How Were the Options Evaluated?  

The six options were evaluated using a Reasoned Argument or "Trade-off" approach: 

  1. First, how each option may potentially affect each component of the environment was determined. Then impact management measures were developed to offset any potential adverse environmental effects. Following the application of the impact management measures, the residual or net effects were established. 
  2. Next, each option's next effects were compared against the other option's net effects to determine their relative advantages and disadvantages. 
  3. This comparison considers trade-offs between the various evaluation criteria. Trade-offs are "things of value". Essentially, this involves a balancing of attributes, all of which are not attainable at the same time. 
  4. Finally, each option was ranked based on their relative advantages and disadvantages to identify a recommended option.

The currently approved footprint is included as part of the Environmental Assessment to represent what would happen if none of the six options were carried out. It was considered a benchmark to measure and compare environmental advantages and disadvantages. 

In the Reasoned Argument approach, none of the criteria or components of the environment are weighted any higher or lower than others. All environmental components are instead evaluated in terms of their "trade-offs" with other environmental components. 

Trasnportation_Traffic.jpg

Comparative Evaluation of the Options Summary 

For full details... 


What We Heard from Community Members 

Input on the six options from the public and other key stakeholders was also considered. The following feedback was received at the first Open House: 

  • In general, the public expressed a preference for options that included no or little height increase and for options that allowed the SCRF to close as soon as possible. 
  • Some members of the public expressed preference for options that did not change the footprint. 
  • Some community members expressed preference to keep the original capacity or felt that none of the options were preferred. 
  • Additional comments related to the potential impacts that should be considered, including odour, height/visual impact, property value, recent population expansions, animals, groundwater, and surface water. 

The recommended Option #5 has the fewest net effects of any of the options when assessed against 9 different environmental components. It strikes the balance of minimizing potential environmental effects and minimizing a height increase, while also accommodating the identified additional capacity needed so Terrapure can continue to serve and support the growing local economy.