Ministry review of the Temiskaming Shores waste management capacity project environmental assessment

Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, Subsection 7(1)

This review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The amended environmental assessment was submitted on February 21, 2018 and the deadline for the completion of the review was July 31, 2018. A review published after this date remains valid. The notice of completion of the review is required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

The review documents the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks’ evaluation of the amended environmental assessment and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Indigenous communities into consideration.

Executive summary

Who

The City of Temiskaming Shores (City)

What

Ministry review of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking which includes the expansion of the New Liskeard Landfill. The proposed undertaking will address the identified waste management needs for the City for a 25 year planning period. The City is seeking approval for 247,000 m³ of waste and daily cover.

When

The EA was submitted on September 2, 2016 and was subject to a seven-week public and agency comment period. An amended EA was submitted on February 21, 2018 that consolidated the information requests in response to the ministry’s comments to demonstrate the need for the requested landfill capacity, consider a 25-year planning period and identify current and future commitments to the redirection of waste from landfill disposal.

The deadline for the ministry’s review was extended to July 31, 2018 due to time required for the City to incorporate changes into the amended EA and for the ministry to review these changes.

Where

The New Liskeard Landfill is located on the north side of Rockley Road, approximately 3 kilometres west of the former Town of New Liskeard.

Why

The City’s current landfill is expected to reach its approved capacity in 2019.

Conclusions

This EA was prepared in accordance with the approved terms of reference (ToR) and the Environmental Assessment Act. The EA process contained sufficient information to assess the potential environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.

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 (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, built, 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.

Environmental Assessments 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 guidelines 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 approval. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

On November 28, 2012, the Minister approved the City’s ToR for the New Waste Management Capacity EA. The ToR set out how the City would assess alternatives, assess environmental effects and consult with the public and Indigenous communities during the preparation of the EA. The ToR established the initial project description, rationale for the undertaking and description of the environment which were further elaborated in the EA. The ToR also outlined a consultation plan for the EA process.

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.

On September 2, 2016, the City submitted City of Temiskaming Shores New Waste Management Capacity Environment Assessment to the ministry for approval for the proposed New Waste Management Capacity project (the project). The EA comment period ended on October 21, 2016.

The EA was circulated for review to a Government Review Team (GRT). The GRT, including federal, provincial and local agencies, reviewed the EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the EA were valid, based on their agencies’ mandates. The public and Indigenous communities also had an opportunity to review the EA and submit their comments to the ministry. All comments received by the ministry are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the EA undertaking.

1.3 Ministry review

The EAA requires the ministry to prepare a review of the EA, known simply as the ministry review (review). The review is the ministry’s evaluation of the EA. The purpose of the review is to determine if 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 make a decision about the proposed undertaking.

The 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, evaluates the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and the proposed mitigation measures. The 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 review when making a decision; the 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 review comment period allows the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities to see how their concerns with the EA and the proposed undertaking have been considered. During the review comment period, anyone can submit comments on the EA, the undertaking and the review. In addition, anyone can request that the Minister refer the EA, or any matter relating to the EA, to the Environmental Review 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 review will be published on the City’s website indicating that this review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period. Copies of the review have been placed in the same public record locations where the EA was available, and copies have been distributed to the GRT members and potentially affected or interested Indigenous communities.

2. The proposed undertaking

2.1 Background

If EAA approval is granted, the project will be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the EA, any proposed conditions of approval and will include the details outlined above. In addition, the City must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking.

2.1.1 Landfill site and vicinity

The City is located in northeastern Ontario, near the Ontario-Québec border. The City was formed into a single tier municipality through the amalgamation of the Town of Haileybury, Town of New Liskeard and the Township of Dymond. The City has two existing landfills, the Haileybury Landfill and the New Liskeard Landfill. The New Liskeard Landfill is located approximately 3 kilometres west of the former Town of New Liskeard and has been in operation since 1916. The New Liskeard Landfill was operating under the approved Certificate of Approval since May 2000 and reached its approved limits of landfilling of 2.02 ha in June 2009 and stopped accepting waste. The City did not complete a closure plan for the New Liskeard Landfill. The New Liskeard site is located in a fairly rural region and is surrounded mostly by agriculture and open space.

The Haileybury Landfill is currently the City’s only operating landfill site accepting waste from the City and the Town of Cobalt. The Haileybury Landfill is located approximately 9 kilometres southwest of the former town of Haileybury and has been in operation since 1975. The Haileybury Landfill accepts municipal nonhazardous solid waste and is expected to reach its approved capacity of 470,000 cubic metres in 2019.

The City examined a number of options to address the need for additional waste management capacity and determined that expanding the existing New Liskeard Landfill was the preferred alternative.

2.1.2 Amended environmental assessment

As noted above, on September 2, 2016, the City submitted the City of Temiskaming Shores New Waste Management Capacity Environmental Assessment to the ministry for approval. The City was seeking approval for 874,000 cubic metres of capacity over a 30-year planning period.

On February 21, 2018, the City submitted an amended EA to the ministry to reflect changes identified through a number of memoranda received by the ministry from the City on March 29, 2017, June 16, 2017 and October 23, 2017. The amended EA was updated to reflect all of the information submitted in the previous memoranda. These memoranda were in response to the ministry’s comments to justify the the landfill capacity ask, consider a 25-year planning period from the original 30-year planning period proposed and identify current and future commitments to waste management. The amended EA was also provided on the project website.

The amended EA submitted by the City to the ministry provided additional information related to tracking incoming waste estimates. In addition, the City committed to installing a scale at the proposed New Liskeard landfill site to accurately monitor the volumes of incoming waste.

The planning period was also revised as a part of these memoranda and compiled in the amended EA to reflect a 25-year planning period and to begin following the closure of the Haileybury site and then opening of the New Liskeard site. The initial 30-year planning period included the operation of the Haileybury site.

City’s also provided details on its diversion rate of 28% and how that rate was determined. The City then revised its total capacity request based on the population size, which indicated a declining population and by incorporating the 28% diversion rate. This resulted in a revised total capacity ask from 874,000 to 247,000 cubic metres.

2.1.3 Amended environmental assessment

In 2008, the City completed its draft Solid Waste Management Master Plan (WMMP). The WMMP recommends the promotion of waste diversion and the provision of new long-term waste disposal capacity. The estimated average annual waste generation is approximately 10,848 cubic metres per year and is expected decrease to 10,337 cubic metres per year. The projections require waste management capacity over the 25-year planning period, which are 197,281 cubic metres of uncompact waste and daily cover requirements of 49,320 cubic metres. The volume of compacted residential waste and daily cover soil needs represents a landfill volume need of 247,000 cubic metres over the 25-year planning period.

2.1.4 Current waste management

The City administers a recycling program which includes bi-weekly recycling (blue box) curb side collection, as well as a depot at the existing landfill for the Ontario Tire Stewardship program and for electronic equipment. The recycling program includes the collection of paper fibers, aluminum and steel cans, container glass, and No. 1 polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic, which are deposited at eight drop off depots located throughout the City. The existing landfill also provides bins for cardboard and single-stream recycling. The City also hosts an annual Orange Drop event for the collection of Household Hazardous Materials.

In 2015, the City developed requirements for contractors to supply a waste diversion plan for construction and demolition material. This is monitored through the City building/demolition application process.

The City identified strategies that could be implemented to support increased waste diversion including:

• development and implementation of a waste management promotion and education strategy that would promote awareness to guide the collection, reuse, and recovery of materials and recycling methods
• optimization of the City’s existing Blue Box recycling program, hazardous waste collection program and electronics recycling program
• implementation of an excess soil management program that would allow for the adequate stockpiling and reuse of soils from construction projects deemed not be waste
• facilitate education of the local industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) sector regarding changes to waste handling
• require that all multi-dwelling units separate recyclable wastes from their waste streams to allow for diversion
• promote the reuse of any excess soils produced by the IC&I sector by required tracking of material produced from construction projects

2.1.5 Groundwater

The City’s groundwater monitoring program provided in the EA indicates that surface conditions at the landfill consist of silt over shallow limestone bedrock. The site is situated of an exposed landfill bedrock ridge. The site is approximately 2,150 metres from the closest municipal water supply wells; however, these wells do not appear to be in the path of groundwater originating at the landfill site. The New Liskeard Landfill previously operated as a natural attenuation landfill, which means it did not have any leachate management system in place. The groundwater/leachate impacts were managed historically through the use of approximately 32 hectares of land to the east of the landfill property, which acts as an area that the leachate can flow to from the landfill to levels that will not have unacceptable impacts beyond this area (Contamination Attenuation Zone) and will continue to be used for the new landfill, if the EA is approved. A range of potential leachate management alternatives were identified as potentially feasible for the expansion including but not limited to maintaining the existing operation (natural attenuation), purge wells and wetland treatment, lining of the landfill and piping of the effluent to the City waste water treatment plant, and cut-off walls to enclose to plume. The proposed project design will continue to operate as a natural attenuation landfill following the expansion. The current design does not incorporate a leachate collection system. The City has committed to evaluating the adequacy of the natural attenuation area annually and any further development would be assessed, if required.

2.2 Description of the preferred undertaking

The City selected the expansion of the New Liskeard Landfill as a means of providing additional waste capacity for the 25-year planning period. Currently, the New Liskeard landfill has a footprint of 6.12 ha with the proposed expansion covering an additional 1.8 ha to the northeast of the existing site. The site is located on the north side of Rockley Road, approximately 3 km west of the former Town of New Liskeard (please refer to Figure 1 of this review).

The municipality currently accepts residential, IC&I solid waste and the City requires a waste diversion plan to be developed for construction, demolition and renovation projects. The proposed project will include major components that are common to the operation of a non-hazardous municipal waste landfill. These components include: waste trucks utilizing site roads, deposition of waste materials, compaction, bulldozing, and grading activities, the stockpiling of clean cover materials with loading of daily cover material into haul trucks for transport, and support activities that require traffic from small vehicles or trucks.

The preferred undertaking is depicted in Figure 2 and proposed site plan is shown in Figure 3. The proposed project will be spread over five waste disposal cells with the construction of the proposed landfill expansion beginning on the south end (Cell 1) and progressing sequentially, from north to south. Landfill activities closure and post-closure are projected to occur over a 50-year period in 4 phases:

• Phase 1 Construction (year 1), includes the construction of cell 1 base and associated perimeter access roads, swales and drainage ditches
• Phase 2 Operations (years 2 to 25), includes landfilling at active cells (1 through 5) and concurrent development of cells (2 through 5) and subsequent closure of cells (1 through 4) as they reach the designed final contours
• Phase 3 Closure (years 25 to 26), includes closure of cell 5 and placement of final capping and cover
• Phase 4 Post-Closure (years 26 to 50), includes post-closure monitoring (including groundwater)

Figure 1: City of Temiskaming Shores new waste management capacity project site location

This map displays both the New Liskeard Landfill location and the Haileybury Landfill location. The New Liskeard Landfill is located 3 kilometres of west of the former Town of New Liskeard. This map also identified features such a nearby cities, existing roads and water bodies.

View a larger version of this map (PDF)

Figure 2: Preferred undertaking

This figure illustrates the preferred alternative for the undertaking. The different coloured lines identify the main components of the project, including property boundaries, contamination attenuation zone, proposed landfill expansion area and the site vicinity study area. Other features displayed include watercourses, highway and major roads and wetlands surrounding the project.

View a larger version of this map (PDF)

Figure 3: Proposed phasing plan

This figure illustrates the proposed phasing plan for the undertaking. The yellow coloured lines show the proposed landfill expansion area and the five cells that are planned. The figure also shows the approximate domestic solid waste boundary and the property boundary. A contaminant attenuation zone is east of the study area and Rockley Road runs parallel to the southern property boundary.

View a larger version of this map (PDF)

3. Results of the ministry review

The review provides the analysis of the EA. The review is not intended to summarize the EA, nor present the information found in the EA. For information on the decision making process, 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.

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

The ministry coordinated an analysis of the EA with the Government Review Team (GRT) that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the ToR have been met. The ministry concludes that the that the amended EA has addressed the commitments made in the ToR and satisfies the requirements of the EAA.

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

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is consultation during the preparation of the EA. Consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be undertaken prior to the submission of the EA to the ministry, and must be completed in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in ToR.

During the preparation of the EA, the City carried out a consultation process that shared information on the study and provided opportunities for the public, GRT and Indigenous communities to provide specific or general input. Consultation activities included:

• establishing and maintaining a Waste Management Advisory Committee
• publishing notices in the local newspapers and posting documents on the project website
• conducting two open houses for members of the community to provide input
• holding meetings with interested persons including business owners, community organizations and neighbours
• providing the draft EA Study Report to the GRT agencies and Indigenous communities for review and comment

In accordance with the requirements of subsection 6.1(2) of the EAA, consultation activities are described in Section 8 and document in Appendix L (Record of Consultation) of the EA report.

Once the EA is submitted to the ministry, additional ministry driven consultation occurs during the EA comment period. The GRT, the public and affected Indigenous communities are provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the ministry on whether the requirements of the ToR had been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking.

All comments received by the ministry during the EA comment period were forwarded to the City for a response. Summaries of the all comments received along with the City responses are included in Tables 1 to 3. Copies of the submissions are also available in Appendix B of this review.

During the preparation of this review, the City had the opportunity to amend the EA report based on ministry comments regarding the proposed capacity, planning period and waste diversion.

The amended EA can be found on the project website.

Government Review Team

During the preparation of the EA, the City sought input from members of the GRT including provincial ministries, federal departments and municipal agencies who:

1. may have a potential interest in or mandate(s) related to the proposed undertaking
2. issue approvals or permit requirements administered under their respective jurisdictional authorities
3. may have potential concerns about the proposed undertaking

The City consulted with the GRT through a variety of means including telephone calls, written and electronic correspondence and formal meetings. A summary of the consultation process carried out during the preparation of EA with members of the GRT, the comments received and the City’s response to those comments can be found in Section 8 and Appendix L of the EA.

The City provided a copy of the draft EA Study Report to the GRT for a 30-day comment period ending February 12, 2016. The draft EA was also distributed to Indigenous communities for review and comment.

Following the formal submission of the EA to the ministry, GRT members were provided copies of the EA for final review during the seven-week comment period, which began on September 2, 2016 and ended on October 21, 2016. All comments received by the ministry during the EA review period were forwarded to the City for a response (Refer to Table 1).

Public consultation

The objective of public consultation is to inform and seek input from interested members of the public on the EA process and the proposed undertaking. A summary of the public consultation carried out during the preparation of the EA can be found in Section 8 of the EA.

Members of the public, which includes the general public, communities, local organizations, interested groups and property owners, were provided with an opportunity to participate and provide input during the preparation of the EA. The City carried out public consultation in a variety of ways including hosting two public open houses; publishing notices in the newspaper, meeting with interested persons including business owners, community organizations and neighbours, and posting the draft EA Study Report on the City’s Waste Management Capacity project website.

In fall 2013, the City established a Waste Management Advisory Committee to further involve the community. Members include the City Mayor, City Councillors and staff, and community residents. The purpose of the Waste Management Advisory Committee was to:

• review and make recommendations to the City Council on the selection, siting, development and implementation of a long-term waste management site
• promote public interest and involvement in the implementation of new waste management programs and to evaluate and consider recommendations received from the public

Members of the public had an opportunity to review and comment on the EA during then seven-week EA submission comment period. During this time no comments were received.

Indigenous community consultation

In addition to public consultation, proponents are required to consult with Indigenous communities that have established or asserted Aboriginal and/or treaty rights that may be negatively affected by the project. Indigenous peoples include First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples of Canada. During the preparation of the EA, the City contacted the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (now the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs) and the Ministry of the Environment (now Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks) for assistance in developing a list of Indigenous communities to be consulted during the EA process.

The Indigenous communities were contacted at key milestones during the preparation of the EA and were provided with a copy of: the Notice of Commencement; the draft EA and, a copy of the final EA report.

The following Indigenous communities were contacted and kept informed throughout the EA process:

• Beaverhouse First Nation
• Matachewan First Nation
• Mattagami First Nation
• Temagami First Nation
• Timiskaming First Nation
• Wahgoshig First Nation
• Métis Nation Ontario
• Temiskaming Métis Council

No comments from Indigenous communities were received during the ToR or EA comments periods. The consultation process is further detailed in Appendix L of the EA.

Ministry conclusions on the consultation program

The EA documents the consultation methods that were undertaken to engage government reviewers, Indigenous communities and members of the public during the development of the EA. The EA discusses the concerns raised and how they were addressed or will be addressed if the EA is approved.

The ministry is satisfied that the consultation activities carried out by the City met the commitments outlined in the approved ToR and the ministry’s Code of Practice for consultation. The ministry believes that the level of consultation undertaken by the City provided sufficient opportunities for the public, interested stakeholders and Indigenous communities to provide input during the preparation of the EA.

3.2 Environmental assessment process

Environmental Assessment is a planning process that requires proponents to identify an existing problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluating the environmental effects of the alternative against select criteria, and to select a preferred alternative. The City carried out an EA to identify and address ways to provide additional waste management capacity over a 25-year planning period because the existing landfill will reach capacity in 2019.

The City followed a traceable process to select the expansion of the New Liskeard Landfill as the preferred undertaking. In the EA, the City evaluated both alternatives to the undertaking, alternative methods for implementing the preferred alternative landfilling. Below is a summary and ministry evaluation of the process the City followed.

Alternatives to the undertaking

In accordance with the approved ToR, the City assessed a number of solid waste disposal alternatives including:

• do nothing
• thermal technology (waste incineration)
• energy from waste
• waste export
• waste import
• landfilling

The alternatives presented in the ToR were further refined in the EA. The City underwent an evaluation of alternatives to compare the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. The comparison focused on the comparison between alternatives and associated potential effects, impact management (mitigation) and net effects. The City evaluated the alternatives using environmental, socio/cultural, economic, technical and policy criteria identified in the ToR. Following the evaluation of the alternatives landfilling was selected as the preferred alternative.

Alternative methods

Following the selection of the alternative to, the City evaluated a number of alternative methods of carrying out the preferred undertaking which is landfilling. The City evaluated 17 potential landfill locations within and outside the municipal boundary of the City including the expansion of the New Liskeard and Haileybury landfills, as well as a number of potential new sites for landfills. Each location was then evaluated in the EA against the environmental criteria as identified in the ToR. The City also applied a screening of setbacks to sensitive areas or land uses to determine if the sites will be constrained by regulatory setbacks and/or if the site will present any opportunities for the municipality.

The City evaluated the 17 potential sites based on a number of environmental components, including air quality, species at risk, greenhouse gases, aquatic environments such as fish habitat, and terrestrial environments such as protected areas, groundwater, surface water and soils geology (surficial geology and soil contamination). The ranking of each environmental component was based on the level of concern and/or the potential for adverse impact presented by each conceptual landfill alternative. The determination of the level of concerns and/or potential for adverse impact was based on how each alternative method affects the criteria’s indicators. Ratings of "none", "low", "low to medium", "medium", "medium to high" and "high" were assigned to each criteria based on the concern or potential for adverse impact. To arrive at an overall score for each of the candidate sites, the individual scores for each environmental component were tallied in order to assess the overall preference of each site.

From the evaluation of the 17 potential sites, the four candidate sites (three within the municipal boundary and one outside) were identified and carried forward for further evaluation and discussion with the Waste Management Advisory Committee. Further refinement of the criteria (advantages and disadvantages of each site) led to the New Liskeard Landfill being chosen as the preferred alternative method, with its main advantage of being permitted and zoned for waste management.

3.2.1 Assessment of environmental effects

The City evaluated the potential effects of expanding the New Liskeard Landfill within the existing property boundaries and extended study areas for specific environmental components using a number of studies. The prediction of potential effects considered the environmental components and associated evaluation criteria listed in the ToR. Overall, the effects of the preferred undertaking were considered neutral for the following natural and social environmental components after the application of mitigation measures:

Atmospheric environment

• developing a Dust Best Management Practice which would include:
  • revegetation of all exposed soil areas at closure
  • enforcement of speed limits to reduce dust from trucks

Surface water

• installation, inspection and maintain sediment and erosion control structures such as silt fences, straw bales and sediment traps

Terrestrial environment

• use of existing roads and trails to avoid creation of new access roads
• undertake vegetation clearing in winter to avoid the migratory bird nesting season
• installation of wildlife exclusion fencing around the perimeter of the construction site

Ground water

• site specific trigger level monitoring program and contingency plans
• annual evaluation of the adequacy of the natural attenuation area

The City has also committed to following the ministry’s standards for landfill design and operation. These standards include generic monitoring and sampling requirements, which the City will utilize to develop site specific programs.

3.2.2 Key issues

Key issues regarding then EA process and documentation were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA review comment period. These submissions can be found in Appendix B. All comments, including the City’s and ministry’s level of satisfaction can be found in Tables 1 to 3. No key issues were raised by members of the public or Indigenous communities on the EA process.

3.2.3 Conclusion

Overall, the ministry, in consultation with the GRT, is generally satisfied with the City’s EA process to selected expanding the New Liskeard Landfill as the preferred undertaking. The ministry is satisfied that the EA was conducted in a logical and transparent manner, and has made a clear effort to consult and involve interested stakeholders and Indigenous communities in the EA process.

The EA explains the rationale behind the undertaking and then need for the EA process. The City has presented a reasonable range of alternatives to and alternative methods to the undertaking and has evaluated them in a defined study area that took into consideration the EAA’s broad definition of the environment.

The EA provides a description of the environment in the study area, shows the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative methods and identifies potential effects that may result from the undertaking that may affect the environment. The EA discusses the likelihood and significance of these effects, as well as possible mitigation measures to accordingly reduce or increase their effect, depending on whether the effect is negative or positive.

Please refer to Appendix A of this review for the ministry’s analysis of whether the EA met the requirements of the EAA.

3.3 Proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking involves the expansion of the New Liskeard Landfill to allow for an additional expansion volume of 247,000 cubic metres. The existing landfill area will be expanded to the northeast by approximately 1.8 ha. The proposed landfill expansion will be spread over five cells. Historically the New Liskeard Landfill operated as a natural attenuation landfill; groundwater/ leachate were managed through approximately 32 ha of land to the east of the landfill property to act as a Contamination Attenuation Zone. The City underwent an assessment of the existing Contamination Attenuation Zone and determined that natural attenuation is an appropriate means of continued groundwater management at the site following the expansion. The ministry’s technical reviewer is satisfied with this assessment.

3.3.1 Key issues

Issues regarding the proposed undertaking were raised by the GRT during the draft EA review and during then EA review comment period. One key issue was identified related to stormwater management and is described below. The GRT submissions can be found in Appendix B. All comments, including the City’s responses and ministry level of satisfaction can be found in Table 1. No comments were received from the public or Indigenous communities.

Stormwater management

One of the key areas of concern was related to leachate seeps and impact of leachate to stormwater. Ministry staff provided comments on the water quality analysis of the site, noting that a wet pond would be required for stormwater management of the site. Stormwater management is required for both the existing and new expansions to address stormwater quality control, quantity control and erosion controls measures. Ministry staff indicated that the proposed mitigation of ditch and swales are not able to address these stormwater management requirements. In addition, ministry staff indicated that sediment and erosion control measures are unable to address leachate seeps and will only address total suspended solids. In response, the City committed to a wet pond and outlet structure that would be designed during the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application stage. The ministry may consider a condition of approval to require the City to engage the ministry on the detailed design of the stormwater management pond (wet pond) in advance of submission of its ECA application.

Ministry staff also provided comments that the City must develop a contingency plan for the operation of the stormwater management works and ensure that monitoring is required at the outlet of the stormwater management works in case of leachate seeps. The City has committed to including details of the water quality monitoring program and then developed contingency plan as part of the ECA application process.

3.3.2 Conclusion

In the EA, the City identified potential environmental effects, mitigation measures, and monitoring programs for managing net effects from the proposed landfill expansion.

As a result of the comments received, the City has made a number of commitments to respond to ministry concerns, any future commitments that may arise, or through future approval applications to address any outstanding concerns with the proposed undertaking.

The ministry will continue to work with the City to ensure the project will be designed and operated to comply with the ministry’s standards and that the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking can be managed through commitments made in the EA, through conditions of approval, or through additional work that must be carried out by the City in support of future approval and permit applications, if the EA is approved.

3.3.3 Additional environmental considerations

This section of the review assesses how changes to the environment were considered in the EA with respect to:

• air quality
• severe weather

Air quality

The City considered measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in the evaluation of waste disposal alternatives. Measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed landfill expansion include the recovery or reduction of biodegradable waste (organics diversion) and landfill gas capture.

Diverting organic materials such as food and yard waste from landfills by methods such as composting or anaerobic digestion reduces the production and emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere. The EA identifies that the City has committed to developing a diversion plan for organics.

There is currently no landfill gas collection system at the existing site. The EA indicates that the proposed expansion will not meet the 1.5 million cubic metre threshold set out in Ontario Regulation 232/98 under the Environmental Protection Act, which requires a system to manage atmospheric landfill gas emissions during site operation and following site closure.

Section 7.2.1 of the EA, indicates that the City will install gas monitoring probes around both the closed and then new landfill to allow for routine monitoring of landfill gas concentrations, and to determine if contingency measures are warranted. If warranted, these measures include the installation of vertical extraction wells or horizontal collectors to capture the gas and control the migration.

Severe weather

The ministry’s Codes of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario (2014) states that the EA should attempt to examine the interrelationships between components of the environment and then undertaking, for example, how the project could interrelate with changing climate over time.

The EA identified a number of meteorological influences that if modified significantly, could potentially impact the project including precipitation and wind speed. The EA report did not identify the potential impacts of extreme weather on many project components such as stormwater management and leachate management strategy (natural attenuation). The ministry recommends through a condition of approval that the City assess whether the expanded landfill and associated site components will have the feasibility to withstand impacts from weather events of increased frequency and intensity as a result of climate change.

The ministry is also considering whether to impose conditions of approval that will require the City to assess whether the proposed stormwater management and leachate management strategy, have the resiliency to withstand impacts from weather events of increased frequency and intensity as a result of climate change.

3.3.4 Source water protection considerations

The City is not located within or adjacent to any nearby source protection zone areas that delineate vulnerable areas for the protection of municipal drinking water systems such as: Wellhead Protection Areas, Intake Protection Zones, Highly Vulnerable Aquifers, or Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas, according to provincial standards set out under the Clean Water Act. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated on municipal drinking water systems.

4. Summary of the ministry review

The review has explained the ministry’s analysis for the City of Temiskaming Shores New Waste Management Capacity project.

This review concludes:

• the EA meets the purpose of the EAA
• the EA was prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the EAA
• the ministry is satisfied with the consultation opportunities provided
• all EA process and documentation issues have been addressed through amendments to the EA
• the EA provides sufficient information on the undertaking and its potential impacts for the Minister to make a decision
• issues regarding stormwater management can be addressed through conditions of approval for the EA

If an undertaking is approved under the EAA, there are several standard conditions that will be imposed, such as requirements to conduct and report on the results of compliance monitoring and to develop a protocol for responding to complaints from the local community received during all phases of the undertaking.

In addition, during the five-week review comment period and prior to forwarding a recommendation to the Minister about this EA, conditions of approval specific to the landfill expansion undertaking may be proposed to ensure that the environment remains protected. Below is a preliminary list of potential conditions of approval that may be recommended to the Minister for consideration to further support the commitments made in the EA and the purpose of the EAA.

• Assess whether the proposed stormwater management, and leachate collection and treatment systems have the resiliency to withstand impacts from weather events of increased frequency and intensity. The assessment will include a discussion of potential contingency plans to address extreme weather events in the future.
• Develop a contingency plan for the operation of stormwater management works in case of leachate seeps.

5. What happens now

The 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 review. At this time, anyone can make a written request that the Minister refer either all or part of the EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) for a hearing if there are significant outstanding environmental concerns that have not been considered.

At the end of the review comment period, ministry staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the EA has been prepared in accordance with the ToR and 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 ToR, the EA, the review, the comments submitted during the EA and the review comment periods and any 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 Environmental review 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.

5.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, the City is still required to obtain other legislative approvals for the design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 1.4 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

• Permit to Take Water (under the Ontario Water Resources Act) for taking of water greater than 50,000 litres per day
• Environmental Compliance Approval (under the Environmental Protection Act) for the construction and operation of a waste management facility and associated releases to the environment

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

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

The ministry’s EA Code of Practice identifies a process to address minor and major changes to the undertaking if approval is granted. Any proposed change to the undertaking would have to be considered in the context of the EAA and Ontario Regulation 101/07 (Waste Management Projects), in addition to other mandatory EA requirements before any change to the undertaking can be implemented.

6. Public record locations

The public record for this environmental assessment can be reviewed during normal business hours at the following ministry office:

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Environmental Assessment and Permissions 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

The review and Notice of Completion are also available at the following locations:

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
North Bay Area Office
191 Booth Road, Unit 16 & 17
North Bay, Ontario
P1A 4K3

• Tel: 705-497-6865
• Toll-free: 1-800-609-5553

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Sudbury District Office
199 Larch Street Suite 1101
Sudbury, Ontario
P1A 4K3

• Tel: 705-564-3231
• Toll-free: 1-800-890-8516

Temiskaming Shores City Hall
325 Farr Drive
Temiskaming Shores, Ontario
P0J 1K0
Tel: 705-672-3363

Public Library: Haileybury Branch
545 Lakeshore Road South
Temiskaming Shores, Ontario
P0J 1K0
Tel: 705-672-3707

Public Library: New Liskeard Branch
50 Whitewood Avenue
Temiskaming Shores, Ontario
P0J 1K0
Tel: 705-647-4215

7. Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending October 12, 2018 will follow publication of this review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the Environmental Assessment or this review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:

Director
Environmental Assessment and Permissions Branch
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1^st floor
Toronto, Ontario  M4V 1P5
Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: City of Temiskaming Shores Waste Management Capacity EA
Attention: Shannon Gauthier, 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 416-327-1434.

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

Analysis of the EA

The EA describes some of the matters set out in subsection 6.1(2) of the Act, in particular:

• description of the proposed undertaking
• description of and a statement of the rationale for the undertaking
• description of the alternatives to the undertaking
• description of the alternative methods considered
• description of the environment that will be affected, effects that will be caused, and mitigation measures
• description of the evaluation of advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the proposed undertaking
• description of consultation about the undertaking by the proponent

An executive summary has also been included as part of this EA.

Analysis of the EA

The EA contains a number of studies and reports that were reviewed or prepared as part of the EA process. This includes studies related to the undertaking that were carried out by the proponent. This list can be found in the executive summary Section 10.0 in this EA.

Analysis of the EA

The EA contains a number of studies and reports that were reviewed or prepared as part of the EA process. This includes reference reports that are related to matters associated with the undertaking, but not prepared by the proponent. This list can be found in the Section 10.0 in this EA.

Analysis of the EA

Two maps of the location of the undertaking were provided in the EA. Figures 1.1 shows the general site location. Figure 1.3 shows the site location.

Analysis of the EA

The purpose of the proposed undertaking is to provide the City of Temiskaming Shores with additional waste management capacity for non-hazardous solid waste as stated in Section 2.0 of the EA.

Section 2.0, explains that the existing Haileybury Landfill is anticipated to reach its approved capacity of 470,000 cubic metres in 2019. The City’s 25-year planning period is set to begin in 2019.

Analysis of the EA

The City of Temiskaming Shores evaluated the following “alternatives to” as part of the EA process.

• do nothing
• thermal technology (waste incineration)
• energy from waste approach
• landfill expansion
• new landfill
• export of waste

Section 3.3 provides a description and rationale of the six “alternatives to” considered.

Landfilling was selected as the preferred “alternative to” after comparing the other alternatives to a number of environmental criteria.

Analysis of the EA

Section 4.0 of the EA evaluated 17 locations where the City could establish a landfill facility within and outside the municipality boundaries.

The decision making process in Section 4.0 explains how the City of Temiskaming Shores evaluated the alternative methods to determine the proposed undertaking.

To identify potential locations a site selection criteria including broad environmental considerations consistent with the Act were established and applied to the study area. From 17 potential sites a short list of 4 candidate sites were identified to be evaluated further by the City’s Waste Management Advisory Committee. As a result of the further evaluation and discussions with the Waste Management Advisory Committee, the preferred alternative method was the expansion of the New Liskeard Landfill was identified.

Analysis of the EA

The study area includes the lands owned by the City that lie adjacent to the New Liskeard Landfill site, which is located on the west half of Lot 5, Concession 2 within the City of Temiskaming Shores, in the District of Timiskaming. It has a total site area of 6.12 hectares, plus the additional 1.8 hectares for the proposed expansion.

An extended study area was used in order to look at specific environmental components including:

• for atmospheric environment a 10 kilometre extended study area was used to address the potential impacts on surrounding receptors
• for aquatic environment and surface water characterization a 1.5 kilometre extended study area was used to capture a regional
• for noise environment a 5 kilometre extended study area was used to address the potential impacts on surrounding receptors
• for groundwater a 1.5 kilometre extended study area was used to capture municipal wells
• for terrestrial an extended an extended study area to north and west was used to capture additional characteristics
• for cultural environment a 1.5 kilometre extended study area was used to capture additional characteristics
• for social/economic environments the City’s municipal boundaries were used to capture the census area

Section 5.0 of the EA describes the local environment within the existing landfill site.

Analysis of the EA

The EA was predominately focused on identifying any potential significant negative environmental effects to the environment. The ministry gained an understanding of the positive effects through the discussion of the purpose of the undertaking, the benefits to the community as discussed in Chapter 1 of the EA and the comparative evaluation of the alternative methods.

Various studies help to define the potential effects to the environment, including detailed impact assessments of particulate matter, combustion emissions, odour, landfill gas, noise, geology and hydrogeology, surface water, biology (terrestrial and aquatic environments), archaeology, cultural heritage, land use, and numerous other studies and reports prepared by other sources as referenced in the EA.

In Chapter 6 of the EA, environmental effects were considered for each alternative considering the criteria, indicators and data sources as identified in the ToR and as refined through the study of the existing environment and input from stakeholders and government agencies. These criteria generally reflect the natural, social, cultural, and economic components of the environment.

The detailed impact assessment methodology used was based on steps identified in the ToR.

Section 7 of the EA also describes the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation and maintenance phases of the preferred undertaking being expansion of the New Liskeard Landfill and identifies mitigation measures that may be required.

The ministry’s review of the EA did identify some technical concerns with the assessment work undertaken by the City- specifically related to the stormwater management design aspects. As a result, the City of Temiskaming Shores submitted additional documentation to address and resolve the outstanding concern. The ministry may consider condition of approval related to stormwater management.

Analysis of the EA

Section 7.0 of the EA describes mitigation measures and potential environmental effects for the preferred undertaking of expanding the landfill.

The City evaluated the potential effects of expanding the New Liskeard Landfill within the existing property boundary and extended study area for specific environmental components using a number of studies. The predicted potential effects considered the environmental components and associated evaluation criteria found within the ToR. Overall, the effects of the preferred undertaking were considered neutral for the following natural and social environmental components after the application of some mitigation measures:

• atmospheric environment
• surface water
• terrestrial environment
• ground water

In addition the City will also be following the ministry`s standards for landfill design and operation which will include generic monitoring and sampling requirements which the City will use to develop site specific programs.

Analysis of the EA

Advantages and disadvantages of “alternatives to” the undertaking, “alternative methods” and the preferred alternative were evaluated in Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the EA.

Analysis of the EA

Section 8.0 of the EA discusses consultation during the preparation of the EA. Consultation records are in Appendix L of the EA. Consultation methods used include:

• letter and email correspondence distributed to the public, government and aboriginal communities
• notices published in local newspapers and project website
• two community open houses
• meetings

Appendix L.6 of the EA shows the consultation efforts that were undertaken by the proponent with respect to Indigenous communities. The City in consultation with the ministry identified a list of Indigenous communities who may have an interested in the proposed project. The City of Temiskaming Shores provided a copy of all notices, including notices for open houses, offered meetings to Indigenous communities, and distributed copies of the draft EA for review and comment. No comments on the EA were received from Indigenous communities.

The City of Temiskaming Shores also circulated copies of the draft EA to government agencies. The ministry is satisfied that the public, agencies and Indigenous communities had the opportunity to comment and provide input throughout the process as discussed in the review.

The ministry is satisfied that the consultation undertaken was consistent with the consultation plan in the approved ToR.

Analysis of the EA

Details of the proposed undertaking, including leachate and stormwater management for the expanded landfill, are provided in section 5.0 of the EA. Section 2.0 provides that rationale for the undertaking which is to accommodate the waste disposal needs of the City of Temiskaming Shores for an additional 25 years by expanding the New Liskeard Landfill. The proposed expansion will allow for an additional 247,000 cubic metres. The proposed expansion will provide the City with additional waste disposal capacity to the year 2044.

Analysis of the EA

N/A

Analysis of the EA

Section 1.4 of the EA discusses the additional approvals for landfill development in Ontario.

Appendix B: Government Review Team comment summary table

Submissions are available in hard copy at the public record locations listed in this ministry review.

Comment #1

Submitter

Senior Review Engineer (Waste), November 14^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

The section outline required approvals & states that permit to take water maybe required if a leachate collection system is required but that the size and design of the site does not warrant a collection system.

It is not that the size or design of the site does not warrant a leachate collection system. The correct description would be to say that the current design does not incorporate a leachate collection system.

An approval under Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) will also be required should there be a need for storm water management ponds.

Proponent’s response

We acknowledge this comment and the correction in description regarding the leachate collection system. In addition, we also understand that an approval under the OWRA will be required for any stormwater management ponds.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #2

Submitter

Senior Review Engineer (Waste), November 14^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

Sections discuss phase 1 though phase 4 and lists 20 years for the life of the landfill. These sections refer to the site serving the community for 30 years.

Proponent’s response

The 30-year period includes the remaining life of the existing Haileybury Landfill, and the design and operation of the proposed expansion.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

The City submitted an amended EA that removed the remaining lifespan of the Haileybury landfill and changed the proposed undertaking to a 25-year planning period. This was revised based on a number of memorandums received by the City from the ministry.

Comment #3

Submitter

Senior Review Engineer (Waste), November 14^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

The section offers more details on the site history but does not provide an estimate for existing in place capacity. If the owner was able to estimate the remaining capacity in 2004, there must have been a way to calculate the waste in place as well. There are methods available to obtain an approximation for the waste in place. This number will be critical in terms of the 1.5 million cubic meter trigger for landfill gas (LFG) management plan and other modelling for the site.

This section should also provide details on the proposed buffers and if the minimum specified in Regulation 232 will be met.

Proponent’s response

The 2004 determination of remaining capacity was based solely on the approved landfill footprint as well as the theoretical capacity calculated based on the anticipated landfill slopes.

Amec Foster Wheeler estimates that the current in-place waste volume is approximately 415,000 m3, as calculated using the recent topographical survey and the historic intrusive investigations.

All buffers will meet the minimum specified in Regulation 232 and will be incorporated in the final design submitted for Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) approval.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #4

Submitter

Senior Review Engineer (Waste), November 14^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

The section must include the volume of waste in place & the proposed capacity for expansion for a total site capacity.

Proponent’s response

The existing in-place waste volume is approximately 415,000 m³, the proposed capacity of expansion is 745,000 m³, resulting in a total waste capacity of 1,160,000 m³.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #5

Submitter

Senior Review Engineer (Waste), November 14^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

The section refers to an existing gas collection system which does not exist.

The last paragraph outlines that the proposed contingency measures will be implemented if necessary in consultation with the ministry District Office. Implementing contingency measures will require an amendment to the ECA which must be obtained through an application to the Environmental Assessment and Permissions Branch (EAPB).

Proponent’s response

There is no existing LFG collection system and the current proposed expansion does not include an LFG collection system. This reference was included in error.

It is proposed that initial discussions of site status would be held with the District Office, in order to facilitate an action plan. Upon concurrence of appropriate contingency measures, the required application would be submitted to the EAPB an ECA amendment, if required.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #6

Submitter

Senior Review Engineer (Waste), November 14^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

The section should be moved to S8.3.1 on P-8.15 where contingency measures are discussed.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. This information was included in both sections.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #7

Submitter

Air Quality Analyst, January 3^rd, 2017, MECP

Summary of comments

Emissions of odour, vinyl chloride (VC), hydrogen sulphide, acrylonitrile, benzene and carbon monoxide (CO) were estimated for the existing and proposed landfill sites. However, a summary of the quantities of waste (C2) for the existing landfill site (baseline) only includes annual waste rates for the last a few years (from the year of 2000). Consider a long history of landfilling (since 1916), the annual waste acceptance rates for the existing landfill site (baseline) should be provided for as many years as possible.

Proponent’s response

LFG generation generally peaks within the first decade following deposition, and declines to a negligible amount after 30 years (Letcher, T. 2011. Waste: A Handbook for Management). Some studies note LFG generation for longer periods, however also declining after the first decade. Based upon this understanding, the inclusion of wastes placed in 2000 and more recently would capture the maximum LFG generated by these wastes.

Although there would be some LFG generated by wastes placed prior to 2000, these would already be past their 10 year peak and would not be as significant.

Materials placed prior to this date would generate a lower amount of LFG, and LFG from wastes placed more than 30 or so years ago would be negligible.

Therefore, the use of LFG generated for 15 years between 2000 and 2015 was considered reasonable for the estimation of the cumulative LFG effects.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #8

Submitter

Air Quality Analyst, January 3^rd, 2017, MECP

Summary of comments

Phase 2 Operations including landfilling at active cells and concurrent construction of cells and subsequent closure of cells. The EA report indicated that air emissions from operation and construction activities were included in the environmental effects assessment. Construction and operation should be presented in the Landfill Activity Data (C1) to identify activities for each phase, for example, number of equipment and operation hours for construction and operation, respectively.

Proponent’s response

A complete list of construction and operations phase equipment, staging of construction or specific activities, location and schedules are not available at this preliminary stage of the project.

The air quality assessment prepared in support of the EA considered a conservative maximum emission scenario for the proposed project that would result in the highest predicted air quality effects for all activities, years and phases of the project (Year 21 of landfill operations).

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #9

Submitter

Air Quality Analyst, January 3^rd, 2017, MECP

Summary of comments

The EA has inconsistent information on the road dust emissions. PM emissions from roadways shown in B1 Source Summary Table do not match emissions from C5 Road Dust Emission. Dust emissions from pickup trucks were not presented in C5 Road Dust Emission.

Proponent’s response

The emissions in B1 are a summation of the contributions to road dust from haul trucks and pickup trucks presented in C5; the total particulate emission rates were confirmed to be consistent.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #10

Submitter

Air Quality Analyst, January 3^rd, 2017, MECP

Summary of comments

C5 Road Dust Emissions of the Appendix II. Two control efficiencies, 44% for limited on-site speed, road maintenance; and 80% for watering and road maintenance were used for the road dust emission calculation as listed in Table C5.2. The overall control efficiency is 88.8%, close to the upper range of control efficiencies that can be achieved for unpaved roads. A justification may be required for the high control efficiency assumption for unpaved roads during the ECA application review stage.

Proponent’s response

Comment acknowledged.

Road dust emissions are controlled by using on-site speed limit, road maintenance and watering, therefore these control factors are incorporated into the calculated emission rate.

In accordance with the supporting documents (US EPA, AP-42, unpaved roads; IFC EHS General Guidelines) a watering could provide up to 95–98% control efficiency, and the enforcement of a speed limit may decrease fugitive road dust by 80%.

In order to apply these efficiencies in a conservative manner, 80% was used for road watering and 44% was used for the speed limit.

The control efficiencies of two or more controls in concurrent application are multiplicative, therefore a combined control efficiency of 89% was applied. This control efficiency does not take into account natural mitigation via precipitation or snow cover, the application of chemical dust suppressants, or efforts to minimize silt loadings through effective road maintenance.

This is considered to be a conservative approach.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #11

Submitter

Air Quality Analyst, January 3^rd, 2017, MECP

Summary of comments

LandGEM—LFG Emissions Model, Version 3.02 Output. The emissions shown in the table should be carbon dioxide (CO₂ eq) instead of CO. Recalculate the CO₂-eq shown in the table and update the total greenhouse gas emissions for the EA and technical support reports.

Proponent’s response

CO is one of the pollutants identified in LandGEM as a constituent of the LFG at 140 ppmv; this was included in the dispersion modelling assessment with the CO from tailpipe emissions.

CO₂, also a LandGEM output, was included in the total GHG emissions from the project.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #12

Submitter

Air Quality Analyst, January 3^rd, 2017, MECP

Summary of comments

Visual monitoring was proposed as part of the routing operations of the proposed project. This may need to be reassessed if complaints or concerns are received by the ministry.

Proponent’s response

Comment acknowledged.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #13

Submitter

Air Compliance Engineer, November 14^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

Roadway fugitive emissions for SPM, PM10 and PM2.5 were modelled by the proponent as line area sources with an initial vertical dimension instead of modelling roadway fugitives as volume sources. Modelling roadway fugitive emissions as volume sources would account for initial mixing and turbulence (i.e. from traffic). Area sources are typically more passive. Therefore, volume sources may better represent what is actually occurring with roadway fugitive emissions.

Proponent’s response

Comment acknowledged.

Note that modelling of roadways with area sources is likely to over predict the effects on ambient air for receptors located close to the source, as is the case with the landfill roads. The use of an initial vertical dimension helps to minimize the over prediction; however, the modelled predictions should.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #14

Submitter

Air Compliance Engineer, November 14^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

The maximum emission scenario for particulate material assumed trucks were travelling the further distance to the northeast corner of the landfill expansion (to 50m × 50m working face). Did the proponent consider other maximum emissions scenarios? For example, placing the working face closest to the property line with corresponding travel length on roadway?

Proponent’s response

The conservative, worst-case modelling scenario was developed considering the proposed landfill progression and the routes most likely travelled by waste trucks.

Other scenarios were considered but were determined to likely result in lower impacts.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #15

Submitter

Air Compliance Engineer, November 14^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

Annual values

Several of the contaminants modelled by the proponent have corresponding annual limits, which the proponent modelled. However, AERMOD does not output the maximum POI for each met year unless each year is modelled separately. Current ministry modelling guidance allows the proponent to complete one AERMOD model run using the 5 year met data and multiply the corresponding maximum annual POI by a conversion factor of 140% (as a conservative assumption). If the converted results meet the annual POI limit, no further action is required. The proponent did not multiple the single run 5 year AERMOD result by the 140% conversion factor their reported annual values. It is recommended that the annual POI results modelled by the proponent be multiplied by the conversion factor.).

Proponent’s response

Comment acknowledged.

The modelled annual concentrations for VC, benzene, acrylonitrile, and TSP are still below the respective Ambient Air Quality (AAQC) when increased by a factor of 1.4.

PM2.5 was modelled to exceed the annual AAQC, and discussion on the significance of this effect was provided; further modelling would not change the discussion or conclusion.

Status

The City will be implementing a Dust Best Management Plan are part of its proposed mitigation measures for dust management, the ministry is satisfied.

Comment #16

Submitter

Air Compliance Engineer, November 14^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

Landfill gases

All of the modelling files for LFG were not received and therefore a detailed review of input parameters was not completed for hydrogen sulphide, benzene and acrylonitrile.

Proponent’s response

The emission sources for hydrogen sulphide (H₂S), Benzene and Acrylonitrile were identical, as the only emissions were from the proposed and existing landfill cells.

Therefore, the air dispersion modelling was performed using VC as a surrogate, and the modelled effects of H₂S, benzene and acrylonitrile were determined by scaling the modelled VC concentration by the respective emission rates and using the VC result.

For this reason, the dispersion modelling files specific to H₂S, benzene and acrylonitrile were not included.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #17

Submitter

Air Compliance Engineer, November 14^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

Hydrogen sulphide and odour

The above contaminants have 10 minute limits to account for odour/nuisance effects. Section 5.2 of the report states that the odour 10 minute value was determined by using the 1 hour AERMOD results multiplied by a conversion of 1.65, as per current ministry guidance. As previously stated, the H₂S AERMOD file was not received and therefore this could not be verified. However, the odour files were reviewed (provided for the five identified sensitive receptors) and the conversion factor was correctly applied.

Proponent’s response

As noted in the previous comment, the ambient H₂S concentration for the 10-minute averaging time was determined from the dispersion modelling performed for VC as a surrogate.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #18

Submitter

Ministry Air Compliance Engineer, November 14^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

Landfill "Working Face"

The "working face" of the landfill expansion modelled as an area source. The odour model was given a dimension of 25m × 25m. The particulate material modelling was given a dimension of 50m × 50m. Why is there a difference in the dimension depending on contaminant modelled?

Proponent’s response

As noted previously, the staging of specific activities, equipment location and schedules are not available at this preliminary stage of the project. Therefore, the modelled areas were estimated based upon information available.

There is a difference in the areas as the area considered for particulate modelling includes the active face plus the immediate area surrounding it that may be travelled by equipment or have other earth movements.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #19

Submitter

Senior Wastewater Engineer, September 28^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

Leachate seeps and impact of leachate to stormwater. Sediment and erosion control measures will only address total suspended solid (TSS). Contaminants from leachate seeps will not be treated by sediment and erosion control measures. How to mitigate leachate seeps? How to detect leachate seeps? And how to prevent contaminants of the leachate seeps from discharging to the environment?

Proponent’s response

Regarding the water quantity, it is understood that a facility of this size will require a wet pond and an outlet structure to manage the Site stormwater, as opposed to the use of ditches and swales, dry pond or infiltration technologies.

It is acknowledged that a wet pond must be designed in accordance with the ministry Stormwater Management Planning (SMP) and Design Manual. That it must result in post-development flows that are less than or equal to the pre-development flows (not the existing conditions flows).

Given the requirement of a wet pond, with a controllable outlet structure this will enable the site operator to hold water should leachate seeps be detected and not allow discharge of impacted surface waters to the environment.

Status

The ministry is proposing a condition of approval requiring the City to develop a contingency plan for the operation of stormwater management in case of leachate seeps.

Comment #20

Submitter

Senior Wastewater Engineer, September 28^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

Stormwater management is required for both existing site and new expansion. The total area is about 11 ha and wet pond will be recommended area larger than 5 ha. No infiltration technology is recommended. If leachate impact stormwater is detected, the pond shall be isolated to avoid discharge contaminants to the environment.

Proponent’s response

Understood as described above in previous comment. Should leachate seeps be detected, the required wet pond with a controllable outlet structure will enable the Site operator to hold water and stop discharge of impacted surface waters to the environment.

Status

The ministry is proposing a condition of approval requiring the City to develop a contingency plan for the operation of stormwater management.

Comment #21

Submitter

Senior Wastewater Engineer¸ September 28^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

The imperviousness will increase for the expansion. Stormwater quantity control will be required to reduce the post-development flow to less than pre-development flow. Pre-development condition is the original condition of the land (farm land or forest), not the current existing condition.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. The detailed design of the landfill will include a wet pond to provide the necessary stormwater control.

Status

The ministry is proposing a condition of approval requiring the City to develop a contingency plan for the operation of stormwater management.

Comment #22

Submitter

Senior Wastewater Engineer, September 28^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

Stormwater management works are required for the site to address quality control, quantity control, and erosion control. Ditch and swales are not able to address these requirements.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. The detailed design of the landfill will include a wet pond to provide the necessary stormwater control.

Status

The ministry is proposing a condition of approval requiring the City to develop a contingency plan for the operation of stormwater management.

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #23

Submitter

Senior Wastewater Engineer, September 28^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

Design criteria of the stormwater management works need to be established with local conversation authority or local municipality (e.g. enhanced level or Normal level for water quality control, post-development flow less than pre-development for quantity control).

Proponent’s response

In the absence of a Conservation Authority, the design will consider and be consistent with the design criteria for the City’s SMP for developments in the surrounding area. This design and the supporting hydrologic and hydraulic study will be submitted to support the ECA application.

Status

The ministry is proposing a condition of approval requiring the City to develop a contingency plan for the operation of stormwater management.

Comment #24

Submitter

Ministry Senior Wastewater Engineer, September 28^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

Monitoring will be required at the outlet of the stormwater management works.

Proponent’s response

As part of the ECA application, the details of the water quality monitoring program will be included to prescribe the location, frequency and analytical parameters required. This sampling will be similar to the surface water monitoring program with respect to the suite of analyses, but will need additional sampling events coincident with storm events to evaluate the effects of runoff.

Status

The ministry is proposing a condition of approval requiring the City to develop a contingency plan for the operation of stormwater management.

Comment #25

Submitter

Senior Wastewater Engineer, September 28^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

A Contingency plan shall be developed for the operation of stormwater management works in case of leachate seeps.

Proponent’s response

In addition to the inclusion of the monitoring program, the ECA application package will provide a contingency plan to manage conditions where undesirable water quality is quantified in the wet pond. This plan will identify the measures to treat the wet pond water as well as a confirmatory sampling program to verify that the water quality in the pond has been returned to normal conditions.

Status

The ministry is proposing a condition of approval requiring the City to develop a contingency plan for the operation of stormwater management.

Comment #26

Submitter

Hydrogeologist, Northern Region¸ November 14^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

I am not certain that the compatibility of this solar facility with the expanded landfill has been adequately considered, or whether its consideration is necessary at this stage. In 2012, I provided a review of the proposed solar facility with respect to the groundwater issues. Possible impacts of the solar installation to the functioning of the area for contaminant attenuation and the maintenance, protection and access to groundwater monitoring installations during the construction and operations of the solar farm were identified concerns. At that time the landfill site was closed and groundwater impacts were expected to decline over time. Re-opening of the landfill may require that the CAZ area be accessible for monitoring or remedial activities. A number of the proposed contingency options involve onsite treatment; however, there will be little land available for their implementation. Additional site assessment will be required during the EPA Part V approval, including: enhancement of the hydrogeological conceptual model (better defined bedrock flow, the influence of the fault that occurs to the west or and parallel to Hwy 65, and filling the gap in water quality information from the SE part of the CAZ); additional assessment of groundwater impacts under the detailed site design and operations plan; and, the development of the monitoring program and trigger levels for contingency implementation.

Proponent’s response

The Contaminant Attenuation Zone (CAZ) and the portion currently being utilized by the solar facility are still owned by the City. As a result, the City still has access to these lands for monitoring, etc. During the solar facility installation, which is now complete, several historic monitoring were removed and replaced with new more suitable instrumentation, in locations along the farm perimeter, in order to better define the conceptual model.

The City also owns additional lands in the vicinity of the Site that could be utilized for leachate treatment, should this become a requirement in the future.

It is understood that additional hydrogeological information will be required to support the EPA Part V approval including:

• enhancement of the hydrogeological conceptual model (better defined bedrock flow, evaluation of potential fault line influence, and additional water quality information);
• additional assessment of groundwater impacts under the detailed site design and operations plan; and
• the development of the monitoring program and trigger levels for contingency implementation.

Status

Hydrogeological information will be provided by the City to the ministry during then ECA stage.

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #27

Submitter

Ministry Surface Water Specialist, November 14^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

Baseline flow data at the tributaries and where stream becomes permanent should be obtained for baseline conditions and then be monitored regularly as per the Landfill Standards (2012).

Proponent’s response

Please refer to Section 8.2.3, which indicates the proposed monitoring program as per the Landfill Standards (MOE, 2012).

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #28

Submitter

Ministry Surface Water Specialist, November 14^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

Too little detail is provided to allow for assessment of adequacy of the monitoring program to assess effectiveness of mitigation measures. Information on location of monitoring stations, and the frequency and time period for monitoring should be included in the description of the monitoring program. This information will need to be provided with the application of the ECA approval.

Proponent’s response

This information will be provided with the application of the ECA approval.

Status

The City has committed to providing additional information related to location of the monitoring stations and frequency and time period for the monitoring program during the ECA application.

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #29

Submitter

Surface Water Specialist¸ November 14^th, 2016, MECP

Summary of comments

The CAZ should not include surface water features, including intermittent ones.

Proponent’s response

The current CAZ does not include any surface water features and only includes stormwater conveyance measures, such as ditches and swales. The intermittent tributaries have headwaters at the eastern edge of the CAZ.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #30

Submitter

Surface Water Specialist¸ November 14^th, 2016, MTO

Summary of comments

A background monitoring location will be required to be able to identify potential impacts of landfill construction or operation. Since the landfill is up-gradient of headwaters of the Wabi Creek, a background location on a nearby stream, with similar characteristic should be used.

Proponent’s response

There are two options for a potentially suitable off-site control monitoring location, including:

1. A tributary north of the Hydro One corridor
2. A tributary east of the solar facility and south of Tributary 1 and Tributary 2.

The exact location of these monitoring locations will have to be field fit and would be identified in the ECA application.

Status

The City has committed to providing the exact monitoring locations during the ECA application.

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #31

Submitter

Surface Water Specialist, November 14^th, 2016, MNRF

Summary of comments

Apart from monitoring the intermittent streams down-gradient of landfill, monitoring of downstream location, where flow becomes permanent, should be monitored for water quality and quantity.

Proponent’s response

As part of the ECA application, a detailed monitoring program will be defined. These suggestions will be included in the monitoring program.

Status

The City has committed to completing a detailed monitoring program as part of the ECA application.

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #32

Submitter

Surface Water Specialist, November 14^th, 2016, MNRF

Summary of comments

Analysis of the extent of plume expansion as a result of additional landfilling (considering surface water relevant parameters), and the potential for impacted groundwater to discharge to surface waters, will need to be provided with an application for an ECA approval.

Proponent’s response

Comment noted. Additional analysis will be completed to support the ECA application.

Status

The City has committed to additional analysis of the extent of the plume expansion and the potential for impacted groundwater to discharge to the surface waters will be completed to support the ECA application.

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #33

Submitter

Surface Water Specialist, November 14^th, 2016, MTCS

Summary of comments

Trigger values and locations will need to be proposed for the Contingency Plan, within an application for an ECA.

Proponent’s response

As part of the ECA application, a contingency plan will be defined that incudes locations and trigger values.

Status

The City as part of the ECA application, will define a contingency plan that includes locations and trigger values.

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #34

Submitter

Surface Water Specialist, November 14^th, 2016

Summary of comments

A wetland is mentioned to exist within the ‘Site-vicinity Study Area’. The location of this wetland should be described and shown on one of the provided site figures.

Proponent’s response

The location of this wetland is outside the Site Study Area, as presented in Figure 6.6. There are no anticipated direct impacts.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #35

Submitter

Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Summary of comments

The City should be satisfied that any expansion of the New Liskeard landfill site complies with local planning documents.

Proponent’s response

No response required.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #36

Submitter

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

Summary of comments

As part of the Government of Canada’s plan for Responsible Resource Development which seeks to modernize the regulatory system for project reviews, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA) came into force July 6, 2012. CEAA 2012 focuses federal environmental reviews on projects that have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects in areas of federal jurisdiction.

The CEAA 2012 applies to projects described in the Regulations Designating Physical Activities (the Regulations). Based on the information provided, your project does not appear to be described in the Regulations. Kindly review the Regulations to confirm applicability to your project.

If your project is in a federally designated wildlife area or migratory bird sanctuary please check section 1 of the Regulations, which details the designated projects specific to those locations.

For more information on CEAA 2012, please access the following links on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s (the Agency) website:

Overview of CEAA 2012

Regulations Designating Physical Activities and Prescribed Information for a Description of a Designated Project Regulations

If it appears that CEAA 2012 may apply to your proposed project, you must provide the Agency with a description of the proposed project. Please see the link below to the Agency’s guide to preparing a project description.

Guide to Preparing a Project Description

If you believe the project is not subject to a federal environmental assessment and do not submit a project description, we kindly request that you remove the Agency from your distribution list. If you have questions, please get in touch with our office through the switchboard at 416-952-1576.

Proponent’s response

No response required.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #37

Submitter

Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport

Summary of comments

Archaeological Resources

The EA Report states that the Site does not exhibit any archaeological potential or archaeological resources, and therefore no adverse effects are predicted. This is supported by a Stage 1 archaeological assessment report (PIF #P141-0215-2014) appended to the EA Report.

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) records indicate that this archaeological assessment report has been submitted for Ministry review, and on April 1, 2015 we issued a review letter. MTCS has no outstanding concerns regarding archaeological resources.

In any event, if any archaeological or cultural material is encountered during the course of the project work, all activities impacting the archaeological material must cease and a licensed archaeologist will be engaged to carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with sec. 48(1) of the OHA.

In the event that human remains are encountered during project work, all activities in the area will stop and the police, the coroner’s office and the Registrar of Cemeteries must be notified immediately.

Built Heritage Resources, and Cultural Heritage Resources

The EA Report states that the Site does not contain any significant built heritage or cultural heritage landscape resources, and therefore no adverse effects are predicted. This is supported by a report appended to the EA titled: Technical Support Document: Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment dated February 2015 prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure. MTCS has reviewed this Technical Report and finds no issues with its conclusions. As such MTCS has no outstanding concerns reading significant built heritage and cultural heritage landscape resources.

Proponent’s response

No response required.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #38

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks West Central Region

Summary of comments

General Comments

The Individual Environmental Assessment (IEA) has followed a rational progression of evaluation starting first with identifying and assessing the range of alternative methods of waste disposal. This initial assessment concluded that landfilling was the most appropriate option for the city. The second level of assessment consisted of the identification and review of potential candidate sites for filling. The preferred alternative was determined to be the expansion of the closed facility in New Liskeard.

Recommendations for Final IEA Document

The following recommendations were made following the review of the Draft IEA. After each previously made comment (shown in bold) a response is provided to demonstrate how the final EA document has addressed the issue.

Recommendation #1

Provide a clearer explanation as to matters that will be addressed at the ECA (or other approval stages)

Responses in Final EA

Section 1.4 has listed the approvals that will be required from ministry in order to implement the expansion at the New Liskeard site. It is not clear from the final document whether other agency approvals may also be required as none have been mentioned.

The Final IEA should describe the process by which potential contingency measures will be further examined as to their feasibility and how they will be implemented.

Response

Section 8 of the Final EA document discusses the monitoring that will be undertaken to measure the actual impacts that the project will generate. Intended mitigation is summarized in table 8.1.

Monitoring and contingencies are discussed in section 8.2 and for the most part, appear to be based on consultation with the District Office. Accordingly, it may be more appropriate for the District Office to comment on the appropriateness of this approach.

Proponent’s response

No response required.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #39

Submitter

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Northern Region, Timmins District Office, North Bay Area Office

Summary of comments

Acknowledgment of Receipt Form indicated no comments.

Proponent’s response

No response required.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #40

Submitter

Township of Hudson

Summary of comments

Acknowledgment of Receipt Form indicated no comments.

Proponent’s response

No response required.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #41

Submitter

Township of Kerns

Summary of comments

Acknowledgment of Receipt Form indicated no comments.

Proponent’s response

No response required.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #42

Submitter

Township of Evanturel

Summary of comments

Acknowledgment of Receipt Form indicated no comments.

Proponent’s response

No response required.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.

Comment #43

Submitter

Township of Black River-Matheson

Summary of comments

Acknowledgment of Receipt Form indicated no comments.

Proponent’s response

No response required.

Status

The ministry is satisfied.