Environmental Assessment of the Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion - PDF document

Welcome Project Information Centre #3 Environmental Assessment of the Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion March 29, 2016 1

Objectives • Announce the Approval of the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Environmental Assessment (EA) by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) • Notice of Commencement (NOC) of the Environmental Assessment • Present the proposed criteria to evaluate and compare alternative methods of landfill expansion • Present the four (4) proposed alternative methods of landfill expansion • Provide an overview of the EA work plans to identify the preferred method of landfill expansion • Provide opportunity for the public to ask questions and provide their input to the process • Enable interested parties to have their names added to the Communication List for the Project 2

Purpose of the Environmental Assessment (EA) • The purpose of the EA is to select the preferred expansion alternative at the Biggars Lane Landfill property. This will enable the County of Brant to meet their solid waste disposal needs until 2050 • A Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion EA was approved by the MOECC in May 2015 • The County has provided a Notice of Commencement for the Environmental Assessment Study to: • the local community; • neighboring municipalities; • aboriginal communities; • government agencies; and • local newspapers • Todays event, Public Information Centre #3, is part of the consultation plan for the EA 3

Overview of Methodology and Proposed Schedule Main Activities Schedule Develop and Submit Draft Terms of Reference TOR PIC #1 June 2012 Develop and Submit Final Terms of Reference May 2014 PIC #2 December 2012 Minister Approves Terms of Reference May 2015 We are here Studies to Confirm Finalize Concepts for Mid 2016 – PIC #3 Existing Environmental Alternative Methods Mid 2017 Conditions of Landfill Expansion Public and Agency Consultation Assess Environmental Impacts Mid 2017 of Expansion Alternatives Comparative Evaluation of Expansion Alternatives Fall 2017 Identification of Preferred Expansion Alternative Fall 2017 If Required, Assess Options for PIC #4 Leachate Management and Treatment, Fall 2017 and Identify Preferred Option Draft EA Mid 2017 Submit Environmental Assessment Report to MOECC Final EA Late 2018 Public Comment MOECC Review Process and EA Approval by Minister Mid 2019 Detailed Design, ECA Application and Approval 2019 – 2021 2021/2022 Construction of Landfill Expansion 4

Expansion Alternative 1: Engineered Final Cover Landfill Expansion Alternative 1 Existing Landfill Alternative 1 Area: 15.1 hectares Alternative 1 Height: 12 -13 metres 5

Expansion Alternative 2: Engineered Base Containment Landfill Expansion Alternative 2 Existing Landfill Alternative 2 Area: 14.3 hectares Alternative 2 Height: 14 -15 metres 6

Expansion Alternative 3: Engineered Final Cover Landfill Expansion Alternative 3 West Cell Landfill Expansion Alternative 3 East Cell Existing Landfill West Cell East Cell Alternative 3 Area 10.9 hectares 4.7 hectares Alternative 3 Height 12-13 metres 8-9 metres 7

Expansion Alternative 4: Engineered Base Containment Landfill Expansion Alternative 4 West Cell Landfill Expansion Alternative 4 East Cell Existing Landfill West Cell East Cell Alternative 4 Area 11.7 hectares 8.2 hectares Alternative 4 Height 12 metres 11-12 metres 8

Alternative Methods of Leachate Management and Treatment • Leachate is produced when precipitation (rainfall and/or snowmelt) percolates downward through waste and dissolves constituents present in the waste • Leachate management and treatment are only required for landfill expansion alternatives 2 and 4, where there is a proposed bottom liner and leachate collection system • The selection of the preferred expansion alternative is independent from the selection of a preferred leachate treatment option • Leachate management and treatment options: • Option 1 – leachate treatment using the County owned Paris Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP); • Option 2 – leachate treatment using the County owned St. George WPCP; • Option 3 – leachate treatment using both of the County owned Paris and St. George WPCPs; and • Option 4 – on-site treatment, with effluent discharge to the Unnamed Creek on the south portion of property. 9

Proposed Evaluation Criteria • Various aspects or components of the environment will be studied and used to compare the alternative methods of landfill expansion and identify the preferred method • Components have been presented below in an order typical of perceived importance on other projects; however, you are invited to provide input on the criteria and rank the relative importance of the criteria during or after today’s PIC on the comment sheet provided Typical Very Important Components Component Criteria Indicators  Predicted changes in groundwater Which alternative expansion Geology and design is preferred for protection quality for indicator compounds at the Hydrogeology of groundwater quality? property boundary Which alternative expansion  Predicted changes in surface water design is preferred for protection quality on-site and off-site of surface water quality?  Predict the need for existing Surface Water Which alternative expansion stormwater management infrastructure design is preferred with regard to upgrades to meet O.Reg. 232/98  Predicted occurrence and degree of change to surface water quantity? off-site effects on surface water flows  Predicted changes in baseflow and surface water quality Which alternative expansion  Predicted effect on aquatic habitat design is preferred with regard to  Predicted effect on aquatic biota protection of aquatic ecosystems? including rare, threatened or endangered species  Predicted effect on vegetation Natural Environment communities Which alternative expansion  Predicted effect on wildlife and wildlife design is preferred with regard to habitat protection of terrestrial  Identification of any sensitive or ecosystems? significant species or their habitat potentially affected (direct or indirect)  Predicted concentrations of indicator Which alternative expansion is preferred regarding potential compounds at the property boundary effects to air quality? and at off-site sensitive receptors Which alternative expansion is  Predicted odour emissions at off-site preferred regarding potential existing sensitive receptors Atmosphere changes to odour?  Predicted noise levels beyond the Which alternative expansion is project property boundary and at the preferred regarding potential discrete off-site sensitive Points of changes to noise? Reception (POR) (existing and vacant lots) 10

Proposed Evaluation Criteria (continued 2 of 3) Typical Important Components Component Criteria Indicators Which alternative expansion  Predicted traffic changes and effects design is preferred with respect to on roads and intersections in the area of potential effects from site-related the site truck traffic? Transportation Which alternative expansion  Determination of distance to an airfield design is preferred regarding and, if required, predicted flight pattern increased potential for bird from roosts to the landfill expansion attraction?  Current land use Which alternative expansion  Certain and probable planned future design is preferred with respect to compatibility with current and land use  Proximity to off-site sensitive land uses proposed planned future land uses on and off-site? (i.e., dwellings, churches, parks)  Predicted changes in landscapes and views Which alternative expansion  Visibility of project features from selected design is preferred in terms of the receptor locations view from off-site?  Level of visual contrast of project features Land Use from selected receptor locations  Percentage of on-site lands with soil capability classes 1 to 3  Amount, type(s) and quality of on-site improvements for agricultural purposes Which alternative expansion (i.e., structures, tile drainage) design is preferred with regard to  Percentage of on-site land being used potential for effects on agriculture? for agricultural purposes  Types(s) and extent of agricultural operations on-site and off-site, (i.e., organic, cash crop, livestock)  Predicted effects to local businesses  Employment at site (number and Which alternative expansion design is preferred with regard to duration)  Opportunities to provide products or potential for effects on the local economy? services Economic  Predicted capital costs Which alternative expansion design  Predicted operation and monitoring costs is preferred regarding the capital, for the duration of the active service of operation and maintenance costs the landfill and the on-going post-closure for the landfill expansion? care 11