Comparative Evaluation Option #1 & Option #2

Comparative Evaluation Option #1 & Option #2 Option #1 Existing Landfill Approx. 47 metres/14 stories Proposed Layout Approx. 31 metres/9.5 stories Option #2 Existing Landfill Approx. 47 metres/14 stories Proposed Layout Approx. 33 metres/10 stories 25

Comparative Evaluation Option #3 & Option #4 Option #3 Existing Landfill Approx. 47 metres/14 stories Proposed Layout Approx. 27 metres/8 stories Option #4 Existing Landfill Approx. 47 metres/14 stories Proposed Layout Approx. 30 metres/9 stories 26

Comparative Evaluation Environmental Component Aboriginal Archaeology & Cultural Heritage Biology - Terrestrial & Aquatic Environment Criteria Indicators Option #1 Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Option #2 Option #3 Option #4 Potential effects Potential effects on use of on Aboriginal lands for traditional communities purposes. Environmental Component Ranking Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Cultural and Cultural and heritage heritage resources on-site and in resources vicinity and predicted NET Archaeological resources impacts on them. 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. Presence of archaeological resources on-site. Significance of on-site archaeology resources potentially displaced/disturbed. 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 3 rd Terrestrial ecosystems Aquatic ecosystems Predicted impact on vegetation communities due to project. Predicted impact on wildlife habitat due to project. Predicted impact of project on vegetation and wildlife including rare, threatened or endangered species. NET NET NET NET 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 area sensitive birds. Predicted changes in water quality. Predicted impact on aquatic habitat due to project. Predicted impact on aquatic biota due to project. 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 27

Comparative Evaluation Environmental Criteria Component Atmospheric Air Quality Indicators Modelled Landfill Gas Emissions: Vinyl Chloride; Benzene; Hydrogen Sulphide Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses, and institutions). Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Option #1 Option #2 Option #3 Option #4 Criteria Ranking: 2 nd 4 th 1 st 3 rd No exceedances with modelled landfill gas emissions for any option; however, Option 3 is marginally preferred because modelled emissions were slightly lower off-site with this option. Modelled Dust Emissions: Total Suspended Particulate Matter; Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM10); Respirable Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses, and institutions). NET NET 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: Carbon Monoxide; Nitrogen Oxides Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses, and institutions). Criteria Ranking: Tied for 1 st Tied for 2 nd Tied for 1 st Tied for 2 nd 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. 28

Comparative Evaluation Environmental Component Criteria Indicators Option #1 Atmospheric Odour Predicted odour emissions. Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses and institutions). Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Option #2 Option #3 Option #4 Criteria Ranking: 1 st Tied for 2 nd Tied for 2 nd Tied for 2 nd 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. Noise Predicted site-related noise. NET Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, NET businesses, and institutions). Criteria Ranking: 2 nd Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Options 2 and 3 are preferred as they 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 29

Comparative Evaluation Environmental Criteria Component Economic Effects on the cost of services to customers Continued service to customers Economic benefit to local municipality Effects on residential and commercial development Effects on property tax revenue on the City of Ottawa Indicators Ratio of air space achieved to volume of soil to be excavated and area of cell base and leachate collection system to be constructed. Option #1 Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Option #2 Option #3 NET Option #4 NET 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 customers perspective. Total optimized site capacity and site life. 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. Employment at site (number and duration). (POSITIVE) (POSITIVE) (POSITIVE) (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT NET EFFECT NET EFFECT NET EFFECT Opportunities to provide HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH products or services. (POSITIVE) (POSITIVE) (POSITIVE) (POSITIVE) NET NET NET NET 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. Residential development plans. 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. City of Ottawa. LOW LOW (POSITIVE) (POSITIVE) (POSITIVE) (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT NET EFFECT NET EFFECT NET EFFECT Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). LOW (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT (POSITIVE) NET EFFECT (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 Options 2 and 3 are preferred as they result in greatest positive net effect on the City of Ottawa s property tax revenue. Environmental Component Ranking 2 nd 1 st 3 rd 4 th 30

Comparative Evaluation Environmental Component Land Use Site Design & Operations Criteria Effects on current and planned future land uses Displacement of agricultural land Indicators Current land use. Planned future land use. Type(s) and proximity of off-site recreational resources within 500 m of landfill footprint potentially affected. Type(s) and proximity of off-site sensitive land uses (i.e., dwellings, churches, cemeteries, parks) within 500 m of landfill footprint potentially affected. Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Option #1 Option #2 Option #3 Option #4 NET NET NET 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. Current land use. Predicted impacts on surrounding agricultural operations. Type(s) and proximity of agricultural operations (i.e., organic, cash crop, livestock) and intensive farm operations in surrounding area. NET NET 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 Site design & operations Complexity of site infrastructure. NET NET HIGH NET characteristics Operational flexibility. Environmental Component Ranking 3 rd 1 st 2 nd 4 th 31

Comparative Evaluation Environmental Component Geology and Hydrogeology Criteria Groundwater quality Indicators Predicted effects to groundwater quality at property boundaries and offsite. Option #1 Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Option #2 Option #3 Option #4 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. Groundwater Predicted groundwater flow flow characteristics. 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 Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st Surface Water Surface Resources water quality Predicted effects on surface water quality on-site and offsite. 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. Surface water Change in drainage areas. quantity Predicted occurrence and degree of off-site effects. 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 32

Comparative Evaluation Environmental Component Social Criteria Visual impact of the facility Indicators Predicted changes in perceptions of landscapes and views. Option #1 Alternative Landfill Footprint Options Option #2 Option #3 Option #4 Criteria Ranking: 2 nd Tied for 1 st Tied for 1 st 2 nd Options 2 and 3 are preferred as they have the least predicted net effects from a visual perspective. Local residents Number of residences. HIGH NET NET NET 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. Recreational facilities Transportation Effects on airport operations Type(s) and proximity of off-site recreational resources within 500 m of 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 Effects from truck transport along access roads Bird strike hazard to aircraft in Local Study Area. 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 airport operations. All options rank the same. Potential for traffic HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH collisions. (POSITIVE) (POSITIVE) (POSITIVE) (POSITIVE) Disturbance to traffic operations. Proposed road improvement requirements. NET HIGH (POSITIVE) NET NET HIGH (POSITIVE) NET NET HIGH (POSITIVE) NET NET HIGH (POSITIVE) NET 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 potential 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 33

Comparative Evaluation - Evaluation Conclusions Environmental Component Archaeology & Cultural Heritage Atmospheric Aboriginal Biology (Terrestrial & Aquatic Environment) Geology & Hydrogeology Land Use Site Design & Operations Surface Water Resources Evaluation Conclusion Options #2 and #3 are most preferred as they result in minimal effects on Cultural Landscape Units and Built Heritage Features. Option #3 is most preferred as it has the lowest potential effect on off-site receptors relating to odour, landfill gas, combustion, and noise emissions. There is no distinction between the options as there are no current Aboriginal land claims related to any of the options. Options #2 and #3 are most preferred as they result in the least amount of vegetation being removed; the least amount of wildlife habitat disturbed; and there are no permanent or intermittent streams flowing through them. There is no distinction between the options as there are no off-site groundwater receptors predicted to be affected by any of the options in terms of groundwater flow or quality, given proposed mitigation measures and use of Ontario Regulation 232/98 - Generic Design Option II liner system. Options #2 and #3 are most preferred as changes to current land uses are minimized. Option #2 is most preferred as it offers highest level of operational flexibility and ease of implementation. Option #2 is most preferred as it has the lowest net effect on surface water quality and quantity. Economic Social Option #2 is most preferred as it provides the highest ratio of airspace to total soil excavated. Options #2 and #3 are most preferred as they have the fewest number of residences and recreational facilities within 500 m and the least predicted net effects from a visual perspective. There is no distinction between the options as they have the Transportation same net effects on airport operations and positive net effects Development of Terms of on Reference predicted for truck an transport along access roads. 34

Comparative Evaluation - Preferred Option #2 The comparative evaluation of the footprint options was completed using a Reasoned Argument or Trade-off method. This method is based on the following two activities: Identify the predicted level of effect ( No Net Effect, Low Net Effect, Moderate Net Effect or High Net Effect ) associated with each alternative for each indicator; and, Rank each alternative from most preferred to least preferred based on the predicted level of effect at the criteria and environmental component level in order to determine an overall ranking for each alternative. Option #2 was determined to be the most preferred option based on the following attributes: It has the lowest predicted net effects on Archaeological & Cultural Heritage; It has the lowest predicted net effect on Biology (Terrestrial & Aquatic environment); It has the lowest predicted net effect on Land Use; It has the lowest predicted net effect on Site Design and Operations; It has the lowest predicted net effect on Surface Water; and It has the lowest predicted net effect on Socio-Economic. While Option #2 is the most preferred option, it should be noted that there are no off-site groundwater receptors predicted to be affected by any of the options in terms of groundwater flow or quality. While Option #2 is the most preferred option, it should be noted that there are no predicted exceedences for any of the options in relation to odour, landfill gas, and combustion emissions. 35

Leachate Treatment Options Leachate Treatment Options WMCC amended the ToR to include an assessment and evaluation of alternative methods for treating and disposing of leachate generated from the new landfill footprint as part of the EA. Five Leachate Treatment Alternatives were identified by WMCC for assessment, based upon the company s operating experience at other landfill sites across North America. Leachate Treatment Characteristics The new landfill footprint will be designed with the Generic II Double Liner system, as specified in Ontario Regulation 232/98. This consists of (from top down): 0.3 m thick granular/perforated pipe primary leachate collection system; 0.75 m thick geomembrane/engineered clay primary liner; 0.3 m thick granular/perforated pipe secondary leachate collection system; 0.75 m thick geomembrane/engineered clay secondary liner; 1 m thick natural or constructed soil attenuation layer. Leachate collected from within the lined landfill will be pumped from the primary drainage/leachate collection system. The potential location and size of leachate pumping station(s) required will be identified as part of the conceptual design for the preferred landfill footprint. Leachate will then be directed to pretreatment and/or treatment facilities in a manner dependent on the preferred leachate treatment alternative. The volume of leachate to be managed will vary over the operational and post-closure period of the landfill and is influenced by factors including precipitation, degree of landfill development (e.g., area of landfill that is actively undergoing development versus areas where final cover has been placed), final cover design and cover installation progress, and other factors. 36

Leachate Treatment Option #1 On-site Tree Irrigation This alternative would involve irrigation of trees (typically poplar and/or willow) in order to dispose of the leachate. May require partial or full on-site treatment using chemical and/or biological processes to treat the leachate prior to irrigation. Treated leachate will be stored in a pond and then discharged to a tree plantation during days with suitable weather conditions. No liquid effluent would leave the WCEC site. 37

Leachate Treatment Option #2 On-site Leachate Evaporation This alternative would involve use of evaporator technology to dispose of leachate. Leachate from the landfill would be pumped to an equalization tank that will provide storage to handle peaks in leachate generation. Leachate would then be fed to the evaporator for processing. The evaporator system may utilize landfill gas as the energy source to evaporate the leachate or waste heat from the landfill gas cogeneration facility. Depending upon the strength of the leachate and the resulting air quality emissions, the leachate may have to be pretreated using a chemical and/or biological process prior to evaporation. These units have been widely used in the U.S. for a number of years for leachate disposal. 38

Leachate Treatment Option #3 Off-site Effluent Discharge to Surface Water This alternative would involve disposal of fully treated leachate by discharging it to a nearby surface watercourse. Collected leachate would be treated on-site using chemical and/or biological processes to meet Provincial Water Quality Objectives followed by storage of the treated effluent. Stored effluent would then be discharged to a surface watercourse. The nearest surface watercourse is the southern branch of the Huntley Creek which drains to the Carp River. 39

Leachate Treatment Option #4 Off-site Effluent Discharge to Ottawa Sanitary Sewer This alternative would involve disposal of leachate through discharging it to the City of Ottawa sanitary sewer system. Collected leachate may require pretreatment on-site using either chemical and/or biological processes in order to meet the City s sewer use bylaw. Leachate effluent would then be discharged to an existing forcemain at Carp Road and Highway 417. Effluent would be further treated at the City s Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre (ROPEC) facility. 40

Leachate Treatment Option #5 Truck Haulage Off-site to Alternative Wastewater Treatment Plant This alternative would involve trucking of the leachate to one or more wastewater treatment plants outside Ottawa for disposal. Collected leachate may require pretreatment using chemical and/or biological processes if required to meet the quality parameters of the receiving wastewater treatment plant(s). Potential options for receiving the leachate in the surrounding area are not currently known. 41

Leachate Treatment Options Evaluation Methodology Criteria and indicators under the following environmental components are proposed in order to comparatively evaluate the leachate treatment alternatives: Atmospheric Environment Geology and Hydrogeology Surface Water Resources Biology Transportation Land Use Social Site Design and Operations Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Methodology The comparative evaluation of leachate treatment alternatives will be completed using a Reasoned Argument or Trade-off method. This method is based on the following two activities: Identify the predicted level of effect ( No Net Effect, Low Net Effect, Moderate Net Effect or High Net Effect ) associated with each alternative for each indicator; and, Rank each alternative from most preferred to least preferred based on the predicted level of effect at the criteria and environmental component level in order to determine an overall ranking for each alternative. 42

Next Steps Workshop #3 A future Workshop #3 is planned for November 23 rd, 2011 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Carp Agricultural Hall (3790 Carp Road, Carp). The purpose of Workshop #3 is to provide the public with an opportunity to give input on the comparative evaluation of alternative landfill footprints and the identification of a preferred landfill footprint. Please sign-up at this Open House if you wish to be involved in Workshop #3. Notification of Workshop #3 was published in local newspapers along with the advertisement for this Open House and will be published again two weeks prior to the event. Reminders will be provided to persons who have signed-up at Open House #3. Technical Sessions As requested by the community, Technical Sessions will be held on the subjects of air, groundwater, and property value impacts. The Air Technical Session is scheduled for November 16, 2011 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at WMCC s Ottawa Office (254 Westbrook Road, Ottawa). The Groundwater Technical Session is scheduled for November 30, 2011 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at WMCC s Ottawa Office (254 Westbrook Road, Ottawa). The Property Value Impact Technical Session(s) will be scheduled in the upcoming weeks. Notification will be provided on the project website and by email to stakeholders registered on our project contact list. 43

Next Steps Get involved and make your views known: Over the coming months, we will continue working on the EA for a new landfill footprint at the existing Ottawa WMF. There are many opportunities for you to get involved in the process and make your views known. When you sign-in to any WCEC EA consultation event, please include your email address if you wish to receive further information. Please try and attend future Open Houses, Workshops, and Technical Sessions. Meet with us individually or in groups to ask questions, express your viewpoints or provide your input. Visit our website http://wcec.wm.com to get more information or to provide your comments. 44