Location Screening Process

The PIC 1 materials included a high-level summary of the location screening process; however, during the PIC, requests for further information regarding the process were received. While the focus of the PIC was to gather input on the shortlist of alternative locations and the criteria for future detailed evaluation of those locations, we recognise and appreciate the public’s interest in the screening process. In response, we have created this new webpage to provide additional details about the location screening process that was completed.

This summary is intended to supplement the PIC materials. References to relevant pages within the PIC materials are included for further information. It is noted that following PIC 1, Location 8 (southeast quadrant of the Highway 417 and Eagleson Road interchange) and Location 9 (Moodie Drive, Crystal Bay) were eliminated from further consideration. Updates on these developments and the detailed evaluation of alternatives will be provided at online PIC 2, which is currently scheduled for early 2021.

Coarse screening of the study area was completed based on the following criteria (slide 7 of the PIC materials):

1. Sites smaller than 5 hectares and 150 metres depth

2. Built Up Areas

3. Significant Woodland

4. Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI)

5. Former landfills

6. Residential, Institutional, Environmental Protection, and Open Space & Leisure Zones

7. Parks and Greenspace

8. Floodplains

9. Wetlands

10. Greenbelt & Natural Heritage Areas (City of Ottawa Official Plan)

11. National Capital Commission (NCC) Lands.

Locations that included criteria 1 to 7 were completely avoided. These criteria were considered significant constraints that were either entirely incompatible with development, or readily avoidable.

As the study area is already highly built out, there were limited locations available within the study area, which required us to consider less-than ideal sites; balancing the operational needs against anticipated environmental impacts. As such, criteria 8-11 were generally, but not completely, avoided and were carried forward for more in-depth consideration based on anticipated impacts and ability to mitigate these impacts. Floodplains and wetlands, while not ideal for development, were considered constraints that could potentially be addressed through facility siting and design/mitigation. Limited greenbelt, natural heritage features, and NCC lands were included in the long list as they provided enhanced operational opportunities that warranted further review, recognising there would also be careful consideration for the associated environmental impacts.

Ultimately, the coarse screening process was carried forward consistent with the Class EA process, with a goal of striking a balance between meeting the operational needs of the MPY, avoiding significant environmental constraints, and advancing viable alternative locations. Key constraints were avoided, and others were generally avoided with the intent to then factor them into future, more detailed, evaluation of alternatives.

The coarse screening process reduced the study area to a long list of 15 alternative locations (page 8 of the PIC materials). A high-level assessment of the long list was then completed to screen out less suitable locations. The criteria used for this assessment, and the ideal condition associated with each criterion, are provided on page 9 of the PIC materials.

The high-level assessment, including the rationale for identifying the shortlist, is detailed in Table 1 and was summarized at a high level at PIC 1. As noted previously, following PIC 1 Locations 8 and 9 were eliminated from further consideration as part of this study.

Detailed evaluation of the three shortlisted locations is currently ongoing. Details of this evaluation, including the technically preferred alternative location, will be presented at PIC 2. If you have any comments/questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to the project team through the Contact Us page.