Ministry review of the Biggars Lane Landfill expansion environmental assessment

Summary of our review

Who

County of Brant (County)

What

The County is proposing to expand the Biggars Lane Landfill to provide an additional 1.13 million cubic metres of waste disposal capacity for solid, non-hazardous waste. The undertaking will involve the horizontal expansion of the west landfill areas, which would increase the landfilling area by 14.3 hectares.

When

The environmental assessment (EA) was submitted on February 15, 2021.

Where

128 Biggars Lane, Scotland, Ontario

Why

The Biggars Lane Landfill is approaching its approved capacity of 732,225 cubic metres. The County has identified the opportunity to expand the Biggars Lane Landfill by 1.13 million cubic metres to continue providing industrial, commercial and institutional waste disposal services, and provide municipal waste disposal to the County of Brant for an additional 30 years from 2023 to 2053.

Conclusions

The ministry review concludes that the EA was prepared in accordance with the approved terms of reference and contains sufficient information to assess the potential environmental effects of the proponent’s undertaking. The EA demonstrated that the County will be able to meet the objectives set out in its terms of reference. No significant issues were raised by government agencies during the EA process. A number of standard conditions are proposed in order to ensure that the project proceeds as outlined and persons/agencies with an interest in the project would continue to be consulted.

1. Environmental assessment process

The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) provides a proponent-driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision-making by assessing the effects of an undertaking on the environment. In Ontario, the EAA sets out the general contents for the preparation of an environmental assessment (EA), as well as the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks’ (MECP/ministry) evaluation process. For those proponents and undertakings subject to the EAA, approval under the EAA is required before the undertaking can proceed.

Proponents address a wide range of potential effects on the natural, social, cultural and economic environments to ensure the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. An EA determines, on the basis of the environmental effects, if an undertaking should proceed, and if so, how environmental effects can be managed.

EAs may identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and affected Indigenous communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and conditions of the EAA approval.

1.1 Terms of reference

Completing the EA process involves two separate steps: the terms of reference (ToR) and the EA. The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a ToR to the ministry for review and decision. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

The ToR was prepared pursuant to sections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EAA. Under these sections of the EAA, the ToR must set out in detail the requirements for the preparation of the EA and may consist of information other than that required under section 6.1(2) of the EAA, which sets out what are commonly referred to as the ‘generic’ requirements of an EA. This allowed the proponent to focus the assessment in the EA on providing a process to identify and assess alternative designs (alternative methods) for the expansion of the existing landfill and assess potential environmental effects and benefits of the alternatives. The County of Brant (County/proponent) undertook a Solid Waste Disposal Future Needs Study in 2010/2011, which concluded that the preferred method to address future solid waste disposal needs was to develop new disposal capacity at the Biggars Lane Landfill.

The expansion of the existing landfill is intended to address the County’s determination that the landfill will reach capacity by 2023.

On May 15, 2015, the former Minister of the Environment and Climate Change approved the County’s ToR. The ToR established the framework for the preparation of the EA, including:

• describing the purpose and rationale for the undertaking, which was to provide additional waste disposal capacity over a 30-year period
• identifying and evaluating potential environmental effects (both positive and negative) and proposing mitigation measures
• a consultation plan for obtaining input from the public, government agencies and Indigenous communities during the preparation of the EA

1.2 Environmental assessment

Once the ToR is approved by the Minister, the proponent can proceed to the second step of the EA process and carry out the EA. The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. Once the proponent has carried out the EA, including consultation, the EA is submitted to the ministry for review and a decision.

A draft EA was made available to the public and agencies between November 9, 2018 and December 14, 2018. On February 15, 2021, the County submitted the Biggars Lane Landfill expansion environmental assessment to the ministry for a decision on the proposed undertaking. The EA was available for a public, government agency and Indigenous community comment period ending on May 7, 2021. During this period, agencies, Indigenous communities and the public had an opportunity to review the EA and submit comments to the ministry. The EA was also circulated directly to Indigenous communities and to government agencies known as the Government Review Team (GRT) for review. The GRT, comprised of provincial and local agencies, reviewed the EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the EA were valid based on the mandates of each respective agency. All comments received by the ministry are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the undertaking as described in the EA.

1.3 Ministry review

The EAA requires the ministry to prepare a review of the EA, which is the ministry’s evaluation of the EA. The purpose of the ministry review is to determine if the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR, meets the requirements of the EAA, and whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking. 

The ministry review outlines whether the information contained in the EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking. Ministry staff, with input from the GRT, evaluate the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and the proposed mitigation measures. The ministry review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, agency and Indigenous community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.

The Minister considers the conclusion of the ministry review when making a decision. The ministry review itself is not the decision-making mechanism. The Minister’s decision on the undertaking described in the EA will be made following the end of the five-week review comment period. The Minister’s decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The comment period allows the GRT, public and Indigenous communities to see how their concerns with the EA and the proposed undertaking have been considered. During the comment period, anyone can submit comments on the EA, the undertaking and the ministry review. In addition, anyone can request that the Minister refer the EA, or any matter relating to the EA, to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that there are significant outstanding environmental effects that the EA has not addressed. Requests for a hearing can only be made during this comment period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.

A notice of completion of the ministry review was issued indicating that this review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period through the government of Ontario’s website, Ontario.ca. Copies of the ministry review have also been distributed electronically to the GRT and potentially affected or interested Indigenous communities.

2. The proposed undertaking

2.1 Background

The Biggars Lane Landfill (landfill) is located at 128 Biggars Lane in Scotland, Ontario (see Figure 1). The landfill is situated on 91.18 hectares (ha) of land owned by the County and occupies 11.1 ha on the property. The landfill is the only landfill currently operated by the County. The currently approved waste disposal capacity is 732,225 cubic metres (m³) and the site is approved to accept waste at a maximum annual fill rate of 19,000 tonnes. Approximately 24 waste trucks per day access the landfill. The landfill receives solid non-hazardous municipal waste and industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) waste generated from the County and is expected to reach its approved capacity by 2023.

The landfill has been operating since 1966 and at that time received waste from a portion of the former Township of Brantford. This predates the existence of the EAA. The site first received a provisional Certificate of Approval A100301 under the Environmental Protection Act in 1971. Following the municipal amalgamation that created the single-tier County of Brant on January 1, 1999, the service area was amended to include the entire County. The current provisional Certificate of Approval (now Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) was issued in March 2005. This proposal consists of the first application for a decision under the EAA.

Purpose

The County proposes to increase the disposal capacity by 1.13 million m³ for solid non-hazardous waste at the Biggars Lane Landfill. The County identified an opportunity to continue providing IC&I waste disposal, as well as residential waste disposal, for the County for an additional 30 years from 2023 to 2053.

2.2 Study areas

The EA primarily used three study areas: regional, local and site study area to identify and assess potential impacts to the environment. The regional study area encompasses the County but does not include the City of Brantford or the Six Nations of the Grand River and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation Reserves. The regional study area is intended to capture components of the environment that extend beyond the local study area such as the economic environment and natural environment (atmosphere, watersheds, natural habitat areas). The local study area extends approximately 500 metres (m) in all directions beyond the County owned lands at the Biggars Lane Landfill. The site study area includes the County owned lands at the Biggars Lane Landfill.

2.3 Local environment

The County of Brant is comprised of large rural areas and agricultural land. The site study area contains one building, a small barn, with the majority of the lands being agriculture in a cash crop rotation. Located within the local study area are 11 residences, an existing business (golf course) and 11 active farms and agricultural operations (of the 11 active farms, 5 of them account for the 11 residences). The closest residence is 173 m from the proposed expansion area.

The landfill site is situated on a relatively flat topography with sand and silt deposits throughout the area. In the vicinity of the landfill, the ground surface elevation is approximately 229 m above mean sea level and a surface water creek is located approximately 250 m southwest of the site. An unnamed creek (a tributary of the Grand River) discharges to the Grand River approximately 9 kilometres (km) to the northeast of the existing landfill. The unnamed creek flows through the south landfill buffer area and surface water drainage in the vicinity of the landfill is to the south. Groundwater flow within the overall area is to the south-southwest toward the unnamed creek.

A stormwater management pond was constructed in 2007 and is located south of the landfill footprint. The stormwater management pond is used to provide quality control of runoff from drainage areas located within the landfill footprint. The pond ultimately discharges into the unnamed creek south of the landfill. A second stormwater management pond was constructed in 2010, adjacent to the previously established pond, to control stormwater runoff from drainage areas located within the landfill site, to the northwest of the landfill footprint. Water collected by this second pond has no contact with any of the waste management activities at the landfill.

2.4 Description of the proposed undertaking

The proposed landfill expansion design will provide additional capacity of 1.13 million m³ to meet the anticipated waste disposal opportunity in the County of Brant over a 30-year planning period. This includes taking into account existing and anticipated proposed diversion activities associated with the site which are described in section 4 of this ministry review. The expansion will involve the construction of a 14.3 ha landfill footprint west of the existing landfill using an engineered base containment approach (liner) (see Figure 3). The height of the expansion will be approximately 15 m above the existing ground surface. In addition, excavation to form the base of the landfill will involve the combination of cutting and filling with the soil surplus, approximately 66,000 m³, available for daily cover and other site requirements.

The current rate of fill at the landfill is 19,000 tonnes per year or 62.9 tonnes per day, and the number of waste deliveries is approximately 24 trucks per day. The County has stated that as the population in the County grows so will waste disposal needs and as such a 0.66 m³/capita/year rate of fill has been applied to calculate future disposal needs, resulting in the County requesting an additional landfill capacity of 1.13 million m³. The proponent has indicated that the annual rate of fill will be 37,255 m³/year and that on average, annual fill rates and daily rates will be increasing for the landfill expansion to 24,512 tonnes per year or 81.17 per day. The number of trucks required to deliver the waste will track with population growth and in addition, more trucks will now be needed to haul leachate off-site (an addition of three to nine trucks per day).

In addition to the two existing stormwater management ponds, a new stormwater management pond will be constructed as part of the expansion to accommodate the additional surface water runoff from the proposed landfill expansion areas. This new stormwater management pond will ultimately require an ECA approval under the Ontario Water Resources Act. A stormwater management plan and report will be prepared during the detail design phase of the project and submitted to the MECP for review and approval.

A landfill gas collection system is proposed, which will capture gas on-site through a series of vertical extraction wells and from the leachate collection system. The collected gas is then flared at the existing flare on-site. A leachate collection system is also proposed for the project and will include trucking the collected leachate to the nearby County owned Paris Water Pollution Control Plant for treatment which currently has capacity to manage leachate.

The landfill expansion will not include any changes or modifications to existing site accesses and entrances or existing infrastructure on the site. While the County does not currently specify haul routes in the EA for arrival at the Biggars Lane Landfill, existing routes used by waste collection trucks can remain the same as the traffic impact analysis completed indicated a minimal increase in traffic volume as a result of the expansion. Existing haul routes include approach roads to the landfill such as Biggars Lane and Hagan Road, other rural local roads such as Elliott Road and Wetmores Road, as well as rural arterial and collector roads such as Oakland Road, Cockshutt Road, Indian Line and Burtch Road. The new leachate haulage route from the landfill to the Paris Water Pollution Control Plant, approximately 20 km, will use the County’s network of Permitted Truck Routes, Ellis Avenue and residential local roads.

The landfill currently provides a diversion program for items such as blue box recycling, scrap metal, tires, propane tanks, etc. Between the years of 2012 to 2018, the County reported an annual increase in diversion rates, with a rate of 36 percent in 2019. While the County has made improvements to their diversion programs such as increasing the availability of public recycling bins and reducing the number of garbage bags allowed, the average residential waste diversion rate has remained the same for the last four years.

Figure 1: Study areas

Figure 2: Proposed landfill expansion Alternative 1

Figure 3: Proposed landfill expansion Alternative 2

Figure 4: Proposed landfill expansion Alternative 3

Figure 5: Proposed landfill expansion Alternative 4

3. Results of the ministry review

The ministry review provides an analysis of the EA. It is not intended to summarize the EA, nor present the information found in the EA. For information on the decision-making process, please refer to the EA itself. The EA and supporting documentation outlines the EA planning process and demonstrates how the proponent has selected the preferred undertaking and made the final decision.

The purpose of the ministry review is to determine whether:

• the EA has met the requirements of the ToR and the EAA
• there are any outstanding issues with the EA
• the proposed undertaking has technical merit

Must haves in the EA:

• the EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR
• EA must include all the basic EAA information requirements
• EA demonstrates where all the additional commitments in the ToR were met, including studies and the consultation process

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

The ministry coordinated an analysis of the EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the ToR have been met. The ministry has concluded that the EA followed the framework and commitments outlined in the ToR and meets the components of the EAA.

Appendix A summarizes this analysis and identifies how the ToR and EAA requirements have been addressed in the EA.

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is pre-submission consultation during the preparation of the EA. This consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be carried out prior to the submission of the EA to the ministry and must be in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the ToR.

The County carried out its consultation program to inform and gain input from the GRT, members of the public, as well as Indigenous communities and organizations. The consultation program included:

• establishing a project contact list
• meetings with agency and municipal stakeholders, and Indigenous communities
• hosting two public open houses
• circulating notices via local newspapers and mail outs
• maintaining a project website with EA documentation
• publishing the draft EA for a 45-day comment period from November 9, 2018 to December 14, 2018

The County documented its consultation activities adequately in the EA and Record of Consultation. Section 15 of the EA provides an overview of the consultation activities, with the complete consultation documented in the Record of Consultation Volume VI of the EA.

Following submission of the EA to the ministry, the ministry undertook consultation in accordance with the EAA, beginning on February 15, 2021 to May 7, 2021. The GRT, public, and Indigenous communities were provided with the opportunity to review the EA and submit comments to the ministry regarding the fulfillment of ToR requirements, the EA, and the proposed undertaking. Comments received by the ministry during the comment period were forwarded to the County for a response. A summary of the comments received along with the County’s response is included in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B to this ministry review.

Government Review Team

Consultation with the GRT occurred throughout the EA process. This included:

• pre-submission discussions
• technical meetings with ministry staff and key members of the GRT
• an opportunity to review the draft EA

Many of the comments provided on the draft EA were addressed in the final EA submitted to the ministry.

The Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry (MNDMNRF) (formally the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF)), Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI), MECP and the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) provided comments throughout the EA process on EA work plans and on the draft EA.

At that time, comments provided by MNDMNRF on the draft EA confirmed that the preferred alternative would avoid the area where species at risk bats may be roosting, but that further guidance from MNDMNRF may be needed if another alternative is selected and tree removal planned. MECP subsequently agreed with these comments on species.

MHSTCI sought consistency in referencing needed archaeological work, as well as a few administrative changes. The County updated the EA in response to MHSTCI’s comments. MECP provided comments specific to wastewater, waste, air, hydrology and source protection.

MECP’s technical comments on the draft EA requested additional information about the project and the EA report, such as detailing vulnerable areas and ground composition. The ministry also indicated that only those options which include an engineered base liner and leachate collection system are supported.

The County provided a revised draft EA to the ministry for review. The ministry was satisfied with the changes. GRCA indicated that they had no concerns. A summary of the comments received on the draft EA and the County’s responses is provided in Table 15.4 of the EA. Original correspondence can be found in the Record of Consultation.

Following the formal submission of the EA to the ministry, GRT members were provided with a copy of the final EA for review. Comments from MHSTCI were received during the submission comment period and forwarded to the County for a response. Refer to Section 3.3. of this ministry review or Appendix B regarding these comments.

Public consultation

The proponent used a variety of consultation methods to consult with the public including:

• public notices
• two public information centres
• website postings
• direct community engagement through in-person meetings, phone calls and emails

Public information centres were held on March 29, 2016, and May 16, 2018. A summary of consultation with public stakeholders during the preparation of the EA is included in Section 15 of the EA.

The notice of commencement for the EA was issued on November 27, 2015. The County made the draft EA and its supporting documents available on the County’s website to members of the public, agencies and Indigenous communities for comment from November 9, 2018 to December 14, 2018. The County received no comments from members of the public on the draft EA report.

The notice of submission of the final EA was issued on February 15, 2021 and circulated to the project contact list as well as posted on the County’s website. No comments were submitted to the ministry by the public.

Indigenous community consultation

In addition to the requirement in the EAA that the proponent consult with interested persons, the ministry delegated to the proponent the procedural elements of the Crown’s duty to consult with Indigenous communities whose existing constitutionally protected rights may be negatively impacted by the proposed undertaking.

The following Indigenous communities or representatives of a community were identified for consultation purposes:

• Six Nations of the Grand River (both Six Nations Elected Council and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council)
• Métis Nation of Ontario
• Grand River Métis Council (Métis Nation of Ontario)
• Caldwell First Nation
• Chippewas of the Thames
• Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation
• Oneida Nation of the Thames

The County also contacted the Huron Wendat Nation as they expressed a specific interest in archaeological resources in the site study area.

The above list was developed in consultation with the MECP, the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs and Indigenous Services Canada.

Formal study notices were circulated to Indigenous communities. Correspondence invited the communities to participate during the ToR phase of the EA and each round of EA consultation. In addition to the formal study notices, interested Indigenous communities were given studies to review, including archaeological assessment reports. 

Additional engagement activities were undertaken during the preparation of the EA to obtain input from the identified Indigenous communities. These included an invitation to monitor field work, which the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, Haudenosaunee Development Institute and Huron Wendat Nation accepted. Meetings were also held with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (January 18, 2017 and January 23, 2019) and Six Nations of the Grand River (April 10, 2018). 

Throughout the preparation of the EA, the above listed communities were kept informed of the progress of the EA and received a copy of the draft EA to review and provide comments. The following is a summary of the comments received from Indigenous communities during the preparation of the EA.

The Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation and the Huron Wendat Nation identified a low level of concern for the project but requested that they be included in any fieldwork undertaken related to the archaeological assessment work. The proponent invited both communities to monitor fieldwork and provided the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessments to the communities. The proponent has committed to continuing to engage with the communities during detailed design, providing updates on additional archaeological work, such as a Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment. If required, the Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment would be undertaken during detailed design. It should be noted that a Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment would only occur if the final design for the landfill requires construction or operation within 20 m of archaeological resources. MHSTCI reviewed the EA and while a commitment to future work was requested in relation to completing the Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment (and potentially Stage 4), overall MHSTCI was satisfied.

During the April 10, 2018 meeting between Six Nations of the Grand River and the proponent, questions arose regarding the identification of vegetation, the development of a mitigation plan for the removal of vegetation and the use of a tree compensation policy (10:1 replacement ratio) during the development of mitigation measures. The proponent provided additional field data and confirmed that they would use the 10:1 ratio when developing the tree compensation policy. Consultation continued between the County and the community during development of the EA and into the EA submission comment period. Additional comments from Six Nations of the Grand River were received by the proponent during the EA submission comment period.

Indigenous community engagement is detailed in Section 15 of the EA and further documented in Sections C5 and D10 of the Record of Consultation.

No other Indigenous communities submitted comments on the final EA. Refer to Section 3.3 of this ministry review for discussion of these comments.

Ministry conclusions on the consultation program

The EAA requires that the proponent consult with all interested persons during the preparation of the EA, provide a description of consultation activities undertaken by the proponent, and document consultation results. Overall, the ministry believes that the County provided sufficient opportunities for public, stakeholder, government agency, and Indigenous consultation during the preparation and finalization of the EA. The County has committed to continue to engage with Indigenous communities during detailed design of the proposed undertaking.

The ministry is satisfied that the EA consultation undertaken is consistent with the codes of practice for consultation in Ontario’s EA process and best practices, meets the requirements of the EAA, and followed the consultation plan outlined in the approved ToR.

3.2 EA process

EA is a planning process that requires a proponent to identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the potential environmental effects of alternatives against select criteria, and then select a preferred alternative. In general, the County followed a logical and transparent decision-making process to select the preferred method for expanding the Biggars Lane Landfill to address the business opportunity to continue providing waste disposal services from 2023 to 2053. Below is a summary of the EA process followed, including the study areas used, and the methodology for assessing alternatives and environmental effects. Please refer to Appendix A of this ministry review for the ministry’s analysis of how the EA has met the requirements of the EAA and the approved ToR.

3.2.1 Focused EA

The County prepared its EA in accordance with Sections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of EAA, which resulted in an EA that “focused” on the consideration of alternative methods for increasing waste disposal capacity at the Biggars Lane Landfill. The ToR provided justification for limiting the examination of alternatives through an analysis of alternatives available to the County for achieving additional waste disposal capacity to provide integrated waste disposal services at the Biggars Lane Landfill over a 30-year planning period.

In the analysis of alternatives to the undertaking in the ToR, the County identified that it had a limited number of reasonable ways to address the opportunity of securing additional disposal capacity. The County reviewed waste management options and then undertook a screening of landfilling alternatives during the development of the ToR. The screening of alternatives considered six reasonable alternatives, including:

• do nothing
• alternative disposal technologies
• out-of-county landfill disposal options
• landfill mining
• privatization / sale of county solid waste facilities
• in-county landfill disposal options

The alternative selected was to expand the existing Biggars Lane Landfill as it is the only property large enough to provide the additional capacity requested.

The ToR also discussed alternative methods at a conceptual level by looking at “where” and “how” to expand the existing landfill. This was carried forward into the EA and discussed and reviewed in more detail.

Where to expand the landfill considered the following:

• vertical expansion within the existing landfill footprint
• construction of an expansion to the existing landfill footprint
• construction of a new disposal footprint separate from the existing landfill footprint within the County owned property

How to expand the landfill considered the following:

• natural attenuation (no liner or leachate collection system)
• MECP Generic Design No. 1 (single liner and leachate collection system)
• MECP Generic Design No. 2 (double liner and leachate collection system)
• site-specific engineering design

The EA prepared by the County focused on the development and assessment of alternative methods of expanding the Biggars Lane Landfill, as well as methods for leachate treatment and landfill gas management.

3.2.2 Description of the environment in the study areas

Section 4.0 (Description of the Environment Potentially Affected) of the EA provides a description of the environmental conditions in the site and local and regional study areas as previously described (see Figure 1), to establish a baseline for comparison with alternative methods. The environments described in the EA are:

• Natural environment — biological, hydrogeological, surface water, atmospheric, climate change
• Socio-economic environment — social, economic, atmospheric (odour, dust, blowing litter), noise, visual, agricultural
• Cultural environment — archaeology, cultural heritage
• Built environment — land use, transportation, design & operations

The ministry is satisfied that a broad definition of the environment was considered and that the EA adequately describes the existing environmental conditions in the study areas.

3.2.3 Assessment of alternative methods

The County considered various horizontal landfill footprint locations and designs for expanding the existing landfill, including options for managing landfill gas and treating leachate in Section 3.0 (Description of the Alternative Methods) of the EA. The County developed evaluation criteria and indicators to identify and assess the impacts of these alternatives on the natural (biological and physical), socio-economic, cultural and built environments. The County predicted the net effects from each alternative method, then compared and ranked each method to determine the preferred option. The options for expanding the landfill to provide additional waste disposal capacity were:

• Alternative 1 — a 15.1 ha horizontal expansion west of the existing landfill with an engineered low permeability final cover without a liner and leachate collection system (see Figure 2)
• Alternative 2 — a 14.3 ha horizontal expansion west of the existing landfill with an engineered base containment approach (liner) (see Figure 3)
• Alternative 3 — two separate landfill footprints — a 10.9 ha expansion west of the existing landfill and a 4.7 ha expansion east of the existing landfill with an engineered low permeability final cover without a liner and leachate collection system (see Figure 4)
• Alternative 4 — two separate landfill footprints — a 11.7 ha footprint west of the existing landfill and an 8.2 ha expansion east of the existing landfill with an engineered base containment (liner) (see Figure 5)

Alternative 2 was selected as the preferred site development method from biological, atmospheric, socio-economic, and built environment perspectives. The other alternatives were assessed to produce higher dust and odour impacts, affect worker safety, and have higher capital costs.

The landfill gas management methods considered were:

• Alternative 1 — do nothing
• Alternative 2 — Utilization of passive venting which involves installation of a system to intercept the landfill gas before it reaches the atmosphere
• Alternative 3 — Utilization of an active collection system involves installation of a system that uses extraction equipment to draw landfill gas through the pipe network placed over the landfill gas collection area and directs the landfill gas to equipment for combustion or use
• Alternative 4 — Utilization of an active vertical extraction well system which uses the same extraction, piping and combustion or use equipment described above
• Alternative 5 — Utilization of a combination of active horizontal collection trenches and active vertical extraction wells

Alternative 4 was preferred from technical and operations perspectives. Vertical extraction wells are more efficient when used at sites like Biggars Lane Landfill where the footprint area is limited and the waste thickness is relatively small. It should be noted that the landfill gas collection system will only be installed for the expansion footprint.

The leachate treatment methods considered were:

• Alternative 1 — trucking collected leachate to the County-owned Paris Water Pollution Control Plant for treatment
• Alternative 2 — trucking collected leachate to the County-owned St. George Water Pollution Control Plant for treatment
• Alternative 3 — combined use of both County-owned facilities
• Alternative 4 — establishment of a full on-site leachate treatment system
• Alternative 5 — the use of out-of-County Sewage Treatment Plant(s)

Alternative 1 was considered as the preferred leachate treatment alternative since there would be no construction-related natural, social, and cost impacts.

Do nothing was also considered as a benchmark comparison associated with the analysis in the EA of the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with the preferred alternative or undertaking. As a result, the ministry gained an understanding of proceeding with the landfill expansion verses a do-nothing scenario in this regard.

3.2.4 Assessment of environmental effects

The County describes the potential effects, mitigation measures and residual (net) effects of the overall Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion project in Section 9.0 (Environmental Effects Assessment and Mitigation, Monitoring and Contingency Plan for the Preferred Method) of the EA. The County developed impact assessment criteria which were used to identify the net effects resulting from the project after the application of mitigation measures. Environmental components that were considered included:

• geology
• hydrogeological
• surface water
• atmospheric
• social
• economic
• agricultural
• cultural heritage
• archaeological
• land use
• transportation
• design and operations

The natural environment assessment examined the potential effects of the project on:

• endangered or threatened species habitat
• terrestrial systems (wildlife and wildlife habitat)
• fish and fish habitat

The expansion is predicted to have minimal impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecosystems, including aquatic wildlife and species at risk.

In addition, an assessment of the environmental effects on air quality, odour and noise was completed and the impacts were determined to be minimal and not significant to the nearby receptors.

Transportation impacts were considered through the EA and it was determined that the preferred method for landfill expansion will not significantly change the forecast. Traffic impacts from the landfill operations as this project will use the same haul routes and accept a similar amount of waste as currently accepted. 

With regards to impacts to the local economic environment, the assessment determined that the expansion will not result in disturbance or displacement to the existing golf course business and there will be an overall net environment benefit to the local economy as a result through the temporary creation of new jobs through construction and the small boost to the economy of the local study area, with the temporary residence of the workers through the construction period.

Source water protection

The County’s consideration of source water protection is described in Section 4.1.2.5 of the EA. The project is located in the Lake Erie Source Water Protection Region, specifically the Grand River watershed. There are no wellhead protection areas within the local study area and the site study area is outside the Brantford Intake Protection Zone. However, sections of the site study area are located within the intake protection zone for the Ohsweken Water Supply Intake with a vulnerability score of 6. The site study area is not within a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer and has no Wellhead Protection Areas, and is not within an Intake Protection Zone with a score of 9 or higher. As a result, no Source Protection Plan Policies apply. The ministry’s Source Protection Programs Branch is satisfied with the information provided in the EA.

Climate change impacts

In 2017, the ministry developed a guideline that set out ministry expectations for considering climate change in the preparation of an EA. This guideline did not exist when the ToR was developed for this project, or later when the ToR was approved by the Minister. However, a Climate Change Considerations Report was prepared after the comparative evaluations were completed and so it draws directly from sections of the supporting studies in which climate change considerations were made.

The review of Alternative Methods in the supporting studies considered the impacts of the project on climate change and the impacts of climate change on the project. Mitigation measures to address impacts from climate change are provided in the EA and include sizing the stormwater management pond for the site to minimize the impacts of erosion and runoff as well as designing a landfill gas collection and destruction system in accordance with Ontario Regulation 232/98 with the ability to help avoid 55 percent of the greenhouse gasses that are created by the expansion. The County is planning the landfill expansion in a manner that considers future changes in climate and the impacts a changing climate could have on the project. The net effects of greenhouse gas generation are considered in the EA as well as the size/design of stormwater management facilities to address potential flooding events. The project is not expected to have any significant impacts on the environment due to climate change considerations.

Cumulative effects

The Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario (2014) encourages proponents to include information about the potential cumulative effects of the project in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities. The County outlined steps for determining cumulative effects in the approved ToR. No concerns have been expressed regarding existing cumulative adverse impacts in the site study area or in the local study area from past and/or present activities. There are currently no known development applications within the local study area and development activity within this rural area has been limited in recent years. Considering this overview of the present and foreseeable situation, there are no apparent potential adverse cumulative effects on the environment associated with the proposed expansion of the landfill.

3.2.5 Monitoring and commitments

Sections 9 and 13 of the EA describe environmental effects monitoring activities used to ascertain the effectiveness of mitigation measures, in addition to contingency measures to address unexpected occurrences. Monitoring activities are proposed for wildlife (including species at risk), terrestrial and aquatic habitat, tree plantings, groundwater (including private wells), surface water quality, leachate quality, landfill gas, and public complaints. Commitments related to the construction, operation, closure and post-closure of the landfill are listed in Table 13.1: Summary of Commitments of the EA.

3.2.6 Ministry conclusions on the EA process

Overall, the ministry is satisfied with the proponent’s decision-making process and that the process is consistent with the requirements of the EAA and the approved ToR. The EA confirms the opportunity for expanding the landfill, provides a description of the environment potentially affected which considers the EAA’s broad definition of the environment, and considers alternative methods for landfill site development, including leachate and landfill gas management alternatives. The EA identifies the potential effects of alternatives along with mitigation measures and assesses them based on their relative advantages and disadvantages. Net effects of the project are identified in the EA and monitoring measures are proposed to manage environmental effects.

3.3 Comments on the undertaking

3.3.1 Key issues

Issues and concerns from the GRT and Indigenous communities regarding the proposed undertaking were received by the ministry during the review and comment period that followed the submission of the EA. All comments received, along with the responses provided by the County, are included in Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix B of this ministry review. This section summarizes the key issues that were raised during the EA process.

Government Review Team comments

MHSTCI provided the following comments to the MECP:

At this phase in the project, a Stage 3 assessment has been identified to be completed and forms have been submitted; however, the Stage 3 assessment report may recommend Stage 4 mitigation through excavation. The completion of Stages 3 and 4 should be listed as a future commitment under the design and approval phase whereas Table 13.1 of the EA (Summary of Commitments) incorrectly states that the commitment to carry out any necessary cultural heritage technical studies, including archaeological assessment, has been completed.

A commitment should be required to address the possibility that archaeological resources may be encountered unexpectedly during construction.

The County noted MHSTCI’s comments and in response will include a commitment in the Implementation Plan, a reference document to be continuously updated throughout the EA process, to address the Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment and potential Stage 4 Archaeological Assessment. The proponent is not proposing any changes to the EA report. MHSTCI is satisfied with the proponent’s response. Given that the proponent did not amend the EA, the ministry is recommending a condition of approval to include these requirements to ensure that this is addressed and reported on as part of annual compliance reporting.

Indigenous community comments

On April 30, 2021, during the EA submission comment period, the County met with the Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council during which their concerns were detailed to the County. The Six Nations of the Grand River followed up with a letter on May 7, 2021 to the proponent about its comments. Concerns included:

• what mitigation measures would be in place to protect significant wildlife, wildlife habitat including impacts on Bank Swallows or Bat habitat and the nearby Grand River from leachate breakouts
• what would be done to ensure the protection of all species during construction and operation
• the legitimacy of how specific odour and air data was collected without site specific measurements and the assumptions made

The County responded to the Six Nations of the Grand River concerns during the meeting on April 30, 2021 and in a letter dated May 27, 2021. The County indicated that the Design and Operations Manual, required as part of the ECA for the Biggars Lane Landfill (current operations), includes monitoring of the site to identify potential leachate breakouts. The EA includes a commitment to apply for the necessary amendments to its ECA under the Environmental Protection Act, which would include the Manual. The Manual would be updated to address the existing and, if approved, expansion areas of the site. As well, the landfill would be designed to include a perimeter swale to collect surface water runoff and a surface water management system. MECP technical staff reviewed the EA and technical studies and were satisfied with the proposed measures that would be implemented to manage leachate from the landfill.

Proposed mitigation measures that are protective of all species and are specific to the construction and operation of the landfill are detailed in the EA and listed in Tables 9.5 and 9.6. Examples of the mitigation measures proposed in the EA include limiting vegetation clearing during sensitive times of the year for local wildlife, ensuring Erosion and Sediment Control Plans are in place to limit potential impacts to fish populations, installing exclusion fencing prior to commencement of construction activities to limit vegetation disturbance and regular monitoring of groundwater and surface water quality to look for potential effects from the expanded landfill. MNDMNRF reviewed the draft EA and had no concerns regarding potential impacts from the construction and/or operation of the landfill on species and their habitat. MECP supports MNDMNRF’s review.

Regarding odour data used in the EA, data from a different landfill was used rather than Biggars Lane Landfill as it provided a worst-case scenario (the Biggars Lane Landfill would have lower odour values), allowing for the maximum odour emissions to be used for modelling and thus providing an overestimation of odour impacts. MECP technical staff confirmed that this is an acceptable practice; however, a best management practices plan and sampling data for odour should be submitted at the time of amending the ECA to ensure adequate oversight by the ministry. A condition of approval is proposed to require this information at the ECA or detailed design stage to ensure that odour data in the EA can be supported. As for air concerns, specifically the community stated that Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 annual values exceed set criteria, the EA Appendix D indicates that the landfill in future scenarios will make up only 2.7 percent of this criterion, the rest is background levels of PM 2.5. To manage PM 2.5, the County has proposed in the EA that a Construction Management Plan be developed with the construction contractor to address dust. The plan will require monitoring of the road, operations and dirt piles for dust emissions. Dust is not anticipated to be an issue during operation of the landfill, so no mitigation is proposed. MECP technical staff reviewed the EA and did not have concerns with PM 2.5.

The County followed up with the Six Nations of the Grand River on June 30, 2021. Six Nations of the Grand River confirmed verbally that they had no further questions or concerns regarding the EA.

3.2.2 Conclusion

The County provided responses to all comments received during the EA submission comment period. The ministry is of the opinion that the Biggars Lane Landfill expansion would be designed and operated to comply with the ministry’s standards and that the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking would be managed through the commitments made in the EA, through conditions of approval, or through additional work that must be carried out by the County in support of future approval applications, if the EA is approved.

4. Other considerations

4.1 Diversion

As part of the EA, the County evaluated on-site and at-source diversion options that are previously implemented and include:

• blue box recycling
• cardboard
• scrap metal
• brick and concrete rubble
• propane tanks
• used goods (Salvation Army box)
• brush, yard waste and leaves
• appliances
• waste computers and electronics
• scrap wood (clean and finished/painted)
• tires
• fluorescent light bulbs
• construction and demolition (C&D) waste
• white styrofoam
• batteries

In addition, the County holds Annual Household Hazardous Waste Collection Events regularly and is actively promoting backyard composting by selling composters at a subsidized price.

The County completed a Solid Waste Diversion Plan (2007) to develop a long-term solid waste diversion strategy. While the County has made several improvements to their diversion programs outlined above, the County’s average residential waste diversion rate has remained around 34.5 percent. The County reviewed the ministry’s discussion paper on reducing litter and waste in our communities (published in March 2019) and has considered the recommendations into its overall waste diversion strategy.

The County intends to review Green Bin program opportunities during preparation of the next tender for Solid Waste Collection and Processing in 2024. Further, the County of Brant Council approved a motion at their March 2021 meeting to utilize budget savings, due to the transition of the provincial Blue Box program, for environmental initiatives.

Future diversion rates have not been projected in the EA due to the transition of the Blue Box program to an Expanded Producer Responsibility program. The transition to Producer Responsibility is to occur in 2025 for the County. Despite this, within the EA the County has indicated an ongoing commitment to implement, and aim to increase, their waste diversion strategies.

5. Summary of the ministry review

The ministry review has explained the ministry’s analysis for the Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion EA.

This ministry review concludes:

• The EA complies with the requirements of the approved ToR and has been prepared in accordance with the EAA. The EA provides sufficient information about the undertaking and its potential impacts to enable a decision to be made about the application to proceed with the undertaking.
• The EA has assessed and evaluated alternative methods to arrive at the preferred undertaking, assessed the potential environmental effects of the alternative methods and the proposed undertaking, assessed the advantages and disadvantages of the preferred alternative, and provides a description of mitigation and monitoring measures to address the potential negative environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.
• That sufficient opportunities were provided for the GRT, Indigenous community and the public to comment during the development of the EA. Concerns raised by the GRT and Indigenous communities have been considered by the proponent in the EA, or a commitment has been made to continue to consider concerns through further discussions, commitments and future permitting and approval processes.
• If approval of the undertaking is obtained under the EAA, standard conditions of approval are recommended for the implementation of the undertaking including general requirements to comply with the EA and any commitments provided; obtain other approvals and permits under other statutes; documentation requirements for the public record; compliance monitoring provisions for the proponent to conduct and report on compliance; and the preparation of a complaints protocol to respond to all complaints received during construction.

5.1 Proposed conditions of approval

If an undertaking is approved under the EAA, there will be several standard conditions. These conditions include:

• general requirements to comply with the EA and commitments made
• documentation requirements for the public record
• compliance monitoring provisions for the proponent to conduct and report on
• preparation of a complaints protocol to respond to all complaints received during construction and operation
• preparation of an Indigenous consultation plan for project implementation
• an expiration date on the EA approval

There will also be conditions to ensure that a Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment is completed if required, based on the design of the landfill, and to ensure that the odour data provided in the EA is supported. This list is not exhaustive and additional conditions may be proposed subject to further review and consultation. During the five-week review comment period and prior to the ministry making a recommendation to the Minister about this EA, additional conditions of approval specific to the landfill expansion undertaking may be proposed to ensure that the environment remains protected.

6. What happens now

The ministry review will be made available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested parties, including the public, the GRT and Indigenous communities can submit comments to the ministry about the proposed undertaking, the EA and/or the ministry review. At this time, anyone can make a written request that the Minister refer either all or part of the EA to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a hearing if they feel their environmental concerns have not been considered.

At the end of the ministry review comment period, ministry staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the EA has been prepared in accordance with the ToR, the requirements of the EAA, and whether the proposed undertaking should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the EA itself, the ministry review of the EA, comments received during the formal comment periods, in addition to other matters the Minister may consider relevant.

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

• give approval to proceed with the undertaking
• give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions
• refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking

Prior to making that decision, the Minister may also refer either part of or the entire EA to mediation or refer either part of or the entire EA to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a decision.

If the Minister approves, approves with conditions or refuses to give approval to the undertaking, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must concur with the decision.

6.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, the County will still need to obtain other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 10 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

• amendments to waste, air and industrial sewage works ECAs under the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA)
• ECA for storm water management pond under the OWRA
• Ontario Heritage Act

These approvals cannot be issued until approval under the EAA is granted.

6.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

Any changes outside the scope of this EA may be considered a new undertaking under section 12 of the EAA and may require a new individual EA or can be undertaken in accordance with requirements under the waste regulation.

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending January 14, 2022 will follow the publication of this ministry review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the EA, or this ministry review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it electronically to anne.cameron@ontario.ca and address it to:

Director
Environmental Assessment Branch
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1^st Floor
Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5

Re: Biggars Lane Landfill expansion environmental assessment

Attention: Anne Cameron, Project Officer

All personal information included in a submission—such as name, address, telephone number and property location of requester—is collected, maintained and disclosed by the ministry for the purpose of transparency and consultation. The information is collected under the authority of the Environmental Assessment Act or is collected and maintained for the purpose of creating a record that is available to the general public as described in s.37 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Personal information that is submitted will become part of a public record that is available to the general public unless a request is made that personal information remain confidential. For more information, the ministry’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Coordinator can be contacted at 416-314-4075.

More information

Please contact the ministry if you need further information:

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Environmental Assessment Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1^st Floor
Toronto, Ontario
Tel: 416-314-8001
Toll-free: 1-800-461-6290
Fax: 416-314-8452

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act and terms of reference requirements of the environmental assessment

1. Summary of the EA

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

EA decision making process

Reg. 334 EAA requirements: EA should contain a brief summary of the EA organized in accordance with the matters set out in subsection 6.1 (2) of the Act.

Analysis of the EA

The EA provides and executive summary organized with the matters set out in subsection 6.1 (2) of the Act.

2. List of proponent-led studies

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

EA decision making process

Reg. 334 EAA requirements: EA should contain a list of studies and reports which are under the control of the proponent and which were done in connection with the undertaking or matters related to the undertaking.

Analysis of the EA

Table 1.7 in section 1.7.3 of the EA outlines the reports, studies and surveys conducted for the EA.

3. List of additional studies

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

EA decision making process

Reg. 334 EAA requirements: EA should contain a list of studies and reports done in connection with the undertaking or matters related to the undertaking of which the proponent is aware and that are not under the control of the proponent.

Analysis of the EA

Chapter 16 is a list of references and works cited for the EA.

4. Maps

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

EA decision making process

Reg. 334 EAA requirements: Where the EA is for an undertaking with a fixed location, at least two unbound, well-marked, legible and reproducible maps that are an appropriate size to fit on a 215 millimetre by 280 millimetre page, showing the location of the undertaking and the area to be affected by it. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 334, s. 2 (1); O. Reg. 263/07, s. 1.

Analysis of the EA

Figure 1.2 (Study Areas) in section 1.1.1 of the EA shows the Biggars Lane Landfill site.

Figure 1.4 (Site Layout) in section 1.2.1.4 of the EA shows the current layout of the Biggars Lane Landfill.

Figures 3.1 to 3.9 (Alternative Methods 1 to 4 Plan Views and Cross-Section Views) in section 3.1 of the EA show the site layout and cross-section for alternative methods 1 to 4.

Figures 4.1 to 4.8 in section 4 of the EA show the existing environmental conditions (e.g. groundwater, ecological land classification, natural heritage features, etc.) in relation to the project site location.

5. Identify an existing problem or opportunity

Purpose of the undertaking: section 6.1(2)(a)

EA decision making process

Problem/Opportunities: The EA should contain a brief explanation of the problem or opportunity that prompted the proposed activity. If a specific undertaking has been identified provide a brief description.

Analysis of the EA

The ToR indicated that the EA would be completed under the “focussing” provisions of the EAA, Sections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3).

Section 1 of the EA provides a description of the existing situation and the need for the undertaking; while section 1.5 of the EA outlines the purpose of the proposed undertaking.

The County undertook a Solid Waste Disposal Future Needs Study in 2010/2011 which determined that the preferred method to address future solid waste disposal needs was to develop new disposal capacity at the Biggars Lane Landfill.

The purpose of the proposed undertaking is to allow the County to meet their solid waste disposal needs by expanding the Biggars Lane Landfill for an estimated 30-year planning period following the closure of the existing approved landfilling area. Based upon the historical and forecasted filling rate at the landfill, currently 19,000 tonnes per year, the County estimates that the landfill will reach its approved capacity in 2023.

The County understands there is an ongoing need to continue to develop the existing landfill to its originally planned capacity for the following reasons:

• the County can continue to provide its customer base with an integrated set of services including collection, transfer, processing and disposal in a reliable and cost-effective manner
• the Province’s waste diversion programs and objectives are and will continue to be supported
• environmental impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will be minimized through:
  • diversion of organic material and composting
  • the capture of landfill (methane) gas at the site

The landfill is permitted to receive up to 19,000 tonnes of waste per year for disposal and the number of waste deliveries is approximately 24 trucks per day. Based on current disposal volumes, the landfill is estimated to reach its current approved capacity in 2023. Future disposal needs based on population growth and disposal volumes was assessed and an additional landfill capacity of 1.13 million cubic metres was determined to be needed. The annual rate of fill will be 37,255 cubic metres per year and on average, annual fill rates and daily rates will be increasing for the landfill expansion to 24,512 tonnes of waste per year or 81.17 per day. The number of trucks required to deliver the waste will track with population growth but will now include additional trucks to haul leachate off-site (an addition of three to nine trucks per day). The haul routes, while not designated by the County, are not expected to change as no changes to site access or surrounding roads are proposed.

6. Description and statement of the rationale for the alternative methods

Alternative methods: sections 6(2)(c), 6.1(3) and 6.1(2)(b)(ii)

EA decision making process

Alternatives: “Alternative methods” include a description of different ways of implementing the project (locations and designs). A reasonable range of “alternative methods” should be identified and outlined.

Analysis of the EA

The following alternative methods which were discussed as part of Section 6.3 (ToR) at a conceptual level were carried forward into the EA for review. This included alternatives for where the expansion could be located and how it would be designed. Where alternatives would be located included the following:

• vertical expansion within the existing landfill footprint
• construction of an expansion to the existing landfill footprint
• construction of a new disposal footprint separate from the existing landfill footprint within the County-owned property

How alternatives would be designed included the following:

• natural attenuation (no liner or leachate collection system)
• MECP Generic Design No. 1 (single liner and leachate collection system)
• MECP Generic Design No. 2 (double liner and leachate collection system)
• site-specific engineering design

Section 3 (EA): Description of the Alternative Methods explains how the alternative methods were formulated, and describes the methodology followed to identify the preferred alternative method for implementing the undertaking. Figures 3.1 to 3.10 in the EA illustrate the alternative methods considered, both the plan view and cross-section view.

Four “alternative methods” of developing additional landfill disposal capacity at the site were identified and are described below as per the EA. These alternative methods were developed to the level of preliminary conceptual designs and were presented at the open houses as part of the consultation and engagement process during the EA. These were all horizontal expansion of the existing landfill as described below.

Alternative method 1

This alternative method involves the construction of a separate 15.1 hectare (ha) landfill footprint west of the existing landfill footprint using an engineered low permeability final cover (without a low permeability base liner and leachate collection system) design approach. A separation distance of 280 metres (m) between the south side of the disposal area and the south property boundary is maintained. The maximum height of this landfill footprint is about 12 to 13 m above existing ground surface, but the average height is roughly 7.9 m. The shallow excavation to form the base of the landfill footprint will involve a combination of cutting and filling, with net soil surplus of about 92,000 cubic metres (m³) available for daily cover and other site requirements.

Alternative method 2

This alternative method involves the construction of a separate 14.3 ha landfill footprint west of the existing landfill footprint using an engineered base containment approach (low permeability base liner and leachate collection system). The design’s average height is 7.9 m above the existing ground surface with a maximum height of about 14 to 15 m above the existing ground surface. The shallow excavation to form the base of the landfill footprint will involve a combination of cutting and filling, with a net soil surplus of about 66,000 m³ available for daily cover and other site requirements.

Alternative methods 1 and 2 have slightly different footprints and peaks. However, they both resemble each other in that they require a single landfill location and a single stormwater management pond.

Alternative method 3

This alternative method involves the construction of two separate landfill footprints, one 10.9 ha landfill footprint west of the existing landfill footprint (providing approximately 786,000 m³ of airspace) and one 4.7 ha landfill footprint east of the existing landfill footprint (providing 346,000 m³ airspace). Both footprints use an engineered low permeability final cover (without low permeability base liner and leachate collection system) design approach. Since alternative method 3 provides a portion of the expanded footprint on the east side of the landfill property, future landfilling operations can occur on the part of the property that is most distant from the closest off-site receptors. With the engineered final cover design approach, the landfill footprint on the east side of the existing landfill footprint is limited by having to provide a separation distance of 280 m between the south side of the disposal areas and the south property boundary. The maximum height of the west and east landfill cells is about 12 to 13 m and 8 to 9 m, respectively, above the existing ground surface. The average height of each cell is 7.2 to 7.3 m above existing ground. The shallow excavation to form the base of the landfill footprints will involve a combination of cutting and filling, with a net soil surplus of about 41,000 m³ available for daily cover and other site requirements.

Alternative method 4

This alternative method involves the construction of two separate landfill footprints, one 11.7 ha landfill footprint west of the existing landfill footprint (providing approximately 660,000 m³ of airspace) and one 8.2 ha landfill footprint east of the existing landfill footprint (providing 476,000 m³ airspace). Both footprints will use an engineered base containment design (low permeability base liner and leachate collection system) approach to enlarge the footprint area and maximize the airspace on the east side of the landfill property, thereby allowing as much of the future landfilling operations to occur on the part of the property that is most distant from the closest off-site receptors. The height of the west and east landfill footprints averages 5.6 and 5.8 m respectively, with both peaking at about 12 m above the existing ground surface. The shallow excavation to form the base of the landfill footprints will involve a combination of cutting and filling, with a net soil surplus of about 78,000 m³ available for daily cover and other site requirements.

Alternative methods 3 and 4 have slightly different footprints and peaks. However, they both resemble each other in that they require two landfill locations and two stormwater management ponds.

Conceptual designs for these alternative methods were developed in greater detail during the EA including refinements to the concepts as described in the terms of reference (ToR). The conceptual designs of the landfill expansion alternative methods were developed in greater detail as part of the EA to confirm feasibility, constructability and approvability under the Environmental Protection Act. These more detailed conceptual designs were used to support the net effects assessment and comparative evaluation.

Through the review of the EA, it was determined that the “do nothing” alternative would not address the key problem, which was to provide additional landfill capacity for the County. As such, it was not assessed as a baseline against the other four alternative methods. However, the ministry gained an understanding of the “do nothing” comparison as it was used a benchmark to comparably assess the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with the preferred method.

In addition to assessing alternative methods to achieve the expansion of the Biggars Lane Landfill, alternative methods for the collection of landfill gas and for the treatment and disposal of leachate were also assessed in the EA.

Five options for landfill gas collection were considered:

• Do nothing
• Passive venting
• Active horizontal collection trench
• Active vertical collection trench
• Combination of active horizontal collection trenches and active vertical extraction wells

The active vertical collection trench was selected as the preferred option.

Five options for the treatment and disposal of leachate were considered:

• Use of the County-owned Paris Water Pollution Control Plant
• Use of the County-owned St. George Water Pollution Control Plant
• Combined use of the County’s Paris and St. George Water Pollution Control Plants
• Establishment of a full on-site leachate treatment system
• Use of out-of-County Sewage Treatment Plant(s)

The use of the County-owned Paris Water Pollution Control Plant was selected as the preferred option.

The ministry is satisfied that an adequate description of the different ways of implementing the alternative solution was provided, and a reasonable range of alternative methods were evaluated using a broad range of environmental criteria and measures.

7. Description of the environment

Sections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3)

EA decision making process

Evaluation: Proponents must consider the broad definition of the environment including the natural, biophysical, social, economic, built and cultural conditions. The EA must provide a description of the existing environmental conditions in the study area. The EA must identify those elements of the environment that may be reasonably expected to be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the proposed undertaking and/or the alternatives.

Analysis of the EA

A preliminary description of the existing environmental conditions at the site was provided in the approved ToR. The ToR contained the commitment that the existing environment will be characterized in the EA, and will address the five aspects of the environment as defined in the Environmental Assessment Act:

• natural environment
• built environment
• cultural environment
• social environment
• economic environment

The existing landfill is located at 128 Biggars Lane, Scotland, Ontario in the County of Brant.

Section 4 of the EA outlines the potentially affected environment. The baseline conditions document the existing natural, cultural, social, and economic environments in the study area. As such the following studies were prepared by the proponent: natural environmental report, air quality impact assessment, noise impact assessment, transportation impact study, land use/agricultural study, visibility impact analysis report, economic assessment, technical and operational considerations report, cultural heritage resource assessment memorandum, Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment reports, leachate treatment and disposal study, climate change considerations report and a compliance monitoring plan.

The ministry is satisfied that a broad definition of the environment was considered and a description of existing environmental conditions in the study area provided.

8. Description of the potential environmental effects

Sections 6(2)(c), 6.1(3) and 6.1(2)(c)(ii)

EA decision making process

Evaluation: Both positive and negative environmental effects should be discussed. The EA must identify methods and studies used to analyze the potential environmental effects. The methods used are contingent on the type of project. Impact assessment methods and criteria used during the evaluation should be identified. The methods chosen must be clear, traceable and replicable so that interested parties can understand the analysis and logic used throughout the EA.

Analysis of the EA

Potential environmental effects, both positive and negative, were identified during the EA.

Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the EA include a summary of the net effects assessment for the alternatives, an assessment of cumulative effects, climate change considerations, and advantages and disadvantages of each alternative.

A net effects assessment summary was prepared for the following disciplines:

• cultural heritage resources/archaeology
• atmospheric environment
• natural environment
• geology, hydrogeology, and surface water
• stormwater management
• transportation
• economic environment
• land use/agricultural/visual environment
• technical and operational considerations

The EA assesses both positive and potential negative effects of the alternatives. The evaluation method included identifying proposed monitoring and mitigation measures to minimize or avoid any potential negative environmental effects of the preferred undertaking being considered as part of the EA process. The EA identifies the net effects of the undertaking during both construction and operation.

The evaluation method in the EA was clear, traceable, replicable and appropriate for a landfill expansion in a rural area.

9. Description of the actions necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy the environmental effects

Sections 6(2)(c), 6.1(3) and 6.1(2)(c)(iii)

EA decision making process

Evaluation: A description of future commitments, studies and a work plan may be included as part of the actions necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy environmental effects for each alternative for the ultimate purpose of comparing them.

Analysis of the EA

A description of future commitments to mitigate impacts and environmental effects monitoring is provided in section 13 (Summary of Commitments) of the EA. Table 13-1 lists the commitments and the timing for when each commitment has been or will be carried out. Net effects after mitigation was considered as part of the comparative analysis of the alternatives and for the preferred alternative.

On-going environmental monitoring is proposed in the EA, and includes completing compliance monitoring plans for the project, annual groundwater monitoring reports, surface water monitoring reports, and air quality monitoring reports.

10. Evaluation of advantages and disadvantages to the environment

Sections 6(2)(c), 6.1(3) and 6.1(2)(d)

EA decision making process

Evaluation: The preferred alternative should be identified through this evaluation.

Analysis of the EA

Advantages and disadvantage to the environment for each site layout, leachate treatment and landfill gas management alternative were considered in the evaluation of alternative methods to select the preferred alternative method.

Table 10.1 in section 10 (Advantage and Disadvantages of the Preferred Method) of the EA identifies the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with the Biggars Lane Landfill Expansion project on the following: geology and hydrogeology, surface water, stormwater, natural environment, atmospheric environment, transportation environment, land use/agricultural environment, visual environment, economic environment, technical and operational considerations, and cultural heritage and archaeological environment. In Table 10.1, the advantages and disadvantages of the preferred method were also compared to the “do nothing” alternative.

The EA adequately describes the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed undertaking to the environment based on potential environmental effects.

11. Description of consultation with interested stakeholders

Sections 6(2)(c), 6.1(3) and 6.1(2)(e)

EA decision making process

Evaluation: A description of stakeholder consultation that occurred during the preparation of the EA needs be documented and should include consultation methods used, frequency of consultation, dates that events occurred, target audience, descriptions of key milestones for which stakeholders are providing input, comments received. The EA must identify any Indigenous consultation efforts that have been made including methods for identifying potentially interested First Nations, who was consulted, when and how consultation occurred and any comments received from First Nations. The EA should outline conflict resolution techniques used by the proponent to resolve outstanding issues with any stakeholders. There must be clear documentation as to how issues and concerns have been addressed.

Analysis of the EA

Section 15 (Consultation Summary) of the EA provides a consultation program overview, documenting key consultation activities and summarizing major consultation events. The detailed record of consultation can be found in Supporting Document Volume VI.

Key consultation methods included public information centres, stakeholder meetings, public notices, mailings and a project website.

Section 15.4.2 describes the consultation undertaken with Indigenous communities. The potentially interested communities were identified as:

• Six Nations of the Grand River
• Métis Nation of Ontario
• Grand River Métis Council (Métis Nation of Ontario)
• Caldwell First Nation
• Chippewas of the Thames
• Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation
• Oneida Nation of the Thames
• Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council
• Haudenosaunee Development Institute

Letters and emails were sent to each of the communities advising of public information centres which took place throughout the planning process.

The EA demonstrates how public/agency input received throughout the EA process informed the results of the EA.

The EAA requires that proponents consult with all interested persons during the preparation of the EA and report on the results of that consultation. The ministry is satisfied that the proponent appropriately carried out the consultation plan that was outlined in the approved ToR.

Overall, the ministry is satisfied that the public, agencies and Indigenous communities had opportunities to comment and provide input on the EA throughout the process.

12. Proposed undertaking

Description and statement of the rationale for the undertaking: sections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3)

EA decision making process

Selection process: The description of the undertaking should specify what the proponent is seeking approval for under the EAA. The description should include information on the location, attributes, dimensions, emissions, etc. The evaluation process should identify which is the preferred undertaking.

Analysis of the EA

The evaluation process in Sections 6 and 7 of the EA explains why alternatives were chosen and why the preferred undertaking was selected. A net effects assessment was undertaken for the alternatives and the preferred alternative was selected only after determining it would cause the least impacts on the surrounding environment.

Section 11 of the EA provides a description of the preferred undertaking. A summary of the proposed undertaking is provided in Section 2.5 of this ministry review.

The EA documents how the preferred undertaking addresses the problem and opportunity statement, which is to provide additional capacity at the landfill site as the current site is reaching capacity.

In the EA, Section 13 details commitments to future work. Standard conditions including compliance monitoring and reporting, and public record-keeping are recommended by the ministry to ensure all commitments in the EA are carried out.

13. Additional approvals

EA decision making process

Other approvals: Outline additional approval requirements. Provide sufficient detail about the nature of the approval.

Analysis of the EA

If EA approval is granted, the proponent will still require other legislative approvals to construct and operate the undertaking.

Section 12 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required, including:

• an amendment to the existing Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) No. A100301 for the landfill site
• an amendment to the Industrial Sewage Works ECA No. 7944-AMDJ4B issued under the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA)
• an ECA under the OWRA for a stormwater management pond
• Ontario Heritage Act approvals/sign offs

14. ToR approval requirements

EA decision making process

Other approvals: Minister amendments to the ToR.

Analysis of the EA

As part of the approval of the ToR, MECP requested two amendments to the ToR.

The first required the County, when applying for an amendment to the Biggars Lane Landfill ECA for additional capacity, to apply to MECP for a revision to the Paris Landfill ECA to revoke the existing approval for additional capacity at that site. The Paris Landfill is closed; however, the County maintains a waste transfer station, a drop-off depot for recycling and a biosolids storage facility for the receipt, storage and transfer of biosolids cake from the Paris Wastewater Treatment Plant at the Paris Landfill Site property.

The second relates to the need to complete an assessment of alternative methods for landfill gas collection for the Biggars Lane Landfill. The County has documented these two amendments in the EA and completed an assessment of alternative methods for landfill gas collection.

Appendix B: Submissions received during the initial comment period

Table 1: Government Review Team comment summary table

Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI)

Comment #1

Table 1.7 refers to a requirement from the Terms of Reference (ToR) that “A Stage 1 heritage assessment will be conducted as part of the EA” (separately from reference to the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment). The term “Stage 1 heritage assessment” is not in use as assessments for built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes are not carried out in numbered stages as are archaeological assessments. We note that this term was not used in the ToR, which referred more generally to heritage assessment. “Stage 1” should be removed from the text here.

Proponent’s response

The County of Brant (County) acknowledges that the wording in the “ToR Requirements” column of Table 1.7 should have read “A heritage assessment will be conducted as part of the EA.” As noted in the “Assessment Study Name (EA)” column, a Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment Memorandum was completed and is included in Volume II, Appendix K of the EA Report. Given this is an insignificant miswording, no changes will be made to the EA Report, but the comment has been noted.

Status

MHSTCI has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Comment #2

Table 13.1 indicates that the commitment to carry out any necessary cultural heritage technical studies, including archaeological assessment, has been completed during the EA. Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment reports have been completed, reviewed by MHSTCI staff, entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports, and included as appendices to this EA Report. However, as noted in Section 6.2.9 and Table 6.9, the preferred alternative will require Stage 3 assessment of three archaeological sites. At this time, our records show that Project Information Forms have been submitted for these three Stage 3 site surveys, but the reports have not yet been submitted. The Stage 3 reports may also recommend Stage 4 mitigation through excavation. The completion of Stages 3 and 4 for the three archaeological sites is noted as a mitigation measure in Table 9.5 but should be listed as a future commitment under the Design and Approval phase.

Proponent’s response

The County acknowledges that reference to the Stage 3 and potential Stage 4 archaeological assessment could have been included in Table 13.1 as a future commitment under the Design and Approval Phase.

Despite this omittance, the County is moving forward with its commitment to undertake a Stage 3, and potentially Stage 4, archaeological assessment and this is noted in Table 9.5 of the EA Report.

No changes are proposed to be made to the EA Report; however, a commitment to undertake a Stage 3, and potentially Stage 4, archaeological assessment will be included as part of the Implementation Plan for the expanded landfill.

Status

MHSTCI has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and commitment and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied that the condition of approval proposed will address the comment.

Comment #3

A further commitment should be undertaken to address the possibility that archaeological resources may be encountered unexpectedly during construction. In this event, please notify MHSTCI if archaeological resources are impacted by EA project work. All activities impacting archaeological resources must cease immediately, and a licensed archaeologist is required to carry out an archaeological assessment in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act and the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists.

If human remains are encountered, all activities must cease immediately and the local police as well as the Registrar, Burials of the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services (416-326-8800) must be contacted. In situations where human remains are associated with archaeological resources, MHSTCI should also be notified to ensure that the site is not subject to unlicensed alterations which would be a contravention of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Proponent’s response

The County stated that Section 6.0 of the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment Report provides actions to take relating to the potential unexpected encounters of archaeological resources and/or human remains during construction.

A commitment to these contingencies will be included as part of the Implementation Plan for the expanded landfill. No changes to the EA Report will be made.

Status

MHSTCI has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent’s response and commitment and has no further comment.

The ministry is proposing a condition of approval that would require the proponent to complete a Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, if required.

Table 2: Indigenous communities comment summary table

Six Nations of the Grand River

Comment #1

What mitigation measures are in place to minimize the impacts should a leachate breakout occur?

Proponent’s response

The Design and Operations Manual prepared as part of the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for the landfill includes monitoring of the site to identify potential leachate breakouts. The Manual will be updated to address the existing and (post EA) expansion areas of the site when the County applies to amend the ECA.

In general terms, regular monitoring includes looking for distressed vegetation or staining on the ground — these are signs of leachate breakout. If an area is identified as a potential leachate breakout, the County of Brant (County) implements measures to remediate the seep. Typically, leachate seeps are caused by an impermeable layer — like a layer of plastics or clays below newer waste. To fix this, the County excavates through the seep area and breaks-up the impermeable layer. The excavation is then backfilled with the original waste material and covered. Note that other leachate seep remedial measures are available, such as the installation of French drains or purge wells, depending on the cause of the seep.

Additionally, the existing landfill area has a perimeter swale that will collect surface water runoff from the capped landfill directing it to the existing south stormwater management (SWM) pond. Prior to discharging from the south SWM pond, liquid is sampled and must meet effluent limits set out in the ECA. If a leachate breakout occurs and impacts the water quality, the water within is then removed with a vacuum truck and sent for treatment. As part of this effort, the leachate seep is located as discussed previously and repaired.

The expanded landfill will also have a surface water management system i.e. swales or ditches and a pond. The same temporary blockage technique can be applied for the expanded landfill to prevent leachate outbreaks reaching the Unnamed Creek, leaving the site, and potentially causing issues.

Status

The County has considered how to minimize the impacts of a leachate outbreak.

The ministry’s technical staff have reviewed the EA Report and Appendices and they are satisfied with the information presented.

Comment #2

What mitigation measures are in place to protect leachate from entering the unnamed Creek and eventually the Grand River?

Proponent’s response

Portions of the Site Study Area are within the Intake Protection Zone 3 (IPZ-3) for the Ohsweken Water Supply Intake with a vulnerability score of 6. The vulnerability score for areas identified within the Intake Protection Zone 2 (IPZ-2) is 8. The Vulnerability Assessment contained within Chapter 15 (Six Nations of the Grand River) of the Grand River Source Protection Area Approved Assessment Report indicates that the IPZ-2 includes the area within an 8-hour travel distance up the Grand River from the Ohsweken Intake. The “IPZ Vulnerability Scoring” map from the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Source Protection Information Atlas shows the extent of the IPZ-2 for the Oshweken Water Supply Intake. The Unnamed Creek downgradient of the Biggars Lane Landfill is several kilometres upstream of the IPZ-2. This area is within the “close” zone of the IPZ-3, correlating with a vulnerability score of 6. The IPZ-3 vulnerability scores range from 1 to 8 depending on proximity upstream of the water treatment plant and runoff potential.

Regardless of the IPZ designation and associated vulnerability score, several mitigation measures are in place to protect the Unnamed Creek from landfill leachate. The proposed landfill expansion requires a liner and leachate collection system to be installed in accordance with O. Reg. 232/98. This means leachate generated from the expansion will be contained and collected from the landfill footprint. To protect against the occurrence of a liner leakage or leachate breakout, mitigation, monitoring and contingency measures are required for the site as discussed in Section 9 of the EA Report. This generally included:

• monitoring of groundwater upgradient of the Unnamed Creek to anticipate potential impacts
• surface water monitoring in the onsite stormwater and drainage features and the Unnamed Creek
• a surface water trigger mechanism and associated Contingency Plan
• landfill staff trained to follow the Design, Operations and Maintenance Plan for the Site
• routine inspections for leachate breakouts and an associated Contingency Plan

Therefore, several mitigation measures will be implemented to protect the Unnamed Creek from leachate. The specific measures and their details will be determined during the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) design phase of the project in consultation with aquatic specialists and the MECP.

Status

The County has considered how to protect leachate from entering water systems and has proposed mitigation measures.

The ministry’s technical staff have reviewed the EA Report and Appendices and. they are satisfied with the information presented.

Comment #3

How is the County of Brant ensuring the protection of all species on the property during the construction and operational phases of this project?

Proponent’s response

EA Report, Volume I, Tables 9.5 and 9.6 provide the specific mitigation measures developed for the proposed expansion — during both construction and operating periods. The mitigation measures for aquatic and terrestrial environments are protective of all species.

Table 9.5, dealing with the construction phase, provides mitigation measures such as:

• Requiring development and implementation of a Construction Emergency Response and Communications Plan by the contractor. This will require construction equipment refueling and maintenance in designated areas only. The Plan will also ensure proper spill prevention and contingency measures are in place to protect against indirect impacts to aquatic habitat and local fish populations.
• Ensure Erosion and Sediment Control Plans are in place for construction to limit potential impairments to local fish habitat to the Unnamed Creek.
• Installation of exclusion fencing prior to commencement of construction activities to prevent unnecessary encroachment/disturbance to vegetation. The fencing will be designed to allow wildlife to prevent entry to, but allow exit from, the construction area.
• More detailed design and approvals, particularly under the EPA, will consider enhancement plantings to improve the terrestrial ecosystem. This will include a tree compensation plan.
• Limit vegetation clearing during sensitive times of year for local wildlife, for example during the breeding bird period, when bearing young of migrating between wintering and summer habitats.
• Manage the construction of the expanded landfill and the surface water management system to minimize attractants such as ponding to avian and turtle species.

For the operations phase, Table 9.6 includes:

• Regular monitoring of groundwater and surface water quality to look for potential effects from expanded landfill and protect against indirect impacts to aquatic habitat and local fish populations.
• As with the construction phase, limit vegetation clearing during sensitive times for wildlife.
• Manage waste using best practices of compaction, operational cover and fencing to limit migration of windblown litter into natural areas and limit foraging habitat for terrestrial species.
• Operate machinery and equipment in designated areas only.
• Ensure landfill staff are trained on avoidance and prevention of encounters with wildlife and preferred habitat.

Status

The County has proposed mitigation measures to ensure the protection of species during construction and operation.

The Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry (MNDMNRF) reviewed the draft EA and confirmed that no permits under the Endangered Species Act will be required. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks’ Species at Risk Branch supports MNDMNRF’s review and conclusions.

Comment #4

Seven residential properties were selected as representative sensitive receptors surrounding landfill property. How far were these properties from the Site and how far are the Burtch lands from the site?

Proponent’s response

Status

The County provided distances of properties which were used as sensitive receptors for noise to the Six Nations of the Grand River.

As the question was regarding sensitive receptors, the County provided data for the 7 receptors used in the studies; however, it should be noted that there are a total of 11 residences within the local study area (within 500 m of the site).

The ministry is satisfied as this was an information request.

Comment #5

Has the County considered the cost to the natural environment by not implementing a Green Bin program?

Proponent’s response

The County has not completed an analysis of a Green Bin program for the County of Brant. Based on provincial policy, the County does not have the population density to justify — environmentally or economically — the implementation of a Green Bin program.

The County actively promotes back yard composting and sells composters at a subsidized price of $15. On May 8, 2021, the County held a one-day truck load composter and rain barrels sale event. They sold over 400 composters that day at a special sale price of $10 each.

The County intends to review Green Bin program opportunities during preparation of the next tender for Solid Waste Collection and Processing in 2024. Further, the County of Brant Council approved a motion at their March 2021 meeting to utilize budget savings, due to the transition of the provincial Blue Box program, for environmental initiatives. The transition to Producer Responsibility is to occur in 2025 for the County.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the County has considered the appropriate means of diversion of waste.

Comment #6

The Preferred Method includes an engineered base. Wording in the EA states that “It is assumed the engineered base will be the generic single liner constructed in accordance with O. Reg. 232/98”. Why is this an assumption and not affirmed?

Proponent’s response

During the EA, we had assumed the O.Reg. 292/98 generic single liner for Alternative Methods 2 and 4. This allowed the EA to quantify the merits of the four Methods without completing detailed design efforts for each.

Following EA approval, the County will be refining the liner details during the EPA approval process. The EPA process is more focused on the specifics of design, operations, maintenance, monitoring and contingencies for the (post-EA) expansion. While the County may choose to proceed with the generic single liner, they could also look at the waste footprint area closely to determine a more cost-effective engineered base (i.e., liner). Other factors may also play into the design decisions, such as the local availability of suitable clays or the availability of geosynthetic liner materials (such as high-density polyethylene — which has constrained supply due to COVID-19) and the labour required for each. The EPA liner design must meet the requirements of O. Reg. 232/98 in any event.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the County will confirm specific project details during the detailed design phase.

Comment #7

Further, the gas collected by the system would be sent, initially at least, to a flare for destruction of the methane — a significant greenhouse gas. The site will attempt to capture 70% of the LFG generated from the expansion area during the Planning Period (operating life) and the post-closure care period (i.e., following closure). The words “initially, at least, and will attempt” do not sound very proactive. Why is this written in non-committal language?

Proponent’s response

O.Reg. 347 requires all landfills with a capacity exceeding 1.5 cubic megametres (Mm³) to capture and destroy landfill gasses. At 1.86 Mm³ (0.73 Mm³ existing and 1.13 Mm³ expansion), the expanded Biggars Lane Landfill is required to implement landfill gas (LFG) collection and destruction. Initially, LFG will be destroyed using a flare. This burns the methane component of the LFG — a significant greenhouse gas.

Larger landfill sites, such as the Ridge Landfill in Blenheim, Ontario (21 Mm³ approved capacity and seeking EA approval to expand to 49.9 Mm³) have indicated that the beneficial use of LFG does not make economic sense for their operations. As the Biggars Lane Landfill is significantly smaller and will generate less LFG, beneficial use is unlikely to be economically viable for the County. However, the County intends to monitor related developments. Should beneficial use prove viable in the future, they may add it to their LFG system. In any event, the flare will be a required part of the system to ensure “back-up” for the beneficial use equipment (i.e., when beneficial use equipment is under maintenance of non-operational, they divert LFG to the flare).

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the County will continue to consider viable options for LFG management in the future.

Comment #8

It is noted that municipalities are not required to provide IC&I waste management services. Should this not be something that Commercial businesses and Institutions should be planning for?

Proponent’s response

Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) waste generators normally select their waste collection and disposal service based on convenience and cost. In Brant, IC&I users send their waste either to the Biggars Lane Landfill or to a privately owned waste disposal facility. However, the Ontario Waste Management Association reports that waste disposal capacity in the province will run out by 2034 (most recent estimate) unless significant new capacity approvals proceed. To this end, Ontario’s private waste management sector has several landfill EA’s currently underway. The remainder of the IC&I sector — entities like a food processing plant, a restaurant or a hospital — do not have the ability to address waste management needs. They’re focused on their own business, and so they look at waste disposal costs when developing their business plans.

Expansion of the Biggars Lane Landfill allows the continued use of the site for the County’s IC&I sector. Further, if commercial capacity remains constrained elsewhere, the site’s available capacity may be an incentive for new IC&I development, bringing jobs and economic stability to the County. Conversely, providing capacity only for the needs of residents may lead to the closure of existing IC&I sector users which could reduce the tax base, lead to population decreases and affect property values beyond the County.

Status

The County has demonstrated the need for continued acceptance of IC&I waste at the Biggars Lane Landfill.

Comment #9

For the odour modelling, can you provide the reasoning as to why no site-specific measurements were performed at this site?

Proponent’s response

Odour sampling is a challenge to do well and even when done well, the answers can be quite variable depending on a large variety of parameters. Odours are worst on hot, humid, summer days and much less in the winter. Therefore, odour emission rates were taken from a well controlled study done at the Ridge Landfill in Erieau, Ontario. This study was:

• undertaken during the summer when odours are generally the highest/worst
• resulted in an emission rate 2-3 times the rate experienced at other landfills
• Ontario-based, so the waste stream is like the County’s own

Replicating this study at the Biggars Lane Landfill would be difficult and is likely to result in lower odour values (i.e., odour generated per square metre of working face (WF).

Burnside used the maximum odour emission rate for our modelling despite the expectation that odour emissions would be lower in the winter, spring and fall. Combined, we feel our odour modelling is conservative, and likely overestimates the odour impacts that will be experienced.

Status

The County has provided the reasoning as to why off-site measurements were used for odour modelling. The County has stated that worst-case scenarios were used to ensure the modelling was conservative.

The ministry’s technical staff reviewed the EA report and Appendices and while they are satisfied with the modelling done, additional information would be beneficial to verify the conclusions. Therefore, conditions related to data sampling and best management practices are proposed as part of detailed design or ECA stage.

To address additional information needs, the ministry is considering a condition of approval that will require the proponent to submit additional odour information to the ministry for review with its ECA application.

Comment #10

How is it possible to determine that the existing scenario illustrated a maximum odour concentration of 0.89 OU if no site-specific measurements were performed? And if 50% of the population can detect odour at 1 OU is it not reasonable to expect that at 0.89 OU, odour will be an issue?

Proponent’s response

The maximum off-property impact of 0.89 Odour Units (OU) shown in the EA Report, Volume II, Appendix D, Table 6: Existing Scenario is not expected to be an issue for the following reasons:

• 1 OU is the level at which 50% of the population can detect that there is an odour. At that level, those people are not able to identify the odour. For municipal waste, most people will find the smell offensive at an OU of 3, so much less than 50% of the population would be able to identify the smell at 0.89 OU.
• The level of 0.89 OU is the maximum impact from the site. This occurs once in 5 years of hourly data. All the remaining modelled impacts are less.
• The level of 0.89 OU is predicted in the model which uses the worst-case odour emissions rate all year.
• The level of 0.89 OU is predicted in the model assuming that the WF is at the closest point on the property to the receptor. The majority of the life of the landfill, the WF will be farther from the receptors than modelled.

The future cases were also modelled, and the levels predicted in those scenarios are also not expected to cause substantial impacts because of the conservative assumptions incorporated into the assessment.

Status

The County has explained that modelling was used in order to determine odour scenarios.

The ministry’s technical staff reviewed the EA report and Appendices and while they are satisfied with the modelling done, additional information would be beneficial to verify the conclusions. Therefore, conditions of approval related to data sampling and best management practices are proposed as part of detailed design or ECA stage.

To address additional information needs, the ministry is considering a condition of approval that will require the proponent to submit additional odour information to the ministry for review with its ECA application.

Comment #11

Predicted concentrations as well as cumulative concentrations are below the applicable criteria, except for PM2.5 annual values. This exceedance is caused by background concentrations that exceed criteria. What is being planned to mitigate this exceedance?

Proponent’s response

As shown in the EA Report, Volume II, Appendix D, Table 6, annual PM2.5 impact is 106% of the criterion. Background levels of PM2.5, that is without the landfill, are 104% of criterion. The landfill is only 1.9% of the criterion. The future scenarios show that the landfill is 2.7% of criterion for the annual period under the most conservative modelling.

Per Volume I, Table 9.5, a “Construction Management Plan” will be required to address Best Management Practices to minimize dust. The plan will require monitoring of the road, operations, and dirt piles for dust emissions. If they start to generate dust, then water will be applied to reduce the dust. Dust is not anticipated to be an issue during operations of the landfill, so no mitigation is required — as indicated in Table 9.6.

The EA assumes that the compactor runs for three hours a day while the other two pieces of equipment each work one hour per day; this is a conservative estimate of the work done by each vehicle each day. Looking through Appendix B of the EA Report you can see that two thirds of the site emission is from the compactor at 0.02077 g/s and road dust accounts for most of the rest. The Dust Best Management Practices Plan addresses the road dust and other sources. The Federal government is responsible for reducing emissions from equipment like the compactor, bulldozer and excavator. There has been significant reduction of emissions in these sources and that trend is expected to continue. We did not model further reductions to account for this trend, thought when the equipment on site is replaced with newer equipment, the emissions should drop significantly.

Status

The County has demonstrated that the expansion of the landfill will have a minimal impact on the PM 2.5 annual values. Despite this, dust control measures are proposed for during construction.

The ministry’s technical staff reviewed the EA Report and Appendices and are satisfied.

Comment #12

Regarding Species at Risk individuals and habitat, we would like to know that design changes will be implemented to eliminate such (potential) impacts.

Proponent’s response

Designs have not been finalized, so it is premature to suggest “changes will be implemented”. Rather, the conceptual design of the Alternative Methods made broad assumptions for comparison purposes. The County has committed to finalizing the design in a manner that avoids or mitigates impacts on wildlife, Species at Risk (SAR) and SAR habitat.

Burnside noted in Section 6.2.3.1 of the EA Report (Volume I) that Alternative Methods 1 and 2 have the lowest potential impacts on wildlife, SAR (individuals) and SAR habitat. With either Method 1 or 2 (2 being the preferred Method), post-construction restoration will naturalize the pond and adjacent vegetation, restoring and enhancing the existing meadow habitat, attracting Monarch (i.e., milkweed) and Savannah Sparrow. The wording in Section 6.2.3.1, that “design changes could be implemented” was to indicate that there is an ability during the EPA design effort to ensure SAR protections. In the case of individuals and habitat, efforts or additional compensation (i.e., development of appropriate habitat elsewhere) have been explained in an earlier response.

Status

The County has stated that designs have not been finalized and they are therefore unable to provide anything more than the broad conceptual designs in the EA Report.

The MNDMNRF reviewed the draft EA and were satisfied with the level of detail provided. MECP SAR Branch supports MNDMNRF’s review and conclusions and that the County has committed to ensuring impacts to wildlife, SAR and SAR habitat are mitigated.

Comment #13

Regarding temporary removal of portions of the cultural meadow habitat, how long will suitable foraging habitat take to replace?

Proponent’s response

Suitable foraging habitat should take less that one year to be replaced.

Status

The ministry is satisfied as this was an information request.

Comment #14

Regarding the design for receiving leachate at the Paris Wastewater Treatment Plant, the wording in this statement indicates a lack of commitment on the part of the County. When does the County expect to have firm criteria in place for how the leachate will be handled?

Proponent’s response

Upgrades to the Paris Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) are beyond the scope of the Biggars Lane Landfill EA. Our landfill EA has demonstrated that the Paris WPCP — as currently approved and operating — is suitable to accept leachate from the expanded landfill over at least the first 10 years of operation. Beyond this time, upgrades to the Paris WPCP will be required. Fortunately, these upgrades are already anticipated as part of the County’s planning for the WPCP (i.e., treating the leachate is not the only reason for the upgrades).

There are various factors that need to be considered to achieve an effective treatment system upgrade for Paris WPCP. Landfill leachate quality and quantity are but two of the many factors. The uncertainty is due to additional wastewater streams (i.e., residential development, new industrial plant, etc.) that may ultimately arrive at the WPCP. The treatment plant upgrades may require a separate EA and will certainly require an amended ECA.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that design aspects/upgrades for the Paris WPCP are beyond the scope of the EA.

Comment #15

Regarding leachate quality and quantity data, how long do you expect to collect data?

Proponent’s response

The monitoring program will be established as part of the EPA design. Generally, the monitoring will be more aggressive at the beginning of the program (i.e. initial operations). Monitoring will continue through the entire operating and post-closure life of the landfill. This is because the leachate quality and quantity are expected to change over time, for example:

• Final cover placement will help reduce infiltration, reducing leachate quantity.
• Waste characteristics will change seasonally and possibly over the operating life of the site (for example, newspaper is now a very small component of landfilled waste compared to even 20-years ago). This has implications for leachate quality and quantity.
• As waste ages in the site (i.e., placed early in the expansion verses later), the leachate quality for the waste changes.

Sampling frequency may also depend on seasonality, weather conditions, state of landfill operations or other conditions. Sampling requirements may also be optimized to address requirements of the WPCP, i.e. to ensure the WPCP operations remain within permitted ranges.

Once initial operations are steady, we expect the monitoring program will be reviewed annually or every-few-years until closure. Post closure, the monitoring program may be reviewed less frequently. These reviews may lead to additional or reduced sampling frequencies and parameters being sampled.

Status

The ministry is satisfied as this was an information request.

Comment #16

Why does the County have Sanitary Sewer By-Law levels if one of your own operations is not adhering to those levels?

Proponent’s response

We understand your concern regarding the potential impacts from the landfill to Grand River water quality. To estimate the leachate quality of the Biggars Lane Landfill following expansion, we reviewed leachate data for seven Ontario landfills over their many years of operation. From this we identified the range of contaminant levels for each parameter listed in the EA Report, Volume II, Appendix N, Table 2. With this wide range in mind, Burnside’s engineers estimated the potential contaminant values appropriate for our EA evaluation of leachate treatment. As seen in Table 2, each landfill is unique, and the highest values occur only occasionally at any landfill. Studying the highest values from these sites over all the years of their operation and estimating the potential expected contaminant levels is the most reasonable approach we could take until actual leachate data becomes available following expansion of the Biggars Lane Landfill. This approach does not mean the actual leachate chemistry will exceed the County’s Sanitary Sewer By-law. Rather, it shows the leachate is capable of being treated at the various alternative WPCPs — including the Paris WPCP. As in an above response, the County will be collecting samples to determine actual leachate parameters.

It is also important to note that the treatment plant receives a combination of wastewaters with high, medium or low contaminant levels. The County’s By-law’s main purpose is to manage the total quantity of the wastewater contaminants received at the treatment plant and to be able to effectively handle and treat them properly. Surcharges (fees) can be applied if the wastewater quality does not meet the By-law for any number of parameters. This helps pay for any additional treatment effort that may be required. In any case, the effluent (treated wastewater) will meet the acceptable discharge limits.

In the preamble to this question, your letter stated concern about contaminants which were discussed in the concept of biosolids management in our EA evaluation. We understand that once the contaminants have been removed from the leachate by the WPCP, the removed solids must be (and are) effectively managed and disposed. The approval for the Paris WPCP (as with other plants) requires biosolids disposal such that they do not pose a risk to the Grand River water quality.

Status

The County has clarified that the information presented in the EA Report did not mean that the By-law levels will be exceeded, but rather that the leachate can be treated at a variety of WPCPs.

The ministry is satisfied that all By-laws will be adhered to.