Assessment of Landfill Footprint Alternatives West Carleton Environmental Centre. Option #4 Impact on Agriculture

Transcription

1 Assessment of Landfill Footprint Alternatives Figure Option #4 Impact on Agriculture

2 The net effects with respect to continued service to customers, the optimized site life/ capacity is 65 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 232/98 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 Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs 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 100

3 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 23 to 36 L/s Base grading design would likely require at least two low points/ leachate pumping stations All LCS cleanouts can be located around perimeter of 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, lcs, and final cover construction and requires importation of approximately 451,000 m 3 for base grading earthworks This equals up to 246 loads 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 101

4 5 Comparative Evaluation Results The comparative evaluation results are summarized within the sections below with additional details provided in the technical memorandums attached in Attachment C Further, Table 51 provides the rankings and rationale for the net effects determination 102

5 Table 51 Comparative Evaluation Results Environmental Component Atmospheric Environment Criteria Indicators Option #1 Odour Predicted odour emissions No 995th 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 995th 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 995th 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 995th 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 (PM25) 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 MODERATE NET EFFECTS 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 MODERATE NET EFFECTS 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) MODERATE NET EFFECTS Five receptors are predicted to be affected from time to time with levels above 55 dba or greater than 3 db above background One off-site receptor will be affected Acceptable levels are noise levels at or below 55 dba or within 3 db of background sound levels 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 103 MODERATE NET EFFECTS 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

6 Table 51 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 (ie 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 171 ha of vegetation will be removed, and 226 ha of vegetation will be removed, and due to project compensated for elsewhere compensated for elsewhere 167 ha of vegetation will be removed, including 33 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 203 ha of vegetation will be removed, including 31 ha of potential PSW, and compensated for elsewhere No impacts resulting from increased edge effects No impact on the hydrogeology of the adjacent PSW No leachate contamination of adjacent vegetation MODERATE NET EFFECTS MODERATE NET EFFECTS 104

7 Table 51 Comparative Evaluation Results Environmental Component Criteria Indicators Predicted impact on wildlife habitat due to project Option #1 Loss of 167 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 37 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 60 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 37 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 115 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 31 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 134 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 MODERATE NET EFFECTS No rare, threatened or endangered species within the area MODERATE NET EFFECTS 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 Archaeology & Cultural Heritage 105 Cultural and heritage resources 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 Cultural and heritage resources on-site and in Disturbance to three Cultural Landscape Units in the Disturbance to one Cultural Landscape Unit and one Disturbance to one Cultural Landscape Unit and one vicinity and predicted impacts on them vicinity of the footprint Built Heritage Feature in the vicinity of the footprint Built Heritage Feature in the vicinity of the footprint A completed documentation report for archival purposes will be prepared Potential relocation of a significant built heritage resource will be considered A completed documentation report for archival purposes will be prepared Potential relocation of a significant built heritage resource will be considered A completed documentation report for archival purposes will be prepared Potential relocation of a significant built heritage resource will be considered Loss of a portion of one Cultural Landscape Unit located within the footprint and disturbance to one Cultural Landscape Unit in the vicinity of the footprint A completed documentation report for archival purposes will be prepared Potential relocation of a significant built heritage resource will be considered MODERATE NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: 2 nd Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st 3rd Options 2 and 3 are preferred as these options result in minimal effects on Cultural Landscape Units and Built Heritage Features

8 Table 51 Comparative Evaluation Results Environmental Component Criteria Archaeological resources Indicators Presence of archaeological resources on-site Option #1 Potential adverse effects to potential archaeological resources would be avoided or mitigated Option #2 Potential adverse effects on potential archaeological resources would be avoided or mitigated Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Option #3 Potential adverse effects on potential archaeological resources would be avoided or mitigated Option #4 Potential adverse effects on potential archaeological resources would be avoided or mitigated Significance of on-site archaeology resources potentially displaced/disturbed Potential adverse effects to potential archaeological resources would be avoided or mitigated Potential adverse effects on potential archaeological resources would be avoided or mitigated Potential adverse effects on potential archaeological resources would be avoided or mitigated Potential adverse effects on potential archaeological resources would be avoided or mitigated Transportation 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 Archaeological resources All options rank the same Environmental Component Ranking 2 nd Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st 3rd RATIONALE Options 2 and 3 are ranked as the Preferred Alternatives from an Archaeology and Cultural Heritage perspective as these options result in minimal effects on Cultural Landscape Units and Built Heritage Features Effects on Bird strike hazard to aircraft in Local Study Bird strikes would be minimized from gulls originating Bird strikes would be minimized from gulls originating Bird strikes would be minimized from gulls originating Bird strikes would be minimized from gulls originating airport Area from the WCEC from the WCEC from the WCEC from the WCEC operations Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Effects from truck transport along access roads Potential for traffic collisions Disturbance to traffic operations Improved safety in comparison with existing conditions with the separation of northbound through and left turning traffic HIGH (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS Improved operations for northbound through traffic in comparison with existing conditions There is no distinction between the Options in relation to effects on airport operations All options rank the same Improved safety in comparison with existing Improved safety in comparison with existing conditions with the separation of northbound through conditions with the separation of northbound through and left turning traffic and left turning traffic HIGH (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS Improved operations for northbound through traffic in comparison with existing conditions HIGH (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS Improved operations for northbound through traffic in comparison with existing conditions Improved safety in comparison with existing conditions with the separation of northbound through and left turning traffic HIGH (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS Improved operations for northbound through traffic in comparison with existing conditions Proposed road improvement requirements HIGH (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS Minor temporary construction related effects HIGH (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS Minor temporary construction related effects HIGH (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS Minor temporary construction related effects HIGH (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS Minor temporary construction related effects Land Use Effects on current and planned future land uses 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 effects from truck transport along access roads All options include a northbound left turn lane on Carp Road into the site The closure of William Mooney Road does not impact on the criteria and indicators All options rank the same Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st RATIONALE With respect to Transportation, there is no distinction between the Options Net effects are positive or minimal in all cases Current land use Current land uses removed and replaced with a Current land uses removed and replaced with a Current land uses removed and replaced with a Current land uses removed and replaced with a waste management facility waste management facility waste management facility waste management facility Loss of Agriculture, Wooded Area, Idle and Shrub Land, and Low Density Residential lands Loss of Industrial, Wooded Area and Idle and Shrub Lands Loss of Industrial, Wooded Area and Idle and Shrub Lands Loss of Industrial, Agriculture, Wooded Area, and Low Density Residential lands Planned future land use MODERATE NET EFFECTS The Rural use of the lands would be discontinued 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 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 MODERATE NET EFFECTS 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 Type(s) and proximity of off-site sensitive land uses (ie, dwellings, churches, cemeteries, parks) within 500 m of landfill footprint potentially affected No off-site recreational resources within 500 m of the landfill footprint 28 residences plus 4 vacant residential lots are found within 500 m of the landfill footprint No off-site recreational resources within 500 m of the landfill footprint 5 residences are found within 500 m of the landfill footprint No off-site recreational resources within 500 m of the landfill footprint 7 residences are found within 500 m of the landfill footprint No off-site recreational resources within 500 m of the landfill footprint 1 residence is found within 500 m of the landfill footprint MODERATE NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: 3 rd Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st 2 nd Options 2 and 3 are slightly preferred over Options 1 and 4 as the loss of current land uses are marginally less, the options are consistent with planned future land uses, and there are few sensitive land uses within 500 metres 106

9 Table 51 Comparative Evaluation Results Environmental Component Criteria Displacement of agricultural land Current land use Indicators Option #1 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 Option #2 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 Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Option #3 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 Option #4 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 Economic Effects on the cost of services to customers Continued service to customers Economic benefit to local municipality Predicted impacts on surrounding agricultural operations Type(s) and proximity of agricultural operations (ie, organic, cash crop, livestock) and intensive farm operations in surrounding area MODERATE NET EFFECTS No impacts on surrounding agricultural operations Existing farm operations in the proximity to proposed landfill footprint will continue to operate No impacts on surrounding agricultural operations Existing farm operations in the proximity to proposed landfill footprint will continue to operate No impacts on surrounding agricultural operations Existing farm operations in the proximity to proposed landfill footprint will continue to operate MODERATE NET EFFECTS No impacts on surrounding agricultural operations Existing farm operations in the proximity to proposed landfill footprint will continue to operate Criteria Ranking: Tied for 2 nd Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 2 nd Options 2 and 3 are preferred over Options 1 and 4 as the farm infrastructure is preserved west of William Mooney Road, as well as the part-time beef farm Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 2 nd Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 2 nd RATIONALE Options 2 and 3 are preferred over Options 1 and 4 from a Land Use perspective as the losses of current land uses are minimized Preserving the farm infrastructure west of William Mooney Road allows the dairy farm to retain their core operation in place, while sourcing part of their feed requirements from a new location One part-time beef farm is also preserved Ratio of air space achieved to volume of soil to Ratio of airspace achieved to total amount of soil Ratio of airspace achieved to total amount of soil Ratio of airspace achieved to total amount of soil Ratio of airspace achieved to total amount of soil be excavated and area of cell base and handled is 65 mil m 3 to 19 mil m 3 handled is 65 mil m 3 to 18 mil m 3 handled is 65 mil m 3 to 22 mil m 3 handled is 65 mil m 3 to 24 mil m 3 leachate collection system to be constructed MODERATE NET EFFECTS MODERATE NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: 2 nd 1 st 3 rd 4 th Option 2 is preferred as the ratio of airspace achieved to volume of soil to be excavated provides the maximum benefit from a cost of service to customer s perspective Total optimized site capacity and site life The total optimized site capacity is 65 mil m 3 over The total optimized site capacity is 65 mil m 3 over The total optimized site capacity is 65 mil m 3 over The total optimized site capacity is 65 mil m 3 over 10 years 10 years 10 years 10 years 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 continued service to customers All options rank the same Employment at site (number and duration) Up to 75 new jobs in waste diversion, disposal and Up to 75 new jobs in waste diversion, disposal and Up to 75 new jobs in waste diversion, disposal and green energy facilities for the next ten years green energy facilities for the next ten years green energy facilities for the next ten years Opportunities to provide products or services MODERATE (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS Continue services to customers for waste disposal MODERATE (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS Continue services to customers for waste disposal MODERATE (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS Continue services to customers for waste disposal Up to 75 new jobs in waste diversion, disposal and green energy facilities for the next ten years MODERATE (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS Continue services to customers for waste disposal HIGH (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS HIGH (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS HIGH (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS HIGH (POSITIVE) NET EFFECTS 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 economic benefit to the local municipality All options rank the same Effects on Residential development plans No impact on residential development plans No impact on residential development plans No impact on residential development plans No impact on residential development plans Residential and Commercial Development Commercial development plans No impact on commercial development plans No impact on commercial development plans No impact on commercial development plans No impact on commercial development plans 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 effects on residential and commercial developments All options rank the same Effects on City of Ottawa Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate Property Tax Revenue on the Loss of dairy farm & 1 part-time beef farm Loss of dairy farm & 1 part-time beef farm City of Ottawa LOW (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT MODERATE (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT MODERATE (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT LOW (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT 107

10 Table 51 Comparative Evaluation Results Environmental Component Criteria Indicators Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) Option #1 Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate Option #2 Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Option #3 Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate Option #4 Transition from agricultural to industrial property tax rate Loss of dairy farm & 1 part-time beef farm Loss of dairy farm & 1 part-time beef farm Social LOW (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT MODERATE (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT MODERATE (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT LOW (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT Criteria Ranking: Tied for 2 nd Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 2 nd Option 2 and 3 are preferred as they result in the greatest positive net effect in terms of effects on the City of Ottawa s property tax revenue Environmental Component Ranking 2 nd 1 st 3 rd 4 th RATIONALE Option 2 is preferred 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 Visual impact of Predicted changes in perceptions of Installation of visual screening elements would Installation of visual screening elements would Installation of visual screening elements would Installation of visual screening elements would the facility landscapes and views obscure view from surrounding areas of the facility obscure view from surrounding areas of the facility obscure view from surrounding areas of the facility obscure view from surrounding areas of the facility Criteria Ranking: 2 nd Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st 2 nd Options 2 and 3 are preferred as the greatest number of views to the footprint would be screened or obscured Local residents Number of residences 28 residences within 500 m of the landfill footprint 5 residences within 500 m of the landfill footprint 7 residences within 500 m of the landfill footprint 1 residence within 500 m of the landfill footprint Approximately 6,100 residences within 3 km of the site perimeter Approximately 6,100 residences within 3 km of the site perimeter Approximately 6,100 residences within 3 km of the site perimeter Approximately 6,100 residences within 3 km of the site perimeter Aboriginal Site Design & Operations Recreational facilities Potential effects on Aboriginal communities Site design and operations characteristics HIGH NET EFFECTS MODERATE NET EFFECTS MODERATE NET EFFECTS Criteria Ranking: 4 th 2 nd 3 rd 1 st Option 4 is preferred because the fewest number of residences are located within 500 m of this footprint Type(s) and proximity of off-site recreational No recreational facilities within 500 m of potential No recreational facilities within 500 m of potential No recreational facilities within 500 m of potential No recreational facilities within 500 m of potential resources within 500 m of landfill footprint landfill footprint landfill footprint landfill footprint landfill footprint potentially 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 recreational facilities All options rank the same Environmental Component Ranking 2 nd Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st 2 nd RATIONALE Options 2 and 3 are preferred as they result in the least amount of effects from a visual perspective as well as the number of residences and recreational facilities within 500m of the landfill footprint Potential effects on use of lands for traditional No effects on Aboriginal communities No effects on Aboriginal communities No effects on Aboriginal communities No effects on Aboriginal communities purposes Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st RATIONALE There is no distinction between the Options in relation to Aboriginal environmental component All options rank the same Complexity of site infrastructure Site design will incorporate leachate, gas, and SW Site design will incorporate leachate, gas, and SW Site design will incorporate leachate, gas, and SW controls in accordance with O Reg 232/98 controls in accordance with O Reg 232/98 controls in accordance with O Reg 232/98 Leachate generation rate for closed footprint estimated to be between 18 to 29 L/s Leachate generation rate for closed footprint estimated to be between 17 to 27 L/s Leachate generation rate for closed footprint estimated to be between 21 to 33 L/s 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 23 to 36 L/s Base grading design would likely require at least two low points/ leachate pumping stations Base grading design would likely require one low point/ leachate pumping station Base grading design would likely require two low points/ leachate pumping stations Base grading design would likely require at least two low points/ leachate pumping stations LCS cleanouts will need to be located around perimeter and in centre of site All LCS cleanouts can be located around perimeter of site All LCS cleanouts can be located around perimeter of site All LCS cleanouts can be located around perimeter of site Site will require design and construction of two SWM ponds Site will likely require design and construction of three SWM ponds Site will likely require design and construction of three SWM ponds Site will likely require design and construction of four SWM ponds Longest leachate forcemain length is approx 2350 m Longest leachate forcemain length is approx 1350 m Longest leachate forcemain length is approx 2000 m Longest leachate forcemain length is approx 2100 m Longest gas forcemain length is approx 3200 m Longest gas forcemain length is approx 2200 m Longest gas forcemain length is approx 2400 m Longest gas forcemain length is approx 2450 m 108

11 Table 51 Comparative Evaluation Results Environmental Component Criteria Indicators Option #1 Minimum haul road length to reach footprint from Carp Road is 1,375 m Option #2 Minimum haul road length to reach footprint from Carp Road is 330 m Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Option #3 Minimum haul road length to reach footprint from Carp Road is 330 m Option #4 Minimum haul road length to reach footprint from Carp Road is 280 m Necessitates closure and WM acquisition of William Mooney Road Requires importation of approximately 1,481,000 m 3 of soil and granular material for base liner, lcs, and final cover construction Requires importation of approximately 374,000 m 3 for base grading earthworks Landfill footprint does not encroach on William Mooney Road precluding need for road closure and acquisition by WM Requires importation of approximately 1,376,000 m 3 of soil and granular material for base liner, lcs, and final cover construction Requires importation of approximately 148,000 m 3 for base grading earthworks Landfill footprint does not encroach on William Mooney Road precluding need for road closure and acquisition by WM Requires importation of approximately 1,703,000 m 3 of soil and granular material for base liner, lcs, and final cover construction Requires importation of approximately 179,000 m 3 for base grading earthworks Necessitates closure and WM acquisition of William Mooney Road Requires importation of approximately 1,836,000 m 3 of soil and granular material for base liner, lcs, and final cover construction Requires importation of approximately 451,000 m 3 for base grading earthworks Operational flexibility MODERATE NET EFFECTS Base grading design with two low points affords flexibility to commence filling in two locations without temporary leachate collection measures Base grading design with one low point requires temporary leachate collection measures if filling to start anywhere but at the low point MODERATE NET EFFECTS Base grading design with two low points affords flexibility to commence filling in two locations without temporary leachate collection measures HIGH NET EFFECTS Base grading design with two low points affords flexibility to commence filling in two locations without temporary leachate collection measures Environmental Component Ranking 3 rd 1 st 2 nd 4 th RATIONALE Option 2 is ranked as the Preferred Alternative from a Site Design & Operations environmental component perspective as it is the least complex option to implement and provides a high level of operational flexibility OVERALL RANKING 3 rd 1 st 2 nd 4 th OVERALL RATIONALE Option 2 is ranked 1 st for the following reasons: It has the lowest predicted net effects on Archaeological & Cultural Heritage; It has the lowest predicted net effect on Biology (Terrestrial & Aquatic environment); It has the lowest predicted net effect on Land Use; It has the lowest predicted net effect on Surface Water; It has the lowest predicted net effect on Socio-Economic; and Optimal landfill design from an implementation/operational perspective 109

12 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 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 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 Attachment C With respect to modelled particulate emissions (TSP, PM10 and PM25), 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 1 st as it has no levels predicted in excess of any applicable criteria Option #4 was ranked as 2 nd as it has only 1 receptor that was predicted to exceed with the least percentage above criteria Option #3 was ranked 3 rd as it too has only one receptor that exceeded, but the predicted concentration was slightly higher than that predicted for Option #4 Option #1 was ranked as 4 th as it had two receptors that were predicted to be in excess of the applicable criteria Preliminary results from all options are provided in Attachment C 110

13 Noise The evaluation 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 1 st as each option only had one receptor predicted to be in excess of 55 dba or greater than 3 db above background Option #1 has a total of five receptors that were either greater than 55 dba or greater than 3 db above background and therefore ranked as 2 nd with moderate impacts Preliminary results from all options are provided in Attachment C Overall Component Ranking Option #3 was ranked 1 st compared to the other three options from an Atmospheric perspective as it has the lowest effects relating to modelled landfill gas emissions and was tied for the lowest effects relating to modelled combustion emission and on noise receptors Geology & Hydrogeology Groundwater Quality All four options are tied for 1 st as no off-site groundwater receptors will be affected Groundwater Flow All four options are tied for 1 st as no off-site groundwater receptors will be affected Overall Component Ranking The results of the comparative evaluation are that no off-site groundwater receptors are anticipated to be affected by any of the four landfill footprint options 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 footprints Surface Water Resources Surface Water Quality From a surface water quality criteria perspective, all four options achieved a no net effect rating due to the two stage SWM facility design being able to mitigate both leachate seepage and TSS concentrations 111

14 However, for ranking purposes, Options #2 and #3 tied for 1 st as they both use 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 2 nd with a hybrid system while Option #1 is 3 rd with only direct discharge to surface water as an outlet mechanism, with no further water quality polishing being provided Surface Water Quantity From a surface water quantity criteria perspective, only Option #1 had a no net effect rating as 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 1 st due to its no net effect rating on the local flow regime Option #4 was ranked 2 nd due to its hybrid nature (not all SWM facility 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 3 rd as its footprint was smaller than Option #3 and had less of an impact on flows being directed to groundwater Option #3 was ranked 4 th since it had a larger footprint and more impact on the local flow regime Overall Component Ranking In ranking the options from an overall Surface Water perspective, Option #2 is 1 st 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 Terrestrial & Aquatic Environment Terrestrial Ecosystems Option #1 has an advantage in that it results in the least amount of forest loss and the majority of 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 112

15 Overall Criteria Ranking Options #1 and #2 are tied for first and preferred from a terrestrial ecosystem basis as they result in the least amount of vegetation being removed, the least amount of wildlife habitat being disturbed, including amphibian habitat and vegetated habitat for observed area sensitive birds Aquatic Ecosystems 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 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 Overall Criteria Ranking Options #2 and #3 are preferred as they do not include any streams (permanent or intermittent) and therefore no net effects on aquatic habitat Overall Component Ranking From a Biology (including Terrestrial and Aquatic environment) component perspective, Options #2 and #3 are ranked as the Preferred Alternatives from a Biology perspective as they result in the least amount of vegetation being removed, least amount of wildlife habitat, do not have any permanent or intermittent streams flowing through their landfill footprints and do not require the realignment of any streams Archaeology & Cultural Heritage Cultural & Heritage Resources 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 1 st 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 113

16 Archaeological Resources 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 (ie, potential adverse effects to potential archaeological resources would be avoided or mitigated), thus all four alternative landfill footprints are tied for first place Overall Component Ranking Given these findings, the preferred footprints in relation to Cultural Heritage Resources are determined to be Options #2 and #3 (tied for 1 st ) as these options result in minimal effects on Cultural Landscape Units and Built Heritage Features Transportation Effects on Airport Operations Each of the alternatives will incorporate a Gull Management Program to ensure that bird strikes would be minimized from gulls originating from the WCEC Therefore, all options rank the same (tied for 1 st ) with respect to effects on airport operations Effects from Truck Transport along Access Roads All of the alternatives rank the same from this criteria s perspective as the implementation of a new entrance with a northbound left hand turn lane on Carp Road into the site apply to all four alternatives Further, the volume of truck traffic and road improvements is the same for each alternative footprint Overall Component Ranking As 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 the Transportation component, therefore all Options are ranked as tied for 1 st Land Use Current & Future Land Uses With respect to current land uses, Options #2 and #3 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 agricultural and residential uses would be removed as a result of the landfill construction 114

17 In regard 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 m site vicinity area Since there are no recreational resources (as defined in provincial Guideline D-1-3) within 500 m 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 m 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 m of the landfill footprint which, if implemented, might require a more complicated set of mitigation measures to satisfy these residents Given the above, Options #2 and #3 are tied for first place in the comparative evaluation of the preferred footprint as the loss of current land uses is less extensive than with either of Options #1 and #4; the number of sensitive land uses (ie, residential lots) within 500 m 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 CDP 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 Displacement of Agricultural Lands Options #2 & #3 are tied for 1st, from a land use perspective, as losses of current land use are minimized with these two Options 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 This option 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 115

18 Overall Component Ranking Options #2 and #3 are preferred over Options #1 and #4 from a Land Use perspective as the losses of current land uses are minimized Preserving the farm infrastructure west of William Mooney Road allows the dairy farm to retain their core operation in place, while sourcing part of their feed requirements from a new location One part-time beef farm is also preserved Socio-Economic Effects on the Cost of Services to Customers The effects on the cost of services to customers differ somewhat among the options, with Option 2 ranking in 1 st place, having the lowest ratio of airspace achieved to total amount of soil handled; Option 1 placing 2 nd ; Option 3 ranking 3 rd ; and Option 4 coming in last place Continued Service to Customers In terms of the criteria for continued service to customers, there are no differences among the four options Economic Benefit to Local Municipality In terms of the criteria for economic benefit to the local municipality, there are no differences among the four options Effects on Residential and Commercial Development In terms of the criteria for effects on residential and commercial development, there are no differences among the four options Effects on Property Tax Revenue on the City of Ottawa 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 Overall Component Ranking Economic 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 116

19 Visual Impact of the Facility 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 landfill and surroundings Options #2 and #3 would result in the greatest number of views being screened or obscured, thus placing them both in 1 st Options #1 and #4 would result in a greater number of views compared to Options #2 and #3, placing them in 2 nd Local Residents 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 m 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 1 st ), Options #2 and #3 result in moderate net effects (ranked 2 nd and 3 rd, respectively), and Option #1 results in high net effects (ranked 4 th ) Recreational Facilities 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 Overall Component Ranking - Social 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 Aboriginal Overall Component Ranking 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 Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs 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 Therefore, all footprint options rank the same, tied for 1 st 117

20 Site Design & Operations Site Design and Operations Characteristics 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 SWM ponds Typical base grading objectives include minimizing the need for imported fill (eg, 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 SWM 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 118

21 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 (eg, 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 Overall Component Ranking 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 Further, Option #2 also has the lowest number of trips for required material and lowest leachate generation All footprint alternatives were considered to have similar operational flexibility 51 Overall Landfill Footprint Option Rankings Given the above discussion at the component level, the following overall rankings have been applied to each Footprint Option: 1 st Option #2 2 nd Option #3 3 rd Option #1 4 th Option #4 Option #2 was selected as the preferred landfill footprint alternative for the following reasons: Low effects on Geology and Hydrogeology Lowest effects on Surface Water Resources Lowest effects on biology (terrestrial and aquatic) Lowest effects on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Resources High net positive effect on transportation Lowest effects on land use factors Lowest Socio-Economic effects Optimal landfill design from an implementation/operational perspective 119

22 The only component where Option #2 was ranked in a lower standing than the other options was with respect to the Atmospheric component It should be noted though that all of the footprint options are expected to be within regulatory compliance from an air quality, odour and noise perspective, and the net effects were all comparable (low net effects) Given that Option #2 ranked as the best Option from the majority of components, this footprint Option will be carried forward to the Detailed Impact Assessment stage 120

23 6 Summary The generation, assessment and evaluation of landfill footprint options was carried out in accordance with the approved WCEC ToR Using the existing conditions information collected as part of identifying the envelopes for potential development, alternative landfill footprints were generated at a conceptual level of design Once WM confirmed that the 4 options would be carried forward for evaluation, further details were completed with respect to each of the landfill footprint options in a Conceptual Design Report Following the identification of the alternative landfill footprints, a detailed assessment and evaluation of the four footprints was undertaken This multi-step process began with confirming the evaluation criteria and indicators and applying them to each of the four footprint options through a net effects analysis to determine the net positive or negative environmental effects By identifying the potential effects on the environment (both positive and negative) for each footprint alternative, and then applying (where applicable) appropriate avoidance/ mitigation/ compensation/ enhancement measures, the relative merits of each footprint were compared on the basis of net effects Once the net effects were determined, rankings were assigned to each individual Criteria based on the level of effect determined for each Indicator under that Criteria Following this, an overall ranking for each alternative (based on the individual Environmental Component rankings) was determined A Reasoned Argument or Trade-off method was carried out using this information to determine a preferred landfill footprint Given that Option #2 ranked as the best Option from the majority of components, this footprint Option will be carried forward to the Detailed Impact Assessment stage 121

24 Attachment A Conceptual Design Report

25 Waste Management of Canada Corporation Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - Conceptual Design Report Prepared by: AECOM Town Centre Boulevard tel Markham, ON, Canada L3R 5Z fax wwwaecomcom Project Number: Date: November, 2011

26 AECOM Waste Management of Canada Corporation Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - Conceptual Design Report Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the Report ) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd ( Consultant ) for the benefit of the client ( Client ) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the Agreement ) The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the Information ): is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the Limitations ) represents Consultant s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof The Report is to be treated as confidential and may not be used or relied upon by third parties, except: as agreed in writing by Consultant and Client as required by-law for use by governmental reviewing agencies Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information ( improper use of the Report ), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information Any damages arising from improper use of the Report or parts thereof shall be borne by the party making such use This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof 3RPT_ _Attach A_ EA PlanDocx

27 AECOM Waste Management of Canada Corporation Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - Conceptual Design Report Table of Contents Statement of Qualifications and Limitations 1 Introduction 1 11 Background 1 12 Report Objective 1 2 Conceptual Design Basis 2 21 Overview 2 22 Landfill Capacity 2 23 Footprint Geometry and Location 2 24 Traffic Levels 3 25 Leachate Generation Rate 4 26 Other Assumptions 4 3 Landfill Footprint Options 6 31 Option Option Option Option Summary 9 page L i s t o f F i g u r e s Figure 1 Study Area 11 Figure C-OP1 Alternative Landfill Footprint Option 1 12 Figure C-OP2 Alternative Landfill Footprint Option 2 13 Figure C-OP3 Alternative Landfill Footprint Option 3 14 Figure C-OP4 Alternative Landfill Footprint Option 4 15 Figure C-X-01 Cross-sections for Options 1 and 2 16 Figure C-X-02 Cross-sections for Options 3 and 4 17 L i s t o f T a b l e s Table 1 Comparison of Footprint Options 9 A p p e n d i c e s Appendix A Appendix B Truck Traffic Associated with the Importation of Construction Materials Leachate Generation Rate Estimation 3RPT_ _Attach A_ EA PlanDocx

28 AECOM Waste Management of Canada Corporation Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - Conceptual Design Report 1 Introduction 11 Background Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) is undertaking 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) The new landfill footprint will be one component of the proposed West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC) 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 To date 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 The study area considered in the ToR are lands within the area bounded by Highway 417, Carp Road and Richardson Sideroad, as shown in Figure 1 WM presently owns or has agreements to purchase lands within this area Two distinct landfill footprint development envelopes were presented in the ToR and these were identified by applying the following constraints within the study area: Ownership of land by WM or the option to purchase land; Existing natural environment features; Land use constraints; and Perimeter buffer zones The development envelopes are referred to by their proximity to the existing Ottawa WMF, namely to the west of William Mooney Road (West Envelope) and to the north of the existing Ottawa WMF (North Envelope) The West and North Envelopes have been identified as the areas within which the Alternative Methods for Carrying out the Undertaking will be analyzed in the EA 12 Report Objective This document is a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) which presents footprint options within the development envelopes initially identified in the ToR The report is intended to form the basis of a comparative analysis of the footprint options by technical disciplines which are part of the project team The comparative analysis will lead to the identification of a preferred footprint which will be subject to further design development and a detailed impact assessment The alternative landfill footprint options have been developed to a conceptual level of detail to enable a comparative analysis Design development has thus focused on identifying characteristics that could be used to differentiate the footprints from one another, and at this stage limited work has been undertaken on identifying characteristics that would reasonably be similar for all footprints The footprint characteristics that have been developed and presented in this report include the following: Location within the development envelopes including buffer zones to property boundaries and sensitive environmental features; Configuration of side slopes and height; Estimated traffic levels; Leachate generation rate; and, Other design and operational assumptions 3RPT_ _Attach A_ EA PlanDocx 1

29 AECOM Waste Management of Canada Corporation Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - Conceptual Design Report 2 Conceptual Design Basis 21 Overview A series of criteria and assumptions were established to guide the development of footprint options within the West and North envelopes These include WM s projected residual waste disposal capacity requirements, regulatory requirements relating to landfill design geometry, as well as some of the constraints used in the ToR for identifying the development envelopes In addition, assumptions were made relating to operational traffic levels, leachate generation rates, and aspects of site design and operations These criteria and assumptions are discussed herein 22 Landfill Capacity The ToR for the new landfill footprint is based on WM s assessment that there is a sustainable market opportunity for the company to receive up to 400,000 tonnes per year of waste over an approximate 10 year planning period The corresponding landfill airspace requirement has been estimated at 65 million m 3 which includes daily cover material The airspace requirement estimate is the same for all footprints considered and is based on the following: a) 400,000 T/yr over a 10 year period equates to a total waste tonnage of 4,000,000 T b) In-place waste density has been estimated as 0725 T/m 3 Waste density is influenced by numerous factors including waste type and operating methods, although this value is considered reasonable for a large, modern landfilling facility At this density 4,000,000 T corresponds to a waste volume of 5,517,000 m 3 c) A waste to daily cover ratio of 6:1 (approximately 15%) based on WM operating experience which provides a balance between the efficient use of cover material and the appropriate amount for managing potential nuisance effects At this ratio the total volume of daily cover soil would be 920,000 m 3 d) The total volume of waste and daily cover based on these parameters is 6,437,000 m 3 For planning purposes the required airspace requirement was approximated as 6,500,000 m 3 e) Additional airspace will be required for the final cover material used to close the landfill site 23 Footprint Geometry and Location Ontario Regulation 232/98 (amended to O Reg 483/98), Landfilling Sites and the accompanying Landfilling Standards Guideline specify requirements and/or provide recommendations for key landfill design parameters The parameters identified in the regulation relevant to the development of footprint options include the following Buffer Zones The regulatory requirements specify a 100 m wide buffer area between the edge of the waste footprint and the site boundary, but allow this to be reduced to a minimum of 30 m if it is shown to be appropriate based on a site specific assessment (eg, if the buffer provides adequate space for vehicle movements, ancillary facilities, and ensures that potential effects from the landfill operation do not have unacceptable impacts outside of the site) The footprint options were developed maintaining 100 m buffers between the edge of the footprint and the boundaries of WM owned/optioned property, but were reduced to 30 m in some specific cases The basis for applying a 30 m buffer is provided as part of the description for each landfill footprint The Goulbourn Wetland Complex is a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) located in the southwestern portion of the West Envelope 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) 3RPT_ _Attach A_ EA PlanDocx 2

30 AECOM Waste Management of Canada Corporation Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - Conceptual Design Report requires that any development within 120 m of the boundary of a designated wetland undertake an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) As such, 120 m was used as a minimum buffer between the landfill footprint and the wetland complex in the West Envelope This buffer requirement is also regulated under the Conservation Authorities Act and managed by the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority For all footprints considered it has been assumed that WM will acquire all of the lands that it currently has an option to purchase Final Slopes The regulatory requirements specify a maximum slope of four units horizontal to one unit vertical (4H to 1V) and a minimum slope of 20H to 1V (5%) but allow variance where it can be shown to be appropriate The footprint options were developed in adherence to the specified maximum/minimum slope requirements Landfill Height There are no regulatory requirements specifically constraining landfill height, although maximum height is indirectly governed by regulatory requirements to ensure that adequate foundation conditions exist and that slopes are stable In developing footprint options, WM initially assumed the top of waste elevation to be approximately 153 masl (which is approximately 28 m above existing surrounding grade) in order to minimize the visual and other impacts of the new landfill By comparison, the maximum elevation of the existing Ottawa WMF landfill is approximately 172 masl or approximately 47 m above the surrounding ground surface However, landfill height is also influenced by assumed depth of excavation, as discussed below Subsurface conditions will be evaluated in more detail and confirmed once a preferred footprint is chosen Depth of Excavation There are no regulatory requirements specifically constraining landfill excavation depth, although subsurface conditions (eg, shallow bedrock and high water table) in the study area dictate a relatively shallow base excavation Initially it was assumed that that the base of the landfill (eg, bottom of waste) would be at grade, and that the liner and leachate collection system would be situated below grade It is assumed that the liner and collection system will consist of the Ontario Reg 232/98 Generic II cross-section (discussed further below) which is 31 m thick, and thus it was anticipated that the excavation depth would be at least 31 m Additional information regarding groundwater conditions in the north and west footprint envelopes has been obtained since initial landfill concept development Water table elevations in the north and west footprint envelopes vary but in many places are close to grade Consequently the depth of excavation will be less than initially anticipated, which in turn influences landfill height Subsurface conditions (including potential excavation depth) will be evaluated and confirmed once a preferred footprint is identified 24 Traffic Levels Truck traffic associated with the landfill facility is important in assessing the potential impacts of the site on various receptors For the purposes of this comparative analysis the traffic levels have been estimated as follows: Each footprint option is projected to have waste receipts of up to 400,000 T/ year for a 10 year period As such the traffic associated with waste and daily cover loads would be equal for all options A traffic analysis was conducted for the existing WMF landfill in 2006 WMF landfill operations in 2005 reflected receipt of approximately 400,000 tonnes of waste, including daily cover, and thus the 2005 traffic levels are seen as generally comparable to a future landfill operation of this magnitude 3RPT_ _Attach A_ EA PlanDocx 3

31 AECOM Waste Management of Canada Corporation Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - Conceptual Design Report Soil and granular materials will need to be imported to the site to construct the base liner, leachate collection system, and final cover Volumes of construction material will vary somewhat for each footprint because the footprint sizes vary A preliminary estimate was made of the truck traffic associated with the importation of construction materials for each footprint Estimated traffic levels for each footprint option are presented in Section 3 and are supported by calculations summarized in Appendix A Other site traffic will be considered in the detailed impact assessment of the preferred footprint alternative 25 Leachate Generation Rate Leachate generation rate is an important parameter used in assessing the operational and environmental performance of a landfill site It will vary over the operational and post-closure period of the facility and is influenced by factors including precipitation, degree of landfill development (eg, area of landfill that is actively undergoing development versus areas where final cover has been placed), final cover design, and other factors For the purposes of facilitating a comparative analysis of the proposed landfill footprints, an approximate range of leachate generation rates for each footprint have been calculated based on the following: Leachate generation rates will vary according to the size of the landfill footprint; The landfill footprint is assumed to have been fully closed; The final cover design is reflective of the minimum design specified in Ontario Regulation 232/98, consisting of 06 m of compacted fine-grained soil overlain by a 015 m thick vegetative layer; and, Post closure leachate generation rates for each footprint were estimated using the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model 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 Leachate generation rates for each option in the post closure period are presented in Section 3 and are supported by calculations summarized in Appendix B 26 Other Assumptions There are characteristics of a landfill operation that would be common to all footprints While these would not significantly influence the comparative analysis they should nevertheless be considered in reviewing the footprint alternatives These facility characteristics are summarized as follows Leachate Management The landfill leachate control system will be designed in compliance with the requirements of Regulation 232/98 such that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment s Reasonable Use Policy is met The regulations allow two approaches for designing a landfill to protect groundwater quality a site specific design, or a generic design The site specific approach allows a proponent to design the leachate controls to suit the site setting provided that the Reasonable Use limits are met The generic approach allows the proponent to select one of two generic designs which have been developed such that the Reasonable Use limits are met within a broad range of hydrogeologic settings 3RPT_ _Attach A_ EA PlanDocx 4

32 AECOM Waste Management of Canada Corporation Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - Conceptual Design Report At this time WM is planning to design the site with the Generic II Double Liner system as specified in the regulations This consists of (from top down): 03 m thick granular/perforated pipe primary leachate collection system; 075 m thick geomembrane/engineered clay primary liner; 03 m thick granular/perforated pipe secondary leachate collection system; 075 m thick geomembrane/engineered clay secondary liner; 1 M thick natural or constructed soil attenuation layer Collected leachate will be removed from the site for treatment and/or disposal in accordance with applicable regulations (method to be determined) Consideration of leachate treatment alternatives and the identification of a preferred approach will be the subject of a separate evaluation process as part of the EA The preferred leachate treatment alternative will be considered in conjunction with the preferred landfill footprint during the detailed impact assessment Gas Controls Regulation 232/98 requires the mandatory collection of landfill gas for sites with a waste capacity greater than 15 million m 3, and as such a gas collection system will be required for the proposed landfill footprint This is expected to include both horizontal and vertical collection piping that will be developed progressively through the operating period WM currently operates a landfill gas recovery system at the existing Ottawa WMF landfill which supplies gas to an on-site electricity generation and gas flaring facility Surface Water Management Regulation 232/98 requires that landfill sites be designed to protect surface water to specified performance standards Design practices that will be followed in developing the surface water management system include: divert or control clean surface water flowing onto the site; and control quality and quantity of runoff discharging from the site to control erosion, sediment transport, and flooding Landfill Operations Regulation 232/98 requires the landfill be designed and operated to ensure that nuisance impacts are minimized, and the regulation requires that the proponent prepare a report describing all aspects of the operation as well as maintenance procedures that will be followed A key objective in planning landfill operations is to minimize nuisance impacts including noise, litter, vectors, dust, and odour Typical operating practices relating to these issues include: Landfill development sequence is planned to allow the progressive closure of the landfill, including commencing construction of the final cover as early as possible Site design includes screening features such as berms and tree plantings which can attenuate visual impact and noise, and permanent litter fences to reduce blowing litter; Site haul roads are paved, are of sufficient length to minimize mud trackout, and are routinely cleaned to minimize dust generation; 3RPT_ _Attach A_ EA PlanDocx 5

33 AECOM Waste Management of Canada Corporation Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - Conceptual Design Report Daily operations are planned such that: the size of the working face is kept to a minimum in order to minimize the area of exposed waste; working face location is adjusted as required and seasonally to provide shelter from prevailing winds; portable litter fences are routinely used around the working face to capture blowing litter; waste compaction commences immediately after placement and spreading; cover material is readily available and the working face is fully covered at the end of each operating day A comprehensive monitoring and maintenance program is implemented which addresses all aspects of the landfill operation This includes a routine waste inspection program and monitoring for landfill odour 3 Landfill Footprint Options Four landfill footprints have been developed for comparative analysis, consisting of two in the West development envelope and two in the North development envelope The footprints were identified respecting the criteria and assumptions described in Section 2 and based on public input These options are illustrated in Figures C-OP1 through C-OP4, and C-X-01 and C-X Option 1 Option 1 is shown in Figure C-OP1, and is located within the West Envelope This footprint was identified by the project team and reflects the following: The footprint is on lands that WM does not currently own but has options to purchase A 100 m buffer is maintained between the north limit of the footprint and the private lands to the north (eg, which front onto Richardson Side Road), and between the east limit (in northeast corner of the footprint) and the private lands to the east of William Mooney Road For the remainder of the east limit a 30 m buffer is maintained between the footprint and William Mooney Road This buffer distance is considered reasonable since it supports a lower landfill height which is an important consideration received from the community, there are no identifiable receptors of concern on the opposite side of William Mooney Road, allows sufficient area to monitor the operation and performance of the landfill, and there is no requirement for ancillary facilities within this buffer area In addition, WM expects to acquire the lands on the east side of William Mooney Road A minimum 150 m distance is maintained between the western limit of the footprint and the Goulbourn Wetland Complex This respects the minimum 120 m buffer distance required around the wetland and provides a minimum 30 m wide access/maintenance corridor The south limit of the footprint is determined by maintaining the noted buffers and providing the required 6,500,000 m 3 capacity while observing a maximum waste elevation of approximately 156 masl (or 157 masl allowing for the final cover) and side slopes varying from 4H to 1V to 5% The maximum height of the landfill is approximately 31 m above the existing ground surface, as shown in Section A-A on Figure C-X-01 The south limit of the footprint is over 500 m from the south property boundary The south portion of the envelope provides limited area for disposal capacity due to the relatively narrow area between the PSW and William Mooney Road This option requires truck traffic to travel west from Carp Road across the northern limit of the existing Ottawa WMF landfill to access the footprint For safety and access control WM would seek to purchase and close William Mooney Road 3RPT_ _Attach A_ EA PlanDocx 6

34 AECOM Waste Management of Canada Corporation Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - Conceptual Design Report 32 Option 2 Option 2 is shown in Figure C-OP2, and is generally centred within the North Envelope This footprint was identified by the project team and reflects the following: The southern half of the footprint is on WM-owned lands and the northern half is on lands that WM has options to purchase A light industrial building (eg, the Laurysen building) is situated in the eastern portion of WM optioned lands A 100 m buffer is maintained between the north limit of the footprint and the private lands to the north (eg, which front onto Richardson Side Road) A small Conservation Authority (CA) Regulated Wetland with a 10 m buffer exists within this north buffer zone A 328 m buffer is maintained between the east limit of the footprint and Carp Road This reflects avoiding an existing topographic low area (former gravel pit) in this part of the site which could complicate landfill development in this area A 30 m buffer is maintained between the east limit of the footprint and the Laurysen building WM considers that the existing Laurysen building may have several beneficial uses including equipment storage/maintenance or waste diversion activities in the future A 30 m buffer is maintained between the south limit of the footprint and the perimeter roadway of the existing landfill at the WMF This allows sufficient area for site access, maintenance and monitoring activities The location of the west limit of the footprint was determined by maintaining the noted buffers and providing the required 6,500,000 m 3 capacity while observing a maximum waste elevation of approximately 157 masl (or 158 masl allowing for the final cover) and side slopes varying from 4H to 1V to 5% The maximum height of the landfill is approximately 33 m above the existing ground surface as shown in Section B-B on Figure C-X-01 A 216 m buffer is maintained between the west limit of the footprint and William Mooney Road The west limit of the footprint allows preservation of the majority of the existing woodlot within the west part of the WM-owned lands This option confines truck traffic to the North envelope and does not impact William Mooney Road Trucks will enter the footprint area from the on-site road between the existing landfill and the proposed footprint 33 Option 3 Option 3 is shown in Figure C-OP3 This option was developed at the request of public stakeholders through the EA consultation process for a footprint that minimizes the visual impact of a landfill in the North Envelope by reducing its height Option 3 is summarized as follows: The southern half of the footprint is on WM-owned lands and the northern half is on lands that WM has options to purchase A 100 m buffer is maintained between the north limit of the footprint and the private lands to the north A small Conservation Authority (CA) Regulated Wetland with a 10 m buffer exists within this north buffer zone A 328 m buffer is maintained between the east limit of the footprint and Carp Road This reflects avoiding an existing topographic low area (former gravel pit) in this part of the site which could complicate landfill development in this area 3RPT_ _Attach A_ EA PlanDocx 7

35 AECOM Waste Management of Canada Corporation Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - Conceptual Design Report A 30 m buffer is maintained between the east limit of the footprint and the Laurysen building WM considers that the existing Laurysen building may have several beneficial uses including equipment storage/maintenance or waste diversion activities in the future A 30 m buffer is maintained between the south limit of the footprint and the perimeter roadway of the existing landfill at the WMF This allows sufficient area for site access, maintenance and monitoring activities The west limit of the footprint is extended to the maximum possible within the North Envelope with a 30 m buffer maintained between the west limit and William Mooney Road In addition, WM expects to acquire the lands on the west side of William Mooney Road Providing a landfill capacity of 6,500,000 m 3 and maintaining side slopes between 4H to 1V and 5% results in a maximum waste height of approximately 151 masl (or 152 masl allowing for the final cover) The maximum height of the landfill is approximately 27 m above the existing ground surface as shown in Section C-C on Figure C-X-02 This option confines truck traffic to the North envelope and does not impact William Mooney Road Trucks will enter the footprint area from the on-site road between the existing landfill and the proposed footprint 34 Option 4 Option 4 is shown in Figure C-OP4 This option was developed at the request of public stakeholders through the EA consultation process for a footprint that maximizes distance to residences located northwest of the West Envelope, and minimizes the visual impact of the landfill by minimizing its height and locating it as close to the existing WMF landfill as possible Option 4 is summarized as follows: The L-shaped footprint straddles the West and North envelopes, and is situated on WM-owned lands and on lands that WM has options to purchase This option requires the closure and purchase of William Mooney Road as the footprint is built over a section of William Mooney Road For the portion within the North envelope: A 30 m buffer is maintained between the north limit of the footprint and the existing limit of WM owned lands This buffer distance is considered reasonable since it supports a lower landfill height overall (otherwise the western portion would be higher to provide the required capacity) which is an important consideration received from the community, there are no identifiable receptors of concern to the immediate north, allows sufficient area to monitor the operation and performance of the landfill, and there is no requirement for ancillary facilities within this buffer area In addition, WM expects to acquire the lands to the immediate north of the existing limit of WM owned lands A 30 m buffer is maintained between the south and east limits of the footprint and the perimeter roadway of the existing landfill at the WMF This allows sufficient area for site access, maintenance and monitoring activities A 260 m buffer (approximate) is maintained between the east limit of the footprint and Carp Road This buffer width reflects avoiding an existing topographic low area (former gravel pit) in this part of the site which could complicate landfill development in this area The maximum height of the waste for the portion within this area is approximately 149 masl (or 150 masl allowing for the final cover) and is approximately 25 m above the existing ground surface 3RPT_ _Attach A_ EA PlanDocx 8

36 AECOM Waste Management of Canada Corporation Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - Conceptual Design Report For the portion within the West envelope: A minimum 150 m distance is maintained between the west limit of the footprint and the Goulbourn Wetland Complex This respects the minimum 120 m buffer distance required around the wetland and provides a minimum 30 m wide access/maintenance corridor The south limit shown results from provision of 6,500,000 cum capacity and side slopes between 4H to 1V and 5% The maximum height of the waste within this area is approximately 154 masl (or 155 masl allowing for the final cover) and is approximately 30 m above the existing ground surface as shown in Section D-D on Figure C-X-02 Trucks will enter the footprint area from the on-site road between the existing landfill and the proposed footprint 4 Summary The key attributes of the four landfill footprint alternatives are summarized in Table 1 These attributes are provided at a conceptual level of detail/design, which is appropriate for completing a comparative evaluation of the landfill footprint alternatives Once a preferred landfill footprint is determined, a Facility Characteristics report will be prepared, which will provide a greater level of detail to determine the impact of the preferred undertaking on the environment It should be noted that some refinements of the attributes listed may be necessary as part of the impact assessment work, but will not result in significant changes Table 1 Comparison of Footprint Options Attribute Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4- General Description and Location Land Ownership Irregular shaped footprint in northern portion of West Envelope Provides required volume capacity of 6,500,00 m 3 On WM-Optioned Lands (with exception of William Mooney Road) Rectangular footprint in centre of North Envelope Provides required volume capacity of 6,500,00 m 3 On WM-Owned and Optioned Lands Rectangular footprint in west-central part of North Envelope Provides required volume capacity of 6,500,00 m 3 On WM-Owned and Optioned Lands Irregular footprint straddling West and North Envelope Provides required volume capacity of 6,500,00 m 3 On WM- Owned and Optioned Lands (with exception of William Mooney Road) Footprint Size 384,800 m 2 357,400 m 2 442,400 m 2 476,800 m 2 Approximate Elevation of Top of Landfill (including final cover) Approximate Height of Landfill Above Existing Grade Operational Impact to William Mooney Road Minimum Distance to Privately Owned Lands (reflecting WM acquisition of all optioned lands) Minimum Distance to Carp Road Minimum Distance to Richardson Side Road Minimum Distance to Hwy masl 158 masl 152 masl 31 m 33 m 27 m Yes, necessitates closure and WM acquisition of William Mooney Road No, operation confined to North Envelope No, operation confined to North Envelope 155 masl (in West Envelope); 150 masl (in North Envelope) 30 m (in West Envelope); 25 m (in North Envelope) Yes, necessitates closure and WM acquisition of William Mooney Road Approx 100 m Approx 100 m Approx 100 m Approx 320 m Approx 1,375 m Approx 330 m Approx 330 m Approx 280 m Approx 160 m Approx 400 m Approx 400 m Approx 650 m Approx 350 m Approx 700 m Approx 700 m Approx 300 m 3RPT_ _Attach A_ EA PlanDocx 9

37 AECOM Waste Management of Canada Corporation Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint at the West Carleton Environmental Centre - Conceptual Design Report Table 1 Comparison of Footprint Options Attribute Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4- Longest Internal Haul Distance Internal to Site (1) 2,700 m 1,900 m 2,100 m 2,100 m Waste Haulage Traffic Loads per Day (2) Waste Haulage Traffic Trips per AM peak hour (2) Waste Haulage Traffic (2) Trips per PM peak hour Construction Traffic (Scenario 1) Up to 123 Up to 115 Up to 142 Up to 153 Loads per Day (3) Construction Traffic (Scenario 1) Up to 25 Up to 23 Up to 28 Up to 31 Trips per Hour (3) Construction Traffic (Scenario 2) Up to 199 Up to 185 Up to 229 Up to 246 Loads per Day (3) Construction Traffic (Scenario 2) Trips per Hour (3) Leachate Generation (4) Rate 18 to 29 L/s 17 to 27 L/s 21 to 33 L/s 23 to 36 L/s Notes: 1 Measured as maximum distance from site entrance to furthest point of landfill footprint, reflecting: a Access to site remains through existing site entrance; b Truck traffic utilizes existing internal road along north perimeter of existing landfill mound for greatest distance possible, then crosses into footprint area 2 Data taken from, 2006 study undertaken by WM and considered to reflect waste and daily cover haulage for future 10 year operating period 3 Construction traffic estimated as per Appendix A, reflecting: a Includes importation of soil and granular materials for Ont Reg 232/98 Double Generic Liner System; b Scenario 1 reflects construction of one base liner and leachate collection system cell, and one phase of final cover (each totalling approximately one eighth of landfill area) over a 6 month period This scenario is intended to represent a typical construction season; c Scenario 2 reflects construction of two base liner and leachate collection system cells but no final cover over a 6 month period This scenario is intended to represent the construction required to prepare the site to accept waste at the start of the operation period 4 Leachate generation rate estimated as per Appendix B, reflecting: a Estimated using HELP model reflecting landfill footprint fully closed; b Landfill final cover consisting per Ont Reg 232/98 minimum design of 06 m soil overlain by 015 m vegetated topsoil 3RPT_ _Attach A_ EA PlanDocx 10

38 Legend Project Study Area Current Ottawa WMF Operations Old Almonte Road David Manchester Road 417 William Mooney Road Cavanmore Road Carp Road Oak Creek Road Bradley Sideroad Huntmar Drive Richardson Sideroad Spruce Ridge Road Map Document: (N:\projects\2007\70190\2008\Final\GISSpatial\MXDs\WorkingMXDs\70190OverviewMap11x17_May2011mxd) 05/02/ :19:26 PM Old Highway 7 Rothbourne Road Neil Avenue Hazeldean Road Maple Grove Road Palladium Drive Basemapping from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Orthophotography: 2005, 2008 and 2010 m ,000 1:27,500 UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83 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 Waste Management of Canada Corporation Study Area May 2011 Project Figure 1

39 LEGEND: INTERMITTENT STREAM PERMANENT STREAM WOOD LOT LANDS OWNED/OPTIONED BY WM LANDS NOT OWNED/OPTIONED BY WM WETLAND AREA 300m BUFFER ZONE 100m BUFFER ZONE 120m BUFFER ZONE LIMIT OF WASTE FOR 65 MILLION cum CAPACITY (AREA = 384,800 sq m) PROPOSED TOP OF WASTE CONTOURS C -X -0 1 NOTE: DESIGN AND OPERATION IMPLICATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN TOTALLY CONSIDERED GEOMETRIC LAYOUTS ARE BASED ON AIR-SPACE CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS 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 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 reponsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent C 11/06/22 Issued for Addendum VW MAS JGL BD B 11/06/10 Issued for Addendum VW MAS JGL BD A 11/05/10 Issued for Conceptual Design Report VW MAS JGL BD I/R YY/MM/DD ISSUE/REVISION DESCRIPTION DRN CHK DES ENG IDR APP Waste Management of Canada Corporation ALTERNATIVE LANDFILL FOOTPRINT OPTION #1 PROJECT NUMBER FIGURE NUMBER ISSUE/REVISION C-OP1 C

40 C-X-01 LEGEND: INTERMITTENT STREAM PERMANENT STREAM WOOD LOT LANDS OWNED/OPTIONED BY WM LANDS NOT OWNED/OPTIONED BY WM WETLAND AREA 100m BUFFER ZONE 21600m(±) PROPOSED LAYOUT LIMIT OF WASTE FOR 65 MILLION cum CAPACITY (AREA = 357,400 sq m) 32800m(±) PROPOSED TOP OF WASTE CONTOURS 45500m(±) LAURYSEN BUILDING 80000m(±) C-X-01 NOTE: DESIGN AND OPERATION IMPLICATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN TOTALLY CONSIDERED GEOMETRIC LAYOUTS ARE BASED ON AIR-SPACE CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS 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 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 reponsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent C 11/06/22 Issued for Addendum VW MAS JGL BD B 11/06/10 Issued for Addendum VW MAS JGL BD A 11/05/10 Issued for Conceptual Design Report VW MAS JGL BD I/R YY/MM/DD ISSUE/REVISION DESCRIPTION DRN CHK DES ENG IDR APP Waste Management of Canada Corporation ALTERNATIVE LANDFILL FOOTPRINT OPTION #2 PROJECT NUMBER FIGURE NUMBER ISSUE/REVISION C-OP2 C

41 C-X-02 LEGEND: INTERMITTENT STREAM PERMANENT STREAM WOOD LOT LANDS OWNED/OPTIONED BY WM LANDS NOT OWNED/OPTIONED BY WM WETLAND AREA 300m BUFFER ZONE 100m BUFFER ZONE LIMIT OF WASTE FOR 65 MILLION cum CAPACITY (AREA = 442,400 sq m) 32800m(±) 45700m(±) PROPOSED TOP OF WASTE CONTOURS 98500m(±) C-X-02 NOTE: DESIGN AND OPERATION IMPLICATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN TOTALLY CONSIDERED GEOMETRIC LAYOUTS ARE BASED ON AIR-SPACE CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS 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 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 reponsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent C 11/06/22 Issued for Addendum VW MAS JGL BD B 11/06/10 Issued for Addendum VW MAS JGL BD A 11/05/10 Issued for Conceptual Design Report VW MAS JGL BD I/R YY/MM/DD ISSUE/REVISION DESCRIPTION DRN CHK DES ENG IDR APP Waste Management of Canada Corporation ALTERNATIVE LANDFILL FOOTPRINT OPTION #3 PROJECT NUMBER FIGURE NUMBER ISSUE/REVISION C-OP3 C