Workshop 3 Summary Report Final Dec 5 11 - WCEC ...wcec.wm.com/resource-documents/08_Supporting...

Appendix I Workshop #3 Summary Report

Prepared by: AECOM 302 - 1150 Morrison Drive 613 820 8282 tel Ottawa, Ontario K2H 8S9 613 820 8338 fax www.aecom.com Project Number: 60191228 Date: November, 2011

Environment

Waste Management of Canada Corporation

Public Workshop Session #3 Summary Report

AECOM Waste Management of Canada Corporation Workshop Session #2 – Summary Report

Workshop 3 Summary Report_Final Dec 5_11.Docx

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“Consultant”) for the benefit of the client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

• is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”)

• represents Consultant’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports

• may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified • has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time

period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued • must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context • was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement • in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and

on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. The Report is to be treated as confidential and may not be used or relied upon by third parties, except:

• as agreed in writing by Consultant and Client • as required by law • for use by governmental reviewing agencies

Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any damages arising from improper use of the Report or parts thereof shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof.


Table of Contents Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

page

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Objective of the Workshop .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Date, Time and Location of the Workshop .......................................................................................... 2

2. Project Team Members in Attendance .......................................................................................... 2

3. Information Presented .................................................................................................................... 2

4. Attendance ...................................................................................................................................... 3 4.1 Workshop #3 ........................................................................................................................................ 3

5. Summary of Comments Received ................................................................................................. 3 List of Tables

Table 2-1 Project Team Members in Attendance ...................................................................................................... 2 Table 5-1 Comments from Workshop ....................................................................................................................... 4 Table 5-2 Public Input to Workbook Questions ......................................................................................................... 5 Appendices

Appendix A. Workshop Workbook Appendix B. Notification Material


1

1. Introduction Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM), owners and operators of the existing Ottawa Waste Management Facility (Ottawa WMF) have initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA) seeking approval for a new landfill footprint at the existing Ottawa WMF. The new landfill footprint will be one component of the proposed West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC). The proposed WCEC will be an integrated waste management facility that will include:

• A new landfill footprint for disposal of residual waste materials; • Waste diversion and recycling operations; • Composting operations; • Renewable energy facilities; and • Recreational lands for community uses.

Public and external agency consultation is a key component of EA’s and as such, has been incorporated into this process. A Notice of Commencement for the EA of this project, inviting initial input, was issued on January 5, 2011, a first round of Public Open Houses for the EA were held from January 18-January 20, 2011, and Workshop #1 took place on February 24, 2011, with an additional roundtable discussion held on March 2, 2011 to accommodate those unable to attend the Workshop. Following the first Workshop, a second round of Open Houses was held from March 28-31 and on April 7, 2011, and Workshop #2 took place on April 28, 2011, with an additional session held on May 5, 2011 to accommodate those unable to attend the Workshop on April 28, 2011. A third round of Open Houses took place from November 8-10, 2011 and Workshop #3 took place on November 23, 2011. This Report provides a summary of Workshop #3.

1.1 Objective of the Workshop

The main objective of Workshop #3 was to discuss the comparative evaluation of the alternative landfill footprint options, the identification of a preferred alternative, and the five leachate treatment alternatives. Attendees were offered the opportunity to present their questions and comments regarding the information directly to staff from WM and AECOM, as well as discuss them with other attendees. This allowed workshop attendees to provide input on the following two topics:

1. The Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Landfill Footprint Options, and the identification of a Preferred Option; and

2. Leachate Treatment Alternatives, including the proposed Evaluation Criteria and Comparative Evaluation Methodology (i.e., how the five leachate treatment alternatives will be assessed and compared to one another).

Each attendee was given a Workshop Workbook which provided information on these topics and space for recording responses and comments. The Workbooks also included some supporting information, attached as Appendices. A copy of the Workbook can be found in Appendix A.


2

1.2 Date, Time and Location of the Workshop

The Workshop took place on Wednesday, November 28, 2011 at the Carp Agricultural Hall, 3790 Carp Road, Carp. The Workshop commenced at 7:00 p.m. and was scheduled to run until 9:00 p.m. The workshop ultimately wrapped-up around 9:30 p.m. Those wishing to attend the Workshop were asked to pre-register. The pre-registration sign-up forms were available at each of the Open House #3 events undertaken in early November. Notification of Workshop #3 was also provided through newspaper publications during the weeks of October 17th and October 24th in the Stittsville News, the West Carleton Weekender, the Kanata Kourier Standard, EMC Kanata, EMC Stittsville and EMC West Carleton. In addition, notification was also provided to all interested persons who are on WM’s stakeholder distribution list through an E-blast, posting on the project website at http://wcec.wm.com, and direct mailing to all addresses within the K0A 1L0, K2S, and K2T postal codes. A notification letter/email was also sent to First Nation and Aboriginal representatives and affiliated agencies, as well as to the Government Review Team (GRT). Workshop Notification Material can be found in Appendix B.

2. Project Team Members in Attendance The following project team members were in attendance at the Workshop to facilitate discussion and to answer questions:

Table 2-1 Project Team Members in Attendance

WORKSHOP #3 WM Consulting Team

• Tim Murphy • Cathy Smithe • Ross Wallace

AECOM • Blair Shoniker

3. Information Presented Information presented at the Workshop was in the form of a brief introduction by WM as well as workbooks distributed to all attendees. As mentioned above, the workbooks were broken down into two topics:

1. Comparative evaluation of the Alternative Landfill Footprint Options and identification of a Preferred Option; and,

2. Leachate Treatment Alternatives. The Workshop was meant to be interactive to encourage dialogue between the attendees and the Project Team. WM commenced the meetings with a brief introductory presentation providing an update on the project. This resulted in some back and forth dialogue with WM and the public. Although this Workshop was not envisioned to be


3

a Question and Answer session, WM provided answers to questions where possible, while others were recorded to be addressed at a later date. Given the number of attendees at the Workshop, the participants remained as one group for the duration of the session, rather than breaking out into smaller groups. The participants were walked through the workbook, starting with a review of the Alternative Methods evaluation process, before turning to the results of the landfill footprint comparative evaluation. The workshop participants were taken through the evaluation results for each of the footprints, on a Criteria by Criteria basis, to discuss the rankings and why one footprint was preferred over the other. The five leachate alternatives were also presented to the public for their review.

4. Attendance A total of 14 people attended the Workshop: 11 residents, 1 media representative, 1 Councillor and 1 Councillor representative. Details about the session are outlined below. Attendees were encouraged to provide written comments in the Workshop Workbook sheets provided. With the exception of those that requested to be left off, all individuals and/or agency representatives who registered and signed in at the Workshop with their contact information have been added to the project-specific contact database. This database will be used during the remaining phases of the study to contact/inform interested public and key stakeholders of study issues and events.

4.1 Workshop #3

Those in attendance at Workshop #3 were largely local residents and landowners. One local Councillor and one Councillor representative also attended the Workshop. There was a range of views and perspectives on the proposed undertaking. Overall, there was extensive dialogue between the attendees. Two comment sheets within the workbooks were returned at the end of the session. A summary of comments received is presented in Section 5 of this report.

5. Summary of Comments Received For Workshop #3, comments were gathered as follows:

• A note taker to record their group’s comments and questions; and • The submission of completed Workbooks by attendees.

Verbal comments and questions recorded during the Workshop are provided in the following tables.


4

Table 5-1 Comments from Workshop

Introduction

• No dump option not in current material • Why not include the “do nothing” option • How much do you own and how much do you option? • More information on why here and land ownership • Bubble diagram of options

Topic 1: Comparative Evaluation and Identification of a Preferred Option

• Consider upset conditions • Statistical probability of upset conditions being realized for atmosphere and groundwater • Define acronyms in tables similar to surface water • Rationale for why criteria is not weighted in evaluation • Spatial proximity analysis • Why is there a difference between noise and dust in the effects analysis? They should be similar • Please include a Glossary of Terms • Need to review the Built Heritage information in the Cultural Heritage evaluation. WM has removed a property already

(Mulligan Property) • Traffic is a big issue, it should not be seen as a high positive effect. You aren't looking at traffic outside of the context of your

site • Traffic will be negative net effect on Carp Road • Why can’t you design a ramp into the site right off of the 417? • There will be too much traffic, you need to come up with something for the public, like contributing to the widening of Carp

Road similar to the widening of the southern portion • Traffic is a sensitive issue, WM should take control. • What percentage of traffic is WM’s problem on Carp so the City could put funding aside for improvements? • There is confusion on whether Carp Road is currently over capacity or if it will be over capacity as a projection of

development • In your analysis in the Alternative Methods documentation, you don’t count 150,000 of divertable material in your traffic

numbers (p.19) • You didn’t list agricultural land under current land uses • Are you factoring in loss of property taxes because of the reduction in property values? You need to include this as part of

the evaluation. A 1-2% drop in multiple properties could be significant • You aren’t looking at the whole equation what you say positive effects • What disciplines did you look at for the Regional Study area (5km) • What is the rationale for the 3km boundary for Socio-Economic • Will the Impact Assessment results be presented in the Impact Assessment reports? • Can you show what monitoring you will be completing for the groundwater in the Impact Assessment report? • You should complete a baseline for source wells before construction begins (if the EA is approved)

Topic 2: Leachate Treatment Alternatives

• Will you look at combinations of these alternatives? • How does it integrate with the existing infrastructure? Can you use existing treatment processes for the future site? • Will the leachate approvals come after the EA approval? As of December 5, 2011 2 Workshop Workbooks have been received. Responses to the questions in the Workbooks are provided in the tables that follow.


5

Table 5-2 Public Input to Workbook Questions

Topic 1: Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Landfill Footprint Options and Identification of a Preferred Option

1. Please provide any feedback on the discipline-specific comparative evaluation.

• I would prefer to see comparative evaluation be preferred across Ontario in order to provide a better location for new dump site then site close to large population area (i.e. Kanata, Stittsville, Carp, etc)

2. Please provide any feedback on the selection of the preferred footprint option

• Preferred footprint would be a more secluded area outside Carp, Stittsville, Kanata populated area.

Topic 2: Leachate Treatment Alternatives

3. Are there any additional leachate treatment alternatives that you believe should be considered in the evaluation?

• This should be a compilation of Option 1, Option 2, and Option 5.

4. Please provide any comments on the evaluation criteria proposed for the comparison of leachate treatment alternatives.

• I do not agree with treated leachate being discharged to Ottawa sanitary sewer (Option 3).

• We understand how on-site options may be more capital and operating ($) intense• There are many innovations in wastewater treatment and the Province is

supportive of new technologies through the new Provincial funding program water TAP

• The site may offer WM, the corridor and the City an opportunity to establish/ research / demo an innovative water clean-tech which may have applications elsewhere

• Again, understanding costs and considering opportunities related to winter storage of options, a combination of solutions may be considered.

Appendix A Workshop Workbook

Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint – Workshop #3 on Landfill Footprint Comparative Evaluation Results and Discussion on Leachate Treatment Alternatives – November 2011


page 1

Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the

West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC)

Workshop #3:

Review of Landfill Footprint Comparative Evaluation Results

and Discussion on Leachate Treatment Alternatives

November 23, 2011



page 2

Please tell us about yourself.

Please note that information related to this Study will be collected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments received will become part of the public record and may be included in Study documentation prepared for public review.

Name:

Address:

Postal Code:

Phone:

Email:



page 3

Purpose of the Workshop

The workshop purpose is to obtain stakeholder input on:

The Comparative Evaluation Methodology (i.e., how the four alternative landfill footprint options will be assessed and compared to one another);

The Comparative Evaluation Methodology results (i.e. preferred landfill footprint); and, The Leachate Treatment Alternatives (methodology and options) for the preferred landfill

footprint.

The input provided by stakeholders will be considered in:

The information used to complete the assessment and evaluation of the alternative landfill footprint options;

The results of the landfill footprint comparative evaluation; and, The leachate treatment alternatives to be considered.

The input provided by stakeholders will help to establish:

The proposed mitigation measures associated with the preferred landfill footprint option; and, Input into the evaluation process for the leachate treatment alternatives.

Stage in the EA Process

On November 25, 2010, the Minister of the Environment approved the Terms of Reference (ToR) proposed by Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WMCC) to conduct an Environmental Assessment (EA) for a new landfill footprint at the proposed West Carleton Environmental Center (WCEC).

On January 5, 2011, WMCC issued a Notice of Commencement announcing the beginning of the EA process.

The public consultation for the EA process is comprised of five stages (i.e., as shown in the attached Appendix A). This workshop is the second event within the third stage of the public consultation process.

The previous public consultation events held in the EA process covered the following:

Stage 1 – Open House #1 – Review of Approved TOR / Overview of Existing Conditions and Constraints.

Stage 1 – Workshop #1 – Development of Alternative Landfill Footprint Options / Review of Evaluation Criteria.

Stage 2 – Open House #2 – Review of Initial Existing Conditions and Constraints.



page 4

Stage 2 – Workshop #2 – Review of evaluation criteria/indicators and

comparative evaluation methodology.

Stage 3 – Open House #3 – Review of comparative evaluation results and preferred landfill footprint option.

Outcome of Consultations

As a result of stakeholder input received in Stage One – Open House #1 and Stage One – Workshop #2 and other subsequent public consultation events, the following changes were made:

Notification process for public consultation events modified; Technical sessions added for public who are interested in technical details; and, Consultation materials made available on project website prior to consultation events.

Next Steps in EA Process

The EA process that WMCC is conducting follows the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing EAs, whereby the description of the environment will follow the description of and the rational for the alternative methods for the undertaking (i.e., Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 of the “Code of Practice”).

The initial Existing Conditions within the various Study Areas have been documented for all disciplines, based upon desktop studies, as well as previous field investigations and other secondary sources (i.e., government documents, reports and studies, etc.) and were posted in draft form on July 4, 2011.

The Existing Conditions have been updated and were presented at Open House #3 for final comment.

The Comparative Evaluation results of the alternative landfill footprints were presented during Open House #3 and the identification of a preferred alternative landfill footprint was brought forward for public input.

A detailed impact assessment of the preferred landfill footprint will be completed to determine the net effects that will be caused, or might reasonably be caused, on the environment.

Leachate treatment alternatives were also presented at Open House #3 and are brought forward during this Workshop for discussion and consideration.

Public consultation will take place throughout each of the remaining phases of the EA.

The next Open House (Open House #4) will confirm the preferred landfill footprint alternative, present the detailed impact assessment and identify a preferred leachate treatment alternative.



page 5

Alternative Landfill Footprint Evaluation Methodology

WMCC described and assessed the four landfill footprint options and compared and evaluated the difference between each of the options.

Based upon the comparative evaluation of the four landfill footprint options, WMCC identified a preferred landfill footprint option.

The comparative evaluation considered:

The environment potentially affected; The potential effects that may be caused on the environment; The actions necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy the potential effects on

the environment; and An evaluation of the relative advantages and disadvantages to the environment.

The comparative evaluation included:

A description of each landfill footprint option; A description of the environment potentially affected by each option; A description of the net effects on the environment potentially affected by each option

after applying mitigation methods; A comparative evaluation of the net effects for each of the options; and A description of the rationale for selection of a preferred option.

WMCC identified evaluation criteria and indicators to support the comparison and evaluation of the four landfill footprint options.

The evaluation criteria and indicators also provided a basis for characterizing existing environmental conditions, assessing potential adverse effects of the options, comparing the options, and identifying a preferred option.

The public identified two evaluation criteria and indicators that WMCC incorporated into the evaluation: 1) effects on residential and commercial development; and 2) effects on property tax revenue on the City of Ottawa.

The evaluation results were presented at Open House #3 and are summarized in Appendix B to this workbook.



page 6

Alternative Landfill Footprint Evaluation Results

The comparative evaluation of the footprint options was completed using a “Reasoned Argument” or “Trade-off” method. This method is based on the following two activities:

Identify the predicted level of effect (‘No Net Effect’, ‘Low Net Effect’, ‘Moderate Net Effect’ or ‘High Net Effect’) associated with each alternative for each indicator; and,

Rank each alternative from most preferred to least preferred based on the predicted level of effect at the criteria and environmental component level in order to determine an overall ranking for each alternative.

Option #2 was determined to be the most preferred option based on the following attributes:

It has the lowest predicted net effects on Archaeological & Cultural Heritage; It has the lowest predicted net effect on Biology (Terrestrial & Aquatic environment); It has the lowest predicted net effect on Land Use; It has the lowest predicted net effect on Site Design and Operations; It has the lowest predicted net effect on Surface Water; and It has the lowest predicted net effect on Socio-Economic.

While Option #2 is the most preferred option, it should be noted that there are no off-site groundwater receptors predicted to be affected by any of the options in terms of groundwater flow or quality.

While Option #2 is the most preferred option, it should be noted that there are no predicted exceedances for any of the options in relation to odour, landfill gas, and combustion emissions.



page 7

Figure 1. Option #2

Existing Landfill: ..... Approximately 47 metres/14 stories Proposed Layout:.... Approximately 33 metres/10 stories



page 8

1. Please provide any feedback on the discipline-specific comparative evaluation.

2. Please provide any feedback on the selection of the preferred footprint option.



page 9

Leachate Treatment Alternatives Overview

WMCC amended the ToR to include an assessment and evaluation of “alternative methods” for treating and disposing of leachate generated from the new landfill footprint as part of the EA.

The new landfill footprint will be designed with the Generic II – Double Liner system, as specified in Ontario Regulation 232/98. This consists of (from top down):

0.3 m thick granular/perforated pipe primary leachate collection system; 0.75 m thick geomembrane/engineered clay primary liner; 0.3 m thick granular/perforated pipe secondary leachate collection system; 0.75 m thick geomembrane/engineered clay secondary liner; 1 m thick natural or constructed soil attenuation layer.

Leachate collected from within the lined landfill will be pumped from the primary drainage/leachate collection system. The potential location and size of leachate pumping station(s) required will be identified as part of the conceptual design for the preferred landfill footprint. Leachate will then be directed to pretreatment and/or treatment facilities in a manner dependent on the preferred leachate treatment alternative.

The volume of leachate to be managed will vary over the operational and post-closure period of the landfill and is influenced by factors including precipitation, degree of landfill development (e.g., area of landfill that is actively undergoing development versus areas where final cover has been placed), final cover design and cover installation progress, and other factors.

Leachate Treatment Alternatives Evaluation Criteria

Criteria and indicators under the following environmental components are proposed in order to comparatively evaluate the leachate treatment alternatives:

Atmospheric Environment Geology and Hydrogeology Surface Water Resources Biology Transportation Land Use Social Site Design and Operations



page 10

Leachate Treatment Alternatives Evaluation Methodology

The comparative evaluation of leachate treatment alternatives will be completed using a “Reasoned Argument” or “Trade-off” method. This method is based on the following two activities:

Identify the predicted level of effect (‘No Net Effect’, ‘Low Net Effect’, ‘Moderate Net Effect’ or ‘High Net Effect’) associated with each alternative for each indicator; and,

Rank each alternative from most preferred to least preferred based on the predicted level of effect at the criteria and environmental component level in order to determine an overall ranking for each alternative.

Leachate Treatment Alternatives Considered

The following leachate treatment alternatives will be considered:

Option #1 – On-site Tree Irrigation Option #2 – On-site Leachate Evaporation Option #3 – Off-site Effluent Discharge to Surface Water Option #4 – Off-site Effluent Discharge to Ottawa Sanitary Sewer Option #5 – Truck Haulage Off-site to Alternative Wastewater Treatment Plant

Further detail on the leachate treatment alternatives can be found in Appendix C.



page 11

3. Are there any additional leachate treatment alternatives that you believe should be

considered in the evaluation?

4. Please provide any comments on the evaluation criteria proposed for the

comparison of leachate treatment alternatives.

Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint - Workshop #3 on Landfill Footprint Comparative Evaluation Results and Discussion on Leachate Treatment Alternatives –November 2011


page 1

For more information, please see our website at http://wcec.wm.com, or call us at 613-836-8610



Workshop #3 – APPENDIX

A

12345

OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

During the first step of the consultation process, we will review the approved Terms of Reference andintroduce the EA study work plans. The work plans will provide an overview of existing physical environmentalconditions on our property. They will also help our neighbours, local residents and interested stakeholdersto identify new landfill footprint options and locations of the proposed waste diversion, environmental andcommunity recreational facilities.

REVIEWING THE OPTIONS

During the second step of the consultation process, our neighbours, local residents and interestedstakeholders will review new landfill footprint options. They will also review the criteria used to evaluate thenew landfill footprint options and offer their views on refining the criteria, indicators and measures proposedas part of the evaluation process.

COMPARING THE OPTIONS

In the third step of the consultation process, we will present the existing environmental conditions in thestudy area. Our neighbours, local residents and interested stakeholders will have the opportunity to evaluatethe new landfill footprint options and provide input into a preferred new landfill footprint and proposed wastediversion, environmental and community recreational facilities.

THE PREFERRED OPTION

During the fourth step of the consultation process, we will present the evaluation of the new landfill footprintoptions, which will include a detailed assessment of the preferred new landfill footprint in terms of its siting,safeguards, construction and operation. In addition, we will present the cumulative impact of the new landfillfootprint and proposed waste diversion, environmental and community recreational facilities.

THE FINAL OPTION

In the fifth step in the consultation process, we will present the final completed EA that will be submitted tothe Ministry of Environment. Our neighbours, local residents and interested stakeholders will be able toprovide their comments to us before our EA is sent in to the Ministry. Once the EA is submitted to theMinistry, the public will also have an opportunity to provide comments to the Ministry of Environment onthe final EA we submitted.

Appendix A



page 2





B

Appendix B - Draft Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Landfill Footprint Options

Environmental Component Criteria Indicators

Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Option #1 Net Effects

Option #2 Net Effects



Atmospheric Environment

Odour • Predicted odour emissions. No 99.5th percentile concentrations at off-site receptors are predicted to be above the MOE’s odour objective of 1 odour unit per cubic metre of air (10-minute averaging period).

LOW NET EFFECTS

No 99.5th percentile concentrations at off-site receptors are predicted to be above the MOE’s odour objective of 1 odour unit per cubic metre of air (10-minute averaging period).

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS • Number of off-site receptors potentially

affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses and institutions).

No off-site receptors affected.

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: 1st Tied for 2nd Tied for 2nd Tied for 2nd Criteria Rationale It should be noted that there were no exceedances with predicted odour emissions for any option; however, Option 1 is marginally preferred because modelled emissions are

slightly lower off-site with this option. Air quality • Modelled Landfill Gas Emissions:

Vinyl Chloride Benzene Hydrogen Sulphide


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS

• Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses, and institutions).


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: 2nd 4th 1st 3rd Criteria Rationale It should be noted that there were no exceedances with modelled landfill gas emissions for any option; however, Option 3 is marginally preferred because modelled emissions

were slightly lower off-site with this option. • Modelled Dust Emissions:

Total Suspended Particulate Matter Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM10) Respirable Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

Maximum concentrations at two off-site receptors are predicted to be above the applicable O.Reg. 419/05 standard, AAQC or CWS.

MODERATE NET EFFECTS

No maximum concentrations at off-site receptors are predicted to be above the applicable O.Reg. 419/05 standard, AAQC or CWS.

NO NET EFFECTS

Maximum concentration at one off-site receptor is predicted to be above the applicable O.Reg. 419/05 standard, AAQC or CWS.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Maximum concentration at one off-site receptor is predicted to be above the applicable O.Reg. 419/05 standard, AAQC or CWS.


affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses, and institutions).

Two off-site receptors will be affected.


No off-site receptors will be affected.

NO NET EFFECTS

One off-site receptor will be affected.

LOW NET EFFECTS

One off-site receptor will be affected.

LOW NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: 4th 1st 3rd 2nd Criteria Rationale Option 2 is preferred as there are no receptors off-site that are affected by modelled dust emissions. • Modelled Combustion Emissions:

o Carbon Monoxide o Nitrogen Oxides

No maximum concentrations at off-site receptors are predicted to be above the applicable O.Reg 337 Ambient Air Quality Criteria.

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS





LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1st Tied for 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 2nd Criteria Rationale It should be noted that there were no exceedances with modelled combustion emissions for any option; however, Options 1 and 3 are marginally preferred because

modelled impacts were slightly lower off-site with these options. Noise • Predicted site-related noise. Possible site-related noise at some receptors

from time to time. MODERATE NET EFFECTS

Minimal site-related noise at receptors.

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS




Five receptors are predicted to be affected from time to time with levels above 55 dBA or greater than 3 dB above background.


One off-site receptor will be affected. Acceptable levels are noise levels at or below 55 dBA or within 3 dB of background sound levels.

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are preferred as these will result in minimal site-related noise and affect the least amount of off-site receptors (1).

Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 2nd Tied for 2nd 1st Tied for 2nd

Appendix B - Draft Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Landfill Footprint Options RATIONALE Option 3 was ranked first compared to the other 3 Options from an Atmospheric component perspective because it has the lowest effects on offsite receptors relating to odour,

landfill gas, combustion, and noise emissions. Geology & Hydrogeology

Groundwater quality

• Predicted effects to groundwater quality at property boundaries and off-site.

No off-site groundwater receptors will be affected.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the options in relation to groundwater quality. All options rank the same.

Groundwater flow

• Predicted groundwater flow characteristics. No off-site groundwater receptors will be affected.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the options in relation to groundwater flow. All options rank the same.

Environmental Component Ranking There is no distinction between the options in relation to geology and hydrogeology. All options rank the same. RATIONALE Given the proposed mitigation measures (i.e. the use of Generic Design Option II liner system), no off-site groundwater receptors are anticipated to be affected by any of the four

options in terms of groundwater flow or groundwater quality. Therefore, all Options are acceptable from a Geology/Hydrogeology perspective. Surface Water Resources

Surface water quality

• Predicted effects on surface water quality on-site and off-site.

Discharge to surface water with no increase in TSS and related parameter concentrations in Huntley Creek (South Branch) at William Mooney Road.

NO NET EFFECTS

Discharge to groundwater with no increase in TSS and related parameter concentrations.

NO NET EFFECTS

Discharge to groundwater with no increase in TSS and related parameter concentrations.

NO NET EFFECTS

West Pond discharge to surface water with no increase in TSS and related parameter concentrations in Huntley Creek (South Branch) at William Mooney Road.

East Pond discharge to groundwater with no increase in TSS and related parameter concentrations.

NO NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: 3rd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st 2nd Criteria Rationale Option 2 and 3 are preferred because they will both use groundwater infiltration as a method of discharge after TSS removal by the sediment forebay.

Surface water quantity

• Change in drainage areas. No increase in wetland water levels.

NO NET EFFECTS

Reduced flow to South Branch of Huntley Creek. Minimal flow in connecting swale. No increase in flow along Carp Road west ditch. No effects from relocation of existing Stormwater Management (SWM) facility #1.

LOW NET EFFECS

Reduced flow to South Branch of Huntley Creek. Minimal flow in connecting swale. No increase in flow along Carp Road west ditch. No effects from relocation of existing SWM facility #1.

LOW NET EFFECS

Reduced flow to South Branch of Huntley Creek.Minimal flow in connecting swale. No increase in flow along Carp Road west ditch. No effects from relocation of existing SWM facility #1. No increase in wetland water levels.

LOW NET EFFECS • Predicted occurrence and degree of off-site

effects. No increase in peak flows at William Mooney Road.

NO NET EFFECTS

Reduced flow in South Branch of Huntley Creek

LOW NET EFFECTS

Reduced flow in South Branch of Huntley Creek.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Reduced flow in South Branch of Huntley Creek.

No increase in Carp Road flows or peak flows at William Mooney Road.

LOW NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: 1st 3rd 4th 2nd Criteria Rationale Option 1 is preferred because it uses surface outlet controls, rather than groundwater infiltration, to attenuate flows and does not change the existing surface flow regime on South

Huntley Creek. Environmental Component Ranking 3rd 1st 2nd 4th

Appendix B - Draft Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Landfill Footprint Options RATIONALE Option 2 is ranked as the Preferred Alternative from a Surface Water perspective as it has the lowest net effect on surface water quality and water quantity. Biology (including Terrestrial and Aquatic environment)

Terrestrial ecosystems

• Predicted impact on vegetation communities due to project.

16.7 ha of vegetation will be removed, including 3.3 ha of unevaluated wetland immediately adjacent to the PSW, and compensated for elsewhere. Reduced impacts resulting from increased edge effects. No impact on the hydrogeology of the adjacent PSW. No leachate contamination of adjacent vegetation.

LOW NET EFFECTS

17.1 ha of vegetation will be removed, and compensated for elsewhere. Reduced impacts resulting from increased edge effects. No leachate contamination of adjacent vegetation.

LOW NET EFFECTS

22.6 ha of vegetation will be removed, and compensated for elsewhere. Reduced impacts resulting from increased edge effects. No leachate contamination of adjacent vegetation.


20.3 ha of vegetation will be removed, including 3.1 ha of potential PSW, and compensated for elsewhere. No impacts resulting from increased edge effects. No impact on the hydrogeology of the adjacent PSW. No leachate contamination of adjacent vegetation.

MODERATE NET EFFECTS • Predicted impact on wildlife habitat due to

project. Loss of 16.7 ha of vegetated habitat for observed area sensitive bird species and additional agricultural land, to be compensated for elsewhere within the site. Permanent interruption of wildlife movement between core woodlots; however, wildlife will adapt to move in areas of contiguous vegetation.No increase in nuisance species populations within the PSW or browse on trees within vegetation areas. Construction disturbance to breeding birds and wildlife minimized through the establishment of vegetated buffers.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Loss of 3.7 ha of amphibian habitat; however, this type of habitat does exist in other areas on-site and could be compensated for in these locations. Loss of 6.0 ha of habitat for area sensitive bird species, to be compensated for elsewhere within the site. Construction disturbance to breeding birds and wildlife minimized through the establishment of vegetated buffers.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Loss of 3.7 ha of amphibian habitat; however, this type of habitat does exist in other areas on-site and could be compensated for in these locations. Loss of 11.5 ha of vegetated habitat for observed area sensitive bird species, to be compensated for elsewhere within the site. Construction disturbance to breeding birds and wildlife minimized through the establishment of vegetated buffers.


Loss of 3.1 ha of amphibian habitat; however, this type of habitat does exist in other areas on-site and could be compensated for in these locations. Loss of 13.4 ha of forested habitat for area sensitive bird species, to be compensated for elsewhere within the site. Permanent interruption of movement between core woodlands; however, wildlife will adapt to move in areas of contiguous vegetation. Construction disturbance to breeding birds and wildlife minimized through the establishment of vegetated buffers.

MODERATE NET EFFECTS • Predicted impact of project on vegetation

and wildlife including rare, threatened or endangered species.

No impact on rare, threatened or endangered species within the area.

NO NET EFFECTS

No rare, threatened or endangered species within the area.

NO NET EFFECTS

No rare, threatened or endangered species within the area.

NO NET EFFECTS

No impact on rare, threatened or endangered species within the area.

NO NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: Tied 1st Tied 1st 4th 3rd Criteria Rationale Options 1 and 2 are preferred as they result in the least amount of vegetation being removed, least amount of wildlife habitat, including amphibian habitat and vegetated habitat for

observed area sensitive birds. Aquatic ecosystems

• Predicted changes in water quality. Realignment of 878 m of Tributary C would maintain some surface water conveyance, however there may be increased runoff and contaminant loading from the surrounding land use due to the loss of some of this agricultural drain.

LOW NET EFFECTS

There are no permanent or intermittent streams located within this area.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Realignment of 1,016 m of Tributary C would maintain some surface water conveyance however there would still be a loss of some of the drain. There may be increased runoff and contaminant loading from the surrounding land use onto the remaining sections of the watercourse.

LOW NET EFFECTS • Predicted impact on aquatic habitat due to

project. There will be some loss of fish habitat however there are opportunities to realign the watercourses to maintain connectivity and to create or improve habitat In adjacent tributaries. Tributary C appears to support some fish during the freshet although on a seasonal basis, therefore would not be classed as permanent fish habitat.

LOW NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

There will be some loss of fish habitat however there are opportunities to realign the watercourses to maintain connectivity and to create or improve habitat in adjacent tributaries. Tributary C appears to support some fish during the freshet although on a seasonal basis, therefore would not be classed as permanent fish habitat.

LOW NET EFFECTS • Predicted impact on aquatic biota due to

project. If works are carried out while the channel is dry (no flow), there will be no impact to the aquatic biota.

LOW NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

If works are carried out while the channel is dry (no flow), there will be no impact to the aquatic biota.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Appendix B - Draft Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Criteria Ranking: Tied for 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 2nd Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are preferred as they do not include any streams (permanent or intermittent) and therefore no net effects on aquatic habitat.

Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 2nd RATIONALE Options 2 and 3 are ranked as the Preferred Alternatives from a Biology perspective as they result in the least amount of vegetation being removed, least amount of wildlife habitat,

do not have any permanent or intermittent streams flowing through their landfill footprints and do not require the realignment of any streams. Archaeology & Cultural Heritage

Cultural and heritage resources

• Cultural and heritage resources on-site and in vicinity and predicted impacts on them.

Disturbance to three Cultural Landscape Units in the vicinity of the footprint. A completed documentation report for archival purposes will be prepared. Potential relocation of a significant built heritage resource will be considered.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Disturbance to one Cultural Landscape Unit and one Built Heritage Feature in the vicinity of the footprint. A completed documentation report for archival purposes will be prepared. Potential relocation of a significant built heritage resource will be considered.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Disturbance to one Cultural Landscape Unit and one Built Heritage Feature in the vicinity of the footprint. A completed documentation report for archival purposes will be prepared. Potential relocation of a significant built heritage resource will be considered.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Loss of a portion of one Cultural Landscape Unit located within the footprint and disturbance to one Cultural Landscape Unit in the vicinity of the footprint. A completed documentation report for archival purposes will be prepared. Potential relocation of a significant built heritage resource will be considered.

MODERATE NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st 3rd Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are preferred as these options result in minimal effects on Cultural Landscape Units and Built Heritage Features.

Archaeological resources

• Presence of archaeological resources on-site.

Potential adverse effects to potential archaeological resources would be avoided or mitigated.

NO NET EFFECTS

Potential adverse effects on potential archaeological resources would be avoided or mitigated.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS • Significance of on-site archaeology

resources potentially displaced/disturbed. Potential adverse effects to potential archaeological resources would be avoided or mitigated.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the Options in relation to Archaeological resources. All options rank the same.

Environmental Component Ranking 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st 3rd RATIONALE Options 2 and 3 are ranked as the Preferred Alternatives from an Archaeology and Cultural Heritage perspective as these options result in minimal effects on Cultural Landscape

Units and Built Heritage Features. Transportation Effects on

airport operations

• Bird strike hazard to aircraft in Local Study Area.

Bird strikes would be minimized from gulls originating from the WCEC.

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the Options in relation to effects on airport operations. All options rank the same.

Effects from truck transport along access roads

• Potential for traffic collisions. Improved safety in comparison with existing conditions with the separation of northbound through and left turning traffic.

HIGH (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS

Improved safety in comparison with existing conditions with the separation of northbound through and left turning traffic.





HIGH (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS • Disturbance to traffic operations. Improved operations for northbound through

traffic in comparison with existing conditions.


Improved operations for northbound through traffic in comparison with existing conditions.





HIGH (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS • Proposed road improvement requirements. Minor temporary construction related effects.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Minor temporary construction related effects.

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the options in relation to effects from truck transport along access roads. All options include a northbound left turn lane on Carp Road into the

site. The closure of William Mooney Road does not impact on the criteria and indicators. All options rank the same. Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st

RATIONALE With respect to Transportation, there is no distinction between the Options. Net effects are positive or minimal in all cases.

Appendix B - Draft Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Land Use Effects on

current and planned future land uses

• Current land use. Current land uses removed and replaced with a waste management facility. Loss of Agriculture, Wooded Area, Idle and Shrub Land, and Low Density Residential lands.


Current land uses removed and replaced with a waste management facility. Loss of Industrial, Wooded Area and Idle and Shrub Lands.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Current land uses removed and replaced with a waste management facility. Loss of Industrial, Wooded Area and Idle and Shrub Lands.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Current land uses removed and replaced with a waste management facility. Loss of Industrial, Agriculture, Wooded Area, and Low Density Residential lands.

MODERATE NET EFFECTS • Planned future land use. The Rural use of the lands would be

discontinued.

LOW NET EFFECTS

The Rural and Industrial uses would be discontinued; however the change in use is compatible with the planned Industrial uses in the Carp Road Corridor Community Design Plan.

NO NET EFFECTS

The Rural and Industrial uses would be discontinued; however the change in use is compatible with the planned Industrial uses in the Carp Road Corridor Community Design Plan.

NO NET EFFECTS

The Rural use of the lands would be discontinued.

LOW NET EFFECTS • Type(s) and proximity of off-site recreational

resources within 500 m of landfill footprint potentially affected.

No off-site recreational resources within 500 m of the landfill footprint.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS • Type(s) and proximity of off-site sensitive land

uses (i.e., dwellings, churches, cemeteries, parks) within 500 m of landfill footprint potentially affected.

28 residences plus 4 vacant residential lots are found within 500 m of the landfill footprint.


5 residences are found within 500 m of the landfill footprint.

LOW NET EFFECTS

7 residences are found within 500 m of the landfill footprint.

LOW NET EFFECTS

1 residence is found within 500 m of the landfill footprint.

LOW NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: 3rd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st 2nd Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are slightly preferred over Options 1 and 4 as the loss of current land uses are marginally less, the options are consistent with planned future land uses, and there

are few sensitive land uses within 500 metres. Displacement of agricultural land

• Current land use. Loss of dairy farm and 1 part-time beef farm.

Loss of mainly Class 4 agricultural capability soil. Area is generally low agricultural soil capability as evidenced by the “General Rural Area” designation.


Loss of dairy farm or farm continues with new cropland elsewhere. Loss of some Class 3 and 4 agricultural capability soil. Area is generally low agricultural capability soil, as evidenced by the “General Rural Area” designation.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Loss of dairy farm or farm continues with new cropland elsewhere. Loss of some Class 3 and 4 agricultural capability soil. Area is generally low agricultural soil capability as evidenced by the “General Rural Area”

LOW NET EFFECTS

Loss of dairy farm and 1 part-time beef farm.

Loss of mainly Class 4 agricultural capability soil. Area is generally low agricultural soil capability as evidenced by the “General Rural Area” designation.

MODERATE NET EFFECTS • Predicted impacts on surrounding

agricultural operations. No impacts on surrounding agricultural operations.

NO NET EFFECTS

No impacts on surrounding agricultural operations.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS • Type(s) and proximity of agricultural

operations (i.e., organic, cash crop, livestock) and intensive farm operations in surrounding area.

Existing farm operations in the proximity to proposed landfill footprint will continue to operate.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: Tied for 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 2nd Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are preferred over Options 1 and 4 as the farm infrastructure is preserved west of William Mooney Road, as well as the part-time beef farm.

Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 2nd RATIONALE Options 2 and 3 are preferred over Options 1 and 4 from a Land Use perspective as the losses of current land uses are minimized. Preserving the farm infrastructure west of

William Mooney Road allows the dairy farm to retain their core operation in place, while sourcing part of their feed requirements from a new location. One part-time beef farm is also preserved.

Economic Effects on the cost of services to customers

• Ratio of air space achieved to volume of soil to be excavated and area of cell base and leachate collection system to be constructed.

Ratio of airspace achieved to total amount of soil handled is 6.5 mil m3 to 1.9 mil m3.

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS




MODERATE NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: 2nd 1st 3rd 4th Criteria Rationale Option 2 is preferred as the ratio of airspace achieved to volume of soil to be excavated provides the maximum benefit from a cost of service to customers perspective.

Continued service to customers

• Total optimized site capacity and site life. The total optimized site capacity is 6.5 mil m3 over 10 years.

NO NET EFFECTS

The total optimized site capacity is 6.5 mil m3 over 10 years.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS

Appendix B - Draft Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the Options in relation to continued service to customers. All options rank the same.

Economic benefit to local municipality

• Employment at site (number and duration). Up to 75 new jobs in waste diversion, disposal and green energy facilities for the next ten years.

MODERATE (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS

Up to 75 new jobs in waste diversion, disposal and green energy facilities for the next ten years.





MODERATE (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS • Opportunities to provide products or

services. Continue services to customers for waste disposal.


Continue services to customers for waste disposal.





HIGH (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the Options in relation to economic benefit to the local municipality. All options rank the same.

Effects on Residential and Commercial Development

• Residential development plans. No impact on residential development plans.

NO NET EFFECTS

No impact on residential development plans.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS • Commercial development plans. No impact on commercial development plans.

NO NET EFFECTS

No impact on commercial development plans.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Criteria Rationale There is no distinction between the Options in relation to effects on residential and commercial developments. All options rank the same.

Effects on Property Tax Revenue on the City of Ottawa

• City of Ottawa. Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate.

Loss of dairy farm & 1 part-time beef farm.

LOW (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT

Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate.

MODERATE (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT





LOW (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT • Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

(MPAC). Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate.


LOW (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT







LOW (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT Criteria Ranking: Tied for 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 2nd Criteria Rationale Option 2 and 3 are preferred as they result in the greatest positive net effect in terms of effects on the City of Ottawa’s property tax revenue.

Environmental Component Ranking 2nd 1st 3rd 4th

Appendix B - Draft Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Landfill Footprint Options RATIONALE Option 2 is preferred as the only discernable difference is that it provides a better ratio of airspace to total soil excavated, thereby providing the maximum benefit from a cost of

service to customers perspective. Social Visual impact

of the facility • Predicted changes in perceptions of

landscapes and views. Installation of visual screening elements would obscure view from surrounding areas of the facility.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Installation of visual screening elements would obscure view from surrounding areas of the facility.

LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS


LOW NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st 2nd Criteria Rationale Options 2 and 3 are preferred as the greatest number of views to the footprint would be screened or obscured.

Local residents • Number of residences. 28 residences within 500 m of the landfill footprint. Approximately 6,100 residences within 3 km of the site perimeter.

HIGH NET EFFECTS

5 residences within 500 m of the landfill footprint. Approximately 6,100 residences within 3 km of the site perimeter.


7 residences within 500 m of the landfill footprint. Approximately 6,100 residences within 3 km of the site perimeter.


1 residence within 500 m of the landfill footprint. Approximately 6,100 residences within 3 km of the site perimeter.

LOW NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: 4th 2nd 3rd 1st Criteria Rationale Option 4 is preferred because the fewest number of residences are located within 500 m of this footprint.

Recreational facilities

• Type(s) and proximity of off-site recreational resources within 500 m of landfill footprint potentially affected.

No recreational facilities within 500 m of potential landfill footprint.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Criteria Rationale: There is no distinction between the Options in relation to recreational facilities. All options rank the same.

Environmental Component Ranking 2nd Tied for 1st Tied for 1st 2nd RATIONALE Options 2 and 3 are preferred as they result in the least amount of effects from a visual perspective as well as the number of residences and recreational facilities within 500m of

the landfill footprint. Aboriginal Potential

effects on Aboriginal communities

• Potential effects on use of lands for traditional purposes.

No effects on Aboriginal communities.

NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS


NO NET EFFECTS Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st Tied for 1st

Appendix B - Draft Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Landfill Footprint Options RATIONALE There is no distinction between the Options in relation to Aboriginal environmental component. All options rank the same. Site Design & Operations

Site design and operations characteristics

• Complexity of site infrastructure. Site design will incorporate leachate, gas, and SW controls in accordance with O.Reg 232/98.

Site design will incorporate leachate, gas, and SW controls in accordance with O.Reg 232/98.



Leachate generation rate for closed footprint estimated to be between 1.8 to 2.9 L/s.




Base grading design would likely require at least two low points/ leachate pumping stations.

Base grading design would likely require one low point/ leachate pumping station.

Base grading design would likely require two low points/ leachate pumping stations.

Base grading design would likely require at least two low points/ leachate pumping stations.

LCS cleanouts will need to be located around perimeter and in centre of site.

All LCS cleanouts can be located around perimeter of site.



Site will require design and construction of two SWM ponds.

Site will likely require design and construction of three SWM ponds.

Site will likely require design and construction of three SWM ponds.

Site will likely require design and construction of four SWM ponds.

Longest leachate forcemain length is approx. 2350 m.




Longest gas forcemain length is approx. 3200 m.



Longest gas forcemain length is approx. 2450 m

Minimum haul road length to reach footprint from Carp Road is 1,375 m.

Minimum haul road length to reach footprint from Carp Road is 330 m.



Necessitates closure and WM acquisition of William Mooney Road.

Landfill footprint does not encroach on William Mooney Road precluding need for road closure and acquisition by WM.

Landfill footprint does not encroach on William Mooney Road precluding need for road closure and acquisition by WM.

Necessitates closure and WM acquisition of William Mooney Road.

Requires importation of approximately 1,481,000 m3 of soil and granular material for base liner, lcs, and final cover construction.




Requires importation of approximately 374,000 m3 for base grading earthworks

Requires importation of approximately 148,000 m3 for base grading earthworks.




LOW NET EFFECTS


HIGH NET EFFECTS

• Operational flexibility. Base grading design with two low points affords flexibility to commence filling in two locations without temporary leachate collection measures.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Base grading design with one low point requires temporary leachate collection measures if filling to start anywhere but at the low point.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Base grading design with two low points affords flexibility to commence filling in two locations without temporary leachate collection measures.

LOW NET EFFECTS

Base grading design with two low points affords flexibility to commence filling in two locations without temporary leachate collection measures.

LOW NET EFFECTS Environmental Component Ranking 3rd 1st 2nd 4th

RATIONALE Option 2 is ranked as the Preferred Alternative from a Site Design & Operations environmental component perspective as it is the least complex option to implement and provides a high level of operational flexibility.

OVERALL RANKING 3rd 1st 2nd 4th

OVERALL RATIONALE

Option 2 is ranked 1st for the following reasons: • It has the lowest predicted net effects on Archaeological & Cultural Heritage; • It has the lowest predicted net effect on Biology (Terrestrial & Aquatic environment); • It has the lowest predicted net effect on Land Use; • It has the lowest predicted net effect on Surface Water; • It has the lowest predicted net effect on Socio-Economic; and • Optimal landfill design from an implementation/operational perspective.



page 3





C

Development of Terms of Reference for an EA of Proposed New LandfillProposed West Carleton Environmental Centre

Leachate Treatment Option #1


On-site Tree Irrigation

This alternative would involve irrigation of trees (typically poplar and/or willow) in order to dispose of the leachate. May require partial or full on-site treatment using chemical and/or biological processes to treat the leachate prior to irrigation. Treated leachate will be stored in a pond and then discharged to a tree plantation during days with suitable weather conditions. No liquid effluent would leave the WCEC site.

37


On-site Leachate EvaporationThis alternative would involve use of evaporator technology to dispose of leachate. Leachate from the landfill would be pumped to an equalization tank that will provide storage to handle peaks in leachate generation. Leachate would then be fed to the evaporator for processing. The evaporator system may utilize landfill gas as the energy source to evaporate the leachate or waste heat from the landfill gas co-generation facility. Depending upon the strength of the leachate and the resulting air quality emissions, the leachate may have to be pretreated using a chemical and/or biological process prior to evaporation. These units have been widely used in the U.S. for a number of years for leachate disposal.



38


Off-site Effluent Discharge to Surface Water

This alternative would involve disposal of fully treated leachate by discharging it to a nearby surface watercourse. Collected leachate would be treated on-site using chemical and/or biological processes to meet Provincial Water Quality Objectives followed by storage of the treated effluent. Stored effluent would then be discharged to a surface watercourse. The nearest surface watercourse is the southern branch of the Huntley Creek which drains to the Carp River.



39


Off-site Effluent Discharge to Ottawa Sanitary Sewer

This alternative would involve disposal of leachate through discharging it to the City of Ottawa sanitary sewer system. Collected leachate may require pretreatment on-site using either chemical and/or biological processes in order to meet the City’s sewer use bylaw. Leachate effluent would then be discharged to an existing forcemain at Carp Road and Highway 417. Effluent would be further treated at the City’s Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre (ROPEC) facility.



40


Truck Haulage Off-site to Alternative Wastewater Treatment Plant

This alternative would involve trucking of the leachate to one or more wastewater treatment plants outside Ottawa for disposal. Collected leachate may require pretreatment using chemical and/or biological processes if required to meet the quality parameters of the receiving wastewater treatment plant(s). Potential options for receiving the leachate in the surrounding area are not currently known.



41

Appendix B Notification Material

Waste Management of Canada Corporation Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint

at the West Carleton Environmental Centre OPEN HOUSE #3 and WORKSHOP #3

Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) is undertaking an Environmental Assessment (EA) seeking approval for a new landfill footprint at the existing Ottawa Waste Management Facility (Ottawa WMF). The new landfill footprint will be one component of the proposed West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC).

The proposed WCEC will be an integrated waste management facility that will include:

A new landfill footprint; Waste diversion and recycling operations; Composting operations; Renewable energy facilities; and, Recreational lands for community uses.

The new landfill footprint is the only component of the WCEC that requires EA approval under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). The proposed location of the WCEC and the new landfill footprint component is within the City of Ottawa in the area shown on the map below. The purpose of the EA is to study the potential environmental effects (positive or negative) of the proposed new landfill footprint. Key components of an EA include consultation with government agencies and the public; consideration and evaluation of alternatives; and the management of potential environmental effects. Conducting an EA promotes good environmental planning before decisions are made about a proposal.

Earlier in 2011, WM held a series of Open Houses and Workshops with the public to review the preliminary Existing Conditions and Comparative Evaluation Methodology and Criteria that would be used to assess and compare the Alternative Landfill Footprints that are being considered as part of the EA. Open House #3 The purpose of Open House #3 is to provide the public with an opportunity to review the final Existing Conditions, assessment and comparative evaluation of the Alternative Landfill Footprints, and identification of a Preferred Landfill Footprint. In addition, WM will provide information about the ongoing EA process and related consultation activities. WM has scheduled Open House #3 events the week of November 8th–10th, 2011 for the following dates, times, and locations:

Tuesday November 8, 2011 Wednesday November 9, 2011 Thursday November 10, 2011 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Carp Agricultural Hall 3790 Carp Road,

Carp

Kanata Recreation Complex 100 Walter Baker Place,

Kanata

Stittsville & District Community Centre 10 Warner Colpitts Lane,

Stittsville

Workshop #3 The purpose of Workshop #3 is to provide the public with an opportunity to give input on Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Landfill Footprints and the identification of a Preferred Landfill Footprint. WM has scheduled Workshop #3 on November 23rd, 2011 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Carp Agricultural Hall (3790 Carp Road, Carp).

Technical Sessions As requested by the community, WM also intends to hold a series of technical sessions. These sessions will be scheduled in the upcoming weeks and notification will be provided on the project website and via email to our project contact list. To be added to the project contact list, please contact Cathy Smithe at the email address/number below.

In addition to attending the public open houses, workshop, and technical sessions you are invited to submit your comments via the project website (http://wcec.wm.com), mail, email or fax to the addresses/numbers published below. We will also receive your comments on our project information line at (613) 836-8610.

Ross Wallace Site Manager

Waste Management 2301 Carp Road

Carp, Ontario, K0A 1L0 Fax: (613) 831-8928

E-mail: [email protected]

Cathy Smithe Community Relations Manager

Waste Management 254 Westbrook Road

Carp, Ontario, K0A 1L0 Fax: (613) 831-2849

E-mail: [email protected]

Please note that information related to this Study will be collected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments received will become part of the public record and may be included in Study documentation prepared for public review.

Get Involved….Have Your Say!

http://wcec.wm.com/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Date post:	21-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trandan
View:	214 times
Download:	2 times

Workshop 3 Summary Report Final Dec 5 11 - WCEC ...wcec.wm.com/resource-documents/08_Supporting...

Documents