Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Waste Management of Canada Corporation
West Carleton Environmental Centre Landfill Footprint Expansion
ALTERNATIVE METHODS REPORT – ASSESSMENT OF LANDFILL FOOTPRINT ALTERNATIVES
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AND COMMENT
Prepared by:
AECOM Canada Ltd.
Project Number:
60191228-1
Date:
November, 2011
Draft Assessment of Landfill Footprint Alternatives
West Carleton Environmental Centre
T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s Page
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 1
2. Identification of the Envelopes for Potential Development ............................ 3
2.1 Land Ownership ................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Existing Natural Environment Features ................................................................ 5 2.3 Land Use Constraints .......................................................................................... 6
2.3.1 City of Ottawa Official Plan ....................................................................... 6 2.3.2 City of Ottawa Comprehensive Zoning By-Law (2008-250) ...................... 9
2.4 Perimeter Buffer Zones ...................................................................................... 10 2.5 Landfill Footprint Envelopes ............................................................................... 10
3. Generation and Evaluation of the Alternative Methods ................................ 11
3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 11 3.2 Generation of Landfill Footprint Options ............................................................. 11
3.2.1 Conceptual Design of Landfill Footprint Options ..................................... 14 3.2.2 Description of the Landfill Footprint Options ........................................... 22 3.2.3 Landfill Footprint Option 1 ...................................................................... 23 3.2.4 Landfill Footprint Option 2 ...................................................................... 25 3.2.5 Landfill Footprint Option 3 ...................................................................... 26 3.2.6 Landfill Footprint Option 4 ...................................................................... 28
3.3 Summary of Landfill Footprint Options ............................................................... 29 3.4 Assessment of the Alternative Methods ............................................................. 31
4. Net Effects Analysis ......................................................................................... 38
4.1 Landfill Footprint Option #1 ................................................................................ 38 4.1.1 Net Effects Analysis ............................................................................... 38
4.2 Landfill Footprint Option #2 ................................................................................ 49 4.2.1 Net Effects Analysis ............................................................................... 49
4.3 Landfill Footprint Option #3 ................................................................................ 59 4.3.1 Net Effects Analysis ............................................................................... 59
4.4 Landfill Footprint Option #4 ................................................................................ 69 4.4.1 Net Effects Analysis ............................................................................... 69
5. Comparative Evaluation Results ..................................................................... 82
5.1 Overall Landfill Footprint Option Rankings ....................................................... 100
6. Summary ......................................................................................................... 101
Draft Assessment of Landfill Footprint Alternatives
West Carleton Environmental Centre
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2.1 Study Area Constraints ........................................................................................ 4
Figure 2.2 Official Plan Designations .................................................................................... 6
Figure 2.3 Carp Road Corridor Community Design Plan ....................................................... 7
Figure 2.4 City of Ottawa Comprehensive Zoning By-Law (2008-250) .................................. 9
Figure 3.1 Landfill Footprint Option #1 ................................................................................ 12
Figure 3.2 Landfill Footprint Option #2 ................................................................................ 13
Figure 3.3 Landfill Footprint Option #3 ................................................................................ 15
Figure 3.4 Landfill Footprint Option #4 ................................................................................ 16
Figure 3.5 Cross-Section of Landfill Footprint Option #1 & #2 ............................................. 24
Figure 3.6 Cross-Section of Landfill Footprint Option #3 & #4 ............................................. 27
Figure 3.7 Alternative Methods Process.............................................................................. 32
Figure 4.1 Option #1 Impact to Tributaries .......................................................................... 44
Figure 4.2 Option #4 Impact to Tributaries .......................................................................... 76
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Official Plan Designations and Permitted Uses .................................................... 8
Table 3.1 Comparison of Footprint Options ....................................................................... 29
Table 5.1 Comparative Evaluation Results ........................................................................ 83
Attachments
Attachment A - Conceptual Design Report
Attachment B - Landfill Footprint Net Effects Table
Attachment C - Comparative Evaluation Technical Memo’s
Draft Assessment of Landfill Footprint Alternatives
West Carleton Environmental Centre
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) is preparing an Environmental Assessment
(EA) for a proposed undertaking consisting of the provision of a new landfill footprint at the
existing Ottawa Waste Management Facility (Ottawa WMF). WM has undertaken and received
approval of a Terms of Reference (ToR) for identification and assessment of a new landfill
footprint as part of the WCEC. From the analysis presented in Supporting Document #2 –
Alternatives To the Undertaking, of the approved ToR, WM identified Alternative 3 – Close the
current landfill and establish new landfill disposal capacity at the West Carleton
Environmental Centre (WCEC) as the preferred Alternative To the Undertaking. Identification
and evaluation of “Alternative Methods” or different ways that the project can be developed is a
key element of the EA process. For example, the proposed new landfill footprint for residual
waste could be constructed in different locations and configurations (size, height, etc.) at the
WCEC.
The new landfill footprint will be one component of the proposed West Carleton Environmental
Centre (WCEC). The approved ToR identified a study area, within which alternative methods
would be identified for consideration in the EA. The study area is bounded on the southeast
and southwest sides by Highway 417; on the northeast by Carp Road; and on the northwest by
Richardson Side Road. The study area is bisected by William Mooney Road to the southwest of
the existing Ottawa WMF (Figure 1.1). The existing Ottawa WMF landfill is located on Lots 3
and 4, Concession 3 in the former Township of Huntley, formerly in the Township of West
Carleton, now the City of Ottawa near the intersection of Carp Road and Highway 417. The
lands within the study area are contiguous with the existing Ottawa WMF, owned and operated
by WM.
The purpose of this document is to present the generation and evaluation of alternative landfill
footprints and provide the rationale for the selection of the preferred landfill footprint.
UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83
7
Car
p R
oad
Richardson Sideroad
Hazeldean Road
Hun
tmar
Driv
e
Spru
ce R
idge
Roa
d
Dav
id M
anch
este
r Roa
d
Will
iam
Moo
ney
Roa
d
Oak
Cre
ek R
oad
Rothbourne Road
Old Almonte Road
Maple Grove Road
Cavanmore Road
Palladium Drive
Bradley Sideroad
Neil AvenueOld Highway 7
417
417
South Huntley Creek
419000
4190
00
420000
4200
00
421000
4210
00
422000
4220
00
423000 424000
424000
425000
425000 426000
4260
00
427000
4270
00
428000
4280
00
429000
4290
00
5011
000
5011000
5012
000
5012000
5013
000
5013000
5014
000
5014000
5015000
5015000
5017
000
5018000
5018
000
5019000
5019
000
5020000
5020
000
1:27,500
Map
Doc
umen
t: (P
:\601
9122
8\00
0-C
AD
D\0
50 G
IS W
IP\M
XD
s\R
epor
tMX
Ds\
Exi
stin
gCon
ditio
ns\6
0191
228O
verv
iew
Map
.mxd
)11
/03/
2011
-- 3
:10:
24 P
M
Figure 1.1
Study AreaNovember 2011
Project 60191228
Waste Management of Canada CorporationWest 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 partythat modifies this drawing without AECOM’s express written consent.
Basemapping from Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesOrthophotography: 2005, 2008 and 2010
0 500 1,000250
m
Legend
Current Ottawa WMF OperationsOn-site Study Area
Draft Assessment of Landfill Footprint Alternatives
West Carleton Environmental Centre
3
2. Identification of the Envelopes for Potential Development
During the ToR phase, preliminary development envelopes were identified within the study area
within which landfill footprint alternatives and other non-landfill components of the WCEC could
be located. Two distinct development envelopes, located North and West of the existing landfill,
were included in the ToR, which was approved in November 2010.
During Open House #1 of the EA, these footprint development envelopes were confirmed and
presented to the public.
WM considered the following constraints when determining appropriate landfill footprint
envelopes:
WM ownership of land or option to purchase land;
Existing natural environment features;
Land use constraints; and,
Perimeter buffer zones.
Figure 2.1 shows the application of these site-specific factors within the study area. The
following sections describe the application of the site-specific factors within the development
envelopes.
UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83
South Huntley Creek
Goulbourn Wetland
Car
p R
oad
Richardson Sideroad
Dav
id M
anch
este
r Roa
d
Will
iam
Moo
ney
Roa
d
Cavanmore Road
417
417
Westbrook RoadWill
owle
a R
oad
Car
devc
o R
oad
Wes
car L
ane
Moo
nsto
ne R
oad
Wilbert Cox Drive
Westhunt Road
421000
4210
00
422000
4220
00
423000
424000
4240
00
425000
4250
00
426000
5013
000
5013000
5014
000
5015000
5015
000
5016000 5017000
5017
000
1:12,000
LegendButternut Tree
Intermittent StreamPermanent Stream
PSW Buffer Area (120 m)
CA Regulated Wetland
PSW
WoodlotAmphibian Breeding and Hibernation SiteNon-Regulated WetlandSouth Huntley Riparian ZoneWetland BankLands Owned/Optioned by WMLands Not Owned/Optioned by WMProject Study Area
Current Ottawa WMF Operations
Map
Doc
umen
t: (P
:\601
9122
8\00
0-C
AD
D\0
50 G
IS W
IP\M
XD
s\R
epor
tMX
Ds\
Exi
stin
gCon
ditio
ns\6
0191
228W
CE
C_C
onst
rain
tsM
ap11
x17.
mxd
)11
/03/
2011
-- 3
:31:
32 P
M
Figure 2.1
Study Area ConstraintsNovember 2011
Project 60191228
Waste Management of Canada CorporationWest 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 partythat modifies this drawing without AECOM’s express written consent.
Basemapping from Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesOrthophotography: 2010
0 200 400100
m
Draft Assessment of Landfill Footprint Alternatives
West Carleton Environmental Centre
5
2.1 Land Ownership
WM owns or has options to purchase a large portion of the lands within the study area. These
lands are shaded in grey on Figure 2.1, and include land to the northeast and southwest
immediately adjacent to the existing Ottawa WMF (hereafter referred to as the “north envelope”
and “west envelope” respectively). The land within the study area that WM does not own or
have the option to purchase is shaded in red on Figure 2.1.
2.2 Existing Natural Environment Features
A preliminary inventory of existing natural heritage features within the study area was carried
out to determine any land that should be excluded from potential development. The desktop
inventory of existing natural features was completed using interpretation of aerial photography,
existing natural environment information, and other baseline studies.
Of note, the Goulbourn Wetland Complex is a provincially significant wetland complex in a the
south-western portion of the Study Area. This wetland is protected under the provincial Planning
Act and the Provincial Policy Statement from any development or site alteration. In addition, the
City of Ottawa Official Plan (2003, Consolidated 2007) requires that any development within 120
m of the boundary of a designated wetland undertake an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).
Existing databases show that there are butternut trees (Juglans cinerea) within the study area.
Butternut is listed as an endangered species under the provincial Endangered Species Act and
the federal Species at Risk Act.
A number of ditches and channels exist within the Study Area. Under the federal Fisheries Act,
no project may create a “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction” (also known as a HADD)
of fish habitat, unless authorized by the Minister. Further in relation to watercourses, under the
generic regulations of the Conservation Authorities Act, incompatible development is normally
prohibited within 15 m of any floodplain, wetland, river valley, or meander belt. To the north of
the existing Ottawa WMF, there are two on-line (i.e. connected to other tributaries) wetlands.
These features are regulated by the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority.
Draft Assessment of Landfill Footprint Alternatives
West Carleton Environmental Centre
6
2.3 Land Use Constraints
2.3.1 City of Ottawa Official Plan
The existing Ottawa WMF lands are designated Solid Waste Disposal Site, Sand and Gravel
Resource Area, and Carp Road Corridor Rural Employment Area in the City of Ottawa Official
Plan (2003, Consolidated 2007) (see Figure 2.2). Within the Carp Road Corridor Community
Design Plan, these lands are designated as Heavy Industrial Area and Solid Waste Disposal
Site (see Figure 2.3).
The north development envelope is designated as Carp Road Corridor Rural Employment Area.
Within the Carp Road Corridor Community Design Plan, this land is designated as Light
Industrial Area.
Most of the west development
envelope is designated
General Rural Area, and the
Goulbourn Wetland Complex
is designated Significant
Wetlands. Uses permitted
within these designations are
outlined in Table 2.1.
Figure 2.2 Official Plan Designations
Draft Assessment of Landfill Footprint Alternatives
West Carleton Environmental Centre
7
Figure 2.3 Carp Road Corridor Community Design Plan
Draft Assessment of Landfill Footprint Alternatives
West Carleton Environmental Centre
8
Table 2.1 Official Plan Designations and Permitted Uses
Designation Permitted Uses
Existing
Ottawa WMF
Carp Road Rural Employment Area Rural industrial and commercial uses.
Heavy Industrial Area (Carp Road
Corridor Community Design Plan)
Heavy industrial uses involving the manufacturing of
products from local primary materials, quarry, abattoirs,
salvage yards, sawmills.
Sand and Gravel Resource Area Pits and wayside pits and related uses such as portable
asphalt plants.
Solid Waste Disposal Site Solid waste disposal sites.
North
Development
Envelope
Carp Road Rural Employment Area Rural industrial and commercial uses.
Light Industrial Area (Carp Road
Corridor Community Design Plan)
May include light manufacturing plants, distribution, recycling
and assembly plants, warehouses, service and repair shops,
research, design and testing facilities, storage uses,
transportation depots, contractor or construction related
uses, and compatible public and institutional uses.
West
Development
Envelope
General Rural Area Without a Zoning By-law Amendment:
Agricultural uses, forestry and conservation, and natural
resource management activities; Residential uses; Animal
boarding, breeding, and training facilities, including stables;
Bed and breakfast establishments; Open space; Cemeteries.
With a Zoning By-law Amendment:
New industrial and commercial uses, such as farm equipment
and supply centres, machine and truck repair shops, building
products yards, landscape contractors, and nurseries; Uses
that are noxious, such as salvage or recycling yards,
composting or transfer facilities, concrete plants, the treatment
of aggregate products, and abattoirs; New recreational
commercial and non-profit uses, such as golf courses, driving
ranges, mini putt operations, campgrounds, outdoor theme
parks, and sportsfields; New sand and gravel pits and
underground mining for any mineral resources; Other new
non-residential uses which are in keeping with the rural
character or those uses that meet the needs of the traveling
public, such as a restaurant, gas station, motel, and retail (up
to 1,000 m2 gross leasable area); New institutional uses such
as places of worship and schools; Country lot subdivision.
Significant Wetlands No development or site alteration is permitted except for
open air recreation; scientific, educational, or conservation
uses associated with the environmental features; existing
agricultural operations; forestry. Single detached dwelling
and accessory building, subject to conditions.
Draft Assessment of Landfill Footprint Alternatives
West Carleton Environmental Centre
9
2.3.2 City of Ottawa Comprehensive Zoning By-Law (2008-250)
The lands within the study area have ten different zonings under the City of Ottawa
Comprehensive Zoning By-law (2008-250). These zonings are shown in Figure 2.4, and are
described in the following subsections for the existing Ottawa WMF lands, the west
development envelope, and the north development envelope.
Figure 2.4 City of Ottawa Comprehensive Zoning By-Law (2008-250)
Both landfill envelopes would require an amendment to the Official Plan and zoning by-law for
the landfill footprint component of the WCEC.
Draft Assessment of Landfill Footprint Alternatives
West Carleton Environmental Centre
10
2.4 Perimeter Buffer Zones
If the EA is approved, WM must ensure the landfill area is completely surrounded by a buffer
area. A proposed buffer from property lines of 100 m is shown in Figure 2.1.
2.5 Landfill Footprint Envelopes
As previously mentioned, two distinct development envelopes within the study area in relation to
the existing Ottawa WMF were identified during the ToR stage. These envelopes are referred
to by their proximity to the Ottawa WMF, namely to the west of William Mooney Road and to the
north of the existing Ottawa WMF.
As a result of the constraints review, the north and west envelopes were identified in the ToR as
the areas within which the “Alternative Methods for Carrying out the Undertaking” would be
analysed in the EA. In the ToR, WM proposed to complete a comparative evaluation with
respect to the landfill footprint envelopes and then generate landfill footprint options within the
preferred envelope:
“Once the selection of the preferred landfill envelope has been determined in the
EA, alternatives will be identified during the EA within the preferred envelope.”
(Approved ToR, Section 6.5, pp. 35).
After reviewing the initial information collected and reviewed as part of identifying the study area
constraints/ potential landfill envelopes, WM determined that both envelopes were suitable for
identifying potential landfill footprints. Locating a potential landfill footprint is possible for both
envelopes, as no discernible differences between the two envelopes that would prevent
development of a landfill footprint were identified. Therefore, WM embarked on generating
potential landfill footprint options within each of the envelopes. This approach was presented at
Open House #1 and Workshop #1 of the EA. Further discussion on the generation of landfill
footprint options is provided in Section 3 of this report.