Appendix Q Government Review Team Correspondence &

Comprehensive Government Review Team Comment/Response Table

From: Kitty Ma [mailto:kitty.ma@hc-sc.gc.ca] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 10:34 AM To: Shoniker, Blair Subject: Re: WCEC - Existing Conditions Hi Blair, How are you doing? I was looking through my files for some information on this project and would like to let you know that before Health Canada can participate in this EA process (or any EA process), a written request is needed from the responsible authority (in this case, the Prov. MOE). The request should be specific on the nature of the expertise requested, preferably outlining targeted questions or concerns. Should you or the responsible authority has any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Cheers, Kitty Ma Regional Environmental Assessment Coordinator Environmental Health Program Health Canada - Ontario Region 180 Queen Street West, 10th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5V 3L7 kitty.ma@hc-sc.gc.ca Phone: (416) 954-2206 Fax: (416) 952-4444

mailto:kitty.ma@hc-sc.gc.ca

1

Ghioureliotis, Catherine

From: Journeaux, Marilyn [Marilyn.Journeaux@ottawa.ca]Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 2:38 PMTo: Shoniker, BlairSubject: FW: Staff Review of Carp Landfill Expansion DocumentsAttachments: Carp Landfill existing conditions memo 9 Aug 2011.docx

Hi Blair, here are additional comments in the email below and the attachment:  

• The Land Use Existing Conditions Report uses a regional study area radius of 1-1.5 km from the site whereas the ToR specifies a regional study area radius of 3-5 km from the site.  

• There is no Existing Conditions Report pertaining to Site Design and Operations. Appendix C (Environmental Assessment Work Plans) of the ToR indicates that this would be prepared. Is it being prepared separately? 

Thanks, Marilyn 

  From: Peter Filipowich’s comments (Solid Waste Services)  Odour – Existing Conditions Report;  

• 1.2 Applicable Guidelines pg. 2 ‐  Odours have been and continue to be a significant issue for the local community. 

o Odour complaints in recent years should be mapped to depict distribution to determine actual odour effect. 

o No discussion on past odour performance, number of historical vs. current complaints. • 1.3.2.2 pg 3. ‐ Cracks and fissures will be present in the landfill cap from time to time  ‐ “worst case” scenario 

assessments should consider this.  WM has assumed best case eliminating more conservative estimates as “upset conditions” (Sect 3.2.1) 

• 2. Landfill Footprint Study Areas pg. 5  ‐ Only 9 receptors identified‐ Trail EA used 24 which included 8 commercial receptors i.e. not strictly sensitive residential receptors. 

• 3.2 Process Undertaken pg. 6 ‐ Assumed an 85% gas collection efficiency with a clay cap – no mention of the clay cap thickness.  Existing conditions at Trail for Stage 1‐4 with a geotextile cap and 750 mm of soil averaged 60% gas collection efficiency.  85% efficiency is very high – not a conservative estimate.  

• 4.1 Dispersion Modelling Results pg. 9 – the maximum 10 minute odour concentration was determined to be 92% of the objective.  If a more reasonable gas collection efficiency had been determined the maximum concentration at R3 would likely have exceeded the objective. 

• Fig. 2 – same comment as Figure 3 in the Landfill Gas section.  Landfill Gas Existing Conditions Report:  

• Figure 3 – Isopleth Vinyl Chloride concentrations – noted distribution is weak to the South East in all isopleths.  Wind direction distribution reported by Environment Canada for the Ottawa airport: (http://www.windfinder.com/windstats/windstatistic_ottawa_airport.htm) would suggest prevailing winds and highest average speeds should create a strong distribution pattern toward the east southeast i.e. toward an area of dense residential development. 

 Atmospheric – Particulate Matter Existing Conditions Report: 

2

• 3.1 Historical On‐Site Sources – pg. 3 – Where is the on‐site meteorological station used to determine prevailing winds and wind speeds located?  Depending on location the existing waste mound could have a significant influence on this station. 

 Socio‐Economic 

• 4.3 Visual Assessment – Appendix A which included further detail on each viewpoint was not available on the web site. http://www0.wm.com/wm/wcec/Existing_Conditions/Socio_Economic/Figures/SocioEconomic_Appendix 

• A viewing point between 01 and 11 along Huntmar Dr. near Richardson should be added as the vegetation in the foreground of 01  would not be able to block views further down Richardson side road. 

  

 From: Economic Development Branch  From: Bashir, Saad Sent: August 03, 2011 1:04 PM To: Murr, Michael Cc: Levesque, Johanne; Santoro, Ines; Burton, Alyson; Cenci, Nelda Subject: RE: Staff Review of Carp Landfill Expansion Documents  Michael,  Please see comments from an economic development perspective:  

Although the report states 250 employees at 6 locations of Waste Management in Ottawa and E. Ont. but number of employees at this site not specified. 

Community trust fund (not specific – amounts or purposes to support local projects)  No mention of Carp Road BIA nor Carp BIA and the impacts on associated businesses, positive or negative.  No mention of supplier linkages vertical or horizontal with WCEC (indirect employment effects).  No mention of ancillary business opportunities to service additional 75 employees (restaurants or other employment related expenditures – induced employment effects). 

Impacts on attractiveness of area for industrial development not explored (e.g. nucleus for clean tech sector, etc.)  Negative and positive ramifications on businesses would require consultation with existing businesses (such as BIAs). Further, consultation with Cleantech sector regarding potential as a nucleus for industrial development is not evident. 

 Thanks ‐ Saad 

 From:  Development Review Rural Srvc Branch (Rural Planning) From: Moodie, Derrick Sent: August 12, 2011 10:02 AM To: Journeaux, Marilyn Subject: RE: West Carleton Environmental Centre EA - Existing Conditions  Within the environmental study the following comments were provided:  

A) The report identifies on page 26 (Section 5.2) that indicates the actual area of the significant wetland may be larger than what was mapped by the MNR.  The actual extent of the significant wetland should be determined and mapped to assist in understanding the impact of the proposed project on the wetland. 

B) Annex 14 of OPA 76 indicates that some of the forest in the study area may be considered significant woodlands as defined in Section 2.4 of the Ottawa Official Plan.  The existing condition report indicates that some of the 

3

vegetation communities area considered mature.  The report should identify whether the forests could be considered significant based on their on‐site work. 

C) The discussion of fauna should include a discussion of the bobolink, which although not identified in the survey, appears to have suitable habitat present on the property based on the description of vegetation communities provided in Section 4.2.1 of the existing conditions report. 

 For the Transportation Study, the following comments are provided:  These documents refer to both an Appendix A and Appendix B. These appendices however are not attached and cannot be found on the link provided.   In order to properly validate the transportation document findings,  I would need to see the two Appendices being referred to.   The agricultural study was reviewed with no issues identified.  Derrick  Additional comments on the transportation aspect just came in: Page 18, 4.7.2 ‐ Traffic Operations in the report, second last paragraph states that (as part of the future improvements to the road network)  “Signalization of the intersection of Carp Road and the Highway 417 eastbound ramp may be examined in conjunction with future improvements by the City of Ottawa.”   Therefore, a technical circulation of the final report should be undertaken throughout  the proper Groups within the City in order to look into this.  Derrick   For the Transportation Study, the following comments are provided:  These documents refer to both an Appendix A and Appendix B. These appendices however are not attached and cannot be found on the link provided.   In order to properly validate the transportation document findings,  I would need to see the two Appendices being referred to.  Derrick  

This e-mail originates from the City of Ottawa e-mail system. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by return e-mail and delete this communication and any copy immediately. Thank you.

Le présent courriel a été expédié par le système de courriels de la Ville d'Ottawa. Toute distribution, utilisation ou reproduction du courriel ou des renseignements qui s'y trouvent par une personne autre que son destinataire

4

prévu est interdite. Si vous avez reçu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser par téléphone (au numéro précité) ou par courriel, puis supprimer sans délai la version originale de la communication ainsi que toutes ses copies. Je vous remercie de votre collaboration.

M E M O / N O T E D E S E R V I C E

As a follow up to your e-mail on 18 July 2011, thank you for giving Community Sustainability the

opportunity to comment on the Existing Conditions reports prepared for the Carp Landfill Expansion. We

have focused our comments on areas which are related to our mandate or expertise and assume that other

departments such as Planning and Growth Management are also involved in addressing issues related to

land use, transportation and the natural environment. As noted, we may have some additional points prior

to the government review team meetings at the end of August on the atmospheric conditions component.

AGRICULTURE CONDITIONS

Soils

It is worth noting that the area study is not an agriculture resource area as defined in the City’s Official

Plan – Schedule A, and it is immediately adjacent to the Carp Road Corridor Rural Employment area,

although there is active farming evident and some good agricultural soils.

OMAFRA has updated the soils information circa 2008 and is available from Land Information

Ontario. The update has reconciled differences across map units that have lead to in some cases

significant changes to the agriculture classification (CLI).

ATOMSPHERIC CONDITIONS

The primary government review source for atmospheric conditions will be the Ontario Ministry of Environment. We do have a staff resource with some expertise in air quality and related modelling who

is currently on vacation. Upon her return on August 22, she will review this component and we may

have additional comments to offer prior to the Government review team meeting.

In reviewing these components, it appears that the consultants have followed MOE standards and protocols where these exist. Given that the existing conditions scenario is based on the closed landfill,

they have indicated that odour levels would be within MOS limits and particulate matter conditions

would be comparable to typical conditions for the region. These would seem to be reasonable

conclusions given the assumption of a closed landfill.

To / Destinataire Marilyn Journeaux

Manager, Solid Waste Services

File/N° de fichier:

From / Expéditeur Michael Murr

Manager, Sustainability Planning and

Development Branch

Subject / Objet Carp Landfill Expansion - Staff Review of

Existing Conditions Reports

Date: 09 August 2011

2

The Landfill Gas existing conditions report is also based on a closed landfill with migration through final cover, and ongoing use of the landfill gas-fired generators and landfill gas flares being the

remaining sources. The results of the modelling for existing conditions indicate that levels for all 23

assessed compounds will be within MOE POI limits. Again, this will be further reviewed before the

government team meeting and should be confirmed by the MOE.

GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY CONDITIONS

Overall we feel this is very well done.

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT CONDITIONS

Water Temperature

While the change in the temperature at Carp1 is explained, is there an explanation for the change at Carp 2? Why does Carp 1 water temperature track air temperature with Carp 2 lower than air temperature for Figure 6 (Labels - July) and Carp 1 is lower than air temperature then Carp 2 tracks air temperature in Figure 7 (Labels - August). Are the charts miss-labelled?

Please reference the temperature ranges for warm and cool water to explain the basis of the warm and cool water classifications with reference to the charts.

The classification of the water temperature is interesting given the well documented and extensive presence of sand and gravel and groundwater (Geology and Hydrogeology Section).

Fish Habitat

Why does fish habitat end at Carp Road? Given that tributary A provides habitat, doesn’t tributary C provide

connectivity to the downstream habitat and therefore is supporting important seasonal direct fish habitat?

The discussion relates the baseflow to the presence of wetlands. Isn’t the base flow due to presence of

groundwater storage that in turn is due to the sand and gravel deposits rather than wetlands? In this

case the wetland is assumed to be the local unconstrained groundwater table. In other locations, such as

the Jock River, some wetlands are due to the presence of an underlying aquitard that limits infiltration

and local wet-land. It would be helpful if these functions were explained in terms of the geology and

hydrogeology section.

SURFACE WATER CONDITIONS

Reference to the geology and hydrogeology section would help to reinforce the findings and insights.

3

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Although the report states that 250 employees are located at 6 Waste Management locations in Ottawa and E. Ont., the number of employees at this site not specified.

Community trust fund (not specific – amounts or purposes to support local projects)

No mention of Carp Road BIA nor Carp BIA and the impacts on associated businesses, positive or negative.

No mention of supplier linkages vertical or horizontal with WCEC (indirect employment effects).

No mention of ancillary business opportunities to service additional 75 employees (restaurants or other employment related expenditures – induced employment effects).

Impacts on attractiveness of area for industrial development not explored (e.g. nucleus for clean tech sector, etc.)

Negative and positive ramifications on businesses would require consultation with existing businesses (such as BIAs).

Further, consultation with Cleantech sector regarding potential as a nucleus for industrial development is not evident.

I trust these comments are of assistance and please do not hesitate to contact me for any questions or

follow-up.

Michael

cc: Johanne Levesque, Director, Community Sustainability

Saad Bashir, Manager Economic Development

David Miller, Environmental Sustainability

Anne Robinson, Environmental Sustainability

Ontario, there’s no taste like home Un bon goût de chez nous

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation et des Affaires rurales

Box 2004, 59 Ministry Road Kemptville, Ontario K0G 1J0 Tel: (613) 258-8341 Fax: (613) 258-8392

Box 2004, rue Ministry Kemptville, Ontario K0G 1J0 Tél.: (613) 258-8341 Téléc.: (613) 258-8392

Food Safety and Environmental Policy Branch

Environmental Land Use Policy Unit

August 22nd

, 2011

Mr. Blair Shoniker MA., MCIP, RPP

Senior Environmental Planner

AECOM

300 Town Centre Blvd., Suite 300

Markham, Ontario

L3R 5Z6

Dear Mr. Shoniker:

Subject: Draft Existing Conditions Reports

West Carleton Environmental Centre

City of Ottawa

In response to your circulated information, I have reviewed the above-noted matter and provide

the following technical comments, which are, based on the provincial policies regarding

agricultural land as found in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS)

It is understood that Waste Management is seeking approval for a new landfill footprint at the

existing Ottawa Waste Management Facility in the Kanata area within the City of Ottawa. The

subject lands are located within Richardson Side Road to the north, Carp Road to east, and abut

Hwy 417 to the south and west of the property. If approved, the West Carleton Environmental

Centre would be an integrated waste management facility that would include a number of

features such as waste diversion and recycling; composting facilities, renewable energy

facilities, and recreational lands.

The concerns of this Ministry in a matter such as this undertaking are focused on the impact of

this project on both the prime agricultural resource land base and any agricultural infrastructure

in the area. It is understood that the subject area is not within or immediately adjacent to lands

designated as a Prime Agricultural Area and therefore, this Ministry has no specific concerns

that need to be addressed.

- 2 -

Although the subject lands are not part of prime agricultural area (Agricultural Resource Area on

City Official Plan Schedule), it is observed and also highlighted in the “Agricultural Existing

Conditions Report” dated June, 2011 that some of the surrounding lands are used for agricultural

purposes. As well, although some of the lands within the ‘On-Site Area’ have been described as

not good for agriculture, the Canada Land Inventory (CLI) mapping available at the following link,

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/gis/soil_data/31G5.pdf indicates that much of

surrounding lands are either CLI Class 2, 3, or 4 and therefore reasonably productive for

agricultural purposes. It is preferred that any proposed solution utilize the least productive

agricultural soils.

For this reason OMAFRA would recommend that the following issues be considered when

evaluating the expansion alternatives for the proposed works.

1) Minimize the loss of agricultural lands and minimize any disruptions of agricultural infrastructure such as field tiles, drainage ditches, culverts, field entrances and fences

and if unavoidable be appropriately repaired.

While the above represents the Ministry's interpretation of provincial policy with regard to

agricultural land, it does not reflect an overall provincial position. There may be planning concerns

or interests of other agencies that should be regarded, in addition to any municipal planning

considerations.

Sincerely,

John O’Neill

Rural Planner

cc: David Cooper, Manager, Environmental & Land Use Policy Unit, OMAFRA, Guelph

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/gis/soil_data/31G5.pdf

Comments of Waste Management of Canada Corporation’s Existing Conditions Report

West Carleton Environmental Centre, Ottawa

By: Greg Davis Senior Environmental Officer Ministry of the Environment

Ottawa District Office

Agriculture Existing Conditions Report: No concerns with report. Archaeology Existing Conditions Report: No concerns with report. Atmospheric – Particulate Matter Existing Conditions Report: No concerns with report. The current and proposed landfill site is in an area that I would consider to have high background levels of particulate matter in that there is a heavily used Provincial Highway (417), municipal roads with Carp Road being a heavily used industrial corridor, aggregate operations and asphalt facilities, concrete operations, housing developments, various other industrial operations, and farming operations. As the abatement officer assigned to this site for the last several years I have not been made aware of any known or suspected adverse effects from the site for particulate emissions. Under the current landfill operation the certificate of approval requires total suspended particulate (TSP) testing on the current landfill site under their ambient air quality work plan. The monitoring is to occur monthly from May and September, inclusive. Discussion with colleagues has revealed this is the only known ambient air monitoring for TSP in the Ottawa District Office jurisdiction (Lanark County, Renfrew County, and the City of Ottawa). Natural Environment Existing Conditions Report: No concerns with report. Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Existing Conditions Report: No concerns with report. Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report:

More knowledge can be provided by the Ministry’s Technical Support Section regarding the hydrogeological conditions at the current landfill site. From my perspective as the abatement officer assigned to the site, WMCC has taken steps to control off-site leachate impacts in the groundwater through various real estate transactions and ground water use restrictions in the defined areas. The site also uses purge well and leachate extraction systems to control leachate migration. There is a very comprehensive ground water monitoring program at the site that is reviewed by the Ministry annually. There are no residential well impacts. Leachate impacts to ground water is not a public health concern. I am not aware of any widespread ground water contamination in the area that would lead me to conclude that the aquifer is highly susceptible to anthropogenic sources of contamination; residential septic systems for example. Land Use Existing Conditions Report: No concerns with report. Atmospheric Existing Conditions Report: Landfill Gas (VOC) Baseline Assessment No concerns with report. Atmospheric Existing Conditions Report: Odour Baseline Assessment No concerns with report. At current (July 29, 2011) off-site odour emissions are being controlled in that I do not believe the intermittent off-site odours that occur primarily in the Carp Road industrial corridor are causing adverse effects to the residents and workers in the area. There are various other odour sources and causes of odour detection in this same corridor: asphalt facility, concrete facilities, kitchen cabinet facility, aggregate operations, a solid waste transfer/processing facility, a restaurant, a gas station, and farming operations. Noise Existing Conditions Report: It has been several years (2006) since noise complaints have been received for the existing landfill site. Noise complaints were from the pest control devices (ie primarily bird bangers) used at the facility to deter birds from the site. Transportation Existing Conditions Report: No concerns with report. Surface Water Existing Conditions Report:

No concerns with report. More knowledge can be provided by the Ministry’s Technical Support Section regarding the surface water conditions at the current landfill site. Socio-Economic (Local Residents and Recreational Resources) Existing Conditions Report: No concerns with report.

1

Ghioureliotis, Catherine

From: Zirger, Rosi (MTC) [Rosi.Zirger@ontario.ca]Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 12:46 PMTo: Shoniker, BlairCc: Brown, ErikaSubject: RE: WCEC - Footprint Options

Hi Blair It was nice speaking with you and Erica this morning. Also, thanks for providing me with the Footprint Options being considered. The following comments are intended to provide general guidance regarding the Options being considered. As I indicated on the phone this morning, further assessments, for both archaeology and built heritage/cultural landscapes will likely be necessary when the preferred option is selected. From a cultural heritage (archaeology and built heritage/cultural landscape) point of view, it appears that Option #2 will have the least impact on cultural heritage resources. There will still be are area in the southwest corner requiring further archaeology, but it’s a smaller footprint than other options. It is not clear if Option #2 will impact CLU#7 or not, since the farm is described as being set back from the road, and I don’t know the full extent of the property. Option #3 will have a greater impact on archaeology in the southwest corner and also along William Mooney Road. I have the same comment as above regarding potential impact to CLU#7. Option#1 will require further archaeology along William Mooney Road, and it is not clear whether this Footprint Option entirely misses the area of archaeological potential to the west. Also, Option #1 may have an impact on the farms identified as CLU#4 and CLU#5. Based on the Existing Conditions Report, CLU#4 is described as farm complex that represents four generations of dairy farming and remains on lands first settled. Although a full evaluation has not been completed yet, you should be aware that this is the sort of historical association that is often considered to have significant cultural heritage value. The value is in the property as a whole, not just the structures, and the recommendation could be full avoidance of the property. You would also need further evaluation on CLU#5, Option #4 would require further archaeology on a larger area than other Options and also potentially impact CLU#4. I should have made clear on the phone that archaeological assessments don’t necessarily stop at Stage 2. If archaeological resources are found during Stage 2, then a further Stage 3 assessment will be required and possibly a Stage 4. If the resources are found to be particularly important then avoidance may be recommended. If you have any other questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Best regards,

Rosi Zirger A/Heritage Planner | Central and Southeast Ministry of Tourism and Culture | Culture Services Unit Tel. 416.314.7159 | Fax 416.314.7175  rosi.zirger@ontario.ca

 

Ministry of Tourism and Culture Programs and Services Branch Culture Services Unit 401 Bay Street, 17th Floor Toronto, Ontario M7A 0A7

2

From: Shoniker, Blair [mailto:Blair.Shoniker@aecom.com] Sent: August 23, 2011 11:33 AM To: Zirger, Rosi (MTC) Subject: WCEC - Footprint Options  Hi Rosi,  Thanks for speaking with us today, much appreciated.  As mentioned, here are the 4 footprint options currently being evaluated by the Project Team.  Any questions, please let me know.  Cheers, Blair   Blair Shoniker MA., MCIP, RPP Senior Environmental Planner Environment D 905.477.8400 ext. 383 blair.shoniker@aecom.com AECOM 300 Town Centre Blvd., Suite 300 Markham, ON L3R 5Z6 T 905.477.8400 F 905.477.1456 www.aecom.com This electronic communication, which includes any files or attachments thereto, contains proprietary or confidential information and may be privileged and otherwise protected under copyright or other applicable intellectual property laws. All information contained in this electronic communication is solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it was addressed. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that distributing, copying, or in any way disclosing any of the information in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, and destroy the communication and any files or attachments in their entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Since data stored on electronic media can deteriorate, be translated or modified, AECOM, its subsidiaries, and/or affiliates will not be liable for the completeness, correctness or readability of the electronic data. The electronic data should be verified against the hard copy.

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.   

COMMENTS ON ATMOSPHERIC EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORTS – JUNE 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR A NEW LANDFILL FOOTPRINT

WEST CARLETON ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER According to Appendix C (Environmental Assessment Work Plans) of the Terms of Reference (TOR), Phase 1 of the Environmental Assessment is to "characterize existing environment and predict effects of the proposed alternatives". Section 3.1.2 Task 2 briefly outlines the expectations that studies will be conducted to assess the various environmental components and sub-components that may be affected by the undertaking. The reader is then referred to various attachments of this appendix for a detailed description of the specific environmental components that require addressing.

Attachment 2 of Appendix C corresponds to the Atmosphere Work Plan. This work plan includes three sub-components: air quality, noise and odour. The tasks to complete Phase 1 for air quality, noise and odour are presented in the Atmosphere Work Plan. While the ToR discuss the determination of existing conditions, the baseline assessments presented for landfill gas, particulate, VOC and noise do not address this requirement. The Existing Condition Reports produced under the Atmosphere Work Plan do not represent existing conditions but, rather, a future existing scenario in 2012 when the site is no longer accepting waste. For ease of review, CRA has re-iterated each Atmosphere Work Plan task in bold italics with our assessment immediately below. The comments provided below are based on the information provided in the reports. No independent evaluations have been made by the reviewer to verify the accuracy of the information provided. “Compile and interpret information from defined background sources, including information available from the following resources:

Atmospheric studies from the previous EA

Ongoing monitoring assessments for the current landfill;

Environment Canada and MOE air quality monitoring data from local stations; and,

Review site records related to air emission (odour) and noise complaint”. Generally, there is insufficient information provided in the Existing Conditions Reports to determine if this task has been appropriately addressed. For example, there is no discussion of the site records related to complaints in any of the Existing Conditions Reports. Further, it is difficult to ascertain whether the information provided in the Existing Conditions Reports is derived from the resources listed above, or whether they are derived from other sources. “Conduct site reconnaissance to confirm site information compiled from existing documentation and finalize location and nature of potential off-site receptors”. The potential off-site receptors identified in the Existing Conditions Reports address this requirement with respect to the location and nature of the potential off-site receptors. Additional information should be provided as to the methodology used to select the receptors identified in each of the reports.

“Determine ‘linkages’ with other components and data generation/transfer requirements (e.g., link with natural environment, link with transportation component)”. The information presented in the Existing Conditions Reports do not establish the particular “linkages” between particulate matter, noise, landfill gas (VOC) and odour with other components. For example, the Noise Existing Conditions Report discusses ambient noise traffic data using 2006, 2007 and 2009 data sources, however, there is no “linkage” to the Transportation Work Plan. “Consult with the MOE and other members of the GRT to decide on air dispersion/noise modeling approach and protocols to be used in the assessment”.

The Existing Conditions Reports do not address this requirement. There is no information provided to indicate that consultation with the MOE and GRT on the air dispersion and noise modeling approach and protocols occurred prior to the presentation of the Existing Condition Reports. “Based on consultation with MOE, the review of existing information and the project description, identify information gaps and data needs”. Please see the previous comment with respect to consultations with the MOE. There is no information provided to indicate that such consultation occurred. “Conduct on-site air quality/odour sampling to characterize sources of odour and provide data for input to the air quality and odour assessments”. The Landfill Gas (VOC) Baseline Assessment report does indicate that air quality sampling for 23 selected contaminants was performed on April 4, 2011. Although on-site air quality was assessed on this date for the 23 selected contaminants for this study, one sampling event is considered insufficient to support the findings presented in the Landfill Gas (VOC) Baseline Assessment report. The data used in the future existing scenario in 2012 when the site is no longer accepting waste are based on 2 days of sampling over 7 years and are insufficient to provide a representative estimate of the potential contaminants and concentrations that may be present at the site given that the landfill gas composition can fluctuate over time, season, etc. VOC concentration factors are available through the MOE. These concentration factors include average and 95% upper threshold concentration levels of commonly found contaminants in landfill gas from several landfills in Ontario. The data are reflective of many days of sampling over all seasons. Consideration should be given to the use of these data for existing air quality assessment purposes. Based on the Odour Baseline Assessment report, no on-site sampling was performed to characterize sources of odour. This task of the Atmosphere Work Plan remains incomplete.

“Conduct noise measurement surveys to determine the baseline noise levels at potential sensitive points of reception, and along haul routes, and to determine noise levels from on-site sources, i.e. landfill equipment operations”. The Noise Existing Conditions report indicates that new measurements were taken in April 2011 to update and verify data measured in 2006. A description of the noise measurements used and how they were applied to the Noise Existing Conditions report address this task. Define baseline conditions for the project, based on available monitoring data. As previously identified, the baseline conditions described in the Existing Condition Reports do not correspond to current existing conditions. The Existing Condition Reports do not represent existing conditions but, rather, a future existing scenario in 2012 when the site is no longer accepting waste. Additional Comments on the Atmospheric Existing Conditions Reports

General Air Modelling Comments The landfill mound is said to be modeled at a height of zero to be more conservative. However, this scenario may not be true for each sensitive receptor. Therefore, modeling at at actual landfill mound height (and half of the mound height) should be performed to demonstrate that the results are in fact more conservative. The study should include a source summary table to show the types of sources selected for each source modeled. For example, a candle stick flare can be modeled as a flare or as a point source. There is no discussion of the type of source used to model the flares. General Comments on the VOCs Scaling Approach The Landfill Gas (VOC) Baseline Assessment report does not include sufficient information to support the landfill gas calibration factor nor, does it discuss whether this approach was approved by the MOE. Given that there are only 2 days of on-site air quality data reported over a seven year period, the landfill gas calibration factor approach could potentially underestimate the concentration of VOCs at point of impingement (POI) and results from the modeling should be presented without adjustments. General Comments on the Use of Ratios in the Atmospheric – Particulate Matter Existing Conditions Report The report includes the use of ratios of total suspended particulate (TSP) versus particulate matter (PM) 2.5 microns and PM 10 microns. The ratios were determined using TSP and PM ratios from various other geographic areas in Ontario. Additional information is requested to assess the appropriateness of using these ratios for the site. In addition, the report also did not include a discussion of the landfill gas engines as sources of particulate at the site.

General Comments on Other Potential Contaminants There is no discussion as to why NOx, CO, SO2, and HCl equivalent from the NMOCs are not modeled and are not included as potential contaminants. If these parameters were screened out or determined to be insignificant, it should be discussed in the report. General Comments on Odour The Odour Baseline Assessment report does not include an assessment of landfill gas engines and flares. It is our understanding that these sources would still be in operation in 2012, irrespective of previous comments regarding “existing conditions”. Justification should be provided as to why these sources were excluded from the report. The report also does not include site record information pertaining to odour, such as odour complaints received in the current year. The report should also include a discussion of potential odour impact from the proposed Leachate Treatment Plant which is part of the application for a Certificate of Approval (Air & Noise) submitted to the MOE in December 2010. The proposed Leachate Treatment Plant should be included in this report as a baseline condition. Given the extent of historical complaints due to odours, it is recommended that additional modeling such as frequency analysis be performed at the most impacted receptors. General Comments on Noise The Noise Existing Condition Assessment report does not reference the site history and complaints that have been received that would pertain to noise. To ensure that the site is modeled as a worst-case predictive noise, tonal penalty should be applied to sources that are identified as tonal to ensure the worst-case noise is modeled regardless of whether the sources are heard off-site. There appears to be contradiction in the noise criteria presented in the Noise Existing Conditions report in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2.4. The report indicates that for the baseline condition the MOE NPC-205 criteria are applicable however; the assessment does not present the results of the noise assessment against these criteria. Clarification is required in terms of which criteria are applicable for the baseline scenario presented. Further, clarification is sought as to whether the MOE has agreed to the use of Pest Control and Landfilling Criteria as the default guideline minima for this report. It is noted that the report states that “the baseline assessment does not include an operating landfill” (p.10) and “the baseline noise assessment does not include pest control devices” (p.10). For Tables 2a to 2c , there are 3 footnotes indicated on each. However, only footnote 1 is referenced on each table. Clarification is requested as to the applicability of footnotes 2 and 3. A similar comment is made with respect to footnotes 3 and 4 for Tables 3a to 3c.

The report also does not include any discussion of potential noise impact from the proposed Leachate Treatment Plant which is part of the application for Certificate of Approval (Air & Noise) submitted to the MOE in December 2010. The proposed Leachate Treatment Plant should be included in this report as a baseline condition.

1

Ghioureliotis, Catherine

From: Journeaux, Marilyn [Marilyn.Journeaux@ottawa.ca]Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 1:56 PMTo: Shoniker, BlairSubject: Comments on Existing Conditions Reports - Hydrogeo/Surface WaterAttachments: 057940 - Surface Water Comments.doc; 057940 - Hydrogeo comments.doc

Hi Blair, please find attached the City’s comments on surface water and hydrogeology Existing Conditions reports.  Regards, Marilyn 

This e-mail originates from the City of Ottawa e-mail system. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by return e-mail and delete this communication and any copy immediately. Thank you.

Le présent courriel a été expédié par le système de courriels de la Ville d'Ottawa. Toute distribution, utilisation ou reproduction du courriel ou des renseignements qui s'y trouvent par une personne autre que son destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous avez reçu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser par téléphone (au numéro précité) ou par courriel, puis supprimer sans délai la version originale de la communication ainsi que toutes ses copies. Je vous remercie de votre collaboration.

COMMENTS ON SURFACE WATER EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT – JUNE 2011

ENVIRIONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR A NEW LANDFILL FOOTPRINT WEST CARLETON ENVIRONMENTAL CENTRE

According to Appendix C (Environmental Assessment Work Plans) of the Terms of Reference (TOR), Phase 1 of the Environmental Assessment is to "characterize environment and predict effects of the proposed alternatives". Section 3.1.2 Task 2 briefly outlines the expectations that studies will be conducted to assess the various environmental components affecting the site. The reader is then referred to various attachments of this appendix for a detailed description of the specific environmental components that require addressing. Attachment 8 corresponds to the Surface Water Work Plan. Listed below are the requirements listed in this section, followed by CRA’s assessment of whether the consultant met the listed requirements. This report addresses current site conditions, and not the predictive portion of what the proposed alternatives will have on the environment. The comments provided below are based on the information provided in the report. No independent evaluations have been made by the reviewer to verify the accuracy of the information provided. “Compile and interpret information from defined background sources including:

surface water reports from previous EA and annual monitoring reports

topographic mapping and aerial photography to define drainage network and drainage watersheds/sub-watersheds, discharge locations

published sources (annual reports, MOE, Environment Canada, Conservation Authority to characterize water quality and stream flow”

The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre – SURFACE WATER EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" references: 11 reports previously prepared for the Site; shows surface water bodies in the vicinity of the Site on a topographic map; and, refers to one report prepared by a regulating body. If aerial photographs were used, none were specifically referenced. It should be noted that the reports prepared for the site, and referenced in this report, were not accessible by this reviewer. “Conduct site reconnaissance to confirm the information from available sources.” The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre – SURFACE WATER EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" states that site work was conducted to identify and confirm information provided for the Site. The report also states that additional monitoring of surface water quantity and quality is required. As such, it is unclear whether a complete assessment of existing surface water conditions has been established.

“Establish surface water flow and water quality monitoring station locations and monitoring program to obtain representative information.” The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre – SURFACE WATER EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" discusses that monitoring station locations were identified; however the placement of these locations is not presented in this report. Water quality data presented in this report were collected, according to the authors, in 2006 and 2011, however only data collected in 2006 are provided in the report. It is the reviewer’s opinion that these data are not temporally representative of current site conditions given the limited frequency of data collection. There is no discussion of existing sediment quality conditions in surface water bodies located within the study area. “Summarize existing surface water flow and quality representative of conditions upstream and downstream of proposed new landfill expansion alternatives.” Surface water flow measurements were not presented in this report (only directions were discussed), nor was the methodology for surface water flow collection presented. “Using a hydrological model, calculate surface water runoff and peak flows in the area of the proposed expansion under existing conditions, using designs storms as set out in Ont. Reg. 232/98.” The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre – SURFACE WATER EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" presents the results of SWMHYMO modeling for 5 and 10 year return period peak flow estimates for the existing site only. No predictive modeling was presented regarding the future landfill expansion footprints. “Based on the Conceptual Design Report, predict and assess future surface water runoff and peak flows and quality conditions associated with each of the proposed expansion alternatives.” The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre – SURFACE WATER EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" does not address this task. “Compare these predictions to the existing conditions; determine changes and potential adverse effects on downstream water courses. Determine if mitigation measures are required, and if so develop conceptual mitigation, i.e., engineered stormwater management measures/facilities.” The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre – SURFACE WATER EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" does not address this task.

“Based on the proposed conceptual design alternatives, in-design mitigation measures and the results of predictive modeling, complete an evaluation of potential effects of each alternative on the surface water environment.” The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre – SURFACE WATER EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" does not address this task. “Compare the degree of potential effect using the criteria and indicators for the surface water component, rank the alternatives, and identify the preferred alternative from a surface water perspective.” The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre – SURFACE WATER EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" does not address this task. “Prepare a stormwater monitoring program appropriate for the preferred alternative, and conceptual contingency plan approaches.” The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre – SURFACE WATER EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" does not address this task. “Document the factual information, analysis and comparative assessment in a Surface Water Technical Support Document (TSD) that will form an appendix to the EA.” The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre – SURFACE WATER EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" does not address this task. “Participate in meetings with the government review agencies as required.” The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre – SURFACE WATER EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" does not address this task. “Provide technical support during the review of the draft EA Report by the regulatory agencies and public.” The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre – SURFACE WATER EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" does not address this task. Additional Comment: Under the 'Supporting Document 3' tab, Table 5.2 Summary of Comments from Government Review Team Members and their consideration" presents

a comment from the MOE Water Resources Unit, Surface Water Group reviewer comments: “The reviewer would emphasize that background surface water quality data for the potentially affected surface water features prior to the landfill site Owner’s preferred expansion alternative will be required. This background surface water quality information is considered to be essential for the purpose of conducting the detailed comparative evaluation task to be completed and is relevant to the effects prediction analysis. Where it has been determined by the landfill site Owner’s compilation that background surface water quality data does not exist for the potentially affected surface water features prior to the preferred landfill site expansion alternatives then the landfill site Owner will be required to collect this water quality data. As noted above this surface water quality information both on-site and off-site as appropriate is considered to be essential for the detailed comparative evaluation task to be completed and is relevant to the surface water impact effects prediction analysis associated with the preferred landfill site expansion. The landfill site Owner’s Draft Surface Water Work Plan identifies tasks that will be undertaken, which among others, will include: Compilation and interpretation of information from defined background sources Establish surface water flow and water quality monitoring station locations and monitoring programs to obtain representative of conditions upstream and downstream of proposed new landfill expansion alternatives Compare the degree of potential effects using the criteria and indicators of the surface water component, rank the alternatives, and identify the preferred alternative from a surface water perspective With the landfill site Owner satisfactorily addressing the reviewer’s noted concerns the “Draft Surface Water Work Plan” component of the TOR is considered to be acceptable to the reviewer.” As presented in comments above, as well as noted in the reviewed report, further monitoring is required to establish current Site conditions for surface water quantity and quality.

COMMENTS ON GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT – JUNE 2011

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR A NEW LANDFILL FOOTPRNT WEST CARLETON ENVIRIONMENTAL CENTRE

According to Appendix C (Environmental Assessment Work Plans) of the Terms of Reference (TOR), Phase 1 of the Environmental Assessment is to "characterize existing environment and predict effects of the proposed alternatives". Section 3.1.2 Task 2 briefly outlines the expectations that studies will be conducted to assess the various environmental components and sub-components that may be affected by the undertaking. The reader is then referred to various attachments of this appendix for a detailed description of the specific environmental components that require addressing. Attachment 5 corresponds to the Geology and Hydrogeology Work Plan. Listed below are the requirements listed in this section, followed by CRAs assessment of whether the consultant met the listed requirements. This report addresses current site conditions, and not the predictive portion of what the proposed alternatives will have on the environment. The comments provided below are based on the information provided in the report. No independent evaluations have been made by the reviewer to verify the accuracy of the information provided. "Compile and interpret information from defined background sources". The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" meets this requirement. Various sources were used to determine site and regional geology and hydrogeology. A reviewer, however, does not have access to the Annual Reports referenced in the document, to confirm groundwater quality conditions. "Compile and review published geological and hydrogeological maps and reports, water well data, regional groundwater and wellhead protection studies, regional and local topographic and drainage mapping, previous subsurface investigation findings, properties and interpretation". The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" meets this requirement. Previous subsurface investigations are not directly quoted, but the general results are discussed. The discussion focuses on relative concentrations of groundwater parameters in wells around the site, and does not discuss whether these parameters comply with any applicable MOE Standards (for example Guideline B-7), nor does the report present data tables with which to make our own conclusions. Further, soil quality conditions within the study area are not discussed. "Compile and review current conceptual geological and hydrogeological model of site and existing landfill".

The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" meets this requirement. "Develop groundwater flow model for new landfill footprint alternatives". The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" does not address this requirement. A MODFLOW model has been set up for current conditions only. "On the basis of the current models, prepare preliminary conceptual model of geological and hydrogeological conditions in the area of proposed new landfill expansion alternatives (envelopes)". See previous note. "Conduct additional subsurface investigations to characterize the overburden and bedrock geology and physical properties in the area of the proposed new landfill expansion alternatives to an EA level of details (i.e., cored boreholes; rotary/percussion drilled holes)". The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" appears to address this requirement. Although additional subsurface investigations have been completed, there is no specific discussion regarding the rationale for these new wells relative to the proposed expansion footprints. Further, the dates of the additional subsurface investigations have not been identified. "Install an array of nested groundwater monitors completed at different elevations in order to characterize both the horizontal and vertical groundwater flow regime". The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" meets this requirement. "Characterize the hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock formations and zones, (i.e. possibly using packer testing, rising or falling head tests in monitoring wells)". The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" meets this requirement. "Determine seasonal variation in groundwater levels and flow orientations".

The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" only presents data from two monitoring events (Spring and Fall of 2010). The report does acknowledge that further groundwater levels need to be collected, to confirm values collected at newly installed wells. Thus, based on the information provided in the report, there are currently insufficient data to evaluate seasonal variations in groundwater levels and flow orientation. "Develop final conceptual model of geological and hydrogeological conditions in the area of proposed new landfill expansion alternatives, including groundwater and surface water interaction". The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" does not address this requirement. A MODFLOW model has been set up for current conditions only. "Develop calibrated groundwater flow model for use in simulation of potential effects of proposed new landfill expansion". The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" does not address this requirement. A MODFLOW model has been set up for current conditions only. Attachment 5 of Appendix C of the Terms of Reference also includes requirements to complete once the Conceptual Design Report is completed. The "Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT" does not address those requirements. Additional Comment: Under the 'Supporting Document 3' tab, "Table 5.2 Summary of Comments from Government Review Team Members and their consideration" presents a comment from the MOE Hydrogeologist stating that the current landfill is not in conformance with Guideline B-7. The response was that the landfill would be in compliance once additional lands were purchased to establish a CAZ to the southeast corner of the property. Although a CAZ is shown on the site figures in the Existing Conditions Report, no discussion on compliance with Guideline B-7 is presented, and the reader is not presented with RUC calculations to confirm whether the site is now in compliance with Guideline B-7.

Ministry of the Environment Ministère de l'Environnement P.O. Box 22032 C.P. 22032 Kingston, Ontario Kingston (Ontario) K7M 8S5 K7M 8S5 613/549-4000 or 1-800/267-0974 613/549-4000 ou 1-800/267-0974 Fax: 613/548-6908 Fax: 613/548-6908 M E M O R A N D U M 07 September 2011 TO: Jeffrey Dea Special Project Officer Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch Toronto FROM: Frank Crossley Hydrogeologist Technical Support Section Eastern Region RE: Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report Waste Management of Canada Corporation Having reviewed the “Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC) – Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report” dated June, 2011 (received August, 2011) by WESA Incorporated, I offer the following comments. This report provides an overview of the existing geology and hydrogeological conditions on a regional, local and site-specific basis (onsite). The consultants further separate the onsite into: existing landfill; north envelope and west envelope. The proposed expansion is to be onto the north envelope, west envelope or combination of the north and west envelopes. Geology - Peat and muck on the west envelope. - Sand. - Silt. - Sand and gravel. - Glacial till (discontinuous). - Silty sand, silt and clay. - Limestone/dolostone Bobcaygeon Formation (Ottawa group).

- 2 - - Limestone/dolostone Gull River Formation in the western envelope (due to faulting

beneath the Bobcaygeon Formation. - The overburden ranges from 2.6 to 9.2 metres in thickness in the western envelope, 4.3 to

15.6 metres in thickness in the northern envelope and 3-17 metres in thickness in the existing landfill site.

Hydrogeology - The overburden/shallow bedrock unit (up to 8 metres below bedrock surface). - Hydraulic conductivity (geometric mean). (Overburden and upper 8 metres of bedrock – slug test) (upper 8 metres of bedrock – packer tests) 3.0 x 10-3 cm/sec. existing landfill site 1.8 x 10-6 cm/sec. 1.5 x 10-2 cm/sec. northern envelope 3.9 x 10-6 cm/sec. 1.3 x 10-2 cm/sec. western envelope 1.9 x 10-4 cm/sec. - Flow direction - east to northeast – existing landfill site. - north and northeast – northern envelope. - north – western envelope. - Horizontal hydraulic gradient - 0.006 increasing to 0.020 to 0.025 (purge well system influence) existing

landfill site. - 0.007 north and 0.015 northeast northern envelope. - 0.005 to 0.010 western envelope. - The deeper bedrock unit (greater than 8 metres below bedrock surface). - Limited hydraulic connectivity between the overburden/shallow bedrock unit and

the deeper bedrock unit in the existing landfill site and northern envelope. - Hydraulic connectivity between the overburden/shallow bedrock unit and the

deeper bedrock unit in the western envelope. - Hydraulic conductivity (geometric mean packer test greater than 8 metres below

bedrock surface). - 6.0 x 10-7 cm/sec. existing landfill site. - 6.2 x 10-7 cm/sec. northern envelope. - 2.7 x 10-4 cm/sec. western envelope.

- 3 - Purge Well System Waste Management operate a purge well system at the existing landfill site since 2001. The purge well system is located along the eastern hydraulic downgradient licenced property boundary. The purpose of the purge well system is to reduce/eliminate the egress of leachate migrating into the contaminant attenuation zone. The purge well system is not designed to draw back leachate that already migrated beyond the leachate collection system prior to its existence (2001). Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Shallow leachate impacted groundwater migrates to the east northeast in the overburden/shallow bedrock unit. This shallow leachate impacted groundwater “day lights” at two locations: drainage ditch along the north side of Highway 417 (sampling locations S1, S2 and S3) and spring on the former Metcalfe property (sampling location SG-M1 contaminant attenuation zone). Hydrogeological Conceptual Model The hydrogeological conceptual model is the migration of leachate primarily in the overburden/shallow bedrock unit to the east northeast/north northeast with the purge well system providing a hydraulic trap in the overburden/shallow bedrock unit along the eastern hydraulically downgradient licenced property boundary. The contaminant attenuation zone downgradient of the purge well system provides a contingency plan. Summary In general, I concur with the “Geology and Hydrogeological Existing Conditions Report”. The geology and hydrogeology at the northern envelope is similar to the existing landfill site. The geology and hydrogeology at the western envelope is different than the existing landfill site.

Frank Crossley, P.Geo. /sh ec: Tara MacDonald, Acting Supervisor Ruth Orwin Peter Taylor c: Greg Davis Bruce Metcalfe File GW-03-03, West Carleton OTTC (A461002) FC/IDS #0313-8KNHPA

1

Ghioureliotis, Catherine

From: Hakala, Kalle [Kalle.Hakala@ottawa.ca]Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 11:50 AMTo: Shoniker, BlairCc: Clarke, Marica; Curry, Court; Desmarais, Elizabeth; Brown, Erika; Journeaux, Marilyn; Miller,

DavidSubject: RE: West Carleton Environmental Centre EA - Existing ConditionsAttachments: Waste Management.doc

Hello Blair,  Please find attached comments on the Existing Conditions Reports for: Natural Environment, Surface Water, and Land Use.  These comments are submitted on behalf of the Land Use, Natural Systems, and Zoning Unit.    As the attached comments are not significant, we do not request a meeting to discuss at this time.  However, if you have questions, require further clarification, or would like a meeting, please contact the undersigned.  Regards, Kalle Hakala Planner 2 | Land Use and Natural Systems | Planning and Growth Management | City of Ottawa

110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1 Mail Code 01-15 613-580-2424 ext. 16228 613-580-2459 kalle.hakala@ottawa.ca Please keep an e-copy rather than printing this message.  

"Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody." - Jane Jacobs

    From: Shoniker, Blair [mailto:Blair.Shoniker@aecom.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 02:54 PM To: steve.hounsell@opg.com ; Leslie.koch@hydroOne.com ; heather.levecque@ontario.ca ; david.pickles@ontario.ca ; francois.lachance@ontario.ca ; david.cooper@ontario.ca ; donna.mundie@ontario.ca ; ray.valaitis@ontario.ca ; anda.rungis@ontario.ca ; rosi.zirger@ontario.ca ; sheryl.bennett@ontario.ca ; allan.jenkins@ontario.ca ; Jamie.austin@ontario.ca ; Sylvia.shedden@ontario.ca ; Michael.elms@ontario.ca ; Laura.Melvin@ontario.ca ; Gary.todd@ontario.ca ; peter.makula@ontario.ca ; louis.tay@ontario.ca ; Dave.Bell@ceaa-acee.gc.ca ; Don.Boswell@ainc-inac.gc.ca ; Marc-andre.Millaire@inac.gc.ca ; dahlg@inac.gc.ca ; Janet.Townsend@ainc-inac.gc.ca ; rob.dobos@ec.gc.ca ; Jennifer.Thomas@dfo-mpo.gc.ca ; Melanie_lalani@hc-sc.gc.ca ; kitty.ma@hc-sc.gc.ca ; marty.risen@tc.gc.ca ; yvon.larochelle@ottawa-airport.ca ; ariane.heisey@ontario.ca ; Weir, Dixon A; plehman@mvc.on.ca ; mcraig@mvc.on.ca ; communications@ocdsb.ca ; Mardi.deKemp@ottawacatholicschools.ca ; Levy, Isra; Miller, David; Kavanagh, Matthew J; Petti, Felice; Bashir, Saad; Robinson, Martha; Moser, John; Prince, Matthew; Journeaux, Marilyn; jeffrey.dea@ontario.ca ; Stuart.Niven@dfo-mpo.gc.ca Cc: Brown, Erika

2

Subject: West Carleton Environmental Centre EA - Existing Conditions  Dear Government Review Team Member,   AECOM is working on behalf of Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WMCC) on an Environmental Assessment (EA) for a new landfill footprint at the proposed West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC).  Further to our initial meeting of the Government Review Team (GRT) in June, we provided the GRT with Draft Existing Conditions Reports for the EA.  These reports are also posted on WM’s website (http://wcec.wm.com). Electronic versions of the Draft Existing Conditions Reports relevant to each GRT member were distributed in July with a request for your comments on these by August 12, 2011.  In order to discuss and review your comments, we would like to arrange a meeting with your agency in advance of our Open Houses scheduled to take place in the Fall.   Please indicate your preferred date and time between August 22 and August 26 for a meeting to review the Reports in the space provided below:   Time: _______ Date: _______   The meetings will either be in person or via conference call.   Please copy Erika Brown (Erika.Brown@aecom.com) on your response.  Kind Regards, Blair   Blair Shoniker MA., MCIP, RPP Senior Environmental Planner  Environment D 905.477.8400 ext. 383 blair.shoniker@aecom.com    AECOM 300 Town Centre Blvd., Suite 300 Markham, ON L3R 5Z6 T 905.477.8400 F 905.477.1456 www.aecom.com   This electronic communication, which includes any files or attachments thereto, contains proprietary or confidential information and may be privileged and otherwise protected under copyright or other applicable intellectual property laws. All information contained in this electronic communication is solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it was addressed. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that distributing, copying, or in any way disclosing any of the information in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, and destroy the communication and any files or attachments in their entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Since data stored on electronic media can deteriorate, be translated or modified, AECOM, its subsidiaries, and/or affiliates will not be liable for the completeness, correctness or readability of the electronic data. The electronic data should be verified against the hard copy.   

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.     

This e-mail originates from the City of Ottawa e-mail system. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by return e-mail and delete this communication and any copy immediately. Thank you.

3

Le présent courriel a été expédié par le système de courriels de la Ville d'Ottawa. Toute distribution, utilisation ou reproduction du courriel ou des renseignements qui s'y trouvent par une personne autre que son destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous avez reçu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser par téléphone (au numéro précité) ou par courriel, puis supprimer sans délai la version originale de la communication ainsi que toutes ses copies. Je vous remercie de votre collaboration.

Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre Land Use, Natural Systems, and Zoning Unit Policy Development and Urban Design Branch Authors: Kalle Hakala and Elizabeth Desmarais Natural Environment Existing Conditions Report Unstable/Organic Soils A portion of the site is identified as Organic Soils on Schedule K of the Official Plan. A Geotechnical Study is required to demonstrate that the site is suitable or can be made suitable for development, and that there will not be adverse environmental effects. The City will not permit development, meaning the creation of a new lot, an amendment to the zoning by-law, change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures in areas with Unstable Soils or Unstable Bedrock for uses associated with the disposal, manufacture, treatment or storage of hazardous materials and outdoor industrial storage. Significant Woodlands

The Official Plan Annex 14 (OPA 76) and the Carp River Watershed Study indicate that some of the forests in the study area are considered significant woodlands as defined in Section 2.4 of the Ottawa Official Plan. The existing condition report indicates that some of the vegetation communities are considered mature. The report should confirm that the forests are considered significant based on their on-site work. Provincially Significant Wetlands The report identifies on page 26 (Section 5.2) that indicates the actual area of the significant wetland may be larger than what was mapped by the MNR. The actual extent of the significant wetland should be determined and mapped to assist in understanding the impact of the proposed project on the wetland. Carp River Watershed Study The Carp River Watershed Study (CRWS) includes the study area. Reference should be made to said study and its findings and recommendations. The CRWS indicated several characteristics, including:

Sand and gravel base

Presence of woodlands greater than 50years in SW corner

The site is a “high recharge area”

The Huntley Creek through the site is a “discharge area”

Target area for non-point source nutrient management (priority one, corn, mixed systems, monoculture)

The recommended Watershed Plan for the CRWS includes the following:

Priority one rural management priority

Category 2 terrestrial management priority

Centre of ecological significance. Species at Risk It is acknowledged that an endangered species (Butternut) is present on the property and therefore covered by the Endangered Species Act, 2007. The MNR must be contacted for any permits the harm and/or kill of the Butternut (Juglans cinerea). A 25 metre buffer, untouched, surrounding the retainable Butternut trees on the subject site is required. The discussion of fauna should include a discussion of the bobolink, which although not identified in the survey, appears to have suitable habitat present on the property based on the description of vegetation communities provided in Section 4.2.1 of the existing conditions report. Other Comments

Tributary E is shown to extend through the south side of existing landfill property. However, in the Surface Water Existing Conditions report, Tributary E is not shown, and instead drainage in this area (Catchment 2B) is shown to drain to SWMF#2 and thence to Depression #1, and not to Tributary E. Please confirm the extent of Tributary E and whether it current accepts surface water and drainage from the existing landfill property.

On Figure 2, the South Huntley Creek is not contiguously shown through the study area.

In the text of Section 4 of the report, there is some confusing language in the tributary references (e.g. Tributary A vs. Tributary 1).

Surface Water Existing Conditions Report 1. It is stated that all runoff from the landfill ultimately drains to the natural depressions,

known as Depressions # 1, 2, 3, and 4, at which point it evaporates or infiltrates into the ground. Under extreme rainfall/wet weather/snowmelt events, there is the possibility that these depressions would become saturated and result in overland flow to adjacent watercourses. Include discussion of the event that would result in overland flow (i.e. frequency) and the implications.

2. Given that runoff from the existing landfill is expected to evaporate or infiltrate into the ground, monitoring of water quality in the receiving SWMFs and Depressions should be performed. This should then lead into a discussion of the impacts of surface water quality on groundwater quality.

3. On page 6, it indicates that Catchment 2B drains to SWMF #2 and then to

Depression #1. However, in the Natural Environment Existing Conditions Report, Tributary E of the South Huntley Creek is shown to traverse Catchment #2. Please confirm which is correct, and where drainage is directed.

4. On page 9 it states that “elevated metals are assumed to be a result of industrial

uses in area”. What is the basis for this assumption? Can it be definitively stated that the elevated metals are not caused by the presence of the landfill? Additional information is required in order to make such a conclusion.

5. Include some discussion about the possible source/cause of the presence of E. Coli.

6. Although direct runoff from the existing landfill facility is directed to SWMFs and

ultimately retained on-site (in the depressions), there is the potential for debris and airborne contamination to impact runoff in other catchments. Additional discussion is warranted as to the potential impact of this element on the water quality in the surrounding watercourses.

7. More extensive discussion is needed with respect to water quality in all portions and

tributaries of the South Huntley Creek. As well, more thorough discussion should be included as to the possible causes of the degraded water quality in all portions and tributaries of the South Huntley Creek.

Land Use Existing Conditions Report The Report is very well-done and all-inclusive. The interpretation of the Official Plan and Community Design Plan (CDP) designations is correct, and there are numerous references to those existing uses, as well as future uses that would be considered to be sensitive land uses near a landfill. 1. There is an error that is repeated throughout Section 5, as confirmed by the

definition of sensitive land uses under Guideline D-4 of the Ministry of the Environment. Cemeteries are considered to be sensitive land uses, and therefore wherever the land use is mentioned, it should be bolded as per all other sensitive land uses mentioned in the report. (The Report's structure is to bold each sensitive land use).

2. Sections .4.3 Site-Vicinity Study Area and 5.4.4. Regional Study Area both indicate that the wetlands located west of Highway 417 and highway 7, and designated as such in the OP, "are located more than 120 m from the On-Site Study Area." (my emphasis) However, those Sections do not pertain to the On-Site Study Area, but rather to the two other Areas studied. Are the wetlands within 120 m of either the Site-Vicinity Study Area or the Regional Study Area? If so, that should be clarified and ramifications of this discussed in the report.

3. Table 2. Many of the land uses should be bolded as these would meet the definition of sensitive land uses (Guideline D-4 MOE), particularly with respect to those uses that fall under "(c) a permanent structure where (ii) a person is present on a full time basis". More specifically, the Light industrial Area uses as many of these are workplaces, where people are present (and I don't think it means 24/7), other than storage uses, and transportation depots. In addition, the professional offices, business offices, and banks listed under the Convenience Commercial Node should be bolded.

4. page 34, while I agree that the communication use of the CBC National Alarm Centre would not be considered a sensitive land use regarding land-filling activities, it is not considered by the City of Ottawa to be an "institutional use", but rather a telecommunications centre. As such, the wording should be changed.

Ministry of Natural Resources

Kemptville District P.O. Box 2002 10 Campus Drive Kemptville, ON K0G 1J0 Tel.: (613) 258-8470 Fax.: (613) 258-3920

Ministère des Richesses naturelles District de Kemptville CP 2002 10 Campus Drive Kemptville, ON K0G 1J0 Tél.: (613) 258-8470 Téléc.: (613) 258-3920

September 19, 2011 AECOM 300 Town Centre Blvd. Suite 300 Markham, Ontario L3R 5Z6 Attention: Blair Shoniker,

RE: West Carleton Environmental Centre EA – Existing Conditions The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has reviewed the Natural Environment Existing Conditions Report, for the Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre and would like to provide the following comments for your consideration. The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has reviewed your report and available protected species and habitat information for the area. Based on the Natural Environment Report, records review and aerial photo review, the information provided suggests that Bobolink (Threatened) species and their habitat likely occur on or near your property. Bobolink receive both species protection (Section 9) and habitat protection (Section 10) under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Because of the high probability that Bobolink occur on your property, it is recommended that more comprehensive site assessment be done to confirm the presence of this bird and also whether your project is likely to impact these species and/or their habitat. MNR can provide guidance on species and habitat protection under the Act as well as information on protected habitats that occur in the area. The MNR notes that while breeding bird surveys were conducted, they were not carried out in accordance with MNR-approved Bobolink survey methodology and as such the MNR cannot rule out that Bobolink and their habitat are not found on site. Please find attached, a copy of the recommended MNR-approved survey methodology; if you have any questions, please contact our species at risk biologists as sar.kemptville@ontario.ca The MNR also notes that Butternut was identified on site. The MNR requires further clarification as to whether any of the mentioned trees will be within the development area. If that is the case, the MNR generally recommends a 25 meter buffer around the bole of the tree (no matter the size) to protect the whole tree including the existing or potential future root system. Within this radius no activities that will negatively affect the root system of the tree should take place, such as excavation, grading or paving. If such an activity will occur and there will be an impact to the tree, an ESA permit authorization is required. It is important to note that the recommended 25m buffer is not to protect habitat (since the species has no habitat protection) but rather is a guideline to protect the individual tree. If proposed or future works are likely to result in the harm or killing of a Butternut Tree, a Butternut Health Assessor will have to be contacted to assess the health of the tree before proceeding with potential permit application (prior to proposed activity).

mailto:sar.kemptville@ontario.ca

A qualified professional (forester or arborist) likely has the expertise to be able to direct or give advice about what operations are allowable around a retainable Butternut in a manner that is likely to avoid harming the tree and that meets the due diligence standard required by clause 39(a) of the ESA. The question of whether these activities result in prohibited harm to Butternut will depend on the manner in which these activities are carried out and how they impact Butternut, rather than on who carries them out. If activities are proposed within this 25 metre recommended protected area, MNR offers the following advice with respect to site alterations occurring around a retainable Butternut tree: - Determine the vertical root and soil profile in area in which operations will occur to ensure minimal

disturbance to rooting zone - The protected area around the retainable Butternut tree should only be reduced in a portion of its

circumference i.e., remainder of the protected area should be maintained as 25m - Activities that are planned within the 25m protected area, do not involve intensive disturbance, excavation,

grading or paving - The ground within the protected area should remain undisturbed - The grade around trees should be maintained, so that no material should be added that would bury any of

the roots, raise the existing grade, and no operations should excavate existing material during or after construction.

- The protected area should be clearly marked and fenced during construction to ensure protection of the tree and substrate within

MNR will use the site assessment information to determine if impacts on protected species and/or habitat are likely to occur, or if more information is required to make this determination. There may be opportunities to avoid impacts which MNR can discuss with you. If impacts cannot be avoided, guidance can be provided on how to apply for an ESA 2007 authorization to ensure compliance with the Act. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely,

Laura Melvin Resource Management Planner Laura.melvin@ontario.ca cc.\ Erika Brown, AECOM .

mailto:Laura.melvin@ontario.ca

Ministry of the Environment Ministère de l'Environnement P.O. Box 22032 C.P. 22032 Kingston, Ontario Kingston (Ontario) K7M 8S5 K7M 8S5 613/549-4000 or 1-800/267-0974 613/549-4000 ou 1-800/267-0974 Fax: 613/548-6908 Fax: 613/548-6908 M E M O R A N D U M 10 August 2011 TO: Jeffrey Dea

Project Officer Waste Unit Environmental Approvals & Assessment Branch Toronto

FROM: Bruce W. Metcalfe

Senior Environmental Officer Water Resources Unit, Surface Water Group Technical Support Section Eastern Region

RE: Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton

Environmental Centre Surface Water Existing Conditions Report

Waste Management of Canada Corporation I have reviewed the above noted “Draft” report dated June, 2011 prepared by AECOM Canada Limited for Waste Management of Canada Corporation. The following comments are offered relative to surface water impact concerns. The report provides an overview of the existing Surface Water conditions associated with the study area for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for a proposed new landfill footprint at West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC). The Minister of the Environment approved Terms of Reference (ToR) for the EA included a preliminary description of the existing environmental conditions on-site as well as within the site vicinity. The ToR made a commitment that the description of the existing conditions would be expanded during the EA. Study Area In accordance with the approved ToR, the generic On-Site and Site–Vicinity Study Areas for the proposed new landfill footprint at the WCEC included the noted descriptions below which were presented in the approved ToR with the commitment that these generic Study areas have been modified to suit the requirements of the surface water component.

- 2 - On-Site … the lands owned or optioned by Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WMCC) and required for the new landfill. The site is bounded by Highway 417, Carp Road and Richardson Side Road; the On-Site Study Area for surface water illustrates the existing operational landfill footprint as well as those lands being considered for site expansion. Site-Vicinity … the lands in the vicinity of the site extending about 500 metres in all directions; the Site-Vicinity Study Area includes all lands bounded by Highway 417, Richardson Side Road and Carp Road including all lands owned or optioned by WM as well as adjacent off-site drainage areas, and, Regional … the lands within approximately 3 to 5 kilometres (km) of the site. The regional surface water context was derived from supporting documentation provided as part of the Carp River Restoration EA. It illustrates the WMCC site location within the context of the Huntley Creek sub-watershed and its relationship to the Carp River. Methodology Information on existing surface water conditions at the existing WMCC Ottawa landfill site and vicinity was gathered from a combination of field investigations, research of existing documents and agency consultation. Site specific field investigations were conducted in 2006 and 2011. Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Current surface water monitoring sites located along the Highway 417 north ditch east of Carp Road c