Ministry review of the Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility future development environmental assessment

Summary of our review

Who

GFL Environmental Inc.

What

GFL is proposing to expand the Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility (EOWHF) to provide an additional 15.1 million cubic metres of waste disposal capacity for residual non-hazardous waste. The undertaking will involve the horizontal expansion primarily to the west of the existing landfill on directly adjacent lands owned by GFL.

When

The environmental assessment (EA) was submitted on June 14, 2023. The comment period for the EA ended August 4, 2023.

Where

The Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility is located at 17125 Lafleche Road, Moose Creek, Ontario.

Why

The EOWHF is approaching its approved capacity of 11.6 million cubic metres. GFL has identified the opportunity to expand the EOWHF landfill by 15.1 million cubic metres to continue providing industrial, commercial and institutional waste disposal services, and provide municipal waste disposal to municipalities and businesses across Eastern Ontario for an additional 20 years from 2025 to 2045.

Conclusions

The ministry review concludes that the EA was prepared in accordance with the approved terms of reference and contains sufficient information to assess the potential environmental effects of the proponent’s undertaking.

The EA demonstrated that GFL will be able to meet the objectives set out in its terms of reference.

There are no outstanding issues from the EA process.

A number of standard conditions are proposed in order to ensure that the project proceeds as outlined and persons/agencies with an interest in the project would continue to be consulted.

1. Environmental assessment process

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

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

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

1.1 Terms of reference

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

The ToR was prepared pursuant to sections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EAA. Under these sections of the EAA, the ToR must set out in detail the requirements for the preparation of the EA and may consist of information other than that required under section 6.1(2) of the EAA, which sets out what are commonly referred to as the ‘generic’ requirements of an EA. This allowed GFL to focus the assessment in the EA on providing a process to identify and assess alternative designs (alternative methods) for the expansion of the existing landfill and assess potential environmental effects and benefits of the alternatives. The expansion of the existing landfill is intended to address GFLs determination that this landfill will reach capacity by 2025.

On January 14, 2021, the former Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks approved GFLs ToR. The ToR established the framework for the preparation of the EA, including describing the purpose and rationale for the undertaking, which was to provide additional waste disposal capacity over a 20-year period, identifying and evaluating potential environmental effects (both positive and negative) and proposing mitigation measures as well as a consultation plan for obtaining input from the public, government agencies and Indigenous communities during the preparation of the EA.

1.2 Environmental assessment

After receiving the Minister’s approval on the ToR, GFL proceeded to carry out the EA for the landfill expansion, which is to be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR.

After completing the EA, including consultation, the EA was submitted to the ministry for review and a decision by the Minister, which is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

GFL made a draft EA available to the public, government agencies and Indigenous communities on December 21, 2022, and requested comments on the draft EA by February 3, 2023. On June 14, 2023, GFL submitted the Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility Future Development Environmental Assessment to the ministry for a decision on the proposed undertaking. The EA was available for a public, government agency and Indigenous community comment period ending on August 4, 2023. During this period, agencies, Indigenous communities and the public had an opportunity to review the EA and submit comments to the ministry. The EA was also circulated directly to Indigenous communities and to government agencies known as the Government Review Team (GRT) for review. The GRT, comprised of provincial and local agencies, reviewed the EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the EA were valid based on the mandates of each respective agency.

1.3 Ministry review

The EAA requires the ministry to prepare a review of the EA, known 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, 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, 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 Indigenous community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.

Following the EA comment period, the regulated deadline to complete the review was extended to allow Indigenous communities time to provide comments and the proponent to address the comments received. Refer to section 3.3 of this review for more details. All comments received by the ministry are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the undertaking as described in the EA.

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 final five-week comment period on the ministry review. The Minister’s decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Making the review publicly available for comment allows the GRT, public, and Indigenous communities to view the review and to see how any 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 Ontario Land Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that there are significant outstanding environmental effects that the EA has not addressed. Requests for a hearing must be made before the end of the comment period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.

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

2. The proposed undertaking

2.1 Background

The Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility (landfill) is located south of the City of Ottawa at the intersection of Highway 417 and Highway 138 East, approximately five kilometres north-northwest of the village of Moose Creek, Ontario and five kilometres east of the Municipality of Casselman, Ontario in the Township of North Stormont (see Figure 1). The existing landfill is situated on 189 hectares of land owned by GFL. The lands to the east of the existing landfill are being considered for the future development expansion comprising of an additional 240 hectares of land (see Figure 2).

The landfill functions as a regional facility and is integrated with a wide range of collection, transfer and transport services and facilities serving residential and commercial customers across the region. The site provides essential waste management services in the area including collection and disposal for municipal and industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) waste generators as well as collection of recyclables, source separated organics, leaf and yard material, and waste, both at the curb and drop-off facilities. The site also provides processing and transfer of recyclables, composting of source separated organic material and collection and diversion of used tires and construction and demolition (C&D) waste. Many of these services are provided at the landfill site and are supported by a number of smaller GFL collection facilities located in Eastern Ontario. GFL provides waste management services to municipalities and businesses across Eastern Ontario, including over 500 villages, towns, and cities (including United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, United Counties of Prescott and Russell, United Counties of Leeds and Grenville, Lanark County, Renfrew County, Lennox and Addington County, Hastings County and Prince Edward County). The majority of these municipalities have long-term waste disposal contracts and GFL provides the necessary waste management services at the landfill.

The landfill was approved under the EAA in 1999 (development stages 1 and 2A) and in 2019 (development stages 3B and 4) and is operated under environmental compliance approval (ECA) A420018. The landfill is approved to accept solid non-hazardous municipal, industrial, commercial and institutional wastes with a total approved capacity of 11.6 million cubic metres and an annual fill rate of 755,00 tonnes per year. The landfill site is estimated to have approved disposal capacity to operate through 2023 and into 2024 but will reach its approved capacity in 2025.

2.2 Purpose

GFL proposes to increase the disposal capacity by 15.1 million cubic metres for solid non-hazardous waste at the Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility. GFL has identified an opportunity to continue providing residential and some industrial, commercial, and institutional waste disposal capacity to their customers in the Region for an additional 20 years. GFL estimates that the landfill will reach its current approved capacity in 2025.

2.3 Study areas

The EA used two study areas identified in the approved ToR: on-site study area and off-site study area to identify and assess potential impacts to the environment. The on-site study area encompasses the GFL owned lands that include both the existing landfill site (lot 17 and lot 18) and the future development area (eastern half of lot 16, lots 14 and 15, and the majority of lot 13) for landfill expansion (see Figure 2). The off-site study area comprises the lands in the vicinity of the future development area of the landfill expansion extending one kilometre in all directions from the on-site study area.

2.4 Local environment

The Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility (landfill) is located south of the City of Ottawa, within the Township of North Stormont, United Counties of Stormont, Dundas, and Glengarry, which is largely comprised of rural areas and agricultural land. The landfill site is located north of the village of Moosecreek.

The landfill site is located in a rural agricultural setting with few residences or notable features in the immediate vicinity. GFL owns the future development lands immediately east and south of the existing landfill site which are currently leased out for sod farming (to the east) and peat extraction (to the south). Land to the north and west adjacent to the landfill is privately owned and used for agricultural purposes including cash crops and peat extraction. The existing land uses within one kilometre of the landfill consists mostly of agricultural with some extraction (aggregate/peat), vacant/natural, heavy industrial (existing landfill), with one residential property and two commercial businesses.

Downstream and adjacent to the landfill is the Fraser Drain which lets out into Moose Creek. The Fraser Drain and Moose Creek are the main receiver watercourses for the site’s stormwater runoff and treated effluent. Both systems discharge to the Fraser Drain, the first receiver, which joins Moose Creek approximately 600 metres downstream of the landfill site. The treated effluent is a product of the landfill’s leachate collection system and onsite leachate treatment facility. There are no municipal piped ground water supplies within the landfill site and off-site study area. Properties in the vicinity are likely serviced by private supply wells.

The facility is designed as a natural containment landfill that uses the existing low permeability silt clay as a base liner that performs similar to an engineered liner system. The silt clay is overlain by a leachate collection system which consists of a leachate piping network and a collection blanket of coarse stones overlain by a finer granular material that acts as a filter and is consistent with design criteria. The expansion will also rely on this design approach.

Two visual screening berms have been constructed at the landfill site. The Highway 417 berm runs parallel to the highway and screens the stormwater ponds and leachate treatment facilities as well as other on-site activities. The west boundary berm runs along the western boundary of the site, parallel to the western property boundary. Both berms are vegetated and have a top elevation approximately four metres above the existing adjacent ground surface.

2.5 Description of the proposed undertaking

GFL considered alternatives to the undertaking during the development of the approved ToR. The alternative to develop additional landfill disposal capacity at the existing landfill is the most financially and economically viable option for both GFL and its service customers. Using the land already owned by GFL will continue to support existing integrated facilities at the site including the compost facility operation, receiving post-diversion residual waste, the landfill gas to energy facility, as well as utilizing the existing leachate treatment facility.

The preferred landfill expansion design involves horizontal expansion in four stages, one stage adjacent to and north of the existing landfill (stage 5) and three stages oriented north-south within the future development lands (stages 6 through 8) that will provide additional capacity of 15.1 million cubic metres over a 20-year planning period (see Figure 3). Stages 6 and 7 will be identical in size, while stages 5 and 8 will be smaller. The preferred landfill expansion design will also continue to support existing waste diversion activities undertaken at the site (see section 4.1.1 of this review for more details).

The future development lands for the landfill in the east will add an additional 240 hectares for a total landfill footprint of 429 hectares. The landfill has an existing total capacity of 11.6 million cubic metres with an annual fill rate of 755,000 tonnes of waste per year. No change to the annual approved fill rate is proposed. The total expanded landfill capacity for waste, including the additional 15.1 million cubic metres provided by the expansion, is 26.7 million cubic metres. The maximum combined area of active landfill and intermediate covered landfill in any given year will be up to approximately 17.4 hectares, with the remaining site area closed with final cover after the waste fill reaches the final contours.

The preferred alternative will continue to use established operating procedures currently in place at the site and would maximize the use of existing site infrastructure for stormwater, leachate management and landfill gas. The design of the expansion stages (5-8) will be consistent with the existing landfill design. The design of the preferred alternative will be further developed and optimized during the technical design stage in support of the application to amend the existing ECA for the landfill.

A stormwater management system will be part of the future development lands consisting of conveyance ditches around the perimeter of each stage and a retention pond located north of the future development lands above stages 6 and 7. The existing site retention pond will be modified to accommodate peak flows if required. The dedicated outlet for stormwater following collection and retention is the Fraser Municipal Drain that runs between the existing site and future development lands.

A leachate collection system will continue to be used for the future development expansion consisting of granular layers and a piping network that conveys collected leachate to aeration ponds and then to a leachate treatment facility located north of the existing landfill. The treated effluent from the leachate treatment facility is proposed to be discharge directly into Moose Creek instead of the Fraser Drain where it currently discharges. The capacity of the leachate treatment plant will be expanded to accept leachate generated from the existing landfill as well as from the future development. The proponent will apply for an amendment to the ECA.

The landfill gas collection system consisting of vertical extraction wells and lateral and header piping within the waste will continue to be extended throughout the landfill expansion area. Collected landfill gas will be conveyed to the existing landfill gas plant located south of stage 1 which includes combustion engines that generate power as well as an enclosed landfill gas flare. Landfill gas condensate is re-introduced into the waste or conveyed to the leachate treatment plant.

Other key design features of the preferred alternative include new visual screening berms along the north and east perimeters of the expansion area and a portion of the south perimeter consisting of earth material berms and/or vegetation plantings. A new road entrance will be constructed from Laflèche Road, which will include a new scale facility and a soil storage pad north of stage 8. The preferred alternative also includes an internal road network to permit access to the new landfill expansion stages.

Since the landfill site will continue to operate within its approved limits (755,000 tonnes annually and average daily rate of 2,500 tonnes per day), there are no operational changes anticipated with relation to the development of the future landfill expansion area and it will operate consistent with current conditions. The access point to the site will be located off Laflèche Road with the main haul route to the landfill site remaining the same via Highway 417, Highway 138, and to Laflèche Road. There is no proposed change to the origin-destination patterns of vehicles travelling to or from the landfill site, or the maximum daily trips generated. Consequently, operations are expected to remain unchanged in terms of the origin and destinations of trucks as well as haul routes.

The preferred landfill expansion alternative will continue to support the integrated facilities at the EOWHF landfill site including collection, material recovery and the organic compost facility as well as enhancing the ongoing operation of the landfill gas-to-energy to maximize waste diversion. Waste diversion activities that will continue at the EOWHF landfill site with the expansion include collection services to various waste generators, including collection and diversion of recyclables, source separated organics, leaf and yard material, processing and transfer of recyclables, composing of organic material, and the collection and diversion of used tires, electronic equipment and construction and demolition waste.

3. Results of the ministry review

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

The purpose of the ministry review is to determine whether:

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

Must haves in the EA:

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

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

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

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

3.1.2 Consultation

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

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

• establishing a project website with EA documentation
• distribution of Notices (Notice of Commencement, Notice of Public Open House)
• hosting two public open houses
• consultation with agencies and organizations
• review of Draft Existing Conditions Reports by agencies
• agency workshops
• engagement with Indigenous communities and groups
• circulating notices via local newspapers and mail outs
• site tours
• publishing the draft EA for review and a comment period from December 21, 2022, to February 3, 2023

GFL documented its consultation activities adequately in the EA report and Record of Consultation. Section 9.0 of the EA provides an overview of the consultation activities, with the complete consultation documented in Supporting Document 4 (Record of Consultation and Engagement) in the EA.

Following submission of the EA to the ministry, the ministry undertook consultation in accordance with the EAA, beginning on June 14, 2023, to August 4, 2023. The GRT, public, and Indigenous communities had an opportunity to review the EA and submit comments to the ministry regarding the fulfillment of ToR requirements, the EA, and the proposed undertaking. Comments received by the ministry during the comment period were forwarded to GFL for a response. A summary of the comments received along with GFLs responses is included in Tables 1 to 3 of Appendix B to this review.

Government review team

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

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

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

In addition to MECP, the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM), South Nation Conservation (SNC) and the Township of North Stormont provided comments throughout the EA process, on existing conditions reports and on the draft EA.

At that time, comments provided by MCMs suggested that the proponent include the outcomes and recommendations from the stage 1 archaeological assessment into the EA report, as well as suggested revisions regarding how cultural heritage assessments were undertaken. GFL updated the EA in response to some of MCMs comments. The SNC commented that the landfill expansion must not result in flooding or erosion within the vicinity of the site, and that any alteration to a watercourse including a stormwater outlet may require a permit. GFL responded to SNCs comments indicating that the Surface Water Quantity effects assessment identified that no off-site effects on neighbouring properties will occur as a result of the landfill expansion. GFL also indicated that the detailed design of the stormwater management works will be prepared to support the ECA application and all documentation will be circulated to SNC. The Township of North Stormont commented on the draft EA requesting that proof of an EA approval must be provided, that a Site Plan approval by the Township is required prior to development, and that an engineer will be appointed under the Drainage Act to update the existing Fraser Municipal Drain report. GFL acknowledged these comments and provided the location of these commitments in the draft EA report.

MECP provided comments specific to wastewater, waste, air, hydrology, surface water, source protection, climate change, and resource recovery. MECPs technical comments on the draft EA focused on landfill gas generation and management, GHG emissions, leachate management, surface water quality including effluent quality limits during the ECA stage, and other updates to the EA study report. Responses to the comments were prepared by GFL and provided to the MECP for additional responses. A summary of the comments received on the draft EA is provided in Section 9.3.7.1 of the EA. Original comments received and responses can be found in Supporting Document 4 (Record of Consultation and Engagement) of the EA. Revisions were made to the EA study report based on the comments received.

During the draft EA the MECPs Drinking Water and Environmental Compliance Division (Eastern Region Technical Support Section) provided several memoranda to GFL providing comments on surface water. The comments recommended mitigations and commitments with regards to increased stormwater management and leachate treatment as a result of the expansion. During the draft EA review, Eastern Region Technical Support Section suggested that GFL make corrections to the to the commitments and relevant documentation that references achieving compliance with the Site Specific Water Quality Objections (SSWQO) as it is effluent limits that are used as water quality compliance criteria. GFL made surface water quality commitments in the draft EA to reflect Eastern Region Technical Support Section comments including a commitment to complete an assimilative capacity study and mixing zone assessment for Moose Creek to support the development of effluent limits for the ECA amendment to increase total leachate volume. Eastern Region Technical Support Section is satisfied with the commitments made in the EA study report.

Public consultation

The proponent used a variety of consultation methods to consult with the public including public notices, establishing a project website, two public information centres, and direct community engagement via mail-outs and newspapers. The public information centres were held on October 7, 2021, and July 20, 2022. A summary of consultation with public stakeholders during the preparation of the EA is included in Section 9.3 of the EA.

The notice of commencement for the EA was issued on September 23, 2021. GFL made the draft EA and its supporting documents available on the project’s website for members of the public, agencies, and Indigenous communities for comment from December 21, 2022, to February 3, 2023.

The notice of submission of the final EA was issued on June 14, 2023, and was circulated to the project contact list as well as posted on the project’s website. The ministry received comments from one member of the public. Refer to section 3.3. of this review or Appendix B regarding these comments.

Indigenous community consultation

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

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

• Algonquins of Ontario*
• Mohawks of Akwesasne*
• Huron Wendat Nation*
• Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte — Tyendinaga Mohawk Council
• Metis Nation of Ontario Council
• Metis Nation of Ontario Ottawa Region

*The MECP identified three Indigenous communities to GFL (marked with an asterisk above) to be consulted with that may be potentially affected or interested in the project and GFL added three other Indigenous communities to the list of participants.

Formal study notices were circulated to Indigenous communities. Correspondence from GFL invited the communities to participate during the ToR phase of the EA and each round of EA consultation. In addition to the formal study notices and open houses Indigenous communities were given draft studies to review throughout the planning process, including archaeological assessment reports.

Additional engagement activities were undertaken during the preparation of the EA to obtain input from the identified Indigenous communities including follow-up calls and emails to communities to ensure receipt of materials. The following is a summary of the comments received from Indigenous communities during the preparation of the EA.

During the ToR, the stage 1 archaeological assessment was provided to Indigenous communities for review. Huron Wendat Nation requested to be kept informed of any further archaeological related studies or reports undertaken during the EA process. The stage 1 archaeological assessment did not identify lands with archaeological potential due to previous extensive land disturbance. No further archaeological assessment work was required.

Feedback was provided by the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne requesting that they remain informed about the project throughout the EA process, and that following review of the draft EA that they had no comments or concerns. Indigenous community engagement is detailed in Section 9.4 of the EA and further documented in Supporting Document 4 (Record of Consultation and Engagement) in the EA.

Comments from the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne were received on the final EA. Refer to Section 3.3. of this review or Appendix B regarding these comments.

Ministry conclusions on the consultation program

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

The ministry is satisfied that the EA consultation that was undertaken is consistent with the Codes of Practice for Consultation in Ontario’s EA Process and best practices, meets the requirements of the EAA, and followed the consultation plan outlined in the approved ToR.

3.2 EA process

EA is a planning process that requires a proponent to identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the potential environmental effects of alternatives against select criteria, and then select a preferred alternative. GFL carried out an EA to identify and address ways to continue providing waste disposal services over a 20-year planning period as the existing landfill site reaches capacity. Below is a summary of the EA process followed, including the study areas used, and the methodology for assessing alternatives and environmental effects. Please refer to Appendix A of this review for the ministry’s analysis of how the EA has met the requirements of the EAA and the approved ToR.

3.2.1 Focused EA

GFL prepared its EA in accordance with Sections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of EAA, which resulted in an EA that focused on the consideration of alternative methods for expanding waste disposal capacity at the EOWHF landfill site. The ToR provided justification for limiting the examination of alternatives through an analysis of alternatives available to GFL for achieving additional long-term waste disposal capacity to provide additional waste disposal capacity over a 20-year planning period.

In the analysis of alternatives to the undertaking in the ToR, GFL identified a range of alternatives for providing long-term disposal capacity that are appropriate and reasonable to implement. GFL considered and reviewed four waste management alternatives during the development of the ToR, including:

• do nothing
• redirect waste to a disposal facility elsewhere
• develop a thermal treatment facility at the EOWHF
• develop additional landfill disposal capacity at the EOWHF

The four alternatives were presented to the public as part of consultation and engagement during the development of the ToR. The alternative selected was to develop additional landfill disposal capacity at the EOWHF . Other alternatives did not address GFLs opportunity to meet long-term customer commitments and were not supportive of waste diversion and climate change priorities.

The ToR also identified two alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking at a conceptual design level based on landfill configurations of the future development lands. The EA prepared by GFL focused on the development and assessment of alternative methods of additional waste disposal capacity at the EOWHF landfill site.

3.2.2 Description of the Environment in the Study Areas

Section 4.0 Description of the Environment Potentially Effected by the Undertaking and Supporting Document 1 (Existing Conditions Reports) of the EA provides a description of the existing environmental conditions at the EOWHF site and the onsite and offsite study areas to establish a baseline comparison with alternative methods. The environments described in the EA are:

• natural environment
• socio-economic environment
• cultural environment
• built environment

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

3.2.3 Assessment of alternative methods

GFL considered two alternative methods which were discussed as part of the ToR at a conceptual level were carried forward into the EA for review. The two alternative methods of developing additional landfill disposal capacity at the site were identified and described in Section 5 Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking and in the Conceptual Design Report (Supporting Document 2) of the EA. GFL developed evaluation criteria and indicators to identify and assess the impacts of the alternative methods on the natural, socio-economic, cultural and built environments. GFL predicted the net effects between the two alternative methods, then compared and ranked each method to determine the preferred option.

Both alternative methods were developed to the level of preliminary conceptual designs including site development, leachate and landfill gas management, stormwater management, infrastructure and landfill operations. Preliminary conceptual designs were developed in greater detail in the Conceptual Design Report (Supporting Document 2) of the EA.

Studies completed for the EOWHF have indicated that there is limited potential to adjust the design by increasing the height of the landfill. Underlying soils may become unstable due to increased landfill height and weight. As a result, the alternative method design alternatives are limited to different horizontal configurations of the landfill expansion stages with a consistent height. Both alternative methods provide a landfill volume of approximately 15.1 million cubic metres based on the approved fill rate of 755,000 tonnes per year over a 20-year planning period.

The area considered for both alternative methods of landfill expansion (future development lands) is east and adjacent to the existing EOWHF landfill. The existing EOWHF encompasses a site area of 189 hectares (landfill expansion stages 1 to 5), while the future development lands comprise approximately 240 hectares.

The two alternative methods of developing additional landfill disposal capacity at the site are described below as per the EA.

Alternative method 1

This alternative method involves implementing the landfill expansion through five stages: one stage north and adjacent to the existing landfill (stage 5) and four stages oriented east-west (stages 6 through 9) within the adjacent future development lands. Stages 6 through 8 will be identical in size, while stages 5 and 9 will be smaller The maximum width of the new stages will be 400 metres using a low permeability soil final cover design approach.

The design will be consistent with the existing landfill including:

• construction of perimeter berms around each stage
• leachate collection system that conveys leachate to aeration ponds and then to the leachate treatment facility located at the existing landfill
• landfill gas collection system consisting of extraction wells and piping within the waste that will be conveyed to the existing landfill gas plant
• stormwater management system consisting of conveyance ditches around each stage and a retention pond located northwest of stage 8

Alternative method 2

This alternative method involves implementing the landfill expansion through four stages: one stage north and adjacent to the existing landfill (stage 5) and three stages oriented north-south (stages 6 through 8) within the adjacent future development lands. Stages 6 and 7 will be identical in size, while stages 5 and 8 will be smaller. The maximum width of the new stages will be 400 metres using a low permeability soil final cover design approach.

The design will be consistent with the existing landfill including:

• construction of perimeter berms around each stage
• leachate collection system that conveys leachate to aeration ponds and then to the leachate treatment facility located at the existing landfill
• landfill gas collection system consisting of extraction wells and piping within the waste that will be conveyed to the existing landfill gas plant
• stormwater management system consisting of conveyance ditches around each stage and a retention pond located north of stages 6 and 7

Alternative methods 1 and 2 have slight differences related to the configurations and geometry of the landfill stages however both alternative methods are horizontal expansions with the same design concepts to be applied to the base liner, leachate collection and cover systems for both alternative methods. The designs presented in the Conceptual Design Report of the EA for the two alternative methods will be further optimized during the technical design stage to support the application to amend the existing Environmental Compliance Approval for the landfill site. The design of the landfill expansion stages for both alternative methods will be consistent with the existing landfill design for both alternative methods including visual screening along the north and east perimeters and a portion of the south perimeter consisting of earthen berms and/or vegetation plantings.

Alternative method 2 was selected as the preferred alternative for landfill site expansion based on the comparative evaluation of net effects related to air quality, noise, current and future land uses at the site and effects on agricultural land. The other alternative was assessed to produce higher dust and odour impacts, affect worker safety, and have higher capital costs.

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

3.2.4 Assessment of environmental effects

GFL describes the potential net effects, cumulative effects and climate change considerations of the EOWHF landfill expansion project in Section 8 (Net Effects Assessment of the Preferred Alternative) in the EA. GFL developed environmental components which were used to identify the net effects resulting from the landfill expansion after the application of mitigation measures. A net effects assessment summary was prepared using the following evaluation criteria:

• natural environment
  • atmospheric environment
  • geology and hydrogeology
  • surface water environment
  • ecological environment
• socio-economic environment
  • economic
  • social
• cultural environment
  • cultural heritage resources
  • archaeological resources
• built environment
  • transportation
• current and planned future land use
• aggregate extraction and agriculture

The natural environment assessment examined the potential effects of the project on the ecological environment; terrestrial systems (wildlife and wildlife habitat); as well as effects on aquatic habitat. The expansion is predicted to have minimal impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecosystems, including aquatic wildlife and species at risk.

In addition, an assessment on the environmental effects on air quality, odour and noise was completed and the impacts were determined to be minimal with mitigation measures.

Transportation impacts were considered and it was determined that the preferred alternative for landfill expansion will not change traffic impacts from the landfill operations as this project will continue to use the same haul routes and accept the same annual amount of waste that is currently accepted.

With regards to impacts to the local economic environment, the assessment determined that there will be an overall net environment benefit to the local economy as a result of extended duration of employment for an additional 20 years and continued provision of cost-effective and environmentally secure waste management services for municipalities and businesses across Eastern Ontario. The assessment determined that there would be a net loss of land used for agriculture as a result of using GFLs future development lands for the expansion however there will be no impacts to agricultural operations in the surrounding area.

Source water protection

Consideration of source water protection is described in Section 6.2.1.2 and of the EA. The project is in the Raisin-South Nation Source Protection Area and the Raisin-South Nation Source Protection Plan and applicable policies. The landfill site expansion is not located in any well head protection area or intake protection zone and is not a significant drinking water threat. However, the landfill expansion site is within a significant groundwater recharge area with a vulnerability score of 6. A search for water supply wells within the EA study area was undertaken as part of the Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report (Supporting Document 1-3) and assessed potential effects of the landfill expansion on water supply wells. It was determined that groundwater flow within the nearby expansion area flows northward and away from water users. The ministry’s Conservation and Source Protection Branch is satisfied with the information provided in the EA.

Climate change impacts

GFL is planning the landfill expansion in a manner that considers future changes in climate and the impacts a changing climate could have on the expansion. The ‘Considering Climate Change in the Environmental Assessment Process’ (MECP, 2017) document was used as a guide for in the landfill expansion design to reduce both the potential impact of climate change on the landfill and its potential impact on climate change. The effects of greenhouse gas generation, stormwater management facilities to address flooding, as well as leachate and groundwater flow are considered in the EA.

The project is not expected to have any significant impacts on the environment associated with climate change considerations. The net effect of the landfill expansion on climate change is anticipated to be minimal due to landfill design measures that continue to incorporate a landfill gas collection system into the expansion stages that limit landfill gas emissions into the atmosphere. Collected landfill gas will be combusted using flares at the site’s landfill gas to energy plant or potentially utilized as renewable natural gas. The landfill will also continue to progressively be covered with a geomembrane final cover which significantly reduces emissions compared to a natural soil cover.

Cumulative effects

The Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario (2014) encourages proponents to include information about the potential cumulative effects of the project in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities. There are currently future projects in the area that include two active site plan control applications located approximately 700 metres from the landfill site and the potential relocation of the EOWHF compost curing and storage pad areas to an area south of the existing EOWHF, and the discharge of treated effluent from the leachate treatment facility on site directly to Moose Creek instead of the Fraser Drain where it is currently discharged. The cumulative effects assessment determined that no cumulative effects to air quality, odour, noise, traffic, or planned land use are anticipated to result from these projects.

There are no outstanding concerns from stakeholders regarding existing cumulative adverse impacts in the EA study area from past and/or present activities that are anticipated with proposed mitigation measures and commitments to future work that have been provided for the future landfill expansion.

3.2.5 Monitoring and commitments

Section 10 of the EA describes environmental effects monitoring programs and activities proposed to ascertain the effectiveness of mitigation measures, in addition to contingency measures to address unexpected occurrences. Monitoring activities that are ongoing and will be modified to continue for the landfill expansion are air quality programs, groundwater and surface water programs as well as stormwater management pond monitoring. Commitments related to the pre-construction, construction, operation, closure, and post-closure phases of the landfill are listed in Table 10-1 of Section 10 (Monitoring and Commitments for the Undertaking) of the EA.

3.2.6 Ministry conclusions on the EA process

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

3.3 Comments on the undertaking

3.3.1 Key issues

Issues and concerns from the GRT, the public, and Indigenous communities regarding the proposed undertaking were received by the ministry during the review and comment period that followed the submission of the EA. All comments received, along with the responses provided by GFL, are included in Tables 1 to 3 in Appendix B of this Review. This section summarizes the key issues that were raised during the EA process.

Government review team comments

MECPs Drinking Water and Environmental Compliance Division (Eastern Region Technical Support Section) provided comments on the final EA study report. The comments provided included accepting edits that were made to satisfy comments that were submitted during the draft EA review process, providing grammatical clarity regarding effluent parameter concentrations, and noting that a memorandum sent to GFL from the Technical Support Section was not included in the final Record of Consultation (ROC) of the EA. GFL responded and clarified that copies of the back-and-forth correspondence (including memos) on GFLs draft responses to agency comments were not included in Appendix E of the ROC as they were considered draft materials however, the content of the correspondence is included in the comment response table in Appendix H of the ROC.

MECPs Conservation and Source Protection Branch provided the following comments on the final EA study report:

• According to the online Source Protection Information Atlas (SPIA) mapping tool, neither the existing EOWHF site nor its future development lands for its expansion (i.e., on-site study area) are located within groundwater wellhead protection areas (WHPAs), surface water intake protection zones (IPZs), issue contributing areas, or event-based areas for modelled threats where threat activities could potentially pose a significant risk to drinking water sources. As such, the waste disposal site is not a significant drinking water threat. However, the site is situated within a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area (SGRA) and Highly Vulnerable Aquifer (HVA) with a vulnerability score of 6. This means threats can be moderate/low and select policies may still apply. In addition, within HVAs there may be other kinds of drinking water systems present that are not explicitly addressed by the source protection plan and the proponent should take these into consideration. EA projects should protect sensitive hydrologic features including current or future sources of drinking water not explicitly addressed in source protection plans, such as private systems — individual or clusters, and designated facilities within the meaning of Ontario Regulation 170/03 under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
• The EA document states that while the existing EOWHF site is not within a source water protection zone, the expansion site is within a SGRA and a HVA with a vulnerability score of 6. The EA identifies the source protection vulnerable areas (i.e., SGRAS and HVAs with a vulnerability score of 6) that intersect with both the on-site and off-site study areas. The Report also mentions that the local Conservation Authority was consulted to discuss source protection implications for potential activities, specifically related to any prohibitions or risk management plans that may impact project activities.

GFL acknowledged MECPs Conservation and Source Protection Branch comments and clarified that a search of water supply wells within the on-site and off-site study areas was undertaken as part of establishing the Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions Report (Supporting Document 1-3) of the EA. The Geology and Hydrogeology Effects Assessment (Supporting Document 3-3) of the EA assessed the potential effects of the undertaking on the identified water supply wells and determined that groundwater flow within the landfill expansion area is northward, generally away from any water users. GFL further clarified that the landfill expansion will be designed in accordance with Ontario landfill standards (Regulation 232/98) to prevent and minimize any potential effects on groundwater resources. A groundwater monitoring program will also be undertaken to assess any changes in water quality and compliance with appropriate standards at the property boundary.

South Nation Conservation provided the following comments to MECP:

• A detailed design for the final stormwater management system with sizing calculations is required to assess quantity control
• The Surface Water Quantity summary (pages 53-57) identifies flooding in various areas, including lands adjacent to the expansion lands owned by GFL Environmental Inc. The landfill expansion must not result in flooding or erosion on neighboring properties, upstream or downstream of the site. This must be demonstrated and discussed as part of the detailed stormwater management design report
• SNC implements Ontario Regulation 170/06, Development Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, developed under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. Please note that any alteration to a watercourse, including a stormwater outlet, may require a permit and restrictions may apply. If an increase in runoff to a watercourse is anticipated, SNC may require a hydraulic analysis demonstrating that it will not cause flooding and erosion

GFL responded to SNCs comments and clarified that Table 10-1 in the EA study report is a summary of mitigation commitments that includes a commitment regarding detailed design of the stormwater management facilities for the undertaking that will be consistent with MECP guidance documents and documentation to support an ECA application. GFL responded to the comments related to flooding and identified that Section 4.3.2.3 of the EA study report describes existing conditions for surface water and hydrology including the potential for flooding within the on-site and off-site study areas during a 100-year storm event. Section 5.3.6 of the EA study report describes that the surface water quantity control measures for the undertaking will be designed to temporarily store the runoff generated from storm events, including the 100-year storm design, and release at or below existing conditions peak flows. GFL acknowledged the approval requirements for the proposed undertaking and identified that Section 11 of the EA study report outlines additional approvals expected to be required, including approvals and permits from the SNC in relation to the proposed stormwater outlet to the Fraser Drain and any alternations to the Fraser Drain.

The Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM) provided comments to the MECP indicating satisfaction that previous comments provided were addressed in the final EA study report by:

• Completing a Cultural Heritage Existing Conditions Report (dated March 2, 2022). MCMs Letter (then MHSTCI) dated April 25, 2022, indicates that the report is consistent with the requirements, guidance and standards of the environmental assessment process and with best practice guidance prepared by the ministry
• Undertaking a Stage 1 archaeological assessment and report which has been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports indicating no potential/no further work recommended

Public comments

A member from the public provided the following comments to the MECP on the final EA study report:

• The project location is in the far northeast corner of North Stormont, so any approvals affect neighboring municipalities like Casselman and subject myself to the odours at various times of the year depending on the weather conditions
• Consideration should be given to burning non-recyclable waste and generating electricity like in other jurisdictions. This eliminates the need for future landfills and produces no odours to areas nearby.

GFL responded to the comment regarding project location indicating that alternatives to the undertaking were assessed during the development of the approved ToR. The alternative to expand the existing EOWHF site was the most economically viable option to provide long-term waste disposal for Eastern Ontario by utilizing land already owned by GFL and supporting the existing integrated facilities at the EOWHF including compost facility operation, landfill gas to energy facility, existing leachate treatment facility, and receiving post-diversion residual wastes. GFL further indicated that the preferred alternative is in a location moving away from Casselman.

GFL employs the application of cover soils at the end of the day as a proactive measure to minimize and control odour. GFL also carries out a landfill surface scan program to identify and repair leaks in the landfill cover to maximize landfill gas capture and minimize related odour impacts. GFL has landfill gas collection system that will be progressively extended with the expansion and flaring systems to reduce and mitigate odours coming from the EOWHF site. In addition, GFL has adjusted its construction schedule for each landfill cell, proceeding with extension of the landfill gas collection system as soon as a cell is filled. This approach has been successful in mitigating and reducing odours from the site.

GFL responded to the comment regarding burning non-recyclable waste indicating that thermal treatment of waste as an alternative to the undertaking was assessed during the development of the approved ToR. GFL does not own or operate any thermal treatment facilities and has no related business experience with this type of alternative. The company is focused on maximizing waste diversion and minimizing the volume of residual material to be landfilled, through its integrated system of collection, material recovery facilities and composting. The EOWHF does have an existing landfill gas-to-energy facility which produces 4.5 MW of renewable energy as part of the Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) program. However, the FIT program has since been cancelled, eliminating any potential revenues for a waste to energy facility. The financial and technological risks related to the thermal treatment of waste is not a feasible option.

Indigenous community comments

On August 3, 2023, during the comment period on the final EA study report, the Algonquins of Ontario emailed the ministry indicating that they intend to provide comments on the EA study report but would not be able to meet the August 4, 2023, comment period deadline and requested an extension to provide comments by August 25, 2023. The ministry confirmed with the Algonquins of Ontario that they may submit comments by August 25, as requested. On August 25, 2023, the Algonquins of Ontario emailed the ministry informing that they have no comments to provide on the EA study report following review, and that the Algonquins of Ontario acknowledge the need for increased environmentally secure waste management capacity in Eastern Ontario.

On August 16, 2023, the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne emailed the ministry recognizing that the final EA comment period deadline had passed on August 4, 2023, and requested whether it was possible to still submit comments on the EA study report. The ministry confirmed to the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne that additional time to review and submit comments on the EA would be provided until August 25, 2023. Due to technical issues, the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne submitted comments on August 28, 2023. The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne provided the following comments on the final EA:

• Firstly, the proximity of the landfill and its operations to the large region of glaciomarine sediments, especially Leda/Quick Clay which poses a potential risk of damage from landslides. The presence of these sediments is mentioned in the geological/hydrological section. Our main concern revolves around the potential for increased risks of landslides and similar occurrences due to greater activity related to landfill operations and land coverage
• Secondly, we strongly recommend and support habitat creation/restoration or enhancement to mitigate any impacts to wildlife populations and improve connectivity. This is especially important for migrating species, and for promoting natural dispersal and movements. Habitat connectivity is vital for reducing various negative effects of fragmentation or degradation and supporting biodiversity and ecosystem integrity
• Lastly, we support Alternative Plan 2 as it appears to work with the natural hydrology of the area and places water treatment where the flow is most likely to go

GFL responded to the comments provided by the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne indicating that a geotechnical feasibility study (Appendix A to Supporting Document 2, Conceptual Design Report) was conducted as part of developing and refining the alternative methods during the EA. The underlying silty clay soil provides significant attenuation capabilities and natural protection to groundwater. Consistent with the existing landfill design at the EOWHF , the geotechnical study confirmed that a maximum elevation of the top of final cover in the order of 81.0 metres above sea level for the new landfill stages will provide a stable landform and limits the potential risk of landslides.

GFL responded to the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne’s concern regarding habitat restoration indicating that the proposed landfill expansion will have limited effect on any wildlife habitat and was part of ecological environment assessment during the EA. No wildlife corridors or habitat connectivity is associated with the project study area. GFL noted that the sod fields within the project study area provide artificial staging and stopover habitat for Snow Geese and Canadian Geese in the spring and fall and that remaining sod fields in the area will continue to provide this habitat.

The EA study report indicates that due to the anthropogenic nature of the future development lands and surrounding area, there is no suitable habitat for species at risk known to potentially occur in the project study area. The future development lands that are currently used as sod fields did not meet the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s criteria for significant wildlife habitat for migratory bird staging and migration stopover areas.

3.3.2 Conclusion

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

4. Other considerations

4.1.1 Diversion

GFL continues to expand its services in offering and maximizing waste diversion activities to support the needs of the growing municipal and business customer base, specifically with recycling and composting. GFL minimizes the volume of residual waste to be landfilled through its integrated system of collection, material recovery facilities and composting. The EOWHF landfill site includes the largest composting facility in the province for source separated green bin organic materials. Waste diversion activities that will continue at the EOWHF landfill site with the expansion and include:

• providing collection services to residential/municipal, and industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) waste generators
• collection of recyclables, source separated organics, leaf and yard material, and waste from the curb or directly at the landfill site
• processing and transfer of recyclables
• composting of source separated organic material
• collection and diversion of used tires, waste electrical and electronic equipment, and construction and demolition (C&D) waste

The preferred landfill expansion alternative will continue to support the integrated facilities at the EOWHF landfill site including collection, material recovery and the organic compost facility as well as enhancing the ongoing operation of the landfill gas-to-energy to maximize waste diversion for an extended 20-year period.

5. Summary of the ministry review

The review has explained the ministry’s analysis of the EA.

This review concludes:

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

5.1.1 Proposed conditions of approval

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

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

This list is not exhaustive and additional conditions may be proposed specific to the landfill expansion to ensure that the environment remains protected. Finalization of conditions of approval takes place following the five-week Review comment period and prior to the ministry making a recommendation to the Minister about the EA.

6. 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 Ontario Land Tribunal for a hearing if they feel their environmental concerns 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, the requirements of the EAA, and whether the proposed undertaking should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the EA itself, the review of the EA, comments received during the formal comment periods, in addition to other matters the Minister may consider relevant.

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

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

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

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

6.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, GFL will need to obtain other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 11 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

• amendments to the existing waste disposal sites and storm water management system ECAs under the Environmental Protection Act
• amendment to the industrial sewage works ECA for the proposed increase in leachate volume and effluent limits for discharge
• Drainage Act permit and approval by the Conservation Authority and Department of Fisheries and Oceans for the stormwater management system and alterations to the Fraser Drain

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

6.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

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

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending January 26, 2024, will follow the publication of this review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the EA, or this review.

Should you wish to make a submission, please email Jordan.Hughes@Ontario.ca and address it to:

Kathleen O’Neill, Director
Environmental Assessment Branch
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Re: Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility Future Development EA
Attention: Jordan Hughes, Special Project Officer

Your privacy

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 EAA or is collected and maintained for the purpose of creating a record that is available to the general public as described in section 37 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Personal information that is submitted will become part of a public record that is available to the general public unless a request is made that personal information remain confidential. For more information, the ministry’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Coordinator can be contacted at 416-314-4075.

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 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

During the comment period, the review and notice of completion are also available at the following location:

GFL Environmental Inc.
Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility
Administrative Office
17125 Laflèche Road
Moose Creek, Ontario

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act requirements

Regulation 334 Environmental Assessment Act requirements

1. Summary of the EA

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

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

Analysis of the EA

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

2. List of proponent-led studies

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

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

Analysis of the EA

The table of contents under ‘supporting documents’ lists the studies and reports undertaken in connection with the undertaking. The list of studies and reports undertaken in connection with the EA are also listed in section 2.5 (Organization of the EA Study Report).

Table 6-1 in section 6 (Net Effects of the Alternative Methods) and Appendix B (Proposed Evaluation Criteria, Indicators, and Data Sources) of the EA report lists the studies, surveys, reports and additional data sources that were used for the evaluation criteria used in the EA report.

List of additional studies

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

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

Analysis of the EA

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

Maps

Regulation 334, section 2.(1)

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

Analysis of the EA

Figure 1-1 (Regional Setting Map) in section 1.1 of the EA shows the site location of the Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility.

Figure 1-2 (EOWHF and Future Development Lands) in section 1.1 of the EA shows the current site plan of the Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility.

Figure 4-1 (Generic Study Areas for the EA) in section 4.2 of the EA shows the off-site and on-site study areas.

Figures 4-2 to 4-16 in section 4 (Description of the Environmental Potentially Affected by the Undertaking) of the EA show the existing environmental conditions potentially affected for landfill expansion (for example, air, noise, surface and groundwater, ecological land classification, natural heritage features, etc.) in relation to the project site location.

Figures 5-1 through 5-5 in section 5 (Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking) of the EA show site plans and cross sections for Alternative Methods 1 and 2.

Problem / opportunities

1. Identify an existing problem or opportunity

Purpose of the undertaking: Environmental Assessment Act section 6(2)(c), section 6.1(3), section 6.1(2)(a) and section 6.1(2)(b)(i) and (ii).

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

Analysis of the EA

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

Section 3 (Overview of the Undertaking) of the EA describes the purpose and rationale for the undertaking. Section 3.2 outlines the purpose of the undertaking while section 3.3.1 provides a summary on the need for the undertaking.

The purpose of the proposed undertaking is to allow GFL to continue to provide waste disposal services to their customers by expanding the EOWHF landfill for a 20-year planning period. Based upon the historical and forecasted filling rate, GFL estimates that the landfill will reach its approved capacity in 2025. The service area for the landfill includes municipalities within the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, United Counties of Prescott and Russell, United Counties of Leeds and Grenville, Lanark County, Renfrew County, Lennox and Addington County, Hastings County and Prince Edward County.

The EOWHF functions as a regional facility in Eastern Ontario and provides a broad series of waste management services including waste collection, organics composting, processing and transfer of recyclables, tire collection, and residential drop-offs serving residential and commercial customers across the region. The EOWHF provides essential services in the area, managing municipal solid waste and source separated organics for over 500 villages, towns and cities in Ontario while also providing drop-off facilities for residents.

GFL understands there is an ongoing need to continue operating the existing EOWHF landfill for the following reasons:

• GFL can continue to provide its customer base with an integrated set of services including collection, transfer, processing (recycling and composting) and disposal in a reliable and cost effective manner
• long-term contracts with municipalities in Eastern Ontario can be honoured and fulfilled
• the Province’s waste diversion programs and objectives are and will continue to be supported
• environmental impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will be minimized through:
  • reducing the number of waste related trucks hauling material long distances
  • diversion of organic material and composting
  • the on-going closure of small municipal landfill sites that do not have gas collection systems as they reach approved capacity
  • the capture of landfill (methane) gas and generation of green energy at the site

The EOWHF landfill has an existing total capacity of 11.6 million cubic metres with an approved annual fill rate of 755,000 tonnes of waste per year. Based on current disposal volumes, the landfill is predicted to reach its current approved capacity in 2025. Future disposal needs were assessed and determined additional landfill capacity of 15.1 million cubic metres was needed over a 20-year planning period. The landfill has an average daily fill rate of 2,500 tonnes per day with a permitted maximum daily fill rate of 4,000 tonnes per day. No changes to the approved fill rates or site access or haul routes are proposed.

Alternatives

1. Description and statement of the rationale for the alternatives methods

Alternative methods: Environmental Assessment Act section 6(2)(c), section 6.1(3) and section 6.1(2)(b)(ii).

Alternative methods include a description of different ways of implementing the project (locations and designs).

A reasonable range of alternative method should be identified and outlined.

Analysis of the EA

Two alternative methods which were discussed as part of section 6.2 (ToR) at a conceptual level were carried forward into the EA for review.

The two alternative methods of developing additional landfill disposal capacity at the site were identified and described in Section 5 (Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking) of the EA. Figures 5.1 to 5.5 in the EA illustrate the alternative methods considered, both the plan view and cross-section view. Both alternative methods were developed to the level of preliminary conceptual designs including site development, leachate and landfill gas management, stormwater management, infrastructure and landfill operations and were presented at two open houses as part of the consultation process during the EA. Preliminary conceptual designs were developed in greater detail in the Conceptual Design Report (Supporting Document 2) of the EA.

Studies completed for the EOWHF have indicated that there is limited potential to adjust the design by increasing the height of the landfill. Underlying soils may become unstable due to increased landfill height and weight. As a result, the alternative method design alternatives are limited to varying horizontal configurations with a consistent height. Both alternative methods provide a landfill volume of approximately 15.1 million cubic metres based on the approved fill rate of 755,000 tonnes per year over a 20-year planning period.

The area considered for both alternative methods of landfill expansion (future development lands) is east and adjacent to the existing EOWHF landfill. The existing EOWHF encompasses a site area of 189 hectares, while the future development lands comprise approximately 240 hectares.

The two alternative methods of developing additional landfill disposal capacity at the site are described below as per the EA.

Alternative method 1

This alternative method involves implementing the landfill expansion through five stages: one stage north and adjacent to the existing landfill (stage 5) and four stages oriented east-west (stages 6 through 9) within the adjacent future development lands. Stages 6 through 8 will be identical in size, while stages 5 and 9 will be smaller The maximum width of the new stages will be 400 metres using a low permeability soil final cover design approach.

The design will be consistent with the existing landfill including:

• construction of perimeter berms around each stage
• leachate collection system that conveys leachate to aeration ponds and then to the leachate treatment facility located at the existing landfill
• landfill gas collection system consisting of extraction wells and piping within the waste that will be conveyed to the existing landfill gas plant
• stormwater management system consisting of conveyance ditches around each stage and a retention pond located northwest of stage 8

Alternative method 2

This alternative method involves implementing the landfill expansion through four stages: one stage north and adjacent to the existing landfill (stage 5) and three stages oriented north-south (stages 6 through 8) within the adjacent future development lands. Stages 6 and 7 will be identical in size, while stages 5 and 8 will be smaller. The maximum width of the new stages will be 400 metres using a low permeability soil final cover design approach.

The design will be consistent with the existing landfill including:

• construction of perimeter berms around each stage
• leachate collection system that conveys leachate to aeration ponds and then to the leachate treatment facility located at the existing landfill
• landfill gas collection system consisting of extraction wells and piping within the waste that will be conveyed to the existing landfill gas plant
• stormwater management system consisting of conveyance ditches around each stage and a retention pond located north of stages 6 and 7

Alternative methods 1 and 2 have slight differences related to the configurations and geometry of the landfill stages, however both alternative methods are horizontal expansions with the same design concepts to be applied to the base liner, leachate collection and cover systems for both alternative methods. The design of the landfill expansion stages will be consistent with the existing landfill design for both alternative methods including visual screening along the north and east perimeters and a portion of the south perimeter consisting of earthen berms and/or vegetation plantings.

The ministry is satisfied that a reasonable range of alternative methods and an adequate description were evaluated using a broad range of environmental criteria and measures.

Evaluation

1. Description of the environment

Environmental Assessment Act section 6.1(2)(c)I(i) and section 6.1(3).

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

Analysis of the EA

A preliminary description of the existing environmental conditions at the site was provided in section 7 of the approved ToR. The ToR contained the commitment that a more detailed description of the existing environmental conditions will be prepared as part of the EA to assess the potential effects of the alternatives on the environment. The 5 aspects of the environment as defined in the EAA:

• natural environment
• socio-economic environment
• cultural environment
• built environment

The existing landfill is located at 17125 Lafleche Road, Moose Creek, Ontario in the Township of North Stormont.

Section 4 of the EA outlines the environment potentially affected by the undertaking. The baseline conditions document the existing natural, socio-economic, cultural, and built environments in the study area. As such, the following existing conditions studies were prepared by the proponent: natural environment report, air quality and odour report, noise report, geology and hydrogeology report, surface water quality and quantity reports, ecological environment report, socio-economic environment report, transportation report, cultural heritage report, Stage 1 archaeological assessment, and land use/agricultural report.

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

2. Description of the potential environmental effects

Environmental Assessment Act section 6(2)(c), section 6.1(3), and section 6.1(2)(c)(ii).

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

Analysis of the EA

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

Sections 6 (Net Effects of the Alternative Methods), 7 (Comparative evaluation of Net Effects and Identification of Preferred Alternative) and 8 (Net Effects Assessment of the Preferred Alternative) of the EA include a summary of the net effects assessment for the alternatives, an assessment of cumulative effects, climate change considerations, and advantages and disadvantages of each alternative.

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

• natural environment
  • atmospheric environment
  • geology and hydrogeology
  • surface water environment
  • ecological environment
• socio-economic environment
  • economic
  • social
• cultural environment
  • cultural heritage resources
  • archaeological resources
• built environment
  • transportation
• current and planned future land use
• aggregate extraction and agriculture

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

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

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

Environmental Assessment Act section 6(2)(c), section 6.1(3), and section 6.1(2)(c)(iii).

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

Analysis of the EA

A description of future commitments to mitigate impacts and environmental effects monitoring is provided in section 10 (Monitoring and Commitments for the Undertaking) of the EA. Monitoring strategies were developed so that environmental effects can be monitored during construction, operation, and maintenance of the landfill to confirm that predicted net effects are not exceeded, unexpected negative impacts are addressed, and mitigation measures are effective. Table 10-1 of the EA summarizes the environmental effects, mitigation commitments, commitments for monitoring and proposed compliance monitoring for the preferred alternative.

An on-going compliance monitoring program is proposed to demonstrate compliance with the commitments made in the EA report. The compliance monitoring program includes completing compliance monitoring plans for the project, annual groundwater monitoring reports, surface water monitoring reports, and air quality monitoring reports including a surface landfill gas emission survey. The results of compliance monitoring will be reported to the MECP and will include implementation of mitigation measure and completion of commitments.

4. Evaluation of advantages and disadvantages to the environment

Environmental Assessment Act section 6 (2)(c), section 6.1(3) and section 6.1(2)(d).

The preferred alternative should be identified through this evaluation.

Analysis of the EA

Section 7 (Comparative Evaluation of Net Effects and Identification of Preferred Alternative) of the EA identifies the advantages and disadvantages between alternative method 1 and alternative method 2. Table 7-1 in the EA presents a summary of the differences between each alternative method. Section 8.4 and Table 8-6 of the EA summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the preferred alternative over the 'do nothing' alternative based on the net effects of the preferred alternative.

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

5. Description of consultation with interested stakeholders

Environmental Assessment Act section 6(2)(c), section 6.1(3), and section 6.1(2)(e).

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

Analysis of the EA

Section 9 (Consultation and Engagement Process for the EA) of the EA provides a consultation program overview; documenting key consultation activities and summarizing major consultation events. The detailed record of consultation can be found in Supporting Document 4 — Record of Consultation and Engagement.

Key consultation methods included distribution of public notices, public open houses, mailings, site tours, and a project website.

Section 9.4 (Indigenous Community and Group Engagement) of the EA describes the consultation undertaken with Indigenous communities. The potentially interested communities that were consulted on the project were:

• Algonquins of Ontario
• Mohawks of Akwesasne
• Huron Wendat Nation
• Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte — Tyendinaga Mohawk Council
• Metis Nation of Ontario Council
• Metis Nation of Ontario Ottawa Region

Letters and emails were sent to each of the communities advising of notices, open houses, and draft reports which took place throughout the planning process.

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

The EAA requires that proponents consult with all interested persons during the preparation of the EA and report on the results of that consultation. The ministry is satisfied that the proponent appropriately carried out the consultation plan in accordance with the Code of Practice: Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process (2014) that was committed to in the approved ToR.

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

Selection process

1. Proposed undertaking

Description and statement of the rationale for the undertaking: Environmental Assessment Act section 6(2)(c), section 6.1(3), and section 6.1(2) (b) (i) and (c).

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

Analysis of the EA

As noted above, a net effects assessment was undertaken for the alternative methods and the preferred undertaking was selected only after determining it would cause the least impacts on the surrounding environment and future land uses.

The preferred undertaking is alternative method 2 as described in Section 5.4 and 7.3 of the EA. A summary of the proposed undertaking is provided in Section 2.4 of this Review.

The EA documents how the preferred undertaking addresses the problem and opportunity statement, which is to provide additional capacity at the landfill site as it is predicted to reach its current approved capacity in 2025.

In the EA, Section 10 details commitments to future work. Standard conditions including compliance monitoring and reporting, and public record-keeping are recommended by the ministry to ensure all commitments in the EA are carried out.

Next steps and additional commitments

1. Additional Approvals

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

Analysis of the EA

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

Section 11 (Approvals) of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required, including:

• approval from the MECP of the detailed design and operations (Design and

Operations Report) for the future development

• approval of the groundwater monitoring component of Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) No. A420018
• amendment to Industrial Sewage Works ECA No. 7899-CBQP6L issued under the Ontario Water Resources Act for the proposed stormwater management system and the proposed increase in total leachate volume to be treated and managed
• permit under the Drainage Act from South Nation Conservation for discharge and alternations to the Fraser Drain (culvert crossings and stormwater outlet)
• permit under the Endangered Species Act may be required if a species is present during development

The Stage 1 archaeological assessment determined that there is no archaeological potential within the boundaries of the existing and proposed expansion of the landfill. No further Stage 2 archaeological assessment word is required. The Stage 1 archaeological assessment was reviewed for compliance and was confirmed by the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism as having been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeology Reports on June 20, 2022.

Appendix B: Submissions received during the initial comment period

Table 1: Agency comment summary table

Proposal: Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility Future Development (EOWHF)
Proponent: GFL Environmental Inc. (GFL)

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), Technical Support

Section, Eastern Region

Comment 1

Concerns raised in my memorandum dated July 9, 2023, have been adequately addressed in Table 10-1 in the Environmental Assessment (EA) Study Report and in relevant Tables (for example, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5), section 5.1, and Appendix A.

Proponent’s response

Comment acknowledged.

Comment 2

I bring to your attention that the word meet is missing from Table 6 in SD3-4 which reads: Considering that treated effluent parameter concentrations will effluent limits acceptable to the MECP, and the treated effluent discharge will be controlled to achieve the chronic Site Specific Water Quality Objectives (SSWQO) in Moose Creek, the future development is not expected to result in adverse effects to off-site Surface Water Quality.

Proponent’s response

This is a typo that occurs in SD3-4 Table 6 (Environmental Effects and Compliance Monitoring for the Preferred Alternative) in the 'Potential Effect' column, which is a restatement of the potential effect for Surface Water Quality associated with the proposed mitigation and monitoring. The EA Study Report does not contain the typo when describing the potential effect.

Comment 3

Please note that Supporting Document 4: Record of Consultation (ROC) and Engagement contains my memorandum dated February 28, 2023; however, my June 5, 2023, and June 9, 2023, memorandums are missing.

Proponent’s response

Copies of the back-and-forth correspondence (for example, emails, memos) on GFLs draft responses to agency comments were not included in Appendix E of the ROC (Agency Consultation and Communications) as they were regarding work in progress and contained draft materials; however, the content of the correspondence from agencies is included in the Comment Response Table in Appendix H of the ROC. Copies of Ms. Gilbert’s two subsequent memos (June 5 and June 9, 2023) were not included in Appendix E of the ROC, but her input is included in the Comment Response table in Appendix H of the ROC in the ‘MECP Review’ column.

Status (Comments 1-3)

Technical Support Section, Eastern Region of MECP has indicated that it has no further comment. The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

MECP, Species at Risk Branch (SARB)

Comment 1

SARB does not have any comments at this time but if the proponent believes their project has the potential to impact species at risk or their habitat we would encourage them to submit an information gathering form (IGF) for review.

Proponent’s response

Comment acknowledged.

Status

The ministry acknowledges the comment.

South Nation Conservation (SNC)

Comment 1

It is understood that two alternatives are being considered but that Alternative Method 2 is preferred. This method involves four stages: one stage adjacent to and north of the existing landfill, and three stages oriented north-south within the future development lands. A stormwater management system will be constructed consisting of conveyance ditches around the perimeter of each stage and a retention pond. The existing pond located will be modified to attenuate peak flows if required. The outlet for the stormwater system is indicated to be the Fraser Municipal Drain.

A detailed design for the final stormwater management system with sizing calculations is required to assess quantity control.

The Surface Water Quantity summary (pages 53-57) identifies flooding in various areas, including lands adjacent to the expansion lands owned by GFL Environmental Inc. The landfill expansion must not result in flooding or erosion on neighboring properties, upstream or downstream of the site. This must be demonstrated and discussed as part of the detailed stormwater management design report.

Proponent’s response

The information provided in Section 4.3.2.3 (pages 53–57) of the EA describes the existing conditions for surface water quantity / hydrology. The existing conditions include the potential for flooding within the on-site and off-site study areas during the 100-year storm event. As described in Section 5.3.6 of the EA, surface water quantity control measures for the project will be designed to temporarily store the runoff volume generated from storm events including the 100-year design storm, and release at or below the existing conditions peak flows.

Section 6.2.1.3 of the EA includes the assessment of the surface water environment. The net effects assessment confirmed that discharge flows from the future development will be attenuated to levels within the pre-development peak flows for storm events up to a 100-year return period.

Table 10-1 includes a summary of the mitigation commitments identified for the undertaking in the EA. This includes a commitment regarding detailed design of the stormwater management facilities consistent with MECP guidance documents and preparation of documentation to support an Environmental Compliance Approval application.

Status

SNC indicated that they have no further comments. The ministry is satisfied that there are commitments in the EAto address at the detailed design phase.

Comment 2

Conservation Authority Regulations

SNC implements Ontario Regulation 170/06, Development Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, developed under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act.

Please note that any alteration to a watercourse, including a stormwater outlet, may require a permit and restrictions may apply. If an increase in runoff to a watercourse is anticipated, SNC may require a hydraulic analysis demonstrating that it will not cause flooding and erosion.

Proponent’s response

Section 11 of the EA outlines the additional approvals expected to be required for the proposed undertaking following EA approval. This includes approvals/permits from SNC in relation to the proposed stormwater outlet to Fraser Drain and for any alterations to the Fraser Drain. Supporting documents will be prepared as required to support these approvals.

Status

SNC indicated that they have no further comments. The ministry is satisfied that the comment is addressed.

Proponent’s response

Comment acknowledged.

MECP, Conservation and Source Protection Branch (CSPB)

Comment 1

According to the online Source Protection Information Atlas (SPIA) mapping tool, neither the existing EOWHF site nor its future development lands for its expansion (i.e., on-site study area) are located within groundwater wellhead protection areas (WHPAs), surface water intake protection zones (IPZs), issue contributing areas, or event-based areas for modelled threats where threat activities could potentially pose a significant risk to drinking water sources. As such, the waste disposal site is not a significant drinking water threat. However, the site is situated within a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area (SGRA) and Highly Vulnerable Aquifer (HVA) with a vulnerability score of 6. This means threats can be moderate/low and select policies may still apply. In addition, within HVAs there may be other kinds of drinking water systems present that are not explicitly addressed by the source protection plan and the proponent should take these into consideration. EA projects should protect sensitive hydrologic features including current or future sources of drinking water not explicitly addressed in source protection plans, such as private systems — individual or clusters, and designated facilities within the meaning of Ontario Regulation 170/03 under the Safe Drinking Water Act — i.e., camps, schools, health care facilities, seasonal users, etc.

Proponent’s response

Comment acknowledged.

A search of water supply wells within the on-site and off-site study areas was undertaken as part of establishing the Geology and Hydrogeology Existing Conditions (SD1-3). The Geology and Hydrogeology Effects Assessment (SD3-3) assessed the potential effects of the undertaking on these water supply wells. Groundwater flow within the expansion area is northward, generally away from any water users.

The landfill will be designed in accordance with the Ontario Landfill Standards (Regulation 232/98) to prevent and minimize any potential effects on groundwater resources. Groundwater monitoring will also be undertaken to assess any changes in water quality and compliance with appropriate standards at the property boundary.

Status

The ministry acknowledges the comment and is satisfied that the comment is addressed.

Comment 2

The EA document states that while the existing EOWHF site is not within a source water protection zone, the expansion site is within a SGRAs and a HVA with a vulnerability score of 6. The EA identifies the source protection vulnerable areas (i.e., SGRAs and HVAs with a vulnerability score of 6) that intersect with both the on-site and off-site study areas. The Report also mentions that the local Conservation Authority was consulted to discuss source protection implications for potential activities, specifically related to any prohibitions or risk management plans that may impact project activities.

Proponent’s response

Comment acknowledged.

Status

The ministry acknowledges the comment.

Comment 3

The local source protection authority can provide the proponent with assistance in determining whether an activity associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the EOWHF may be considered a drinking water threat as per the Clean Water Act (CWA) and will be able to help determine whether there are policies in the source protection plan that may apply.

Proponent’s response

The EOWHF is within the South Nation Source Protection Area and the Raisin-South Nation Source Protection Plan and its policies are applicable to the proposed project. GFL contacted the Raisin-South Nation Conservation Authority during the development of the EA regarding requirements or restrictions on potential activities due to the HVA and SGRA classifications. The on-site study area has not been identified as a well head protection area (WHPA) or intake protection zone (IPZ). Only WHPA and IPZ are subject to the prohibition of specific activities within the Raisin-South Nation Source Protection Area.

Status

CSPB responded that the second last sentence of in GFLs response should be corrected for accuracy:  The on-site study area is not within a wellhead protection area (WHPA) or an intake protection zone (IPZ).

CSPB further clarified that prescribed drinking water threat activities occurring within WHPAs and/or IPZs that pose a significant threat to drinking water sources may either be prohibited or managed depending on the applicable policies of the Raisin South Nation Source Protection Plan.

Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM), Heritage Planning Unit

Comment 1

MCM finds that due diligence has been undertaken in preparing the Environmental Assessment Study Report by:

• completing a Cultural Heritage Existing Conditions Report (dated March 2, 2022, prepared by ASI and included in ESR supporting document 1-8). MCMs Letter (then MHSTCI) dated April 25, 2022, indicates that the report is consistent with the requirements, guidance and standards of the environmental assessment process and with best practice guidance prepared by the ministry
• undertaking a Stage 1 archaeological assessment and report (under Project Information Form (PIF) P383-0205-2020 and included in ESR supporting document 1-9) which has been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports indicating no potential/no further work recommended
• addressing MCMs comments on the draft Environmental Assessment Report

Proponent’s response

Comments acknowledged.

Status

MCM is satisfied that previous comments have been addressed in the final EA. The ministry notes that MCM is satisfied their requirements have been addressed.

Table 2: Public comment summary table

Proposal: Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility Future Development (EOWHF)
Proponent: GFL Environmental Inc. (GFL)

Submitter: Stephane Berger

Comment 1

The project location is in the far northeast corner of North Stormont, so any approvals affect neighboring municipalities like Casselman and subject myself to the odours at various times of the year depending on the weather conditions.

Proponent’s response

GFL considered alternatives to the undertaking during the development of the approved ToR. This alternative is the most financially and economically viable option to both GFL and its customers, utilizing land already owned by GFL and supporting the existing integrated facilities at the EOWHF including management of residuals from the compost facility operation, enhancing the ongoing operation of the landfill gas to energy facility, utilizing the existing leachate treatment facility, and receiving post-diversion residual wastes providing cost effective disposal services to generators across Ontario integrated with their local collection. The future development of the EOWHF on adjacent land owned by GFL is the only practical, environmentally sound and cost-effective option to address the identified business opportunity to allow GFL to operate in the long term.

The Preferred Alternative is in a location moving away from Casselman. In the past five years GFL has made significant investments in the gas collection and flaring system at the EOWHF. In addition, GFL has adjusted its construction schedule for each landfill cell, proceeding with extension of the landfill gas collection system as soon as a cell is filled. This approach has been successful in mitigating and reducing odours from the site.

Status

The ministry recognizes that an amendment to the North Stormont Zoning Bylaw to re-zone the landfill expansion lands to a waste disposal zone was completed on April 5, 2022. The Zoning bylaw amendment requires a Site Control approval by the Township of North Stormont prior to the landfill expansion.

GFL employs the application of cover soils at the end of the day as a proactive measure to minimize and control odour on the surrounding environment. GFL also carries out a landfill surface scan program to identify and repair leaks in the landfill cover to maximize landfill gas capture and minimize related odour impacts.

The ministry is satisfied that impacts to neighboring municipalities was considered and will be mitigated.

Comment 2

Consideration should be given to burning non-recyclable waste and generating electricity like in other jurisdictions. This eliminates the need for future landfills and produces no odours to areas nearby.

Proponent’s response

GFL considered thermal treatment of waste to energy as an alternative to the undertaking during the development of the approved ToR. GFL does not own or operate any thermal treatment facilities and has no related business experience with this type of alternative. The company is focused on maximizing waste diversion and minimizing the volume of residual material to be landfilled, through its integrated system of collection, material recovery facilities and composting. In addition, approximately 20% to 25% of the residual material managed at the EOWHF in recent years is unsuitable for thermal treatment (for example, soil like material, asbestos, special wastes, etc.).

The EOWHF has an existing landfill gas-to-energy facility which produces 4.5 MW of renewable energy as part of the FIT program. The Ontario government has since cancelled the FIT program eliminating any potential revenues for a waste to energy facility as well.

Given the financial and in some cases technological risks related to an approach not related to GFLs business experience, development of a thermal treatment facility is not a feasible option for the company to address the identified business opportunity.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the approved ToR and that there was adequate rationale to focus the assessment on landfill alternatives which were included in the Environmental Assessment.

The ministry is satisfied that odour issues were considered and that there is mitigation in place to address.

Table 3: Indigenous communities comment summary table

Proposal: Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility Future Development (EOWHF)
Proponent: GFL Environmental Inc.

Indigenous community: Mohawk Council of Akesasne, Aboriginal Rights and Research Office (ARRO)

Comment 1

ARRO would like to be added to the contact list if any artifacts of Indigenous interest or human remains are encountered during the development of the subject property.

Proponent’s response

GFL will notify the ARRO in the event any artifacts of Indigenous interest or human remains are encountered during the development of the subject property, consistent with the Commitments for Mitigation included in Table 10-1 of the Environmental Assessment (EA) Study Report.

Status

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Indigenous community: Algonquins of Ontario Consultation Office (AOO)

Comment 1

Thank you for extending the comment period for GFLs Eastern Ontario Waste Handling Facility’s future development EA to accommodate the Algonquins of Ontario Consultation Office. Upon further review of the historical context of the file, the AOO have no additional comments to provide on the future development. The AOO acknowledges Eastern Ontario’s need for increased environmentally secure waste management capacity and appreciates the continued engagement on this file since 2015.

Proponent’s response

Comment acknowledged.

Status

The ministry granted the Algonquins of Ontario request for additional time to provide comments until August 25, 2023. The ministry notes and acknowledges the comment received.

Indigenous community: Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, Environment Program

Comment 1

Firstly, the proximity of the landfill and its operations to the large region of glaciomarine sediments, especially Leda/Quick Clay which poses a potential risk of damage from landslides. The presence of these sediments is mentioned in the geological/hydrological section. Our main concern revolves around the potential for increased risks of landslides and similar occurrences due to greater activity related to landfill operations and land coverage.

Proponent’s response

A geotechnical feasibility study was conducted as part of developing and refining the alternative methods during the EA. This study is included as Appendix A to Supporting Document 2, Conceptual Design Report. The underlying silty clay soil provides significant attenuation capabilities and natural protection to groundwater. Consistent with the existing landfill design at the EOWHF, the geotechnical study confirmed that a maximum elevation of the top of final cover in the order of 81.0 metres above sea level for the new landfill stages will provide a stable landform and limits the risk of landslides.

Status

The ministry is satisfied that the response addresses the issue.

Comment 2

Secondly, we strongly recommend and support habitat creation/restoration or enhancement to mitigate any impacts to wildlife populations and improve connectivity. This is especially important for migrating species, and for promoting natural dispersal and movements. Habitat connectivity is vital for reducing various negative effects of fragmentation or degradation and supporting biodiversity and ecosystem integrity.

Proponent’s response

As outlined in the assessment of the ecological environment during the EA, the project will have limited effect on any wildlife habitat. The sod fields within the on-site study area provide artificial staging and stopover habitat for Snow Geese and Canadian Geese in the spring and fall. Remaining sod fields in the area will continue to provide this habitat. There are no wildlife corridors or habitat connectivity associated with the project On-site Study Area.

Status

The EA study report indicates that there is no suitable habitat for species at risk known to potentially occur in the project study area due to the anthropogenic nature of the future development lands and surrounding area. The future development lands do not meet the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s criteria for significant wildlife habitat for migratory bird staging and migration stopover areas.

Comment 3

Lastly, we support Alternative Plan 2 as it appears to work with the natural hydrology of the area and places water treatment where the flow is most likely to go.

Proponent’s response

Comment acknowledged.

Status

The ministry acknowledges the comment.