4 Economic Impacts

Terrapure is proud to have received the 2016 Industry Excellence Award for Health & Safety from Natural Resources Magazine.

Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment

Land Use and Economic Detailed Impact Assessment Report DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION

65 Sunray Street, Whitby Ontario L1N 8Y3 Canada 11102771 | Report No 19 | June 198

Table of Contents 1.

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1

Background and Purpose .................................................................................................. 3

1.2

Description of the Preferred Landfill Footprint ................................................................... 4

1.3

Facility Characteristic Report ............................................................................................. 6

1.4

Land Use and Economic Study Team ............................................................................... 6

2.

Study Area .................................................................................................................................... 6

3.

Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 8

4.

Additional Investigations .............................................................................................................. 8

5.

Detailed Description of the Land Use and Economic Environment Potentially Affected ............. 8

6.

5.1

Site Study Area .................................................................................................................. 8

5.2

Local Study Area ................................................................................................................ 9

5.3

Regional Context ............................................................................................................. 11

Net Effects Analysis of the Preferred Landfill Footprint ............................................................. 11 6.1

Land Use Net Effects Analysis ........................................................................................ 11 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 6.1.3.1 6.1.3.2 6.1.4

6.2

Economic Environment Net Effects Analysis ................................................................... 15 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.3.1 6.2.3.2 6.2.4

7.

Potential Effects on Existing Land Uses ......................................................... 11 Potential Effects to Views ............................................................................... 11 Proposed Land Use Mitigation and/or Compensation Measures ................... 11 Proposed Mitigation / Compensation Measures for Existing Land Uses ....... 12 Proposed Visual Mitigation / Compensation Measures .................................. 13 Summary of Net Effects to Land Use ............................................................. 15

Potential Effects to Approved/Planned Land Uses......................................... 15 Potential Effects to Socio-Economic Factors (Economic Benefit to the City of Hamilton and the Local Community)........... 16 Economic Environment Mitigation and/or Compensation Measures.............. 17 Mitigation / Compensation Measures for Approved / Planned Land Uses ..... 17 Proposed Mitigation / Compensation Measures for Economic Factors ......... 19 Summary of Net Effects to the Economic Environment ................................. 19

Climate Change Considerations ................................................................................................ 20 7.1

Potential Effects of the Undertaking on Climate Change ................................................ 20 7.1.1

7.2

Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 20

Effect of Climate Change on the Undertaking ................................................................. 21 7.2.1

Adaptation....................................................................................................... 21

8.

Environmental Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 21

9.

Commitments ............................................................................................................................. 21

10.

Post-Closure Approvals.............................................................................................................. 21

GHD | Draft Land Use and Economic Detailed Impact Assessment Report | 1102771 | i

Figure Index Figure 1.1

Preferred Landfill Footprint ................................................................................................ 5

Figure 2.1

Stoney Creek Regional Facility Site Location and Study Area ......................................... 7

Figure 6.1

View of Current Berm and Fence with Dark Green Privacy Screen on Upper Centennial Parkway .............................................................................................. 14

Figure 6.2

View of Current Vegetation Screening on Green Mountain Road................................... 14

Figure 6.3

Example of Fencing with Hedge Screen ......................................................................... 14

Figure 6.4

Example of Fencing with Live Vegetation ....................................................................... 14

Figure 6.5

Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm (Strata System) ...................................................... 14

Figure 6.6

Green Wall (Greenscreen®) ............................................................................................ 14

Table Index Table 5.1

Proposed Plans of Subdivision Under Review (Post 1996) .............................................. 9

Table 6.1

Land Use – Potential Effects, Proposed Mitigation and Compensation Measures, and Resulting Net Effects .............................................................................. 15

Table 6.2

Economic Environment – Potential Effects, Proposed Mitigation and Compensation Measures, and Resulting Net Effects ...................................................... 20

Appendices Appendix A

Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, Prepared by RIAS Inc. (June 2016)

Appendix B

Preferred Landfill Footprint Visual Renderings and Cross-Sections

GHD | Draft Land Use and Economic Detailed Impact Assessment Report | 1102771 | ii

1.

Introduction This report documents the Land Use and Economic impact assessment of the Preferred Landfill Footprint for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for landfill expansion at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF). In the preceding Alternative Methods phase of the EA, a net effects analysis as well as a comparative evaluation of the six alternative landfill expansion options was carried out in order to identify a Preferred Landfill Footprint. The Preferred Landfill Footprint was determined to be Option #5 – Reconfiguration and Height Increase. The potential environmental effects and impact management measures to address the potential adverse environmental effects, and the remaining net effects following the application of the impact management measures were identified for the Preferred Landfill Footprint.

1.1

Background and Purpose

In March of 2018, the recommended landfill expansion option (Option # 5) was presented to the public, stakeholders and the Government Review Team (GRT) for comments and feedback. Following the stakeholder and agency engagement, the Recommended option was confirmed and Option # 5 became the ‘Preferred’ Landfill Footprint (also referred to as the Preferred Method). Following confirmation of the Preferred Landfill Footprint a detailed impact assessment was carried out. The intent of the impact assessment is to allow for additional details to be developed on the Preferred Landfill Footprint from a design and operations perspective and to then review the impact management measures and resultant net effects described in the Alternative Methods stage within the context of the more detailed design for the Preferred Landfill Footprint. Specifically, the following can be accomplished: • • • • •

Potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty. More site-specific impact assessment measures can be developed for application. Net environmental effects can be identified with more certainty. Appropriate monitoring requirements can be clearly defined. Specific approval/permitting requirements for the proposed undertaking can be identified.

At the completion of the impact assessment of the Preferred Landfill Footprint, the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the Preferred Landfill Footprint will be identified. Climate change mitigation and adaptation measures will also be reviewed as part of the detailed site design established for the Preferred Landfill Footprint. In addition, during the impact assessment stage of the SCRF EA, Terrapure will complete an assessment of the cumulative effects of the proposed undertaking and other non-SCRF projects/activities that are existing, planned/approved or reasonably foreseeable within the Study Area. A Facility Characteristic Report (FCR) for the SCRF has been prepared so that potential environmental effects and mitigation or compensation measures identified for the Preferred Landfill Footprint during the Alternative Methods phase of the EA could be more accurately defined, along with enhancement opportunities and approval requirements. The discipline-specific work plans developed during the Terms of Reference outlined how impacts associated with the Preferred Landfill Footprint would be assessed. The results of these assessments have been documented in the following nine standalone DraftDetailed Impact Assessment Reports:    

Atmospheric including; 1) Air Quality and Odour; and, 2) Noise Geology and Hydrogeology Surface Water Terrestrial and Aquatic

   

Transportation Land Use and Economic Design and Operations Human Health

GHD | Draft Land Use and Economic Detailed Impact Assessment Report | 1102771 | 3

1.2

Description of the Preferred Landfill Footprint

The proposed expansion of the SCRF will increase the overall size of the landfill. Vertical limits will extend higher increasing the peak height by approximately 2.5 m. Horizontal limits will extend further toward the north, back to original approved footprint of the SCRF. The area currently approved to accept industrial fill will be replaced with a base liner system to accept residual material. The proposed layout of the SCRF is presented in Figure 1.1 below. The limits of the base liner system will be expanded back to the original approved footprint of 59.1 ha. The overall Site area of 75.1 ha. will not change. The figure shows the final extent of the landfill area after the final cover has been installed (the Post-Closure phase). Minimum on-Site buffer distances of 30 m will be maintained around the perimeter of the residual material area throughout all phases. On-Site buffers currently extend to approximately 65 m in various areas along the east and south side of the Site, and up to approximately 130 m in the vicinity of the existing stormwater management facility in the northwest corner of the Site. These buffer distances will also be maintained. The proposed expansion of the SCRF will increase the approved capacity by 3,680,000 m 3, resulting in a total Site capacity of 10,000,000 1 m3 for post-diversion, solid, non-hazardous residual material. No changes are being proposed to the maximum approved fill rates of up to 750,000 tonnes of residual material in any consecutive twelve month period, or up to 8,000 tonnes per day. 0F

The SCRF will continue to accept post-diversion, solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material. The SCRF will no longer be approved to accept industrial fill material. The SCRF will continue to accept residual material from sources from within the Province of Ontario. The overall composition of the residual material is expected to remain relatively consistent as the main sources (i.e., steel making industry, soils from infrastructure development projects) will not change. Additional descriptive details on the design of the Preferred Landfill Footprint can be found in the detailed FCR.

1

The total Site capacity may increase to 10,180,000, pending the MOEEC approval of the current ECA Amendment Application noted in the Facility Characteristics Report.


Figure 1.1 Preferred Landfill Footprint


1.3

Facility Characteristic Report

The Facility Characteristic Report (FCR) presents preliminary design and operations information for the Preferred Landfill Footprint (Option #5) and provides information on all main aspects of landfill design and operations, including:     

site layout design including existing and proposed site characteristics; stormwater management; leachate management; landfill gas management; and, landfill development sequence and daily operations.

The FCR also provides estimates of parameters relevant to the detailed impact assessment, including estimates of leachate generation, contaminant flux through the liner system, landfill gas generation, and traffic levels associated with waste and construction materials haulage.

1.4

Land Use and Economic Study Team

The Land Use and Economic study team consisted of GHD staff. The actual individuals and their specific roles are provided as follows:

• • • • • •

2.

Alex Pereira – Environmental Planner Tessa Shimkoff – Waste and Environmental Planner Blair Shoniker – Senior Waste and Environmental Planner Katrina McCullough – Environmental Planner Jessica Hall - Landscape Architect Andy Lovell - Spatial Scientist

Study Area From a Land Use and Economic perspective, the characterization of existing conditions and assessment of net effects within the following Study Areas are appropriate to this EA: •

Site Study Area

•

Local Study Area including all lands within a 1.5 kilometer (km) radius of the Site Study Area boundaries. An inventory of sensitive uses within 500 m of the Site Study Area is also examined.

including all lands (41.5 ha (102.5 acres)) within the existing, approved boundaries of the SCRF, as defined by Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) No. A181008, dated May 16, 2016, as amended. The site retains an additional 18 ha for industrial fill area, as well as an additional 15 ha (approx.) of buffer zone; and

The Land Use Study Areas are illustrated in Figure 2.1 below.


Figure 2.1 Stoney Creek Regional Facility Site Location and Study Area


3.

Methodology The assessment of impacts associated with the Preferred Landfill Footprint was undertaken through a series of steps that were based, in part, on a number of previously prepared reports (Land Use and Economic Existing Conditions Report and Comparative Evaluation Technical Memorandum, Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (Appendix A)). The net effects associated with the Six (6) Alternative Landfill Footprint Options identified during the Alternative Methods phase of the EA were based on Conceptual Designs. These effects were reviewed within the context of the detailed design plans developed for the Preferred Landfill Footprint, as identified in the FCR, to determine the type and extent of any additional investigations required to ensure a comprehensive assessment of net effects. Additional investigations were then carried out, where necessary, in order to augment the previous work undertaken. With these additional investigations in mind, the potential impact on the Land Use and Economic environment of the Preferred Landfill Footprint was documented. With a more detailed understanding of the Land Use and Economic environment developed, the previously identified potential effects and recommended impact management measures associated with the Preferred Landfill Footprint (documented in the Land Use and Economic Comparative Evaluation Technical Report, March 2018) were reviewed to ensure their accuracy in the context of the preliminary design. Based on this review, the potential effects, mitigation or compensation measures, and net effects associated with the Preferred Landfill Footprint were confirmed and documented. In addition to identifying mitigation or compensation measures, potential enhancement opportunities associated with the preliminary design for the Preferred Landfill Footprint were also identified, where possible. Following this confirmatory exercise, the requirement for monitoring in relation to net effects was identified, where appropriate. Finally, any additional approvals required as part of the implementation of the Preferred Landfill Footprint were identified.

4.

Additional Investigations No further investigations were required for this report.

5.

Detailed Description of the Land Use and Economic Environment Potentially Affected The Site and Local study area can be viewed in Figure 2.1. A detailed description of the Site and Local Study Area as it relates to the Land Use and Economic environment is described below.

5.1

Site Study Area

The current land use of the SCRF is designated under the Urban Hamilton Official Plan and is designated as Open Space. The Site is currently zoned as ME-1 under City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92, which is a special designation that permits operations associated with non-hazardous waste from industrial, commercial and institutional sources.


5.2

Local Study Area

Land uses within 500 m of the Site and within the 1500 m Local Study Area are identified and consist of a mix of residential, commercial, institutional, recreational, and agricultural uses. The surrounding Land Uses are described below. Residential The nearest existing residential dwelling is approximately 60 m south of the Site (across Mud Street). Approximately 1,200 existing residential units registered under a plan of subdivision post 1996 are located within 500 m of the Site. These residential properties are primarily located within the Urban Area, as identified in the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (2013). The majority of the existing residential uses within the Local Study Area are located south of the SCRF. Lands to the south consist of existing and proposed phases of the Penny Lane Estates subdivision. In accordance with the City of Hamilton’s filed registered and draft approved plans of subdivision, there are approximately 6,800 residential units both existing and proposed within the preliminary Study Area. Of the approximate 6,800 residential units within the Local Study Area, approximately 5,800 (registered) residential units currently exist. The Preferred Landfill Footprint will not physically extend or impede on the existing residential parcel fabric of the Local Study Area. As such, neighbouring residential uses to the site and within the Local Study Area are not subject to direct physical impact requiring alteration of land or change in land use or zoning. No potential effects to existing residential uses are anticipated. The following development applications within the Local Study Area, as identified in Table 5.1, are currently under review by the City of Hamilton, totally 1176 units. The Preferred Landfill Footprint will not physically extend or impede on these proposed residential developments, as these lands are not subject to direct physical impact requiring alteration of land or change in land use or zoning resulting from the Preferred Landfill Footprint. No potential effects to proposed residential uses are anticipated. Table 5.1

Proposed Plans of Subdivision Under Review (Post 1996) Development

Development Application: 25T- 201503 165 Upper Centennial Parkway

Date Registered 12/22/2014

165 Upper Centennial Parkway

Number of Units Total Units 450

02/11/2015

56 Highland Road West 2 Glover Mountain

Total Units 50 Total Units 6

12/21/2016

15 Ridgeview Drive

11/01/2016

464 First Road West 490 First Road West

Total Units 97 Total Units 135 Total Units 197

50 Green Mountain Road West 157 Upper Centennial Parkway

Total Units 189 Total Units 52

Development Application: 25T-201608 56 Highland Road West Development Application: 25T-201601 2 Glover Mountain Development Application: 25T- 201701 City View Estates Development Application: 25T-201612 Nash Neighbourhood Phase 3 Development Application: 25T-201611 Nash Neighbourhood Phase 2

03/26/2017

Development Application: ZAC-17-077 50 Green Mountain Road West Development Application: ZAC-16-056 157, UHOPA-16-020 Upper Centennial Parkway,

File Year 2017 File Year 2016

11/01/2016

Original Address


Commercial A cluster of 11 existing commercial properties resides within 500 m of the Site, along the arterial roads along Upper Centennial Parkway and Mud Street towards Red Hill Valley Parkway (i.e., Gas station(s), Golf course, Restaurants, Mixed Use, etc.). The locations of these commercial properties are located in both the Urban Area and Rural Area, as identified in the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (2013). The Preferred Landfill Footprint will not physically extend or impede on the existing and/or proposed use and/or operations of the 11 existing commercial facilities within 500m of the Site. As such, the 11 existing commercial facilities are not subject to direct physical impact requiring alteration of land, or change in land use or zoning. No potential effects to existing commercial uses are anticipated. Recreational Heritage Green Community Sports Park, Heritage Green Passive Park, and Heritage Green Community Trust Leash Free Dog Park reside within 500 m of the Site. The Preferred Landfill Footprint will not physically extend or impede on the potential use and/or operations of the recreational facilities within 500 m of the SCRF. As such, these facilities are not subject to direct physical impact requiring alteration of land or change in land use or zoning. Parks and recreational facilities located within the Local Study Area include Felker’s Falls Conservation Area, Dofasco Park, Felker Park, Maplewood Park, and Maplewood Green Park. The Preferred Landfill Footprint will not physically extend or impede on the potential use and/or operations of the recreational uses within the Local Study Area. As such, the recreational uses within the Local Study Area are not subject to direct physical impact requiring alternation of land or change in land use or zoning. No potential effects to existing recreational uses are anticipated. Institutional Institutional uses within 500 m of the Site include St. James the Apostle Catholic Elementary School. This property is not subject to direct physical impact requiring alternation of land or change in land use or zoning. The Local Study Area consists of 15 existing institutional uses, including primary and secondary schools, public facilities and community services. Institutional uses within the Local Study Area are not subject to direct physical impact requiring alternation of land or change in land use or zoning. No potential effects to existing and proposed institutional uses are anticipated. Agricultural Four (4) agricultural properties/parcels are located within 500 m of the Site and are located along Upper Centennial Parkway, between Mud Street and Green Mountain Road, and at the corner of Mud Street. As per the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) soil classifications, the four agricultural properties consist of Class 1, 2, and 6 soils. Soil classes 1 and 2 are described as moderately high to high productivity of common field crops. Soil Class 6 is consistent with severe limitations to soil capabilities. The Preferred Landfill Footprint will not physically extend or impede on the potential use and operations of the four agricultural properties within 500 m of the Site. A total of 41 additional properties within the Local Study Area are currently zoned for agricultural use, as in accordance with City of Hamilton Zoning By-law No. 05-200 and City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92. The Preferred Landfill Footprint will not physically extend or impede on the potential use and operations of the agricultural properties within Local Study Area. No potential effects to existing agricultural uses are anticipated.


5.3

Regional Context

The SCRF is located in the community of upper Stoney Creek in the City of Hamilton and is under the jurisdiction of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan and the City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92. The SCRF is also directly adjacent to areas designated under the Rural Hamilton Official Plan. The SCRF falls within the Nash Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Area designated under the Urban Hamilton Official Plan. The SCRF serves primarily local industry. Approximately 50% of the materials received at the Facility come from industrial operations directly within the City of Hamilton. Overall, more than 93% of the materials received at the facility are generated at locations within the Hamilton and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

6.

Net Effects Analysis of the Preferred Landfill Footprint Identified potential effects and recommended mitigation / compensation measures associated with the Preferred Landfill Footprint were reviewed to ensure their accuracy in the context of the preliminary design of the Preferred Landfill Footprint, based on the more detailed understanding of the Land Use and Economic Environment developed through the additional investigations. With this in mind, the confirmed potential effects, mitigation / compensation measures, and associated net effects are summarized in Tables 6.1 and 6.2, and described in further detail in Sections 6.1 and 6.2.

6.1

Land Use Net Effects Analysis 6.1.1

Potential Effects on Existing Land Uses

For the Preferred Landfill Footprint there is no change to the existing land use or zoning of the SCRF during the SCRF’s operational lifespan. As such, there are no potential effects associated with the Preferred Landfill Footprint relative to the site and adjacent land uses. Therefore, any mitigation measures identified as part of the existing land use criteria are specifically considered in order to address any nuisance related effects to adjacent land uses identified from an air quality, noise and/or traffic perspective. 6.1.2

Potential Effects to Views

As part of the detailed impact assessment on visual components, GHD developed visual renderings and cross sections of the Preferred Landfill Footprint, to confirm the impacts that the Preferred Landfill Footprint may have on existing views as the level of visual impact varies from different locations around the Site. These renderings and cross sections are included in Appendix B. 6.1.3

Proposed Land Use Mitigation and/or Compensation Measures

As there are no potential effects associated with the Preferred Landfill Footprint relative to the site and adjacent land uses, no mitigation measures are required with respect to the existing land use indicator beyond basic landfill operating measures. Impacts to sensitive land uses are not anticipated based on the proposed mitigation measures put forward by other disciplines, including air quality, noise, traffic and human health, therefore existing land uses are considered to have no net effects resulting from the Preferred Landfill Footprint. Mitigation measures are not required for existing land uses within the Local Study Area, since the Preferred Landfill Footprint and relative 30 m buffer requirement is not anticipated to


expand or impede on these properties. Mitigation measures identified relative to the existing land use indicator are established to manage any potential nuisance related effects influenced by site operations relative to noise, air quality (including odour), and traffic, as described in the respective Impact Assessment Reports. Basic landfill operating mitigation measures are described below. Additional details on landfill operations can be found in the FCR. 6.1.3.1

Proposed Mitigation / Compensation Measures for Existing Land Uses

The following mitigation measures for existing land uses within the local study area are only applicable to potential nuisance related effects due to on-site construction and operations: • • •

Maintain buffers for nuisance reduction; Basic landfill operations for nuisance mitigation; and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for nuisance mitigation.

Maintain Buffers for Nuisance Reduction Regulatory requirements specify a minimum on-Site buffer width of 100 m between the limit of the residual footprint and the property boundary, but allow this to be reduced to 30 m if it is shown to be appropriate based on a site specific assessment (e.g., if the buffer provides adequate space for vehicle movements and ancillary facilities, and ensures that potential effects from the Site operations do not have unacceptable impacts outside of the Site). Minimum buffer distances of 30 m are approved and maintained around the entire perimeter of the residual material area. These buffers extend to approximately 65 m in various areas along the east and south sides of the Site, and up to approximately 130 m in the vicinity of the existing stormwater management facility in the northwest corner of the Site. Minimum buffer distances of 30 m will be maintained around the perimeter of the residual material area throughout all phases of site operations. The buffers improve the ability to mitigate potential nuisance effects (e.g., noise, odour, and dust) to surrounding receptors and land uses through physical separation and the implementation of additional Site controls. In addition, the buffer areas are used for the construction of on-Site infrastructure, such as roads, buildings, monitoring systems, maintenance structures, stormwater drainage ditches, visual screening (e.g., fences, earth berms), and vegetation. Basic Landfill Operations for Nuisance Mitigation Landfill design and operations will minimize potential nuisance impacts including noise, litter, vectors, dust, and odour. Typical operating practices relating to these issues will include: •

Vehicles transporting waste to and around the Site will be covered to prevent odour and dust;

•

All materials received at the Site will be verified and recorded to ensure compliance with regulatory conditions;

•

On-Site equipment will be operated in such a manner as to minimize noise and visual impacts wherever possible;

•

All equipment required for the development, operation, or closure of the Site will comply with the noise levels outlined in applicable MOECC guidelines and technical standards;

•

All vehicles leaving the Site will be required to drive through a wheel-wash to minimize track-out of mud/dirt; and,

•

The Site design will include screening features, such as fences, berms and tree plantings, which mitigate visual impact and noise.


Best Management Practices (BMP) for Nuisance Mitigation Landfill operation best management practices and mitigation measures, such as stormwater management pond, landfill liner system, dust and noise control measures will ensure potential effects to land uses are managed and mitigated. More detailed information on BMPs can be found in the Impact Assessment Report. BMP’s relative to potential nuisance effects to existing land uses may include: •

Use of Dust suppressants;

•

Installation of protective fencing;

•

Naturalized landscape features;

•

Erosion and Sediment control (ESC) measures;

•

Leachate Management and Control;

•

Stormwater and Groundwater Management; 6.1.3.2

Proposed Visual Mitigation / Compensation Measures

The Site design will include screening features, such as fences, berms and tree plantings, which mitigate visual impact and noise. Specific screening techniques will be developed further during detailed design to mitigate the visual impact from the surrounding community. Screening techniques will be tailored to site conditions and anticipated visual impact from surrounding vantage points. Screening techniques that are being considered include the following: •

Traditional berms, which currently exist within the buffer on all sides of the SCRF (see Figure 6.1). Traditional berms can be built with a typical slope of 3:1.

•

Vegetation. Currently a single layer of Spruce trees have been planted in several locations within the buffer on the north, south and west sides of the SCRF (see Figure 6.2). Additional vegetation screening could be considered to provide a more naturalistic look through layering, uneven spacing and/or riparian vegetation.

•

Fencing with privacy screen or vegetation. Privacy screen may include coloured mesh screen, which currently exists at several locations within the buffer (see Figure 6.1); or a hedge screen (see Figure 6.3). Alternatively, live vegetation may be used for screening (see Figure 6.4). An exemption would be required from the City of Hamilton Fence By-Law 10-142 if fencing is more than 3 meters.

•

Mechanically stabilized earth berm (see Figure 6.5). Since they are internally reinforced mechanically stabilized earth berms can be built with steeper slopes than traditional berms.

•

Freestanding green wall (see Figure 6.6). Green walls are freestanding structures with integrated vegetation.


Figure 6.1 View of Current Berm and Fence with Dark Green Privacy Screen on Upper Centennial Parkway

Figure 6.2 View of Current Vegetation Screening on Green Mountain Road

Figure 6.3 Example of Fencing with Hedge Screen

Figure 6.4 Example of Fencing with Live Vegetation

Figure 6.5 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Berm (Strata System)

Figure 6.6

Green Wall (Greenscreen®)


6.1.4

Summary of Net Effects to Land Use

Table 6.1, below, summarizes the net effects to the existing land use and views of the facility as derived from the identified potential effects and proposed mitigation / compensation measures relative to the Preferred Landfill Footprint. Table 6.1 Land Use – Potential Effects, Proposed Mitigation and Compensation Measures, and Resulting Net Effects Criteria

Indicators

Potential Effect

Mitigation / Compensation

Net Effects

Effect on existing land use

Current land use

No change to the current land use designation (Open Space / Commercial) and no change to Land Use Zoning (ME-1).

No mitigation measures are required as there are no anticipated change required to existing site-specific and adjacent land uses and zoning of the facility during operation; no change anticipated to existing adjacent land uses as a result of the implementation of the Preferred Landfill Footprint. The following existing mitigation / compensation measures will continue to be in effect: • Maintain Buffers for Nuisance Reduction • In effect nuisance preventative measures for landfill operating practices • Best Management Practices for landfill operations

No change in current site-specific and study area land uses

Effect on views of the facility

Predicted changes in views of the facility from the surrounding area

Slight height increase and property buffers are maintained. Visibility increased mostly for sensitive receptors and properties adjacent to site including residential dwellings to South on Green Mountain Rd. as well as homes along Mud Street.

Maintaining the existing screening berms and fencing will assist with visual screening from residential areas, but will not be able to mitigate views completely. Additional screening guards and vegetation can be implemented to mitigate views for sensitive receptors. Progressive capping of the landfill will assist in revegetating areas as the site is of the site to create a natural look

Installation of visual screening elements will sufficiently obscure a majority of views of the facility from sensitive receptors. Relative to the existing conditions, the changes are minimal.

6.2

Economic Environment Net Effects Analysis 6.2.1

Potential Effects to Approved/Planned Land Uses

Located within 500 m of the Site are several planned residential and institutional uses. The net effects of the Preferred Landfill Footprint on these planned land uses, relative to potential economic implications, is further assessed, as follows: Residential The closest residential dwelling (currently under construction) is located approximately 35 m north of the Site. There are currently four (4) draft approved plans of subdivision within the Local Study Area, as well as eight (8) proposed plans of subdivision currently under municipal review, totaling approximately 2,100 future residential units to be developed within the Local Study Area. This includes a development application (ZAC-17-077) to re-zone 50 Green Mountain Road West from ND (Neighbourhood Development) to RM-3 (Multiple Residential). The effects on approved/planned and proposed residential uses within the Local Study Area is contingent on direct physical impact requiring alteration of land or change in land use or zoning required as a result of the landfill footprint considered. However, landfill


footprint the Preferred Landfill Footprint, and relative 30 m buffer, will not physically extend or impede on planned residential uses. Therefore, no net effects to the physical property of planned and proposed residential uses resulting from the Preferred Landfill Footprint are anticipated. Further, application of landfill operation best management practices and mitigation measures from other environmental components (i.e., noise, dust, traffic) will ensure there are no net effects causing physical disturbance to future planned residential land uses, as well as minimal nuisance related effects to future planned residential land uses. Institutional In accordance with the Nash Neighbourhood Secondary Plan, an institutional land use designation is present at the northwest corner of Green Mountain Road West and First Road West (435 First Road West). This land is reserved for the future development of a school (zoned Neighbourhood Institutional (I1), as approved by council on November 11, 2015, By-law No. 15-260); however, at this time the property is owned by a developer. The Preferred Landfill Footprint will not physically extend or impede on the potential future use and/or operation of 435 First Road West. As such, no potential effects to the physical location or site alteration of this property resulting from the Preferred Landfill Footprint are anticipated. Further, application of landfill operation best management practices and mitigation measures from other environmental components (i.e., noise, dust, traffic) will ensure there are no net effects causing physical disturbance to future planned institutional land uses, as well as minimal nuisance related effects to future planned institutional land uses. Summary of Potential Effects on Approved/Planned Land Uses In regards to the economic indicators, specifically the potential effect on approved/planned land uses including; number, extent, and type of approved/planned land uses affected, the Preferred Landfill Footprint results in no potential, and therefore no net effects. Landfill operation best management practices and mitigation measures such as; storm water management pond, landfill liner system, dust and noise control measures will ensure potential effects to land uses are appropriately managed and mitigated. The Preferred Landfill Footprint will not result in a change to proposed land uses within the Site or Local Study Area. Therefore, there are no net effects and no mitigation measures required for approved/planned land uses. However, any mitigation measures identified as part of the planned / approved land use criteria are specifically considered in order to address any potential nuisance related effects to planner or approved land uses within the Local Study Area, as identified from an air quality, noise and/or traffic perspective. 6.2.2

Potential Effects to Socio-Economic Factors (Economic Benefit to the City of Hamilton and the Local Community)

In regards to the potential economic benefit to the City of Hamilton and local community, specifically in regards to total economic activity, city and community compensation and employment at the Site, the Preferred Landfill Footprint will result in positive socio-economic effects. An economic impact assessment was completed in 2017 (RIAS Inc.) regarding the reconfiguration and vertical expansion of the SCRF and the potential output to the local economy. Based on the historical fill rate, it was determined that the current SCRF site generates $28.7 million in economic activity in the Hamilton area, adding $17.9 million in GDP and 51 jobs for local workers. Based on the current configuration and remaining lifespan, the SCRF will generate between $94 and $104 million in total economic activity and 164 to 190 local jobs. It was concluded in the assessment that if an expansion of 3.68 million m3 of residual material was approved, total economic activity is expected to range between $349 and $372 million, with GDP from


$218 million to $232 million and an estimated total jobs between 662 and 671 (RIAS Inc., 2017). Further, the Preferred Landfill Footprint would allow for Terrapure to realize the economic opportunity for the SCRF (i.e., increase the capacity by 3.68 million m3) would ensure maximum return with respect to the compensation agreements ($ per tonne). The Preferred Landfill Footprint results in high positive potential effects as the Preferred Landfill Footprint allows for potential capacity of 3.68 million m3 of residual material. The Preferred Landfill Footprint would allow for an increase in capacity at the SCRF and meets the economic opportunity for Terrapure to allow for a 3.68 million m3 increase in capacity. The Preferred Landfill Footprint would result in total economic activity of $349 million to $372 million, with GDP from $218 million to $232 million. The economic benefits to the City and local community are high as the City and community compensation has the potential to add up to $14 Million based on the current $ per tonne agreements. Employment opportunities at the site would be increased as a result of the Preferred Landfill Footprint, based on the operational requirements. The Preferred Landfill Footprint results in additional staffing requirements of 15 full-time equivalents on site during operation and post-closure monitoring, as required for approximately 250 years. Based on the land use, Terrapure pays a higher property tax rate than for lands that would be zoned open space recreational (which is the future anticipated land use). In 2011, Terrapure paid $339,028 in property taxes, while in 2017 Terrapure paid $584,021 in property taxes. 6.2.3

Economic Environment Mitigation and/or Compensation Measures

As mentioned above, the Preferred Landfill Footprint will not result in any negative effects to the Economic environment, and therefore no mitigation measures beyond the basic landfill operating measures will be required. Impacts to land uses are not anticipated based on the proposed mitigation measures put forward by other disciplines, including air quality, noise, traffic and human health, therefore existing land uses are considered to have no net effects resulting from the Preferred Landfill Footprint. Mitigation measures identified relative to the existing land use indicator are established to manage any potential nuisance related effects influenced by site operations relative to noise, air quality (including odour), and traffic, as described in the respective Impact Assessment Reports. Basic landfill operating mitigation measures are described below. Additional details on landfill operations can be found in the FCR. In addition, the City will continue to be paid property taxes that are higher than the future anticipated land use (open space recreational). . 6.2.3.1

Mitigation / Compensation Measures for Approved / Planned Land Uses

The following mitigation measures for approved / planned land uses within the local study area are only applicable to potential nuisance related effects due to on-site construction and operations: •

Encourage Surrounding Land Use Development

•

Encourage buffers for nuisance reduction;

•

Encourage minimum setback distances for residential development;

•

Basic landfill operations for nuisance mitigation; and

•

Best Management Practices (BMPs) for nuisance mitigation.

Encourage Surrounding Land Use Development Lands surrounding the Site are expected to continue to include a mix residential, commercial, and recreational uses. Additional development is anticipated in the area to the northwest of the Site, and


possibly to the east of the Site in the future. Existing residential lands to the south of the Site are expected to remain relatively unchanged. Additional recreational facilities may be established in the existing park to the west of the Site. Off-Site separation distances are expected to remain similar to current conditions in areas to the north, south, and west of the Site over all phases. Current separation distances to the east of the Site may change if development of the existing properties occurs in the future. Encourage Buffers for Nuisance Reduction Regulatory requirements specify a minimum on-Site buffer width of 100 m between the limit of the residual footprint and the property boundary, but allow this to be reduced to 30 m if it is shown to be appropriate based on a site specific assessment (e.g., if the buffer provides adequate space for vehicle movements, ancillary facilities, and ensures that potential effects from the Site operations do not have unacceptable impacts outside of the Site). Minimum buffer distances of 30 m are approved and maintained around the entire perimeter of the residual material area. These buffers extend to approximately 65 m in various areas along the east and south sides of the Site, and up to approximately 130 m in the vicinity of the existing stormwater management facility in the northwest corner of the Site. Minimum buffer distances of 30 m will be maintained around the perimeter of the residual material area throughout all phases of site operations. The buffers improve the ability to mitigate potential nuisance effects (e.g., noise, odour, and dust) to surrounding receptors and land uses through physical separation and the implementation of additional Site controls. In addition, the buffer areas are used for the construction of on-Site infrastructure such as roads, buildings, monitoring systems, maintenance structures, stormwater drainage ditches, visual screening (e.g., fences, earth berms), and vegetation. Encourage Minimum Setback Distances for Residential Development In addition to the on-site buffers noted above, separation from surrounding developments and land uses is also achieved through road allowances and setbacks for other developments required in accordance with local planning by-laws. The following provides a general overview of the setbacks to surrounding developments: •

The closest residential dwelling (currently under construction) to the north is situated approximately 35 m from the property line.

•

The closest residential dwelling to the east is situated approximately 150 m from the property line.

•

The closest residential dwelling to the south is situated approximately 60 m from the property line.

•

The closest residential dwelling to the west is situated approximately 795 m from the property line.

Basic Landfill Operations for Nuisance Mitigation Landfill design and operations will minimize potential nuisance impacts including noise, litter, vectors, dust, and odour. Typical operating practices relating to these issues will include: •

Vehicles transporting waste to and around the Site will be covered to prevent odour and dust;

•

All materials received at the Site will be verified and recorded to ensure compliance with regulatory conditions;


•

On-Site equipment will be operated in such a manner as to minimize noise and visual impacts wherever possible;

•

All equipment required for the development, operation, or closure of the Site will comply with the noise levels outlined in applicable MOECC guidelines and technical standards;

•

All vehicles leaving the Site will be required to drive through a wheel-wash to minimize track-out of mud/dirt; and,

•

The Site design will include screening features, such as fences, berms and tree plantings, which mitigate visual impact and noise.

Best Management Practices (BMP) for Nuisance Mitigation Landfill operation best management practices and mitigation measures such as; storm water management pond, landfill liner system, dust and noise control measures will ensure potential effects to land uses are managed and mitigated. More detailed information on BMPs can be found in the Impact Assessment Report. BMP’s relative to potential nuisance effects to existing land uses may include; •

Use of Dust suppressants;

•

Installation of protective fencing;

•

Naturalized landscape features;

•

Erosion and Sediment control (ESC) measures;

•

Leachate Management and Control;

•

Stormwater and Groundwater Management;

6.2.3.2

Proposed Mitigation / Compensation Measures for Economic Factors

As a result of high positive potential effects to economic factors, as well as economic benefits resulting from the Preferred Landfill Footprint, mitigation and compensation measures are not required. Positive net effects are anticipated as a result of the implementation of the Preferred Landfill Footprint. 6.2.4

Summary of Net Effects to the Economic Environment

Table 6.2, below, summarizes the net effects to the Economic environment as derived from the identified potential effects and proposed mitigation / compensation measures relative to the Preferred Landfill Footprint.


Table 6.2 Economic Environment – Potential Effects, Proposed Mitigation and Compensation Measures, and Resulting Net Effects Criteria

Indicators

Potential Effect

Effect on approved/planned land uses

Number, extent, and type of approved/planned land uses affected

Approximately 1,200 residential dwellings, 11 commercial units, 4 agricultural properties, 1 recreational, 1 institutional within 500 m of site. No anticipated effects to these land uses through various landfill operation mitigation measures.

Economic benefit to the City of Hamilton and the local community

Employment at site (number and duration)

Expansion and reconfiguration would result in maximum increase of jobs and increase to economy and GDP (Range of economic activity between $349 and $372 million with GDP from $218-$232 million and between 662671 jobs) Property taxes paid to City at a higher rate will continue

7.

Mitigation / Compensation

Net Effects

No mitigation measures are required as there is no anticipated change required to existing site-specific and adjacent land uses and zoning of the facility during operation; no change anticipated to existing adjacent land uses as a result of the implementation of the Preferred Landfill Footprint. Basic landfill operation mitigation measures including; storm water management, leachate treatment, dust and noise control will assist in mitigating effects to surrounding properties. The following existing mitigation / compensation measures will continue to be in effect: • Maintain Buffers for Nuisance Reduction • In effect nuisance preventative measures for landfill operating practices • Best Management Practices for landfill operations

No net effects to approved/planned land uses.

No mitigation or compensation measures are required.

Positive economic benefits to local community. Meets Disposal objectives.

Climate Change Considerations 7.1

Potential Effects of the Undertaking on Climate Change 7.1.1

Mitigation

Aside from the use of basic landfill operation best management practices (BMPs), mitigation as it relates to Land Use and Economic factors are not required. Therefore, no net effects are anticipated, which will not affect or mitigate effects to climate change. Nuisance related effects relative to air quality and noise with respect to land use and the economic environment, will be mitigated as identified in Section 6.


7.2

Effect of Climate Change on the Undertaking 7.2.1

Adaptation

It is not expected that climate change will effect Land Use or Economic environment. For example, extreme weather events as related to climate change are not expected to have any impact on surrounding land uses/planned uses and will not affect the operations/lifespan of the landfill. Therefore, the effects of climate change should not have any negative land use or economic impacts.

8.

Environmental Monitoring The current environmental monitoring programs identified in the FCR (i.e., leachate, groundwater, surface water, landfill gas) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) will continue over the life of the Site. Existing methods and protocols may need to be amended periodically to accurately reflect Site conditions. Confirmatory monitoring programs will continue to be documented in the Annual Monitoring Report.

9.

Commitments Commitments relative to the implementation of visual screening measures. The Site design will include screening features, such as fences, berms and tree plantings, which mitigate visual impact and noise. Specific screening techniques will be developed further during detailed design to mitigate the visual impact from the surrounding community. Screening techniques will be tailored to site conditions and anticipated visual impact from surrounding vantage points.

10.

Post-Closure Approvals A Zoning By-law Amendment will be required for the site, post-closure of the SCRF. The current in-effect zoning of the site, as identified in the City of Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92, is ME-1 (Extractive Industrial), which is permitted for operations associated with non-hazardous waste from industrial, commercial, and institutional sources. The intended future use of the site, as identified in the City of Hamilton Nash Neighbourhood Secondary Plan under the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, is Open Space / Parkland. A Zoning By-law Amendment will be required to facilitate the change in use of the site, which will be initiated by the property owner of the site at the time of post-closure of the SCRF.


Appendices

GHD | Draft Land Use and Economic Detailed Impact Assessment Technical Report | 11102771

Appendix A Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility, Prepared by RIAS Inc. (June 2016)


Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility

Prepared for:

June 2016


June 2016

Contents 1 Purpose of this Report .................................................................................................................. 2 2 Background .................................................................................................................................. 2 3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 2 3.1

Analytical Scenarios ......................................................................................................... 3

3.2

Key Parameters Used in the Analysis ............................................................................... 4

4 Economic Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 5 4.1

Economic Impacts of the SCRF Site – Current Configuration ......................................... 5

4.2

Economic Impacts of the SCRF Site – With Re-configuration ........................................ 6

5 Assessment of Alternative Sites ................................................................................................... 7 5.1

Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites............................................................................. 7

5.2

Environmental Impacts of Alternative Sites ................................................................... 10

6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 12

List of Tables Table 1: Fill Rate and Site Lifespan Scenarios ................................................................................. 3 Table 2: I-O Multipliers by Sector .................................................................................................... 4 Table 3: Transportation and Disposal Costs by Site ......................................................................... 4 Table 4: Share of Wastes and Distances to Sites by City (km) ........................................................ 4 Table 5: Hamilton and Area Regional Economic Impacts - Current SCRF Configuration.............. 5 Table 6: Ontario-wide Economic Impacts - Current SCRF Configuration ...................................... 6 Table 7: Hamilton and Area Regional Economic Impacts ............................................................... 6 Table 8: Ontario-wide Economic Impacts ........................................................................................ 7 Table 9: Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites on All Sectors ($000) ........................................... 8 Table 10: Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites on Non-Residential Construction ($000) ........... 9 Table 11: Cost Impacts of Alternative Sites on Waste Management and Remediation ($000) ....... 9 Table 12: Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites on Steel Manufacturing ($000) ........................ 10 Table 13: Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites on Petroleum Refining ($000) ......................... 10 Table 14: Increases in GHGs for Transportation of Wastes to Alternative Sites ........................... 11 Table 15: Best and Worst Case Environmental Impacts of Alternative Sites ................................ 11

1


June 2016

1 Purpose of this Report This report provides an analysis of the economic impact of the current configuration and proposed reconfiguration of Terrapure Environmental’s Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF) on the regional economy of Hamilton and the Ontario economy.

2 Background Terrapure Environmental is proposing to reconfigure its SCRF site to replace their current requirement to bring in industrial soil or “fill” with post-diversion solid, non-hazardous industrial residual materials while continuing to serve Stoney Creek and the Greater Hamilton area. The existing SCRF site is located in the community of upper Stoney Creek, and serves primarily local industry. Approximately 50% of the materials received at the facility come from industrial operations directly within the City of Hamilton. Overall, more than 93% of the materials received at the facility are generated at locations within the Hamilton and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The total approved capacity at the existing SCRF site is 6,320,000 m3 with an approved fill rate of 750,000 tonnes per year. Over the last 19 years, the site has consistently accepted industrial waste at an average rate of 540,000 tonnes per year, and 700,000 tonnes on average over the past 5 years. The existing SCRF is expected to reach its approved capacity for solid, non-hazardous residual materials in the next 3 to 5 years. The site is also permitted to accept Table 3 materials (soil fill) and it is anticipated that due to market conditions, it would take a further 12-17 years for the site to reach maximum capacity for this material. Terrapure proposes to reconfigure the site to enable the SCRF to accommodate an additional 3,680,000 m3 of solid, non-hazardous industrial residual materials, which would bring the total overall waste capacity to 10,000,000 m3.

3 Methodology Estimates of the economic impacts of the SCRF site have been developed using input-output modeling analysis (I-O). The analysis employs I-O multipliers for the Ontario economy from Statistics Canada’s Provincial Input-Output Multipliers - GDP components, 2010 (Industries, Detailed (D) aggregation). These factors have been adjusted to reflect the regional economy of the Greater Hamilton Area using additional Statistics Canada data for census metropolitan areas (CMAs). There are three levels of economic impacts captured in I-O modeling: • Direct effects – the direct impacts on an industry given the output shock to the industry. 2


• •

June 2016

Indirect effects – the effects on other industries which supply commodities to the impacted industry. Induced effects – the effect of the change in labour income caused by the output shock on the demand for final goods and services.

Several economic measures from I-O modeling include total economic activity generated, and contribution to GDP, total employment and labour income. Additional measures are also calculated, such as municipal property taxes, fees and royalties paid, as well as provincial income and corporate taxes. The direct, indirect and induced impacts of Terrapure’s planned reconfiguration of the SCRF site are then estimated, and compared to the economic impacts for a range of possible alternative sites for waste disposal. This analysis assesses and compares implications for various sectors (e.g. steel production, construction/infrastructure projects, construction/real estate development, waste management) operating in the Greater Hamilton, GTA region and surrounding areas. Finally, the potential environmental impacts of transporting waste to alternative sites, such as increased GHG emissions and other environmental measures (NOx, VOC-Ozone, SOx, PM2.5, CFC + HFCs, other air toxics) are estimated using the GHGenius model, version 5.0 for Ontario. 1 0F

3.1

Analytical Scenarios

The economic impacts of the SCRF site are examined assuming fill rates of 600,000, 700,000 and 750,000 tonnes per year. These different fill rates affect the lifespan of the site to reach the proposed additional capacity of 3,680,000 m3 of material. It is important to note that the lifespan for our analysis only relates to the additional capacity for solid, non-hazardous industrial waste, not the additional years that the site would be permitted to accept Table 3 (soil fill) materials 2 to establish appropriate final grades at the site. 1F

Table 1: Fill Rate and Site Lifespan Scenarios Fill rate (tonnes/yr) 600,000 700,000 750,000

Lifespan for Existing Configuration 2016 - 2019 2016 - 2018 2016 - 2018

Lifespan for Re-Configured Site 2020 - 2031 2019 - 2029 2019 - 2028

Total Lifespan

16 years 14 years 13 years

1 The GHGenius model, developed for Natural Resources Canada, focuses on the life cycle assessment (LCA) of current and future fuels for transportation applications for three impact categories: primary greenhouse gases, criteria pollutants from combustion sources and the energy used. The specific categories measured in the model include greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC-12), and Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC-134a), as well as other air contaminants: Carbon monoxide (CO), Nitrogen oxides (NOx), Non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs), Sulphur dioxide (SO2), and total particulate matter. 2 Fill materials that meet Table 3 criteria of the Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA). 3


3.2

June 2016

Key Parameters Used in the Analysis

This section provides a summary of the key data and parameters used in the analysis. The I-O multipliers used to estimate the direct, indirect and induced economic impacts of the SCRF site are summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2: I-O Multipliers by Sector Direct Output

GDP

Direct + Indirect + Induced / Direct

Jobs

Income

Output

GDP

Jobs

Income

Waste Management

1.00

0.65

5.04

0.27

1.61

1.51

1.69

1.70

Iron and Steel Mills

1.00

0.17

2.03

0.19

1.69

3.17

2.72

2.11

Non-residential Construction

1.00

0.47

6.35

0.39

1.82

1.97

1.72

1.68

1.00 0.09 0.19 0.03 1.30 2.51 Source: Statistics Canada’s Provincial Input-Output Multipliers - GDP components, 2010

7.33

4.03

Petroleum Refineries

Transportation and disposal costs for alternative sites are summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Transportation and Disposal Costs by Site Sites SCRF Walker Industries - Atlas Landfill Waste Management Solutions - Twin Creeks Landfill Waste Management Solutions - Petrolia Landfill Progressive Waste Solutions - Ridge Landfill Waste Services Inc. - Navan Road Landfill LaFleche - Eastern Landfill Republic Services - Carleton Farms Landfill Modern Corporation - Modern Landfill

Transportation Costs $/km $0.1125 $0.1120 $0.1000 $0.1000 $0.1066 $0.0761 $0.0716 $0.0716 $0.1120

Disposal Costs $/tonne $45.00 $30.00 $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 $25.36 $39.11

Source: Terrapure Environmental

Table 4 shows a breakdown of the source of waste for the SCRF site by city, as well as the distances from these waste sources to various landfill sites.

Share of waste for SCRF site

Other Cities and Towns

Brantford

Oakville

Guelph

Mississauga

Nanticoke

Toronto and Scarborough

Hamilton

Table 4: Share of Wastes and Distances to Sites by City (km)

49%

23%

3.5%

2.7%

2.4%

2%

1.8%

15%

16

80

71

55

70

40

55

58.2

Distances SCRF Walker Industries - Atlas Landfill

80

135

76

110

114

99

119

103.6

Waste Management Solutions - Twin Creeks

206

250

194

229

178

214

152

193.4

Waste Management Solutions - Petrolia Landfill

217

280

225

260

200

245

188

223.6

Progressive Waste Solutions - Ridge Landfill

231

300

238

300

222

260

192

242.4

Waste Services Inc. - Navan Road Landfill

531

420

544

480

540

500

530

518.8

4


June 2016

LaFleche - Eastern Landfill

525

450

575

470

526

483

600

530.8

Republic Services - Carleton Farms Landfill

317

428

370

410

370

390

330

374

80

136

126

120

130

101

122

119.8

Modern Corporation - Modern Landfill

Source: RIAS Inc. estimates from city centres using Google Maps

4 Economic Impacts 4.1

Economic Impacts of the SCRF Site – Current Configuration

Based on the historical fill rate of 559,000 tonnes per year, the SCRF site generates $28.7 million in economic activity in the Hamilton area, adding $17.9 million in GDP, 51 jobs and almost $2.6 million in wages for local workers. Average annual taxes, fees and royalties amount to more than $2 million. Over the remaining lifespan of the current configuration, the SCRF site will generate between $94 million and $104 million in total economic activity in the Hamilton area, between $59 million and $65 million in GDP, and 164 to 190 jobs for local workers, earning a total of $8.4 million to $9.6 million in wages. Total taxes, fees and royalties paid by the SCRF site locally will amount to $6.2 million to $7.3 million. Table 5: Hamilton and Area Regional Economic Impacts - Current SCRF Configuration Average Annual Impact Fill rate: 559,000 Economic Impacts (direct, indirect and induced)

PV Impact Over the Remaining Lifespan of the SCRF site 600,000 700,000 750,000

Total Economic Activity ($ 000s)

$28,737

$104,477

$94,436

$101,182

GDP ($ 000s)

$17,943

$65,235

$58,966

$63,178

51

190

164

173

$2,587

$9,595

$8,351

$8,836

Property Taxes ($000s)

$423

$1,434

$1,111

$1,111

Heritage Green Community Trust ($000s)

$559

$2032

$1,837

$1,968 $1,968

Jobs (Total FTEs person years) Labour Income ($ 000s) Taxes and Fees

City Royalties ($000s)

$559

$2,032

$1,837

Sewer Discharge ($000s)

$536

$1,815

$1,406

$1,406

$2,077

$7,314

$6,191

$6,454

Total taxes, fees and royalties

Source: RIAS Inc. I-O model. Present value calculated at a 7% discount rate

Table 6 shows the overall impacts of the current configuration of the SCRF site on the Ontario economy. Based on the historical fill rate of 559,000 tonnes/year, the SCRF site generates over $35 million in economic activity in Ontario, adds more than $21 million in GDP, creates 89 jobs and $4.6 million in wages for workers.

5


June 2016

Table 6: Ontario-wide Economic Impacts - Current SCRF Configuration Average Annual Impact Fill rate: 559,000 Economic Impacts (direct, indirect and induced)

PV Impact Over the Remaining Lifespan of the SCRF site 600,000 700,000 750,000


$35,473

$128,969

$116,575

$124,902

GDP ($ 000s)

$21,605

$78,547

$70,998

$76,070

89

329

289

307

$4,651

$17,099

$15,133

$16,102

Income Taxes – Ontario ($000s)

$443

$1,630

$1,443

$1,535

Corporate Taxes – Ontario ($000s)

$195

$710

$641

$687

Total taxes

$639

$2,340

$2,084

$2,222

Jobs (Total FTEs person years) Labour Income ($ 000s) Taxes


Over its remaining lifespan, the SCRF site will generate between $117 million and $129 million in total economic activity in Ontario, between $71 million and $79 million in GDP, and 289 to 329 jobs for Ontario workers, earning a total of $15 million to $17 million in wages. Total personal and corporate income taxes paid to the Ontario government is estimated to amount to between $2 million and $2.3 million. 4.2

Economic Impacts of the SCRF Site – With Re-configuration

Table 7 shows the economic impacts, taxes and fees in the Hamilton area for the reconfigured SCRF site. Values are expressed in present value over the remaining lifespan of the reconfigured facility at various fill rates. Total economic activity generated in the Hamilton area by the site is expected to range from $349 million to $372 million, with GDP from $218 million to $232 million. Total jobs created in the Hamilton area is estimated to be between 662 and 671, earning wages of around $33.5 million. Total taxes, fees and royalties paid would be between $23.7 and $24.5 million. Table 7: Hamilton and Area Regional Economic Impacts Fill rate: Economic Impacts (direct, indirect and induced)

PV Impact of the Re-configured SCRF Site 600,000 700,000 750,000


$349,464

$364,277

$371,980

GDP ($ 000s)

$218,204

$227,453

$232,263

671

665

662

$33,465

$33,483

$33,513

Property Taxes ($000s)

$4,798

$4,287

$4,085

Heritage Green Community Trust ($000s)

$6,798

$7,086

$7,236

Jobs (Total FTEs person years) Labour Income ($ 000s) Taxes and Fees

6

Economic Impacts of the Stoney Creek Regional Facility City Royalties ($000s)

$6,798

June 2016 $7,086

$7,236

Sewer Discharge ($000s)

$6,071

$5,424

$5,169

Total taxes, fees and royalties

$24,464

$23,883

$23,727


Ontario-wide impacts are shown in Table 8. Total economic activity generated across Ontario by the reconfigured site would be from $431 million to $459 million, with GDP from $263 million to about $280 million. Table 8: Ontario-wide Economic Impacts Fill rate: Economic Impacts (direct, indirect and induced)

PV Impact of the Re-configured SCRF Site 600,000 700,000 750,000


$431,388

$449,674

$459,182

GDP ($ 000s)

$262,731

$273,867

$279,658

1,134

1,148

1,155

$58,563

$59,645

$60,228

Income Taxes – Ontario ($000s)

$5,583

$5,686

$5,742

Corporate Taxes – Ontario ($000s)

$2,374

$2,474

$2,526

Total taxes

$7,957

$8,160

$8,286

Jobs (Total FTEs person years) Labour Income ($ 000s) Taxes


Total number of jobs created in Ontario is estimated to be between 1,134 and 1,155, earning wages of $58.6 million to $60.2 million. Total personal and corporate income taxes paid to the Ontario government would be between $8 million and $8.3 million.

5 Assessment of Alternative Sites 5.1

Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites

This section contains an assessment of the economic and environmental costs for Ontario if the SCRF site does not receive approval for the proposed reconfiguration. The analysis is based on the resulting cost impacts for SCRF’s current customers having to transport their wastes to alternative sites in Ontario, Michigan or New York, using the maximum annual fill-rate scenario of 750,000 tonnes/year for the SCRF site. The analysis considered the following potential alternative sites: • Walker Industries - Atlas Landfill (Welland, ON)* • Waste Management Solutions - Twin Creeks Landfill (Warwick, ON) • Waste Management Solutions - Petrolia Landfill (Petrolia, ON)* • Progressive Waste Solutions - Ridge Landfill (Blenheim, ON) 7


• • • •

June 2016

Waste Services Inc. - Navan Road Landfill (Ottawa, ON) LaFleche - Eastern Landfill (Moose Creek, ON) Republic Services - Carleton Farms Landfill (New Boston, MI)* Modern Corporation - Modern Landfill (Model City, NY)*

Incremental costs to current SCRF customers were estimated by calculating the additional transportation costs based on distance (midpoint of each city from which waste materials were being transported by each customer for each alternative site, less the current distance to the SCRF site), multiplied by the cost per km/tonne for each site, plus the disposal costs per tonne (these costs are shown in Table 3 above). While economic impact estimates were derived for each potential alternative site, our best and worst case scenarios in Tables 9 through 13 consider only those sites that are viable alternatives over the 2019-2028 period. The Atlas and Petrolia landfill sites were excluded, since they are expected to reach full capacity within a few years. The Carleton Farms and Modern landfill sites were also excluded, due to strong political opposition in the U.S. to exports of waste materials from Ontario. Exporting waste to the US is also subject to greater uncertainty due to fluctuations in the value of the Canadian dollar, fuel prices, and the potential for border closures to Canadian waste due to security or health concerns. Table 9 summarizes the best case (lowest cost alternative site) and worst case (highest cost alternative site) cost impacts, and the resulting impacts of these costs on economic activity, GDP, jobs, labour income and taxes in Ontario. Table 9: Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites on All Sectors ($000) Economic Impacts of Higher Costs (annual)

Economic Impacts of Higher Costs (PV from 2019-2028)

Best Case

Worst Case

Best Case

Worst Case

$4,845

$17,460

$27,778

$100,104

Total Economic Activity

-$8,360

-$30,126

-$47,929

-$172,724

GDP ($ 000s)

-$4,008

-$14,445

-$22,982

-$82,821

-43

-153

-244

-880

-$2,565

-$9,245

-$14,708

-$53,003

Income taxes – Ontario

-$245

-$881

-$1,402

-$5,053

Corporate taxes – Ontario

-$35

-$166

-$203

-$950

Total taxes

-$280

-$1,047

-$1,605

-$6,003

Increased Costs Economic Impacts

Jobs (Total FTEs person-years) Labour Income Impacts on Taxes


Overall, the increased costs to SCRF customers of transporting wastes to alternative land fill sites is estimated to range from $4.8 million to $17.5 million per year. In present value terms, these higher costs range from about $28 million to $100 million. 8


June 2016

The economic impacts of these increased costs are considerable. Economic activity would fall by $8.3 million to $30 million per year, or a total of $48 million to $173 million over the period 2019 to 2028. Value added to the Ontario economy would fall by $4 million to 14 million per year, or $23 million to almost $83 million in present value terms. Forty-three (43) to 153 fewer jobs would be created annually, or between 244 and 880 jobs over the 2019 to 2028 period. Wages earned by Ontario workers would be $2.6 million to $9.2 less each year, or a total of $14.7 to $53 million less to 2028. Tables 10 through 13 provide a breakdown of the economic impacts for each of the four principal sectors of the Ontario economy that would be affected: Non-residential construction, waste management and remediation services, steel manufacturers, and petroleum refining operations. Table 10: Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites on Non-Residential Construction ($000) Economic Impacts of Higher Costs (annual)


Best Case

Worst Case

Best Case

Worst Case

$2,326

$8,381

$13,333

$48,050


-$4,238

-$15,273

-$24,299

-$87,565

GDP

-$2,160

-$7,785

-$12,385

-$44,632


Jobs (Total FTEs person-years)

-25

-92

-$146

-$526

-$1,525

-$5,496

-$8,743

-$31,508

Income taxes – Ontario ($ 000s)

-$145

-$524

-$834

-$3,004

Corporate taxes – Ontario ($ 000s)

-$13

-$84

-$73

-$482

Total taxes

-$158

-$608

-$907

-$3.486

Labour Income ($ 000s) Impacts on Taxes

Source: RIAS Inc. I-O model. Present value calculated at a 7% discount rate Table 11: Cost Impacts of Alternative Sites on Waste Management and Remediation Services ($000) Economic Impacts of Higher Costs (annual)


Best Case

Worst Case

Best Case

Worst Case

$1,211

$4,365

$6,944

$25,026


-$1,953

-$7,038

-$11,197

-$40,352

GDP ($ 000s)

-$1,189

-$4,287

-$6,820

-$24,576

-10

-37

-59

-213

-$552

-$1,989

-$3,164

-$11,404

Income taxes – Ontario ($ 000s)

-$53

-$190

-$302

-$1,087

Corporate taxes – Ontario ($ 000s)

-$11

-$39

-$62

-$222

Total taxes

-$64

-$229

-$364

-$1,309

Increased Costs ($ 000s) Economic Impacts

Jobs (Total FTEs person-years) Labour Income ($ 000s) Impacts on Taxes

9


June 2016

Source: RIAS Inc. I-O model. Present value calculated at a 7% discount rate Table 12: Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites on Steel Manufacturing ($000) Economic Impacts of Higher Costs (annual)


Best Case

Worst Case

Best Case

Worst Case

-$1,211

-$4,365

-$6,944

-$25,026

-$2,042

-$7,360

-$11,709

-$42,196

-$636

-$2,294

-$3,649

-$13,151

-7

-24

-38

-138

-$479

-$1,725

-$2,744

-$9,889

Income taxes – Ontario

-$46

-$164

-$262

-$943


-$11

-$40

-$64

-$232

Total taxes

-$57

-$204

-$326

-$1,175

Increased Costs Economic Impacts Total Economic Activity GDP ($ 000s) Jobs (Total FTEs person-years) Labour Income Impacts on Taxes

Source: RIAS Inc. I-O model. Present value calculated at a 7% discount rate Table 13: Economic Impacts of Alternative Sites on Petroleum Refining ($000) Economic Impacts of Higher Costs (annual)


Best Case

Worst Case

Best Case

Worst Case

$97

$349

$556

$2,002


-$126

-$455

-$724

-$2,610

GDP

-$22

-$81

-$128

-$462

0

0

-1

-3

-$10

-$35

-$56

-$203


Jobs (Total FTEs person-years) Labour Income Impacts on Taxes Income taxes – Ontario

-$1

-$3

-$5

-$19


-$1

-$3

-$4

-$14

Total taxes

-$2

-$6

-$9

-$33


5.2

Environmental Impacts of Alternative Sites

Increased GHGs The impacts from increased Green House Gas emissions have been estimated for each alternative site using distances (from Table 4) and tonnes of materials transported to estimate total km-tonnes for each site. These parameters were entered into the GHGenius model to estimate the net increase in GHG emissions, as shown in Table 14 below.

10


June 2016

Other Cities and Towns

Brantford

Oakville

Guelph

Mississauga

Nanticoke

Toronto and Scarborough

Total

Hamilton

Table 14: Increases in GHGs for Transportation of Wastes to Alternative Sites

GHGs from transportation of waste to SCRF site (tonnes of CO2 equivalent) SCRF

5,884

1,088

2,553

345

206

233

111

137

1,211

Percentage increase in GHG from transportation of waste to alternative sites Walker Industries - Atlas Landfill Waste Management Solutions Twin Creeks Waste Management Solutions Petrolia Landfill Progressive Waste Solutions Ridge Landfill Waste Services Inc. - Navan Road Landfill LaFleche - Eastern Landfill Republic Services - Carleton Farms Landfill Modern Corporation - Modern Landfill

132%

400%

69%

7%

100%

63%

148%

116%

78%

399%

1188%

213%

173%

316%

154%

435%

176%

232%

448%

1256%

250%

217%

373%

186%

513%

242%

284%

487%

1344%

275%

235%

445%

217%

550%

249%

316%

1077%

3219%

426%

666%

773%

671%

1150%

864%

791%

1094%

3181%

463%

710%

755%

651%

1108%

991%

812%

741%

1881%

435%

421%

645%

429%

875%

500%

543%

144%

400%

70%

77%

118%

86%

153%

122%

106%

Source: GHGenius model, version 5.0 for Ontario

Table 15 provides the range of annual and total increases GHG’s for the viable alternative sites. Table 15: Best and Worst Case Environmental Impacts of Alternative Sites GHG Impacts (annual) Best Case 23,491 Increased GHGs (tonnes of CO2) Source: GHGenius model, version 5.0 for Ontario.

Total GHG Impacts (2019-2028)

Worst Case

Best Case

Worst Case

64,374

234,910

643,740

Increases in Other Pollutants Impacts on other pollutants were also examined using the GHGenius model, specifically increases in NOx, VOC-Ozone, SOx, PM2.5, and CFCs & HFCs. While the volumes of these pollutants related to the diversion of waste materials from SCRF site to other sites are small, the resulting increases in percentage terms for these pollutants are large – ranging from an increase of 400% to over 1000%, depending on the alternative site.

11


June 2016

6 Conclusions Benefits of the Current SCRF Operations The current SCRF site generates the following economic benefits for the Hamilton area: • $28.7 million per year in total economic activity • $17.9 million per year in value-added (GDP) • 51 local jobs created, earning a total of $2.6 million per year in wages • $2.2 million per year in local taxes, royalties and fees paid by the SCRF facility At the provincial level, the SCRF site generates the following economic benefits for Ontario: • $35.5 million per year in total economic activity • $21.6 million per year in value-added (GDP) • 89 jobs created, earning a total of $4.6 million per year in wages • $639,000 in personal income and corporate taxes paid to the Ontario government Benefits of the Proposed Reconfigured SCRF Site If the SCRF site is reconfigured, the following total economic benefits for the Hamilton area are expected (in present value terms): • $349 to $372 million in total economic activity • $218 to $232 million in value added to the local economy • 662 to 671 jobs created, earning about $33.5 million in wages • $21.8 to $23.9 million in taxes, fees and royalties paid to local government. Overall benefits to Ontario are expected to be: • $431 to $459 million in total economic activity • $262 to $280 million in value added to the local economy • 1,134 to 1,155 jobs created, earning between $58.5 and $60.2 million in wages • $7.96 to $8.29 million in personal income and corporate taxes paid to the Ontario government Reconfiguration of the SCRF site would avoid considerable cost increases for customers of the current SCRF site, ranging from $4.8 to $17.5 million. It would also avoid increased GHG emissions, ranging from about 23,500 to 64,000 tonnes per year.

12

Appendix B Preferred Landfill Footprint Visual Renderings and Cross-Sections


*Approximate 1+550

1+525

1+500

1+475

1+450

Stoney Creek Regional Facility Property (Post-Closure)

1+425

Visible area of SCRF without additional visual screening*

1+550

1+525

1+500

1+475

1+450

1+425

1+400


1+375

om ht fr of Sig t #1 Line wpoin Vie

1+400

1+350

1+325

1+300

1+275

1+250

1+225

1+200

1+175

1+150

1+125

1+100

1+075

1+050

1+025

1+000

0+975

0+950

0+925

0+900

1+550

1+525

1+500

1+475

1+450

1+425

1+400

1+375

1+350

1+325

1+300

1+275

1+250

1+225

1+200

1+175

1+150

1+125

1+100

1+075

1+050

1+025

1+000

0+975

0+950

0+925

0+900

0+875

0+850

Stoney Creek Regional Facility Property

1+375

1+350

1+325

1+300

1+275

1+250

1+225

1+200

1+175

1+150

1+125

1+100

1+075

1+050

1+025

1+000

0+975

0+950

0+925

0+900

0+875

210

0+875

0+825

0+800

0+775

0+750

0+725

0+700

0+675

0+650

0+625

0+600

0+575

0+550

0+525

0+500

0+475

0+450

0+425

200

0+850

0+375 0+400

om ht fr of Sig t #1 Line iewpoin V

0+850

200

0+825

0+800

0+775

0+750

0+725

0+700

0+675

0+650

0+625

0+600

0+575


0+825

0+800

0+775

0+750

0+725

0+700

0+675

0+650

0+625

0+600

m t fro igh 1 of S oint # e Lin iewp V

0+575

195

0+550

0+525

0+500

200

0+550

0+525

0+500

205

0+475

0+450

0+425

210

0+475

Green Mountain Road & First Road West

0+450


0+400

0+350

0+325

0+300

0+275


0+425

205

0+375

0+350

0+325

0+300

0+250

0+225

0+200

0+175

0+150

0+125

0+100

0+075

0+050

205

0+400

210

0+375

0+350

0+325

190

0+300

190

0+275

0+250

0+225

0+200

0+175

0+150

0+125

0+100

0+075

0+025

190

0+275

0+250

0+225

0+200

0+175

0+150

0+125

0+100

0+075

Preferred Option 0+050

0+025

Existing Approved

0+050

(First Road West Looking South)

Viewpoint #1

0+025

Existing 230 230

225 225

220 220

215

Currently visible area of SCRF* 215

210

Existing Mud Berm & Street Trees* 205

200

195

Existing Berm 195

190

185 185

230 230

225 225

220 220

215 215

210


200

Existing Berm 195

190

185 185

230 230

225 225

220 220

215 215

210


200

195

Existing Berm 195

190

185 185

Vertical Exaggeration: 10x

*Approximate 1+250

1+425

1+400

1+375

1+350

1+325

1+300


1+275

1+425

1+400

1+375

1+350

1+325

1+300

1+275

1+250


1+225

205

1+200

1+425

1+400

1+375

1+350

1+325

1+300

1+275

1+250

1+225

1+200

1+175

1+150

1+125

1+100

1+075

1+050

1+025

1+000

0+975

0+950

0+925

0+900

0+875

0+850

0+825

0+800

0+775

0+750

0+725

0+700

0+675

0+650

0+625

0+600

0+575

0+550

0+525

0+500

0+475

0+450

0+425

0+400

0+375

0+350

0+325


1+225

1+175

1+150

1+125

1+100

1+075

1+050

1+025

1+000

0+975

0+950

0+925

0+900

0+875

0+850

0+825

0+800

0+775

0+750

0+725

0+700

0+675

0+650

0+625

0+600

0+575

0+550

0+525

0+500

0+475

0+450

0+425

0+400

0+375

0+350

0+300

0+275

0+250

205

1+200

1+175

1+150

1+125

1+100

1+075

1+050

1+025

1+000

0+975

0+950

0+925

0+900

0+875

0+850

0+825

0+800

0+775

0+750

0+725

0+700

0+675


0+650

0+625

0+600

0+575

0+550

0+525

0+500

0+475

0+450

0+425

om t fr igh #2 of Spoint e Lin View

0+400

0+375

Green Mountain Road

0+350

Green Mountain Road

0+325

0+300

0+275

0+225

Green Mountain Road

0+325

0+300

195

0+275

195

0+250

from ight of S int #2 Line iewpo V

0+250

0+200

0+175

0+150

0+125

0+100

195

0+225

0+200

0+175

0+150

0+125

0+075

0+025

from ight of S oint #2 e in p L iew V

0+225

0+200

0+175

200

0+150

205

0+125

200

0+100

0+075

0+050

200

0+100

Preferred Option

0+075

Existing Approved

0+050

0+025

(Morresey Blvd Looking South)

0+050

Viewpoint #2

0+025

Existing 230 230

225 225

220 220

215 215

210 210

Existing Mud Berm Street 205

Existing Berm & Trees* 200

195

190 190

185 185

230 230

225 225

220 220

215 215

210 210

Existing Mud Berm Street 205


195

190 190

185 185

230 230

225 225

220 220

215 215

210 210

Existing Mud Mud Existing Berm Street Street Berm 205


195

190 190

185 185


Existing

230

230

225

225

220

220

Line of View Sight fro m poin t #6

215

Currently visible area of SCRF*

210

Existing Berm & Trees*

195

Upper Centennial Parkway

200

195

1+100

1+125

1+075

1+050

1+025

0+975

1+000

0+950

0+925

0+900

0+875

0+825

0+850

0+800

0+775

0+750

0+725

0+675

0+700

0+650

0+625

0+600

0+550

0+575

0+525

0+500

0+475

0+450

0+400

0+425

0+375

0+350

0+325

0+300

0+250

0+275

0+225

0+200

0+175

0+125

0+150

185

0+100

185

0+075

190

230

230

225

225

220

220

Line of Sigh t Viewpoint from #6

215

215

210

210


205

200

195


First Existing Road Berm & West Trees*


205

200

195

1+125

1+100

1+075

1+050

1+025

1+000

0+975

0+950

0+925

0+900

0+875

0+850

0+825

0+800

0+775

0+750

0+725

0+700

0+675

0+650

0+625

0+600

0+575

0+550

0+525

0+500

0+475

0+450

0+425

0+400

0+375

0+350

0+325

0+300

0+275

0+250

0+225

0+200

0+175

0+150

0+125

0+100

185

0+075

185

0+050

190

0+025

190

230

230

225

225

Line o fS Viewp ight from oint # 6

220

215

205

200

195

220

215


210

210





205

200

195

*Approximate

1+125

1+100

1+075

1+050

1+025

1+000

0+975

0+950

0+925

0+900

0+875

0+850

0+825

0+800

0+775

0+750

0+725

0+700

0+675

0+650

0+625

0+600

0+575

0+550

0+525

0+500

0+475

0+450

0+425

0+400

0+375

0+350

0+325

0+300

0+275

0+250

0+225

0+200

0+175

0+150

0+125

185

0+100

185

0+075

190

0+050

190

0+025

Preferred Option

205

190

0+025

Existing Approved



0+050

Viewpoint #6

(Upper Centennial Parkway Looking Northwest)

210

205

200

215


*Approximate 1+350

1+350

1+325

Mud Street

1+325

Mud Street

1+300

1+275

1+350

1+325

1+300

1+275

1+250

1+225

1+200

1+175

Mud Street

1+300


1+250

1+225

1+200


1+275

205

1+150

1+125


1+250

215

1+225

220

1+200

205

1+175

215

1+175

220

1+150

1+100

1+075

1+050

1+025

1+000

0+975

0+950

0+925

0+900

0+875

0+850

0+825

0+800

0+775

0+750

205

1+150

0+700 0+725

215

1+125

1+100

1+075

1+050

1+025

1+000

0+975

0+950

0+925

0+900

0+875

0+850

0+825

0+800

0+775

0+750

0+725

220

1+125

1+100

1+075

1+050

1+025

1+000

0+975

0+950

0+925

0+900

0+875

0+850

0+825

0+800

0+775

0+750

0+725

0+675

0+650

0+625

0+600

0+575

Green Existing Mountain Berm & Road Trees*

0+700

0+675

0+650

0+625

0+600

0+550

0+525

0+500

0+475

0+450

0+425

0+400

0+375

0+350

0+325

0+300

0+275

0+250

0+225

0+200

0+175

0+150

0+125

0+100

0+075

0+050

200

0+700

0+675

0+650


0+625

200

0+600


0+575

0+550

0+525

0+500

0+475

0+450

0+425

0+400

0+375

0+350

0+325

0+300

0+275

0+250

0+225

0+200

200

0+575

0+550

0+525

0+500

0+475

0+450

0+425

0+400

0+375

0+350

0+325

0+300

0+275

0+250

0+225

195

0+200

195

0+175

0+150

0+125

0+100

0+075

0+025

195

0+175

0+150

0+125

0+100

Preferred Option

0+075

Existing Approved

0+050

0+025

(Trafalgar Drive Looking North)

0+050

Viewpoint #7

0+025

Existing 230 230

225 225

Line o Viewf Sight poin from t #7 220

215

210 210

Trafalgar Drive 205


Line o Viewf Sight poin from t #7

210

Trafalgar Drive


Line o Viewf Sight poin from t #7

210

Trafalgar Drive


200

195

190 190

185 185

230 230

225 225

220

215

210

205

200

195

190 190

185 185

230 230

225 225

220

215

210

205

200

195

190 190

185 185


Existing

230

230

225

225

220

220

t from f Sigh Line owpoint #9 Vie

215

215

Currently visible area of SCRF*

210

210

Existing Upper Berm & Centennial Trees* Parkway

205

200

1+050

1+075

1+025

0+975

230

225

225

220

220

ght from Line of Sioint #9 Viewp

215


210

210


205

200

HGCT Dog Park



205

200

1+075

1+050

1+025

0+975

1+000

0+950

0+925

0+900

0+875

0+850

0+825

0+800

0+775

0+750

0+725

0+700

0+675

0+650

0+625

0+600

0+575

0+550

0+525

0+500

0+475

0+450

0+425

0+400

0+375

0+350

0+325

0+300

0+275

0+250

0+225

0+200

0+175

0+150

185

0+125

185

0+100

190

0+075

190

0+025

195

0+050

195

230

230

225

225

220

220

215

t from f Sigh Line owpoint #9 Vie

210

215


210


205

200

HGCT Dog Park



205

200

1+075

1+050

1+025

0+975

1+000

0+950

0+925

0+900

0+875

0+850

0+825

0+800

0+775

0+750

0+725

0+700

0+675

0+650

0+625

0+600

0+575

0+550

0+525

0+500

0+475

0+450

0+425

0+400

0+375

0+350

0+325

0+300

0+275

0+250

0+225

0+200

185

0+175

185

0+150

190

0+125

190

0+100

195

0+075

195

0+025

*Approximate

1+000

0+925

230

215

Preferred Option

0+950

0+900

0+875

0+850

0+825

0+775

0+800

0+750

0+725

0+700

0+675

0+625

0+650

0+600

0+575

0+550

0+525

0+475

0+500

0+450

0+425

0+400

0+375

0+325

0+350

0+300

0+275

0+250

0+225

0+200

0+150

185

0+175

185

0+125

190

0+100

190

0+075

195

0+025

Existing Approved



195

0+050

(Heritage Green Community Dog Park Looking East)

HGCT Dog Park

0+050

Viewpoint #9

200

205
