Appendix C - wcec.wm.comwcec.wm.com/resource-documents/08_Supporting Documents/Appendix C... · Appendix B. 2. Project Team Members in Attendance The following project team members

Appendix C Workshop #1 Summary Report

Prepared by: AECOM 302 - 1150 Morrison Drive 613 820 8282 tel Ottawa, Ontario K2H 8S9 613 820 8338 fax www.aecom.com Project Number: 60191228 Date: March, 2011

Environment

Waste Management of Canada Corporation

Public Workshop Session #1 Summary Report

AECOM Waste Management of Canada Corporation Workshop Session #1 – Summary Report

Rpt-2011-03-17-Wcec Ea Workshop Summary Report-60191228

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.

Table of Contents Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

page

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Objective of the Workshop .............................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Date, Time and Location of the Workshop ....................................................................................... 4

2. Project Team Members in Attendance ........................................................................................ 5

3. Information Presented ................................................................................................................. 5

4. Attendance ................................................................................................................................... 6 4.1 Workshop #1 .................................................................................................................................. 6 4.2 Additional Roundtable Discussion ................................................................................................... 6

5. Summary of Comments Received .............................................................................................. 6 List of Tables

Table 2-1 Project Team Members in Attendance ................................................................................................... 5 Table 5-1 Workshop Table 1 Comments ............................................................................................................... 7 Table 5-2 Workshop Table 2 Comments ............................................................................................................... 7 Table 5-3 Workshop Table 3 Comments ............................................................................................................... 8 Table 5-4 Workshop Table 4 Comments ............................................................................................................... 9 Table 5-5 Roundtable Meeting Comments ............................................................................................................ 9 Table 5-6 Responses to Workbook Questions ..................................................................................................... 10 Table 5-7 Criteria Ratings and Comments ........................................................................................................... 25 Appendices

Appendix A. Workshop Workbook Appendix B. Notification Material Appendix C. Workshop Display Panels

4

1. Introduction Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM), owners and operators of the existing Ottawa Waste Management Facility (Ottawa WMF) have initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA) seeking approval for a new landfill footprint at the existing Ottawa WMF. The new landfill footprint will be one component of the proposed West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC). The proposed WCEC will be an integrated waste management facility that will include:

Waste diversion and recycling operations; Composting operations; Renewable energy facilities; Recreational lands for community uses; and, A new landfill footprint for disposal of residual waste materials.

Public and external agency consultation is a key component of EA’s and as such, has been incorporated into this process. A Notice of Commencement for the EA of this project, inviting initial input, was issued on January 5, 2011, a first round of Public Open Houses for the EA were held from January 18-January 20, 2011, and Workshop #1 took place on February 24, 2011, with an additional roundtable discussion held on March 2, 2011 to accommodate those unable to attend the Workshop. This Report provides a summary of Workshop #1, including the roundtable discussion on March 2.

1.1 Objective of the Workshop

The main objective of the Workshop was to discuss the landfill footprint alternatives, ancillary facilities and the evaluation criteria, indicators and data sources. Attendees were offered the opportunity to present their questions and comments regarding the information directly to staff from WM and AECOM, as well as discuss them with other attendees. This allowed workshop attendees to provide input on the following two topics:

1. Proposed new landfill footprint options and ancillary facilities; and 2. Assessment criteria, indicators and data sources to be used to evaluate the Alternative Methods of carrying

out the project. Each attendee was given a Workshop Workbook (Appendix A) which provided information on these topics, as well as questions and space for recording responses and comments.

1.2 Date, Time and Location of the Workshop

The Workshop took place on Thursday, February 24, 2011 at the Stittsville and District Community Centre (Upstairs Hall), 10 Warner-Colpitts Lane. The additional roundtable discussion was held on Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at the Waste Management offices at 254 Westbrook Road, Carp. Both the Workshop and roundtable discussion commenced at 7:00 p.m. and ran until 9:00 p.m. Those wishing to attend the Workshop were asked to pre-register. The pre-registration sign-up forms were available at each of the January Open House events, invitation emails were distributed to all contacts in the project database,

5

and a reminder was provided on the project website as well. Workshop Notification Material can be found in Appendix B.

2. Project Team Members in Attendance The following project team members were in attendance at the Workshop to facilitate discussion and to answer questions:

Table 2-1 Project Team Members in Attendance

WORKSHOP #1 WM Consulting Team

Tim Murphy Cathy Smithe Ross Wallace Remi Godin Wayne French Dave Richmond Reid Cleland Wayne Jenken Don Wright

AECOM Larry Fedec Blair Shoniker Catherine Parker

Sheffe Consulting

Nora Sheffe

ADDITIONAL ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION Tim Murphy Cathy Smithe

3. Information Presented Information presented at the Workshop was in the form of a brief introductory speech, workbooks distributed to all attendees, and through display boards arranged around each table. As mentioned above, the workbooks were broken down into two topics: 1. Landfill footprint options and ancillary facility locations, including:

A map outlining the constraints within the study area; A map defining the Potential Landfill Footprint Envelopes; and Maps detailing Landfill Footprint Options 1 and 2.

2. Evaluation criteria/indicators for comparing the alternative methods, including: A detailed table with space provided for ranking and commenting on the criteria.

Display panels included: 1. Maps presenting the two alternative landfill footprint options; 2. A typical landfill cross-section; and 3. A table of criteria and indicators used to evaluate the Alternative Methods of carrying out the project. Copies of the display panels are included in Appendix C.

6

The workshop and additional roundtable discussion were meant to be interactive to encourage dialogue between the participants and the Project Team. Typically, the facilitator at each table would walk the group members through the topic areas and participants were able to ask questions, which the facilitator or the technical resource person would answer. If the question could not be answered, the question was recorded so that the Project Team could devise an appropriate answer and respond in due time.

4. Attendance Over the course of the first Workshop and additional roundtable discussion, there were a total of approximately 51 attendees. Details about the sessions are outlined below. Attendees were encouraged to provide written comments in the Workshop Workbook sheets provided. With the exception of those that requested to be left off, all individuals and/or agency representatives who registered and signed in at the sessions with their contact information have been added to the project-specific contact database. This database will be used during the remaining phases of the study to contact/inform interested public and key stakeholders of study issues and events.

4.1 Workshop #1

A total of 48 people attended the Workshop on February 24, 2011. Those in attendance were largely local residents and landowners and a small number of local business owners. One local Councillor, as well as a member of the media from EMC News, also attended the Workshop. Comments ranged from against the proposal to supportive. Participants asked questions on the baseline condition studies, property value protection, traffic, footprint location, hydrogeology, air quality, landfill height, visual impact and post closure use. Overall, there was extensive dialogue between the attendees. Eleven completed Workshop Workbooks were provided at the session, and another three were provided by attendees in the weeks following the workshop.

4.2 Additional Roundtable Discussion

A total of 3 people attended the additional roundtable discussion on March 2, 2011. Those in attendance were local residents and landowners. Comments at this session were primarily opposed to the proposal. Participants asked questions on the baseline condition studies, future consultation sessions, and footprint locations. Overall, there was extensive dialogue between the attendees. One completed Workshop Workbook was provided at the session and another one was provided by an attendee in the weeks following the workshop.

5. Summary of Comments Received Two methods of gathering comments from the Workshops were implemented; 1) A note taker at each table to record their group’s comments and questions on a flip chart; and, 2) the submission of completed Workbooks by attendees. Verbal comments and questions recorded on the flip charts during the Workshop and roundtable meeting are provided in the tables below. These comments include all workbooks received up to March 18, 2011.

7

Table 5-1 Workshop Table 1 Comments

Topic 1: Landfill Footprint Options and Ancillary Facility Locations

Communication of Open Houses/Workshops should be done by letter drop in the future Missing information:

o What has been done since 2004? o Where is the baseline? o What are the studies?

Detailed field work/investigation on PSW function have been done by MVCA Buffer for PSW should be adjusted Would footprint options interfere with wind patterns/air movement? Would a 4:1 slope solve potential emergency measures such as the ones WM is facing with the current site? Proximity to residents – 500 m buffer as in Guideline D-4 makes the western option not viable Wildlife considerations – deer and other small animals Property value protection – will WM purchase property? Why development on South Huntley Creek? Leachate – how long will it take to leach through the ground? What size are the diversion facilities?

o How much will be processed? o Need this info to appropriately site the facilities

Topic 2: Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources

Don’t need indicators What is lost/gained in terms of options should be evaluated Communication of tradeoffs Economic – why does it say “East End”? Catchment area for the ToR is all of Ontario – why hasn’t this been changed? Criteria related to service area should be included Emergency reasons for Ontario-wide service area should be provided WM should lead by example Geology – should include type of bedrock in criteria Noise – at both sides Traffic on Richardson Side Road Effect on Carp Airport related to wind Data sources should include airport wildlife studies for transportation (Safety Management Systems Reports) All criteria are important to most individuals More time is needed to review criteria Break-up over more time



Identify source of buffer zone requirements How do Guideline D-4 and zoning affect study area? More information on land ownership options should be provided to public (i.e. actual documentation) How did people find out about the workshop? – notification was improper Workshops are more important than Open Houses What are the existing conditions of the study area? How do the benefits of the facility (i.e. compost/diversion) get evaluated? There should be other information besides the workbook that we can review here More time for comment needed than 2 hours People with no prior involvement need to be aware

o Only 700 people were on the contact list o How many people actually live in the community around the landfill?

Proposed footprint within study area – 1’ x 1’ x however tall What is the history of the current site and what is the technology to manage it? How will WM manage gas, leachate, etc.?

8


What is the end use of the site? Topic 2: Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources

Won’t all of these criteria be studied? What is the sample size that represents the community when it comes to ranking criteria? Information should have been passed around to allow informed rankings Relationship between consultants hired to undertake technical studies and WM should be clearly disclosed People need more information in order to assess the criteria and their importance Post information so people can understand Criteria are fundamentally flawed due to lack of data Everything is important Groundwater issues Residents change Underlying geology and geotechnical data Is there a level below which it will not operate? For instance, what is the threshold for each criterion under which the option

wouldn’t be viable and who is responsible for compliance? Vermin, seagulls – how is that studied? Nature of waste (i.e. Composition of waste) Does Ottawa control waste into the site? Vehicles importing waste – what are the impacts? Viruses, pests, insects and pollinators? Synergetic effects – i.e. Critical mass of both landfills. Are there combined effects from having the two footprints? Impacts on tourism, economic growth, and property value Design of closure All criteria are important Diversion assessment of potential benefits



Proximity to population is a concern Groundwater is a concern Resent the time, stress and anxiety placed on me being involved in this very long process Visual and height are concerns Farthest from the residential, view, Carp Road, no groundwater contamination, Highway 417, odour and dust, air quality Minimize traffic impacts More diversion and less landfill needed 7 opposed to any footprint vs. 4 in support


Economic criteria are centred on WM and not the community Property value protection should be part of the criteria Less development opportunity in the area and less revenue to the City Most important – groundwater, odour and air quality Need to consider Ottawa Airport due to training in area Carp Airport is now “certified” What is the plan at closure? Will there be operations at night? – light pollution is a concern All site-generated traffic needs to be included Community input to the visual impact assessment is necessary Consult with the City and community on economic benefit

9



No landfill, new technologies instead Living in Stittsville, Option 1 is preferable Living in West Carleton, Option 2 is preferable Important that mature trees are provided as a buffer S/B population based where footprint is located Closeness of population must be considered Richardson residents find Option 2 too close Option 1 has far more traffic Workbook documents don’t have the Options labelled When will WM want to build on the alternate site (area that the other footprint is located)? Input should be allowed Never had an issue with the landfill Evaluation criteria will be very valuable Criteria options should have been done as Topic 1 Background info on reports Parameters - further off-site testing The option that will be best post-managed and that brings value to the community is preferable How many years before it brings value to the community?


With all the rationale in the criteria, it indicates that it is very bad to have a landfill in this area Economic impacts on local residents are not included in the criteria Social impacts should include quality of life, noise and odour Separate regulated (i.e. Monitored) and non-regulated criteria Not enough time to review all the criteria

Table 5-5 Roundtable Meeting Comments


First workshop focused more on Topic 2 than Topic 1 I didn’t sign up for the Workshop because the “intent” of workshop was not fully defined – I thought it was a done deal so why

come and help WM make it a done deal? “Landfill” should be in all advertisements Did Orgaworld have to go through an EA for their new facility? How does commercial recycling work at our customers? Do they pay for pick-ups – do we pay them part of the sales price? Why are footprints not south of existing footprints or L-shaped around existing footprint? We could do an expansion on top of existing site


Want CAZ and groundwater contamination, and odour as part of comparison of each footprint What is the volume of groundwater drawn out Wants to have technical individual and historical groundwater information from site for past number of years and predictions

of continuation of this issue. Also the same for odour Studies of traffic, etc. should be underway now for release with stage 3 Workshop. Be specific about what we are doing for

each studied area. Data is not mentioned in Stage 2 Want specific information about where information is from Will information, as it is determined, be shared? Want a presentation from each “testing” discipline. Want a PowerPoint explanation and then a chance to ask questions Overall material should be presented, then a Workshop on the material Would like consultants to have a station to discuss their topic Meetings should be held to present fundamental issues i.e. groundwater Submitted questions to MOE. What is WM stance on them? Odour needs to be tracked against what is happening on the site. If no tonnage, odour will be non-existent

10


Traffic, Groundwater and Odour most important Landfill must be added in title “Proposed Carleton Environmental Centre”

To date, twenty-six Workshop Workbooks have been received: fourteen from the Workshop; two from the roundtable discussion; and ten from individuals who were unable to attend either session. Responses to the questions in the Workbooks are provided in the tables that follow.

Table 5-6 Responses to Workbook Questions


1. Do you understand the analysis that WM undertook to determine general areas (envelopes) for developing new landfill footprint alternatives and other components of the WCEC?

I don’t understand the criteria if it allows the landfill to crowd a wetland area. No – I understand general envelope is due to the fact that the study is for WM-owned property. Yes, I did not agree to the narrow analysis that took into account only this particular site. Hence, there potentially exist only the two alternatives. Furthermore no other technologies were considered (incineration, gasification, etc.) No, do not have this information – which is necessary. Yes (x4). Yes – much opportunity given at CLC, PAC, websites, Open Houses, this booklet No. (x2) No – it has never been shared with the public. The internal reports are not included. Water quality issues, odour control, wind forces on old landfill and new landfill. No alternative to location available that is not on proposed site. The proposal that is adjacent to the existing landfill is the best proposal. There should be adequate facilities to provide as much diversion as possible. The north footprint option is preferred. Without knowing more details about the overall site (i.e. existing groundwater and odour issues, estimated traffic, etc...) it is important to have as many footprint options included for the evaluation. It is important to have a public presentation from WM on the historical groundwater issues from the existing site for the last 5 years - including 2010. Predictions for future contamination from the existing site must be part of this review. The presentation should include details about existing and future CAZ's and how those may be affected by a new landfill nearby. More information about historical wind patterns and the potential for off-site odours while the site is being filled for the next 10+ years must be examined. How might odours to downwind residences be minimized based on positioning of the new footprint relative to the existing mountain. I am concerned that it will be difficult to assess any issues with the new site if contamination is masked by problems with the current site. We need to hear comments from WM's technical experts about the potential impacts on local groundwater from footprints anywhere on the site. Updated traffic study should be done in Q1 2011 with educated projections based on 400K tonnes/year. Stage 2 must include presentation of detailed data on the various criteria for review and consultation during the phase 2 workshops. The potential footprint options for detailed comparison should be decided in Stage 2. Not until stage 3 should the landfill footprint options be compared with the criteria presented in Stage 2 and any data should be made available prior to the start of Stage 3. I find your question both condescending and degrading.

11


I see the result of the analysis, I do not see the other options which were considered, assessed and how this was chosen. So, I do not see or understand the analysis. I see the footprint, I do not see the evidence of the design, to ensure other requirements are met, such as odour elimination (not control), and the iron clad legal agreement, to stop expansion after this phase is complete, and find an alternate site. I do not see any aspect of the plan as to what your obligations are in respect to how you leave the site when you walk away at a later date (tree planting, high density, across the surface area of the site, etc.) My basic premise is that you should be creating a landfill somewhere in the useless Laurentian Shield country 20 miles outside Ottawa where it wouldn’t bother anyone. Since I understand that you truck in waste from all over Eastern Ontario, it would make little difference to the mileage. Therefore any comments I might make about “onsite” modifications would be completely irrelevant and would look like an endorsement of your continued operation on this site, which I shall not accord you. I disagree with your continued presence on this site, and since I don’t agree with any of your ideas there is little point in my making further suggestions about “onsite” choices. I do understand that you are working to minimize the public nuisance you are undoubtedly causing, but the site still stinks to high heaven in the summer when the wind is in the wrong direction. What a sterling welcome to Stittsville for people who exit the Queensway at the Carp Road off ramp! The bottom line is that the Carp Road landfill is in the wrong place. So why not make a virtue out of necessity, cover “Carp Road Mountain” with a thick layer of topsoil and make a lucrative local ski resort out of it? Check Regina's Blackstrap Mountain for a success story. And then move further away from the urban area - where landfills can have no place - to somewhere where you can cause no inconvenience to local residents. Not really. No. Why were other locations further from developed areas not considered? This parcel of land is far too close to residential areas. No. Nothing explained in the workshop. Infer that land ownership and wetland only constraints. I DO NOT understand the analysis WM undertook. WM has not provided nearly enough information for the public to select a preferred footprint. Only after WM carries out detailed field studies and presents the information for public consultation might it be possible to select a preferred site. There does seem to be enough room on the west property to site a landfill footprint and thus only one possible location is available. Thus the EA cannot be carried out. A landfill footprint can only be defined once the need and justification are revisited by WM through public consultation as stated by MOE. WM must provide a list of all the studies that have or are to be done, whether they are released to the public or not, whether internal or by external consultants. Also, whether any of the external consultants have worked previously for WM, and if so, details of that work. (x2)

12


No, the information provided is neither well presented, accurate, of sufficient detail or timely in relation to the information required to develop environmental constraints and to enable the development of any footprint on the site. With respect to the presentation of information, the Booklet should have provided each of the four maps (Constraints, Landfill Envelopes, Proposed Layout (West Option not specified) and Proposed Layout (North Option not specified) as separate sheets for purposes of accurate, workable comparison. Respecting accuracy, it is clear to us that WM has not made any effort to properly identify environmental constraints that may affect identification of the footprints despite clear correspondence from the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) dated 14 June 2010 to Blair Shoniker of AECOM. That letter is clear regarding MVCA setbacks from wetlands and the significance of the headwater area of Huntley Creek as identified in the 2004 Robinson Report, Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Study. These omissions are sufficiently strong to suggest that WM deliberately endeavoured to mislead those participating in the Workshop. Further, application of setbacks of new residential development from landfill locations should have been reversed to clearly identify the limitations imposed on future landfill development from existing residential development. In my view, the entire area 'currently owned and/or optioned' by WM to the west of William Mooney has been selected solely as a sacrificial area to justify an alternative on the existing site. Extending this position further, WM is presenting only one possible alternative for which 61% of respondents at the Open House No.1 rejected a new landfill. For this same reason, WM withdrew its original Terms of Reference of 2007 and delayed re-submission for three years. Respecting sufficient detail to allow for any reasonable evaluation of legitimate options, I first wish to point to WM's commitment in the Terms of Reference. Under its Statement of Environmental Values (Section 1.5), WM indicates that: 1. The Ecosystem Approach - this includes the consideration of the cumulative

effects on the environment, the interdependence of air, land water and living organisms, and the interrelations among the environment, economy and society.

The definition of the Ecosystem Approach, from Environment Canada and as reported from the Convention on Biological Diversity is ' a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living organisms that promotes the conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way.' It recognizes that humans are an integral component of ecosystems. Not only has WM misrepresented information, it failed to incorporate information that should have been presented, and the studies made available, as indicated in Section 7.4 of the ToR - Additional Field Work and Studies. WM states 'Additional field studies and data collection have been ongoing since the previous Terms of Reference withdrawal in 2007. This includes hydrogeology, air quality, terrestrial biology field surveys, and water quality sampling.' Having this information, and compiling it with

13


information that should be collected, as identified by the MVCA, would have produced reasonable baseline data that should have included: Physical data: Geology (bedrock and surficial; soils, terrain (contour data), ground and surface water volumes and flows and atmospheric data (air quality, wind rose-directions and speeds); Biological Data: Vegetation inventory and complexes (trees, vascular plants, mosses and lichens), terrestrial habitats and fauna, aquatic habitats (permanent and ephemeral and intermittent) and fauna (amphibians, reptiles and fish), avian populations (resident and migratory); and Social Environment: Heritage and archaeological, land use and transportation (including safety), subdivision development (existing, approved and draft), recreational facilities and development, people and health (ambient noise and air quality), economy and economic development, services (water, sewage and hydro/gas, emergency). Timeliness is a critical factor in identifying potential footprints and this information should have been collected as Task 2 identified in the Terms of Reference. This same information is required to meet the requirements of section 6.1(2)(c) of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act:

(c) a description of,

(i) the environment that will be affected or that might reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, …

Further, the process for development and review of the information should have been accurately reflected on the Display Boards of Open House No. 1. The EA Process clearly shows that 'Confirmation of Existing Conditions' followed Open House No.1 which is then followed by 'Identify and Develop Alternative Landfill Footprints' which is Open House No.2. WM Tasks 1 and 2 should not, and cannot possibly happen, before Open House No.2. Respecting the second part of Question 1 '…and other components of the WCEC'. Response: No, there was no information presented on which to base any kind of discussion. WM must come forward with information sufficient to justify volumes of materials, separation and storage requirements, treatment and shipment packaging, and building or other facility dimension requirements before any discussion can proceed.

14


No. This workshop and the associated workbook feels more like Waste Management is at Stage 3 in the EA process than at Stage 1 of the EA process. The work plans proposed should include an overview of existing physical environmental conditions. These existing conditions were not presented at the workshop nor were they made available through any means of which I am aware. I still do not want a second landfill on this site. Waste Management must also recognize that the result of the EA may conclude that this site is inappropriate for a second landfill.

2. Recognizing that only on-site locations will be considered, are you in agreement with the potential development areas (envelopes)?

I do not agree with the envelope adjacent to the wetlands on the west of William Mooney Dr. No – study zone should be expanded to a much wider area. Request new site location should be farthest from residential areas with no groundwater contamination. For the on-site locations there are no other alternatives. However it is difficult to make any choices, since the size and number of other facilities are not known. Yes. (x3) In this community they are the most logical choices. No – incineration should be used when ready! No (x2) Yes, as either option is right near existing landfill I am left to assume that William Mooney cannot be closed and the right-of-way purchased. Saying that would have clarified the essential origin of the two footprints. Yes, but develop as close as possible to existing landfill and away from nearby homes. Keep the west footprint for future (i.e. Waste diversion facility and incinerator) No. Footprints must be considered that are south of the existing site and over William Mooney Road. The goal should be to maximize the distance of the new site from existing nearby residences and minimize new potential groundwater contamination areas and odour from the new site. Absolutely not. WM has maximized the site and should now close the site as originally planned. No, I do not, and will not, agree to any current expansion of this site, regardless of previous legal entitlements held by owners/operators. A key requirement for me is the profile of the site as seen and experienced by the surrounding community and passersby’s. Note the expansion moves the profile closer to the 417 Trans Canada western artery. Any visitor approaching Ottawa from the West will be greeted by the view of the landfill site, although beautified to the best of your ability, still unmistakable as a landfill site. How many cities are you aware of with this kind of profile? Quite the picture to appear in the Toronto Star right next to “Welcome to the Nation’s Capital”. No – onsite options should not be considered. No – Why are only on- site proposals included? Why not incineration? No. Far too close to residential areas. No. What about a south envelope? No. I am not in agreement with any expansion of the current site. No. WM has not provided nearly enough information for the public to select a preferred footprint. Only after WM carries out detailed field studies and presents the information for public consultation might it be possible to select a preferred site. (x2)

15


NONE are acceptable locations given the presence of the existing landfill and the sheer size of this proposed landfill. With the sensitivity of the surrounding lands, an additional 6.5 million cubic meters of waste is undoubtedly too great of an environmental, social and economic risk. No, this is not possible to determine at this time. The workshop #1 workbook is portraying the on-site locations as if there are only 2 sites being considered. As we are only in the first step of the EA there is not yet enough information available to agree to either of the options proposed in the workbook or the other footprint options suggested in the meeting. Before I can agree with potential development areas, I need to know the existing environmental conditions and flow of ground water. I would like to see test reports from the past 7 years. Also what is volume of water being drawn for the purge wells?

3. Do you have any comments on the potential landfill footprint option #1 and the proposed design parameters? Do you have any suggested changes?

If WM needs to use this site, greater set-backs from the wetlands should be allowed. The accidental spill at your Napanee Site (resulting in a $300 fine) as a result of human error demonstrates the need for more than a minimum buffer. Without any further details, such as geological make-up of site, any proposed access roads with respect to existing surrounding developments. I cannot suggest any changes. Not enough necessary information to proceed. Also, north is too close to residential properties for government regulations on Zoning D-4. Also, would need diversion of permanent streams. No visual buffer – it will look like a moonscape No – too much traffic interruption on Richardson SR and William Mooney. Smaller buffer area around footprint A little too close to the woodlot and the wetland Not the spot for any larger waste/landfill site. If the choice is a broken leg or brain cancer what would your choice be? This is not a choice that will be of any value to anyone. The choice is no expansion. What happens to the lands where the north footprint lies? Surface water should be diverted to the Goulbourn wetland. Air quality for residents downwind (mostly south) is a concern. Odour control is a concern. Entrance to new expansion should be located off Carp Road if possible. Not at this time. Comments on all the potential footprint options will be provided when further details about existing groundwater contamination data, CAZ planning, odour data, and traffic data are provided by WM in a public forum. All footprints will be agreed in stage 2 and compared in stage 3. The layout of plan 1 is an insult to the community. How dare you come even closer to the wetland area then you already have. Suggested changes to option 1: Reduce Size by – 6.5 million m3 (as per the approved ToR) Reduce Height by:– Approximately 28 m Reduce Side slopes – 4:1 Sorry, I’m still convinced this site is exhausted and a new site must be chosen. It should not be approved. The unsightly and polluting present site has run its course – please close it down on schedule. No. Far too close to residential areas. Not a valid footprint. Land use and south Huntley Creek and wetland buffer of 120 m are constraints. There is not enough room for a footprint in the west envelope. Not enough information to make further comment. No.

16


I disagree to put any new landfill in existing Carp Rd. landfill or expand the existing landfill. Consider new technologies to deal with waste. We can convert plastic to fuel and organic waste to soil and fertilizer. No need for a dump at all. WM has not provided nearly enough information for the public to select a preferred footprint. Only after WM carries out detailed field studies and presents the information for public consultation might it be possible to select a preferred site. I suggest a 1’ x 1’ footprint in footprint #1. (x2) I severely dislike the location of Option 1, as this is a strategic move by WM to minimize the sightline of the new “mountain” that will be erected using the existing 50 meter landfill as a shield from onlookers from Kanata and the 417 eat of Carp Road. By doing so, I feel WM is preparing themselves for what they may perceive as the inevitable; a third mountain in the same location as what has been proposed as Option 2. This strategic move is deceiving and belittling to concerned residents and business owners worried about this landfill expansion. Hiding the sight of waste by using an existing mountain of waste is not an option. Period. Comments on the potential landfill footprint option No. 1 and the proposed design parameters? No, it is premature to discuss any design parameters until such time as it has been determined that the site can support a new footprint. Suggested changes? No, no suggestions are appropriate until it has been determined that there may be an option to consider further. I cannot comment on footprint #1 without the information requested in question 2 above. Also, which option is footprint #1? The pictures in the workbook describe these options as North and West, not #1 and #2. Very confusing. Why are there only 2 options? In the West footprint option I find it amazing that the Ontario Government only requires a 120m buffer zone from an inhabited house. There is an error on the proposed layouts: the buffer zone should be 120m not 100m.


Orient new footprint closer to (100M guideline) from William Mooney Rd. This will give greater setback from the Carp Rd. and provide clearance and buildings on the major access side of site. If option 1 is a serious consideration for the future, the envelope footprint for option 2 should be narrower to provide a 20m roadway allowance between the current landfill and proposed option 2 envelope. This will provide proper access to the future site on the other side of William Mooney proposed as option #1. I note that the proposed height of the mound in both options 1 & 2 is 28m. It appears that there is ample clearance with option #2 to extend the length of this mound and reduce its elevation. In light of the community’s negative reaction to the elevation of the existing envelope, it would be useful to lengthen the envelope and reduce the elevation in option #2. Footprint #2 (west site) is very close to wetland with big concerns associated to groundwater contamination due to water flow through proposed footprint Without any further details, such as geological make-up of site, any proposed access roads with respect to existing surrounding developments. I cannot suggest any changes. The proximity to wetlands of this site, despite buffer zones, is a concern.

17


No, do not have the information necessary to comment. Overall it’s better than Option 1. Only possible option Preferred – it has bigger buffers around the landfill pad – greater distance to neighbours and mature trees. The trucks will turn right off Carp Rd., therefore no traffic on Richardson and William Mooney so I can move around my neighbourhood I prefer #2 If you are talking about the West footprint then it would be an insane choice. As stated previously, this site may affect groundwater to nearby residents from the old or existing landfill. There would be more traffic on Richardson Side Road that residents will object to. Not at this time. Comments on all the potential footprint options will be provided when further details about existing groundwater contamination data, CAZ planning, odour data, and traffic data are provided by WM in a public forum. All footprints will be agreed in stage 2 and compared in stage 3. The layout of plan 2 is also an insult to the community. Suggested changes to option 2: Reduce Size by – 6.5 million m3 (as per the approved ToR) Reduce Height by:– Approximately 28 m Reduce Side slopes – 4:1 I’m not sure which option the one is near the 417, but please read my comment above, that is not a good location. I want it cancelled! No. Far too close to residential areas. Not enough baseline information to comment. No. Disagree. WM has not provided nearly enough information for the public to select a preferred footprint. Only after WM carries out detailed field studies and presents the information for public consultation might it be possible to select a preferred site. I suggest a 1’ x 1’ footprint in footprint #2. (x2) Option 2 poses severe risk to the surrounding environment and property values. As such, if approved, Option 2 will have severe economic and social consequences of local residents, namely upwards of 135,000 within a 5.5 km radius. That is a large population that must be taken into consideration. Comments on the potential landfill footprint option No. 2 and the proposed design parameters? No, it is premature to discuss any design parameters until such time as it has been determined that the site can support a new footprint. Suggested changes? No, no suggestions are appropriate until it has been determined that there may be an option to consider further.

18


I cannot comment on footprint #2 without the information requested in question 2 above. Also, which option is footprint #2? The pictures in the workbook describe these options as North and West, not #1 and #2. Very confusing. Why are there only 2 options? In the West footprint option I find it amazing that the Ontario Government only requires a 120m buffer zone from an inhabited house. There is an error on the proposed layouts: the buffer zone should be 120m not 100m.

5. Are there any potential new on-site footprint locations that you feel should be considered in the EA and why?

No. (x5) Yes – all of Southern Ontario area Not likely – where? Narrow the width of #2 and extend it further west and lower the height No! There should be no landfill sites. Recycle, and do not expand. WM only put up the smell guards when they knew the ToR was going to be presented for approval. They did nothing for years about the smell until they wanted to expand. What happens to the lands where the west footprint lies? What has constrained WM from optioning/purchasing the property to the north of the footprint? None, as I believe you have considered the best two options available. Keep buffer areas well-bermed and tree planting and landscaping along Richardson Side Rd. Yes. Without knowing more details about the overall site (i.e. existing groundwater and odour issues, estimated traffic, etc...) it is important to have as many footprint options included for the evaluation. At least a south and NW footprint must also be considered and perhaps others. There should be at least two other footprints considered. None of the potential footprints should be eliminated before the comparative analysis is done. At least two other footprints that should be considered (i.e. a "South footprint" and a "NW footprint"). This would mean the comparative analysis would be done on the following potential footprints: South, north, west, north-west, others? No. You have used your existing footprint. Close the facility. We need a site which is remote enough to not impact communities, farms and natural lands. I suggest abandoned quarries, or otherwise touched and abandoned lands be assessed. In time landfill sites can return to a future alternate purpose if managed correctly. No. Existing site is far too close to residential areas. A south footprint. No. No expansion should be considered. I suggest a 1’ x 1’ footprint in footprint #2. It is a comprised footprint and it is one of WM’s suggested locations. (x2) No, there are no other potential on-site footprint locations that I feel should be considered in the Environmental Assesssment, as the location is not the issue, it is the sheer size of the proposed footprint that is an issue. No, until such time as a complete environmental base line study for the entire site has been developed, it is not possible to identify or consider any other potential new on-site footprint locations.

19


6. Do you have any comments on the proposed ancillary facilities including their location at the WCEC?

No. There is not enough detail about the post closure commitment to the community. This is a typical problem often found with the industry in that post closure is only considered at the end of the landfill life, far too late to plan effectively. Operators tend to feel that it is their preserve and community considerations are not made. It is not appropriate to utilize residual piping as a reason to restrict community use of the site post closure. The site should be left as a community asset. I cannot comment on them, since I do not have this information. What are these? [ancillary facilities) Double-speak I am assuming this means other activities on-site, such as diversion, alternative technologies, recreational use, etc? Therefore, I am assuming the land not under new footprint (landfill) will be used for “ancillary facilities”? I support the use of recreational facilities, trails, walking, running paths and possibly interacting eco-trails/nature trails. Relocate in non-residential areas. No ground water contamination should be allowed. Carp Road is not a location at any spot. Air quality, dust, noise, traffic in and out are not included as criteria. The waste diversion of up to 60% should be included in your proposal with a site(s) located within the envelope. If not, utilize a third party (i.e. Tomlinson Environmental Services across the road) to divert waste to your expanded landfill. No. This EA only relates to the proposed landfill. The only thing that should be included in this assessment is the total truck traffic WM estimates from waste and diversion. Any amounts diverted will result in double the traffic to/from the site. I want the site closed completely! Not important. The landfill is the only item that is of concern to the community, trying to veil it as a recycling center is dishonest at best. We didn’t discuss ancillary facilities. They should not be part of EA, only the landfill. No. They can build biogas generating station using existing landfill, but no more new landfill and we do not need the WCEC. WM has not provided nearly enough information for the public on the proposed ancillary facilities. What are the recycling goals and timelines? What will be recycled? Will the recycling be a fixed % of incoming tonnage weight at the site scale? There is NO information provided. WM must provide a list of all the studies that have or are to be done, whether they are released to the public or not, whether internal or by external consultants. Also, whether any of the external consultants have worked previously for WM, and if so, details of that work. (x2) No, I do not have any comments on the proposed ancillary facilities. No, insufficient information is available to discuss this. Further, WM has been clear in its own Q&As, that these ancillary facilities will probably not be developed if approval for the landfill expansion is not approved. Therefore, the potential for a new landfill must be established before any consideration can be given to ancillary facilities or locations. What are the impacts on traffic?

20

Topic 2: Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources 1. Do you understand the need for developing Criteria and Indicators?

Yes. (x18) To meet community needs and impact The only way to evaluate the proposed landfill and its impact. A process requirement to do this. It would be helpful if WM also understood the need and not just the plan for pushing the project no matter what any indicators are shown to be. It is important to your planned expansion. This should be Criteria, Indicators, and "Data Sources". In general, the data sources information seems quite vague and general. "No-Go" criteria should be defined for each section. What would cause WM to rule out a potential footprint based on the given criteria? Your question is insulting. This is a STUPID question! Yes, but what, how and when those should be done seems to be a major misunderstanding of WM.

2. In relation to the Criteria areas, what do you value most and why?

I would agree with the Criteria but feel that Land Use and Transportation should rank as the fourth and fifth categories in terms of importance. Groundwater, odour and air quality In general, yes. However, health impact is not adequately covered. Impact seems to be restricted to 500 m. Past experience shows impacts far beyond that distance. All are “very important”. See checklist – most important are groundwater, effects from truck transportation, and economic benefit to locals (close neighbours) Environmental, air quality, water quality, odour, visual/alternative disposal, traffic/hours of operations/closing date firm and included. Air quality and odour. I understand that these are regulated and trust WM will not allow another odour occurrence to occur. As these are risks, I trust WM has (or will have) proper mitigation in place. Value those which are subjective compared to those which are well regulated. Traffic, Groundwater, Surface water, and Odour/Air Quality all rank equally as VERY IMPORTANT factors to me. Visual impact is the next most important to me (but is also VERY IMPORTANT). The criteria are narrow and minimize the impact that a potential facility will have on the community. Clean air, clean water, and clean environment. Environmental and Social Impacts should be top of the list. Impossible to say without context, chosen footprint location and baseline information. Environmental impact – noise, odour, water Atmospheric environment. Air Quality, Odour, Noise, Public Health and Safety, Surface and Groundwater quality as well as the Economic Criteria I added are what I value most. These criteria affect me and my family the most – health wise and economically – as well as my right to pursue liberty and happiness. (x2) Personally, I value all criteria since they all have an effect on me, my family, our lifestyle and our prosperity. Every indicator is important and deserves consideration. Within my community (defined as the Stittsville, Kanata, Carp area within the City of Ottawa) I value the natural, social and economic criteria equally as they affect and influence our lives, that of the community and those criteria outside of this area that may be influenced by any changes.

21

Topic 2: Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources The atmospheric environment, geology & hydrogeology, surface water resources, terrestrial environment, aquatic environment.

3. Are you in agreement with the proposed Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources? If not, what would you change?

Generally in agreement with this section with the exception that post-closure considerations are absent from the criteria. In general, yes. However, health impact is not adequately covered. Impact seems to be restricted to 500 m. Past experience shows impacts far beyond that distance. Impact on residents immediately adjacent not addressed or vaguely addressed. Poor job on setting out full process and data available now. What further data will be gathered? Specific geological features, how prone to fracturing, etc. Yes I am comfortable with the proposed landfill footprint that is rectangular in shape. I would just like to see the footprint more narrow and extended to the west but maintain a buffer of at least 150 m from the western wetlands. The evaluation criteria are clear but not complete or total to the needs. The data source list is in no way indicated as having any impact, just a list of data sources if someone was interested, no indication that each listed source/data group would provide a report that is added to the report. List a name – produce a report. Maybe – it depends on how they are used. Scoring and weighting methodology will be important. Yes, you need to stress more on waste diversion in your planned expansion, limited to 400,000 tonnes/yr. If you can divert your efforts to 60% over 5-10 years you will be able to grow your business while maintaining your annual limit. The data sources need to be much more detailed than they already are and the data must be presented and reviewed/clarified before with the public BEFORE the comparison of various footprints can be done. It is unreasonable to ask the public to participate in a process to select a "preferred" alternative when all the data from the criteria/indicators/data sources is not available. Before stage 2 open houses and workshops the data sources listed must be very detailed and provide updated information. I have provided comments and feedback in the table. There are no tradeoffs. WM can have no further negative impact (perceived or actual) on the environment within the community The problem is that, since WM owns a facility, it wants to expand that to enhance the return on investment. In fact the more important question is why a landfill at all? Many European countries use sophisticated incinerators – Vienna has one almost in the centre of the city. Why do we have to blindly submit to the imperatives of big businesses that have a one track mind – to continue on the gravy train? Why has other sites not been considered for the landfill component. The community would welcome the recycling facility, but not paired with another huge landfill. Need much more information before I can answer this. I’m in agreement with the criteria, but not with the proposed expansion. No (x2). The list of Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources must be expanded. See below for additional Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources that MUST be added to the study and are VERY IMPORTANT. Environmental Component: Economic Criteria: Effects on Nearby Residents Property Value

22

Topic 2: Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources Rationale: The expansion of this facility and its potential affects will lower property values for nearby (<5 km from the site) residents. Indicators: • Odours impinging on resident’s property will lower property value and ability to sell their homes. • Odours impinging on properties will affect residents, or potential purchasers’, quality of life and lower property values and ability to sell their homes. • Potential water contamination may affect resident’s ability to plant a garden. This will lower property values and ability to sell their homes. • Potential water contamination may affect resident’s water wells. This will lower resident’s property values and ability to sell their homes. Data Sources: • Baseline property value required by a 3rd party and property value protection program required. • MPAC study. Criteria Rating: Very Important. Environmental Component: Economic Criteria: Effects on Residential and Commercial Development Rationale: The expansion of this facility and its potential affects will stunt or stop residential and commercial development. Indicators: • Residential development plans. • Commercial development plans. Data Sources: • City of Ottawa residential plans and zoning. • Commercial Development plans and zoning. • MPAC study. Criteria Rating: Very important. Environmental Component: Economic Criteria: Effects on property tax revenue on City of Ottawa Rationale: The expansion of this facility and its potential affects will stunt or stop residential and commercial development. This will stunt property tax revenue in the west end. Also, if property values decline there will also be a decline in property tax revenue since taxes are based on property value. Indicators: • City of Ottawa • MPAC Data Sources: • City of Ottawa • MPAC • Study done on similar communities after an expansion occurs. • MPAC Criteria Rating: Very important. Environmental Component: Economic Criteria: Effects on the decrease on residential spending on home improvements. Rationale: Residents will not improve or upgrade their homes because of the lack of

23

Topic 2: Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources ROI when people may sell. It will decrease spending on home improvements. Indicators: • City of Ottawa • Survey of Residents within 5km of the proposed site. Data Sources: • Study done on similar communities after an expansion occurs. Criteria Rating: Very important. Environmental Component: Public Health and Safety Criteria: Air Quality Health Effects on Nearby Residents Rationale: The expansion of this facility and its potential affects may affect the health of nearby residents. Indicators: • Effects Due to Fine Particulate Exposure. • Effects Due to Exposure to Facility Emissions. Data Sources: • Complete health study from an impartial 3rd party. People within 5 km of the site shall be studied. Criteria Rating: Very important. Comments: The MOE just called an “emergency” measures due to the shift in the mound and warned residents of possible adverse health effects. Environmental Component: Public Health and Safety Criteria: Water Quality Health Effects on Nearby Residents Indicators: • Effects due to Contact with Leachate-Impacted Groundwater or Surface Water. • Effects due to Contact with Non-Leach ate Impacted Groundwater or surface water. Data Sources: • Complete health study from an impartial 3rd party. People within 5 km of the site shall be studied. Criteria Rating: Very important. Comments: The MOE just called an “emergency” measures due to the shift in the mound and warned residents of possible adverse health effects. (x2) Not completely. I feel the social and economic impacts of the proposal are extremely weak, most likely due to the reality that these are the factors that would be the reason for the Ministry of Ontario to reject this project proposal. All of the following criteria and indicators should be included in the EA evaluation process. 1. Most notably, the impact on property values has not been captured by WM and is

a very important indicator. The indicator should look at the expected impact on property values within a 2km radius, within a 3, 5 and 10 km radius.

2. Population growth in the local area. The indicator should look at expected

population growth within a 2km radius, within a 3, 5 and 10 km radius to demonstrate and take into account how many people, not just number of dwellings, will be affected.

3. Also in relation to population growth, is the impact on the expected change to the

social landscape. Moreover, what will the expected impact be on family’s

24

Topic 2: Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources choosing to settle and raise children within a 3, 5 and 10 km radius? I would expect that the number would fall if a second landfill footprint at WM’s Carp Road site were to receive approval, which would have significant negative economic spin-offs on local businesses. In turn, this would likely result in less infrastructure spending, and thus community growth.

4. Number of businesses within a 3, 5 and 10 km radius and their associated annual

revenues. This is a very important criteria that needs to be taken into consideration. As indicators, WM should use: (i) number of business expected without landfill footprint approval; (ii) number of businesses expected if landfill footprint is approved; (iii) annual revenues and total number of employees without landfill footprint approval; (iv) annual revenues and total number of employees if landfill footprint is approved. For instance, in the long-term, the economic impact on Scotia Bank Place as a chosen venue for world-class events may be detrimental with the opening of a new Congress Centre downtown and a new stadium and arena at Landsdowne Park on Bank Street in the Glebe. As such, WM must take into consideration the economic impact on Scotia Bank Place’s competition position, as the landfill expansion will likely hurt its image and reputation due to its proximity.

As per the Endangered Species Act 2007, WM should take into account the impact on wildlife and protected wildlife on-site and within a 500m, 2km and 5km radius should be properly assessed. The indicator should report the aggregate number of wildlife species affected, as well as the name and quantity of any protected wildlife expected to be displaced or harmed as a result of this project. No. At this point it is clear that insufficient attention has been given by WM to developing these Criteria based on information currently available to it. Indicators, what should be measured to determine the level of change, should be based fully on the extent of known information supplemented by information obtained to fill in information gaps. From this information, thresholds can be established. Changes that move towards these thresholds and the thresholds themselves can then be classified as insignificant, important or significant. For most environmental criteria this is premature, except perhaps for those criteria established by regulation. Baseline environmental, social and economic information must be generated first, supplanted with new information where gaps exist, and indicators developed thereafter. It is incumbent on WM to identify data sources, present that data and supplement it where gaps exists. It is very disturbing to me that after 3 years, countless submissions by the public, and ongoing direction from the various government agencies, that WM has yet to identify and present the spectrum of information available and the areas requiring additional study to fill in gaps where information is missing or limited. I will not provide ratings as all components are equal. Even if I were to agree to some form of hierarchical or weighted rating, it would be premature to do so as that agreement could only come once a sound data base of environmental, social and economic information has been generated and presented by WM and fully reviewed by the public. If published data sources are more than 5 years old, the studies should be re-done.

25

In addition to the questions in the Workbooks, participants were asked to provide a criteria rating and/or comment for each of the criteria that WM has identified to evaluate the Alternative Landfill Footprint Options of carrying out the project.

Table 5-7 Criteria Ratings and Comments

Environmental Component Criteria Criteria

Rating Number of Responses Comments

Atmospheric Environment

Air quality Very Important

16 Air quality should be assessed for various distances and wind directions, not only 500 m.

Hard to manage/mitigate Monitor air quality – people south and east must be given

assurance of air quality Ask residential neighbours every day if they are disturbed by

the poor air produced by the proposed facility. If so, the facility should be closed until the neighbours are no longer disturbed by the poor air quality emanating from your proposed facility.

Many people complained about the odour and dust. Nodump.ca should have lots of records - they can be a data source.

The past few years (2005-2008) have to be considered as a baseline for odour. During that period there were hundreds of odour complaints made to the MOE. A POO was enacted. This, in my humble opinion, will be very reflective of what the odour situation will be like if the landfill expands. It was very unbearable to live in the area and it affected my family’s lives tremendously. During the past two years the landfill has not been taking in much garbage and does not reflect how the landfill will operate. I want this study to be completed by an independent 3rd party. The indicators should be resident locations that have submitted odour complaints. A 3rd party should validate models used. How many residents will be asked? Residents who have submitted odour/noise complaints should be the ones surveyed. I would like to be included in this study/survey. What studies have been done on the potential impact and mitigation of odour? WM must provide a list of all the studies that have or are to be done, whether they are released to the public or not, whether internal or by external consultants. Also, whether any of the external consultants have worked previously for WM, and if so, details of that work.

Since the affected communities are suburban by design, each residential dwelling has a higher number of residents by comparison to more central or urban dwellings that are high density but contain much fewer residents on a per dwelling basis. As such, WM should be considering the number of people affected in addition to the number of off-site receptors. Heads count when assessing air quality. Measures should be reported on the air contaminants produced by both the existing landfill as well as what is expected to generate from the proposed second landfill on the site.

Where are the overviews of the existing conditions? Will air quality monitoring be done by WM or by an independent and impartial test house?

Important 1

Less Important

Not Important

26



Noise Very Important

8 Should not be audible during weekends, outside business hours

Easy to manage/mitigate Expand methane capture in new design. There is a larger industrial area adjacent so not impacting

residents as much Keep operations to 12 hours – 7 am to 7 pm Obviously the greatest noise factor will be truck traffic so the

various footprints will need review / analysis about the number of trucks going in/out of the site, backup horns for equipment at the site. Also, previous attempts to keep gulls away used sound cannons which were easily heard in nearby residential areas. Given that the site has been essentially closed for the past 4 years, what methods will be used to keep birds away that won't result in noise? How will that impact the various footprints?

Ask residential neighbours every day if they are disturbed by the noise produced by the proposed facility. If so, the facility should be closed until the neighbours are no longer disturbed by the noise emanating from the proposed facility.

How many residents will be asked? Residents who have submitted odour/noise complaints should be the ones surveyed. I would like to be included in this study. WM must provide a list of all the studies that have or are to be done, whether they are released to the public or not, whether internal or by external consultants. Also, whether any of the external consultants have worked previously for WM, and if so, details of that work.

Since the affected communities are suburban by design, each residential dwelling has a higher number of residents by comparison to more central or urban dwellings that are high density but contain much fewer residents on a per dwelling basis. As such, WM should be considering the number of people affected in addition to the number of off-site receptors. Another indicator that should be included is the number of additional commercial vehicles and their associated noise that would be expected to result from this project proposal.

Where are the overviews of the existing conditions? Will noise prediction assessments be done by WM or by an independent and impartial test house?

Important 6

Less Important

2

Not Important

1

Odour Very Important

15 Components causing odour should be identified, their relative toxicity and health impact need to be identified.

Put odour control systems in place. At present, no odour problem in Kanata or where I live in Jackson Trails in Stittsville.

Hard to manage/mitigate People south and east must be given assurance of air quality.

Expand methane capture in new design. Odour data sources should include residential odour

complaints from the existing site compared against BOTH site activity and odour mitigation activities over the past 7 years. At this point there should be enough specific meteorological and historical data to provide a specific potential odour mapping (i.e. direction, distance, strength of odour from the various proposed footprints). It is simply not credible to say that odour is not caused by active dumping. History of provincial officer orders for odour must be included in the data. There must be a specific public presentation on odour

Important 1

Less Important

Not Important

27



data before the footprints comparison can be done. Detailed odour presentation needed before stage 2 open houses/workshops.

Ask residential neighbours every day if they are disturbed by the odours produced by the proposed facility. If so, the facility should be closed until the neighbours are no longer disturbed by the odour emanating from the proposed facility.

Odour complaints history should play a large role here. The past few years (2005-2008) have to be considered as a

baseline for odour. During that period there were hundreds of odour complaints made to the MOE. A POO was enacted. This, in my humble opinion, will be very reflective of what the odour situation will be like if the landfill expands. It was very unbearable to live in the area and it affected my families’ life tremendously. During the past two years the landfill has not been taking in much garbage and does not reflect how the landfill will operate. I want this study to be completed by an independent 3rd party. The indicators should be resident locations that have submitted odour complaints. A 3rd party should validate models used.

Since the affected communities are suburban by design, each residential dwelling has a higher number of residents by comparison to more central or urban dwellings that are high density but contain much fewer residents on a per dwelling basis. As such, WM should be considering the number of people affected in addition to the number of off-site receptors.

Where are the overviews of the existing conditions? When the existing landfill site smells particularly bad, I change my route to avoid driving by the site. This affects where I shop so I will go into Kanata instead of Stittsville. Will odour assessments be done by WM or by an independent and impartial test house?

Geology & Hydrogeology

Ground-water quality

Very Important

15 Health impact of contaminants need to be assessed Not worried, as this is controlled Meeting provincial regulations is sufficient and all of this is

well regulated and therefore not useful as a decision Site north footprint is best option. Identify flow of leachate for

old rump site Must include groundwater reports from last 7 years (including

2010). Must include CAZ purchases around existing site. Must include provincial officer order information for existing site. There must be a specific public presentation on groundwater data before the footprints comparison can be done. Detailed groundwater presentation needed before stage 2 open houses/workshops.

All executives of WM should have to taste test 500 ml of ground water from the facility each day as a sign of good faith that WM is not adding any contaminants. If they cannot without causing bodily injury, the facility should be closed

WM must provide a list of all the studies that have or are to be done, whether they are released to the public or not, whether internal or by external consultants. Also, whether any of the external consultants have worked previously for WM, and if so, details of that work.

Impact should be an aggregate total of both the existing landfill as well as the expected result from the proposed expansion. This performance indicator cannot negate the fact that a 8.7 million cubic meter landfill already exists on the

Important 1

Less Important

1

Not Important

1

28



proposed site. Where are the overviews of the existing conditions? The

Annual site monitoring reports should have been made available at the Workshop. What is the volume of water already removed from the ground for purge wells? How does this volume of water removed affect wells downstream? Will leachate generation assessments be done by WM or by an independent and impartial test house? Everyone in the area is on well and septic except for those who are downstream of the exiting leachate plume. Leaks into the ground water affect the water we drink and our health. They can also mean an expensive extension of city water service to those in the area.

Surface Water Resources

Surface water quality

Very Important

13 Indications of downstream impact of waterways Not worried, as this is controlled Meeting provincial regulations is sufficient and all of this is

well regulated and therefore not useful as a decision Make sure flow is directly to wetland this will help purify and

contain All executives of WM should have to taste test 500 ml of

surface water from the facility each day as a sign of good faith that WM is not adding any contaminants. If they cannot without causing bodily injury, the facility should be closed.


Impact should be an aggregate total of both the existing landfill as well as the expected result from the proposed expansion. This performance indicator cannot negate the fact that a 8.7 million cubic meter landfill already exists on the proposed site.

Where are the overviews of the existing conditions? Will need to know potential effects on CA Regulated Wetland and Provincially Significant Wetland.

Important 2

Less Important

1

Not Important

1

Surface water quantity

Very Important

11 Any contaminated water should be confined to the WM- owned land.

Not worried, as this is controlled Meeting provincial regulations is sufficient and all of this is

well regulated and therefore not useful as a decision Some could be captured for leachate dilution prior to sewer

flow WM must provide a list of all the studies that have or are to be

done, whether they are released to the public or not, whether internal or by external consultants. Also, whether any of the external consultants have worked previously for WM, and if so, details of that work.


Where are the overviews of the existing conditions? Will need to know potential effects on CA Regulated Wetland and Provincially Significant Wetland. Who will be doing the On-site and off-site surface water &

Important 3

Less Important

2

Not Important

1

29



leachate monitoring programs? Terrestrial Environment

Terrestrial ecosystems

Very Important

8 Impact of leachate absorption by plant and trees and their future usability without health impacts should be shown

Protect the terrestrial systems with installation of interpretive eco-trails

All well regulated Do an impact study and identify anything affected All proposals should be ceased and desisted if any habitat is

modified/changed/ effected/affected in any way whatsoever. WM must provide a list of all the studies that have or are to be

done, whether they are released to the public or not, whether internal or by external consultants. Also, whether any of the external consultants have worked previously for WM, and if so, details of that work. Will I be able to plant a vegetable garden in my backyard?


Where are the overviews of the existing conditions?

Important 4

Less Important

3

Not Important

2

Aquatic Environment

Aquatic ecosystems

Very Important

8 In particular, study the impact on wetlands and their ability to purify aquatic resources

Protect the aquatic systems with installation of interpretive eco-trails

All well regulated Not sure if there is a problem here Data sources must include information from the Rideau Valley

Conservation Authority, Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority, and the Ottawa River Keeper.

All proposals should be ceased and desisted if any habitat is modified/changed/ effected/affected in any way whatsoever.




Important 4

Less Important

3

Not Important

2

Archaeology & Cultural Heritage

Cultural and heritage resources

Very Important

5 Good plan should be identified in proposal Any potential (actual or perceived) disturbance to

cultural/heritage resources (actual or perceived) should result in the immediate abandonment of the proposal.




Important 5

Less Important

4

Not Important

1

30



Archaeological resources

Very Important

5 All well regulated Not sure if this is a problem Any potential disturbance (actual or perceived) to

archaeological resources (actual or perceived) should result in the immediate abandonment of the proposal.




Important 5

Less Important

5

Not Important

2

Transportation Effects on airport operations

Very Important

10 Airport considered important for west end hi-tech industry Change to wind pattern around airport Ottawa airport and Carp airport (consultation required) Data sources must include updated plan by West Capital

Developments to develop the Carp airport. The perceived threat to a single life as a result of this

proposal is unacceptable and should result in the immediate abandonment of the proposal.

WM must provide a list of all the studies that have or are to be done, whether they are released to the public or not, whether internal or by external consultants. Also, whether any of the external consultants have worked previously for WM, and if so, details of that work. How would the expansion affect the Carp Airport?

The expected revenue impact on the Carp Airport should also be considered since fewer airlines and pilots would be willing to land or operate out of the Carp Airport. The expansion of WM’s Carp Road dump could ultimately lead to the airport to cease operations, which would have a significant negative impact on hundreds of individuals.

Where are the overviews of the existing conditions as well as the conditions when the dump was operating at full capacity?

Important 2

Less Important

3

Not Important

1

Effects from truck transport along access roads

Very Important

10 Potential new roads to be considered to separate waste truck traffic

Very interrelated to the broad community planning therefore important

Traffic should be kept to Carp Rd. entrance Data sources must include a summary from WM about the

predicted amount of waste, daily cover, diversion, and other traffic at their predicted rate of 400K tonnes of waste per year. What type of vehicles, what hours of operation, etc... This must be provided BEFORE the footprint comparison is done. An update (i.e. 2011) traffic study of volume and time-of-day traffic along Carp road must be done. Including specifically divided N and S traffic hourly between 6am and 9am and between 4pm and 7pm. It must also include on/off ramp traffic E and W for both N and S traffic. Proposals for potential new on/off ramps into the new site must be presented BEFORE the footprint comparison is done. Detailed traffic presentation (including Q1 2011 traffic study) with traffic impacts from 400K tonnes/year needed before stage 2 open houses/workshops.

Important 5

Less Important

Not Important

1

31



Any potential adverse affect to the current usage of roads and the current use by residential and farm vehicular traffic is unacceptable. Each report of adverse impact should be thoroughly investigated by WM (at their expense) and alternatives to moving WM vehicles will be found. Also, residents impacted adversely by increased and disruptive traffic by WM vehicular movement should be compensated financially for each claim ( let’s say $50,000.00 per claim)

WM must provide a list of all the studies that have or are to be done, whether they are released to the public or not, whether internal or by external consultants. Also, whether any of the external consultants have worked previously for WM, and if so, details of that work. Carp Road has become extremely busy in the past decade due to residential development – especially south of the dump. The 417W/Carp exit gets congested due to the extra traffic. I have seen the 417W backed up because of vehicles trying to get on to the exit. This is a tragic accident waiting to happen. This will only get worse if an expansion will be allowed.

Given that the vehicles entering the WM facility would possess heavy loads, the wear and tear on existing infrastructure would be significant. Thus, road improvements would certainly need to be made, which would come at the expense of Ontario and City of Ottawa taxpayers, not WM.

Where are the overviews of the existing conditions? New traffic study needed, not from 2006.

Land Use Effects on current and planned future land uses

Very Important

11 Future plans for development should be considered, desirability for development may be reduced

Property tax values, development value should be included Very interrelated to the broad community planning therefore

important Start negotiation with City of Ottawa for rezoning and official

plan amendment If the proposed site changes any current plans for future land

use, the proposal should be abandoned immediately. I believe that only industrial land can exist within 500 meters

due to the impact of the dump. 500 m is too short a distance. The study area should include

an area within a 5 km radius from the proposed site. I would like to be surveyed. WM must provide a list of all the studies that have or are to be done, whether they are released to the public or not, whether internal or by external consultants. Also, whether any of the external consultants have worked previously for WM, and if so, details of that work.

WM’s proposed 500 meter limit is unacceptable. Thresholds should be taken into consideration within 500m, 2km, 3km, 5km, and 10km. This will give a much more accurate portrayal of the effects on current and planned land use.

Where are the overviews of the existing conditions? Facilities could affect operations of local businesses, not just recreational resources. Mitigation of this? WM keeps trying to sell future recreational use. What is the safety of users of potential on-site use? (i.e. leaking methane gas etc.) If this site is so great, why aren’t Waste Management’s offices at this site instead of on Westbrook Rd?

Important 2

Less Important

2

Not Important

1

32



Displacement of agricultural land

Very Important

6 Part of long-range development plan. West footprint would impact more than north footprint.

There should be no displacement of agricultural land. The proposal should be immediately abandoned.


Any impact on protected species should be duly noted and properly remedied.

Where are the overviews of the existing conditions? City of Ottawa Official plan requires the city to protect agricultural land.

Important 5

Less Important

4

Not Important

1

Economic Effects on the cost of services to customers

Very Important

5 It would be more important if modern technologies were used Minimizing costs to business is important Keep costs in check for business community Reduced trucking to Rochester, NY means lower tipping fees Alternative methods of disposal should be explored instead.

Ottawa based Plasco Energy Group will replace the need for WM in this city. Proposal should be abandoned immediately.

Time to look at new landfill alternatives instead of creating another mountain of garbage. The community pays the price for WM profit.

The expansion will create a glut of extra capacity in Eastern Ontario. The glut will then lower tipping fees and discourage recycling. This will violate the mandated 60% ICI diversion rate and never encourage recycling which is a policy of the MOE. By not expanding it will encourage the ICI sector to seriously consider recycling. WM must provide a list of all the studies that have or are to be done, whether they are released to the public or not, whether internal or by external consultants. Also, whether any of the external consultants have worked previously for WM, and if so, details of that work.

Air space should be minimized at all costs. Thus, the height of the proposed landfill should be kept under 1 meter to minimize the economic impact.

Important 3

Less Important

6

Not Important

3

Continued service to customers

Very Important

5 Why should the west end provide a waste disposal facility to the east end?

Need expansion to facilitate growth in Ottawa Alternative means of businesses disposing of their waste will

be found without your proposed facility. WM will be taking garbage from outside Ottawa as well. This

is misleading; we do not need this additional capacity to satisfy Ottawa needs.

There is no shortage of waste capacity in the Ottawa area. The current landfill has been taking in a negligible amount of waste in the past couple of years. I did not hear in the press that customers have been affected by the diminished capacity in any way. Not allowing an expansion will force recycling (60% diversion) in the ICI sector as mandated, but not enforced, by the Ontario govt many years ago. Not expanding the facility may also enable the City of Ottawa to create a green bin program for ICI waste and meet their composting goals. WM must provide a list of all the studies that have or are to be done, whether they are released to the public or not, whether internal or by external consultants. Also, whether any

Important 3

Less Important

5

Not Important

4

33



of the external consultants have worked previously for WM, and if so, details of that work.

From a cost-benefit perspective, yes, it should be considered. However, the significant environmental, social and economic costs will show that the cost savings in the short-term to customers are negligible and rather meaningless when these other factors are weighed.

Economic benefit to local municipality

Very Important

10 It likely will deter hi-tech industries to locate. The net impact is negative.

Property value needs to be added as a criteria Provide growth for business of WM operations This rather haughty statement relies heavily on the key word

“potential”. A thorough and complete study of any and all employment opportunities should be explored by WM (at WM’s expense and monitored by governing governmental bodies at the municipal, provincial and federal level). Any and all employment opportunities should be permanent in nature with WM, result a positive impact on the community only. If the new employment (and subsequent tax collection from these employees) is not sufficient to nullify all of the harmful environmental effects that the proposed site brings, the proposal should move be immediately abandoned.

B.S. property values will decline if this new landfill is introduced, which is where most people hold the majority of the net worth against.

Yes come to Stittsville to see the mound of garbage. In my humble opinion, there is a negligible economic benefit

to the community. WM must provide a list of all the studies that have or are to be done, whether they are released to the public or not, whether internal or by external consultants. Also, whether any of the external consultants have worked previously for WM, and if so, details of that work.

All of these economic indicators suggested by WM have been included because they are favourable to the corporation itself and the advancement of this project. However, factors such as the impact on property values, economic-spin offs from a growing community, and the stigma it will give to businesses operating in a competitive marketplace have not been taken into consideration.

Must factor in the impact on existing businesses. A new landfill may be of economic benefit to WM but may put other local businesses out of business which will have a negative economic impact to the local region.

Important 1

Less Important

2

Not Important

4

Social Visual impact of the facility

Very Important

6 Nevertheless it will remain a contaminated site. I don’t find the current landfill is unattractive. Therefore I don’t

see the new landfill visually being an issue. Well-bermed and landscape plan required Any affect (perceived or actual) to local residents in any

manner whatsoever is unacceptable and the proposal should be immediately abandoned.

Important 3

Less Important

2

Not Important

34



Local residents Very Important

12 Value of property, restricts uses of land, the impact is not only in the vicinity, can be many kms from the site

100 m should be changed to 500 m – will you expropriate? Don’t see this as being important as the original landfill

already exists near proposed landfill options so it’s moot. Perhaps a recreation centre as well as trails, park? Any affect (perceived or actual) to local residents in any

manner whatsoever is unacceptable and the proposal should be immediately abandoned.

How many residents will be surveyed? Residents who have submitted odour complaints should be the ones surveyed. I would like to be included in this study. WM must provide a list of all the studies that have or are to be done, whether they are released to the public or not, whether internal or by external consultants. Also, whether any of the external consultants have worked previously for WM, and if so, details of that work.

The vicinity is not clear. Sensitivities should be established at 500m, 2km, 5km, and 10km radiuses.

This is the western gateway to the capital of Canada.

Important 3

Less Important

Not Important

1

Recreational facilities

Very Important

10 Air quality and odour will always restrict recreational facilities beyond 500 m.

The original landfill is right near the proposed options, so this is really irrelevant now.

Not sure of any impact Any affect (perceived or actual) to the enjoyment of

recreational resources in any manner whatsoever is unacceptable. WM should undertake a study to interview any and all people that will or may potentially ever use any recreational resources (current or proposed) to determine if their usage of these resources (current or future) will be impacted in any way whatsoever. Once this study has been completed and vetted (at WM’s expense) and the negative impacts are found, then the proposal should be immediately abandoned.

500 m is too short a distance. The study area should include areas within a 5 km radius from the proposed site. WM must provide a list of all the studies that have or are to be done, whether they are released to the public or not, whether internal or by external consultants. Also, whether any of the external consultants have worked previously for WM, and if so, details of that work.

WM’s proposed 500 meter limit is unacceptable. Thresholds should be taken into consideration within 500m, 2km, 3km, 5km, and 10km. The enjoyment of facilities could be damaged due to odour or sight of a landfill, which in this case can both extend up to 10km from the proposed site.

What is the effect of the existing landfill on existing recreational facilities? Are there days when the existing facilities cannot be used because of the smell from the landfill? What is the effect on the health of users?

Important 4

Less Important

1

Not Important

1

35



Aboriginal Potential effects on Aboriginal communities

Very Important

5 Is there any in the area? (x2) Not sure of any impact Any potential threat (actual or perceived) to Aboriginal

communities is unacceptable and may be considered a violation of their Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The proposal should be abandoned immediately.


Protection and conserving sensitive lands is very important.

Important 5

Less Important

4

Not Important

2

Site Design & Operations

Site design and operations characteristics

Very Important

10 What is the responsibility of WM to maintain the site after filled? How many years? Would they maintain it for 100-150 years?

Essentially regulated or required for regulation Important for getting City of Ottawa approvals Data sources must include (before footprint comparison is

done) a comprehensive report about "what WM has learned" from the existing Carp site. This report should be presented publicly and cover all facets of the existing operation and how WM will use what it has learned to operate the new site - in whatever footprint is ultimately chosen. Some of these operational details may impact the desired footprint selection

Any potential disturbance of the existing footprint (perceived or actual) in an effort to create a new footprint may constitute a violation of the contractually agreed upon existing footprint. The proposal should be abandoned immediately.


Site design and operations are less important as indicators since environmental and regulatory requirements will ensure both WM and its site adhere to all applicable provincial standards.

Important 2

Less Important

3

Not Important

2

Appendix A

Workshop Workbook

EnLa

LanAncEv

nvironandfill

Env

Wndficillavalua

nmenl Footvironm

Woll Fory Fationand

Fe

tal Astprintmenta

orksootpacilin CrDat

ebruar

ssessat th

al Cen

shorint ity Literita Sory 24,

smente Wesntre (W

op #Alte

Locaa, Inourc 2011

t for ast CaWCEC

#1: ernatationndicaces 1

a NewrletonC)

tivesns anator

w n

s, nd rs

Environmental Assessment for a New Landfill Footprint - Workshop #1 on Landfill Footprint Options, Ancillary Facility Locations and Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Measures – February 2011


page 2

For more information, please see our website at http://wcec.wm.com, or call us at 613-836-8610

Please tell us about yourself. Please note that information related to this Study will be collected in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal information, all comments received will become part of the public record and may be included in Study documentation prepared for public review.

Name:

Address:

Postal Code:

Phone:

Email:



page 3


Topic 1: Landfill Footprint Options and Ancillary Facility Locations • “Alternative Methods” is the assessment of the different ways of implementing the proposed

undertaking. For example, the proposed new landfill footprint for residual waste could be constructed in different locations and configurations (size, height, etc.) at the WCEC.

• The approved Terms of Reference (ToR) identified the study area, within which Alternative Methods will be identified, and is bounded on the southeast and southwest sides by Highway 417; on the northeast by Carp Road; and on the northwest by Richardson Side Road.

• The following items were identified as constraints for consideration when developing potential landfill footprint envelopes (See Figure 1):

− Ownership of land by WMCC or the option to purchase land, − Existing natural environment features, − Land use designations, − Perimeter buffer zones

• Two distinct landfill footprint envelopes exist within the study area. These envelopes are referred to by their proximity to the existing Ottawa Waste Management Facility (WMF), namely to the west of William Mooney Road and to the north of the existing Ottawa WMF (See Figure 2).

• WM have developed preliminary options for landfill footprints within each of the envelopes for discussion (See Figures 3 and 4). The footprints were designed with the following design parameters:

− Size – 6.5 million m3 (as per the approved ToR) − Height – Approximately 28 m − Side slopes – 4:1

• For comparison purposes, the existing Ottawa WMF has the following design parameters:

− Size – 8.7 million m3 − Height – Approximately 47 m − Side slopes – 3:1

• A comparative evaluation of the alternative landfill footprints will be conducted and a preferred landfill footprint identified. An impact assessment on the preferred landfill footprint will be carried out in subsequent stages of the EA.

• In addition to the alternative landfill footprints, other components of the WCEC including waste diversion facilities, community/recreational facilities, site entrance, and other infrastructure will need to be sited accordingly.

UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83

South Huntley Creek

Goulbourn Wetland

Car

p R

oad

Richardson Sideroad

Dav

id M

anch

este

r Roa

d

Will

iam

Moo

ney

Roa

d

Cavanmore Road

417

417

Westbrook RoadWill

owle

a R

oad

Car

devc

o R

oad

Wes

car L

ane

Moo

nsto

ne R

oad

Wilbert Cox Drive

Westhunt Road

421000

4210

00

422000

4220

00

423000

424000

4240

00

425000

4250

00

426000

5013

000

5013000

5014

000

5015000

5015

000

5016000 5017000

5017

000

1:12,000

LegendButternut Tree

Intermittent StreamPermanent Stream

PSW Buffer Area (120 m)

CA Regulated Wetland

PSW

WoodlotAmphibian Breeding and Hibernation SiteNon-Regulated WetlandSouth Huntley Riparian ZoneWetland BankLands Owned/Optioned by WMLands Not Owned/Optioned by WMProject Study Area

Current Ottawa WMF Operations

Map

Doc

umen

t: (N

:\pro

ject

s\20

07\7

0190

\200

8\Fi

nal\G

ISS

patia

l\MX

Ds\

Wor

king

MX

Ds\

7019

0WC

EC

_Con

stra

ints

Map

11x1

7.m

xd)

02/1

5/20

11 --

9:3

5:50

AM

Figure 1

Constraints MapFebruary 2011Project 70190

Ottawa Waste Management Facility

©2009 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved.This document is protected by copyright law and may not be used,reproduced or modified in any manner or for any purpose exceptwith the written permission of AECOM Canada Ltd. ("AECOM") or a party to which its copyright has been assigned. AECOM acceptsno responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any partythat uses, reproduces, modifies, or relies on this document withoutAECOM’s express written consent.

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

0 200 400100

m

UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83

South Huntley Creek

Goulbourn Wetland

Car

p R

oad

Richardson Sideroad

Dav

id M

anch

este

r Roa

d

Will

iam

Moo

ney

Roa

d

Cavanmore Road

417

417

Westbrook RoadWill

owle

a R

oad

Car

devc

o R

oad

Wes

car L

ane

Moo

nsto

ne R

oad

Wilbert Cox Drive

Westhunt Road

421000

4210

00

422000

4220

00

423000

424000

4240

00

425000

4250

00

426000

5013

000

5013000

5014

000

5015000

5015

000

5016000 5017000

5017

000

1:12,000

LegendButternut Tree

Intermittent StreamPermanent Stream

PSW Buffer Area (120 m)

CA Regulated Wetland

PSW

WoodlotAmphibian Breeding and Hibernation SiteNon-Regulated WetlandSouth Huntley Riparian ZoneWetland BankLands Owned/Optioned by WMLands Not Owned/Optioned by WMProject Study Area

Current Ottawa WMF Operations

West Footprint OptionNorth Footprint Option

Map

Doc

umen

t: (N

:\pro

ject

s\20

07\7

0190

\200

8\Fi

nal\G

ISS

patia

l\MX

Ds\

Wor

king

MX

Ds\

7019

0WC

EC

_Lan

dfill

Env

elop

es11

x17.

mxd

)02

/15/

2011

-- 9

:31:

12 A

M

Figure 2

Landfill EnvelopesFebruary 2011Project 70190

Ottawa Waste Management Facility

©2009 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved.This document is protected by copyright law and may not be used,reproduced or modified in any manner or for any purpose exceptwith the written permission of AECOM Canada Ltd. ("AECOM") or a party to which its copyright has been assigned. AECOM acceptsno responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any partythat uses, reproduces, modifies, or relies on this document withoutAECOM’s express written consent.

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

0 200 400100

m

Figure 3 – Landfill Footprint Option 1

Figure 4 – Landfill Footprint Option 2



page 8


1. Do you understand the analysis that WM undertook to determine general areas (envelopes) for developing new landfill footprint alternatives and other components of the WCEC?

2. Recognizing that only on-site locations will be considered, are you in agreement with the

potential development areas (envelopes)?

3. Do you have any comments on the potential landfill footprint option #1 and the proposed

design parameters? Do you have any suggested changes?



page 9



5. Are there any potential new on-site footprint locations that you feel should be considered in

the EA and why?

6. Do you have any comments on the proposed ancillary facilities including their location at the

WCEC?



page 10


Topic 2: Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources • Preliminary Evaluation Criteria and Indicators were outlined in the Approved ToR and may

be broadly grouped into Environmental, Technical and Socio- Economic categories. A commitment was made in the approved ToR that the criteria, indicators and data sources would be reviewed and modified through consultation with the public and other agencies as appropriate during the EA.

• These criteria form the basis for characterizing existing environmental conditions, for assessing potential adverse effects of the Undertaking, comparing Alternative Methods, and help to identify a preferred alternative.

• A comprehensive list of “criteria” that cover all aspects of the environment are used to assist in the decision-making process at the Alternative Methods stage. Analyzing each of these criteria not only ensures a systematic and logical approach to decision-making, but documenting the results criterion-by-criterion is a means by which others can follow the evaluation and understand the reasons for the decisions.

• The following criteria were presented in the approved ToR:

Environmental Criteria

Atmospheric Environment Air quality, Noise, Odour Geology & Hydrogeology Groundwater quality Surface Water Resources Surface water quality, Surface water quantity Terrestrial & Aquatic Environment

Terrestrial ecosystems, Aquatic ecosystems

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

Cultural and heritage resources Archaeological resources

Transportation Effects on airport operations Effects from truck transportation along access roads

Land Use Effects on current and planned future land uses, Displacement of Agricultural Land

Technical Criteria Site Design and Operation Site Design and operational characteristics Socio-Economic Criteria Economic Effects on cost of service to customers/neighbours

Continued service to customers Effects on/benefits to local community

Social Visual impact of facility, Local residents, Recreational facilities

Aboriginal Potential effects on Aboriginal communities



page 11


• In addition to the Criteria proposed, another task that must be completed before carrying out further work on the Alternative Methods is the development of indicators for each criteria. As the criteria tend to be fairly general, indicators are much more specific that can be measured or determined in some way. For example:

o Criteria = Odour o Indicator = Predicted odour emissions and Number of off-site receptors potentially

affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses and institutions).

• In the above example, identification of off-site receptors by type in conjunction with the predicted odour emissions as the measure would provide the potential effect for this particular criterion.

• During the EA each technical discipline leader (e.g., atmospheric environment leader) will compare and rank alternatives for each of their environmental criteria. This will come in the form of a ranking for each environmental criteria from “least preferred” to “most preferred.”

• In the final stages of the detailed comparative evaluation of alternatives, the rankings will be combined (aggregated) for each environmental criteria into a single preference rating for each alternative in order to rank the alternatives and identify a preferred alternative.

• Once a preferred alternative has been identified, a detailed impact assessment will be completed to determine the net effects that will be caused, or might reasonably be caused, on the environment.

• Table 1 describes the assessment criteria, indicators and data sources that are proposed to evaluate the different Alternative Methods of carrying out the project. The assessment criteria are grouped into three categories: environmental, socio-economic and technical (site operation and design). Each criterion includes a statement of rationale, indicators that will be used for measurement, and data sources. The outcome of the Environmental Assessment will include the identification of a Preferred Alternative Method of carrying out the project.

• During the ToR phase, we asked the community to provide their input on the criteria and provide a rating (Very Important, Important, Less Important, Not Important), however we received minor feedback. We are therefore requesting participants to provide input on the proposed Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources

• On Table 1, please check the level of importance for each criteria, relative to each other and considering any tradeoffs, and add any additional comments.



page 12

TABLE 1


Environmental

Component Criteria Rationale Indicators Data Sources Criteria Rating Your Comments

Atm

osph

eric

En

viro

nmen

t

Air quality Waste disposal facilities and associated operations can produce gases containing contaminants that degrade air quality if they are emitted to the atmosphere. Construction and operation activities at a waste disposal facility can lead to increased levels of particulates (dust) in the air. Changes in air quality may affect human health.

• Modelled air concentrations of indicator compounds (organics, particulates)

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

• Environment Canada or the Ministry hourly meteorological data and climate normals

• Site studies, reports and air quality monitoring data

• Aerial photographic mapping and field reconnaissance

• Air quality assessment

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important

Noise Construction and operation activities at the facility may result in increased noise levels resulting from the site.

• Predicted site-related noise

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

• Site equipment noise measurements • Aerial photographic mapping and

field reconnaissance • Noise prediction assessment

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important

Odour Continued operation of the waste disposal facility may result in changes in the degree and frequency of odours from the site.

• Predicted odour emissions

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

• Published and odour source data • Environment Canada or the Ministry

hourly meteorological data • Odour complaints history • Aerial photographic mapping and

field reconnaissance • Odour assessment

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important



page 13

TABLE 1


Environmental


Geo

logy

&

Hyd

roge

olog

y Ground-water quality

Contaminants associated with waste disposal sites have the potential to enter the groundwater and impact off-site groundwater or surface water.

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

• Hydrogeological & geotechnical studies • Water well records • Determination of water well users in the

area • Annual Site Monitoring Reports • Proposed leachate control concept designs• Environment Canada Canadian Climate

Normals • Leachate generation assessment

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important

Surf

ace

Wat

er

Res

ourc

es


Contaminants associated with waste disposal sites have the potential to seep or runoff into surface water.

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

• Topographic maps • Air photos • Facility layout and drainage maps and

figures • Proposed on-site stormwater management

concept designs for new landfill footprint alternatives

• Proposed leachate control concept designs for new landfill footprint alternatives

• Annual monitoring reports • Interviews and discussions with WM staff,

the Ministry, Conservation Authorities, & Environment Canada

• Published water quality and flow information from the Ministry, Environment Canada and conservation authorities

• Site reconnaissance • On-site and off-site surface water &

leachate monitoring programs

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important


The construction of physical works may disrupt natural surface drainage patterns and may alter runoff and peak flows. The presence of the facility may also affect base flow to surface water.

• Change in drainage areas;

• Predicted occurrence and degree of off-site effects

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important



page 14

TABLE 1


Environmental


Terr

estr

ial

Envi

ronm

ent


Waste disposal facility construction and operations may remove or disturb the functioning of natural terrestrial habitats and vegetation, including rare, threatened or endangered species.

• Predicted impact on vegetation communities due to project;

• Predicted impact on wildlife habitat due to project; and

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

• Site surveys • Published data sources Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important

Aqu

atic

En

viro

nmen

t Aquatic ecosystems

Waste disposal facility construction and operations may remove or disturb the functioning of natural aquatic habitats and species, including rare, threatened or endangered species.

• Predicted changes in water quality;

• Predicted impact on aquatic habitat due to project; and

• Predicted impact on aquatic biota due to project.

• Site surveys • Published data sources Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important

Arc

haeo

logy

&

Cul

tura

l Her

itage


Cultural/heritage resources could be displaced by the construction of waste disposal facility components. The use and enjoyment of cultural resources may also be disturbed by the ongoing operation.

• Cultural and heritage resources on-site and in vicinity

• Predicted impacts to cultural and heritage resources on-site and in vicinity.

• Published data sources • Stage 1 and Stage 2 (possibly Stage 3 and

4) archaeological and cultural/heritage assessments

• Commemorative statements

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important


Archaeological resources are non-renewable cultural resources that can be destroyed by the construction and operation of a waste disposal facility.

• Presence of archaeological resources on-site; &

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

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important



page 15

TABLE 1


Environmental


Tran

spor

tatio

n

Effects on airport operations

There is the potential for bird strikes for aircraft using Carp Airport.

• Bird strike hazard to aircraft in Local Study Area.

• Transport Canada data sources • Traffic study

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important


Truck traffic associated with the landfill footprint may adversely affect residents, business, institutions & movement of farm vehicles in the site vicinity.

• Potential for traffic collisions;

• Disturbance to traffic operations; and

• Proposed road improvement requirements.

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important

Land

Use

Effects on current and planned future land uses

The facilities may not be fully compatible with certain current and/or planned future land uses. Current land uses (e.g., agriculture) may be displaced by facility development. Waste disposal facilities can potentially affect the use and enjoyment of recreational resources in the vicinity of the site.

• 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.

• Official Plans for the City of Ottawa • Aerial photographic mapping and field

reconnaissance • Published data on public recreational

facilities/ activities • City of Ottawa Zoning • Provincial Policy Statement, 2005

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important


Agricultural land will be displaced by the development of the facility if the facility is located away from the lands currently designated to accommodate waste management facilities.

• Current land use • Predicted impacts on

surrounding agricultural operations;

• Type(s) and proximity of agricultural operations (i.e., organic, cash crop, livestock).

• Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 • Official Plans for the City of Ottawa • Aerial photographic mapping and field

reconnaissance • City of Ottawa Zoning • Canadian Lands Inventory (CLI)

mapping

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important



page 16

TABLE 1


Environmental


Econ

omic

Effects on the cost of services to customers

The costs of continued operation of a waste disposal facility will affect the price of tipping fees, subsequently affecting the cost of service to customers. The greater the air space achieved for a lower capital cost will enable a lower cost of services to be provided.

• Ratio of air space achieved to volume of soil to be excavated and area of cell base and leachate collection system to be constructed

• New landfill footprint alternatives Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important


The Ottawa WMF provides an important and affordable service to its users, particularly in the east end of Ottawa.

• Total optimized site capacity and site life


Important

Less Important

Not Important


The continued use of the facility will provide economic benefits to the local community in the form of new employment opportunities in both the construction and day-to-day operation. This also has the potential for increased employment opportunities in local firms.

• Employment at site (number and duration)

• Opportunities to provide products or services


Important

Less Important

Not Important

Soci

al

Visual impact of the facility

The contours of a waste disposal facility can affect the visual appeal of a landscape.

• Predicted changes in perceptions of landscapes and views

• New landfill footprint alternatives • Site grading plans • Aerial mapping and field

reconnaissance • Visual simulations • Canadian Society of Landscape

Architects reference library • Ontario Horticultural Trades

Association reference manual

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important



page 17

TABLE 1


Environmental


Soci

al

Local Residents Waste disposal facilities can potentially affect local residents in the vicinity of the site

• Number of residents • Aerial mapping • Field reconnaissance

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important

Recreational Facilities

Waste disposal facilities can potentially affect the use and enjoyment of recreational resources in the vicinity of the site.

• Type(s) and proximity of off-site recreational resources within 500 m of landfill footprint potentially affected

• Official Plans for the City of Ottawa • Aerial photographic mapping and

field reconnaissance • Published data on public recreational

facilities/ activities • City of Ottawa Zoning • Provincial Policy Statement, 2005

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important

Abo

rigin

al Potential effects

on Aboriginal communities

The facility construction and operations may adversely affect local aboriginal communities.

• Potential effects on use of lands for traditional purposes

• Discussions with local Aboriginal communities

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important

Site

Des

ign

&

Ope

ratio

ns Site design and

operations characteristics

The characteristics of the existing and proposed site design and engineered system requirements, will affect site activities and operational and maintenance requirements.

• Complexity of site infrastructure

• Operational flexibility

• Existing and proposed site environmental control system designs and operational requirements

• New landfill footprint alternatives and associated phasing of operations

• Potential daily cover and soil/aggregate quantities

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important



page 18


1. Do you understand the need for developing Criteria and Indicators ?

2. In relation to the Criteria areas, what do you value most and why?

3. Are you in agreement with the proposed Evaluation Criteria, Indicators and Data Sources? If not, what would you change? Please provide additional comments and ratings on the attached tables

Appendix B

Notification Material

WEST CARLETON ENVIRONMENTAL CENTRE (WCEC) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) FOR A NEW LANDFILL FOOTPRINT

WORKSHOP #1

Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) recently held a series of Public Open House events to discuss the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed landfill footprint and other ancillary facilities to be located at the West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC). As a follow up to the Open House, we will be hosting a Workshop for stakeholders to discuss this proposed project in greater detail. The workshop is scheduled to take place as follows:

Thursday, February 24th, 2011

Stittsville and District Community Cente – Upstairs Hall 10 Warner‐Colpitts Ln. 7:00p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

The WCEC Workshop #1 is designed to provide an additional avenue for consultation with local residents, businesses, agencies and interested stakeholders. This Workshop will be interactive and will offer an opportunity for participants to identify and develop new landfill footprints and locations for the various WCEC facility components within the unconstrained areas or landfill footprint envelopes identified in the project study area. Your input at this workshop will be reviewed and incorporated by WM and the Project Team in the development of a Recommended Alternative for the new landfill footprint at the WCEC.

To register, please contact Cathy Smithe at (613) 836‐8610 by February 17th, 2011 For further information, please visit our website http://wcec.wm.com

WM are undertaking an EA seeking approval for a new landfill footprint at the existing Ottawa Waste Management Facility (Ottawa WMF). The new landfill footprint will be one component of the proposed WCEC.

The proposed WCEC will be an integrated waste management facility that will include:

• A new landfill footprint for disposal of residual waste materials; • Waste diversion and recycling operations; • Composting Operations; • Renewable energy facilities; and, • Recreational lands for community uses.

WEST CARLETON ENVIRONMENTAL CENTRE (WCEC) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) FOR A NEW LANDFILL FOOTPRINT

WORKSHOP #1

Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WM) recently held a series of Public Open House events to discuss the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed landfill footprint and other ancillary facilities to be located at the West Carleton Environmental Centre (WCEC). As a follow up to the Open House, we will be hosting a Workshop for stakeholders to discuss this proposed project in greater detail. The workshop is scheduled to take place as follows:

Thursday, February 24th, 2011

Stittsville and District Community Cente – Upstairs Hall 10 Warner‐Colpitts Ln. 7:00p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

The WCEC Workshop #1 is designed to provide an additional avenue for consultation with local residents, businesses, agencies and interested stakeholders. This Workshop will be interactive and will offer an opportunity for participants to identify and develop new landfill footprints and locations for the various WCEC facility components within the unconstrained areas or landfill footprint envelopes identified in the project study area. Your input at this workshop will be reviewed and incorporated by WM and the Project Team in the development of a Recommended Alternative for the new landfill footprint at the WCEC.

To reconfirm your attendance, please contact Cathy Smithe at (613) 836‐8610 by February 17th, 2011 For further information, please visit our website http://wcec.wm.com

WM are undertaking an EA seeking approval for a new landfill footprint at the existing Ottawa Waste Management Facility (Ottawa WMF). The new landfill footprint will be one component of the proposed WCEC.

The proposed WCEC will be an integrated waste management facility that will include:

• A new landfill footprint for disposal of residual waste materials; • Waste diversion and recycling operations; • Composting Operations; • Renewable energy facilities; and, • Recreational lands for community uses.

Appendix C Workshop Display Panels

Landfill Footprint Option - West

Landfill Footprint Option - North

Alternative Landfill Footprint OptionsAlternative Landfill Footprint Options

Typical Landfill Cross SectionTypical Landfill Cross Section

Environmental Component Criteria Indicators Criteria Rating

AtmosphericEnvironment

Air quality

Modelled air concentrations of indicator compounds (organics, particulates)Number of off-site receptors potentially affected (residential properties, public facilities, businesses, and institutions)

Very ImportantImportantLess ImportantNot Important

Noise

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


Odour

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


Geology &Hydrogeology

Ground-water quality

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


Surface Water Resources


Predicted effects on surface water quality on-site and off-site. Very ImportantImportantLess ImportantNot Important


Change in drainage areasPredicted occurrence and degree of off-site effects


Terrestrial Environment


Predicted impact on vegetation communities due to project;Predicted impact on wildlife habitat due to project; andPredicted impact of project on vegetation and wildlife including rare, threatened or endangered species.


Aquatic Environment

Aquatic ecosystems

Predicted changes in water quality;Predicted impact on aquatic habitat due to project; andPredicted impact on aquatic biota due to project.


Archaeology & Cultural Heritage


Cultural and heritage resources on-site and in vicinityPredicted impacts to cultural and heritage resources on-site and in vicinity



Presence of archaeological resources on-siteSignificance of on-site archaeology resources potentially displaced/disturbed


Environmental Component Criteria Indicators Criteria Rating

Transportation

Effects on airport operations

Bird strike hazard to aircraft in Local Study Area. Very ImportantImportantLess ImportantNot Important


Potential for traffic collisions;Disturbance to traffic operations; andProposed road improvement requirements.


Land Use

Effects on current and planned future land uses

Current land usePlanned future land useType(s) and proximity of off-site recreational resources within 500 m of landfill footprint potentially affectedType(s) and proximity of off-site sensitive land uses (i.e., dwellings, churches, cemeteries, parks) within 500 m of landfill footprint potentially affected

Very Important

Important

Less Important

Not Important


Current land usePredicted impacts on surrounding agricultural operationsType(s) and proximity of agricultural operations (i.e., organic, cash crop, livestock)


Economic

Effects on the cost of services to customers

Ratio of air space achieved to volume of soil to be excavated and area of cell base and leachate collection system to be constructed.



Total optimized site capacity and site life. Very ImportantImportantLess ImportantNot Important


Employment at site (number and duration)Opportunities to provide products or services


Social

Visual impact of the facility

Predicted changes in perceptions of landscapes and views. Very ImportantImportantLess ImportantNot Important

Local Residents

Number of residents. Very ImportantImportantLess ImportantNot Important

Recreational Facilities

Type(s) and proximity of off-site recreational resources within 500 m of landfill footprint potentially affected.


AboriginalPotential effects on Aboriginal communities

Potential effects on use of lands for traditional purposes. Very ImportantImportantLess ImportantNot Important

Site Design & Operations

Site design and operations characteristics

Complexity of site infrastructureOperational flexibility


Criteria & IndicatorsCriteria & Indicators