Ministry review of the City of Sault Ste. Marie solid waste management environmental assessment

Summary of our review

Who

City of Sault Ste. Marie (City)

What

The City is proposing to add 3.17 million cubic metres (m³) of solid non-hazardous residential, industrial, commercial and institutional, construction and demolition waste and biosolids waste disposal capacity at the Sault Ste. Marie landfill. The preferred alternative is a north and west horizontal expansion. The current service area for the site includes the City of Sault Ste. Marie, Prince Township and Batchewana First Nation's Rankin Reserve. There is no change proposed to the service area.

When

The environmental assessment (EA) was submitted on January 12, 2024. An amended EA was submitted on August 14, 2025.

Where

402 Fifth Line East
Sault Ste. Marie
Ontario

Why

The Sault Ste. Marie landfill is estimated to approach its approved capacity of 2.26 million m³ by 2029. The proposed additional capacity would extend the life of the landfill to 2049.
 

Conclusions

The EA was prepared in accordance with the approved terms of reference (ToR) and contains information necessary to assess the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The EA demonstrates that the City will be able to meet its primary objective of providing a long-term solution for residual waste disposal set out in its ToR.

The ministry is proposing conditions be imposed if approved to support implementation of the project in accordance with the EA.

1. Environmental assessment process

The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) sets out a proponent-driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision-making by assessing the effects of a proposed project on the environment. In Ontario, the EAA sets out the general requirements for the preparation of an EA, as well as the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks’ (MECP/ministry) evaluation process. For those proponents and projects subject to the EAA, the requirements of the EAA must be met before the project can proceed.

Proponents are required to address the potential effects of the preferred project on the natural, social, cultural and economic environments for the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. The EA helps decision-makers to determine, on the basis of the environmental effects, if a project should proceed, and if so, how the potential 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 project 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 Indigenous communities, government agencies and the public to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred project. If the project is approved, the proponent is required to monitor the implementation of the project 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 ToR and the EA. The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a ToR to the ministry for review and decision by the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (minister). On September 26, 2005, the former minister approved the City's ToR.

The ToR established the framework for the preparation of the EA, including a description of the purpose and rationale for the project, which was to provide additional waste disposal capacity, identification of potential environmental effects, both positive and negative; and a consultation plan for obtaining input from Indigenous communities, government agencies, and the public. Using this framework, the proponent assessed the alternative ways of providing additional waste disposal capacity and alternative methods of implementing the preferred alternative.

1.2 Environmental assessment

After receiving the minister’s approval on the ToR, the City proceeded to prepare an EA for the proposed project, in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. A draft EA was made available to the public, Indigenous communities and the government review team (GRT) for review between May 24 and July 7, 2017. The City circulated the draft EA to Indigenous communities and the GRT for review prior to the final submission, providing these groups with an opportunity to review the document and offer comments. This approach allowed the proponent to address early feedback before submitting the final EA to the ministry and before formal review timelines were triggered.

On January 12, 2024, the City submitted its Sault Ste. Marie solid waste management EA to the ministry for review and approval. The EA was available for review and comment until March 1, 2024. The GRT, comprised of provincial ministries and agencies, reviewed the EA to verify that the information and conclusions in the EA were accurate based on respective mandates. Batchewana First Nation was the only Indigenous community to submit comments on the EA during the seven-week comment period. The City amended the EA several times in response to these comments and re-submitted the final version to the ministry in August 2025.
 

All comments sent to the ministry are considered by the minister before a decision is made on the project. The minister’s decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

1.3 Ministry review

The EAA requires the ministry to prepare a review of the EA, known as the ministry review. The ministry review sets out the ministry’s evaluation of the EA, including whether the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and meets the requirements of the EAA and whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the minister to decide whether to approve the proposed project.

The ministry review comment period provides an opportunity for the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities to see how their concerns with the EA and the proposed project have been considered. Refer to section 5 of this review for next steps.

2. The proposed project

2.1 Background

The landfill is located at 402 Fifth Line East in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. The landfill is situated on 151 hectares (ha) of City-owned land with a 25.8 ha fill area and a current approved waste disposal capacity of 2.26 million m³. The landfill currently accepts solid non-hazardous residential, industrial, commercial and institutional, construction and demolition waste, and biosolids waste generated by the City, Prince Township and Batchewana First Nation’s Rankin Reserve.

The landfill has been operating and accepting waste since the early 1960s. The landfill operates under environmental compliance approval (ECA) No. A560102 initially issued on March 2, 1989. Since 1989, the ECA has been amended several times, including to permit the creation of a 23.2 ha contaminant attenuation zone adjacent to the western boundary. The City has also acquired nearby properties over time to expand the size of the overall site, in response to the ministry identifying concerns regarding groundwater quality along the western boundary.

The existing landfill is estimated to reach its capacity in January 2029 based on the site’s five-year average disposal rate. However, the demolition of a local hospital will potentially shorten the remaining landfill capacity by approximately 2.5 years to mid-2027.

Please see figure 1.1 on page 3 in section 1.3 of the environmental assessment for a figure which depicts the location of the landfill within the City.

2.2 Purpose and description of the proposed project

The current approved rate of fill at the landfill is 58,000 tonnes per year. The City is proposing an expansion which will provide an additional 3.17 million m³ of capacity until 2049, which includes existing and anticipated diversion activities associated with the site. The expansion is expected to meet the anticipated waste disposal needs for the existing service area of the City, Prince Township and Batchewana First Nation’s Rankin Reserve.

Proposed expansion

The proposed expansion would be a north and west horizontal expansion over the existing 151 ha landfill footprint. Landfill mining is proposed within the western portion of the existing site to facilitate the construction of a liner. The mining process involves excavating waste within the existing disposal footprint, removing small particle waste and recyclables, transferring the residual waste to a new lined cell and lining the mined area to accommodate future waste disposal. The proposed expanded landfill will be located within existing City-owned lands and will include a liner, a leachate collection system, a stormwater management system, and a landfill gas collection system.

Anticipated waste disposal needs

Population projections are used with waste disposal rates to forecast the quantity of waste to be managed by the City in the future. It is anticipated the permanent population in the service area will increase from an estimated 77,601 in 2026 to 94,487 by 2049. Over a 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, the annual waste received at the site ranged from approximately 55,000 to 108,000 tonnes and the amount of waste landfilled annually ranged from approximately 38,000 to 63,000 tonnes. The landfilled waste continues to be in this range. Waste received at the site undergoes sorting and diversion reducing the quantity of waste that ends up in the landfill.

The City has identified the following waste disposal projections based on its expected future population growth:

• rate of residential waste generation = 450 kilograms/person/year
• residential waste diversion range = 30% to 50%
• industrial, commercial and institutional waste disposal – post diversion = 600 kilograms/person/year
• municipal biosolids generation rate = 135 kilograms/person/year
• all municipal biosolids will be diverted commencing 2027

As such, the City has proposed that the landfill expansion be designed to dispose of 1.78 million tonnes of waste by 2049, with an increase in the annual maximum fill rate to 76,000 tonnes per year.

Landfill site design

The expansion will be implemented through a horizontal expansion, which will increase the fill area from 25.8 ha. to 43.6 ha., for a net increase of 17.8 ha. The proposed mining area of 3.4 ha. is located within the existing 25.8 ha. fill area. The height will remain unchanged from the existing landfill, having a minimum of 10 m and a maximum of 32 m above the surrounding grades. The proposed expanded landfill area will accommodate 1,777,000 tonnes of waste, while the combined existing and proposed expansion area will have a waste and daily cover capacity of 3,170,000 m³, extending waste disposal capacity until 2049. The landfill will be designed with a maximum 6:1 above ground side slope. The design will have a final cover depth of 1 m with a waste to daily cover ratio of 4:1. The 4:1 ratio is a common standard for landfill operations and means that for every 4 cubic yards of compacted waste, 1 cubic yard of soil cover is used to cover it daily. The design will also include a composite liner membrane for the new landfill cells and the mined cell, known as cell 1A. The proposed site will be set back a minimum of 30 m from the property boundary. Please refer to figure 6.1 on page 124 in section 6.2 of the EA for a depiction of the proposed expansion.

The existing landfill site is designed to collect leachate and landfill gas. Leachate is collected at the south, east and west sides of the site via collection pipes and purge wells. The leachate is then pumped to the City's sanitary sewer system for treatment at the West End Water Pollution Control Plant. The site's landfill gas collection through the site’s vertical extraction wells and flaring system has been operational since 2011. The system burns collected landfill gas in a central enclosed flare and was designed to be expanded as necessary. The collected gas may be used for energy generation in the future. The leachate collection system will be enhanced to provide increased flows to the City's wastewater treatment plant and the existing gas collection system, which includes 41 vertical extraction wells and a flare will be extended to the landfill’s expansion areas.

The proposed landfill project includes the following main components:

• seven new landfill cells (cells 1 to 7)
• a landfill mining operation for cell 1A
• an enhanced liner and leachate collection system
• expansion of the existing landfill gas collection system, and continuation of landfill gas flaring
• decommissioning and replacing purge wells as needed
• three stormwater management ponds serving the landfill leachate runoff which have been designed to accommodate runoff from 1:100 year storm events
• two pump stations and water mains
• relocation of existing public drop-off, maintenance garage, scale house/ administration building and scales
• construction of a new recycling centre and household hazardous waste depot

2.3 Summary of potential environmental effects and mitigation measures

The EA describes the existing environment that may be impacted by the project as well as the potential project effects, including net and cumulative effects. A range of environmental components was assessed, including the natural, social, cultural and economic environments. The EA contains a full description of effects in section 7.0 potential net effects, including subsections for each environmental component and subsections for cumulative effects and climate change. Additional information on these environmental components can be found in accompanying technical appendices.

The project’s recommended mitigation measures are also discussed in section 7.0 along with future commitments for the site in section 8.0. These mitigation and monitoring commitments are intended to prevent or reduce the potential negative effects to the environment during construction, operation, closure and post-closure activities associated with the proposed project.

A summary of key potential environmental effects and mitigation measures, as stated in the EA, are provided below:

Potential biological effects: Impacts on vegetation and wildlife will primarily result from vegetation clearing and habitat loss associated with site preparation and construction and some potential disturbance from noise during operation.

Mitigation measures:

• monitoring to confirm that erosion and sediment control measures operate effectively to protect adjacent vegetation communities, wildlife habitat, and to confirm that protected natural areas are not impacted
• minimize impacts to wildlife and woodland habitats through forest edge setbacks and protection measures, retention of existing trees and vegetation within natural features, seasonal vegetation clearing restrictions, arborist monitoring, and environmental awareness training

Potential hydrological effects: The existing site has a leachate management system without a liner. During its review of the draft EA the ministry identified concerns about groundwater quality along the western boundary of the site.

Mitigation measures:

• a proposed landfill expansion design that addresses mitigation of groundwater impacts, with landfill mining of the site’s western portion and the addition of a liner and leachate collection system for the new fill area
• sampling and analysis for private wells within close proximity to the site will be undertaken
• the City has held discussions with property owners adjacent to the western property boundary to extend the site contaminant attenuation zone further west
• the City has acquired eight properties adjacent to the landfill site to enhance its buffer lands

Potential social effects: Property owners noted concerns related to odour, noise, traffic and litter.

Mitigation measures:

• land acquisition through expropriation was initiated by the City to enhance buffer lands to the southwest of the proposed fill area
• community outreach to keep area residents informed of the City’s construction schedule, activities and planned mitigation
• development of an odour management plan to mitigate the proposed landfill mining activities
• construction of a liner and leachate collection system at the site for all new and mined cells
• expansion of the landfill gas collection system and construction of a biosolids management facility
• no changes to hours of operation or operational practices are being proposed that would significantly increase noise

Potential visual effects: The landfill expansion is visible from Fifth Line East and requires the removal of approximately 6.5 ha of existing woodlot.

Mitigation measures

• the introduction of vegetation treatments at strategic locations to screen landfill views from the road right-of way, reforestation plots, incorporating similar species to compensate for the loss of existing vegetation

The City concluded in the EA that the net effects are acceptable, based on an assessment against all of the criteria and with the application of mitigation

3. Results of the ministry review

The ministry review provides an analysis of the EA. This review is not intended to summarize the EA, nor present the information found in the EA. For information on the evaluation process used to assess the alternatives, please refer to the EA. The EA and supporting documentation outline the EA planning process and demonstrates how the proponent selected the preferred project.

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

The ministry concluded that the amended EA followed the framework and commitments made in the approved ToR and meets the requirements of the EAA.

Appendix A includes the ministry’s assessment which has led to the above conclusion.

3.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is consultation. The City consulted with Indigenous communities, agencies and the public during the preparation of the EA.

The City documented its consultation activities adequately in the EA. Section 9.0 of the EA provides an overview of the consultation activities, with the complete consultation record documented in the EAs public consultation report, found in appendix O of the City's EA. Below is a brief description of the consultation undertaken.

The City's consultation program included:

• establishing a project website with EA documentation
• distribution of notices (Notice of Commencement, Notice of Public Open House)
• hosting public open houses and workshops
• consultation with agencies and organizations
• discussion groups and presentations
• engagement with Indigenous communities and groups
• circulating notices via local newspapers and mail outs
• newsletter updates
• publishing the draft EA for a comment period from May 24 to July 7, 2017

Following submission of the EA to the ministry on January 12, 2024, the ministry provided Indigenous communities, the GRT, and members of the public with an opportunity to review the EA and submit comments during the seven-week EA submission comment period.

3.2.1 Comments received

All comments received following the submission of the EA were forwarded to the City for a response. Tables 1 to 3 in appendix B of this review documents all comments received, the City's responses and the ministry's position on the responses. Below is a summary of the comments that were received.

Government review team — draft environmental assessment

Many of the comments provided on the draft EA were addressed in the final EA submitted to the ministry. Comments included requests for:

• additional information for the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions assessments
• more clarity and information on how the City met the requirements of the ToR and on justification for the capacity over a 25-year planning period and more detail in the EA
• commitments for a groundwater monitoring plan, buffer zone size validation, further modeling and a stormwater monitoring program
• more information on groundwater quality concerns along the landfill’s western boundary
• further description of existing noise and vibration conditions, to align with MECP noise guidelines alignment, and calculations for projected noise emissions
• consideration of the recommendation to align with the Provincial Policy Statement
• further commitments for mitigation on drinking water systems
• more details on the surface water monitoring plan, mitigation measures, thermal impacts, monitoring for erosion and stormwater management plan
• further details for the quantities for fill rate, fill area, total waste, and liner cost to benefit analysis, as well as design detail requests including a 30 m setback buffer from the property’s boundary, leachate/landfill gas management systems, final landfill cover thickness details and post closure plan information

Government review team — final environmental assessment

The GRT reviewed the final EA to confirm the information and conclusions of the EA were valid and their comments on the draft EA were addressed. During the EA submission comment period, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and MECP provided comments.

MNR requested amendments to the EA to address their respective mandated areas of interest, including:

• how aggregate resources were considered in the EA
• the restriction of vegetation removal for bird habitat protection

The MECP provided comments on the final EA, including requests for:

• greater detail with respect to leachate, surface water, groundwater and stormwater management
• greater detail with respect to erosion, vegetation removal, contingency planning, mitigation and monitoring plans, and the impacts of climate change on the site’s hydrogeology
• highlighted options for improving the efficiency of the landfill gas collection system
• commitments to schedule tree and vegetation removal outside of sensitive timing periods for migratory birds, Species at Risk (SAR) bats and reptiles
• maintenance of a buffer zone around sensitive water features
• further assessment on vibration effects
• information about noise receptors for vacant lands and access route noise
• commitments that the stormwater management works will be submitted in an updated ECA
• monitoring to be updated for air quality parameters, emission rates from trucks, emission rate calculations and emission rate modeling
• harmful substance monitoring/mitigation should to be added for leachate, well water testing and the groundwater monitoring program
• ministry support for extending municipal water services along the landfill, and the municipality's acquisition of the nearby properties
• consideration of the recommendation that the landfill pump station should include emergency power
• further documentation of Indigenous consultation activities

All comments were addressed by the City through amendments made to the EA. Further details on how the City responded to the comments received is provided in table 1 of appendix B.

Public comments

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

The City addressed one comment from a member of the public during the draft EA comment period regarding potential contamination of groundwater from the landfill and the need for contingency plans. The City addressed these comments by providing further details on leachate management, the private well monitoring program, contingency measures and groundwater monitoring.

Three members of the public and one local business owner submitted comments during the final EA submission comment period. The residents had comments on the landfill’s waste disposal capacity, waste reduction methods, potential groundwater contamination, potential extension of the municipal water supply and landfill odour. The local business owner offered their aggregate services as an avenue to lower industrial waste and free up additional capacity at the landfill.

The City responded to all comments received on the final EA which is documented in table 2 of appendix B.

Indigenous communities

The following Indigenous communities were identified for consultation purposes:

• Garden River First Nation
• Missanabie Cree
• Métis Nation of Ontario Historic Sault Ste. Marie Traditional Territory Consultation Committee
• Batchewana First Nation
• Historic Sault Ste. Marie Métis Council
• Anishinabek/Union of Ontario Indians
• Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians

Batchewana First Nation (BFN) was the only Indigenous community to provide comments on the draft EA. They informed the City that further discussions were necessary for them to endorse the project and provided input on how to be engaged in consultation. BFN noted they require funding for a third-party to review the draft EA to confirm the project will not impact their treaty rights and interests, nor impact the land, groundwater, flora, fauna and other environmental features.

During the seven-week comment period for the final EA, only BFN provided comments.  The Métis Nation of Ontario acknowledged receipt of receiving the EA on January 12, 2024, but provided no further comments. The ministry followed up with all of the identified Indigenous communities by email on February 2, 2024 and by phone on February 6 and 21, 2024, to confirm whether they would be providing comments on the final EA. No response was received from Garden River First Nation, Missanabie Cree First Nation, Michipicoten First Nation, Anishinabek/Union of Ontario Indians and the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians.

On January 18, 2024, a meeting between BFN and the City was held to discuss the project. BFN submitted a capacity funding request on January 31, 2024, to the City to support the BFNs review of the EA. On February 2, 2024, BFN informed the ministry that they would require additional time to submit their comments on the EA. The City approved BFNs capacity funding request and BFN provided the City with its comments on March 20, 2024, which related to the following:

• impacts to bird and species at risk bat habitat, including bird migration timing windows, and mitigation measures
• recommendations on the plans for stormwater management, fisheries screening, erosion and sediment control, tree protection and site isolation (fencing) during detailed design, and to obtain a new/amended approval from the ministry as part of the ECA application
• hydrogeological and surface water assessments
• landfill gas collection and future opportunities for energy
• the Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessments and a request for engagement with Indigenous communities during the Stage 3 assessment
• air quality and noise assessments

The City responded to BFNs comments by email on November 27, 2024. The ministry followed up with BFN on December 4, 2024 and January 9, 2025, to determine if they had any comments regarding the City’s response. BFN responded on January 13, 2025, that they did not have a timeframe for their response and indicated that they had requested additional capacity funding, beyond what was already provided by the City, to review the City’s responses.

In December 2024, BFNs comments and the City’s responses were circulated to the GRT for review. The City subsequently amended the EA and resubmitted it to the ministry in August 2025. The ministry forwarded the amended EA to BFN on September 10, 2025. Overall, the GRT was satisfied with the City’s responses to address BFNs concerns, but suggested the following natural heritage, cultural, and air quality updates/ mitigation measures for the amended EA:

• limit clearing to non‑sensitive seasons to protect breeding birds and SAR bats
• avoid impacts to newly listed endangered SAR bat and their habitat
• implement exclusion fencing, site controls and surveys to prevent harm to SAR species
• update terminology to use “Indigenous” and provide descriptions of cultural heritage conditions
• document cultural heritage conclusions using Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism screening criteria in the EA
• incorporate the results of Stage 1–2 Archaeological Assessments into the EA
• include regulatory protocols for discovery of archaeological resources in accordance with applicable legislation
• correct air quality reporting error by revisions to reflect equipment specifications rather than emissions
• correct air quality reporting error by revising mislabeled emission information to reflect equipment specifications

After liaising with the ministry during September 2025, on October 9, 2025, BFN expressed concerns with the consultation completed during the EA and indicated it would not be providing another round of comments unless additional capacity funding was provided. After liaising with the City, the ministry reached out to BFN on November 20, 2025, communicating that the City is unable to provide additional capacity funding. The ministry reiterated that BFN would have an opportunity to provide comments on the ministry review when it is published, and MECP offered to schedule a meeting to answer any questions. BFN indicated that it would not be providing additional comments and that it no longer supports the project moving forward.

3.2.2 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 City provided sufficient opportunities for Indigenous, government agency and public consultation during the preparation and finalization of the EA.

The ministry is satisfied the EA consultation that was 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.

The ministry is of the opinion that the City responded to, and addressed, all comments received on the final EA study report, including all the comments and concerns raised by BFN.

3.3 Conclusions of the EA process

The ministry is of the opinion that the proposed landfill expansion would be designed and operated to comply with the ministry's standards and the environmental effects of the proposed project would be managed through the commitments made in the EA, through conditions of approval and additional work that must be carried out by the City in support of future approval applications, if the project is approved.

3.4 Other considerations

Climate change impacts

In 2010, the City upgraded the landfill vent flares to a landfill gas collection system. The system reduces the quantity of methane released to the atmosphere and also reduces odours generated at the site. As part of the work completed for this EA, an assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was completed.

The collected gas is currently being flared and the City is committed to mitigate GHG emissions by expanding the existing landfill gas collection system across the expanded site.

The City will continue to support and comply with the Provincial organics program requirements as they evolve. Presently the City offers a curbside and self-haul leaf and yard waste collection program throughout the growing season and uses the composted material on City properties. The City is also planning to initiate a residential collection and composting program by approximately 2027 and is proceeding with the construction of a biosolids management facility that is expected to divert 10,000 tonnes of biosolids from disposal, thereby reducing GHG generation at the landfill site.

The City's 2015 stormwater master plan and guidelines document considered the possible impacts of climate change on drainage systems and stormwater best management practices. The proposed landfill expansion was designed in accordance with this document and the stormwater management ponds have been designed for the 1:100 year storm event. Steps have also been taken to protect the site from erosion along the south and west banks of Canon Creek. Stone has been placed along the banks that border the site to mitigate potential erosion and reduce the likelihood of the creek migrating closer to the disposal footprint.

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 preferred alternative in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities. The EA outlined steps for determining cumulative effects and determined that the effects from the landfill expansion would not overlap with those from other projects or activities in terms of biology, hydrogeology, surface water, atmospheric, archaeological, social, planned land use, visual, noise, odour, business and transportation. There are currently no known development applications within one kilometre of the proposed project.

4. Summary of the ministry review

This ministry review has summarized the ministry's analysis of the Sault Ste. Marie Solid Waste Management EA.

This review documents the ministry’s conclusions as follows:

• The EA complies with requirements of the approved ToR and has been prepared in accordance with the EAA. The EA provides sufficient information about the project and its potential impacts to enable a decision to be made about the application to proceed with the project
• The EA includes an assessment and evaluation of alternative methods to arrive at the preferred alternative, an assessment of the potential environmental effects of the alternative methods and the preferred alternative, and an assessment of 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 project
• Appropriate opportunities were provided for the Indigenous communities, GRT and the public to participate and comment during the development of the EA. Concerns raised by the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities have been considered and addressed by the proponent in the EA, or a commitment has been made to consider concerns through future commitments and or permitting/approval processes
• If approval of the project is obtained under the EAA, standard conditions of approval are recommended for the implementation of the project (refer to section 4.1)

4.1 Proposed conditions of approval

The ministry proposes to include several standard conditions of approval should the project be approved to proceed:

• general requirements to comply with the EA and commitments therein
• documentation requirements for the public record
• compliance monitoring and reporting provisions
• preparation of a complaints protocol to be used during construction and operation

This list is not exhaustive and additional conditions may be proposed subject to further review and consultation. During the five-week ministry review comment period and prior to the ministry making a recommendation to the minister regarding approval of the project, additional conditions may be proposed.

5. What happens now?

The ministry review is available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested parties, including Indigenous communities, the GRT and members of the public can submit comments to the ministry about the proposed project, the EA and/or the 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.

When making a decision, the minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the ToR, the EA, the review of the EA, comments submitted during the EA and ministry review comment periods and any other matters the minister may consider relevant.

The minister will make one of the following decisions, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

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

Prior to making that decision, the minister may also:

• refer the application (which consists of the ToR and EA), or a matter that relates to the application, to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a hearing and decision
• refer matters in connection with the project to mediation

5.1 Additional approval requirements

If EAA approval is given, the City would still need to obtain other permits and approvals to design, construct and operate this project. Section 10.0 (Other Approvals) table 10.1 of the EA outlines all additional approvals that may be required, such as:

• City of Sault Ste. Marie municipal zoning by-law amendment under the Planning Act for any changes to the site area
• new ECA for the proposed stormwater management works, under the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act
• amendment to the site’s Waste Disposal Site ECA under the Environmental Protection Act
• Ontario Regulation 41/24 (Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits) permits under the Conservation Authorities Act

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

5.2 Modifying / amending the proposed project

Any changes to the project outside the scope of this EA may be considered a new project pursuant to the EAA and may require the completion of a new comprehensive EA or the environmental screening process for waste management projects in accordance with Ontario Regulation 50/24 made under the EAA.

Making a submission

You will have an opportunity to comment on this ministry review for a five-week period. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed project, the EA, or this review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it electronically to devon.wills@ontario.ca and address it to:

Kathleen O'Neill, Director
Environmental Assessment Branch
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Re: Sault Ste. Marie Solid Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment
Attention: Devon Wills, Project Officer

All personal information included in a submission — such as name, address, telephone number and property location of the 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 section 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 Tel: 416-554-3033.

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act and terms of reference requirements

Requirements in Ontario Regulation 53/24: General and Transitional Matters

Summary of the EA

Ontario Regulation 53/24: section 4.(1)

EA must contain a brief summary of the EA organized in accordance with the matters set out in subsection 17.6 (2) of the Act.

Analysis of the EA

The EA includes an executive summary organized in accordance with the matters set out in subsection 17.6 of the Act.

List of proponent-led studies

Ontario Regulation 53/24: section 4.(1)

EA must contain a list of studies and reports which are under the control of the proponent, and which were done in connection with the project or matters related to the project.

Analysis of the EA

The list of studies and reports that are under the control of the proponent and were undertaken in connection with the EA are listed in section 11. This section contains a table outlining the background studies and reports conducted for the EA.

List of additional studies

Ontario Regulation 53/24: section 4.(1)

EA must contain a list of studies and reports done in connection with the project or matters related to the project of which the proponent is aware and that are not under the control of the proponent.

Analysis of the EA

The list of studies and reports that are not under the control of the proponent and were undertaken in connection with the EA are listed in section 11.

Section 12 of the EA contains a list of references and works cited for the EA report.

Maps

Ontario Regulation 53/24: section 4.(1)

Where the environmental assessment is for a project with a fixed location, at least two, well marked, legible and reproducible maps showing the location of the project and the area to be affected by it.

Of the maps referred to above, one shall be a simplified base map suitable for reproduction in any notices that may be published and the other may include more detail such as a 1:10,000 scale Ontario base map.

Analysis of the EA

Figure 1.1 (key plan) in section 1.3 of the EA shows the Sault Ste. Marie landfill site.

Figure 3.1 (existing Sault Ste. Marie landfill site plan) in section 3.3 of the EA shows the current layout of the Sault Ste. Marie landfill site.

Figure 5.1 in section 5.1 of the EA shows the potential locations for the proposed landfill sites.

Figures 5.2 to 5.5 (alternative methods 1 to 4 site plan views) in section 5.2.2 of the EA show the site layout for alternative methods 1 to 4.

Problem / opportunities

Identify an existing problem or opportunity and purpose of the project:

Environmental Assessment Act section 17.4 (2) (c) and section 17.6 (2) (a) section 17.6(2)(b)(i) and (ii)

The EA must contain a description of the purpose of the project. This should include an explanation of the problem or opportunity that prompted the proposed activity. The EA must include a description of a statement of the rationale for the project and its alternative methods.

If a specific project has been identified provide a brief description.

Analysis of the EA

The EA is required to follow section 3 of the ToR which outlines the project description. Section 1.2 of the EA indicates that the purpose of the ToR is to set the scope and describe the process that will be undertaken to address the problem of diminishing disposal capacity at the existing site. In 2005 the ToR was prepared documenting the planning process to obtain EA approval for the disposal component of the Solid Waste Management Plan. The ToR was approved by the ministry in 2005.

The purpose of the project is to address the waste management needs within the existing service area, consisting of the City of Sault Ste. Marie, Prince Township and Batchewana First Nation’s Rankin Reserve, for an additional 25 years of capacity (from 2024 to 2049). The project will also include opportunities for waste diversion and disposal. The City of Sault Ste. Marie will continue to investigate ways to divert waste from disposal by promoting and developing programs that support waste reduction, reuse and recycling. The City implemented and/or promoted/supported programs to divert typical "blue box" recyclables for single-family homes, multi-family homes and small businesses, electronic waste, styrofoam, used tires, leaf and yard waste, clean wood and brush, Christmas trees, metals including white goods and appliances, propane tanks, batteries, household items, construction and renovation materials and municipal hazardous waste. In addition to these programs the City has also set out limits for waste and landfill bans to encourage residents to divert waste.

The proposed project is an expansion of the Sault Ste. Marie landfill footprint located at 402 Fifth Line East. The service area will be the same as the existing landfill. The expansion will have a disposal capacity of 3.17 million m³ of waste and daily/intermediate cover (such as, 1.78 million tonnes of waste). It is forecasted that waste will be landfilled at a maximum rate of approximately 76,000 tonnes annually. The landfill will only accept non-hazardous solid residential, industrial, commercial and institutional, and construction and demolition waste, and biosolids.

Alternatives

Description and statement of the rationale for the alternative methods:

Environmental Assessment Act section 17.4 (2)(c) and section 17.6 (2) (b)(ii)

"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

Section 5.0 of the EA describes that the evaluation of alternative methods was to find a suitable location for the development of the additional landfill capacity that was needed. The City developed and evaluated alternative methods in two steps, and considered site specific factors which included leachate control, landfill gas management, buffer area and waste and truck traffic amounts. Step 1 considered the feasibility of establishing a new landfill site in comparison to the expansion of the existing landfill and step 2 considered different ways to expand the existing landfill site.

The City developed evaluation criteria to identify and assess the potential impacts of the proposed landfill expansion alternatives on the natural environment (such as, biology, hydrogeology, air quality and noise) and socio-cultural environment (such as, land use, archaeology and cultural heritage), economics (local business economy), cost (such as, landfill lifecycle costs), technical considerations (such as, development and operations and exiting/proposed landfill infrastructure), and transportation (such as, amount of truck traffic and travel distances). The City evaluated the net effects from each alternative method, then compared and ranked each method to determine the preferred alternative. The options for expanding the landfill to provide additional waste disposal capacity were:

• alternative 1 — west expansion
• alternative 2 — west and north expansion A
• alternative 3 — west and north expansion B
• alternative 4 — west and south expansion

Alternative 1 — west expansion

Alternative 1 — west expansion involves the expansion of the current site from the western edge towards the hydro corridor. The height of the expansion would be the same as the existing landfill and the average depth of expansion would be 18 metres. Expansion to the west would require relocation of several facilities; the public drop-off area, inbound and outbound scales, scale house, administration building and maintenance building. The estimated disposal capacity is 3.17 million m³ assuming that current waste densities are achieved. The soil generated by the base excavation is expected to supply soil for cover needs with a modest surplus available as a contingency.

Alternative 2 — west and north expansion A

Alternative 2 — west and north expansion A would expand the western and northern limits of the existing landfill. The height of the expansion would be the same as the existing landfill and the average depth of the west expansion would be 18 metres. By including a northerly expansion, this alternative preserves the public drop-off area, inbound and outbound weigh scales, scale house, administration building and maintenance building. The estimated disposal capacity is 3.17 million m³ assuming that current waste densities are achieved. The soil generated by the base excavation is expected to supply soil for cover needs with a modest surplus available as a contingency.

Alternative 3 — west and north expansion B

Alternative 3 — west and north expansion B is a combination of alternatives 1 and 2 which includes the expansion of the landfill from the western edge of the existing site towards the hydro corridor and a northern expansion from the northern limit of the existing landfill. The height of the expansion would be the same as the existing landfill and the average depth of the west expansion would be 11 metres which is 7 metres shallower than the other alternatives. This is possible due to the increase in surface area available for this expansion alternative. Expansion to the west would require the relocation of the public drop-off area, inbound and outbound scales, scale house, administration building and maintenance building. The estimated disposal capacity for alternative 3 is 3.17 million m³ assuming that current waste densities are achieved. The soil surplus generated by the base excavation is expected to supply soil for cover needs with a modest surplus available as a contingency.

Alternative 4 — west and south expansion

Alternative 4 — west and south expansion involves two separate landforms for the expansion. The first is an expansion west from the existing western limit of the site and the second is south of the southern limit of the existing site. The height of the expansion site would be the same height as the existing site and the average depth of the expansion is 18 m. Expansion to the south and west would require relocation of the Household Hazardous Waste facility and blower station. In addition to the 30 metre setback from the hydro corridor, there is also a 100 metre setback from Fifth Line. Creating separate landforms requires larger footprints since a separate landform cannot build on an existing side slope. The estimated disposal capacity is 3.17 million m³ assuming that current waste densities are achieved. The soil surplus generated by the base excavation is expected to supply soil for cover needs with a modest surplus available as a contingency.

A new site was not considered to be practical given the limited location options, while the City’s knowledge of the existing site’s hydrology monitoring results, demonstrates that the site well understood compared to a new site where the groundwater movement is less known. Four landfill expansion alternatives were developed based on the existing site characteristics and the available area to expand. The preferred alternative 3 — west and north expansion B sees the existing site expand to the west and north. The City concluded that the preferred alternative will also incorporate landfill mining, since it has long term benefits to groundwater and the potential effects (primarily odour related) are short-term. The do-nothing alternative 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.

The ministry is satisfied that a reasonable range of alternative methods were described in the EA and evaluated using a broad range of environmental criteria and measures.

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

Environmental Assessment Act section 17.6(2)(b)(ii)

Evaluation

Description of the environment for the project and alternatives

Environmental Assessment Act section 17.4(2)(c) and section 17.6(2)(c)(i)

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 project and/or the alternatives.

Analysis of the EA

A preliminary description of the existing environment was provided in section 5 of the ToR. The ToR contained the commitment that a more detailed description of the existing environmental conditions would be prepared as part of the EA to assess the potential effects of the alternatives on the environment.

Section 3.0 of the EA describes a general inventory of the existing conditions within the project's service area which includes the City of Sault Ste. Marie, Prince Township, and Batchewana First Nation’s Rankin Reserve. Detailed information addressing the existing environment within the on and off-site study areas (such as, proximal to the landfill site) have been included in the EA technical reports.

A description of the existing environment is completed for each environmental criterion to provide the baseline for determining the potential effects resulting from the project. The data which was collected from available secondary source information and the sources used have been included in section 11 of the EA. The environmental components described in the EA are:

• Section 3.1 — natural environment
  • Section 3.1.1 — geology / hydrogeology / soils
  • Section 3.1.2 — surface water
  • Section 3.1.3 — climate
  • Section 3.1.4 — biology
    • Section 3.1.4.1 — vegetation
    • Section 3.1.4.2 — wildlife
    • Section 3.1.4.3 — fisheries
• Section 3.2 — social / cultural environment
  • Section 3.2.1 — archaeological / cultural
  • Section 3.2.2 — social
  • Section 3.2.3 — official plans and policy documents
  • Section 3.2.4 — land use
  • Section 3.2.5 — transportation
  • Section 3.2.6 — municipal servicing network
  • Section 3.2.7 — economics
    • Section 3.2.7.1 — tourism and recreation
    • Section 3.2.7.2 — forestry
    • Section 3.2.7.3 — agriculture
    • Section 3.2.7.4 — mineral resources
• Section 3.3 — existing landfill

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

Description of the potential environmental effects for alternatives

Environmental Assessment Act section 17.4(2)(c) and section 17.6(2)(c)(ii)

The EA must include a description of the effects that will be caused or might reasonably be expected to be caused to the environment. Both positive and negative environmental effects should be included.

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

The City describes the potential effects considerations of the project in section 7.0 (potential net effects) and section 7.5 (consideration of cumulative effects) of the EA. The EA includes a summary of the net effects assessment for each of the environmental criterion (natural environment, socio-cultural environment, atmospheric air quality and economic environment), an assessment of cumulative effects and advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. The EA assesses both positive and negative effects of the alternatives. The evaluation method included identifying proposed mitigation measures to minimize or avoid any potential negative environmental effects of the preferred project being considered as part of the EA process. The EA identifies the net effects of the project during both construction and operation.

Natural environment net effects include changes to surface water and groundwater quality and quantity, ecosystem loss or alteration (terrestrial and aquatic). Socio-cultural environments net effects include changes to archaeological, social, land use and visual. Atmospheric air quality net effects include changes to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, odour and noise. Economic environment net effects include impacts to business and transportation.

Proceeding with the project is predicted to cause environmental effects. However, when taking into account the implementation of standard and site-specific environmental protection mitigation measures described in section 7.0 of the EA, the net effects associated with the project can be reduced or eliminated.

The EA provided a description of the effects that may be caused to the environment. The evaluation method in the EA used to determine potential environmental effects is clear, traceable, replicable and appropriate for the proposed landfill expansion project.

Description of the actions necessary or that may be necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy the environmental effects for the alternatives

Environmental Assessment Act section 17.4(2)(c) and section 17.6(2)(c)(iii)

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

Section 8.0 of the EA describes the environmental effects monitoring which may be used to ascertain the effectiveness of mitigation measures, and contingency measures to address unexpected occurrences. Monitoring of the hydrogeology, landfill gas, landfill mining, and transportation is proposed. Commitments related to the construction, operation, closure and post-closure of the landfill are listed in table 8.2: table of commitments to mitigation and monitoring.

Evaluation of advantages and disadvantages to the environment for the project and alternatives

Environmental Assessment Act section 17.4(2)(c) and section 17.6(2)(d)

The preferred alternative should be identified through this evaluation.

Analysis of the EA

Section 5.2.4 (overall evaluation of alternatives) table 5.12 identifies the advantages and disadvantages of each alterative, with consideration of the ranking of alternatives for each criteria group. The EA presents a summary of the differences between each alternative method and summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the preferred alternative based on the net effects of the preferred alternative.

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

Description of consultation with interested stakeholders

Environmental Assessment Act section 17.4 (2)(c), and section 17.6 (2)(e)

A description of any consultation undertaken for the project and the results of that consultation must be documented. The description 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 community consultation efforts that have been made including methods for identifying potentially interested Indigenous communities, who was consulted, when and how consultation occurred and any comments received from Indigenous communities.

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

A description of stakeholder consultation is included in section 9 of the EA (public and agency consultation), which includes the methods used to identify and gain input from stakeholders, the frequency of consultation and a description of key engagement milestones.

Key consultation methods included distribution of public notices, public open houses, mailings, workshops and a project website. Section 9.5 of the EA (aboriginal communities and agencies) describes the consultation undertaken with Indigenous communities. Indigenous communities that were consulted on the basis that they have or may have constitutionally protected Aboriginal or treaty rights that may be affected by the project were:

• Batchewana First Nation
• Garden River First Nation
• Historic Sault Ste. Marie Metis Council
• Métis Nation of Ontario Historic Sault Ste. Marie Traditional Territory Consultation Committee
• Missanabie Cree
• Anishinabek/Union of Ontario Indians
• Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians

Letters and emails were sent to each of the communities advising of notices, open houses and draft reports 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 in accordance with the code of practice: consultation in Ontario’s environmental assessment process (2014) that was committed to 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.

Selection process

Description and statement of the rationale for the project

Environmental Assessment Act section 17.4(2)(c), and section 17.6(2)(b)(i) and (c)

The description of the project 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 project.

Analysis of the EA

The evaluation process in sections 4 and 5 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 6 of the EA provides a description of the preferred undertaking. A summary of the proposed undertaking is provided in section 2.2 of this review.

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

Section 8.4 of the EA detail 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.

Other approvals

Additional 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 project.

Section 10 (other approvals) table 10.1 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required, such as environmental compliance approvals, permits under the Conservation Authorities Act, project registration under the Species Conservation Act and agreements from the MECP, MNR, and Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism.

Appendix B: Submissions received during the initial comment period

Table 1: Government review team comment summary table

To be provided with an electronic copy of this table, please contact Devon Wills, Project Officer, Environmental Assessment Branch, at devon.wills@ontario.ca, or Tel: 416-270-4457.

Table 2: Public comment summary table

To be provided with an electronic copy of this table, please contact Devon Wills, Project Officer, Environmental Assessment Branch, at devon.wills@ontario.ca, or Tel: 416-270-4457.

To be provided with an electronic copy of this table, please contact Devon Wills, Project Officer, Environmental Assessment Branch, at devon.wills@ontario.ca, or Tel: 416-270-4457.