Environmental Assessment of the Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion - - PDF document

Welcome Project Information Centre #3 Environmental Assessment

• f the Biggars Lane

Landfill Expansion

1

March 29, 2016

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
• f 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
• f the consultation plan for the EA

3

Overview of Methodology and Proposed Schedule

4

We are here

Main Activities

Develop and Submit Draft Terms of Reference Develop and Submit Final Terms of Reference Minister Approves Terms of Reference Finalize Concepts for Alternative Methods

• f Landfill Expansion

Studies to Confirm Existing Environmental Conditions Construction of Landfill Expansion Detailed Design, ECA Application and Approval MOECC Review Process and EA Approval by Minister Submit Environmental Assessment Report to MOECC If Required, Assess Options for Leachate Management and Treatment, and Identify Preferred Option Identification of Preferred Expansion Alternative Comparative Evaluation of Expansion Alternatives Assess Environmental Impacts

• f Expansion Alternatives

PIC #3 PIC #4 Public Comment

Public and Agency Consultation

TOR PIC #1 June 2012 PIC #2 December 2012 Mid 2016 – Mid 2017 Mid 2017 Fall 2017 Fall 2017 Fall 2017 Draft EA Mid 2017 Final EA Late 2018 Mid 2019 2019 – 2021 2021/2022 May 2015 May 2014

Schedule

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 Existing Landfill Landfill Expansion Alternative 3 East Cell

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 Existing Landfill Landfill Expansion Alternative 4 East Cell

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

Geology and Hydrogeology Which alternative expansion design is preferred for protection

• f groundwater quality?

 Predicted changes in groundwater quality for indicator compounds at the property boundary Surface Water Which alternative expansion design is preferred for protection

• f surface water quality?

 Predicted changes in surface water quality on-site and off-site Which alternative expansion design is preferred with regard to change to surface water quantity?  Predict the need for existing stormwater management infrastructure upgrades to meet O.Reg. 232/98  Predicted occurrence and degree of

• ff-site effects on surface water flows

Natural Environment Which alternative expansion design is preferred with regard to protection of aquatic ecosystems?  Predicted changes in baseflow and surface water quality  Predicted effect on aquatic habitat  Predicted effect on aquatic biota including rare, threatened or endangered species Which alternative expansion design is preferred with regard to protection of terrestrial ecosystems?  Predicted effect on vegetation communities  Predicted effect on wildlife and wildlife habitat  Identification of any sensitive or significant species or their habitat potentially affected (direct or indirect) Atmosphere Which alternative expansion is preferred regarding potential effects to air quality?  Predicted concentrations of indicator compounds at the property boundary and at off-site sensitive receptors Which alternative expansion is preferred regarding potential changes to odour?  Predicted odour emissions at off-site existing sensitive receptors Which alternative expansion is preferred regarding potential changes to noise?  Predicted noise levels beyond the project property boundary and at the discrete off-site sensitive Points of Reception (POR) (existing and vacant lots)

10

Proposed Evaluation Criteria (continued 2 of 3)

Typical Important Components Component Criteria Indicators

Transportation Which alternative expansion design is preferred with respect to potential effects from site-related truck traffic?  Predicted traffic changes and effects

• n roads and intersections in the area of

the site Which alternative expansion design is preferred regarding increased potential for bird attraction?  Determination of distance to an airfield and, if required, predicted flight pattern from roosts to the landfill expansion Land Use Which alternative expansion design is preferred with respect to compatibility with current and proposed planned future land uses

• n and off-site?

 Current land use  Certain and probable planned future land use  Proximity to off-site sensitive land uses (i.e., dwellings, churches, parks) Which alternative expansion design is preferred in terms of the view from off-site?  Predicted changes in landscapes and views  Visibility of project features from selected receptor locations  Level of visual contrast of project features from selected receptor locations Which alternative expansion design is preferred with regard to potential for effects on agriculture?  Percentage of on-site lands with soil capability classes 1 to 3  Amount, type(s) and quality of on-site improvements for agricultural purposes (i.e., structures, tile drainage)  Percentage of on-site land being used for agricultural purposes  Types(s) and extent of agricultural

• perations on-site and off-site,

(i.e., organic, cash crop, livestock) Economic Which alternative expansion design is preferred with regard to potential for effects on the local economy?  Predicted effects to local businesses  Employment at site (number and duration)  Opportunities to provide products or services Which alternative expansion design is preferred regarding the capital,

• peration and maintenance costs

for the landfill expansion?  Predicted capital costs  Predicted operation and monitoring costs for the duration of the active service of the landfill and the on-going post-closure care

11

Proposed Evaluation Criteria (continued 3 of 3)

Typical Less Important Components Component Criteria Indicators

Cultural and Heritage Resources Which alternative expansion design is preferred with regard to heritage resources and the cultural heritage landscape?  Predicted effects to identified cultural landscapes off-site  Predicted effects to the heritage attributes of identified heritage resources Which alternative expansion design is preferred with regard to protection of archaeological resources?  Presence of archaeological resources on- site Technical and Operational Considerations Which alternative expansion design is preferred with regard to landfill gas subsurface migration potential?  Predicted landfill gas subsurface migration distance from landfill footprint and distance to property boundary Which alternative expansion design is preferred with regard to potential to attract vectors and vermin?  Predicted potential for attraction of vectors and vermin Which alternative expansion design is preferred from a geotechnical perspective?  Predicted slope stability, settlement and

• ther geotechnical considerations

Which alternative expansion design is preferred regarding the requirement for operational infrastructure?  Predicted need for leachate collection and associated disposal and/or treatment  Predicted need for landfill gas collection and associated handling

12

Environmental Assessment Studies

• The EA studies that will be undertaken to

satisfy the requirements of the Ontario EA Act (1990) and in accordance with the approved ToR include:

• Geology and Hydrogeology Assessment
• Surface Water Assessment
• Natural Environment Assessment
• Atmosphere Assessment
• Transportation Assessment
• Land Use Assessment
• Economic Assessment
• Technical and Operational Considerations
• Cultural and Heritage Resources Assessment

13

Geology and Hydrogeology

14

The Assessment of Geology and Hydrogeology will evaluate the proposed landfill expansion alternatives in consideration of:

• Groundwater Quality

– Groundwater quality, groundwater flow and groundwater and surface water interaction The geology and hydrogeology assessments will assess predicted changes in groundwater quality for indicator compounds (chloride and other parameters as necessary to calibrate groundwater models and/or as a result of using engineered systems as landfill liners) at the Biggars Lane Landfill property boundary Studies will be undertaken to investigate:

• verburden geology via 19 new boreholes
• hydrogeological properties
• seasonal variation in groundwater levels and flow direction
• soil characteristics that relate to transport of organic and inorganic

landfill leachate parameters in groundwater Data for the assessments will come from the following sources:

• A groundwater sample collection and analysis program, completed
• ver a 12 month period (from existing and new monitoring wells)
• Predictive modelling
• Annual landfill monitoring reports and other site-specific reports
• MOECC water well records
• Environment Canada climate normals
• Published geological, hydrogeological and geotechnical maps and

reports (MOECC, MNRF, Conservation Authority)

• Leachate generation assessment
• Groundwater protection zones identified in the Official Plan

The alternative expansion methods will be compared to identify the most preferred expansion alternative in terms of acceptable changes to groundwater quality.

Surface Water

15

The Assessment of the Surface Water will evaluate the proposed landfill expansion alternatives in consideration of:

• Surface Water Quality

– Effects on surface water quality on-site and off-site

• Surface Water Quantity

– Potential to change on-site surface drainage patterns and alter runoff and peak flows The surface water assessment will identify any potential effects that the landfill expansion may have on surface water quality. It will also identify any requirements for upgrades to existing stormwater management infrastructure to meet O.Reg. 232/98 Data for the assessments will come from the following sources:

• Site surveys and assessments
• Annual landfill monitoring reports
• Site-specific stormwater design reports and assessments
• Published surface water quality and quantity data (MOECC,

Environment Canada and Conservation Authority)

• Facility layout and drainage maps
• Topographic maps
• Predictive stormwater management modelling
• Proposed leachate control concept designs

The alternative expansion methods will be compared to identify the most preferred expansion alternative in terms of acceptable changes to surface water

Natural Environment

16

The Assessment of the Natural Environment will evaluate the proposed landfill expansion alternatives in consideration of:

• Aquatic Ecosystems

– Aquatic habitats and species

• Terrestrial Ecosystems

– Terrestrial habitats, species and vegetation The natural environment assessment will assess potential effects on habitat, vegetation and aquatic and wildlife species, including endangered species or sensitive and significant species in consideration of potential direct and indirect effects Data for the assessments will come from the following sources:

• Site reconnaissance and field surveys
• Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) studies, including

watershed / sub-watershed plans

• Other published data sources (i.e., MOECC, Ministry of Natural

Resources and Forestry (MNRF), Environment Canada)

• Existing site surveys and assessments
• Aerial photography and mapping
• Results of the surface water assessments

The alternative expansion methods will be compared to identify the most preferred expansion alternative in terms of acceptable changes to the natural environment

Atmosphere

The Assessment of Atmospheric Effects will evaluate the proposed landfill expansion alternatives in consideration of:

• Air Quality

– In term of air emissions

• Odour
• Noise

The atmospheric assessment will consider changes to the air quality and odour at the property boundary and off-site sensitive receptors (as applicable). The atmospheric assessment will consider changes to noise levels at off-site sensitive receptors Data for the assessments will come from the following sources:

• Environment Canada or MOECC’s regional air quality data, hourly

meteorological data and climate normals

• Aerial photographic mapping and field reconnaissance
• Published or other accepted emission factors and odour source

data

• Predictive modelling for air quality, odour and noise
• Provincial air regulations and standards, and MOECC air and noise

guidance documents

• Odour and noise complaints history
• Existing site-specific studies and reports

The alternative expansion methods will be compared to identify the most preferred expansion alternative in terms of acceptable changes to atmospheric indicators

17

Transportation

18

The Assessment of Transportation effects will evaluate the proposed landfill expansion alternatives in consideration of:

• Traffic

– Site-related truck traffic on road and intersection level of service

• Birds

– Potential for bird collisions with aircraft Potential effects from traffic are not anticipated to be a discriminator in the evaluation of alternative landfill expansion methods since the expansion is a continuation of existing operations with the same service area. Data for the assessments will come from the following sources:

• Site surveys and assessments
• Traffic count information on potential haul routes from MTO and

municipality

• Historical traffic and collision data
• Information on future infrastructure projects involving long-term

highway/road closures

• Information on any predicted increases in haul traffic from landfill

expansion

• Information from the County’s Transportation Master Plan
• Discussion with Brantford Airport and any local airstrips
• Results of the natural environment avian survey

The alternative expansion methods will be compared to identify the most preferred expansion alternative in terms of Transportation effects.

Land Use Economics

The Assessment of the Land Use Effects will evaluate the proposed landfill expansion alternatives in consideration of:

• Land Uses

– Compatibility with current and proposed planned future land uses on and

• ff-site
• Agriculture

– Actual and/or perceived effects to Agriculture

• Visual Aesthetics

– View from off-site

Data will be compiled from Provincial Policy Statements, Official Plans, Zoning Bylaws, MNRF Digital Surface Models, aerial photographs and satellite imagery, soil mapping and municipal drain mapping, interviews with County of Brant representatives, input from local farmers and residents The alternative expansion methods will be compared to identify the most preferred expansion alternative in terms of land use The Assessment of the Economic Effects will evaluate the proposed landfill expansion alternatives in consideration of:

• Local Economy

— Employment opportunities — Effects to local businesses — Opportunities to provide goods and services during construction and operation

• Capital, Operation and

Maintenance Costs over the entire project lifecycle Data will be compiled for this assessment through publically available desktop research (Statistics Canada, Provincial and Municipal Data), interviews with County of Brant representatives and cost estimates for the Project’s construction, operation and maintenance The alternative expansion methods will be compared to identify the most preferred expansion alternative in terms of economics

19

Cultural and Heritage Resources

20

The Assessment of Cultural and Heritage Resources will evaluate the proposed landfill expansion alternatives in consideration of:

• Cultural Heritage Landscape

– Effects on cultural landscape and heritage resources

• Archaeological Resources

– Potential disturbance by construction activities All work conducted by the cultural and heritage resources component will follow guidance provided in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTSC) Ontario Heritage Toolkit series, as well as other relevant publications such as the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada for the built heritage and cultural landscape criterion. Data for the assessments will come from the following sources:

• On-site archaeological studies in accordance with MTCS standards

and guidelines

• Review of MTCS database
• Published data sources (historic maps, land registry data, census

records, local architectural conservation advisory committee and/or municipal heritage building / district listings)

• Applicable provincial guidance documents
• Engagement with Aboriginal communities and organizations

The alternative expansion methods will be compared to identify the most preferred expansion alternative in terms of acceptable changes to Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Resources

Technical and Operational Considerations

The Assessment of Technical and Operational Considerations will evaluate the proposed landfill expansion alternatives in consideration of:

• Gas Subsurface Migration

— Migration of landfill gas

• Vector and Vermin Attraction
• Geotechnical Considerations

— Predicted slope stability, settlement and other geotechnical considerations

• Operational Infrastructure Requirements

– Infrastructure needed for landfill gas collection system, and for leachate collection system, if required The technical and operational assessment encompass multiple unique

• criteria. The potential for gas subsurface migration, vector and vermin

attraction and operational infrastructure requirements will all be considered in a qualitative way understanding existing landfill conditions and locations

• f proposed expansion alternatives. The geotechnical criteria will be

assessed quantitatively, although all alternatives must be geotechnially stable or they would not present a viable option for expansion Data for the assessments will come from the following sources:

• Site geotechnical assessment involving 19 new boreholes
• Geotechnical reports and published data
• Annual landfill monitoring reports
• Site surveys and assessments
• Data from natural environment surveys
• Vector and vermin occurrence reports and control measures
• Existing Design, Operations and Maintenance Plan
• Landfill gas generation predictions

The alternative expansion methods will be compared to identify the most preferred expansion alternative in terms of Technical and Operational Considerations.

21

Evaluation of Leachate Management and Treatment Options

22

Landfill expansion alternatives 2 and 4 incorporate an engineered base containment design approach, which includes a low permeability base liner and leachate collection system. If landfill expansion alternative 2 or 4 is selected as preferred, only then will the evaluation of leachate management and treatment options be required. The leachate management and treatment options will be evaluated to select the preferred option, in consideration

• f potential effects on:
• Surface Water (quality and quantity)
• Atmosphere (air quality, odour and noise)
• Economics (economic viability)
• Technical Effectiveness (technical feasibility and

leachate volume)

• Transportation (traffic volume and routes for leachate

haulage)

Consultation during the EA Process

• Consultation during the EA Process involves a variety of

activities

• The local community, neighbouring municipalities,

aboriginal communities, government agencies and other interested parties are invited to become involved throughout the Project

• Consultation will take place at a minimum during Project

milestones and will include at a minimum:

• Public Notices in local newspapers
• Two Public Information Centres (PIC #3 and PIC #4)
• Mailings to members of the Communication List
• Information posted on the Project webpage
• You can share your comments by completing the

comment form provided. You can also indicate if you are interested in being added to the Communications List

• Members of the Communications List will have notices

about the Project sent directly to them

• Information will also be posted to the Project website:

http://www.brant.ca/en/explore-our-services/solid- waste-environmental-assessment.asp

23

Next Steps

• Implementation of EA studies in accordance with

approved TOR, including:

• Existing Condition (Baseline) studies
• Impact Assessments
• Identification of Preferred Expansion Alternative

based on the results of the EA studies; identification

• f mitigation measures; identification of advantages

and disadvantages; and development of monitoring and contingency plans

• If required, identification of leachate management

and treatment option

• Public Information Centre # 4: Presentation of the

results of the EA studies and preferred expansion alternative for public comment (late 2017 or early 2018)

• Anticipated overall schedule presented on display

board 4

24

Thank You for Attending

If you have any comments / questions,

• r would like to be added to the

Project Communication List, please complete a comment form.

For additional information please contact:

Matthew D’Hondt, C.E.T. Corporation of the County of Brant 26 Park Avenue, P.O. Box 160 Burford, ON NOE 1AO Telephone: (519) 449-2451 (ext 2204) Fax: (519) 449-3382 email: solidwasteEA@brant.ca Trish Edmond Golder Associates Ltd. 1931 Robertson Road Ottawa, ON K2H 5B7 Telephone: (613) 592-9600 Fax: (613) 592-9601 email: Trish_Edmond@golder.com

25