Option #2 Impact on Agriculture

Transcription

1 Environmental Assessment Figure Option #2 Impact on Agriculture

2 Socio-Economic The ratio of air space achieved to volume of soil handled has a ratio of 6.5 million m 3 to 2.2 million m 3. There are no mitigation measures required for this indicator. The net effects with respect to continued service to customers, the optimized site life/ capacity is 6.5 million m 3 over 10 years. There is no mitigation required in relation to this indicator. With respect to economic benefit to the local community, Option #3 will create 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. The opportunities to provide products or services will continue in relation to Option #3. This resulting net effect is considered to be high (positive). In terms of effects on residential and commercial development plans, no impacts are anticipated in relation to either residential or commercial development plans as the landfill will operate in accordance with O. Reg. 232/98. With respect to effects on property tax revenue to the City of Ottawa and MPAC, Option #3 would 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. In regard to visual impacts, through 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 Option #3; and the potential installation of a small berm in relation to Option #3, the visual impacts resulting from the alternative landfill footprint option 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 Option #3. 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 Option #3 would include 7 residences within the 500 m buffer. Mitigation measures will be put in place to manage nuisance related effects during construction and operation in order to minimize the effects on these properties. No recreational resources are located within 500 m of Option #3. Aboriginal With respect to Aboriginal interests, WM developed an indicator to evaluate the potential effects on use of lands for traditional purposes. Initial information from Aboriginal groups and the 5-82

3 OMAA and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada indicates that the 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. Site Design & Operations All footprint alternatives will require leachate, gas, and stormwater controls in compliance with O. Reg. 232/98. The leachate generation rate for closed footprint Option #3 is estimated to be between 2.1 to 3.3 L/s. Base grading design would likely require two low points/ leachate pumping stations. All LCS cleanouts can be located around the perimeter of the site. The site will likely require design and construction of three SWM ponds. The longest leachate forcemain length is approximately 2,000 m and the longest gas forcemain length is approximately 2,400 m. Minimum haul road length to reach the footprint from Carp Road is 330 m. The landfill footprint does not encroach on William Mooney Road precluding the need for road closure and acquisition by WM. This option requires importation of approximately 1,703,000 m 3 of soil and granular material for base liner, lcs, and final cover construction and requires importation of approximately 179,000 m 3 for base grading earthworks. This equals up to 229 truckloads per day. With respect to operational flexibility, base grading design with two low points affords flexibility to commence filling in two locations without temporary leachate collection measures Landfill Footprint Option #4 The following provides the key net effects for landfill footprint Option #4 as illustrated in Figure 5-8. Please refer to Supporting Document #2 (Attachment B) for the overall net effects tables and Supporting Document #2 (Attachment C) for the discipline specific memos. Atmospheric With respect to the Odour criteria, the assessment of Option #4 resulted in predicted concentrations less than 1 OU over a 10-minute averaging period, at 99.5% of the time (provided the assumptions detailed in Supporting Document #2 (Attachment C)). The net effects are based on implementing the following key mitigation measures: the landfill gas collection and utilization system is incorporated and implemented progressively over the lifespan of Option #4; and, BMPs are incorporated to reduce the potential for odour to occur during the normal operation of the landfill. 5-83

4 The net effects determination considered all 24 receptors identified in the Odour existing conditions report. Based on the modelling completed, no off-site receptors are affected. Odours are more likely to impact receptor areas closer to the landfill based on the nature of the sources. With respect to Air Quality, landfill gas emissions were modelled for vinyl chloride, benzene and hydrogen sulphide. These compounds were evaluated to determine the potential to exceed any air quality standards or guidelines at the property line and at all sensitive receptors (24) identified in the Odour existing conditions report. All receptors are expected to be within compliance (provided the assumptions detailed in Supporting Document #2 (Attachment C)). The net effects are based on implementing the following key mitigation measures: the landfill gas collection and utilization system is incorporated and implemented progressively over the lifespan of Option #4; and, BMPs are incorporated to reduce the potential for landfill gas releases to occur during the normal operation of the landfill. Also reviewed as part of the Air Quality criteria were combustion emissions, including oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide and particulate emissions. For Option #4, the predicted concentrations for combustion emissions were predicted to be within compliance at all 24 receptors identified in the Air Quality existing conditions report for both nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide. This estimate is based on all assumptions provided in Supporting Document #2 (Attachment C) above and that mitigation measures allowing for the efficient traffic flow on-site (no holder periods or prolonged idling) and BMPs are put in place to control emissions for the vehicles allowed to enter the site. For dust emissions, TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 were considered. Predicted concentrations for 24- hour periods for each type of particulate were assessed at all 24 receptors. For Option #4, the results assumed all of the assumptions provided in Supporting Document #2 (Attachment C) and that each alternative would incorporate efficient traffic flow movements on-site (no holding periods or prolonged idling periods) and that BMPs for dust would be incorporated. The maximum concentrations were predicted to exceed at one off-site receptor for Option #4. Additional mitigation measures/ strategies focused on dust reduction will be outlined to minimize dust to all receptors, should Option #4 be identified as the preferred alternative. With respect to the Noise criteria, the predicted sound levels for Option #4 at each of the 24 receptors were assessed to determine if the predicted noise levels would be less than 55 dba (MOE Noise Guideline for Landfills) or within 3 db of the background noise levels. As an example, a 3 db change in noise levels is the level where the human ear can detect a change in the sound levels. Option #4 only had one receptor predicted to be in excess of 55 dba or greater than 3 db above background levels. Results are included in Supporting Document #2 (Appendix C). 5-84

5 All results were based on the assumptions provided in Supporting Document #2 (Appendix C) and the proposed mitigation measures for each alternative would include the following: maintenance to keep haul trucks and construction trucks in good working conditions, screening berms to provide noise reduction for specific operations, noise BMPs 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 will be outlined to minimize noise to all receptors. Geology & Hydrogeology With respect to Groundwater Quality, various considerations were reviewed when considering the net effects, including leachate generation rates at closure, existing groundwater quality, monitorability of the site, and number and type of downgradient receptors. In regard to Groundwater Flow, considerations included overburden type, depth to groundwater table, hydraulic characteristics and modelled results of groundwater flow change. These considerations assisted in framing what mitigation measures would be required and the resultant net effects. At closure, leachate generated from Option #4 is expected to be 2.3 to 3.6 L/s, which is the highest of all alternatives. On the northern portion of the footprint, the existing groundwater quality is slightly impacted by the existing landfill operations. The elevated concentrations of dissolved constituents can be expected to migrate toward the eastern property boundary. On the west portion of the footprint the groundwater quality is within the range of expected background conditions. The existing groundwater flow regime is well understood and monitorable, which is a key component of ensuring that the mitigation measures related to the design of the landfill and liner system are operating as intended. Further, the area between the existing landfill and Option #4 is available for monitoring. Future monitoring will need to distinguish impacts between the existing landfill and the new landfill along the downgradient side of the new landfill. In terms of receptors, there are 4 commercial/industrial properties within 500 m downgradient of Option #4. These properties utilize private wells for their water supplies. The surficial geology in the Option #4 area consists of fine sand to silty sand, sand and sandgravel, with overburden thickness ranging from 2.6 to 9.2 in the west part of the footprint and 4.3 to 15.6 m in the east part of the footprint (north of the existing landfill). The underlying bedrock is Bobcaygeon Formation, which slopes gradually to the northeast. 5-85

6 The depth to the water table ranges from shallow (<1 to 2.5 m) on the western portion of the footprint to 4 m or more along the east side of the footprint, to >10 m in the east buffer. The overburden-shallow bedrock is the primary groundwater flow zone, with good connection to the deeper bedrock on the western portion of the footprint and moderate connection on the eastern portion. The flow is northward on the west side of the footprint, becoming northeastward along the east side of the footprint. The results of the numerical flow modelling revealed that the simulated drawdown is predicted to be 0.11 m at downgradient property boundaries, with no effects to off-site groundwater flow directions. For the purpose of the Analysis, it is important to recognize that the generic design options for groundwater protection as developed by the MOE and specified in O. Reg. 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 containment system. Further contaminant attenuation in the buffer area is not required (MOE Landfill Standards Guideline, May 1998; revised June 2010). A Generic Design Option II Double Composite Liner System will be used for the regardless of the landfill footprint alternative selected. The existing conditions for groundwater flow and groundwater quality have been determined and are predictable. The existing hydrogeologic conditions are suitable for effectively monitoring groundwater flow and quality around landfill footprint Option #4. 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 m (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. 5-86

7 The result of the Analysis is that no off-site groundwater receptors are anticipated to be affected by landfill footprint Option #4. The key factors leading to this result are: the use of the Generic Design Option II leachate containment and collection system, which is protective of the groundwater environment, and the hydrogeologic conditions are suitable for effectively monitoring groundwater flow and quality around the landfill footprint. Surface Water Resources With respect to surface water quality, Option #4 has the potential for 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 two separate two staged SWM Facility, one to the east and one to the west of William Mooney Drive. As before, these SWM Facility would remove larger particle 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 SWM Facility west of William Mooney Drive, outflow would be to South Huntley Creek, while for the SWM Facility east of William Mooney Drive, outflow would be as groundwater recharge (infiltration), with the SWM Facility incorporating existing local excavation as previously practised at the existing site. Therefore, the resultant net effects are: 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. From a water quantity perspective, 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 the 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. This would result in the following net effects: Potentially impact the existing wetland natural environment due to increased water levels. This would 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. 5-87

8 Reduce flows to the swale which would be maintained only by adjacent surface and groundwater flow. Reduce flows to South Huntley Creek tributary along Richardson Side Road: but by less than 5%. Increase flows along the west ditch of the Carp Road. This impact would be mitigated by Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the SWM facility providing attenuation of post-development flows to pre-development levels. SWM Facility outflow would be as groundwater discharge (infiltration), with the SWM Facility incorporating existing local excavation that would contain the 1:100 Year runoff. Existing SWM Facility #1 would have to be relocated as a new two stage SWM Facility to the east. 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 damage. This impact would be mitigated by the previously mentioned two staged SWM facilities. Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the SWM facilities would provide attenuation of post-development flows. For the SWM Facility east of William Mooney Drive, outflow would be as groundwater recharge (infiltration), with the SWM Facility incorporating existing local excavation that would contain the 1:100 Year runoff. The resultant net effect is a reduced flow to South Huntley Creek at Carp Road. For the SWM Facility 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. Terrestrial Environment With respect to impacts on vegetation communities, Option #4 results in 20.3 ha of vegetation being removed, including, 3.8 ha of meadow communities, 13.4 ha of forest communities, and 3.1 ha of wetland communities which are associated with the adjacent PSW (see Figure 5-28). BMPs will be implemented on-site during construction (i.e., installation of protective fencing, access restrictions, use of dust suppressants, etc.) to reduce the overall net effect. Further, compensation for the loss of vegetation communities will occur 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. 5-88

9 Environmental Assessment Figure Option #4 Impact on Vegetation Communities

10 With respect to impacts on wildlife habitat, Option #4 results in the 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 (see Figure 5-29). Option #4 also results in the disturbance to an active bank swallow colony and interruption of wildlife movement across agricultural fields between woodlands (Option #4 forms the longest linear barrier). While there will be a permanent interruption of wildlife movement between core woodlots; wildlife will adapt to move in areas of contiguous vegetation. Similar to mitigation measures proposed for effects on vegetation communities, revegetation in adjacent areas could compensate for the loss of bird habitat. Although there is a loss of 3.1 ha of amphibian habitat, this type of habitat does exist in other areas on-site and could be compensated for in these locations. The removal of vegetation should occur outside of breeding bird season (May-July). A Compensation and Restoration Plan will be developed during detailed design to address the exact location of these areas. Installation of a fence along the perimeter will deter species from entering the landfill. By implementing buffers between the footprint and existing vegetation, construction disturbance to breeding birds and wildlife will be minimized. Aquatic Environment With respect to impacts on water quality and impacts to aquatic habitat/biota, Option #1 will impact Tributary C (See Figure 5-30) and require removal of part (1,016 m) of the channel. Tributary C is an agricultural drain and the watercourse is important for surface water conveyance from the adjacent wetland (Tributaries A and B). 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 season, then the effects to aquatic habitat are completely mitigated. Archaeology & Cultural Heritage 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 MTC guidelines and past experience, and informed through research into the history of the region. It should be noted that no structures designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act are present within the study area. 5-90

11 Environmental Assessment Figure Option #4 Impact on Wildlife and Aquatic Features

12 Environmental Assessment Figure Option #4 Impact to Tributaries

13 With respect to impacts on cultural and heritage resources for Option #4, there are two cultural landscape units, one disturbance to a farm house located south of the footprint, and removal of a portion of the William Mooney roadscape (see Figure 5-31). Mitigation for cultural heritage resources comes in the form of documentation. Therefore, the resultant net effect is that Option #4 will create a disturbance to one Cultural Landscape Unit and removal of another Cultural Landscape Unit in the vicinity of the footprint. A completed documentation report for archival purposes will be prepared. With respect to archaeology, the presence and significance of and potential for archaeological resources within the study area were determined based on the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment conducted by ASI in The Stage 1 Assessment relied on MTC 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 Option #4, none of which are located on-site. It was determined; however, that the location of Option #4 exhibits archaeological site potential, albeit low potential according to the MTC (see Figure 5-32). 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. A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment for Option #4 is required (if selected) to determine if any potential archaeological resources are present, and any adverse effects on the resource(s) would be avoided or mitigated. Transportation 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. 5-93

14 Environmental Assessment Figure Option #4 Impact on Cultural Heritage Resources

15 Environmental Assessment Figure Option #4 Impact on Archaeological Resources

16 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 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. Land Use With respect to current land use, the evaluation of current land uses utilized 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 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 Option #4, the net environmental effects with respect to current land uses are primarily the removal or loss of the existing land uses, (including Loss of Industrial, Agriculture, Wooded Area, and Low Density Residential lands) and their replacement with a waste management facility. Due to the rural character of the area, Option #1 would reduce the extent of agricultural and general rural uses, and some wooded/shrub lands. With respect to planed future land use, the City s approved planning documents (i.e., Official Plan, Carp Road Corridor CDP and the Zoning By-law) provide the greatest indication of the planned future land uses in the area. For Option #4, the General Rural designation in the Official Plan is the most indicative of future land uses. The presumed effects of building this Option would be the discontinuation of the rural uses on the lands that would be occupied by the landfill. With respect to off-site recreational resources, 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 These include uses such as a trailer park or picnic area. During the evaluation, no such facilities were discovered within 500 m of Option #4. Consequently, there are no net effects for this indicator. 5-96

17 Similar to the 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 m of Option #4, there are varying numbers of dwellings. Construction of Option #4 would potentially affect one residence within 500 m of Option #4. 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 m vicinity of these residences. With respect to Agricultural lands and uses, Option #4 would result in the loss of a dairy farm and 1 part-time beef farm (see Figure 5-33). Further, in terms of soil type, there would be a loss of mainly Class 4 agricultural capability soil. Area is generally low agricultural soil capability as evidenced by the General Rural Area designation. Agricultural land within 500 m of Option #4 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 m of Option #4. Waste Management will implement BMPs on the selected new landfill site in future to ensure nuisance related effects are mitigated in relation to surrounding agricultural operations. Socio-Economic The ratio of air space achieved to volume of soil handled has a ratio of 6.5 million m 3 to 2.4 million m 3. There are no mitigation measures required for this indicator. The net effects with respect to continued service to customers, the optimized site life/ capacity is 6.5 million m 3 over 10 years. There is no mitigation required in relation to this indicator. With respect to economic benefit to the local community, Option #4 will create 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. The opportunities to provide products or services will continue in relation to Option #4. This resulting net effect is considered to be high (positive). In terms of effects on residential and commercial development plans, no impacts are anticipated in relation to either residential or commercial development plans as the landfill will operate in accordance with O. Reg. 232/

18 Environmental Assessment Figure Option #4 Impact on Agriculture

19 With respect to effects on property tax revenue to the City of Ottawa and MPAC, Option #4 would 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. Option 4 does 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. In regard to visual impacts, 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 Option #4, the visual impacts resulting from the alternative landfill footprint option 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 Option #4. 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 Option #4 would include 1 residence within the 500 m buffer. Mitigation measures will be put in place to manage nuisance related effects during construction and operation in order to minimize the effects on these properties. No recreational resources are located within 500 m of Option #4. Aboriginal With respect to Aboriginal interests, WM developed an indicator to evaluate the potential effects on use of lands for traditional purposes. Initial information from Aboriginal groups and the OMAA and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada indicates that the 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. Site Design & Operations All footprint alternatives will require leachate, gas, and stormwater controls in compliance with O. Reg. 232/98. Leachate generation rate for closed footprint estimated to be between 2.3 to 3.6 L/s. Base grading design would likely require at least two low points/ leachate pumping stations. All LCS cleanouts can be located around the perimeter of the site. The site will likely require design and construction of four SWM ponds. The longest leachate forcemain length is approximately 2,100 m and the longest gas forcemain length is approximately 2,450 m. Minimum haul road length to reach footprint from Carp Road is 280 m and necessitates closure and WM acquisition of William Mooney Road. This option requires importation of approximately 1,836,000 m 3 of soil and granular material for base liner, 5-99

20 lcs, and final cover construction and requires importation of approximately 451,000 m 3 for base grading earthworks. This equals up to 246 truckloads per day. With respect to operational flexibility, base grading design with two low points affords flexibility to commence filling in two locations without temporary leachate collection measures Comparative Evaluation Results The comparative evaluation results are summarized within the sections below with additional details provided in the technical memos included in Supporting Document #2. Further, Table 5-4 provides the rankings and rationale for the net effects determination. Atmospheric Odour All footprint options were expected to be within regulatory compliance and the net effects are comparable (low net effects), the results were reviewed to determine which footprint option provided the absolute lowest results. Based on this evaluation, Option #1 was ranked as the preferred option (ranked #1) 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 2 nd as they had similar results which were slightly higher than Option #1. Preliminary results from all options are provided in Supporting Document #2 (Attachment C). Air Quality With respect to modelled landfill gas emissions (vinyl chloride, benzene and hydrogen sulphide), since all footprint options were expected to be within regulatory compliance and the net effects are comparable (low net effects), the results were reviewed to determine which footprint option provided the absolute lowest results. Based on this secondary evaluation, Option #3 was ranked 1 st, Option #1 was ranked 2 nd, Option #4 was ranked 3 rd and Option #2 was ranked 4 th. All results were in compliance at all 24 receptor locations. Preliminary results from all options are provided in Supporting Document #2 (Attachment C). With respect to modelled combustion Emissions (oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide), since all footprint options were expected to be within regulatory compliance and the net effects are comparable (low net effects), the results were reviewed to determine which footprint option provided the lowest results. Based on this secondary evaluation, Options #1 and #3 were ranked 1 st, Options #2 and #4 were ranked 2 nd. All results were in compliance at all 24 receptor locations. Preliminary results from all options are provided in Supporting Document #2 (Attachment C)

21 Table 5-4 Comparative Evaluation Results Environmental Component Atmospheric Environment Criteria Indicators Option #1 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). Option #2 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). Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Option #3 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). Option #4 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). Air Quality Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses and institutions). No off-site receptors affected. No off-site receptors affected. No off-site receptors affected. No off-site receptors affected. Criteria Ranking: 1 st Tied for 2 nd Tied for 2 nd Tied for 2 nd It should be noted that there were no exceedances with predicted odour emissions for any option; however, Option 1 is marginally preferred because modelled emissions are slightly lower off-site with this option. Modelled Landfill Gas Emissions: No off-site receptors affected. No off-site receptors affected. No off-site receptors affected. No off-site receptors affected. Vinyl Chloride Benzene Hydrogen Sulphide Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses, and institutions). No off-site receptors affected. No off-site receptors affected. No off-site receptors affected. No off-site receptors affected. Criteria Ranking: 2 nd 4 th 1 st 3 rd It should be noted that there were no exceedances with modelled landfill gas emissions for any option; however, Option 3 is marginally preferred because modelled emissions were slightly lower offsite with this option. Modelled Dust Emissions: Total Suspended Particulate Matter Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM10) Respirable Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses, and institutions). Maximum concentrations at two off-site receptors are predicted to be above the applicable O. Reg. 419/05 standard, AAQC or CWS. Two off-site receptors will be affected. 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 will be affected. 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 will be affected. 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 will be affected. Criteria Ranking: 4 th 1 st 3 rd 2 nd Option 2 is preferred as there are no receptors off-site that are affected by modelled dust emissions. Modelled Combustion Emissions: No maximum concentrations at off-site receptors are No maximum concentrations at off-site receptors are No maximum concentrations at off-site receptors are Carbon Monoxide predicted to be above the applicable O. Reg. 337 predicted to be above the applicable O. Reg. 337 predicted to be above the applicable O. Reg. 337 Nitrogen Oxides Ambient Air Quality Criteria. Ambient Air Quality Criteria. Ambient Air Quality Criteria. No maximum concentrations at off-site receptors are predicted to be above the applicable O. Reg. 337 Ambient Air Quality Criteria. Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses, and institutions). No off-site receptors affected. No off-site receptors affected. No off-site receptors affected. No off-site receptors affected. Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1 st Tied for 2 nd Tied for 1 st Tied for 2 nd It should be noted that there were no exceedances with modelled combustion emissions for any option; however, Options 1 and 3 are marginally preferred because modelled impacts were slightly lower off-site with these options. Noise Predicted site-related noise. Possible site-related noise at some receptors from Minimal site-related noise at receptors. Minimal site-related noise at receptors. Minimal site-related noise at receptors. time to time. Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses, and institutions). Five receptors are predicted to be affected from time to time with levels above 55 dba or greater than 3 db above background. One off-site receptor will be affected. Acceptable levels are noise levels at or below 55 dba or within 3 db of background sound levels. 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. 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. Criteria Ranking: 2 nd Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Options 2 and 3 are preferred as these will result in minimal site-related noise and affect the least amount of off-site receptors (1). Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 2 nd Tied for 2 nd 1 st Tied for 2 nd RATIONALE Option 3 was ranked first compared to the other 3 Options from an Atmospheric component perspective because it has the lowest effects on offsite receptors relating to odour, landfill gas, combustion, and noise emissions

22 Table 5-4 Comparative Evaluation Results Environmental Component Geology & Hydrogeology Surface Water Resources Criteria Groundwater quality Groundwater flow Surface water quality Indicators Option #1 Option #2 Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Predicted effects to groundwater quality at property boundaries and off-site. No off-site groundwater receptors will be affected. No off-site groundwater receptors will be affected. No off-site groundwater receptors will be affected. No off-site groundwater receptors will be affected. Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st There is no distinction between the options in relation to groundwater quality. All options rank the same. Predicted groundwater flow characteristics. No off-site groundwater receptors will be affected. No off-site groundwater receptors will be affected. No off-site groundwater receptors will be affected. No off-site groundwater receptors will be affected. Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st There is no distinction between the options in relation to groundwater flow. All options rank the same. Environmental Component Ranking There is no distinction between the options in relation to geology and hydrogeology. All options rank the same. RATIONALE Given the proposed mitigation measures (i.e. the use of Generic Design Option II liner system), no off-site groundwater receptors are anticipated to be affected by any of the four options in terms of groundwater flow or groundwater quality. Therefore, all Options are acceptable from a Geology/Hydrogeology perspective. Predicted effects on surface water quality onsite Discharge to groundwater with no increase in TSS Discharge to groundwater with no increase in TSS and off-site. and related parameter concentrations. and related parameter concentrations. Discharge to surface water with no increase in TSS and related parameter concentrations in Huntley Creek (South Branch) at William Mooney Road. Option #3 Option #4 West Pond discharge to surface water with no increase in TSS and related parameter concentrations in Huntley Creek (South Branch) at William Mooney Road. East Pond discharge to groundwater with no increase in TSS and related parameter concentrations. Surface water quantity Criteria Ranking: 3 rd Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st 2 nd Option 2 and 3 are preferred because they will both use groundwater infiltration as a method of discharge after TSS removal by the sediment forebay. Change in drainage areas. No increase in wetland water levels. Reduced flow to South Branch of Huntley Creek. Reduced flow to South Branch of Huntley Creek. Reduced flow to South Branch of Huntley Creek. Minimal flow in connecting swale. Minimal flow in connecting swale. Minimal flow in connecting swale. No increase in flow along Carp Road west ditch. No increase in flow along Carp Road west ditch. No increase in flow along Carp Road west ditch. No effects from relocation of existing SWM facility #1. No effects from relocation of existing SWM facility #1. No effects from relocation of existing SWM facility #1. No increase in wetland water levels. Predicted occurrence and degree of off-site effects. No increase in peak flows at William Mooney Road. LOW NET EFFECS Reduced flow in South Branch of Huntley Creek LOW NET EFFECS Reduced flow in South Branch of Huntley Creek. LOW NET EFFECS Reduced flow in South Branch of Huntley Creek. No increase in Carp Road flows or peak flows at William Mooney Road. Biology (including Terrestrial and Aquatic environment) Terrestrial ecosystems Criteria Ranking: 1 st 3 rd 4 th 2 nd Option 1 is preferred because it uses surface outlet controls, rather than groundwater infiltration, to attenuate flows and does not change the existing surface flow regime on South Huntley Creek. Environmental Component Ranking 3rd 1st 2nd 4th RATIONALE Option 2 is ranked as the Preferred Alternative from a Surface Water perspective as it has the lowest net effect on surface water quality and water quantity. Predicted impact on vegetation communities 17.1 ha of vegetation will be removed, and 22.6 ha of vegetation will be removed, and due to project. compensated for elsewhere. compensated for elsewhere 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. Reduced impacts resulting from increased edge effects. No leachate contamination of adjacent vegetation. Reduced impacts resulting from increased edge effects. No leachate contamination of adjacent vegetation 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

23 Table 5-4 Comparative Evaluation Results Environmental Component Criteria Indicators Predicted impact on wildlife habitat due to project. Option #1 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. Option #2 Loss of 3.7 ha of amphibian habitat; however, this type of habitat does exist in other areas on-site and could be compensated for in these locations. Loss of 6.0 ha of habitat for area sensitive bird species, to be compensated for elsewhere within the site. Construction disturbance to breeding birds and wildlife minimized through the establishment of vegetated buffers. Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Option #3 Loss of 3.7 ha of amphibian habitat; however, this type of habitat does exist in other areas on-site and could be compensated for in these locations. Loss of 11.5 ha of vegetated habitat for observed area sensitive bird species, to be compensated for elsewhere within the site. Construction disturbance to breeding birds and wildlife minimized through the establishment of vegetated buffers. Option #4 Loss of 3.1 ha of amphibian habitat; however, this type of habitat does exist in other areas on-site and could be compensated for in these locations. Loss of 13.4 ha of forested habitat for area sensitive bird species, to be compensated for elsewhere within the site. Permanent interruption of movement between core woodlands; however, wildlife will adapt to move in areas of contiguous vegetation. Construction disturbance to breeding birds and wildlife minimized through the establishment of vegetated buffers. Construction disturbance to breeding birds and wildlife minimized through the establishment of vegetated buffers. Aquatic ecosystems Predicted impact of project on vegetation and wildlife including rare, threatened or endangered species. No impact on rare, threatened or endangered species within the area. No rare, threatened or endangered species within the area. No rare, threatened or endangered species within the area. No impact on rare, threatened or endangered species within the area. Criteria Ranking: Tied 1 st Tied 1 st 4 th 3 rd Options 1 and 2 are preferred as they result in the least amount of vegetation being removed, least amount of wildlife habitat, including amphibian habitat and vegetated habitat for observed area sensitive birds. Predicted changes in water quality. Realignment of 878 m of Tributary C would maintain There are no permanent or intermittent streams There are no permanent or intermittent streams some surface water conveyance, however there may located within this area. located within this area. be increased runoff and contaminant loading from the surrounding land use due to the loss of some of this agricultural drain. 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. Predicted impact on aquatic habitat due to project. There will be some loss of fish habitat however there are opportunities to realign the watercourses to maintain connectivity and to create or improve habitat In adjacent tributaries. Tributary C appears to support some fish during the freshet although on a seasonal basis, therefore would not be classed as permanent fish habitat. There are no permanent or intermittent streams located within this area. There are no permanent or intermittent streams located within this area. 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. If works are carried out while the channel is dry (no flow), there will be no impact to the aquatic biota. There are no permanent or intermittent streams located within this area. There are no permanent or intermittent streams located within this area. If works are carried out while the channel is dry (no flow), there will be no impact to the aquatic biota. Criteria Ranking: Tied for 2 nd Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 2 nd Options 2 and 3 are preferred as they do not include any streams (permanent or intermittent) and therefore no net effects on aquatic habitat. Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 2 nd Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 2 nd RATIONALE Options 2 and 3 are ranked as the Preferred Alternatives from a Biology perspective as they result in the least amount of vegetation being removed, least amount of wildlife habitat, do not have any permanent or intermittent streams flowing through their landfill footprints and do not require the realignment of any streams