municipal solid waste, organic material) disposal is not permitted at the SCRF. The total approved capacity under the Environmental Protection Act approvals at the existing SCRF is 6, 500,000 m3, with an approved maximum annual acceptance of 750,000 tonnes of solid, non-hazardous residual waste. The EA Act requires that proponents describe the environment that may potentially be affected or may reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the Alternative Methods and the Undertaking proposed as part of an EA. This report focuses on characterizing the existing conditions in the vicinity of the Facility, for the land use and economic environment.
2. Study Areas
From a Land Use and Social perspective, the characterization of existing conditions within the following Study Areas are appropriate to this EA: Site Study Area, including all lands (41.5 ha (102.5 acres)) within the existing, approved boundaries of the SCRF, as defined by Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) No. A181008, dated May 16, 2016, as amended. The Site retains an additional 18 ha for industrial fill area, as well as an additional 15 ha (approx.) of buffer zone; and Local Study Area, including all lands within a 1.5 kilometer (km) radius of the four roads that border the existing SCRF. The Land Use Study Areas are illustrated in Figure 2.1 below.
1. A more detailed description of the environment will be provided during preparation of the SCRF EA reflecting the final study area using available existing information sources and investigative studies. (Minister-approved Amended ToR, Section 6.2.6)
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 1
Figure 2.1 Land Use Study Areas
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 2
3. Methodology
3.1 Available Secondary Source Information Collection and Review Available secondary sources of information were collected and reviewed to characterize Land Use and Social existing conditions within the Study Areas. Table 3.1 shows the sources of secondary information and how those sources were utilized to characterize the existing environment.:
Table 3.1 Secondary Data Sources Source How Source Was Used Bill 151, Waste-Free Ontario Act, 1996 Review landfill strategies and waste management solutions affecting the planning and management of landfills in Ontario. Ontario Planning Act Review of applicable provincial legislation governing provincial and municipal policies/plans for land use in Ontario. Provincial Policy Statement (2014) Reference document which states that planning authorities should consider the implications of development and land use patterns on waste generation, management and diversion. Provincial Guideline D-1: Land Use Compatibility Relevant provincial policy guiding land use compatibility in the vicinity of landfills. Provincial Guideline D-4: Land Use On or Near Relevant provincial policy guiding land use Landfills and Dumps compatibility in the vicinity of landfills. Urban Hamilton Official Plan (2013) Review of applicable land uses within the Local Study Area Rural Hamilton Official Plan (2012) Review of applicable land uses within the Local Study Area. City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92 Review of applicable zoning by-laws dictating development within the Local Study Area. City of Hamilton Zoning By-law No. 05-200 Review of applicable zoning by-laws dictating development within the Local Study Area. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 2017. Used to obtain soil classification of agricultural land Classifying Prime and Marginal Agricultural Soils in the Local Study Area. and Landscapes: Guidelines for Application of the Canadian Land Inventory in Ontario. City of Hamilton Ward Profiles – Ward 9 (2011) Review of demographics used to characterize the social environment within the Local Study Area. City of Hamilton Development Applications Mapping Review of historic and active development (online tool) applications within the Local Study Area. Stoney Creek Community Profile (2009) Review of demographics used to characterize the social environment within the study areas Statistics Canada – Niagara West – Glanbrook Review of demographics used to characterize the National Household Survey (NHS) Profile (2011) social environment within the Local Study Area. Statistics Canada Census Profile, 2016 Census, Review of demographics used to characterize the Hamilton, City (2016) social environment within the Local Study Area.
3.1.1 Bill 151, Waste-Free Ontario Act, 2016 The Waste Free Ontario Act is an omnibus bill with a number of parts, including three pieces of legislation and an overall strategy. One component of the proposed Bill – The Strategy for a Waste Free Ontario: Building the Circular Economy - would require the Minister to develop and maintain a Strategy to support the provincial interest regarding resource recovery and waste reduction.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 3
A key area of the Strategy reflects the continued need for landfills in Ontario as part of overall waste management solutions. The specific Action is as follows: Action 7: Ensure landfills are well planned and managed to minimize their need and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In an economy that values its resources and promotes the efficient and effective recovery of products and packaging, landfills should be the last resort in the system to manage waste materials. This is not currently the case in Ontario, as over 70 per cent of products at their end-of-life, packaging and other waste are sent to landfill. Ontario has approximately 850 operating landfills and 1,525 closed landfills. Given the projected population growth and economic trends, our ability to dispose of waste will become increasingly challenging. Without reducing the amount of waste generated, it is forecasted that Ontario will need to site 16 new or expanded landfills by 2050. While Ontario strives for a waste-free future, there will still be a need for landfill space as we work towards this goal. The province will look for innovative ways to reduce the impact landfills have on the environment and slow the number of landfills needed within the next two decades… As noted in the excerpt above, while Ontario works towards its goal of zero waste, there will still be a need for landfill space, particularly as it relates to the redevelopment and intensification of property within the Hamilton and Greater Toronto Area. The Strategy also discusses how the Province would carefully consider the need and location of landfills, including the expansion of existing sites. Increasing the capacity at the existing Terrapure SCRF would ensure that wastes generated locally within Hamilton and area would continue to be disposed of at a Regional facility, as close to the generated wastes as possible. This would then negate the need to develop a new landfill within the City of Hamilton or to transport waste longer distances, at greater financial cost and with increased greenhouse gas emissions, to another approved waste management facility.
3.1.2 Ontario Planning Act The Ontario Planning Act is the principal legislation governing all planning matters in Ontario. Matters of provincial interest, defined in the Ontario Planning Act, which influence provincial and municipal regulatory framework for waste management facilities include: The protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions; The adequate provision and efficient use of waste management systems; and The protection of public health and safety.
3.1.3 Provincial Policy Statement (2014) The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (2014) sets the framework for the provincial government's long-term land use vision for how Ontario lands and resources are managed. Section 1.6.10 of the PPS (2014) refers to waste management systems, which states (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2014):
1.6.10.1 Waste management systems need to be provided that are of an appropriate size and type to accommodate present and future requirements, and facilitate, encourage and promote reduction, reuse and recycling objectives. Planning authorities should consider the implications of development and land use patterns on waste generation, management and diversion.
Waste management systems shall be located and designed in accordance with provincial legislation and standards. The existing Terrapure SCRF has been operating in compliance with Provincial approvals since the Site was originally permitted in 1996.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 4
3.1.4 Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Provincial Guidelines D-1: Land Use Compatibility & D-4: Land Use On or Near Landfills and Dumps The MECP has developed two relevant guidelines regarding land use in vicinity to landfills. Guideline D-1: Land Use Compatibility identifies recommended separation distances and control measures for sensitive land uses with respect to landfills in order to minimize potential adverse effects (MECP, 1995). Guideline D-1 is also applicable when considering proposed sensitive land uses with the potential influence area of an existing landfill facility. Guideline D-4: Land Use On or Near Landfills and Dumps works in collaboration with Guideline D-1 and provides direction for the restriction of land uses in vicinity of landfills. Guideline D-4 recommends that sensitive land uses be restricted within 500 m of the fill area. Sensitive land uses in relation to the operation of landfills are defined as the following (MECP, 1994): 1. A permanent structure used in animal husbandry; 2. Agricultural land used for pasturing livestock; 3. A permanent structure where: a. A person sleeps b. A person is present on a full time basis but not including food or motor vehicle service facilities adjacent to a highway, utility operations, scrap yards, heavy industrial uses, gravel pits, quarries, mining or forestry activities; or 4. Cemeteries. However, Guideline D-4 also recognizes that actual influence areas for individual landfills vary and are dependent on a number factors.
3.1.5 Urban Hamilton Official Plan (2013) & Rural Hamilton Official Plan (2012) The Urban and Rural Hamilton Official Plans set the framework for land use policy and future goals of the City of Hamilton and respective settlement areas. The Urban Hamilton Official Plan (2013) applies to all lands located within the designated urban area of the City of Hamilton. The Urban Hamilton Official Plan was adopted by Council on July 9, 2009, and came into effect on August 16, 2013. The Terrapure SCRF falls within the jurisdiction of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan. However, the Local Study Area boundary extends into an area designated under the Rural Hamilton Official Plan. The Rural Hamilton Official Plan (2012) applies to all lands located within the designated rural area of the City of Hamilton. The Rural Hamilton Official Plan was adopted by Council on September 27, 2006, and came into effect on March 7, 2012.
3.1.6 City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92 & City of Hamilton Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 05-200 Presently, the City of Hamilton has seven Zoning By-laws in effect. Currently, the Study Areas conform to two Hamilton Zoning By-laws: the City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92; and the City of Hamilton's Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 05-200.
3.1.7 City of Hamilton Ward Profiles – Ward 9 The City of Hamilton prepared ward profiles for all 15 City wards in 2011. These reports provide an overview of the features, assets and various indicators of socio-demographic characteristics within each ward. These profiles compile data from Statistics Canada, the City of Hamilton's Planning and Economic Development Department, Planning and Economic Development Department, Canadian
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 5
Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Teranet, and the City's Official Plan and Parks Committee.
3.1.8 Stoney Creek Community Profile Community Profiles were developed in 2009 for each community within the City of Hamilton to aid in understanding the unique social characteristics important to each, as well as actions that might be taken to respond to changing conditions and to continue to improve city life. Despite being a few years out of date, the Stoney Creek Community Profile includes information useful to the characterization of socio-economic existing conditions, such as historic population growth and community demographics.
3.1.9 Niagara West – Glanbrook NHS Profile The NHS profile for Niagara West-Glanbrook from the most recent Statistics Canada census data provides detailed community demographic information, current to 2011.
3.2 Process Undertaken An analysis was completed to gain an understanding and clearly document the characteristics of existing land uses within the Site Study Area and the Local Study Area. All applicable municipal and provincial regulatory planning documents were considered in identifying existing conditions for both Study Areas, as identified in Section 3.1. This review of existing land use conditions also considers the MECP's Provincial Guidelines D-1 and D-4, in order to identify land uses potentially sensitive to the SCRF's activities within the Local Study Area. The land use and social environment within the Study Areas, as well as at the larger community scale, was documented through a review of the planning documents and demographic information sources listed above, analysis of aerial photographs, and confirmatory Site visits.
4. Characterization of the Existing Land Use Environment
The analysis presented in this section describes the existing land use conditions for the Site Study Area and the Local Study Area.
4.1 Site Study Area: Existing Land Use Conditions The Terrapure SCRF is under the jurisdiction of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, which identifies applicable land uses within the study area, and the City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92, which dictates development within the study area. The SCRF is also directly adjacent to areas designated under the Rural Hamilton Official Plan. The SCRF falls within the Nash Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Area designated under the Urban Hamilton Official Plan. Figure 4.19 represents land use designations with the Nash Neighbourhood Secondary Plan2.
2 City of Hamilton, 2013. Urban Hamilton Official Plan. Accessed: May 20, 2016. Available at: https://www.hamilton.ca/city planning/official plan zoning by law/urban hamilton official plan
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 6
Figure 4.1 Official Plan Mapping – Nash Neighbourhood Secondary Plans
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 7
4.1.1 Urban Hamilton Official Plan (2013) Designations The Urban Hamilton Official Plan3 identifies the Urban Structural Elements, Functional Road Classifications and Urban Land Use Designation comprising the Terrapure SCRF (See Table 4.1). Urban Structure Elements (Schedule E) Urban Structure Elements related to the Terrapure SCRF include the following (City of Hamilton, 2013): Neighbourhoods Secondary Corridor – Upper Centennial Parkway Functional Road Classifications (Schedule C) Classifications for the four roads encompassing the Terrapure SCRF are as follows (City of Hamilton, 2013): Major Arterial – Mud Street Collectors – First Road West, Green Mountain Road, Upper Centennial Parkway Urban Land Use Designations (Schedule E-1) Urban Land Use Designations for the Terrapure SCRF include the following (City of Hamilton, 2013): Open Space – As a result of recent official plan amendments, the Terrapure SCRF resides within land designated as General Open Space, in accordance with Schedule E-1 of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (2013). Commercial and Mixed Use Designations – Arterial Commercial
Table 4.1 Stoney Creek Secondary Plans – Nash Neighbourhood Secondary Plan (Site Study Area) Secondary Plan Description of Built Form/Permitted Uses Restrictions on Land Use Designations (Density/GFA/Prohibited Uses) Commercial and Mixed Use Designations Arterial Permitted uses include: Prohibited uses include: Commercial (a) commercial uses including banquet halls, (a) department stores; restaurants including garden (b) food stores; centres, furniture stores, building and lumber supply (c) residential uses; and, establishment, home (d) stores primarily selling improvement supply store, and retail primarily for the apparel, housewares, sale of building supplies; electronics, sporting goods, or (b) automotive related uses primarily for vehicle sales, general merchandise. service and rental, parts sales, gas bars, car washes, and service stations; (c) commercial recreational uses, commercial entertainment uses, excluding theatres; (d) industrial supply and service and contractor sales; (e) accommodation, excluding residential uses; (f) enclosed storage including mini warehousing; and, (g) accessory uses.
3 City of Hamilton, 2013. Urban Hamilton Official Plan. Accessed: May 20, 2016. Available at: https://www.hamilton.ca/city planning/official plan zoning by law/urban hamilton official plan
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 8
Table 4.1 Stoney Creek Secondary Plans – Nash Neighbourhood Secondary Plan (Site Study Area) Secondary Plan Description of Built Form/Permitted Uses Restrictions on Land Use Designations (Density/GFA/Prohibited Uses) Parks and Open Space Designations General Open Includes: golf courses, urban farms, community N/A Space gardens, pedestrian and bicycle trails, walkways, picnic areas, beaches, remnant parcels of open space lands, and urban plazas, squares and core spaces. These areas do not function as parks but are used for both active and passive recreational activities.
4.1.1 City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92 The Terrapure SCRF currently conforms to the City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92 under Section 9.8.5 'Special Exemptions', as ME-1, identified in Figure 4.2. The Zoning By-law identifies permitted land use activities within specific area. In addition to permitted uses under the Extractive Industrial "ME" Zone, lands zoned ME-1 are permitted for operations associated with non-hazardous waste from industrial, commercial, and institutional sources4.
4 City of Hamilton, 2015(a). City of Stoney Creek Zoning By law 3692 92. Accessed: May 20, 2016. Available at: https://www.hamilton.ca/city planning/official plan zoning by law/zoning by laws former communities
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 9
Figure 4.2 Site Study Area Zoning Map
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 10
4.2 Local Study Area: Existing Land Use Conditions
4.2.1 Historic Residential Development Activity Areas within the identified Local Study Area have recently undergone residential development (see Figure 4.3). Table 4.2 summarizes residential development activity for sites within the Local Study Area5. Figure 4.3 provides a visual representation of residential development activity within the 1.5 km Study Area, and corresponds to Table 4.2.
5 City of Hamilton, 2015(b). iMapper. City of Hamilton, Ontario – Geographic Information Systems. Accessed: May 20, 2016. Available at: http://map.hamilton.ca/iMapper.aspx#
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 11
Figure 4.3 Historical Residential Development Activity
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 12
Table 4.2 Residential Development Activity – Registered Plans of Subdivision & Registered Plans of Condominium ID# Development Date Original Address Number of Registered Units Registered Plans of Subdivision (Pre 1996) 1 PLAN#: 623 8/4/1989 N/A 108 Single Units Highland Park Estates 30 Multi Units (138 Total Units) 2 PLAN#: 695 3/18/1992 N/A 9 Single Units Highgate Mills 45 Multi Units (54 Total Units) 3 PLAN#: 354 8/18/1983 N/A Total Units 25 Canfield Place 4 PLAN#: 636 11/8/1989 N/A Total Units 82 Highland Gardens, Ph. 1 5 PLAN#: 732 5/6/1993 N/A Total Units 5 Highland Gardens, Ph. 2 6 PLAN#: 737 7/21/1993 N/A Total Units 53 Highland Gardens, Ph. 3 7 PLAN#: 774 1/17/1995 N/A Total Units 68 Highland, St.1 8 PLAN#: 543 1/20/1988 N/A Total Units 163 Heritage Green, St.2, Ph.1 9 PLAN#: 691 11/4/1991 N/A Total Units 32 Heritage Green, St.2, Ph.2 10 PLAN#: 692 1/24/1992 N/A Total Units 94 Heritage Green, St.2, Ph.3 11 PLAN#: 166 7/15/1975 N/A Total Units 75 Gordon Drummond 12 PLAN#: 365 11/29/1983 N/A Total Units 105 Heritage Green, Ph.4 13 PLAN#: 378 6/4/1984 N/A Total Units 45 Heritage Green, Ph.4b 14 PLAN#: 499 3/25/1987 N/A Total Units 95 Heritage Green, Ph.6 15 PLAN#: 254 8/28/1978 N/A Total Units 361 Saltfleet Community Development 16 PLAN#: 168 7/3/1975 N/A N/A Ridell Dalton Kelsey 17 PLAN#: 155 4/3/1975 N/A Total Units 137 John Murray Street Subdivision 18 PLAN#: 156 4/8/1975 N/A Total Units 154 Rand Street Subdivision 19 PLAN#: 648 3/1/1990 N/A Total Units 263 Heritage Green, Albion, St.1 20 PLAN#: 549 3/29/1988 N/A Total Units 48 Paramount Gardens 21 PLAN#: 181 2/12/1975 N/A Total Units 286 Albion Estates, Ph.1, St.1 22 PLAN#: 95 9/30/1972 N/A Total Units 115
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 13
Table 4.2 Residential Development Activity – Registered Plans of Subdivision & Registered Plans of Condominium ID# Development Date Original Address Number of Registered Units Glendale Estates, No.4, Ph.4 23 PLAN#: 65 6/16/1971 N/A Total Units 83 Glendale Estates, No.2, Ph.2 24 PLAN#: 3 6/12/1968 N/A Total Units 186 Veevers Estates, No.1 25 PLAN#: 106 4/12/1973 N/A Total Units 156 Veevers Estates, No.2 26 PLAN#: 28 7/15/1969 N/A Total units 126 Veevers Estates, No.3 27 PLAN#: 569 7/11/1988 N/A Total Units 92 Greenhill Gardens, Ph.3 28 PLAN#: 597 2/17/1989 N/A Total Units 29 Desantis Gardens Registered Plans of Subdivision (Post 1996) 29 PLAN#: 1199 1/21/2014 22 Green Mountain Road 49 Single Units Victory Ridge, Ph. 1 62 Multi Units (111 Total Units) 30 PLAN#: 1206 7/24/2014 22 Green Mountain Road 112 Single Units Victory Ridge, Ph. 2 67 Multi Units (179 Total Units) 31 PLAN#: 1172 2/29/2012 222 First Road W. 47 Single Units Penny Lane Estates, Ph. 1 52 Multi Units (99 Total Units) 32 PLAN#: 1182 11/30/2012 222 First Road W. 91 Single Units Penny Lane Estates, Ph. 2 121 Multi Units (212 Total Units) 33 PLAN#: 1208 11/14/2014 222 First Road W. 35 Single Units Penny Lane Estates, Ph. 3 34 PLAN#: 1223 12/11/2015 222 First Road W. 15 Multi Units Penny Lane, Ph. 4 35 PLAN#: 1219 9/9/2015 198 First Road W. 87 Single Units 198 First Road W., Ph. 2 102 Semi Units 29 Multi Units (218 Total Units) 36 PLAN#: 1138 4/23/2010 Upper Centennial Parkway 38 Single Units Highgate Meadows 52 Multi Units (90 Total Units) 37 PLAN#: 1141 6/25/2010 Highbury Drive 61 Single Units Mountain Gardens 99 Multi Units (160 Total Units) 38 PLAN#: 888 9/13/1999 N/A 12 Single Units Highland Heights 39 PLAN#: 977 2/25/2003 247 Highland Road W. 41 Single Units Highland West 40 PLAN#: 918 11/30/2000 N/A 254 Total Units Shadyglen, Ph.1 41 PLAN#: 1134 12/11/2009 218-250 Highland Road W. 12 Single Units 4 Semi Units
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 14
Table 4.2 Residential Development Activity – Registered Plans of Subdivision & Registered Plans of Condominium ID# Development Date Original Address Number of Registered Units Carlson Street Extension, Ph. (16 Total Units) 1 42 PLAN#: 1130 11/4/2009 264 Highland Road W. 8 Single units Carlson Estates 43 PLAN#: 878 4/27/1999 N/A 18 Single Units Dalma Gardens 44 PLAN#: 852 10/16/1998 N/A 42 Single Units Valley Park, St.6 45 PLAN#: 1204 4/3/2014 Mud Street 114 Single Units Paramount 48 Semi Units 164 Multi Units 32 Apt Units (358 Total Units) 46 PLAN#: 965 8/2/2002 N/A 110 Single Units Nash Orchard Heights South, Ph.1 47 PLAN#: 1225 1/21/2016 70 Webster Rd. 63 Single Units Vienna Orchards, Ph.1 48 PLAN#: 1232 8/17/2016 N/A 61 Single Units Red Hill, Ph. 1 65 Multi Units (126 Total Units) 49 PLAN#: 1234 10/19/2016 NA 61 Single Units Red Hill, Ph. 2 103 Multi Units (164 Total Units) Registered Plans of Condominium (Pre 1996) 50 PLAN#: 72001 7/17/1972 350 Quigley Rd. Total Units 278 350 Quigley Rd. 51 PLAN#: 75 5/30/1978 N/A Total Units 64 Veevers Estates Registered Plans of Condominium (Post 1996) 52 PLAN#: 201307 4/12/2014 36 Waterbridge Street N/A Parkside Development 53 PLAN#: 200311 5/17/2004 39 Pinewoods Drive 30 Multi Units Highland Park Ph.1 54 PLAN#: 200311 4/13/2005 39 Pinewoods Drive 33 Multi Units Highland Park Ph. 2 55 PLAN#: 201113 12/20/2012 70 Highgate Drive N/A Mountain Gardens 56 PLAN#: 201405 1/29/2016 42 Westbank Trail N/A Stockridge Gardens 57 PLAN#: 201403 6/25/2015 201 Westbank Trail N/A Paramount Subdivision 58 PLAN#: 201114 1/16/2013 N/A N/A Greenhill Glen Draft Approved Plans of Subdivision (Pre 1996) 59 PLAN#: 85033 11/27/1985 70 Webster Rd Total Units 34 Vienna Orchards Draft Approved Plans of Subdivision (Post 1996)
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 15
Table 4.2 Residential Development Activity – Registered Plans of Subdivision & Registered Plans of Condominium ID# Development Date Original Address Number of Registered Units 60 PLAN#: 201301 3/15/2013 435 First Rd W Total Units 340 Red Hill, Ph.2 (aka Red Hill, Ph. 3/4) 61 PLAN#: 200803 4/17/2008 22 Green Mountain Rd W Total Units 120 Victory Ridge (formerly Nash Neighbourhood) 62 PLAN#: 200908 11/10/2009 198 First Road West Total Units 457 198 First Road West (Paletta Lands) 63 PLAN#: 200714 Carlson 11/22/2007 218250 Highland Rd W Total Units 20 Street Extension 73 Plan#: 201510 11/09/2015 440 First Road West Single Units 27 Multi Units 11 (Total Units 38) Draft Approved Plans of Condominium (Pre 1996) None Draft Approved Plans of Condominium (Post 1996) 64 PLAN#: 201606 23 06/02/2016 23 Echovalley Dr. Total Units 22 Echovalley Drive Proposed Plans of Subdivision Under Review (Post 1996) 65 Development Application: 12/22/2014 165 Upper Centennial Total Units 450 25T- 201503 165 Upper Parkway Centennial Parkway
66 Development Application: 03/26/2017 56 Highland Road West Total Units 50 25T-201608 56 Highland Road West
67 Development Application: 02/11/2015 2 Glover Mountain Total Units 6 25T-201601 2 Glover Mountain 68 Development Application: 12/21/2016 15 Ridgeview Drive Total Units 97 25T- 201701 City View Estates
69 Development Application: 11/01/2016 464 First Road West Total Units 135 25T-201612 Nash Neighbourhood Phase 3 70 Development Application: 11/01/2016 490 First Road West Total Units 197 25T-201611 Nash Neighbourhood Phase 2
71 Development Application: File Year 50 Green Mountain Road Total Units 189 ZAC-17-077 50 Green 2017 West Mountain Road West 72 Development Application: File Year 157 Upper Centennial Total Units 52 ZAC-16-056 157, UHOPA-16- 2016 Parkway 020 Upper Centennial Parkway
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 16
4.2.2 Land Uses within 500m of the Site Land uses within the Local Study Area include residential, commercial, recreational and institutional uses. Figure 4.4 highlights the location of each of the land uses within 500 m with respect to the location of the Terrapure SCRF. The MECP has developed two relevant guidelines regarding land use in vicinity to landfills. Guideline D-1: Land Use Compatibility identifies recommended separation distances and control measures for sensitive land uses with respect to landfills in order to minimize potential adverse effects (MECP, 1995). Guideline D-1 is also applicable when considering proposed sensitive land uses with the potential influence area of an existing landfill facility. Guideline D-4: Land Use On or Near Landfills and Dumps works in collaboration with Guideline D-1 and provides direction for the restriction of land uses in vicinity of landfills. Guideline D-4 recommends that sensitive land uses be restricted within 500 m of the fill area. However, Guideline D-4 also recognizes that actual influence areas for individual landfills vary and are dependent on a number factors.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 17
Figure 4.4 Land Uses within 500 m of the SCRF
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 18
4.2.2.1 Residential The nearest residential dwelling (currently under construction) is approximately 35 m north of the existing property boundary, approximately 55 m from Site infrastructure (i.e., surface water ponds), near the intersection of Green Mountain Road West and First Road West. The nearest existing residential dwelling in relation to the southern SCRF property boundary is approximately 60 m south (from the SCRF property line to the nearest residential property line). There are approximately 1,200 existing or registered residential dwellings within 500 m of the Site Study Area boundary, with the largest concentrations to the north along Green Mountain Road, and south and southwest along Mud Street. An additional subdivision is under construction to the north of the SCRF. These residential properties are primarily located within the Urban Area, as identified in the Urban Hamilton Official Plan. The majority of residential uses within the Local Study Area are located south of the SCRF. Lands to the south consist of existing and proposed phases of the Penny Lane Estates subdivision. In accordance with the City of Hamilton’s filed registered and draft approved plans of subdivision, there are approximately 6,800 residential units both existing and proposed within the preliminary Study Area. Of the approximate 6,800 residential units within the Local Study Area, approximately 5,800 residential units currently exist (registered), and the remaining approximately 1,000 residential units are proposed (draft approved).
4.2.2.2 Commercial A cluster of commercial operations exists within the Local Study Area along major roads, including along Upper Centennial Parkway and Mud Street towards Red Hill. There are 11 commercial uses within 500 m of the Study Area boundary. The commercial uses are as follows: Empire Developments (22 Green Mountain Road West) – Located In Urban Area Pro's Golf Centre (22 Green Mountain Road East) – Located in Rural Area Starlite Drive-In (59 Green Mountain Road East) – Located in Rural Area Green Mountain Gardens (398 Upper Centennial Parkway) - Located in Rural Area Pioneer Gas Station (333 Upper Centennial Parkway) – Located in Urban Area Esso Gas Station (249 Upper Centennial Parkway) – Located in Urban Area Tim Hortons (On the Run) (249 Upper Centennial Parkway) – Located in Urban Area Wendy's Restaurant (244 Upper Centennial Parkway) – Located in Rural Area Tim Horton's (244 Upper Centennial Parkway) – Located in Rural Area Queenston Tire & Rim (225 Upper Centennial Parkway) – Located in Urban Area JD's Grooming (225 Upper Centennial Parkway) – Located in Urban Area
4.2.2.3 Recreational Heritage Green Community Sports Park, Heritage Green Passive Park, and Heritage Green Community Trust Leash Free Dog Park reside within 500 m of the Study Area boundary to the west. These recreational parks are located within the Urban Area. Felker’s Falls Conservation Area is located further west within the Local Study Area, past the Heritage Green parks.
4.2.2.4 Institutional Institutional uses within 500 m of the Study Area boundary include St. James the Apostle Catholic Elementary School, which is approximately 270 m from the Terrapure SCRF property boundary, located within the Urban Area.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 19
In accordance with the Nash Neighbourhood Secondary Plan, an institutional land use designation is present at the northwest corner of Green Mountain Road West and First Road West (435 First Road West). This land is reserved for the future development of a school (zoned Neighbourhood Institutional (I1), as approved by council on November 11, 2015, By-law No. 15-260); however, at this time, the property is owned by a developer. Institutional uses within the Local Study Area consist of the following primary and secondary schools, public facilities and community services: Saltfleet High School (108 Highland Road West, approximately 700 m south of the SCRF) St. James the Apostle Catholic Elementary School (29 John Murray Street, approximately 500 m southwest of the SCRF) Mount Albion Public School (24 Kennard Street, approximately 1.2 km southwest of the SCRF) Hamilton Fire Station 17 (415 Arvin Avenue, approximately 1 km southwest of the SCRF) Family Church of Heritage Green (360 Isaac Brock Drive, approximately 800 m southwest of the SCRF) Heritage Green Child Care (360 Isaac Brock Drive, approximately 800 m southwest of the SCRF) Heritage Green Seventh Day Adventist Church (360 Isaac Brock Drive, approximately 900 m southwest of the SCRF) Salvation Army Winterberry Heights Church (300 Winterberry Drive, approximately 1.2 km west of the SCRF) Paramount Drive Alliance Church (1035 Paramount Drive, approximately 1.4 km west of the SCRF) Valley Park Recreation Centre and Arena (970 Paramount Drive, approximately 1.5 km southwest of the SCRF) Heritage Green Nursing Home (353 Isaac Brock Drive, approximately 1.1 km southwest of the SCRF) Heritage Green Seniors Centre (351 Isaac Brock Drive, approximately 1.1 km southwest of the SCRF) St. Paul Catholic Elementary School (24 Amberwood Street, approximately 1.5 km west of the SCRF) Billy Green Elementary School (1105 Paramount Drive North, approximately 1.5 km west of the SCRF) Gatestone Elementary School (127 Gatestone Drive, approximately 1.5 km south of the SCRF)
4.2.2.5 Agricultural Agricultural Lands within 500 m There are currently four properties zoned for agricultural uses under City of Hamilton Zoning By-law 05-200 within 500 m of the Site. The location of these four properties relative to the Site are depicted in Figure 4.4. The four agricultural zoned properties have no registered municipal address and are referred to as follows: Part lot 24 Concession 5 Saltfleet Part 1 62R11599 except Part 1 62R15170; Stoney Creek, City of Hamilton, owned by 839993 Ontario Inc. Part Lot 24, Concession 6 Saltfleet, as in CD466796, except Part 1, 62R11668; Stoney Creek, City of Hamilton, owned by 779493 Ontario Limited
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 20
Part Lot 24, Concession 6 Saltfleet, as in AB302248; Stoney Creek, City of Hamilton, owned by Paletta International 274 Highway 20 South; Stoney Creek, City of Hamilton, owned by 290 Upper Centennial Parkway Inc. Soil Classifications This assessment identifies soil classifications within the Local Study Area, as in accordance with Canadian Land Inventory, which is part of the National Soil Database. The following soil classes occur within the Local Study Area, as depicted in Figure 4.56 and was obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Farming and Agriculture Canada Land Inventory which provides classifications for agricultural soils and landscapes: Class 1: Soils in Class 1 are level to nearly level, deep, well to imperfectly drained and have good nutrient and water holding capacity. They can be managed and cropped without difficulty. Under good management they are moderately high to high in productivity for the full range of common field crops. Class 2: These soils are deep and may not hold moisture and nutrients as well as Class 1 soils. The limitations are moderate and the soils can be managed and cropped with little difficulty. Under good management they are moderately high to high in productivity for a wide range of common field crops. Class 3: The limitations are more severe than for Class 2 soils. They affect one or more of the following practices: timing and ease of tillage; planting and harvesting; choice of crops; and methods of conservation. Under good management these soils are fair to moderately high in productivity for a wide range of common field crops. Class 5: The limitations are so severe that the soils are not capable of use for sustained production of annual field crops. The soils are capable of producing native or tame species of perennial forage plants and may be improved through the use of farm machinery. Feasible improvement practices may include clearing of bush, cultivation, seeding, fertilizing or water control. Class 6: These soils may provide some sustained grazing for farm animals, but the limitations are so severe that improvement through the use of farm machinery is impractical. The terrain may be unsuitable for the use of farm machinery, or the soils may not respond to improvement, or the grazing season may be very short. Class 7: This class includes marsh, rockland and soil on very steep slopes. The following subclasses are present within the Local Study Area7: Subclass D: Undesirable soil structure and/or low permeability: This subclass is used for soils which are difficult to till, or which absorb or release water very slowly, or in which the depth of rooting zone is restricted by conditions other than a high water table or consolidated bedrock. In Ontario this subclass is based on the existence of critical clay contents in the upper soil profile. Subclass E - Erosion: Loss of topsoil and subsoil by erosion has reduced productivity and may in some cases cause difficulties in farming the land (e.g., land with gullies). Subclass I - Inundation by streams or lakes: Flooding by streams and lakes causes crop damage or restricts agricultural use. Subclass R - Consolidated bedrock: The occurrence of consolidated bedrock within 100 cm of the surface restricts rooting depth and limits moisture holding capacity. Conversely, in poorly drained soils the presence of the bedrock may, depending on depth, make artificial drainage impossible.
6 OMAFRA, 2017. “Classifying Prime and Marginal Agricultural Soils and Landscapes: Guidelines for Application of the Canada Land Inventory in Ontario”. 7 Ibid.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 21
Subclass T - Topography: This subclass denotes limitations due to slope steepness and length. Such limitations may hinder machinery use, decrease the uniformity of crop growth and maturity, and increase water erosion potential. Subclass W - Excess water: This subclass indicates the presence of excess soil moisture due to poor or very poor soil drainage. It is distinguished from Subclass I - water inundation which indicates risk of flooding from adjacent lakes or streams.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 22
Figure 4.5 OMAFRA Soil Classifications
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 23
4.2.3 Urban Hamilton Official Plan (2013) As previously mentioned, the Terrapure SCRF resides within the Urban Area, as designated under the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, 2013, but is also directly adjacent to lands that fall under the jurisdiction of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan, 2012. The Urban Hamilton Official Plan identifies the Urban Structural Elements, Functional Road Classifications and Urban Land Use Designation and Secondary Plan Areas, adjacent to the Terrapure SCRF and that fall within the Local Study Area8. Urban Structure Elements (Schedule E) Urban Structure Elements related to the Local Study Area, include the following (City of Hamilton, 2013): Neighbourhoods Major Open Space Community Node Secondary Corridor – Upper Centennial Parkway Other Features – Niagara Escarpment Functional Road Classification (Schedule C) Classifications for the road network within the Local Study Area are as follows (City of Hamilton, 2013): Major Arterial – Mud Street, Rymal Road Secondary Arterial – Paramount Drive Collectors – First Road West, Green Mountain Road, Upper Centennial Parkway, Issac Brook Drive, Gatestone Drive, Highbury Drive, Highland Road West Proposed Collectors – Extension of Isaac Brock Drive and Highbury Drive. Urban Land Use Designations (Schedule E-1) Urban Land Use Designations for the Local Study Area include the following (City of Hamilton, 2013): Open Space Neighbourhoods Utility Institutional Commercial and Mixed Use Designations – Arterial Commercial Commercial and Mixed Use Designations – Medium Density Secondary Plan Areas As demonstrated in Figure 4.6, the Local Study Area infringes upon three Secondary Plan Areas within the Stoney Creek Rural Settlement Area. The Stoney Creek Secondary Plan Areas within the Local Study Area include the following: 1. Nash Neighbourhood Secondary Plan (Figure 4.1) 2. West Mountain Area (Heritage Green) Secondary Plan (Figure 4.7) 3. Old Town Secondary Plan (Figure 4.8)
8 City of Hamilton, 2013. Urban Hamilton Official Plan. Accessed: May 20, 2016. Available at: https://www.hamilton.ca/city planning/official plan zoning by law/urban hamilton official plan
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 24
Figure 4.6 Secondary Plans within the Local Study Area
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 25
Figure 4.7 West Mountain Area (Heritage Green) Secondary Plan
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 26
Figure 4.8 Old Town Secondary Plan
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 27
Table 4.3 identifies existing secondary plan designations within each secondary plan area residing within the 1.5 km Local Study Area.
Table 4.3 Stoney Creek Secondary Plans – Inventory of Existing Land Use Designations Secondary Plan Designations Nash West Mountain Area Old Town Neighbourhood (Heritage Green) Residential Designations Low Density Residential 2 Low Density Residential 2(a) Low Density Residential 2(b) Low Density Residential 3(c) Medium Density Residential 2 Medium Density Residential 3 High Density Residential 1 Commercial and Mixed Use Designations Local Commercial Arterial Commercial Mixed Use – Medium Density Mixed Use – High Density Parks and Open Space Designations Neighbourhood Park Community Park City Wide Park Parkette General Open Space Natural Open Space Other Designations Institutional Utility
Table 4.4 describes each secondary plan designation existing within the 1.5 km Local Study Area and identifies existing restrictions on land use within these secondary plan areas.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 28
Table 4.4 Stoney Creek Secondary Plans – Designation Descriptions and Restrictions Secondary Plan Description of Built Form/Permitted Uses Restrictions on Land Designations Use (Density/ GFA/ Prohibited Uses) Residential Designations Low Density (a) Includes only single and semi-detached dwellings 20 – 40 units per hectare Residential 2 (b) Includes single, semi, and duplex dwellings (uph) (c) Includes street, block, and courtyard townhouses, as well as other innovative ground oriented attached housing forms (d) Includes single and semi-detached dwellings , row houses, and stacked and blocked townhouses, as well as innovative forms of attached housing (e) Includes single and semi-detached dwellings, duplex, link dwellings, cluster homes (f) Includes single and semi-detached dwellings, duplex, and triplex (g) Single detached, semi-detached and duplex dwellings, converted dwellings, shared accommodation, rooming and boarding houses and other similar forms of housing (h) Street and block townhouse dwellings, and other forms of multiple dwellings such as duplexes, triplexes and stacked townhouses. Low Density Includes only single and semi-detached dwellings 20 – 40 uph Residential 2(a) Low Density Includes single, semi, and duplex dwellings. 20 – 40 uph Residential 2(b) Low Density Low rise apartments, Row houses, Stacked & Block Townhouses & innovative forms of attached housing 40 – 60 uph Residential 3(c) Medium Density (a) Low rise apartments 60 – 75 uph Residential 2 (b) Stacked townhouses & low rise apartments (c) Apartments, townhouses, stacked townhouse dwellings and other forms of multiple attached dwellings as single form/mixed form. Medium Density Full range of housing forms – no singles or semis 75 – 100 uph Residential 3 High Density All forms of townhouses, apartments, and other forms of multiple dwellings 100 – 200 uph Residential 1
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 29
Table 4.4 Stoney Creek Secondary Plans – Designation Descriptions and Restrictions Secondary Plan Description of Built Form/Permitted Uses Restrictions on Land Designations Use (Density/ GFA/ Prohibited Uses) Commercial and Mixed Use Designations Local Commercial The following uses are permitted: Maximum Gross Floor (a) retail and service uses such as a craftsperson shop, day nursery, commercial school, financial Area (GFA) – 500 square establishment, medical office, business office, professional office, motor vehicle service station, personal metres (sq. m.) service, place of worship, repair service, restaurant, studio, art gallery, tradesperson shop, and veterinary service; Maximum GFA for (b) medical offices or clinic, provided it has direct access to an arterial road and is adjacent to other local grouped Local commercial uses; and, Commercial Uses – 1500 (c) residential uses, in accordance with Policy E.3.8.10 – Residential units located in the same building as local sq. m. commercial uses, generally above the ground floor. Arterial Permitted uses include: Prohibited uses include: Commercial (a) commercial uses including banquet halls, restaurants including garden centres, furniture stores, building (a) department stores; and lumber supply establishment, home improvement supply store, and retail primarily for the sale of building (b) food stores; supplies; (c) residential uses; and, (b) automotive related uses primarily for vehicle sales, service and rental, parts sales, gas bars, car washes, (d) stores primarily and service stations; selling apparel, (c) commercial recreational uses, commercial entertainment uses, excluding theatres; housewares, electronics, (d) industrial supply and service and contractor sales; sporting goods, or (e) accommodation, excluding residential uses; general merchandise. (f) enclosed storage including mini warehousing; and, (g) accessory uses. Mixed Use – Permits a full range of retail, service commercial, entertainment, and residential accommodation at a moderate Maximum building Medium Density scale. heights of six stories.
Permitted uses include: (a) commercial uses such as retail stores, auto and home centres, home improvement supply stores, offices Prohibited uses include: oriented to serving residents, personal services, financial establishments, live-work units, artist studios, (a) gas bars and car restaurants, gas bars, and drive-through facilities; washes on pedestrian (b) Notwithstanding Policy E.4.6.5 a), drive-through facilities on pedestrian predominant streets shall only be predominant streets; permitted in accordance with Section E.4.6.29 and all other applicable policies of this Plan. (b) vehicle dealerships; (c) institutional uses such as hospitals, places of worship, and schools; and, (d) arts, cultural, entertainment, and recreational uses; (c) garden centres as a primary use. (e) hotels; (f) multiple dwellings; and, (g) accessory uses.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 30
Table 4.4 Stoney Creek Secondary Plans – Designation Descriptions and Restrictions Secondary Plan Description of Built Form/Permitted Uses Restrictions on Land Designations Use (Density/ GFA/ Prohibited Uses) Mixed Use – High Permitted uses include: Prohibited uses include: Density (a) commercial uses such as retail stores, auto and home centres, home improvement supply stores, offices, (a) gas bars and car personal services, financial establishments, live work units, artist studios, restaurants, gas bars and washes on pedestrian drive-through facilities; predominant streets; (b) Notwithstanding Policy E.4.5.5 a), drive-through facilities on pedestrian predominant streets shall only be (b) vehicle dealerships; permitted in accordance with Section E.4.5.21 and all other applicable policies of this Plan. and, (c) institutional uses such as hospitals, places of worship, and schools; (c) garden centres as a (d) arts, cultural, entertainment, and recreational uses; primary use. (e) hotels, conference and convention centres; (f) multiple dwellings; and, (g) accessory uses. Parks and Open Space Designations Neighbourhood Primarily cater to the recreational needs and interests of the residents living within its general vicinity. Parkland Standards: Park Residents can easily walk or bike to these parks. Neighbourhood Parks are generally comprised of municipal 0.7 ha/1000 population parkland, containing a mixture of passive areas, sports facilities, informal and formal play areas, and may 800 m service include natural areas. They serve a population of approximately 5,000 people and have a minimum size of radius/walking distance. approximately 2 hectares. Community Park Serve more than one neighbourhood, but are not intended to serve the City as a whole. Community Parks Parkland Standards: have more intensive recreational facilities such as sports fields, and recreational and community centres. 0.7 ha/1000 population These facilities shall have good traffic access along adjacent arterial or collector roadways and provide 2 km service adequate parking to meet anticipated demand. Community Parks in the urban area should appropriately be radius/walking distance located along transit routes. They serve a population of approximately 20,000 people and have a minimum size of approximately 7 hectares city wide. City Wide Park Municipally, regionally, provincially or nationally significant destinations that meet the needs of residents and Parkland Standards: 0.7 are of interest to visitors. These facilities are often associated with major recreation, education or leisure ha/1000 pop. activities and may have natural, historic, or unique features. They range greatly in size and type. N/A m service radius/ walking distance. Parkette Small open spaces which have no or limited recreational facilities. They are generally located in the older N/A urban areas where they serve an important function in the provision of open space opportunities. General Open Includes: golf courses, urban farms, community gardens, pedestrian and bicycle trails, walkways, picnic areas, N/A Space beaches, remnant parcels of open space lands, and urban plazas, squares and core spaces. These areas do not function as parks but are used for both active and passive recreational activities. Natural Open Include lands with significant natural features and landscapes such as woodlots, hazard lands, forested slopes, N/A Space creek/ravine corridors, the Niagara Escarpment, environmentally sensitive areas (of natural and scientific interest), and areas of wildlife habitat. These areas perform important biological and ecological functions and provide passive recreational opportunities.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 31
Table 4.4 Stoney Creek Secondary Plans – Designation Descriptions and Restrictions Secondary Plan Description of Built Form/Permitted Uses Restrictions on Land Designations Use (Density/ GFA/ Prohibited Uses) Other Designations Institutional (a) educational facilities, except commercial schools; Lands used for (b) religious facilities; institutional purposes (c) cultural facilities; less than 4 hectares shall be permitted within the (d) health care facilities; Neighbourhoods (e) long term care facilities; designation. (f) day care facilities; (g) accessory uses; and, (h) ancillary uses, in accordance with Policy E.6.2.3. Utility Permitted uses include: N/A (a) major facilities, corridors, easements and rights–of-way for utilities and services, such as electric power, natural gas and oil pipelines, telecommunication, storm water management, solid waste management outside Employment Areas, water and wastewater service; (b) municipal works yards outside Employment Areas; (c) parking lots in conjunction with adjacent uses; (d) open space uses such as trails, urban farms and community gardens; (e) transportation yards; (f) heavy rail corridors and main lines; and, (g) Waste management facilities.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 32
4.2.4 Rural Hamilton Official Plan (2012) Lands to the east of Upper Centennial are designated under the Rural Hamilton Official Plan, as follows9: Agricultural Specialty Crop Rural Open Space Figure 4.9 is representative of the lands with these designations with respect to the Terrapure SCRF.
9 City of Hamilton, 2012. Rural Hamilton Official Plan. Accessed: May 20, 2016. Available at: https://www.hamilton.ca/city planning/official plan zoning by law/rural hamilton official plan
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 33
Figure 4.9 Rural Hamilton Official Plan Land Uses
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 34
4.2.5 City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92 & City of Hamilton Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 05-200 Lands to the north within 500 m of the Site Study Area generally conform to the City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92. Lands to the northwest, west and east of the SCRF within 500 m of the Site Study Area generally conform to the City of Hamilton Zoning By-law No. 05-200. Figure 4.10 shows the most current zoning information for the area within 500 m of the Site Study Area, as provided on the City of Hamilton website interactive zoning mapping tool. Figures 4.11 to 4.14 highlight applicable zoning in accordance with the City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92 & City of Hamilton Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 05-200, with respect to the lands with the Local Study Area.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 35
Figure 4.10 Zoning within 500 m of the Site Study Area – City of Hamilton Interactive Zoning Map
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 36
Figure 4.11 Hamilton Zoning Index Map 'H'
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 37
Figure 4.12 RU 150
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 38
Figure 4.13 RU 151
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 39
Figure 4.14 RU 166
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 40
Table 4.5 identifies existing zoning designations and respective permissible uses within the Local Study Area, in accordance with both the City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92, and the City of Hamilton Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 05-200.
Table 4.5 Local Study Area – Existing Zoning Designations Zoning Zone Description Permitted Uses Designations City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92 (City of Hamilton, 2015(a)). A Agricultural (a) Agricultural Uses (b) A Single Detached Dwelling (c) Boarding Kennel (d) Uses, buildings or structures accessory to a permitted use (e) A Home Occupation GC General Commercial (a) Amusement Centres (b) Animal Hospitals only if wholly enclosed within a building (c) Arenas (d) Art Galleries (e) Athletic Clubs (f) Auditoriums (g) Bakeries (h) Banks or Financial Institutions (i) Banquet Halls (j) Bus Depots (k) Business or Commercial Schools (l) Car Washing Establishments (m) Convenience Food Stores (n) Day Nurseries (o) Dry Cleaning Depots (p) Equipment Rental, Sales or Repairs (q) Food Stores (r) Funeral Homes (s) Gasoline Bars (t) Hotels (u) Libraries (v) Medical Laboratories (w) Medical Clinics (x) Motels (y) Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories Retail Stores (z) Motor Vehicle Service Stations Motor (aa) Vehicle Dealerships (ab) Museums (ac) Parking Garages or Parking Lots (ad) Personal Service Shops (ae) Pharmacies (af) Places of Entertainment or Recreation (ag) Places of Worship (ah) Private or Commercial Clubs (ai) Professional or Business Offices (aj) Restaurants - Convenience (ak) Restaurants - Fast Food (al) Restaurants - Outdoor Patio (am) Restaurants - Standard (an) Retail Stores (ao) Taverns (ap) Theatres (aq) One accessory dwelling unit and a home occupation provided such unit is located together with a permitted
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 41
Table 4.5 Local Study Area – Existing Zoning Designations Zoning Zone Description Permitted Uses Designations commercial use within the same building and is not located on the ground floor, or in the cellar or basement. (ar) Uses, buildings or structures accessory to a permitted use GC-52, GC-56 General Commercial
Special Exemptions HC Highway Commercial (a) Bus Depots (b) Car Washing Establishments (c) Convenience Food Stores not exceeding 150 square metres in gross floor area (d) Gasoline Bars (e) Hotels (f) Motels (g) Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories Retail Stores (h) Motor Vehicle Dealerships (i) Motor Vehicle Service Stations (j) Nursery Garden Centres (k) Permanent Fruit and Vegetable Stands (l) Places of Entertainment or Recreation (m) Recreational Vehicle Sales (n) Restaurants - Convenience (o) Restaurants – Fast Food (p) Restaurants - Outdoor Patio (q) Restaurants - Standard (r) Uses, buildings or structures accessory to a permitted use. HC-5, HC-6H Highway Commercial
Special Exemptions IR2 Intensive Recreation (a) Any Recreational or Cultural Uses (b) Amusement Parks (c) Arenas (d) Auditoriums (e) Boat and Marine Supplies, Sales and Service (f) Bowling Alleys (g) Camping Grounds (h) Conservation Areas (i) Curling Rinks (j) Equestrian Establishments (k) Golf Courses (l) Marinas (m) Open or Covered Commercial Swimming Pools (n) Private Clubs (o) Public or Private Parks (p) Retail stores accessory to a permitted use (q) Uses, buildings or structures accessory to a permitted use
Lands zoned "IR-2" by this By-law may also be used for operations associated with the disposal of solid non-hazardous waste from industrial, commercial and institutional sources LC(H1) Local Commercial (Hold) Amended from RM2-41(H) upon completion of the following: a) That those lands located within the 50 dBA sound level of the Special Exemptions – rock crushing establishment (All Around Contracting Yard) not 420 First Road West be developed until such time as the establishment ceases to operate, to satisfaction of the Director of Planning. LC(H2) Local Commercial (Hold) Amended from RM2-41(H) upon completion of the following:
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 42
Table 4.5 Local Study Area – Existing Zoning Designations Zoning Zone Description Permitted Uses Designations a) That all residential lands within 160 m of the working licensed Special Exemptions – limits of the active quarry or the limits of the former quarry 420 First Road West under rehabilitation shall not be developed until such time as the completion of mining and the completion of rehabilitation on the quarry lands immediately adjacent to the Holding (H) Zone have been finalized to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning; and, b) That those lands located within the 50 dBA sound level demarcation of the All Around Contracting facility not be developed until such time as the facility ceases to operate, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. MR Rural Industrial (a) Agricultural Uses, save and except, buildings or structures for human habitation (b) Agricultural Research (c) Animal Hospitals or Shelters and accessory dwelling units (d) Farm Implement Sales and Service (e) Industrial Uses pertaining to the manufacturing, processing, wholesaling, warehousing or storage of agricultural products or farm supplies provided that such uses are not obnoxious by reason of the emission of odour, dust, smoke, gas, fumes, noise, cinders, vibration, refuse matter or water carried waste, and uses accessory thereto save and except those for human habitation (f) Parking Lots ND Neighbourhood (a) Agricultural uses except poultry farms, mushroom farms, fur Development farms, piggeries, hatcheries, kennels and also excluding any residential use not existing at the date of the passing of this Bylaw. (b) One single detached dwelling and uses, buildings or structures accessory thereto, existing at the date of the passing of this Bylaw. (c) All greenhouse development shall be subject to site plan control under the City's Site Plan Control Bylaw. (OMB Order Feb. 20, 1996) (d) Urban Farm (Bylaw 14279) (e) Community Garden (Bylaw 14279) ND3 Neighbourhood Lands zoned "ND-3" by this By-law may also be used for Development operations associated with the disposal of solid non-hazardous waste from industrial, commercial and institutional sources. Special Exemptions – West of First Road West, North of Mud Street West ND-5 Neighbourhood Lands zoned “ND-5” by this By-law may also be used for Development agricultural uses and greenhouses shall not be permitted.
Special Exemptions – West of Centennial Parkway, South of Mud Street West OS Open Space (a) Botanical Gardens (b) Cemeteries (c) Conservation Uses (d) Fishing Preserves (e) Golf Courses including Driving Ranges (f) Hazard Lands (g) Nature Trails
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 43
Table 4.5 Local Study Area – Existing Zoning Designations Zoning Zone Description Permitted Uses Designations (h) Public or Private Parks (i) Public Greenhouses (j) Wildlife Management Areas (k) Woodlots (l) Uses, buildings or structures accessory to a permitted use OS3 Open Space Lands zoned "OS3" by this Bylaw shall only be used for uses existing at the date of the passing of this Bylaw, natural forests, Special Exemption – wildlife Niagara Escarpment conservation areas, hiking trails, nature viewing areas, passive Slope, Lots 1 to 33 public parks, archaeological uses, watershed management (inclusive), Concessions uses, flood and erosions control uses, transportation and utility 2 to 6 (inclusive) uses and uses accessory and incidental thereto. R1 Single Residential (a) A single detached dwelling (b) Uses, buildings or structures accessory to a permitted use (c) A Home Occupation R2 Single Residential – Two (a) A single detached dwelling (b) Uses, buildings or structures accessory to a permitted use (c) A Home Occupation R3 Single Residential – (a) A single detached dwelling Three (b) Uses, buildings or structures accessory to a permitted use (c) A Home Occupation R4 Single Residential – (a) A single detached dwelling Four (b) Uses, buildings or structures accessory to a permitted use (c) A Home Occupation R4-24, R4-26, Single Residential – R4-27, R4-28, Four R4-31, R4-32 Special Exemptions R5, R5-10 Residential – Five (a) A semidetached dwelling (b) A Home Occupation (c) Uses, buildings or structures accessory to a permitted use R6 Residential – Six (a) A single detached dwelling (b) A semidetached dwelling (c) A duplex (d) A Home Occupation (e) Uses, buildings or structures accessory to a permitted use RM2 Multiple Residential (a) Street Townhouses (b) A Home Occupation (c) Uses, buildings or structures accessory to a permitted use RM2-19, RM2- Multiple Residential 20, RM2-23, RM2-26, RM2- Special Exemptions 40, RM2-40(H1, H2), RM2-41, RM2-41(H), RM2-54 RM3 Multiple Residential (a) Maisonettes (b) Street Townhouses (c) Townhouses (d) Apartment Dwellings (e) Dwelling Groups (f) A Home Occupation (g) Uses, buildings or structures accessory to a permitted use
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 44
Table 4.5 Local Study Area – Existing Zoning Designations Zoning Zone Description Permitted Uses Designations RM3-37, RM3- Multiple Residential 38 Special Exemptions RR Rural Residential (a) A Single Detached Dwelling (b) Uses, buildings or structures accessory to a permitted use (c) A Home Occupation SC2-5(H) Community Shopping (a) Banks or Financial Institutions Centre (b) Commercial or Private Schools (c) Day Nurseries Special Exception – 165 (d) Garden Nursery Centres Upper Centennial (e) Medical Offices or Clinics Parkway (f) Professional or Business Offices (g) Restaurants – Convenience, Fast Food, Outdoor Patio, Standard (h) Retail Stores (i) Service Shops (j) Uses, buildings or structures accessory to a permitted use (k) Veterinary Service City of Hamilton Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw No. 05200 (City of Hamilton, 2015(c)). A1 Agriculture Agriculture, Residential Care Facility, Secondary Uses to Agriculture, Single Detached Dwelling, Veterinary Service – Farm Animal E1 Existing Rural Agricultural Processing Establishment – Stand Alone, Commercial Agricultural Storage Establishment, Farm Product Supply Dealer, Kennel, Uses Existing at the date of passing of the By- law I1 Neighbourhood Community Garden; Day Nursery; Duplex Dwelling; Educational Institutional Establishment; Emergency Shelter; Museum; Place of Worship; Residential Care Facility; Retirement Home; Semi-Detached Dwelling; Single Detached Dwelling; Urban Farm; Urban Farmers Market I2 Community Institutional Community Garden; Day Nursery; Duplex Dwelling; Educational Establishment; Emergency Shelter; Museum; Recreation; Place of Worship; Residential Care Facility; Retirement Home; Semi- Detached Dwelling; Single Detached Dwelling; Social Services Establishment; Street Townhouse Dwelling; Urban Farm; Urban Farmers Market I3 Major Institutional Garden; Community Day Nursery; Educational Establishment; Emergency Shelter; Hospital; Lodging House; Long Term Care Facility; Medical Clinic; Multiple Dwelling; Place of Worship; Recreation; Residential Care Facility; Retirement Home; Social Services Establishment; Street Townhouse Dwelling; Urban Farm; Urban Farmers Market P1 Neighbourhood Park Community Garden; Recreation; Urban Farm P3 City Wide Zone Commercial Entertainment; Commercial Parking Facility; Commercial Recreation; Community Garden; Marina; Recreation; Restaurant; Retail; Urban Farm; Urban Farmers Market P4 Open Space Botanical Gardens; Cemetery; Community Garden; Conservation; Golf Course (excluding mini golf); Nature Centres; Marina; Recreation; Urban Farm P5 Conservation/Hazard Conservation; Flood and Erosion Control Facilities; Recreation, Lands Passive
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 45
Table 4.5 Local Study Area – Existing Zoning Designations Zoning Zone Description Permitted Uses Designations P5 Exception: Conservation/Hazard 23 Lands
Special Exception
5. Characterization of the Existing Social/Economic Environment
The analysis presented in this section describes the existing social environment within the SCRF Site and Local Study Areas.
5.1 Neighbourhood & Community Character The existing SCRF Site is a 75.1 ha (185.5 acre) parcel of land at the northwest corner of Mud Street and Upper Centennial Parkway (Highway 20) in the community of upper Stoney Creek, squarely in the middle of The City of Hamilton's Ward 9, and within the Federal/Provincial electoral district of Niagara West-Glanbrook10. The population of Ward 9 is reported to be 30,015 persons, which is approximately 5.6 percent of the total population of Hamilton11. Population projections for Ward 9 show an increase of approximately 57 percent by 2031 (based on 2011 population data), coupled with a 44 percent increase in dwelling units from 10,165 in 2006, to 18,020 units in 203112. According to 2011 census data, the age group with the largest representation within Ward 9 is the 50 to 54 cohort, accounting for 8.3 percent of the population. In 2011, 51.2 percent of Ward 9 residents reported having some form of postsecondary certificate, diploma or degree, as compared to 50.9 percent of the total population of Hamilton13. As of the 2011 census, the top three ethnicities within Ward 9 included English, Canadian, and Scottish14. Twenty-two percent of Ward 9 residents identify as immigrants, of which 1.3 percent were considered recent immigrants in 2011 15. The nearest residential dwelling property boundary (currently under construction) is approximately 35 m north of the existing property boundary, approximately 55 m from Site infrastructure (i.e., surface water ponds), near the intersection of Green Mountain Road West and First Road West. The nearest existing residential dwelling in relation to the southern SCRF property boundary is approximately 60 m south (from the SCRF property line to the nearest residential property line). There are approximately 5,800 existing residential dwellings (built, under construction or approved) within the Local Study Area, with the largest concentrations to the south and southwest of the Site along Mud Street West. An additional subdivision is under construction to the north.
10 City of Hamilton, 2011. City of Hamilton Ward Profiles Ward 9. Accessed: May 20, 2016. Available at: https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/files/media/browser/2015 06 01/ward profiles 2011 ward 9.pdf 11 Statistics Canada, 2016. Census Profile, 2016 Census, Hamilton, City. Accessed: September 27, 2017. Available at: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp- pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=3525005&Geo2=CD&Code2=3525&Data=Count&Search Text=hamilton&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&TABID=1 12 Statistics Canada, 2011. Niagara West – Glanbrook NHS Profile. Accessed: May 20, 2016. Available at: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs enm/2011/dp pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=FED&Code1=35055&Data=Count&SearchText=Niagara%20West%20 %20Glanbrook&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&A1=All&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=055&TABID=1 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 46
5.2 Visual A combination of earth berms, vegetation, and fences are established around the perimeter of the Site to screen views of the SCRF from the surrounding built-up areas. These features will be maintained throughout the life of the SCRF operation, and will be left in place for as long as practical, until the final cover has been constructed or as directed in the closure plan. These features will also be upgraded periodically as required to accommodate changes in Site operations or changes to the surrounding land uses. Views of the existing SCRF from locations in and around the Local Study Area are provided in the photo log below, and the locations from which each of the photos were taken are shown on Figure 5.1. As noted above, views of the SCRF from the surrounding built-up areas are generally obscured. Locations from which the SCRF operations are somewhat visible include: Heritage Green Community Sports Park; Heritage Green Passive Park; Heritage Green Community Trust Leash Free Dog Park; north along First Road West within approximately 500 m of the Site Study Area boundary, to the west of the SCRF; and along First Road East, near the eastern extreme of the Local Study Area. Views of the SCRF from the roads surrounding the SCRF Site perimeter to the north (Green Mountain Road West), east (Upper Centennial Parkway), and south (Mud Street West) are primarily of the earth berms, vegetation, and fences.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 47
Figure 5.1 Local Study Area Photo Log Locations
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 48
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 49
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 50
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 51
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 52
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 53
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 54
5.3 Local Businesses, Institutions, Public Facilities and Community Services As residential development with the Local Study Area is most highly concentrated in the south and southwest, so too are the majority of local businesses, institutions, public facilities and community services. There are also a number of local businesses to the southeast and east, as well as a few to the north. Local Businesses (within 500 m) Empire Developments (22 Green Mountain Road West) Pro's Golf Centre (22 Green Mountain Road East) Starlite Drive-In (59 Green Mountain Road East) Green Mountain Gardens (398 Upper Centennial Parkway) Pioneer Gas Station (333 Upper Centennial Parkway) Esso Gas Station (249 Upper Centennial Parkway) Tim Hortons (On the Run) (249 Upper Centennial Parkway) Wendy's Restaurant (244 Upper Centennial Parkway) Tim Horton's (244 Upper Centennial Parkway) Queenston Tire & Rim (225 Upper Centennial Parkway) JD's Grooming (225 Upper Centennial Parkway) Institutions Saltfleet High School (108 Highland Road West, approximately 700 m south of the SCRF) St. James the Apostle Catholic Elementary School (29 John Murray Street, approximately 500 m southwest of the SCRF) Mount Albion Public School (24 Kennard Street, approximately 1.2 km southwest of the SCRF) Heritage Green Child Care (360 Isaac Brock Drive, approximately 800 m southwest of the SCRF) Heritage Green Nursing Home (353 Isaac Brock Drive, approximately 1.1 km southwest of the SCRF) St. Paul Catholic Elementary School (24 Amberwood Street, approximately 1.5 km west of the SCRF) Billy Green Elementary School (1105 Paramount Drive North, approximately 1.5 km west of the SCRF) Gatestone Elementary School (127 Gatestone Drive, approximately 1.5 km south of the SCRF) Public Facilities Hamilton Fire Station 17 (415 Arvin Avenue, approximately 1 km southwest of the SCRF) Family Church of Heritage Green (360 Isaac Brock Drive, approximately 800 m southwest of the SCRF) Heritage Green Seventh Day Adventist Church (360 Isaac Brock Drive, approximately 900 m southwest of the SCRF) Salvation Army Winterberry Heights Church (300 Winterberry Drive, approximately 1.2 km west of the SCRF) Paramount Drive Alliance Church (1035 Paramount Drive, approximately 1.4 km west of the SCRF)
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 55
Community Services Valley Park Recreation Centre and Arena (970 Paramount Drive, approximately 1.5 km southwest of the SCRF) Heritage Green Seniors Centre (351 Isaac Brock Drive, approximately 1.1 km southwest of the SCRF)
5.4 Recreation There are a number of recreational facilities that support the surrounding residential developments in the vicinity of the SCRF. The following parks and recreational facilities are located within 500 m of the SCRF: Heritage Green Passive Park & Heritage Green Community Trust Leash Free Dog Park Heritage Green Community Sports Park Pro's Golf Centre Starlite Drive-In Within the wider Local Study Area the parks and recreational facilities include: Maplewood Green Park Maplewood Park Felker Park Dofasco Park Felker's Falls Conservation Area
5.5 Agriculture An individual assessment was undertaken to assess and document the agricultural characteristics of an area identified as extending 500 m to the east side of the Terrapure Environmental facility located at 65 Green Mountain Road West in Stoney Creek. The study was completed using a similar approach as is used when completing an Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and included review of secondary sources in addition to a reconnaissance level survey of land use surrounding the SCRF. A full description and details on the study methodology and approach can be viewed in more detail in Appendix A. Findings A reconnaissance level survey of land use was completed on December 13, 2018. The conditions at the time of the survey were overcast and foggy, with a temperature near 0 degrees Celsius. The ground was covered with a thin layer of light snow (less than one centimeter). Agricultural crop residue was visible in the fields and allowed for an assessment of the 2018 cropping land use. Tile Drainage and Irrigation Observations noted during the reconnaissance survey indicated that properties within the Study Area are not irrigated and that the properties are not set up for the use of irrigation equipment and the properties have limited tile drainage and little capital investment in agricultural drainage systems. Land Use and Infrastructure The survey further revealed the agricultural and non-agricultural land use of the study area. Figure 5.2 illustrates the respective land uses. The lands north of Green Mountain Road East include a mix land uses including scrub lands (land that have not been used for agricultural for less than 5 years), built up areas (residences and lands associated with a residence; commercial operations (greenhouse); recreation (drive in theatre), woodlots, and apple orchards (remnant and intensive). The lands located between Mud Street East and Green Mountain Road East include a mix of land
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 56
uses including scrublands, built up areas (residences), recreation (golf course), woodlots , grassed areas and agricultural lands (winter wheat and soybean). An abandoned track horse track area (scrub) was noted in the central portion of this area. The lands south of Mud Street East comprised built up areas (restaurant – Wendy’s and Tim Horton’s) and recreation (remnant golf course). There were no agricultural facilities (barns) located within the Study Area. One greenhouse operation was noted north of Green Mountain Road East. There are no livestock facilities within the Study Area. There are no agricultural equipment dealers (tractors, implements), tire repair, hydraulic hose repair, grain storage, grain drying operations, processing or transportation facilities within the Study Area. It is evident from Figure 5.2 that the Study Area (500 m east of the Terrapure Environmental facility) is a mix of agricultural and non-agricultural land uses. These mixes of land uses are characteristic of areas that are under transition, or under pressure due to development of urban areas and the resulting decline of intensive agriculture in the immediate surrounding area. There are no agricultural markets, abattoirs, pick-your own operations, nurseries, frozen food manufacturing, livestock assets and services, and meat plants within the study area. The Study Area (500 m east of the Terrapure Environmental facility) comprises numerous smaller parcels of varying size and shape. Modern agriculture relies on the use of mechanized inputs such as large tractors and implements. The smaller parcels and small parcels with odd shapes would be detrimental to the use of larger mechanized equipment. The size, shape and numbers of smaller parcels are also characteristic of areas that are under transition, or areas that are under pressure due to development or urban areas and the resulting decline of large, intensive agricultural operations in the immediate surrounding area.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 57
Figure 5.2 Land UseSoils and Crop Ratings Figure 5.3 illustrates the OMAFRA soils and Canada Land Inventory (CLI) information for the Study Area. Five soil series were noted in the Study Area. The five soil series were identified as: Binbrook Silt Loam; Farmington Loam; Haldimand Silty Clay Loam; Lincoln Loam; and Smithville Silt Loam.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 58
Within the Study Area: Binbrook Silt Loam soils have been rated as CLI class 1; Farmington Loam soils have been rated as CLI class 6R; Haldimand Silty Clay Loam soils have been rated as CLI class 2D; Lincoln Loam soils have been rated as CLI class 3DW; and Smithville Silt Loam soils have been rated as CLI class 3E. The soils within the Study Area are predominantly CLI class 1-3 and are considered as Prime Agricultural soils. It is evident that the soil series identified within the Study Area are not particularly well suited to tree fruit, grapes or berry crops.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 59
Figure 5.3 OMAFRA Soils and Canada Land Inventory (CLI) Roads and Traffic
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 60
The reconnaissance land use survey also made note of existing road structure. It was observed that the Upper Centennial Parkway was a 4 lane paved road with wide graveled shoulders and traffic control lights are the Mud Street and Green Mountain intersections. Mud Street East and Green Mountain Road East were two lane paved roads with narrow shoulders. Traffic into the Terrapure Environmental facility is controlled through dedicated entrance and exits to the west side of Upper Centennial Parkway. As a result, the potential continued traffic flow to and from the facility should have limited impact on the agricultural activities to the east of Upper Centennial Parkway.
5.6 Local Employment, Labour Supply and Economic Base In 2011, the total labour force aged 15 years and over within Ward 9 was 14,580 (City of Hamilton, 2011). The largest portion of the Ward 9 labour force (22.4 percent) was employed in the "sales and service" field in 2011, followed by "business, finance, and administration" (17.5 percent), and "trades, transport, agriculture, and related production" (16.7 percent) 16. The unemployment rate within Ward 9 was 7.3 percent (as compared to 8.7 percent for Hamilton) in 201117. The SCRF directly employs approximately 13 people on a full-time basis. An economic impact assessment was completed by RIAS Inc. in early-2016 regarding reconfiguration and vertical expansion of the SCRF and the potential output to the local economy. Based on the historical fill rate of 559,000 tonnes per year, the study determined the SCRF Site generates $28.7 million in economic activity in the Hamilton area per year, adding $17.9 million in GDP, 51 jobs, and almost $2.6 million in wages for local workers18. The SCRF's remaining lifespan, based on its current configuration, will generate between $94 million and $104 million in total economic activity in the Hamilton area, between $59 million and $65 million in GDP, and 164 to 190 jobs for local workers, earning a total of $8.4 million to $9.6 million in wages19. The existing SCRF generates $2.2 million per year in local taxes, royalties and fees paid by Terrapure20. As a result of a potential capacity increase of 3.68 million m3 of residual material, using the reconfiguration and vertical expansion Alternative Landfill Footprints, total economic activity in the Hamilton area generated by the SCRF is expected to range from $349 million to $372 million, with GDP from $218 million to $232 million, and an estimated total jobs to be between 662 and 67121.
5.7 Existing Compensation Agreements – Heritage Green Community Trust & City of Hamilton It is important to note that $1 per tonne of residual material accepted at the SCRF is provided to the Heritage Green Community Trust and to the City of Hamilton (each) – this does not continue with the current future requirement for receiving industrial fill. If Terrapure were to proceed with the option to add disposal capacity at the SCRF, the financial contributions to both the Heritage Green Community Trust and the City of Hamilton would continue22.
16 City of Hamilton, 2011. City of Hamilton Ward Profiles Ward 9. Accessed: May 20, 2016. Available at: https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/files/media/browser/2015 06 01/ward profiles 2011 ward 9.pdf 17 Ibid. 18 RIAS Inc., 2017. Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility. 440 Laurier Avenue West, Suite 200, Ottawa ON 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 GHD 2017. Supporting Document #1: Terrapure Stoney Creek Regional Facility – Business Case Analysis.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 | F - 61
Appendix A Agricultural Characterization Study
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Land Use | 11102771 DBH Soil Services Inc. 217 Highgate Court, Kitchener Ontario N2N 3N9 Phone: (519) 578-9226 Fax: (519) 578-5039
Via email
Mr. Blair Shoniker Senior Waste & Environmental Planner GHD 65 Sunray Street Whitby, ON L1N 8Y3
December 21, 2018
Dear Mr. Shoniker:
Re: Agricultural Characterization Stoney Creek Regional Facility EA 65 Green Mountain Road West City of Hamilton
DBH Soil Services Inc. was retained by Terrapure Environmental to provide a study that documents the agricultural characteristics of an area identified as extending 500 m to the east side of the Terrapure Environmental facility located at 65 Green Mountain Road West in Stoney Creek. Figure 1 illustrates the approximate location and shape of the Terrapure Environmental site and illustrates the approximate location of a 500 m buffer extending around the entire site. This 500 m buffer area is henceforth referred to as the Study Area
Introduction
GHD was retained to complete an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Terrapure Environmental Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF). Terrapure Environmental is seeking to increase the total approved capacity for post diversion-solid non-hazardous industrial residual material at the SCRF by 3,680,000 cubic metres.
The Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) requires that proponents describe the environment that may potentially be affected or may reasonably be expected to be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed increase at the SCRF.
This report focuses on characterizing the agricultural conditions within the Study Area (a 500 m buffer extending from the east side of the existing facility).
Methodology
Clearly defined and organized environmental practices are necessary for the conservation of land and resources. The long term protection of quality agricultural lands is a priority of the Province of Ontario and has been addressed in the Provincial Policy Statement (2014). Further, in an effort to protect agricultural lands, the Province of Ontario has adopted policy and guidelines to provide a framework for managing growth. These four provincial land use plans: Greenbelt Plan (2017); the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2017); the Niagara Escarpment Plan (2017); and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe(GGH) (2017) support the long term protection of farmland The four provincial land use plans have policy plans that require Agricultural Impact Assessments (AIA) in the GGH. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has recently produced a document that identifies the requirements of Agricultural Impact Assessments. This document is titled “Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Guidance Document (March 2018).”
With respect to this study and the four provincial land use plans, the Study Area (500 m to the east side of the Terrapure Environmental facility) is located within the community of Stoney Creek (part of the City of Hamilton).
1 File:2019/03/Report
DBH Soil Services Inc. 217 Highgate Court, Kitchener Ontario N2N 3N9 Phone: (519) 578-9226 Fax: (519) 578-5039
As such, of the four provincial land use plans, the Greenbelt Plan (2017), the Niagara Escarpment Plan (2017) and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017) are applicable to this area.
Further to the above mentioned Provincial policy, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has a Minimum Distance Separation guideline (The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Document: Formulae and Guidelines for Livestock Facility and Anaerobic Digester Odour Setbacks, Publication 853, (2016)) that was reviewed as part of this study.
Municipal Governments have similar regard for the protection and preservation of agricultural lands, and address their specific concerns within their respective Official Plans and Zoning By-Laws.
With this in mind, the Rural Hamilton Official Plan (October 2018) and the City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-Law No. 3692-92 were reviewed as part of this study.
As a result of the requirements of this study, the characterization of agriculture within the 500 m buffer to the east side of the Terrapure Environmental facility was completed by using a similar approach as is used when completing an Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA). Although neither the City of Hamilton nor Stoney Creek have specific guidelines for completing an AIA or an agricultural characterization study, certain standards are available within other Regions and Townships that outline methods for documenting the agricultural characteristics of an area. Further, the Provincial Government has provided the Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment Guidance Document.
The OMAFRA Draft Agricultural Impact Assessment Guidance Document provides comment on the Background for the Technical AIA Guidelines in Section 1.5 – Components of an AIA where it is indicated that there are ten components: 1. An Introduction 2. Process - consultation 3. Study Area Identification 4. Study Methodology 5. Description of soils, land use etc. 6. Assessment of Impacts 7. Mitigation Measures 8. Net Impacts 9. Study Recommendations and Conclusion and 10. Appendices
AIA’s may vary in detail depending on the nature, scale and extent of the development.
The Region of Halton (in conjunction with the Halton Agricultural Advisory Committee) has created ‘Agricultural Impact Assessment Guidelines (2014)’. It is recommended within those guidelines that an AIA should have:
· A description of the proposal · Land use features: · Type and intensity of existing agriculture · Land use (agricultural and non-agricultural) · Parcel size, shape and accessibility · Land tenure (ownership) · Capital investment in agriculture (investment in land improvement, irrigation, facilities, drainage) · Assessment of the impacts on agriculture · Direct land lost · Impacts to drainage features · Loss of infrastructure · Disruption of irrigation or artificial drainage
2 File:2019/03/Report
DBH Soil Services Inc. 217 Highgate Court, Kitchener Ontario N2N 3N9 Phone: (519) 578-9226 Fax: (519) 578-5039
· Changes to landform · Potential effects of the proposal on existing and potential farming operations on the surrounding lands (eg: traffic, noise, odours, water) · Impact on the existing agricultural character of the general area · Mitigative Measures · An indication of any measures that could be taken to reduce the impacts of the proposal (Fencing, signage, berms, buffers, vegetation)
This agricultural characterization study will provide documented context for the above mentioned land use features; an assessment of impacts; and provide comment on possible mitigation measures.
In addition to the above mentioned policy documents this study will also include a review of the: Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Document: Formulae and Guidelines for Livestock Facility and Anaerobic Digester Odour Setbacks (Publication 853, 2014); Soils of the Wentworth County (Report No. 32 of the Ontario Soil Survey, 1965); and will include a reconnaissance level survey of the Study Area to document existing land uses (both agricultural and non-agricultural) and the location, type, size of any agricultural facilities.
Findings
Provincial Policy Statement (2014)
The Provincial Policy Statement (2014) was enacted to document the Ontario Provincial Governments development and land use planning strategies. The Provincial Policy Statement provides the policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land.
Agricultural Policies are addressed in Section 2.3 – Agriculture. Relevant policy is stated as follows:
2.3.1 Prime agricultural areas shall be protected for long-term use for agriculture.
Prime agricultural areas are areas where prime agricultural lands predominate. Specialty crop areas shall be given the highest priority for protection, followed by Canada Land Inventory Class 1, 2, and 3 lands, and any associated Class 4through 7 lands within the prime agricultural area, in this order of priority.
2.3.3.2 In prime agricultural areas, all types, sizes and intensities of agricultural uses and normal farm practices shall be promoted and protected in accordance with provincial standards.
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017)
Figure 1 illustrates the location and shape of the Terrapure Environmental facility. This study documents the agricultural characteristics within 500 m of the east side of the Terrapure Environmental facility. As noted in Figure 1, the lands within the 500 m buffer include portions of Prime Agricultural Area and Specialty Crop Area as is defined within the Agricultural Land Base as part of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017). The portion of the buffer north of Mud Street East is within the Specialty Crop Area, while the portion of the buffer south of Mud Street East is within the Prime Agricultural Area.
Rural Hamilton Official Plan (October 2018)
A review of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan (October 2018) – Rural Hamilton Official Plan Schedule D – Rural Land Use Designations (March 7, 2012) illustrates similar characteristics. The lands extending 500 m to the east of the Terrapure Environmental facility and north of Mud Street East are illustrated as Specialty Crop Areas, while the lands to the south of Mud Street East (and within the 500 m buffer) are illustrated as Open Space.
3 File:2019/03/Report
DBH Soil Services Inc. 217 Highgate Court, Kitchener Ontario N2N 3N9 Phone: (519) 578-9226 Fax: (519) 578-5039
Minimum Distance Separation (MDS)
A review of the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Document: Formulae and Guidelines for Livestock Facility and Anaerobic Digester Odour Setbacks (Publication 853, 2014) states under General Guideline #3 “Certain proposed uses are not reasonably expected to be impacted by existing livestock facilities or anaerobic digesters and as a result, do not require an MDS I setback. Such uses may include, but are not limited to: • extraction of minerals, petroleum resources and mineral aggregate resources;” infrastructure; and • landfills.
Therefore, MDS calculations are not required for this agricultural characterization study.
Physiography
A review of the Physiography of Southern Ontario 3rd Edition, Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 2, Ministry of Natural Resources, 1984 revealed that the Study Area is located immediately at the boundary between the Haldimand Clay Plain and the Niagara Escarpment. The northern portion of the Study Area exhibits characteristics of the Niagara Escarpment with shallow soils over bedrock materials, while the southern portion of the Study Area comprises deeper soils consisting of clay and silt materials.
Topography and Climate
The topography of the Study Area can be described as gently to moderately rolling in the northern portions and gently rolling in the southern portions.
A review of the OMAFRA document titled ‘Agronomy Guide for Field Crops – Publication 811 (June 2009)’ and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) Factsheet – Crop Heat Units for Corn and Other Warm Season Crops in Ontario, 1993 revealed that the Study Area is located within the 3100 – 3300 crop heat units (CHU-M1) range for corn.
The Crop Heat Units (CHU) index was originally developed for field corn and has been in use in Ontario for 30 years. The CHU ratings are based on the total accumulated crop heat units for the frost free growing season in each area of the province. CHU averages range between 2500 near North Bay to over 3500 near Windsor. The higher the CHU value, the longer the growing season and greater are the opportunities for growing value crops.
Reconnaissance Survey
A reconnaissance level survey of land use was completed on December 13, 2018. The conditions at the time of the survey were overcast and foggy, with a temperature near 0 degrees Celsius. The ground was covered with a thin layer of light snow (less than one centimeter). Agricultural crop residue was visible in the fields and allowed for an assessment of the 2018 cropping land use.
Investment in Agriculture – Tile Drainage
Figure 1 also illustrates the approximate location of agricultural tile drainage systems as provided by the Land Information Ontario (LIO) data warehouse. This tile drainage information is provided to LIO by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and is updated frequently. As illustrated in Figure 1 there is one area of tile drainage noted within the 500 m buffer. This area of tile drainage is located north of Green Mountain Road East and represents a Random system. Random systems refer to a system of tile drains that are not as intensive or extensive as a systematic drainage system. The Random systems usually relate to individual tiles that are buried to drain a specific area of a field and not the entire field. It should also be noted 4 File:2019/03/Report
DBH Soil Services Inc. 217 Highgate Court, Kitchener Ontario N2N 3N9 Phone: (519) 578-9226 Fax: (519) 578-5039 that when compared to Figure 2 –Land Use, that the random tile system appears to drain a woodlot area and a built up area that is associated with a greenhouse operation. Therefore, based on this information, the study area has limited tile drainage and little capital investment in agricultural drainage systems.
Investment in Agriculture - Irrigation
Observations noted during the reconnaissance survey indicated that properties within the Study Area are not irrigated and that the properties are not set up for the use of irrigation equipment. Visual evidence supporting the use of irrigation equipment would include the presence of the irrigation equipment (piping, water guns, sprayers, tubing, etc), the presence of a body of water capable of sustaining the irrigation operation and lands that are appropriate for the use of such equipment (relatively level topography).
No irrigation equipment was observed within the Study Area during the course of the reconnaissance survey. Therefore, the Study Area has no capital investment in agricultural irrigation.
Land Use and Agricultural Infrastructure
The reconnaissance level survey revealed the agricultural and non-agricultural land use of the study area. Figure 2 illustrates the respective land uses. The lands north of Green Mountain Road East include a mix land uses including scrub lands (land that have not been used for agricultural for less than 5 years), built up areas (residences and lands associated with a residence; commercial operations (greenhouse); recreation (drive in theatre), woodlots, and apple orchards (remnant and intensive). The lands located between Mud Street East and Green Mountain Road East include a mix of land uses including scrublands, built up areas (residences), recreation (golf course), woodlots , grassed areas and agricultural lands (winter wheat and soybean). An abandoned track horse track area (scrub) was noted in the central portion of this area. The lands south of Mud Street East comprised built up areas (restaurant – Wendy’s and Tim Horton’s) and recreation (remnant golf course).
There were no agricultural facilities (barns) located within the Study Area. One greenhouse operation was noted north of Green Mountain Road East. There are no livestock facilities within the Study Area. There are no agricultural equipment dealers (tractors, implements), tire repair, hydraulic hose repair, grain storage, grain drying operations, processing or transportation facilities within the Study Area.
It is evident from Figure 2 that the Study Area (500 m east of the Terrapure Environmental facility) is a mix of agricultural and non-agricultural land uses. These mixes of land uses are characteristic of areas that are under transition, or under pressure due to development of urban areas and the resulting decline of intensive agriculture in the immediate surrounding area.
Agricultural Systems Portal
An online review of the OMAFRA Agricultural Systems Portal was completed to determine the extent of agricultural infrastructure in the Study Area and within a broader area. Attached to this report is a printout from the Agricultural Systems Portal that illustrates the relative location of agricultural markets, abattoirs, pick-your- own operations, nurseries, frozen food manufacturing, livestock assets and services, and meat plants.
It is evident from this image that there are no facilities within the Study Area, and in the broader scale, there is more infrastructure to the south and east.
Fragmentation
Figure 3 illustrates the parcel or property boundaries for the Study Area. It is evident from this image that the Study Area comprises numerous small parcels. Severed parcels were noted to the north of Green Mountain Road East and east of Upper Centennial Parkway. Residential units were noted on these parcels. South of Green Mountain Road East is a larger parcel that is associated with the golf course. Numerous small parcels were noted 5 File:2019/03/Report
DBH Soil Services Inc. 217 Highgate Court, Kitchener Ontario N2N 3N9 Phone: (519) 578-9226 Fax: (519) 578-5039 to the east of the larger parcel. Numerous small (different sized and shaped) parcels were noted between Green Mountain Road East and Mud Street East. A ‘for sale’ sign was noted on one of the smaller parcels along the east side of Upper Centennial Parkway and north of Mud Street East.
The lands south of Mud Street East were illustrated as a single parcel. This area comprised the restaurants (Wendy’s and Tim Horton’s building and associated parking lot) plus the remnant golf course.
It is evident from Figure 3 that the Study Area (500 m east of the Terrapure Environmental facility) comprises numerous smaller parcels of varying size and shape. Modern agriculture relies on the use of mechanized inputs such as large tractors and implements. The smaller parcels and small parcels with odd shapes would be detrimental to the use of larger mechanized equipment. The size, shape and numbers of smaller parcels are also characteristic of areas that are under transition, or areas that are under pressure due to development or urban areas and the resulting decline of large, intensive agricultural operations in the immediate surrounding area.
Soils, Canada Land Inventory, Specialty Crop Ratings
Figure 4 illustrates the OMAFRA soils and Canada Land Inventory (CLI) information for the Study Area. Five soil series were noted in the Study Area. The five soil series were identified as: Binbrook Silt Loam; Farmington Loam; Haldimand Silty Clay Loam; Lincoln Loam; and Smithville Silt Loam. Within the Study Area: Binbrook Silt Loam soils have been rated as CLI class 1; Farmington Loam soils have been rated as CLI class 6R; Haldimand Silty Clay Loam soils have been rated as CLI class 2D; Lincoln Loam soils have been rated as CLI class 3DW; and Smithville Silt Loam soils have been rated as CLI class 3E
Basic information about the soils of Ontario is made more useful by providing an interpretation of the agricultural capability of the soil for various crops. The Canada Land Inventory (CLI) system combines attributes of the soil to place the soils into a seven-class system of land use capabilities. The CLI soil capability classification system groups mineral soils according to their potentialities and limitations for agricultural use. The first three classes are considered capable of sustained production of common field crops, the fourth is marginal for sustained agriculture, the fifth is capable for use of permanent pasture and hay, the sixth for wild pasture and the seventh class is for soils or landforms incapable for use for arable culture or permanent pasture. Organic or Muck soils are not classified under this system. Disturbed Soil Areas are not rated under this system.
The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs document “Classifying Prime and Marginal Agricultural Soils and Landscapes: Guidelines for Application of the Canada Land Inventory in Ontario” defines the Canada Land Inventory (CLI) classification as follows:
“Class 1 - Soils in this class have no significant limitations in use for crops. Soils in Class 1 are level to nearly level, deep, well to imperfectly drained and have good nutrient and water holding capacity. They can be managed and cropped without difficulty. Under good management they are moderately high to high in productivity for the full range of common field crops Class 2 - Soils in this class have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of crops, or require moderate conservation practices. These soils are deep and may not hold moisture and nutrients as well as Class 1 soils. The limitations are moderate and the soils can be managed and cropped with little difficulty. Under good management they are moderately high to high in productivity for a wide range of common field crops. Class 3 - Soils in this class have moderately severe limitations that reduce the choice of crops or require special conservation practices. The limitations are more severe than for Class 2 soils. They affect one or more of the following practices: timing and ease of tillage; planting and harvesting; choice of crops; and methods of conservation. Under good management these soils are fair to moderately high in productivity for a wide range of common field crops. Class 4 - Soils in this class have severe limitations that restrict the choice of crops, or require special conservation practices and very careful management, or both. The severe limitations seriously affect one or more of the following practices: timing and ease of tillage; planting and harvesting; 6 File:2019/03/Report
DBH Soil Services Inc. 217 Highgate Court, Kitchener Ontario N2N 3N9 Phone: (519) 578-9226 Fax: (519) 578-5039
choice of crops; and methods of conservation. These soils are low to medium in productivity for a narrow to wide range of common field crops, but may have higher productivity for a specially adapted crop. Class 5 - Soils in this class have very severe limitations that restrict their capability to producing perennial forage crops, and improvement practices are feasible. The limitations are so severe that the soils are not capable of use for sustained production of annual field crops. The soils are capable of producing native or tame species of perennial forage plants and may be improved through the use of farm machinery. Feasible improvement practices may include clearing of bush, cultivation, seeding, fertilizing or water control. Class 6 - Soils in this class are unsuited for cultivation, but are capable of use for unimproved permanent pasture. These soils may provide some sustained grazing for farm animals, but the limitations are so severe that improvement through the use of farm machinery is impractical. The terrain may be unsuitable for the use of farm machinery, or the soils may not respond to improvement, or the grazing season may be very short. Class 7 - Soils in this class have no capability for arable culture or permanent pasture. This class includes marsh, rockland and soil on very steep slopes.”
The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs document “Classifying Prime and Marginal Agricultural Soils and Landscapes: Guidelines for Application of the Canada Land Inventory in Ontario” defines the Canada Land Inventory (CLI) subclassification as follows:
Subclass D – Undesirable soil structure and/or low permeability: This subclass is used for soils which are difficult to till, or which absorb or release water very slowly, or in which the depth of rooting zone is restricted by conditions other than a high water table or consolidated bedrock. In Ontario this subclass is based on the existence of critical clay contents in the upper soil profile.
Subclass E – Erosion: Loss of topsoil and subsoil by erosion has reduced productivity and may in some cases cause difficulties in farming the land e.g. land with gullies.
Subclass R - Consolidated bedrock: The occurrence of consolidated bedrock within 100 cm of the surface restricts rooting depth and limits moisture holding capacity. Conversely, in poorly drained soils the presence of the bedrock may, depending on depth, make artificial drainage impossible.
Subclass W - Excess water: This subclass indicates the presence of excess soil moisture due to poor or very poor soil drainage. It is distinguished from Subclass I - water inundation which indicates risk of flooding from adjacent lakes or streams.
It should be noted that these CLI ratings are based on the following assumptions: 1. CLI classification depends on combinations of climate and soil characteristics which affect limitations to soil use and productive capacity for common field crops. The need for land improvement by the removal of shrubs, trees, and stumps is not considered a limitation to agricultural capability unless it is considered unfeasible to remove them. 2. Contemporary best management practices for soil management and field crop production are in place. 3. The various soils within a given capability class are considered similar in degree of limitation, notwithstanding the various kinds of limitations which may be present. 4. The soil capability class represents the potential capability of land in its improved state. Land requiring improvements, such as stone removal or tile drainage, that are feasible and can be done by the individual farmer or landowner, is classified according to what its ongoing limitations would be with the needed improvements in place. It is recognized that in some local or site specific situations
7 File:2019/03/Report
DBH Soil Services Inc. 217 Highgate Court, Kitchener Ontario N2N 3N9 Phone: (519) 578-9226 Fax: (519) 578-5039
certain improvements may not be feasible even though such improvements are generally feasible on similar soils elsewhere. 5. The capability classification of the soils in an area may be changed when major reclamation works are installed which permanently reduce or eliminate the present limitations. 6. Distance to market, kind of roads, location, size of farms, characteristics of land-ownership and cultural patterns, and the skill or resources of individual operators are not criteria for CLI classification. 7. Capability groupings may be subject to change as new information about the behaviour and responses of soils becomes available.
It should be noted that in an unimproved state (no tile drainage) the Lincoln soils would be rated as a CLI class 5W.
The soils within the Study Area are predominantly CLI class 1-3 and are considered as Prime Agricultural soils.
A review of the Soils of the Wentworth County (Report No. 32 of the Ontario Soil Survey, 1965) provides basic soils and CLI data for each soil series. The Soils of Wentworth County report does not provide comment on specialty crops or specialty crop ratings for each of these soils. As a result, the Soils of the Regional Municipality of Niagara (Report No. 60 of the Ontario Institute of Pedology, 1989) was reviewed for information related to specialty crops.
The Binbrook soils are not listed in the soils within the Soils of the Regional Municipality of Niagara (Report No. 60 of the Ontario Institute of Pedology, 1989). Specialty crop ratings for the Farmington, Haldimand, Lincoln and Smithville soil series were reviewed. The specialty crop ratings for crop groups that are relevant to the Study Area are listed below with a following table illustrating the respective rating to soil series.
Table of Specialty Crop Ratings Soil Name Soil Slope 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Code Class Farmington Fl B,b U U U U U U U U C,c U U U U U U U U D,d U U U U U U U U E,e U U U U U U U U
Haldimand Hl B,b U U U P VP P P-F U C,c U U U P VP P P-F U D,d U U U VP U P P-F U
Lincoln Ln B U U U VP U VP VP U C,c U U U VP U VP VP U
Smithville Sm B U U U P-F P-F P-F F P C,c U U U P-F P-F P-F F P D,d U U U P P P-F F P E,e U U U P P P P-F P
Where the ratings system (suitability classes) is determined as follows:
8 File:2019/03/Report
DBH Soil Services Inc. 217 Highgate Court, Kitchener Ontario N2N 3N9 Phone: (519) 578-9226 Fax: (519) 578-5039
The soil suitability classification for specialty crops consists of seven classes. The best soils, with no significant limitations for crop use, are designated as good. Soils designated with the ratings fair to good, fair, poor to fair, poor and very poor, have decreasing suitability for special crops. Soils with an unsuitable rating have no potential for special crops.
It is evident that the soil series identified within the Study Area are not particularly well suited to tree fruit, grapes or berry crops.
Roads and Traffic
The reconnaissance land use survey also made note of existing road structure. It was observed that the Upper Centennial Parkway was a 4 lane paved road with wide graveled shoulders and traffic control lights are the Mud Street and Green Mountain intersections. Mud Street East and Green Mountain Road East were two lane paved roads with narrow shoulders. Traffic into the Terrapure Environmental facility is controlled through dedicated entrance and exits to the west side of Upper Centennial Parkway. As a result, the potential continued traffic flow to and from the facility should have limited impact on the agricultural activities to the east of Upper Centennial Parkway.
Conclusion
On completion of a review of policy and various guidelines, a reconnaissance survey, and a review of land use, fragmentation, and soils data (CLI and specialty crop ratings) it has been illustrated that the Study Area: - is located within a Specialty Crop Area (north portion) and a Prime Agriculture Area (south portion) - is predominantly comprised of CLI class 1-3 soils - soils are not well suited to tree fruit, grapes and berry production - contains a small area of remnant apple orchard - contains a small area of apple orchard - has a mix of land uses including scrublands, woodlots, built up areas, areas of common field crop production, recreation, restaurants - has no agricultural facilities (no barns) – limited capital investment in agriculture - has no livestock operations – limited capital investment in agriculture - has limited tile drainage (random system on one farm) – limited capital investment in agriculture - has no irrigation – limited capital investment in agriculture - has no agricultural equipment dealers (tractors or implements) - has no agricultural services (repair shops) - has no markets, storage, transportation facilities, abattoirs - has a large, paved four lane road with wide gravel shoulders along the western boundary - has two paved, two lane roads extending to the east from the four lane road - has numerous small parcels (severed lots) - contains a functioning golf course and a remnant golf course - contains a drive in theatre
Based on these findings, it is evident that the Study Area is an area that is under transition, or an area that is under pressure due to development or urban areas and has resulted in the decline of large, intensive agricultural operations in the immediate surrounding area.
As a result of this assessment, it has been determined that the proposed increase in the capacity for post diversion-solid non-hazardous industrial residual material at the existing and operating SCRF should have no impact on the adjacent agricultural lands.
9 File:2019/03/Report
DBH Soil Services Inc. 217 Highgate Court, Kitchener Ontario N2N 3N9 Phone: (519) 578-9226 Fax: (519) 578-5039
I trust this information is helpful. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at 519-578-9226.
Sincerely DBH Soil Services Inc.
Dave Hodgson, P. Ag President
10 File:2019/03/Report
King Street East
d a o
R
y e l City of Hamilton g i u
Q
New Mount ain Road
C e Greenhill Avenue n t e n n ia l P d a a r o k R w a e y g d i
R
G reen Mo unt ain R o ad W est
y a
w k r a
P G l reen a i Mou n ntai n n R e oa t d Ea n st e
C
r e p t p s t M a ud U s S E tree a t W d E e st a d o a R o
t t R s s 1 e d n W 2
d a o
R
t s 1 Stoney Creek
Mud Stre et E ast
Hig hlan d Ro ad W est
Hi ghla R nd R yma oad l Ro Ea ad E st ast 1:24,000
Legend Figure 1 Roads (MNR data) Agricultural Land Base - Growth Plan 2017 Location Watercourse (MNR data) Prime Agricultural Area 500 m Buffer of Site Boundary Specialty Crop Area Built Up Areas (MNR data) Agricultural Tile Drainage System Type Lot Lines (MNR data) Random DBH Soil Services Inc. Site Location Systematic December 2018
1:10,000
Legend Figure 2 500 m Zone Existing Land Use Recreation (remnant golf course) Land Use Roads (MNR data) Builtup Scrub Lot Lines (MNR data) Grass Soybean Site Location Orchard Winter Wheat Orchard (remnant) Woods DBH Soil Services Inc. Recreation (golf course) December 2018 LOT 27 CON 5 LOT 26 CON 5 LOT 25 CON 5 LOT 24 CON 5 LOT 23 CON 5 Gre en Mou ntai n Ro ad W est LOT 27 CON 6
Gre en Mou ntai n Ro ad E ast
y a
t w s k LOT 22 r e a
W P CON 5 l d a i a LOT 26 n o n R CON 6 e t t s n 1 e
C
r e p LOT 25 p U CON 6
t s a
E
LOT 24 d a o CON 6 R
t s 1
LOT 23 CON 6
Mud Str eet W est LOT 22 CON 6
LOT 26 CON 7 M ud Stre et E LOT 25 ast CON 7 LOT 24 CON 7 LOT 23 CON 7 LOT 22 CON 7 1:10,000
Figure 3 Legend Land Fragmentation 500 m Zone - East Roads (MNR data) Parcels Site Location DBH Soil Services Inc. Lot Lines (MNR data) December 2018 LOT 27 CON 5 Hl-b LOT 26 CON 5 2D LOT 25 CON 5 Sm-d 3E LOT 24 LOT 23 CON 5 Green Mountain Road West Fl-E CON 5 6R
LOT 27 CON 6 Bi-c 1 Green Mountain Road East
LOT 22 CON 5 LOT 26 CON 6 Sm-d 1st Road West 3E Ln-A LOT 25 3DW CON 6
LOT 24 CON 6
1st Road East
Upper Centennial Parkway LOT 23 CON 6 Hl-b 2D
Mud Street West
LOT 22 CON 6
LOT 26 CON 7 Ln-B Mud Street East LOT 25 3DW CON 7 Hl-b 2D LOT 23 LOT 24 CON 7 CON 7 LOT 22 CON 7 1:10,000
4 Soil Code Soil Code Slope Code Figure Legend Bi = Binbrook Silt Loam OMAFRA Soils Fl = Farmington Loam Ln-B Roads (MNR data) Hl = Haldimand Silty Clay Loam 3DW and Ln = Lincoln Silty Clay Loam CLI Class CLI Subclass 500 m Zone - East Sm = Smithville Silt Loam Canada Land Inventory (CLI) OMAFRA Soils Data (Nov 2018) Slope Class CLI Subclass Limitation Lot Lines (MNR data) Aa = 0.0 - 0.5% Bb = 0.5 - 2.0% D = Undesireable Structure Site Location Cc = 2.0 - 5.0% E = Erosion Dd = 5.0 - 9.0% R = Shallowness to Unconsolidated Rock DBH Soil Services Inc. Ee = 9.0 - 15.0% W = Excess Water Ff = 15.0 - 30.0% December 2018 Slope length < 50 m Slope length > 50 m Agricultural System Portal - Accessible Viewer
December 21, 2018 1:72,224 0 0.5 1 2mi 2.1.2 Beverage_Manufacturing - Cideries (Ontario Craft Cider Association) 2.7.3 Livestock Assets and Services - Meat Distribution 41111, 41313, 41314, 41316, 44521, 44522 (GHFFA)
2.1.3 Beverage_Manufacturing - Wineries (Wines of Canada) 2.7.4 Provincially Licensed Meat Plants (OMAFRA) 0 1 2 4km 2.3 Farm markets and local food (www.greenbeltfresh.ca) 2.7.5 Free Standing Meat Plants (OMAFRA) on-farmers-market OMAFRA 2.7.6.1 Abattoirs - All Abattoirs (OMAFRA) pick-your-own 2.7.6.2 Abattoirs - Further Processing (OMAFRA) nurseries 2.7.7.2 Red Meat - Beef (OMAFRA) 2.4 Frozen Food Manufacturing (GHFFA) Traffic Traffic Work Plan
The Traffic work plan addresses traffic operations. The following tasks will be undertaken to characterize the existing environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking:
• Compile and interpret information from existing data sources, including data sources listed in Table 6-1. • Conduct Site investigations to confirm site information compiled from existing documentation and document the findings in the Traffic existing conditions that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA Report. • Based on the Conceptual Designs developed for the Alternative Methods:
o Predict and assess future traffic conditions associated with each of the alternative methods.
o Compare these predictions to the existing conditions; determine changes and potential adverse effects on road network and intersections; determine if mitigation measures are required and, if so, develop mitigation.
o Based on the Alternative Methods and the results of traffic modelling, identify the potential effects of each alternative.
o Apply mitigation measures to determine the net effects for each Alternative Method and compare the degree of net effects using the criteria and indicators for the transportation component, rank the alternatives, and identify the Recommended Alternative from a transportation perspective. • Once the Preferred Method has been identified and additional details developed from a design and operations perspective, an impact assessment will be carried out so that the potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty and will include more site-specific impact management measures and monitoring requirements can be clearly identified. The information and analysis will be documented in a Traffic Impact Assessment Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA.
Table 6-1 – Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources
Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on • Potential for traffic • Previous traffic studies traffic collisions • City of Hamilton data Traffic • Level of Service at • Traffic Existing Conditions Report intersections around the SCRF
GHD | Traffic Work Plan | 11102771 Terrapure is proud to have received the 2016 Industry Excellence Award for Health & Safety from Natural Resources Magazine.
Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment Traffic Existing Conditions Report
1195 Stellar Drive, Unit #1 Newmarket Ontario L3Y 7B8 Canada 11102771 | January 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Study Area ...... 1 3. Methodology ...... 4 4. Characterization of the Existing Environment ...... 4 4.1 Road Network ...... 4 4.2 Traffic Volumes ...... 4 4.3 SCRF Vehicle Operations ...... 6 4.4 Intersection Capacity Analysis ...... 6 4.5 Sightline Review ...... 8 4.6 Next Steps ...... 8
Figure Index
Figure 2.1 Traffic Local Study Area ...... 3 Figure 4.1 Existing Traffic Volumes ...... 5
Table Index
Table 3.1 Secondary Data Sources ...... 4 Table 4.1 Existing Conditions Capacity Analysis ...... 7
Appendices
Appendix A Turning Movement Counts Appendix B Synchro Reports
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Traffic | 11102771 | F - i
1. Introduction
This report provides an overview of the existing traffic conditions associated with the Study Area for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF, Facility, Site). The Minister-approved Amended Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment (SCRF EA) included a preliminary description of the existing environment with the commitment that a more detailed description of it would be provided during the preparation of the EA reflecting the final study area1. Terrapure Environmental (Terrapure), owner and operator of the SCRF, is proposing to increase the total approved capacity for post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material at the SCRF by 3,680,000 m3, so that the company can continue to operate its business and receive this material to support local industry. The proposal would not change the type or annual volume of residual materials currently accepted at the Facility, nor the maximum number of permitted vehicles to the Site per day, nor the approved service area for the SCRF, which is the Province of Ontario. Terrapure's SCRF has been an important part of the local community since it was approved by the then-Minister of the Environment (now known as the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks) in 1996. The existing SCRF is only permitted to accept solid, non-hazardous waste from industrial, commercial, and institutional sources. These are truly "end of life" materials that have exhausted all recycling options. Putrescible waste (i.e., municipal solid waste, organic material) disposal is not permitted at the SCRF. The total approved capacity under the Environmental Protection Act approvals at the existing SCRF is 6, 500,000 m3, with an approved maximum annual acceptance of 750,000 tonnes of solid, non-hazardous residual waste. The EA Act requires that proponents describe the environment that may potentially be affected or may reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the Alternative Methods and the Undertaking proposed as part of an EA. This report focusses on characterizing the existing conditions in the vicinity of the Facility, from a traffic perspective.
2. Study Area From a traffic environment perspective, existing conditions will be characterized through the consideration of intersections in the vicinity of the SCRF, and will not include traffic operations within the approved boundaries of the SCRF. The Study Area intersections that comprise the Local Study Area and that are to be reviewed in this existing conditions report include: Highway 20 at Green Mountain Road (signalized); Highway 20 at Highway 20 Site Access (entrance only); Highway 20 at Mud Street (signalized); Mud Street at First Road West (signalized); First Road West at First Road West Site Access (entrance and exit); Mud Street at Isaac Brock Drive (signalized); and Mud Street at Paramount Drive (signalized). From a traffic standpoint, there is no reason to analyze intersections that will not be on the routes of the SCRF truck traffic. Therefore, the intersections listed above were chosen as they immediately surround the SCRF site and would reasonably be impacted by SCRF truck traffic.
1. A more detailed description of the environment will be provided during preparation of the SCRF EA reflecting the final Study Area using available existing information sources and investigative studies. (Minister-approved Amended ToR, Section 6.2.6)
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Traffic | 11102771 | F - 1
The future roundabout intersection of Green Mountain Road at First Road West will be analyzed under future conditions and will be included as part of the modeling that will take place for the Alternative Methods (Alternative Landfill Footprints) evaluation. The Local Study Area intersections are identified in Figure 2.1.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Traffic | 11102771 | F - 2
Figure 2.1 Traffic Local Study Area
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Traffic | 11102771 | F - 3
3. Methodology
Available secondary sources of information were collected and reviewed to characterize existing traffic conditions within the Local Study Area. Table 3.1 shows the sources of secondary information and how those sources were utilized to characterize the existing environment.
Table 3.1 Secondary Data Sources Source How Source Was Used:
2010-2015 SCRF Truck Count Data Referenced for historical SCRF truck data.
1997-2015 SCRF Tonnage Reports Referenced for historical SCRF tonnage data.
Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, City of Hamilton, Referenced for determining appropriate methodology Public Works Department, July 2009 for Traffic Impact Study.
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, Referenced for determining adequate sightline Transportation Association of Canada, requirements at the SCRF accesses. September 1999
4. Characterization of the Existing Environment
4.1 Road Network The following roads provide access to the SCRF site: Highway 20 (Upper Centennial Parkway) from Green Mountain Road to Mud Street is a north-south oriented four lane undivided arterial road with a posted speed limit of 70 km/h. It has a rural cross-section with gravels shoulders. Green Mountain Road from Highway 20 to First Road West is an east-west oriented two lane undivided local road with a posted speed limit of 60 km/h. The existing rural cross-section is currently being urbanized to include curb and gutters and sidewalk on the north side only. Mud Street from Highway 20 to Paramount Drive is an east-west oriented four lane divided arterial road with a posted speed limit of 70 km/h. It generally has a rural cross-section with gravel shoulders and a wide raised centre median with curb and gutter. First Road West from Mud Street to Green Mountain Road is a north-south oriented two lane undivided local road with a posted speed limit of 60 km/h. The existing rural cross-section is currently being urbanized to include curb and gutters and sidewalk on the west side only. Isaac Brock Drive intersects Mud Street and is a north-south oriented two-lane undivided collector road with a posted speed limit of 50 km/h north of Mud Street and 40 km/h south of Mud Street. It has an urban cross-section with curb and gutter. Paramount Drive intersects Mud Street and is a north-south oriented two-lane undivided collector road with a posted speed limit of 40 km/h north of Mud Street and 50 km/h south of Mud Street. It has an urban cross-section with curb and gutter. Paramount Drive curves to the south of Mud Street into an east-west orientation and transitions into Stone Church Road East which is an arterial road.
4.2 Traffic Volumes Traffic data was collected at all Local Study Area intersections fronting the subject Site (intersections 1 to 5 as per Figure 2.1) on Tuesday May 24, 2016, and at the Isaac Brock Drive and Paramount Drive intersections on Mud Street (intersection 6 and 7 as per Figure 2.1) on Tuesday October 31, 2017, during a.m. and p.m. peak periods. The resulting a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes are summarized in Figure 4.1. Detailed turning movement data sheets are provided in Appendix A.
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Traffic | 11102771 | F - 4
Road
Green Green
Mountain Mountain
Mud Street Mud
(61)
(389)
(22)
(20)
(47) (50)
(22) 11 (42)
22
(412) 613 (631) 864 (574)
832
58
349
68
9
16 106
(222) 220 (0) 3 (11)
11
21 (63) 423 (1022) 29
(69)
314 (725) 0 (0) 403
(986) 6
0
8
Highway 20 Highway
14
71
Highway 20 Highway
172
204 172
98 (219) 25
(106)
(0)
(0)
(9)
(13)
(38)
(319)
(286) (196)
Entrance Only Entrance SCRF
Entrance & Exit
(44)
(833)
(2)
(5) (0)
(36)
94
(7) 18 (0)
3
38
657
3
8 1
(55) 117 (49)
36
3 (7) 1
(0)
West
West
10 (32) 79
(132)
First Road Road First
First Road Road First
40
22
500
82
(98)
(75)
(40)
(812)
(102)
(1000) (22)
(21)
59
(14)
11
40
833 4
(166)
236
27
(25)
9
(1)
25
143 832
58
(18)
Isaac Brock Drive Brock Isaac
Isaac Brock Drive Brock Isaac
(232)
(792)
(125)
(151)
(796)
(123)
PM Peak Hour Volumes AM Peak Hour Volumes
(154)
135
(138)
XX 87
(XX)
LEGEND
46
938 71
(24)
23
187
(281)
51
(126)
13
657 125
182
(114) Drive Paramount
Paramount Drive Paramount
(31)
(739)
(233) Mud Street Mud
Figure 4.1 Existing Traffic Volumes
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Traffic | 11102771 | F - 5
4.3 SCRF Vehicle Operations Material is currently received at the Site between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays only. Inbound trips to the Site are typically from the north entering from Upper Centennial Parkway, while outbound trips from the Site are typically from the First Road West exit heading southbound. The maximum annual tonnage of approved residual material received at the SCRF is restricted to 750,000 tonnes, with the maximum daily tonnage of approved residual material received at the Site not exceeding 8,000 tonnes. As per historical tonnage reports, the SCRF received an annual five- year average (2011-2015) of 704,652 tonnes2. The highest recorded monthly five-year average of tonnage received was during July 2015, at 79,148 tonnes3. Therefore, it can be assumed that an average of approximately 3,598 tonnes were received daily based on 22 July weekdays (excluding statutory holidays), which would represent peak daily operations. The daily maximum number of vehicles depositing waste at the Site is restricted to 250 vehicles. As per five-year historical waste vehicle counts (2011-2015) at the SCRF, the Site received an average of 24,415 vehicles per year, or approximately 90-100 vehicles per day4. It should be noted that one year within the five-year average was an anomaly, which increased the historical averages higher. As per collected turning movement counts on Tuesday, May 24, 2016, at the Site’s eastern access on Highway 20, during the a.m. peak traffic period (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.), 9 trucks were counted exiting the Site and travelling southbound, and 2 trucks were counted entering the Site from the south. During the p.m. peak traffic period (3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.), 1 truck was counted entering the SCRF from the north. However, this truck traffic is not considered to be waste vehicles, as all waste vehicles are to exit the Site from First Road West. As per collected turning movement counts on Tuesday, May 24, 2016, at the Site’s western access on First Road West, during the a.m. peak traffic period, 6 trucks were counted exiting the Site and travelling southbound, and 1 truck was counted entering the Site from the south. During the p.m. peak traffic period, 8 trucks were counted exiting the SCRF and travelling southbound. Based on the counts conducted on Tuesday, May 24, 2016, overall from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., a total of 18 truck trips were generated, including 3 inbound trips and 15 outbound trips. From 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., a total of 9 truck trips were generated, including 1 inbound trip and 8 outbound trips. In comparing these peak period truck volumes with the above estimated vehicles per day (90-100 trucks per day), as per historical tonnage rates, it is evident that truck volumes at the Site accesses do not significantly “peak” with the peak operating periods of the surrounding Local Study Area intersections.
4.4 Intersection Capacity Analysis As a measure of the capacity on the adjacent road network surrounding the SCRF at peak traffic periods, the Local Study Area intersections were analyzed using the peak operations turning movement volumes for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The capacity analysis identifies how well the intersections and driveways are operating. The analysis contained within this report utilized the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 procedure within the Synchro Version 9 Software package. The reported intersection volume-to-capacity ratios (v/c) are a measure of the saturation volume for each turning movement, while the levels-of-service (LOS) are a measure of the average delay for each turning movement. Queuing characteristics are reported as the predicted 95th percentile queue for each turning movement. In accordance with the City of Hamilton’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines5, the analysis must highlight movements at signalized intersections where v/c ratios for through movements or shared through/turning movements will operate at 0.85 or greater, v/c ratios for exclusive movements will
2 1997-2015 SCRF Tonnage Reports 3 Ibid. 4 2010-2015 SCRF Truck Count Data 5 Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, City of Hamilton, Public Works Department, July 2009
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Traffic | 11102771 | F - 6
operate at 0.95 or greater, or queues for an individual movement are projected to exceed available turning lane storage. The analysis must also highlight movements at unsignalized intersections where LOS is “D” or greater, or queues for an individual movement are projected to exceed available turning lane storage. A summary of the capacity analysis is contained below in Table 4.1, with detailed Synchro reports appended.
Table 4.1 Existing Conditions Capacity Analysis
v/c ratio (LOS) 95th Percentile Queue Intersection Movement A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Overall: 0.43 (A) Overall: 0.41 (A) Eastbound Left-Through-Right 0.64 (D) 27m 0.45 (D) 18m Westbound Left 0.07 (C) <1 veh 0.16 (D) 9m Highway 20 Westbound Through-Right 0.16 (C) 16m 0.38 (D) 20m at Green Northbound Left 0.02 (A) <1 veh 0.03 (A) <1 veh Mountain Road Northbound Through-Right 0.36 (A) 37m 0.23 (A) 18m Southbound Left 0.09 (A) <1 veh 0.13 (A) 10m Southbound Through 0.20 (A) 25m 0.40 (A) 55m Southbound Through-Right 0.02 (A) <1 veh 0.07 (A) <1 veh Overall: 0.29 (A) Overall: 0.32 (A) Highway 20 Eastbound Left-Right 0.00 (A) <1 veh 0.00 (A) <1 veh at Access Northbound Left-Through 0.00 (A) <1 veh 0.00 (A) <1 veh Overall: 0.61 (C) Overall: 0.74 (C) Eastbound Left 0.55 (C) 37m 0.67 (C) 44m Eastbound Through 0.46 (C) 51m 0.64 (C) 74m Eastbound Right 0.13 (C) 15m 0.22 (C) 20m Highway 20 Westbound Left 0.22 (C) 15m 0.27 (C) 16m at Mud Westbound Through-Right 0.67 (C) 51m 0.67 (D) 52m Street Northbound Left 0.75 (D) 59m 0.79 (D) 71m Northbound Through-Right 0.44 (B) 60m 0.33 (B) 42m Southbound Left 0.56 (E) 11m 0.53 (D) 24m Southbound Through 0.37 (C) 40m 0.71 (C) 86m Southbound Right 0.06 (B) 1 veh 0.21 (B) 24m Overall: 0.40 (B) Overall: 0.39 (B) Eastbound Left 0.18 (B) 8m 0.30 (B) 10m Mud Street Eastbound Through-Right 0.57 (C) 46m 0.67 (B) 60m at First Road Westbound Left 0.25 (B) 11m 0.34 (B) 11m West Westbound Through-Right 0.68 (C) 57m 0.64 (B) 56m Northbound Left-Through-Right 0.26 (A) 27m 0.14 (B) 15m Southbound Left-Through-Right 0.07 (A) 1 veh 0.12 (A) 13m First Road Overall: 0.15 (A) Overall: 0.17 (A) West at Westbound Left-Right 0.01 (A) <1 veh 0.01 (A) <1 veh Access Southbound Left-Through 0.00 (A) <1 veh 0.00 (A) <1 veh Overall: 0.60 (B) Overall: 0.53 (A) Eastbound Left 0.12 (A) <1 veh 0.53 (A) 28m Eastbound Through-Right 0.60 (A) 68m 0.50 (A) 53m Isaac Brock Westbound Left 0.23 (A) 10m 0.43 (A) 20m Drive at Mud Westbound Through-Right 0.54 (A) 58m 0.51 (A) 58m Street Northbound Left 0.60 (B) 48m 0.55 (C) 46m Northbound Through-Right 0.06 (B) 9m 0.05 (B) 9m Southbound Left 0.07 (B) 8m 0.09 (B) 10m Southbound Through-Right 0.06 (B) 8m 0.01 (B) 6m
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Traffic | 11102771 | F - 7
v/c ratio (LOS) 95th Percentile Queue Intersection Movement A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Overall: 0.78 (C) Overall: 0.83 (D) Eastbound Left 0.63 (D) 46m 0.78 (D) 89m Eastbound Through-Right 0.51 (B) 64m 0.65 (C) 106m Paramount Westbound Left 0.35 (D) 19m 0.64 (D) 56m Drive at Mud Westbound Through-Right 0.84 (C) 124m 0.88 (D) 145m Street Northbound Left 0.13 (C) 10m 0.10 (D) 12m Northbound Through-Right 0.61 (C) 46m 0.78 (D) 91m Southbound Left 0.68 (C) 45m 0.78 (D) 79m Southbound Through-Right 0.22 (B) 22m 0.32 (C) 51m
Based on the results of the existing conditions capacity analysis, all intersections and individual movements are expected to be operating very well with ample reserve capacity, low levels of delay, and any queueing is expected to be accommodated within existing auxiliary turn lanes. It is evident that existing truck traffic volumes servicing the Site are not having any negative identifiable operational impact on the Local Study Area intersections, including the Site accesses, and it is expected that the SCRF accesses could accommodate a substantial increase in truck traffic volumes without operational concerns. However, the proposed capacity increase of the Site is not expected to impact average truck volumes, and therefore the Site will continue to operate satisfactorily, as per existing conditions.
4.5 Sightline Review The Site access on First Road West provides the only exit point for all waste trucks, with the vast majority of vehicles destined to the south towards Mud Street in order to access either the Red Hill Valley Expressway to the west or Highway 20 to the east. This access is also used as an entrance/exit point for Site vehicles, deliveries, construction equipment, and other Site-related activities. As this access is the only designated egress point onto the surrounding road network, a sightline review was conducted in order to determine if existing sightlines meet industry sight distance requirements. The Site access on Highway 20 is designated as entrance only, with the majority of waste trucks utilizing this access for Site entrance. Therefore no sightline review is required. The First Road West access in its current location satisfies the sight distance requirements for trucks departing from the SCRF. First Road West has little deviation in the vertical and horizontal alignment of the roadway. The existing sight distance at this access greatly exceeds 200 m, which is the Transportation Association of Canada’s (TAC) sight distance requirement for a posted speed limit of 60 km/h (70 km/h design speed).6
4.6 Next Steps Further to the analysis of existing conditions, capacity analysis of future conditions will be undertaken to include all planned capital improvement projects and background development in the Study Area. The analysis will assess operations of the study intersections with consideration given to the impacts, if any, of the Site’s proposed capacity increase reviewing all Alternative Landfill Footprints.
6 Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, Transportation Association of Canada, September 1999
GHD | EA Report – Appendix F – Existing Conditions Report – Traffic | 11102771 | F - 8
Appendix A Traffic Data Ontario Traffic Inc. Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period One Hour Peak From: 6:00:00 From: 8:00:00 To: 9:00:00 To: 9:00:00
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1730500001 Intersection: Mud St & Paramount Dr Person(s) who counted: TFR File #: 1 Count date: 31-Oct-17
** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Mud St runs W/E
North Leg Total: 703 Heavys 0 0 0 0 Heavys 0 East Leg Total: 2034 North Entering: 420 Trucks 6 1 3 10 Trucks 11 East Entering: 1055 North Peds: 0 Cars 176 50 184 410 Cars 272 East Peds: 0 Peds Cross: Totals 182 51 187 Totals 283 Peds Cross:
Paramount Dr Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 0 93 1050 1143 68 3 0 71 851 87 0 938 N 41 5 0 46 Mud St 960 95 0 W E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Mud St 0 7 118 125 S 0 60 597 657 0 0 13 13 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 0 67 728 912 67 0 979 Paramount Dr
Peds Cross: Cars 104 Cars 23 86 131 240 Peds Cross: West Peds: 0 Trucks 6 Trucks 0 1 4 5 South Peds: 0 West Entering: 795 Heavys 0 Heavys 0 0 0 0 South Entering: 245 West Leg Total: 1938 Totals 110 Totals 23 87 135 South Leg Total: 355
Comments Ontario Traffic Inc. Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period One Hour Peak From: 15:00:00 From: 16:30:00 To: 17:30:00 To: 17:30:00
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1730500001 Intersection: Mud St & Paramount Dr Person(s) who counted: TFR File #: 1 Count date: 31-Oct-17
** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Mud St runs W/E
North Leg Total: 1015 Heavys 0 0 0 0 Heavys 0 East Leg Total: 2244 North Entering: 521 Trucks 0 6 3 9 Trucks 9 East Entering: 1070 North Peds: 2 Cars 114 120 278 512 Cars 485 East Peds: 8 Peds Cross: Totals 114 126 281 Totals 494 Peds Cross:
Paramount Dr Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 0 36 898 934 120 3 0 123 760 36 0 796 N 149 2 0 151 Mud St 1029 41 0 W E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Mud St 0 1 232 233 S 0 30 709 739 0 0 31 31 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 0 31 972 1139 35 0 1174 Paramount Dr
Peds Cross: Cars 300 Cars 24 133 152 309 Peds Cross: West Peds: 1 Trucks 8 Trucks 0 5 2 7 South Peds: 0 West Entering: 1003 Heavys 0 Heavys 0 0 0 0 South Entering: 316 West Leg Total: 1937 Totals 308 Totals 24 138 154 South Leg Total: 624
Comments Ontario Traffic Inc. Total Count Diagram
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1730500001 Intersection: Mud St & Paramount Dr Person(s) who counted: TFR File #: 1 Count date: 31-Oct-17
** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Mud St runs W/E
North Leg Total: 3490 Heavys 0 0 0 0 Heavys 0 East Leg Total: 9013 North Entering: 1925 Trucks 9 20 17 46 Trucks 61 East Entering: 4543 North Peds: 3 Cars 660 383 836 1879 Cars 1504 East Peds: 18 Peds Cross: Totals 669 403 853 Totals 1565 Peds Cross:
Paramount Dr Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 0 267 4281 4548 351 13 0 364 3535 258 0 3793 N 375 11 0 386 Mud St 4261 282 0 W E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Mud St 0 21 721 742 S 0 214 2835 3049 0 1 105 106 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 0 236 3661 4224 246 0 4470 Paramount Dr
Peds Cross: Cars 863 Cars 86 432 553 1071 Peds Cross: West Peds: 2 Trucks 32 Trucks 0 27 15 42 South Peds: 0 West Entering: 3897 Heavys 0 Heavys 0 0 0 0 South Entering: 1113 West Leg Total: 8445 Totals 895 Totals 86 459 568 South Leg Total: 2008
Comments Ontario Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Mud St & Paramount Dr Count Date: 31-Oct-17 Municipality: Hamilton North Approach Totals South Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys North/South Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Hour Grand Total Total Hour Grand Total Ending Left Thru Right Total Peds Approaches Ending Left Thru Right Total Peds 6:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 7:00:00 32 16 59 107 0 162 7:00:00 9 19 27 55 0 8:00:00 56 43 110 209 0 319 8:00:00 13 33 64 110 0 9:00:00 187 51 182 420 0 665 9:00:00 23 87 135 245 0 15:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 16:00:00 198 110 141 449 1 702 16:00:00 13 124 116 253 0 17:00:00 234 116 116 466 2 757 17:00:00 18 121 152 291 0
Totals: 707 336 608 1651 3 2605 76 384 494 954 0 East Approach Totals West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys East/West Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Hour Grand Total Total Hour Grand Total Ending Left Thru Right Total Peds Approaches Ending Left Thru Right Total Peds 6:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 7:00:00 18 416 3 437 0 638 7:00:00 28 168 5 201 0 8:00:00 35 676 25 736 1 1196 8:00:00 64 385 11 460 0 9:00:00 46 938 71 1055 0 1850 9:00:00 125 657 13 795 0 15:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 16:00:00 79 621 95 795 8 1734 16:00:00 188 724 27 939 1 17:00:00 132 730 105 967 5 1966 17:00:00 219 748 32 999 1
Totals: 310 3381 299 3990 14 7384 624 2682 88 3394 2 Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 17:00 Crossing Values: 0 60 113 297 0 344 379 379 Ontario Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 31-Oct-17 Site #: 1730500001 Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Heavys - North Approach Pedestrians Interval Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Time Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15:00 5 5 2 2 8 8 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30:00 13 8 6 4 28 20 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45:00 22 9 12 6 42 14 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00:00 32 10 14 2 58 16 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15:00 42 10 22 8 69 11 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30:00 53 11 26 4 99 30 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45:00 63 10 37 11 131 32 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00:00 86 23 53 16 168 37 2 2 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15:00 123 37 63 10 214 46 3 1 6 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30:00 168 45 76 13 250 36 4 1 6 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45:00 216 48 87 11 293 43 4 0 7 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00:00 270 54 103 16 344 51 5 1 7 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:01:25 270 0 103 0 344 0 5 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00:00 270 0 103 0 344 0 5 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:15:00 312 42 127 24 371 27 5 0 9 2 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:30:00 354 42 157 30 409 38 9 4 9 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:45:00 414 60 189 32 446 37 10 1 10 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:00:00 461 47 208 19 483 37 12 2 12 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16:15:00 518 57 240 32 512 29 14 2 13 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 16:30:00 558 40 263 23 546 34 14 0 14 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 16:45:00 625 67 289 26 571 25 14 0 15 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 17:00:00 691 66 320 31 599 28 16 2 16 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 17:15:00 767 76 354 34 631 32 17 1 18 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 17:30:00 836 69 383 29 660 29 17 0 20 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 17:45:00 836 0 383 0 660 0 17 0 20 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 17:46:26 836 0 383 0 660 0 17 0 20 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Ontario Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 31-Oct-17 Site #: 1730500001 Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Heavys - East Approach Pedestrians Interval Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Time Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15:00 2 2 71 71 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30:00 3 1 169 98 0 0 0 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45:00 14 11 281 112 0 0 0 0 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00:00 18 4 397 116 3 3 0 0 19 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15:00 28 10 506 109 5 2 0 0 25 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30:00 33 5 654 148 10 5 0 0 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45:00 38 5 812 158 17 7 1 1 30 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00:00 52 14 1052 240 25 8 1 0 40 10 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 8:15:00 59 7 1248 196 39 14 2 1 62 22 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8:30:00 71 12 1471 223 58 19 4 2 79 17 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8:45:00 84 13 1681 210 74 16 5 1 104 25 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9:00:00 93 9 1903 222 93 19 6 1 127 23 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9:01:25 93 0 1903 0 93 0 6 0 127 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 15:00:00 93 0 1903 0 93 0 6 0 127 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 15:15:00 104 11 2022 119 109 16 8 2 146 19 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 15:30:00 122 18 2158 136 137 28 8 0 164 18 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 15:45:00 148 26 2301 143 155 18 8 0 180 16 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 16:00:00 169 21 2451 150 185 30 9 1 200 20 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3 16:15:00 198 29 2608 157 203 18 9 0 208 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 16:30:00 226 28 2775 167 231 28 9 0 222 14 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 16:45:00 260 34 2955 180 257 26 9 0 226 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 17:00:00 300 40 3147 192 288 31 10 1 234 8 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 3 17:15:00 334 34 3334 187 317 29 11 1 249 15 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 17:30:00 375 41 3535 201 351 34 11 0 258 9 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 2 17:45:00 375 0 3535 0 351 0 11 0 258 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 17:46:26 375 0 3535 0 351 0 11 0 258 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 Ontario Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 31-Oct-17 Site #: 1730500001 Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Heavys - South Approach Pedestrians Interval Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Time Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15:00 1 1 3 3 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30:00 4 3 4 1 14 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45:00 5 1 7 3 17 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00:00 9 4 15 8 25 8 0 0 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15:00 9 0 18 3 39 14 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30:00 12 3 24 6 54 15 0 0 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45:00 15 3 33 9 74 20 0 0 7 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00:00 22 7 43 10 87 13 0 0 9 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15:00 26 4 60 17 120 33 0 0 9 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30:00 34 8 79 19 150 30 0 0 9 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45:00 40 6 105 26 181 31 0 0 10 1 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00:00 45 5 129 24 218 37 0 0 10 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:01:25 45 0 129 0 218 0 0 0 10 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00:00 45 0 129 0 218 0 0 0 10 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:15:00 51 6 163 34 249 31 0 0 13 3 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:30:00 53 2 198 35 276 27 0 0 17 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:45:00 55 2 219 21 303 27 0 0 19 2 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:00:00 58 3 243 24 330 27 0 0 20 1 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:15:00 59 1 280 37 357 27 0 0 22 2 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:30:00 62 3 299 19 401 44 0 0 22 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:45:00 69 7 334 35 439 38 0 0 23 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00:00 76 7 360 26 480 41 0 0 24 1 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:15:00 82 6 397 37 514 34 0 0 26 2 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:30:00 86 4 432 35 553 39 0 0 27 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:45:00 86 0 432 0 553 0 0 0 27 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:46:26 86 0 432 0 553 0 0 0 27 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ontario Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 31-Oct-17 Site #: 1730500001 Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Heavys - West Approach Pedestrians Interval Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Time Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15:00 9 9 21 21 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30:00 16 7 61 40 1 0 1 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45:00 20 4 101 40 5 4 1 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00:00 27 7 153 52 5 0 1 0 15 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15:00 32 5 211 58 7 2 1 0 23 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30:00 49 17 279 68 11 4 2 1 36 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45:00 66 17 360 81 14 3 3 1 49 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00:00 84 18 490 130 16 2 8 5 63 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15:00 108 24 630 140 18 2 8 0 78 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30:00 140 32 779 149 20 2 11 3 93 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45:00 168 28 935 156 24 4 13 2 110 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00:00 202 34 1087 152 29 5 15 2 123 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:01:25 202 0 1087 0 29 0 15 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00:00 202 0 1087 0 29 0 15 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:15:00 246 44 1243 156 34 5 17 2 135 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:30:00 291 45 1402 159 38 4 17 0 151 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:45:00 331 40 1563 161 46 8 18 1 166 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:00:00 385 54 1765 202 55 9 20 2 169 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16:15:00 434 49 1946 181 59 4 20 0 173 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 16:30:00 489 55 2126 180 74 15 20 0 184 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 16:45:00 543 54 2297 171 81 7 20 0 187 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 17:00:00 604 61 2483 186 87 6 20 0 199 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 17:15:00 663 59 2661 178 98 11 21 1 205 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 17:30:00 721 58 2835 174 105 7 21 0 214 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 17:45:00 721 0 2835 0 105 0 21 0 214 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 17:46:26 721 0 2835 0 105 0 21 0 214 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Ontario Traffic Inc. Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period One Hour Peak From: 6:00:00 From: 8:00:00 To: 9:00:00 To: 9:00:00
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1730500002 Intersection: Mud St & Isaac Brock Dr Person(s) who counted: TFR File #: 1 Count date: 31-Oct-17
** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Mud St runs W/E
North Leg Total: 134 Heavys 0 0 0 0 Heavys 0 East Leg Total: 1795 North Entering: 94 Trucks 0 3 0 3 Trucks 6 East Entering: 877 North Peds: 0 Cars 58 6 27 91 Cars 34 East Peds: 0 Peds Cross: Totals 58 9 27 Totals 40 Peds Cross:
Isaac Brock Dr Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 0 91 1036 1127 4 0 0 4 746 87 0 833 N 39 1 0 40 Mud St 789 88 0 W E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Mud St 0 3 22 25 S 0 54 778 832 0 1 142 143 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 0 58 942 864 54 0 918 Isaac Brock Dr
Peds Cross: Cars 187 Cars 232 8 59 299 Peds Cross: West Peds: 1 Trucks 5 Trucks 4 3 0 7 South Peds: 0 West Entering: 1000 Heavys 0 Heavys 0 0 0 0 South Entering: 306 West Leg Total: 2127 Totals 192 Totals 236 11 59 South Leg Total: 498
Comments Ontario Traffic Inc. Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period One Hour Peak From: 15:00:00 From: 16:30:00 To: 17:30:00 To: 17:30:00
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1730500002 Intersection: Mud St & Isaac Brock Dr Person(s) who counted: TFR File #: 1 Count date: 31-Oct-17
** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Mud St runs W/E
North Leg Total: 205 Heavys 0 0 0 0 Heavys 0 East Leg Total: 1962 North Entering: 44 Trucks 0 0 2 2 Trucks 5 East Entering: 1124 North Peds: 0 Cars 18 1 23 42 Cars 156 East Peds: 0 Peds Cross: Totals 18 1 25 Totals 161 Peds Cross:
Isaac Brock Dr Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 0 43 1141 1184 21 1 0 22 960 40 0 1000 N 100 2 0 102 Mud St 1081 43 0 W E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Mud St 0 3 122 125 S 0 19 773 792 0 1 231 232 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 0 23 1126 817 21 0 838 Isaac Brock Dr
Peds Cross: Cars 332 Cars 163 13 21 197 Peds Cross: West Peds: 0 Trucks 3 Trucks 3 1 0 4 South Peds: 0 West Entering: 1149 Heavys 0 Heavys 0 0 0 0 South Entering: 201 West Leg Total: 2333 Totals 335 Totals 166 14 21 South Leg Total: 536
Comments Ontario Traffic Inc. Total Count Diagram
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1730500002 Intersection: Mud St & Isaac Brock Dr Person(s) who counted: TFR File #: 1 Count date: 31-Oct-17
** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Mud St runs W/E
North Leg Total: 654 Heavys 0 0 0 0 Heavys 0 East Leg Total: 7686 North Entering: 280 Trucks 0 5 6 11 Trucks 16 East Entering: 3960 North Peds: 0 Cars 163 12 94 269 Cars 358 East Peds: 0 Peds Cross: Totals 163 17 100 Totals 374 Peds Cross:
Isaac Brock Dr Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 0 274 4452 4726 63 2 0 65 3399 264 0 3663 N 221 11 0 232 Mud St 3683 277 0 W E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Mud St 0 8 270 278 S 0 198 3222 3420 0 6 741 747 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 0 212 4233 3521 205 0 3726 Isaac Brock Dr
Peds Cross: Cars 974 Cars 890 25 205 1120 Peds Cross: West Peds: 3 Trucks 22 Trucks 10 6 1 17 South Peds: 1 West Entering: 4445 Heavys 0 Heavys 0 0 0 0 South Entering: 1137 West Leg Total: 9171 Totals 996 Totals 900 31 206 South Leg Total: 2133
Comments Ontario Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Mud St & Isaac Brock Dr Count Date: 31-Oct-17 Municipality: Hamilton North Approach Totals South Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys North/South Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Hour Grand Total Total Hour Grand Total Ending Left Thru Right Total Peds Approaches Ending Left Thru Right Total Peds 6:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 7:00:00 12 0 21 33 0 178 7:00:00 119 0 26 145 0 8:00:00 8 3 38 49 0 260 8:00:00 178 0 33 211 0 9:00:00 27 9 58 94 0 400 9:00:00 236 11 59 306 0 15:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 16:00:00 13 4 21 38 0 227 16:00:00 132 4 53 189 0 17:00:00 25 1 15 41 0 225 17:00:00 153 8 23 184 1
Totals: 85 17 153 255 0 1290 818 23 194 1035 1 East Approach Totals West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys East/West Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Hour Grand Total Total Hour Grand Total Ending Left Thru Right Total Peds Approaches Ending Left Thru Right Total Peds 6:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 7:00:00 10 257 1 268 0 483 7:00:00 5 172 38 215 0 8:00:00 14 498 7 519 0 1014 8:00:00 15 423 57 495 0 9:00:00 40 833 4 877 0 1877 9:00:00 25 832 143 1000 1 15:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 16:00:00 33 705 22 760 0 1793 16:00:00 70 781 182 1033 1 17:00:00 81 853 20 954 0 2068 17:00:00 92 811 211 1114 1
Totals: 178 3146 54 3378 0 7235 207 3019 631 3857 3 Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: 0:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 Crossing Values: 0 0 131 189 275 0 150 187 Ontario Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 31-Oct-17 Site #: 1730500002 Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Heavys - North Approach Pedestrians Interval Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Time Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15:00 1 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30:00 4 3 0 0 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45:00 9 5 0 0 15 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00:00 12 3 0 0 21 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15:00 14 2 0 0 28 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30:00 14 0 0 0 35 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45:00 18 4 0 0 47 12 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00:00 20 2 2 2 59 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15:00 25 5 4 2 69 10 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30:00 33 8 5 1 85 16 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45:00 41 8 6 1 99 14 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00:00 47 6 8 2 117 18 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:02:16 47 0 8 0 117 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00:00 47 0 8 0 117 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:15:00 54 7 8 0 123 6 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:30:00 55 1 8 0 130 7 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:45:00 57 2 10 2 136 6 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:00:00 58 1 11 1 138 2 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:15:00 65 7 11 0 140 2 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:30:00 71 6 11 0 145 5 4 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:45:00 73 2 11 0 149 4 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00:00 80 7 12 1 153 4 5 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:15:00 85 5 12 0 157 4 6 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:30:00 94 9 12 0 163 6 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:45:00 94 0 12 0 163 0 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:47:11 94 0 12 0 163 0 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ontario Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 31-Oct-17 Site #: 1730500002 Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Heavys - East Approach Pedestrians Interval Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Time Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15:00 2 2 48 48 1 1 1 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30:00 4 2 100 52 1 0 1 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45:00 6 2 178 78 1 0 1 0 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00:00 8 2 241 63 1 0 2 1 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15:00 10 2 324 83 3 2 2 0 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30:00 13 3 434 110 4 1 3 1 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45:00 16 3 565 131 5 1 3 0 29 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00:00 20 4 713 148 8 3 4 1 42 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15:00 28 8 880 167 8 0 4 0 60 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30:00 37 9 1059 179 9 1 4 0 81 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45:00 50 13 1246 187 11 2 5 1 106 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00:00 59 9 1459 213 12 1 5 0 129 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:02:16 59 0 1459 0 12 0 5 0 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00:00 59 0 1459 0 12 0 5 0 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:15:00 66 7 1605 146 18 6 7 2 151 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:30:00 70 4 1753 148 21 3 7 0 171 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:45:00 80 10 1919 166 29 8 8 1 185 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:00:00 89 9 2091 172 34 5 8 0 202 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:15:00 106 17 2253 162 39 5 9 1 211 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:30:00 121 15 2439 186 42 3 9 0 224 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:45:00 147 26 2662 223 46 4 10 1 228 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00:00 168 21 2908 246 52 6 10 0 238 10 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:15:00 196 28 3142 234 56 4 10 0 247 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:30:00 221 25 3399 257 63 7 11 1 264 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:45:00 221 0 3399 0 63 0 11 0 264 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:47:11 221 0 3399 0 63 0 11 0 264 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ontario Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 31-Oct-17 Site #: 1730500002 Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Heavys - South Approach Pedestrians Interval Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Time Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15:00 22 22 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30:00 48 26 0 0 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45:00 84 36 0 0 15 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00:00 119 35 0 0 26 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15:00 144 25 0 0 34 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30:00 181 37 0 0 41 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45:00 226 45 0 0 51 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00:00 296 70 0 0 59 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15:00 348 52 3 3 74 15 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30:00 398 50 5 2 86 12 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45:00 461 63 6 1 101 15 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00:00 528 67 8 2 118 17 5 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:02:16 528 0 8 0 118 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00:00 528 0 8 0 118 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:15:00 556 28 9 1 132 14 5 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:30:00 594 38 9 0 149 17 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:45:00 624 30 10 1 165 16 6 1 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:00:00 659 35 10 0 170 5 6 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:15:00 696 37 11 1 176 6 7 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:30:00 727 31 12 1 184 8 7 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16:45:00 765 38 16 4 186 2 8 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 17:00:00 810 45 18 2 193 7 8 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 17:15:00 853 43 21 3 197 4 9 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 17:30:00 890 37 25 4 205 8 10 1 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 17:45:00 890 0 25 0 205 0 10 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 17:47:11 890 0 25 0 205 0 10 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ontario Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 31-Oct-17 Site #: 1730500002 Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Heavys - West Approach Pedestrians Interval Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Time Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15:00 3 3 20 20 11 11 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30:00 4 1 63 43 20 9 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45:00 5 1 105 42 30 10 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00:00 5 0 161 56 38 8 0 0 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15:00 7 2 237 76 48 10 0 0 21 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30:00 10 3 316 79 60 12 0 0 33 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45:00 15 5 413 97 71 11 0 0 46 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00:00 20 5 534 121 94 23 0 0 61 15 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15:00 23 3 722 188 125 31 1 1 76 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30:00 28 5 916 194 161 36 2 1 88 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45:00 34 6 1123 207 201 40 2 0 99 11 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9:00:00 42 8 1312 189 236 35 3 1 115 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9:02:16 42 0 1312 0 236 0 3 0 115 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 15:00:00 42 0 1312 0 236 0 3 0 115 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 15:15:00 59 17 1470 158 281 45 3 0 129 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 15:30:00 74 15 1653 183 323 42 3 0 146 17 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 15:45:00 97 23 1836 183 366 43 4 1 162 16 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 16:00:00 110 13 2042 206 416 50 5 1 166 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 16:15:00 127 17 2250 208 467 51 5 0 171 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 16:30:00 148 21 2449 199 510 43 5 0 179 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 16:45:00 175 27 2628 179 564 54 6 1 181 2 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 17:00:00 200 25 2831 203 625 61 7 1 188 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 17:15:00 233 33 3024 193 682 57 7 0 194 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 17:30:00 270 37 3222 198 741 59 8 1 198 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 17:45:00 270 0 3222 0 741 0 8 0 198 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 17:47:11 270 0 3222 0 741 0 8 0 198 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Accu-Traffic Inc. Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period One Hour Peak From: 6:45:00 From: 7:15:00 To: 8:45:00 To: 8:15:00
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1608300002 Intersection: Upper Centennial Pkwy & driveway Person counted: 1 TFR File #: Person prepared: Count date: 24-May-16 Person checked:
** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Upper Centennial Pkwy runs N/S
North Leg Total: 1287 Heavys 0 31 31 Heavys 45 North Entering: 423 Trucks 0 8 8 Trucks 11 North Peds: 0 Cars 0 384 384 Cars 808 Peds Cross: Totals 0 423 Totals 864
Upper Centennial Pkwy Heavys Trucks Cars Totals 1023
N
driveway W E Heavys Trucks Cars Totals 0000 S
4026 402 Upper Centennial Pkwy
Peds Cross: Cars 386 Cars 2 808 810 Peds Cross: West Peds: 0 Trucks 8 Trucks 0 11 11 South Peds: 0 West Entering: 6 Heavys 35 Heavys 1 45 46 South Entering: 867 West Leg Total: 9 Totals 429 Totals 3 864 South Leg Total: 1296
Comments Accu-Traffic Inc. Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period One Hour Peak From: 15:15:00 From: 16:15:00 To: 17:15:00 To: 17:15:00
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1608300002 Intersection: Upper Centennial Pkwy & driveway Person counted: 1 TFR File #: Person prepared: Count date: 24-May-16 Person checked:
** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Upper Centennial Pkwy runs N/S
North Leg Total: 1653 Heavys 0 29 29 Heavys 28 North Entering: 1022 Trucks 0 11 11 Trucks 4 North Peds: 0 Cars 0 982 982 Cars 599 Peds Cross: Totals 0 1022 Totals 631
Upper Centennial Pkwy Heavys Trucks Cars Totals 0000
N
driveway W E Heavys Trucks Cars Totals 0000 S
0000 000 Upper Centennial Pkwy
Peds Cross: Cars 982 Cars 0 599 599 Peds Cross: West Peds: 0 Trucks 11 Trucks 0 4 4 South Peds: 0 West Entering: 0 Heavys 29 Heavys 0 28 28 South Entering: 631 West Leg Total: 0 Totals 1022 Totals 0 631 South Leg Total: 1653
Comments Accu-Traffic Inc. Total Count Diagram
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1608300002 Intersection: Upper Centennial Pkwy & driveway Person counted: 1 TFR File #: Person prepared: Count date: 24-May-16 Person checked:
** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Upper Centennial Pkwy runs N/S
North Leg Total: 5714 Heavys 1 131 132 Heavys 139 North Entering: 2788 Trucks 0 35 35 Trucks 33 North Peds: 0 Cars 1 2620 2621 Cars 2754 Peds Cross: Totals 2 2786 Totals 2926
Upper Centennial Pkwy Heavys Trucks Cars Totals 3036
N
driveway W E Heavys Trucks Cars Totals 0022 S
90211 904 Upper Centennial Pkwy
Peds Cross: Cars 2622 Cars 2 2752 2754 Peds Cross: West Peds: 0 Trucks 35 Trucks 0 33 33 South Peds: 0 West Entering: 13 Heavys 140 Heavys 2 139 141 South Entering: 2928 West Leg Total: 19 Totals 2797 Totals 4 2924 South Leg Total: 5725
Comments Accu-Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Upper Centennial Pkwy & drivewa Count Date: 24-May-16 Municipality: Hamilton North Approach Totals South Approach Totals North/South Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Hour Total Total Hour Total Ending Grand Peds Approaches Ending Grand Peds Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total 7:00:00 0 93 0 93 0 267 7:00:00 0 174 0 174 0 8:00:00 0 405 0 405 0 1249 8:00:00 3 841 0 844 0 9:00:00 0 304 0 304 0 922 9:00:00 1 617 0 618 0 16:00:00 0 715 2 717 0 1229 16:00:00 0 512 0 512 0 17:00:00 0 992 0 992 0 1609 17:00:00 0 617 0 617 0
Totals: 0 2509 2 2511 0 5276 S Totals: 4 2761 0 2765 0 East Approach TotalsEast/West West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Hour Total Total Hour Total Ending Grand Peds Approaches Ending Grand Peds Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total 7:00:0000000 17:00:0000110 8:00:000000058:00:0000550 9:00:000000059:00:0000550 16:00:0000000116:00:0010010 17:00:0000000117:00:0010010
Totals: 00000 13W Totals:2011130 Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: 7:00 8:00 9:00 16:00 17:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 Crossing Values: 0001 1 000 Accu-Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 24-May-16 Site #: 1608300002 Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Heavys - North Approach Pedestrians Interval LeftThruRight Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Time CumIncr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:45:0000000000000000000000 7:00:000084840000110000880000 7:15:00001536900002100001460000 7:30:000025410100003100002280000 7:45:00003438900008500002750000 8:00:000045311000009100003690000 8:15:000053784000010100004590000 8:30:000062992000011100005380000 8:45:0000733104000011000005850000 9:00:00007330000011000005800000 15:15:00007330000011000005800000 15:30:0000933200000014300006350000 15:45:00 0 0 1158 225 1 1 0 0 16 2 000077141100 16:00:00 0 0 1402 244 1 0 0 0 22 6 000093161000 16:15:00 0 0 1638 236 1 0 0 0 24 2 000010291000 16:30:00 0 0 1864 226 1 0 0 0 28 4 0000112101000 16:45:00 0 0 2108 244 1 0 0 0 29 1 000012081000 17:00:00 0 0 2349 241 1 0 0 0 32 3 000012881000 17:15:00 0 0 2620 271 1 0 0 0 35 3 000013131000 17:30:00 0 0 2620 0 1 0 0 0 35 0 000013101000 17:30:15 0 0 2620 0 1 0 0 0 35 0 000013101000 Accu-Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 24-May-16 Site #: 1608300002 Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Heavys - East Approach Pedestrians Interval LeftThruRight Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Time CumIncr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:45:0000000000000000000000 7:00:0000000000000000000000 7:15:0000000000000000000000 7:30:0000000000000000000000 7:45:0000000000000000000000 8:00:0000000000000000000000 8:15:0000000000000000000000 8:30:0000000000000000000000 8:45:0000000000000000000000 9:00:0000000000000000000000 15:15:0000000000000000000000 15:30:0000000000000000000000 15:45:0000000000000000000000 16:00:0000000000000000000000 16:15:0000000000000000000000 16:30:0000000000000000000000 16:45:0000000000000000000000 17:00:0000000000000000000000 17:15:0000000000000000000000 17:30:0000000000000000000000 17:30:1500000000000000000000 Accu-Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 24-May-16 Site #: 1608300002 Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Heavys - South Approach Pedestrians Interval LeftThruRight Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Time CumIncr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:45:0000000000000000000000 7:00:00001691690000000000550000 7:15:0000341172000022001117120000 7:30:000055821700006400102580000 7:45:0011747189000093001035100000 8:00:0021959212000012300104490000 8:15:00 2 0 1149 190 0 0 0 0 13 1 002162180000 8:30:00 2 0 1333 184 0 0 0 0 16 3 002072100000 8:45:00 2 0 1526 193 0 0 0 0 18 2 002088160000 9:00:00 2 0 1526 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 00208800000 15:15:00 2 0 1526 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 00208800000 15:30:00 2 0 1696 170 0 0 0 0 21 3 00209130000 15:45:00 2 0 1860 164 0 0 0 0 23 2 00209870000 16:00:00 2 0 2015 155 0 0 0 0 26 3 002010350000 16:15:00 2 0 2153 138 0 0 0 0 29 3 002011180000 16:30:00 2 0 2313 160 0 0 0 0 30 1 002011540000 16:45:00 2 0 2441 128 0 0 0 0 31 1 002012380000 17:00:00 2 0 2597 156 0 0 0 0 33 2 002013180000 17:15:00 2 0 2752 155 0 0 0 0 33 0 002013980000 17:30:00 2 0 2752 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 002013900000 17:30:15 2 0 2752 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 002013900000 Accu-Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 24-May-16 Site #: 1608300002 Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Heavys - West Approach Pedestrians Interval LeftThruRight Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Time CumIncr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:45:0000000000000000000000 7:00:0000000000000000001100 7:15:0000000000000000001000 7:30:0000001100000000002100 7:45:0000001000000000003100 8:00:0000001000000000005200 8:15:0000002100000000005000 8:30:0000002000000000008300 8:45:0000002000000000009100 9:00:0000002000000000009000 15:15:0000002000000000009000 15:30:0000002000000000009000 15:45:0000002000000000009000 16:00:0011002000000000009000 16:15:0021002000000000009000 16:30:0020002000000000009000 16:45:0020002000000000009000 17:00:0020002000000000009000 17:15:0020002000000000009000 17:30:0020002000000000009000 17:30:1520002000000000009000 Accu-Traffic Inc. Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period One Hour Peak From: 6:45:00 From: 7:45:00 To: 8:45:00 To: 8:45:00
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1608300003 Intersection: Upper Centennial Pkwy & Mud St Person counted: 1 TFR File #: Person prepared: Count date: 24-May-16 Person checked:
** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Upper Centennial Pkwy runs N/S
North Leg Total: 1286 Heavys 4 27 2 33 Heavys 57 East Leg Total: 711 North Entering: 433 Trucks 2 5 0 7 Trucks 13 East Entering: 475 North Peds: 0 Cars 92 282 19 393 Cars 783 East Peds: 0 Peds Cross: Totals 98 314 21 Totals 853 Peds Cross:
Upper Centennial Pkwy Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 44 8 615 667 622468 335 3 11 349 N 521558 Mud St 449 6 20 W E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Mud St 11 1 160 172 S 13 4 187 204 19 5 148 172 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 43 10 495 215 6 15 236 Upper Centennial Pkwy
Peds Cross: Cars 482 Cars 188 561 9 758 Peds Cross: West Peds: 0 Trucks 11 Trucks 3 10 2 15 South Peds: 2 West Entering: 548 Heavys 51 Heavys 29 42 0 71 South Entering: 844 West Leg Total: 1215 Totals 544 Totals 220 613 11 South Leg Total: 1388
Comments Accu-Traffic Inc. Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period One Hour Peak From: 15:15:00 From: 16:15:00 To: 17:15:00 To: 17:15:00
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1608300003 Intersection: Upper Centennial Pkwy & Mud St Person counted: 1 TFR File #: Person prepared: Count date: 24-May-16 Person checked:
** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Upper Centennial Pkwy runs N/S
North Leg Total: 1637 Heavys 4 18 6 28 Heavys 30 East Leg Total: 843 North Entering: 1007 Trucks 1 11 1 13 Trucks 3 East Entering: 472 North Peds: 0 Cars 214 696 56 966 Cars 597 East Peds: 0 Peds Cross: Totals 219 725 63 Totals 630 Peds Cross:
Upper Centennial Pkwy Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 26 8 796 830 210122 376 2 11 389 N 590261 Mud St 456 2 14 W E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Mud St 32191196 S 81277286 14 6 299 319 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 25 9 767 355 2 14 371 Upper Centennial Pkwy
Peds Cross: Cars 1054 Cars 206 385 22 613 Peds Cross: West Peds: 0 Trucks 17 Trucks 5 1 0 6 South Peds: 0 West Entering: 801 Heavys 34 Heavys 11 26 0 37 South Entering: 656 West Leg Total: 1631 Totals 1105 Totals 222 412 22 South Leg Total: 1761
Comments Accu-Traffic Inc. Total Count Diagram
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1608300003 Intersection: Upper Centennial Pkwy & Mud St Person counted: 1 TFR File #: Person prepared: Count date: 24-May-16 Person checked:
** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Upper Centennial Pkwy runs N/S
North Leg Total: 5717 Heavys 15 108 11 134 Heavys 148 East Leg Total: 2839 North Entering: 2774 Trucks 5 31 6 42 Trucks 38 East Entering: 1706 North Peds: 0 Cars 560 1892 146 2598 Cars 2757 East Peds: 0 Peds Cross: Totals 580 2031 163 Totals 2943 Peds Cross:
Upper Centennial Pkwy Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 133 41 2525 2699 167 4 14 185 1241 16 45 1302 N 20658219 Mud St 1614 25 67 W E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Mud St 20 6 680 706 S 47 10 853 910 79 17 839 935 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 146 33 2372 1055 18 60 1133 Upper Centennial Pkwy
Peds Cross: Cars 2937 Cars 724 1910 56 2690 Peds Cross: West Peds: 1 Trucks 53 Trucks 20 28 2 50 South Peds: 4 West Entering: 2551 Heavys 195 Heavys 73 114 2 189 South Entering: 2929 West Leg Total: 5250 Totals 3185 Totals 817 2052 60 South Leg Total: 6114
Comments Accu-Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Upper Centennial Pkwy & Mud St Count Date: 24-May-16 Municipality: Hamilton North Approach Totals South Approach Totals North/South Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Hour Total Total Hour Total Ending Grand Peds Approaches Ending Grand Peds Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total 7:00:00 7 81 6 94 0 269 7:00:00 38 136 1 175 0 8:00:00 25 303 76 404 0 1212 8:00:00 165 636 7 808 2 9:00:00 18 218 70 306 0 902 9:00:00 156 433 7 596 0 16:00:00 38 518 154 710 0 1248 16:00:00 182 339 17 538 2 17:00:00 59 714 212 985 0 1627 17:00:00 220 400 22 642 0
Totals: 147 1834 518 2499 0 5258 S Totals: 761 1944 54 2759 4 East Approach TotalsEast/West West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Hour Total Total Hour Total Ending Grand Peds Approaches Ending Grand Peds Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total 7:00:00 15 48 8 71 0 148 7:00:00 27 27 23 77 0 8:00:00 41 274 63 378 0 896 8:00:00 149 209 160 518 1 9:00:00 48 272 52 372 0 785 9:00:00 139 148 126 413 0 16:00:00 35 248 26 309 0 886 16:00:00 151 184 242 577 0 17:00:00 62 354 28 444 0 1196 17:00:00 190 257 305 752 0
Totals: 201 1196 177 1574 0 3911 W Totals: 656 825 856 2337 1 Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: 7:00 8:00 9:00 16:00 17:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 Crossing Values: 90 466 459 436 606 0 0 0 Accu-Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 24-May-16 Site #: 1608300003 Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Heavys - North Approach Pedestrians Interval LeftThruRight Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Time CumIncr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:45:0000000000000000000000 7:00:006672726611110000880000 7:15:00115124521711211000001460000 7:30:00198197733619312100002281100 7:45:00267258615115304211002642100 8:00:00293344867625306221003484200 8:15:00323407639216306031114284000 8:30:003974746711422308230215085100 8:45:004565406614329309130205336100 9:00:0045054001430309030205306000 15:15:0045054001430309030205306000 15:30:005510678138192493012330205966000 15:45:0066118451672425030131303171127100 16:00:00 78 12 1019 174 293 51 5 2 18 5 3052831210300 16:15:00 90 12 1196 177 346 53 5 0 20 2 415090711100 16:30:00 105 15 1352 156 391 45 5 0 23 3 406197713200 16:45:00 119 14 1527 175 452 61 5 0 25 2 4082101414100 17:00:00 132 13 1700 173 499 47 5 0 28 3 4 0 10 2 106 5 15 1 0 0 17:15:00 146 14 1892 192 560 61 6 1 31 3 5 1 11 1 108 2 15 0 0 0 17:30:00 146 0 1892 0 560 0 6 0 31 0 5 0 11 0 108 0 15 0 0 0 17:30:15 146 0 1892 0 560 0 6 0 31 0 5 0 11 0 108 0 15 0 0 0 Accu-Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 24-May-16 Site #: 1608300003 Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Heavys - East Approach Pedestrians Interval LeftThruRight Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Time CumIncr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:45:0000000000000000000000 7:00:00151542428800110000550000 7:15:002278341211311431100720000 7:30:003210138553514215121001143300 7:45:004412222844712207220001656300 8:00:005410295736215207031002046000 8:15:006814391967917208130442338200 8:30:0087194728192132010241402748000 8:45:00969557851091731100405127010200 9:00:009605570109030100405027010000 15:15:009605570109030100405027010000 15:30:001071164285117830111405030311100 15:45:0011710709671271030132406131112100 16:00:001301379687132530130406033213100 16:15:0014717865691461452141406034113000 16:30:001621596297153750140406036213000 16:45:00 178 16 1035 73 157 4 5 0 14 0 407139313000 17:00:00 189 11 1137 102 159 2 5 0 15 1 407044514100 17:15:00 206 17 1241 104 167 8 5 0 16 1 408145114000 17:30:00 206 0 1241 0 167 0 5 0 16 0 408045014000 17:30:15 206 0 1241 0 167 0 5 0 16 0 408045014000 Accu-Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 24-May-16 Site #: 1608300003 Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Heavys - South Approach Pedestrians Interval LeftThruRight Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Time CumIncr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:45:0000000000000000000000 7:00:0035351311310011000022551100 7:15:006025268137113222004218131000 7:30:00903042215421415300622131000 7:45:0012535557135314083001042761000 8:00:00181567231667440135001883691022 8:15:00 218 37 851 128 9 2 5 1 14 1 1 1 25 7 48 12 1 0 2 0 8:30:00 263 45 980 129 10 1 6 1 17 3 2 1 32 7 58 10 1 0 2 0 8:45:00 313 50 1118 138 12 2 7 1 18 1 2 0 39 7 69 11 1 0 2 0 9:00:00 313 0 1118 0 12 0 7 0 18 0 2 0 39 0 69 01020 15:15:00 313 0 1118 0 12 0 7 0 18 0 2 0 39 0 69 01020 15:30:00 377 64 1228 110 20 8 9 2 20 2 2 0 45 6 72 31031 15:45:00 421 44 1337 109 27 7 10 1 23 3 2 0 52 7 77 51030 16:00:00 469 48 1439 102 29 2 11 1 25 2 2 0 61 9 80 31041 16:15:00 518 49 1525 86 34 5 15 4 27 2 2 0 62 1 88 82140 16:30:00 570 52 1626 101 37 3 18 3 28 1 2 0 66 4 93 52040 16:45:00 619 49 1719 93 46 9 19 1 28 0 2 0 68 2 101 82040 17:00:00 670 51 1808 89 50 4 20 1 28 0 2 0 71 3 108 72040 17:15:00 724 54 1910 102 56 6 20 0 28 0 2 0 73 2 114 62040 17:30:00 724 0 1910 0 56 0 20 0 28 0 2 0 73 0 114 02040 17:30:15 724 0 1910 0 56 0 20 0 28 0 2 0 73 0 114 02040 Accu-Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 24-May-16 Site #: 1608300003 Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Heavys - West Approach Pedestrians Interval LeftThruRight Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Time CumIncr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:45:0000000000000000000000 7:00:0026262525212100000011222200 7:15:0054286237472600001121429700 7:30:0010248116547326110010206213411 7:45:00138361725611441100032428220710 8:00:001693122351156421011306212424410 8:15:00 214 45 273 50 188 32 2 1 2 1 4 1 10 4 13 1 30 6 1 0 8:30:00 257 43 317 44 218 30 2 0 3 1 7 3 12 2 19 6 34 4 1 0 8:45:00 298 41 359 42 262 44 2 0 4 1 8 1 15 3 21 2 39 5 1 0 9:00:00 298 0 359 0 262 0 2 0 4 0 8 0 15 0 21 0 39 0 1 0 15:15:00 298 0 359 0 262 0 2 0 4 0 8 0 15 0 21 0 39 0 1 0 15:30:00 349 51 416 57 332 70 3 1 5 1 8 0 16 1 26 5 45 6 1 0 15:45:00 398 49 473 57 397 65 3 0 7 2 9 1 17 1 33 7 55 10 1 0 16:00:0044547522494818441 9 21011703746051 0 16:15:0048944576545405940 9 01111703926551 0 16:30:0053748643675985840 9 01211814236941 0 16:45:00576397015868183511011201914317451 0 17:00:00631557696876483611001531904637731 0 17:15:00680498538483975601001722014717921 0 17:30:00 680 0 853 0 839 0 6 0 10 0 17 0 20 0 47 0 79 0 1 0 17:30:15 680 0 853 0 839 0 6 0 10 0 17 0 20 0 47 0 79 0 1 0 Accu-Traffic Inc. Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period One Hour Peak From: 6:45:00 From: 7:45:00 To: 8:45:00 To: 8:45:00
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1608300004 Intersection: Mud St & First Rd W Person counted: 1 TFR File #: Person prepared: Count date: 24-May-16 Person checked:
** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Mud St runs W/E
North Leg Total: 138 Heavys 8 0 1 9 Heavys 2 East Leg Total: 1295 North Entering: 95 Trucks 0 0 0 0 Trucks 0 East Entering: 698 North Peds: 0 Cars 74 10 2 86 Cars 41 East Peds: 0 Peds Cross: Totals 82 10 3 Totals 43 Peds Cross:
First Rd W Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 43 5 808 856 2013 621 4 32 657 N 330538 Mud St 656 4 38 W E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Mud St 102122 S 37 6 457 500 213740 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 40 7 515 550 6 41 597 First Rd W
Peds Cross: Cars 80 Cars 113 18 91 222 Peds Cross: West Peds: 2 Trucks 1 Trucks 1 0 0 1 South Peds: 0 West Entering: 562 Heavys 7 Heavys 3 0 3 6 South Entering: 229 West Leg Total: 1418 Totals 88 Totals 117 18 94 South Leg Total: 317
Comments Accu-Traffic Inc. Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period One Hour Peak From: 15:15:00 From: 16:15:00 To: 17:15:00 To: 17:15:00
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1608300004 Intersection: Mud St & First Rd W Person counted: 1 TFR File #: Person prepared: Count date: 24-May-16 Person checked:
** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Mud St runs W/E
North Leg Total: 186 Heavys 2 1 0 3 Heavys 3 East Leg Total: 1734 North Entering: 137 Trucks 0 0 0 0 Trucks 0 East Entering: 879 North Peds: 0 Cars 96 31 7 134 Cars 46 East Peds: 1 Peds Cross: Totals 98 32 7 Totals 49 Peds Cross:
First Rd W Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 34 5 947 986 2002 800 5 28 833 N 440044 Mud St 846 5 28 W E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Mud St 303740 S 21 3 788 812 007575 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 24 3 900 830 3 22 855 First Rd W
Peds Cross: Cars 150 Cars 51 7 35 93 Peds Cross: West Peds: 0 Trucks 0 Trucks 0 0 0 0 South Peds: 0 West Entering: 927 Heavys 1 Heavys 4 0 1 5 South Entering: 98 West Leg Total: 1913 Totals 151 Totals 55 7 36 South Leg Total: 249
Comments Accu-Traffic Inc. Total Count Diagram
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1608300004 Intersection: Mud St & First Rd W Person counted: 1 TFR File #: Person prepared: Count date: 24-May-16 Person checked:
** Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: Mud St runs W/E
North Leg Total: 585 Heavys 19 2 6 27 Heavys 8 East Leg Total: 5611 North Entering: 403 Trucks 0 0 0 0 Trucks 0 East Entering: 2842 North Peds: 0 Cars 295 67 14 376 Cars 174 East Peds: 1 Peds Cross: Totals 314 69 20 Totals 182 Peds Cross:
First Rd W Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 144 24 3155 3323 140216 2554 22 114 2690 N 12808136 Mud St 2696 22 124 W E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Mud St 60117123 S 130 18 2366 2514 61205212 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 142 19 2688 2608 18 143 2769 First Rd W
Peds Cross: Cars 400 Cars 306 43 228 577 Peds Cross: West Peds: 4 Trucks 1 Trucks 2 0 0 2 South Peds: 0 West Entering: 2849 Heavys 16 Heavys 11 0 7 18 South Entering: 597 West Leg Total: 6172 Totals 417 Totals 319 43 235 South Leg Total: 1014
Comments Accu-Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: Mud St & First Rd W Count Date: 24-May-16 Municipality: Hamilton North Approach Totals South Approach Totals North/South Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Hour Total Total Hour Total Ending Grand Peds Approaches Ending Grand Peds Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total 7:00:00 0 1 6 7 0 35 7:00:00 16 0 12 28 0 8:00:00 1 4 45 50 0 231 8:00:00 93 16 72 181 0 9:00:00 2 6 69 77 0 251 9:00:00 87 13 74 174 0 16:00:00 9 20 70 99 0 193 16:00:00 56 5 33 94 0 17:00:00 7 25 99 131 0 223 17:00:00 53 7 32 92 0
Totals: 19 56 289 364 0 933 S Totals: 305 41 223 569 0 East Approach TotalsEast/West West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Hour Total Total Hour Total Ending Grand Peds Approaches Ending Grand Peds Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total 7:00:00 3 96 3 102 0 186 7:00:00 10 71 3 84 0 8:00:00 22 523 5 550 0 1123 8:00:00 16 514 43 573 2 9:00:00 28 490 0 518 0 920 9:00:00 18 362 22 402 2 16:00:00 27 566 6 599 0 1266 16:00:00 29 589 49 667 0 17:00:00 44 798 2 844 1 1715 17:00:00 40 757 74 871 0
Totals: 124 2473 16 2613 1 5210 W Totals: 113 2293 191 2597 4 Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: 7:00 8:00 9:00 16:00 17:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 Crossing Values: 17 112 104 85 86 0 0 0 Accu-Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 24-May-16 Site #: 1608300004 Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Heavys - North Approach Pedestrians Interval LeftThruRight Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Time CumIncr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:45:0000000000000000000000 7:00:0000006600000000110000 7:15:000000171100000000100000 7:30:00000025800000000101100 7:45:000000361100000000102100 8:00:001144491300000000102000 8:15:001051641500000011102000 8:30:002172842000000010105300 8:45:002010311026000000101010500 9:00:00201001100000000101010000 15:15:00201001100000000101010000 15:30:004216612414000000431013300 15:45:007323714824000000401015200 16:00:007030717527000000511015000 16:15:007036619924000000611016100 16:30:009245922728000000601016000 16:45:0010148324114000000601017100 17:00:0013355727231000000601017000 17:15:00141671229523000000602118100 17:30:001406702950000000602019100 17:30:151406702950000000602019000 Accu-Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 24-May-16 Site #: 1608300004 Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Heavys - East Approach Pedestrians Interval LeftThruRight Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Time CumIncr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:45:0000000000000000000000 7:00:003389893300110000660000 7:15:00741657641004300001040000 7:30:009228612140005100111440000 7:45:0013442313751007200212280000 8:00:00229579156720070003133111100 8:15:0027572915070009200414071000 8:30:004114879150700010100734771000 8:45:00 46 5 1044 165 7 0 0 0 11 1 00705471000 9:00:00 46 0 1044 0 7 0 0 0 11 0 00705401000 15:15:00 46 0 1044 0 7 0 0 0 11 0 00705401000 15:30:00 52 6 1229 185 12 5 0 0 13 2 00816062100 15:45:00 64 12 1384 155 12 0 0 0 14 1 008071112000 16:00:00 72 8 1578 194 12 0 0 0 14 0 008083122000 16:15:00 84 12 1754 176 12 0 0 0 17 3 00808632000 16:30:00 90 6 1958 204 14 2 0 0 19 2 00809592011 16:45:00 102 12 2141 183 14 0 0 0 20 1 008010272010 17:00:00 116 14 2344 203 14 0 0 0 21 1 008010862010 17:15:00 128 12 2554 210 14 0 0 0 22 1 008011462010 17:30:00 128 0 2554 0 14 0 0 0 22 0 008011402010 17:30:15 128 0 2554 0 14 0 0 0 22 0 008011402010 Accu-Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 24-May-16 Site #: 1608300004 Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Heavys - South Approach Pedestrians Interval LeftThruRight Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Time CumIncr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:45:0000000000000000000000 7:00:00161600121200000000000000 7:15:00362011221000000011000000 7:30:00551976422000000010000000 7:45:007722114632100000021001100 8:00:0010629165821900000031002100 8:15:00141352261052300000041003100 8:30:00169282531252000000040003000 8:45:00190212941542911000051004100 9:00:001900290154010000050004000 15:15:001900290154010000050004000 15:30:0021121290163910000050005100 15:45:00227163231751221000061005000 16:00:00244173421851020000060006100 16:15:0025511362193820000071006000 16:30:00268133602031020000081006000 16:45:00279113712131020000091006000 17:00:00293144142174200000101006000 17:15:003061343222811200000111007100 17:30:0030604302280200000110007000 17:30:1530604302280200000110007000 Accu-Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 24-May-16 Site #: 1608300004 Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Heavys - West Approach Pedestrians Interval LeftThruRight Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Time CumIncr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:45:0000000000000000000000 7:00:00101065653300000000660000 7:15:0015516196520000000018120000 7:30:0016128812794003300002350011 7:45:0022640912126170052000033102221 8:00:0026453412543170072000044113120 8:15:00326647113507009200005064131 8:30:0037575010357700101110060104041 8:45:0043686611663600111101170104040 9:00:0043086606300011010107004040 15:15:0043086606300011010107004040 15:30:00 51 8 1051 185 83 20 0 0 12 1 101080105140 15:45:00 63 12 1224 173 94 11 0 0 12 0 102197175040 16:00:00 70 7 1420 196 110 16 0 0 14 2 103110256140 16:15:00 80 10 1578 158 130 20 0 0 15 1 103010976040 16:30:00 88 8 1754 176 144 14 0 0 16 1 103011566040 16:45:00 100 12 1937 183 169 25 0 0 16 0 104112056040 17:00:00 107 7 2148 211 184 15 0 0 18 2 106212776040 17:15:00 117 10 2366 218 205 21 0 0 18 0 106013036040 17:30:00 117 0 2366 0 205 0 0 0 18 0 106013006040 17:30:15 117 0 2366 0 205 0 0 0 18 0 106013006040 Accu-Traffic Inc. Morning Peak Diagram Specified Period One Hour Peak From: 6:45:00 From: 7:45:00 To: 8:45:00 To: 8:45:00
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1608300005 Intersection: First Rd W & driveway Person counted: 1 TFR File #: Person prepared: Count date: 24-May-16 Person checked:
** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: First Rd W runs N/S
North Leg Total: 117 Heavys 0 4 0 4 Heavys 2 East Leg Total: 15 North Entering: 80 Trucks 0 1 0 1 Trucks 1 East Entering: 10 North Peds: 0 Cars 0 74 1 75 Cars 34 East Peds: 1 Peds Cross: Totals 0 79 1 Totals 37 Peds Cross:
First Rd W Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 0033 1001 1001 N 3058 driveway 505 W E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals driveway 0000 S 0011 0011 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 002 4015 First Rd W
Peds Cross: Cars 78 Cars 2 33 2 37 Peds Cross: West Peds: 0 Trucks 1 Trucks 0 1 0 1 South Peds: 0 West Entering: 2 Heavys 9 Heavys 0 2 1 3 South Entering: 41 West Leg Total: 5 Totals 88 Totals 2 36 3 South Leg Total: 129
Comments Accu-Traffic Inc. Afternoon Peak Diagram Specified Period One Hour Peak From: 15:15:00 From: 15:30:00 To: 17:15:00 To: 16:30:00
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1608300005 Intersection: First Rd W & driveway Person counted: 1 TFR File #: Person prepared: Count date: 24-May-16 Person checked:
** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: First Rd W runs N/S
North Leg Total: 183 Heavys 0 3 0 3 Heavys 2 East Leg Total: 7 North Entering: 134 Trucks 0 0 0 0 Trucks 0 East Entering: 6 North Peds: 0 Cars 2 129 0 131 Cars 47 East Peds: 0 Peds Cross: Totals 2 132 0 Totals 49 Peds Cross:
First Rd W Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 0033 0000 1001 N 2035 driveway 303 W E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals driveway 0000 S 0011 0011 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 002 1001 First Rd W
Peds Cross: Cars 132 Cars 0 47 0 47 Peds Cross: West Peds: 0 Trucks 0 Trucks 0 0 0 0 South Peds: 0 West Entering: 2 Heavys 6 Heavys 0 2 0 2 South Entering: 49 West Leg Total: 5 Totals 138 Totals 0 49 0 South Leg Total: 187
Comments Accu-Traffic Inc. Total Count Diagram
Municipality: Hamilton Weather conditions: Site #: 1608300005 Intersection: First Rd W & driveway Person counted: 1 TFR File #: Person prepared: Count date: 24-May-16 Person checked:
** Non-Signalized Intersection ** Major Road: First Rd W runs N/S
North Leg Total: 542 Heavys 0 15 0 15 Heavys 8 East Leg Total: 36 North Entering: 372 Trucks 0 1 0 1 Trucks 1 East Entering: 28 North Peds: 0 Cars 4 350 2 356 Cars 161 East Peds: 1 Peds Cross: Totals 4 366 2 Totals 170 Peds Cross:
First Rd W Heavys Trucks Cars Totals Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 001414 2002 2002 N 10 1 13 24 driveway 14 1 13 W E
Heavys Trucks Cars Totals driveway 0022 S 0022 0099 Cars Trucks Heavys Totals 0013 7018 First Rd W
Peds Cross: Cars 369 Cars 8 157 3 168 Peds Cross: West Peds: 0 Trucks 2 Trucks 0 1 0 1 South Peds: 0 West Entering: 13 Heavys 28 Heavys 0 8 1 9 South Entering: 178 West Leg Total: 27 Totals 399 Totals 8 166 4 South Leg Total: 577
Comments Accu-Traffic Inc. Traffic Count Summary Intersection: First Rd W & driveway Count Date: 24-May-16 Municipality: Hamilton North Approach Totals South Approach Totals North/South Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Hour Total Total Hour Total Ending Grand Peds Approaches Ending Grand Peds Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total 7:00:00 0 7 0 7 0 18 7:00:00 1 10 0 11 0 8:00:00 1 47 1 49 0 89 8:00:00 3 35 2 40 0 9:00:00 1 64 0 65 0 93 9:00:00 2 24 2 28 0 16:00:00 0 85 1 86 0 125 16:00:00 2 37 0 39 0 17:00:00 0 127 1 128 0 178 17:00:00 0 50 0 50 0
Totals: 2 330 3 335 0 503 S Totals: 8 156 4 168 0 East Approach TotalsEast/West West Approach Totals Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Includes Cars, Trucks, & Heavys Hour Total Total Hour Total Ending Grand Peds Approaches Ending Grand Peds Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total 7:00:000000007:00:0000000 8:00:0000110 18:00:0000000 9:00:00 9 1 0 10 1 12 9:00:00 0 1 1 2 0 16:00:00800801516:00:0020570 17:00:00 7 1 1 9 0 12 17:00:00 0 1 2 3 0
Totals: 24 2 2 28 1 40 W Totals: 2 2 8 12 0 Calculated Values for Traffic Crossing Major Street Hours Ending: 7:00 8:00 9:00 16:00 17:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 Crossing Values: 001010 8 000 Accu-Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 24-May-16 Site #: 1608300005 Passenger Cars - North Approach Trucks - North Approach Heavys - North Approach Pedestrians Interval LeftThruRight Left Thru Right Left Thru Right North Cross Time CumIncr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:45:0000000000000000000000 7:00:0000660000000000110000 7:15:001117111100000000100000 7:30:00102471000000000210000 7:45:001036121000000000310000 8:00:001051151000000000300000 8:15:002166151000000000410000 8:30:002085191000110000620000 8:45:0020110251000100000710000 9:00:002011001000100000700000 15:15:002011001000100000810000 15:30:0020130201000100000910000 15:45:0020159291000100000900000 16:00:00201923321001000001010000 16:15:00202253320001000001110000 16:30:00202593431001000001210000 16:45:00202741530001000001200000 17:00:00203164230001000001310000 17:15:00203503441001000001520000 17:30:0020350040001000001500000 17:30:1520350040001000001500000 Accu-Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 24-May-16 Site #: 1608300005 Passenger Cars - East Approach Trucks - East Approach Heavys - East Approach Pedestrians Interval LeftThruRight Left Thru Right Left Thru Right East Cross Time CumIncr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:45:0000000000000000000000 7:00:0000000000000000000000 7:15:0000000000000000000000 7:30:0000000000000000000000 7:45:0000000000000000000000 8:00:0000001100000000000000 8:15:0011111000000000000000 8:30:0021101000000011000011 8:45:0031101000000054000010 9:00:0030101000000061000010 15:15:0030101000000060000010 15:30:00521010000000104000010 15:45:00501010000000122000010 16:00:00501010000000120000010 16:15:00502110000000131000010 16:30:00722010000000130000010 16:45:00922021000000130000010 17:00:001012020110000130000010 17:15:001002020100000130000010 17:30:001002020100000130000010 17:30:151002020100000130000010 Accu-Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 24-May-16 Site #: 1608300005 Passenger Cars - South Approach Trucks - South Approach Heavys - South Approach Pedestrians Interval LeftThruRight Left Thru Right Left Thru Right South Cross Time CumIncr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:45:0000000000000000000000 7:00:001110100000000000000000 7:15:00101770000000000000000 7:30:00322250000000000000000 7:45:004133111100000000000000 8:00:004043102100000000220000 8:15:004054112000000000200000 8:30:00625733100110000200000 8:45:00606693000100000201100 9:00:00606603000100000201000 15:15:00606603000100000201000 15:30:00827483000100000311000 15:45:008091173000100000411000 16:00:008010093000100000511000 16:15:0080112123000100000501000 16:30:008012193000100000501000 16:45:0080135143000100000611000 17:00:0080147123000100000821000 17:15:0080157103000100000801000 17:30:008015703000100000801000 17:30:158015703000100000801000 Accu-Traffic Inc.
Count Date: 24-May-16 Site #: 1608300005 Passenger Cars - West Approach Trucks - West Approach Heavys - West Approach Pedestrians Interval LeftThruRight Left Thru Right Left Thru Right West Cross Time CumIncr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr Cum Incr 6:45:0000000000000000000000 7:00:0000000000000000000000 7:15:0000000000000000000000 7:30:0000000000000000000000 7:45:0000000000000000000000 8:00:0000000000000000000000 8:15:0000001100000000000000 8:30:0000001000000000000000 8:45:0000111000000000000000 9:00:0000101000000000000000 15:15:0000101000000000000000 15:30:0022105400000000000000 15:45:0020105000000000000000 16:00:0020106100000000000000 16:15:0020216000000000000000 16:30:0020206000000000000000 16:45:0020207100000000000000 17:00:0020208100000000000000 17:15:0020209100000000000000 17:30:0020209000000000000000 17:30:1520209000000000000000
Appendix B Synchro Reports Queues Existing Conditions 1: Highway 20 & Green Mountain Road AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 104 10 136 12 948 32 448 28 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.06 0.43 0.02 0.37 0.08 0.19 0.02 Control Delay 45.7 27.9 12.2 3.5 4.3 6.3 4.9 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 45.7 27.9 12.2 3.5 4.3 6.3 4.9 0.0 Queue Length 50th (m) 12.7 1.3 2.3 0.4 19.6 1.0 7.8 0.0 Queue Length 95th (m) 27.4 5.3 16.1 1.9 36.5 6.4 24.7 0.3 Internal Link Dist (m) 859.6 368.8 190.6 687.7 Turn Bay Length (m) 80.0 90.0 100.0 80.0 Base Capacity (vph) 369 375 591 549 2564 379 2389 1196 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.03 0.23 0.02 0.37 0.08 0.19 0.02 Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 1: Highway 20 & Green Mountain Road AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 71 8 14 9 16 106 11 832 22 29 403 25 Future Volume (vph) 71 8 14 9 16 106 11 832 22 29 403 25 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1771 1496 1571 1342 3433 1658 3318 1633 Flt Permitted 0.61 0.73 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1116 1155 1571 645 3433 527 3318 1633 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 79 9 16 10 18 118 12 924 24 32 448 28 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 102 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 95 0 10 34 0 12 947 0 32 448 19 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 0% 0% 22% 6% 5% 36% 6% 0% 10% 10% 0% Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.9 10.9 10.9 62.2 62.2 56.5 56.5 56.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.9 10.9 10.9 62.2 62.2 56.5 56.5 56.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.76 0.76 0.69 0.69 0.69 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 148 153 208 498 2600 362 2283 1123 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.00 c0.28 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.09 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.07 0.16 0.02 0.36 0.09 0.20 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 33.8 31.1 31.6 2.6 3.3 4.2 4.6 4.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 43.0 31.3 31.9 2.6 3.7 4.7 4.8 4.1 Level of Service D C C A A A A A Approach Delay (s) 43.0 31.9 3.7 4.8 Approach LOS D C A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.1 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 2: Highway 20 & Site Access AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 3 864 423 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 3 864 423 0 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 3 929 455 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) 215 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 926 228 455 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 926 228 455 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.8 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.5 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 271 781 911 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 0 313 619 303 152 Volume Left 0 3 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 911 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.18 0.09 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Queues Existing Conditions 3: Highway 20 & Mud Street AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 183 217 183 62 443 234 664 22 334 104 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.44 0.35 0.20 0.70 0.72 0.42 0.19 0.40 0.14 Control Delay 24.4 28.9 6.3 19.3 36.3 43.5 17.0 43.0 29.1 2.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 24.4 28.9 6.3 19.3 36.3 43.5 17.0 43.0 29.1 2.7 Queue Length 50th (m) 18.9 28.1 0.0 5.9 32.3 34.0 32.2 3.3 23.4 0.0 Queue Length 95th (m) 36.5 51.2 14.8 14.6 50.8 59.2 59.6 11.0 39.7 6.6 Internal Link Dist (m) 848.9 456.1 821.4 766.5 Turn Bay Length (m) 300.0 140.0 230.0 200.0 100.0 Base Capacity (vph) 364 554 565 316 786 448 1567 118 826 781 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.39 0.32 0.20 0.56 0.52 0.42 0.19 0.40 0.13 Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 3: Highway 20 & Mud Street AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 172 204 172 58 349 68 220 613 11 21 314 98 Future Volume (vph) 172 204 172 58 349 68 220 613 11 21 314 98 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1706 1779 1411 1657 3398 1587 3365 1659 3318 1541 Flt Permitted 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.62 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 440 1779 1411 1086 3398 1587 3365 1659 3318 1541 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 183 217 183 62 371 72 234 652 12 22 334 104 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 134 0 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 62 Lane Group Flow (vph) 183 217 49 62 425 0 234 663 0 22 334 42 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 8% 14% 10% 4% 9% 15% 8% 18% 10% 10% 6% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 7 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 31.3 22.4 22.4 20.1 15.7 16.5 37.5 2.0 23.0 34.1 Effective Green, g (s) 31.3 22.4 22.4 20.1 15.7 16.5 37.5 2.0 23.0 34.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.19 0.20 0.44 0.02 0.27 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 330 472 374 288 632 310 1496 39 905 705 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.12 0.01 c0.13 c0.15 c0.20 0.01 0.10 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.03 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.46 0.13 0.22 0.67 0.75 0.44 0.56 0.37 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 19.4 25.9 23.5 25.4 31.9 32.0 16.2 40.7 24.8 15.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.7 0.2 0.4 2.8 10.0 1.0 17.3 1.2 0.0 Delay (s) 21.5 26.6 23.7 25.8 34.7 42.0 17.1 58.1 25.9 15.4 Level of Service C C C C C D B E C B Approach Delay (s) 24.1 33.6 23.6 25.1 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 84.3 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Queues Existing Conditions 4: First Road West & Mud Street AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 563 40 687 239 98 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.58 0.25 0.68 0.28 0.11 Control Delay 21.7 23.0 22.7 25.4 7.6 3.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 21.7 23.0 22.7 25.4 7.6 3.1 Queue Length 50th (m) 2.2 32.0 4.0 41.3 10.7 0.7 Queue Length 95th (m) 7.5 45.7 11.2 57.3 27.1 7.1 Internal Link Dist (m) 481.6 848.9 250.0 819.0 Turn Bay Length (m) 170.0 170.0 Base Capacity (vph) 252 1925 322 2011 852 915 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.29 0.12 0.34 0.28 0.11 Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 4: First Road West & Mud Street AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 22 500 40 38 657 3 117 18 94 3 10 82 Future Volume (vph) 22 500 40 38 657 3 117 18 94 3 10 82 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.88 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1738 3314 1615 3470 1720 1525 Flt Permitted 0.24 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.81 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm) 436 3314 556 3470 1434 1519 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 23 521 42 40 684 3 122 19 98 3 10 85 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 21 0 0 36 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 555 0 40 686 0 0 218 0 0 62 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 9% 8% 13% 5% 33% 3% 0% 3% 33% 0% 10% Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 40.7 40.7 Effective Green, g (s) 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 40.7 40.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.58 0.58 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 127 967 162 1013 831 880 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.07 c0.15 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.57 0.25 0.68 0.26 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 18.6 21.1 19.0 21.9 7.3 6.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.8 0.8 0.2 Delay (s) 19.3 22.0 19.8 23.7 8.1 6.6 Level of Service B C B C A A Approach Delay (s) 21.9 23.5 8.1 6.6 Approach LOS C C A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.2 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 5: First Road West & Site Access AM Peak Hour
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 1 36 3 1 79 Future Volume (Veh/h) 8 1 36 3 1 79 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Hourly flow rate (vph) 10 1 46 4 1 100 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 150 48 50 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 150 48 50 tC, single (s) 7.0 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 4.1 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 717 1027 1570 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 11 50 101 Volume Left 10 0 1 Volume Right 1 4 0 cSH 738 1700 1570 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.00 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.3 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s) 10.0 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 10.0 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 15.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Queues Existing Conditions 9: Isaac Brock Drive & Mud Street AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 1049 43 900 254 75 29 72 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.61 0.23 0.54 0.60 0.14 0.07 0.13 Control Delay 10.2 11.6 12.7 11.0 22.3 6.2 13.9 6.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 10.2 11.6 12.7 11.0 22.3 6.2 13.9 6.1 Queue Length 50th (m) 1.1 29.5 1.9 25.0 17.0 0.7 1.6 0.5 Queue Length 95th (m) 6.0 67.9 9.6 57.5 47.7 8.6 7.5 8.2 Internal Link Dist (m) 602.7 761.8 339.4 465.0 Turn Bay Length (m) 140.0 100.0 40.0 40.0 Base Capacity (vph) 394 2988 331 2918 968 1185 987 1164 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.35 0.13 0.31 0.26 0.06 0.03 0.06 Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 9: Isaac Brock Drive & Mud Street AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 25 832 143 40 833 4 236 11 59 27 9 58 Future Volume (vph) 25 832 143 40 833 4 236 11 59 27 9 58 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.87 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1630 3391 1772 3317 1788 1610 1825 1582 Flt Permitted 0.26 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.71 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 447 3391 377 3317 1336 1610 1361 1582 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 895 154 43 896 4 254 12 63 29 10 62 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 42 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 1034 0 43 900 0 254 32 0 29 30 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 12% 6% 1% 3% 10% 0% 2% 27% 0% 0% 33% 0% Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s) 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 Effective Green, g (s) 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 225 1712 190 1674 426 513 434 504 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.27 0.02 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.11 c0.19 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.60 0.23 0.54 0.60 0.06 0.07 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 6.7 9.0 7.1 8.6 14.6 12.1 12.1 12.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.3 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 Delay (s) 6.9 9.6 7.7 8.9 16.9 12.1 12.2 12.1 Level of Service A A A A B B B B Approach Delay (s) 9.5 8.9 15.8 12.1 Approach LOS AABB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 51.1 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Queues Existing Conditions 18: Paramount Drive & Mud Street AM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 133 713 49 1074 24 237 199 248 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.51 0.35 0.84 0.13 0.69 0.68 0.37 Control Delay 50.3 19.0 44.6 30.4 30.7 31.9 35.0 7.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 50.3 19.0 44.6 30.4 30.7 31.9 35.0 7.5 Queue Length 50th (m) 20.3 40.6 7.5 76.4 3.3 23.5 24.3 6.1 Queue Length 95th (m) #46.4 63.6 19.1 #124.2 9.8 46.1 #44.5 21.7 Internal Link Dist (m) 499.3 602.7 350.3 441.7 Turn Bay Length (m) 100.0 120.0 60.0 75.0 Base Capacity (vph) 231 1572 153 1430 295 494 293 799 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.45 0.32 0.75 0.08 0.48 0.68 0.31 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 18: Paramount Drive & Mud Street AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 125 657 13 46 938 71 23 87 135 187 51 182 Future Volume (vph) 125 657 13 46 938 71 23 87 135 187 51 182 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.88 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1722 3344 1644 3324 1825 1708 1789 1650 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.26 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1722 3344 1644 3324 1162 1708 490 1650 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 133 699 14 49 998 76 24 93 144 199 54 194 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 67 0 0 131 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 133 711 0 49 1068 0 24 170 0 199 117 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 9% 0% 11% 9% 4% 0% 1% 3% 2% 2% 3% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.8 33.3 6.8 30.3 13.0 13.0 25.7 25.7 Effective Green, g (s) 9.8 33.3 6.8 30.3 13.0 13.0 25.7 25.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.42 0.09 0.38 0.16 0.16 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 212 1404 140 1270 190 280 293 534 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.21 0.03 c0.32 0.10 c0.07 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.15 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.51 0.35 0.84 0.13 0.61 0.68 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 33.0 16.9 34.2 22.3 28.3 30.8 21.2 19.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.7 0.3 1.5 5.2 0.3 3.7 6.1 0.2 Delay (s) 38.7 17.2 35.7 27.5 28.6 34.5 27.3 19.7 Level of Service D B D C C C C B Approach Delay (s) 20.6 27.9 33.9 23.1 Approach LOS CCCC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.3 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Queues Existing Conditions 1: Highway 20 & Green Mountain Road PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 63 21 102 12 648 73 1038 112 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.13 0.46 0.03 0.23 0.12 0.37 0.09 Control Delay 35.9 33.0 24.9 2.5 2.5 4.7 4.4 1.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 35.9 33.0 24.9 2.5 2.5 4.7 4.4 1.3 Queue Length 50th (m) 6.8 2.9 6.8 0.3 9.4 1.9 18.0 0.0 Queue Length 95th (m) 17.9 9.0 20.3 1.5 17.6 10.1 54.7 5.3 Internal Link Dist (m) 859.6 368.8 190.6 687.7 Turn Bay Length (m) 80.0 90.0 100.0 80.0 Base Capacity (vph) 345 397 465 439 2805 584 2791 1308 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.05 0.22 0.03 0.23 0.13 0.37 0.09 Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 1: Highway 20 & Green Mountain Road PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 38 9 13 20 47 50 11 574 42 69 986 106 Future Volume (vph) 38 9 13 20 47 50 11 574 42 69 986 106 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1750 1825 1673 1674 3412 1720 3510 1617 Flt Permitted 0.73 0.81 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1316 1560 1673 418 3412 734 3510 1617 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 40 9 14 21 49 53 12 604 44 73 1038 112 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 49 0 0 3 0 0 0 29 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 50 0 21 53 0 12 645 0 73 1038 83 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 22% 0% 0% 2% 8% 9% 6% 2% 6% 4% 1% Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.2 7.2 7.2 68.8 68.8 63.1 63.1 63.1 Effective Green, g (s) 7.2 7.2 7.2 68.8 68.8 63.1 63.1 63.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.81 0.81 0.74 0.74 0.74 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 111 132 141 356 2761 544 2605 1200 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.00 c0.19 c0.30 v/s Ratio Perm c0.04 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.16 0.38 0.03 0.23 0.13 0.40 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 37.0 36.1 36.8 2.1 1.9 3.1 4.0 3.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 0.6 1.7 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.1 Delay (s) 39.9 36.7 38.5 2.1 2.1 3.6 4.5 3.1 Level of Service D D D A A A A A Approach Delay (s) 39.9 38.2 2.1 4.3 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 6.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 2: Highway 20 & Site Access PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 631 1022 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 631 1022 0 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 671 1087 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) 215 pX, platoon unblocked 0.90 0.90 0.90 vC, conflicting volume 1422 544 1087 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1244 266 871 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 152 664 703 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 0 224 447 725 362 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 703 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.43 0.21 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Queues Existing Conditions 3: Highway 20 & Mud Street PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 211 308 343 66 442 239 467 68 780 235 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.62 0.52 0.25 0.70 0.77 0.33 0.43 0.72 0.28 Control Delay 32.1 35.3 6.3 22.0 39.1 51.6 18.7 46.4 31.8 7.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 32.1 35.3 6.3 22.0 39.1 51.6 18.7 46.4 31.8 7.7 Queue Length 50th (m) 25.8 47.1 0.0 7.4 36.5 37.8 28.1 10.9 62.4 9.8 Queue Length 95th (m) #44.1 74.1 19.6 15.9 52.0 #70.5 41.9 23.9 85.7 24.1 Internal Link Dist (m) 848.9 456.1 821.4 766.5 Turn Bay Length (m) 300.0 140.0 230.0 200.0 100.0 Base Capacity (vph) 323 521 677 265 749 351 1431 186 1080 843 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.65 0.59 0.51 0.25 0.59 0.68 0.33 0.37 0.72 0.28 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 3: Highway 20 & Mud Street PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 196 286 319 61 389 22 222 412 22 63 725 219 Future Volume (vph) 196 286 319 61 389 22 222 412 22 63 725 219 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1772 1865 1541 1772 3511 1706 3396 1644 3510 1601 Flt Permitted 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.48 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 456 1865 1541 901 3511 1706 3396 1644 3510 1601 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 211 308 343 66 418 24 239 443 24 68 780 235 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 254 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 74 Lane Group Flow (vph) 211 308 89 66 437 0 239 463 0 68 780 161 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 6% 3% 3% 5% 7% 7% 0% 11% 4% 2% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 7 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 31.0 22.6 22.6 20.2 16.3 15.5 35.9 6.9 27.3 37.5 Effective Green, g (s) 31.0 22.6 22.6 20.2 16.3 15.5 35.9 6.9 27.3 37.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.26 0.26 0.23 0.19 0.18 0.41 0.08 0.31 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 315 482 398 247 655 302 1396 129 1097 770 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.17 0.01 0.12 c0.14 0.14 0.04 c0.22 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.06 0.05 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.64 0.22 0.27 0.67 0.79 0.33 0.53 0.71 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 21.4 28.7 25.4 26.8 33.0 34.4 17.5 38.6 26.5 15.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.3 2.8 0.3 0.6 2.6 13.2 0.6 3.9 3.9 0.1 Delay (s) 26.8 31.5 25.7 27.4 35.6 47.6 18.2 42.5 30.4 15.7 Level of Service C C C C D D B D C B Approach Delay (s) 28.0 34.5 28.1 28.0 Approach LOS C C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 87.3 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Queues Existing Conditions 4: First Road West & Mud Street PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 954 47 898 106 147 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.68 0.34 0.64 0.16 0.18 Control Delay 18.1 17.3 20.1 17.0 9.5 5.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 18.1 17.3 20.1 17.0 9.5 5.5 Queue Length 50th (m) 3.1 43.3 3.5 40.9 4.3 2.4 Queue Length 95th (m) 9.9 59.6 11.1 56.2 14.9 13.3 Internal Link Dist (m) 481.6 848.9 250.0 819.0 Turn Bay Length (m) 170.0 170.0 Base Capacity (vph) 322 3100 305 3101 659 821 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.31 0.15 0.29 0.16 0.18 Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 4: First Road West & Mud Street PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 40 812 75 44 833 2 55 7 36 7 32 98 Future Volume (vph) 40 812 75 44 833 2 55 7 36 7 32 98 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1690 3507 1825 3509 1692 1695 Flt Permitted 0.21 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.81 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm) 365 3507 346 3509 1414 1681 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 873 81 47 896 2 59 8 39 8 34 105 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 57 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 943 0 47 898 0 0 87 0 0 90 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 3% 0% 0% 4% 0% 7% 0% 3% 0% 3% 2% Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.3 24.3 24.3 24.3 27.7 27.7 Effective Green, g (s) 24.3 24.3 24.3 24.3 27.7 27.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 145 1397 137 1397 642 763 v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.14 c0.06 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.67 0.34 0.64 0.14 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 12.5 15.1 12.8 14.8 9.7 9.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.0 0.4 0.3 Delay (s) 13.7 16.4 14.3 15.9 10.1 9.9 Level of Service B B B B B A Approach Delay (s) 16.3 15.8 10.1 9.9 Approach LOS B B B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 61.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 5: First Road West & Site Access PM Peak Hour
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 1 49 0 0 132 Future Volume (Veh/h) 5 1 49 0 0 132 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 1 51 0 0 136 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 187 51 51 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 187 51 51 tC, single (s) 7.0 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 4.0 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 687 1023 1568 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 6 51 136 Volume Left 5 0 0 Volume Right 1 0 0 cSH 726 1700 1568 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.00 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.2 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s) 10.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 10.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Queues Existing Conditions 9: Isaac Brock Drive & Mud Street PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 133 1090 109 1087 177 37 27 20 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.51 0.44 0.51 0.56 0.09 0.09 0.05 Control Delay 17.0 7.0 13.6 7.6 29.1 13.8 21.8 11.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.0 7.0 13.6 7.6 29.1 13.8 21.8 11.7 Queue Length 50th (m) 5.9 22.4 4.5 24.9 12.2 0.9 1.7 0.1 Queue Length 95th (m) 27.5 53.3 20.2 57.5 46.3 9.2 10.0 5.5 Internal Link Dist (m) 600.1 755.1 382.5 543.7 Turn Bay Length (m) 140.0 100.0 40.0 40.0 Base Capacity (vph) 379 3205 378 3222 592 732 551 707 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.34 0.29 0.34 0.30 0.05 0.05 0.03 Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 9: Isaac Brock Drive & Mud Street PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 125 792 232 102 1000 22 166 14 21 25 1 18 Future Volume (vph) 125 792 232 102 1000 22 166 14 21 25 1 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 3472 1789 3498 1789 1701 1690 1647 Flt Permitted 0.22 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.73 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 413 3472 411 3498 1402 1701 1304 1647 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 133 843 247 109 1064 23 177 15 22 27 1 19 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 33 0 0 2 0 0 17 0 0 15 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 133 1057 0 109 1085 0 177 20 0 27 5 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 0% 2% 4% 5% 2% 7% 0% 8% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.6 34.6 34.6 34.6 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 Effective Green, g (s) 34.6 34.6 34.6 34.6 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 252 2122 251 2138 322 390 299 378 v/s Ratio Prot 0.30 0.31 0.01 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.32 0.27 c0.13 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.50 0.43 0.51 0.55 0.05 0.09 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 6.3 6.1 5.8 6.2 19.2 17.0 17.1 16.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.2 1.2 0.2 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 Delay (s) 8.3 6.3 7.0 6.4 21.1 17.0 17.3 16.9 Level of Service A A A A C B B B Approach Delay (s) 6.5 6.4 20.4 17.1 Approach LOS A A C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.6 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Queues Existing Conditions 18: Paramount Drive & Mud Street PM Peak Hour
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 238 786 154 938 24 298 287 245 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.65 0.64 0.88 0.11 0.81 0.78 0.35 Control Delay 62.8 33.8 59.6 46.5 39.0 54.6 40.7 20.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 62.8 33.8 59.6 46.5 39.0 54.6 40.7 20.6 Queue Length 50th (m) 52.3 77.3 34.1 105.3 4.6 56.7 46.8 31.1 Queue Length 95th (m) #89.0 106.0 55.5 #144.9 11.9 #90.5 #79.1 50.9 Internal Link Dist (m) 438.2 600.1 344.6 385.0 Turn Bay Length (m) 100.0 120.0 60.0 75.0 Base Capacity (vph) 360 1323 319 1203 290 456 398 833 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.66 0.59 0.48 0.78 0.08 0.65 0.72 0.29 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions 18: Paramount Drive & Mud Street PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 233 739 31 151 796 123 24 138 154 281 126 114 Future Volume (vph) 233 739 31 151 796 123 24 138 154 281 126 114 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1825 3494 1807 3408 1823 1704 1806 1728 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.19 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1825 3494 1807 3408 1164 1704 368 1728 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 238 754 32 154 812 126 24 141 157 287 129 116 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 10 0 0 35 0 0 28 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 238 783 0 154 928 0 24 263 0 287 217 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 1 8 8 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 4% 0% 1% 5% 2% 0% 4% 1% 1% 5% 0% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.1 37.3 14.2 33.4 21.2 21.2 42.3 42.3 Effective Green, g (s) 18.1 37.3 14.2 33.4 21.2 21.2 42.3 42.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.35 0.13 0.31 0.20 0.20 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 307 1214 239 1060 229 336 367 681 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.22 0.09 c0.27 0.15 c0.12 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.19 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.65 0.64 0.88 0.10 0.78 0.78 0.32 Uniform Delay, d1 42.7 29.4 44.2 35.0 35.3 40.9 25.2 22.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.6 1.2 5.8 8.2 0.2 11.4 10.4 0.3 Delay (s) 54.2 30.6 50.0 43.2 35.5 52.2 35.6 22.8 Level of Service D C D D D D D C Approach Delay (s) 36.1 44.2 51.0 29.7 Approach LOS DDDC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 107.3 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Archaeology & Built Heritage Archaeology and Built Heritage Work Plan
The Archaeology and Built Heritage Work Plan addresses both archaeological resources and cultural and heritage resources (built and cultural landscapes).
The following tasks will be undertaken to characterize the existing environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking:
• Complete the Cultural Heritage Screening Checklist from the Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport (MTCS) and submit to MTCS to determine if further study is required.
Table 8-1 – Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources
Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Effect on • Number and type of • Published data sources (e.g., City of known or potentially significant, Hamilton) potential known archaeological • Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and significant sites affected. Sport Screening archaeological • Area (ha) of resources archaeological potential (i.e., lands with potential Archaeology for the presence of and Built significant archaeological Heritage resources) affected.
Effect on built Number and type of built • Published data sources (e.g., City of heritage heritage resources and Hamilton) resources and cultural heritage • Ministry of Culture, Tourism, and cultural landscapes displaced or Sport Screening heritage disrupted landscapes
GHD | Archaeology and Built Heritage Work Plan | 11102771 Print Form Clear Form Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Criteria for Evaluating Programs & Services Branch Archaeological Potential 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 A Checklist for the Non-Specialist Toronto ON M7A 0A7
The purpose of the checklist is to determine: • if a property(ies) or project area may contain archaeological resources i.e., have archaeological potential • it includes all areas that may be impacted by project activities, including – but not limited to: • the main project area • temporary storage • staging and working areas • temporary roads and detours Processes covered under this checklist, such as: • Planning Act • Environmental Assessment Act • Aggregates Resources Act • Ontario Heritage Act – Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties Archaeological assessment If you are not sure how to answer one or more of the questions on the checklist, you may want to hire a licensed consultant archaeologist (see page 4 for definitions) to undertake an archaeological assessment. The assessment will help you: • identify, evaluate and protect archaeological resources on your property or project area • reduce potential delays and risks to your project Note: By law, archaeological assessments must be done by a licensed consultant archaeologist. Only a licensed archaeologist can assess – or alter – an archaeological site. What to do if you: • find an archaeological resource If you find something you think may be of archaeological value during project work, you must – by law – stop all activities immediately and contact a licensed consultant archaeologist The archaeologist will carry out the fieldwork in compliance with the Ontario Heritage Act [s.48(1)]. • unearth a burial site If you find a burial site containing human remains, you must immediately notify the appropriate authorities (i.e., police, coroner’s office, and/or Registrar of Cemeteries) and comply with the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act. Other checklists Please use a separate checklist for your project, if: • you are seeking a Renewable Energy Approval under Ontario Regulation 359/09 – separate checklist • your Parent Class EA document has an approved screening criteria (as referenced in Question 1)
Please refer to the Instructions pages when completing this form.
0478E (2015/11) © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2015 Disponible en français Page 1 of 8 Project or Property Name Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment Project or Property Location (upper and lower or single tier municipality) 65 Green Mountain Road West, Stoney Creek, ON L8J 1X5 Proponent Name Terrapure Environmental Proponent Contact Information Kim Bailey, [email protected], tel: 1-844-898-2380, fax: 905-549-4515 Screening Questions
Yes No 1. Is there a pre-approved screening checklist, methodology or process in place? ✔ If Yes, please follow the pre-approved screening checklist, methodology or process. If No, continue to Question 2.
Yes No 2. Has an archaeological assessment been prepared for the property (or project area) and been accepted by MTCS? If Yes, do not complete the rest of the checklist. You are expected to follow the recommendations in the archaeological assessment report(s). The proponent, property owner and/or approval authority will: • summarize the previous assessment • add this checklist to the project file, with the appropriate documents that demonstrate an archaeological assessment was undertaken e.g., MTCS letter stating acceptance of archaeological assessment report The summary and appropriate documentation may be: • submitted as part of a report requirement e.g., environmental assessment document • maintained by the property owner, proponent or approval authority If No, continue to Question 3. Yes No 3. Are there known archaeological sites on or within 300 metres of the property (or the project area)? Yes No 4. Is there Aboriginal or local knowledge of archaeological sites on or within 300 metres of the property (or project area)?
Yes No 5. Is there Aboriginal knowledge or historically documented evidence of past Aboriginal use on or within 300 metres of the property (or project area)? Yes No 6. Is there a known burial site or cemetery on the property or adjacent to the property (or project area)? Yes No 7. Has the property (or project area) been recognized for its cultural heritage value? If Yes to any of the above questions (3 to 7), do not complete the checklist. Instead, you need to hire a licensed consultant archaeologist to undertake an archaeological assessment of your property or project area. If No, continue to question 8. Yes No 8. Has the entire property (or project area) been subjected to recent, extensive and intensive disturbance? If Yes to the preceding question, do not complete the checklist. Instead, please keep and maintain a summary of documentation that provides evidence of the recent disturbance. An archaeological assessment is not required. If No, continue to question 9. 0478E (2015/11) Page 2 of 8 Yes No 9. Are there present or past water sources within 300 metres of the property (or project area)? If Yes, an archaeological assessment is required. If No, continue to question 10.
Yes No 10. Is there evidence of two or more of the following on the property (or project area)? • elevated topography • pockets of well-drained sandy soil • distinctive land formations • resource extraction areas • early historic settlement • early historic transportation routes If Yes, an archaeological assessment is required. If No, there is low potential for archaeological resources at the property (or project area). The proponent, property owner and/or approval authority will: • summarize the conclusion • add this checklist with the appropriate documentation to the project file The summary and appropriate documentation may be: • submitted as part of a report requirement e.g., under the Environmental Assessment Act, Planning Act processes • maintained by the property owner, proponent or approval authority
0478E (2015/11) Page 3 of 8 Instructions Please have the following available, when requesting information related to the screening questions below: • a clear map showing the location and boundary of the property or project area • large scale and small scale showing nearby township names for context purposes • the municipal addresses of all properties within the project area • the lot(s), concession(s), and parcel number(s) of all properties within a project area In this context, the following definitions apply: • consultant archaeologist means, as defined in Ontario regulation as an archaeologist who enters into an agreement with a client to carry out or supervise archaeological fieldwork on behalf of the client, produce reports for or on behalf of the client and provide technical advice to the client. In Ontario, these people also are required to hold a valid professional archaeological licence issued by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. • proponent means a person, agency, group or organization that carries out or proposes to carry out an undertaking or is the owner or person having charge, management or control of an undertaking. 1. Is there a pre-approved screening checklist, methodology or process in place? An existing checklist, methodology or process may be already in place for identifying archaeological potential, including: • one prepared and adopted by the municipality e.g., archaeological management plan • an environmental assessment process e.g., screening checklist for municipal bridges • one that is approved by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport under the Ontario government‘s Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties [s. B.2.] 2. Has an archaeological assessment been prepared for the property (or project area) and been accepted by MTCS? Respond ‘yes’ to this question, if all of the following are true: • an archaeological assessment report has been prepared and is in compliance with MTCS requirements • a letter has been sent by MTCS to the licensed archaeologist confirming that MTCS has added the report to the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports (Register) • the report states that there are no concerns regarding impacts to archaeological sites Otherwise, if an assessment has been completed and deemed compliant by the MTCS, and the ministry recommends further archaeological assessment work, this work will need to be completed. For more information about archaeological assessments, contact: • approval authority • proponent • consultant archaeologist • Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport at [email protected] 3. Are there known archaeological sites on or within 300 metres of the property (or project area)? MTCS maintains a database of archaeological sites reported to the ministry. For more information, contact MTCS Archaeological Data Coordinator at [email protected]. 4. Is there Aboriginal or local knowledge of archaeological sites on or within 300 metres of the property? Check with: • Aboriginal communities in your area • local municipal staff They may have information about archaeological sites that are not included in MTCS’ database. Other sources of local knowledge may include: • property owner • local heritage organizations and historical societies • local museums • municipal heritage committee • published local histories 0478E (2015/11) Page 4 of 8 5. Is there Aboriginal knowledge or historically documented evidence of past Aboriginal use on or within 300 metres of the property (or property area)? Check with: • Aboriginal communities in your area • local municipal staff Other sources of local knowledge may include: • property owner • local heritage organizations and historical societies • local museums • municipal heritage committee • published local histories 6. Is there a known burial site or cemetery on the property or adjacent to the property (or project area)? For more information on known cemeteries and/or burial sites, see: • Cemeteries Regulation Unit, Ontario Ministry of Consumer Services – for database of registered cemeteries • Ontario Genealogical Society (OGS) – to locate records of Ontario cemeteries, both currently and no longer in existence; cairns, family plots and burial registers • Canadian County Atlas Digital Project – to locate early cemeteries In this context, ‘adjacent’ means ‘contiguous’, or as otherwise defined in a municipal official plan. 7. Has the property (or project area) been recognized for its cultural heritage value? There is a strong chance there may be archaeological resources on your property (or immediate area) if it has been listed, designated or otherwise identified as being of cultural heritage value by: • your municipality • Ontario government • Canadian government This includes a property that is: • designated under Ontario Heritage Act (the OHA ), including: • individual designation (Part IV) • part of a heritage conservation district (Part V) • an archaeological site (Part VI) • subject to: • an agreement, covenant or easement entered into under the OHA (Parts II or IV) • a notice of intention to designate (Part IV) • a heritage conservation district study area by-law (Part V) of the OHA • listed on: • a municipal register or inventory of heritage properties • Ontario government’s list of provincial heritage properties • Federal government’s list of federal heritage buildings • part of a: • National Historic Site • UNESCO World Heritage Site • designated under: • Heritage Railway Station Protection Act • Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act • subject of a municipal, provincial or federal commemorative or interpretive plaque. To determine if your property or project area is covered by any of the above, see: • Part A of the MTCS Criteria for Evaluating Potential for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes 0478E (2015/11) Page 5 of 8 Part VI – Archaeological Sites Includes five sites designated by the Minister under Regulation 875 of the Revised Regulation of Ontario, 1990 (Archaeological Sites) and 3 marine archaeological sites prescribed under Ontario Regulation 11/06. For more information, check Regulation 875 and Ontario Regulation 11/06. 8. Has the entire property (or project area) been subjected to recent extensive and intensive ground disturbance? Recent: after-1960 Extensive: over all or most of the area Intensive: thorough or complete disturbance Examples of ground disturbance include: • quarrying • major landscaping – involving grading below topsoil • building footprints and associated construction area • where the building has deep foundations or a basement • infrastructure development such as: • sewer lines • gas lines • underground hydro lines • roads • any associated trenches, ditches, interchanges. Note: this applies only to the excavated part of the right-of-way; the remainder of the right-of-way or corridor may not have been impacted. A ground disturbance does not include: • agricultural cultivation • gardening • landscaping Site visits You can typically get this information from a site visit. In that case, please document your visit in the process (e.g., report) with: • photographs • maps • detailed descriptions If a disturbance isn’t clear from a site visit or other research, you need to hire a licensed consultant archaeologist to undertake an archaeological assessment. 9. Are there present or past water bodies within 300 metres of the property (or project area)? Water bodies are associated with past human occupations and use of the land. About 80-90% of archaeological sites are found within 300 metres of water bodies. Present • Water bodies: • primary - lakes, rivers, streams, creeks • secondary - springs, marshes, swamps and intermittent streams and creeks • accessible or inaccessible shoreline, for example: • high bluffs • swamps • marsh fields by the edge of a lake • sandbars stretching into marsh
0478E (2015/11) Page 6 of 8 Water bodies not included: • man-made water bodies, for example: • temporary channels for surface drainage • rock chutes and spillways • temporarily ponded areas that are normally farmed • dugout ponds • artificial bodies of water intended for storage, treatment or recirculation of: • runoff from farm animal yards • manure storage facilities • sites and outdoor confinement areas Past Features indicating past water bodies: • raised sand or gravel beach ridges – can indicate glacial lake shorelines • clear dip in the land – can indicate an old river or stream • shorelines of drained lakes or marshes • cobble beaches You can get information about water bodies through: • a site visit • aerial photographs • 1:10,000 scale Ontario Base Maps - or equally detailed and scaled maps. 10. Is there evidence of two or more of the following on the property (or project area)? • elevated topography • pockets of well-drained sandy soil • distinctive land formations • resource extraction areas • early historic settlement • early historic transportation routes • Elevated topography Higher ground and elevated positions - surrounded by low or level topography - often indicate past settlement and land use. Features such as eskers, drumlins, sizeable knolls, plateaus next to lowlands, or other such features are a strong indication of archaeological potential. Find out if your property or project area has elevated topography, through: • site inspection • aerial photographs • topographical maps • Pockets of well-drained sandy soil, especially within areas of heavy soil or rocky ground Sandy, well-drained soil - in areas characterized by heavy soil or rocky ground - may indicate archaeological potential Find out if your property or project area has sandy soil through: • site inspection • soil survey reports
0478E (2015/11) Page 7 of 8 • Distinctive land formations Distinctive land formations include – but are not limited to: • waterfalls • rock outcrops • rock faces • caverns • mounds, etc. They were often important to past inhabitants as special or sacred places. The following sites may be present – or close to – these formations: • burials • structures • offerings • rock paintings or carvings Find out if your property or project areas has a distinctive land formation through: • a site visit • aerial photographs • 1:10,000 scale Ontario Base Maps - or equally detailed and scaled maps. • Resource extraction areas The following resources were collected in these extraction areas: • food or medicinal plants e.g., migratory routes, spawning areas, prairie • scarce raw materials e.g., quartz, copper, ochre or outcrops of chert • resources associated with early historic industry e.g., fur trade, logging, prospecting, mining Aboriginal communities may hold traditional knowledge about their past use or resources in the area. • Early historic settlement Early Euro-Canadian settlement include – but are not limited to: • early military or pioneer settlement e.g., pioneer homesteads, isolated cabins, farmstead complexes • early wharf or dock complexes • pioneers churches and early cemeteries For more information, see below – under the early historic transportation routes. • Early historic transportation routes - such as trails, passes, roads, railways, portage routes, canals. For more information, see: • historical maps and/or historical atlases • for information on early settlement patterns such as trails (including Aboriginal trails), monuments, structures, fences, mills, historic roads, rail corridors, canals, etc. • Archives of Ontario holds a large collection of historical maps and historical atlases • digital versions of historic atlases are available on the Canadian County Atlas Digital Project • commemorative markers or plaques such as local, provincial or federal agencies • municipal heritage committee or other local heritage organizations • for information on early historic settlements or landscape features (e.g., fences, mill races, etc.) • for information on commemorative markers or plaques
0478E (2015/11) Page 8 of 8 Clear Form Print Form Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Criteria for Evaluating Potential Programs & Services Branch for Built Heritage Resources and 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 Cultural Heritage Landscapes Toronto ON M7A 0A7 A Checklist for the Non-Specialist
The purpose of the checklist is to determine: • if a property(ies) or project area: • is a recognized heritage property • may be of cultural heritage value • it includes all areas that may be impacted by project activities, including – but not limited to: • the main project area • temporary storage • staging and working areas • temporary roads and detours Processes covered under this checklist, such as: • Planning Act • Environmental Assessment Act • Aggregates Resources Act • Ontario Heritage Act – Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) If you are not sure how to answer one or more of the questions on the checklist, you may want to hire a qualified person(s) (see page 5 for definitions) to undertake a cultural heritage evaluation report (CHER). The CHER will help you: • identify, evaluate and protect cultural heritage resources on your property or project area • reduce potential delays and risks to a project Other checklists Please use a separate checklist for your project, if: • you are seeking a Renewable Energy Approval under Ontario Regulation 359/09 – separate checklist • your Parent Class EA document has an approved screening criteria (as referenced in Question 1) Please refer to the Instructions pages for more detailed information and when completing this form.
0500E (2015/03) © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2015 Disponible en français Page 1 of 8 Project or Property Name Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment Project or Property Location (upper and lower or single tier municipality) 65 Green Mountain Road West, Stoney Creek, ON L8J 1X5 Proponent Name Terrapure Environmental Proponent Contact Information Kim Bailey, [email protected], tel: 1-844-898-2380, fax: 905-549-4515 Screening Questions Yes No 1. Is there a pre-approved screening checklist, methodology or process in place? ✔ If Yes, please follow the pre-approved screening checklist, methodology or process. If No, continue to Question 2. Part A: Screening for known (or recognized) Cultural Heritage Value
Yes No 2. Has the property (or project area) been evaluated before and found not to be of cultural heritage value? If Yes, do not complete the rest of the checklist. The proponent, property owner and/or approval authority will: • summarize the previous evaluation and • add this checklist to the project file, with the appropriate documents that demonstrate a cultural heritage evaluation was undertaken The summary and appropriate documentation may be: • submitted as part of a report requirement • maintained by the property owner, proponent or approval authority If No, continue to Question 3. Yes No 3. Is the property (or project area): a. identified, designated or otherwise protected under the Ontario Heritage Act as being of cultural heritage value? b. a National Historic Site (or part of)? c. designated under the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act? d. designated under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act? e. identified as a Federal Heritage Building by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office (FHBRO)? f. located within a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Site?
If Yes to any of the above questions, you need to hire a qualified person(s) to undertake: • a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, if a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value has not previously been prepared or the statement needs to be updated If a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value has been prepared previously and if alterations or development are proposed, you need to hire a qualified person(s) to undertake: • a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) – the report will assess and avoid, eliminate or mitigate impacts If No, continue to Question 4.
0500E (2015/03) Page 2 of 8 Part B: Screening for Potential Cultural Heritage Value Yes No 4. Does the property (or project area) contain a parcel of land that: a. is the subject of a municipal, provincial or federal commemorative or interpretive plaque? ✔ b. has or is adjacent to a known burial site and/or cemetery? c. is in a Canadian Heritage River watershed? d. contains buildings or structures that are 40 or more years old? Part C: Other Considerations Yes No 5. Is there local or Aboriginal knowledge or accessible documentation suggesting that the property (or project area): a. is considered a landmark in the local community or contains any structures or sites that are important in defining the character of the area? b. has a special association with a community, person or historical event? c. contains or is part of a cultural heritage landscape? If Yes to one or more of the above questions (Part B and C), there is potential for cultural heritage resources on the property or within the project area. You need to hire a qualified person(s) to undertake: • a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) If the property is determined to be of cultural heritage value and alterations or development is proposed, you need to hire a qualified person(s) to undertake: • a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) – the report will assess and avoid, eliminate or mitigate impacts If No to all of the above questions, there is low potential for built heritage or cultural heritage landscape on the property. The proponent, property owner and/or approval authority will: • summarize the conclusion • add this checklist with the appropriate documentation to the project file The summary and appropriate documentation may be: • submitted as part of a report requirement e.g. under the Environmental Assessment Act, Planning Act processes • maintained by the property owner, proponent or approval authority
0500E (2015/03) Page 3 of 8 Instructions Please have the following available, when requesting information related to the screening questions below: • a clear map showing the location and boundary of the property or project area • large scale and small scale showing nearby township names for context purposes • the municipal addresses of all properties within the project area • the lot(s), concession(s), and parcel number(s) of all properties within a project area For more information, see the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Ontario Heritage Toolkit or Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. In this context, the following definitions apply: • qualified person(s) means individuals – professional engineers, architects, archaeologists, etc. – having relevant, recent experience in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. • proponent means a person, agency, group or organization that carries out or proposes to carry out an undertaking or is the owner or person having charge, management or control of an undertaking. 1. Is there a pre-approved screening checklist, methodology or process in place? An existing checklist, methodology or process may already be in place for identifying potential cultural heritage resources, including: • one endorsed by a municipality • an environmental assessment process e.g. screening checklist for municipal bridges • one that is approved by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) under the Ontario government’s Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties [s.B.2.] Part A: Screening for known (or recognized) Cultural Heritage Value 2. Has the property (or project area) been evaluated before and found not to be of cultural heritage value? Respond ‘yes’ to this question, if all of the following are true: A property can be considered not to be of cultural heritage value if: • a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) - or equivalent - has been prepared for the property with the advice of a qualified person and it has been determined not to be of cultural heritage value and/or • the municipal heritage committee has evaluated the property for its cultural heritage value or interest and determined that the property is not of cultural heritage value or interest A property may need to be re-evaluated, if: • there is evidence that its heritage attributes may have changed • new information is available • the existing Statement of Cultural Heritage Value does not provide the information necessary to manage the property • the evaluation took place after 2005 and did not use the criteria in Regulations 9/06 and 10/06 Note: Ontario government ministries and public bodies [prescribed under Regulation 157/10] may continue to use their existing evaluation processes, until the evaluation process required under section B.2 of the Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties has been developed and approved by MTCS. To determine if your property or project area has been evaluated, contact: • the approval authority • the proponent • the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport 3a. Is the property (or project area) identified, designated or otherwise protected under the Ontario Heritage Act as being of cultural heritage value e.g.: i. designated under the Ontario Heritage Act • individual designation (Part IV) • part of a heritage conservation district (Part V)
0500E (2015/03) Page 4 of 8 Individual Designation – Part IV A property that is designated: • by a municipal by-law as being of cultural heritage value or interest [s.29 of the Ontario Heritage Act] • by order of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport as being of cultural heritage value or interest of provincial significance [s.34.5]. Note: To date, no properties have been designated by the Minister. Heritage Conservation District – Part V A property or project area that is located within an area designated by a municipal by-law as a heritage conservation district [s. 41 of the Ontario Heritage Act]. For more information on Parts IV and V, contact: • municipal clerk • Ontario Heritage Trust • local land registry office (for a title search) ii. subject of an agreement, covenant or easement entered into under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act An agreement, covenant or easement is usually between the owner of a property and a conservation body or level of government. It is usually registered on title. The primary purpose of the agreement is to: • preserve, conserve, and maintain a cultural heritage resource • prevent its destruction, demolition or loss For more information, contact: • Ontario Heritage Trust - for an agreement, covenant or easement [clause 10 (1) (c) of the Ontario Heritage Act] • municipal clerk – for a property that is the subject of an easement or a covenant [s.37 of the Ontario Heritage Act] • local land registry office (for a title search) iii. listed on a register of heritage properties maintained by the municipality Municipal registers are the official lists - or record - of cultural heritage properties identified as being important to the community. Registers include: • all properties that are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (Part IV or V) • properties that have not been formally designated, but have been identified as having cultural heritage value or interest to the community For more information, contact: • municipal clerk • municipal heritage planning staff • municipal heritage committee iv. subject to a notice of: • intention to designate (under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act) • a Heritage Conservation District study area bylaw (under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act) A property that is subject to a notice of intention to designate as a property of cultural heritage value or interest and the notice is in accordance with: • section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act • section 34.6 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Note: To date, the only applicable property is Meldrum Bay Inn, Manitoulin Island. [s.34.6] An area designated by a municipal by-law made under section 40.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act as a heritage conservation district study area. For more information, contact: • municipal clerk – for a property that is the subject of notice of intention [s. 29 and s. 40.1] • Ontario Heritage Trust
0500E (2015/03) Page 5 of 8 v. included in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s list of provincial heritage properties Provincial heritage properties are properties the Government of Ontario owns or controls that have cultural heritage value or interest. The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) maintains a list of all provincial heritage properties based on information provided by ministries and prescribed public bodies. As they are identified, MTCS adds properties to the list of provincial heritage properties. For more information, contact the MTCS Registrar at [email protected].
3b. Is the property (or project area) a National Historic Site (or part of)? National Historic Sites are properties or districts of national historic significance that are designated by the Federal Minister of the Environment, under the Canada National Parks Act, based on the advice of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. For more information, see the National Historic Sites website. 3c. Is the property (or project area) designated under the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act? The Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act protects heritage railway stations that are owned by a railway company under federal jurisdiction. Designated railway stations that pass from federal ownership may continue to have cultural heritage value. For more information, see the Directory of Designated Heritage Railway Stations.
3d. Is the property (or project area) designated under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act? The Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act helps preserve historically significant Canadian lighthouses. The Act sets up a public nomination process and includes heritage building conservation standards for lighthouses which are officially designated. For more information, see the Heritage Lighthouses of Canada website.
3e. Is the property (or project area) identified as a Federal Heritage Building by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office? The role of the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office (FHBRO) is to help the federal government protect the heritage buildings it owns. The policy applies to all federal government departments that administer real property, but not to federal Crown Corporations. For more information, contact the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office. See a directory of all federal heritage designations.
3f. Is the property (or project area) located within a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Site? A UNESCO World Heritage Site is a place listed by UNESCO as having outstanding universal value to humanity under the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. In order to retain the status of a World Heritage Site, each site must maintain its character defining features. Currently, the Rideau Canal is the only World Heritage Site in Ontario. For more information, see Parks Canada – World Heritage Site website.
Part B: Screening for potential Cultural Heritage Value 4a. Does the property (or project area) contain a parcel of land that has a municipal, provincial or federal commemorative or interpretive plaque? Heritage resources are often recognized with formal plaques or markers. Plaques are prepared by: • municipalities • provincial ministries or agencies • federal ministries or agencies • local non-government or non-profit organizations
0500E (2015/03) Page 6 of 8 For more information, contact: • municipal heritage committees or local heritage organizations – for information on the location of plaques in their community • Ontario Historical Society’s Heritage directory – for a list of historical societies and heritage organizations • Ontario Heritage Trust – for a list of plaques commemorating Ontario’s history • Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada – for a list of plaques commemorating Canada’s history 4b. Does the property (or project area) contain a parcel of land that has or is adjacent to a known burial site and/or cemetery? For more information on known cemeteries and/or burial sites, see: • Cemeteries Regulations, Ontario Ministry of Consumer Services – for a database of registered cemeteries • Ontario Genealogical Society (OGS) – to locate records of Ontario cemeteries, both currently and no longer in existence; cairns, family plots and burial registers • Canadian County Atlas Digital Project – to locate early cemeteries In this context, adjacent means contiguous or as otherwise defined in a municipal official plan. 4c. Does the property (or project area) contain a parcel of land that is in a Canadian Heritage River watershed? The Canadian Heritage River System is a national river conservation program that promotes, protects and enhances the best examples of Canada’s river heritage. Canadian Heritage Rivers must have, and maintain, outstanding natural, cultural and/or recreational values, and a high level of public support. For more information, contact the Canadian Heritage River System. If you have questions regarding the boundaries of a watershed, please contact: • your conservation authority • municipal staff 4d. Does the property (or project area) contain a parcel of land that contains buildings or structures that are 40 or more years old? A 40 year ‘rule of thumb’ is typically used to indicate the potential of a site to be of cultural heritage value. The approximate age of buildings and/or structures may be estimated based on: • history of the development of the area • fire insurance maps • architectural style • building methods Property owners may have information on the age of any buildings or structures on their property. The municipality, local land registry office or library may also have background information on the property. Note: 40+ year old buildings or structure do not necessarily hold cultural heritage value or interest; their age simply indicates a higher potential. A building or structure can include: • residential structure • farm building or outbuilding • industrial, commercial, or institutional building • remnant or ruin • engineering work such as a bridge, canal, dams, etc. For more information on researching the age of buildings or properties, see the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit Guide Heritage Property Evaluation.
0500E (2015/03) Page 7 of 8 Part C: Other Considerations 5a. Is there local or Aboriginal knowledge or accessible documentation suggesting that the property (or project area) is considered a landmark in the local community or contains any structures or sites that are important to defining the character of the area? Local or Aboriginal knowledge may reveal that the project location is situated on a parcel of land that has potential landmarks or defining structures and sites, for instance: • buildings or landscape features accessible to the public or readily noticeable and widely known • complexes of buildings • monuments • ruins 5b. Is there local or Aboriginal knowledge or accessible documentation suggesting that the property (or project area) has a special association with a community, person or historical event? Local or Aboriginal knowledge may reveal that the project location is situated on a parcel of land that has a special association with a community, person or event of historic interest, for instance: • Aboriginal sacred site • traditional-use area • battlefield • birthplace of an individual of importance to the community 5c. Is there local or Aboriginal knowledge or accessible documentation suggesting that the property (or project area) contains or is part of a cultural heritage landscape? Landscapes (which may include a combination of archaeological resources, built heritage resources and landscape elements) may be of cultural heritage value or interest to a community. For example, an Aboriginal trail, historic road or rail corridor may have been established as a key transportation or trade route and may have been important to the early settlement of an area. Parks, designed gardens or unique landforms such as waterfalls, rock faces, caverns, or mounds are areas that may have connections to a particular event, group or belief. For more information on Questions 5.a., 5.b. and 5.c., contact: • Elders in Aboriginal Communities or community researchers who may have information on potential cultural heritage resources. Please note that Aboriginal traditional knowledge may be considered sensitive. • municipal heritage committees or local heritage organizations • Ontario Historical Society’s “Heritage Directory” - for a list of historical societies and heritage organizations in the province An internet search may find helpful resources, including: • historical maps • historical walking tours • municipal heritage management plans • cultural heritage landscape studies • municipal cultural plans Information specific to trails may be obtained through Ontario Trails.
0500E (2015/03) Page 8 of 8 Design & Operations Design and Operations Work Plan
The Design and Operations Work Plan address both the ability of the site design to provide the service identified as well as providing the financial analysis (i.e. cost).
The following tasks will be undertaken to characterize the existing environmental conditions within the Final Study Area, predict and assess potential environmental effects, determine mitigation measures and compare alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking:
• Compile and interpret information from existing data sources, including data sources listed in Table 9-1. • Conduct Site investigations to confirm site information compiled from existing documentation and document the findings as part of the Conceptual Designs that will be prepared for each of the Alternative Methods. • Based on the Conceptual Designs developed for the Alternative Methods:
o Identify the potential effects of each alternative from a Design and Operations perspective.
o Apply mitigation measures to determine the net effects for each Alternative Method and compare the degree of net effects using the criteria and indicators for the Design and Operations component, rank the Alternative Methods and identify the Recommended Alternative from a Design and Operations perspective. • Once the Preferred Method has been identified and additional details developed from a design and operations perspective, an impact assessment will be carried out so that the potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty and will include more site-specific impact management measures and groundwater monitoring requirements can be clearly identified. The information and analysis will be documented in the Design and Operations Report that will form an appendix to the SCRF EA.
Table 9-1 – Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources
Environmental Evaluation Indicators Data Sources Component Criteria Potential to • Ability of Alternative • Existing Design and Operations provide Methods to provide Report service for disposal capacity for • Conceptual Designs disposal post-diversion solid, non- Design & hazardous industrial Operations residual material Cost of facility Approximate relative cost • Existing Design and Operations of Alternative Methods Report • Conceptual Designs Cost estimates
GHD | Design and Operations Work Plan | 11102771 Human Health STONEY CREEK REGIONAL FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
HUMAN HEALTH ASSESSMENT REVIEW WORKPLAN
April 2018
6605 Hurontario Street, Suite 500, Mississauga, Ontario ▪ L5T 0A3 Tel: 905-364-7800 ▪ Fax: 905-364-7816 ▪ www.intrinsikscience.com
STONEY CREEK REGIONAL FACILITY EA HUMAN HEALTH ASSESSMENT REVIEW WORKPLAN
Table of Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 2 2.0 REVIEW OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS ...... 3 2.1 Historical Context ...... 3 2.2 Current Environmental Assessment ...... 4 2.3 Refinements for Recommended Landfill Footprint ...... 6 3.0 REFERENCES ...... 6
Stoney Creek Regional Facility EA – Human Health Assessment Review Workplan April 2018 Intrinsik Corp. – Project 400234 Page i
STONEY CREEK REGIONAL FACILITY EA HUMAN HEALTH ASSESSMENT REVIEW WORKPLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Terrapure Environmental (Terrapure) is seeking approval under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) to increase the total approved capacity for post-diversion solid, non- hazardous industrial residual material processed at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF) by 3,680,000 cubic metres. The proposed expansion would not change the type or annual volume of residual materials currently accepted at the facility, nor the maximum number of vehicles to the site per day. It would simply extend the lifetime of the facility so that Terrapure can continue to operate its business and receive materials to support local industry (GHD, 2017).
The Environmental Assessment (EA) conducted for the proposed SCRF expansion is being conducted in accordance with subsections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EA Act, and will include the evaluation of a series of Alternative Methods, including: • Alternative Method No. 1: Reconfiguration of the SCRF; • Alternative Method No. 2: Horizontal Expansion of the SCRF; • Alternative Method No. 3: Vertical Expansion of the SCRF; • Alternative Method No. 4: Reconfiguration and Horizontal Expansion of the SCRF; • Alternative Method No. 5: Reconfiguration and Vertical Expansion of the SCRF; and, • Alternative Method No. 6: Horizontal and Vertical Expansion of the SCRF.
The proposed Terms of Reference for the EA prepared by GHD includes an environmental component to evaluate the effects on human health with five (5) specific criteria and related indicators: 1. Effect on Air Quality: Predicted impacts to air quality and their potential effects on human health; 2. Effect on Leachate Quality: Predicted effects of leachate quality (inorganic and organic chemicals) on human health; 3. Effect on Groundwater Quality: Predicted impacts to groundwater quality and their potential effects on human health; 4. Effect on Surface Water Quality: Predicted impacts to surface water quality and their potential effects on human health; and, 5. Effect on Soil Quality: Predicted impacts to soil and their potential effects on human health.
Given the SCRF has been operating for 20 years (previously operated as the Taro East Quarry Landfill and later the Newalta Hamilton Landfill), there is a wealth of existing data and information from available reports which will be used during the preparation of the current EA. This includes the annual monitoring reports that are prepared and submitted to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), as per a condition of approval under the SCRF’s ECA. In addition to reviews of monitoring data on parameters related to air quality, leachate, groundwater and surface water, Terrapure has commissioned Intrinsik to complete an evaluation of the potential human health implications of each of the six alternative methods, and the ultimately selected preferred alternative, compared to the existing approved landfill design.
Stoney Creek Regional Facility EA – Human Health Assessment Review Workplan April 2018 Intrinsik Corp. – Project 400234 Page 2
The current document will provide an overview of the draft methodology proposed to conduct a human health assessment review for the current EA process. This document will be enhanced as further information from the EA process itself is made available.
2.0 REVIEW OF STUDY METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS
In general, a HHRA is a scientific study that evaluates the potential for the occurrence of adverse health effects from exposures of people (receptors) to chemicals of concern (COCs) present in surrounding environmental media (e.g., air, soil, sediment, surface water, groundwater, food, etc.), under existing or predicted exposure conditions. HHRA procedures are based on the fundamental dose-response principle of toxicology. The response of an individual to a chemical exposure increases in proportion to the chemical concentration in critical target tissues where adverse effects may occur. The concentrations of chemicals in the target tissues (the dose) are determined by the degree of exposure, which is proportional to the chemical concentrations in the environment where the receptor resides, works or visits. All chemicals (both natural and man-made) have the potential to cause effects in people and the ecosystem. It is the chemical concentration, the route and amount of exposure, and the inherent toxicity of the chemical that determines the level of risk for adverse health effects to occur. As such, an HHRA allows stakeholders to evaluate the potential health implications of a proposed project and address potential mitigation options should potential health risks be identified.
2.1 Historical Context
The EA process that preceded the development and operation of the original Taro East Landfill (now the Terrapure SCRF) involved both an EA of the Landfill operations and a Community Health Risk Assessment, which included a detailed HHRA and stakeholder consultation at the time to address potential health risk concerns.
The evaluation presented in the Community Health Assessment Study (prepared by Intrinsik Corp., formerly operating as Cantox Environmental Inc.) was based on the data available at the time (1995) and was found to support the position that the operation of the proposed Landfill posed no significant health risk to the community of Stoney Creek. A Provisional Certificate of Approval to begin operations at the Taro East Landfill (now SCRF) was obtained on September 6, 1996.
In compliance with the conditions of the Provisional Certificate of Approval, leachate, groundwater, surface water and air quality monitoring programmes have been conducted on an annual basis ever since. The ongoing requirements of the current Provisional Certificate of Approval for operation of the SCRF include a rigorous analysis and interpretation of monitoring data. The objective of this review process has been to continue to assure the SCRF operators and the local community that the Landfill represents an insignificant and non-measurable potential impact to human and environmental health at the community level. This evaluation of the data involves several important activities, including: 1. A comparison of the results of the chemical analyses from the monitoring programme from the preceding year against original assumptions made in the Community Health Assessment Study of 1995; 2. An assessment of new chemicals identified by routine monitoring for potential health risks, and the reassessment of chemicals detected at concentrations higher, or lower than those considered in the original Health Assessment Study; and,
Stoney Creek Regional Facility EA – Human Health Assessment Review Workplan April 2018 Intrinsik Corp. – Project 400234 Page 3 3. A review of recent toxicological literature for changes to the exposure limits applied to chemicals described in the Health Assessment Study, and to identify exposure limits for all new chemicals of concern.
In each of the years since the granting of the original Certificate of Approval, Intrinsik has annually repeated this assessment and has concluded that there is no reason to alter the original scientific judgment reached by the Taro Community Health Assessment Study first presented in 1995.
2.2 Current Environmental Assessment
As part of the current EA, Terrapure is seeking approval under the EA Act to increase the total approved capacity for post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material processed at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF) by 3,680,000 cubic metres through the evaluation of six alternative landfill footprint options.
The first step in the process is to conduct an assessment and evaluation of the Alternative Landfill Footprint Options based on the criteria, indicators, and measures outlined in the approved SCRF Terms of Reference (ToR). As noted previously, the net effect analysis of the alternative landfill footprint options is carried out based on an evaluation of the following activities: • Predicted impacts to air quality and their potential effects on human health; • Predicted effects of leachate quality (inorganic and organic chemicals) on human health; • Predicted impacts to groundwater quality and their potential effects on human health; • Predicted impacts to surface water quality and their potential effects on human health; and, • Predicted impacts to soil and their potential effects on human health.
As part of this comparative evaluation, the net effects identified for each alternative landfill footprint option are compared to one another, as well as the existing approved landfill design, to identify a “recommended landfill footprint”. The core element to the evaluation of human health risks is based on the ongoing comparison to the detailed HHRA conducted for the approval of the original landfill design, including the annual evaluations conducted as part of SCRF Community Health Assessment Review.
With the exception of impacts to soil, each of the above indicators have been evaluated in the annual Community Health Assessment Reviews that Intrinsik has conducted since 1996. Intrinsik is proposing to evaluate potential human health effects with these five (5) indicators by utilizing the existing annual Community Health Assessment Review (CHAR) report as a basis and enhancing it to ensure current health-based benchmarks are utilized. The proposed approach will incorporate existing data and any new modelled data provided by GHD as part of the EA process.
To address each of these elements, it is proposed the following be assessed:
1. Effect on Air Quality - Predicted impacts to air quality and their potential effects on human health • Compare the predicted ground-level air concentrations at each of the key receptor locations surrounding the SCRF to existing short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) health-based benchmarks to determine whether any potential health concerns are
Stoney Creek Regional Facility EA – Human Health Assessment Review Workplan April 2018 Intrinsik Corp. – Project 400234 Page 4
raised. These health-based benchmarks will be based on those endorsed by either the MOECC and/or the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canada- Wide Standards (CWS); and, • Compare predicted risk predictions with those obtained when evaluating the current landfill configuration, to put risks into context with the existing annual CHAR.
2. Effect on Leachate Quality - Predicted effects of leachate quality (inorganic and organic chemicals) on human health • Compare the predicted leachate quality (inorganic and organic chemicals) from the current EA Study to those evaluated in the original 1996 CHAS assessment to determine if levels have changed sufficiently to invalidate the original assessment conclusions. • Evaluate existing landfill and leachate management to determine whether pathways for potential exposures exist, using information from other stream on the ongoing EA.
3. Effect on Groundwater Quality - Predicted impacts to groundwater quality and their potential effects on human health • Compare the predicted groundwater quality (inorganic and organic chemicals) from the current EA Study to those evaluated in the original 1996 CHAS assessment to determine if levels have changed sufficiently to invalidate the original assessment conclusions; and, • Evaluate existing landfill and groundwater management to determine whether pathways for potential exposures exist, using information from other stream on the ongoing EA.
4. Effect on Surface Water Quality - Predicted impacts to surface water quality and their potential effects on human health • Compare the predicted surface water quality (inorganic and organic chemicals) from the current EA Study to those evaluated in the original 1996 CHAS assessment to determine if levels have changed sufficiently to invalidate the original assessment conclusions; • Evaluate existing landfill and surface water management to determine whether pathways for potential exposures exist, using information from other stream on the ongoing EA.
5. Effect on Soil Quality - Predicted impacts to soil and their potential effects on human health • Using deposition data from the current EA Air Quality Study, predicted cumulative concentrations in soil around the Landfill will be evaluated to determine their potential effects on human health; and, • Compare the predicted deposition for each of the alternative landfill footprint options with that expected for the original landfill configuration to determine whether any of the alternatives pose a significant change from that evaluated under the original CHAS HHRA.
It is important to note that this step is designed to use a conservative screening approach in assessing emissions and would likely over-estimate potential risks. The intent at this stage of the EA is permit a comparative evaluation of each alternative landfill footprint options with each other, and the existing approved landfill design (i.e., Base Case), to rank the options to assist in the selection of the Recommended Landfill Footprint option.
Stoney Creek Regional Facility EA – Human Health Assessment Review Workplan April 2018 Intrinsik Corp. – Project 400234 Page 5 2.3 Refinements for Recommended Landfill Footprint
Once the Recommended Landfill Footprint has been selected through the net effect analysis process of the EA, the same process will be repeated during the design phase with more detailed information, including proposed mitigation approaches to minimize emissions and exposures. This will permit the evaluation of potential health risks for the recommended Landfill footprint option, including any required mitigation measures, as part of the overall EA approval process.
3.0 REFERENCES
GHD. 2017. Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment: Approved Amended Terms of Reference. Project 11102771. Report No. 16. November 9, 2017.
Stoney Creek Regional Facility EA – Human Health Assessment Review Workplan April 2018 Intrinsik Corp. – Project 400234 Page 6