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 deadline for the completion of the Review was May 21, 2010. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act. The Review documents the ministry’s evaluation of the Environmental Assessment and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities into consideration.

Executive summary

Who

The Township of Algonquin Highlands (Township)

What

Ministry review of an environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking to expand the capacity of the existing Maple Lake waste disposal site by 150,000 cubic metres for a total municipal, solid, non-hazardous waste capacity of 197,000 cubic metres. The approved waste disposal area will be increased to 3.0 hectares from 1.2 hectares. The site’s leachate is currently naturally attenuated and this is proposed to continue for the expanded site.

When

EA submitted: February 24, 2010
EA comment period: February 26, 2010 to April 16, 2010
Ministry review comment period: June 4, 2010 – July 9, 2010

Where

The Township is located in Haliburton County about 30 kilometres east of the Towns of Bracebridge and Huntsville. The waste disposal site to be expanded is in an unsettled area on McPhail Road five kilometers west of Highway 35 in the Township approximately seven kilometres north of the hamlet of Carnarvon.

Why

The purpose of the undertaking is to provide a long-term (25 year) solution for the management of solid waste in the Township. A review of the fill rates for the Township’s waste disposal sites indicates that the two sites that receive the bulk of the Township’s waste have between 0.8 years and 4 years of capacity remaining.

Conclusions

The ministry Review concludes that the EA was prepared in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference and the Environmental Assessment Act. Sufficient opportunities were provided to allow interested persons to be involved in the planning process and sufficient information was provided to assess the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.

Environmental assessment process

Environmental assessment (EA) is a proponent-led 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 Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) sets out the general contents for the preparation of an EA, as well as the ministry’s evaluation process. For those proponents and undertakings subject to the EAA, approval under the EAA is required before the undertaking can proceed.

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

EAs may identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred 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 Aboriginal 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 the EAA approval.

1.1 Terms of reference

Preparing an EA is a two-step application to the Minister of the Environment (Minister). The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a terms of reference (ToR) to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) for review and approval. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

On June 4, 2004 the Township of Algonquin Highlands (Township) submitted the ToR for the Algonquin Highlands Waste Management Plan to MOE for approval. The ToR set out how the Township would assess alternatives, assess potential environmental effects and consult with the public during the preparation of the EA. The ToR established the rationale for identifying a long-term (25 years) solution for the management of solid waste in the township. The ToR also established the process the Township would follow to evaluate both alternatives to the undertaking (landfill, export waste, incineration) and alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking (different locations for the undertaking).

The ToR was made available for a five-week public, government agency and Aboriginal community review period that concluded on July 9, 2004. After considering all comments received, the Minister approved the ToR on January 17, 2005.

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 ToR and the requirements of the EA. Once the proponent has carried out the EA, including consultation, the EA is submitted to the ministry for review and approval.

On November 2, 2007, the Township submitted the EA for government agency review and approval under the EA. MOE technical staff identified several significant concerns with the 2007 EA. One of these related to the potential adverse effects of leachate from the expanded landfill site on surrounding groundwater aquifers and surface water features. In particular, the modelling of future groundwater leachate flows performed at the time indicated that the expansion could result in the levels of some contaminants exceeding MOE's Reasonable Use Guidelines at the property boundary. In addition, modelling had not been undertaken for all relevant contaminants, some of the information regarding water conductivity, water storage and porosity in the site’s overburden had not been derived from on-site monitoring, and more information was needed on the existing bedrock groundwater characteristics.

MOE staff also had concerns about whether the process by which alternatives were evaluated considered all potential environmental effects, and was traceable and replicable. Additional MOE concerns related to the quality of the existing surface water samples, the planned landfill cover frequency and cover depthe, the leachate contingency strategy, and the adequacy of the noise impact assessment. On February 14, 2008 the proponent sent a letter to MOE withdrawing the 2007 EA. The rationale provided was that the proponent needed to complete additional research work in order to address the comments received from MOE staff and to modify the EA accordingly.

Between summer 2008 and fall 2009, the proponent carried out additional site research and worked on revising the EA. MOE provided input on draft versions of the revised EA. On November 13, 2009 a full revised draft of the EA was submitted for the review of various MOE reviewers and was the also circulated by the proponent for review by relevant government agencies.

On February 24, 2010, the Township submitted the revised Township of Algonquin Highlands Waste Management Plan—Maple Lake Landfill Site Expansion EA to the ministry for a decision. The seven-week EA comment period began February 26, 2010 and concluded on April 16, 2010.

1.3 Ministry review

The EA was circulated for review to a Government Review Team (GRT). The GRT, including federal, provincial and local government agencies, reviewed the EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the EA were valid, based on their agencies' mandates. The public and potentially affected Aboriginal 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.

The EA requires MOE to prepare a review of the EA, known simply as the ministry Review (Review). The Review is MOE'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 therefore meets the requirements of the EA 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. MOE staff, with input from the GRT, evaluate the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and the proposed mitigation measures. The Review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, agency and Aboriginal community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.

The Minister of the Environment considers the conclusion of the Review when making a decision; the Review itself is not the EA decision-making mechanism. The Minister’s decision 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 Aboriginal 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 concerns 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 was published in the Haliburton Echo and the Minden Times indicating that this Review was completed and is available for a five-week comment period from June 4, 2010 to July 9, 2010. 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 interested Aboriginal communities.

The proposed undertaking

Background

The Township is located in Haliburton County in Central Ontario about 30 kilometres east of the Towns of Bracebridge and Huntsville and southwest of Algonquin Provincial Park. The Township was formed in 2001 through the amalgamation of the municipality of Stanhope with the municipality of Sherborne, McClintlock, Livingstone, Lawrence and Nightingale and currently has a population of 1,976 permanent residents and 8,268 seasonal residents (4,308 equivalent residents when the percentage of the year in residence is taken into account).

Post-amalgamation, the new Township initiated studies to assess existing waste management assets and to optimize the waste management options at the five landfill sites that exist throughout the new Township. These studies revealed that the two landfill sites which received most of the Township’s waste, primarily because they are located closest to the major population centres of the Township, would reach capacity by 2008. The two sites located furthest from the Township’s population were having only low amounts of waste being deposited and, therefore, had 20 or more years of capacity remaining based on their current usage rates. Residents of the Township are required to deliver their waste and recyclables to one of the five landfill sites as there is no municipal curb-side waste collection. The Township determined that its low population, high seasonal (cottage) population and low population density make collection by municipal vehicles unfeasible. As a result of the studies, in 2003 the Township initiated a Waste Management Plan which resulted in the submission of the ToR for this EA and subsequently the submission of this EA.

Description of proposed undertaking

The Township is seeking EA approval for the expansion of the existing Maple Lake waste disposal site, located approximately five kilometres east of Highway 35 on McPhail Road (Part Lot 20, Concession 5 in the geographic Township of Stanhope) one kilometre east of Maple Lake in a rural part of the Township about seven kilometres north of the village of Carnarvon (see Figure 1 of this Review). The site currently has an approved capacity of 46,860 cubic metres (m3) with only 1,471 m3 of that capacity remaining unused as of the end of 2009 which means it has approximately nine months capacity remaining at the current fill rate. If the site reaches its currently approved capacity before the expansion can be initiated residents who currently take their waste to the site would be able to take their waste to one of the other four landfill sites in the Township which are located greater distances away.

The proposed expansion would provide 150,000 m3 of additional landfill capacity at the Maple Lake waste disposal site, for a total of capacity of about 197,000 m3 and would meet the waste management needs of the Township for the planning period of 25 years from the date the expansion proceeds. The approved waste disposal area will be increased from 1.2 hectares to approximately 3.0 hectares within a property area of 9.7 hectares. The site has a Certificate of Approval under the Environmental Protection Act which allows solid non-hazardous municipal waste from only the amalgamated Township to be disposed of at the site. As with the existing landfill, the expanded site will continue to have a service area limited to the Township and will accept sold non-hazardous municipal waste.

The existing Maple Lake landfill has been in operation since 1971 and leachate has been treated since its establishment through natural attenuation. This means overburden underneathe the site but above the underlying bedrock filters contaminants from the leachate of the site reducing the concentration of contaminants discharging from the site into the soil or groundwater without human intervention. The proposed landfill expansion design is also for a naturally attenuated site. The EA indicates the purchase of additional attenuation land is not expected to be necessary as there is sufficient land within the boundaries of the property to accommodate an adequate contaminant attenuation zone.

A small watercourse begins about 285 metres to the north of the current waste fill area and flows eastward and then southward before entering Maple Lake, which is located 1 km to the east of the landfill. There is also a small low-lying/wetland area located southwest of the current waste fill area which will be filled in by the outer southwest edge of the proposed expansion. Neither the Ministry of Natural Resources or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada have any concerns with the filling in of this small lowlying area as it has not been identified as having fish habitat. A larger wetland exists 35 metres to the north of the proposed expansion boundary but has a forest buffer 30 metres wide which will be retained by the Township when the landfill expansion occurs. A wetland evaluation was performed on this larger wetland and it was determined to not be provincially significant. A general drainage plan relying mostly on the natural drainage patterns of the site has been devised and no additional drainage management facilities are proposed. With the application of appropriate daily cover and considering the existing surface drainage and groundwater drainage conditions of the site, and the low rate of waste filling, MOE's Reasonable Use Guidelines are expected to be met for the lifespan of the site. A comprehensive network of twenty-two groundwater monitoring wells and three surface water sampling sites will be operated at the site with samples being taken by the Township twice a year, in the spring and fall.

The proposed expansion will involve expanding the boundaries of the fill area in three directions: 20 metres northward; 35 metres eastward; and 50 metres southward (see Figure 2 of this Review). The westward boundary will remain in roughly the same place. The height of the landfill will be increased by approximately 15 metres which is approximately 20 metres above the original ground level before the landfill site began operation. The top of the landfill will be equal to the height of a ridge which runs along the eastern boundary of the landfill area. The remaining three sides of the waste fill area will have 25% grades. It should be noted that the present landfill mound actually extends about 25 metres beyond the eastern boundary of the fill area shown in the Certificate of Township of Algonquin Highlands Waste Management Plan—Maple Lake Waste Disposal Site Expansion Environmental Assessment Review Approval but is 15 metres short of the allowable northrn boundary. These moderate shifts in the site’s fill area have not caused any significant concerns for MOE District Office staff as the easterly extension is actually towards the ridge mentioned above, which could be perceived as a natural boundary for the site. The boundaries of the waste fill area will be corrected in the new or amended Certificate of Approval under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) which will be required for the site.

If EA approval is granted, the Maple Lake waste disposal site expansion 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 Township must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking

Waste diversion

In addition to the proposed landfill expansion, the EA document also contains the Township’s assessment of options and proposed recommended actions for a comprehensive Township waste diversion strategy in an effort to increase its waste diversion level. The strategy includes: the development of a promotion and education program; an enhanced waste management by-law with a bag-limit program or a user fee system; and an increased backyard composting program. The Township already has a mandatory recycling by-law; five hazardous waste day events per year; and "Big Red" bins at the two most used disposal sites into which batteries, cell phones, fluorescent light bulbs and printer cartridges are to be recycled.

The percentage of waste which has been diverted in the Township rose from 38% in 2002 to 46% in 2006 and 2007. However, overall diversion decreased to 43% in 2008, a drop which the Township believed occurred because of a reduced level of summer residents and tourists in the Township that year due to poor economic conditions. Seasonal residents recycle a higher percentage of their waste compared to permanent residents and the institutional, commercial and industrial sectors. The Township is forecasting a waste diversion rate of 54% in 2010 rising to 55% for 2013.

The Township Waste Management Plan also proposes the establishment of two waste transfer and recycling stations at the existing Hawk Lake and Dorset waste disposal sites. These transfer sites and the diversion strategy do not require EA approval as Ontario Regulation 101/07—Waste Management Projects does not specify them as being subject to either a screening or an individual EA.

Figure 1: Maple Lake waste disposal site location map

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of this figure.

Figure 2: Maple Lake waste disposal site surrounding area and proposed expansion

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of this figure.

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 Conformity with ToR and EA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

MOE coordinated an analysis of the EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the ToR have been met. MOE concludes that the EA followed the framework of the approved ToR, addressed the commitments made in the approved ToR, and demonstrated how the required components of the EA have been met.

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 EA is pre-submission consultation completed during the preparation of the EA. This consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be taken prior to the submission of the EA and in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the ToR.

Once the EA is submitted to the ministry, additional ministry led consultation occurs during the EA comment period. The GRT, the public and affected Aboriginal 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 Township for a response. Summaries of all of the comments received along with the proponent’s responses are included in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix D of this Review. Copies of the submissions are also available in Appendix B of the Review.

Government Review Team

As indicated in Chapter 2 of the EA, consultation with 34 GRT agencies, which included local bodies such as school boards and the area health unit, was conducted at the relevant stages of the EA process. Following the withdrawal of the 2007 EA in February 2008, the Township circulated the revised draft EA to the GRT for a five-week review and comment period from November 13, 2009 to December 23, 2009. The comments that were received on the draft EA are documented in Appendix D of the Record of Consultation, along with the Township’s responses to the particular concerns raised, and changes were made to the EA as necessary. Based on the comments received on the draft revised EA, it was evident that most of the concerns that had been raised on the first EA, such as regarding noise levels, surface water and the format and content of the EA, had been addressed in the draft revised EA.

The final revised EA was submitted to MOE for a decision on February 24, 2010, at which time it was circulated to 18 GRT agencies for their review during the seven-week comment period. Sixteen other agencies had indicated at the draft revised EA stage that they were satisfied and no longer required involvement in reviewing the EA. MOE staff have submitted concerns regarding the clarity of a few sections of the EA as well the need for additional information verifying the area’s groundwater flows and the existing bedrock groundwater quality. All other agencies provided either a statement of no concern or indicated they have no further interest in the project. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of this Review provide a discussion of the comments submitted by MOE staff.

Public consultation

The public, which includes the general public and other stakeholders such as businesses, land owners and institutions, was provided several opportunities to participate in the EA process. These included public consultation events, questionnaires made available at the public consultation events, a Public Liaison Committee and through commenting on the 2007 EA and on the draft and final revised EA.

Four public consultation events (each over two different nights in different parts of the Township) where held at different stages of the EA process. Events were held in fall 2003, August 2004, August 2005, and July 2006. The recommendations presented at the July 2006 public consultation event are the same as the recommendations presented in the first EA submitted in November 2007 and in the second EA submitted February 24, 2010 (and the subject of this Review). Notices for each of the public consultation events were published in at least two local newspapers, were included in the Township’s waste management newsletter which is distributed to all residences quarterly with the property tax mailing, and were posted and handed out at the existing the waste disposal sites, local businesses and at Property Owners Associations' meetings. The newsletters also provided project status updates for those unable to attend the consultation events. The Township’s web site had a page dedicated to the EA process so interested individuals could always find out the latest status of the project and review relevant documentation.

At the public consultation events, following a presentation outlining information relevant to the particular stage of the EA process, residents were able to ask questions or make statements. Residents were also asked to complete a comprehensive questionnaire which contain numerous questions regarding various landfill, waste collection, waste diversion and cost recovery options but which also allowed the residents to make comments on any part of the proposal they wished. The results from the questionnaires were tabulated and used to inform the process by which the preferred alternative was selected.

A Public Liaison Committee (PLC) was formed and met several times with the Township’s waste management working group in 2004 and 2005 to discuss project progress and any public comments or concerns that had been raised outside of the formal Public Consultation Events (PCEs).

The draft revised EA was made available for public review on the Township’s web site and at the Township’s office. Notification of submission of the final EA included radio broadcasts on three separate days and newspaper advertisements in two local newspapers. The final EA was made available on the Township’s web site, and also at public library and municipal office locations. No comments were received from the public during the seven-week review period of the final revised EA.

Aboriginal community consultation

In addition to the requirement in the EA that interested persons be consulted, the Crown must turn its mind to consultation with Aboriginal communities who may have Aboriginal or treaty rights that could be adversely impacted by the proposed undertaking.

The Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (and its predecessor, the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat), and several branches of Indian and northrn Affairs Canada, were contacted periodically during the EA process to ascertain which specific Aboriginal communities may have an interest in the project.

Eight Aboriginal communities were identified as being potentially interested or affected by the project and were sent two letters in fall 2007 informing them of the proposed project and asking if they were interested in reviewing the EA. One of these letters was sent prior to the submission of the 2007 EA and the other sent giving notice of submission of the 2007 EA. The eight Aboriginal communities are: Curve Lake First Nation, Chippewas of Mnjikaning (Rama), Alderville First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, Mississaugas of Scugog Island, Beausoleil First Nation, and Chippewas of Georgina Island, all of whom are signatories of the Williams Treaties (collectively, the Williams Treaties First Nations (WTFNs)), as well as the Wahta Mohawks.

Prior to the submission of the final revised EA, government Aboriginal bodies advised that the Mississaugas of the New Credit and the Algonquins of Ontario may have an interest in the project. The ten Aboriginal communities were then given notice that the draft EA was available for review and were invited to request a copy of the document. A follow-up phone call was made to each Aboriginal community to solicit any comments and to answer any questions with respect to the EA.

Prior to the submission of the final revised EA, another potentially interested Aboriginal community was identified: the Moose Deer Point First Nation. When the final revised EA was submitted for approval on February 24, 2010, the ministry sent letters with the proponent’s Notice of Submission of EA attached along with an information package about the EA and the project, to each of the 11 Aboriginal communities asking for comments and stating that the EA was available on the project website or that a copy could be requested. A total of three to four follow-up phone calls, and in some cases, emails (if the relevant e-mail address was known) were made to each community to verify the package was received and to ask if any comments or a statement of no interest in the project was going to be provided.

The Alderville First Nation stated that they considered the project to be of a medium level of concern and wished to be kept apprised of progress especially during archaeology and construction periods. Three communities forwarded the matter to the Process Coordinator/Interim Negotiator for the Williams Treaty First Nations (WTFNs) who provided a letter indicating an interest in the project. The Township has responded that they will keep both the Alderville First Nation and the WTFN's Coordinator apprised of progress of the project, including any archaeological findings. The Wahta Mohawks indicated verbally they only need to be notified if there are archaeological findings. A summary of the comments submitted along with the Township’s responses is provided in Table 2 of Appendix D of this Review. The actual written comments are provided in Appendix B of this Review.

As this Review was being prepared, the Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation were also identified as potentially being interested in the project. The Kawartha Nishnawbe will be sent a copy of this Review along with a small information package asking if they have any comments or concerns about the proposed project. Follow-up phone calls will also be made to ensure they received the package and to ask if they have any questions. In total, eleven Aboriginal communities plus the WTFN's Process Coordinator are being consulted regarding the proposed project.

Ministry conclusions on the consultation program

Overall, MOE is satisfied that the Township provided sufficient opportunities for the public, interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to provide input during the preparation of the EA and once the EA had been submitted. Due to the identification of another potentially interested Aboriginal community, additional steps to involve this additional Aboriginal community will be undertaken. The consultation methods used by the proponent were in accordance with the approved ToR and consistent with MOE's "Codes of Practice: Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process".

Newspaper notices, mail-outs of newsletters, radio broadcasts, and an internet site were used to reach the widest possible interested public. A five-week review period was held on the draft revised EA and a seven-week review period was held on the final revised EA with copies made available for viewing at government offices and public libraries. The Township has agreed to keep the interested Aboriginal communities apprised of the project’s status, particularly if any archaeological remains are found, and to work with those communities as necessary. The EA contains sufficient documentation of consultation activities. In addition, the feedback received from the GRT and the public, particularly that received from the public through comprehensive questionnaires, was considered in the development and evaluation of alternatives.

Conclusion on conformity with ToR and EA

Based on MOE's analysis of the contents of the EA compared to the requirements of the ToR and the EA (see Appendix A) and MOE's assessment of the consultation undertaken, MOE concludes that the EA was prepared in accordance with and has met the requirements of the ToR and the EA.

3.2 EA Process

EA is a planning process that requires the proponent to identify an existing problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the likely environmental effects of the alternatives, and select a preferred alternative. The documentation of all information required to be contained in an EA and the evaluation and assessment of alternatives in selecting the preferred alternative are essential parts of the EA process.

The purpose of this EA study was to identify a long-term solution (25 years) for the management of solid waste in the Township of Algonquin Highlands. The Township presently has five waste disposal sites, two of which are close to reaching their approved capacity while the two with the greatest capacity remaining are furthest away from most of the Township’s population, and would require most residents to drive substantial distances to dispose of their waste.

In the EA, the Township identified several alternatives to the undertaking (‘alternatives to’), that is, functionally different ways of addressing the problem. The alternatives were:

  • Do nothing
  • Landfill
  • Waste exportation outside of the municipality
  • Waste incineration
  • Waste importation—landfill
  • Waste importation—incineration

The Township conducted its evaluation of the "alternatives to" based on two stages of evaluation: a preliminary screening of all identified "alternatives to"; and a further, more detailed evaluation of the "alternatives to" identified as suitable options by the preliminary screening. The general evaluation criteria developed for the preliminary screening were: economic feasibility, technical feasibility, and duration of service. An alternative was eliminated from further evaluation if it did not meet minimum standards for two or more of the three general evaluation criteria. As a result of the preliminary screening, three options, including both of the options involving incineration, as well as waste importation – landfill were eliminated from further evaluation.

The three "alternatives to" selected for further evaluation were do nothing, landfill and waste exportation. The landfill alternative was further subdivided into two subalternatives–expanding existing sites or developing a new site–to essentially make four "alternatives to". In order to determine the appropriate ratings for developing a new landfill site, two methods of selecting potential new sites were used. First, the Township identified three potential new sites based on the perceived appropriateness of the location and the potential for property acquisition. Next, as part of the EA process the Township undertook an environmental constraints mapping process whereby all lands across the entire Township were considered for their suitability for a new landfill site. Exclusionary criteria that were mapped included: buffer distances for provincially significant wetlands, water features and residential land uses; continuous interior forest habitat; high permeability soil or near-surface bedrock; designated park land; and being beyond certain distances from major or minor roads which are needed to provide access to the landfill site. The constraints mapping revealed that none of the Township-identified sites were appropriate but did identify three other greenfield sites that would be suitable to be given further evaluation. Of these three, one location, the Raven Lake area, was determined to be the most suitable and was then used in the detailed evaluation of the four "alternatives to" to represent the new landfill site option.

The detailed evaluation of "alternatives to" assessed the four alternatives against evaluation criteria grouped under the categories of the economic, natural, social, and cultural environments, as well as by four additional evaluation criteria listed under an "Other" category: risk potential, public acceptance, service provision to residents, and the potential effect on waste diversion rates. Each criterion was given a weighting factor which reflected the perceived importance of the criterion. For example, the five criteria under the natural environment grouping were weighted a total of 32% of the total weighting whereas the two criteria under the economic grouping were weighted 25%. A ranking score was calculated for each of the four alternatives based on the scores assigned to the alternative for the particular criterion (which were rated on a scale of 1 to 5) and the prescribed weighting of each criterion. The preferred alternative, that is the alternative with the highest score in the evaluation process, was landfill expansion at an existing site.

Next, the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking, that is alterative landfill site expansions, were assessed. Two of the five existing sites were eliminated by a preliminary screening because one is located within a provincially significant wetland complex and another has significantly sloping topography. Three of the five waste disposal sites, Hawk Lake, Maple Lake, and Oxtongue Lake, were then assessed by the same methodology as the "alternatives to", only with an additional level of detail, that of "indicators" which further subdivided the evaluation criteria used for the "alternatives to". Based on this evaluation the Maple Lake waste disposal site was selected for expansion as the preferred alternative method by a substantial margin.

Three possible locations for the expansion, one located to the furthest north possible, one to the furthest south, and one located in between the two extremes, were considered. The third location, located in between the two extremes, was selected because it enabled the leachate from the site to flow a certain percentage to the north and south in an amount which would have the lowest effect on groundwater quality.

The proponent evaluated the potential environmental effects of the preferred alternative and documented these in Section 8.0 of the EA. Measures to mitigate the potential environmental effects for all stages of the undertaking (construction, operation, and closure) are described in the EA and include surface water and groundwater monitoring programs. Additional details and work will be required as part of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) approvals process, should the Minister and Cabinet approve the undertaking.

3.2.1 Key issues

MOE staff had raised significant issues with the EA process that was outlined in the first Township of Algonquin Highlands Waste Management Plan EA, submitted in 2007. These were summarized in Section 1.2 of this Review. However, due to the comprehensive revision of the EA, only a few minor EA process issues were identified by MOE staff on the final revised EA, submitted February 24, 2010, as outlined below. A summary of all MOE comments on the final revised EA, including the Township’s responses and MOE’s level of satisfaction with the response can be found in Table 1 of Appendix D of this Review. All other government agencies indicated they had no concerns with the revised EA. The full MOE comments are provided in Appendix B.

After reviewing the final revised EA, MOE staff indicated that information about the current diversion levels of the Township’s waste in Section 3.5 of the EA was unclear. As well, MOE staff commented that clearer information was needed in subsection 6.4.3 regarding which road would provide access to one of the alternative greenfield landfill sites and the characteristics of the road. Clarification was also needed in subsection 4.4.4 of the EA regarding which alternative greenfield sites had been selected by the Township based on general criteria and which sites had been determined based on the detailed environmental constraint mapping. Lastly, clarification in the evaluation tables that some potential air pollution impacts for landfill sites would be based on the distance residents would need to drive to the site to deposit their waste was recommended.

The proponent agreed to make textual changes to the EA so that greater clarity was achieved for each of the identified concerns. The specific textual changes agreed to by the Township are found in Appendix C of this Review.

3.2.2 Conclusion

Overall, MOE, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with the proponent’s decision making process, subject to amendments the Township has agreed to make to the EA. The Township has provided an explanation of the problems and opportunities that prompted the study, and considered a reasonable range of alternatives. The Township has also provided satisfactory responses to all comments received on the EA process used for the revised final EA.

3.3 Proposed undertaking

As discussed in Chapter 7 of the EA (see section 2 of this Review for more details) the proposed undertaking is the expansion of the total waste disposal capacity of the existing Maple Lake waste disposal site by approximately 150,000 m3. This involves an expansion of the approved waste disposal area from 1.2 hectares to approximately 3.0 hectares and an increase in the height of the landfill by approximately 15 metres.

3.3.1 Key issues

A number of government agencies, including MOE, had raised significant issues with the proposed undertaking when the first EA was submitted in 2007. These issues are summarized in Section 1.2 of this Review. The additional work completed by the proponent as well as greater detail being added to the EA prior to the revised EA being submitted has meant that only a few concerns related to the proposed undertaking were raised in the comment period on the revised EA. A summary of MOE comments, including the Township’s responses and MOE's level of satisfaction can be found in Table 1 of this Review. The complete MOE comments are available in Appendix B of this Review. All other government agencies submitted documentation stating they have no concerns with the undertaking, which can also be viewed in Appendix B.

After reviewing the draft revised EA, MOE staff raised concerns regarding the potential impacts on groundwater quality which is important as the site is naturally attenuated. In particular, the EA's Numerical Hydrogeological Modelling Report (Appendix S of EA) did not contain adequate water level information to support the conclusion on the location of a north-south bedrock groundwater flow divide under the waste disposal site. This dividing line is used in all the landfill leachate contaminant flow modelling undertaken to determine whether contaminant levels in the groundwater would exceed the MOE's Reasonable Use Guidelines for specific contaminants at the property boundary. In addition, there was also inadequate data on the existing bedrock groundwater quality which is necessary to both model the likely impacts of the landfill leachate and to monitor the actual future impacts of landfill leachate. The ministry also concluded that an additional overburden groundwater monitoring location was needed to ensure the impacts of the waste disposal site on overburden groundwater could be properly monitored.

To address these three concerns, the proponent agreed to install an additional bedrock and overburden monitoring well on the western boundary of the current landfill site and to take the necessary water level and water quality samples and conduct the necessary analysis. The water level samples taken from this well were able to verify that the location of the bedrock groundwater divide was where the EA stated it was. As well, the analysis of the water samples and modelling of the effects of the leachate indicated that there is a sufficient contamination attenuation zone provided by the waste disposal site’s property subject to appropriate future monitoring and a contingency plan set forthe in Chapter 10 of the EA. The final revised EA did not contain the revised water level tables or the revised groundwater configuration mapping ("potentiometric" mapping) but the proponent has agreed to revise the EA to add these, as illustrated in Appendix C to this Review.

To address two other issues raised by MOE, the proponent has agreed to make two other changes to the EA, both of which are also shown in Appendix C of this Review. Subsection 10.2.1.1 of the EA will be amended to state that additional private land to the north of the site could be obtained to enlarge the contamination attenuation zone if required. As well, Section 10.1 will be amended to confirm that during the application process for a revised or new Certificate of Approval under the EPA and in the annual monitoring reports for the landfill the need for the installation of new monitoring wells to replace wells which will be destroyed by the gradual expansion of the landfill site will be addressed.

3.3.2 Conclusion

Overall, MOE in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied that the proposed undertaking will not have any significant adverse environmental effects. The Township has satisfactorily addressed the questions regarding the impacts on groundwater through additional sampling and analysis, installing and committing to install additional monitoring wells, and agreeing to make the necessary changes to the EA document. No concerns regarding the proposed landfill expansion remain outstanding.

Summary of the ministry review

The Review has explained MOE's analysis for the Township of Algonquin Highlands Waste Management Plan—Maple Lake Waste Disposal Site Expansion EA.

This Review concludes that the EA, taking into consideration the changes which Township has agreed to make to the EA, has been prepared in accordance with the EA and the approved ToR. The Township has described in the EA how a reasonable range of alternatives were assessed and evaluated in order to determine the preferred alternative. The EA assessed the potential environmental effects of the alternatives and the proposed undertaking and outlines mitigation and monitoring measures to ensure that the potential adverse environmental effects of the undertaking will be minimized.

This Review also concludes that the Township provided sufficient opportunities for government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities to provide input during the preparation of the EA. The EA adequately documents the consultation activities. One additional Aboriginal community will be contacted by the ministry once the Review is published to inform them of the proposal and to ascertain whether they have any comments about the project. MOE finds that the consultation methods were in accordance with the ToR and consistent with MOE's "Codes of Practice: Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process".

All issues which have been raised by the GRT have been adequately addressed by the Township. This has been done through undertaking additional groundwater sampling, analysis and modelling, through changes to the EA or through additional commitments being made.

If the undertaking is approved under the EA, there are several standard conditions of approval which will likely be imposed such as the requirement to conduct and report the results of compliance monitoring and to develop a protocol for responding to complaints received during all phases of the construction and operation of the project.

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 Aboriginal communities can submit comments to MOE about the proposed undertaking, the EA and/or the MOE Review. At this time, a request that the Minister refer either all or part of the EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing can be made if any person believes that concerns regarding the project have not been addressed.

At the end of the Review comment period, MOE 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 EA and whether the proposed undertaking should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EA, 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 EA approval is granted, the Township will still require at least one other legislative approval to design, construct and operate this undertaking. As outlined in Section 11 of the EA approval for amended or new Certificate of Approval under the EPA will be required. Due to the characteristics of the site, no other environment approvals (e.g. for stormwater management ponds) are theought to be required at this time but this will be determined as more detailed design is undertaken.

EPA approval cannot be issued until approval under the EA is granted. Furthermore, EA approval does not imply that other approvals will be granted.

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
Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario

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

Ministry of the Environment

Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario

Peterborough District Office
300 Water Street
Peterborough, Ontario

Township of Algonquin Highlands

Municipal Office
1123 north Shore Road
Minden, Ontario

Dorset Office
1051 Main Street
Dorset, Ontario

Libraries

Stanhope Public Library
1109 north Shore Road
Minden, Ontario

Dorset Public Library
1051 Main Street
Dorset, Ontario

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending July 9, 2010 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 Approvals Branch, Ministry of the Environment
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1L5

  • Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Algonquin Highlands Waste Management Plan—Maple Lake Waste Disposal Site Expansion Environmental Assessment
Attention: Kevin Plautz, Project Officer, kevin.plautz@ontario.ca

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in all submissions become part of the public record files for this matter and can be released if requested.

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

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of Appendix A.

Appendix B: Submissions received during initial comment period

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of Appendix B.

Appendix C: Supplemental information

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of Appendix C.

Appendix D: Submission summary and proponent response tables

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of Appendix D.