DESIGN AND OPERATION IMPLICATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN …

283.00m(±)

C-X

-02

1005.00m(±)

306.00m(±)

390.

00m

(±)

C-X

-02

150mMIN.

150mMIN.

NOTE:DESIGN AND OPERATION IMPLICATIONSHAVE NOT BEEN TOTALLY CONSIDERED.GEOMETRIC LAYOUTS ARE BASED ONAIR-SPACE CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS.

WOOD LOT

I/R YY/MM/DD ISSUE/REVISION DESCRIPTION DRN ENGDES IDR APP

FIGURE NUMBERPROJECT NUMBER ISSUE/REVISION

CHK

Do not scale this document.All measurements must be obtained from stated dimensions.

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied uponby third parties, except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmentalreviewing agencies. Aecom accepts no reponsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party thatmodifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent.

.. .......

.. .......

.. .......

.. .......

.BD .JGLMASVWIssued for Addendum11/06/22C

. .

. .

CC-OP460191228

OPTION #4ALTERNATIVE LANDFILL FOOTPRINTWest Carleton Environmental CentreWaste Management of Canada Corporation

LEGEND:

INTERMITTENT STREAM

PERMANENT STREAM

WETLAND AREA

LIMIT OF WASTE FOR 6.5 MILLION cu.m.CAPACITY (AREA = 476,800 sq. m.)

PROPOSED TOP OF WASTE CONTOURS

120m BUFFER ZONE

LANDS OWNED/OPTIONED BY WM

LANDS NOT OWNED/OPTIONED BY WM

VWIssued for Conceptual Design ReportA 11/05/10 MAS JGL BD

VWIssued for AddendumB 11/06/10 MAS JGL BD

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

100

DISTANCE (m)

200

50

150

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

AS

L)

100

200

50

150

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

AS

L)

NORTHWEST A EAST A'250 250

EXISTINGGROUND SURFACE

RIC

HA

RD

SON

SID

E R

OAD

100.00mBUFFER

30.00m

CROSS SECTION(FOR OPTION #1)SCALE = 1:5000

WIL

LIA

M M

OO

NEY

RO

AD

5.61

41

PROPOSED LANDFILL

5.00% SLOPE

EXISTING LANDFILL

EXISTING TOPELEVATION = 172.10

PROP. TOP OF FINAL COVER ELEV. = 157.00 (±)PROP. TOP OF WASTE ELEV. = 156.00 (±)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

100

DISTANCE (m)

200

50

150

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

AS

L)

100

200

50

150

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

AS

L)

NORTHWEST B SOUTHEAST B'250 250

RIC

HA

RD

SON

SID

E R

OAD

100.00mBUFFER 30.00m

41

5.00%4

1

5.00%

EXISTING LANDFILL


PROPOSED LANDFILLEXISTINGGROUND SURFACE

A-A'C-OP-1

CROSS SECTION(FOR OPTION #2)SCALE = 1:5000

B-B'C-OP-2

LIMIT OF PROPERTYOWNED/OPTIONED BY WM


PR

OP

ER

TY L

INE




CHK



.. .......

.. .......

.. .......

.. .......


. .

. .

CC-X-0160191228

AND B-B' (FOR OPTION #2)CROSS SECTIONS A-A' (FOR OPTION #1)

West Carleton Environmental CentreWaste Management of Canada Corporation



NORTHWEST D SOUTHEAST D'

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

100

DISTANCE (m)

200

50

150E

LEV

ATI

ON

(mAS

L)

100

200

50

150

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

ASL)

NORTHWEST C SOUTHEAST C'250 250

100.00mBUFFER 30.00m

EXISTING LANDFILL


PROPOSED LANDFILLEXISTINGGROUND SURFACE

41

5.00%4

1

5.00%

CROSS SECTIONFOR OPTION #3SCALE = 1:5000

C-C'C-OP-3

CROSS SECTIONFOR OPTION #4SCALE = 1:5000

D-D'C-OP-4

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

100

DISTANCE (m)

200

50

150

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

ASL)

100

200

50

150

ELE

VA

TIO

N (m

ASL)

250 250

EXISTING LANDFILLPROPOSED LANDFILL

30.00mEXISTINGGROUND SURFACE

30.00m

41

41

5.00%5.00%




RIC

HA

RD

SON

SID

E R

OAD

PR

OP

ER

TY L

INE

RIC

HA

RD

SON

SID

E R

OAD

PR

OP

ER

TY L

INE

PR

OP

ER

TY L

INE

EX

ISTI

NG





CHK



.. .......

.. .......

.. .......

.. .......


. .

. .

CC-X-0260191228

AND D-D' (FOR OPTION #4)CROSS SECTIONS C-C' (FOR OPTION #3)

West Carleton Environmental CentreWaste Management of Canada Corporation



3RPT_2011-11-04_Attach A_App TPS_60191228-EA Plan.Docx

Appendix A

Truck Traffic Associated with the Importation of Construction Materials

AECOM

3RPT_2011-11-04_Attach A-App A_60191228-EA Plan.Docx

Appendix A Truck Traffic Associated with the Importation of Construction Materials

In addition to the truck traffic generated by hauling waste to the site, traffic will also be generated by importing

construction materials. In order to estimate the associated traffic levels, it is first necessary to establish the material

requirements for each landfill footprint option.

The generic design for a double composite liner in Ontario Regulation 232/98 requires an attenuation layer

constructed of low permeability soil at least 1 m thick, primary and secondary engineered geomembrane/clay liners

0.75 m thick, and primary and secondary leachate collection stone layers 0.3 m thick. For a generic final cover the

Regulation also requires a minimum 0.6 m layer of cover material, and a 0.15 m layer of topsoil. The material

requirements for each landfill footprint option are presented in Table A-1.

Table A-1

Landfill Footprint Alternative

1 2 3 4

Footprint Area (m2) 384,800 357,400 442,400 476,800

Material

Requirements

Attenuation Layer - 1 m - (m3) 384,800 357,400 442,400 476,800

Clay Liner - 2 x 0.75 m - (m3) 577,200 536,100 663,600 715,200

Leachate Collection Stone - 2 x 0.3 m - (m3) 230,880 214,440 265,440 286,080

Cover Clay - 0.6 m - (m3) 230,880 214,440 265,440 286,080

Cover Topsoil - 0.15 m - (m3) 57,720 53,610 66,360 71,520

TOTAL (m3) 1,481,480 1,375,990 1,703,240 1,835,680

Traffic associated with construction materials such as geomembrane, piping, manholes, etc. is considered to be

minor in comparison to soil and granular materials and was not estimated at this stage.

To convert construction material volumes to number of loads it has been assumed that soil and granular materials

will be imported using trucks with a capacity of 10 cubic metres. It has also been assumed that the majority of the

construction will take place over 8 campaigns lasting approximately 6 months each. It is noted that the actual timing

of liner and final cover construction may vary resulting in some variation in construction traffic.

Based on the total number of loads and the duration of construction, it is possible to estimate the number of loads

per hour. A summary of the loads generated for each landfill footprint option is presented in Table A-2.

Table A-2

Landfill Footprint Alternative 1 2 3 4

Total Loads (@ 10 m3/load) 148,148 137,599 170,324 183,568

Total Loads for 1 Stage of Base Liner/LCS/Final Cover

Construction

18,519 17,200 21,291 22,946

Loads per Month During Construction Campaign (Assuming

imported over 6 months)

3,086 2,867 3,548 3,824

Loads per Day (Assuming 25 construction days/month) 123 115 142 153

Loads per Hour (Assuming 10 hours/day) 12 11 14 15

Trips per Hour (2 trips per load) 25 23 28 31

AECOM

3RPT_2011-11-04_Attach A-App A_60191228-EA Plan.Docx

The first year of construction will likely be the busiest since it will involve the construction of two base liner

campaigns concurrently. No final cover will be constructed during the first year. Peak loads generated during this

period can be determined by repeating the calculations presented above using the revised material quantities. A

summary of the peak loads generated for each landfill footprint option is presented in Table A-3.

Table A-3

Landfill Footprint Alternative 1 2 3 4

Total Loads (@ 10 m3/load) 119,288 110,794 137,144 147,808

Total Loads for 2 Stages of Base Liner /LCS Construction 29,822 27,699 34,286 36,952

Loads per Month During Construction Campaign (Assuming

imported over 6 months)

4,970 4,616 5,714 6,159

Loads per Day (Assuming 25 construction days/month) 199 185 229 246

Loads per Hour (Assuming 10 hours/day) 20 18 23 25

Trips per Hour (2 trips per load) 40 37 46 49

3RPT_2011-11-04_Attach A_App TPS_60191228-EA Plan.Docx

Appendix B

Leachate Generation Rate Estimation

AECOM

3RPT_2011-11-04_Attach A-App B_60191228-EA Plan.Docx B-1

Appendix B Leachate Generation Rate Estimation

Background on the HELP Model

HELP (Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance) is a versatile model for predicting landfill hydrologic processes

and testing the effectiveness of landfill designs, especially cover designs. HELP is also effective in assessment of

groundwater recharge rates. The quasi-two-dimensional hydrologic model uses the following input data:

Weather (precipitation, temperature, solar radiation, evapotranspiration parameters);

Soil (porosity, field capacity, wilting point, saturated hydraulic conductivity);

Engineering design data (liners, leachate and runoff collection systems, surface slope);

The modeled system can be multi-layered, consisting of combinations of natural (i.e., soil) and artificial

materials (i.e., geomembranes) with an option to install horizontal drainage and sloped layers (e.g.,

caps, surface drainage and removal systems);

HELP uses numerical solution techniques that account for the effects of surface storage, snow melt,

runoff, infiltration and evapotranspiration, vegetation growth, soil moisture storage, lateral subsurface

drainage, unsaturated vertical drainage or leakage through soil geomembrane or composite liners; and

For the preliminary evaluation of leachate generation rates for the landfill footprint options in the North and West

Envelopes, the implementation of HELP contained in the software WHI UnSat Suite Plus version 2.2.0.3 by Waterloo

Hydrogeologic (now Shlumberger Water Services) was used.

Model Parameters

Profiles of the existing conditions and the minimum final cover design of 0.6 metres of cover material overlain by

0.15 metres of vegetated topsoil (as identified in Ontario Regulation 232/98) were modeled. The proposed cover

design was evaluated assuming various conditions for both the topsoil layer (termed the vertical percolation layer)

and the cover layer (termed the barrier layer). The profiles used in the model are summarized in Table B-1.

Table B-1

Layer Type Name

Material

Texture

Number

Thickness

(cm)

Porosity

(vol/vol)

Field

Capacity

(vol/vol)

Wilting

Point

(vol/vol)

Initial Soil

Water Content

(vol/vol)

Effective Saturated

Hydraulic

Conductivity

(cm/sec)

Profile

1

1 Vertical

Percolation

Layer

Fine Sandy

Loam

7 15 0.473 0.222 0.104 0.376 5.20E-04

2 Barrier Soil

Layer

Silty Clay 14 60 0.479 0.371 0.251 0.479 2.50E-05

Profile

2

1 Vertical

Percolation

Layer

Sandy Loam 6 15 0.453 0.190 0.085 0.378 7.20E-04

2 Barrier Soil

Layer

Silty Clay,

Moderately

Compacted

28 60 0.452 0.411 0.311 0.452 1.20E-06

The specific parameter values are taken directly from the HELP model database. Profiles 1 and 2 are intended to

represent variability in the cover conditions, representing ‘average’ (e.g., compacted cover that has undergone some

weathering in service) and ‘good’ (e.g., compacted cover immediately after construction) conditions respectively.

AECOM

3RPT_2011-11-04_Attach A-App B_60191228-EA Plan.Docx B-2

A unique model run was created for each of the 4 identified landfill footprint options reflecting that the landfill footprint

is fully closed, and using preliminary design details such as surface area and slopes. Weather data was either

synthetically generated by HELP using information from a meteorological station in Ottawa, or obtained from

historical weather data from Environment Canada. Synthetically generated data was compared against historical

climate normals for Ottawa to ensure accuracy. Identical weather data was then input into each of the 4 models.

It is recognized that leachate generation rates during the operating period will vary and will be higher than in the

closed state. This generation rate is influenced by the phasing of landfill development and timing of final cover

construction but has not been estimated at this time.

Model Output

The HELP model was used to estimate the percolation through the barrier soil layer. For this exercise it was

assumed that all water that infiltrates through the cover is ultimately considered leachate and thus the percolation

rate is equivalent to the leachate generation rate. The output results are summarized in Table B-2.

Table B-2

Profile Estimated Leachate Generation Rate (L/s)

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

1 2.9 2.7 3.3 3.6

2 1.8 1.7 2.1 2.3

Attachment B Landfill Footprint Net Effects Table

Master Net Effects Tables - Alternative Landfill Footprint Options

1

TABLE 2 – Option #1 Environmental

Component Criteria Indicators Alternative Landfill Footprint Option #1

Potential Effects Mitigation Measures 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).

Progressive installation of the landfill gas collection and destruction systems (flaring or utilization).

Proper management of control systems. Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure odour from disposal is minimized.

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).

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

No off-site receptors affected. No mitigation measures required. No off-site receptors affected.

Air quality Modelled Landfill Gas Emissions: Vinyl Chloride Benzene Hydrogen Sulphide

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

Design and implement landfill gas control systems (gas collection, flaring and utilization).

Proper management of control systems. Implement BMPs to ensure landfill gas fugitive releases are minimized.

No off-site receptors affected.

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


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, Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC) or CWS.

Design and implement dust control systems (routine cleaning of haul routes).

Proper management of control systems. Implement BMPs to ensure dust generation is minimized.

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

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

Two off-site receptors will be affected (William Mooney Road and Wilbert Cox Drive).



Two off-site receptors will be affected.

Modelled Combustion Emissions: Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides

No maximum concentrations at off-site receptors are predicted to be above the applicable O.Reg. 337 AAQC.

Efficient traffic flow of on-site vehicles. Implement BMPs to ensure dust generation is minimized.

No maximum concentrations at off-site receptors are predicted to be above the applicable O.Reg 337 AAQC.



Noise Predicted site-related noise. Noise levels are predicted to be between 39 and 74 dBA at receptors. Acceptable levels are noise levels at or below 55 dBA or within 3 dB of background sound levels.

Implement major construction activities to occur prior to the start of operation period.

Maintenance to keep haul trucks in good condition. Implement Noise BMPs.

Possible site-related noise at some receptors from time to time.


Exceedances are expected at five representative off-site receptors. Acceptable levels are noise levels at or below 55 dBA or within 3 dB of background sound levels.

Screening berms. Efficient traffic flow of on-site vehicles.

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

Geology & Hydrogeology

Groundwater quality

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

The Generic Design Option II has been developed to ensure that the Groundwater Protection Standards (Reasonable Use Limits) are met at the base of the leachate containment system. Further contaminant attenuation in the buffer area is not required.

The existing hydrogeologic conditions are suitable for monitoring groundwater quality downgradient of the proposed landfill (i.e., groundwater flow and quality are determined and predictable). Development and implementation of an Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) appropriate to the option will ensure that Reasonable Use Limits continue to be met at the property boundaries.

No off-site groundwater receptors will be affected.

No mitigation measures are required beyond the implementation of an EMP that is appropriate to the landfill footprint option.



2

Environmental Component

Criteria Indicators Alternative Landfill Footprint Option #1 Groundwater flow

Predicted groundwater flow characteristics. Minor drawdown of water levels in the overburden-shallow bedrock and deeper bedrock are predicted at the property boundaries (<0.11 m). The predicted drawdowns are much less than natural seasonal variations associated with varying amounts of precipitation.

The existing hydrogeologic conditions are suitable for monitoring groundwater flow downgradient of the proposed landfill. Development and implementation of an EMP appropriate to the option will ensure that groundwater supplies are not disrupted.

No off-site groundwater receptors will be affected. The minor localized groundwater drawdown will not have a significant effect on the provision of baseflow to the surface water environment. However, the location of the proposed landfill footprint alternative encompasses a drainage course leading from the Goulbourn Wetland Complex.



Surface Water Resources

Surface water quality

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

Accidental seep of leachate to surface. Roadway drainage may increase Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and related parameter concentrations in Huntley Creek (South Branch) at William Mooney Road.

A two stage Stormwater Management (SWM) facility to provide TSS removals and emergency leachate seep storage in Stage 1 and post- to pre peak flow control in Stage 2.

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

Surface water quantity

Change in drainage areas. Wetland drainage blocked by landfill – increased wetland water levels and potential negative impact on existing natural environment.

Divert wetland flow around landfill using naturalised open channel and culverts for roadway crossings.

No increase in wetland water levels.

Predicted occurrence and degree of off-site effects. Increased peak flows at William Mooney Road due to reduced Time to Peak from landfill slopes.

Two stage SWM facility where Stage 2 attenuates post development flow to pre-development levels.

No increase in peak flows at William Mooney Road.

Terrestrial Environment

Terrestrial ecosystems

Predicted impact on vegetation communities due to project.

Loss of: 8.2 ha of meadow communities 2.2 ha of thicket communities 3.0 ha of forest communities 3.3 ha of wetland communities which are associated with the adjacent Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW).

This represents a total of 16.7 ha of vegetation to be removed. Increase of Edge Effects resulting in an increase in:

Invasive species; Windthrow; Soil compaction; Root damage to trees.

Impact on the hydrology of the adjacent PSW. Leachate contamination within adjacent vegetation affecting growth of native species.

Compensation for the loss of vegetation communities could occur in elsewhere on-site where there are areas that could be revegetated.

A Compensation and Restoration Plan will be developed during detailed design to address the exact location of these areas.

Wetland areas occurring outside of the PSW boundaries should be confirmed and delineated with the MNR during detailed design as there is potential for these areas to be complexed with the current wetland.

Installation of protective fencing. Access restrictions/prohibition. Use of dust suppressants. Establish buffers between landfill and natural areas. A system to treat leachate will be developed in conjunction with the preferred landfill footprint during detailed design.

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.

Predicted impact on wildlife habitat due to project. Loss of 16.7 ha of vegetated habitat for observed area sensitive bird species such as the black and white warbler.

Loss of agricultural hayfields, displacing the eastern meadowlark and savannah sparrow.

Loss of 5 area sensitive breeding bird territories Interruption of wildlife movement across agricultural fields between core woodlands.

Increase in nuisance species populations within the PSW due to landfill location, such as: raccoons, skunks, rats, mice, gulls etc.

Disturbance to breeding birds and other wildlife through construction noise and landfill operation.

Revegetation in adjacent areas could compensate for the loss of bird habitat.

Removal of vegetation should occur outside of breeding bird season (May-July).

Provide restoration and compensation areas in vegetation gaps where the development of a corridor is possible.

When possible, salvage plant material for restoration from areas where vegetation will be removed


Installation of a fence along the perimeter to deter species from entering the landfill.

Establish buffers between landfill and natural areas. Install dense planting within buffers.

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.

Predicted impact of project on vegetation and wildlife including rare, threatened or endangered species.

Risk to Butternut (a species listed as threatened under the Species at Risk Act) observed adjacent to the proposed site.

Create buffers between the landfill and natural areas. No impact on rare, threatened or endangered species within the area.


3


Criteria Indicators Alternative Landfill Footprint Option #1 Aquatic Environment

Aquatic ecosystems

Predicted changes in water quality. Removal or realignment of 878 m of Tributary C. Tributary C is an intermittent agricultural drain with seasonal flow and the watercourse is important for surface water conveyance from the adjacent wetland (Tributaries A and B) and downstream to Tributary D during the spring freshnet. The positioning of the landfill adjacent to tributaries A and B may increase sediment loading, decreased water quality, and impacted surface water runoff.

Tributary C could be realigned from near the confluence with Tributaries A and B for conveyance purposes.

Silt fencing, storm water holding ponds and other erosion and sediment controls could reduce sedimentation. Proper installation and designation of stockpile areas could reduce some of the impact on the surface water runoff.

Realignment 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.

Predicted impact on aquatic habitat due to project. Removal or realignment of 878 m of Tributary C. Tributary C is an agricultural drain and there is evidence that this provides seasonal fish habitat.

Removal or realignment of sections of Tributary C will affect the connectivity to Tributary D of the South Huntley Creek which is an important part of fish habitat.

Tributary C could be realigned from near the confluence with Tributaries A and B and to maintain connectivity with Tributary D of the South Huntley Creek This section could be naturalized and there may be habitat enhancement opportunities. Alternatively compensation for the habitat loss could occur elsewhere in the Huntley Creek Sub-watershed.

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.

Predicted impact on aquatic biota due to project.

Tributary C is an intermittent agricultural drain that provides seasonal fish habitat. If work is carried out in the dry months, there will be no impact on the aquatic biota.

All works to be carried out in the dry (likely summer-fall). If works are carried out while the channel is dry (no flow), there will be no impact to the aquatic biota.

Archaeology & Cultural Heritage

Cultural and heritage resources

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

Potential to impact three cultural landscape units: Disturbance to a farmhouse located in the north corner of the footprint; Disturbance to a farm house located south of the footprint; and Disturbance to a portion of the William Mooney roadscape.

Proposed alterations within the study area will be suitably planned in a manner that avoids any identified, above ground, cultural heritage resource, where possible.

Cultural heritage value / significance of displaced or disrupted built heritage resources will be evaluated.

Relocate the resource if significant. Supply evaluation report to the local municipal heritage committee.

Where resources are disrupted by visual, audible or atmospheric conditions vegetative screening should be considered.

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.

Archaeological resources

Presence of archaeological resources on-site. There is potential for pre-contact and historic sites on the locales of higher ground, particularly along the treed western margin of the area (see ASI and GII 1999).

There is also the potential for historic sites within 100 m of Richardson Side Road and William Mooney Road.

Conduct a Stage 2 archaeological assessment within all undeveloped lands in the selected area of construction impact in order to identify any archaeological remains that may be present in advance of any construction.

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

Significance of on-site archaeology resources potentially displaced/disturbed.

The Ministry of Culture has stated the site has low archaeological potential.


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

Transportation Effects on airport operations

Bird strike hazard to aircraft in Local Study Area. Potential for bird strikes (mainly gulls) at Carp airport due to local gull movements and aircraft flight patterns.

Continue existing gull management program, which includes harassment techniques (pyrotechnics, gas cannons) and lethal reinforcement.

Prepare an Integrated Gull Management Plan, which includes passive and active deterrents.

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

Effects from truck transport along access roads

Potential for traffic collisions. More conflicts between left turning trucks and through traffic on Carp Road.

Truck traffic volumes will be similar to those during previous operations; however, the volume of through traffic will increase.

The site entrance location now meets warrants for a left turn lane northbound on Carp Road due to traffic volume.

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

Disturbance to traffic operations. Increased delay for northbound traffic on Carp Road due to left turning trucks waiting in the roadway to complete their turn.



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

Proposed road improvement requirements. Proposed northbound left turn lane will add a minor amount of paved surface with minimal effect on runoff, maintenance and related activities.

Other improvements on Carp Road by the MTO and the City of Ottawa are planned to address traffic operations issues resulting from non-site-related traffic at locations adjacent to the Site.

Design and construct road improvements in accordance with City policies, standards and practices.

Minor temporary construction related effects.


4


Criteria Indicators Alternative Landfill Footprint Option #1 Land Use Effects on

current and planned future land uses

Current land use. Official Plan designation is General Rural Area. Zoned as Rural Countryside under Ottawa Comprehensive Zoning By-Law.

Existing land uses include, Agriculture, Wooded Area, Idle and Shrub Land, and Low Density Residential.

No mitigation measures required. 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.

Planned future land use. The Rural use of the lands would be discontinued. Future development of the four vacant residential lots within the site vicinity area may be subject to Official Plan policies that require a study demonstrating that the proposed development would not be affected by the landfill, and that the proposed development would not affect landfill operations. Policies regarding development of contaminated sites may also apply.

Mitigation measures related to landfill operation may reduce the extent of the Influence Area, as defined in the Official Plan, thus excluding the vacant residential lots.

The Rural use of the lands would be discontinued.

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

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.

Measures will be put in place to manage nuisance related effects during construction and operation.

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

Displacement of agricultural land

Current land use. Loss of dairy farm and part- time beef farm. Loss of mainly Class 4 agricultural capability soil. Change in Official Plan designation, which is currently identified as “General Rural Area”.

Acquire properties. 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.

Predicted impacts on surrounding agricultural operations.

No potential effects to other surrounding agricultural operations.

BMPs will be implemented by WM to ensure nuisance related effects are mitigated in relation to surrounding agricultural operations.

No impacts on surrounding agricultural operations.

Type(s) and proximity of agricultural operations (i.e., organic, cash crop, livestock) and intensive farm operations in surrounding area.

None No mitigation measures required. Existing farm operations in the proximity to proposed landfill footprint will continue to operate.

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.

No mitigation measures required. Ratio of airspace achieved to total amount of soil handled is 6.5 mil m3 to 1.9 mil m3.

Continued service to customers

Total optimized site capacity and site life. A total optimized site capacity of 6.5 mil m3 over 10 years. No mitigation measures required. A total optimized site capacity of 6.5 mil m3 over 10 years.

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.

No mitigation measures required. Up to 75 new jobs in waste diversion, disposal and green energy facilities for the next ten years.

Opportunities to provide products or services. Continue services to customers for waste disposal. No mitigation measures required. Continue services to customers for waste disposal. Effects on Residential and Commercial Development

Residential development plans. No impact on residential development plans. No mitigation measures required. No impact on residential development plans. Commercial development plans. No impact on commercial development plans. No mitigation measures required. No impact on commercial development plans.

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 and 1 part-time beef farm.

No mitigation measures required. Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate. Loss of dairy farm and 1 part-time beef farm.

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate. Loss of dairy farm and 1 part-time beef farm.


Social Visual impact of the facility on surrounding areas

Predicted changes in perceptions of landscapes and views.

Visible from rural residential area to the north and northwest along Richardson Side Road.

Visible from Hwy 7 / Hwy 417 interchange to the south. No visibility issues along the west, east, and most of the south edges due to existing vegetation and existing topography.

Extensive berm/ vegetation buffer treatment to be installed along north and northwest edge of footprint to create visual screen from residential areas and roadway.

Short length of berm/ vegetation buffer treatment to be installed along south edge of site.

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

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.


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

Recreational facilities


No recreational facilities within 500 m of potential landfill footprint.

No mitigation measures required. No recreational facilities within 500 m of potential landfill footprint.

Aboriginal Potential effects on Aboriginal communities

Potential effects on use of lands for traditional purposes.

Initial information from Aboriginal groups and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and INAC indicates that WM property, upon which this alternative is proposed, is not subject to any current land claims.

Consultation with Aboriginal groups will continue throughout the EA process.

No effects on Aboriginal communities.


5


Criteria Indicators Alternative Landfill Footprint Option #1 Site Design & Operations

Site design and operations characteristics

Complexity of site infrastructure. Site will require leachate, gas, and storm water (SW) controls. 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.

Leachate collection system (LCS) cleanouts will need to be located around perimeter and in centre of site.

Site likely require design and construction of two Stormwater Management (SWM) ponds.

Distance from farthest of two leachate pumping stations to existing leachate treatment facilities at SE of existing landfill is approx. 2350m.

Distance from farthest point of footprint to existing gas management facilities at SE of existing landfill is approx. 3200m.

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

Landfill footprint encroaches on William Mooney Road necessitating road closure and acquisition by WM.

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.

No mitigation required. Need for leachate, gas, and SW control is dictated by O. Reg 232/98.

No mitigation required. All leachate generated will need to be treated. Leachate generation rate is influenced by factors including footprint size, final contours, and the design and maintenance of the final cover. Desirable to minimize long-term leachate generation rate.

No mitigation required. Number of low points/ pumping stations is largely dictated by grading design. Key constraints in developing grading design are to balance cut/fill requirements while maintaining the base of the liner system above the shallow ground water table.

No mitigation required. LCS cleanouts are required and location of cleanouts is dictated by footprint size/shape. Desirable to minimize need for cleanouts in centre of site.

No mitigation required. Number of SWM ponds dictated by footprint size/shape relative to existing topography. Typical objectives of SWM design include maintaining gravity drainage to minimize need for active pumping.

No mitigation required. Footprint alternative is expected to utilize existing facilities at SE of existing landfill, necessitating construction of pipelines.


No mitigation required. Entrance from Carp Road is only reasonable alternative.

No mitigation required. Continued use of William Mooney Road by waste haulers concurrently with public creates road hazards and precludes good site security.

No mitigation required. Material requirements for base liner, LCS, and final cover are dictated by footprint size as well as design requirements identified in O.Reg. 232/98.

No mitigation required. Volume of imported fill is dictated by base grading design, site topography, and resultant cut/fill balance.

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.


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

Site will require design and construction of two SWM ponds.

Longest leachate forcemain length is approx. 2350m.

Longest gas forcemain length is approx. 3200m.

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

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

Operational flexibility. Base grading design with two low points affords flexibility to

commence filling in two locations without need for temporary leachate collection measures.

No mitigation required. Number of LCS low points/ pumping stations is dictated by grading design. It is preferable to start filling at the low point of the landfill to minimize need for temporary leachate collection measures.

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


6











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







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



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


No off-site receptors affected. Design and implement dust control systems (routine cleaning of haul routes).


No off-site receptors will be affected.









Maintenance to keep haul trucks in good condition. Implement Noise BMPs.

Minimal site-related noise at receptors.


Exceedance is expected at 1 nearest off-site receptor. Acceptable levels are noise levels at or below 55 dBA or within 3 dB of background sound levels.


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.


Groundwater quality



The existing hydrogeologic conditions are suitable for monitoring groundwater quality downgradient of the proposed landfill (i.e., groundwater flow and quality are determined and predictable). Development and implementation of an Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) appropriate to the option will ensure that Reasonable Use Limits continue to be met at the property boundaries. The EMP will need to consider impacts from the existing (unlined) landfill footprint. This can be done with a series of monitoring wells between the footprints, monitoring wells on the downgradient side of the new footprint, and by including leachate quality monitoring from the new landfill liner system for comparison purposes.





7


Criteria Indicators Alternative Landfill Footprint Option #2 Groundwater flow Predicted groundwater flow characteristics. Minor drawdown of water levels in the overburden-shallow

bedrock and deeper bedrock are predicted at the property boundaries (<0.21 m). At locations of the current downgradient receptors, the water level drawdown is predicted to be <0.11m. The predicted drawdowns are much less than natural seasonal variations associated with varying amounts of precipitation.


No off-site groundwater receptors will be affected. The localized groundwater drawdown predicted in the north buffer area (approx. 0.20 to 0.25 m) would be expected to affect the water levels in the local wetland along the northern property boundary. The wetland would be expected to be reduced in aerial extent and depth of standing water.






Accidental seep of leachate to surface. Roadway drainage may increase Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and related parameter concentrations in Huntley Creek (South Branch) at Carp Road.

A two stage Stormwater Management (SWM) facility to provide TSS removals and emergency leachate seep storage in Stage 1 and full runoff retention in Stage 2 using recharge to groundwater as a control mechanism (similar to SWM practice in existing landfill) .

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


Change in drainage areas. Reduced flow north to Richardson Side Road due to landfill drainage diversion. Less than 5% reduction in 1:5 Year flow at Richardson; Some potential to reduce minor flooding.

Connecting swale flow maintained only by adjacent surface and groundwater flow.

Increased peak flows in west ditch along Carp Road due to diversion.

Existing landfill SWM facility #1 to be relocated.

No mitigation measures required. No mitigation measures required. Two stage SWM facility where Stage 2 retains entire post development runoff and discharges to groundwater.

New two stage SWM facility to replace SWM facility #1.

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.

Predicted occurrence and degree of off-site effects.

Increased peak flows in ditch along Carp Road due to reduced Time to Peak from landfill slopes.

Two stage SWM facility where Stage 2 retains entire post development runoff and discharges to groundwater.

Reduced flow in South Branch of Huntley Creek.




Loss of: 7.4 ha of meadow communities 6.0 ha of forest communities 3.7 ha of wetland communities.

This represents a total of 17.1 ha of vegetation to be removed. Loss of 2 area sensitive breeding bird territories. Potential for the increase of edge effects resulting in an increase in:


Leachate contamination within adjacent vegetation affecting growth of native species.

Compensation for the loss of vegetation communities could occur elsewhere on site where there are areas that could be revegetated.



MNR should be contacted to confirm that the wetlands to be removed are not part of the PSW as there is potential for these areas to be complexed with the current wetland.

Installation of protective fencing. Access restrictions/prohibition. Use of dust suppressants. Establish buffers between landfill and natural areas. A system to treat leachate will be developed in conjunction with the preferred landfill footprint during detailed design.

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.

Predicted impact on wildlife habitat due to project.

Removal of 3.7 ha of amphibian habitat for species such as: green frog, grey tree frog, northern leopard frog, spring peeper, and American toad.

Removal of 6.0 ha of habitat for observed area sensitive bird species such as black and white warbler, northern waterthrush, and American redstart.

Disturbance to the active bank swallow colony. Disturbance to breeding birds and other wildlife through construction noise and vibration as well as landfill operation

A Compensation and Restoration Plan will be developed during detailed design to address the exact location of potential compensation areas.

Amphibians should be salvaged and moved prior to removal of the amphibian breeding habitats



Avoid activity in area of bank swallow colony during breeding season

Establish buffers between landfill and natural areas; and Install appropriate native planting within buffers.

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.



8


Criteria Indicators Alternative Landfill Footprint Option #2 Predicted impact of project on vegetation and wildlife including rare, threatened or endangered species.

No rare, threatened or endangered species were observed within the area.

No mitigation measures required. No rare, threatened or endangered species within the area.

Aquatic Environment

Aquatic ecosystems

Predicted changes in water quality. There are no permanent or intermittent streams located within this area.

No mitigation measures required. There are no permanent or intermittent streams located within this area.

Predicted impact on aquatic habitat due to project.

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


Predicted impact on aquatic biota due to project. There are no permanent or intermittent streams located within this area.





Potential to impact one Cultural Landscape Unit and one Built Heritage Feature:

Disturbance to a farmhouse on Carp Road, to the northeast of the footprint; and Disturbance to a house on Carp Road, to the northeast of the footprint.





Disturbance to one Cultural Landscape Unit and one Built Heritage Feature in the vicinity of the footprint.




Presence of archaeological resources on-site. There is potential for archaeological sites in three locales. One at the east (southeast) corner where a small remnant of the historical agricultural landscape survives between residential properties and the existing WM facility entrance. The second is in the west corner of the area where there is a low knoll beyond the low area near the road (Plate 2). The third is the woodlot in the south corner of the expansion area (west corner of the existing property).


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












Truck traffic volumes will be similar to those during previous operations; however, the volume of through traffic will increase. .











Land Use Effects on current and planned future land uses

Current land use. Official Plan designation is Carp Road Corridor Rural Employment Area and Sand and Gravel Resource Area.

Designated as Light Industrial Area, Heavy Industrial Area and Sand and Gravel Resource Area in the Carp Road Corridor Community Design Plan.

Zoned as Rural Heavy Industrial and Mineral Extraction under Ottawa Comprehensive Zoning By-Law.

Existing land uses include, Industrial, Wooded Area and Idle and Shrub Land.


Loss of Industrial, Wooded Area, and Idle and Shrub Lands.


9


Criteria Indicators Alternative Landfill Footprint Option #2 Planned future land use. 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.

The Convenience Commercial uses planned at the intersection of Richardson Side Road and Carp Road could include some uses which might be considered sensitive (e.g. a restaurant).

No mitigation measures required. Mitigation measures related to landfill operation may reduce the extent of the Influence Area, as defined in the Official Plan, thus excluding the Convenience Commercial node.

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.





Five residences are found within 500 m of the landfill footprint. Measures will be put in place to manage nuisance related effects during construction and operation.

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


Current land use. Dairy farm loses all but 6.1 ha of cropland for production of feed for cattle.

Loss of some Class 3 and 4 type agricultural capability soil. Change in Official Plan designation, which is currently identified as “General Rural Area” and “Sand and Gravel Resource Area”.

Acquire dairy farm or dairy farm continues with new cropland elsewhere.

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.






None. No mitigation measures required. Existing farm operations in the proximity to proposed landfill footprint will continue to operate.



Ratio of airspace achieved to total amount of soil handled for option 2 is 6.5 mil m3 to 1.8 mil m3.



Total optimized site capacity and site life. The total optimized site capacity is 6.5 mil m3 over 10 years. No mitigation measures required. A total optimized site capacity of 6.5 mil m3 over 10 years.







City of Ottawa. Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate. No mitigation measures required. Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate. No mitigation measures required. Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate.



Visible from rural residential areas to the immediate west along small sections of William Mooney Road and Richardson Side Road.

Visible from small section of Carp Road immediately east of site

No visibility issues along the north, south edges and along most of the west and east edges due to existing vegetation and existing topography.

Berm/vegetation buffer treatment to be installed along the north edge of the footprint.

Short lengths of berm/ vegetation buffer treatment to be installed along west and east edges of footprint to create visual screen from residential area and roadway.

Possibly require high berm to aid with screening due to higher proposed elevation of landfill parcel.















10





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

All leachate collection system (LCS) cleanouts can be located around perimeter of site.

Site will likely require design and construction of three Stormwater Management (SWM) ponds (including replacement of SWM pond for existing landfill which is displaced by new footprint).

Distance from leachate pumping station to existing leachate treatment facilities at SE of existing landfill is approx. 1350m.


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

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











No mitigation required.

No mitigation required. Material requirements for base liner, LCS, and final cover are dictated by footprint size as well as design requirements identified in O. Reg. 232/98.




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

All LCS cleanouts can be located around perimeter of site.

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


Longest gas forcemain length is approx. 2200m.





Operational flexibility. Base grading design with one low point would require

temporary leachate collection measures if filling to start anywhere but at the low point.


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


11


















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



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


One off-site receptor affected (William Mooney Road). Design and implement dust control systems (routine cleaning of haul routes).


One off-site receptor will be affected.

Modelled Combustion Emissions: Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides.








Maintenance to keep haul trucks in good condition. Implement noise BMPs.



Exceedance is expected at one nearest off-site receptor (see Appendix A). Acceptable levels are noise levels at or below 55 dBA or within 3 dB of background sound levels.




Groundwater quality








12



bedrock and deeper bedrock are predicted at the property boundaries (<0.21m). At locations of the current downgradient receptors, the water level drawdown is predicted to be <0.11 m. The predicted drawdowns are much less than natural seasonal variations associated with varying amounts of precipitation.


No off-site groundwater receptors will be affected. The localized groundwater drawdown predicted in the north buffer area (approx. 0.20 to 0.25 m) would be expected to affect the water levels in the local wetland along the northern property boundary. The wetland would be expected to be reduced in aerial extent and depth of standing water.






Accidental seep of leachate to surface. Roadway drainage may increase Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and related parameter concentrations in Huntley Creek (South Branch) at Carp Road.

A two stage Stormwater Management (SWM) facility to provide TSS removals and emergency leachate seep storage in Stage 1 and full runoff retention in Stage 2 using recharge to groundwater as a control mechanism (similar to SWM practice in existing landfill).

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


Change in drainage areas. Reduced flow north to Richardson Side Road due to landfill drainage diversion. Less than 5% reduction in 1:5 Year flow at Richardson; Some potential to reduce minor flooding.




No mitigation measures required. Two stage SWM facility where Stage 2 retains entire post development runoff and discharges to groundwater.


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.


Increased peak flows in ditch along Carp Road due to reduced Time to Peak from new landfill slopes.

Two stage SWM facility where Stage 2 retains entire post development runoff and discharges to groundwater.

Reduced flow in South Branch of Huntley Creek.




Loss of: 7.4 ha of meadow communities 11.5 ha of forest communities 3.7 ha of wetland communities which are associated with the adjacent Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW)

This represents a total of 22.6 ha of vegetation to be removed. Potential for the increase of Edge Effects resulting in the increase in:


Leachate contamination within adjacent vegetation affecting growth of native species.





Installation of protective fencing. Access restrictions/ prohibition. Use of dust suppressants. Establish buffers between landfill and natural areas. A system to treat leachate will be developed in conjunction with the preferred landfill footprint during detailed design.

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.

Predicted impact on wildlife habitat due to project.

Removal of 3.7 ha of amphibian habitat. Removal of 3 territories and 11.5 ha of habitat for observed area sensitive bird species: black-and-white warbler, northern waterthrush and American redstart.

Disturbance to the active bank swallow colony. Disturbance to breeding birds and other wildlife through construction noise and vibration as well as landfill operation.


Amphibians should be salvaged and moved prior to removal of the amphibian breeding habitats



Avoid activity in area of bank swallow colony during breeding season

Establish buffers between landfill and natural areas; and Install dense planting within buffers.


Loss of 11.5 ha of vegetated habitat for observed area sensitive bird species, to be compensated for elsewhere within the site.



13


Criteria Indicators Alternative Landfill Footprint Option #3 Predicted impact of project on vegetation and wildlife including rare, threatened or endangered species.

No rare, threatened or endangered species were observed within the area.

No mitigation measures required. No rare, threatened or endangered species within the area.

Aquatic Environment

Aquatic ecosystems

Predicted changes in water quality. There are no permanent or intermittent streams located within this area.



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


Predicted impact on aquatic biota due to project. There are no permanent or intermittent streams located within this area.





Potential to impact one Cultural Landscape Unit and one Built Heritage Feature:

Disturbance to a farmhouse on Carp Road, to the northeast of the footprint; and Disturbance to a house on Carp Road, to the northeast of the footprint.





Disturbance to one Cultural Landscape Unit and one Built Heritage Feature in the vicinity of the footprint.




Presence of archaeological resources on-site. There is potential for archaeological sites in three locales. One at the east (southeast) corner where a small remnant of the historical agricultural landscape survives between residential properties and the existing WM facility entrance. The second is in the west corner of the area where there is a low knoll beyond the low area near the road (Plate 2). The third is the woodlot in the south corner of the expansion area (west corner of the existing property).


























Current land use. Official Plan designation is Carp Road Corridor Rural Employment Area and Sand and Gravel Resource Area.

Designated as Light Industrial Area, Heavy Industrial Area and Sand and Gravel Resource Area in the Carp Road Corridor Community Design Plan.

Zoned as Rural Heavy Industrial and Mineral Extraction under Ottawa Comprehensive Zoning By-Law.

Existing land uses include, Industrial, Wooded Area and Idle and Shrub Land.


Loss of Industrial, Wooded Area, and Idle and Shrub Lands.


14


Criteria Indicators Alternative Landfill Footprint Option #3 Planned future land use. 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.

The Convenience Commercial uses planned at the intersection of Richardson Side Road and Carp Road could include some uses which might be considered sensitive (e.g. a restaurant).

No mitigation measures required. Mitigation measures related to landfill operation may reduce the extent of the Influence Area, as defined in the Official Plan, thus excluding the Convenience Commercial node.

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 off-site recreational resources within 500 m of the landfill footprint



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


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


Current land use. Dairy farm loses all of cropland for production of feed for cattle.

Loss of some Class 3 and 4 type agricultural capability soil. Change in Official Plan designation, which is currently identified as “General Rural Area” and “Sand and Gravel Resource Area”.

Acquire dairy farm or dairy farm continues with new cropland elsewhere.

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”.












Total optimized site capacity and site life. A total optimized site capacity of 6.5 mil m3 over 10 years. No mitigation measures required. A total optimized site capacity of 6.5 mil m3 over 10 years.







City of Ottawa. Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate. No mitigation measures required. Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate. No mitigation measures required. Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate.



Visible from rural residential areas to the immediate west along small sections of William Mooney Road and Richardson Side Road.

Visible from small section of Carp Road immediately east of site

No visibility issues along the north, south edges and along most of the west and east edges due to existing vegetation and existing topography.

Berm / vegetation buffer treatment to be installed along the north edge of the footprint.

Short lengths of berm / vegetation buffer treatment to be installed along west and east edges of footprint to create visual screen from residential area and roadway.

Possibly no or small berms required due to proposed reduced elevation of landfill parcel.













No effects on Aboriginal communities


15





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


Site will likely require design and construction of three Stormwater Management (SWM) ponds (includes replacement of SWM pond for existing landfill which is displaced by new footprint).















No mitigation required.

No mitigation required. Material requirements for base liner, LCS, and final cover are dictated by footprint size as well as design requirements identified in O. Reg. 232/98.




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


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

Longest leachate forcemain length is approx. 2000 m.

Longest gas forcemain length is approx. 2400 m.





Operational flexibility. Base grading design with two low points affords flexibility to

commence filling in two locations without need for temporary leachate collection measures.




16


















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



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


One off-site receptor affected (William Mooney Road). Design and implement dust control systems (routine cleaning of haul routes).


One off-site receptor will be affected.








Implement major construction activities occur prior to the start of operation period.

Maintenance to keep haul trucks in good condition. Implement noise BMPs.



Exceedance is expected at one nearest off-site receptor. Acceptable levels are noise levels at or below 55 dBA or within 3 dB of background sound levels.




Groundwater quality








17



bedrock and deeper bedrock are predicted at the property boundaries (<0.11 m). At locations of current downgradient receptors, the water level drawdown is predicted to be <0.05 m. The predicted drawdowns are much less than natural seasonal variations associated with varying amounts of precipitation.


No off-site groundwater receptors will be affected. The minor localized groundwater drawdown will not have a significant effect on the provision of baseflow to the surface water environment. However, the location of the proposed landfill footprint alternative encompasses a drainage course leading from the Gouldbourn Wetland Complex.






Accidental seep of leachate to surface. Roadway drainage may increase Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and related parameter concentrations in Huntley Creek (South Branch) at William Mooney Road and Carp Road.

Two Stormwater Management (SWM) facilities likely required - one east and one west of William Mooney Road.

Both SWM facilities would be two stage to provide TSS removals and emergency leachate seep storage in Stage 1 and runoff control in Stage 2.

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

East pond discharges to groundwater with no increase in TSS and related parameter concentrations to surface water.


Change in drainage areas. Reduced flow north to Richardson Side Road due to landfill drainage diversion east of William Mooney Road. Less than 5% reduction in 1:5 Year flow at Richardson; Some potential to reduce minor flooding.



Wetland drainage blocked by landfill – increased wetland water levels and potential negative impact on existing natural environment.


No mitigation measures required. No mitigation measures required. Two stage SWM facility where Stage 2 retains entire post development runoff and discharges to groundwater.

Divert wetland flow around landfill using naturalised open channel and culverts for roadway crossings.


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.


Increased peak flows in ditch along Carp Road due to increase Time to Peak from landfill slopes to the east of William Mooney Road.

Increased peak flows at William Mooney Road due to reduced Time to Peak from landfill slopes to the west of William Mooney Road.

The SWM facility to the east would use recharge to groundwater as a control mechanism (similar to SWM practice in existing landfill).

The SWM facility to the west would use a storage facility that would attenuate post development flows to pre-development levels.

Reduced flow in South Branch of Huntley Creek. No increase in Carp Road flows or peak flows at William Mooney Road.




Loss of : 3.8 ha of meadow communities 13.4 ha of forest communities 3.1 ha of wetland communities which are associated with the adjacent Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW).

This represents a total of 20.3 ha of vegetation to be removed. Potential for the increase of Edge Effects resulting in the increase in:


Impact on the hydrology of the adjacent PSW. Leachate contamination within adjacent vegetation affecting growth of native species.





Installation of protective fencing. Access restrictions/ prohibition. Use of dust suppressants. Establish buffers between landfill and natural areas. Establish buffers between landfill and natural areas. A system to treat leachate will be developed in conjunction with the preferred landfill footprint during detailed design.

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.


18


Criteria Indicators Alternative Landfill Footprint Option #4 Predicted impact on wildlife habitat due to project.

Removal of 3.1 ha of amphibian habitat. Removal of 6 territories and 13.4 ha of habitat for area sensitive bird species such as black-and-white warbler, northern waterthrush and American redstart.

Disturbance to the active bank swallow colony. Interruption of wildlife movement across agricultural fields between woodlands.

Disturbance to breeding birds and other wildlife through construction noise and vibration as well as landfill operation.


Amphibians should be salvaged and moved prior to removal of the amphibian breeding habitats.

Tree and other vegetation loss in this area could be compensated for in adjacent areas.


Provide restoration and compensation areas in vegetation gaps where the development of a corridor is possible.


Avoid activity in area of bank swallow colony during breeding season.

Establish buffers between landfill and natural areas. Install dense planting within buffers.


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.


Predicted impact of project on vegetation and wildlife including rare, threatened or endangered species.

Risk to Butternut (a species listed as threatened under the Species at Risk Act) observed adjacent to the proposed site.

Create buffers between the landfill and natural areas. No impact on rare, threatened or endangered species within the area.

Aquatic Environment

Aquatic ecosystems

Predicted changes in water quality. Removal or realignment of 1,016 m of Tributary C. Tributary C is an agricultural drain and the watercourse is important for surface water conveyance from the adjacent wetland (Tributaries A and B) \. The positioning of the landfill adjacent to tributaries A and B may increase sediment loading, decreased water quality, and impacted surface water runoff.

Tributary C could be realigned from near the confluence with Tributaries A and B.

Silt fencing, storm water holding ponds and other erosion and sediment controls could reduce sedimentation. Proper installation and designation of stockpile areas could reduce some of the impact on the surface water runoff.

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.


Removal or realignment of 1016 m of Tributary C. Tributary C is an agricultural drain and there is evidence that this provides seasonal fish habitat.

Removal or realignment of sections of Tributary C will affect the connectivity to Tributary D of the South Huntley Creek which is an important part of fish habitat.

Tributary C could be realigned from near the confluence with Tributaries A and B and to maintain connectivity with Tributary D of the South Huntley Creek This section could be naturalized and there may be habitat enhancement opportunities. Alternatively compensation for the habitat loss could occur elsewhere in the Huntley Creek Sub-watershed.

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.

Predicted impact on aquatic biota due to project. Tributary C is an intermittent agricultural drain that provides seasonal fish habitat. If work is carried out in the dry months, there will be no impact on the aquatic biota.

All works to be carried out in the dry (likely summer-fall) If works are carried out while the channel is dry (no flow), there will be no impact to the aquatic biota.




Potential to impact two cultural landscape units: Disturbance to a farm house located south of the footprint; and Removal of a portion of the William Mooney roadscape.





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.




Presence of archaeological resources on-site. There is potential for archaeological sites, including: the woodlot in the south corner of the expansion area (west corner of the existing property); potential for pre-contact and historic sites on the locales of higher ground, particularly along the treed western margin of the area; and within 100 m of William Mooney Road.













19


Criteria Indicators Alternative Landfill Footprint Option #4 Effects from truck transport along access roads












Minimal residual effects.


Current land use. Official Plan designation is Carp Road Corridor Rural Employment Area and General Rural Area.

Designated as Heavy Industrial Area and Sand and Gravel Resource Area in the Carp Road Corridor Community Design Plan.

Zoned as Rural Heavy Industrial, Mineral Extraction and Rural Countryside under Ottawa Comprehensive Zoning By-Law.

Existing land uses include, Industrial, Agriculture, Wooded Area, and Low Density Residential.


Loss of Industrial, Agriculture, Wooded Area, and Low Density Residential lands.

Planned future land use. The Rural use of the lands would be discontinued. No mitigation measures required. The Rural use of the lands would be discontinued. Type(s) and proximity of off-site recreational resources within 500 m of landfill footprint potentially affected.




One residence is found within 500 m of the landfill footprint. Measures will be put in place to manage nuisance related effects during construction and operation.

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


Current land use. Loss of dairy farm and part- time beef farm. Loss of mainly Class 4 agricultural capability soil. Change in Official Plan designation, which is currently identified as “General Rural Area”.

Acquire properties. 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.












Total optimized site capacity and site life. The total optimized site capacity is 6.5 mil m3 over 10 years. No mitigation measures required. A total optimized site capacity of 6.5 mil m3 over 10 years.







City of Ottawa. Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate. Loss of dairy farm and 1 part-time beef farm.


Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate. Loss of dairy farm and 1 part-time beef farm.



20


Criteria Indicators Alternative Landfill Footprint Option #4 Social Visual impact of

the facility on surrounding areas


Visible from rural residential area to the northwest along Richardson Side Road.

Visible from Highway 7 / Highway 417 interchange to the south. No visibility issues along the west, east, and most of the south edges due to existing vegetation and existing topography.

Extensive berm/vegetation buffer treatment to be installed along north edge of footprint to create visual screen from residential areas and roadway.

Short length of berm/vegetation buffer treatment to be installed along south edge of site to create visual screen from highway.


Local residents Number of residences. 1 residence 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.










Site Design & Operations


Complexity of site infrastructure. Site will require leachate, gas, and storm water (SW) controls. No mitigation required. Need for leachate, gas, and SW control is dictated by O. Reg 232/98.











Site will likely require design and construction of four Stormwater Management (SWM) ponds (including replacement of SWM pond for existing landfill which is displaced by new footprint).


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






Longest gas forcemain length is approx. 2450m




Landfill footprint encroaches on William Mooney Road necessitating road closure and acquisition by WM.

No mitigation required. Continued use of William Mooney Road by waste haulers concurrently with public creates road hazards and precludes good site security.

Necessitates closure and WM acquisition of William Mooney Road.


No mitigation required. Material requirements for base liner, LCS, and final cover are dictated by footprint size as well as design requirements identified in O.Reg. 232/98.





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



Attachment C Comparative Evaluation Technical Memorandums

Waste Management of Canada Corporation

Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre

ATTACHMENT C Project Number: 60191228 Date: November 4, 2011

Attachment C1 RWDI Prepared by: RWDI Project Number: 60191228 Date: November 4, 2011

Attachment C1: RWDI

West Carleton Environmental Centre

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s Page

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

2. Documentation ................................................................................................... 1

3. Assessment and Evaluation of the Alternative Landfill Footprint Options ................................................................................................................ 2

3.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 2

4. Net Effects Analysis ........................................................................................... 4

4.1 General Assumptions ........................................................................................... 4

5. Evaluation Results ............................................................................................. 8 List of Figures Figure 1. Receptor Locations Figure 2. Nearest (NR) and Previously Identified Receptors (PR)

Appendices

Appendix A. 10 Minute Odour Concentration Results (OU/m3)

Appendix B. Concentration Results (g/m3)

24 Hour Concentration Results

Vinyl Chloride

Benzene

Hydrogen Sulphide

10 Minute Concentration Results

Hydrogen Sulphide

Appendix C. Concentration Results (g/m3)


Nitrogen Oxides


Nitrogen Oxides


Carbon Monoxide

1 hour Concentration Results

Carbon Monoxide

Attachment C1: RWDI


Appendix D. 24 Hour Concentration Results (g/m3)

TSP

PM10

PM2.5

Appendix E. Point of Reception Noise Impace

Attachment C1: RWDI


1

1. Introduction

This memo documents the assessment and evaluation of the four landfill footprint alternatives

for the West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC) Environmental Assessment (EA) from the

Atmospheric perspective. The Minister approved Terms of Reference (ToR) included a

preliminary description of the methodology for evaluating the alternative methods, i.e. alternative

landfill footprint options (See Section 8.1 of the approved ToR, August 2010). This memo is one

of 10 memos that outline the evaluation of the alternative landfill footprint options from the

perspective of each discipline. These memos will be used in concert with one another, along

with their evaluation tables, as supporting documents to the Alternative Methods Report.

Memos were prepared for the following 10 environmental components:

Atmospheric;

Geology and Hydrogeology;

Surface Water;

Biology – Terrestrial and Aquatic;

Cultural Heritage Resources;

Transportation;

Land Use;

Agriculture;

Socio-economic; and,

Site Design and Operations.

Each of the above disciplines also prepared existing conditions reports that were utilized in

assessing and evaluating the alternative landfill footprint options. Further, the disciplines referred

to the Conceptual Design Report (CDR) that was prepared from a Site Design and Operations

perspective in order to provide the appropriate level of detail on each of the alternative landfill

footprints. The CDR will also form a supporting document to the Alternative Methods Report.

Each discipline is following the requirements as stated in the draft work plans that were presented

in Appendix C of the approved ToR. The work plan presents the scope of work required to

complete the EA, including the scope of technical studies for each of the environmental

components, and the evaluation of alternative methods (alternative landfill footprints).

2. Documentation

The results of these individual memos will be documented in separate stand-alone technical

memorandums during the EA. The final alternative methods evaluation will form a chapter of the

EA Report with each of the stand-alone memorandums becoming supporting documents/

appendices to the EA Report.

Attachment C1: RWDI


2

3. Assessment and Evaluation of the Alternative Landfill Footprint Options

3.1 Methodology

The assessment and evaluation of the alternative landfill footprints was conducted in three

steps:

Step 1: Confirm Evaluation Criteria and Indicators/Measures

Prior to undertaking the net effects analysis, the evaluation criteria, indicators, and measures

previously developed in the ToR were reviewed with the public during Open House events and

confirmed for application to each of the landfill footprint alternatives. Evaluation criteria were

developed for each Environmental Component listed above.

The approved WCEC ToR set out the draft criteria and indicators for evaluating the ‘alternative

methods’ (i.e. alternative landfill footprint options) in the EA. As a result, the draft criteria,

indicators, and measures provided for in the ToR were reviewed and modified appropriately to

suit the evaluation of the landfill footprint alternatives.

Specifically, the criteria, indicators and measures were modified in consultation with review

agencies and the public to ensure that an appropriate level of scrutiny and rigour was applied in

evaluating the landfill footprint alternatives. In doing so, the results of the evaluation phase will

consist of clearly defined net effects for each landfill footprint alternative.

Step 2: Undertake the Net Effects Analysis

With the evaluation criteria, indicators and measures confirmed through the preceding step, a

net effects analysis of the alternative landfill footprint options was carried out consisting of the

following activities:

Identify potential effects (based on measures) on the environment;

Develop and apply avoidance/mitigation/compensation/enhancement measures; and

Determine net effects on the environment.

Step 3: Carry Out the Comparative Evaluation

In Step 3, the net effects identified for each alternative landfill footprint option in Step 2 were

compared to one another in order to identify a “recommended landfill footprint”. The

comparison of net effects was completed using a “Reasoned Argument” or “Trade-off”

evaluation methodology, as provided for in the approved WCEC EA ToR.

Attachment C1: RWDI


3

Each landfill footprint alternative was assessed based on the evaluation criteria, indicators and

measures.

RWDI completed the comparative technical evaluation for specific key indicators of criteria for

the atmospheric studies. The main criteria items that were assessed are as follows:

1. Odour

2. Air Quality (assessed main contributors or indicators of potential air quality

including vinyl chloride, benzene and hydrogen sulphide)

3. Dust Emissions (including total suspended particulate matter (TSP),

inhalable particulate matter (PM10) and respirable particulate matter (PM2.5)

4. Combustion Emissions (focusing on carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen

as these indicators are key variables for change for the four footprints.

5. Noise

Each criterion was evaluated with indicators for each landfill footprint alternative (including

number and significance) to support the reasoned argument in the comparative rankings:

Odour

Potential for predicted odour concentrations greater than 1 Odour Unit (OU)

at off-site receptors for 10-minute averaging periods

Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties,

public facilities, businesses and institutions) and frequency of occurrence for

elevated events (above 1 OU) at each receptor)

Air Quality

Potential for predicted concentrations of vinyl chloride, benzene and

hydrogen sulphide to be greater than there respective air quality Point of

Impingement standards or guidelines.

Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public

facilities, businesses and institutions) and frequency of occurrence for elevated

events (above standards or guidelines) at each receptor)

Dust

Potential for predicted concentrations of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 to be

greater than there respective air quality Point of Impingement Standards or

Guidelines, Ambient Air Quality Criteria or Canadian Wide Standard (for

PM2.5).

Attachment C1: RWDI


4



elevated events (above applicable indicator) at each receptor)

Combustion Emissions

Potential for predicted concentrations of Carbon Monoxide and Oxides of

Nitrogen to be greater than there respective air quality Point of Impingement

Standards or Guidelines.



elevated events (above standard or guideline) at each receptor)

Noise

Potential for predicted noise levels to be greater than the limits provided

within NPC-205, MOE Guideline for Assessing Noise at Landfill Site and/or

applicable background sound levels.


public facilities, businesses and institutions) and the extent of the noise

levels above the noise criteria.

4. Net Effects Analysis

4.1 General Assumptions

The following section outlines our assumptions for each criteria presented:

Criteria Assumptions

Air Quality,

Odour, Noise

and Combustion

General

Assumptions

1) All numerical modelling was completed using U.S EPA AERMOD and Terrain and

Meteorological data provided by the MOE specific for this site. Five years of

meteorological data was used for this evaluation.

2) Operating hours of landfill for each option are from 7:00am to 6:00pm

3) All landfill footprint alternatives were assumed to be filled from East to West with the

exception of landfill footprint Option #1 which was assume to be filled from South to North

4) The alternative landfill footprints were assumed to begin accepting waste in 2013 and

cease accepting waste 10 year later in 2022 (for the purpose of this evaluation). Based

on this assumption, the year after the alternatives landfill closure was 2023. This year

was used for worst-case vehicle emissions based on emissions from MOBILE6.2

5) The area of the working face was assumed to be 900 square metres of (30 metres

by 30 metres) for all alternatives.

6) The working face is assumed to be the only area of the landfill footprint that is not

equipped with extraction wells to feed into the landfill gas utilization centre.

Therefore, a 0% collection efficiency was assumed for the working face.

Attachment C1: RWDI


5


7) The gas collection efficiency for all alternative landfill options, excluding the working

faces, is assumed to be 85%.

8) The existing landfill footprint, landfill gas fired generators, leachate system, landfill

gas flares, existing haul routes and background emissions were not considered in

the alternatives evaluation as they would be consistent throughout and the goal was

to assess net effects from each alternative.

Odour

Emissions

1) The maximum landfill gas generation rate will occur during the year after the

alternatives landfill option closes. The maximum landfill gas generation rate was

determined using the U.S. EPA LANDGEM model with site specific characteristics

such as landfill tonnage, landfill capacity and methane generation rates as specified

by the MOE Lo (125 cubic metres per tonne of waste) and Ko (0.04/year) values

2) For all of the alternative footprint options, the working face was placed in the last

position to be filled based on the filled direction assumed

3) Odour emission rates from the capped alternative landfill was developed using the

upper range of odour concentrations for landfill gas of 10,000 Odour Units (OU) as

defined by the MOE in the MOE’s Interim Guide to Assessing Landfill Emissions.

4) Odour emissions from the working face of all of the alternatives were based on the

odour testing completed at the site in 2004 for the existing landfill. The average

odour flux rate measured at the existing landfill was 0.5 OU/square metre/second

which resulting in an odour emission rate of 183,031 OU per cubic metre.

5) Odour emissions from the alternatives leachate collection systems were not included

in this assessment as it was assumed that the leachate collection system would be

maintained under negative pressure and the gas would be directed to the landfill gas

utilization system.

Air Quality

(Vinyl Chloride,

Benzene, and

Hydrogen

Sulphide)

1) The maximum landfill gas generation rate will occur during the year after the

alternatives landfill option closes. The maximum landfill gas generation rate was

determined using the U.S. EPA LANDGEM model with site specific characteristics

such as landfill tonnage, landfill capacity and methane generation rates as specified

by the MOE Lo (125 cubic metres per tonne of waste) and Ko (0.04/year) values

2) Samples of Landfill gas were taken at the existing landfill to determine the

concentrations of the various components in the landfill gas. The higher of the two

sampling events from 2004 and 2011 were used in LandGEM for site specific landfill

gas composition values.

3) Vinyl chloride emissions were used in the dispersion modelling and the results were

scaled to assess for benzene and hydrogen sulphide.

4) For all of the alternative footprint options, the working face was placed in the last

position to be filled based on the filled direction assumed

5) Landfill gas emissions from the alternatives leachate collection systems were not

included in this assessment as it was assumed that the leachate collection system

would be maintained under negative pressure and the gas would be directed to the

landfill gas utilization system.

6) The same reduction factor applied in the baseline evaluation was applied to the

alternative footprint evaluation. This reduction factor is still under evaluation based

on comments provided by the GRT and may change.

Attachment C1: RWDI


6


Combustion

Emissions

(NOx and CO)

1) On-site traffic speed was assumed to be 20 km/hr to be consistent with the value

used in the Noise Impact Assessment

2) U.S. EPA MOBILE 6.2 was used to estimate NOx, CO and Particulate Matters (TSP,

PM10 and PM2.5) based on worst-case landfill gas production year of 2023.

3) Tailpipe emissions of the light to medium weighted vehicles were not considered in

the alternative evaluation as they are typically negligible in comparison to heavy

vehicles emissions.

4) For all alternatives options, the average of the heavy trucks was assumed to be 23.8

tonnes (based on value from 2004 assessment)

5) The landfilling and construction operations were assumed to be constant for all

operating hours of the day.

6) The haul route was assumed to be two lane road with a width of 7.5 metres

7) The haul route release heights were assumed to be 3.5 metres based on the

approximate height of a haul route truck exhaust.

Particulate

Emissions

1) Haul Route Sources

a) It was assumed that construction and landfill activities occur concurrently

b) Haul routes are paved and utilize the existing entrance and internal roadways

c) Emissions for operating hours were calculated using U.S. EPA AP-42 Chapter

13.2-1 with the following parameters

i) A typical silt loading for paved roads of 7.4 grams per square metre

(default for municipal roads as per AP-42 Table 13.2.1-3

ii) On-Site traffic speed was assumed to be 20 km/hr

iii) The highest number of vehicles for each footprint was presented in the

CDR and used as a worst-case assumption

iv) Average weight of a truck is 23.8 tonnes

v) No efficiency control was included for a conservative assumption

2) Bulk Material Handling Sources

a) The working face was assumed to be to last filling location based on filing

direction discussed (this is the longest haul route)

b) Hourly emission flux rates for operating hours were calculated for the entire

modeling period using U.S. EPA AP-42 Chapter 13.2.4

i) Working face hourly handling rate is 70 tonnes per hour

ii) Moisture content of material was assumed to be 12% moisture

iii) Control efficiency of 0% for a conservative estimate

3) Contaminated Soil Stockpile Sources

a) For all alternatives, the contaminated soil stockpile was assumed to be 2000

square metres (44.7 metres by 44.7 metres)

b) The existing location of the contaminated soil stockpile was used for Options 2

and 3. The location of the contaminated soil stockpile for Options 1 and 4 was

assumed t be located farther along the existing haul route, close to William

Mooney Road.

c) The contaminated soil stockpiles were modelled for wind erosion. The hourly

emission rates were calculated using Nickling & Gillies equation previously used

in the 2004 Dust Baseline assessment. The hourly emission flux rate were

calculated for the endure modelling period from 2006 to 2010.

Attachment C1: RWDI


7


Noise 1) Construction and landfill operations were assumed to occur concurrently as a

predictable worst-case based on Option 1.

2) The number of bird deterrents used and relevant noise source data was assumed to

be the same as the 2004 Preliminary Assessment for Baseline Noise. Bird

deterrents were assumed to be located around the landfill working face.

3) Haul routes are paved and utilize the existing entrance and the internal roadways.

4) Excavated cover soil was assumed to remain on-site and transported to the

overburden pile common for all footprints. The location of the overburden pile was

assumed to be immediately northeast of the existing landfill

5) The existing location of the contaminated soil stockpile was used for Options 2 and

3. The location of the contaminated soil stockpile for Options 1 and 4 was assumed t

be located farther along the existing haul route, close to William Mooney Road.

6) The active landfill face was assumed to be at maximum elevation for each Option.

Construction activities were partially elevated and approximately at the same

elevation for each Option.

7) Truck sound levels were based on historical data collected from the 2007

assessment. On-site traffic was assumed to remain at 20 km/hr

8) The highest number of estimated traffic for each footprint was based on the CDR

present by AECOM and presented as a worst-case option.

9) The types of equipment used for landfill were assumed to be similar to 2007.

Construction equipment types were assumed based on historical experience with

expansions and used as the same for each Option.

For Odour, the assessment of each of the four footprints resulted in predicted concentrations

less than 1 OU (over a 10-minute averaging period) at 99.5% of the time provided the

assumptions provided above, that the landfill gas collection and utilization system in

incorporated and implemented progressively over the lifespan of each optional approach and

that best management practices are incorporated to reduce the potential for odour to occur

during the normal operation of the landfill. The assessment considered all 24 receptors

presented in the baseline assessment. Odours are more likely to impact receptor areas closer

to the landfill based on the nature of the sources.

For Air Quality, we evaluated the potential for vinyl chloride, benzene and hydrogen sulphide to

exceed any point of impingement standards or guidelines at the property line and at all sensitive

receptors identified in the baseline assessment. Again for a comparison of net effects, we

focused on the potential for these contaminants to exceed at the 24 receptors. All receptors

were expected to be within compliance at all receptor locations provided given the assumptions

provided above, that the landfill gas collection and utilization system in incorporated and

implemented progressively over the lifespan of each optional approach and that best

management practices are incorporated to reduce the potential for landfill gas releases to occur

during the normal operation of the landfill.

Attachment C1: RWDI


8

For combustion emissions, oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide emissions were assessed

for each footprint. The predicted concentrations for each parameter were predicted to be within

compliance at all 24 receptors identified in the baseline evaluation. This estimate is based on

all assumptions provided above and assumes that each footprint alternative will allow for

efficient traffic flow on-site (no holder periods or prolonged idling) and best management

practices in place to control emissions for the vehicles allowed to entire the site.

For particulate emissions, TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 were considered in this assessment.

Predicted concentrations for 24-hour periods for each species of particulate were assessed at

all 24 receptors identified. For each footprint, the results assumed all of the assumptions

provided above and that each alternative would incorporate efficient traffic flow movements on-

site (no holding periods or prolonged idling periods) and that a best management practices plan

for dust would be incorporated with the preferred alternative. Predicted concentrations were

predicted to exceed at one or more receptors for Options 1, 3 and 4. For Option 2, all predicted

concentrations were in compliance with applicable standards, guidelines, ambient air quality

criteria and Canadian Wide Standards applicable for this assessment. Once a preferred option

is selected, specific details regarding dust reduction strategies can be outlined to minimize dust

to all receptors.

For noise, the predicted sound levels at each of the 24 receptors were assessed to determine if

the predicted noise levels were be less than 55 dBA (MOE Noise Guideline for Landfills) or

within 3 dB of the background noise levels. 3 dB change in noise levels is the level were the

human ear can detect a change in the sound levels. All results were based on the assumptions

provided above and the assumptions that each alternative would include maintenance to keep

haul trucks and construction trucks in good working conditions, screening berms to provide

noise reduction for specific operations, noise best management practices to minimize the

potential for noise levels in excess during normal operations and efficient traffic flow of on-site

vehicles to ensure that vehicles are moving and are not sitting idle for prolonged periods of time.

Once a preferred option is selected, specific details regarding berming and noise reduction

strategies can be outlined to minimize noise to all receptors.

5. Evaluation Results

For Odour, since all footprint options were expected to be within compliance for net differences,

RWDI reviewed the results to determine which footprint option provided the lowest results.

Based on this evaluation, Option1 was the preferred option as it resulted in the lowest predicted

concentrations overall at the 24 receptor locations. The remaining options, Options 2, 3 and 4

were evaluated as tied for 2nd as they had similar results which were slightly higher than

Option 1. Preliminary results from all options are provided in Appendix A.

Attachment C1: RWDI


9

For Air Quality (vinyl chloride, benzene and hydrogen sulphide), since all footprint options were

expected to be within compliance for net differences, RWDI reviewed the results to determine

which footprint option provided the lowest results. Based on this secondary evaluation, Option 3

was ranked 1st, Option 1 was ranked 2nd, Option 4 was ranked 3rd and Option 2 was ranked 4th.

All results were in compliance at all 24 receptor locations. Preliminary results from all options

are provided in Appendix B.

For Combustion Emissions (oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide), since all footprint options

were expected to be within compliance for net differences, RWDI reviewed the results to

determine which footprint option provided the lowest results. Based on this secondary

evaluation, Options 1 and 3 were ranked 1st, Options 2 and 4 were ranked 2nd. All results were

in compliance at all 24 receptor locations. Preliminary results from all options are provided in

Appendix C.

For Particulate Emissions (TSP, PM10 and PM2.5), the results were primarily ranked based on

the number of receptors expected to be predicted over the standards, guidelines, ambient air

quality criteria and Canadian Wide Standards. Based on this evaluation, Option 2 was ranked

as 1st as it has no levels predicted in excess of any applicable criteria, Option 4 was ranked as

2nd as it has only 1 receptor that was predicted to exceed with the least percentage above

criteria, Option 3 was ranked 3rd as it too has only one receptor that exceeded, but the predicted

concentration was slightly higher than that predicted for Option 4, and Option 1 was ranked as

4th as it had two receptors that were predicted to be in excess of applicable criteria. Preliminary

results from all options are provided in Appendix D.

For Noise, the results were primarily ranked based on the number of receptors expected to be in

excess of 55 dBA or within 3 dB of background limits. For noise, Options 2, 3, and 4 were

ranked as being tied for 1st as each option only had one (1) receptor predicted to be in excess of

55 dBA or greater that 3 dB above background. Option 1 has a total of five (5) receptors that

were either greater than 55 dBA or greater than 3 dB above background and therefore ranked

as 2nd with moderate impacts. Preliminary results from all options are provided in Appendix E.

Figures

UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

24

23

22

21

2019

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

7

Carp

Road

Haze

ldean R

oad

Ric

hardson S

idero

ad

Spru

ce Rid

ge R

oad

Mcg

ee S

ider

oad

Hun

tmar D

rive

Fernbank R

oad

William

Mooney R

oad

David

Man

chester R

oad

Mar

ch R

oad

Old

Alm

onte

Road

Diam

ondview

Road

Oak C

reek Road

Cam

peau

Dri

ve

Beavertail R

oad

Maple

Gro

ve Road

Stittsville M

ain S

treet

Roth

bourne R

oad

Kat

imavi

k Road

Palladium Drive

Cav

anmore

Road

Shea R

oad

Flew

ellyn R

oad

Kanata

Avenue

Bra

dley S

idero

ad

Terry Fox D

rive

Go

ulb

ou

rn F

orc

ed

Ro

ad

Castle

fran

k R

oad

Marc

h R

oad

Shea R

oad

417

1:40,000

Legend

Receptors

Nearest Receptors

Representative Receptors

Boundaries

Existing WM Operations

Subject Site: On-site Study Area

500m of Subject Site

Site-Vicinity Study Area(Approx 3 km of Subject Site)

Map

Do

cu

me

nt:

(P

:\6

01

91

228

\00

0-C

AD

D\0

50

GIS

WIP

\MX

Ds\S

ocia

lEcon

om

icM

XD

s\6

019

122

8R

ecep

tors

.mxd

)

4/7

/2011 -

- 11

:07

:50

AM

Figure 4

Receptor Locations

April 2011Project 60191228

Waste Management of Canada

Environmental Assessment of a New LandfillFootprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM’s client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,

except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party

that modifies this drawing without AECOM’s express written consent.

Basemapping from Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesOrthophotography: 2005, 2008, 2010

0 500 1,000250

m

Nearest Receptors

1 Nearest House, North

2 Nearest House, East

3 Nearest House, West

4 Nearest House, South

5 St. Stephen Catholic Elementary School

6 Huntleigh United Cemetery

7 Lloydalex Park

8 Terrace Youth Residential Services

9 Nearest Sensitive Business Operation

Representative Receptors

10 Spruce Ridge Road Central

11 David Manchester Road North

12 David Manchester Road Central

13 David Manchester Road South

14 William Mooney Road

15 Wilbert Cox Drive

16 Carp Road North

17 Oak Creek Road

18 West Carleton Industrial Park

19 Timbermere

20 Stittsville

21 Jackson Trails

22 Fairwinds

23 Arcadia

24 Kanata West

Tony & Nickey

Text Box

Figure 1

HWY 4

17

CARP R

OAD

RICHAR

DSON R

OAD

PR2

PR3PR4

PR5

PR6

PR7

PR9

NR1

NR2

NR3

NR4

NR5

NR6

NR7

NR8

NR9

18422000

18422000

18422500

18422500

18423000

18423000

18423500

18423500

18424000

18424000

18424500

18424500

18425000

18425000

18425500

18425500

18426000

18426000

18426500

18426500

18427000

18427000

5013500

5013500

5014000

5014000

5014500

5014500

5015000

5015000

5015500

5015500

5016000

5016000

5016500

5016500

Nearest (NR) and Previously Identified Receptors (PR)Nearest Receptor Locations Provided by AECOM

WCEC Landfill - Ottawa, Ontario Project #1100798 Date: May 1, 2011

Drawn by: NTN Figure: 2

Scale: 1:25 000

True North

Site Vicinity 3 km Study Area

Expanded Property Line

Existing Property Line

LEGEND:

Aerial Photography from Google Earth Professional (c) 2010 Google, 2011 DigitalGlobe

Appendix A

10-Minute Odour Concentration Results (OU/m3)

Receptor Maximum Mean99.5th

percentileMaximum Mean

99.5th


99.5th


99.5th

percentile

MIN 99.5th

Percentile valueOP1 OP2 OP3 OP4 OP1 OP2 OP3 OP4

1 3.86E-01 4.04E-03 1.74E-02 4.54E-01 1.20E-02 3.50E-01 3.91E-01 1.08E-02 3.01E-01 3.49E-01 5.62E-03 1.87E-01 1.74E-02 1 0 0 0 YES YES YES YES












14 2.44E+00 2.16E-02 9.98E-02 1.45E+00 7.23E-03 3.57E-01 1.17E+00 7.79E-03 3.03E-01 4.41E-01 3.75E-03 1.47E-01 9.98E-02 1 0 0 0 YES YES YES YES











99.5th percentile 23 0 0 0

MOE Odour Unit Criteria 1 Max 10 1 6 7

Compliance with Applicable CriteriaAlternative Option #1 Alternative Option #2 Alternative Option #3 Alternative Option #4 Count of Lowest 99.5th Percentile Concentration

Appendix B

24-Hour Concentration Results Vinyl Chloride (µg/m3)

Alternative Option #1 Alternative Option #2 Alternative Option #3 Alternative Option #4

Receptor Maximum Mean90th


90th


90th


90th

percentileMIN Max Value OP1 OP2 OP3 OP4 OP1 OP2 OP3 OP4
























MAX 7 2 8 6

24-Hour Averaging Period Standard for Vinyl Chloride 1 90th Percentile 12 5 2 5

24-Hour Concentration Results Benzene (µg/m3)




90th


90th


90th

























MAX 7 2 8 6

24-Hour Averaging Period Standard for Benzene 2.3 90th Percentile 12 5 2 5

Count of Lowest Maximum Concentration Compliance with Applicable Criteria

Compliance with Applicable CriteriaCount of Lowest Maximum Concentration

24-Hour Concentration Results Hydrogen Sulphide (µg/m3)




90th


90th


90th

























MAX 7 2 8 6

24-Hour Averaging Period Standard for Hydrogen Sulphide 7 90th Percentile 12 5 2 5

10-Minute Concentration Results Hydrogen Sulphide(µg/m3)




90th


90th


90th


1 1.94E+00 2.91E-02 2.59E-02 4.33E+00 1.01E-01 1.07E-01 3.75E+00 9.34E-02 1.08E-01 2.29E+00 4.56E-02 4.97E-02 1.94E+00 1 0 0 0 YES YES YES YES



5 1.28E+00 3.72E-03 1.29E-03 1.11E+00 4.32E-03 2.76E-03 9.21E-01 4.16E-03 3.04E-03 8.40E-01 4.81E-03 3.64E-03 8.40E-01 0 0 0 1 YES YES YES YES


7 1.64E+00 4.67E-03 2.44E-03 1.20E+00 5.34E-03 4.49E-03 9.80E-01 5.35E-03 4.95E-03 1.06E+00 5.76E-03 5.56E-03 9.80E-01 0 0 1 0 YES YES YES YES






13 1.75E+00 8.25E-03 3.04E-04 2.85E+00 5.60E-03 0.00E+00 2.44E+00 5.65E-03 0.00E+00 2.91E+00 8.85E-03 1.33E-05 1.75E+00 1 0 0 0 YES YES YES YES



16 1.41E+00 1.32E-02 4.75E-04 1.39E+00 8.43E-03 0.00E+00 1.26E+00 9.08E-03 8.82E-06 1.21E+00 8.38E-03 8.15E-05 1.21E+00 0 0 0 1 YES YES YES YES




20 1.53E+00 4.07E-03 1.68E-03 1.07E+00 3.93E-03 2.29E-03 8.80E-01 3.93E-03 2.99E-03 9.84E-01 4.62E-03 4.21E-03 8.80E-01 0 0 1 0 YES YES YES YES

21 1.43E+00 6.12E-03 2.15E-03 1.29E+00 6.16E-03 5.20E-03 1.08E+00 5.96E-03 5.38E-03 9.73E-01 7.54E-03 5.66E-03 9.73E-01 0 0 0 1 YES YES YES YES

22 9.93E-01 4.41E-03 5.95E-04 1.27E+00 6.48E-03 2.19E-03 1.09E+00 6.31E-03 2.26E-03 7.16E-01 5.60E-03 2.80E-03 7.16E-01 0 0 0 1 YES YES YES YES

23 8.02E-01 3.91E-03 2.41E-04 1.37E+00 5.67E-03 2.81E-04 1.33E+00 5.44E-03 2.59E-04 1.10E+00 5.18E-03 4.98E-04 8.02E-01 1 0 0 0 YES YES YES YES

24 6.71E-01 3.50E-03 2.44E-04 1.10E+00 4.94E-03 2.78E-04 1.07E+00 4.77E-03 2.34E-04 9.69E-01 4.12E-03 2.76E-04 6.71E-01 1 0 0 0 YES YES YES YES

MAX 7 0 6 10

10-Minute Averaging Period Standard for Hydrogen Sulphide 13 90th Percentile 12 6 2 3



Appendix C

24-Hour Concentration Results for Nitrogen Oxides (µg/m3)



90th


90th


90th

























Max 23 0 0 0

24-Hour Averaging Period AAQC for Nitrogen Oxides 200 24 0 0 0

1-Hour Concentration Results for Nitrogen Oxides (µg/m3)



90th


90th


90th

























Max 22 0 0 0

1-Hour Averaging Period AAQC for Nitrogen Oxides 400 22 2 0 0


Count of Lowest Maximum Concentration Compliance with Applicable CriteriaAlternative Option #1 Alternative Option #2 Alternative Option #3 Alternative Option #4


8-Hour Concentration Results for Carbon Monoxide (µg/m3)



90th


90th


90th




4 6.86E-02 4.92E-04 1.34E-03 2.47E-01 1.18E-03 3.52E-03 2.21E-02 1.63E-04 4.66E-04 1.33E+00 1.49E-02 4.39E-02 2.21E-02 0 0 1 0 YES YES YES YES





















Max 0 0 23 0

8-Hour Averaging Period AAQC for Carbon Monoxide 15700 90th Percentile 0 0 23 0

1-Hour Concentration Results for Carbon Monoxide (µg/m3)



90th


90th


90th


1 2.36E-01 5.90E-04 6.60E-04 1.10E+00 2.67E-03 1.49E-03 7.73E-02 2.02E-04 1.22E-04 3.31E+00 4.95E-03 2.66E-03 7.73E-02 0 0 1 0 YES YES YES YES























Max 0 0 23 0

1-Hour Averaging Period AAQC for Carbon Monoxide 36200 0 0 24 0




Appendix D

24-Hour Concentration Results for TSP (µg/m3)



90thpercentile

Maximum Mean90th


90thpercentile

MIN Max Value

OP1 OP2 OP3 OP4 OP1 OP2 OP3 OP4

1 70 3 6 44 1 3 46 2 3 118 2 5 43.56 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES2 98 2 3 38 1 1 61 1 2 83 2 4 38.25 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES4 122 3 5 44 1 2 101 1 3 280 7 15 43.71 0 1 0 0 NO YES YES NO5 36 1 1 11 0 0 19 0 0 43 1 1 10.57 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES6 55 2 3 46 1 1 55 1 1 75 1 2 46.42 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES7 30 1 1 15 0 1 22 0 1 51 1 2 14.60 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES8 104 2 5 44 1 1 79 1 3 172 5 9 44.19 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES NO9 75 2 4 34 1 2 36 1 2 75 2 4 33.59 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES

10 41 1 2 12 0 0 16 0 1 34 1 2 11.79 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES11 97 1 2 27 0 1 47 0 1 51 1 1 26.62 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES12 117 3 7 21 1 1 39 1 2 96 3 6 20.73 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES13 44 1 2 16 0 0 27 0 1 74 1 3 15.71 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES14 555 14 30 103 2 3 156 2 4 155 3 6 103.08 0 1 0 0 NO YES NO NO15 265 4 9 65 1 1 80 1 2 62 1 3 61.61 0 0 0 1 NO YES YES YES16 88 1 2 40 0 0 50 0 1 80 1 1 40.06 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES17 38 1 2 19 0 1 24 0 1 42 1 2 19.43 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES18 87 2 3 36 1 1 58 1 2 108 3 6 36.36 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES19 55 1 2 16 0 1 33 0 1 59 1 3 16.09 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES20 33 1 1 11 0 0 19 0 1 30 1 2 11.43 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES21 51 1 1 16 0 0 28 0 1 58 1 2 16.30 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES22 29 1 1 13 0 0 14 0 0 28 1 1 13.30 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES23 18 0 1 10 0 0 17 0 0 29 1 1 9.52 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES24 17 0 1 10 0 0 11 0 0 17 0 1 9.66 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES

Max 0 22 0 124-Hour Averaging Period Standard for TSP 120 90th percentile 0 23 0 0

24-Hour Concentration Results for PM10 (µg/m3)



90thpercentile

Maximum Mean90th


90thpercentile

MIN Max Value


1 13.67 0.59 1.18 8.43 0.27 0.52 8.88 0.31 0.60 23.09 0.49 0.99 8.43 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES2 19.13 0.34 0.60 7.44 0.14 0.29 11.73 0.20 0.37 16.21 0.45 0.84 7.44 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES4 23.79 0.50 1.06 8.46 0.12 0.33 19.27 0.25 0.60 54.67 1.47 2.97 8.46 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES NO5 7.10 0.10 0.18 2.05 0.04 0.07 3.62 0.05 0.10 8.48 0.14 0.24 2.05 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES6 10.71 0.34 0.66 8.99 0.12 0.19 10.50 0.15 0.26 14.68 0.26 0.46 8.99 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES7 5.90 0.14 0.28 2.83 0.05 0.11 4.15 0.07 0.16 10.02 0.20 0.35 2.83 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES8 20.37 0.41 0.94 8.55 0.14 0.32 15.13 0.23 0.53 33.62 0.91 1.77 8.55 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES9 14.59 0.41 0.80 6.50 0.17 0.32 6.84 0.21 0.39 14.71 0.34 0.70 6.50 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES

10 8.05 0.15 0.35 2.28 0.03 0.08 3.12 0.06 0.13 6.70 0.17 0.37 2.28 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES11 19.01 0.27 0.43 5.15 0.05 0.11 9.01 0.09 0.14 10.03 0.18 0.26 5.15 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES12 22.78 0.66 1.45 4.01 0.11 0.24 7.51 0.18 0.41 18.85 0.55 1.14 4.01 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES13 8.61 0.15 0.35 3.04 0.04 0.09 5.14 0.07 0.16 14.48 0.26 0.57 3.04 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES14 108.35 2.70 5.88 19.95 0.33 0.63 29.90 0.43 0.86 30.27 0.52 1.08 19.95 0 1 0 0 NO YES YES YES15 51.69 0.82 1.81 12.52 0.13 0.26 15.24 0.18 0.36 12.04 0.28 0.60 12.04 0 0 0 1 NO YES YES YES16 17.15 0.21 0.39 7.75 0.05 0.08 9.61 0.08 0.13 15.56 0.14 0.28 7.75 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES17 7.48 0.16 0.35 3.76 0.06 0.11 4.69 0.08 0.15 8.27 0.17 0.31 3.76 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES18 16.93 0.30 0.70 7.04 0.10 0.23 11.07 0.17 0.38 21.02 0.60 1.17 7.04 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES19 10.76 0.16 0.34 3.11 0.05 0.12 6.27 0.08 0.17 11.62 0.25 0.56 3.11 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES20 6.51 0.10 0.23 2.21 0.03 0.08 3.67 0.05 0.12 5.78 0.15 0.31 2.21 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES21 10.05 0.14 0.24 3.16 0.05 0.10 5.34 0.08 0.13 11.28 0.19 0.33 3.16 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES22 5.75 0.10 0.18 2.57 0.04 0.07 2.65 0.05 0.09 5.45 0.11 0.19 2.57 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES23 3.57 0.08 0.16 1.84 0.03 0.05 3.23 0.04 0.08 5.71 0.10 0.19 1.84 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES24 3.39 0.07 0.13 1.87 0.02 0.04 2.13 0.03 0.06 3.35 0.07 0.15 1.87 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES

Max 0 22 0 124-Hour Averaging Period AAQC f 50 90th percentile 0 22 0 1

24-Hour Concentration Results for PM2.5 (µg/m3)



90thpercentile

Maximum Mean90th


90thpercentile

MIN Max Value


1 3.27 0.14 0.28 2.04 0.07 0.13 2.17 0.08 0.15 5.37 0.11 0.23 2.04 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES2 4.57 0.08 0.15 1.81 0.04 0.09 2.88 0.05 0.11 3.77 0.11 0.21 1.81 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES4 5.69 0.12 0.27 2.04 0.03 0.09 4.71 0.06 0.15 12.71 0.35 0.70 2.04 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES5 1.70 0.02 0.05 0.49 0.01 0.02 0.89 0.01 0.03 1.98 0.03 0.06 0.49 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES6 2.56 0.08 0.16 2.17 0.03 0.05 2.57 0.04 0.06 3.42 0.06 0.11 2.17 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES7 1.41 0.04 0.07 0.68 0.01 0.03 1.02 0.02 0.05 2.34 0.05 0.09 0.68 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES8 4.88 0.10 0.25 2.07 0.04 0.09 3.70 0.06 0.14 7.85 0.22 0.43 2.07 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES9 3.49 0.10 0.19 1.57 0.04 0.08 1.67 0.05 0.10 3.42 0.08 0.16 1.57 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES

10 1.94 0.04 0.09 0.55 0.01 0.02 0.76 0.01 0.03 1.56 0.04 0.09 0.55 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES11 4.54 0.07 0.10 1.25 0.01 0.03 2.20 0.02 0.04 2.33 0.04 0.06 1.25 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES12 5.44 0.16 0.35 0.97 0.03 0.06 1.83 0.05 0.11 4.38 0.13 0.28 0.97 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES13 2.06 0.04 0.08 0.73 0.01 0.02 1.26 0.02 0.04 3.37 0.06 0.13 0.73 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES14 25.89 0.65 1.41 4.82 0.08 0.15 7.31 0.10 0.21 7.04 0.12 0.25 4.82 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES15 12.36 0.20 0.43 3.03 0.03 0.06 3.72 0.05 0.09 2.80 0.07 0.14 2.80 0 0 0 1 YES YES YES YES16 4.10 0.05 0.09 1.87 0.01 0.02 2.35 0.02 0.03 3.62 0.03 0.06 1.87 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES17 1.79 0.04 0.09 0.91 0.02 0.03 1.15 0.02 0.04 1.92 0.04 0.07 0.91 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES18 4.05 0.08 0.18 1.70 0.03 0.07 2.71 0.04 0.11 4.89 0.14 0.29 1.70 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES19 2.57 0.04 0.09 0.75 0.01 0.03 1.53 0.02 0.05 2.70 0.06 0.14 0.75 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES20 1.56 0.03 0.06 0.54 0.01 0.02 0.90 0.01 0.03 1.34 0.04 0.08 0.54 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES21 2.40 0.04 0.06 0.77 0.01 0.03 1.31 0.02 0.04 2.62 0.05 0.08 0.77 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES22 1.37 0.02 0.04 0.62 0.01 0.02 0.65 0.01 0.02 1.27 0.03 0.05 0.62 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES23 0.85 0.02 0.04 0.45 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.01 0.02 1.33 0.02 0.05 0.45 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES24 0.81 0.02 0.03 0.45 0.01 0.01 0.52 0.01 0.02 0.78 0.02 0.04 0.45 0 1 0 0 YES YES YES YES

Max 0 22 0 124-Hour Averaging Period CWS fo 30.0 90th percentile 0 22 0 1






Appendix E

Page 1 of 1

Appendix A: Point of Reception Noise Impact

Notes to Table:

1. Applicable worst-case NPC-205 / NPC-232 sound level limit (based on baseline levels).

2. Point of reception within the expanded property line.

Point of

Reception

ID

Point of Reception DescriptionPerformance

Limit [1]

(dBA) SS_OP1 SS_OP2 SS_OP3 SS_OP4 SS_OP1 SS_OP2 SS_OP3 SS_OP4

PREVIOUS RECEPTORS

PR2 Previous 2-storey home Carp Road Central [2]

70 66.6 67.6 67.6 68.8 Yes Yes Yes Yes

PR3 Previous 2-storey home at 569 William Mooney Road NNW [2]

57 74.3 56.5 56.5 55.2 No Yes Yes Yes

PR4 Previous 2-storey home on Richardson Side Road NNW 62 69.8 53.0 53.1 51.7 No Yes Yes Yes

PR5 Previous 2-storey home at 505 William Mooney Road NW [2]

59 67.7 52.0 50.1 56.4 No Yes Yes Yes

PR6 Previous 2-storey home at 381 William Mooney Road SW [2]

60 58.2 52.1 52.5 54.4 Yes Yes Yes Yes

PR7 Previous 2-storey home at 2096 Carp Road South 63 54.1 54.1 54.2 54.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes

PR9 Previous 2-storey home David Manchester Road 60 50.1 48.4 48.5 48.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

NEAREST RECEPTORS

NR1 Nearest 2-storey home at 2485 Carp Road North 61 58.3 65.1 65.1 62.1 Yes No No No

NR2 Nearest 2-storey home at 2166 Carp Road East 66 57.7 57.7 57.8 57.8 Yes Yes Yes Yes

NR3 Nearest 2-storey home at 427 William Mooney Road West [2]

60 52.9 51.4 51.6 49.9 Yes Yes Yes Yes

NR4 Nearest 2-storey home at 292 Moonstone Road South 67 58.2 57.5 57.6 58.0 Yes Yes Yes Yes

NR5 St. Stephen Catholic Elementary School 58 42.6 42.7 42.7 42.8 Yes Yes Yes Yes

NR6 Huntleigh United Cemetery 59 50.5 53.0 53.0 51.6 Yes Yes Yes Yes

NR7 Lloydalex Park 58 45.0 45.2 45.2 45.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes

NR8 2-storey Terrace Youth Residential Services 61 54.7 54.4 54.6 54.6 Yes Yes Yes Yes

NR9 Nearest 2-storey Sensitive Business Operation 67 57.1 60.5 60.5 59.3 Yes Yes Yes Yes

REPRESENTATIVE RECEPTORS

RR10 Representative 2-storey Spruce Ridge Road Central 58 44.4 39.8 39.8 39.7 Yes Yes Yes Yes

RR11 Representative 2-storey David Manchester Road North 64 48.7 44.0 44.0 43.4 Yes Yes Yes Yes

RR12 Representative 2-storey David Manchester Road Central 66 54.6 47.3 47.3 47.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

RR13 Representative 2-storey David Manchester Road South 58 51.8 51.4 51.4 51.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes

RR14 Representative 2-storey at 607 William Mooney Road 64 66.3 55.7 55.8 54.1 No Yes Yes Yes

RR15 Representative 2-storey Wilbert Cox Drive 58 59.6 53.6 53.7 51.9 No Yes Yes Yes

RR16 Representative 2-storey Carp Road North 58 48.3 49.2 49.2 48.3 Yes Yes Yes Yes

RR17 Representative 2-storey Oak Creek Road 67 51.8 52.8 52.8 52.6 Yes Yes Yes Yes

RR18 Representative 2-storey West Carleton Industrial Park 60 54.2 54.1 54.2 54.3 Yes Yes Yes Yes

RR19 Representative 2-storey Timbermere 60 54.1 54.0 54.1 54.1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

RR20 Representative 2-storey Stittsville 59 47.4 47.4 47.4 47.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes

RR21 Representative 2-storey Jackson Trails 59 48.0 48.2 48.2 48.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes

RR22 Representative 2-storey Fairwinds 58 43.8 44.4 44.4 44.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes

RR23 Representative 2-storey Arcadia 58 44.2 44.9 44.9 44.9 Yes Yes Yes Yes

RR24 Representative 2-storey Kanata West 58 38.6 40.0 40.2 40.6 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Total Number of Non-compliance Receptor(s): 5 1 1 1

Total Sound Level at Point of Reception

(dBA)Compliance with Performance Limit

110714 Appendix A.xlsm/Appendix A

Attachment C2 Geology/Hydrogeology Prepared by: WESA Project Number: 60191228 Date: November 4, 2011

Attachment C2: Geology and Hydrogeology



1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Documentation ..................................................................................................... 1


2.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 2


4. Evaluation Results ............................................................................................. 6



1

1. Introduction



Geology and Hydrogeology perspective. The Minister approved Terms of Reference (ToR)

included a preliminary description of the methodology for evaluating the alternative methods, i.e.

alternative landfill footprint options (See Section 8.1 of the approved ToR, August 2010). This

memo is one of 10 memos that outline the evaluation of the alternative landfill footprint options

from the perspective of each discipline. These memos will be used in concert with one another,

along with their evaluation tables, as supporting documents to the Alternative Methods Report.


Atmospheric;


Surface Water;



Transportation;

Land Use;

Agriculture;












1.1 Documentation







2


2.1 Methodology


steps:





developed for each Environmental Component listed above.


methods’ (i.e., alternative landfill footprint options) in the EA. As a result, the draft criteria,












Develop and apply avoidance/ mitigation/ compensation/ enhancement

measures; and




3

The criteria and indicators developed for the Geology and Hydrogeology components of this

evaluation include the following:

Groundwater Quality – predicted effects to groundwater quality at property

boundaries and off-site;

Groundwater Flow – predicted groundwater flow characteristics.

In order to fully characterize these indicators and to adopt measures by which potential effects

could be identified, several considerations were developed for each indicator. These

considerations are shown below:

Criteria Indicators Considerations

Groundwater

Quality

Predicted effects to

groundwater quality at

property boundaries

and off-site.

Leachate generation rate estimates.

Existing groundwater quality - does it represent background

conditions? Is it impacted by the existing landfill or other

sources? What is the predicted future quality without the

alternative?

Monitorability - the ability to define, identify and monitor the

hydrostratigraphic units; to understand the groundwater

flow directions, gradients & velocities; to define low head

areas; and to distinguish impacts from the new landfill

versus other sources.

Downgradient receptors - from MOE WWIS: type(s) and

numbers; aquifer types; depths of wells; existing water

quality.

Downgradient receptors - Identify receptors within 500 m of

the downgradient side(s) of the proposed landfill footprint

alternative.

Groundwater

Flow

Predicted groundwater

flow characteristics.

Overburden type and thickness; bedrock type.

Depth to groundwater table.

Hydraulic characteristics of hydrostratigraphic units - ability

to identify units; hydraulic conductivity, flow directions.

Results of numerical flow modelling - predicted changes to

the groundwater flow with each alternative.

The potential effects for each alternative landfill footprint option were then identified on the basis

of these considerations.



4







measures.

Two criteria were evaluated with a total of two indicators for each landfill footprint alternative

(including number and significance) to support the reasoned argument in the comparative

rankings:

Groundwater Quality

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

Groundwater Flow

Predicted groundwater flow characteristics


The considerations that were used to characterize each of the landfill footprint options and to

identify potential effects are listed in the attached table. Also shown in the table are descriptions

of each of the landfill footprint options in relation to these considerations.

The alternative landfill footprint options exhibit variations in terms of the local geology and

hydrogeology (e.g., depth to groundwater table, number of downgradient groundwater users,

existing groundwater quality, etc.). However, the important conclusions from this evaluation are

consistent for each option, namely: i) each of the landfill footprints would be monitorable from

the perspective of groundwater flow and groundwater quality; and ii) the geology and

hydrogeology conditions for each option are suitable for the development of a generic design for

groundwater protection, in accordance with Ontario Regulation 232/98.

For the purpose of the Net Effects Analysis, it is important to recognize that the generic design

options for groundwater protection as developed by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and

specified in Ontario Regulation 232/98 are considered to be protective of the groundwater

environment. That is, the generic design options have been developed to ensure that the

Groundwater Protection Standards (Reasonable Use Limits) are met at the base of the leachate



5

containment system. Further contaminant attenuation in the buffer area is not required (MOE

Landfill Standards Guideline, May 1998; revised June 2010). As outlined in the Conceptual

Design Report (AECOM, May 2011), Generic Design Option II – Double Composite Liner

System will be used for the West Carleton Environmental Centre regardless of the landfill

footprint alternative selected.

The existing conditions for groundwater flow and groundwater quality have been determined for

each of the landfill footprint options, and are predictable. The existing hydrogeologic conditions

are suitable for effectively monitoring groundwater flow and quality around the alternative

footprints.

It is noted that development of a landfill with a Generic Design Option II leachate containment

and collection system will eliminate recharge to the aquifer from any precipitation within the area

of the footprint. This will result in a minor amount of localized drawdown of the water table in

the area. Numerical modelling of groundwater flow indicates that the predicted drawdowns at

the property boundaries are on the order of 0.1 to 0.2 metres (at full landfill development),

depending on the landfill footprint option. This amount is an order of magnitude less than the

natural seasonal variations in the water table, and is not expected to affect off-site groundwater

supplies.

With the use of a Generic Design Option II leachate containment and collection system, no

mitigation measures are required beyond the implementation of an Environmental Monitoring

Plan (EMP) that is appropriate to the landfill footprint option. For Options 2 and 3, the EMP

would need to consider impacts from the existing (unlined) landfill footprint. This can be done

with a series of monitoring wells between the footprints, monitoring wells on the downgradient

side of the new landfill footprint, and by including leachate quality monitoring from the new

landfill liner system for comparison purposes.

The result of the Net Effects Analysis is that no off-site groundwater receptors are anticipated to

be affected for any of the alternative landfill footprint options. The key factors leading to this

result are: i) the use of the Generic Design Option II leachate containment and collection

system, which is protective of the groundwater environment, and ii) the hydrogeologic conditions

are suitable for effectively monitoring groundwater flow and quality around the landfill footprints.

Refer to Table 2 for a summary of the Net Effects Analysis.



6


The results of the Net Effects Analysis are that no off-site groundwater receptors are anticipated

to be affected by any of the four landfill footprint options. Consequently, there is no distinction

between the options in relation to either criteria (Groundwater Quality and Groundwater Flow).

All options are acceptable and rank the same from a Geology and Hydrogeology perspective.

Refer to Table 3 for a summary of the Comparative Evaluation results.

Comparative Evaluation of Landfill Footprint Alternatives; Geology and Hydrogeology Considerations

Criteria Indicators Considerations Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Groundwater

Quality

Predicted effects to groundwater

quality at property boundaries and off-

site.

Leachate generation rate estimates. At closure - 1.8 to 2.9 L/s (156 to 250 m3/day); second

lowest of alternatives.

At closure - 1.7 to 2.7 L/s (147 to 233 m3/day); lowest of

alternatives.

At closure - 2.1 to 3.3 L/s (181 to 285 m3/day); second

highest of alternatives.

At closure - 2.3 to 3.6 L/s (199 to 311 m3/day); highest

of alternatives.

Existing groundwater quality - does it represent background

conditions? Is it impacted by the existing landfill or other

sources? What is the predicted future quality without the

alternative?

Generally within the range of background

concentrations; trace levels of VOCs may be the result

of isolated spills from farming operations. No changes

are expected in future groundwater quality without the

alternative.

On the north half, groundwater quality is within expected

background conditions; on the southern half the water

quality is slightly impacted by the existing landfill

operations. These elevated concentrations of dissolved

constituents can be expected to continue to migrate

toward the eastern property boundary.

On the north half, groundwater quality is within expected

background conditions; on the southern half the water

quality is slightly impacted by the existing landfill

operations. These elevated concentrations of dissolved

constituents can be expected to continue to migrate

toward the eastern property boundary.

On the north envelope, groundwater quality is slightly

impacted by the existing landfill operations. These

elevated concentrations of dissolved constituents can be

expected to continue to migrate toward the eastern

property boundary. On the west envelope, the

groundwater quality is within the range of expected

background conditions.

Monitorability - the ability to define, identify and monitor the

hydrostratigraphic units; to understand the groundwater

flow directions, gradients & velocities; to define low head

areas; and to distinguish impacts from the new landfill

versus other sources.

Existing groundwater flow regime is well understood and

monitorable; low-head zones are available for monitoring

along the north and east boundaries of the west

envelope. Trace levels of VOCs are not considered

significant in terms of future monitorability.



along the north and east boundaries of the north

envelope. Area between the existing landfill and new

footprint is available for monitoring. Future monitoring

will need to distinguish impacts from the existing landfill

along the downgradient side(s) of the new landfill.



along the north and east boundaries of the north

envelope. Area between the existing landfill and new






along the north and east boundaries of the north & west

envelopes. Area between the existing landfill and new




Downgradient receptors - from MOE WWIS: type(s) and

numbers; aquifer types; depths of wells; existing water

quality.

38 wells within downgradient area for all options;

average depth 26.0m (range 6.4 to 140.2m); 36

completed in limestone, 2 in sand-gravel; fresh water

quality (1 sulphurous).













Downgradient receptors - Identify receptors within 500m of

the downgradient side(s) of the proposed landfill footprint

alternative.

13 residential properties (12 single unit; 1 multi-unit); 1

institutional (CBC/Radio-Canada).

4 single-unit residential properties; 6

commerical/industrial properties (one with a single

residential unit onsite).

4 single-unit residential properties; 6

commerical/industrial properties (one with a single

residential unit onsite); 1 institutional (CBC/Radio-

Canada).

4 commerical/industrial properties (one with a single

residential unit onsite).

Groundwater

Flow

Predicted groundwater flow

characteristics.

Overburden type and thickness; bedrock type. Fine sand to silty sand and sand-gravel. Overburden

thickness ranges from 2.6 to 9.2 metres; thinnest along

northern side. Bedrock is Bobcaygeon limestone, with

possible Gull River limestone to extreme west side.

Bedrock slopes gradually to north-northeast.

Sand and sand-gravel. Overburden thickness ranges

from 4.3 to 15.6 metres; thickens toward the southeast

corner. Bedrock is Bobcaygeon limestone, with gradual

slope to northeast.

Sand and sand-gravel. Overburden thickness ranges

from 4.3 to 15.6 metres; thickens toward the southeast

corner. Bedrock is Bobcaygeon limestone, with gradual

slope to northeast.

Overburden attributes of both north and west envelopes,

as described for other options. Bedrock is Bobcaygeon

limestone, with gradual slope to northeast.

Depth to groundwater table. Shallow water table; generally found between <1m to

2.5m below ground surface.

Ranges from very shallow (1m or less) in southwest

corner, to 4m or more along east side; deeper (>10m) in

east buffer area.

Ranges from very shallow (1m or less) in southwest

corner, to 4m or more along east side of footprint;

deeper (>10m) in east buffer area.

Ranges from shallow (<1 to 2.5m) on West Envelope

and west half of North Envelope portions of footprint; to

4m or more along east side of footprint; deeper (>10m)

in east buffer area.

Hydraulic characteristics of hydrostratigraphic units - ability

to identify units; hydraulic conductivity, flow directions.

Overburden-shallow bedrock is primary groundwater

pathway; good connection to the deeper bedrock;

average K is 1.6E-05 m/s (overburden-shallow bedrock)

and 2.7E-06 m/s in deeper bedrock. Flow is northward

on south side of footprint, becoming northeastward along

the north side of the footprint.


pathway; moderate connection to the deeper bedrock,

becomes poor connection to east; average K is 2.4E-06

m/s (overburden-shallow bedrock) and 6.2E-09 m/s in

deeper bedrock. Flow is northward on west side of

footprint, becoming northeastward along the east side of

footprint.


pathway; moderate connection to the deeper bedrock,

becomes poor connection to east; average K is 2.4E-06

m/s (overburden-shallow bedrock) and 6.2E-09 m/s in



footprint.


pathway; good connection to deeper bedrock on the

West Envelope portion of footprint; moderate connection

on the North Envelope portion, becomes poor

connection to east; average K is 6.2E-06 m/s

(overburden-shallow bedrock) and 1.3E-07 m/s in



footprint.Results of numerical flow modelling - predicted changes to

the groundwater flow with each alternative.

Simulated drawdown is predicted to be <0.11m at

downgradient property boundaries. Minor localized

effect to groundwater flow directions; no effect to off-site

groundwater flow directions.













Notes: 1. It is assumed that leachate quality is equivalent for all landfill footprint options; i.e., leachate quality is independent of the footprint being considered.2. The Generic Design Option II - Double Composite Liner System will be used regardless of the landfill footprint alternative selected (Conceptual Design Report, May 2011). This design has been developed by MOE to be fully protective of the groundwater environment without reliance on contaminant attenuation in the landfill buffer area (MOE, Landfill Standards Guideline, May 1998).

3RPT_2011-11-04_Attach C2b - Table 2_60191228-EA Plan.pdf.xlsx

Attachment C3 Surface Water Prepared by: AECOM Project Number: 60191228 Date: November 4, 2011

Attachment C3: Surface Water



1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Documentation ..................................................................................................... 1


2.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 2





1

1. Introduction



Surface Water perspective. The Minister approved Terms of Reference (ToR) included a







Atmospheric;


Surface Water;



Transportation;

Land Use;

Agriculture;




assessing and evaluating the alternative landfill footprint options. Further, the disciplines

referred to the Conceptual Design Report (CDR) that was prepared from a Site Design and

Operations perspective in order to provide the appropriate level of detail on each of the

alternative landfill footprints. The CDR will also form a supporting document to the Alternative

Methods Report.





1.1 Documentation





2




2.1 Methodology


steps:





developed for each Environmental Component listed above















measures; and




3







measures.

For Surface Water, two criteria were evaluated with a total of three indicators for each landfill

footprint alternative (including number and significance) to support the reasoned argument in

the comparative rankings:

Criteria – Surface Water Quality

Indicators – water quality parameters

Criteria – Surface Water Quantity

Indicators

change in drainage patterns/area

occurrence and degree of off-site effects on watercourse flows and velocities


The potential effects on surface water runoff, for alternative landfill options, would be indicated

by changes in on-site and off-site water quality parameters and changes in drainage

patterns/areas and flow/velocity from a water quantity perspective.

Option #1, without mitigation, would have flow outlet to South Huntley Creek upstream of

William Mooney Drive.

From a water quality perspective, this option this might mean potential water

quality impacts due to accidental leachate seeps to the surface and/or

increases in TSS concentration due to runoff from the internal gravelled

access roadways. These water quality impacts could be mitigated by a two

staged Stormwater Management Facility (SWMF) to remove larger particle

size TSS and provide for emergency leachate containment in a Stage 1

sediment forebay, with a Stage 2 providing extended control for additional

TSS removal. SWMF outflow would be to South Huntley Creek



4

From a water quantity perspective,

the upstream wetland drainage pattern would be blocked by the proposed

landfill with a potential impact on the existing wetland natural environment

due to increased water levels. This could be mitigated by diverting the

wetland flow around the landfill and back to South Huntley Creek using an

open channel and culverts for roadway crossings.

Due to the change in local topography provided by the relatively steep-

sloped (from a hydrologic perspective) landfill configuration, a reduction in

travel time (as a result of increased flow velocities) would create an

increase in peak flows with potential to increase downstream water levels

and flood damages. This impact could be mitigated by Stage 1 and

Stage 2 of the SWM facility providing attenuation of post-development

flows to pre-development levels with outflow to South Huntley Creek.

Option #2, without mitigation, would have flow outlet to South Huntley Creek upstream of Carp

Road.




access roadways. These water quality impacts could be mitigated by a two

staged SWMF to remove larger article size TSS loading and provide for

emergency leachate containment in a Stage 1 sediment forebay with a Stage

2 providing extended control for additional TSS removal . SWMF outflow

would be as groundwater discharge (infiltration), with the SWMF

incorporating existing local excavation as previously practised at the existing

site.


the local drainage pattern would be affected by the proposed landfill as

there would have to be a drainage diversion of the landfill site away from

swale to the north that drains across privately owned lands. This would:

reduce flows to the swale which would be maintained only by

adjacent surface and groundwater flow. This impact would not

be mitigated.

reduce flows to South Huntley Creek tributary along

Richardson Side Road: but by less than 5%. This impact

would not be mitigated.



5

increase flows along the west ditch of the Carp Road. This

impact could be mitigated by Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the

SWM facility providing attenuation of post-development flows

to pre-development levels. SWMF outflow would be as

groundwater discharge (infiltration), with the SWMF

incorporating existing local excavation that would contain the

1:100 Year runoff.

Existing SWMF#1 would have to be relocated as a new two

stage SWMF to the east.





and flood damages. This impact could be mitigated by Stage 1 and Stage

2 of the SWM facility providing attenuation of post-development flows to

pre-development levels SWMF outflow would be as groundwater

discharge (infiltration), with the SWMF incorporating existing local

excavation that would contain the 1:100 Year runoff.

Option #3, without mitigation, would have flow outlet to South Huntley Creek upstream of Carp

Road.



increases in TSS concentration due to runoff from the internal gravelled access

roadways. These water quality impacts could be mitigated by a two staged

SWMF to remove larger article size TSS loading and provide for emergency

leachate containment in a Stage 1 sediment forebay with a Stage 2 providing

extended control for additional TSS removal. SWMF outflow would be as

groundwater discharge (infiltration), with the SWMF incorporating existing local

excavation as previously practised at the existing site.




swale to the north that drains across privately owned lands. This would:

reduce flows to the swale which would be maintained only by adjacent

surface and groundwater flow. This impact would not be mitigated.



6

reduce flows to South Huntley Creek tributary along Richardson

Side Road: but by less than 5%. This impact would not be mitigated.

increase flows along the west ditch of the Carp Road. This impact

could be mitigated by Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the SWM facility

providing attenuation of post-development flows to pre-development

levels. SWMF outflow would be as groundwater discharge

(infiltration), with the SWMF incorporating existing local excavation

that would contain the 1:100 Year runoff.

Existing SWMF#1 would have to be relocated as a new two stage

SWMF to the east.





and flood damages. This impact could be mitigated by Stage 1 and Stage

2 of the SWM facility providing attenuation of post-development flows to

pre-development levels SWMF outflow would be as groundwater


excavation that would contain the 1:100 Year runoff. There would be

reduced flow to South Huntley Creek.

Option #4, without mitigation, would have flow outlet to South Huntley Creek upstream of both

Carp Road and William Mooney Drive as the proposed site straddles William Mooney Drive.




access roadways. These water quality impacts could be mitigated by two

separate two staged SWMF, one to the east and one to the west of William

Mooney Drive. As before, these SWMF would remove larger article size TSS

loading and provide for emergency leachate containment in a Stage 1

sediment forebay with a Stage 2 providing extended control for additional

TSS removal . For the SWMF west of William Mooney Drive, outflow would

be to South Huntley Creek, while for the SWMF east of William Mooney

Drive, outflow would be as groundwater discharge (infiltration), with the

SWMF incorporating existing local excavation as previously practised at the

existing site.



7




swale to the north that drains across privately owned lands. As well, west

of William Mooney Drive, the upstream wetland drainage pattern would

be blocked by the proposed landfill with a potential impact on the existing

wetland natural environment due to increased water levels. These factors

would:

Potentially impact the existing wetland natural environment due to

increased water levels. This could be mitigated by diverting the

wetland flow around the landfill and back to South Huntley Creek

using an open channel and culverts for roadway crossings.

reduce flows to the swale which would be maintained only by

adjacent surface and groundwater flow. This impact would not be

mitigated.

reduce flows to South Huntley Creek tributary along Richardson

Side Road: but by less than 5%. This impact would not be mitigated.

increase flows along the west ditch of the Carp Road. This impact

could be mitigated by Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the SWM facility

providing attenuation of post-development flows to pre-

development levels. SWMF outflow would be as groundwater


excavation that would contain the 1:100 Year runoff.

Existing SWMF#1 would have to be relocated as a new two stage

SWMF to the east.





and flood damages. This impact could be mitigated by the two previously

mentioned two staged SWMF. Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the SWM facilities

would provide attenuation of post-development flows. For the SWMF east

of William Mooney Drive, outflow would be as groundwater discharge

(infiltration), with the SWMF incorporating existing local excavation that

would contain the 1:100 Year runoff. There would be reduced flow to

South Huntley Creek at Carp Road. For the SWMF west of William Mooney

Drive, outflow would be attenuated to pre-development levels (no increase)

and directed to South Huntley Creek upstream of William Mooney Drive.



8


In evaluating the net effects on surface water resources, from the surface water quality criteria

perspective, all options achieved a “no net effect” rating due to the two stage SWMF design

being able to mitigate both leachate seepage and TSS concentrations.

Option #2 and Option #3 tied for 1st since they both used groundwater discharge, rather than

direct discharge to surface water, as an outlet mechanism and this increases the level of water

quality treatment that is being provided. Option #4 is 2nd with a hybrid system while Option #1 is

3rd with only direct discharge to surface water as an outlet mechanism, with no further water

quality polishing being provided.

In evaluating the net effects on surface water resources, from the surface water quantity criteria

perspective, only Option #1 had a “no net effect” rating since all flow was attenuated to pre-

development (existing) levels with an outlet to surface water that preserved the South Huntley

Creek flow regime. The other three options had the impact of slightly reducing flows in Huntley

Creek and its tributaries but the effect is negligible (and might be perceived as a benefit) and the

options were rated as having “low net effects” .

Option #1 was ranked 1st due to its “no net effect” rating on the local flow regime. Option #4 was

ranked 2nd due to its hybrid nature (not all SWMF outflow went to groundwater) and thereby

having less of an effect on the local flow regime, than Option #2 and Option #3. Between Option

#2 and Option #3, Option #2 was ranked 3rd since its footprint was smaller that Option #3 and

had less of an impact on flows being directed to groundwater. was ranked 4th since it had a

larger footprint and more impact on the local flow regime.

In ranking the options from an overall Surface Water perspective, is 1st since it has the lowest

net effect. This assumes that the net effects related to water quality have been given a slightly

higher value than the net effects related to water quantity, in that, for the analysis of these

options in this locale, the water quantity net effects are a reduction in flows that is generally

perceived as a benefit.

Attachment C4a Terrestrial Environment Prepared by: AECOM Project Number: 60191228 Date: November 4, 2011

Attachment C4a: Terrestrial



1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Documentation ..................................................................................................... 1


2.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 2





1

1. Introduction



Terrestrial Biology perspective. The Minister approved Terms of Reference (ToR) included a







Atmospheric;


Surface Water;



Transportation;

Land Use;

Agriculture;












1.1 Documentation







2


2.1 Methodology


steps:




















measures; and




3







measures.

Four criteria were evaluated with indicators for each landfill footprint alternative (including


Natural Vegetation Loss

The amount of area of natural vegetation that will be removed through each

proposed landfill option, including forest, wetland and meadow communities was

measured.

Greater area of vegetation removal is assumed to represent greater

environmental impact.

Wetland vegetation is part of overall vegetation loss but is also separated

because of its high function as habitat and sensitivity. Consequently greater

wetland loss results in greater impact.

Area Sensitive Breeding Birds

The number of territories of area sensitive breeding birds that would be lost

through each landfill option was determined. Includes bird species recognized as

Area Sensitive by MNR (2000)

The Area of habitat that supporting area sensitive breeding birds that would be

removed with each landfill option was also measured.

Note that Savannah Sparrow, which is considered Area Sensitive by MNR

(2000), was not used in this analysis because in our experience and professional

judgement, this species is present in almost all areas of grassland, does not

require large blocks of interior habitat and also occurs in cropland. Therefore it is

not a good indicator of habitat quality or size.

Amphibian Breeding Habitat

Wetland habitat containing permanent or seasonal ponded water that was found

to support breeding amphibians in spring.



4

Greater area of amphibian breeding habitat that would be removed is assumed to

represent a greater environmental impact

Generally relates to amount of wetland loss

Wildlife Corridor Blockage

Wildlife move between patches of core habitat, it is assumed that main

movements occur in the narrowest areas through open agriculture or

The footprint of landfill options that block potential wildlife movement between

core habitat patches are assumed to represent greater environmental impact

than footprints that are only partial blocks movement.

The length of the landfill option is also considered since a longer landfill creates a

greater diversion that wildlife would have to move around.


The table below summarizes the results of the various criteria and ranks them such that 1 is

most preferred or least environmental impact and 4 is least preferred or greatest impact.

The amount of vegetation removed is perhaps the most important criteria since it relates to direct

loss of habitat and is easily quantifiable. While Option #1 and Option #2 have a similar amount of

habitat loss, Option 1 results in about half as much loss of forest (3.0 vs. 6.0 ha) and considerably

more loss of field and thicket vegetation (10.4 vs. 7.4 ha). This is early successional that could be

considered less significant because of its age and simpler structure. Options #3 and #4 result in

considerably greater forest loss. The amount of wetland loss is quite similar among all options but

somewhat higher in Options #3 and #4 and hence they have a higher ranking.

Option #1 has the greatest impact in the area sensitive species criteria because of the presence

of four territories of Eastern Meadowlark in the rather extensive meadow. The meadow habitat

loss in the other Options does not provide habitat for other area sensitive species other than the

ubiquitous Savannah Sparrow (discussed above). Area sensitive species in the other landfill

options consisted of forest species. The greatest forest loss in Option #4 resulted in the largest

number of forest interior territories.

The wetland that would be removed with Option one were found to be deciduous swamp with

shallow ponding that mostly did not appear to provide amphibian breeding function. By contrast,

amphibian breeding habitat was found to be productive in the wetland area that would be

removed with the other three options. Those wetlands contained deeper ponds, some of which

are permanent. Option 4 results in a smaller amount of this wetland loss than Options #2 and #3.



5

Option #1 would create a barrier to wildlife movement between core habitat areas on the two

sides of William Mooney Road. Options #3 and #4 create almost complete barriers between

core habitat blocks on the east side of William Mooney Road. Option #2 leaves a band of forest

along the east side of the road which facilities continued wildlife movement between core

woodlots. Option #4 would form by far, the longest linear barrier and hence it is ranked the

highest impact for the length of barrier effect.

Overall the impacts can be partially compensated for by habitat restoration of forest, field and

wetland in buffer areas or on portions of lands owned by Waste Management. Nevertheless

restoring forest that will provide functional area sensitive habitat will be a very long term

process. Restoring wetlands that provide amphibian breeding habitat can be accomplished but

will require careful planning.

Option #1 Option #2 Option #3 Option #4

Vegetation Removed 16.7 ha 17.1 ha 22.6 ha 20.3 ha

Rank 1 2 4 3

Wetland Removed 3.3 ha 3.7 ha 3.7 ha 3.1 ha

Rank 2 3 3 1

Area Sensitive Bird Territories 5 2 3 6

Area Sensitive Habitat 16.7 ha 6.0 ha 11.5 ha 13.4 ha

Rank 4 1 2 3

Amphibian Breeding Habitat Removed 0.5 ha 3.7 ha 3.7 ha 3.1 ha

Rank 1 3 3 2

Wildlife Corridor Barrier Effect Blocks N-S No block Blocks NW-SE Blocks NW-SE

Rank 2 1 2 2

Length of Landfill Barrier 850 m 800 m 990 m 1490 m

Rank 2 1 3 4

Total 12 11 17 15


The scoring of ranks shown on the Table shows that the results of Options #1 and #2 are very

close as being more preferred than Options #3 and #4. Option one has the advantage in that it

results in the least amount of forest loss and most of the wetland area that would be removed

does not appear to provide amphibian breeding habitat. Option #2 would result in the least

amount of habitat loss for area sensitive species and has the least barrier effect to wildlife

corridors. Option #3 is the least favoured overall largely because it would result in the greatest

total vegetation loss. Option #4 would remove the greatest amount of forest. It also has the

longest barrier effect to wildlife corridors.

Attachment C4b Aquatic Environment Prepared by: AECOM Project Number: 60191228 Date: November 4, 2011

Attachment C4b: Aquatic



1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Documentation ..................................................................................................... 1


2.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 2





1

1. Introduction



Aquatic perspective. The Minister approved Terms of Reference (ToR) included a preliminary

description of the methodology for evaluating the alternative methods, i.e. alternative landfill

footprint options (See Section 8.1 of the approved ToR, August 2010). This memo is one of 10

memos that outline the evaluation of the alternative landfill footprint options from the perspective

of each discipline. These memos will be used in concert with one another, along with their

evaluation tables, as supporting documents to the Alternative Methods Report. Memos were

prepared for the following 10 environmental components:

Atmospheric;


Surface Water;



Transportation;

Land Use;

Agriculture;





to the Concept Design Report (CDR) that was prepared from a Site Design and Operations







1.1 Documentation



EA Report with each of the stand-alone memorandums becoming supporting

documents/appendices to the EA Report.



2


2.1 Methodology


steps:




















measures; and




3







measures.

1 criteria were evaluated with 3 indicators for each landfill footprint alternative (including number

and significance) to support the reasoned argument in the comparative rankings:

Aquatic Ecosystems

Predicted changes in water quality


Predicted impact on aquatic biota due to project


Options #2 and #3 do not include any watercourses, either permanent or intermittent, therefore

there are no effects to aquatic habitat or biota. Options #1 and #4 will impact Tributary C and

require removal of part of the channel. This watercourse is an intermittent drain that supports

flow for only a few months a year. Fish have been observed in this channel in May, therefore the

Tributary does provide seasonal fish habitat. Most likely these fish move upstream from

Tributary D of the South Huntley Creek during periods of high flow. Removal of the section of

Tributary C will permanently remove this seasonal fish habitat, but the species present are

common and tolerant of a wide range of environmental conditions, therefore this effect is

classified as low. There is the opportunity to realign Tributary C to Tributary D to maintain the

seasonal connectivity, or else to enhance or create fish habitat elsewhere in the South Huntley

Creek to compensate for any loss of habitat. If work is carried out in the dry, then the effects to

the fish are completely mitigated.


Options #2 and #3 are preferred from an aquatic biology perspective as they do not include any

watercourses (permanent or intermittent) in the project footprint and therefore there is no impact



4

to aquatic habitat or biota. Options #1 and #4 are tied as both are very similar in the predicted

impacts and proposed mitigation. Both of these options require the permanent destruction of a

section of Tributary C which supports seasonal fish habitat. For both Options #1 and #4, this

loss of habitat can be compensated by either channel realignment, or habitat creation or

enhancement in other tributaries within the South Huntley Subwatershed. Impacts to the aquatic

biota can be completely mitigated if all work is carried out in the dry, therefore there are low net

effects for both Options #1 and #4.

Attachment C5 Cultural Prepared by: ASI/AECOM Project Number: 60191228 Date: November 4, 2011

Attachment C5: Cultural



1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Documentation ..................................................................................................... 1


2.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 2


3.1 Cultural and Heritage Resources On-site and In Vicinity and Predicted

Impacts on Them ................................................................................................. 3 3.2 Presence of Archaeological Resources On-site & Significance of On-site

Archaeology Resources Potentially Displaced/Disturbed ..................................... 4




1

1. Introduction



Cultural Heritage Resources perspective. The Minister approved Terms of Reference (ToR)

included a preliminary description of the methodology for evaluating the alternative methods, i.e.






Atmospheric;


Surface Water;



Transportation;

Land Use;

Agriculture;












1.1 Documentation







2


2.1 Methodology


steps:




















measures; and




3







measures. The Cultural Heritage Resources Environmental Component was comprised of the

following two Evaluation Criteria: “Cultural and Heritage Resources” and “Archaeological

Resources”. The criterion “Cultural and Heritage Resources” was evaluated with one indicator

for each landfill footprint alternative and the “Archaeological Resources” criterion with two in

order to support the reasoned argument in the comparative rankings. The indicators were:

Cultural Heritage Resources - Cultural and heritage resources on-site and

in vicinity and predicted impacts on them.

Archaeological Resources - Presence of archaeological resources on-site.

Archaeological Resources - Significance of on-site archaeology resources

potentially displaced/disturbed.


The following describes the results from the net effects analysis for each indicator used in the

comparative evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources.

3.1 Cultural and Heritage Resources On-site and In Vicinity and Predicted Impacts on Them

The evaluation of cultural and heritage resources relied on mapping produced by Archaeological

Services Inc. (ASI) in 2006 of the study area. Built heritage features and cultural landscapes

within the study area were identified using both the Ministry of Culture guidelines and past

experience, and informed through research into the history of the region.

For each of the landfill footprints, the environmental effects in relation to cultural heritage

resources are primarily disturbance to Built Heritage Features and Cultural Landscape Units and

their replacement with a waste management facility. It was also determined that no structures

designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act are present within the study area.



4

Mitigation measures proposed with respect to the cultural and heritage resources indicator

include:

Planning the proposed alterations within the study area in a manner that

avoids any identified, above ground, cultural heritage resource, where

possible;

Evaluating the cultural heritage value / significance of displaced or disrupted

built heritage resources;

Relocating resources determined to have cultural heritage value /

significance;

Supplying the local municipal heritage committee with the evaluation report;

and

Considering implementation of vegetative screening in locations where it is

determined that resources will be disrupted by visual, audible or atmospheric

conditions.

Following the application of these mitigation measures to the potential effects predicted for each

alternative landfill footprint it was determined that Option #1 would result in disturbance to three

Cultural Landscape Units; Options #2 and #3 would disturb one Cultural Landscape Unit and

one Built Heritage Feature; and Option #4 would result in the loss of a portion of one Cultural

Landscape Unit and disturbance to a second.

3.2 Presence of Archaeological Resources On-site & Significance of On-site Archaeology Resources Potentially Displaced/Disturbed

The presence and significance of and potential for archaeological resources within the study

area were determined based the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment conducted by ASI in

2006. The Stage 1 Assessment relied on Ministry of Culture site records forms, published and

unpublished documentary sources, ASI files, and regional physiography to complete an

inventory of the archaeological environment within the study area.

Nine registered archaeological sites were found to exist within 4 km of the study area, none of

which are located on-site. It was determined; however, that the on-site study area exhibits

archaeological site potential, albeit low potential according to the Ministry of Culture. In order to

identify and preserve any archaeological remains that may be present within the lands occupied

by the alternative landfill footprints, Stage 2 Archaeological Assessments would be required for

each of the footprints in advance of any construction activities.



5

The net effects anticipated following a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment for each footprint

would be that any adverse effects on potential archaeological resources present would be

avoided or mitigated.


With respect to Cultural and Heritage Resources, Options #2 and #3 have the lowest net

effects, as they would result in disturbance to only one Cultural Landscape Unit and one Built

Heritage Feature. For this reason they rank first amongst the four alternative landfill footprints

for this indicator. Option #1 ranks in second place as it would result in disturbance to three

Cultural Landscape Units, and Option #4 ranks last as it would result in the loss of a portion of

one Cultural Heritage Landscape and disturbance to another.

With regard to the presence of archaeological resources on-site and the significance of on-site

archaeology resources potentially displaced/disturbed all four options would result in no net

effects (i.e., potential adverse effects to potential archaeological resources would be avoided or

mitigated), thus all four alternative landfill footprints are tied for first place.

Given these findings, the overall ranking among alternative landfill footprint options in relation to

Cultural Heritage Resources is determined to be Options #2 and #3 placing in 1st, Option #1 in

2nd, and Option #4 in 3rd.

Attachment C6 Transportation Prepared by: AECOM Project Number: 60191228 Date: November 4, 2011

Attachment C6: Transportation



1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Documentation ..................................................................................................... 1


2.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 2





1

1. Introduction



Transportation perspective. The Minister approved Terms of Reference (ToR) included a







Atmospheric;


Surface Water;



Transportation;

Land Use;

Agriculture;












1.1 Documentation







2


2.1 Methodology


steps:




















measures; and




3







measures.

Two criteria were evaluated with four indicators for each landfill footprint alternative (including


Effects on airport operations

Bird strike hazard to aircraft in Local Study Area


Potential for traffic collisions

Disturbance to traffic operations

Proposal road improvement requirements


With respect to the effects on airport operations, bird strike hazard is minimized by discouraging

the presence of sea gulls in the vicinity of the landfill site. The existing gull management

program includes harassment techniques (pyrotechnics, gas cannons) and lethal reinforcement.

Additional mitigation will include an Integrated Gull Management Plan, which will include

passive and active deterrents. Through these measures, the bird strike hazard to aircraft will be

minimized from gulls originating from the WCEC.

With respect to the effects from truck transportation in the vicinity of the WCEC, a new entrance

is proposed that will include a northbound left turn lane on Carp Road, designed and

constructed in accordance with the standards and practices of the City of Ottawa and the

Province of Ontario. This new left turn lane will improve safety by reducing conflicts between

northbound left turning and through vehicles and also by reducing driver frustration.

Northbound through drivers will not be forced to wait behind a turning truck until a suitable gap

is available for the truck driver to complete the turn. This new left turn lane will similarly improve

traffic operations by allowing through traffic to proceed around left turning vehicles, providing an

improved level of service. Given the estimated northbound and southbound traffic volumes on

Carp Road, the northbound left turn lane is warranted. The inconvenience to the public during



4

the construction of the left turn lane will be temporary and similar to that experienced during

other similar road construction projects. Staging of traffic during construction will be done in

accordance with City and provincial standards for safety of construction workers, vulnerable

road users and vehicular traffic as well as for reasonable traffic operations.


Because the gull management program, the entrance to the WCEC and the anticipated volume

of truck traffic are the same for all alternatives, there is no difference between the alternatives

with respect to Transportation.

Attachment C7 Land Use Prepared by: FoTenn Project Number: 60191228 Date: November 4, 2011

Attachment C7: Land Use



1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Documentation ..................................................................................................... 1


2.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 2


3.1 Current Land Use................................................................................................. 3 3.2 Planned Future Land Use .................................................................................... 4 3.3 Type(s) and Proximity of Off-site Recreational Resources within 500 m of

Landfill Footprint Potentially Affected ................................................................... 5 3.4 Type(s) and Proximity of Off-site Sensitive Land Uses (i.e. dwellings,

churches, cemeteries, parks) Within 500 m of Landfill Potentially Affected .......... 5




1

1. Introduction



Land Use perspective. The Minister approved Terms of Reference (ToR) included a preliminary

description of the methodology for evaluating the alternative methods, i.e. alternative landfill

footprint options (See Section 8.1 of the approved ToR, August 2010). This memo is one of 10

memos that outline the evaluation of the alternative landfill footprint options from the perspective

of each discipline. These memos will be used in concert with one another, along with their

evaluation tables, as supporting documents to the Alternative Methods Report. Memos were

prepared for the following 10 environmental components:

Atmospheric;


Surface Water;



Transportation;

Land Use;

Agriculture;












1.1 Documentation







2


2.1 Methodology


steps:







methods’ (i.e. alternative landfill footprint options) in the EA. As a result, the draft criteria,











Map the land uses within 500 metres of the proposed landfill footprints;



measures; and




3







measures. The criterion “Effects on current and future planned land uses” was evaluated with

four indicators for each landfill footprint alternative (including number and significance) to

support the reasoned argument in the comparative rankings. The four indicators were:

Current land use

Planned future land use

Type(s) and proximity of off-site recreational resources within 500 m of landfill

footprint potentially affected.

Type(s) and proximity of off-site sensitive land uses (i.e. dwellings, churches,

cemeteries, parks) within 500 m of landfill potentially affected.



comparative evaluation of land use effects.

3.1 Current Land Use

The evaluation of current land uses employed the City of Ottawa’s GIS land use mapping for the

area. These maps were last updated on a city-wide scale in 2008; however changes in land

use were incorporated into the city’s mapping following detailed site visits.

The applicable designations in the City of Ottawa Official Plan, the Carp Road Corridor

Community Design Plan (CDP), and the City of Ottawa Comprehensive Zoning By-law were

also consulted as a guide to determining the existing land uses in the area.

For each of the landfill footprints, the environmental effects with respect to current land uses are

primarily the removal or loss of the existing land uses, and their replacement with a waste

management facility. Due to the rural character of the area, each landfill footprint would reduce

the extent of agricultural and general rural uses, and some wooded/shrub lands.



4

There are no mitigation measures proposed with respect to the current land use indicator;

consequently, the potential and net effects are considered the same.

3.2 Planned Future Land Use

The City’s approved planning documents (i.e. Official Plan, Carp Road Corridor Community

Design Plan and the Zoning By-law) provide the greatest indication of the planned future land

uses in the area. For alternative landfill footprints 1 and 4, the General Rural designation in the

Official Plan is the most indicative of future land uses. The presumed effects of building either

of these landfill alternatives would be the discontinuation of the rural uses on the lands that

would be occupied by the landfill.

The 500 metre site vicinity area for Option #1 also takes in a small portion of a rural residential

subdivision on Wilbert Cox Drive. There are four vacant residential lots in the subdivision; the

fact that they are vacant and designated for residential occupation essentially means that the

future planned land use for these lots is residential. The Official Plan policies regarding Solid

Waste Disposal Sites (Section 3.8) indicate that development proposals within 500 metres of a

solid waste disposal site are required to demonstrate that the landfill will not have an adverse

effect on the proposed use, and that the proposed use will not impair future landfill operations.

Development proposed within 500 metres of a landfill site must also be consistent with the

Official Plan policies regarding development on contaminated sites. The implication of these

policies is that if Option #1 is selected as the future landfill footprint, the building permit

applications for these remaining vacant lots could be subject to additional policies.

However, if best management practices are employed to mitigate any unwanted effects (e.g.

noise, odour, visual impact), these vacant lots may be deemed to fall outside the influence area

of the landfill. Since there are other residential properties within the 500 metre influence area, it

is presumed that mitigation measures would be put in place for Option #1. The mitigation

measures would effectively reduce the extent of the influence area, and remove the requirement

for additional studies if the vacant lots were to be developed.

Landfill Options #2 and #3 fall exclusively within the planning area of the Carp Road Corridor

Community Design Plan (CDP). These proposed landfill footprints are designated Heavy

Industrial and Light Industrial in the CDP. While these designations do not permit waste

disposal operations, industrial uses are considered relatively more compatible with waste

disposal uses than rural or residential uses. Mitigation measures are not required for any of the

other landfill alternatives.



5

3.3 Type(s) and Proximity of Off-site Recreational Resources within 500 m of Landfill Footprint Potentially Affected

Off-site recreational resources of the type considered under this indicator are described in

provincial land use Guideline D-1-3 (Land Use Compatibility: Definitions) issued by the Province

of Ontario in July 1995. These include uses such as a trailer park or picnic area. During the

evaluation, no such facilities were discovered within 500 metres of any of the landfill

alternatives. Consequently, there are no proposed effects and no mitigating measures required

for any of the alternatives.

3.4 Type(s) and Proximity of Off-site Sensitive Land Uses (i.e. dwellings, churches, cemeteries, parks) Within 500 m of Landfill Potentially Affected

Similar to 3.3 above, off-site sensitive land uses are described in provincial land use Guideline

D-1-3 (July 1995). These land uses generally include places where people sleep (i.e.

dwellings), churches, cemeteries and parks. Within 500 metres of each alternative landfill

boundary, there are varying numbers of dwellings.

The construction of Option #1 would potentially affect the greatest number of residences (28),

plus four vacant residential lots, as identified in Section 3.1 above. Construction of Options #2,

#3 and #4 would potentially affect five, seven and one residence within each of the respective

500 metre site vicinity areas.

Measures would need to be put in place to manage any potential nuisance (e.g. noise, odour,

visual impact) resulting from the construction and operation of the landfill site in the 500 metre

vicinity of these residences.


With respect to current land uses, Options #2 and #3 are have the lowest net effects, as they

would result in the reduction of the lowest diversity of land uses. Options #1 and #4 have

moderate net effects on current land uses as some land for “higher value” agricultural and

residential uses would be removed as a result of the landfill construction.



6

In regards to planned future uses, Options #2 and #3 are considered to have no net effects as

the industrial uses planned within the Carp Road Corridor Rural Employment Area are generally

compatible with the waste disposal function. Options #1 and #4 have relatively greater impact

on future land uses in recognition that the ongoing rural function of the lands would be

discontinued. Though potential effects can likely be mitigated, Option #1 is considered to be

somewhat less favourable as a result of the four vacant residential lots that fall within the 500

metre site vicinity area. Development of these lots could be subject to more stringent policies in

the event that Option #1 is implemented.

Since there are no recreational resources (as defined in provincial Guideline D-1-3) within 500

metres of the alternative landfill footprints, there are no net effects registered for any of the

alternatives in respect of this indicator. Consequently, each alternative is considered equal.

A small number of residential lots fall within the 500 metre site vicinity area for each of

Options #2, #3 and #4. It is assumed that nuisance management measures would mitigate any

negative effects for these properties. For Option #1, there are considerably more residential lots

within 500 metres of the landfill footprint which, if implemented, might require a more

complicated set of mitigation measures to satisfy these residents.

The overall ranking of options is as follows:

Rank Option Number

First (tied) Option #2 and Option #3

Second Option #4

Third Option #1

Options #2 and #3 are tied for first place in the comparative evaluation for the following reasons:

The loss of current land uses is less extensive than with either of Options #1

and #4;

The number of sensitive land uses (i.e. residential lots) within 500 metres of

Options #2 and #3 is considerably less than for Option #1; and

These two options are located entirely within the Carp Road Rural

Employment Area as described in the Carp Road Corridor Community Design

Plan. As such, the waste disposal uses are relatively more compatible with

the planned industrial employment function of the than are Options 1 and 4

with the rural and agricultural landscapes that they would replace.

Attachment C8 Agricultural Prepared by: Weston Graham & Associates Limited Project Number: 60191228 Date: November 4, 2011

Attachment C8: Agricultural



1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Documentation ..................................................................................................... 1

2. Agriculture Assessment and Evaluation of the Alternative Landfill Footprints Options ............................................................................................. 2





1

1. Introduction



Agriculture perspective. The Minister approved Terms of Reference (ToR) included a







Atmospheric;


Surface Water;



Transportation;

Land Use;

Agriculture;












1.1 Documentation







2

2. Agriculture Assessment and Evaluation of the Alternative Landfill Footprints Options

The methodology for this assessment and evaluation involved three steps. They were:

1. Confirm evaluation criteria and indicators or measures;

2. Undertake net effects analysis for each footprint option;

3. Carry out a comparative evaluation of the different options.

Step 1: Confirm Evaluation Criteria and Indicators or Measures

The approved West Carleton Environmental Centre Terms of Reference set out the draft criteria

and indicators for evaluating the ‘alternative methods’ (i.e., alternative landfill footprint options)

in the Environmental Assessment. The criteria, indicators and measures were modified in

consultation with review agencies and the public to ensure that an appropriate level of scrutiny

and rigour was applied in evaluating the landfill footprint alternatives, so that there would be

clearly defined net effects for each of the alternatives.

For agriculture, there was one criterion confirmed, and that was ‘displacement of agricultural

land’. Three indicators were selected. They are ‘current land use’, ‘predicted impacts on

surrounding agricultural land’ and ‘type(s) and proximity of agricultural operations (i.e., organic,

cash crop, livestock) and intensive farm operations in surrounding area’.







measures; and







3




measures.

One criteria was evaluated with three indicators for each landfill footprint alternative (including


Displacement of Agricultural Land

Current Land Use

Predicted impacts on surrounding agricultural operations

Type(s) and proximity of agricultural operations (i.e., organic, cash crop,

livestock) and intensive farm operations in surrounding area.


Each of the four alternative landfill footprint options was evaluated for their impact on the three

indicators in terms of potential effects, mitigation measures and net effects. The results of this

analysis were as follows:

Current Land Use

Identify potential effects (based on measures) on the environment, in the context of

current land use:

Footprint Options #1 & #4 would eliminate the dairy farm and the part-time

beef farm between William Mooney Road and Highway 417. There would be

a loss of Class 4 agricultural capability soil.

Footprint Options #2 & #3 east of William Mooney Road would eliminate most

of the cropland that produces feed for the cattle on the dairy farm. There

would be a loss of some Class 3 & 4 agricultural capability soils. The part-

time beef farm would not be affected by these two footprints.

Develop and apply avoidance/mitigation/compensation/enhancement measures:

For footprint Options #1 & #4, complete the purchase on optioned properties.

For footprint Options #2 & #3, purchase dairy farm, or dairy farm continues in

its current location with feed produced on new cropland elsewhere. The part-

time beef farm would not be affected by these two footprints.



4

Determine net effects on the environment:

For footprint Options #1 & #4, loss of dairy farm and part-time beef farm,

including farm infrastructure, as well as Class 4 agricultural capability soil.

For footprint Options #2 & #3, that could cause loss of the dairy farm, or the

dairy farm could continue to operate with new cropland elsewhere. There

would be a loss of some Class 3 & 4 agricultural capability soils on the east

side of William Mooney Road; however, a larger area of Class 4 agricultural

capability soils and the farm infrastructure would be preserved on the west

side of the road. The part-time beef farm would not be affected by these two

landfill footprint alternatives.

Predicted impacts on surrounding agricultural land

Agricultural land within 500 metres of each of the four landfill footprint options was assessed to

determine if there would be any predictable impact on the use of that land. There are three

categories of present agricultural land use within this range. They are: hay, pasture and unused

land. No potential effects were found and no mitigation measures are needed, hence there are

no net effects on the surrounding agricultural land within 500 metres of any of the landfill

footprint options. Waste Management will implement ‘Best Management Practices’ on the

selected new landfill site in future to ensure nuisance related effects are mitigated in relation to

surrounding agricultural operations.

Type(s) and proximity of agricultural operations (i.e., organic, cash crop, livestock) and intensive

farm operations in surrounding area

The main part of the dairy farm and the part-time beef farm are located west of William Mooney

Road. If either landfill footprint Option #1 or #4 is selected, both farms would disappear. All that

would remain is the cropland belonging to the dairy farm on the east side of William Mooney

Road. If footprint Option #2 or #3 is selected, most of the cropland on the east side of William

Mooney Road would disappear. To remain operational, the dairy farm would have to find

replacement cropland elsewhere. The beef farm would not be affected by Options #2 or #3.

There are no other intensive farm operations in the surrounding 500 metre zone.



5


Two of the three indicators were rated as having ‘no net effects’ from any of the four landfill

footprint alternatives. They are ‘predicted impacts on surrounding agricultural land’ and ‘type(s)

and proximity of agricultural operations (i.e., organic, cash crop, livestock) and intensive farm

operations in surrounding area’. The current land use indicator net effects were rated as

moderate for landfill footprint Options #1 & #4, while the net effects ratings were low for Options

#2 & #3.

In the criterion ranking, landfill footprint Options #2 & #3 are tied for first, while Options #1 & #4

are tied for second. The rationale is that Options #2 & #3 are preferred over Options #1 & #4

from a land use perspective, as losses of current land use 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.

While landfill footprint Options #2 & #3 are rated as being equal with low net effects, there is a

slight advantage to option 2. It saves a few hectares of Class 3 agricultural capability soil

between William Mooney Road and the proposed landfill footprint location, while option 3 does

not save Class 3 soil in this area.

Attachment C9 Socio-Economic Prepared by: AECOM Project Number: 60191228 Date: November 4, 2011

Attachment C9: Socio-Economic



1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Documentation ..................................................................................................... 1


2.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 2


3.1 Ratio of Air Space Achieved to Volume of Soil to be Excavated and Area

of Cell Base and Leachate Collection System to be Constructed ......................... 4 3.2 Total Optimized Site Capacity and Site Life ......................................................... 4 3.3 Employment at Site (Number and Duration) ......................................................... 4 3.4 Opportunities to Provide Products or Services ..................................................... 4 3.5 Residential and Commercial Development Plans ................................................. 5 3.6 City of Ottawa and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) ............ 5 3.7 Predicted Changes in Perceptions of Landscapes and Views .............................. 5 3.8 Number of Residences......................................................................................... 5 3.9 Type(s) and Proximity of Off-site Recreational Resources within 500 m of

Landfill Footprint Potentially Affected ................................................................... 6


4.1 Economic ............................................................................................................. 6 4.2 Social ................................................................................................................... 6



1

1. Introduction



Socio-Economic perspective. The Minister approved Terms of Reference (ToR) included a


landfill footprint options (see Section 8.1 of the approved ToR, August 2010). This memo is one





Atmospheric;


Surface Water;



Transportation;

Land Use;

Agriculture;












1.1 Documentation







2


2.1 Methodology


steps:


















Map the land uses within 500 metres of the proposed landfill footprints;



measures; and




3







measures. The Economic Environmental Component was composed of the following five

Environmental Criteria:

Effects on the cost of services to customers



Effects on Residential and Commercial Development


The effects on the cost of services to customers was assessed in relation to the ratio of air

space achieved to volume of soil to be excavated and area of cell base and leachate collection

system to be constructed for each alternative landfill footprint. Continued service to customers

was gauged by the total optimized site capacity and site life. Both employment at site (number

and duration) and opportunities to provide products or services were used to assess the

economic benefit to the local municipality. Residential and commercial development plans were

used in the analysis of the effects on residential and commercial development. Finally, the effect

on property tax revenue on the City of Ottawa was determined based on City of Ottawa and

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation criteria.

The Social Environmental Component was composed of the following three Environmental

Criteria:

Visual impact of the facility on surrounding areas

Local residents


The visual impact of the facility was determined based on predicted changes in perception of

landscapes and views. The local residents criteria was assessed in terms of the number of

residences within 500 m of the alternative landfill footprint option and within 3 km of the site

boundary. The types and proximity of off-site recreational resources within 500 m of the

alternative landfill footprint option was used to determine the impact of the new landfill footprint

on recreational facilities.



4



comparative evaluation of social and economic effects.

3.1 Ratio of Air Space Achieved to Volume of Soil to be Excavated and Area of Cell Base and Leachate Collection System to be Constructed

The ratio of air space achieved to volume of soil handled varies in relation to each of the

alternative landfill footprint options. Options #1 and #2 will have low net effects, with ratios of 6.5

mil m3 to 1.9 mil m3 and 6.5 mil m3 to 1.8 mil m3, respectively. Options #3 and #4 will have

moderate net effects, with ratios of 6.5 mil m3 to 2.2 mil m3 and 6.5 mil m3 to 2.4 mil m3,

respectively. There are no mitigation measures required for this indicator.

3.2 Total Optimized Site Capacity and Site Life

The net effects with respect to this indicator are identical for all four alternative landfill footprint

options, namely: the total optimized site capacity is 6.5 mil m3 over 10 years. There is no

mitigation required in relation to this indicator.

3.3 Employment at Site (Number and Duration)

Each alternative landfill footprint will create the same number of jobs in waste diversion,

disposal and green energy facilities over the next 10 years, which is estimated at approximately

75. The resulting net effects are deemed moderately positive and no mitigation is required.

3.4 Opportunities to Provide Products or Services

The opportunities to provide products or services will continue in relation to all four alternative

landfill footprint options. This resulting net effect is considered to be high (positive) and no

mitigation is required.



5

3.5 Residential and Commercial Development Plans

No net effects in relation to either residential or commercial development plans are anticipated

for any of the four alternative landfill footprint options. No mitigation measures are therefore

required for these two indicators.

3.6 City of Ottawa and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC)

All four options result in the transition of tax rates from agricultural property (low) to industrial

property (high), thus having a positive net effect on property tax revenue. Options #1 and #4;

however, also result in the loss of a dairy farm and a part-time beef farm, which slightly reduces

their net positive effect on property tax revenue. With respect to the City of Ottawa and MPAC in

relation to property tax revenue, Options #1 and #4 therefore result in low (positive) net effects

and Options #2 and #3 in moderate (positive) net effects. No mitigation is required in relation to

either indicator for this criteria.

3.7 Predicted Changes in Perceptions of Landscapes and Views

Through the installation of extensive berm/vegetation buffer treatment along the north and

northwest edges and short lengths of berm/vegetation buffer treatment along the south edges of

Options #1 and #4; the installation of berm/vegetation buffer treatment along the north edges

and short lengths of berm/vegetation buffer treatment along the west and east edges of Options

#2 and #3; the installation of a high berm in relation to Option #2; and the potential installation of

a small berm in relation to Option #3, the visual impacts resulting from the four alternative

landfill footprint options will be largely obscured. In short, the installation of visual screening

elements as mitigation measures will significantly reduce the view of the landfill footprint from

surrounding areas. As such, there will be low net effects associated with the visual impact of the

facility for all four options.

3.8 Number of Residences

There are approximately 6,100 residences located within 3 km of the on-site study area site

perimeter. The number of residences present within 500 m of the landfill footprint varies

amongst the four options. Option #1 would include 28 residences within the 500 m buffer;

Option #2 would include 5 residences; Option #3 would include 7 residences; and Option #4

would include only 1 residence. There are no mitigation measures possible to reduce the



6

number of residences within these 500 m buffer areas; however, measures will be put in place

to manage nuisance related effects during construction and operation in order to minimize the

effects on these properties.

3.9 Type(s) and Proximity of Off-site Recreational Resources within 500 m of Landfill Footprint Potentially Affected

No recreational resources are located within 500 m of any of the four alternative landfill footprint

options and no mitigation measures are therefore required.


4.1 Economic

In terms of the criteria for continued service to customers, economic benefit to the local

municipality, effects on residential development, and effects on commercial development, there

is no difference among the four options.

The effects on the cost of services to customers differ somewhat among the options, with

Option #2 ranking in 1st place, having the lowest ratio of airspace achieved to total amount of

soil handled; Option #1 placing 2nd; Option #3 ranking 3rd; and Option #4 coming in last place.

With respect to the effects on property tax revenue on the City of Ottawa in relation to each of

the four alternative landfill footprint options, Options #2 and #3 are preferred as they result in the

greatest positive net effect on the City of Ottawa’s property tax revenue.

Based on the assessment of these criteria, Option #2 is preferred with respect to the economic

environmental component, as the only discernible 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.

4.2 Social

The visual impact of the four alternative landfill footprint options will be largely obscured through

the implementation of visual screening measures. There will; however, be some differences

among the four options, based on the location of each of the footprints in relation to the existing



7

landfill and surroundings. Options #2 and #3 would result in the greatest number of views being

screened or obscured, thus placing them both in 1st. Options #1 and #4 would result in a greater

number of views compared to Options #2 and #3, placing them in 2nd.

A small number of residential lots fall within 500 m of each of Options #2, #3 and #4. It is

assumed that nuisance management measures would mitigate any negative effects for these

properties. For Option #1, there are considerably more residential lots within 500 metres of the

landfill footprint which, if implemented, might require a more complicated set of mitigation

measures to satisfy these residents. With respect to the local residents criteria Option #4 results

in low net effects (ranked 1st), Options #2 and #3 result in moderate net effects (ranked 2nd and

3rd, respectively), and Option #1 results in high net effects (ranked 4th).

As there are no recreational facilities (as defined in provincial Guideline D-1-3) within 500 m of

the alternative landfill footprints, there are no net effects anticipated for any of the alternatives in

respect to this indicator. Consequently, each alternative is considered equal.

Based on the rankings for the individual criteria, the overall social environmental component

rankings for the four alternative landfill footprint options identify Options #2 and #3 as preferred

as they result in the lowest effects from a visual perspective as well as the number of

residences within 500 m of the landfill footprints.

Attachment C10 Design and Operations Prepared by: AECOM Project Number: 60191228 Date: November 4, 2011

Attachment C10: Design and Operations



1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Documentation ..................................................................................................... 1


2.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 2





1

1. Introduction



Design and Operations perspective. The Minister approved Terms of Reference (ToR) included

a preliminary description of the methodology for evaluating the alternative methods, i.e.






Atmospheric;


Surface Water;



Transportation;

Land Use;

Agriculture;












1.1 Documentation







2


2.1 Methodology


steps:




















measures; and




3







measures.

The Design and Operations Component was evaluated with two indicators for each landfill

footprint alternative (including number and significance) to support the reasoned argument in

the comparative rankings:

Complexity of Site Infrastructure

Operational Flexibility


A number of site design elements which are influenced by footprint location and size are

relevant in ranking the alternatives relative to the ‘complexity’ indicator. In general, alternatives

which simplify the design and construction of required elements are preferred.

All footprint alternatives will require leachate, gas, and stormwater controls in compliance with

O. Reg. 232/98, and the alternatives differ mainly in the volume of imported construction

materials required to construct these controls. It is anticipated that all of the material required to

build the clay base liners, the leachate collection system drainage layers, and final cover will

need to be imported. Given that control system designs would likely be similar at each

alternative, the volume of imported materials will vary proportionately with footprint size.

Imported construction material volume is a significant comparator because importation activities

can have significant follow-on effects on other environmental components such as air emissions

and traffic impacts (note, these follow-on effects are evaluated within the appropriate

component evaluations). The post-closure leachate generation rates vary between the

alternatives proportionate to footprint size.

The location and size of the footprints, and the existing topography at the footprint location will

influence the design of the landfill base grades, the location of leachate pumping stations, the

number and location of leachate collection system cleanout structures, and the number and

location of stormwater management ponds. Typical base grading objectives include minimizing



4

the need for imported fill (e.g., ideally on-site soils can be cut/filled to create the base grades),

and to create sufficient slope to drain leachate by gravity to low points where pumping stations

are located. It is typically desirable to minimize the number of pumping stations. Leachate

cleanout structures are access points where inspection and cleaning equipment can be inserted

into the system, and structures at the perimeter of the site are simpler to construct and maintain

than cleanouts located within the landfill footprint. The existing topography at the footprint

location will also dictate the location and number of stormwater management ponds.

Footprint location relative to key existing infrastructure is relevant as this influences the length of

utilities and access roads. Relevant comparators include the approximate length of leachate

and gas pipelines required to reach existing treatment/utilization facilities to the southeast of the

existing landfill, as well as the length of haul road between the footprint and Carp Road, which is

considered the only reasonable access route to the site. On this basis alternatives which entail

shorter road and pipeline lengths are preferred.

Another comparator for footprint location is impact on William Mooney Road. If the footprint

encroaches on the road then the road must be acquired by WM and closed. This is also the

case if the footprint location requires that waste trucks cross William Mooney Road, because

concurrent use of the road by public and site traffic may create road hazards, and also

precludes good landfill site security.

The ‘operational flexibility’ comparator was evaluated on the basis of where landfilling activities

could logically be commenced within the footprint, which is relevant when considering the

distance of the working face to various receptors. In general it is considered preferable to

commence filling at the low point of the site because this avoids the need to construct temporary

leachate control measures. However, because the variation in the number of low points is low

(e.g., all footprints have either one or two low points), and because the implementation of

temporary measures is not viewed as a particularly restrictive design/construction requirement,

all alternatives were viewed roughly equal in this regard.


The evaluation resulted in Option #2 as being preferred because it entails the least design and

construction complexity for many comparators than the other alternatives. All footprint

alternatives were considered to have similar operational flexibility.

Documents

DESIGN AND OPERATION IMPLICATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN …