Comprehensive Site Development Plan ... - City of Kelowna

Final
Comprehensive Site Development Plan
Glenmore Landfill
June 2008
Submitted to
ES122007001VBC

Copyright 2008 by CH2M HILL. All rights reserved.
Reproduction and distribution in whole or in part beyond the intended
scope of the contract without written consent of CH2M HILL is prohibited.

Copyright 2008 by CH2M HILL. All rights reserved.
Reproduction and distribution in whole or in part beyond the intended
scope of the contract without written consent of CH2M HILL is prohibited.

Copyright 2008 by CH2M HILL. All rights reserved.
Reproduction and distribution in whole or in part beyond the intended
scope of the contract without written consent of CH2M HILL is prohibited.

Copyright 2008 by CH2M HILL. All rights reserved.
Reproduction and distribution in whole or in part beyond the intended
scope of the contract without written consent of CH2M HILL is prohibited.

Copyright 2008 by CH2M HILL. All rights reserved.
Reproduction and distribution in whole or in part beyond the intended
scope of the contract without written consent of CH2M HILL is prohibited.

Copyright 2008 by CH2M HILL. All rights reserved.
Reproduction and distribution in whole or in part beyond the intended
scope of the contract without written consent of CH2M HILL is prohibited.

•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Site Location
Exhibit 2-1
General Site Location

Figure 2-2
Lease Property and Acquisition
Land Boundaries

Figure 2-2
Lease Property and Acquisition
Land Boundaries

Figure 2-3
Major Features and Developments in
the Glenmore Valley Area

Refuse
Clay
Sand / Gravel
Till
Bedrock
Approximate Water Table
Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

Refuse
Clay
Sand / Gravel
Till
Bedrock
Approximate Water Table
Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

Feature
Recommended Separation Distances
Property Boundary
Other Facilities (residence, school, etc.)
Airports
Surface Water Bodies
Unstable Areas
50 m
300 m
8 km
100 m
100 m

Design Component Natural Control Landfill Engineered Landfill
Minimum Liner Thickness (m) 2.0 1.0
Maximum Liner Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/s) 1 x 10 -6 1 x 10 -7
Minimum Slope of Bottom of Liner N/A 2% on controlling slopes
0.5% on remaining slopes
Thickness of Leachate Collection System (m) N/A 0.3
Hydraulic Conductivity of Leachate Collection
System (cm/s)
N/A 1 x 10 -2
Maximum Hydraulic Head on Liner (m) N/A 0.3
Final Cover Thickness (m) 1.0 1.0
Cover Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/s) 1 x 10 -5 1 x 10 -5
Topsoil Thickness (m) 0.15 0.15
Final Cover Minimum Slope 4% 4%
Final Cover Maximum Slope 33% 33%
N/A denotes Not Applicable

Design Component Natural Control Landfill Engineered Landfill
Minimum Liner Thickness (m) 2.0 1.0
Maximum Liner Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/s) 1 x 10 -6 1 x 10 -7
Minimum Slope of Bottom of Liner N/A 2% on controlling slopes
0.5% on remaining slopes
Thickness of Leachate Collection System (m) N/A 0.3
Hydraulic Conductivity of Leachate Collection
System (cm/s)
N/A 1 x 10 -2
Maximum Hydraulic Head on Liner (m) N/A 0.3
Final Cover Thickness (m) 1.0 1.0
Cover Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/s) 1 x 10 -5 1 x 10 -5
Topsoil Thickness (m) 0.15 0.15
Final Cover Minimum Slope 4% 4%
Final Cover Maximum Slope 33% 33%
N/A denotes Not Applicable

Figure 2-5
Agricultural Land Reserve Boundaries

Jurisdiction 2007
Population
Estimated Growth Rates
2007 – 2015 2015 – 2025 Beyond 2025
Kelowna (including Native
Reserves)
116,479
Lake Country 10,615
Peachland 5,290
Westside District Municipality 28,793
West Electoral Area (including
Westbank First Nation)
8,018
3%
(all areas)
2%
(all areas)
0%
(all areas)
East Electoral Area (including
Native Reserves)
3,978

Jurisdiction 2007
Population
Estimated Growth Rates
2007 – 2015 2015 – 2025 Beyond 2025
Kelowna (including Native
Reserves)
116,479
Lake Country 10,615
Peachland 5,290
Westside District Municipality 28,793
West Electoral Area (including
Westbank First Nation)
8,018
3%
(all areas)
2%
(all areas)
0%
(all areas)
East Electoral Area (including
Native Reserves)
3,978

TABLE 2-4
Cumulative Waste Volumes 2007 to 2107
Existing Service Area
Westside Service Area
Total Waste
Airspace Consumption
Year Population Annual Cumm. Population Annual Cumm Annual Cumm Waste Cover 1 Waste+Cover Cummulative
Tonnes Tonnes Served Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3)
2007 131,072 120,586 120,586 42,101 - - 120,586 120,586 141,866 35,467 177,333 177,333
2008 135,004 124,204 244,790 43,364 - - 124,204 244,790 146,122 36,531 182,653 359,985
2009 139,054 127,930 372,720 44,665 - - 127,930 372,720 150,506 37,626 188,132 548,118
2010 143,226 131,768 504,488 46,005 - - 131,768 504,488 155,021 38,755 193,776 741,894
2011 147,523 135,721 640,209 47,385 - - 135,721 640,209 159,672 39,918 199,590 941,483
2012 151,948 139,793 780,001 48,807 31,236 31,236 171,029 811,237 201,210 50,303 251,513 1,192,996
2013 156,507 143,986 923,988 50,271 32,173 63,410 176,160 987,397 207,247 51,812 259,058 1,452,054
2014 161,202 148,306 1,072,293 51,779 33,139 96,548 181,444 1,168,841 213,464 53,366 266,830 1,718,884
2015 166,038 152,755 1,225,048 53,332 34,133 130,681 186,888 1,355,729 219,868 54,967 274,835 1,993,719
2016 169,359 155,810 1,380,859 54,399 34,815 165,496 190,625 1,546,355 224,265 56,066 280,332 2,274,051
2017 172,746 158,926 1,539,785 55,487 35,512 201,008 194,438 1,740,793 228,751 57,188 285,938 2,559,989
2018 176,201 162,105 1,701,890 56,597 36,222 237,230 198,327 1,939,119 233,326 58,331 291,657 2,851,646
2019 179,725 165,347 1,867,237 57,729 36,946 274,176 202,293 2,141,413 237,992 59,498 297,490 3,149,136
2020 183,319 168,654 2,035,891 58,883 37,685 311,861 206,339 2,347,752 242,752 60,688 303,440 3,452,576
2021 186,986 172,027 2,207,918 60,061 38,439 350,300 210,466 2,558,218 247,607 61,902 309,509 3,762,085
2022 190,726 175,468 2,383,385 61,262 39,208 389,508 214,675 2,772,893 252,559 63,140 315,699 4,077,784
2023 194,540 178,977 2,562,362 62,487 39,992 429,499 218,969 2,991,862 257,610 64,403 322,013 4,399,796
2024 198,431 182,556 2,744,918 63,737 40,792 470,291 223,348 3,215,210 262,762 65,691 328,453 4,728,249
2025 202,400 186,208 2,931,126 65,012 41,608 511,899 227,815 3,443,025 268,018 67,004 335,022 5,063,272
2026 202,400 186,208 3,117,334 65,012 41,608 553,506 227,815 3,670,840 268,018 67,004 335,022 5,398,294
2027 202,400 186,208 3,303,541 65,012 41,608 595,114 227,815 3,898,655 268,018 67,004 335,022 5,733,316
2028 202,400 186,208 3,489,749 65,012 41,608 636,721 227,815 4,126,470 268,018 67,004 335,022 6,068,338
2029 202,400 186,208 3,675,956 65,012 41,608 678,329 227,815 4,354,285 268,018 67,004 335,022 6,403,360
2030 202,400 186,208 3,862,164 65,012 41,608 719,936 227,815 4,582,100 268,018 67,004 335,022 6,738,382
2031 202,400 186,208 4,048,371 65,012 41,608 761,544 227,815 4,809,915 268,018 67,004 335,022 7,073,405
2032 202,400 186,208 4,234,579 65,012 41,608 803,151 227,815 5,037,730 268,018 67,004 335,022 7,408,427
2060 202,400 186,208 9,448,390 65,012 41,608 1,968,162 227,815 11,416,552 268,018 67,004 335,022 16,789,047
2065 202,400 186,208 10,379,428 65,012 41,608 2,176,200 227,815 12,555,627 268,018 67,004 335,022 18,464,158
2070 202,400 186,208 11,310,465 65,012 41,608 2,384,237 227,815 13,694,703 268,018 67,004 335,022 20,139,269
2075 202,400 186,208 12,241,503 65,012 41,608 2,592,275 227,815 14,833,778 268,018 67,004 335,022 21,814,380
Notes:
1. Cover volumes based on 4:1 ratio (on a volume basis) of waste to soil.

17,500,000
15,000,000
Cummulate Waste Generation (tonnes)
12,500,000
10,000,000
7,500,000
5,000,000
Westside Lanfill Service Area
Existing Service Area
2,500,000
0
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
2065
2070
2075
Figure 2-6
Projected Waste Quantities
(2007 - 2075)

17,500,000
15,000,000
Cummulate Waste Generation (tonnes)
12,500,000
10,000,000
7,500,000
5,000,000
Westside Lanfill Service Area
Existing Service Area
2,500,000
0
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
2065
2070
2075
Figure 2-6
Projected Waste Quantities
(2007 - 2075)

•
•
•

Standard Soil Barrier Liner, 6.0% Bottom Grade with 1-lift Refuse
Average Annual Values for Years 1 through 20
Average Annual Precipitation
Average Percolation through Barrier Layer a
364.9 mm
27.7 mm
Peak Daily Values for Years 1 through 20
Precipitation
Maximum Percolation through Barrier Layer a
42.2 mm
0.1 mm
Proposed Geomembrane Composite Barrier Liner, 6.0% Bottom Grade with 1-lift Refuse
Average Annual Values for Years 1 through 20
Precipitation
Average Percolation through Barrier Layer a
364.9 mm
0.05 mm
Peak Daily Values for Years 1 through 20
Precipitation
Maximum Percolation through Barrier Layer a
42.2 mm
0.001 mm
a
The average or maximum amount of leachate percolating through the soil or geomembrane component of
the lining system.

•
•
•

•
•

•
•

•
•

Figure 3-5
Leachate Collector Details

Figure 3-5
Leachate Collector Details

Figure 3-6
Surface Water Diversion Berm and
Groundwater Cutoff Trench

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

Pre-design Reports (1) 2007 Updated Fill Volumes (2)
Landfill Phase
20% MC
(scfm)
35% MC
(scfm)
Scenario 1
(35% MC with Constraints)
(scfm)
Phase 1 250 425 480
Phase 2 550 675 980
Phase 3 2,200 2,650 3,675
Total at Landfill Closure 2,500 2,820 4,360
Notes:
(1) As estimated in the CH2M HILL July 2002 and October 2004 Pre-design reports.
(2) Updated waste volumes estimated by SHA in the April 2007 report.
MC = Moisture Content

Pre-design Reports (1) 2007 Updated Fill Volumes (2)
Landfill Phase
20% MC
(scfm)
35% MC
(scfm)
Scenario 1
(35% MC with Constraints)
(scfm)
Phase 1 250 425 480
Phase 2 550 675 980
Phase 3 2,200 2,650 3,675
Total at Landfill Closure 2,500 2,820 4,360
Notes:
(1) As estimated in the CH2M HILL July 2002 and October 2004 Pre-design reports.
(2) Updated waste volumes estimated by SHA in the April 2007 report.
MC = Moisture Content

Pre-design Reports (1) 2007 Updated Fill Volumes (2)
Landfill Phase
20% MC
(scfm)
35% MC
(scfm)
Scenario 1
(35% MC with Constraints)
(scfm)
Phase 1 250 425 480
Phase 2 550 675 980
Phase 3 2,200 2,650 3,675
Total at Landfill Closure 2,500 2,820 4,360
Notes:
(1) As estimated in the CH2M HILL July 2002 and October 2004 Pre-design reports.
(2) Updated waste volumes estimated by SHA in the April 2007 report.
MC = Moisture Content

Pre-design Reports (1) 2007 Updated Fill Volumes (2)
Landfill Phase
20% MC
(scfm)
35% MC
(scfm)
Scenario 1
(35% MC with Constraints)
(scfm)
Phase 1 250 425 480
Phase 2 550 675 980
Phase 3 2,200 2,650 3,675
Total at Landfill Closure 2,500 2,820 4,360
Notes:
(1) As estimated in the CH2M HILL July 2002 and October 2004 Pre-design reports.
(2) Updated waste volumes estimated by SHA in the April 2007 report.
MC = Moisture Content

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Categories
Dimensional wood –treated/painted
Recommended Uses
• Grind for use on onsite roads and working surfaces
• Grind for use as alternative daily cover in landfill
operations
Dimensional wood – untreated/unpainted
• Grind for use at co-generation facility
• Grind for use as amendment in yard waste or biosolids
composting operation
• Grind for use/sale as mulch
Large branches (more than 1.5” diameter),
and logs and stumps
Small branches and tree prunings less than
1.5” diameter
• Grind for use at co-generation facility
• Grind use as amendment in yard waste or biosolids
composting operation
• Incorporate directly into yard waste composting
operation

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Figure 5-1
Entrance and Scale Facilities

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Scenario
Service
Time
Required Queue Length (95 th %)
Vehicles
per Hour Single Scale System Dual Scale System
Inbound Typical 30 sec 75 50 m 15-20 m per lane
Inbound Peak 40 sec 100 Insufficient Capacity 40-60 m per lane
Outbound Typical 40 sec 75 140 m 25-35 m per lane
Outbound Peak 50 sec 100 Insufficient Capacity 70-140 m per lane

•
•
•
•

(

(

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Figure 5-6
Staffing and Organization Chart

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

350000
300000
250000
Vol
um 200000
e,
m3
150000
100000
50000
0
Inputs
Outputs
Direct precipitation Surface runoff or groundwater inflow Evaporation Removed for irrigation
Month
Average Annual
Runoff
(1969 to 1986)
Highest Annual
Runoff
(1982)
Highest Spring
Runoff
(1974)
Lowest Annual
Runoff and
Lowest
Spring Runoff
(1970)
Jan 0.013 0.009 0.005 0.023
Feb 0.013 0.013 0.007 0.028
Mar 0.033 0.015 0.029 0.038
Apr 0.165 0.055 0.218 0.067
May 0.405 0.349 0.486 0.545
Jun 0.164 0.126 0.198 0.151
Jul 0.082 0.246 0.031 0.051
Aug 0.026 0.043 0.005 0.013
Sep 0.034 0.046 0.003 0.020
Oct 0.028 0.048 0.005 0.026
Nov 0.022 0.028 0.006 0.020
Dec 0.014 0.022 0.006 0.018
Total 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Year
Runoff Volume
m 3
Precipitation Equivalent Runoff
mm
Average Runoff (1969 to 1986) 180,000 21
Highest Annual Runoff – 1982 256,000 30
Highest Spring Runoff – 1974 248,000 29
Lowest Annual Runoff and
Lowest Spring Runoff – 1970
45,000 5

Year
Runoff Volume
m 3
Precipitation Equivalent Runoff
mm
Average Runoff (1969 to 1986) 180,000 21
Highest Annual Runoff – 1982 256,000 30
Highest Spring Runoff – 1974 248,000 29
Lowest Annual Runoff and
Lowest Spring Runoff – 1970
45,000 5

Year
Runoff Volume
m 3
Precipitation Equivalent Runoff
mm
Average Runoff (1969 to 1986) 180,000 21
Highest Annual Runoff – 1982 256,000 30
Highest Spring Runoff – 1974 248,000 29
Lowest Annual Runoff and
Lowest Spring Runoff – 1970
45,000 5

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

Activity
Stage 1
2008 – 2012
Stage 2
2012 – 2018
Stage 3
After 2018
Public Consultation & Regulatory Approvals
Site Infrastructure and Facilities
• Relocate scale and entrance facilities
• Relocate staff and administrative facilities
• Improve maintenance and fuelling facilities
Water Management and Drainage
• Conveyance between Tutt Pond and Little Roberts
Lake
Waste Diversion Facilities
• Relocate/improve recycling and diversion facilities
• Establish household hazardous waste diversion facility
• Relocate wood and yard waste diversion areas
• Relocate composting operations
Landfill Containment and Leachate Management
• Design and construction (Bredin Hill Exp)
• Design and construction (Tutt Mtn. Exp.)
• Design and construction (Phase 3)
Landfill Gas Management
• Expand Phase 1 LFG system
• Expand Phase 2 LFG system
• Design and construction of Phase 3 LFG system

Table 8-2
Budgetary Cost Estimates
Landfill System Component 2008 - 2017 > 2018
(Phase 1 & 2) (Phase 3)
Site Infrastructure and Facilities
Relocate scale and entrance facilities $ 2,040,000
Relocate staff and administrative facilities $ 805,000
Improve maintenance and fuelling facilities $ 215,000
$ 3,060,000
Waste Diversion Facilities
Relocate/improve recycling and diversion facilities $ 2,800,000
Establish household hazardous waste diversion facility $ 350,000
Relocate wood and yard waste diversion areas $ 350,000
Relocate composting operations $ 10,000
$ 3,510,000
Water Management and Drainage
Conveyance between Tutt Pond and Little Roberts Lake $ 260,000
Landfill Containment and Leachate Management
Design and construction (Bredin Hill Exp) $ 2,205,000
Design and construction (Tutt Mtn. Exp.) $ 4,214,000
Design and construction (Phase 3) $ 20,607,000
$ 6,419,000 $ 20,607,000
Landfill Gas Management
Expand Phase 1 LFG system $ 750,000
Expand Phase 2 LFG system $ 2,500,000
Design and construction of Phase 3 LFG system $ 14,141,000
$ 3,250,000 $ 14,141,000
Totals (excluding engineering and administration)= $ 16,499,000 $ 34,748,000

Table 8-2
Budgetary Cost Estimates
Landfill System Component 2008 - 2017 > 2018
(Phase 1 & 2) (Phase 3)
Site Infrastructure and Facilities
Relocate scale and entrance facilities $ 2,040,000
Relocate staff and administrative facilities $ 805,000
Improve maintenance and fuelling facilities $ 215,000
$ 3,060,000
Waste Diversion Facilities
Relocate/improve recycling and diversion facilities $ 2,800,000
Establish household hazardous waste diversion facility $ 350,000
Relocate wood and yard waste diversion areas $ 350,000
Relocate composting operations $ 10,000
$ 3,510,000
Water Management and Drainage
Conveyance between Tutt Pond and Little Roberts Lake $ 260,000
Landfill Containment and Leachate Management
Design and construction (Bredin Hill Exp) $ 2,205,000
Design and construction (Tutt Mtn. Exp.) $ 4,214,000
Design and construction (Phase 3) $ 20,607,000
$ 6,419,000 $ 20,607,000
Landfill Gas Management
Expand Phase 1 LFG system $ 750,000
Expand Phase 2 LFG system $ 2,500,000
Design and construction of Phase 3 LFG system $ 14,141,000
$ 3,250,000 $ 14,141,000
Totals (excluding engineering and administration)= $ 16,499,000 $ 34,748,000

APPENDIX A

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

Avocets at Glenmore Landfill
1
Conservation Plan for the American Avocet at the Glenmore Landfill,
Kelowna, British Columbia
By
John M. Cooper, M.Sc., R.P.Bio.
Manning, Cooper and Associates
3# 1018 Win Way
Brentwood Bay, BC
V8M 1E7
1. Status of the American Avocet in British Columbia.
The American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) was formerly a sporadic visitor to British
Columbia, and was first documented to breed in the province near Creston in 1968 (Campbell
1972). Since then, one or two pairs have nested at scattered locations in southern British
Columbia, but only for a year or two at any one location (Cooper 1983; Campbell et al. 1990;
Gebauer 2000). In 1997, 19 pairs were recorded breeding at Alki Lake (Glenmore Landfill) near
Kelowna (Weir 1997). From 1997-2000, avocets have nested each year at the Glenmore Landfill
(see below), and this site has become the first regularly-used nesting area in the province
(Gebauer 2000). In 1999, a second concentration of nesting avocets was found near Clinton, and
that colony was also active in 2000.
The American Avocet is a species of high conservation concern in British Columbia and is
currently on the provincial Blue-List (Fraser et al. 1999). The Blue-List includes wildlife
considered vulnerable to extirpation. A recent status report (Gebauer 2000) has recommended the
American Avocet be uplisted to the Red –List, which includes wildlife species or populations that
are severely threatened with extirpation. This recommendation seems reasonable given that
American Avocets nest semi-colonially and the entire provincial breeding population seems to
occur at only two sites, which makes them vulnerable to single catastrophic events. Most
wetlands which have been used by nesting American Avocets in British Columbia are not under
any imminent threat of destruction, except the Glenmore Landfill which is slated to expand into
areas used by American Avocets over the next few years (Alan Newcombe, City of Kelowna
pers. comm.).
1.1 Status at Alki Lake (Glenmore Landfill)
• 1960s-Alki Lake became a landfill for City of Kelowna
• mid 1980s-south end of Alki Lake reverted to a shallow wetland on top of buried garbage
• 1987-First breeding recorded when 2 pairs nested at Alki Lake (Cannings et al. 1987)
• 1988-1996-No records of nesting but up to 18 adults in 1996, and nesting suspected from
1995-1996 (Gebauer 2000)
• 1997-19 nests and up to 39 birds were documented at Alki Lake (Weir 1997)
• 1998-3 nests and up to 23 birds occurred at Alki Lake Gebauer (2000). Water levels were high
and few nest sites were available.
• 1999-21 nests and up to 13 breeding pairs and 49 birds at Alki Lake (Weir and Gyug 1999)
Manning, Cooper and Associates

Avocets at Glenmore Landfill
2
• 2000-27 nests at Alki Lake (L. Gyug, Central Okanagan Naturalist Club, pers. comm.)
1.2 Habitat Status
American Avocets breed in highly alkaline, often highly saline wetlands with shallow (1-20 cm)
water for feeding and low, sparsely or non-vegetated islands or spits for nesting (Campbell et al.
1990; Robinson et al. 1997). These wetland types occur rarely in the Okanagan valley. Within
the central Okanagan valley, the Glenmore Valley contains the only significant concentration of
clayey Gray Luvisol soils of lacustrine origin that are likely to naturally contain large alkali
playas (i.e., shallow lakes where evaporation is the dominant or only form of water loss) (Roed
1995). The only 2 large clay-bottomed alkali playas of the central Okanagan are Alki and Robert
lakes. These two lakes have high alkalinity, high salinity, high total dissolved solids, and low
dissolved oxygen (Ambrozy 1999). The rest of the Kelowna area rests on soils developed from
morainal, colluvial, fluvial or fluvioglacial material that are either better drained than the
Glenmore Valley, or not as flat as the Glenmore Valley (Roed 1995).
Foraging may also occur in other wetlands within the vicinity of wetland used for breeding. For
example near the Glenmore Landfill, wetlands used for foraging include Roberts Lake,
Chichester Marsh, Okanagan Lake and others (Weir and Gyug 1999). Nest sites tend to be on
islands when available, especially if surrounded by deeper water (Sidle and Arnold 1982; Giroux
1985). At Glenmore Landfill, nests are clumped on soil islands exposed as water levels drop, but
occasionally nests are placed on dykes. Artificial nest platforms are also used (Weir and Gyug
1999).
2. Conservation and mitigation options
2.1 Conservation efforts in other jurisdictions
Wetlands engineered for American Avocet breeding habitat have experienced better than
expected results in California (Robinson et al. 1997), which suggests that mitigation can be
effectively applied. For example, one 130 ha site managed for avocets resulted in a 6-fold
increase in nesting density and a decline to

Avocets at Glenmore Landfill
3
2.3 Potential compensation habitat at Glenmore Landfill
Four sites near the Glenmore Landfill site were investigated for potential for compensation
habitat. Consideration was given to natural potential of the site, potential for engineering suitable
habitat, and plans for location of proposed water management facilities at the landfill. Potential
sites at Glenmore Landfill included:
(1) northeast meadow near the buffer zone with Quail Ridge
(2) a portion of the existing south Alki Lake;
(3) farm field north of the present landfill;
(4) small pond near access road to landfill
The northeast area was rejected because 1) the landscape is likely too confining, i.e. too close to
hills for the avocet which likes open prairie-like conditions, 2) many trees would need to be cut to
provide open spaces around the wetland, and 3) water management requirements suggest a deep
pond will be required at that location.
The farm field to the north was rejected because 1) the slope is steep and considerable earthworks
would be required to engineer a flat wetland, 2) property may have to be purchased, and 3) an
access road across the land has been committed to by the City of Kelowna within a 10-year time
frame.
The small wetland near the existing access road to the landfill was rejected because 1) avocets do
not use this pond at all, probably because of disturbance from traffic and work operations, and 2)
this disturbance will likely continue in the future.
The south end of the Glenmore Landfill appears to offer favourable mitigation potential because
1) it is currently used by nesting American Avocets, a smaller part (but of sufficient size, -see
Conservation Plan) of it could be partitioned and engineered relatively easily compared to other
sites, 2) the south end of Alki Lake is furthest away from human disturbance compared to other
potential sites, and 3) an evaporation-type pond at the south end of the landfill could fulfill the
needs of a proposed water management system for the landfill.
2.4 Potential compensation habitat elsewhere near Kelowna.
Other wetlands in the Kelowna area could be altered to create breeding and feeding habitat for
avocets. The most viable site for mitigation is Robert Lake, which is a short distance to the south
of the Glenmore Landfill.
Robert Lake has been used once for nesting by American Avocets, as 2 pairs nested there in
1998 when water levels were low and exposed soil spits were present (Weir and Gyug 1999).
Since avocets regularly use this wetland for foraging, and it is of a similar size to Alki Lake with
sufficient shoreline for many pairs, it appears that the lack of nesting islands may prevent the
regular use of Robert Lake for breeding. There are significant issues around land ownership and
access to this wetland for the purposes of mitigation, however.
Slough Number 2 and Bubna Slough on Glenmore Road “look” to be suitable for avocets but
none have ever been seen foraging there (Weir and Gyug 1999). These wetlands may not be
suitable because they are less alkaline than avocets normally prefer (MacNeil 1999). If they were
Manning, Cooper and Associates

Avocets at Glenmore Landfill
4
to be used for mitigation, nesting islands would need to be constructed and trees cleared to
provide open space around the wetland.
Sexsmith Wetlands are open, privately-owned fields bounded by Sexsmith Road to the north,
Longhill Road to the west and Campion Road industrial area to the east. The field is devoid of
trees and appears to be a suitable location for creation of compensation habitat for avocets. A
relatively small 7-10 ha wetland would take up only a fraction of the total area. The site is gently
sloping and cattail marshes presently occur along a drainage, which suggests natural potential for
a wetland. The site would need to be assessed to see if an alkali evaporation pan could be built
there, and how much earth works might be required. Alterations to the present surrounding
habitat would be unnecessary because it is presently very open and likely suitable (in general) for
avocets. Soil substrates appear to be clay but would have to be assessed. A natural gas pipeline
occurs to one side of the field and would have to be avoided (Weir and Gyug 1999).
Fields south of Duck Lake may have potential for compensation habitat but further assessment
is warranted. The large open meadows and hayfields occur to the south and south east of Duck
Lake.
2.5 Potential compensation habitat elsewhere in British Columbia
One other nesting colony of avocets has been discovered in British Columbia, at Little White
Lake near Clinton. Habitat enhancement work could be conducted at this site, mainly related to
exclusion of cattle (Weir and Gyug 1999). Other colonies potentially occur in the southern
Cariboo as there is a very high concentration of alkali lakes in the vicinity of Clinton and 70-Mile
House (Renaut 1993). Funding of surveys for possible colonies could be viewed as partial
mitigation for the eventual loss of the Glenmore Landfill site.
3. Conservation Plan
3.1 The future of the American Avocet in the Kelowna area.
Because the risk of extirpation is so high (one catastrophic event or cumulative smaller effects,
from continued expansion and operation of the landfill, could easily result in extirpation of the
colony), I believe the best approach is to implement a conservative conservation plan. The main
initiatives of the plan would be to:
1. Immediately attempt to establish a breeding colony at Robert Lake (see 3.2).
2. At the same time, provide alternative breeding habitat (nesting platforms) at other sites near
Glenmore Landfill, such as Slough No. 2 and Bubna Slough (see 3.3).
3. Maintain existing wetland habitat at the Glenmore Landfill for breeding avocets while
assessing the success of providing alternative offsite habitats (see 3.4).
4. If attempts to encourage avocets to breed elsewhere fail, engineer an onsite wetland to
provide breeding habitat for breeding American Avocets that will also serve landfill water
management purposes (see 3.5).
Manning, Cooper and Associates

Avocets at Glenmore Landfill
5
There is considerable time (5-10 years) before the remaining wetlands in the Glenmore Landfill
are needed for landfill purposes. This gives us the comfort of having a number of years to attempt
to encourage the colony to move to offsite habitats. As that scenario would be by far the most
cost-effective mitigation scenario, considerable effort should be made to make that occur.
Another reason to encourage the movement of the colony to an offsite location is that although
American Avocets presently breed successfully at the Glenmore Landfill, there are no guarantees
that as the landfill expands they will not abandon the site due to disturbance, or as conditions
change.
If a colony becomes established at Robert Lake, or other wetlands, whether or not avocets
continue to nest at the Glenmore Landfill, then the danger of extirpation in the Okanagan valley
becomes diminished. This hoped-for result would give resource managers short term comfort
while planning for long term conservation of avocets, and a long-term option to perhaps more
fully develop the Glenmore Landfill as pressure to expand the landfill increases, without
endangering the Okanagan avocet population.
3.2 Alternative breeding habitat at Slough No. 2 and Bubna Slough
At the same time as habitat enhancement work is being conducted at Robert Lake, a few nesting
platforms should be installed at Slough No. 2 and Bubna Slough. These wetlands have not been
used by avocets previously, but it would be an inexpensive experiment and, if successful, would
provide additional conservation options.
3.3 Potential for off-site mitigation at Robert Lake
Robert Lake is regularly used for foraging and nesting occurred once. There appears to be ample
shoreline to support a breeding colony of American Avocets. This shoreline currently attracts a
number of migrant and local avocets to forage. Clusters of artificial floating nesting islands
might be used to stimulate colony development, but this would have to be tested before this could
be relied on as a mitigation method. These might be preferable to constructing permanent low
islands with 12:1 side slopes on public land or rights-of-way in the lake as water levels cannot be
controlled at the present time. Permanent islands might be flooded in some years, and connected
to the mainland in other years, thereby becoming unsuitable for nesting avocets. However, there
are water management options that could control water levels, if all stakeholders agreed.
Unless private owners were amenable to making portions of land available, the best option on
public land for construction of permanent islands would be for a single island (0.07 ha or 30-m
diameter) in the south west corner. That part of Robert Lake is presently owned by Central
Okanagan Regional District and could be managed as parkland (Weir and Gyug 1999).
3.4 Maintain existing wetland habitat at the Glenmore Landfill for breeding
avocets
While attempts to encourage the breeding colony to move elsewhere are underway, it is
imperative that the existing wetland at the Glenmore Landfill is retained. It may be necessary to
manage water levels in such a way as to make the landfill site less desirable s nesting habitat than
usual, but the wetland should be retained in such a condition that it could be restored to a suitable
condition quickly.
Manning, Cooper and Associates

Avocets at Glenmore Landfill
6
3.5 Conservation habitat at Glenmore Landfill
If an engineered wetland at Glenmore Landfill is required to conserve the breeding population of
avocets then several factors must be considered. Several design factors are critical to consider
when designing a wetland suitable for breeding avocets.
Size: After studying the movements and territoriality of nesting pairs at Alki Lake, Weir
and Gyug (1999) suggest that each nesting pair requires 0.5 ha of foraging habitat. If we assume
12 breeding pairs (average number of breeding pairs in past 3 years) and 6 nonbreeding avocets (a
total of 30 adult birds), then 6.6 ha would be required based on 0.5 ha/pair and chicks and 0.1
ha/nonbreeder (Robinson and Oring 1997, Robinson et al. 1997). Since avocets tend to use about
2/3 of suitable habitat available (Girard and Yesou 1991), 10 ha seems more appropriate.
However, since other wetlands specifically engineered for nesting American Avocets have
increased densities markedly (e.g., Tulare Lake Drainage District 1996), there is potential for
providing habitat for more than 30 avocets in 10 ha.
Surrounding Area: Land areas surrounding compensation habitat should be relatively
flat and open with few trees so the area mimics prairie-like wetland habitat. In particular, all
perch sites used by raptors (predators of avocets) should be cleared within 150 m from
compensation habitat. To minimize human disturbance during nesting, the site needs to be
designed so that there are no work operations carried out within 150 m of the site during the
period when avocets are nesting (approximately May1 to August 15).
Substrate: Clay or clay-silt should be used as substrate of compensation habitat as it is
impermeable to water and thus stops underground water loss, forcing water losses through
evaporation which aids in increasing salinity and alkalinity.
Foraging Habitat: Shallow feeding areas of 1-17 cm depth are necessary in order for
avocets to forage. Water depth in the majority of feeding areas could average 10 cm and be in the
range of 5-13.5 cm deep. Small areas of deeper water (17-60 cm) should be scattered throughout
the compensation habitat as some invertebrate species used as food may need deeper water at
certain portions of their life cycles.
Water Control: As water levels in compensation habitats fluctuate, it will be necessary
to control water levels to keep nesting islands exposed in high water years and surrounded by
water in dry years, to keep water depth in foraging areas at an optimal level, and to achieve a
relatively constant water level through the incubation period. Outside the breeding season (May
1-August 15) these water levels can be manipulated for other landfill management purposes.
Other considerations with water level control are 1) salinity and alkalinity, which may be
reduced when water is flushed through the system instead of allowing solutes to build up through
evaporative water loss, 2) impacts on invertebrate prey abundance, and 3) vegetation control.
The site should be designed so water levels can easily be manipulated, particularly to raise water
levels on some occasions to prevent buildup of permanent vegetation on low nesting islands and
in shallow foraging habitat.
Water quality: Water should be highly alkaline (>400mg/L), highly saline (>12,000uS),
have high Total Dissolved Solids and low Dissolved Oxygen (Ambrozy 1999).
Manning, Cooper and Associates

Avocets at Glenmore Landfill
7
Shoreline: Shoreline slopes should be 10:1 to 12:1 slope maximizing the shoreline area
which can be used for foraging (Robinson et al. 1997).
Nesting Islands: Compensation habitat should have numerous small islands or several
large islands for nesting as outlined in Weir and Gyug (1999). Artificial nesting islands can be
constructed in existing alkaline wetlands provided that foraging habitat exists already at those
sites. In creating artificial nesting islands for American Avocets, a number of factors need to be
considered (Robinson et al. 1997; Weir and Gyug 1999). These include: 1) distance and depths
of water between island and shore, 2) size and distribution, 3) slope, 4) vegetative cover, 5)
substrate, 6) height above water; and 7) durability.
General recommendations for nesting islands (after Weir and Gyug 1999) include:
• Minimum distance of 30 m to shore, and depth of water at least 1 m deep to protect against
mammalian predators somewhere between shore and island.
• Islands can be of almost any size, but if small islands are used they should be clustered.
• Side slopes at 10:1 to 12:1 under water and above water (Figure 1). At Tulare Lake Drainage
District in California, artificially created nesting islands with side slopes of 12:1 attracted
large numbers of avocets but islands with side slopes of 3:1 were used to discourage avocet
nesting (Tulare Lake Drainage District 1999). Burgess and Hirons (1992) constructed nesting
islands for Pied Avocets (Recurvirostra avosetta) in Great Britain with side slopes of 10:1.
• Vegetative coverage, if any, should be sparse and short on nesting islands. If vegetation is
not to be controlled by water levels, then vegetation can be discouraged by placing several
layers of weed resistant plastic over islands and then placing highly alkaline and saline clay
on top of plastic. Salt can be spread over island surface to discourage plant growth.
• Any natural material substrate is acceptable, but should be resistant to wave erosion. Islands
with a base constructed of large rocks and clay topping is recommended.
• Island height should be great enough to reduce chances of sudden flooding but should not
usually exceed 30 cm because then the island would have to be very large to not exceed the
recommended side slopes. Islands should also be low so that permanent vegetation does not
establish, and thereby negate the value to avocets. On such low islands, both occasional
flooding and a rooting zone that would extend into relatively toxic alkali waters are likely to
keep most vegetation to a minimum. An alternative would be to construct islands with clay
placed over a vegetation-impermeable plastic or other barrier.
• Erosion caused by wave action can reduce island life. To prolong island life and avoid
having to reconstruct them at regular intervals, artificial nesting islands constructed in Great
Britain were designed to reduce erosion. Techniques included: 1) using a 10:1 slope at base;
2) covering island with plastic netting; 3) placing stakes on windward side of island; and 4)
placing pebble like substrates along water margin of islands (Burgess and Hirons 1992).
Nursery sites: Short vegetation in very shallow water 1-5 cm deep should be created
near each nesting island for chicks to hide in. Such nursery sites should occur naturally if Alkali
Saltgrass occurs. Saltgrass will not grow in deep water.
Overall design: There are many possible wetland designs that incorporate all or most of
the above recommendations. Obviously any design would need to incorporate existing site
constraints and other factors, particularly the requirement to maintain high alkalinity. A
“generic” example of a wetland design was developed by Weir and Gyug (1999), and is included
here as a recommended concept (Figure 2). The design is for a 10 ha wetland (10 ha in size (250
m x 400 m). Five island ridges would run parallel to each other with shallow wide feeding lanes
between each island. Island ridges would be 45 m apart from each other. The exact width of the
Manning, Cooper and Associates

Avocets at Glenmore Landfill
8
islands would depend on the water level at any given time but should generally be 3 m wide, to
reduce the amount of area exposed out of the water, and maximize the foraging area in shallow
water. A shallow 35 m periphery zone would surround the island ridges and would have
incorporated into it a deep-water moat of ~ 1.5 m depth and 5-10 m width. Overall depth of
water would be 5-17 cm.
This design is not the only possible design, however. Clusters of shorter islands could work just
as well as the proposed island ridges, or ridges that are not as continuous could work as well.
However, the Tulare Lake Drainage District (1996) found that long island ridges did work very
successfully as avocet nesting habitat. This design would also depend on relatively fine control
of water levels. Other designs would be necessary if fine control of water levels is not possible
while maintaining high alkalinity.
4. Literature Cited
Ambrozy, Samantha. 1999. Water chemistry preferences for habitat of American Avocet in
British Columbia. Report prepared under auspices of Deep River Science Academy,
Okanagan University College for Central Okanagan Naturalists Club, Kelowna, British
Columbia.
Campbell, R.W. 1972. The American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) in British Columbia.
Syesis 5:173-178.
Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser and M.C.E.
McNall. 1990. The birds of British Columbia. Volume 2. Royal British Columbia
Museum, Victoria, BC and Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, BC.
Cannings, R.A., R.J. Cannings and S.G. Cannings. 1987. Birds of the Okanagan valley, British
Columbia. Royal BC Museum, Victoria, BC.
Cooper, J.M. 1983. Recent occurrences of the American Avocet in British Columbia. Murrelet
64: 47-48.
Fraser, D.F., W.L. Harper, S.G. Cannings and J.M. Cooper. 1999. Rare birds of British Columbia.
Wildlife Branch and Resource Inventory Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and
Parks, Victoria. 244 pp.
Gebauer, M. 2000. Status of the American Avocet in British Columbia. Wildlife Branch, B.C.
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C.
Girard, O. and P. Yesou. 1991. Developpement spatial d’une colonie d’avocettes (Recurvirostra
americana). Gibier Faune Sauvage Vol. 8 Mars 1991: 31-42.
Giroux, J.F. 1985. Nest sites and superclutches of American avocets on artificial islands.
Canadian J. Zool. 63:1302-1305.
Kondla, N. G., and H. W. Pinel. 1978. Clutch size of the American Avocet in the prairie
provinces. Blue Jay 36: 150-153.
MacNeil, Christina. 1999. Abundance and types of potential invertebrate prey of American
Avocet in British Columbia. Report prepared under auspices of Deep River Science
Academy, Okanagan University College for Central Okanagan Naturalists Club, Kelowna,
British Columbia.
Manning, Cooper and Associates

Avocets at Glenmore Landfill
9
Renaut, R. 1993. Morphology, distribution and preservation potential of microbial mats in the
hydromagnesite-magnesite playas of the Cariboo Plateau, British Columbia, Canada.
Hydrobiologia 267:75-98
Robinson, J.A., and L.W. Oring. 1997. Natal and breeding dispersal of American Avocets. Auk
114: 416-430.
Robinson, J.A., L.W. Oring, J.P. Skorupa, and R. Bettcher. 1997. American avocet
(Recurvirostra americana). In The Birds of North America, No. 275 (A. Poole and F. Gill,
eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American
Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Roed, M.A. with contributions from others. 1995. Geology of the Kelowna area and origin of
the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia. Kelowna Geology Committee, Kelowna, B.C.
Sidle, J.G., and P.M. Arnold. 1982. Nesting of the American avocet in North Dakota. Prairie
Nat. 14: 73-80.
Tulare Lake Drainage District. 1996. Supplement to the 1995 annual report. Tulare Lake
Drainage District, Corcoran, CA.
Tulare Lake Drainage District. 1999. Tulare Lake Drainage District: Summary of Activities,
January 1999. Report prepared by Tulare Lake Drainage District, Hansen’s Biological
Consulting and Hanson Environmental, Inc.
Weir, J.T. 1997. The breeding biology of an American avocet colony in British Columbia.
British Columbia Birds 7: 3-7.
Weir, J.T. and L.W. Gyug. 1999. Population numbers, breeding success and habitat
characteristics of the American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) in British Columbia.
Central Okanagan Naturalist Club, Kelowna, BC.
Manning, Cooper and Associates